air test with Nokta Gold and CoRe

[togg77]

The Nokta series appear to be exellent detectors and the Nokta team seems to listen to their customers--an exellent combination.
Everyone's soil is different and it will cause wide varience in the performance of any detector,thus the one medium that is pretty consistant the world over is---air. I know certain detectors need soil to show their best result,maybe this is true??But after 40+ years of using detectors from ALL the US and Aussie manu. I have found that a pretty good comparison can be had by air testing with US coins. Gold is like the soil,it varies widely so my nugget and your nugget may give different results with the same machine. Sooooo it is possible to be able to compare Depth performance of different detectors from the comfort of ones computer chair.
Bottom line: has anyone done any air tests with the Nokta line with US coins and if so would you be so kind as to post them?

 

[Frank in NH]

n/t

 

[togg77]

Frank, thanks for the directions to the video--they are Very impressive.

 

[tmanly]

Air test are good to get to know the detector, but they often do not reflect the actual performance. The Minelab CTX 3030 is a super deep machine but the air test are bad.
I will do air test just to check the numbers and sounds.

Tom in SC

 

[bugg]

I did some air tests in my emi, metal, and fluorescent lit shop.
All metal mode .... sensitivity at 50........dime 12"........nickel....14"
" at 70.......dime 13"..........nickel ....15"
D12 mode.............. " at 50.......dime 11"..........nickel......12"
" at80.........dime 12".........nickel.......14"
mens med size 10k wedding ring.......15" ..paper thin womans 14k ring........13"
D13 mode............. ." at50..........dime ......7".....nickel.......11"
" at 99.........dime .......10"...nickel.......12"
mens med 10k gold wedding ring.....12" ...paper thin womans 14k ring........11"
COG mode........... " at 50........dime......... 7"..... nickel ...9"
" at 98........dime .......12"......nickel....13"

Its impossible to ground balance in a garage. I've only had it out on a hunt less than 2 hours. Its a very stable machine, handles my bad ground real well, seperates well with the 7 x 11 coil, I had no emi issues, comfortable to swing, nice audio. I was using the d13 mode with is the tame , 3 tone mode, and was able to run sensitivity at 85, after we had an inch of rain. I need more time with the machine, but now its going to start freezing, so it may be a while .

 

[togg77]

Bugg thanks for your input. Looking foward to your reports on your core.

 

[oneton]

wow, I thought it would air test much better than the makr cf77 but I guess cf 77 does not have all the fancy settings so It will airtest deeper, I gues jmho

 

[steve herschbach]

"I have found that a pretty good comparison can be had by air testing with US coins. Gold is like the soil,it varies widely so my nugget and your nugget may give different results with the same machine. Sooooo it is possible to be able to compare Depth performance of different detectors from the comfort of ones computer chair."

No it really is not. It is all about the ground, and without ground you are proving nothing about depth. The most important thing about depth with a detector is how it handles the ground.

For instance, my Fisher Gold Bug 2 will easily air test better than my Minelab GPX 5000. Yet I can do the same test in bad ground and have the GPX 5000 go two or three times deeper. All the air test proves is that hot machines air test well. It says nothing about how they handle ground. In fact, extremely hot machines will often suffer the most in actual ground conditions.

I was at my mine with a guy who air tested a Gold Bug 2 against a F75 and was convinced the GB2 was the better unit. I told him no, bad ground here, no way. He insisted the air test said otherwise. So we buried the nugget and the F75 easily hit it deeper.

Even burying targets can skew results by disturbing the soil but it is a far better test than an air test. Air tests only have relevance in very low mineral soils, and the more the mineralization increases, the less attention you should pay to air tests.

I do a lot of air testing of detectors to learn about lots of things. It is very rare that a detector will detect deeper in the ground than in the air, so if a detector air tests something at 10" I am not going to expect 12" in the field. But that is only relative to the machine itself and how it then will handle the ground, not how it compares to another model. Air tests are a good way to compare two of the same model to see if both are performing as they should but even then it does not test if the ground balance on both units is working properly so must be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Southwind]

I have to disagree Steve. I also have done a lot of testing and pretty much found an air test is going to be your best depth. The ground makes a difference but it is all downhill from there. I can pretty safely say you will not get any deeper in the ground than you get in an air test. The only exception is a coin that has been buried for a long time in soil that has allowed some minerals to leech out presenting a bigger target. In short, if you get and air test of 8" it is foolish to expect to get a consistent 9-10" in the ground. I will agree some detectors air test better than others, but not to a point that it makes a big difference.

Show me one video of any detector getting more depth in the ground than in an air test and I'll show you thousands of videos showing many detectors getting the same or less depth in the ground than in the air test.

 

[bugg]

the same brand/ model detectors against each other. On rocket mans forum, different guys are comparing the air tests of their F75's ,that came back with the upgrades, to those new f75's with certain manufacturing dates. So that leads me to the conclusion, that air tests are most useful when comparing the same model detector. And everyone seems to want Keith S.'s extremely hot f75when he is done with it,Including you Steve! ( Can't blame ya pal!)
Years ago, when I bought my multi frequency soverign xs, it air tested terrible, but take it to the beach, and it was second to none of the other single frequency machines I tried. I did air test my fors core, and it does not knock your socks off, and depth wise in my soil its not my deepest machine either, but, it really shines in trash pits , pulling out coins from amongst the trash. So, air tests do carry some weight with me.

 

[steve herschbach]

n/t

 

[Southwind]

Sorry Steve, I didn't mean to direct that toward you.

 

[steve herschbach]

I do wonder at times - do people just respond to the opening line and not read the actual post? Southwind tells me he disagrees because air tests reveal max performance, and I said just that in the last paragraph of my post. I mention how it can be used to reveal flaws when testing similar units also.

I can show you all day long detector A beating detector B in an air test and the situation reversing 100% on the ground. The only thing that matters is how a detector handles the ground. Break out a 1975 TR detector and it aur tests just fine. So what? Cheap detectors with factory preset ground balances air test just fine. So what? Most VLF detectors look real good compared to a GPX 5000 in air tests. So what? Seriously, if you guys want to put a lot of weight in air tests go ahead but they are and will continue to tell you virtually nothing about how a detector performs in bad ground. That's my story and I am sticking to it.

 

[steve herschbach]

I take two detectors into the field. I use detector A to locate a target. I check the target with detect B and note any differences in target response. I recover the target. I then find a target with detector B and check it with detector A, once again noting signal differences. I repeat this over and over, looking especially for weak targets that one detector can get and the other will not.

Yes, I do air tests. Yes, I bury test targets. Things can be learned doing that. But when I get serious about wanting to compare two detectors I beleive only extensive cross testing of found targets has any true validity. Anything else is just crude simulations of varying value and unfortunately they can often mislead people not versed in detectors.

 

[cadman_us]

Air tests have their place, I use them as a quick test to see if a detector is performing as it should.

If I buy a used CZ-3d and am only getting 6" on a quarter while air testing, I know I have a problem. If I am getting 14", then the next step is to take it out for field testing.

Air tests are a useful tool, but, when comparing different detectors, as Steve said "But when I get serious about wanting to compare two detectors I beleive only extensive cross testing of found targets has any true validity."

The field is where you get valid results.

 

[Sven]

I was able to tune 4 internal pots of one detector that would barely pick a coin air test at 7" at factory settings and 5" in the ground. Managed to get it at 13" air test after adjustment.
I did the adjusting at the park so I could test the detector right away. That 13" air test had me believing I now had the hotest of this detector out there, going to be
a killer machine. Felt like NASA TOM tuning up a CZ. Well, put it to the ground, could now barely get the same coin buried at 3".

So you can look at an air test another way. One that tests really hot could be mis-adjusted and not be as good as one correctly adjusted.

 

[Southwind]

I do wonder at times - do people just respond to the opening line and not read the actual post?

Sorry Steve, I didn't mean to direct that toward you

Hello Mr. Pot. Perhaps you should also read. I read your post and put your name instead of tmanly.

I can show you all day long detector A beating detector B in an air test and the situation reversing 100% on the ground.

OK, I'll call that bluff, let's see it! LOL

Simple scientific fact. The air test is a best case scenario. Only under specific condition can you possibly get deeper in the ground. Now, that being said, Obviously a detectors ability, and being setup properly, will affect performance in the ground. But a properly adjusted detector is going to preform in the ground much like it does in the air. That is to say a detector that has a factory preset GB being used in highly memorialized ground obviously isn't going to get as good depth in the ground as one with a manual or even automatic GB, but take two machines with the same ability and you'll get pretty much the same performance difference you'll get in an air test in the ground.

 

[steve herschbach]

Ho, ho, and I did not read your post about misdirecting you post towards me until after I made the post back to you. Miscommunication is the root of most evil in the world.

Let's just say I am trying to get newbies not to put much store in air tests comparing detector A to detector B and call it good. You have a great New Year with fabulous finds Mr. Kettle!

 

[togg77]

Seems that viewing Many Nokta produced videos they,Nokta, put a lot of emphasis on the results of their air testing. Jest sayin'.
The last line of my thread starting post asked if anyone had air tested the Nokta machines and if so would they PLEASE post them for, you know,Stuff and giggles. I have watched all the videos and wanted to see if anyone had reproduced the results with their Nokta---not comparing it to detector A,B,or C.
Happy New Year to all.