Interesting experiment with fast off in trash

[dewcon4414]

Its not just noise... but everything that passes under the coil as well which if i understand it correctly is averaged for a TID. The less it has time to annalize the more targets closer to the surface and minerals come into play and you start loosing some of those deep signals. According to the book weaker signals are the only signals boosted. Brings us back to is gain and deep on the same? IMHO no. Deep for me seems to run the train like James said where you have a more open area that you can allow the detector the opportunity to sample more targets at a slower rate of speed. The recovery is slower (in normal recovery FAST OFF) during this process but more of the noise and minerals are being filtered out. This i think is where the conflict comes into play with FAST on. Fast on is trying to increase the recovery while the Deep is trying to get a better look at good targets. The book tends to say GAIN and DEEP do the same thing. But for me Deep cleans up the signal to be heard better thru higher filtering and Gain modulates these signals. Hey... but i could be out to lunch .. again.

Sangamon.. hey guy jump right in here and get me out of trouble.

Dew

 

[digitrich]

The Explorer's being slow to recover and/or just give any type of display is not just the machine sampling signals and analyzing those signals before it reports.

Try this: Go into the edit screen and push the arrows to move the cursor around. There is literally a half of a second between the time when I push the button and when the cursor actually moves. There is absolutely no signal comparison or algorithms taking place at that time. You are simply waiting for the processor to complete a button push task. WHY????? The whole damn processor is a paint dry slow joke if you ask me. If you press the arrows 6 times quickly, you can almost go have a sandwich and come back when the screen catches up. What is the reason for the enormous lag, slower than any other electrical device I have ever pushed a button on?? Now if the processor's response is that slow for just moving the cursor across the screen, how slow is it when it's doing millions of calculations and comparisons while maintaining sensitivity, analyzing the ground matrix, and ignoring EMI??? Nothing for nothing, but isn't it about time someone put a real processor in detectors that are now costing us 1200-1500 dollars each????

I mean, I buy the whole "it's comparing signals" and such thing and I love my Explorer's, but the fact that the display cursor takes a good half of a second to move after you push the button, who's BS'ing who?

My Etrac, yes has a little faster processor than my SE's BUT it still is not, and is no where near close to modern technologie's advancements or improvements. You can buy small electronic devices with faster and better processors for under a hundred bucks. I personally feel like a slow milked cow. Where although manufacturers have the ability to use better hardware, quite inexpensively I might add, they insist on doing as little as possible, with minimum improvement or advancement. As if they put out the real deal right now, then they couldn't have milked us into buying the 4 "in between" models, anyone else feel like that?

How about a real advancement............................. using the highest quality and most advanced available technology currently available. If they just made an SE with a real processor, I find it impossible to believe that we would not benefit from that simple bump in speed. And I am not talking about a processor slightly faster, they could easily use a processor 100 to 1000 times faster, for under a hundred bucks. Where the $#%% is it????????????

We sit here comparing notes on fast and deep and settings etc, trying to milk a drop of extra depth or speed from our machines, through our settings. Why aren't our manufacturers given us the best tool for the job? I am beginning to feel like a nuclear physicist using a damn abacus. Am I missing something???? Is it just me?

Someone know a reason for this?

Let the venting begin, maybe someone will hear us

 

[digitrich]

It snowed 8 inches here today, so further experimentation will have to wait.

The first time I used deep on and fast off it seemed as if deep on lengthened the signals to me like a small amount of audio long. I now realize what I was just hearing was the difference between Fast on which made the length of time I heard the signal shorter and deep on which no longer shortened the length of time I heard the signal.

I don't believe deep and gain are doing the same thing. The idea that gain is linear and enhancing the VOLUME (sound) ONLY of all signals until maximum volume is reached and deep on is enhancing the volume of just the weak signals would lead one to believe that your threshold setting would then come strongly into play, otherwise, how would the machine know which signals to boost and at what point of reference? I think of the threshold kind of like a hurdle and the signal's volume as the "height" of the jumper. If the signals volume(the jumper) is not higher than the threshold(hurdle) you don't hear anything. So the threshold(hurdle) is like a gate that only opens for signals who's response is louder than you've set for your threshold. If you had your threshold set at 14 and a signal came through at a value of 12, then a higher gain might kick it's volume enough that you could hear it. We all set our threshold at just barely audible and probably use quality headphones. So I am now wondering if I lowered my threshold a teeny bit more to inaudible and maxed my gain, whether I couldn't squeeze out another inch or so? There is a hidden correlation their that I am now looking for.

On the SE when a gain of ten is used the mineralization, small trash AND tiny targets which could be a dime on edge at 9 inches are all amplified above the threshold. Because both the tiny trash and good targets are amplified it becomes a daunting task of finding the good in between the bad. There has to be a point at which you can set up the hurdle(threshold) and the boost(gain) so that signals just large enough to be quality targets make it over the hurdle are heard and trash just small enough not to make over that hurdle are not heard. I think the correlation between gain/threshold is going to be the key. That possibly a negative threshold with a higher gain is going to work. Again, only a minor negative threshold (barely below audible) to off set the high gain making the smallest trash and mineralization audible which would then become inaudible. Further complicating the whole thing though is where the sensitivity is set and whether again it's in auto or manual. For testing purposes one would have to probably put the machine in auto sensitivity or manual very stable/not barely stable to have a constant for reference. Almost like one less knob to turn and putz up the whole thing.

I am going to print off your suggestions about the Joey and take them with me later this week and give it a go, I'll let you know how it comes out, thanks.

 

[dewcon4414]

Boy, i cant disagree with too much you said there rich. I know exactly what you are saying about that slooooow movement in EDIT. I was working with it last night and noticed the same thing. I agree totally with such a so called advanced piece of equipment, FBS and all, you'd think we would have less obvious differences in speed from other machines. Is that what 11 channels with 28 freqs give us? Thats another one id like to know... each of these channels have randumly set freq for the best noise control and depth. Which means we are at the mercy of the auto noise cancel. Id sure like to know what these freqs are per channel so i have a reasonable shot at manually setting them. There is a corolation between threshold and what weak signals are getting over that so called hurdle of the threshold being louder than the signal. I think thats one reason ive always just ran above silent. Well that and it saves batteries. Ive never really been a silent runner thou. I like to at least know when ive went over a BAD target as well as a good one.