Sorry but, "field testing" is NOT a catch all phrase.

I know you have seen the videos. "BLAH BLAH detector field test" and what do we see? Some dude burying coins and using his detector to check depth or even better yet, they are outside in a field, doing an air test.

Field test doesn't mean any of that. It means you go out into the field and USE, that's right, USE the detector as it is supposed to be used. You swing away and dig targets that are actually buried in the ground that you or someone else didn't plant for the purpose of demonstrating the detector.

IT IS CRITICAL, that when you are promoting the target product, you provide the correct information. END RANT.

"That's what I've been trying to do for years!"

You Tube
Channel DesDunne1

EXACTLY...


Field testing and Demoing is what I call it....

Now Filed testing for a manufacturer cant be talked about PERIOD


When you see a Video or someone freely talk about say a Model when its already completed or just prior to pre release and what ever it came to be at the time of building it is what it is for the most part and free discusion is allowed...

What you dont see is the hours and hours spent in the field by a tester using products that are not completed..

Products that are not even in the right housing ...have new features but no instructions on how to use them..all this has to be figured out on your own...you have to see if it is a substantial improvement from last model in line or maybe as its is not a good idea also..


Now you cant have an opinion on your field findings it has to be a solid fact...and at times it takes a lot of detailed testing... You have to KNOW its no good or its maybe a faulty program etc..You can have OPINIONS on things like ergonomics and such but the actual performance has to be based on fact not steered by your emotions..You have to tell the manufacturer its not right when its not right.. They dont want a bunch of YES men ..



Some ask how did this product make it to market...well to be truthful when you are doing the testing of Proto equipment alot of times your just testing a product that does not resemble final product...OR when you do get FINAL version after say a half dozen redesigns you only have a short time time to evaluate ..


So yes field testing and demoing is two different things ..

Now people can field test a completed Item and write up reports for the public to see and do videos..

I like to do a demo video of the attributes of a finished machine ..or give my written thoughts on what I like about it or dislike about it myself..But its usually on machines I have a use for ..

I do think people get the field testing of Proto's and the Field testing of a Finished product confused..Ones pretty easy to do ...MOST bugs are gone..the other is Very tedious hard work as all the bugs are there..

And at some point the products got to go to market...

The company's are trying to make money not be in perpetual changing of platform..

Keith

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

Your idea of a field test has no comparative value, since it controls for no variables whatsoever. A poor quality machine on a good site might easily find more targets than a great machine on a sparse site. Such a "test" would reveal absolutely nothing useful.

You can legitimately criticize the methodology of certain field tests; however, you seem to be completely opposed to the scientific method in favor of ad hoc "testing."

The objective in testing should be to keep all variables constant, except the variable being tested. This will necessarily result in tests appearing to be somewhat artificial. This artificiality does not negate their value.

Hey I don't know what I'm going to dig when I get a new detector or how deep it is or if iron or trash in near or on-top of the target. Field testing is like treasure hunting you have to use the vessel to find the targets....And air testing is fun but no cigar. When you get in the dirt you kiss your air test goodbye.

LowBoy

TAKE A LITTLE TIME KICKBACK AND WATCH SOME OF MY DETECTING VIDEO'S BELOW ON YouTube

[www.youtube.com]

If you don’t dig it, then how are you going to know what you’re missing!
How can you have your pudding if you don’t eat your meat!

"Your idea of a field test has no comparative value, since it controls for no variables whatsoever."

My "idea of a field test" is not MY idea at all. From Webster: " Field test: to test (something, such as a product) by using it in the actual conditions it was designed for" I never said that air tests and buried target tests weren't useful. We are talking about the mis-use of the term "field test". Since the majority of people don't by metal detector to do air tests or bury their own coins to find, I would say that those types of tests are not what a metal detector was actually designed for.

"A poor quality machine on a good site might easily find more targets than a great machine on a sparse site. Such a "test" would reveal absolutely nothing useful."

Not true, we are judging how the machine reacts under field conditions. the finds just provide raw data based on the machines reactions to them.


"You can legitimately criticize the methodology of certain field tests; however, you seem to be completely opposed to the scientific method in favor of ad hoc "testing.""

I don't know how you can make such a statement on a single post when you don't know anything about me. I never gave any information on what types of tests I favor or which i don't. I have done numerous air tests, that doesn't mean it's a preference.

"The objective in testing should be to keep all variables constant, except the variable being tested. This will necessarily result in tests appearing to be somewhat artificial. This artificiality does not negate their value."

If it's one thing an experienced detectorist will tell you , it's that NOTHING, in the field is constant. Thus the need for a test in the field. Now I agree at the onset, lab tests are vital. However, what we are really talking about in THIS post, is the mis-use of the term. Let's not get off topic

Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "If it's one thing an experienced detectorist will
> tell you , it's that NOTHING, in the field is
> constant."

That you would conflate the need to hold variables constant during scientific testing with this trite statement is profoundly disappointing and conveys a misunderstanding of basic premises. I mistakenly thought this forum was for engineering minded people who wanted to improve their skills and advance technology.

I'd have to say "Bayard +1" (I'm a retired EE)...

but it's all neither here nor there, as no 'standards' exist for testing, no 'Consumer Reports', etc
....as far as I know....

so, for example, if I do choose to buy an MXSport it will be after reading a lot of reports, posts, evals, comparos, etc..

then I'll still have to "keep my fingers crossed" that it will produce in my "situation" and how I use
it...I am an optimistic guy though....

cheers...and this is 'hands down' the best forum IMHO....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2016 12:57AM by canslawhero.

"That you would conflate the need to hold variables constant during scientific testing with this trite statement is profoundly disappointing and conveys a misunderstanding of basic premises."

Either you are not reading my posts correctly or I am not making this clear enough.

This post is about the misuse of the term "Field test". I am not knocking ANY OTHER type of testing nor am I knocking any ones procedural methodology.

Lab tests are primarily for benefit of the manufacturer. Field tests benefit me by telling me what I can expect the machine to do in real world circumstances. A field test under controlled circumstances is just an outdoor lab test and for the most part not very beneficial to me. Beyonder-Pa is correct.

My head hurts.

Conflate?

Wow.

It goes beep, I dig.

Some beepers I like better than others.

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold



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

> I mistakenly thought this forum was for engineering
> minded people who wanted to improve their skills
> and advance technology.

Welcome, Bayard, to this forum. I look forward to what you can contribute to the discussion based on your experience and knowledge.

Having said that, I must say that you are correct in your statement quoted above. You are mistaken. This forum is for detectorists. Period. Some of what you will find here is merely opinion. Some of what you will find here is INFORMED and LEARNED opinion. The wheat in the chaff, as it were. More so than other forums I know. There is a wealth of detecting knowledge and skill and years of experience with practically every detector that's ever come down the pike represented here on this forum. Glean from it what you will. Add to it what you can. Help to keep this forum on track and help to keep it the best metal detecting forum. But please don't come in here with a too strident attitude that you thought this was a "smart" group that was worthy of your participation. That has not played well for others in the past.

This forum is very well represented in the engineering minded end of detecting, and the black arts of detecting, too. There is much to be gained in learning from both.

Again, Bayard, welcome to the forum.

Wayne

Pleasant Garden, NC
AT Max, Nokta Impact, MX Sport, Nokta FORS Relic, GPX 4800, Infinium, Racer, Deus, F75SE, Nautilus DMC II (order of acquisition, last to first)

Does an archeologist argue with a plow? A bureaucrat with a bulldozer?

Nice one Wayne.

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold

ncwayne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "There is a wealth of
> detecting knowledge and skill and years of
> experience with practically every detector that's
> ever come down the pike represented here on this
> forum. Glean from it what you will. Add to it what
> you can. Help to keep this forum on track and help
> to keep it the best metal detecting forum. But
> please don't come in here with a too strident
> attitude that you thought this was a "smart" group
> that was worthy of your participation."

You sound like a reasonable person; however, my attitude is not strident. I routinely overlook malapropisms on this forum because I can learn from knowledgeable people regardless of their writing ability; e.g., I regularly see the word "feudal" where the writer meant to say "futile." No big deal, I knew what the writer meant from context.

I am interested in knowledge, knowledge demonstrable by empirical testing. I am not interested in voodoo, disinformation, anti-intellectual posturing, or anti-scientific bluster. I would expect anyone with scientific or engineering training to share my point of view, which I believe is quite reasonable.

To get back on track...

As far as the original post, I believe all Beyonder was trying to say is that there is a difference between 'bench testing' and 'field testing'.
(Bench testing is done...on the bench, and of course, 'field testing' is done...in the field.)
Bench testing is for data, field testing is for impressions.

There is a perfect analogy in the auto industry. I was the senior engineer for a high performance engine dynamometer and data acquistion company in the '80s.
I really enjoy reading the raw data from a dyno test.

But while providing real numbers and dispassionate data about the vehicle, the dyno testing can never replace the driving 'impressions' from a 'track test'.
At the consumer level, that would be called a 'Road Test', and would be about the impressions from driving the car 'on the road', not on a dyno.

And that is the direct equivalent of a 'Field Test' verses a 'Bench Test'.
Impressions verses data...and of course, we need both...not one or the other.
I think we can all agree to that.

And as Wayne said, "Welcome to the forum."

mike



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2016 09:04PM by Mike in CO.

In any case we have the ability to read field, bench tests or watch videos and certainly some of the info is ballpark but does help in the learning process.
Certainly tool we didn't have years ago and had to learn by trial and error...Your call whether you use this tool or perhaps not...

Bayard Wrote:
> You sound like a reasonable person; however, my
> attitude is not strident. I routinely overlook
> malapropisms on this forum because I can learn
> from knowledgeable people regardless of their
> writing ability; e.g., I regularly see the word
> "feudal" where the writer meant to say "futile."
> No big deal, I knew what the writer meant from
> context.
>
> I am interested in knowledge, knowledge
> demonstrable by empirical testing. I am not
> interested in voodoo, disinformation,
> anti-intellectual posturing, or anti-scientific
> bluster. I would expect anyone with scientific or
> engineering training to share my point of view,
> which I believe is quite reasonable.

sheesh, I just want to find a gold ring....help me, I'm suffering 'a paroxysm of laughter'......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2016 05:41PM by canslawhero.

Cool, learned a few new (to me) words in these posts........... Of course,...in one ear and out the other, unfortunately.

nate53 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lab tests are primarily for benefit of the
> manufacturer. Field tests benefit me by telling me
> what I can expect the machine to do in real world
> circumstances. A field test under controlled
> circumstances is just an outdoor lab test and for
> the most part not very beneficial to me.
> Beyonder-Pa is correct.

+1

I'd say the word "Field testing" isn't appropriate, as though there may be field conditions it would not actually be "testing". Testing requires a control of the variables. You can't "test" a detector in an uncontrolled open field, not as we define the word "test". You can "review" the operation but it really isn't viable to draw any firm conclusions from such a "review" about how the detector's electromagnetic field is reacting to objects in the ground. And this is the problem with "field tests". Take any detector to an open field where people have been, and you will find non-ferrous and ferrous items at various depths. The honest conclusion from field testing is that the detector appears to find non-ferrous and ferrous buried targets ... which isn't saying much of anything.

Where the evaluators often goes astray, IMO, is when they assess the performance of the detector from the pile of non-ferrous and ferrous targets recovered. The try to turn a "review" into a "test". Below the color picture of the recovered silver coin will be what amounts to an "opinion", something like, "...this detector has no problem eliminating nails in highly mineralized iron soil and separating out the good targets even at great depth. And the meter is very accurate. This detector will be a great additions to relic hunters interested in getting the deep stuff ". Really? That's an opinion ... not based on fact but "impressions" which are not substantiated by any controlled testing, but it sells detectors for detector magazines who are host/clients of those same manufactures. It's detector 'incest'.

Of course the manufactures don't want controlled testing ... that's why it is never done (except by hobbyists). But the problem with most testing is that the testing only controls a few variables (usually depth or horizontal separation), which of course is better than nothing. But it really is inadequate to describe the capabilities of the detector, and the gap in knowledge is easily filled with bluster and hyperbole, all the oft repeated nonsense and half-truths that fill the internet.

So, a "field test" is really a "field report" with no testing ... and real testing is never done. The best we have are rudimentary tests with a whole lot of opinions and conjectures about performance built around those tests. If we ever had a Consumer Reports for metal detectors, the controlled test results would likely be shocking, make many angry at being taken for so long, but be the fuel that could transform the industry and make manufactures compete for supremacy. Then we'd have real technological advances in metal detectors. These advances would be what Tom and others are hoping and waiting will blossom out of the current withered and dying detecting tree, but ignorance does not produce positive radical change.

john

John,
A very well written and thought out post--- and I agree wholeheartedly with all.

These variables are the " why" behind why so many detector manufacturers stay in business.

"So, a "field test" is really a "field report" with no testing ... and real testing is never done."

Exactly, what I was looking for. Proper use of the terminology. So i'm not wasting my time watching a 30 minute video entitled, "Field test of the new (name of the detector goes here). The video, complete with the 2 minute introduction of pictures of some dude's finds, him standing with a detector and blah background music, followed by a 15 minute long scene where the dude sitting at a table talking about where he got the detector from so and so and that so and so has the best prices, then a 10 minute scene of him standing in a field going through each of the settings, and wrapping up with a 3 minute exit scene of thank yous, credits, and other videos he made with the same blah music.

"detector incest"..........funny John lol.

Well said John.