Detector tech improvement during the last 20 years?

[oldexplorer]

It sometimes seems that during the last 20 years, detector depth has only increased an inch or two and and iron rejection has improved only slightly. There were some superb machines being produced in the 80s and early 90s - a few sought-after models that come to mind are Whites Eagle 2 SL, Compass 77B, Gold Mountain GMT 1650 - doubtless you will have your own fave antique machine.

Why has there been so little real progress in all those years, when in other areas of technology things are moving forwards rapidly?

Maybe the technology of the traditional coil is redundant... and something amazing is sitting in the mind of a mad professor somewhere...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[TORRERO]

It sometimes seems that during the last 20 years, detector depth has only increased an inch or two and and iron rejection has improved only slightly. There were some superb machines being produced in the 80s and early 90s - a few sought-after models that come to mind are Whites Eagle 2 SL, Compass 77B, Gold Mountain GMT 1650 - doubtless you will have your own fave antique machine.

Why has there been so little real progress in all those years, when in other areas of technology things are moving forwards rapidly?

Maybe the technology of the traditional coil is redundant... and something amazing is sitting in the mind of a mad professor somewhere...

Why is there not a cure for Cancer after all these years and Trillions of dollars spent...
If we could cure cancer, Hospitals and Doctors would lose half their business.
it works the same in all business's If you give the best technology first... then you lose money down the line when you run out of ideas. so you just give a little each year... and promote it as the best thing ever... so your customers keep coming back and back... until they die...

 

[The Beep Goes On]

The technology is there that could be developed, but I think it's a price issue. There are $60K machines out there but very few will buy it based on the uncertainty that anything will be found remotely worth the cost of the detector. The cost of mainstream detectors is pushing the limit...many would like to try the V3, but won't pay the price, for instance.

Just like minor physiological ailments, doctors could probably find a cure, but it's not worth the effort and time when there are more deadly diseases remaining to be worked on and there is no viable financial reason to do so.

Another reason is that electromagnetism is fairly well understood and has been for some time. Most of the advances have come from processor and software improvements which can get the most out of the signals generated by coils that haven't, fundamentally, changed in a long time. Other technologies like radar, etc., will have to fill in the gap as it may be that traditional detector technology has reached its limitations. Maybe someone will come up with some quantum electrodynamic scanning protocol that allows virtual recreations of the ground matrix that is fast, easy to use and has a price commensurate with it's abilities (I'd pay a lot for that if there was actual see-through capability).

 

[Tom_in_CA]

If you were to look at the short 15 yr. period from .... say .... the very early 1970s, to the mid 1980s, you would see LIGHT-YEARS of advancements. The early 1970s saw companies still selling, and people still using BFO's for instance. A mere few inches in depth, poor in minerals, no disc, etc.. Or they were selling and using all-metal TRs (66TR, 77b, etc...). Poor in minerals, no disc (barring small iron), poor depth, etc...

But then just a few years later, by the mid 1970s, TR discriminators came out, and everyone cheered that they could effortlessly pass foil and tabs in the junky parks! woohoo! Also VLF disc. came out, and now you could effortlessly reach super depths (without any form of disc. however).

Then just a few years later, by the late 1970s, vlf disc. came out, and now you immediately gained several inches in disc. mode (verses the earlier TR disc). woohoo!

By the early '80s, the sweep speed was being slowed waaaayyy down, and TID was starting to be seen on all the brands, and depth was increasing. Wooohoo!

So you see, a person at any time in that 15 yrs, who had a machine that was only 3 or 4 years old, had a DINASOUR!! And believe me, the results were easy to see: your friends would leave you WAY behind in target and goodie counts

But contrast all those new innovations, with the LAST 15 yrs, and you will see that the only thing that's been added, has been whistles and bells it seems. All I can figure is that a ceiling has been hit. The technology known has been exploited to its max, and no new technology has been discovered. Like, perhaps science just doesn't allow more depth, or allow composition to be known (verses conductivity). The physical laws might not allow for any more. Just like computer speed, and chip storage space: there comes a time where laws of physics just don't allow for any faster, or more, or whatever. I don't think price has anything to do with it, as there are MANY of us who would pay 10's of thousands if we thought there were a machine that could tell, for example, aluminum from gold (and not just conductivity as it is currently).

There is technology that can tell aluminum from gold BTW: Westinghouse, for example, developed a system of bombarding an object with radiation or whatever, that would tell the exact composition of the item/target. So for example, they aim the machine at a refrigerator sized item filled with contaminents, pollutants, or whatever, and it will read back to you the exact composition (xx parts this, xx parts that, etc... Kind of like a star-trek tricorder, eh?). I spoke to one of the lead engineers who worked on this project (an item for the military), and he told me, in response to my asking him if such a machine could tell a pulltab from a gold ring (assuming they had the exact same TID conductivity). He said that yes, it would certainly tell 100% aluminum verses gold, etc... The problem is, it cost multiple millions of dollars (at this time 15 or so years ago when we talked), and you had to wear a lead suit to operate this bobcat tractor sized machine. Add to that all the governmental emissions controls, FCC stuff, blah blah blah, and you could see that it is not practical one bit.

 

[Iron Patch]

I'd say yes for the last 20, but not the last 10.

 

[rjw4law]

If I bought a $60,000 machine it would not go to waste...It would be put into use immediately......My wife would beat me to death with it and collect the insurance.

 

[TORRERO]

If I bought a $60,000 machine it would not go to waste...It would be put into use immediately......My wife would beat me to death with it and collect the insurance.

likewise I'm sure....

 

[Woodland Detectors]

Bells $300.00
Whistles $300.00

Cost of latest machines with aesome depth About $1,200
Cost of older machine with awesome depth without all the "bells and whistles" -$600.00 -$200.00 Hype= $400.00

 

[Jason in Enid]

No, I'm sorry but you are wrong. I have one of those great older (15 years) analog machines. I have heard reports from too many V3 and ETrac owners to think that my current machine can come close to touching a new one.

 

[Woodland Detectors]

No, I'm sorry but you are wrong. I have one of those great older (15 years) analog machines. I have heard reports from too many V3 and ETrac owners to think that my current machine can come close to touching a new one.

Can or can't I've got an etrac and have well over 2,000 hours on it. If I'm in a spot that is turning up good targets and I think Ive thoroughly gridded the spot. I'll go over it again with different machines. One of which is my old Minelab and I'll find things I missed with the Etrac. Good stuff! I'll think to myself "how the heck did I miss that?" So, I know I am not "wrong" But, if you want to buy one I'll be glad to sell you one. Just saying.

 

[TORRERO]

No, I'm sorry but you are wrong. I have one of those great older (15 years) analog machines. I have heard reports from too many V3 and ETrac owners to think that my current machine can come close to touching a new one.

Can or can't I've got an etrac and have well over 2,000 hours on it. If I'm in a spot that is turning up good targets and I think Ive thoroughly gridded the spot. I'll go over it again with different machines. One of which is my old Minelab and I'll find things I missed with the Etrac. Good stuff! I'll think to myself "how the heck did I miss that?" I know I am not "wrong" But, if you want to buy one I'll be glad to sell you one. I am just speaking the truth.

To really know if your missing something, and not just "walked over it" you need to take the signal and mark it with some kind of flag (drink swizzle stick flags or golf tee's work good)
and check the target with both machines. If you get it on both machines, then its you the hunter, not the machine that is at fault...

 

[Woodland Detectors]

No, I'm sorry but you are wrong. I have one of those great older (15 years) analog machines. I have heard reports from too many V3 and ETrac owners to think that my current machine can come close to touching a new one.

Can or can't I've got an etrac and have well over 2,000 hours on it. If I'm in a spot that is turning up good targets and I think Ive thoroughly gridded the spot. I'll go over it again with different machines. One of which is my old Minelab and I'll find things I missed with the Etrac. Good stuff! I'll think to myself "how the heck did I miss that?" I know I am not "wrong" But, if you want to buy one I'll be glad to sell you one. I am just speaking the truth.

To really know if your missing something, and not just "walked over it" you need to take the signal and mark it with some kind of flag (drink swizzle stick flags or golf tee's work good)
and check the target with both machines. If you get it on both machines, then its you the hunter, not the machine that is at fault...

Oh, didn't you know? It's not my fault! lol Your right I agree...I have tried the "test" And believe it or not I do get different results from different machines. And not to get sidetracked from the thread...In my opinion, I find good stuff with the older detector I miss with the new. And vice versa. It may be just the way I'm holding my mouth at the moment.

 

[Jimmy(PA)]

Ive made a post like this before, take the XLT for example, its been out for what 15+ years now? Even earlier as a Spectrum. Its target ID is just as good as anything out there today, its LCD display is even better than 90% of new machines IMO. Depth hasnt increased much if any, CZ's were pulling inches deeper than many new machines on the market do and that was 20 years ago. I can see some valid arguments for depth and disc but with modern cell phone technology you would think better LCD screens would be on the market for low cost, even some touch screens would be nice, Eventually I think we will see detector control boxes as thin and small as iphones reducing weight and I think shaft weight will drop significantly once they start using bicycle frame technology. If they can build a 10lb fully loaded race bike I bet they could build a 1lb detector once cost come down on carbon fiber. OK so heres my prediction, in the future the detector control box will basically be an ipod touch like display that you can take off the rod and sit in a cradle like a Palm to update data and charge, the rods will be full carbon fiber or magnesium, the coils will be super thin and light carbon fiber.

 

[U.K. Brian]

Two weeks ago I had a director of one of the bigger U.S. detector companies to visit with two of their latest/best products to date.
Unfortunately when it came to one on one with some of the older machines on the market the new wonder machines came up short. A plus of the visit was that I sold him a Compass 77b and a Goldmountain 1650 to take back with him both of which he had never seen, never mind tried. I also sold an Arado 120/130 type machine from the old days...the Fieldmaster FX77 to a U.S. detector designer. This has a primary all metal search mode thats sounding off on all targets but is not dependant on sweep speed for depth. Ferrous I.D. by meter. Not the target masking problems of modern machines and there's even a degree of iron rejection in the all metal mode created by offsetting the balance of the I.B. coil.

The advantage of many new designs is that they can get fairly good performance in a switch on and go package. Bit more work and skill needed with the old designs and they often only excel in one respect so you need a few machines rather than a jack of all trades.
When the Whites V3 came out I found I already had a better salt beach machine (in fact a few), a better pasture machine and a better machine for ploughed and rolled fields. When it came to industrial foreshores and Roman spoil heaps the older detectors were often a far better choice.

A couple of drawbacks with the old designs were weight and battery consumption though there were many detectors like the Off Resonance machines that offered 60 hours detecting which is better than many modern detectors. We still have over heavy coils and still end up buying third party shafts and remounting control boxes under the armrest to balance detectors out. Don't detector manufacturers ever take their latest product out in the field and use them for a few hours on the trot ?

The one, ONE, real advancement made is in giving discrimination to the ocean beach hunter. Here single frequency just doesn't cut it with the need to discriminate out the positive salt effect which cuts depth and response to small gold.

 

[Woodland Detectors]

Two weeks ago I had a director of one of the bigger U.S. detector companies to visit with two of their latest/best products to date.
Unfortunately when it came to one on one with some of the older machines on the market the new wonder machines came up short. A plus of the visit was that I sold him a Compass 77b and a Goldmountain 1650 to take back with him both of which he had never seen, never mind tried. I also sold an Arado 120/130 type machine from the old days...the Fieldmaster FX77 to a U.S. detector designer. This has a primary all metal search mode thats sounding off on all targets but is not dependant on sweep speed for depth. Ferrous I.D. by meter. Not the target masking problems of modern machines and there's even a degree of iron rejection in the all metal mode created by offsetting the balance of the I.B. coil.

The advantage of many new designs is that they can get fairly good performance in a switch on and go package. Bit more work and skill needed with the old designs and they often only excel in one respect so you need a few machines rather than a jack of all trades.
When the Whites V3 came out I found I already had a better salt beach machine (in fact a few), a better pasture machine and a better machine for ploughed and rolled fields. When it came to industrial foreshores and Roman spoil heaps the older detectors were often a far better choice.

A couple of drawbacks with the old designs were weight and battery consumption though there were many detectors like the Off Resonance machines that offered 60 hours detecting which is better than many modern detectors. We still have over heavy coils and still end up buying third party shafts and remounting control boxes under the armrest to balance detectors out. Don't detector manufacturers ever take their latest product out in the field and use them for a few hours on the trot ?

The one, ONE, real advancement made is in giving discrimination to the ocean beach hunter. Here single frequency just doesn't cut it with the need to discriminate out the positive salt effect which cuts depth and response to small gold.

And I totally agree

 

[Cappy Z.]

I'm still waiting for the machine that can ID a gold coin at 36 inches.....

No hope on the horizon?