Deeper then deep! How?

[Loola]

Deeper then deep! How?


1. How deep is it possible to reach in water with a PI, when all aspects
of the MD and coil would be optimal?
Imagine a boat towing the coil at surface (not a towfish).


2. How would the MD have to be built?


3. How would the coil have to be built?


4. What/where is the limitations that stops the MD from going deeper?


Conditions:
Power to the MD is not an issue.
Coil size is not an issue.
"Deeper then deep" is an issue.
Buildable.


A counter question would be: How big is the target? -Well, could we leave that open,
just leave your own reference if you like.

Best regards,
Loola

[Skippy]

A counter question would be: How big is the target?
Isn't this the most important factor ?? Surely you know what target you are searching for ? Presumably something massive, like a shipwreck ? Tell us, then you may get a worthwhile answer.

[Loola]

A counter question would be: How big is the target?
Isn't this the most important factor ?? Surely you know what target you are searching for ? Presumably something massive, like a shipwreck ? Tell us, then you may get a worthwhile answer.

No, I have no specific target i mind, not a aircraft carrier not a bicycle.
My interest is how to build an PI MD that will search deeper then the rest.
Like in most other cases there will be trade offs, but depth is my only target.


With the gathered, impressive knowlish here I hope to get an answer, doable or not.

[Xtrem]

https://www.geotech1.com/forums/show...&highlight=48v

Read this thread..at post 80 ,you find something.

[Loola]

https://www.geotech1.com/forums/show...&highlight=48v

Read this thread..at post 80 ,you find something.

Interesting, endeed. Thank you Xtreme

[waltr]

Thread was a good read. Thanks.

[Carl-NC]

PI-type metal detectors have been used from aircraft to search for metallic ore bodies. Look at the half-sine patents by Tony Barringer (sorry, I don't know them off-hand).

[ivconic]

A counter question would be: How big is the target?
Isn't this the most important factor ?? Surely you know what target you are searching for ? Presumably something massive, like a shipwreck ? Tell us, then you may get a worthwhile answer.

Precisely.
Meaningless questions (i can't recall more drastic case than this related to md community, the greatest source of most meaningless questions in History!!!) usually results with silence... or more meaningless answers.
Than there are statements like "Deeper then deep! How?", "...depth is my only target..." !?Loola you will not get meaningful answer asking meaningless questions.
When it comes to survey on water; usually there are technologies more advanced than PI, that are practiced today. But even than; you must have precisely defined target features.
Without knowing what are you searching for; you may end up finding nothing or anything. Most of the time nothing or something you did not search for.
...
33 years in this and still not able to digest people who tend to ask questions on metal detector like: "How deep it is?"
But this time i see something even more meaningless, total hit and win among all cases i saw so far: "I want deeper detector ... but i don't know how deep and i don't know the targets..." !????
...
Ok lets pretend that we run serious conversation.
Loola is this deep enough for you:
(17,5 meters in water, 45kg weight, ain't no PI to reach not even 1/2 of this depth)

[Qiaozhi]

Precisely.
Meaningless questions (i can't recall more drastic case than this related to md community, the greatest source of most meaningless questions in History!!!) usually results with silence... or more meaningless answers.
Than there are statements like "Deeper then deep! How?", "...depth is my only target..." !?Loola you will not get meaningful answer asking meaningless questions.
When it comes to survey on water; usually there are technologies more advanced than PI, that are practiced today. But even than; you must have precisely defined target features.
Without knowing what are you searching for; you may end up finding nothing or anything. Most of the time nothing or something you did not search for.
...
33 years in this and still not able to digest people who tend to ask questions on metal detector like: "How deep it is?"
But this time i see something even more meaningless, total hit and win among all cases i saw so far: "I want deeper detector ... but i don't know how deep and i don't know the targets..." !????
...
Ok lets pretend that we run serious conversation.
Loola is this deep enough for you:
(17,5 meters in water, 45kg weight, ain't no PI to reach not even 1/2 of this depth)
[ATTACH]50783[/ATTACH]

I agree. It's like asking "How long is a piece of string?"

[Ferric Toes]

Too many unknowns to give a useful answer. e.g. how deep is the water? Is the water salt or fresh? Why tow at the surface? Towing at, or near, the bottom will get you that much closer to the target, unless the water is <5ft and you are looking for lost outboard motors or small boat anchors. That has been done in minor rivers.

Eric.

[ivconic]

... unless the water is <5ft ...Eric.

In such case decent piece of neodymium magnet, tied to chain, can do the job.
It just happens that i know people who are combing Thames like that on regular basis!

[Loola]

When I get answers like "useless questions" I see that I have to clarify the questions, because
this NOT useless questions, there you are wrong!


I have intentionally left out specifications, parameters, facts and wishings, because this would only
point the answers in a certain directions, and that was never my intetion. The questions is ment to
be open for interpretations. Constructive answers are great, and I like to keep it that way.


Example off a constructive answer: Look at post #4 from Xtreme. He understod the questions and gave
a good constructive answear.


I hope this clear things out, and that this could be a constructive thread.

[Skippy]

This forum routinely gets requests from people called AliAbdulAli, wanting to find coins 10 metres deep in the desert, and wanting to know "what depest detector please needing I ".
Your request looks very much the same. You may be wanting to find gold finger rings 10 metres down on the bottom of a lake. If you told us this, we could advise you it is a dream. If you told us you were looking for 200 kg iron cannons on the bottom of this lake, you would get some constructive ideas, and other alternatives, like magnetometer survey equipment.
But without such information, people will see your requests, and likely assume you are not in Sweden, but Syria.

[ivconic]

This forum routinely gets requests from people called AliAbdulAli, wanting to find coins 10 metres deep in the desert, and wanting to know "what depest detector please needing I ".
Your request looks very much the same. You may be wanting to find gold finger rings 10 metres down on the bottom of a lake. If you told us this, we could advise you it is a dream. If you told us you were looking for 200 kg iron cannons on the bottom of this lake, you would get some constructive ideas, and other alternatives, like magnetometer survey equipment.
But without such information, people will see your requests, and likely assume you are not in Sweden, but Syria.

... or China.

[Ferric Toes]

In such case decent piece of neodymium magnet, tied to chain, can do the job.
It just happens that i know people who are combing Thames like that on regular basis!

True. On reflection, I was recalling a time before these powerful neodymium magnets were available.

Again, it emphasises the point that it make sense to specify whether ferrous or non-ferrous targets are the intended target. If it was non-ferrous then the most powerful of magnets would be useless.

I expect those that comb the Thames bring up some interesting stuff, like bicycles, shopping trolleys, maybe the occasional motorbike.

Eric.