x-ray metal detector?

[washingtonian]

Is there a metal detector that is advanced enough so that it can actually show you what is in the ground like and x-ray or scan of the metal or something?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Steve in Cali.]

A while back I saw a goofy German device that looked like a metal detector but was some kind of sonar or temperature viewer.

There was a video of someone using it on the beach. It had a coil like a metal detector but instead of headphones the person was wearing goggles that had a display that supposedly showed what was under the sand.

Here's a link to it. If I can find the video link I'll post it:

http://www.exp5000.com/pictures.html

I'm real skeptical.

 

[SC_hunter]

I'm a bit skeptical also...Didn't happen to see the price posted anywhere on the sight..hmmmm

 

[Tom_in_CA]

washingtonian, yes there is such detectors. But the problem is, the pixel size. The pixels are an inch or more across. Obviously everything coin sized would just simply be one pixel square, thus not giving you any useful information.

 

[The.Boomer]

There actually is a device I saw that was being deployed in rural Japan. It hooks up to a LapTop and allows rural Drs. there to do echocardiograms. However it also came with another attachment that would allow it to be used to search up to six inches deep depending on the soil type. It wasn't infallible in that many thigs can look similar underground, like the older rounder pull tabs still resembled rings. The Dr. I knew who had one played around with that but not seriously as he was way to busy making money the old fashioned way. I would kill for one, but I'm a little shy of the price tag which I think in 1995 Dollars was around $20,000.00

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Boomer, I would be highly doubtful that an echocardiogram can do what you're saying. I know a hospital worker who operates one of those machines. He and I had a long talk on whether or not that technology could be morphed into something that shows shape, in the field. For starters, he said the image only went to, I think he said an inch or two. Secondly, there has to be contact with the skin/flesh of the person, via these pad things, where there can't be any air at all between the two surfaces. They have to put some kind of jelly on the skin of the patient, where the scope/pad thing is to make contact, to ensure that there is no air at all between the two surfaces. You can immediately see that this is not practical in the field Also, soil is unlike human flesh to begin with. Soil by nature has air in it, but flesh is 99% water, right?

But who knows? maybe they have something different in Japan?

 

[ronald99]

Kellyco has these detectors on there website they are pricy and only for the wealthy detectorist.

 

[Detectingfreak]

I think it would not be as fun

 

[The.Boomer]

Tom, what I know about the device is this. I saw it work, The Dr. placed a short 16 inch shaft with a iron shaped head/probe on the groundrubbed it around until he picked up an image. He then showed the images to me and several of my army buds before he proceeded to dig the items up. like I also said before, to me at least the coins looked the same as bottle caps and the round pull tabs looked just like rings to me. As far as depth, I have only the recollection of what the Dr. told me it was capable of. Any other issues you have about it's ability to work through air are not within the realm of what I know or could comment on. BTW I have had an Echocardiogram and although these images resembled those images in quality, the machine was actually a small box that hooked up to his laptop.

 

[p.rodriguez]

Please see my scans I made with this unit:
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,73054.msg1033263/topicseen.html#msg1033263

 

[Tom_in_CA]

P. Rodriguez, precisely correct. The data gathered is only useful for very large objects, caves, etc.... Pixel size is too large to differentiate anything small, like coins, etc...

 

[The.Boomer]

Magnetic devices might be limited by pixels but sound devices aren't. There is a new technology that is being used along with sound waves, probably an offshoot of the Navy's Sonar RD. It can accurately picture an object even out to twenty meters, moving or still. And yes they can picture eve small objects like a coin but probably not at twenty meters.

http://www.blueviewtech.com/

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Boomer, you're dreaming Yes this question has come up before, about sonar: "If it's accurate enough to allow fishermen to even determine the type fish (tuna vs salmon vs sea bass, etc...), then why can't that detail and distances be replicated for metal in the ground? The reason is: signals traveling through water or air are basically un-restricted. But the same signal beamed into the ground goes about .000001 inch before hitting a brick wall. Unfortunately sonar, as we know it, will not work in solid ground. On through mediums like water and air.

 

[The.Boomer]

It would seem Tom, that the people at Lucent Technologies would disagree with you.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insig...017A?contentType=NonArticle&contentId=1476694

As would the Accoustical Society of America

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASAJ..106.1625E

How about the police

http://www.abc3340.com/news/stories/0508/516277.html

Here's a paper on some of the theory behind it

http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache...ulsed+ground+sonar&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=147&gl=us

Here's an article about a couple of fellows using it

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15921524.900-dig-this.html


It would seem that the world of DPS has opened doors traditionaly thought closed permanantely, If you would care to educate yourself here's the link for a google search I already did for you. http://www.google.com/search?num=10...e=off&q=digital+processing+signal&btnG=Search

But hey no need to be embarassed, just deny deny and argue like most know-it-alls.

 

[Ramapirate]

I ordered some glasses out of the back of a comic book back in the 1960's, but I never thought of using them to look in the ground. I was too busy trying to see my sister's cheerleader friend's drawers with them. Not much luck there either. Who'd a thunk using them to detect with. They only cost a buck! What a deal!! 8)

HH,
Ramapirate

 

[99thpercentile]

I read through all of the links in this thread just to make sure I understood the direction that it was headed. I am making my comments here as a geophysicist who looks for shallow small targets for a living, as well as someone who has been to the sites in the links and knows most of the people mentioned. There are no acoustic or seismic sensors that are useful for detecting or discriminating anything deeper than about a centimeter. There are some shallow target detection systems that use acoustic sources and a microwave detector to find landmines by comparing the resonance of undisturbed soil to that of a shallow landmine. The problem is that the frequencies required to detect or discriminate a very small target attenuate very quickly, so aren't useful. Many of the included links were press releases where I am 100% positive the reported had no idea what they were talking about. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) was mentioned, and it can work exceptionally well in some soil types and not at all in others. Digital signal processing (DSP) is used daily in all types of geophysical surveys, but it can only do so much. One can improve noisy data, but not perform miracles on bad data. The idea of being limited by pixels isn't really correct. All geophysical techniques are limited by the resolution of that method at the depth of interest, potential field methods (gravity and magnetics) have limits in knowing both the size and depth of the target. A large deep target can give the same signal as a small shallow target. These can be modeled based on pre-existing knowledge of the site to limit the targets to a range of depths/sizes. The link to the thread on the OKM sensors is one that I had read before. I have read their whole website and I am convinced that they either don't know what their instruments really do, or are lying about the actual method employed so that that can charge an extortionist price for a fluxgate magnetometer and some sketchy software.

 

[MD Dog]

I read through all of the links in this thread just to make sure I understood the direction that it was headed. I am making my comments here as a geophysicist who looks for shallow small targets for a living, as well as someone who has been to the sites in the links and knows most of the people mentioned. There are no acoustic or seismic sensors that are useful for detecting or discriminating anything deeper than about a centimeter. There are some shallow target detection systems that use acoustic sources and a microwave detector to find landmines by comparing the resonance of undisturbed soil to that of a shallow landmine. The problem is that the frequencies required to detect or discriminate a very small target attenuate very quickly, so aren't useful. Many of the included links were press releases where I am 100% positive the reported had no idea what they were talking about. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) was mentioned, and it can work exceptionally well in some soil types and not at all in others. Digital signal processing (DSP) is used daily in all types of geophysical surveys, but it can only do so much. One can improve noisy data, but not perform miracles on bad data. The idea of being limited by pixels isn't really correct. All geophysical techniques are limited by the resolution of that method at the depth of interest, potential field methods (gravity and magnetics) have limits in knowing both the size and depth of the target. A large deep target can give the same signal as a small shallow target. These can be modeled based on pre-existing knowledge of the site to limit the targets to a range of depths/sizes. The link to the thread on the OKM sensors is one that I had read before. I have read their whole website and I am convinced that they either don't know what their instruments really do, or are lying about the actual method employed so that that can charge an extortionist price for a fluxgate magnetometer and some sketchy software.

No offense intended, but I too have looked at all these links and find that these things are quite credible. Of course I'm not going to claim I'm an authority as high up the food chain as you seem to think a Geophysicist may be, the evidence does to me an average joe seem to support the fact that here are some kind of techno machines out there for the rich researcher to use to find even small targets with sound images. That said, you seem to think that by simply stating you think some other dudes are hoaxing someone, that is sufficient reason to believe that this technology doesn't exist. From what I've seen and read there seem to be some pretty impressive names involved like Lucent technologies. I also wanna point out that you've posted no credible evidence against said devices, are we to simply take you at your word because your a T-Net member ? Or maybe we should believe you because you claim some big credentials ? Come on, put up or shut up.

 

[MD Dog]

BTW you misspelled Geophysicist in your profile footer.

 

[SandFiddler]

I worked on an archeological site that was mapped using Ground penetrating radar. I don't think you could have identified any target as small as a coin.

 

[The.Boomer]

I worked on an archeological site that was mapped using Ground penetrating radar. I don't think you could have identified any target as small as a coin.

Ground radar is not the same thing as ground sonar, try to keep up.