OK Bryce...
Did what you suggested. I set my machine up the same way you use yours, I think...most of it already was already set up using your settings, but I was using the factory coins program instead of IM 22 (so I put it in IM 22), and I was using gain 8 instead of 10, so I set it to 10. I had variablility and limits at 10, sens. I put at manual 26 per your suggestion, th. tone was at 1, etc.
My machine did a pretty decent job. Six inch coins, easy detection, clear and accurate tones, perfect ID. Eight inch coins, easy detection, PRETTY good tones, PRETTY good ID. The 8" silver quarter was a bit jumpy ID-wise (for some reason; the 8" clad was fine), but overall I could coax a nice digital ID on all my 8"-9" coins, and a good warble tone in at least SOME sweep directions. Ten inch coins got more iffy; my 10" silver quarter was
probably "detectable" if I was in the field (i.e. didn't know it was there), the ten inch silver dime was "iffy" as to whether I'd have found it (not knowing it was there). Most likely, I would not have found it. The 10" clad quarter I would have found. A nine inch penny I would have found. My twelve inch coins (penny, nickel, clad quarter) were barely, if at all, giving an occasional chirp. NO WAY do I find those if I didn't know they were there. Even pinpoint could barely, if at all, hear them.
Having said that, for a new test garden, I was pretty pleased. I am confident that if those were targets that I did not "know" were there, I would have hit all the 8" targets, good chance on the 10" quarters, 25% chance maybe on the 10" dime. The 12" coins were a no-go. In the field, on a long-buried 12" quarter, I could see it possibly hitting better, to where I may have been able to dig it. My 12" clad quarter would very occasionally give a nice chirp and ID, but it was infrequent; I will guess it would have been better if it was long-buried, in un-disturbed ground.
I noticed that running sensitivity up to 30 to 32 on the deeper, "iffy" targets, I could improve the response of the machine somewhat. Maxed out at 32 manual, I could get better response on the 10" to 12" coins, to the point where I may have improved my chances to 50/50 on finding the 10" silver dime, and maybe could have been lucky (50%?) and hit the 12" quarter (in a scenario where I didn't know it was there). Again, though, running sens. that high in the field is WAY unstable, in most cases, and the iron falsing gets ridiculous, as you know!
One other note -- it is a pretty big difference to me, running IM 22 versus the coins program. Reason being, the FE numbers are
much more jumpy on the deep coins. This seems to be because deep coins, in my garden at least, give alot of higher ferrous numbers, BUT, when running the coins program, I'm not SEEING those higher ferrous numbers (they are disced out -- and thus are brief nulls). However, in the IM 22 screen, I am SEEING all those higher FE numbers. I was actually SHOCKED at how high, FE number-wise, my deeper coins would produce. The result was, my machine was usually giving a steady CO number in the mid to upper 20s, but the ferrous numbers were jumping from the low single digits VERY RAPIDLY into the teens and 20s, and then back down -- so quickly that you could never get a steady FE number that you could even READ. I did not switch over to the smartfind screen, and should have (forgot to), but if I had, this would have resulted, obviously, in a cursor jumping back and forth across the top of the screen, from the upper right corner over toward the upper left corner, and then back again, in a very rapid "dance". I guess this is the "top of the screen cursor bounce" that you guys talk about?
Bottom line, IM 22 would be an adjustment for me. I was used to the "appearance" of much more stable FE numbers (since I was simply not seeing those higher FE numbers that deeper coins were giving me, as they are "disced-out" in the factory coins program). You feel, though, Bryce, that the IM 22 is better than the coins program (you feel it is optimal, in terms of minimizing falsing), so I may try to get used to that instead of the factory coins program.
I feel much better about the depth capability of this machine. Still not quite as deep as the F70, at least in my garden, but plenty deep, and again, it KILLS the silver, as we all know! I'll take it! Lesson learned? If the depth indicator is reading deep, dig more of the jumpy, less consistent targets, especially if you get even a few PEEPS of a good "warble" tone. While test gardens are NOT perfect, they do serve a valuable purpose when learning a machine.
Thank you, Bryce.
Steve
Minelab Explorer SE Pro, Fisher Gold Bug Pro (DP)
Garrett ProPointer
Lesche 38D "King of Spades"
Norman, OK
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2011 09:43AM by sgoss66.
....then in 1981 went to a Bounty Hunter VLF TR 840
...then in the early 1980's I went to a Whites 6000 Di Pro
...Started using Minelabs in 1999
"Quote ME"
about what the ferrous numbers...conduct numbers...etc...are doing.
You swear by it, though, so I'll do it. In the mean time, while making the transition, I promise not to talk "numbers" to you anymore! 