1. I have frequently stated in my posts that there are very few absolutes regarding this hobby, therefore, I don't think I would ever be so presumptuous as to call another T-NET member "wrong" if I disagreed with their position. I think a key attribute of the T-NET community is that members generally interact with each other with the utmost respect, setting aside some good-natured ribbing from time to time. But I think we are all here to learn from each other, keep an open mind, and realize that we may come at these technical discussions from different angles and perspectives. That enables healthy debate and discussion, which, I think is the point. Slamming the door shut with "you are wrong" type statements I think tends to stifle that healthy debate. Fortunately, perhaps to my detriment, I am not a shrinking violet when told I am "wrong" so I will keep the debate alive, healthy, and vibrant. Getting on with it...
2. Your argument made me smile because it is just semantics that proves, in reality, that "technically" we are actually both right. For an object of fixed sized and composition such as a penny, then a fixed sensitivity setting will not be able to detect a penny beyond a certain depth. A penny is a penny at 1, 5, and 10" and your sensitivity adjustment will certainly affect your ability to detect (from a signal strength standpoint) that same penny at 10" if sensitivity were set at 75 vs. 95 (granted the effect is not linear) all other things being equal. While objects do not appreciably change size in the ground unless damaged (say by a plow blade or digging tool) or through corrosion/decay, they do tend to sink over time or can be plowed up back near the surface. So sensitivity can certainly affect your ability to detect said object depending on its depth. But if you DO want to get technical about it, it is true that sensitivity only affects the signal strength of a target of fixed size and composition (which correct me if I am wrong, pretty much describes all targets) at a given depth. That means that given a large target and smaller target of the same composition at the same depth, you would have to increase sensitivity to get the same signal strength reading on the Deus for the smaller target as you were getting for the larger target at the lower sensitivity setting, all other things being equal. Semantics, in that it depends on what example you choose to use to make your point.
Higher sensitivity enables:
Improving the signal strength of a fixed sized and composition/conductivity target as that target is positioned deeper under the same ground conditions. ("Sensitivity is most certainly for depth" - my quote)
Improving the signal strength of a smaller target vs. a larger target (of roughly the same conductivity) at the same depth.
("Sensitivity is for small items not technically for depth. The higher the sensitivity the more sensitive to smaller objects" - your quote)
So who is right and wrong, here since both statements are true?
3. As a DEUS enthusiast, I presume you own or have read Andy Sabisch handbook on the Deus. Whether you have or haven't, I recommend it highly. Pages 30 and 31 have a great discussion of the correlation between sensitivity, signal strength, and depth. Page 32 has a great explanation of the effects of selecting the various frequency settings and offsets and how "...higher frequencies are better suited for detecting smaller, low-to-medium conductive targets..." Hence my statement regarding using higher frequencies to improve detectability of smaller objects. Makes sense from a pure physics standpoint also when you think about the smaller wavelength of the higher frequency signals and how it can improve how the detector "resolves" those smaller objects.
4. Based on the above, as you know being a DEUS enthusiast, it also not just about signal strength but also tones (or vdi reading) and that is how target conductivity comes into play and it's effects on detectablity.
So a low conductive small target will sound different than a high conductive small target at the same depth given the same sensitivity setting and that may also affect signal strength but the tonality may affect "detectablity" from the perspective of the detectorist. Bottom line is as you start bringing in all the variables associated with the various adjustable detector settings and the variables associated with the environmental conditions and target types, it gets really complicated.
So am I wrong or do you just disagree (or neither)?
Thanks.
BTW checked out your videos and as a central VA relic hunter myself, enjoyed your video and finds. Watch out for that dreaded manual Ground Balance saboteur! Lol. Would love to road trip to your neck of the woods for some Western Campaign relic hunting and would love to show you some great spots out my way should you ever make it out to VA. Just PM me if interested.
