Standardized Tests for Metal Detectors

[Qiaozhi]

Following Davor's suggestion for a new thread on standardized testing for metal detectors ... here it is.

To get the ball rolling, I think this test is an interesting one ->
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWen...ature=youtu.be

At least Ivconic will like it.

Please submit your ideas.

[ivconic]

Following Davor's suggestion for a new thread on standardized testing for metal detectors ... here it is.

To get the ball rolling, I think this test is an interesting one ->
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWen...ature=youtu.be

At least Ivconic will like it.

Please submit your ideas.

GOOD MORNING TO EVERYONE!
HAPPY AWAKENING TOO!

I was talking about that for long time... but nobody really took me seriously!
I guess that's because i am well known as arrogant eastern-european basher and forum bully!
Well... that's life....

[ivconic]

Ok, let's evolve the subject here too.
Davor's idea is the RIGHT idea.

Here is my proposal in short:

Of course it is splendid idea which eventually may put end on usualy endless disputes.
But there are several problems among which the toughest would be how to establish most accurate soil standards which would present references for such testings.
It's not enough to say "medium mineralized soil"... meaning exactly what?
What would be references for "medium mineralized soil"?


I know some of you will now roll your eyes on me again... but now there is certain apparatus, commonly known by name "Deus", which is capable to help us to overcome "soil issue" i am talking about here!
How?
Simple!
Deus is having separate "VDI" for soil readings.
So we can establish several soil references by relying on it's GB "VDI" readings.
Further we can accept, just for example, that numbers from 90 down to 85 will present "highly mineralized" soils, from 85 down to 80 as "medium mineralized" soils ... etc .... etc... see what i mean?
So when certain test is about to be performed; tester should "measure" current soil by use of Deus's GB "VDI" and than note that number as soil reference.
That's how we will have more accurate reference as an element noted to current test.
GB "VDI" ranges at Deus's GB are negotiable, we can gather here several experienced Deus owners and negotiate and establish such ranges as references for further testings.
I think Carl is also having Deus, so he can join the group with his proposals.
Next important thing is we to establish target references.
Targets must be uniform and universal, so each one of us to be able to easily obtain them.
For example: 1 euro coin is pretty much universal and easy obtainable worldwide.
Etc...etc...
Depths?
We can negotiate and agree on several depth references . That's how we can cover more metal detector brands and models and their categories.
"Detection" ?
By "detection" we also must negotiate and establish what does it will mean in further? Simple mum response, strong clear response, chatter, hum?
Different md principles does have own predefined and uniquely featured kind of response on target. There are differences at "detection" among different kind of detectors.
Discrimination?
On what? Rejects what, accepts what? What kind and size to reject or accept?
There are "discriminations" and ... "discriminations"... if you know what i mean!
Etc...etc...
As you see; things are not that simple.
If we want most precise kind of testings; we should negotiate among numerous aspects and elements of such testing.
Cheers!

[Nupi]

GOOD MORNING TO EVERYONE!
HAPPY AWAKENING TOO!

forum bully

We know you're the best forum bully but please give us the Deus schematic?

[WM6]

No need for new test thread (except for runaway from Bulgarian test results).

We started test theme many times in past, but never with something like standardized test proposal conclusion.

Par example:

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...831-Cache-Test

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...etectors-tests

[Davor]

So why not starting with an easy one, say a standard coin in a pit full of tap water? I thought of what material that is close to easy ground would be common to everyone and cheap to obtain, and realised that there is no such thing except maybe tap water.
Sea water is a completely different animal.
Can we agree on the standard coin features? Any idea on a standardised coin material that is easily obtained? Aluminium and copper are non-candidates for obvious reason - too pure and too conductive, but what else is there? Actual coins?
If we go for actual nowadays currency - Euros are out of the game on account of their multiple layers (cheap junk) structure.
A synthetic target made of a wire loop is cheating so it is out.
We might need some standardised thrash representatives too, say beer caps and tin cans. There are brands that are available globally so we may use some of those.

[Davor]

WM6 had a solution with gardening materials such as those pottery pearls used for water retention, and those may stand in as a more difficult ground.
I think extreme bad ground is a speciality for those who need it badly, so omitting such grounds from a standard test may not be a big loss.

[ivconic]

Not good enough!
First condition we must meet is versatility, easy repeatable, easy obtainable.
1 Euro coin is easy ... yet as target bad enough.
What else?
Majority in Europe may easily obtain some standard Roman coin... what's the story with people who can't?
What's the most common item which can be found in each home?
What's the most universal item that can be find in any home, store?
What metal, alloy?
Shape, size?
Tough!
Let's think for a while...

[ivconic]

This may look crazy enough, but i think i founded most universal item which may serve as one of the testing targets!
Take a deep breath now!
Pentium I processor itself!
Old ones made by Intel.
Rumors are claiming that there is 1.5 grams of pure gold in those!!!
So it may contain clay, ceramics, gold, copper, aluminum, steel and silica! Wow!
Am i genius or what!
It can be obtained worldwide, it is cheap and it is perfect as testing target!
Each scrapyard on this planet is potent goldmine for such items!
How about that?
I have few at home, tomorrow i will make air tests with Deus on those!

[Nupi]

The only reliable solution is to buy the Standart material from one and the same controlled producer.
And even then it is difficult to obtain the same composition of the material in each draw from the same producer
in the example of the pottery pearls.
It depends where Heineken beer bottle cap is made in Brazil or in Germany, to give an example.
Valentine paint from USA is not the same product as Valentine made in Spain and so on.

[ivconic]

From other topic,
Davor:
"...Eric Foster has a device that measures soil properties fairly well.Representative samples could be tested that way, but WM6 had a better solution altogether with that burnt clay material.
Either way, we have a separate topic to spill our brains to, and this one awaits the results. WHERE ARE THE RESULTS???..."

That's very interesting!
Also that may solve our next problem; soil references.
Somehow i missed to read about that, what's that device, is it available for diy, any details, schematic, project?
Tell us more mannn!

[ivconic]

The only reliable solution is to buy the Standart material from one and the same controlled producer.
And even then it is difficult to obtain the same composition of the material in each draw from the same producer
in the example of the pottery pearls.
It depends where Heineken beer bottle cap is made in Brazil or in Germany, to give an example.
Valentine paint from USA is not the same product as Valentine made in Spain and so on.

Good points!
But i hope Intel P1 processors are all made the same?
Those are too delicate to be made with variations, right?

[Nupi]

With Intel processors P1, I totally agree with you and it's a good idea. But now, the rest of the testing targets!!??

[WM6]

From other topic,
Davor:
"...Eric Foster has a device that measures soil properties fairly well.Representative samples could be tested that way, but WM6 had a better solution altogether with that burnt clay material.
Either way, we have a separate topic to spill our brains to, and this one awaits the results. WHERE ARE THE RESULTS???..."

That's very interesting!
Also that may solve our next problem; soil references.
Somehow i missed to read about that, what's that device, is it available for diy, any details, schematic, project?
Tell us more mannn!

Eric asked first for schematic here on forum .... and at the end developed it for himself (and probably patented too):

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...tibility-Meter

Commercial portable version:

http://www.zhinstruments.com/?gclid=...8z0RugjT7w_wcB

Deus in best configuration appear to be cheaper than SM-30 meter.

Usable if you wish to test extreme soil (mineralization) conditions like in some extra heavy terrains in Australia which calls for specials detectors design (even better than Minelab GPX series). EU terrains are not so critical for most nowadays (GB) detectors. Wish to have one susceptibility meter, but it is not "must have" for proper testing. But for developers like Eric, ambitious to develop detector capable to cope with extreme Australian gold fields it could be "must have".

Fur us main testing premises are in first line two:

1. Tests should be repeatable, no matter if we are testing right now or after years test conditions should be the same.

This mean that we need to forget on soil test, cause soil is living thing and in combination with wetter conditions next week will be already different than today - not to say years after. Soil tests are OK, if we perform comparison tests of different detector at the same day (like present Bulgarian tests). Instaed of soil we need standardized testing soil surrogate.

2. Tests should be comparable which mean that same testing criteria should be used for all tested detectors.

This include same testing sample with same orientation in testing substrate. Same depth measurement means. Same signal criteria (e.g. clear repeatable sound in both coil sweep directions). If we intend to make comparisons, we need to chose comparable coils. New (or full) batteries in all tested detectors. Relatively same wetter conditions (overheated or frozen detectors can lead to malfunction). Proper and optimal settings according factory instructions manual. At least 3 repeated test sessions for all detectors. In time documented results. Good performed depth test should be accompanied with real terrain searching impressions.

[Thomas]

WM6 had a solution with gardening materials such as those pottery pearls used for water retention, and those may stand in as a more difficult ground.
I think extreme bad ground is a speciality for those who need it badly, so omitting such grounds from a standard test may not be a big loss.

Is this what you are calling pottery pearls? http://www.perlite.net/
That would be a great medium because you could add black sand in measured amounts and mix to a uniform ratio.
Distiled water could be added in measured amounts, no salinity for a totality repeatable set of soil factors any where in the world.