Culpeper No Friend to the Deus

[vferrari]

You know, it’s funny because in the xp tutorial videos Gary does some tests on the hf round coil. One of the tests is a nail test where he puts a non ferrous next to a nail and sweeps right over it showing how the hf coil separates. He then keeps adding nails right next to the non ferrous target and keeps getting a good signal. However, he never says what frequency he is using? Only that he is using Deus Fast.

Your video is great. Good job. Just wanted to see if you could get more depth in mineralized soil using the higher frequencies and higher reactivities. Would have made the video ten time longer.

I never use silencer higher than -1 and I like the 2.5 reactivity for general hunting. I feel that I am able to hit every good target with that reactivity at decent depth. Just need to adjust swing speed according to iron infestation (or aluminum).

Actually, in high mineralization, the lower frequencies do better overall on depth (for high conductors, at least). However, the variables and tradeoffs are too complex to give a definitive answer, so trial and error carries the day. (Do whatever is working). As I mentioned before, this would make 4 khz a great frequency for searching at depth here except for the fact that TX power at 3 counters all that goodness and makes it unusable. I actually like that the HF coils have fixed TX power = 2 (whether TX power = 2 on the HF coil is the same as TX Power = 2 on the LF coil is subject to some debate, but that is what XP says, anyway). It seems to strike the right balance.

When I get back to Culpeper, perhaps next spring, I will attempt to do a more scientific A vs. B type video to see if I can show how manipulating the settings works on various targets. I just wanted to do the disappearing bullet demo on this one, because it has always blown me away.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[CharlesUpstateNY]

I have hunted the fort and surrounding area near Culpeper, that soil is only mildly annoying. I had no problem digging buttons and multiple deep mini balls with a...wait for it...Explorer II. Come out west to our magnetic black sand then you will know pain and suffering.

Speaking of which the Deus 9 inch HF is working quite well in this black sand, where an Explorer Se Pro FAILS. I did have to switch over to a deep program recommended by a Deus relic hunter to get decent depth with it. Been running 14.4 kHz with that depth program. I think I'm up to 14 deep (for our soil) military buttons, lost count of the number of deep bullets.

vferrari not trying to contradict you here but that soil isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Sure the detector is going to be jittery and noisy, it won't be a pleasant hunt with relaxing stability but I'm used to running Minelabs on the edge so it really wasn't a big deal for me. All my time digging in rusty nail infested sites in NY paid off, I walked right into the middle of that fort that's been hunted God knows how many times, waded into the rusty nails and that's where I pulled my first deep coat button.

 

[vferrari]

I have hunted the fort and surrounding area near Culpeper, that soil is only mildly annoying. I had no problem digging buttons and multiple deep mini balls with a...wait for it...Explorer II. Come out west to our magnetic black sand then you will know pain and suffering.

Speaking of which the Deus 9 inch HF is working quite well in this black sand, where an Explorer Se Pro FAILS. I did have to switch over to a deep program recommended by a Deus relic hunter to get decent depth with it. Been running 14.4 kHz with that depth program. I think I'm up to 14 deep (for our soil) military buttons, lost count of the number of deep bullets.

vferrari not trying to contradict you here but that soil isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Sure the detector is going to be jittery and noisy, it won't be a pleasant hunt with relaxing stability but I'm used to running Minelabs on the edge so it really wasn't a big deal for me. All my time digging in rusty nail infested sites in NY paid off, I walked right into the middle of that fort that's been hunted God knows how many times, waded into the rusty nails and that's where I pulled my first deep coat button.

Charles,

I hear you - and yes you ARE trying to contradict me (LOL). In the video (not sure if you saw it), when the mineralization meter is pegged, that is pretty bad. I suppose you saw the bullet literally disappear at 2-3 inches. That is bad. It's not just noise. The thing is that the mineralization varies considerably even over just a small area so so it is hard to say what your local conditions were. I have no idea where, when, and how many times you visited the place and how many sites you visited to come to your conclusion that Culpeper soil is not that bad. I don't even know what you consider your "deep" recoveries. I have recovered a few minie balls at 7 to 8" with the Deus in Culpeper. I am not going to say Culpeper is child's play because of that success because it is the exception rather than the rule.

VLFs ruled in the early days of DIV, but now the sites have been hammered and it is difficult to have consistent success with a VLF. I did mention the Culpeper guys who did fine with VLF detectors even as recent as two years ago, but they too have switched to PI's. There is a reason 90+% of folks are using PI's the hot soil and the fact that the remaining targets are deep and surface finds are few and far between. I wrote an article about it for the DIV website. It is not bad in the woods, generally. In the middle of the bean and corn fields that have been repeatedly plowed, it is terrible for the most part. Just 10 miles up the road, at a cavalry and artillery engagement, the conditions were more mild (but still pretty hot) and I managed to snag some good relics with the Deus. So, again, without knowing where you were specifically hunting, how long you hunted, and how deep your recoveries were, I cannot assess why you came away thinking that Culpeper isn't all that bad.

BTW there was never an actual CW "fort" here that I am aware of, so I am not sure what site you are referring to in the area, can you be more specific? Thanks.

Oh and yeah, I will take Culpeper over your neck of the woods any time, you can have it. Mainly because you are dealing with a a low density of targets as well as the soil conditions, whereas in Culpeper the target density is still comparatively high due to all the CW activity. Also, fortunately, most of Virginia, PA, WV, and MD are not like Culpeper as far as soil conditions are concerned. So, yeah, I believe you when you say it is a nightmare out west in the volcanic rock - though I would like to come out west and take on the challenge some day, it sounds like some cool relics exist out there and who can argue with the natural beauty of the sites.

 

[smokeythecat]

I shall now call it "hellpepper". Stuff is still there, but 300 people at a time for three days over 50 digs now, well, it has to thin out. Plus the locals, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Bharpring]

Actually, in high mineralization, the lower frequencies do better overall on depth (for high conductors, at least). However, the variables and tradeoffs are too complex to give a definitive answer, so trial and error carries the day. (Do whatever is working). As I mentioned before, this would make 4 khz a great frequency for searching at depth here except for the fact that TX power at 3 counters all that goodness and makes it unusable. I actually like that the HF coils have fixed TX power = 2 (whether TX power = 2 on the HF coil is the same as TX Power = 2 on the LF coil is subject to some debate, but that is what XP says, anyway). It seems to strike the right balance.

When I get back to Culpeper, perhaps next spring, I will attempt to do a more scientific A vs. B type video to see if I can show how manipulating the settings works on various targets. I just wanted to do the disappearing bullet demo on this one, because it has always blown me away.

What you say about frequency and mineralization is contradictory to what Gary says in this XP Deus Skill School Video- https://youtu.be/VYy2LLL89PY?list=PLfOmenSOmoc30FWLX7194uKoFGqbZvm1x&t=564

 

[vferrari]

My post doesn't contradict Andy's Handbook (See page 15 chart). And I'm not sure it contradicts Gary's video either. The higher frequencies favor mid conductors like gold and small targets. That effect tends to override the deeper penetration, in general, that is afforded by the lower operating frequencies. Andy's chart shows that higher mineralization favors lower frequencies. Finally, all the "difficult" targets Gary was demonstrating, including the hammered silver coin, were mid conductors. As I said previously, going to a higher frequency would favor the mid conductors but would tend to kill depth on high conductors such as that minie ball in my video. But as I said previously, since there are so many variables and contradictory effects in play (mineralization, target conductivity, target size, etc.) the best thing you can do is tune in your detector at the specific site using its soil and some test targets using some trial and error experimentation to find optimal settings for the targets of intetest. HTH

Sent from my SM-N950U using TreasureNet.com mobile app

 

[Professor of Engineering]

Congratualtions on the nice finds!

 

[tnsharpshooter]

I watched the video.

Couple things.

I have recovered a lot of nonferrous in medium minerlized ground using round and elliptical HF coils.
About half of the recovered targets when in the plug after removal, Deus would give no signal on target or give an iron tone.
No iron tonally noted in the plugs either.

Next, 28.8khz likely will yield signals on deeper targets in that particualr soil. Reactivity levels of 3 or 4 may be required too.
Silencer setting of -1 a must for best possible performance depth wise.

Case in point here, realizing you were using roun HF coil in video.

In 4 bars indicated F75 fisher detector soil, elliptical HF coil will strike a 10" deep clad dime using 28.8khz.
If a user opts to run 14.4khz, no deal for a signal on clad dime.

I have compared signals using each HF coil in medium minerlized ground.

Some times I find a find using 14.4khz, sometimes 28.8khz.
But compared signals using each coil using both 14.4khz and 28.8 kHz.
My results were when nonferrous object (undisturbed) was swept from direction fo best signal achieved, 28.8khz was either a tie or slightly ahead of 14.4khz,
If I started turning on the find rotating when sweeping, high percentage ot time, 28.8khz utilization gave more signal as more angle when rotating.

Using LF Deus coils, based on my useage and reviewing others findings when hunting/testing in higher mineralized soil for depth, using highest freq of approx 18khz yeilded best relsuts for depth.

Better depth but still compromised vs milder soil.

Cheers.

Congrats on your finds.

 

[vferrari]

I watched the video.

Couple things.

I have recovered a lot of nonferrous in medium minerlized ground using round and elliptical HF coils.
About half of the recovered targets when in the plug after removal, Deus would give no signal on target or give an iron tone.
No iron tonally noted in the plugs either.

Next, 28.8khz likely will yield signals on deeper targets in that particualr soil. Reactivity levels of 3 or 4 may be required too.
Silencer setting of -1 a must for best possible performance depth wise.

Case in point here, realizing you were using roun HF coil in video.

In 4 bars indicated F75 fisher detector soil, elliptical HF coil will strike a 10" deep clad dime using 28.8khz.
If a user opts to run 14.4khz, no deal for a signal on clad dime.

I have compared signals using each HF coil in medium minerlized ground.

Some times I find a find using 14.4khz, sometimes 28.8khz.
But compared signals using each coil using both 14.4khz and 28.8 kHz.
My results were when nonferrous object (undisturbed) was swept from direction fo best signal achieved, 28.8khz was either a tie or slightly ahead of 14.4khz,
If I started turning on the find rotating when sweeping, high percentage ot time, 28.8khz utilization gave more signal as more angle when rotating.

Using LF Deus coils, based on my useage and reviewing others findings when hunting/testing in higher mineralized soil for depth, using highest freq of approx 18khz yeilded best relsuts for depth.

Better depth but still compromised vs milder soil.

Cheers.

Congrats on your finds.

First: Thanks for the feedback and congrats.

Second: As I said above, the video was not meant to be an exhaustive test demonstration, simply illustrative for those who have not hunted in that kind of soil before to see how drastically depth on a known target is affected by the mineralization. It was also meant to illustrate that a disc type tones program will be much less effective than all metal gold field under these circumstances. I have GF set up in several modes on my remote (GF at 14.4 k with and without IAR, GF at 28.8 with and without IAR). For depth for ALL conductivities I split the difference and do my general searching at 14.4 to start, which through trial and error works for me most of the time. That was the program I was using to find the Parrot shell in the last hunt at 1.5 feet. I agree with you, though, that you have to probably see what is working best in the particular site, so I run some plug tests with minie balls and set my frequency and reactivities accordingly.

Third: In case you missed it (I explained it in an earlier post), I have hunted that particular area extensively for the past two years with the LF coils (9/11") and have not seen much difference between the two other than ground coverage for the 11". I used the 9" HF for two hunts there this year and this last hunt I also gave the elliptical a try. When it is all said and done, the 9" HF has yielded the best performance for the following reasons (as stated in previous posts):

(1) the HF coil depth is only marginally hampered compared to the the lf coils because the only effective difference in frequency is 8 khz vs. 13-14 khz, I can live with that (4 khz is unusable here because TX power = 3 is locked in). I admittedly did not run at 18 khz much on the LF's and there might be something to that, so I might try to run some A/B testing next time around. Though, again, I think the higher frequency will help with mid-conductors, but have the opposite affect on high conductors.

(2) the HF coil runs quieter than the LF coils, especially in the presence of the EMI created by the proliferation of PI machines and overhead, unshielded power lines. This has a greater effect on performance than the very minor (if any) depth penalty I get for running at 14.4 khz.

(3) running the HF coil, affords the opportunity to run at 28.8 khz when appropriate or when I want to focus in solely on mid-conductive targets as discussed above.

Fourth: Running Silencer at 0 made no difference (I tried both 0 and -1) in depth at cut down a little on the ferrous ground noise from the mineralization in my experience. Reactivity setting was more crucial when it came to being able to highlight the target in gold field. Too low (e.g., 1 or 2) and you would get a long buzz as you swept over the target, sometimes indistinguishable from ground noise and possibly obscuring adjacent targets. Too high (4+) and you lose a lot of depth because the buzz really breaks up. The sweet spot was 2.5 to 3 for me under these conditions.

Thanks again for the feedback. Definitely some things to think about there.

Wanted to add another thought. The conditions are so variable and extreme that minor tweaks here and there can admittedly make a huge difference (e.g., going from Reactivity 2.5 to 2 can make drown out a target), conversely seemingly significant changes to settings may only have minor to no effect (changing frequency from 14.4 to 28.8 khz). Bottom line is, I am not really going to worry that much about -1 or 0 on silencer or whether or not I am running 14 khz or 18 khz because in the end it is just one big guessing game as to what tweak is going to dial you in, there are so many variables that absolute statements about specific settings is not productive. About the only things I have been able to nail down there are that (1) I prefer the 9" hf coil and (2) I prefer to search using the Gold Field program and will interrogate a possible target with the unmasker or with IAR.

 

[toasted]

I hunt some farm fields that are pretty heavily mineralized from fertilizers I guess. Like halfway up the mineral bar. Im still using V3.2 but Ive noticed that my machines performance drops off whenever the ground number gets much below 80. You lose depth and target id is awful on anything more than a few inches deep. Im not sure any amount of tweaking is going to accomplish much in these conditions so I usually just use my go to programs

 

[vferrari]

I hunt some farm fields that are pretty heavily mineralized from fertilizers I guess. Like halfway up the mineral bar. Im still using V3.2 but Ive noticed that my machines performance drops off whenever the ground number gets much below 80. You lose depth and target id is awful on anything more than a few inches deep. Im not sure any amount of tweaking is going to accomplish much in these conditions so I usually just use my go to programs

While you were typing up your post, I was coincidentally adding the new last paragraph to my above post, which basically echoes your sentiments. Thanks.

 

[CharlesUpstateNY]

Disturbed (plowed soil) yes a different animal and yes mineralization does vary we have patches here where even the Deus squeals like a stuck pig. Site pounded to silence with VLF then yes time to change things up with a PI. A mini ball vanishes at 2 inches...something is wrong.

Charles,

I hear you - and yes you ARE trying to contradict me (LOL). In the video (not sure if you saw it), when the mineralization meter is pegged, that is pretty bad. I suppose you saw the bullet literally disappear at 2-3 inches. That is bad. It's not just noise. The thing is that the mineralization varies considerably even over just a small area so so it is hard to say what your local conditions were. I have no idea where, when, and how many times you visited the place and how many sites you visited to come to your conclusion that Culpeper soil is not that bad. I don't even know what you consider your "deep" recoveries. I have recovered a few minie balls at 7 to 8" with the Deus in Culpeper. I am not going to say Culpeper is child's play because of that success because it is the exception rather than the rule.

VLFs ruled in the early days of DIV, but now the sites have been hammered and it is difficult to have consistent success with a VLF. I did mention the Culpeper guys who did fine with VLF detectors even as recent as two years ago, but they too have switched to PI's. There is a reason 90+% of folks are using PI's the hot soil and the fact that the remaining targets are deep and surface finds are few and far between. I wrote an article about it for the DIV website. It is not bad in the woods, generally. In the middle of the bean and corn fields that have been repeatedly plowed, it is terrible for the most part. Just 10 miles up the road, at a cavalry and artillery engagement, the conditions were more mild (but still pretty hot) and I managed to snag some good relics with the Deus. So, again, without knowing where you were specifically hunting, how long you hunted, and how deep your recoveries were, I cannot assess why you came away thinking that Culpeper isn't all that bad.

BTW there was never an actual CW "fort" here that I am aware of, so I am not sure what site you are referring to in the area, can you be more specific? Thanks.

Oh and yeah, I will take Culpeper over your neck of the woods any time, you can have it. Mainly because you are dealing with a a low density of targets as well as the soil conditions, whereas in Culpeper the target density is still comparatively high due to all the CW activity. Also, fortunately, most of Virginia, PA, WV, and MD are not like Culpeper as far as soil conditions are concerned. So, yeah, I believe you when you say it is a nightmare out west in the volcanic rock - though I would like to come out west and take on the challenge some day, it sounds like some cool relics exist out there and who can argue with the natural beauty of the sites.

 

[vferrari]

Charles,

(1) Very interested in when you visited Culpeper and what site.

(2) Note that the minie ball disappeared when using a discrimination program, I could "hear" it at depth (~6+ inches) when I went to gold field, but would not be able to tell what it was or even if it was ferrous or non-ferrous.

 

[CharlesUpstateNY]

Charles,

(1) Very interested in when you visited Culpeper and what site.

(2) Note that the minie ball disappeared when using a discrimination program, I could "hear" it at depth (~6+ inches) when I went to gold field, but would not be able to tell what it was or even if it was ferrous or non-ferrous.

That CW hunt was many years ago, Explorer II era. Last hunt at that fort before the land was sold off for development, over 200 people there. The find voted best for the event was 2 mini balls that hit head on and fused together, pretty cool.

 

[vferrari]

That CW hunt was many years ago, Explorer II era. Last hunt at that fort before the land was sold off for development, over 200 people there. The find voted best for the event was 2 mini balls that hit head on and fused together, pretty cool.

Thanks, Charles. Just trying to gauge how much the conditions may have changed over the years. The fused minie balls is a neat find. I have heard of more than few occurrences of that happening. Carved minie balls are neat finds. At the last hunt someone found one with a square nail driven through it. I wonder how that signal sounded.