Despite the many ways can you squeeze a lemon, it will never produce Champagne!

[John LA]

and quite a number of us have had long careers in the electronic field.

 

[Chuck@TreasureHut]

John....thank you for making my point exactly.....this is just a hobby....and "carping" has little room in any serious debate, nor do personal attacks.

There are obviously many ways to get one's point across without the personal attacks that I read earlier in this thread.

One big "hoorah" for "long careers in the electronic field"......that should make us all a little more intelligent and less apt to "tear a new product apart" without first having tested and evaluated it.

Here's wishing all in this thread HH and easy digging.

 

[MattR]

Hello John.

Thank you for your reply to the statement I proposed.

You will note the two ellements of my proposal which are very deliberate and inseparable to the significance of what I had to say.

[size=large]to detect and analyze[/size]

You said in your reply that you have detected targets deeper than the diameter of the search head being used.

With respect John, that reply was not elaborate enough to disproved my proposal.

Please, honestly tell me the coin/artifact's diameter, and it's Dual VDI value. (metal contents also?)

If you can also recall it, your sensitivity setting.

I appreciate and respect any auguments or differing opinions, otherwise there's nothing to be learned from whatever debate may ensue....MattR.UK.

p.s. On a hot,tough day's detecting, a lemonade is all that I'd wish for too!!

 

[Cody]

MattR, I often think about the posts that make statements that cannot possible be from correct observation and analysis. It seems hopeless to debate the most basic laws of physics and electronics. My assumption is that while there is some background or understanding in those areas it is not sufficient to understand why the assertions are not correct but I do accept that the authors are honestly wrong.

MattR, I don't see much that can be done with the detection of a metal target with the technology used in our hobby detectors that has not already been done. We have pulse induction and sine wave, multiple and single frequency, and that is pretty much it. Your thoughts on being more effective and Erik's input about better code for a stronger microprocessor seems to have real merit. I think anyone with even a little background begins to realize it is what we do on the receiver side of the house that is going to make the difference. Of course your are correct about the distance an object can be detected from the coil based on the size of the target and the diameter of the coil. The trick is to pick those faint targets out that fall within that field of detection.

Ergonomics of design which makes is easy for the user to maintain maximum effectiveness is one way. Better code and presentation of the data to the user is wrapped up in that. It is something like taking a Martin guitar and going a step further. This is all I expect to see unless there is some radical new approach to detecting coins and relics in our hobby. I think the SE is a good example of small steps to improve functionality so we can be more productive. You understand eddy current induction to ID metals, detection depth issues, so in your opinion is there something out there other than these small steps to improve on our effectiveness with the current technology? I don't think there is and don't expect anything that will be cost effective for hobby detecting.

I will get an SE since I sold my EX2 while taking care of my mom during her terminal illness. If I had the EX2 I guess it would be a toss of the coin. I do like VCO pinpointing and some of the other minor changes made and released in the black, wow, SE. I think the VCO feature and audio 3 interest me more than the other changes that I could pretty much do with or without and do just fine with the EX2.

 

[Chuck@TreasureHut]

WOW....you three are excellent "odd bedfellows"....the three of you should start a manufacturing company and call it EMC2 "for Erik-Matt-Cody squared". Finish your new detector in "champagne powder coat", and market it through Apple Computer dealers.

I would probably buy one, to just hang-up in my store.

Wushing you the very best of luck.....

We "gotta luv ya"

 

[Steve(MS)]

For instance, a 5" coil will likely go a little deeper than 5" deep. The problem comes into play when 10" or above is used, however with very favorable soil conditions, deeper than coil size is possible. I have noticed that soil that has a sandy content to it will detect deeper but most of my hunting I am not fortunate enough to have ideal soil conditions.

 

[John in Florida]

Matt, I'm not trying to disprove your statement at all. I just threw out my experience with various detectors. You should know that as soon as you try to post a rule of thumb, it's going to be disproven by someone else's experience.

My most frequent experience with depth greater than diameter is with my 5" coil. When I went on vacation to NC 2 years ago I found a variety of Merc Dimes at least 7" deep. I knew they were high conductivity targets because when I flipped the coin switch they still sounded solid. This was on a Troy detector.

Your theory about coil diameter has been thrown out there many times but no one has yet shown which law of physics does the diameter theory come under.

Cheers

 

[Cody]

I will venture some comments on the advertised advances in the SE and hope we don