Tweet
Hi to all
For me, this is the first time that I write about metal detector on this prestigious forum,
so I hope, at least, not to bore anyone.
My speech is based on a trivial consideration and namely is that a metal detector is basically
a transceiver and with these types of apparatus share its strengths and weaknesses.
As a starting point then you should consider first the signal and its propagation in the air
and in the soil and the consequent problem of the noise of which the signal itself is loaded.
But how do you understand the importance of these considerations?
For someone like me that has no basis in electronics, and therefore can only rely on logic,
it is been very important to have material on which to experiment, but the real change for me
came when I set up a comparative test field in the ground where is buried at different depths
the same type of object (then left in the soil to oxidize) and where it's also possible to test,
up to a meter deep, PI or Two-Box detector, with targets up to 25 cm in diameter.
Said this, and coming back to the subject on trial, I think that the circuit of Arado 120b is,
in its brilliant simplicity, an excellent test bench on which to immediately see the effects of changes
put in place in the same circuit. For instance, simply making a fine adjustment of the detector electronics
and mechanics, I had a gain in depth of approximately 30%, going from 15 to 20 cm on a coin of 6.8 gr.
and diameter of 25.8 mm. in bronzital alloy ( 92% copper, 6% aluminum, nickel 2% )
without counting the greater stability of the detector in the phase of research on the ground.
So I think it might be a good idea to have standardized targets, such as the American coins
(easy to find in any country); an apparatus, always standardized, with which to measure
the main characteristics of the soil in which they bury the coins themselves and a table
that allows you to compare the data.
This would make it possible for anyone to assess the real progress made in construction
or modification of a detector made by members of this forum, not to mention the possibility of establishing,
with the collected data, tables truly comparative of the performance of the metal detectors (commercial or DIY )
in any type of soil; tables, for better or for worse, that I think they can also be potentially useful also to those
who produces the metal detectors.
Last, but not least, I hope, family and time to disposition permitting, to mount a new 120b circuit to try variations most important that a simple adjustment of the detector itself and with the hope of being able to gain at least a further 25% on current performance always with a 8” coil.
See you soon
Blitzkrieg
"All is lost except honor."
For me, this is the first time that I write about metal detector on this prestigious forum,
so I hope, at least, not to bore anyone.
My speech is based on a trivial consideration and namely is that a metal detector is basically
a transceiver and with these types of apparatus share its strengths and weaknesses.
As a starting point then you should consider first the signal and its propagation in the air
and in the soil and the consequent problem of the noise of which the signal itself is loaded.
But how do you understand the importance of these considerations?
For someone like me that has no basis in electronics, and therefore can only rely on logic,
it is been very important to have material on which to experiment, but the real change for me
came when I set up a comparative test field in the ground where is buried at different depths
the same type of object (then left in the soil to oxidize) and where it's also possible to test,
up to a meter deep, PI or Two-Box detector, with targets up to 25 cm in diameter.
Said this, and coming back to the subject on trial, I think that the circuit of Arado 120b is,
in its brilliant simplicity, an excellent test bench on which to immediately see the effects of changes
put in place in the same circuit. For instance, simply making a fine adjustment of the detector electronics
and mechanics, I had a gain in depth of approximately 30%, going from 15 to 20 cm on a coin of 6.8 gr.
and diameter of 25.8 mm. in bronzital alloy ( 92% copper, 6% aluminum, nickel 2% )
without counting the greater stability of the detector in the phase of research on the ground.
So I think it might be a good idea to have standardized targets, such as the American coins
(easy to find in any country); an apparatus, always standardized, with which to measure
the main characteristics of the soil in which they bury the coins themselves and a table
that allows you to compare the data.
This would make it possible for anyone to assess the real progress made in construction
or modification of a detector made by members of this forum, not to mention the possibility of establishing,
with the collected data, tables truly comparative of the performance of the metal detectors (commercial or DIY )
in any type of soil; tables, for better or for worse, that I think they can also be potentially useful also to those
who produces the metal detectors.
Last, but not least, I hope, family and time to disposition permitting, to mount a new 120b circuit to try variations most important that a simple adjustment of the detector itself and with the hope of being able to gain at least a further 25% on current performance always with a 8” coil.
See you soon
Blitzkrieg
"All is lost except honor."
Comment