POLL: Can Some Detectors Match Air Test Distance In Ground?

[Michigan Badger]

Recently I read that a certain brand VLF detector gets the same (or nearly the same) depth in ground as it does in an air test.

I've read this same thing about other models.

This got me to wondering if this is common, rare, or impossible.

What do you say?

Do tell all.

Badger

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Ocean7]

Some detectors get more depth than they do in an air test.
Minelab is a perfect example. I think my Garrett VLF detector came pretty close to matching air tests but I'm not a great believer in air tests meaning anything in particular.

 

[Merf]

 

[Michigan Badger]

I totally agree!

Badger

 

[dahut]

Overall, not likely. Maybe here or there, this time or that. But I wouldnt ban k on it nor belabor it excessively. Here are a few comments excerted from elsewhere on the matter:

"my digger is marked in inches. When I dig something you can rest assured that I'm telling you what it says - and that it's probably erroneous in some way. There are plenty of variables that sneak in, no matter how hard you try to be accurate. I dug a quarter at 10" last season with my Golden. I measured it - and I'm sure it was only close.

All this "Nth " degree over depth is a lot of foo-foo, anyway... that's foo-foo as in a big fat waste of energy. You get close, that's about it. Don't worry over it, much of it is hype, or only repeatable in a lab. Besides, there's some worse news for you to worry over _ _ _ _ _ _ _

You are going to miss something, somewhere, sometime. Guaranteed.
Worse yet, you undoubtedly have already. Guaranteed

The size of your detectors field at the deepest point useful to it's circuitry is less than an inch. Rest assured you are NOT scanning well enough to overlap that. This means that even if your detector WILL make it 8" vertically, you stand an excellent chance of missing targets in the horizontal.

But we all want to know we are using the best gear we can get, right? That's why we listen to what others say. May I make a few suggestions that might help here? Use them as you see fit.

First, enjoy yourself, instead of bothering over what you may be missing.
Next, save enough money to get a quality instrument, then save 100$ more for an upgrade. This way, you'll own a unit that offers plenty of punch when you go afield. That's "owned," as in no interest/no loans and with peace of mind, which is another sort of treasure all it's own.
(That is Charles Garrett's advice, by the way, given regardless whether you purchase one of his instruments or not. He's one guy who knows what he's talking about).

Finally, take a moment to read my signature line and then get busy, enjoy your health in the fresh air and your life in this great country..."

 

[Michigan Badger]

Here's how to test depth...

See Georgi's (Nexus) website for pictures on how to do a depth test that means something.

http://www.nexusdetectors.com/Testspagecontinue1.html

 

[SHERMANVILLE ILLINOIS]

No.

 

[Born2Dtect]

I find the only thing I get from an air test is target ID numbers (Minelab Explorer II).

Ed D.

 

[Michigan Badger]

I find the only thing I get from an air test is target ID numbers (Minelab Explorer II).

Ed D.

I know what you mean, Ed. I've tested all my machines and some that got the best air distance, got the worst depth.

I also noticed that some detectors get better in ground depth than some that air test much better.

One would think the detector with the greatest air distance test would get the greatest depth.

I own a certain brand detector which I won't name. It works smooth as silk in air tests but outside over dirt it becomes very unstable and gets poor depth.

 

[Blackjack77]

MB, great to have Ya back!!
You were gone?? Weren't you??
Depth?! Air tests??!!
To be totally PC-- mine does and it
doesn't!!
HH

 

[Michigan Badger]

MB, great to have Ya back!!
You were gone?? Weren't you??
Depth?! Air tests??!!
To be totally PC-- mine does and it
doesn't!!
HH

Some people think I'm still gone.

 

[Merf]

My favorite way to measure depth is to guess as close as I can the depth of the hole and then add 2 inches.
I have found some very deep coins this way.
Is it wrong to do this?

 

[Michigan Badger]

My favorite way to measure depth is to guess as close as I can the depth of the hole and then add 2 inches.
I have found some very deep coins this way.
Is it wrong to do this?

I don't think it's really really wrong...just sorta wrong.

I mean, like nobody's goin ta hell for it.

Try to think of it as being a real treasure hunter.

Hope this helps

http://www.members.shaw.ca/nanafaith/bored.htm

 

[Merf]

From Badger ---http://www.members.shaw.ca/nanafaith/bored.htm

A Hoot

 

[dahut]

I checked out Georgi's site. workable method, fer sure. I noticed that no matter what the air tests or other optimistic projections said, REAL depth was something less

 

[COUNTRY GIRL]

Gosh Badger I missed you! Too funny, monkey or martini? Air test for sound? Ground test for depth? Ya think? Welcome back!

 

[Michigan Badger]

I checked out Georgi's site. workable method, fer sure. I noticed that no matter what the air tests or other optimistic projections said, REAL depth was something less

Yes, it too has been my experience that "real depth is something less."

I shall never forget my first mega expensive detector purchase. I had been told how it could detect silver dimes at 12 inches, etc. I set it up and headed for the coin garden with "great expectations" only to return back to the house very disillusioned and disappointed. That "stinkin piece O crap" couldn't detect a buried dime at 5 inches! That experience while costly did educate me it terms of the difference between the real world of detecting and the one in which we wish we were living.

It's a mighty good thing that the vast majority of actual finds are relatively shallow.

Badger

 

[Michigan Badger]

Gosh Badger I missed you! Too funny, monkey or martini? Air test for sound? Ground test for depth? Ya think? Welcome back!

It's great to be back and thanks for the good words C Girl!

Ya, the old depth topic well never runs dry--does it? haha!

Badger

 

[bakergeol]

Hi Badger

I have never believed that a unit could get greater depth in the ground than in air tests. I am excluding the concept of "halos" as I don't want to go in this direction.This idea was promoted mainly by Minelab for the Explorers in which they claimed that the machine worked better with a soil matrix than in air. However, looking at George's air tests the old XS did excellent in air tests. I felt it was more of a marketing method than true science. After all if you are showing a cilent the most expensive metal detector in the shop- a $1200 Explorer SE and the cilent expects it to be the deepest also. Sort of like " Yes other cheaper detectors air test just as well as the Explorer but the Explorer gets MUCH greater depth in the ground". I have nothing against Explorers as I regard them as currently the BEST coin machines.

Air tests are good for determing if your detector is working correctly compared to other models. I remember a while back a new buyer of my model complained about poor performance. It turns out he had bought it on E-bay and a previous owner had "tweated" it and simply dumped it on E-Bay.

With regards to ground tests compared to air tests. Probably a PI which is not affected to the same extent to mineralization as VLFs will be the closest.

Best Regards
George

 

[Michigan Badger]

Hi Badger

I have never believed that a unit could get greater depth in the ground than in air tests. I am excluding the concept of "halos" as I don't want to go in this direction.This idea was promoted mainly by Minelab for the Explorers in which they claimed that the machine worked better with a soil matrix than in air. However, looking at George's air tests the old XS did excellent in air tests. I felt it was more of a marketing method than true science. After all if you are showing a cilent the most expensive metal detector in the shop- a $1200 Explorer SE and the cilent expects it to be the deepest also. Sort of like " Yes other cheaper detectors air test just as well as the Explorer but the Explorer gets MUCH greater depth in the ground". I have nothing against Explorers as I regard them as currently the BEST coin machines.

Air tests are good for determing if your detector is working correctly compared to other models. I remember a while back a new buyer of my model complained about poor performance. It turns out he had bought it on E-bay and a previous owner had "tweated" it and simply dumped it on E-Bay.

With regards to ground tests compared to air tests. Probably a PI which is not affected to the same extent to mineralization as VLFs will be the closest.

Best Regards
George

You're right. I know Georgi has long argued that air test is greater than ground depth. I won't print here what he says about the Minelab argument.

Anyway, I agree with you and plan to add a new Minelab to my detector arsenal soon. Now I have to make up my mind which model? What would you suggest?

But, as for the soil matrix argument, I don't buy into it either. I'm a believer in technology, not...well you know.

But it's very clear from so many testimonies on here and elsewhere that Minelab makes a very excellent detector (maybe the best) so there we have it. One can't hardly watch a YouTube treasure video without seeing an Explorer being used.

Oh, I'll still keep one of my Tesoros around just in case

I'll always be a Tesoro lover.

Badger