X RAY VISION....

[sutphin]

I JUST HAPPENED TO BE JUMPING PAGES WHEN THE FISHER DETECTOR SITE CAUGHT MY EYE. I HAD A VISION THAT ONE DAY THE FUTURE OF NEW DETECTORS WOULD SHOW WHAT WAS IN THE GROUND BEFORE YOU DIG. WELL FISHER SAID THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF A NEW MACHINE CALLED THE SMART DETECTOR. THE ASKING PRICE NEAR 2000.00 CHECK OUT THERE WEB SITE.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Heck. We've had that since the 1950's - and for just $1!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

sutphin, nice to dream. But any "shape-showing" technology is always bedevilled with pixel size. The smallest pixel sizes are something like an inch across. Hence all items we find (coins, rings, pulltabs, nails, foil, etc...), will all be ... doh .... 1 pixel ! And actually, even if they got it down to 1/10" pixel (or whatever) it would still be useless. Because the moment you add the slightest tilt to anything, you can kiss shape goodbye. Nice dream though

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Certainly the technology will arrive in the near future that will send a tachyon pulse, proton burst or some such and give back a 3-D readout/hologram of what is in the soil.

Have you seen the latest generation of fish finders compared to the flashers that were state-of-the-art 40 years ago? Then you got a dense line for the bottom, thin lines for weeds and a blip when you went over a fish. Now you can see the individual branches on submerged trees.

 

[BosnMate]

The fish are hiding under the bridge.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Certainly the technology will arrive in the near future that will send a tachyon pulse, proton burst or some such and give back a 3-D readout/hologram of what is in the soil.

Have you seen the latest generation of fish finders compared to the flashers that were state-of-the-art 40 years ago? Then you got a dense line for the bottom, thin lines for weeds and a blip when you went over a fish. Now you can see the individual branches......

Valiant effort Charlie . But unfortunately has no bearing on md'ing potential . Water presents no impediment to travelling signal . But ground produces an instant brick wall.

 

[CincinnatiKid]

I've kept all my 1960s comic books, not for value, but if needed I can still purchase x-ray glasses �� from the classifieds.
Peace ✌

 

[mrwilburino]

I usually wear a pair of those when I'm out detecting. If anybody pesters me, I just look them up and down a couple of times and give them a big smile.

 

[pepperj]

Heck. We've had that since the 1950's - and for just $1!

View attachment 1184220

Have you still got your pair?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Valiant effort Charlie . But unfortunately has no bearing on md'ing potential . Water presents no impediment to travelling signal . But ground produces an instant brick wall.

I didn't say sonar technology would solve soil clarity - I did, after all, mention tachyons or protons. Just giving an anology of how technology advances. If as many folks metal detected as went fishing we'd already be there.

 

[Mr.T]

That fish finder looks like it would be the ideal item for wreck hunting. The image is very clear. I didn't realise they were nearly that good.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Just giving an anology of how technology advances. If as many folks metal detected as went fishing we'd already be there.

Well, yes and no. There does come a time when technology, in certain arenas hit's a point of diminishing returns. There are laws of physics that no amount of "smaller and faster" (that drove all the wonderful things you see in the last 40 to 50 yrs.) can solve. But fun to dream.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

It'll get here. I fly R/C airplanes and in 10 years we've gone from 72 MHz transmitters that would "shoot each other down" when someone turned on a transmitter nearby on the same channel (about 50 options) or a garage door was opened. Now we are 2.4 GHz (just like cell phones) and each transmitter calls and binds specifically to each receiver and even frequency hops thousands of times a minute to find clear frequencies - and the $40 receivers, which are 1/3 the weight and size, have accelerometers that detect motion on the three axis of flight that are not the result of control stick inputs and can compensate with control surface deflections automatically if you wish.

Leaps and bounds.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

charlie, all those things you list as examples, are functions of "faster and smaller". To which I would agree. This subject has come up before, where people draw analogies to advances in computers, cell-phones, etc.... to conclude: Thus detectors will someday be able to have x-ray vision, or coins (while disc'ing) go 2 ft. deep, and so forth.

But in the case of md'ing, the "faster and smaller" aspect is bumping into laws of physics on what the "smaller and faster" is doing. So unlike the leaps and bounds of evolution we saw in detectors from 1965 to 75, and then 75 to 85, and then 85 to 95, you'll notice that the current decade(s) that has slowed WAY down. You can have a 15 yr. old machine now (Exp, CZ6, etc...), and go up against the latest machines with negligable difference. Contrast to the earlier decades I cite, and notice that you'd have been a DINASOUR if your machine were a mere 5 yrs. old. Doh!

So it's not going to be a function of "smaller and faster" (like the evolutions in other arenas you cite) to bring x-ray or whatever. It's going to be an entirely new detector method. Sort of like TR to VLF type. Or VLF to pulse, etc.... Like prop planes versus jets - where there came a point where planes could simply go no faster with standard propellers. There's going to have to be something entirely new invented. Not just improvements of "faster and smaller" on what we already have.

If any of your examples were examples of entirely new (versus simply improved versions), then forgive me for missing it

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Not just faster and smaller - smarter and autonomous. Software parameters are improving how data is interpreted by the machine's "brain". If the programming allows the existing data received to be analyzed faster, more carefully, and with better internal filters it stands to reason that performance will be improved.

Detectors are a lot dumber than most folks hereabout realize (just because the pull-tab icon is highlighted don't make it a pull-tab); but if a machine has four or five different sensors looking for different characteristics we may see "smarter" detectors that will determine more than depth and relative conductivity and how an object experiences eddy currents from a radio signal.

I have confidence in the exponential growth of technology.

(I know this is so because every time I buy something expensive and complicated the technology immediately shifts and it becomes obsolete and archaic.)

 

[boogeyman]

I've kept all my 1960s comic books, not for value, but if needed I can still purchase x-ray glasses �� from the classifieds.
Peace ✌

Funny you mentioned them! Saw a pair in an antique store a couple weeks ago. Get ready to shuck up $28! And the lady was serious!!!!

 

[Limitool]

I'd like a machine who could recognize a iron horseshoe and not give a peep. But not filter out other iron objects. But that's because I have a personal horseshoe phobia problem. Ok I feel better now.