Good Targets in very close proximity to iron

[Bharpring]

In general is it better to increase Reactivity (say from 2 to 3) or to increase Frequency (say from 14 kHz to 28 kHz) to hear good targets better when they are in close proximity to iron?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[gene the machine]

raise reactivity first. be sure to lower silencer to 0 or -1 after you change reactivity

 

[Calabash Digger]

what tones you hunting with?

 

[vferrari]

If in real close proximity to iron, and you want non-ferrous unmasking - I think it is most important to use some discrimination with iron volume and multi-tones (2/3/4/5-tones or pitch) vice full tones. Use of disc with targets in close proximity to iron will keep the machine form "down averaging" visual and tone target ID (large iron especially will drag down the target id of a non-ferrous target). Why multi-tones or pitch vice full tones? If you use discrimination, then there is no iron volume with full tones and you will get no iron audio whatsoever from the discriminated region. I find that having a little iron audio when unmasking helps you better discern the masked target as you move the coil between the iron and the non-ferrous target. I personally like pitch vice mult-tones when unmasking. I would suggest using either pitch or two-tones (essentially setting up a ferrous/non-ferrous unmasker). Pitch has the advantage that it can be set to really pop out from the iron volume by setting the base frequency high. The pitch volume intensity will change depending on your proximity to the target. Finally, when unmasking I have reactivity set to at least 2.5 (no silencer) I need to do some more detailed experiments to see whether Reactivity of 2.5 or 3 is optimal. Finally, you can up frequency (in my case, I am almost exclusively running the hf coil so I have an unmasker set at 14 khz and one set at 28 khz). I cannot take credit for pitch unmasker - one of our UK Tnet friends suggested it and Calabash and I have been experimenting and refining it separately.

I pulled this V Nickel out of the muck today using my unmasker program (and 9" round HF at 14 khz) when Tnet buddy Cletus graciously let me play hooky with him today at one of his great permissions. We both found some strange odds and ends but no obvious CW period relics that we were shooting for. The corn stubble, iron, and can slaw were conspiring against us (see below) - so the unmasker and gold field tools were put to work in addition to good old hot full tones (no disc) and disc multitones. Great time nevertheless and managing to pull an old coin out of the ground under those conditions made it worthwhile. Actually, just being there made it worthwhile. Can't wait to make it back there when we can swing our coils a little more freely, I know there are some old goodies that site is going to reluctantly hand over.

 

[Bharpring]

It is funny that you ask that question, because the tones are what made me think of this question. I mainly use pitch and a 3 tone. The pitch feels much faster than the 3 tone, but I feel that I can hear deeper targets with the 3 tone (given the same frequency and reactivity for each program). My pitch program using frequency 14 kHz and Reactivity 2 feels as fast and dynamic as the 3 Tone program using frequency 14 kHz and Reactivity 3.

When I increase frequency to either 28 kHz or 54 kHz (round hf) or 28 kHz or 74 kHz (elliptical hf) and use the same reactivity for both pitch tones and my 3 tone program the performance feels much closer. There still may be a small edge on depth with the 3 Tone vs Pitch, but the recovery speed the ability to hit all non-ferrous in close proximity to iron feels a little better with pitch.

I would rather sacrifice a little depth for the ability to hear good target near iron, so I tend to use pitch for general hunting, but for depth I use the 3 tone.

Increasing frequency should make a huge difference in the ability to hear a good targets close to iron. Increasing reactivity should also unmask or separate better, but I want the separation at depth. So would separation be better at depth with a program set at Frequency 14, Reactivity 3 or Frequency 28, Reactivity 2? Also, would separation at depth be better with pitch vs 3 tone (given the frequency and reactivity are the same for each)?

 

[vferrari]

It is funny that you ask that question, because the tones are what made me think of this question. I mainly use pitch and a 3 tone. The pitch feels much faster than the 3 tone, but I feel that I can hear deeper targets with the 3 tone (given the same frequency and reactivity for each program). My pitch program using frequency 14 kHz and Reactivity 2 feels as fast and dynamic as the 3 Tone program using frequency 14 kHz and Reactivity 3.

When I increase frequency to either 28 kHz or 54 kHz (round hf) or 28 kHz or 74 kHz (elliptical hf) and use the same reactivity for both pitch tones and my 3 tone program the performance feels much closer. There still may be a small edge on depth with the 3 Tone vs Pitch, but the recovery speed the ability to hit all non-ferrous in close proximity to iron feels a little better with pitch.

I would rather sacrifice a little depth for the ability to hear good target near iron, so I tend to use pitch for general hunting, but for depth I use the 3 tone.

Increasing frequency should make a huge difference in the ability to hear a good targets close to iron. Increasing reactivity should also unmask or separate better, but I want the separation at depth. So would separation be better at depth with a program set at Frequency 14, Reactivity 3 or Frequency 28, Reactivity 2? Also, would separation at depth be better with pitch vs 3 tone (given the frequency and reactivity are the same for each)?

You can also split the difference with reactivity 2.5. You really need to experiment to see what works best in the two programs you you listed. Since that often depends on the situation, I would put both in your machine and interrogate targets with both programs. I usually do this when I come upon big iron or an iron patch when searching with my normal search program. I like pitch better for unmasking, too and as I mentioned above have a 14k and 28k unmasker.

 

[Bharpring]

Nice finds with your unmasker programs.

I like 2.5 Reactivity as well for all of the tones. I was just wondering if increasing frequency instead of reactivity would not only create better separation but also preserve depth a little better than increasing reactivity instead of frequency.

 

[Calabash Digger]

For the deep ones in pitch I run a react of 2 and just raise the audio respon to 5 ,when I hit the thickest of iron it goes to 4 and react to 3 in 14 kh...

 

[Bharpring]

Have you done any experimenting with frequency 28kHz?

 

[Tpmetal]

If in real close proximity to iron, and you want non-ferrous unmasking - I think it is most important to use some discrimination with iron volume and multi-tones (2/3/4/5-tones or pitch) vice full tones. Use of disc with targets in close proximity to iron will keep the machine form "down averaging" visual and tone target ID (large iron especially will drag down the target id of a non-ferrous target). Why multi-tones or pitch vice full tones? If you use discrimination, then there is no iron volume with full tones and you will get no iron audio whatsoever from the discriminated region. I find that having a little iron audio when unmasking helps you better discern the masked target as you move the coil between the iron and the non-ferrous target. I personally like pitch vice mult-tones when unmasking. I would suggest using either pitch or two-tones (essentially setting up a ferrous/non-ferrous unmasker). Pitch has the advantage that it can be set to really pop out from the iron volume by setting the base frequency high. The pitch volume intensity will change depending on your proximity to the target. Finally, when unmasking I have reactivity set to at least 2.5 (no silencer) I need to do some more detailed experiments to see whether Reactivity of 2.5 or 3 is optimal. Finally, you can up frequency (in my case, I am almost exclusively running the hf coil so I have an unmasker set at 14 khz and one set at 28 khz). I cannot take credit for pitch unmasker - one of our UK Tnet friends suggested it and Calabash and I have been experimenting and refining it separately.

I pulled this V Nickel out of the muck today using my unmasker program (and 9" round HF at 14 khz) when Tnet buddy Cletus graciously let me play hooky with him today at one of his great permissions. We both found some strange odds and ends but no obvious CW period relics that we were shooting for. The corn stubble, iron, and can slaw were conspiring against us (see below) - so the unmasker and gold field tools were put to work in addition to good old hot full tones (no disc) and disc multitones. Great time nevertheless and managing to pull an old coin out of the ground under those conditions made it worthwhile. Actually, just being there made it worthwhile. Can't wait to make it back there when we can swing our coils a little more freely, I know there are some old goodies that site is going to reluctantly hand over.
View attachment 1523119

Glad to see even the dues pulls these damn triangle teeth. I have found probably 50 to 100 of these this year. I usually average 5 or so a hunt. They tick me off right along with shotgun shells

 

[bologna321]

Glad to see even the dues pulls these damn triangle teeth. I have found probably 50 to 100 of these this year. I usually average 5 or so a hunt. They tick me off right along with shotgun shells

Dumb question but what are the triangle teeth from? They tick me off too, finding them everywhere on old farms. I thought that they were part of old fence posts but not sure.

 

[vferrari]

Triangle teeth sound great and they warm my heart when I pull them (not).

 

[Tpmetal]

Dumb question but what are the triangle teeth from? They tick me off too, finding them everywhere on old farms. I thought that they were part of old fence posts but not sure.

they are off of old hay cutting machines. Imagine two rows of these on top of each other moving back and forth like scissors

http://members.kos.net/sdgagnon/fb21.jpg

 

[Tpmetal]

Triangle teeth sound great and they warm my heart when I pull them (not).

These and shotgun shells usually make me curse out loud haha

 

[vferrari]

Nothing like digging a shotgun shell a foot and a half down that still has the plastic casing. That "It's gotta be a button if it is down this deep" feeling of disappointment and rage warms the cockles of my heart. And there's nothing like having hot cockles.

 

[bologna321]

they are off of old hay cutting machines. Imagine two rows of these on top of each other moving back and forth like scissors

http://members.kos.net/sdgagnon/fb21.jpg

interesting, thanks appreciate it!

 

[Calabash Digger]

Have you done any experimenting with frequency 28kHz?

not much at all

 

[pepperj]

Dumb question but what are the triangle teeth from? They tick me off too, finding them everywhere on old farms. I thought that they were part of old fence posts but not sure.

Sickle mower teeth, still used as they have been the decades. They sound up great I think because of the two holes and shape.