Critterhunter
New member
Here it is, I hope...
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
Splitting Hairs On Ring VDI Numbers
- Thread starter Critterhunter
- Start date
Critterhunter
New member
A few more conclusions can be drawn from the above numbers that go against conventional wisdom...
I bet most people would not have believed that there exists a larger percentage of rings as a whole in the "COIN" zone (170 to 180) than there does in the "Nickle Zone" (139 to 14
, and if you narrow the nickle zone down to the most common nickle numbers of 142 to 146 then that contrast is even more apparent. By the numbers, you would be much more successful in finding gold rings if you just dug every target at 170 and above. Not only that, but far less trash at least at some sites ranges in the 170 to 180 number range than it does in the 139 to 148 range.
The next thing to consider is the amount of rings in the "Tab Zone". While roughly 2 & 1/2 times more rings exist in the tab zone than they do in the "COIN" zone, you have to consider that in most areas the amount of tabs present are many times more common than the number of targets above 170. The only thing that may tilt the odds more in your favor when digging tabs looking for rings is that far less people dig that number range in the hopes of finding one, while many other people will dig 173 & 176 penny signals, along with of course 180 coin signals. On the other hand, I love to dig those "odd" numbers like 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, and 177. By digging those you can eliminate most zinc and copper pennies where they exist in great quantities, while still having a good shot at finding a gold ring.
Another interesting thing to note is that even if you dig all the nickle and tab numbers, you are still only producing 40.5% of all rings, still much lower percentage wise than digging everything from small foil (76) to just below the nickle zone (up to 13. 47.1% of all the sampled rings range in that lowest of lowest conductivity range, the largest block percentage when considering conductivity "zones" of common targets.
One common problem when ring hunting is the presence of trash. In particular, the 76 to 138 target range would prove most attractive to people by shear numbers, but that zone of conductivity also happens to probably be the highest (besides the tab range) in terms of trash. Fortunately, most of the junk in that range is oddly shaped bits of aluminum and can shards. These targets won't usually lock onto one ID number, where as rings probably will or at the most only change by 1 or 2 digits (rarely 3) depending on which way you sweep over them. You can easily eliminate most junk by ignoring targets that don't want to seem to settle into one VDI number, regardless of if you change positions on them or not.
Another trick to deciphering the trash from rings is the quality of the audio. Rings will sound warm, round, smooth, soft, "robust" or at least to have "meat" to them, while trash often sounds ghostly, bangy, harsh, tinny, hollow, or keeps going up and down in audio pitch (usually accompanied by vastly changing VDI numbers by say 3 digits or more). Also, when you go to pinpoint the target the ring should pinpoint much like a coin, where as trash can get wishy washy in terms of exactly where it says it is based on coil direction.
Just yesterday I scanned a few larger gold rings a friend had on his finger. One rang at 158, while the other was I believe 168. Regardless, both had a very "robust" or "solid" sound to them, lacking any of the above trash traits, and I might add another common trash sound is that it can be "anemic" in how hard it hits. At least larger gold rings will have a much more solid/robust "hit" to them than even a pull tab will. I have further testing to do on this in hopes to developed even further trait differences.
Flat bits of things like aluminum such as can shards will tend to sound bangy as the coil passes from one side of them to the other when they are standing on end in any fashion, where as most rings I've tested on end still gave a smooth response. Another common sound quality to flat pieces of trash like this is that they will go up and down in audio as the coil passes over one side to the other on them if they aren't laying flat.
Interesting to note, I've found many earring backings seem to read around 136 to 138 in VDI. Another interesting number is 170, where I find a lot of shoe lace holes or small rivets tend to read. They often sound like deep soft penny signals.
Since most rings are round and mostly uniform in shape, expect then to act much like a coin when scanning and pinpointing. Although the pitch may be lower, being a lower conductivity metal, they will sound "round" like a coin and thus be stable in VDI like a coin should. That's a good way to judge how much variation a ring should normally have in VDI numbers. Scan over a copper or zinc penny roughly 5 or 6" away and note how it lags around just a little in VDI. Often if you get into the Sovereign wiggle the coin will stabilize to just one number, but it's slight variation otherwise is about what most rings should do at the most, and again most will lock into one VDI, perhaps two, and rarely three depending on sweep direction. Much trash can't seem to make up it's mind, even if you keep the exact same sweep angle. Nickles also mimic very much what a ring should act like in variation while sweeping. Note how the audio pitch stays the same and is much more "solid". Now compare that to oddly shaped small junk and you'll see just one of the distinctions you can use to cipher out the junk and dig the gold on land.
The Sovereign is as good as it gets in terms of hunting gold rings. Not just for it's depth, and not just for it's greatly seemingly perfect resolution in the lower conductivity zones. Not too high making it jumpy and harder to see patterns, and not too low making splitting hairs on things much harder. But the other main factor why many consider this machine king of the hill when it comes to gold ring hunting is the ability of it's audio to show subtle differences in all these targets. It's long, drawn out, and speaks to you in full sentences versus short or more processed "words" that other machines put out. Learn the slight variations and traits there of and you CAN tell rings from trash, at least better than any other machine out there IMO.
I bet most people would not have believed that there exists a larger percentage of rings as a whole in the "COIN" zone (170 to 180) than there does in the "Nickle Zone" (139 to 14
, and if you narrow the nickle zone down to the most common nickle numbers of 142 to 146 then that contrast is even more apparent. By the numbers, you would be much more successful in finding gold rings if you just dug every target at 170 and above. Not only that, but far less trash at least at some sites ranges in the 170 to 180 number range than it does in the 139 to 148 range.The next thing to consider is the amount of rings in the "Tab Zone". While roughly 2 & 1/2 times more rings exist in the tab zone than they do in the "COIN" zone, you have to consider that in most areas the amount of tabs present are many times more common than the number of targets above 170. The only thing that may tilt the odds more in your favor when digging tabs looking for rings is that far less people dig that number range in the hopes of finding one, while many other people will dig 173 & 176 penny signals, along with of course 180 coin signals. On the other hand, I love to dig those "odd" numbers like 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, and 177. By digging those you can eliminate most zinc and copper pennies where they exist in great quantities, while still having a good shot at finding a gold ring.
Another interesting thing to note is that even if you dig all the nickle and tab numbers, you are still only producing 40.5% of all rings, still much lower percentage wise than digging everything from small foil (76) to just below the nickle zone (up to 13
. 47.1% of all the sampled rings range in that lowest of lowest conductivity range, the largest block percentage when considering conductivity "zones" of common targets.One common problem when ring hunting is the presence of trash. In particular, the 76 to 138 target range would prove most attractive to people by shear numbers, but that zone of conductivity also happens to probably be the highest (besides the tab range) in terms of trash. Fortunately, most of the junk in that range is oddly shaped bits of aluminum and can shards. These targets won't usually lock onto one ID number, where as rings probably will or at the most only change by 1 or 2 digits (rarely 3) depending on which way you sweep over them. You can easily eliminate most junk by ignoring targets that don't want to seem to settle into one VDI number, regardless of if you change positions on them or not.
Another trick to deciphering the trash from rings is the quality of the audio. Rings will sound warm, round, smooth, soft, "robust" or at least to have "meat" to them, while trash often sounds ghostly, bangy, harsh, tinny, hollow, or keeps going up and down in audio pitch (usually accompanied by vastly changing VDI numbers by say 3 digits or more). Also, when you go to pinpoint the target the ring should pinpoint much like a coin, where as trash can get wishy washy in terms of exactly where it says it is based on coil direction.
Just yesterday I scanned a few larger gold rings a friend had on his finger. One rang at 158, while the other was I believe 168. Regardless, both had a very "robust" or "solid" sound to them, lacking any of the above trash traits, and I might add another common trash sound is that it can be "anemic" in how hard it hits. At least larger gold rings will have a much more solid/robust "hit" to them than even a pull tab will. I have further testing to do on this in hopes to developed even further trait differences.
Flat bits of things like aluminum such as can shards will tend to sound bangy as the coil passes from one side of them to the other when they are standing on end in any fashion, where as most rings I've tested on end still gave a smooth response. Another common sound quality to flat pieces of trash like this is that they will go up and down in audio as the coil passes over one side to the other on them if they aren't laying flat.
Interesting to note, I've found many earring backings seem to read around 136 to 138 in VDI. Another interesting number is 170, where I find a lot of shoe lace holes or small rivets tend to read. They often sound like deep soft penny signals.
Since most rings are round and mostly uniform in shape, expect then to act much like a coin when scanning and pinpointing. Although the pitch may be lower, being a lower conductivity metal, they will sound "round" like a coin and thus be stable in VDI like a coin should. That's a good way to judge how much variation a ring should normally have in VDI numbers. Scan over a copper or zinc penny roughly 5 or 6" away and note how it lags around just a little in VDI. Often if you get into the Sovereign wiggle the coin will stabilize to just one number, but it's slight variation otherwise is about what most rings should do at the most, and again most will lock into one VDI, perhaps two, and rarely three depending on sweep direction. Much trash can't seem to make up it's mind, even if you keep the exact same sweep angle. Nickles also mimic very much what a ring should act like in variation while sweeping. Note how the audio pitch stays the same and is much more "solid". Now compare that to oddly shaped small junk and you'll see just one of the distinctions you can use to cipher out the junk and dig the gold on land.
The Sovereign is as good as it gets in terms of hunting gold rings. Not just for it's depth, and not just for it's greatly seemingly perfect resolution in the lower conductivity zones. Not too high making it jumpy and harder to see patterns, and not too low making splitting hairs on things much harder. But the other main factor why many consider this machine king of the hill when it comes to gold ring hunting is the ability of it's audio to show subtle differences in all these targets. It's long, drawn out, and speaks to you in full sentences versus short or more processed "words" that other machines put out. Learn the slight variations and traits there of and you CAN tell rings from trash, at least better than any other machine out there IMO.
jamesinwesttexas
New member
Interesting discussion. Significantly more gold rings in the coin zone than the nickle zone, and heavier too, right?. And almost half of all gold rings are below nickle. And from as unbiased a sample as we can reasonably hope to get. Which beach were they from? Short of better resolution in the discrimination of the Sovereign, not to mention the learning curve and selection of sites, maybe we can figure out how to get the gold rings to show up faster. Fun to think about, even more fun to go looking. Good luck to all. James
Critterhunter
New member
That's the entire fun in it- It's the challenge in exploring the possibilities and seeing where they lead you, even if it's not exactly all the way to the top of the mountain (easy rings). Just like in life, it's the journey that's the most important part, not always the end result. I simply *LOVE* taking on projects like this and seeing where the numbers and results lead me. I almost get as much enjoyment out of pressing "ENTER" and seeing where the final numbers end up on something than I do the actual hunt. Well, that's a small stretch, but I do enjoy the heck out of it. It's in a sense just part of the hunt to me, whether I"m searching for that elusive gold coin or a statistical "virgin ground" kind of conclusion, so to speak. Whether rings are easier to come by using certain knowledge is the unknown conclusion. Only time will bare that out one way or the other, but I know by using the right quantified information you stand a much better chance in achieving that goal.
Yes, like you said, almost half of all the rings are below nickle. Higher in fact if the nickle zone was adjusted from 139 to 142, where most nickles start to read. And yes, doesn't that just blow you away that there are more rings in the 170 to 180 COIN zone then in the nickle zone? Most people would tell you (have told me) that you're crazy if you believe that. That's the power of "conventional wisdom" blindly swallowing whatever has been said for years by people.
The resolution on the Sovereign with the 180 meter is the perfect balance to me. High enough to easily see all the tab types and various other bits of junk, yet not so high that developing a pattern of certain objects becomes a blurry mess of impossibility. For instance, I went down this road on my Explorers and the variability between even the exact same looking tabs in terms of 2 dimensional numbering made things worse, not better. By the time you tried to reject all the most common tab types a vast huge area of numbers were blocked, resulting in much more gold rings being lost as well. That kind of resolution doesn't lend it's self well to gold ring hunting IMO. It's useful only for telling coin types apart, and even then I have serious issues with relying on that ability from experience.
Some guys like the 540 or 550 meter because it gives even finer detail. Most find it too jumpy (like an FBS machine), but I'm still wanting to try it out as I dive into my winter project- building a home made VDI meter for the GT with 4th digit ability *and enough scale resolution to make use of it*. I also plan to power this meter directly from the battery pack, as there are some who feel the stock meter deriving it's power from the TX coil output might slightly reduce depth ability.
PS- The other project I'm working on is somewhat ring and old coin related, along with masking statistics. Once those results are finalized I'll be posting it here. I've never seen anything like this done before, so I'm intrigued by what the final results will be.
Yes, like you said, almost half of all the rings are below nickle. Higher in fact if the nickle zone was adjusted from 139 to 142, where most nickles start to read. And yes, doesn't that just blow you away that there are more rings in the 170 to 180 COIN zone then in the nickle zone? Most people would tell you (have told me) that you're crazy if you believe that. That's the power of "conventional wisdom" blindly swallowing whatever has been said for years by people.
The resolution on the Sovereign with the 180 meter is the perfect balance to me. High enough to easily see all the tab types and various other bits of junk, yet not so high that developing a pattern of certain objects becomes a blurry mess of impossibility. For instance, I went down this road on my Explorers and the variability between even the exact same looking tabs in terms of 2 dimensional numbering made things worse, not better. By the time you tried to reject all the most common tab types a vast huge area of numbers were blocked, resulting in much more gold rings being lost as well. That kind of resolution doesn't lend it's self well to gold ring hunting IMO. It's useful only for telling coin types apart, and even then I have serious issues with relying on that ability from experience.
Some guys like the 540 or 550 meter because it gives even finer detail. Most find it too jumpy (like an FBS machine), but I'm still wanting to try it out as I dive into my winter project- building a home made VDI meter for the GT with 4th digit ability *and enough scale resolution to make use of it*. I also plan to power this meter directly from the battery pack, as there are some who feel the stock meter deriving it's power from the TX coil output might slightly reduce depth ability.
PS- The other project I'm working on is somewhat ring and old coin related, along with masking statistics. Once those results are finalized I'll be posting it here. I've never seen anything like this done before, so I'm intrigued by what the final results will be.
To me things are plain and simple, the more you discriminate the more good targets you are liable to leave in the ground, even discriminating iron(its the only option on the GT unless you run in all metal) you may lose a good target nearby while recovering from the null, i quite often hunt with no discrimination what so ever, listening to the iron and knowing its iron, no null to get over and quite often something alongside that has been passed over by the discriminators. No need to try and turn things into rocket science, as i said, its plain and simple, discriminate at your peril.
Critterhunter
New member
In response to this thread....
http://www.findmall.com/read.php?21,1325217
And this message...
...I've made this response. I'm trying to keep it all in this thread because it's all related, and later reference won't be easy if you have to find three different threads to tie all the information together...
Whoa there....I never said his stats were biased. Please don't put words into my mouth. And I'm not arguing about his numbers, I'm ASKING about the source of that ring base, and I AM saying that the numbers can not be trusted until that information is known. True, those numbers can't be said to be biased, but just the same they can't be said to be unbiased either. The point is stastical data is useless unless the background criteria (sample base) is a known quantity. Do you see the difference in distinction here? Just like I can't for sure say they are biased numbers, you can not say that they are not. We simply don't know, and so any information posted is nothing more than a mild curiousity until the facts are presented. It can't be presented as hard fact, period, until otherwise known.
I would like to know how those rings were recovered, because the answer to that question would determine if they were biased numbers or not. I must have said at least four times that I wasn't saying they were for sure biased, and that I was only asking the question. There is a BIG difference in asking a question and making a statement, and I don't see any reason for controversy about the question being asked. Assumptions can not be made one way or the other, so in effect the data is useless until that information is presented.
Without the knowledge of how those rings are found you can make NO conclusion either way, but no conclusion still means the same thing- the numbers can't be trusted without the background information. I see no problem and only reasonable curiousity in asking how and where those rings were recovered. It's perfectly logical to ask, otherwise the data has nothing to back it up and could greatly be slanted one way or the other. Simple as that.
So let's *assume* for arguement's sake the numbers are from a truly random test pool aquired in an unbiased manner (said "assume for arguement's sake", because we still lack that information and it's just as important as the numbers themselves). According to how I read his chart, which isn't detailed enough and pretty obscure in certain categories (For instance, are ring tabs round tabs or are they the beaver tail off round tabs?), here is how I see his numbers, which might be categorized wrongly because it isn't specific enough to place items in as accurate of categories...
In the lowest zone I have my percentage at 47.1%, while he appears (?) to be at 54%.
In the nickle zone I have mine at 9.1% while he is at 9%.
In the "tab" zone I'm at 31.4%, while he's at 30%.
In the "coin" zone I'm at 12.4%, while he's at 7%
Assuming they have been categorized properly, all those numbers are quite within the margin of error statics wise, so it does confirm nicely my findings if indeed his test pool is truly randomly based with no digging bias. In fact, the slight variation in the coin zone might be due to me lowering it to 170, while from the looks of it he has set his low end cut off to zinc pennies. That would also adjust the tab zones more closely to each other. If you look at the nickle zone I've got mine set about 3 digits lower at the low end than where most nickles come in on my DigiSearch meter, so once again that might alter both the foil zone and nickle zone to more closer matching percentages.
So what can be learned from this? Well, while it looks like his numbers help to back mine up, I can't use that information as total confirmation because I have no solid information on how those rings were found. One never assumes in matters of statistics, so I hope you can find out exactly how that test pool of rings were put together. It would be real nice to know that, because I would like nothing better than to have another reliable source to back up my numbers.
http://www.findmall.com/read.php?21,1325217
And this message...
synthnut said:THIS ?
I was doing some reading in one of Andy Sabisch's books recently , and thought I would share this info with you ......He took 161 Gold rings from his collection and sampled them on his machine , and this was the results that he came up with .....
0 rings hit as Iron
25 rings, 16% hit as Ring Tab
61 rings, 38% as Foil
48 rings, 30% as square tab
15 rings, 9% as Nickel
8 rings, 5 % as Zn penny
4 rings, 2 % as High tone quarter/penny
OR THIS ?
http://www.findmall.com/file.php?21,file=178112
For all the arguing , these numbers really don't look very different to me ....... Are you saying that your numbers are very similar to to Andy's numbers ? ......... And you're arguing about it ? .....Or am I seeing things ? ..... It looks to me like you're confirming the chart that you were arguing about with your own chart ............Jim
...I've made this response. I'm trying to keep it all in this thread because it's all related, and later reference won't be easy if you have to find three different threads to tie all the information together...
Whoa there....I never said his stats were biased. Please don't put words into my mouth. And I'm not arguing about his numbers, I'm ASKING about the source of that ring base, and I AM saying that the numbers can not be trusted until that information is known. True, those numbers can't be said to be biased, but just the same they can't be said to be unbiased either. The point is stastical data is useless unless the background criteria (sample base) is a known quantity. Do you see the difference in distinction here? Just like I can't for sure say they are biased numbers, you can not say that they are not. We simply don't know, and so any information posted is nothing more than a mild curiousity until the facts are presented. It can't be presented as hard fact, period, until otherwise known.
I would like to know how those rings were recovered, because the answer to that question would determine if they were biased numbers or not. I must have said at least four times that I wasn't saying they were for sure biased, and that I was only asking the question. There is a BIG difference in asking a question and making a statement, and I don't see any reason for controversy about the question being asked. Assumptions can not be made one way or the other, so in effect the data is useless until that information is presented.
Without the knowledge of how those rings are found you can make NO conclusion either way, but no conclusion still means the same thing- the numbers can't be trusted without the background information. I see no problem and only reasonable curiousity in asking how and where those rings were recovered. It's perfectly logical to ask, otherwise the data has nothing to back it up and could greatly be slanted one way or the other. Simple as that.
So let's *assume* for arguement's sake the numbers are from a truly random test pool aquired in an unbiased manner (said "assume for arguement's sake", because we still lack that information and it's just as important as the numbers themselves). According to how I read his chart, which isn't detailed enough and pretty obscure in certain categories (For instance, are ring tabs round tabs or are they the beaver tail off round tabs?), here is how I see his numbers, which might be categorized wrongly because it isn't specific enough to place items in as accurate of categories...
In the lowest zone I have my percentage at 47.1%, while he appears (?) to be at 54%.
In the nickle zone I have mine at 9.1% while he is at 9%.
In the "tab" zone I'm at 31.4%, while he's at 30%.
In the "coin" zone I'm at 12.4%, while he's at 7%
Assuming they have been categorized properly, all those numbers are quite within the margin of error statics wise, so it does confirm nicely my findings if indeed his test pool is truly randomly based with no digging bias. In fact, the slight variation in the coin zone might be due to me lowering it to 170, while from the looks of it he has set his low end cut off to zinc pennies. That would also adjust the tab zones more closely to each other. If you look at the nickle zone I've got mine set about 3 digits lower at the low end than where most nickles come in on my DigiSearch meter, so once again that might alter both the foil zone and nickle zone to more closer matching percentages.
So what can be learned from this? Well, while it looks like his numbers help to back mine up, I can't use that information as total confirmation because I have no solid information on how those rings were found. One never assumes in matters of statistics, so I hope you can find out exactly how that test pool of rings were put together. It would be real nice to know that, because I would like nothing better than to have another reliable source to back up my numbers.
Quote
synthnut
He took 161 Gold rings from his collection and sampled them on his machine , and this was the results that he came up with .....
Critter
"From the sound of it then that sample is biased, unless he dug every signal above iron. Most people key in on the nickle zone or tab zone and as a result you would of course have higher numbers in a "test pool" by the numbers. In the splitting hairs on rings thread the test pool of 123 (forget exact number) rings we sampled were all found using an Excal water hunting digging everything above iron over about a 6 year span. The range of rings pretty much is evenly spread from about 75 (small foil) to about 173 (zinc penny). Not really any greater concentration of rings in any one area between those two numbers. There are rings that read from 173 to 180 but they tend to be big lunkers which are much more rare, thus the percentages thin out in that range."
Now you're saying that you never said that his sample was NOT BIASED ? ...... Sorry, but you can't have it BOTH ways Critter ...... I'm not putting words in your mouth ....YOU ARE !!....
Are you saying that you agree that disagreeing is agreeable , but because you are disagreeing to agree that is not agreeable to you !!!.......Did I say that , or did you say it first ? ......
synthnut
He took 161 Gold rings from his collection and sampled them on his machine , and this was the results that he came up with .....
Critter
"From the sound of it then that sample is biased, unless he dug every signal above iron. Most people key in on the nickle zone or tab zone and as a result you would of course have higher numbers in a "test pool" by the numbers. In the splitting hairs on rings thread the test pool of 123 (forget exact number) rings we sampled were all found using an Excal water hunting digging everything above iron over about a 6 year span. The range of rings pretty much is evenly spread from about 75 (small foil) to about 173 (zinc penny). Not really any greater concentration of rings in any one area between those two numbers. There are rings that read from 173 to 180 but they tend to be big lunkers which are much more rare, thus the percentages thin out in that range."
Now you're saying that you never said that his sample was NOT BIASED ? ...... Sorry, but you can't have it BOTH ways Critter ...... I'm not putting words in your mouth ....YOU ARE !!....
Are you saying that you agree that disagreeing is agreeable , but because you are disagreeing to agree that is not agreeable to you !!!.......Did I say that , or did you say it first ? ......
Critterhunter
New member
I'm done with the circular logic thing, as I'm sure you know exactly where I stand in our little debate. I made my stance more than clear and repeated it numerous times before you even brought it into question, so refer back to the initial messages on the topic and you'll see exactly what I said, what I asked, and how I asked it..NUMEROUS times. Moving on to more productive waters...
I've been doing a little data manipulation with my ring statistics from the known random sample pool a friend has. The results are very interesting and show how various forms of data categorization can alter the perceived results. This one blew my mind a bit, and I really don't have much comment on it until I allow the results to soak in over a few smokes...
Take a good close look at these various charts and graphs. Certain things are real curious when the data is sorted by evenly spaced number ranges as compared to sorting the ring percentages by common target zones (tab zone, nickle zone, etc...as I just previously posted). I plan further data shifting by 30's, 40's and will manipulate it in a few other ways to show patterns in other forms that also might not be apparent without the proper graphing.
For instance, if you dig by conductivity (prior chart posted) then the nickle zone or tab zone look very different, but if you go by shear numbers spaced evenly in progression and not formatted to common trash target ranges, then things look VERY different. See if you can see what I'm talking about below compared to the prior chart I posted a day or two ago. One off shoot from the below results is that the prevailing trash content of an area could have a huge impact on which zones of numbers you choose to dig in order to avoid most trash while still having a reasonably high probability of digging a few rings. That's all I have to say until I kick it around in my head for a while...
I've been doing a little data manipulation with my ring statistics from the known random sample pool a friend has. The results are very interesting and show how various forms of data categorization can alter the perceived results. This one blew my mind a bit, and I really don't have much comment on it until I allow the results to soak in over a few smokes...
Take a good close look at these various charts and graphs. Certain things are real curious when the data is sorted by evenly spaced number ranges as compared to sorting the ring percentages by common target zones (tab zone, nickle zone, etc...as I just previously posted). I plan further data shifting by 30's, 40's and will manipulate it in a few other ways to show patterns in other forms that also might not be apparent without the proper graphing.
For instance, if you dig by conductivity (prior chart posted) then the nickle zone or tab zone look very different, but if you go by shear numbers spaced evenly in progression and not formatted to common trash target ranges, then things look VERY different. See if you can see what I'm talking about below compared to the prior chart I posted a day or two ago. One off shoot from the below results is that the prevailing trash content of an area could have a huge impact on which zones of numbers you choose to dig in order to avoid most trash while still having a reasonably high probability of digging a few rings. That's all I have to say until I kick it around in my head for a while...
Critterhunter
New member
By the way, if you don't feel like reading the few messages since day one of this debate a few days ago to substantiate what I've said, then I think tomorrow I'll go back and high light exact quotes over the span of the initial message to the present. I was very specific in what I asked and how I asked it, so once again please don't put words in my mouth. I challenge anybody who thinks otherwise to read my messages over the last few days concerning this topic and you will see that I was very particular about explaining the ways/methods data can be biased, but more to the point said EVERY TIME that I had no idea if it was or not. Regardless of if the data is biased or not, it's still useless unless you can provide background information on how it was acquired. Yet, with every precaution using kid gloves and being very repetitive in the way I asked, some how it still wasn't enough. In fact, give me a little while here to have a smoke and I'll get to it, but if I don't get to it today then I should be able to tomorrow. I don't know how much more I could have done to make my position perfectly clear- that we don't know if the data is biased or not. Sigh....That probably makes statement number twenty or so in that respect since day one.
OK, now I'm really done, besides restoring my INITIAL stance by simply re-quoting the messages when I get to that. I don't think any one can argue with the recorded record.
OK, now I'm really done, besides restoring my INITIAL stance by simply re-quoting the messages when I get to that. I don't think any one can argue with the recorded record.
Critterhunter
New member
October 31, 12:32 PM
Critterhunter
New member
Excuse any misspelled words, as I did not have time to edit the message.
Crttter ,
You open a case , then you delegate yourself to discuss the case with yourself , then you no longer want to discuss the case , and then you close the case ....... I'm really glad that you keep in touch with yourself .... The best part of having these one sided conversations , is that the outcome is always the same ....You have the comfort of knowing that you're always right !!...... I'm happy for you .... and sad at the same time .....Jim
You open a case , then you delegate yourself to discuss the case with yourself , then you no longer want to discuss the case , and then you close the case ....... I'm really glad that you keep in touch with yourself .... The best part of having these one sided conversations , is that the outcome is always the same ....You have the comfort of knowing that you're always right !!...... I'm happy for you .... and sad at the same time .....Jim
Critterhunter
New member
Jim, you have yet to offer that apology for slandering my name and making up things that I never said. When you do then we will talk some more. There is an old saying, if you get down in the mud with somebody then all you did is get muddy yourself. Until you are willing to step out of that mud hole I see no reason to argue with somebody who just makes up things to bash me with. Do you want to stick to and debate to the FACTS, or do you want to continue to imply I've said things I never have, or that I compare myself to people who I also NEVER have? The choice is yours.
And so long as we are in "full disclosure", I will then tell everybody that you told me one thing on the phone about how well your Sovereign did against the Etrac on a compared target, and then another thing on the forum. Even though I knew I was telling the truth, I was more than willing to take back my statement in order protect your reputation. Not that I realize you show now form of civil behaviour in that respect I don't see the need to continue to do that. You DID tell me that the Etrac had big trouble with that tab and dime while the Sovereign was able to sound off better. That's a FACT Jim, yet you said otherwise on the forum and so out of respect I retracted my remark.
I believe we are done here, don't you? I have nothing more to say.
And so long as we are in "full disclosure", I will then tell everybody that you told me one thing on the phone about how well your Sovereign did against the Etrac on a compared target, and then another thing on the forum. Even though I knew I was telling the truth, I was more than willing to take back my statement in order protect your reputation. Not that I realize you show now form of civil behaviour in that respect I don't see the need to continue to do that. You DID tell me that the Etrac had big trouble with that tab and dime while the Sovereign was able to sound off better. That's a FACT Jim, yet you said otherwise on the forum and so out of respect I retracted my remark.
I believe we are done here, don't you? I have nothing more to say.
Critter ,
When you had another issue going on with Crazyman , and you guys went back and forth , I was laughing because it was funny !!.....Then when he made a statement that telling you that you were wrong was like telling someone that their baby was ugly , I couldn't help myself ....I laughed again .....You stopped talking to me on the forum , you stopped PMing me , so I apologized to you and told you I was sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable ...... NOW I get to deal with the same thing as Crazyman did !!..... You're wrong again , and your feelings got hurt and now you want ANOTHER apology from me / ..... You back paddle and clobber people with words that don't make ANY sense 1/2 the time , and when you get called on it , you get upset becaue someone tells you you're wrong ..... I KNOW my character , and I KNOW that I can prove my point without trying to have someone feel sorry for me ..... You continue to do the same thing , and try to discredit people along the way to boost your ego ..... You were given a chance to do an experiment that Crazyman gave you .....You never did it .....I offered yet ANOTHER experiment ....You did not do that one either !!!.....Then I showed Minelab video's .....You said nothing !!!....... Everyone that has had issues with you has gone out of their way to prove their point to you , and you continue to talk about how much better the Sovereign is than the E Trac , WHEN YOU HAVE NEVER OWNED ONE !!....You make your statements from WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD !!!....... When you do REAL experiments with REAL machines , and you stop relying on what other people tell you , ( because I know you only hear what you want to hear ) then post your findings .....Until then , stop trying to discredit everyone you disagree with ..... You don't have to be right all the time, and NO the Soveriegn is NOT the better machine ..... Don't even try to discuss it with me until you own one .....I don't want to hear about what you've heard ........ Talk from EXPERIENCE !!!......
I remember the beach and the day I found that dime wrapped up in a pull tab ....... I also remember telling you that I hit that target and was surprised how well the Sovereign hit that target and how LOUD it was .....tt was not crazy deep , but deep enough and I was totally blown away with how hard the Soveriegn hit that target ..... The E Trac ALSO hit the target and was NOT as LOUD as the Soverign ......Again , it blew me away to hear the Sovereign so loud and the E Trac more quiet ....... and YES I was pretty amazed that the Sovereign hit it ........ and I can STILL remember telling you that I had Iron Mask OFF because I could hunt with less noise and you commented " ARE YOU SURE IT WAS OFF " and I said Yes , I always hunt with it off .....I had JUST gotten my Sovereign when this occured .....I'm not sure why or how you lied for me .....?????......I hit the target with BOTH machines and it was louder with the Sovereign ...... There was no lie told .....I even elaborated on the same story in another thread ...... You may have WANTED the Sovereign to do better , which really doesn't surprise me ..... It was LOUDER for sure if that matters to you ....
Don't put me in the mud unless you have a big pair of boots to climb UP from where you are to play in my world !!..... I laugh when things are funny, and I appologize if someone is upset from me laughing as I don't intentionally hurt peoples feelings ...... I will NEVER APOLOGIZE to you when say something , and then try to back peddle out of it by saying you never said it .... You are known for NOT following thru with experiments that prove you wrong , and you will NEVER accept the fact that sometimes you might just be WRONG ..... If you can't make a point and nobody responds to you , you continue to type away and as someone decribed it to me " CLOBBER US WITH WORDS " ....... I"m not walking on egg shells so that your feelings don't get hurt ..... You're fine if everyone agree's with you , but if they don't , it's the same ole same ole !!...... Something that you should understand ...I don't have to discredit you , you do that all by yourself ........ Jim
When you had another issue going on with Crazyman , and you guys went back and forth , I was laughing because it was funny !!.....Then when he made a statement that telling you that you were wrong was like telling someone that their baby was ugly , I couldn't help myself ....I laughed again .....You stopped talking to me on the forum , you stopped PMing me , so I apologized to you and told you I was sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable ...... NOW I get to deal with the same thing as Crazyman did !!..... You're wrong again , and your feelings got hurt and now you want ANOTHER apology from me / ..... You back paddle and clobber people with words that don't make ANY sense 1/2 the time , and when you get called on it , you get upset becaue someone tells you you're wrong ..... I KNOW my character , and I KNOW that I can prove my point without trying to have someone feel sorry for me ..... You continue to do the same thing , and try to discredit people along the way to boost your ego ..... You were given a chance to do an experiment that Crazyman gave you .....You never did it .....I offered yet ANOTHER experiment ....You did not do that one either !!!.....Then I showed Minelab video's .....You said nothing !!!....... Everyone that has had issues with you has gone out of their way to prove their point to you , and you continue to talk about how much better the Sovereign is than the E Trac , WHEN YOU HAVE NEVER OWNED ONE !!....You make your statements from WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD !!!....... When you do REAL experiments with REAL machines , and you stop relying on what other people tell you , ( because I know you only hear what you want to hear ) then post your findings .....Until then , stop trying to discredit everyone you disagree with ..... You don't have to be right all the time, and NO the Soveriegn is NOT the better machine ..... Don't even try to discuss it with me until you own one .....I don't want to hear about what you've heard ........ Talk from EXPERIENCE !!!......
I remember the beach and the day I found that dime wrapped up in a pull tab ....... I also remember telling you that I hit that target and was surprised how well the Sovereign hit that target and how LOUD it was .....tt was not crazy deep , but deep enough and I was totally blown away with how hard the Soveriegn hit that target ..... The E Trac ALSO hit the target and was NOT as LOUD as the Soverign ......Again , it blew me away to hear the Sovereign so loud and the E Trac more quiet ....... and YES I was pretty amazed that the Sovereign hit it ........ and I can STILL remember telling you that I had Iron Mask OFF because I could hunt with less noise and you commented " ARE YOU SURE IT WAS OFF " and I said Yes , I always hunt with it off .....I had JUST gotten my Sovereign when this occured .....I'm not sure why or how you lied for me .....?????......I hit the target with BOTH machines and it was louder with the Sovereign ...... There was no lie told .....I even elaborated on the same story in another thread ...... You may have WANTED the Sovereign to do better , which really doesn't surprise me ..... It was LOUDER for sure if that matters to you ....
Don't put me in the mud unless you have a big pair of boots to climb UP from where you are to play in my world !!..... I laugh when things are funny, and I appologize if someone is upset from me laughing as I don't intentionally hurt peoples feelings ...... I will NEVER APOLOGIZE to you when say something , and then try to back peddle out of it by saying you never said it .... You are known for NOT following thru with experiments that prove you wrong , and you will NEVER accept the fact that sometimes you might just be WRONG ..... If you can't make a point and nobody responds to you , you continue to type away and as someone decribed it to me " CLOBBER US WITH WORDS " ....... I"m not walking on egg shells so that your feelings don't get hurt ..... You're fine if everyone agree's with you , but if they don't , it's the same ole same ole !!...... Something that you should understand ...I don't have to discredit you , you do that all by yourself ........ Jim
Critter,
One more point that you have WRONG .....You make mention of me "Slandering " you .......WRONG AGAIN ......Slander is when someone makes FALSE statements about someone ......My statements are NOT FALSE , and are proven right here on this very forum ..... That's the difference between you and me ......I can PROVE my points , you just HEARD that you could !!..... My information is based on FACTUAL experiments .....Yours is based on hearsay ..... You want to speak about the character of a person ? .....You better take a good look in the mirror !!......Again, don't accuse me of someting you can't back up ...... Your own words put you in the hot seat !!....... Jim
One more point that you have WRONG .....You make mention of me "Slandering " you .......WRONG AGAIN ......Slander is when someone makes FALSE statements about someone ......My statements are NOT FALSE , and are proven right here on this very forum ..... That's the difference between you and me ......I can PROVE my points , you just HEARD that you could !!..... My information is based on FACTUAL experiments .....Yours is based on hearsay ..... You want to speak about the character of a person ? .....You better take a good look in the mirror !!......Again, don't accuse me of someting you can't back up ...... Your own words put you in the hot seat !!....... Jim
I would like to comment on this. I started detecting when I was about 12 years old in 1968 with a radio shack I built as a kit for $20.00. It had a printed circuit board as a coil. No ground balance or discriminator. I found loads of silver and some gold. Most of you guys are highly skilled at detecting with many years and hours of experience. Why wast time arguing about a point that gets beaten to death. Detectors today are amazing. They can cherry pick silver with no problem. Even a $100.00 bounty hunter can cherry pick silver. The fact is gold can not be cherry picked with the detectors that are out today, even the best of them. To find gold most anything except iron must be dug. I believe this to be a fact. Just my 2 dug cents. Thank you Rich Happy digging
Critterhunter
New member
I ran another pass of numbers with the bar and line graphing, this time using a 5 digit spread. The results are equally interesting...
Critterhunter
New member
What I find interesting is not only where the percentage of rings spike in certain ranges, but also where they are almost non-existent. 75 to 80 is a fairly productive zone of numbers, while 80 to 85 isn't, and then after 85 the numbers start to gradually pick up before spiking at 95 to 115 (or 90 to 120 if you wanted to widen the spike criteria). 120 to 130 appears to be another dead zone statistics wise, but then once again 130 to 180 is another emerging spike Narrowing that number range down about 155 to 175 would be the highest probability zone.
Don't just think in terms of share high percentage areas. This information needs correlated to the trash content of a given area. After all, when you are digging it all you wouldn't be using these numbers in the first place. In areas of extremely high trash where it would literally take a life time to remove all the trash targets, that's when playing the percentages would be to your advantage. Just like you wouldn't bet all out on every hand you play at a card table, you need to weigh the numbers in terms of probable results. Is the area high in tabs but not really high in foil or can slaw in the 90 to 120 number range? Dig those then. Does the area suffer from foil and can slaw due to lazy lawn service companies not picking up the trash before they mow the lawn, yet does really have a lot of tabs (or at least tabs in a certain number range)? Then alter your targeted number range for that situation. Is there a lack of common trash in the 130 to 148 number range (another spike zone percentage wise, although a bit lower than the others) yet all others are lousy with them? Then you can see where knowing these numbers might prove useful to specific situations.
I'd rather play the odds when I know very well that I never plan to remove all the trash from a particular large hunting site, and will bet on the hands that offer the greatest chance for return on my effort. Probabilities and percentages are used in every aspect of every day life to predict seemingly random occurrences. It makes perfect sense to me to use this great analytical tool in this hobby when any other approach would just be spitting into the wind.
Don't just think in terms of share high percentage areas. This information needs correlated to the trash content of a given area. After all, when you are digging it all you wouldn't be using these numbers in the first place. In areas of extremely high trash where it would literally take a life time to remove all the trash targets, that's when playing the percentages would be to your advantage. Just like you wouldn't bet all out on every hand you play at a card table, you need to weigh the numbers in terms of probable results. Is the area high in tabs but not really high in foil or can slaw in the 90 to 120 number range? Dig those then. Does the area suffer from foil and can slaw due to lazy lawn service companies not picking up the trash before they mow the lawn, yet does really have a lot of tabs (or at least tabs in a certain number range)? Then alter your targeted number range for that situation. Is there a lack of common trash in the 130 to 148 number range (another spike zone percentage wise, although a bit lower than the others) yet all others are lousy with them? Then you can see where knowing these numbers might prove useful to specific situations.
I'd rather play the odds when I know very well that I never plan to remove all the trash from a particular large hunting site, and will bet on the hands that offer the greatest chance for return on my effort. Probabilities and percentages are used in every aspect of every day life to predict seemingly random occurrences. It makes perfect sense to me to use this great analytical tool in this hobby when any other approach would just be spitting into the wind.
Critterhunter
New member
Yesterday three of us scanned in 121 of these rings on an Etrac using the learn/accept function. We also graphed each ring by weight/carat/type(white or yellow gold) on a spread sheet and listed the VDI numbers for each. Within the next few days I'll be posting that information in this thread as well as in the Etrac forum. This will include both the spreadsheet and the discrimination pattern people can download, although it would be rather easy to manualy edit the exact same discrimination pattern into the Etrac by using the resulting VDI range listed in the spreadsheet.
Reason being the rings were far more consistent and less variable in numbers then I would have expected on the Etrac (about as useful as they are on the Sovereign), but the real test will come when we scan in the random tab sample as well to see just how diverse that gets. I suspect it won't be as consistent or easy to see a distinct pattern with on the Etrac as it was on the GT or the M6, mainly due to the microscopic fashion in which Explorers/Etracs look at targets. Much more close than I feel is useful in trying to develop worth while patterns. I know when I tried something similar on my Explorers the results were far less useful than I found them to be on the Sovereign in terms of avoiding tabs while still digging rings.
One thing that I can say for sure is that, like the Explorer, the Etrac's audio response to targets is not as pronounced and contains less target quality content than I find on the Sovereign. The amount of information one can obtain from the target's response via the audio seems much more sterilized or processed and thus less helpful at discriminating trash (and in particular oddly shaped trash) from treasure. That might be a concern for those gold ring hunters who have developed an ear for what's worth digging on the Sovereign. I don't feel the Etrac will pass along as much target detail in that respect to tip you off as to what is junk and what might be dig worthy.
All that being said, the data obtained from scanning in the gold rings on the Etrac looks very interesting and might surprise a few people as to what number ranges they would normaly consider worth bothering with in searching for gold rings. I'm sure it will be a useful tool to some who understand the implications from it and put it into practice properly.
For instance, I would keep this gold ring discrimination pattern in "virgin" condition and load it into your Etrac at a severly trashy park. Once done, start digging each and every signal you come across that sounds through. If it's a tab, lay it back on the ground *in a clean spot* and learn/reject it. After roughly 10 to 20 tabs are dug and discriminated out in this fashion the results should be that you will dig far less trash (namely, tabs) and still recover the vast majority of rings in the area. Roughly 75% if the Etrac's tab results end up being anything similar to that of the Sovereign, which remains to be seen and I will have further information on that once we scan in the same random tab sample pool that we used for the M6 and GT. Once you've developed a discrimination pattern using the gold ring pattern that has been modified by your learn/reject process for that specific site, save that pattern for that site. Load the virgin ring program for your next favorite site and once again modify it to the specific trash content for that area. This probably would prove much more useful then the tab pattern (still to come) that we'll be posting, as tabs can be very specific for one area and completely different for another. The main reason for posting our random tab test pool is to illuminate overall percentages in how many rings can still be found while avoiding all known tab types.
Reason being the rings were far more consistent and less variable in numbers then I would have expected on the Etrac (about as useful as they are on the Sovereign), but the real test will come when we scan in the random tab sample as well to see just how diverse that gets. I suspect it won't be as consistent or easy to see a distinct pattern with on the Etrac as it was on the GT or the M6, mainly due to the microscopic fashion in which Explorers/Etracs look at targets. Much more close than I feel is useful in trying to develop worth while patterns. I know when I tried something similar on my Explorers the results were far less useful than I found them to be on the Sovereign in terms of avoiding tabs while still digging rings.
One thing that I can say for sure is that, like the Explorer, the Etrac's audio response to targets is not as pronounced and contains less target quality content than I find on the Sovereign. The amount of information one can obtain from the target's response via the audio seems much more sterilized or processed and thus less helpful at discriminating trash (and in particular oddly shaped trash) from treasure. That might be a concern for those gold ring hunters who have developed an ear for what's worth digging on the Sovereign. I don't feel the Etrac will pass along as much target detail in that respect to tip you off as to what is junk and what might be dig worthy.
All that being said, the data obtained from scanning in the gold rings on the Etrac looks very interesting and might surprise a few people as to what number ranges they would normaly consider worth bothering with in searching for gold rings. I'm sure it will be a useful tool to some who understand the implications from it and put it into practice properly.
For instance, I would keep this gold ring discrimination pattern in "virgin" condition and load it into your Etrac at a severly trashy park. Once done, start digging each and every signal you come across that sounds through. If it's a tab, lay it back on the ground *in a clean spot* and learn/reject it. After roughly 10 to 20 tabs are dug and discriminated out in this fashion the results should be that you will dig far less trash (namely, tabs) and still recover the vast majority of rings in the area. Roughly 75% if the Etrac's tab results end up being anything similar to that of the Sovereign, which remains to be seen and I will have further information on that once we scan in the same random tab sample pool that we used for the M6 and GT. Once you've developed a discrimination pattern using the gold ring pattern that has been modified by your learn/reject process for that specific site, save that pattern for that site. Load the virgin ring program for your next favorite site and once again modify it to the specific trash content for that area. This probably would prove much more useful then the tab pattern (still to come) that we'll be posting, as tabs can be very specific for one area and completely different for another. The main reason for posting our random tab test pool is to illuminate overall percentages in how many rings can still be found while avoiding all known tab types.