Find's Treasure Forums

Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!

You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.

Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.

Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.

Click here to register!



Need Support Help?

Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you

Deus 1 V5.2 - 9” LF coil - Gold ring crusaders may find this video helpful

Hi squirrel1.

I have continued to periodically try the methods you outlined both for the FMF coils and the HF2 coil.

Anyone that has never tried this needs to know that what squirrel1 is showing in these videos about gold ring targets having different target IDs especially with the HF2 coil when changing max frequencies is not a hoax or a trick. It is accurate information especially in air tests.

The issues with this method are numerous depending on the coil used, target depth, mineralization levels and especially what type of aluminum targets are most prevalent at the sites hunted.

I can only get this to work consistently with the HF2 coil running SMF 29 kHz max frequency and SMF 89 kHz max frequency.

I can only get this to work consistently with the HF2 coil on surface to 4" deep targets. That may be due to the higher mineralization here.

I can only get this to work consistently with the HF2 coil on shallow random can slaw and foil vs fully enclosed gold rings.

This method absolutely will not work to distinguish fully enclosed gold rings vs fully enclosed pull tabs and pull rings with or without beaver tail.

Unfortunately for me, the most common aluminum trash in the parks that I hunt that competes with possible gold rings are pull tabs and pull rings. Can slaw and foil is not very common here.

I do use this on possible shallow random shaped can slaw and foil. I also use Deus 2's built in brash audio responses on those same targets.

So, for the parks I hunt, with mostly pull tabs and pull rings being the gold ring competition, I have to resort to Deus 2's outstanding audio nuances to help me listen for slight differences between actual gold or other low conductor enclosed ring responses and slightly different pull tab and pull ring responses. I base those audio nuances on the percussive nature of the audio on US nickels and how actual gold rings have similar percussive qualities even down to 6" or more depth. I also depend on solid, single digit target IDs which most pull tabs and pull rings do not always have here which also may be mineralization related. I have to be careful on surface targets since the target IDs on all of these targets can be skewed a bit due to the nature of DD coils and simultaneous multi frequencies.

The original Deus with HF coil did have some decay audio responses on all aluminum targets that one could not hear on gold targets and US nickels. I have not been able to replicate that decay audio on Deus 2 even using its Mono single frequency programs. Bummer.
 
Last edited:
Hi squirrel1.

I have continued to periodically try the methods you outlined both for the FMF coils and the HF2 coil.

Anyone that has never tried this needs to know that what squirrel1 is showing in these videos about gold ring targets having different target IDs especially with the HF2 coil when changing max frequencies is not a hoax or a trick. It is accurate information especially in air tests.

The issues with this method are numerous depending on the coil used, target depth, mineralization levels and especially what type of aluminum targets are most prevalent at the sites hunted.

I can only get this to work consistently with the HF2 coil running SMF 29 kHz max frequency and SMF 89 kHz max frequency.

I can only get this to work consistently with the HF2 coil on surface to 4" deep targets. That may be due to the higher mineralization here.

I can only get this to work consistently with the HF2 coil on shallow random can slaw and foil vs fully enclosed gold rings.

This method absolutely will not work to distinguish fully enclosed gold rings vs fully enclosed pull tabs and pull rings with or without beaver tail.

Unfortunately for me, the most common aluminum trash in the parks that I hunt that competes with possible gold rings are pull tabs and pull rings. Can slaw and foil is not very common here.

I do use this on possible shallow random shaped can slaw and foil. I also use Deus 2's built in brash audio responses on those same targets.

So, for the parks I hunt, with mostly pull tabs and pull rings being the gold ring competition, I have to resort to Deus 2's outstanding audio nuances to help me listen for slight differences between actual gold or other low conductor enclosed ring responses and slightly different pull tab and pull ring responses. I base those audio nuances on the percussive nature of the audio on US nickels and how actual gold rings have similar percussive qualities even down to 6" or more depth. I also depend on solid, single digit target IDs which most pull tabs and pull rings do not always have here which also may be mineralization related. I have to be careful on surface targets since the target IDs on all of these targets can be skewed a bit due to the nature of DD coils and simultaneous multi frequencies.

The original Deus with HF coil did have some decay audio responses on all aluminum targets that one could not hear on gold targets and US nickels. I have not been able to replicate that decay audio on Deus 2 even using its Mono single frequency programs. Bummer.
I can’t comment on this entire system using in hot ground.
These comments below about the hf2 coil.
I can say in milder ground both the ID behavior as well as tone break tests can yield good info.
Granted even in middle ground the id behavior seems can help with at least mod depth targets and shallower. Pull rings and square tabs, based on y use in the wild and testing using tone break test - 4” deep max. Maybe somewhat deeper on pull rings. Some squares maybe won’t be rejected at 4” deep. Some may only reject st 3” deep. Not alll square tabs or pull rings will reject (fail test) a lot will though. This is better than none.
Nickels- more will be found using this system in mild ground. As targets reporting lower or somewhat higher than ideal nickel I’d can be called into question based on id behavior chsnging freq..
Square tab orientation id also a factor. Where they won’t fail yet gov ether id ride lot like unbroken junk or gold ring can.
Closest hot ground to me is around 70. Lies the way the crow flies. I haven’t been in contact with gents living in this area in years. I don’t even know if they still detect or not. 5 bar ground down there verified with F75.
Key in doing tone break test. Check for lower conductive trash near and ferrous near target,,,use of 8.8 kHz single frequency does well exposing possible iron nesr target and 11 kHz single freq helps with spotting lower conducive small er trash masking.


Using the LF coil to to this elect digging not nesr as good as using hf2 coil.
Folks desiring to do this with LF coils.
Do your own tests. There is some behavior thst may can help user.
 
Last edited:
Top