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
Is anyone else getting curious about these new ground penetrating radar machines?
- Thread starter Bell
- Start date
Erik in NJ
New member
Heard about them......any links? Hell I'd pay 20K if I could dig only what I wanted. I need ground penetrating radar to about 2'!! 
Great Republic
Active member
n/t
I can't believe how often this comes up, over and over, on md'ing forums. I guess because it "dazzles" the imagination, thinking you can just go around seeing the exact shape of the oject you are about to dig. No matter how often the record is set straight, a few weeks later, it pops up again on a forum elsewhere.
Ok, here goes again: The problem is the pixel size. The pixels are something like an inch across, at the absolute best and smallest! Thus ........ every coin, pulltab, nail, foil glob, etc.... will all be ....... ONE PIXEL! Doh! There's not enough detail to make out the shape of anything on the order of what us hobbyist need. Even a horseshoe (for example) is not a "picture of a horseshoe shape". Even that will merely be a blotchy mess of pixels.
Perhaps the only benefit is if you are sizing out the shape of something very large (a box, verses a cannon shape, or whatever).
Ok, here goes again: The problem is the pixel size. The pixels are something like an inch across, at the absolute best and smallest! Thus ........ every coin, pulltab, nail, foil glob, etc.... will all be ....... ONE PIXEL! Doh! There's not enough detail to make out the shape of anything on the order of what us hobbyist need. Even a horseshoe (for example) is not a "picture of a horseshoe shape". Even that will merely be a blotchy mess of pixels.
Perhaps the only benefit is if you are sizing out the shape of something very large (a box, verses a cannon shape, or whatever).
dewcon4414
Well-known member
Hey Tom.... dont burst our bubble... look whats going on in cell phones and TVs... who knows maybe another Icon on the Iphone. But im not sure id dig to many holes 2 ft. deep after a dime in a park. We start doing that and im sure most parks will close their doors to us. I think too many people have been watching CSI.
Dew
Dew
[/size]Sorry to burst your bubble 
And even IF the pixel size got much smaller (in the advancement of cell-phones and such technology), you've got to remember, it's going to have to be vveeerrryyy resolute, to be able to tell something as simple as square tab, verses round tab, for instance. And remember, rings, coins, round tabs, and most foil wads, are all "round". To determine a ring, verses a coin or foil blotch, assumes the shape showing not only shows "shape", but also that the center is hollow. A pretty tall order!
Fish finding radar (where they can actually tell the type and size of fish, etc... from great distances) is going through water...... going and going till it hits something. Very much unlike soil, which is a solid object! And medical X-rays (where you can tell the difference between a bobby pin, verses a straight nail, etc.... in someone's stomach) has a receiving coil on the back-side. Again, quite a different scenario from ground
And remember too, that all this nonsense assumes that things lie "flat" in the ground, to begin with!! The minute you even *SLIGHTLY* tilt a coin, or any other object, you're not going to get the shape right.
I know a fellow, who took a lot of silver out of a certain old town park, back during the "silver rush" days of the early 1980s. When he was all done cherry picking out a certain productive zone, he figured that .... "certainly there must be some gold rings and old nickels in this area, that I must be missing because I've cranked up the disc". So he set about to do this experiment: He gridded off an entire area, that had given him the most old silver coins, and set about to dig every single signal, no matter how long it took him (I forget if that included iron too, or not). Over the course of a long time, go to this gridded zone a time or two per week, and proceeded to load up his apron full of junk each time. He took careful notes in a log, of every single thing, the depth, the trajectory, the angle, etc... because he was going to do a statistical study to see if he could use ring programs, depth odds, etc....
An interesting phenomenom occured: He did indeed get some gold rings, and a few worthless buffalos and V's from the area. But he noticed, by slow meticulous recovery of the gold rings he would find, that ......... if they had a crown on them (ie.: one end heavier than the other), they would invariably be tilted slightly in favor of the heavier end! The amount of the tilt seemed dependant on the un-even-ness of the weight/crown. Only flat bands (primarily men's rings, as we know) were lying remotely flat.
This was a test done in un-disturbed turf, but you can see that something like furroughed fields, or gopher ridden cow-pastures, are going to be worse still.
Thus, when you add in the factor of items that are not lying perfectly flat (especially rings with crows, which is why we'd want this to begin with... to see ... eh?) you can see that this shape-seeing technology is not going to help us much. It's going to be faster just to dig the item up .... AND LOOK AT IT!
And even IF the pixel size got much smaller (in the advancement of cell-phones and such technology), you've got to remember, it's going to have to be vveeerrryyy resolute, to be able to tell something as simple as square tab, verses round tab, for instance. And remember, rings, coins, round tabs, and most foil wads, are all "round". To determine a ring, verses a coin or foil blotch, assumes the shape showing not only shows "shape", but also that the center is hollow. A pretty tall order!Fish finding radar (where they can actually tell the type and size of fish, etc... from great distances) is going through water...... going and going till it hits something. Very much unlike soil, which is a solid object!
And medical X-rays (where you can tell the difference between a bobby pin, verses a straight nail, etc.... in someone's stomach) has a receiving coil on the back-side. Again, quite a different scenario from ground And remember too, that all this nonsense assumes that things lie "flat" in the ground, to begin with!! The minute you even *SLIGHTLY* tilt a coin, or any other object, you're not going to get the shape right.
I know a fellow, who took a lot of silver out of a certain old town park, back during the "silver rush" days of the early 1980s. When he was all done cherry picking out a certain productive zone, he figured that .... "certainly there must be some gold rings and old nickels in this area, that I must be missing because I've cranked up the disc". So he set about to do this experiment: He gridded off an entire area, that had given him the most old silver coins, and set about to dig every single signal, no matter how long it took him (I forget if that included iron too, or not). Over the course of a long time, go to this gridded zone a time or two per week, and proceeded to load up his apron full of junk each time. He took careful notes in a log, of every single thing, the depth, the trajectory, the angle, etc... because he was going to do a statistical study to see if he could use ring programs, depth odds, etc....
An interesting phenomenom occured: He did indeed get some gold rings, and a few worthless buffalos and V's from the area. But he noticed, by slow meticulous recovery of the gold rings he would find, that ......... if they had a crown on them (ie.: one end heavier than the other), they would invariably be tilted slightly in favor of the heavier end! The amount of the tilt seemed dependant on the un-even-ness of the weight/crown. Only flat bands (primarily men's rings, as we know) were lying remotely flat.
This was a test done in un-disturbed turf, but you can see that something like furroughed fields, or gopher ridden cow-pastures, are going to be worse still.
Thus, when you add in the factor of items that are not lying perfectly flat (especially rings with crows, which is why we'd want this to begin with... to see ... eh?) you can see that this shape-seeing technology is not going to help us much. It's going to be faster just to dig the item up .... AND LOOK AT IT!
dewcon4414
Well-known member
Hummm you mean they cant come up with a fish finder like GPR that shows rings and coins floating in the air? Interesting concept... using a processor forTID combined with the GPR. I have a friend in AZ that has a 4 wheeler and has one of those large systems he puts together to find meters and larger items in the ground. Cant say hes found anything worth using a back hole on yet. Guess we are stuck with diggin it. Id be happy if i didnt have deep wrap around that could send good targets into the iron range. In a field i dig almost everything and find some interesting targets..... i mean great keeper, that most people would never dig. I found 2/3 of the screen could hold some very interesting relics. These targets are missed in a park..... no one knows how or just doesnt look for them. A good example was the 2 three ringers i found recently in a park. I have to agree tho tom.... tho these GPRs may be worth while for what they are used for they are along way from what we need. Also these things cover a LOT of soil... im not sure you could make a processor take that much info and reduce to a usible screen that we could move around easily. Then like i said.... it would come down to how deep is too deep to dig. Because i can see some people digging down to their knees in a park for tagets. In fact last winter i saw that on a beach. A guy had a XLT he just bought and he had 3 buddies along. I saw two of them with shovels.... digging down to their knees. Ya i had to ask. They were digging up iron the size of a battle ship. They had no idea what that detector would do and had been digging holes all day.... not finding anything but iron. I look forward to detecting upgrades.... but id have to say this wont be one we might see.... expense alone would be out of our price range.
Dew
Dew
I firmly believe we will see it in our lifetimes. I mean they are already available with gpr plus tid, just overly expensive and as said above the technology isn't quite there yet for it to be worth it. But we are overdue for a revolution in detecting technology, and I think that will be how it comes. As I said above I'd really like to hear from someone who actually has one.
Mike, you call that "close"? Look again at that video. Now try to imagine putting a coin, or ring, or pulltab, or nail, or whatever....... underneath that thing. You can plainly see it will reveal absolutely no info, other than perhaps a blotch. Info. that you/we couldn't have gotten from a metal detector (ie.: "there is a coin-sized target here") Tracing rebar is quite an easy task (for any metal detector that exists now, mind you).
This contractors unit is no different than the other units being posted. Again: the pixels aren't small enough to be of any use. And again, it's going to take a lot more than reducing pixel sizes down to micro-inches, because ....... think of it: even to know a square tab from round, or a foil blotch from a $1 gold piece, is going to take resolution down to thousands (?) of inches.
Anyone handy with computers & dig. camera technology here can do the following test: just use photo-editing on your computer, with a random pix of a coin (or any other such object). Take out pixels over and over again, till it becomes nothing but an un-identifiable blotch. Let us know what pixel size cut-off it is, where objects become nothing but un-identifiable blotches of messy pixels.
This contractors unit is no different than the other units being posted. Again: the pixels aren't small enough to be of any use. And again, it's going to take a lot more than reducing pixel sizes down to micro-inches, because ....... think of it: even to know a square tab from round, or a foil blotch from a $1 gold piece, is going to take resolution down to thousands (?) of inches.
Anyone handy with computers & dig. camera technology here can do the following test: just use photo-editing on your computer, with a random pix of a coin (or any other such object). Take out pixels over and over again, till it becomes nothing but an un-identifiable blotch. Let us know what pixel size cut-off it is, where objects become nothing but un-identifiable blotches of messy pixels.
dirt doctor
Well-known member
n/t
midwestmike
New member
I didn't say it was here today. My point is, technology is changing fast. Just a year or two ago the smallest units were the size of lawn mowers. Now we have hand held units with much greater resolution. I am only 51 years old and I remember black and white TV, no home or car air conditioning, my first computer was a Commodore 64, my first metal detector (my Dads) was a simple unit with only one knob and no discrimination. Things sure have changed! For the better I might add.
dewcon4414
Well-known member
The big problem is... its not like cell phones and TVs where everyone has one. For a company to stick their neck out for a small hobby in the skim of things would cost the buyer big time. Think about it the first generation likely would be poor.... we all know how we react to an average detector at a outragious price. Most of us can barely put out the cash for an Etrac because of use vs price, we just cant justify it. Right now they seem to meet the needs for which they are produced. Im more open to an impressive TID and increased depth without a price gouge. Sorry Bell im not trying to jurk your chain.... im just not seeing one in my future.
Dew
Dew
TURNMASTER
Active member
The first gen of these is out as well as the second third and more. The first stuff was crude. And remember the first widely used metal detectors were WWII mine detectors (I think). However the first metal detector was invented in 1881 by Alexander Graham Bell. Took awhile to get to where we are now.
Now then when a man or a group set out to create a better process, device or product, that is when great things can happen. Often the results happen in the course of one (human) generation.
Now look at computing, it went from a mechanical contraption to what we have today. There are other examples but there will certaintly be much more capable GPRs to come and they will deliver much greater information.
But with others, the car, after multiple generations we have what is still the same basic car. It is safer, longer lasting, more comfertable, reliable as well as more efficient and cleaner. But, it is just a metal and glass box on wheels powered by an internal combustion engine. Yes some are plastic or fiberglass, and we also have some electric but the end result is still a box with a motor.
We are due though for a Corvette or Porche in the MD world.
It will happen the real question is one of time and having true visionaries devoting their time and money to the cause.
Still Dreaming For Now
Jeff
Now then when a man or a group set out to create a better process, device or product, that is when great things can happen. Often the results happen in the course of one (human) generation.
Now look at computing, it went from a mechanical contraption to what we have today. There are other examples but there will certaintly be much more capable GPRs to come and they will deliver much greater information.
But with others, the car, after multiple generations we have what is still the same basic car. It is safer, longer lasting, more comfertable, reliable as well as more efficient and cleaner. But, it is just a metal and glass box on wheels powered by an internal combustion engine. Yes some are plastic or fiberglass, and we also have some electric but the end result is still a box with a motor.
We are due though for a Corvette or Porche in the MD world.
It will happen the real question is one of time and having true visionaries devoting their time and money to the cause.
Still Dreaming For Now
Jeff
Think it would be great side business to be in, locate pipes, and elect. lines. Old cellar , rock fences, something big like a old boat 20 ft. down in the ground in places like the banks of the Mississippi river. I think the commercial use would be great to builders and structure engineers doing a big project. There getting smaller and lighter too. I been kicking the ideal around for a while of getting one and locating pipes in old refiners, and other commercial use. I think it would be easy money on flat ground. No hills, just think about the sand dunes too, and highway construction use.
Marc in Va
New member
George Lesche of Predator Tools brings one to the DIV hunts. It has 4 wheels and is about lawn mower size. The machine is great at finding deep huts and trash pits. It will even show possible bottles in the ground. What the machine wont do is show small individual targets like coins buttons or bullets. It basically shows anomollies in the ground where it has been disturbed in the past. If you are a relic hunter and have a bunch of money then George will gladly sell you one. The technology is there and hopefully soon will be able to show small objects on a small screen. It is only a matter of time before a GPR can be used like a conventional metal detector. I am saving my money for that day!
Marc
Marc