- Apr 27, 2015
- 131
- 305
- Detector(s) used
- Garrett Axiom, XP Deus 2, XP Xtrem
- Primary Interest:
- Metal Detecting
I've been detecting for both nuggets and artifacts in Arizona. There are many detector options available and I wanted to come up with a way to test and compare detector performance. I installed a detector test range in my back yard that consists of two PVC tubes angled into the ground. My goal is to get some sort of repeatable metric of detector performance that would enable comparisons of VLF, pulse induction, coil sizes, coil types, programming and target type. I've borrowed a few different detectors for the tests or had friends visit and run the tests with their detectors.
It is very difficult to achieve repeatable results that can be used for comparison. There are many variables that need to be controlled. My approach was to consider a target a hit if it was very weak but clear, and to use roughly the same level of target recognition for each test. These test results are subjective and at best have a repeatable accuracy of +/- 10%. The overall goal was to chart test results such that trends in performance could be seen that made sense. Some of the data seems erratic and may need further testing. The data is a work-in-progress and will be updated as other detectors or coils are available.
One of my next goals is to attempt to create a test that might simulate a non-ferrous target hidden among ferrous litter. Perhaps a coin glued adjacent to a couple of nails on a wooden paint stick. I'll be testing XP Deus 2 programming changes to see what might be possible.
I am not a detector expert so I may need correction on some of the trends I am seeing: The pulse induction detectors perform well compared to VLF detectors for most target sizes over about 0.2" diameter. As expected the highest frequency VLFs have the most sensitivity to the smallest targets. The smallest target size the pulse induction detectors hear seems to be set more by the detector timing design rather than coil size. The old Tesoro Lobo Super-Traq is surprisingly good if one replaces the stock coil with a larger Cors or NEL coil.
The details of the test configuration, targets, etc is on the last page of the data. Any comments, suggestions or ideas will be most welcome. Ed, near Tucson, Az.
It is very difficult to achieve repeatable results that can be used for comparison. There are many variables that need to be controlled. My approach was to consider a target a hit if it was very weak but clear, and to use roughly the same level of target recognition for each test. These test results are subjective and at best have a repeatable accuracy of +/- 10%. The overall goal was to chart test results such that trends in performance could be seen that made sense. Some of the data seems erratic and may need further testing. The data is a work-in-progress and will be updated as other detectors or coils are available.
One of my next goals is to attempt to create a test that might simulate a non-ferrous target hidden among ferrous litter. Perhaps a coin glued adjacent to a couple of nails on a wooden paint stick. I'll be testing XP Deus 2 programming changes to see what might be possible.
I am not a detector expert so I may need correction on some of the trends I am seeing: The pulse induction detectors perform well compared to VLF detectors for most target sizes over about 0.2" diameter. As expected the highest frequency VLFs have the most sensitivity to the smallest targets. The smallest target size the pulse induction detectors hear seems to be set more by the detector timing design rather than coil size. The old Tesoro Lobo Super-Traq is surprisingly good if one replaces the stock coil with a larger Cors or NEL coil.
The details of the test configuration, targets, etc is on the last page of the data. Any comments, suggestions or ideas will be most welcome. Ed, near Tucson, Az.
Attachments
Upvote
1
