Candigger said:
Nice chart. It would have been more useful to measure on each setting for every coil used how far above ground these coils were able to detect the target with some minimum signal at least. Target response on a scale from 1 to 10 is hugely subjective and variable unless is done with means of accurate measurement like decibel meter or similar.
Measured distance on top of the buried target above ground with a meter is absolute.
So may inches for this coil and so many for that coil, no impressions.
Of course video with measurements would be even better.
You must have missed the part about me saying it was raining hard that day
Yes, signal strength ratings are subjective, so you'll just have to take my word for it until I do further testing. I wasn't set-up to alter target depths in the ground. I did have a sliding tube test set-up a few years ago but someone dug it up!!
I don't like raising the coil above the ground as it is not a fixed value. An airtest while not ideal is a fixed value - the coil is ground balanced and placed on the ground - same for every coil. When you raise the coil above the ground, the coils will be seeing various levels of ground signal, I.e. less ground signal at 2" and then A LOT less ground signal at 4", so I've never been a fan of these demos. The better test for this is to keep sweeping the coil on the ground and alter the depth of the target above the coil. Then at least the coil/s are consistently seeing the same amount of mineralisation.....you just have to be disciplined to keep the coil on the ground.
I think when I am able to test on a range of different sized gold at different depths, then I'll have a better feel on where it lies in terms of performance, and then where it may come in handy and pull a bit of gold.
ickshovel: :goldnugget:
