How do manufacturers actually test detectors???

I'm bring this subject up here for discussion.

I have seen some things during my short detecting career that indeed I don't quite understand.

To start with, when one is sweeping a detector-- where are the so- called pressure points???
Pretty simple really-- the coil, the attaching points and hardware, the mid distance usually where a rod support is being held and where the force of impact occurs.

So when a manufacturer is testing new designed detector--- shouldn't they be subjecting the setup to more shock than what would a unit would be generally subjected to in the field??
Meaning get rough with it in the testing phase.

I cannot understand how certain detectors were released after being supposedly tested.

The Minelab CTX is a good example. I bought a new unit a few years back. I notice now even by looking at the manual-- Minelab indeed changed concerning how to take of of the unit to prevent water intrusion.

But before they released the unit, what did the do as far as testing.
Sure I am sure I could have took one of there new units out and submerged and it probably wouldn't have leaked
But is this really a test to prove it worthiness in the water submersion department.
Did they really even test properly??
And was ambient air temperature, water temperature figured in to their testing??
Was seal wear figured in?? They sure didn't supply any spares with a unit when I bought mine.
How many different unit did they infact test-- and how long were they submerged and how many times was the battery removed and reinstalled

Take the White's V3.
It was released to only later be updated by manufacturer due to V3 detector being noisy
Didn't they test the original detector
And what environments did they test??
And again how many??

Even the Xp's Deus had a problem with one of its versions
Dealt with battery reading not being accurate
A version update here did remedy

There are other examples I could talk about too.


You see where this is going.

Why don't manufacturers on their new releases-- spill the beans
Tell us in a report of sorts what exactly they did test wise
How many units, the conditions, the environment, the soil, the water, the actual location

Tell us in great detail what the detector was subjected too-- and do so in terms we can understand and relate to.

For example, just slapping say a water proof label on a machine and saying it meets a certain universal testing rating--- not good enough

The detecting public is hungry for performance and reliability

A manufacturer would be doing themselves justice by heeding the above.

Some folks may think just because a manufacturers makes detectors--- all is fine

IMO-- not quite

The detecting public doesn't want to be the manufacturer's testers----- I'm certain of this.

The detecting public don't like surprises either--- especially surprises that causes them to have to return their units.

Now I understand anything that is man made is eventually doomed to fail, but for a manufacturer to release a product with what seems like a defect/ poor design is inexcusable.

And yes how a manufacturerd handles such occurrences-- does in itself reflect either positively or negatively.

To close,
I've never tested a detector for a manufacturer prior to its release.
But you can bet your bottom dollar if I were given the chance--- I would indeed try my best to shake out all the potential problems areas doing every thing I could and report on these hastily.
There is no such thing as turning a blind eye here.

A manufacturers reputation is indeed very important when it comes to their overall success.

So what we need is a REAL field testing report- a report talking about multiple units using in multiple settings, by multiple folks.

And the deficiencies noted in the field testing should be revealed to us--- along with the manufacturer's corrective action.

You see this can really paint a picture of sorts on just how meticulous a manufacturer really is and how much they care about their product and their potential customers.

And a friendly reminder to any of the manufacturer's Reps in case they read this.

Don't always use super experienced metal detector users in your field testing.
This is very important.
And new detectorist remember are not that experienced when contemplating a purchase.
And this using a not so experienced detectorist can indeed be reflected in your field test report.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2016 05:25PM by tnsharpshooter.

They send them to Tom or Keith.

As long as company acknowledges and addresses any problems after release, I'm not opposed to being a "tester." Look at the car manufacturers and all the amount of testing that goes into each car and yet many recalls will be made in the following years. There are many "real world" situations that can not be duplicated in a testing.

aguerrero56 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As long as company acknowledges and addresses any
> problems after release, I'm not opposed to being a
> "tester." Look at the car manufacturers and all
> the amount of testing that goes into each car and
> yet many recalls will be made in the following
> years. There are many "real world" situations that
> can not be duplicated in a testing.

I agree somewhat.
But consider how many more parts/ moving parts there is on an auto.

A metal detector much simpler.

I just think instead of having scattered reports with certain individuals field tests reports.

We need a one stop for all information pertaining to what brand x model y was subjected to.
Numbers of folks, their experience levels, the environment, temperature, submerged if water detector, hours used, terrain, soil mineral levels
Now I really haven't even mentioned the electronic's here specifically --- but yes overall detector performance

This one stop field testing report would be the BIG picture report
And yes if amendments are made later, they could be added..

And should add-- manufacturers should be including women in the field testing as well.
I know there are women out there that detect.
I'm not even sure I've even read an official detector review done by a woman.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2016 05:56PM by tnsharpshooter.

"In the boardroom I'd say?" Lol

Des D Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "In the boardroom I'd say?" Lol


I'm not sure I understand your response totally.

But will say.

Case in point someone on this forum has already bragged/ made statements about White's coming MX Sport detector.

Where are the field test reports??
The gent that made comments--- sounds like the detector has already been tested.

Wrong post lol..

“I don't care that they stole my idea . . I care that they don't have any of their own”
-Nikola Tesla



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2016 07:40PM by Keith Southern.

There's a HUGE difference between development testing and so called "Field tests"

Manufacturers lack the resources in staff and $$$ to adequately test machines under development under widely differing field conditions. All of them rely on trusted individuals who perform operational tests on development units under their own actual conditions.

There are two kinds of testers - normally.

Experienced users who agree to help - receive pre-production units and do engineering field testing. One gentleman told me that he received a new machine every couple of weeks as field testing feedback helped the engineering team make final "tweaks" to the design. They do this subject to non-disclosure agreements and typically get detectors as compensation.

Other users and persons who are likely to yield valuable marketing information receive production model Pre-release or just released units for marketing testing. These testers are at some point "released" from their non disclosure obligations to publicize their experiences. If they have nothing good to say, I suspect that they say nothing. To assume that they lie about their results however is to judge them too harshly in my opinion.

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold

TNSS,
Do you have an example of anyone in any industry doing what you have suggested?

Thinking about just one aspect of detector design you brought up.....rod design.... Thinking about rod designs, past to present, no one has ever published their rod design operational specs until Dave J did on the T2/F75 platforms. A first. To this day, nobody else does either because either A, they don't know, or B, they don't care, or C, they don't know how to measure.

In reality there are no industry standards as to how to report this, or if it even has to be reported at all. So it tends to be looked at as a sales gimmick. But if you look at what Dave J and Co at First Texas has been posting as specs on their units, you tend to see industry firsts. Typically things that you have to educate yourself on to properly understand the engineer speak.

As far as sharing test reports and conditions...the reality is that no one would ever be happy with the big picture report. Everyone is an expert and the comments would all be either they didn't do enough of that or they didn't do enough of this, or should have done this or should have done that, or should have caught that or should have caught this. The end result is not a positive outcome for the testers, the company, nor the detecting public.

My thoughts anyway.
HH
Mike

Mike,
The answer to your question is a partially yes.

Makro in fact.

They allowed the Makro Racer to be tested in the field I know by at least 2 folks-- I think there were more folks also
Mr K. Southern
Mr T Dankowski

These tests were done on the Racer before official release.

I know both the gents above posted mostly on this forum, Keith may have posted in other places as well.

This was a good process/ move of Makro in my opinion.

I should point out Keith and I believe Tom both identified the coil bolt and or coil ears issues with stock coils.

I think Keith identified the tones being out a sequence freq wise-- this was corrected and was applied to production units before release.

Not to attack Makro here, and I don't know exactly the sequence of events
But Makro may have in fact got trigger happy on coil bolt and stock coil production before these tests were complete.

But the potential problems were identified.

I don't want folks here to misunderstand me.

I think depending on what a detector cost an individual.

This,should be the guide on how much and in what detail test data is published.

A lot of what I've already talked about is probably already done-- just not published.


And consider the CTX example I talked about above.
Would more,testing/ better testing have flushed out the problem with leaks???

And how much reckon Minelab has lost in repairs of such units?? And don't forget about shipping charges..

And now approximately 3 years later-- a miracle fix

The concept of pay now or pay later comes to mind-- except when a company takes the pay later option--- they put their reputation at stake.

And it seems many times it is the more obvious things that get missed.

I mean how many waterproof Vlf detectors had Minelab,ever made before CTX???

And waterproof is supposed to be waterproof-- at least in my eyes.

I guess no manufacturer really owes any potential customer anything really when it comes to their products.

But I will say this.
IMO,
Whoever does offer the most information beforehand --- truthful info. And indeed makes a great performing product,,,,will stand above the rest.

The ole communication process is different than yesteryear.

I dare a detector company to make a subpar unit for what it cost.

This not wanting to tell folks beforehand concept for fear.

Well I think now if a sub par detector for what it cost is indeed released

It won't take long for the detecting public to sniff it out and report accordingly.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2016 05:23AM by tnsharpshooter.

Problem is if units are lab tested or field tested by members of the hobby its all short term and problems don't start showing up after wear and tear of multiple hunting trips under various conditions I would think...What say you.....

Well Dan,
An example.
I read a story one time-- forget which auto manufacturer exactly

But they tested their vehicles for corrosion by putting them in a test facility-- with salt spray and high temps to accelerate the corrosion process to find weak links

The test they did supposedly simulated what xxx years of vehicle use in the worst of environments would endure.

For example if a company was making aa waterproof detector to technically 10 feet submerged

Should they maybe test to 15 or 20 ft??

And remember ocean water is pretty warm, would testing a unit in 120 degree water be reasonable or maybe even higher.

The same goes,for the outside ambient temps

I mean physics/ temperature can do funny things sometimes-- so better to even test at the extemes too.

I guess for example a detector company could have a robotic arm--- where they attach detector and let the robot when programmed swing the detector at various speeds allowing the entire detector to experience the g forces for extended periods

I know companies test, and many do good work.
So why not tell your customers what you do.

I see no real harm-- other than the fact other manufacturers may learn another's test processes.

And believe it or not a manufacturer could indeed learn so,etching new in this process.
Could it be possible for a person to actually give a tip to test more economically or better.

The whole process just seems so secretive and there is much talent and brainpower for a manufacturer to take advantage of from potential users and purchasers or their equipment.
Two heads are better than 1 many times.

Consider this.
This new White's MX detector.
What is there one pic available for folks to see.

Why not take multiple pics close ups of different angles --- the idea someone may infact see something tha's potentially troublesome and be corrected

I truly feel if Nokta would have done the same with original Fore CoRe unit--- the switches that were subjected to dirt would have been spotted-- and could have been corrected much like it was eventually

And who would have benefitted?? Both the manufacturer and the customer

Pictures are cheap to do-- cost virtually nothing
And remember a person when looking at pics of detector--they may start to bond with it and purchase.

I even remember what many folks were saying about Xp Deus' rod when it was first released.
Looked weak and flimsy.
What if Xp would have had the detector on a robotic arm and would have been simulating sweeping the detector over real ground with speed noted.
Could this have changed folks minds on its real toughness??



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2016 03:44AM by tnsharpshooter.

I think this also could be a good strategy for marketing.

I see the comments here and elsewhere talking about for example how reasonable White's is in their repair costs--- kudos to them btw

But what if a manufacturer actually show the repair process on video or a number of videos on a few of their models.

I mean I would think most times -- a circuit board is really the fix.

What I'm saying is, there really is only so much one can do when repairing a detector.

So just show a video of a worst case scenario repair video-- this would show how much time is really involved with the repair and testing.

I do think Minelab for example has been jerking folks around.

If White's for example does as I've suggested above,,,, could Minelab indeed have to respond ???

First Texas could do a video as well

You see there are ways to expose the garbage that's being put on folks-- and actually be honest

I mean a company that does pride itself with their good service--- I would enjoy watching the entire process on video

And this gives a company a way to show off its facility and folks.

"I get the impression you're just itching to be asked to be ' a tester!"

Des D Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I get the impression you're just itching to be
> asked to be ' a tester!"


I have no real burning desire, but if asked would do.

As I'm sure many others here feel the same way.

I just think manufacturers need to be keeping their fingers on the pulse of the detecting public more.

I think many manufacturers take things for granted or don't realize sometimes what new processes or things they could be part of and make them more competitive.

I've seen folks in my life, when it was their idea-- all was fine, but if it was someone else's they'd dismiss it quite rapidly.

I had a Captain in the USAF tell me one time---- "Dave you are a nice guy to have around."
His insinuation was I could see things-- educate him, take care of him, make mission accomplishment moreso possible. I was not afraid to tell the truth or worry about being politically correct towards him.

I remember this gent indeed even though I haven't seen him in over 21 years.

Part of the way I think--- stems from my time in the USAF
Really a lot of things I did--- could/might/were have been life and death decisions.

There was no time for excuses, beating around the bush. And time was money too.

The way the detector industry has evolved over the last few years.

Practically speaking its a war of sorts-- with the competition being the enemy.

I have a good conscience about everything I've ever posted on this forum.

And we should thank Mr Dankowski for allowing constructive comments involving metal detectors/ detecting.

Taken whole or in part, there are many things posted on this forum that could benefit a manufacturer.

I do believe some companies are starting to pay more attention-- even here, and that" s good.

I also understand some folks lives depend on or are significantly affected with metal detector manufacture and sales.

My only wish is they are all successful, and in being, do offer some nice detectors in the future.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2016 07:47PM by tnsharpshooter.

"...
They allowed the Makro Racer to be tested in the field I know by at least 2 folks-- I think there were more folks also
Mr K. Southern
Mr T Dankowski
..."

You're right about these two, TNSS, but there are at least two more:

Monte Berry (on Findmall) and

Steve Herschbach (on Findmall and also his own web site, the name of which I don't recall right now).

I followed all their reviews and videos in detail before I bought my Racer.
I greatly appreciate the efforts of all four of them!

Here is the catch to some of the pre-production testers/field staff people: you have to take what a lot of them say with a grain of salt. The manufacturers will lead you to believe these folks can be trusted due to prior forum reputation. This is actually who they seek out...individuals who have a good forum or YouTube reputation that the viewers/subscribers feel the person can be trusted. They make these testers/staffers feel they are part of the "in crowd" by letting them be the first to get their hands on the latest releases and getting discounts on items and freebies too. The tester/staff person knows if they say anything negative about the product(s) on the forum or social media, that they will have the freebies taken away. Thus a lot of things never get brought to light during the forum hype/propaganda build up prior to a new model's release. Most always, you will hear/read positive things and never any negative.

If you were shopping for a used boat, and a seller lists a newer model boat. Looks great, been garage kept...engine runs good. Recently had the engine checked for compression, and everything checked out good. Well that sounds great and you might even buy it based on what you saw and read! But the seller leaves out one small detail about the boat: the boat leaks BAD!! If you knew it leaked from the get go, you would have just kept looking and never considered that one.

That is the kind of stuff we are missing out on by the reviews and reports that only focus on the good and never mention the negative.

To answer your Q.

I tested all models Minelab introduced between 1999 - 2014

Let's take the CTX as an example: a mock-up model was taken into the field and subjected to days of rigorous usage: this was all filmed by myself:
Observations were passed to the Engineering Team and physical changes were made. A working model was then supplied and again taken out into the field for many months to see if / how / why it does detect / why it doesn't / and this process began in November 2009 and lasted until the day before it was "released to the buying public"

During this period - 3yrs - it was subjected to all manner of tests: it was taken to several countries where 'outside testers' had their say.
It was used by myself at "detector events or rallies" but "disguised" in a different chassis and used openly alongside the other detectorists at these events.
This strategy was also used by myself when developing the Explorer XS, the ll, the SE, Quattro, Safari and E Trac, all X-Terra's (my idea originally for this line) and of course the CTX (and some of the GP and GPX models)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2016 01:59PM by Des D.

Des D Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To answer your Q.
>
> I tested all models Minelab introduced between
> 1999 - 2014
>
> Let's take the CTX as an example: a mock-up model
> was taken into the field and subjected to days of
> rigorous usage: this was all filmed by myself:
> Observations were passed to the Engineering Team
> and physical changes were made. A working model
> was then supplied and again taken out into the
> field for many months to see if / how / why it
> does detect / why it doesn't / and this process
> began in November 2009 and lasted until the day
> before it was "released to the buying public"
>
> During this period - 3yrs - it was subjected to
> all manner of tests: it was taken to several
> countries where 'outside testers' had their say.
> It was used by myself at "detector events or
> rallies" but "disguised" in a different chassis
> and used openly alongside the other detectorists
> at these events.
> This strategy was also used by myself when
> developing the Explorer XS, the ll, the SE,
> Quattro, Safari and E Trac, all X-Terra's (my idea
> originally for this line) and of course the CTX
> (and some of the GP and GPX models)


Well this is nice info,

So tell us about the test involving water???? With the CTX...

Or because since it was disguised-- was the " dummy" looking detector not waterproof???

If this is indeed the case-- no wonder Minelab got it wrong with the CTX. Duh

Or did you know from the start of your testing --- all testing, that it was Minelab's intention to market it as " waterproof"??



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2016 02:11PM by tnsharpshooter.

Oh .... oh pick me pick me. If you want something that goes in the water BROKE in a week, im your guys lol. I agree with you Dan it takes time and problems may not happen in the short testing time. Not only that a lot of testers are just so proud they get a shot at testing ....... they are afraid to speak up. Or like Des said ......... random issues are dismissed in the board room. For me.......... its what they do AFTER they are in the field and obvious problems exist. THAT seems to very by company. Some never get fixed so we have to live with them.

Again, there is a difference betewwn development testing which Des d talked about above and "marketing" testing.

The former is done on prototype or pre-production machines and the non-disclosure obligations of the testers are permanent. This is what Des is talking about. Since he was doing this work under non-disclosure 9I believe as a Minelab employee) he is unlikely to be in a position to disclose detals beyond the general outline he gave us.

Marketing testers have Production machines - they are expected to publicize their results. In this category we find both dealers and respected users. The results come out on forums, Youtube etc. as well as those old fashoned paper things called magazines. To what extent they point out "Cons" as well as "Pros" is up to them. Some are more "fair and balanced" than others.

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold

Well the design of the CTX's battery compartment was " STUPID" at best for preventing water intrusion.

Whomever signed off on this design needs to go back to engineering 101 class.

Using a real thin seeming oring type design for such application where there will indeed be pressure changes from temperature differential from air to water is redidulous

Even using such a device on other things like autos and other machinery-- the device--- this gasket is usually a one time use item.

Orings/ gaskets develop memory and can be scarred when repositioned.

And to have to remove the battery for charging--- makes this design a no go

Whenever the contact/ pressure points on such a device is changed or altered-- reusing is a high risk action to prevent leaks.

Now go out and look at your auto's door seals

See how thick they are, and the seals are stationary-- remember an auto is not usually submerged during its intended proper operation.
And car doors do get opened and closed a great deal.
Granted this car door design is not supposed to be waterproof-- rather water resistant

But I believe for example my auto's door seal design is really more waterproof vs the original CTX's battery compartment.
Especially when compared after regular use--- opening and closing.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2016 04:30PM by tnsharpshooter.

I suspect that mechanical engineering is not a strong point in any detector manufacturers team. I Wonder if Minelab has outsourced the mechanical package of the CTX, GPC and GPZ. Their only previous waterproof machine the Soverign was in a package designed by Gary Storm who now runs DetectorPro.

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold

"During my 3yrs plus with several versions of the CTX I can say hand on heart NONE ever leaked and they were submerged for hours on end on a daily basis river AND sea! (I have video, even underwater)"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2016 06:21PM by Des D.

It's always frustrating when manufacturers development and "qualification" testing don't cause a problem which is subsequently encountered by large numbers of end users.

In the aircraft parts business (I worked for Honeywell for a number of years), that usually leads to taking a hard look at the adequacy of testing processes. Even without this, unusually high failure rates led to a hard look at the design and assembly process to try and figure out what the problem was a d if it could be corrected.

The problem with customers is that they have a tendency to subject the device to conditions not encountered in testing (not to mention, neglect, misuse, carelessness and abuse!). Life would be so simple except for those pesky customers.

No criticism of Des or anybody else implied, but results experienced by customers in the field are really all that counts.

Nearly every MD manufacturer has experienced the failure in service of significant numbers of new units.

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2016 09:44PM by lytle78.

lytle78 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's always frustrating when manufacturers
> development and "qualification" testing don't
> cause a problem which is subsequently encountered
> by large numbers of end users.
>
> In the aircraft parts business (I worked for
> Honeywell for a number of years), that usually
> leads to taking a hard look at the adequacy of
> testing processes. Even without this, unusually
> high failure rates led to a hard look at the
> design and assembly process to try and figure out
> what the problem was a d if it could beg
> corrected.
>
> The problem with customers is that they have a
> tendency to subject the device to conditions not
> encountered in testing (not to mention, neglect,
> misuse, carelessness and abuse!). Life would be
> so simple except for those pesky customers.
>
> No criticism of Des or anybody else implied, but
> results experienced by customers in the field are
> really all that counts.
>
> Nearly every MD manufacturer has experienced the
> failure in service of significant numbers of new
> units.

So true, everything you said.

And this is why usually the most dependable manufactured items--- are usually the better tested before hand before releasing to the public.

And this testing does take time and cost money

So a delicate balance has to be performed/ kept

And a manufacturer's reputation is indeed paramount many times this balancing act is computed.

So a maker has to depend on employees/ testers to arrive at the end of the manufacturing process

And a company's dependence on leadership, supervision, training, devotion, experience, skills, etc--- this end process of manufacturing causes the final product to vary somewhat when it comes to overall quality, durability, and dependability.

And this difference noted--- can be a reason for a customer to purchase or not.

My mfg experience has been that New Product Development (NPD) gets it prototyped and working, Short Run Manufacturing (SRM) gets a trial production line put together and running to produce a few for customer feedback, and when all is well NPD pushes it to Manufacturing. Manufacturing either tries to work it into an existing production line or creates a new production line. And that is where things start to fray around the edges. Mostly human error related, but some supply chain issues, too. And on top of that, the vultures come swooping in looking for fruit. Cost Improvement Teams & Lean mfg teams all looking to take out some costs while mfg'ing is adding mitigation steps for their issues. Quite the circle of life. I watch it happen every day, sometimes perpetuate it myself.

Looking back at metal detectors, the majority of issues, not all, but the majority can be traced back to the production line issus, not pre-production testing.

HH
Mike



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2016 06:28PM by Mike Hillis.

Small piece of video from pre-release
[www.youtube.com]


"You can actually see "several issues" crop up in just one short clip! Everything has to be looked at again and again and again...a long process"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2016 08:53PM by Des D.