Balance?

[mts]

Afraid your not paying attention to whats been said. Best is discrimination that runs from zero (all metal) to eliminating almost everything as you have a full choice as to what level you want to employ.

A test like you suggest may well come up with a detector that loses very little depth just because everyone else has a much higher level of rejection when they turn their machines rejection to full.

I'm listening. And I completely understand you. Again, we are arguing semantics. What good is a machine that you can turn the discrimination so far up that you would never use that setting anyway? Why let the user turn the discrimination up past the point of usability? And isn't it more dangerous to give a user a machine that they can easily hose themselves with than to just give them a machine that has a usable discrimination range all the way up to the maximum allowed by that machine? Especially if that usable range is indeed usable and gives adequate discrimination for the targets most users are trying to find? It's not like my Vaquero can't discriminate out zincs from coppers at the maximum disc setting. There is a difference between "what is best" for a pro machine and "what is best" for a machine built for the general public.

I'm not advocating either method. This whole argument started because one poster implied I must be stupid for thinking that I could turn discrimination up all the way and still be able to find something (anything at all). After clearly showing him that it was indeed reasonable considering that most metal detectors will find "something" if you turn the discrimination all the way up; you now come in and rekindle the flame.

My whole point was simply to try and inform people that (for better or worse) the discrimination on the Tesoro Silver uMax is configured such that you could lose SIGNIFICANT depth by setting it on the max setting. My Vaquero does not work that way. By BH does not work that way. So it is reasonable for me to point out that people need to test THEIR detectors (whatever the brand) to understand how they work. Isn't that a reasonable point to make? If so, why are so many people bashing me for it? And why do so many people want to paint the world in black and white? There are all types of detectors out there. I can design a detector such that you get absolutely no depth at all when the discrimination is set at maximum. And I can design a detector that loses absolutely no depth at all with disc set on max. Why do people continue to argue that it can't be done? But would those detectors sell well to the general public? Probably not.

I'm done with this conversation because it makes no sense whatsoever. Peace.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Terry Soloman]

...This whole argument started because one poster implied I must be stupid for thinking that I could turn discrimination up all the way and still be able to find something (anything at all). After clearly showing him that it was indeed reasonable considering that most metal detectors will find "something" if you turn the discrimination all the way up; you now come in and rekindle the flame.

MTS, no one called you, or implied you're "stupid." I was confused as to whether you were talking about sensitivity or discrimination. You answered my question, you went on to explain that you think your machine is faulty and needs to be tuned. Maximum discrimination is bad, so is oversensitivity..

I'll go first. I'm sorry if you thought I was calling you stupid. I just thought we were learning from each other.

 

[U.K. Brian]

One of the interviews that was post two years back with one of the U.S.'s top designers talked of the "Holy Grail" of metal detecting which would be a detector that could be used at maximum discrimination and still recover most wanted items. It also pointed out why it was impossible.

The reason why you might wish to have a detector that will ignore most targets when set at its highest level would be find out what can be done with such a high level. Some detectors at maximum will ignore all targets to several inches from the coil but have good recovery on targets that are even deeper. A sort of poor man's depth masking.

 

[mts]

...This whole argument started because one poster implied I must be stupid for thinking that I could turn discrimination up all the way and still be able to find something (anything at all). After clearly showing him that it was indeed reasonable considering that most metal detectors will find "something" if you turn the discrimination all the way up; you now come in and rekindle the flame.

MTS, no one called you, or implied you're "stupid." I was confused as to whether you were talking about sensitivity or discrimination. You answered my question, you went on to explain that you think your machine is faulty and needs to be tuned. Maximum discrimination is bad, so is oversensitivity..

I'll go first. I'm sorry if you thought I was calling you stupid. I just thought we were learning from each other.

Terry... No hard feelings. I overreacted to your comment. I apologize.

 

[Terry Soloman]

It's all good!

...This whole argument started because one poster implied I must be stupid for thinking that I could turn discrimination up all the way and still be able to find something (anything at all). After clearly showing him that it was indeed reasonable considering that most metal detectors will find "something" if you turn the discrimination all the way up; you now come in and rekindle the flame.

MTS, no one called you, or implied you're "stupid." I was confused as to whether you were talking about sensitivity or discrimination. You answered my question, you went on to explain that you think your machine is faulty and needs to be tuned. Maximum discrimination is bad, so is oversensitivity..

I'll go first. I'm sorry if you thought I was calling you stupid. I just thought we were learning from each other.

Terry... No hard feelings. I overreacted to your comment. I apologize.

 

[Adrian SS]

I think maybe you blokes should read a bit on how discrimination works rather than keep digging at each other.

So maybe have a read at:
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~jesse/treasure/misc/howdetector.html

 

[Terry Soloman]

I think maybe you blokes should read a bit on how discrimination works rather than keep digging at each other.

So maybe have a read at:
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~jesse/treasure/misc/howdetector.html

Well gosh Adrian that -is- just downright insulting. I am shocked and appalled. Throw another shrimp on the Barbie, and go to your room!

 

[Adrian SS]

Argh well, you have to allow me a bit of leeway on account of I am gettin a bit long in tha tooth.