For Anyone Who Said You Cant Test Metal Detectors........................

[DeepThought]

For Anyone Who Said You Can't Test Metal Detectors........................

I found this by accident. It's a little on the technical side but tracks with past discussions. Too bad they don't know they can't do this..... <S>




http://www.gichd.org/fileadmin/pdf/LIMA/STEMD_Interim_Croatia_final.pdf

http://mail.moneti.org/e107_files/public/stemd_interim_lab.pdf

GICHD: Systematic test and evaluation of metal detectors - STEMD.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[BryanM362]

Sorry, but no way I'm reading all of that. Can you summarize?

I like your avatar! It's a shame we lost that (Saturn 5) capability!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

deep thought. I remember the thread well. Go back to that thread and you will see that I acknowledged, that .... SURE ! You CAN make such flowchart consumer review comparisons (like comparing MPG in cars, or which is the best DVD player to buy, etc....). So too, did I say in that thread, that someone could certainly (and probably already has as your current link shows) do air tests to show "how deep a quarter is detected" (and even with criteria of what "heard" is meant to be, blah blah). I acknowledge, for example, that the military no doubt would have to have such comparisons (or at least spec's when they get ready to go buy) mine detectors, for instance.

So the question is not whether a chart like this could be done or not. And yes, it sounds so wonderful to potential buyers doesn't it? The prospective buyer can merely go to the chart , see which one goes "deepest", see which one "handles ground best", see which one "has the most interchangeable coils", see which one "has the best TID at depth" and so forth. Right? Ah so wonderful. Sure.

So the fact of whether such chart could be made, is not in question. The question is: Is it useful in actual field conditions? The answer is "no".

But alas, we're all wasting our time. Go back to that old thread, and re-read what I posted. The examples I gave. I went to great lengths to show you, and as you/we can see here, it was all to no avail. I give up.

 

[Terry Soloman]

Basically, it's all khrap. There are three "classes" of metal detecting: Beginner $160-$400; Intermediate $450-$900 Advanced $1000 - $6000. Different machines for different applications and terrains/soils/waters. Metal detectors are like golf clubs.. One is not enough.

 

[cudamark]

I love the analogy Terry! Sure, you could putt with a 2 iron, but is that the best tool for the job?? Probably not.....That's why you have a putter.

 

[DeepThought]

Tom - I came across this while searching for something else, and given our sporty exchange, decided to present it face value. Whether than be comic relief or informative value I leave up to the reader. I decided there was no value in debating performance over a few hundred dollars or more MD. I can go buy 2 or 3 different types and call it a day, with little difference between them. It's more a matter of engineers loving to engineering, I guess

 

[DeepThought]

Basically, it's all khrap. There are three "classes" of metal detecting: Beginner $160-$400; Intermediate $450-$900 Advanced $1000 - $6000. Different machines for different applications and terrains/soils/waters. Metal detectors are like golf clubs.. One is not enough.

Terry - I agree in cost as the independent variable (CAIV) here. But from a technical perspective, you can contact these folks as the below

Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining
7bis, avenue de la Paix
P.O. Box 1300
CH-1211 Geneva 1
Phone | +41 22 906 16 60
Fax | +41 22 906 16 90

 

[atomicscott]

In reality, the only way to know if one detector is better than another for your specific type of hunting would be to actually try them back to back in the field. There are just too many variables involved with actual hunting conditions.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

In reality, the only way to know if one detector is better than another for your specific type of hunting would be to actually try them back to back in the field. There are just too many variables involved with actual hunting conditions.

I'll never forget back in 1980, they had ripped out the sidewalks in our oldtown district. And 1980 was when detector evolution, over the previous 5 or 7 years, had taken LIGHT-YEARS in developmental leaps. There was TR disc (mid '70s), then came motion disc (later '70s), and so forth. All of the sudden you could discriminate, and cancel the ground minerals, and getting TWICE the depth at the same time, when compared to earlier '70s machines. Wohoo. And "consumer review charts" like the OP dreams of, would have certainly shown proof positive of the great evolutionary leaps (and superior better machines then coming out on the market).

However, as we're all out there swinging our "latest great chart-busting" machines (6000d's, red-barons, VLF/TRs, etc...) a lone fellow came down the street of sidewalk tearouts swinging a lowly humble Compass 77b. All metal TR machine, with no disc (other than inherent ability to null on nails), and no ability to handle minerals, lacked depth compared to new machines, etc... A few of us turned up our noses, rolled our eyes smuggly, knowing we had the latest greatest machines. Well, the guy kicked everyone's b*tt! He spanked us 5 to 1 on coin finds from that sidewalk tearout.

I remember him trying to explain to me, that it was because his 77b "doesn't see the nails" (or something to that effect). This made utterly no sense to me, at the time. Because SO TOO did our 6000ds, and VLF/TR's not "see nails" either. So what? It wasn't till years later, that I began to understand the difference between merely disc'ing out ("not hearing" or whatever) nails, versus SEEING THROUGH nails. Sure the guy had no other ability to discern conductors. Sure he probably peaked out at a mere 4" depth. But when you're working sidewalk tearout demolitions, there are no tabs, foil, etc... And depth is a non-issue. It's all about seeing through a carpet of nails to get conductors.

No consumer review charts could have exactly spelled out such nuances, ground types, hunt objectives, etc... In fact, that 77b would have scored at the BOTTOM of any such consumer review chart, had one been made at that time.