claim jumper Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 Rob, that's why I inserted the "EATING CROW" pictures. I will believe it when I hear the reports. Not till then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin nuggethunting Posted March 10, 2007 Admin Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 Hello Claim Jumper, Yep, I understand where you are coming from. It's hard for me to get away from the Minelab PI's since I've done very well with them over the years just as a weekend warrior. Lets hope something new and exciting is right around the corner for us. Take care,Rob Allison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prospectinginoz Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 Rob, that's why I inserted the "EATING CROW" pictures. I will believe it when I hear the reports. Not till then. Being skeptical is a good thing. However there is one difference with the Pulse Devil. What other detector manufacturer would allow persons from a market rival to attend the first field tests of their machine and allow all that info to be in the public domain? Certainly not Minelab who do all their testing in secret and then go public. Does ML or any other manufacturer ever allow their pre release field testing results to be made public? I admire Dave for taking the courageous decision to go public with the PD warts and all from the start. Either his is very fool hardy or maybe from his lab testing he is confident that he has something that will give ML a real headache.Doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin nuggethunting Posted March 10, 2007 Admin Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 Hello Doug, Yep, I think you are correct. Minelab kind of keeps all their stuff top secret and then release it. I really give Dave and all the other poeple involved in this Pulse Devil Metal Detector credit. Allowing all the public to see the detector working in the goldfields of Arizona is great! I'm really hoping I can return that night and post great things about the Pulse Devil. Reg Sniff is probably one of the most knowledgeable guys when it comes to working and testing Pulse Induction (PI) metal detectors. I'm glad to see Reg is a huge part of the Pulse Devil's first testing on the goldfields. Reg and I have been good friends for many years even though we might not agree on everything. Rob Allison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claim jumper Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 Yep, that is why I said "eating crow" I will be the first to say I was wrong, and probably buy this detector if it as they are saying better in disc than a Minelab. And goes deeper on gold!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin nuggethunting Posted March 10, 2007 Admin Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 Hello Claim Jumper, I'm not certain, but I believe someone mentioned the Pulse Devil will not have the same depth ability as a Minelab PI, but will have a much better discrimination. Not sure I seen it here on my forum or one of the Aussie Gold Forums. Take care,Rob Allison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prospectinginoz Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 Hello Claim Jumper, I'm not certain, but I believe someone mentioned the Pulse Devil will not have the same depth ability as a Minelab PI, but will have a much better discrimination. Not sure I seen it here on my forum or one of the Aussie Gold Forums. Take care,Rob AllisonRob on BENCH testing the Pulse Devil in discrimination mode has matched the depth of the Sd series ML but has not been compared to say a 4000. On very large objects it should go much deeper as it can use a pulse length of 1000 u secs which is about 4x longer than the longest ML pulse and for other reasons that I cannot disclose. On very small gold it should be as sensitive and go as deep as the 4000 as Dave can sample much,much earlier after pulse termination than ML.On small gold ( whose signal may decay away in 15 u secs or so) the earlier you sample the stronger the recieve signal and the better the S/N. Dave's sampling and signal processing method is also radically different to ML and should in theory maximize depth on all gold sizes including very small gold.Doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugwhiskers Posted May 13, 2007 Report Share Posted May 13, 2007 Hi All,I think many people are waiting to see how the new discriminating PI's stack up depth wise when compared to the competition, but I look at the concept from a totally different perspective.Why do I have a different outlook? Easy, I am older than dirt and have been using detectors since the early BFO days. I have seen the evolution to the fantastic TR and the DD coil and then to the ultimate, the VLF.When the first VLF came out, owners were digging objects deeper than TR owners could think about. Unfortunately, this advantage had its drawbacks in the fact nails and bottle caps were common objects to be uncovered. The crude TR type discrimination mated to the VLF worked poorly at best but was better than nothing.What really changed the detector market and made detecting much more fun was the introduction of the VLF motion discriminating detectors. The idea you didn't have to dig every nail, bottle cap, or other piece of trash was a pure delight. The fact that the motion machines didn't get quite the depth of the older VLF's was a non issue.Now, if we fast forward to today, we have seen a somewhat similar evolution in PI's, where some basic form of discrimination is available today, but no true discrimination. Eric Foster's GS 5 comes as close as any, but isn't perfect.So, for me, a true discriminating PI will be a major advancement, regardless of depth comparisons. The reason is simple, many and in some areas, most of the ground has been gone over and over with PI's. About the only areas in some locations that haven't been beat to death are those that have so much trash, people simply give up after a short time. At least, I do and I have tried some of these areas several times.I remember one area in the King Tut area, I spent several hours raking the trash away and was rewarded with one small nugget. Boy, would I have loved a good discriminating PI at that site.So for me, depth superiority isn't an issue. As long as the depth capability is close, I will be happy. I am much more interested in the ability to walk by the junk and not have to dig it. Yes, I am lazy. Also, I would prefer to be one of the first to be able to hunt the trashy areas now. I guess this is why am quite excited about the new designs.RegHi Reg,You may already be aware of the 64 sampler PI under development in the Geotech forum. Early results show that it can discriminate between steel, lead, Al & Au look the same and Silver. Hot rocks, the curse of Australian detectorists have a distinctive signature that can also be eliminated with a bit more software. Not all the information regarding the finer points of the discrimination have been published as there is a possiblity of commercial interest in a detector that can achieve all the above.regardsbugwhiskers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reg Posted May 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2007 Hi Bugwhiskers,I have followed the design somewhat. One question I have is whether the present testing has been done using air tests or buried target tests? If they are buried target tests, have you altered the ground conditions, to see if any changes occur to your curves and analysis?Cheers,Reg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugwhiskers Posted May 14, 2007 Report Share Posted May 14, 2007 Hi Bugwhiskers,I have followed the design somewhat. One question I have is whether the present testing has been done using air tests or buried target tests? If they are buried target tests, have you altered the ground conditions, to see if any changes occur to your curves and analysis?Cheers,RegHi Reg,As the discrimination is based on the conductivity of the target the ground had very little influence. What was very interesting was one of the nuggets brought along for the test was a quite large, round, approximately tennis ball sized with a core of ironstone. The iron content was high enough to support the weight of an attached magnet. The ratio of the masses was about 50/50 yet despite this the discimination showed it to be gold with no shift towards iron at all.The current platform is not ideal due to noise (approx 80mV on the decay curve) which limits the range. However, it has proven that the discrimination method works.regards bugwhiskers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldman Posted May 14, 2007 Report Share Posted May 14, 2007 While conductivity is a meaure, decay rate is also important especially with minerals, a comparison of both may be necessary to give an accurate reading. I do not understand your comment on the ground making no difference. The signal noise from the ground matrix being magnitized the the pulse frequency, is going to cause distortions? Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.