I watched the video.
Couple things.
I have recovered a lot of nonferrous in medium minerlized ground using round and elliptical HF coils.
About half of the recovered targets when in the plug after removal, Deus would give no signal on target or give an iron tone.
No iron tonally noted in the plugs either.
Next, 28.8khz likely will yield signals on deeper targets in that particualr soil. Reactivity levels of 3 or 4 may be required too.
Silencer setting of -1 a must for best possible performance depth wise.
Case in point here, realizing you were using roun HF coil in video.
In 4 bars indicated F75 fisher detector soil, elliptical HF coil will strike a 10" deep clad dime using 28.8khz.
If a user opts to run 14.4khz, no deal for a signal on clad dime.
I have compared signals using each HF coil in medium minerlized ground.
Some times I find a find using 14.4khz, sometimes 28.8khz.
But compared signals using each coil using both 14.4khz and 28.8 kHz.
My results were when nonferrous object (undisturbed) was swept from direction fo best signal achieved, 28.8khz was either a tie or slightly ahead of 14.4khz,
If I started turning on the find rotating when sweeping, high percentage ot time, 28.8khz utilization gave more signal as more angle when rotating.
Using LF Deus coils, based on my useage and reviewing others findings when hunting/testing in higher mineralized soil for depth, using highest freq of approx 18khz yeilded best relsuts for depth.
Better depth but still compromised vs milder soil.
Cheers.
Congrats on your finds.
First: Thanks for the feedback and congrats.
Second: As I said above, the video was not meant to be an exhaustive test demonstration, simply illustrative for those who have not hunted in that kind of soil before to see how drastically depth on a known target is affected by the mineralization. It was also meant to illustrate that a disc type tones program will be much less effective than all metal gold field under these circumstances. I have GF set up in several modes on my remote (GF at 14.4 k with and without IAR, GF at 28.8 with and without IAR). For depth for ALL conductivities I split the difference and do my general searching at 14.4 to start, which through trial and error works for me most of the time. That was the program I was using to find the Parrot shell in the last hunt at 1.5 feet. I agree with you, though, that you have to probably see what is working best in the particular site, so I run some plug tests with minie balls and set my frequency and reactivities accordingly.
Third: In case you missed it (I explained it in an earlier post), I have hunted that particular area extensively for the past two years with the LF coils (9/11") and have not seen much difference between the two other than ground coverage for the 11". I used the 9" HF for two hunts there this year and this last hunt I also gave the elliptical a try. When it is all said and done, the 9" HF has yielded the best performance for the following reasons (as stated in previous posts):
(1) the HF coil depth is only marginally hampered compared to the the lf coils because the only effective difference in frequency is 8 khz vs. 13-14 khz, I can live with that (4 khz is unusable here because TX power = 3 is locked in). I admittedly did not run at 18 khz much on the LF's and there might be something to that, so I might try to run some A/B testing next time around. Though, again, I think the higher frequency will help with mid-conductors, but have the opposite affect on high conductors.
(2) the HF coil runs quieter than the LF coils, especially in the presence of the EMI created by the proliferation of PI machines and overhead, unshielded power lines. This has a greater effect on performance than the very minor (if any) depth penalty I get for running at 14.4 khz.
(3) running the HF coil, affords the opportunity to run at 28.8 khz when appropriate or when I want to focus in solely on mid-conductive targets as discussed above.
Fourth: Running Silencer at 0 made no difference (I tried both 0 and -1) in depth at cut down a little on the ferrous ground noise from the mineralization in my experience. Reactivity setting was more crucial when it came to being able to highlight the target in gold field. Too low (e.g., 1 or 2) and you would get a long buzz as you swept over the target, sometimes indistinguishable from ground noise and possibly obscuring adjacent targets. Too high (4+) and you lose a lot of depth because the buzz really breaks up. The sweet spot was 2.5 to 3 for me under these conditions.
Thanks again for the feedback. Definitely some things to think about there.
Wanted to add another thought. The conditions are so variable and extreme that minor tweaks here and there can admittedly make a huge difference (e.g., going from Reactivity 2.5 to 2 can make drown out a target), conversely seemingly significant changes to settings may only have minor to no effect (changing frequency from 14.4 to 28.8 khz). Bottom line is, I am not really going to worry that much about -1 or 0 on silencer or whether or not I am running 14 khz or 18 khz because in the end it is just one big guessing game as to what tweak is going to dial you in, there are so many variables that absolute statements about specific settings is not productive. About the only things I have been able to nail down there are that (1) I prefer the 9" hf coil and (2) I prefer to search using the Gold Field program and will interrogate a possible target with the unmasker or with IAR.
