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
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
Compass detectors in iron
- Thread starter JoeR
- Start date
Iron objects are a real pain to deal with because on one hand they are a ferrous-based metal which is magnetic and ferrous objects have a different effect on a detector's electromagnetic field than do non-ferrous (non-magnetic) metal objects, but on the other hand those detectorists have to deal with have been shaped by man and the target's shape can cause it to have more conductive properties. iron can be a bugger to handle!
The primary iron/magnetic type target we used to have to deal with the most was the iron nail. To many of us, hunting old burned down or torn down homesteads, town sites and the like, the nail is still our #1 enemy that causes the most good-target masking.
Especially over the last few years there have been some iron nail discussions where Compass detectors pop up. The main ones that seem to be mentioned have been the older, non-discriminating TR models such as the Yukon series 77, 71, 99, 94 and Nugget I-B models which were later trimmed to the 77B, 77 Auto, 94B, 94 Auto T-R models. These models lacked ground canceling ability and discrimination circuits, but due to their 100 kHz operating frequency and circuit design they could do a very good job of ignoring shallow iron nails and would respond quite well to a good non-ferrous target in and under and among iron nails.
You had to fine tune them, keep the coil in a near perfect coil-to-ground position at all times, and you lacked much depth if you swept over a desirable target that was spaced well between nails but just a little too deep.
Fast forward, if you will, to more modern times and the use of more modern detectors for dealing with iron infested conditions. We'll pass over the years when we had TR Discriminators because they didn't have the same type ability to ignore iron nails. Skip all of the VLF/TR-Disc. models that provided ground cancelling all metal operation or conventional TR-Disc at a very low operating frequency as they, too, didn't ignore nails and small iron the same way. That will bring us to today's modern motion-based discriminators.
Actually we can go back to about 1982 and 1983 when we first started getting slow-motion based discriminators, especially those that were silent search. I am referring to the Tesoro Inca and the offshoots from it, as well as the competition that followed since then.
Prior to that time we did have motion-based discrimination models dating from the very late 70's when the Bounty Hunter Red Baron series were introduced. These types of detectors, especially after being refined to allow a more moderate sweep speed, allowed us to ignore or reject unwanted trash and still get good depth while ignoring the ground signal. But when ti came to problem iron, such as nails, they still caused a nulling out and due the the 4-filter design the recovery speed was rather long. Thus, masking was an issue we had/have to live with.
But when we got the 2-filter types that offered slow sweep speeds and much quicker recovery, we were able to hunt in amongst the iron nails much better than we had been. Do ALL of the do this well? No, certainly not! But many can, especially those that provide a very low end of discrimination (to the point of no rejection or all metal acceptance) and a variable control so that we can carefully increase the rejection just to the point where it handles iron nails.
Most of the better models that can work in among nail, trash are non-metered models by design. Units like Tesoro's Bandido, Gold Mountain Technologies Cobra/GMT-1650, White's Classic III, Troy Custom's Shadow X5 and quite a few newer models.
There are trade-offs, however, and here we need to get back on track by relating this to analog metered detectors. Savvy operators have learned, or need to learn, that the audio response is the #1 function that you should go by. Visual information can be helpful, but not always conclusive.
Some digital/LCD type units have more of a 'lock-on' iron indication if the coil is swept over a coin with a nail on top, for example, while still giving an audio response to the coin. Some of them will give a flickering response running up and down a graph scale or, with many units, display a wide range of numeric readouts that go from negative numbers up into the positive numbers along with an audio beep. At this point it is user interpretations that has to take over.
Now, there are some models with analog TID that do something similar. That is, you can hear a beep, but you might get the jumpy or flickering needle about the display, pegging to iron on some sweeps and up-scale on other passes. This includes the likes of the Compass Scanner series w/their segmented analog target display.
Is the display information using an analog display such as a Compass Scanner or White's XL Pro or Fisher CZ-5 much different from the digital readouts of models like the XLT, DFX, MXT, CZ-7a Pro, X-Terra 50 or others? No, not really, but Yes in some ways.
You see, like everything else related to using a metal detector it is all a matter of operator interpretation. We have to listen and interpret audio responses, to include those iffy sounds, and we have to do the same with any visual TID. On the surface of it all, Yes, the analog and digital readouts are each going to provide us some information about the target, or targets, sampled with the coil's sweep. What I have found is that with some types, such as the CZ5 and all the CZ series, the target segments are few and they are very distinctive. That is, they suggest a particular coin or group of coins or pull tab. There is no in-between reading. It is either this group or that group or iron and too often the users ignore some of the telltale info and await a solid lock on. They treat ALL responses with jumpy dislays as trash, just as if it was an iron target.
Quire often, a model has a very wide-ranging series of VDI numbers, such as the DFX, XLT or MXT. White's signagraph provided a little better iron trash information, but too often the operator's attention gets locked in on the bigger numeric readout and, in short, it can appear to be "too busy" and they shrug it off after a while and await a rock solid TID reading. It's an operator interpretation issue.
Then we have models such as the XL Pro. Doe sit have ID labels? Yes, but they are subdued from the primary signal response action. Doesn't the display also have a wide-range of VDI reference numbers? Yes, it does, but they, too, are more subdued and a secondary reference compared with the primary signal action.
What is the "primary signal action" I refer to? The large, easy-to-view display with a moving needle that isn't segmented like the Compass Challenger or Scanner series, or the Garrett Grand Master Hunter, or Tesoro's three Toltec models and many more. Instead, the user first sees and follows the generally smooth left-to-right movement of the needle to register a detected target, but also benefits from the subtle little flickers, to-or-from the iron or non-ferrous areas of the display. A more experienced user of an XL Pro, for example, is more apt to learn and interpret the needle's behavior than a lot of bold, flickering numbers.
To conclude, yes, I have used the Compass models to include their earliest Yukon IB models as well as their Klondike BFO's and on up to their last good models. Some can do 'OK' in iron nail infested sites. the Scanner series might have had some of their best iron nail handling abilities of all of Compass motion discriminators.
Sorry to ramble.
Monte
The primary iron/magnetic type target we used to have to deal with the most was the iron nail. To many of us, hunting old burned down or torn down homesteads, town sites and the like, the nail is still our #1 enemy that causes the most good-target masking.
Especially over the last few years there have been some iron nail discussions where Compass detectors pop up. The main ones that seem to be mentioned have been the older, non-discriminating TR models such as the Yukon series 77, 71, 99, 94 and Nugget I-B models which were later trimmed to the 77B, 77 Auto, 94B, 94 Auto T-R models. These models lacked ground canceling ability and discrimination circuits, but due to their 100 kHz operating frequency and circuit design they could do a very good job of ignoring shallow iron nails and would respond quite well to a good non-ferrous target in and under and among iron nails.
You had to fine tune them, keep the coil in a near perfect coil-to-ground position at all times, and you lacked much depth if you swept over a desirable target that was spaced well between nails but just a little too deep.
Fast forward, if you will, to more modern times and the use of more modern detectors for dealing with iron infested conditions. We'll pass over the years when we had TR Discriminators because they didn't have the same type ability to ignore iron nails. Skip all of the VLF/TR-Disc. models that provided ground cancelling all metal operation or conventional TR-Disc at a very low operating frequency as they, too, didn't ignore nails and small iron the same way. That will bring us to today's modern motion-based discriminators.
Actually we can go back to about 1982 and 1983 when we first started getting slow-motion based discriminators, especially those that were silent search. I am referring to the Tesoro Inca and the offshoots from it, as well as the competition that followed since then.
Prior to that time we did have motion-based discrimination models dating from the very late 70's when the Bounty Hunter Red Baron series were introduced. These types of detectors, especially after being refined to allow a more moderate sweep speed, allowed us to ignore or reject unwanted trash and still get good depth while ignoring the ground signal. But when ti came to problem iron, such as nails, they still caused a nulling out and due the the 4-filter design the recovery speed was rather long. Thus, masking was an issue we had/have to live with.
But when we got the 2-filter types that offered slow sweep speeds and much quicker recovery, we were able to hunt in amongst the iron nails much better than we had been. Do ALL of the do this well? No, certainly not! But many can, especially those that provide a very low end of discrimination (to the point of no rejection or all metal acceptance) and a variable control so that we can carefully increase the rejection just to the point where it handles iron nails.
Most of the better models that can work in among nail, trash are non-metered models by design. Units like Tesoro's Bandido, Gold Mountain Technologies Cobra/GMT-1650, White's Classic III, Troy Custom's Shadow X5 and quite a few newer models.
There are trade-offs, however, and here we need to get back on track by relating this to analog metered detectors. Savvy operators have learned, or need to learn, that the audio response is the #1 function that you should go by. Visual information can be helpful, but not always conclusive.
Some digital/LCD type units have more of a 'lock-on' iron indication if the coil is swept over a coin with a nail on top, for example, while still giving an audio response to the coin. Some of them will give a flickering response running up and down a graph scale or, with many units, display a wide range of numeric readouts that go from negative numbers up into the positive numbers along with an audio beep. At this point it is user interpretations that has to take over.
Now, there are some models with analog TID that do something similar. That is, you can hear a beep, but you might get the jumpy or flickering needle about the display, pegging to iron on some sweeps and up-scale on other passes. This includes the likes of the Compass Scanner series w/their segmented analog target display.
Is the display information using an analog display such as a Compass Scanner or White's XL Pro or Fisher CZ-5 much different from the digital readouts of models like the XLT, DFX, MXT, CZ-7a Pro, X-Terra 50 or others? No, not really, but Yes in some ways.
You see, like everything else related to using a metal detector it is all a matter of operator interpretation. We have to listen and interpret audio responses, to include those iffy sounds, and we have to do the same with any visual TID. On the surface of it all, Yes, the analog and digital readouts are each going to provide us some information about the target, or targets, sampled with the coil's sweep. What I have found is that with some types, such as the CZ5 and all the CZ series, the target segments are few and they are very distinctive. That is, they suggest a particular coin or group of coins or pull tab. There is no in-between reading. It is either this group or that group or iron and too often the users ignore some of the telltale info and await a solid lock on. They treat ALL responses with jumpy dislays as trash, just as if it was an iron target.
Quire often, a model has a very wide-ranging series of VDI numbers, such as the DFX, XLT or MXT. White's signagraph provided a little better iron trash information, but too often the operator's attention gets locked in on the bigger numeric readout and, in short, it can appear to be "too busy" and they shrug it off after a while and await a rock solid TID reading. It's an operator interpretation issue.
Then we have models such as the XL Pro. Doe sit have ID labels? Yes, but they are subdued from the primary signal response action. Doesn't the display also have a wide-range of VDI reference numbers? Yes, it does, but they, too, are more subdued and a secondary reference compared with the primary signal action.
What is the "primary signal action" I refer to? The large, easy-to-view display with a moving needle that isn't segmented like the Compass Challenger or Scanner series, or the Garrett Grand Master Hunter, or Tesoro's three Toltec models and many more. Instead, the user first sees and follows the generally smooth left-to-right movement of the needle to register a detected target, but also benefits from the subtle little flickers, to-or-from the iron or non-ferrous areas of the display. A more experienced user of an XL Pro, for example, is more apt to learn and interpret the needle's behavior than a lot of bold, flickering numbers.
To conclude, yes, I have used the Compass models to include their earliest Yukon IB models as well as their Klondike BFO's and on up to their last good models. Some can do 'OK' in iron nail infested sites. the Scanner series might have had some of their best iron nail handling abilities of all of Compass motion discriminators.
Sorry to ramble.
Monte
Charles (Sabre)(Tx)
New member
n/t
My intention was to learn more about the later TID machines not the full range of Compass offerings.Detectors like the X-100,X-200,XP-Pro,and Coinscanner were what I had in mind.I`m really sorry for not makeing this plainer.Thank you very much,anyway,as your post is very informative.(Of course your posts usually are!)
Perhaps a buried left needle combined with some audio information, but the left-flicker does alert me that, if the good target is somewhat shallow, there might be more than one target there, and one might be masking it somewhat based upon some iron content. Thus, if I check in All Metal I know that I could possibly get a wider sized response (due to nearby iron) than a narrower coin-sized response.
It all depends upon the site, the types of targets I pull in the first 30 minutes of hunting a site, etc.
Monte
It all depends upon the site, the types of targets I pull in the first 30 minutes of hunting a site, etc.
Monte
A
Anonymous
Guest
If you go back to the Judge Series they had good iron discrimination because they operated at 100khz in a TR disc format. The same could be said for the Relic Magnum Series like the 7, at 4khz which had good depth and iron discrimination, especially using reverse discrimination.
Then Compass came out with an extraordinary machine which was more properly called an analyzer than a discriminator, the Coin Magnum. This detector featured an adjustable surface blanking which was also an early type of notch. What was so unusual was that you ground balanced the detector, and then it analyzed without using a motion circuit, you could hold it still over the target. Actually you had to hold it still as there was a short time lag for the circuit to work and fully analyze the signal. A small problem occured however in that the surface blanking effect worked on iron also-or did not. Meaning a nail below 7 inches would read as good, however, there was an easy remedy- you use the ground adjust to slightly null out on nails. At this point your were not completely ground balanced, but just slightly out. Still it was superior to a TR discriminator. At this time Bounty Hunter had been building the Red Barons for several years, and they may say they were 4 filter units, but they were probably 6 or more and you probably left as many coins as you found.
Then Teknetics came out with the 8500 and 9000 TID, and the Coin Magnum disappeared from sight never to be seen again. Compass had a good detector in the X-100 when used in the narrow filter position with the 16 inch loop-I still can't believe some of the depths I've dug coins and Minie balls. But I've also dug some nails as anyone will do who tries to overdrive a motion detector. I've heard some good things about the X-200, but have never seen one, and from what I gather getting parts and repairs can be spotty for Compass. And I've heard of no new ground breaking developements, so there technology is somewhat dated.
Then Compass came out with an extraordinary machine which was more properly called an analyzer than a discriminator, the Coin Magnum. This detector featured an adjustable surface blanking which was also an early type of notch. What was so unusual was that you ground balanced the detector, and then it analyzed without using a motion circuit, you could hold it still over the target. Actually you had to hold it still as there was a short time lag for the circuit to work and fully analyze the signal. A small problem occured however in that the surface blanking effect worked on iron also-or did not. Meaning a nail below 7 inches would read as good, however, there was an easy remedy- you use the ground adjust to slightly null out on nails. At this point your were not completely ground balanced, but just slightly out. Still it was superior to a TR discriminator. At this time Bounty Hunter had been building the Red Barons for several years, and they may say they were 4 filter units, but they were probably 6 or more and you probably left as many coins as you found.
Then Teknetics came out with the 8500 and 9000 TID, and the Coin Magnum disappeared from sight never to be seen again. Compass had a good detector in the X-100 when used in the narrow filter position with the 16 inch loop-I still can't believe some of the depths I've dug coins and Minie balls. But I've also dug some nails as anyone will do who tries to overdrive a motion detector. I've heard some good things about the X-200, but have never seen one, and from what I gather getting parts and repairs can be spotty for Compass. And I've heard of no new ground breaking developements, so there technology is somewhat dated.
Interesting post Vlad.It would seem the X-100 is typical in the iron handling department;too bad.Never the less,the X-series is very interesting with regard to versatility.Most people think the DFX broke new ground in that department but the analog X-200 was years ahead of it.With the flick of a plain old switch you could choose between one or three filter GB and another gave you a choice of two frequencies.That amounts to four different detectors in one without a big hassle setting up.The X-100 was single frequency,I think,but you could select two or four filter GB.
A
Anonymous
Guest
No, the X-100 did have good iron disc.,better than average, and if you listened to the audio, 90% of iron could be disced out with the audio characteristics, and the iron bouncing all over the meter. I rate it exceptional by todays standards.
A
Anonymous
Guest
The best thing for masking is to run '0' discrimination, and watch the meter and listen to the audio-especially double blips from linear iron. But take a chance and dig questionable targets.
A
Anonymous
Guest
n/t
A
Anonymous
Guest
n/t