Menu
What's new
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

Discrimination vs Identification

A

Anonymous

Guest
There has always been alot of discussion of ways to discriminate/reject iron with PI's and with most detectors for that matter. Also many times the words discriminate and ID have been used interchangeable when in reality they are two very different concepts though sometimes accomplished in the same manner. The main difference between discrimination and ID to me is that Discrimination is an "active" process and ID is a "passive" process. With discrimination we are trying to actively eliminate the response from a particular target. With ID we are only trying to identify a target not get rid of it's response.
The reason I am bringing this up now is that there has been a lot of discussion of the audio ID on the new Garrett detector and several people have used used the word discriminate interchangeably. It could be said or maybe some people think of this way that Tone ID is Audio Discrimination but it really isn't. Audio ID is just that Audio ID and it is up to the person using the detector to decide to dig or not. Thier brain becomes the true discriminator. Just some thoughts this early Tuesday morning <IMG SRC="/forums/images/smile.gif" BORDER=0 ALT=":)"> AS the saying goes...When in doubt dig!!!!! <IMG SRC="/forums/images/wink.gif" BORDER=0 ALT=";)">
HH
Beachcomber
 
Goodmorning Beachcomber
Your correct about how the tone should be considered, but in the "Hype" about the new Garrett I believe it was mentioned about "Discrimination", "Reverse Discrimination", along with the tone ID.
I have used the new Garrett MK II PI detector, and if the discrimination is anything like that, it
 
I agree with you Eric...the word Eliminator would be a more accurate word to use. Over the years some manufacturers have used the Reject and others the word Discrminate to describe the same control.
My point was that TID or Audio ID required no input from the user in order to accomplish thier task of trying to accurately Identify a target. Whereas the Discriminate or Reject Control requires the user to set it to eliminate the targets that they don't want to hear. In the past as you increased the Discriminate Control you would lose detection depth. Since we have gone with digital circuitry we no longer have that problem..at least not with VLF type detectors.
Actually for a Beach or Water Hunter all we would ever really need is a meter that read in one direction for Ferrous Targets and the other direction for Non-Ferrous. Even simpler yet woud be a Red light for Ferrous and Green for Non-Ferrous. Even so the characteristics of a PI make that very difficult to accomplish.
It will be interesting to see what the new Garrett has in store for us when we get ti out in the real world.
I had a chance to use an SD-2200D a few years ago, back around the time when you had one and I was sorely disappointed in it's Iron Rejection. Yes it could reject large shallow pieces of iron but it just loved the tiny slivers of nails. It had phenomenal depth in those <IMG SRC="/forums/images/smile.gif" BORDER=0 ALT=":)"> <IMG SRC="/forums/images/smile.gif" BORDER=0 ALT=":)"> <IMG SRC="/forums/images/smile.gif" BORDER=0 ALT=":)">
Thanks for your your response Eric!!!!!
HH
Beachcomber
 
Hi Mr. Bill,
I also had the chance to use the Garrett MK II and I agree it's discrimination abilities were/are very lacking.
Still I try to maintain a positive attitude toward new detectors and technologies. I do my best not to say anything negative about a new machine until I have tried it out for myself. I probably should have been born in the "Show Me" State instead of New Jersey <IMG SRC="/forums/images/smile.gif" BORDER=0 ALT=":)"> <IMG SRC="/forums/images/smile.gif" BORDER=0 ALT=":)"> <IMG SRC="/forums/images/smile.gif" BORDER=0 ALT=":)"> <IMG SRC="/forums/images/smile.gif" BORDER=0 ALT=":)"> <IMG SRC="/forums/images/smile.gif" BORDER=0 ALT=":)"> I have heard great hype about new detectors in the past only to see them fall far short of the hype!!!! Hopefully the new Garrett will not fall into this category!!!
Thanks for your response!!!
HH
Beachcomber
 
While we are on the subject, I have never understood why its called "pulse delay". Seems to me that "sample delay" would be more appropriate. <IMG SRC="/forums/images/smile.gif" BORDER=0 ALT=":)">
Thanks,
Charles
 
Hi Charles,
You are correct. I always used to refer to it as Sample Delay, but I think it was Whites who coined the term Pulse Delay for their Surfmaster. Pulse Delay came to be accepted and used due to the popularity of the Surfmaster, and I often use this description now to avoid further confusion. Perhaps I shouldn't <IMG SRC="/forums/images/smile.gif" BORDER=0 ALT=":)">
Eric.
 
I knew that. Hype like most rumors can really get blown out of proportion sometimes!!!!
HH
Beachcomber
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top