Depth Tests

[Kobalt]

All,

I have been trying to obtain a copy of Cor Wielenga's 73 metal detectors but I can't seem to find it anywhere on the web. All of the emails he used to be at were dead and web sites no longer exist.

The original web sites were http://home.wanadoo.nl/corholland/main.html and http://home.wanadoo.nl/corholland/.

I would love information on any large scale depth tests, particularly ones done in test gardens.

Thanks.

PS I am aware of the very interesting one here http://www.metaldetection.net/english/Metal_detector-tests.htm by Alain Ch?tillon.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Sandman]

I don't know of how to find this site. However it is impossible to have an accurate test due to many variables, like minerazition, ground moisture, weather activity, electromagnetic interference, gain, and a few others including the operators hearing.

 

[Kobalt]

Sandman,

Although I agree there is much, much more to detectors than depth, I don't know if I agree entirely with the uselessness of depth tests. I have had great success when testing multiple detectors on the same test garden. These tests give a great idea of not only depth but also of how well targets are detected under difficult circumstances e.g. silver wrapped in aluminum foil, coins on edge, hot rock discrimination, etc.

Maybe using depth test is inappropriate since depth tests are a subset of a full test garden workup. However, since no publication anywhere does head to head detector tests, we users are stuck doing our own and scrapping information together where we can get it.

As for why I am asking for the test here, I was hoping someone had right clicked and saved the pages from the site and had them somewhere on their hard drive.

Thanks for your answer.

K

 

[U.K. Brian]

His e-mail address was corholland@freeler.nl
You could drop him a line if its still active though I haven't seen a post by him in ages.
I can't see why people don't like this type of test as there are few variables because most of the tests have used the same target, in the same soil, on the same day. So if one machine is 50% deeper than another there's a fair chance that the same applies in the real world.

 

[petersra]

This is not a complete test of all units out there but, it did provide me with useful information, even though I did not currently purchase one of the deeper sensing units. http://jimyce.home.netcom.com/test.html

 

[Michigan Badger]

This is not a complete test of all units out there but, it did provide me with useful information, even though I did not currently purchase one of the deeper sensing units. http://jimyce.home.netcom.com/test.html

I'd wonder about his depths.

I owned an Excalibur 1000 with 10 inch coil and 10 inches was the best I could get on a US quarter with any setting. There's no way an Excal can get the depth he claims.

Minelabs get very excellent depth but it appears this fellow is overdoing it a bit (a lot).

 

[Kobalt]

Wet sand can be better than air tests for increasing depth.
I know whenever I go detecting after it rains, I improve my depth
by 25-30% in a snap. Unmineralized sand is the perfect, unvarying
medium. So "unnatural" depths wouldn't surprise me there.

As for Cor's emails, I tried half a dozen attributed to him but all were
defunct. The hunt goes on for this elusive test.

K