Tweet
Now, that I have at least a few people's attention, hopefully, we can air out a few things, like why we have to criticize or degrade another design.
This seems to happen all over the net and what is worse, complaining comes from some really odd logic in my opinion.
I mentioned that if you can't build a better moustrap, you really shouldn't complain about the one you use. I will always stand by that position.
Before the days of the GS 5 and the TDI, I took one of Eric Foster's low powered PI's and modified it by adding a quick and dirty version of ground balance. The basic design to the point I could minimize about any type of ground. Later, as a challenge to make a PI that could see what one guy called invisible nuggets, I worked on several things and finally built a detector that could detect the so called invisible nuggets that were sent to me. (BTW, the guy who offered the challenge was nice enough to send me a couple of the nuggets he called invisible.)
When done, the little PI worked reasonably well and I had success finding both gold and meteorites with it. What made this detector neat was the fact it could actually detect smaller gold than the most powerful PI more commonly used at the time.
For some reason, my little detector was ridiculed because no one could "see" the need for a PI to find the small stuff. Instead, it was always pointed out how much deeper the big boy could go on the bigger gold.
The problem with this concept is most gold found, at least here in the US is the small stuff. So, I was quite content with my design. Unfortunately, I caught a lot of flack and degrading of my little detector from a lot of people defending the big boy.
Well, I can say, the constant bashing did get old, so my solution was to simply quit posting on the one key forum where most of the trash talk occurred. I still don't post on that forum and probably never will.
More importantly, I quit reading that forum because I could care less about the badmouthing of any detector, let alone mine.
Now, I learned most of the limitations and quirks of my detector and was quick to point out those quirks when people asked. Why? Well, I didn't care if people copied my ideas and if they did, I would prefer they knew what to expect so there were no surprises or reasons to criticize me later because the detector wasn't perfect.
In the process of developing my detector, I made several comparisons of my unit against the one brand normally used for gold hunting. During that testing, I stumbled on to something that had gone unnoticed or at least not discussed since the existence of that detector. As it turned out, my little PI would or could detect one certain 1/4 oz nugget far deeper than the big boy on the block.
As it turned out, the idea of "holes" in what it could detect became obvious. Later I read where the design engineer mentioned this hole condition.
Well, as it turns out, there is always going to be "holes" in the PI detection of objects regardless of who builds it if the ground balance is based upon the present concept. So, even today, it has been pointed out on a different forum that the big boy on the block suffers from them as does other ground balancing PI's including the GS 4 which many people are trying to build now.
The White's TDI has hole's also. Yep, and I have mentioned this and how it occurs. Now, what I did not see is Carl ranting about me pointing out the characteristic many people would love to call a flaw.
This isn't a flaw but a consequence of the design coupled with the characteristics of how a PI works. Better yet, knowing a few things about this characteristic and how the detector works, the ability to offer a level of iron rejection or what one might call a crude form of discrimination became known. On a PI, this was unheard of.
So, this characteristic, quirk, or whatever it is called became an asset because now many people use certain adjustments and this characteristic to use a PI to hunt coins.
If I or anyone else had decided to rant or try to hide the basic discovery, this feature or ability to use the PI for other means, just may not exist today and the key to its success is because of the fact the quirk existed and was exploited instead of trying to hide it.
Here is something most people don't know about this characteristic and that is, Eric Foster implemented a coin hunting feature into his earlier Goldscans capitalizing on this feature. Yep, back in the 90's, Eric build the Goldscan with the ability to ignore many nails but still find certain coins. What Eric had built into his earlier detectors was the "Low Conductor" mode, a feature now found on the TDI.
So, why did this unique feature go unnoticed for so long???? Well, I attribute that to stubbornness and ignorance of the overall design. What is interesting is on one of the earlier forums often read several years ago, lots of theories evolved as to why certain nuggets couldn't be detected at any depth to speak of. Today, I strongly suspect at least some of those nuggets were difficult to find because of this hole concept.
Regardless of the PI detector, if it has a form of ground balancing and different objects generate different tone characteristics such as a low tone for some and a high tone for others, or maybe a low high for some and a high low for others, there will always be some form of a hole. In other words, certain objects will not be detected to the depths one might think they should be.
*****ing or ridiculing this condition serves no purpose. Worse yet, not willing to fully understand why it happens can result in some really bad reasoning which usually leads to less than the best results.
What is truly sad is on a different forum certain "holes" were discovered but rather than try to figure out why or the characteristics of that hole, the only thing that really resulted was criticism.
A wise person just might have wondered if this oddity occurred on other modes of the detector and set out to find the answer. Better yet, it wouldn't have hurt to do what I did and find what it took to use the detector's characteristics as an advantage and how to overcome or get around the weaknesses as much as possible.
knowing limitations exist and how to get around them or use those limitations is what makes a PI owner stand out in a crowd. Chances are, the person with the knowledge will be the most successful in the long run.
So, for those people who are adamant about defending their detector and not willing to accept the facts, only hurt themselves in the long run.
I used to try my best to teach the brick to float, so to speak but with gold becoming harder to find, I have decided to let those not wanting to learn, go their merry way. Instead, I just smile and hunt behind them.
Reg
This seems to happen all over the net and what is worse, complaining comes from some really odd logic in my opinion.
I mentioned that if you can't build a better moustrap, you really shouldn't complain about the one you use. I will always stand by that position.
Before the days of the GS 5 and the TDI, I took one of Eric Foster's low powered PI's and modified it by adding a quick and dirty version of ground balance. The basic design to the point I could minimize about any type of ground. Later, as a challenge to make a PI that could see what one guy called invisible nuggets, I worked on several things and finally built a detector that could detect the so called invisible nuggets that were sent to me. (BTW, the guy who offered the challenge was nice enough to send me a couple of the nuggets he called invisible.)
When done, the little PI worked reasonably well and I had success finding both gold and meteorites with it. What made this detector neat was the fact it could actually detect smaller gold than the most powerful PI more commonly used at the time.
For some reason, my little detector was ridiculed because no one could "see" the need for a PI to find the small stuff. Instead, it was always pointed out how much deeper the big boy could go on the bigger gold.
The problem with this concept is most gold found, at least here in the US is the small stuff. So, I was quite content with my design. Unfortunately, I caught a lot of flack and degrading of my little detector from a lot of people defending the big boy.
Well, I can say, the constant bashing did get old, so my solution was to simply quit posting on the one key forum where most of the trash talk occurred. I still don't post on that forum and probably never will.
More importantly, I quit reading that forum because I could care less about the badmouthing of any detector, let alone mine.
Now, I learned most of the limitations and quirks of my detector and was quick to point out those quirks when people asked. Why? Well, I didn't care if people copied my ideas and if they did, I would prefer they knew what to expect so there were no surprises or reasons to criticize me later because the detector wasn't perfect.
In the process of developing my detector, I made several comparisons of my unit against the one brand normally used for gold hunting. During that testing, I stumbled on to something that had gone unnoticed or at least not discussed since the existence of that detector. As it turned out, my little PI would or could detect one certain 1/4 oz nugget far deeper than the big boy on the block.
As it turned out, the idea of "holes" in what it could detect became obvious. Later I read where the design engineer mentioned this hole condition.
Well, as it turns out, there is always going to be "holes" in the PI detection of objects regardless of who builds it if the ground balance is based upon the present concept. So, even today, it has been pointed out on a different forum that the big boy on the block suffers from them as does other ground balancing PI's including the GS 4 which many people are trying to build now.
The White's TDI has hole's also. Yep, and I have mentioned this and how it occurs. Now, what I did not see is Carl ranting about me pointing out the characteristic many people would love to call a flaw.
This isn't a flaw but a consequence of the design coupled with the characteristics of how a PI works. Better yet, knowing a few things about this characteristic and how the detector works, the ability to offer a level of iron rejection or what one might call a crude form of discrimination became known. On a PI, this was unheard of.
So, this characteristic, quirk, or whatever it is called became an asset because now many people use certain adjustments and this characteristic to use a PI to hunt coins.
If I or anyone else had decided to rant or try to hide the basic discovery, this feature or ability to use the PI for other means, just may not exist today and the key to its success is because of the fact the quirk existed and was exploited instead of trying to hide it.
Here is something most people don't know about this characteristic and that is, Eric Foster implemented a coin hunting feature into his earlier Goldscans capitalizing on this feature. Yep, back in the 90's, Eric build the Goldscan with the ability to ignore many nails but still find certain coins. What Eric had built into his earlier detectors was the "Low Conductor" mode, a feature now found on the TDI.
So, why did this unique feature go unnoticed for so long???? Well, I attribute that to stubbornness and ignorance of the overall design. What is interesting is on one of the earlier forums often read several years ago, lots of theories evolved as to why certain nuggets couldn't be detected at any depth to speak of. Today, I strongly suspect at least some of those nuggets were difficult to find because of this hole concept.
Regardless of the PI detector, if it has a form of ground balancing and different objects generate different tone characteristics such as a low tone for some and a high tone for others, or maybe a low high for some and a high low for others, there will always be some form of a hole. In other words, certain objects will not be detected to the depths one might think they should be.
*****ing or ridiculing this condition serves no purpose. Worse yet, not willing to fully understand why it happens can result in some really bad reasoning which usually leads to less than the best results.
What is truly sad is on a different forum certain "holes" were discovered but rather than try to figure out why or the characteristics of that hole, the only thing that really resulted was criticism.
A wise person just might have wondered if this oddity occurred on other modes of the detector and set out to find the answer. Better yet, it wouldn't have hurt to do what I did and find what it took to use the detector's characteristics as an advantage and how to overcome or get around the weaknesses as much as possible.
knowing limitations exist and how to get around them or use those limitations is what makes a PI owner stand out in a crowd. Chances are, the person with the knowledge will be the most successful in the long run.
So, for those people who are adamant about defending their detector and not willing to accept the facts, only hurt themselves in the long run.
I used to try my best to teach the brick to float, so to speak but with gold becoming harder to find, I have decided to let those not wanting to learn, go their merry way. Instead, I just smile and hunt behind them.
Reg
Comment