:canadaflag:Deep thought on detectors and where the makers are going

[Leslie(nova scotia)]

From the land of the Bluenose.....just going over a few sites of dealers and such and got to thinking since the ground is frozen and we are butt deep in snow wit hcabin fever at an all time high. Ads stating deeper depth! Lord love a duck this has been a common cry since I got in the hobby over 30 years ago and if only a half inch per year deeper was achived I think we all would need a backhoe instead of a lesche tool or shovel.

So where are manufactures of these "wonderful' machines going to go next? Could it be the way of cars with more km between fill ups or all the techno stuff with personnal communications? Deep thought. Point being is.......is high tech going to take the joy out of the hobby.

Don't know about you bouys but the hunt and digging buds are everything and the finds but a meer by product. Think that knowing what each and every target is before you dig it would take away some of the allure of this great hobby.

To this day I still feel like a child on a grand adventure each and every time I grab the detector and head out. Once that feeling leaves............the little boy is gone!

 

[Joel-Winnipeg]

I think more digital and push pads seems to be the norm.
Personally I prefer some detectors would stay with the knobs and switches.
The Scorpion and the Infinium come to mind.
Tesoros and Whites also carry these less digitized units.

 

[Mick in Dubbo]

Till real time ground imaging comes along, you can relax about, losing the mystery of what's in the ground.
Mick Evans.

 

[TURNMASTER]

I agree with Mick, and will add at an affordable price. Like under 2k USD.

Jeff

 

[Uncle Willy]

I think detectors have about reached their limits under current technology and still keep them affordable - and bells and whistles are the wave of the future such as White's new video game on a stick.

Bill

 

[Uncle Willy]

The Military has that technology but it ain't even remotely affordable for us poor folks. Detectors are still operating on the basic technology of the old aircraft radio directional finders from the late teens and early twenties from whence detectors sprang. That's what Fisher ( inventor of the hobby detector ) based his first machine on. If you consider the amount of years under the bridge we really haven't come that far from the old BFO's. Just look at how far other things have advanced in the past 80 years, such as TV's, autos, aircraft, computers, and electronics of all kinds - yet we're still struggling along with gussied and jazzed up examples of the same old thing equipped with a host of bells and whistles and digital doo-dads that actually accomplish little..The detectors of today don't actually go any deeper or discriminate any better than detectors I owned in the eighties - they're just loaded down with more gadgets and eye candy. JMHO.

Bill

 

[Uncle Willy]

Yeah I'm with you. Give me analog and knobs for fine tuning. The new Fisher F5 is a prime example. One can set that puppy to do everything.

Bill

 

[metalhead]

From the land of the Bluenose.....just going over a few sites of dealers and such and got to thinking since the ground is frozen and we are butt deep in snow wit hcabin fever at an all time high. Ads stating deeper depth! Lord love a duck this has been a common cry since I got in the hobby over 30 years ago and if only a half inch per year deeper was achived I think we all would need a backhoe instead of a lesche tool or shovel.

So where are manufactures of these "wonderful' machines going to go next? Could it be the way of cars with more km between fill ups or all the techno stuff with personnal communications? Deep thought. Point being is.......is high tech going to take the joy out of the hobby.

Don't know about you bouys but the hunt and digging buds are everything and the finds but a meer by product. Think that knowing what each and every target is before you dig it would take away some of the allure of this great hobby.

To this day I still feel like a child on a grand adventure each and every time I grab the detector and head out. Once that feeling leaves............the little boy is gone!

I couldn't agree more

 

[John-Edmonton]

We now have the technology to build a machine that doesn't even need batteries. The moving of a coil over a metal object in itself can produce voltage. The other option is to have some solar cell technology mounted on the detector or a hat.

 

[Uncle Willy]

Now wouldn't we look ducky with a big solar panel balanced on our heads.

Bill

 

[shawnrmartin]

More bells and whistles, I guess.

I have a new detector. Great little machine. It'll go 30 hours on a single 9v battery.
When it says it is a quarter at 3 inches, it is, every time.
Pinpoints like a dream.

But my favorite is still my 25 YO Garrett AT4.

 

[Alan Applegate]

As I said before, the whole key is how much processing power you can muster, yet maintain some modicum of battery life, and overall cost. What's happening in that arena is a story into itself.

Once you get to the point that you have enough affordable processing, you can use a digital signal processor to perform the requisite interferometry measurements. And, I suspect it would be easier to use say four small coils, instead of one big one (sort of like the large radio array we have here in New Mexico). Properly implemented, you not only could tell the depth, but true size. With enough processing, perhaps even it's chemical make up. This is not pie-in-the-sky either, as this is the new frontier is airport security.

I might not live long enough to see things like this, but the way things are moving, you never know.

Alan Applegate

 

[Mick in Dubbo]

Interesting point about the 4 small coils Alan. I made a similar comment about that a couple of years ago. I was thinking of the possibility of setting up a sensor pad that could send/receive across various points of the pad. Same line of thinking as you. I was thinking about how radio telescopes are set up in series that create a far bigger dish than a single large radio dish like we have over here only a 100kms away at Parks. Not sure how you could go about it on a detector though, as it may not be practical.
I think that Whites have set a new bench mark with the V3. I think that over the next year or 2, we are going to see a number of the detector manufacturers come out with more advanced detectors so that they can match or better the technology of the V3. some might even go down the path of that French detector which is much lighter and has no cable connecting the coil to the control box housing.
Mick Evans.

 

[coin hunter]

Much like CB'S, walky talkies portable phones any transmitting device they are regulated by FCC. These devices are limited to power or wattage output. That effects depth big time. I called Garret to check on this fact . They said its true. So until they up the power output you can only do so much. Do you really what to dig holes 2 feet down in a play ground or school yard?

 

[bloodyknees]

I get tired of switching my 1500 from standard coil to the sniper. Looks like some one could come up with two coils built into one. When you hit a trashy area, just push a buttom and it changes to the small coil mode. Crazy or what?? Would probably add to the already heavy detector.
Al

 

[idigny]

I can remember whipping a detector tofind a target(red Baron).No matter the technology you still have to dig it upyuorself toverify what your detector has told you. Foolproof detectors are not infallible. NEVERTHELESS AFTER 40 YRS i STILL LOOK FORWARD TOGOING OUT DETECTING....YOU JUST NEVER KNOW OOPS what you'll find. So lets enjoy the hobby and leave the technocrats play their game.HH

 

[Mick in Dubbo]

but to give the coil both the ability to see a target from different angles (giving a better idea of what it is) and to clearly identify multiple targets (kind of like seeing things in 3D). It would create a higher resolution of information on targets. I imagine that if you sent out signal at different frequencies, then they should be able to operate together quite happily.
It would be interesting to know if different signaling technology could be used instead of what is used today and has been since detectors have been around. There's got to be more than one way to send signals into the ground. Even the idea of using coils seems to be both very limiting due to the age of the technology and the lay out of the transmit/receive coils. This lay out can only ever see targets from a very limited angle. just by changing the way (angles eta) in which the signal is sent/received into the ground, a lot of targets that were previously masked, would become easy to find. It would make hunting for old coins eta like you were hunting of new ground again ( that is, that you were hunting on what you thought were hunted out sights).
These are just thoughts. It's up the the detector companies to go down whatever paths they see fit. It would be nice to see a few more light bulb moments occurring and a quantum changes in the thinking though.
Mick Evans.

 

[Alan Applegate]

Let's correct a misunderstanding.

All electronic devices, except those dealing with transportation (ABS, engine CPUs, etc.), must meet Part 15 of the FCC R&R governing spurious emissions. In the case of metal detectors, that's the processor's digital signal. Very little of this incidental radiation escapes via the coil. Unless of course, the unit is poorly designed; an unknown factor in most cases regardless of the name on the outside.

The frequency the coil operates at in modern digital detectors seldom exceeds 100 kHz. Although this frequency borders on RF, it is not subject to Part 15. The vast majority operate between 3 kHz, and 25 kHz, which is essentially audio. If your hearing is very acute, and you hold the coil close to your ear, you might be able to actually hear the oscillator.

The real issue is the amount of power that is consumed by the coil. Remember too, in most detectors, the power is applied to the coil continuously, or at least at a significant duty cycle. Thus, the more power applied, the more battery power that's consumed; an easily understood concept.

Just as important is this fact; doubling the power doesn't give you twice the depth. In fact, in some cases it won't garner you any noticeable increase. And, you have other technical obstacles you have to overcome when power is increased, other than the battery life.

Excluding ground radar units, oscillating coil detectors have just about reached their maximum depth limit (for any given coil). As I said above, the next major offering will be the use of interferometry to more closely identify the object. Whether or not that technology will be affordable, is pure conjecture at this point.

Alan Applegate