Park Question

[charlives]

I've mentioned in other threads that I'm now hunting deep silver/coins in 5kHz and using multi only to double check suspected bottle caps. Is this a reasonable plan? 5kHz seems to hit harder and deeper than multi BUT you have to double check bottle caps.
Is anyone else primarily using 5kHz?
Thanks!
PS I also disc out 19 and under...and using recover 2 on the 600.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[KREQ600]

Not sure you want to discriminate everything under 19. Nickels on my EQ 600 hit at a solid 13. Gold can hit at 11 and 12. May want to at least un-notch these VDI numbers if nothing els

 

[charlives]

I agree KREQ600... but I'm looking for high conductors. I don't want to dig nickels at these sites. One time I used field2 multi and left 12,13,14 open as well as 20+...I dug 20 nickels (zero buffs)in 90 min. I'll go back later and hunt for low conductors.
That reminds me of another question....when I do start hunting nickels what would be better multi park/field 2 or 15kHz?

 

[SanMan]

I've mentioned in other threads that I'm now hunting deep silver/coins in 5kHz and using multi only to double check suspected bottle caps. Is this a reasonable plan? 5kHz seems to hit harder and deeper than multi BUT you have to double check bottle caps.
Is anyone else primarily using 5kHz?
Thanks!
PS I also disc out 19 and under...and using recover 2 on the 600.

I have a list of which frequencies favor which metals.

I'm not at the shop, but I'll come back and post it here.

"I do remember this, 2.5KHz was the sweet spot for silver"

Back in the day Garrett built a 2KHz machine. It gained a strong reputation as a "Silver Magnet"
(Of course there also was more silver coin in use as well)

The machine was an early "DeepSeeker Type", came with an orange "Co-Axial" Coil.
The later DeepSeeker had a white CO-Axial coil and ran at around 5KHz.

2Khz_1 Garrett DS Coil https://www.flickr.com/photos/18796746@N05/

The 5KHz DeepSeeker also held a reputation for finding silver.


Note:
If you're keeping score,.......the Fisher 1280X is 2.5KHz.

It's a known silver magnet.

 

[Jason in Enid]

From a single frequency perspective, the lower the freq, the better it does on silver. The higher the freq, the better it does on gold (and foil). Now for a lot of detectors, the isnt much REAL change by changing the freq used. The difference is mostly academic, but you cant argue that it could help with those fringe targets. As for whether you are getting better results with 5k versus multi, your results would be the outlier. Pretty much everyone has better results from the multi-freq mode because it has better inherent soil mitigation, better target/iron separation and its already using a low frequency in its pattern.

 

[KREQ600]

Gotcha charlives on hunting silver and not just coins in general at your site. Good luck on your hunts.

 

[Iron Buzz]

Most bottle caps ring up at around 12-13 in multi.. well within your discrimination range.

 

[Iron Buzz]

I have a list of which frequencies favor which metals.

I'm not at the shop, but I'll come back and post it here.

"I do remember this, 2.5KHz was the sweet spot for silver"

Back in the day Garrett built a 2KHz machine. It gained a strong reputation as a "Silver Magnet"
(Of course there also was more silver coin in use as well)

The machine was an early "DeepSeeker Type", came with an orange "Co-Axial" Coil.
The later DeepSeeker had a white CO-Axial coil and ran at around 5KHz.

2Khz_1 Garrett DS Coil https://www.flickr.com/photos/18796746@N05/

The 5KHz DeepSeeker also held a reputation for finding silver.


Note:
If you're keeping score,.......the Fisher 1280X is 2.5KHz.

It's a known silver magnet.

What was considered "deep" in those days? I seem to remember most people just popping coins out from beneath the sod with a screwdriver.

 

[Jason in Enid]

What was considered "deep" in those days? I seem to remember most people just popping coins out from beneath the sod with a screwdriver.

EXACTLY!

I used to run a garrett MH7. The king hunter of its day. I made my own "hole hog" tool for coin retrieval. It was 6 inches deep and I almost never had a target deeper. The day I got my first Minelab, I had to stop using the hole-hog because I was constantly digging deeper than it could go.

This is why today, we are constantly trying to eek out the last bit of depth or target separation. The old machines sucked at both, and the easy targets are long gone.

 

[charlives]

Thanks guys,
Yeah Jason, this answers my question- "Pretty much everyone has better results from the multi-freq mode because it has better inherent soil mitigation, better target/iron separation and its already using a low frequency in its pattern." Yep, multi separation is better, and VDI is better, and like I said can tell bottle caps from coins...but 5KHz many times hits deep silver/copper coins where multi is silent. I guess it's just been aberrations if what you say is correct.
Iron Buzz, yeah...but the problematic caps are the rusted ones which show up in the 30s. Most are disced out but the remainder gets double checked in multi which covers almost all of them.

 

[SanMan]

I have a list of which frequencies favor which metals.

I'm not at the shop, but I'll come back and post it here.

"I do remember this, 2.5KHz was the sweet spot for silver"

Back in the day Garrett built a 2KHz machine. It gained a strong reputation as a "Silver Magnet"
(Of course there also was more silver coin in use as well)

The machine was an early "DeepSeeker Type", came with an orange "Co-Axial" Coil.
The later DeepSeeker had a white CO-Axial coil and ran at around 5KHz.



The 5KHz DeepSeeker also held a reputation for finding silver.


Note:
If you're keeping score,.......the Fisher 1280X is 2.5KHz.

It's a known silver magnet.

 

[Jason in Enid]

Yes, but those would be air testing results. Important information, but not complete information. Next, you have to consider ground minerals which exist everywhere in some amount. I dont argue the results in the list you posted just the real-world application. The ground minerals can do 2 different things. It can become energized and return a signal which must be cancelled out (losing depth), or it can silently absorb the signal, and still reduce depth. SO, if your ground is extremely low in mineralization, I can see having an advantage with the lowest freq possible. For the majority who have more minerals to deal with, I dont think they would see an advantage, and probably a loss in depth.

 

[Iron Buzz]

Yes, but those would be air testing results. Important information, but not complete information. Next, you have to consider ground minerals which exist everywhere in some amount. I dont argue the results in the list you posted just the real-world application. The ground minerals can do 2 different things. It can become energized and return a signal which must be cancelled out (losing depth), or it can silently absorb the signal, and still reduce depth. SO, if your ground is extremely low in mineralization, I can see having an advantage with the lowest freq possible. For the majority who have more minerals to deal with, I dont think they would see an advantage, and probably a loss in depth.

I assume you are referring to Sanman's post, in which case, he is simply talking about which frequencies favor which metals. The way I understand it, at least, he isn't saying anything about depth, although he did not define what he means by "best"... deepest, loudest... what?

However, there is a direct correlation between frequency and depth. Lower frequencies travel further, whether its the bass from that kid's trunk woofer in the car next to you at the stoplight, or a metal detector. High frequencies die out much quicker (shallower).

What concerns me most about those findings in his post is that iron and silver both ring up "best". That's fine in a place with low iron mineralization in the soil and few nails and other iron junk, but in other cases, running a low frequency to look for silver among iron may not be the best idea.

 

[Jason in Enid]

I assume you are referring to Sanman's post, in which case, he is simply talking about which frequencies favor which metals. The way I understand it, at least, he isn't saying anything about depth.

Well, yes.... the standard accepted forums procedure is that you are referencing either the original post or the last post made unless you specifically quote another poster you are replying to.

With that out of the way, I stated exactly what you just did, and then I explained why there is more to metal detecting real world targets than JUST one factor.

 

[Toecutter]

Most of my Indian head cents ring up 19, wheats will hit higher 24 to 26....

 

[charlives]

Most of my Indian head cents ring up 19, wheats will hit higher 24 to 26....

Thanks, Toecutter! Maybe because your IHs are deeper and/or pre 1864?
Yes Jason...I guess my soil is kind enough that I can go deeper in 5kHz than multi?
"running a low frequency to look for silver among iron may not be the best idea"...agreed Iron Buzz...whenever I get near places where iron shows up I switch to multi...and switch to 3 response (nox 600). When running 5kHz I always use 2 response.
Thanks, guys!

 

[charlives]

San man, I'm still studying what you posted It takes me time...thanks!

 

[SanMan]

Yes, but those would be air testing results. Important information, but not complete information. Next, you have to consider ground minerals which exist everywhere in some amount. I dont argue the results in the list you posted just the real-world application. The ground minerals can do 2 different things. It can become energized and return a signal which must be cancelled out (losing depth), or it can silently absorb the signal, and still reduce depth. SO, if your ground is extremely low in mineralization, I can see having an advantage with the lowest freq possible. For the majority who have more minerals to deal with, I dont think they would see an advantage, and probably a loss in depth.

Ok, just hold on a minute.

That text, there at the top.

Ir reflects the work, testing, and evaluation, of "George Paine".

May as well call him "King George" for all what he has brought to fore.

Yes, but those would be air testing results

The second paragraph clearly reads:

"Through rigorous testing procedures and scientific analysis",..........

I don't read that as "air testing".

You can be assured that the typical variables were part of the testing.

*

That top information in text was the information I said I would come back and post.
That 2nd document, in hand writing, I had filed in the same place.

I'm not 100% sure who's handwriting it's in. I'll look at my notes and see what I can.

It's either, George Paine, Dave Johnson, Allen Cannon, someone like that.

Iron Buzzpost

I assume you are referring to Sanman's post, in which case, he is simply talking about which frequencies favor which metals. The way I understand it, at least, he isn't saying anything about depth, although he did not define what he means by "best"... deepest, loudest... what?

I believe it could have been just straight up signal strength.
(a good solid/loud signal at said distance)

However, there is a direct correlation between frequency and depth. Lower frequencies travel further, whether its the bass from that kid's trunk woofer in the car next to you at the stoplight, or a metal detector. High frequencies die out much quicker (shallower).

100% correct

What Mr. Iron may, or may not know, is how "destructive" low frequency waves can be.

Like the "ventilator incident" in France.
Or when soldiers "march" across a bridge, instead of "break up the step".

What concerns me most about those findings in his post is that iron and silver both ring up "best". That's fine in a place with low iron mineralization in the soil and few nails and other iron junk, but in other cases, running a low frequency to look for silver among iron may not be the best idea.

Those two metals can be set apart by their "conductivity".
There are a few good machines that do that real well.

Silver would stand out like a sore thumb.

 

[SanMan]

San man, I'm still studying what you posted It takes me time...thanks!

It's good "Basic" information.

It is from the development years of metal detector design and engineering.

Still holds true?

To some extent yes, very much so,.......
But, with today's very advanced circuitry, a designer can do nearly anything.

 

[Jason in Enid]

Ok, just hold on a minute.

That text, there at the top.

Ir reflects the work, testing, and evaluation, of "George Paine".

May as well call him "King George" for all what he has brought to fore.



The second paragraph clearly reads:


I don't read that as "air testing".

You can be assured that the typical variables were part of the testing.

*

Perhaps you are right, as I dont know the exact source of the information posted, but it sounds like you dont either. We are both making assumptions. Since there is no information about the media the signal is passing through we can only guess. There is also no indication of detection distance for each scenario. Is it bad = 4" good = 8 and best = 12"?? Or is it bad = 9.45, good = 9.67 and best = 9.70?

The only thing we can truly KNOW is what has been long established fact; low freq is better for high conductors like silver, and high freq is better for log conductors like gold