Not to demean the profession of Engineering,,, but

I think one of the reasons why faster or more depth performance metal detector technology hasn't come to light is

The overall engineering aspect is being acted on in too much of an independent minded fashion.

Remember these folks

Space X

And their recent accomplishment.
A team of physicist and engineers working together in close unison.

I feel medical technological advances would be slower too if not for our Higher learning institutions--- serves as a meeting place for their minds.
The ole 2 heads are better than one concept.

Imagine if there would have been 2 or 3 Einstein(s) or Newton(s)
My point is there isn't and probably won't ever be.
But to have similar achievements as these gents--- a meeting of the minds of folks maybe with somewhat less IQ is necessary.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2016 04:56PM by tnsharpshooter.

I just finally took the time to sit down and read this whole thread from start to finish and when I read this part about depth strata and how nasaTom was able to assign dates to it. My question is Tom could you elaborate how you go about doing that please? And thank thank you for every thing you for our hobby.

Thanks again Josh

Josh,

"Time of loss" is a collaborative/collective effort...... with primary input being from the archaeological community. Dirt has some very specific/unique 'signatures' (characteristics) that can present large amounts of data. And 'single' points of data are nearly useless.................. unless....................... collectively additive. Multiple data-points can really paint a picture.

Just a few points about depth and 'strata' =

If you take a 'core plug' of dirt......... many 'single data-points' can be gleaned. What can be quite obvious to the naked eye is........ looking at the 'core plug' (dirt plug)........ you can see different colors of dirt.... and at different depths. Sometimes the delineation of the ending of one color of dirt..... and the beginning of a new color of dirt..... can be exceptionally definitive/differentiable. This data-point can easily be a 'stand-alone' index that delineates one stratification layer of dirt....... to the next stratification layer of dirt. The TYPE of targets and the AGE of targets found in one defined stratification layer of dirt presents another indices of "time of loss".

And different stratification layers of dirt normally/commonly have differing/varying lengths. One layer may be 4.7" depth......... and the next layer may only be 2.3" of depth.

What about homogeneous dirt. This dirt....... in a core plug sample....... may present 'same color' soil for lengthy depth core samples. . . . . . making for some not-so-obvious stratification layers. So how do you differentiate? An example may be: You may find the first 5.8" of soil to be of certain (larger) granular structure. Then........ at 5.9" depth........ the granular structure becomes more 'fine'........... smaller granular structure......... which is substantially more 'dense' (heavy) ; ........... which......... again........... not-so-obvious to the naked eye.

You may find that: one stratification of dirt can only hold one type/density of pebble(s)......... and a different stratification layer has a different type/density/structure pebble.

One stratification layer...... usually will present a certain level of mineralization ....... and another stratification layer of dirt can/will present a entirely different mineralization status. (((Detectors don't like this....... nor do the Design Engineers!)))

These are only a VERY few (but common) examples of dirt stratification layer delineation ...... as there are a plethora of samples/examples that could be given.

((( What if you live in the desert Arizona ..... where there is (virtually) no dirt! ))).

Other "time of loss" dating indices:

* What is the 'sink-rate' of the soil...... and it's differing stratification layers.
* How deep was the target.
* What is the density-size ratio of the target.
* What is the implement.
* Who may have possessed this specific type of implement.
* What are the 'wear characteristics' of the implement.
* How does the 'wear pattern' compare to a 'known base-reference standard'.
* Topographic/demographic weather patterns.
* Foliage volume..... and subsequent decomposition-rate.
* Nominal/median water (moisture content) averaging percentage.

............. to list just a VERY few data-point measuring tools in dating when an implement may have been lost. Very scientific; yet, not quite a 'constant' ...... with subsequent fudge-factor. . . . . . . with every intent to reduce % error. The more precise the methodology........ the more accurate the end-resultant. This is to implicate: the more 'single data-points' ..... the better (more accurate) the measurement.

This limit on depth.

Wonder if a new term- characteristic of metal was discovered.

I mean besides say resistance, inductance, capacitance, etc--- a newly discovered term to help with identification

This new term that could seemingly be utilized with a far more less signal strength on the receive end for processing.

And if such a new characteristic was indeed discovered and it was a solution to this " now" metal detecor depth restriction--- what other electronic venues could it also be used-- for gains??



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2016 03:31PM by tnsharpshooter.

To invent something that does not exist yet. A paradigm-shift. Yes,,,, this is exactly ONE of my targeted intents.

How could this be accomplished at a price the would be affordable?

Same way all new inventions financially validate. By building in ROI in the cost-sales bell-curve........ which justifies the new products validity...... yet, sells enough to 'cover'.

"Fudge factor".....I like fudge!

Lots of people(not necessarily here,don't jump me) would probably achieve greater depth/better finds/older finds if they really learned their machine to the point of it being that "extension" of themselves. Absolutely no knocking intended,I learned this for myself. The first two years of the IDX I thought I was pretty good. Two years after that I realized I was wrong. It will take a solid 2-4 years with the Explorer to realize it's true potential,though I've seen glimmers already of how special it is.

I have recently thought that high resolution GPR in a detector sized package would suit our collective purpose,shape may be more informative than other characteristics. Combining HRGPR with current tech,well...OK,I'm done spouting...

I'm no GPR expert, but I understand operating frequencies much above 1 GHz (1000 MHz) are no good, due to heavy absorption by the water in the ground, which peaks at 2.4GHz. And the smallest item you can reasonably expect to distinguish is limited by the wavelength of the radio signal. You could find something 1/4 wavelength in size, which works out, at freq =1GHz, as (300mm / 4) = 75mm, or 3 inches. Maybe smart engineering may extend this, but it does put a limit on what you could achieve with the GPR technique.

This forum has always expressed the "pulse of the detecting community". As of late....... it appears the order-of-magnitude has increased two-fold.

Also......... I am fascinated........ (somewhat stunned) ......... at the 'passion' for the new/up-and-coming White's unit. Looking at the sheer volume of views of the recent White's thread......... really makes a statement........ and paints a (perceived) big-picture. I am happy (and educated) to see this. Let's hope White's comes through (with flying colors) with this new unit...... so as to NOT lose/compromise this large followership customer-base!

I think a majority of the interest of the MX Sport stems from the " waterproof" characteristic.

And Garrett has quietly been holding this particular spot in the detector market-- unchallenged for years now.

I'm almost certain another manufacturer will join in sooner rather than later--- and this interest or thirst may again be repeated.

To me there should be 2 classes of detectors....but they should ALL be "waterproof". First class=ability to be submerged...second class=all the rest. You should be able to take any detector out in the rain without fear of it croaking. No "rain covers" and "baggies" and "silicone sealer"....it should be part of the design to be able to shed "pressureless water" and operate normally. Who knows,maybe with the majority of "land detectors" you can...but not many people are going to test this idea with their newly purchased eTrac. And of course,it's up to the consumer to know the difference. I'm sure manufacturing costs factor into this idea,if it ever was an idea,in a substantial way...

* It has always been the assumption that..... metal detecting is for the middle-class.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> * It has always been the assumption that.....
> metal detecting is for the middle-class.



If that's the case the hobby is doomed as that subset of the economy/population is diminishing rapidly

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> * It has always been the assumption that.....
> metal detecting is for the middle-class

Yes....yes,I suppose it is....

Tom thank you for taking the time to explain depth date strata layers and identifying them to me. I will have to read it again do a bit more thinking before I start to get a full handle on it lol.

2nd I think for what it's worth the buzz about the new whites is pretty straight forward. ... it's a new machine from whites that is in an affordable price range that for the first time in years is new and not new stickers and it appears to be a quite capable machine as well. Folks and their detectors are a lot like people and their first cars or tractors and so on. People just seem tohave a fondness for that first brand you fell in love with and for many years and many people that brand was whites.

I'm not to worried about us running out of middle class I'm worried about losing the working class no matter the color of your collar. I think until we hit the age of the Jetsons or revert to a feudal slave state we will have middle class. Also by far the wealthiest man I know personally has a whites dfx. We were out on the lake together and he told he hunts for the same reasons we all the fun the thrill and the excitement of what ever desired target revealing it self in the hole. He flat out said he could buy the coins but finds no joy in them like he does his dug coins. It may be true the hobby is predominantly middle class but I think everyone finds the thought of finding buried treasure appealing. Heck for that matter if I was wealthy enough I'd own one of each of all the detectors and life's tuffest decision would be which one to use today!

Here in the U.K, it's very popular with working class people. This fact is endlessly brought up by one of the hobbys most outspoken detractors, who loves to berate detectorists for being thick, illiterate, grubby-handed, money-driven individuals with few morals. Unfortunately he only has to look at a U.K forum to find plenty of evidence for the 'illiterate' label, from which he unsurprisingly deduces the 'thick' label.
He's unfortunately so very wrong about the money side of things. He fails to understand that there just isn't any financial incentive to keep on detecting. Sure, some people must take up the hobby with unrealistic dreams of pots of gold etc, but they are the ones selling the equipment on eBay when it's 3 months old.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2016 06:55PM by Pimento.

The term "Middle Class" is indeed a political term. It did mean something years ago-- but no longer.

We see some rich and famous folks regularly do things or have certain ambitions.

There are indeed millionaires who detect, hunt, fish, explore caves, farm, etc.

There are many more worse things a person can do besides metal detect--- no matter their financial stature.

* A conversation with a State Archaeologist made a valuable comment to me:

"The first 60cm of topsoil is peat. Typically, it is the most organic of all the strata. Normally, a depth of 60cm will only afford you the first 170 years of history. This is true for most places in Florida, and, for that matter, for many parts of the world. Historic and prehistoric archaeological/anthropological implements are stratified in layers well below the first layer of peat. As an archaeologist, Layers 4 & 5 is where my job becomes justified, interesting and fun."

I then commented: Under ideal conditions/circumstances...... current technology has us limited to about 30cm with today's best metal detection equipment.
Archaeologist replied: "Sorry to hear that. You will achieve nearly zero historic or prehistoric recovered implements unless you find areas with topsoil erosion."

"A paradigm-shift"...Apparently this will have to take place to get through engineering problems that exists today. I suppose the biggest problem in getting more depth is either finding a more accurate way.... (maybe better impedance matched coils) to get thru ground balance or a completely different way to accomplish the job...... tnsharpshooter , you have been using a blisstool v6.......it has a disc depth adjustment.....it also has a precise impedance handmade coil that comes matched to the detector....I think a company with the R&D resources can improve on this to accomplish what we all want. I have a detector that in my bad soil may not be improved down to 6-7". So, I want something that I can set to disc not by conductance but by depth...I want to disc out the first 6" of soil.... Is anyone or has anyone ever put much engineering R&D into this concept? thanks

So based on Tom's latest post virtually all criticism and (dare I say) hysteria of the archies is groundless and needless? PS for those of us who went to public school in the US, 60 cm is just a hair under 24 inches.

Past(or)Tom
Using a Legend, a Deus 2, an Equinox 800, a Tarsacci MDT 8000, & a few others...
with my beloved, fading Corgi, Sadie

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> Archaeologist replied: "Sorry to hear that. You
> will achieve nearly zero historic or prehistoric
> recovered implements unless you find areas with
> topsoil erosion."

In the United States we would be hard pressed to find prehistoric metal implements regardless of depth, I would think. And the fact that many historic metal implements are commonly recovered in uneroded areas suggests to me that perhaps the archaeologist was being more discouraging than necessary (am I correct in assuming the historic period began in the early 17th century here)?

Something in the archeologist's statement seems a bit off unless I've misunderstood.

So if George Washington dropped a quarter or button in 1776, 240 years later we could believe it should be about 80 cm's or ~31 1/2 inches. I always wonder if i' m not finding more old relics because of depth limits, or people didn't loose as much change etc as they did from the 1970' s on or the early detectorist cleaned out a lot of the good finds. What do you guys think? But it would be next to impossible to dig 30 inches anywhere even in a field.
Brian

Here in Northern Ireland we dont have the roman coins as in the rest of the UK but you'll find 200+ year old coins only a matter of a few inches down , though we have been on our little island for 9000 years lol

Thankfully most of us have heavier clay-based soils, with stones, and with sink rates considerably slower than those in Florida.

In all of my pit digs around the State of Florida........ I'm finding the Archaeologists experience/data/knowledge to be congruent with my findings.

And 'historic' goes back to Spaniard roaming/exploration/habitation ...... which appears to be 1513 or 1565........... the latter being the founding of St. Augustine (which is the oldest city in the United States). This is also to say....... 'prehistoric' would then be pre-Spaniard era. The French were heavily colonized in St. Augustine well before 1565. "Why" this is hardly ever given consideration........ still baffles me. I know Catholicism played a heavy role.

Ah, I had erroneously been thinking only of the colonization by England and hadn't considered the Spaniards and French in terms of "historic"... warrants more study on my part!

I'm also grateful the sink rates I've observed in my area of Texas aren't as great as that of Florida and some other places around the globe. Some new technology is going to have to be developed to combat that, as has been mentioned by several here.

* Any/every time I receive a new prototype metal detector ....... I (subconsciously) succumb to the mental mindset of: "I bet this is just another depth incarcerated........................... 10" - 12" on a clad dime (in Florida dirt)............................ unit." Then my second thought is: "Well...... maybe this proto will at least have some sort of niche..... probably another 'unmasker' ...... or the like". Not that 'unmasking' is a bad thing......... in fact, it is 1 of the 4 paramount quests for detector Mfr's.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* We fought so hard (and for years) to get elliptical DD coils. Now...... it seems like folks are wanting concentric coils again. Remember........ in general...... the DD coils handle bad dirt better than concentric/round coils. Also....... in general........ a DD coil will present much better lateral target separation .... over a concentric coil. Let us not lose sight of: the achievements // our advancements. Do not forsake the attributes of the DD coils...... especially the elliptical DD coils.

((( Where is that inductively-coupled 'virtual' coil ! )))

Tom,,

I have seen you use this term 'virtual coil' before,,, I think in conjunction with some of your test with Xp Deus.

In layman's terms would you please define what you mean exactly by a 'Virtual Coil' ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2016 04:55PM by tnsharpshooter.

tnss........ for one very specific reason........ I must not 'define' this...... as of yet.