Go big or go home - the detector revolution is here!

smokeythecat said:
Spin? Hype? Surely not!
Click to expand...

ha ha... enough said.

I wasnt trying to brand bash or be a fan boy. Im not brand loyal. I do believe Minelab made a commendable effort recently with their multi part series (information wise )with the equinox. I think they did explain the technology quite well.

I flew RC planes for about 25 or 30 years. For many of those years it was just good ol' FM recievers and Transmitters. There were only a few 'big' brands. Futaba, JR etc. Everyone flew with glow fuel. That all changed in about 2004 and 5 when 2.4ghz started coming onto the market and Li Po batteries made electric flying viable.
These FM radios and glow motors are pretty much obsolete. Most engine manufacturers have shut down....
The downside of all this is that there are so many chinese no name semi disposable things on the market. I hope it doesnt go too much like this with detecting..

Chub
 

Chub, technology is changing for sure. I expect my new design detector to be complete before the end of the summer. We picked a mid range machine to "sacrifice" in the Franensteinish experiment. Now I have to ship DIRT to the person from the area we will be detecting to properly "teach" the machine what to look for. I may live to regret this. Shipping dirt, what next? Besides giving out the cash for the parts, and letting the designer borrow a few things, like, uh, silver coins, gold jewelry, Civil War relics, all those little details.....
 

I once had the opportunity to look for some old coins. My F75 could not find them. I suspect they were already gone, or too deep. But as far as go big, I agree. I try to have aftermarket coils as they perform better than stock coils.
 

smokeythecat said:
Chub, technology is changing for sure. I expect my new design detector to be complete before the end of the summer. We picked a mid range machine to "sacrifice" in the Franensteinish experiment. Now I have to ship DIRT to the person from the area we will be detecting to properly "teach" the machine what to look for. I may live to regret this. Shipping dirt, what next? Besides giving out the cash for the parts, and letting the designer borrow a few things, like, uh, silver coins, gold jewelry, Civil War relics, all those little details.....
Click to expand...

It sounds interesting. Still wish I knew what was happening over at First texas. where I live the minelab 705 is MORE expensive than the equinox 600 ??? Maybe using percieved value to shift stock...or stuck with stock at the old price....I thought the older tech would go down in price now with the Equinox series.
As mentioned previously by someone else, if you could plug in your smart phone to the detector and use is as the interface the detector price could be dropped significantly.

On another note, would detecting be as much fun if you could see the target on a screen? It would certainly help with all the false iron high tones (scriming out the iron).

chub
 

I hope the project turns out well. It won't be the kind of thing you use in a park, but for looking for deep objects, congregation of objects, lost items, etc. Should be a killer in an open field or around a house site where the house is long gone.
 

I have been around so long I can remember WWII. Detectors like this have been out for a long time. Not pictures, but fuzzy outlines. Look at that video closely! They are using a metal object, covered by a 1/4" piece of cardboard to pull up a vague fuzzy image. Also note that the floor doesn't show! A wood floor should show nails, a concrete floor should show re bars, but non show. That means it's only picking up objects 1" away. I have seen some dreamy demo's before. One treasure mag, for their April issue showed pictures of objects 3" below the ground, wow. Turnes out the ground was actually water. April fool.
owl-2.jpg
 

Last edited:
My bud is working on a real machine that will do a lot more than fuzzy images. I am actually shipping DIRT so the AI machine can learn what's under it's coil. It will take awhile and of course no guarantee of success.
 

Frankn said:
I have been around so long I can remember WWII. Detectors like this have been out for a long time. Not pictures, but fuzzy outlines. Look at that video closely! They are using a metal object, covered by a 1/4" piece of cardboard to pull up a vague fuzzy image. Also note that the floor doesn't show! A wood floor should show nails, a concrete floor should show re bars, but non show. That means it's only picking up objects 1" away. I have seen some dreamy demo's before. One treasure mag, for their April issue showed pictures of objects 3" below the ground, wow. Turnes out the ground was actually water. April fool.
View attachment 1575359
Click to expand...

I watched this video several times. I also studied the floor very carefully as this was the first thing I thought of. So either two options is going on:

They have the sensitivity dialed way down.

and/or

I believe it is a concrete floor. This being Europe, they have different building techniques. I don't believe they use re-bar like America does(I could be wrong).
 

smokeythecat said:
My bud is working on a real machine that will do a lot more than fuzzy images. I am actually shipping DIRT so the AI machine can learn what's under it's coil. It will take awhile and of course no guarantee of success.
Click to expand...

I for one will wish your friend good luck in his endeavor to build this machine, if for no other reason than to prove he can. Just having the finished product pictured in his head is more than i can fathom currently. It will be cool to either see his functioning finished product, or at least his finished attempt. No one ever won a race without trying.
 

Can_slaw, its not like we're betting a ton of money on it. If it works well, and the word *well* is the key, then I can look for trash pits and privies. It probably won't work as a general purpose machine. It will be interesting.
 

But isnt it just taking the audio information and depth information and vdi to 'create' a visual representation of those three elements? The old Fisher F5 and alot of detectors have this information clearly displayed numerically, by graph and audio already. Without wanting to undermine the tech couldnt an app be written for this type of thing and sent via bluetooth to a smart phone?

chub
 

chub said:
But isnt it just taking the audio information and depth information and vdi to 'create' a visual representation of those three elements? The old Fisher F5 and alot of detectors have this information clearly displayed numerically, by graph and audio already. Without wanting to undermine the tech couldnt an app be written for this type of thing and sent via bluetooth to a smart phone?

chub
Click to expand...

It's much more complex than that. There is some sort of GPR sensor attached to the detector.
 

b3y0nd3r said:
It's much more complex than that. There is some sort of GPR sensor attached to the detector.
Click to expand...

thats not GPR. Its just reading the coil movements in relation to the ground (which is probably why they have spray paint on the cardboard). Mapping a combination of ground scanning and detector responses is no small feat! But GPR, this is not.
 

I know it is not GPR - ground penetrating radar. Our base machine will be a Technetics T2. We will use the control box that comes with the unit and it's coil. There will be three more items added to it (that I know of now) that will make it functional. What's in that additional control box will be stuff I never heard of, I had it explained to me, but it was WAY above my pay grade. Once complete, the unit will see the targets like a normal machine, but will then use the add ons to "visualize them" and send them, translated, to the control box and then to the 2nd piece of new equipment, a full color display that will be mounted on a vest like a camera steadicam, so you don't have to grow a third arm! It uses true AI - artificial intelligence, and I have no clue how it's going to be made other than plug it together and go. Like I said, no promises but a cool science project in the making. If people (hobbyists) didn't experiment with rockets in the 1930's, well, think about it. I was also told that it will NOT destroy the T-2, so that's good. Nothing on the T-2 itself will change.
 

I started treasure hunting in the great state of Connecticut in 1965 with a White BFO.
 

Honest Samuel, I some days wish I had a BFO. I think this new thing will be a UFO.
 

Tom_in_CA said:
phishfarmer: I'll even go further than your catchy quote: "Science once thought the earth was flat". And "Science once thought that heavier than air flight was impossible". And your take-away from these things is that: Since science was wrong on those notions: Therefore, everything that anyone can conceive of, is therefore possible. Right ?

But no: It only means: 1) Science (so-called) was wrong about the flat earth. 2) Science (so called) was wrong about heavier-than-air flight, 3) Charles H. Duell was wrong about there being no more inventions.

Those past mistaken statements do not automatically mean that : Therefore everything is possible, and nothing is impossible.

There are things that are simply logical contradictions or contradict the laws of physics. And thus not possible. For example: Can you make stuff an elephant into a plastic sandwich baggie ? After all: using your catchy Charles H. Duell quote, it means we can say that .... with enough effort and trying: We can't say it's impossible. Right ? Or to make a square circle, etc... are examples of logical contradictions, of things that can't be done.
Click to expand...

Tom, I don't know what or where you got your degree, but your presentation of what "Science" thought about a Flat Earth or a Heavier than Air is so off base, I tend to think you made this up to make yourself feel smart.
When the earth was still thought to be flat, it was a time of superstition, ignorance, and the fact that very few seafarers had sailed west of Greenland. Technology was limited to using the stars for navigation. On a cloudy night, there was very little that science could do for these early explorers, because they used instruments like the cross staff and astrolabe. The early successful navigators depended more on their knowledge of geometry and astronomy than on "Science" per say. The nautical charts were useless until they were upgraded when the Americas were discovered. By then the "Flat Earth Theory" had been put to rest. Nobody ended up sailing off the edge of the earth.
"Heavier than Air Flight" is impossible. The weight of a jet or the early airplanes was a bit less upon landing due to the fuel that was consumed during flight. The actual weight of the plane, jet, or even hang glider, did not change between takeoff and landing. What was used to give the plane lift was the aerodynamic design and enough thrust to overcome gravity. The use of wind currents and design is used in gliders without any reduction in "Heavier than Air " elements.
I can't address some of the other ramblings you brought up like, elephant sandwiches, square circles, etc. I imagine that California has a different academic understanding of science than the Ivy League teachings back east.
Science had nothing to say about the one time belief that the earth was flat. It was the limited knowledge, fear, primitive sailing instruments, or poor navigational skills and lack of knowledge of celestial positions.
It was engineering, design, and foresight, that are illustrated in Picasso's early drawings that predicted man would someday fly. Eventually, the Wright Brothers combined a formula of structural design and a lift generating engine that would eventually lead to the production of machines that can fly. All of the machines still remain heavier than air. Without proper design or thrust, they cannot fly.
 

Last edited:
smokeythecat said:
My bud is working on a real machine that will do a lot more than fuzzy images. I am actually shipping DIRT so the AI machine can learn what's under it's coil. It will take awhile and of course no guarantee of success.
Click to expand...
I wish you the best of success.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Made of Lead, found in gold rush country

⬅️ Previous Thread

Can animals here frequencies that your detector makes

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
We Dig Metal Detectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top