January 13, 2019 07:17AM avatar
►►► "Trash." ◄◄◄

A very broad, very loose, and very undescriptive term, but it is so frequently used, yet difficult to answer without expanding with a response that clarifies what we determine to be 'trash' to us, and in what density at a site and nearness to the targets we are searching for.

For example, you might come across a modest-size park that was never used for anything before it was selected for, and developed to be, a public park. It's mostly grassy and has a small picnic bowery and tot-lot playground. Someone detects there and makes a post saying the park is 'trashy.'

That same person meets up with a hunting buddy who has access to an older, unoccupied house they can hunt in a not so well kept neighborhood. This same fellow who left the park searches the side yard and back yard off the ally and says the site was 'trashy.' All that tells YOU is that this particular individual doesn't like 'trash' but it doesn't describe what type of trash he's encountered, how much of it there is, or how dense or closely spaced the trash is.

If asked for his description of the type and amount of debris he dealt with, the response would clear up a lot of undescribed info to fill the voids in the descriptions of what 'trash' was at the two locations. The open grassy park might have been reasonably free of a lot of debris, but perhaps this modern park had quite a few modern rectangular pry-tabs off of beverage cans tossed about around the picnic area, and the same were found in the tot-lot material along with foil candy wrappers or other smaller foil-type trash. Enough that, to that person, the place was 'trashy.'

But the unoccupied old house was possibly not maintained very well, and was also one of those yards where former inhabitants had some junky cars they worked on, or did other work or tearing apart of older vehicles or other things such that there was a very dense amount of iron nails, bolts, nuts screws, and other annoying and odd-shaped or challenging ferrous-based 'trash' in the area. Instead of just straight type nails, screws, bolts or other wire-iron shaped junk, the back and side yard debris included round washers, odd-shaped angled iron hinges or other smaller odd-shaped ferrous trash.

Therefore the reference to so-called 'trash' at the two locations was much different in the metal alloy type as well as density. Thus the problems the detector operator had to deal with was also very different. But, that still leaves a couple more questions unanswered to try and understand how the operator searched the site and tried to deal with what had simply been described as 'trash.'

Those unknowns include:

• Detector used
• Search coil size, shape and type used
• Search mode used
• Settings used

I know that most of my Forum posts, here on my website or on the few other Forums I visit, can be a little lengthy, but that's because I usually try to be more descriptive and tailor my answers to maybe help others who are 'readers' and have similar questions but they never post on the sites. And there are far more of those than there are regular contributors.

So, with regard to the post I made that you responded to here, this is on the Fisher & Teknetics Forum and was more-or-less aimed at the Omega 8000 and F44 models. So let's review my replies and I'll point out the important point in bold:

Monte.. I used an Omega 8000 V.4, a few of them, from march of 2010 until mid-2015. In a little over five years it had quickly grown to be my preferred Coin Hunting model for 'typical' trashy conditions in common urban settings. Most of those are rather free of Nails and other ferrous debris with the exception of Bottle Caps. And Bottle Caps are generally associate with specific areas such as near a picnic bowery, plus I developed the skill decades ago to 'audibly classify' most Bottle Caps that are generally in the upper ±3" In short, with any make or model I usually recover very, very few Bottle Caps.

Otherwise, 'trash' in local coin producing sites is nowhere close to the target masking of the densely littered Relic Hunting sites where the Omega doesn't handle Nails and heavy ferrous target contamination all that well.

Monte.. Yes, the F44 is an impressive detector in most search environments, but is very close to the Omega 8000's 'genes' when it comes to separation and recovery speed when target rejection is a need. If rejected trash is in a closely associated cluster, they are not the better detector choices to have in-hand. However, if common trash is more scattered and spread-out and not congested, the F44 & Omega 8000 can work together reasonably well and quite similar to each other. A slight 'edge' for the F44 for clean and clear audible hits on slightly deeper single-coin targets.

Monte.. I also feel the F44 is a 'sleeper' in their line, and perhaps so is the comfortable 7" Concentric coil. I like this model so well that I am going to acquire another F44 just to keep a smaller-size coil, the 5" DD, mounted to it as a compliment to the 7" Concentric for use in trashier confinements.

Still not a match for the really dense ferrous debris challenges handled by my Nokta-Makro Anfibio Multi, FORS Relic or FORS CoRe, but in a little less aggressive locations, the Omega worked well for me for that 5 year period, and I am certain the Fisher F44 will do the same.

hi monte!
you stated that the "nokta" products you own are superior in "dense trash" than anything you have used before? coil for coil?..it would appear then that u.s.a manufacturers have some catching up to do! care to comment?

j.t., Yes, that is correct.

Note in the quotes I included from my post above that I pointed out the more challenging trash or debris I was referring to were NAILS, specifically Iron Nails, as well as other discarded or abandoned FERROUS types of junk. Most detectors can handle non-ferrous debris a little better on response, quick-recovery and be able to respond favorably on another nearby accepted target.

But when dealing with a really nasty Iron / Ferrous debris site where the unwanted ferrous-based trash is in a very dense association and close to desired non-ferrous targets, many ... no, let me say most ... detectors have a difficult time trying to handle the rejection of (Discrimination of) unwanted targets, such as iron nails, and then be able to recover from processing the rejection of the 'trash' and be able to recover quickly enough to process a desired target that is in close association with the rejected target.

Sometimes, but not always, a search coil SIZE might not handle response (acceptance)-and-recovery or rejection-and-recovery very well. The same applies to the search coil TYPE (Double-D vs Concentric) might not work well ... or a combination of SIZE and TYPE. But often is is the metal detector's circuitry design that provides us with the better-than-average or below-average performance in a really dense, challenging environment. (Note that this also would require a determining factor on just want 'average' would be.confused smiley)

There are reasons to own and use more than just one detector or just one search coil. Let me use just two easy examples that I use when I evaluate any make or model detector or search coil to determine IF it will work well for me or HOW WELL is might handle some difficult challenges.

My detectors that were used for these side-by-side evaluations:

Fisher F44 w/7" Concentric coil
Nokta-Makro FORS CoRe w/'OOR' DD coil
Nokta-Makro FORS CoRe w/5X9½ DD open-frame coil
Nokta-Makro FORS Relic w/5+" DD coil
Nokta-Makro FORS CoRe w/5X9½ DD open-frame coil
Nokta-Makro Anfibio Multi w/7" Concentric coil
Teknetics Omega 80000 w/sub-5" DD coil
Teknetics Omega 80000 w/7" Concentric coil
Tesoro Bandido II µMAX w/6" Concentric coil
Tesoro Silver Sabre µMAX w/6" Concentric coil
White's Classic ID w/5½" Concentric 'Ferret' coil
White's MX-7 w/6½" Concentric coil

I have evaluated over another dozen makes & models in the past year-and-a-half on these same Test Scenarios, but my twelve mentioned here will do for this explanation.

I used three different test samples I rely on in evaluations to help me evaluate detection ability of some un-masked objects. I also check for a desirable audio response and recovery time using iron nail contaminated conditions and a desirable, smaller-than-normal non-ferrous test sample. Just using my above described detectors and coils, some for Relic Hunting, some for kinder urban Coin Hunting conditions, and some that can tackle both detector applications:

Test #1 .. Simulates a 'stash' or smaller-size 'cache' of high-conductive Silver US coins. My regular seminar test sample is 5 Silver Walking Liberty 50¢ pieces stacked on 1 US Silver Dollar. All unwrapped with bare metal contact. An even tougher 'test' is placing the Test #1 stack on top of 5 more Silver Dollars.

Using both the Test #1 and the 'tougher' test with the added 5 Silver Dollars, of all my detectors described above, either Accepting Nails and most ferrous targets, or with the Disc. at Iron Rejection, ALL of my detectors will produce a very good audio response and a 'lock-on' or reasonably tight response EXCEPT my Nokta CoRe's, Relic's, and Anfibio Multi at 20 kHz.

Test #2 .. Using my Nail Board Performance Test with the 4 different size and orientation Iron Nails and a US Zinc or Indian Head 1¢ coin in the #1 centered position, ALL of my detectors will produce 7-out-of-8 or 8-out-of-8 good audio hits EXCEPT the F44 w/7" Concentric, Teknetics Omega 8000 w/7" Concentric or sub-5" DD coil.

Tougher Test #2+ .. Same Nail Board, but I used a much thinner and smaller-diameter 1836 Capped-Bust Half-Dime in the #1 coin position. If I Accepted Iron Nails or Rejected Iron Nails, I got NO hits on the Half-Dime with the Omega 8K or F44 with the 7" DD coils.

With Nails just barely accepted and using 2-Tone audio, I could get 4-out-of-8 audio hits with the Omega 8K w/sub-5" DD.

I can get 6 or 7-out-of-8 good audible hits with a White's MX-7 w/6½" Concentric coil (not included above).

And with a slow and methodical sweep I can get 8-out-of-8 audible hits on the dinky Half-Dime with my Tesoro's w/6" Concentrics, Classic ID w/5½" Concentric, Relic w/5+" DD, CoRe w/'OOR' DD, and Anfibio Multi w/7" Concentric coil. (I have a 5" ordered from Metaldetector.com that I will test when it arrives next week.)

*And with a mid-sized coil, the CoRe w/5X9½" gets 7-of-8 hits with an iffy #8, and the Relic with a same-size 5X9½ DD can go 8-for-8 easily.

Best results in any iron plagued environment are using a 2-Tone audio on most modern models, but the single-tone Classic ID and Tesoro's do quite well with their analog circuitry.

So, j.t., there are my comments. So, YES, the USA manufacturers have some catching up to do if they want to design modern digital circuitry detectors and employ a multi-tone (2 or more) function. If I were limited to grabbing a USA make & model today and one smaller-size coil to tackle the really challenging nail and other iron debris sites I hunt, and it had to be a 2-Tone functioning design ... thinking ... then after briefly thinking about it, I'd take a Teknetics T2 w/5" DD coil.

That used to be my favorite Relic Hunting detector and coil for the worst nail infested ghost towns I hunt and the next closest 2-Tone units was a White's MXT Pro and MX-5 with the 6½" Concentric coil. But 4 years and 4 days ago, all that changed when I unboxed a Nokta FORS CoRe, mounted the smaller 4.7X5.2 Out-Of-Round or 'OOR' DD and it simply out-performed all other Target ID / Tone ID detectors I had on hand. The next day through the week I started selling off just about everything I had except my favorite Tesoro's and modified White's Classic ID & IDX Pro.

And EVERYTHING from Nokta and Makro with an 'OOR' or 5" DD coil since then has continued to out-perform the foreign and domestic digital circuitry competition when I use my toughest iron challenged tests. This has been especially true with Test #3.

Test #3 .. This is a very simple but challenging test using a brass button front-piece I found detecting a ghost town. It is just about exactly the diameter of a USA 1¢ coin, not a larger diameter, and very thin decorative metal. Just the front piece so there's no back portion making the edges curved where they would have fastened to the button-back portion. Then there is a rusty 3⅜" Nail that I lay on top of the Button-Front exactly down the center.

On this test, and I have used a dozen or more detectors with their smaller coil or maybe one larger size. I sweep the coil lengthwise "down the barrel" so to speak of the nail, then with the button-front centered I sweep crosswise of the iron nail. There is a possibility of 4 Hits, 2 lengthwise with one going each direction, and 2 crosswise.

Some detectors will NOT produce any good audio response on this test in either direction, including some 2-Tone models with iron nails just barely accepted.

Some detector/coil combinations will produce 2-out-of-4 hits, with some getting hits when sweeping the set-up lengthwise, while others only respond with a good hits crosswise, but not both directions. That is with iron nails just barely rejected like my two Tesoro's or White's Classic ID.

Some that offer a 2-Tone or other Multi-Tone audio ID can do the same, either lengthwise or crosswise but not both directions, with iron nails just accepted and using an Iron Audio Volume to reduce the loudness of the iron nail. However, some of those 2-out-of-4 hit digitally designed models with 5" to 6½" coils, DD or Concentric, might NOT produce any desirable audio response if the Discrimination is increased enough to just barely reject iron nails, and definitely NOTHING when the Disc. is set at the Ferrous / Non-Ferrous break point.

That is .... no detector I own and use, or models I have tried from different manufacturers, with the exception of two. Those include my very trusted and proven serious Relic Hunting duo, the Nokta FORS CoRe w/'OOR' DD and FORS Relic w/5+" DD. On this Test #3 I can have the Discrimination set to:

1.. just barely Accept Iron Nails or ..
2.. just barely Reject iron nails .. or ..
3.. even increase it to the Ferrous/Non-Ferrous Discrimination break point

... and both of these models are the only ones I have found to produce 4-out-of-4 audible hits on this very challenging test.

That's why I have two, each, of these two detector models and why these four detectors are very important to me for their excellent, virtually unmatched performance in iron contaminated environments.

And I'll see how the Anfibio Multi performs when my 5" DD coil arrives.


"Your EYES ... the only 100% accurate form of Discrimination!"

Stinkwater Wells Trading Post
Metal Detector Evaluations and Product Reviews
monte@ahrps.org ... or ... monte@stinkwaterwells.com
Detectors: I rely on an assortment of personal favorites I happen to like that work for me when and where I need them.
Pinpointers: Makro & Pulse-Dive .. Headphones: Killer B's 'Hornet' & 'Wasp' ... Detector Pro's Gray Ghost XP
Note: Detectors are listed alphabetically by Brand. Models are chosen based on search site conditions.
*** All working well today to make memories for tomorrow. ***

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2019 10:04AM by Monte.
Subject Author Views Posted

Your Favorite Fisher or Teknetics Detector to Date is . . . . . . .

UtahRich 416 December 28, 2018 10:50PM

My Favorite Fisher and Teknetics Detectors are:

Monte 392 December 30, 2018 05:13AM

coil question on your Omega

TabWhisperer 240 January 07, 2019 11:35PM

Yes, it is the Fisher 7" Concentric.

Monte 250 January 08, 2019 09:45AM

Re: My Favorite Fisher and Teknetics Detectors are:

jmaryt 291 December 30, 2018 09:11PM

j.t. asked about 'processor speed' .. 'separation' .. encountered in .. 'urban public places.''

Monte 261 January 03, 2019 03:20PM

Re: j.t. asked about 'processor speed' .. 'separation' .. encountered in .. 'urban public places.''

jmaryt 254 January 03, 2019 11:10PM

Just be careful not to overthink the trash-handling abilities.

Monte 269 January 04, 2019 12:51AM

Re: Just be careful not to overthink the trash-handling abilities.

jmaryt 221 January 12, 2019 07:51PM

j.t., here's a long answer to your 'trash' handling question.

Monte 258 January 13, 2019 07:17AM

Re: j.t., here's a long answer to your 'trash' handling question.

jmaryt 214 January 13, 2019 08:53PM

Re: Just be careful not to overthink the trash-handling abilities.

jmaryt 282 January 04, 2019 09:49PM

Re: Just be careful not to overthink the trash-handling abilities.

Monte 284 January 05, 2019 08:18AM

Re: Your Favorite Fisher or Teknetics Detector to Date is . . . . . . .

RickUK 253 December 29, 2018 02:40AM

Re: Your Favorite Fisher or Teknetics Detector to Date is . . . . . . .

UtahRich 283 December 30, 2018 02:56AM

Re: Your Favorite Fisher or Teknetics Detector to Date is . . . . . . .

RickUK 245 December 30, 2018 03:17AM

Re: Your Favorite Fisher or Teknetics Detector to Date is . . . . . . .

UtahRich 225 December 31, 2018 10:13PM

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 33
Record Number of Guests: 302 on March 10, 2018