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
Something New, & its P.I.
- Thread starter vlad
- Start date
Never trust any manufacturer that builds or promote a LRL, as pictured below. They have failed 100% of the time in double blind tests, scientific, both in the lab and out in the field.
These buzz words should also be a clue:
-Find buried targets up to several meters underground with perfect metal discrimination
-Have to hunt in a NORTH to SOUTH pattern
If they really performed as stated, they would make traditional VLF or Pulse Induction metal detectors obsolete. And nobody has ever really heard of this company. Please, save your money. There are many different brands of metal detectors built by companies all over the world that actually work, can be repaired, have real warranties and won't charge you a re-stocking fee should you be unhappy and request your money back, if you were even so lucky to do so.
These buzz words should also be a clue:
-Find buried targets up to several meters underground with perfect metal discrimination
-Have to hunt in a NORTH to SOUTH pattern
If they really performed as stated, they would make traditional VLF or Pulse Induction metal detectors obsolete. And nobody has ever really heard of this company. Please, save your money. There are many different brands of metal detectors built by companies all over the world that actually work, can be repaired, have real warranties and won't charge you a re-stocking fee should you be unhappy and request your money back, if you were even so lucky to do so.
vlad
Well-known member
George Payne told me years ago that there were were some amazing advances in P.I.'s [he was working in that commercial field]
but for the hobbyist-it would be exorbitantly expensive. Would you know the leaps to which he was referring?
(Mr.Bill's son used a mine detector, PI type that gives out a visual image of the objects detected--have you seen one?)
but for the hobbyist-it would be exorbitantly expensive. Would you know the leaps to which he was referring?
(Mr.Bill's son used a mine detector, PI type that gives out a visual image of the objects detected--have you seen one?)
JASONSPAZ1
New member
n/t
JASONSPAZ1
New member
The big Northeast multi manufacturer distributor Detector Electronics in MA sells the DRS Ground Exper.
It is real, and not Long Range Locator technology like some type of remote viewing psychic stuff.
The problem is that the imaging technology is way beyond the price point of mainstream hobbyist.
But just like everything else invented by the industrial military complex, far out tech first appears as industrial products and then eventually works it's way into the public sector.
The big USA manufactures need to have some far flung vision and R&D beyond VLF technology to compete with the incoming overseas machines.
There will be a day when todays cutting edge target id will be looked upon as we now look at BFO detectors of yesteryear.
Remember those old BFO/TR machines where considered state of the art at one time.
HH
Jason
It is real, and not Long Range Locator technology like some type of remote viewing psychic stuff.
The problem is that the imaging technology is way beyond the price point of mainstream hobbyist.
But just like everything else invented by the industrial military complex, far out tech first appears as industrial products and then eventually works it's way into the public sector.
The big USA manufactures need to have some far flung vision and R&D beyond VLF technology to compete with the incoming overseas machines.
There will be a day when todays cutting edge target id will be looked upon as we now look at BFO detectors of yesteryear.
Remember those old BFO/TR machines where considered state of the art at one time.
HH
Jason
dfmike
Well-known member
I cringe when I see "comments are disabled for this video". Why ?
I can't say the video is totally uninteresting but a few things bugged me. At 13:00 he talks about discrimination between gold, lead and aluminum. He shows the discrimination between lead and gold and it seems to work quite well but never demonstrates gold against aluminum. He just says "aluminum is the same thing". He means to say that the machine can distinguish between gold and aluminum but never shows it. Also the recovery speed of the machine is not quite stellar to say the least.
Just out of curiosity, how much is it ?
I can't say the video is totally uninteresting but a few things bugged me. At 13:00 he talks about discrimination between gold, lead and aluminum. He shows the discrimination between lead and gold and it seems to work quite well but never demonstrates gold against aluminum. He just says "aluminum is the same thing". He means to say that the machine can distinguish between gold and aluminum but never shows it. Also the recovery speed of the machine is not quite stellar to say the least.
Just out of curiosity, how much is it ?
vlad
Well-known member
that is very telling--if they were positive they would probably be there-overflowing.
The price I saw online for this model is $6500, and its not the top of the line.
I'd take John-Edmonton as a guide, he is informed and up on the P.I. design.
And Steve Herschbach is another source to be consulted along with the old master, George Payne [he has a patent from '77 for a discriminating 'time domain' detector.]
Don't forget the man that developed the design-Eric Foster. Until I get verified information from people I know-not factory reps-I will hold off.
(Does anyone recall the TID P.I. unit made in France years back? Evidently it was just a mock up, because it never went into production.)
The price I saw online for this model is $6500, and its not the top of the line.
I'd take John-Edmonton as a guide, he is informed and up on the P.I. design.
And Steve Herschbach is another source to be consulted along with the old master, George Payne [he has a patent from '77 for a discriminating 'time domain' detector.]
Don't forget the man that developed the design-Eric Foster. Until I get verified information from people I know-not factory reps-I will hold off.
(Does anyone recall the TID P.I. unit made in France years back? Evidently it was just a mock up, because it never went into production.)
steve herschbach
New member
Anyone with any familiarity of the standard VLF target id scale and how discrimination works should understand there is nothing being shown in the video that cannot be done with any decent notch type VLF. I could easily produce a video showing the exact same results with a White's V3i if I wanted it to be pretty, but even an AT Pro can tell a ferrous object from a gold object from a brass object. Using a "learn reject" function is nothing new either. Try the same test with a mix of aluminum items, lead items, and different size gold jewelry items, all of roughly the same size, and then see what happens.
Attaching a VLF to a tablet display looks cool but I see nothing new going on here other than that. Just my opinion of course.
Attaching a VLF to a tablet display looks cool but I see nothing new going on here other than that. Just my opinion of course.
To the casual un-informed newbie, that video seems to make the case that the machine is going to tell them aluminum vs gold vs lead. And curiously, he doesn't test any aluminum to show it. AND EVEN IF HE DID, I'd be suspicious that it's still nothing more than a type of notching. Eg.: where the specific aluminum he'd wave and the specific gold ring he'd wave just happened to have different TID's.
Meaning it's NOT REALLY differentiating gold from aluminum. And pity the poor soul who thinks he could take that out to the nearest junky blighted park, and pass all aluminum , and dig only gold. Yet that's exactly what the video heavily insinuates.
Meaning it's NOT REALLY differentiating gold from aluminum. And pity the poor soul who thinks he could take that out to the nearest junky blighted park, and pass all aluminum , and dig only gold. Yet that's exactly what the video heavily insinuates.
vlad
Well-known member
TID, size/image, and other features, and is attached to a display but it is a VLF I believe. (Kellyco has them)
At least one model I watched a video on [youtube] seemed to have a problem with steel alloys too.
As to conductivity of metals-size affects where it reads on the conductive range scale of a VLF; 14k thin band ring is far lower than a 14k large man's class ring.
Does this hold true on any types/models of P.I.s when it comes to a nugget that weighs a few grams vs several pounds [hi/lo vs lo/hi] re Tdi ?
At least one model I watched a video on [youtube] seemed to have a problem with steel alloys too.
As to conductivity of metals-size affects where it reads on the conductive range scale of a VLF; 14k thin band ring is far lower than a 14k large man's class ring.
Does this hold true on any types/models of P.I.s when it comes to a nugget that weighs a few grams vs several pounds [hi/lo vs lo/hi] re Tdi ?
steve herschbach
New member
vlad said:
Ground balancing PI detectors like the Minelabs, TDI, Infinium, and ATX all divide targets classes to full depth as relates to the ground new balance and other settings. In general low conductive/small targets fall into one class, and high conductive/large targets in another class, as differentiated by tones. So just like with a VLF it is a combination of metal type and size that differentiates targets. Metal detectors do not "see" different metals. They see differences in conductivity or magnetic properties as modified by size
So a small gold item reads like foil. A larger gold item reads like a nickel. A larger gold item reads like a pull tab. A larger gold item reads like a dime. Purity matter. Pure gold reads higher than gold alloys. Shape matters. Round targets and in particular round targets with holes read different than irregular items.
Seriously vlad, I know you know all this stuff. You have been around a long time. I know people want to believe the Europeans or the military have some magic new whiz bang secret technology but the facts of life are much more boring. I do think we will have some true ground breaking technology soon, but I do expect it to be from one of those dull old brands like Fisher, Minelab, or White's. Those are the three I am watching. Nuff said.
Good post Steve.
Despite the very clear insinuations of the video I knew that there was going to be the eventual reality that : All they are doing, is testing isolated objects, to show a difference. It's not taking into account the millions of sizes and purities of gold, and the millions of sizes and type of aluminum objects.
But a question to you now: What do you think of some persons (even dealers who should know better), who say that gold vs aluminum can be learned simply by tones ? Eg.: "roundness" "softeness" "repeatability" and so-forth. Oh sure, they might qualify that and say "with 80% accuracy", etc.... But at the SAME time, leaving their customer (or the viewer of their video) with the notion that: "If I just study long enough and hard enough, there is a difference between gold and aluminum to a high enough degree, that I can go out to junky blighted parks and pass 'most' just, and concentrate on 'mostly' gold items"
I've heard this claim many times. Yet have never actually seen anyone do it. And to the extent that, sure, some guys get their gold rings from turf, you wonder if A) they're not simply using a form of notching (and not "tones/sounds"), and B) they're simply going to more upscale cleaner types athletic turf, vs picnic or blighted turf. And C) you wonder *just* how much aluminum they had to deal with for each gold ring, such that, ultimately, isn't it just random chance, vs their being a difference between aluminum to gold ?
But to the poor newbie who sees the claim: Humorously, when they FINALLY find a gold ring, it might SEEM that: "That sounded different than all the junk I dug all morning". But I believe this is just the trick of selective memory bias. In that EVERY signal we stoop down to dig, we subconsciously say to ourselves: "This sounds different". But when it turns out to be junk, we promptly forget our premonitions. And think "Yeah, come to think of it, it *did* sound sort of junky". But when one FINALLY turns out to be a gold ring, only THEN do we remember our premonitions and think "Aha! I knew it!" And can convince ourselves there is a learn-able difference.
The claim I have heard coming from 2 different dealers, is even to simple 2-filter Tesoros no less. Thus far from having tones , they are just beep-or-no-beep machines. Yet the claim is made. And newbies who take this at face value (hey, it's coming from a dealer after all) are forever trying to attain to this level.
If anyone could ever show this supposed learned skill, to go to a field littered with aluminum, and dig a fair percentage of gold (even if only 1 to 25 or 1 to 50), and do so without "notching" (thus, do it on the progressive disc. knob of the simple 2-filter machines), I would believe. But alas, once you challenge them to "show you", you hear only the sound of crickets. Or you find out their simply going to places with much higher odds and notching. Which is a far cry from trying to say that "aluminum sounds different from gold".
Despite the very clear insinuations of the video I knew that there was going to be the eventual reality that : All they are doing, is testing isolated objects, to show a difference. It's not taking into account the millions of sizes and purities of gold, and the millions of sizes and type of aluminum objects.
But a question to you now: What do you think of some persons (even dealers who should know better), who say that gold vs aluminum can be learned simply by tones ? Eg.: "roundness" "softeness" "repeatability" and so-forth. Oh sure, they might qualify that and say "with 80% accuracy", etc.... But at the SAME time, leaving their customer (or the viewer of their video) with the notion that: "If I just study long enough and hard enough, there is a difference between gold and aluminum to a high enough degree, that I can go out to junky blighted parks and pass 'most' just, and concentrate on 'mostly' gold items"
I've heard this claim many times. Yet have never actually seen anyone do it. And to the extent that, sure, some guys get their gold rings from turf, you wonder if A) they're not simply using a form of notching (and not "tones/sounds"), and B) they're simply going to more upscale cleaner types athletic turf, vs picnic or blighted turf. And C) you wonder *just* how much aluminum they had to deal with for each gold ring, such that, ultimately, isn't it just random chance, vs their being a difference between aluminum to gold ?
But to the poor newbie who sees the claim: Humorously, when they FINALLY find a gold ring, it might SEEM that: "That sounded different than all the junk I dug all morning". But I believe this is just the trick of selective memory bias. In that EVERY signal we stoop down to dig, we subconsciously say to ourselves: "This sounds different". But when it turns out to be junk, we promptly forget our premonitions. And think "Yeah, come to think of it, it *did* sound sort of junky". But when one FINALLY turns out to be a gold ring, only THEN do we remember our premonitions and think "Aha! I knew it!" And can convince ourselves there is a learn-able difference.
The claim I have heard coming from 2 different dealers, is even to simple 2-filter Tesoros no less. Thus far from having tones , they are just beep-or-no-beep machines. Yet the claim is made. And newbies who take this at face value (hey, it's coming from a dealer after all) are forever trying to attain to this level.
If anyone could ever show this supposed learned skill, to go to a field littered with aluminum, and dig a fair percentage of gold (even if only 1 to 25 or 1 to 50), and do so without "notching" (thus, do it on the progressive disc. knob of the simple 2-filter machines), I would believe. But alas, once you challenge them to "show you", you hear only the sound of crickets. Or you find out their simply going to places with much higher odds and notching. Which is a far cry from trying to say that "aluminum sounds different from gold".
I can tell 99.99% of the time when looking for gold in a park when its rubbish does that count 
sure some new tech would be super great in telling metals apart but there is a good thing they cant in the fact no one is pouching my park gold as I have an army guarding it a army of tabs
not heard any sounds that I can say that's gold dug some real nice sounding targets that were junk & gold, dug some crappy sounding targets that were not gold and some that were..
I am sure we all want to believe but believing doesn't make it so..
AJ
sure some new tech would be super great in telling metals apart but there is a good thing they cant in the fact no one is pouching my park gold as I have an army guarding it a army of tabs
not heard any sounds that I can say that's gold dug some real nice sounding targets that were junk & gold, dug some crappy sounding targets that were not gold and some that were..
I am sure we all want to believe but believing doesn't make it so..
AJ
vlad
Well-known member
The last one I bought was an Eric Foster pre Goldscan called the PPD1-I think it was a more specialized version of the Aquapulse.
Non motion, but with an IB circuit hooked to a triplanar loop, and a meter for ferrous/non ferrous-with pulltab reject. Maybe that function worked in the UK,
but in the mineralized US, below 2-3" a dime read ferrous. I was a U.S. field tester for Eric's Goldscan prototype but that's about it.
Have not touched anything else. And it seems that Eric, George Payne, Reg, Prospector Al, are pretty much gone now-so the sources-are non existent.
If something is just an ad, it can be a little difficult at times to see what is real, and what is, scam.
Non motion, but with an IB circuit hooked to a triplanar loop, and a meter for ferrous/non ferrous-with pulltab reject. Maybe that function worked in the UK,
but in the mineralized US, below 2-3" a dime read ferrous. I was a U.S. field tester for Eric's Goldscan prototype but that's about it.
Have not touched anything else. And it seems that Eric, George Payne, Reg, Prospector Al, are pretty much gone now-so the sources-are non existent.
If something is just an ad, it can be a little difficult at times to see what is real, and what is, scam.
steve herschbach
New member
Tom_in_CA said:
Heck Tom, you are a gold coin god in my book, and you are asking me? You know the answer of course - you just want me on the record!
I have dug very many pounds of gold in my time with a detector. I obsess over the technology and am plugged into what is going on better than most. There is no gold detecting tool I would not buy if I believed it would help me recover more gold.
No, there is no way to tell gold from aluminum from lead, etc. I have dug large gold nuggets that read as high as silver coins due to their purity, size and shape. There are tricks one can play with jewelry and statistics due to where most rings fall in the VDI scale versus other targets, but that is playing the odds. Rings at shallow to moderate depths do indeed produce high tight VDI hits on my DFX/BigFoot (love the SignaGraph) and if I ignore zinc penny on up I can dig nickels, every pull tab ever dropped, and maybe a gold ring. There are actually quite a few tricks one can play with the statistics of it but it has nothing to do with being able to tell one metal from another. And every item notched carries away with it a potential gold target.
It is more about site selection than anything in my opinion. If I believe, based on my experience or just gut feeling, that an urban location is a good gold site, I will recover all non-ferrous I can pop with a screwdriver. No plugging - half the game is volume. Either I am right or wrong and I either dig a ton of aluminum and get some gold if right, or a ton of aluminum only if wrong!
Sadly, the gold prospector in me knows that very small gold nuggets or large gold nuggets at fringe depth read ferrous in bad ground. Anyone that knows their VDI scale knows ferrous and non-ferrous overlap, but few see it like prospector do. Faint little ferrous hit, scrape a couple inches off with boot, reading turns non-ferrous, dig ten more inches, recover 1/4 oz gold nugget. On beaches I use a PI or out prospecting I use a GPZ 7000 and dig everything that beeps. Even ignoring ferrous will cost you gold.
The good news? Tons of good targets left out there being passed due to target masking and improper VDI at depth. You and I are old enough they will not have outlawed all the places before we croak so we just need to keep digging while we can. I will also say this - if people want to cherry pick with their detectors and have fun doing it, who cares really? This ain't about getting rich, it's about enjoying what we are doing. Let them believe what they want to believe. If they want to leave some gold for me it does not hurt my feelings.
Best wishes to you Tom!
Some park digs, before and after sorting for the photo.....
http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/uploads/monthly_2016_06/trash6.jpg.2d29c5ea140f13b5871fc877904e53a7.jpg
http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/uploads/monthly_2016_06/trash7.jpg.64d2dfe2d8b698db72c5a0ec44b5f95a.jpg
Steve, thanx for the input. Everything you're saying about upping the odds, is as you say: Not telling one metal apart from another. It's merely variations of notching. Thus those persons that are saying "gold sounds different" , are just victims of selective memory bias. Yet there are people who meet them, see their videos, and .... figure it must be true (hey, they're dealers after all).
And when those newbies DO eventually find a gold ring, they might be inclined to think "that sounded different". (hence confirming what the dealer told them). But again, this is just the trick of memory bias. But will be so strong, that they'll be inclined to think "Now if I can only eventually learn that sound , I can eventually attain to knocking out most aluminum".
And when those newbies DO eventually find a gold ring, they might be inclined to think "that sounded different". (hence confirming what the dealer told them). But again, this is just the trick of memory bias. But will be so strong, that they'll be inclined to think "Now if I can only eventually learn that sound , I can eventually attain to knocking out most aluminum".
its funny I went out tonight after reading about the that sounds nice and dug a target that sounded great and sure enough it was a old round riptab laying flat so yeah a ring just not the one I wanted 
although I think I can remember using something similar to marry a girl when I was about 7 at school so hey it could have been someone's lost memory 
best tool any detectorist can have is time and I guess those with not much cherry pick those with more dig more?
but agree I am out there having fun while I still can life is short do what does it for you is a good idea
AJ
although I think I can remember using something similar to marry a girl when I was about 7 at school so hey it could have been someone's lost memory best tool any detectorist can have is time and I guess those with not much cherry pick those with more dig more?
but agree I am out there having fun while I still can life is short do what does it for you is a good idea
AJ
landman
Member
My understanding is that the machine will see larger gold when discriminating out the smaller
and larger aluminum. The machine will see aluminum as "Iron" when the discriminator is set at #5.
When it is set at #5, small gold rings are seen as "iron" as well. To search effectively you'll
have to be searching for items the size of a watch or a 1oz. gold coin.
These will be seen seen as "Gold"
and pull tabs and a coke can as "Iron".
.
and larger aluminum. The machine will see aluminum as "Iron" when the discriminator is set at #5.
When it is set at #5, small gold rings are seen as "iron" as well. To search effectively you'll
have to be searching for items the size of a watch or a 1oz. gold coin.
These will be seen seen as "Gold"
and pull tabs and a coke can as "Iron".
.