What does it signify? Going back to 'pounded sites'..............MattR.UK

[MattR]

We all do that..............but common sense tells me that it is a comparison fraught with possible errors..

The minimum requirement, is that we take both the E-Trac AND the unit we are comparing it to.

Then, alternately, we find a target with either machine and test the other unit, over the same target.

Even that procedure is limited to our ability to 'standardise' the detectors to their optimum capabilities.


Your thoughts on the matter, gentlemen.......................MattR.UK.





.

 

[Beachcomber]

One advantage of taking it to pounded sites is that you have an excellent idea of what to expect from that area so you will be better able to tell more about the detectors performance. If you were to take a new detector (any detector) to a new spot to try it out you have no idea what to expect and are therefore not only trying to learn a new detector but to also learn a new site. I always take new detectors to areas that I am totally familiar with so that the only true variable in the equation is the detector. One thing I do differently than some of the others is that I don't take a new detector to a really trashy location on the first few hunts as I want to become familiar with the sounds and readings the detector provides for different targets under good conditions. Once I feel comfortable that I am starting to learn the detectors language I will start taking it to more and more trashy sites and see how it performs.

HH

Beachcomber

 

[RandyNorthridgeca]

Hey Matt,

I understand what you're saying and I'm sure it would be nice to know how the E-trac measures up to the Explorer. I'm really not worrying too much how the Explorer does against the E-trac. The main thing for me is can I go into one of my pounded sites and start pulling out oldies that everyone else, including myself have missed. We all know you can never clean out a site and it's very possible I could have found the same coins with my SE.

The one thing I do know is the area I worked this weekend with another E-trac owner was a small slope that is loaded with iron and trash. I know of 4 or 5 guys that have worked that same slope with the explorer and they all know the explorer well. Gary and myself pulled about 20 to 30 coins each that were more than 5+ inches deep and that doe


the main is being able to go into a park that has been pounded and being to pull out I know how hard it is for me to pull oldies out of certain parks that have been pounded. If I can go back to these parks and find more oldies than I usually do I'm a happy camper.

 

[MattR]

Thanks for replying......much appreciated .....I suspect that your approach is what 99% of detectorists probably do. (Me included)


Now may I play the part of the 'devil's advocate, and ask.....

"What would your conclusions then be, if you took your E-Trac there and found virtually nothing? (Keepers)"

How would you rationalise the situation, and consequently what would your assessment be of the unit?

Or..... would you feel the need to go about proving the unit's capabilities of finding targets, before you made up your mind?

Let's suppose you went out and found a 'virgin' site, (but comparable ground conditions) and recovered a satisfactory amount of targets

Would that dispel the impression initially formed at the 'pounded site'?

This whole scenario is plausible......realistic.

So what should our conclusions be based on, when we critically review a new detector?

[size=x-large]What we don't find on pounded sites, or what we find on 'new' sites?[/size]

MattR.UK...

p.s. The question of the 'ergonomics' of user comfort and the detector are assumed to be acceptable, and so only its performance is being discussed.

 

[MattR]

Randy.............Thanks.

Reading your post confirms (IMO) the point I am trying to bring out.

It is what we find that proves something, rather than what we don't find.

Even the argument that someone else is finding, whilst you are not, is not really conclusive. You both need to check out the same target for that to be valid.

I feel sure that a lot of the initial negative vibes over the E-Trac, will fade into obscurity, with time.

They will be overwhelmed by what is found, and the realisation that the new E-Trac. (with its irritating Fe12 thing) is a worthy replacement for that which has gone before.

Minelab will listen..are reading the mail...and I'm confident that they will somehow give us our wishes.

I am pleased with my E-Trac's overall capabilities, and its comfort factor. If a mod were forthcoming, I would pay a reasonable charge to put the icing on the cake.

So let's get detecting, and making 'history'...................MattR.UK

 

[Crash620]

and factors. As you say, it is truly difficult to quantify.... So far, I have not found anything with the E-trac that I would not have found with the EXII with the exception of some deep scrap. However, part of the reason, I believe is lack of familiarity with the machine. I probably would not have dug the same targets with my EXII. I also have dug quite a bit more trash.... Also possibly due to a lack of familiarity. The only real measure (not without its own inherent issues) would be a known coin garden that has been in place for an extended period of time, that contains targets not previously within range of our older detectors. Obviously, if we now can detect these targets with a new machine, and still are unable to detect those targets with our older machines regardless of how we adjust it, I believe that would be a somewhat reliable method of determining performance. Ideally this procedure would need to be repeated at several gardens. I think it is impossible to critically review a detectors performance in any other way. As you said Matt, there are to many possible errors. But if a target is readily detectable with a new unit and not with another, I think I would be comfortable hanging my hat on that test.

 

[Beachcomber]

I don't feel that anything when it comes to detecting and many other things in life are absolute except maybe death and taxes There are always shades of gray in between the two extremes. Let's take your scenarios one at a time.

1. Since I was taking the detector to the beach where there is pretty much always something to find I will use an Inland Hunted out spot for this first scenario. Let's say I didn't find anything that was a keeper. I would then factor in moisture content as moist ground usually conducts the signal better than dry ground. I would also consider the non-keepers that I found. Such as thier size, type of metal, and depth at which they were located. This would still give me valuable information about the detectors capabilities. Also I would have gained knowledge of the detectors operation and how it responds to different targets even if they weren't keepers. At that point I would still need to do more hunting with the detector before making any kind of decisions about it. Just because you don't find any keepers doesn't mean the detector isn't any good or that it can't find keepers. It may just mean that you didn't walk over any! With detecting especially the deepest targets the old saying "miss by an inch miss by a mile" you still miss the target.

2. Again even if I dug plenty of good targets at this new virgin site I would be taking into consideration the depth at which they were found the type of signal response it gave on targets at different depths. The accuracy of the TID at different depths. The are many variables to consider. But let's say I did find just one very deep keeper.....what does that say about the machine? Was it just luck that I detected it or was it something about the signal or TID that made me decide to dig the target. Now let's add to that after digging this very deep keeper I recheck the hole and there are no other signals in or around the hole. What then. Well that tells me only one thing that the detector is capable of going very deep. Maybe not under all conditions but under those particular conditions. Now let's play Devil's Advocate and say that when I rechecked the hole the detector is nulling indicating iron or some other rejected target is still down there. Now what did I learn? Did the rejected target that was also down there help to make the keeper's signal stronger? Did it show me that the detector is capable of indicating a deep good target when in extremely close proximity to a rejected target. To me it would tell that I need to do more investigating and dog more deep targets under varying conditions before I could reach an objective conclusion.

What we don't find is as important as what we do find when testing a new detector. Also how the detector handles different mineralization levels and varying amounts of trash in the ground. But over everything else what allows a person to make a decision about a new detector is that persons overall detecting experience as well as what his primary keepers will be. I feel a person that has only been detecting a year or two can make objective decisions about the features of a detector and the ergonomics and just whether or not he plain likes it or not. But only someone with many years of actual detecting experience can truly evaluate the performance of a new detector for the purposes he has planned for it. Everyone is different and everyone is looking for a certain set of features that will optimize a detector for their particular use in thier area of the World

HH

Beachcomber.

 

[Crash620]

n/t

 

[Jim upstate NY]

I have a lot of cellar holes I hunt a lot.. very small area, the majority of stuff is within 25 feet of the foundation itself, while the whole site may have some stuff out to maybe an acre.. I know with the amount of times I hunt it, that I cover that small area very well, over and over..
Since most of these places burned down and were abandoned, every piece of iron and nail that was in the house ends up in that small area and hides targets.. So when I get a new machine that is supposed to do better in iron, I take it back to see if I can find more stuff.. Sure I might be able to eke out a target or two with my old machine if I work it hard enough,, but if I take a new machine in and get targets easier or more than I expect, then it has at least proven to me its is indeed faster or has better see thru..

I guess its it possible that a new machine might indeed be faster, but I actually already got everything with another that it would prove nothing about its fastness, but I guess my old machine was good enough to get them being slower

 

[RandyNorthridgeca]

Hey Matt,

I understand what you're saying and I'm sure it would be nice to know how the E-trac measures up to the Explorer. I'm really not worrying too much how the Explorer does against the E-trac. The main thing for me is can I go into one of my pounded sites and start pulling out oldies that everyone else, including myself have missed. We all know you can never clean out a site and it's very possible I could have found the same coins with my SE.

The one thing I do know is the area I worked this weekend with another E-trac owner was a small slope that is loaded with iron and trash. I know of 4 or 5 guys that have worked that same slope with the explorer and they all know the explorer well. Gary and myself pulled about 20 to 30 coins each that were more than 5+ inches deep and that doe


the main is being able to go into a park that has been pounded and being to pull out I know how hard it is for me to pull oldies out of certain parks that have been pounded. If I can go back to these parks and find more oldies than I usually do I'm a happy camper.

 

[coinnut]

I don't have an explorer to compare the E trac to, but I have been extremely successful with the DFX in a hunted out virgin hole. I have been unable to pull any deep targets with the E trac vs the DFX. But I did pull some low conductive buttons with the E trac that the DFX missed. But no coins, shallow or deep on that foundation site. It is loaded with the usual scrap iron. But again, operator newness is a factor. Where the E trac has shown considerable progress over the DFX is in areas of gravel, hot rocks and disturbed ground (under sidewalks). I have found many shallow coins (silver and copper) from the surface to 3" mark. My DFX has never liked trap rock (basalt), nor has it enjoyed gravel roads or torn up sidewalks. The E trac has done very well in stability in those areas. But I have yet to pull something over 5-6" in heavy mineralised ground. I am pretty confident that the silver coins are 7-10" deep at this site. It has been hunted to death by many people, but as soon as the bulldozer took out 4", coins started popping out everywhere. Indians, Barbers, Seated, etc... So I am confident that in the areas that were NOT bulldozed, there are coins in the 6-10" range, but I am unable to get them with the E trac. I will continue to try and teach myself the tricks of the E trac and hopefully I can get those deepies!! HH