I have maybe a crazy question for an engineer or anyone that might know.I think on auto sensitivity the e-trac detects using the three clearest channels operating at different frequencies.On manual sensitivity if I understand correctly it detects on only one channel.I suppose none of us users knows or need to know all the details how these signals are conditioned whether multiplexed or whatever.Now to my question.If we had a sensitivity adjustment on two of these channels that we could adjust one channel to see maybe 2 or 3 inches down (adjustable to whatever depth) and the other adjustable to maximum depth,could a signal conditioning circuit be developed to cancel out the shallow junk targets? If something like this could be developed we could do away with alot of discrimination and clear up alot of trashy park signals.Also we could choose to concentrate on the deeper targets.
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.
? for any Minelab engineer that may be tracking the forum.
- Thread starter jyblood
- Start date
huntindog1
Member
I am not a minelab engineer but the way I understand it is , when in auto all 3 channels are adjusted and can be set to different levels automatically.
In the manual mode what ever setting you pick like say level 30 then all 3 channels are set to 30. You can not set them individually.
I assume having all three channels running at different levels as determined by some software analysis would be the most ideal and if you wanted to be more aggressive using the auto +3 would be the best choice.
As running each channel at a different frequency would dictate that each one would need a different level of sensitivity as different frequencies react differently in the ground..
In the manual mode what ever setting you pick like say level 30 then all 3 channels are set to 30. You can not set them individually.
I assume having all three channels running at different levels as determined by some software analysis would be the most ideal and if you wanted to be more aggressive using the auto +3 would be the best choice.
As running each channel at a different frequency would dictate that each one would need a different level of sensitivity as different frequencies react differently in the ground..
DiggerODirt
Active member
My Fisher CZ7a Pro had a surface elimination setting up to 3 inches, and I can tell you it Did work...
HH,
HH,
Appreciate your reply Digger.I think you understand what I'm saying.I have an E-trac and I love it but it appears to me that if Minelab would develop a similar circuit to the Fisher CZ7 it would be something special.I've never had a Fisher MD so I don't know how they compare to minelab but I know the E-trac is pretty good.What I'm saying is this, if at one frequency (channel) you are seeing 3 inches deep and at another frequency (channel) you are adjusted to see 10 inches deep,I only want to display and here what the deep channel detects that is not detected by the 3 inch channel.
huntindog1
Member
On the Etrac there is a depth meter to give an indication of of how deep the target is. Plus the sounds on the minelab can be set so deeper targets sound deep.
If some of the settings for audio are set a certain way the audio for a deeper target sounds just as good as a shallow target. So set like that it would be hard to differentiate between shallow and deep targets.
Plus electronic circuitry can be fooled as well as with the CZ or the minelab depth is based on coin sized targets. If the object detected is not a coin sized target tehn the machine can be fooled.
If some of the settings for audio are set a certain way the audio for a deeper target sounds just as good as a shallow target. So set like that it would be hard to differentiate between shallow and deep targets.
Plus electronic circuitry can be fooled as well as with the CZ or the minelab depth is based on coin sized targets. If the object detected is not a coin sized target tehn the machine can be fooled.
RetiredVeteranTH
New member
Seems that even with the inability of detectors to always differentiate between a smaller object at a shallow depth and a larger object at greater depth that somehow there should be away to judge the however TINY difference in the amount of TIME it takes for the magnetic field to affect a farther (deeper) object as opposed to a closer (shallower) object.
I may be assuming that the field is moving outward and returning as opposed to a static simultaneous field but I though in a DD coil that one side of the loop was the transmiting side and the other the receiving. I know little to nothing about electronics and I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this idea but does anyone know why it WOULDN'T work? If someone could develop an accurate surface blanking circuit it would be pretty revolutionary. That is assuming that the theory that generally older objects are deeper than newer objects(where the soil hasn't been disturbed or moved around). I have dug plenty of old coins that were shallow. I just dug a Mercury dime from the 40's that was barely, if even, 3" deep.
I may be assuming that the field is moving outward and returning as opposed to a static simultaneous field but I though in a DD coil that one side of the loop was the transmiting side and the other the receiving. I know little to nothing about electronics and I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this idea but does anyone know why it WOULDN'T work? If someone could develop an accurate surface blanking circuit it would be pretty revolutionary. That is assuming that the theory that generally older objects are deeper than newer objects(where the soil hasn't been disturbed or moved around). I have dug plenty of old coins that were shallow. I just dug a Mercury dime from the 40's that was barely, if even, 3" deep.
