Metal Detectors = Stone Age!

[ncFloridaBum]

I should be able to go online and purchase a coil with a pole that will connect directly to my iPhone. Instead the only options available are a $200 detector with WWII technology, or a $1000 detector with WWII technology + Crappy digital interface.

The companies that produce detectors won't make the leap because they aren't software based companies, and if the leap is made, they will quickly die off at the hands of software producers. This is an injustice to all of us. My phone packs more than enough processing capacity for a program that could give me a 3D image of the magnetic field being emitted from a coil.

I say we start a petition to show Apple, Microsoft, Sony, and other software companies that it would serve their financial interest to develop this.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

I should be able to go online and purchase a coil with a pole that will connect directly to my iPhone. Instead the only options available are a $200 detector with WWII technology, or a $1000 detector with WWII technology + Crappy digital interface.

The companies that produce detectors won't make the leap because they aren't software based companies, and if the leap is made, they will quickly die off at the hands of software producers. This is an injustice to all of us. My phone packs more than enough processing capacity for a program that could give me a 3D image of the magnetic field being emitted from a coil.

I say we start a petition to show Apple, Microsoft, Sony, and other software companies that it would serve their financial interest to develop this.

The processing power and computer speed evolution we've experienced in the recent decades has nothing to do with metal detector abilities. All the wonderful advancements that you speak of are all a factor of "faster and smaller". None of that will help with detectors. Because we have an impediment that all the signal must pass through: Soil. And as such, there is the laws of physics to deal with. Increased power and speed do not solve that.

And as for seeing an "image", the problem with that is always going to be pixel size. Presently at about 1". Thus all the targets we detect (coins, rings, nails, foil wads, etc...) are... doh.... 1 pixel! And even if/when the day came that this resolution is 100x better (ie.: 1/100") I still don't think it's going to do us much good (to discern the object's ID). I mean, you're *NOT* going to see a magical picture of a ring down there. Instead you'll see a messy blotch of pixels. And the moment you add the slightest tilt to a ring or a coin, you can kiss shape-showing good-bye anyhow.

So it's not any grand conspiracy or lack of budgets or desire. It's the laws of physics. An entirely new method of detection has to come along, not simply "faster and smaller" of what we have now.

 

[Rami.K]

hi guys i need to buy a gold detector effective & not expensive because in my country we have deep treasures !! please advise & thank you in advance !!

 

[Dr. Witty]

As long as everyone else thinks im using WWII tecnology, thats just fine with me. I believe people theses days just want an app for everything and don't want to learn anything new, and that also is fine with me.

 

[Jason in Enid]

I should be able to go online and purchase a coil with a pole that will connect directly to my iPhone. Instead the only options available are a $200 detector with WWII technology, or a $1000 detector with WWII technology + Crappy digital interface.

The companies that produce detectors won't make the leap because they aren't software based companies, and if the leap is made, they will quickly die off at the hands of software producers. This is an injustice to all of us. My phone packs more than enough processing capacity for a program that could give me a 3D image of the magnetic field being emitted from a coil.

I say we start a petition to show Apple, Microsoft, Sony, and other software companies that it would serve their financial interest to develop this.

Spoken like a person who has ZERO knowledge! Maybe you should try learning something before complaining about it. Try taking some Electronic Engineering classes. But we already know you know everything about this since you are here to complain. Why don't you go to work for Whites, or Minelab, or Tesoro. I'm sure they'd love to have someone with your abilities.

 

[Truth]

Millennials smh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ncFloridaBum]

Spoken like a person who has ZERO knowledge! Maybe you should try learning something before complaining about it. Try taking some Electronic Engineering classes. But we already know you know everything about this since you are here to complain. Why don't you go to work for Whites, or Minelab, or Tesoro. I'm sure they'd love to have someone with your abilities.

Good argument. Lots of unbiased technical facts packed in there. Guess I stand corrected. 🤔

 

[ncFloridaBum]

The processing power and computer speed evolution we've experienced in the recent decades has nothing to do with metal detector abilities. All the wonderful advancements that you speak of are all a factor of "faster and smaller". None of that will help with detectors. Because we have an impediment that all the signal must pass through: Soil. And as such, there is the laws of physics to deal with. Increased power and speed do not solve that.

And as for seeing an "image", the problem with that is always going to be pixel size. Presently at about 1". Thus all the targets we detect (coins, rings, nails, foil wads, etc...) are... doh.... 1 pixel! And even if/when the day came that this resolution is 100x better (ie.: 1/100") I still don't think it's going to do us much good (to discern the object's ID). I mean, you're *NOT* going to see a magical picture of a ring down there. Instead you'll see a messy blotch of pixels. And the moment you add the slightest tilt to a ring or a coin, you can kiss shape-showing good-bye anyhow.

So it's not any grand conspiracy or lack of budgets or desire. It's the laws of physics. An entirely new method of detection has to come along, not simply "faster and smaller" of what we have now.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position instead of insulting me like the others who have replied to this thread. I respect you for that. I suppose I my idea may be a little far fetched.

Allow me to rephrase my question. What is it that I pay for when I purchase a higher end detector? From my understanding, The hardware that interprets the magnetic field drives the price more so than the coil. So, let's take a Garret ATX for example. Would it be possible to install software on a smartphone that would drive the coil and interpret the data the same as the control box would on that detector?

As for the 3D image. It seems that multi frequency oscillating fields combined with could solve the pixel problem. And the Gyroscope that already exists in phones could solve the tilt problem.

 

[fistfulladirt]

hi guys i need to buy a gold detector effective & not expensive because in my country we have deep treasures !! please advise & thank you in advance !!

Sigh...I'm afraid you'll just have to get in line with the rest of us.

 

[G.A.P.metal]

FloridaBum Welcome to Tnet
What metal detector do you own now ?
Gary

 

[ncFloridaBum]

FloridaBum Welcome to Tnet
What metal detector do you own now ?
Gary

Thank you. Glad to be here. I currently own a Garret 150. And occasionally I get to borrow the Makro Deephunter from work.

 

[Rick K]

somebody who designs detectors for a living - wrote this a few months ago.

It's funny seeing the guys posting on forums about all the nifty stuff that could be done, like why not just tap into the power of Android and 2.4 gig clock speed multicore processors? Well, there's this little problem: where ya gonna find someone who knows how to design a better metal detector? There are about 5 of those people on the entire planet. The limitation is not the processor or the OS, it's understanding metal detection technology and the problems encountered by users that need solutions. You can't go to school to learn that, you have to be immersed in metal detection for a few years and you need to have that creative streak that leads to doing things that nobody has ever seen done before.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... instead of insulting me like the others who have replied to this thread.....

Jason and skippy are good conversationalists, and good contributors to the forum. I'm sure meant no ill-will or insult.

... I respect you for that...

I can be "in your face" on various passionate md'ing related topics, so glad I didn't do so here to you !

.... The hardware that interprets the magnetic field drives the price more so than the coil. So, let's take a Garret ATX for example. Would it be possible to install software on a smartphone that would drive the coil and interpret the data the same as the control box would on that detector? ... .

I'm not an engineer or scientist, but .... from having come through the ranks of current evolution (40 yrs. now ), and having read in-depth on forums where detector engineers chimed in on this very topic , here's the best I can say:

Everything you're musing presumes that the signals being received, can even contain that amount of information TO BEGIN WITH. And I don't think that premise is true. Instead it's along the lines of this analogy (if I'm not mistaken): You know how fish sonar (used by fishermen) can go A) long distances through the water, and B) be SO accurate that they can even tell the type of fish (via size of the fish or whatever). Right ? Hence if super accurate images are available from vast distances, then why oh why can't we do the same from "just a few inches" on a metal detector ? The answer is, that water presents no impediment to the signals that's being sent out, and bounced back. Versus SOIL, which is a solid object TO BEGIN WITH.

....As for the 3D image. It seems that multi frequency oscillating fields combined with could solve the pixel problem. And the Gyroscope that already exists in phones could solve the tilt problem.

I dunno anything about that. I just know that ... at present, shape showing technology exists. But it is of no use to hobbyists, at 1" pixel size. Perhaps useful if outlining the shape of house foundations or something, but nothing of use for fumble fingers losses. Even for caches it's useless, if you ask me. Because to get a "large blotch of pixels", can be anything from a hubcap, to a jar, to a toaster, etc... How is that any different than a loud "beep" telling you in your audio that "there's a large target there" ? In other words, you're not getting a magical picture of a treasure chest or a jar or whatever.

If you were to look at a horse shoe (which has a very distinct shape, right ?) using the current 1" pixel size technology, you might *think* you could at LEAST discern the tell-tale "horse-shoe" shape, right ? But instead all you have is a messy blotch of pixels . Hence apply that to something very small like a ring. And even once you've increased resolution by 50x or whatever, you're faced with the same "messy blotch of pixels" result.

 

[ncFloridaBum]

somebody who designs detectors for a living - wrote this a few months ago.

It's funny seeing the guys posting on forums about all the nifty stuff that could be done, like why not just tap into the power of Android and 2.4 gig clock speed multicore processors? Well, there's this little problem: where ya gonna find someone who knows how to design a better metal detector? There are about 5 of those people on the entire planet. The limitation is not the processor or the OS, it's understanding metal detection technology and the problems encountered by users that need solutions. You can't go to school to learn that, you have to be immersed in metal detection for a few years and you need to have that creative streak that leads to doing things that nobody has ever seen done before.

Rick, it seems that he makes a good point.

 

[DannyB.]

I think I would opt out if they ever developed a detector that showed the actual buried object. It would be like waking up Christmas Day and none of your packages are wrapped. May as well send someone out to go detecting for you and have them plop the goods down in front of you...

A part of the reason Tesoro has such a strong following.. low tech.

 

[ncFloridaBum]

Jason and skippy are good conversationalists, and good contributors to the forum. I'm sure meant no ill-will or insult.

I can be "in your face" on various passionate md'ing related topics, so glad I didn't do so here to you !



I'm not an engineer or scientist, but .... from having come through the ranks of current evolution (40 yrs. now ), and having read in-depth on forums where detector engineers chimed in on this very topic , here's the best I can say:

Everything you're musing presumes that the signals being received, can even contain that amount of information TO BEGIN WITH. And I don't think that premise is true. Instead it's along the lines of this analogy (if I'm not mistaken): You know how fish sonar (used by fishermen) can go A) long distances through the water, and B) be SO accurate that they can even tell the type of fish (via size of the fish or whatever). Right ? Hence if super accurate images are available from vast distances, then why oh why can't we do the same from "just a few inches" on a metal detector ? The answer is, that water presents no impediment to the signals that's being sent out, and bounced back. Versus SOIL, which is a solid object TO BEGIN WITH.



I dunno anything about that. I just know that ... at present, shape showing technology exists. But it is of no use to hobbyists, at 1" pixel size. Perhaps useful if outlining the shape of house foundations or something, but nothing of use for fumble fingers losses. Even for caches it's useless, if you ask me. Because to get a "large blotch of pixels", can be anything from a hubcap, to a jar, to a toaster, etc... How is that any different than a loud "beep" telling you in your audio that "there's a large target there" ? In other words, you're not getting a magical picture of a treasure chest or a jar or whatever.

If you were to look at a horse shoe (which has a very distinct shape, right ?) using the current 1" pixel size technology, you might *think* you could at LEAST discern the tell-tale "horse-shoe" shape, right ? But instead all you have is a messy blotch of pixels . Hence apply that to something very small like a ring. And even once you've increased resolution by 50x or whatever, you're faced with the same "messy blotch of pixels" result.

Ok, I believe we are coming closer to being on the same page. So your saying that the field disturbance doesn't offer enough info to be interpreted much past being a field disturbance. It would be like the equivalent of trying to record video with a disposable film camera.

So I'm advocating for the implementation of technology that doesn't exist yet.

I do believe advanced pixelation is possible tho, and can be utilized in an efficient way. It's just a matter of getting enough frequencies through the ground to create enough sin waves back for a computer to be able to interpret and transfer into an discernible image.

 

[ncFloridaBum]

I think I would opt out if they ever developed a detector that showed the actual buried object. It would be like waking up Christmas Day and none of your packages are wrapped. May as well send someone out to go detecting for you and have them plop the goods down in front of you...

A part of the reason Tesoro has such a strong following.. low tech.

Very good analogy sir.

 

[ncFloridaBum]

If you really believe that, then you should make a small investment in some development, and produce it yourself. I strongly suspect, though, that you'll discover that the tech knowledge you think you have ...isn't what you think you have. Working at an engineering company with 10 years of software and firmware QA under my belt, has taught me a thing or two about what our computers can and cannot do, easily and cheaply, anyway.

Cheers!

I don't have the funds to invest. [emoji17]

I think I will start experimenting. You may very well be right, and I'll have to learn the hard way. I guess that's just my nature tho.

 

[ncFloridaBum]

What a great question...

Well, first off, you're paying a premium for the high end stuff... no doubt. But that's because the volume is low, and Development/research costs are higher to squeeze out the extra 10-20% capability. It's not all "parts," and because the equipment doesn't come with consumables, other than the batteries, once the hardware purchase is made, that's pretty much IT for the company making the product. The reason your iPhone costs so little in comparison, is because it's not uncommon for the makers of such products to sell them at cost, or at a loss, knowing they'll make up the difference in application purchases, subscriptions, etc.

Take a gaming console, for example. The retailer makes money on the hardware, but the maker LOSES money. They make it up in sales of licensing, etc.

So... what do you get in a high end detector? Usually features... Features like water proofing, dual frequency technology, speed of signal (allowing for target separation), and graphic outputs. Do those really cost $1000 more? Nope. But there's also no further revenue stream... So if you want the higher end stuff, you pay more, simply because the market is smaller, and they have to recoup their costs, pay for the next research, all while paying their current support staffing.

It's a tight business, for sure.

That being said, can you find stuff with the ACE150, you're using? ABSOLUTELY... But having gone through and ACE250, then a 350, then an AT Pro, I can tell you EVERY step of the way, the ability to weed out trash, and spend more time digging decent signals went UP. For some folks, it's about depth, too. or environment (such as salt-water). Or waterproofing.

Eventually, though, you'll find a happy place. If you only ever intend to dig everything out of tot-lots only, the ACE 150 is a great tool. If you want to go to a heavily trash-infested park, and don't want to dig every signal, just because it's a bell-tone, you'll need something that is higher end.

3D targeting is not an easy problem, either. Think about the cost of the equipment to do a 3D ultrasound. And that uses SONICS... If you're talking about induction, it's a whole different technology. Mineralization, dirt, and targets make it out of the reach of current technology.

Cheers!

Cheers!

-Jerry

Thank you for the explanation. I had not taken much of that into consideration.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....So I'm advocating for the implementation of technology that doesn't exist yet......

That's the way I see it. For example , if you look at the vast leaps of improvement in the ~20 yrs. of 1965 to 1985, you see that .... every few years, something came along that rendered machines, that were a mere few years old, became dinosaurs. Some was ... yes ... a function of "faster and smaller". But then there comes a point of diminishing returns. The much bigger steps (as I recall it) was the DIFFERENCE IN METHOD.

It went from BFO, to TR, to VLF all-metal, to VLF disc. And then pulse came into popular usage (as I recall it) in the mid 1980s . And in each of those cases/steps, its an all new type of detection method. NOT a function of "faster and smaller". So too does our current plight seem to be, that simply improving on existing platforms has reached its point of diminishing returns (ie.: bumped into the laws of physics).

I'm not a scientist or engineer. But this is just the way I recall the evolution, and from what I gather reading from engineer types on this subject.