field test unit no 001 "model T"

[Aziz]

Hey guys,

never trust in your "gut feelings", when you are hungry!!!!!

^sif,
need more blue pills now, definitely

[Doug2]

I say depth was better than any commercial mono coil of equivalent diameter by testing over typical goldfield ground! Now prove me wrong! (As I said, your tests on the 4000, 4500 etc have all been seriously flawed, why would this be different?) The coil by the way worked fine on several ML and other detectors! (this suggests a low Q, did you measure it?) The fact that ML detectors can't sample automatically sample earlier (take advantage of a faster coil) is of no consequence when others obviously can!!!!!! (you expect us to believe other detectors automatically sample earlier when we fit a faster coil? Do you think we can sample earlier on our gold field ground just because a coil is faster? Do you actually believe this Doug?) Now perhaps you can come down off your perch and tell us all your recommended coil testing protocol as mine done in the real world is obviously no good! Why when you won't reveal your tests and can't prove your claims?

You are just speculating yet again! Where in any post have i said what detectors the testing was done with? Perhaps you can tell me what i was wearing when doing the testing!!! LOL! LOL! Also how can you say that an increase in coil Q will always result in a longer coil TC when you and I don't know the inductance or resistance of the said coil? I also never said that any other detector can automatically sample earlier when using a faster coil. What I said was another detector can take advantage of a faster coil! The coil maker told me that the coil Q was larger than commercial coils but i did not measure it and I took the coil makers word for it!!!!!! I do not have the expertise or instruments to measure coil Q,resonant frequencies,accurate inductance's, inter winding or distributed capacitance or peak field strength!

[Aziz]

Doug, you explain the science behind WHY a spider wound coil should be better than a bundle. Others have presented why it won't be better.

UFox, the (math) proof is not trivial. Even Mr. Candy won't be able to do it!!!
Anyway.
Ooops, did I say that Moodz coil will outperform a ML bundle coil?
Can I take my claims back.... *LOL*
^sif

[robby_h]

I say depth was better than any commercial mono coil of equivalent diameter by testing over typical goldfield ground! Now prove me wrong! The coil by the way worked fine on several ML and other detectors!The fact that ML detectors can't sample automatically sample earlier (take advantage of a faster coil) is of no consequence when others obviously can!!!!!! Now perhaps you can come down off your perch and tell us all your recommended coil testing protocol as mine done in the real world is obviously no good!

I say depth was better than any commercial mono coil of equivalent diameter by testing over typical goldfield ground! Now prove me wrong! (As I said, your tests on the 4000, 4500 etc have all been seriously flawed, why would this be different?) The coil by the way worked fine on several ML and other detectors! (this suggests a low Q, did you measure it?) The fact that ML detectors can't sample automatically sample earlier (take advantage of a faster coil) is of no consequence when others obviously can!!!!!! (you expect us to believe other detectors automatically sample earlier when we fit a faster coil? Do you think we can sample earlier on our gold field ground just because a coil is faster? Do you actually believe this Doug?) Now perhaps you can come down off your perch and tell us all your recommended coil testing protocol as mine done in the real world is obviously no good!

Why when you won't reveal your tests and can't prove your claims?

[Doug2]

I should give up but.... Parrot the depth was better than any commercial mono coil of equivalent diameter!!! (Says who?) The testing was done on typical GF ground (eg kingower) NOT just at the test site (Describe these tests?). Increase voltage or gains will have minimal effect on depth and sensitivity because the S/N just gets worse! eg EMI (Minelab's S/N can easily accomadate more gains and higher coil voltage. Are you saying the spider coil cancels EMI?). A higher Q will not necessarily result in longer Tc as this depend on what L and R are (increasing L results in a longer TC and the same applies if we reduce R so tell us again why a higher Q will not necessarily result in longer TC??) and for a spider wound coil depends on the L/D ratio and is frequency dependent (coil Q is frequency dependent) (we are talking metal detector frequencies here) and you must take into account the inner and out winding diameters (I did!! read it again). Also where did I say i used enhance timings? You do not know what timings or detector I used parrot! (I was referring to when you criticised Enhance based on flawed tests conducted on ground suitable for Normal timings). As for detecting small nuggets the spider wound coil is clearly much faster which CAN ALLOW EARLIER SAMPLING than an equivalent bundle wound coil (The detector doesn't automatically sample earlier though does it Doug?) and because of a higher Q is more energy efficient(Q= inductive reactance divided by the sum of all resistances associated with ENERGY LOSSES in the coil) both of which must aid the detection of short TC targets!!! (More energy means slower, not faster) I don't know what the coil Q was but was told it was substantially more than the miserable 3.9 you quote (a member here said Q higher than ~3.9 won't work, how did you address this?). I am still waiting for someone to come up with a RECOMMENDED COIL TESTING PROTOCOL.ie what test's should be done, why they should be done and the best way of doing them and how the test results should be interpreted with regard to other coils. You and poor old PJ or Ufox=Paul 99 are clearly incapable of this task!!! You won't tell us how you tested the coil but you want us to tell you how it should be done???????? You should wear floaties when you jump in the deep end Doug.

I say depth was better than any commercial mono coil of equivalent diameter by testing over typical goldfield ground! Now prove me wrong! The coil by the way worked fine on several ML and other detectors!The fact that ML detectors can't automatically sample earlier (take advantage of a faster coil) is of no consequence when others obviously can!!!!!! Now perhaps you can come down off your perch and tell us all your recommended coil testing protocol as mine done in the real world is obviously no good!

[robby_h]

Parrot the depth was better than any commercial mono coil of equivalent diameter!!! The testing was done on typical GF ground (eg kingower) NOT just at the test site.Increase voltage or gains will have minimal effect on depth and sensitivity because the S/N just gets worse! eg EMI A higher Q will not necessarily result in longer Tc as this depend on what L and R are and for a spider wound coil depends on the L/D ratio and is frequency dependent (coil Q is frequency dependent) and you must take into account the inner and out winding diameters. Also where did I say i used enhance timings? You do not know what timings or detector I used parrot! As for detecting small nuggets the spider wound coil is clearly much faster which CAN ALLOW EARLIER SAMPLING than an equivalent bundle wound coil and because of a higher Q is more energy efficient(Q= inductive reactance divided by the sum of all resistances associated with ENERGY LOSSES in the coil) both of which must aid the detection of short TC targets!!! I don't know what the coil Q was but was told it was substantially more than the miserable 3.9 you quote. I am still waiting for someone to come up with a RECOMMENDED COIL TESTING PROTOCOL.ie what test's should be done, why they should be done and the best way of doing them and how the test results should be interpreted with regard to other coils. You and poor old PJ or Ufox=Paul 99 are clearly incapable of this task!!!

I should give up but....
Parrot the depth was better than any commercial mono coil of equivalent diameter!!! (Says who?) The testing was done on typical GF ground (eg kingower) NOT just at the test site (Describe these tests?). Increase voltage or gains will have minimal effect on depth and sensitivity because the S/N just gets worse! eg EMI (Minelab's S/N can easily accomadate more gains and higher coil voltage. Are you saying the spider coil cancels EMI?). A higher Q will not necessarily result in longer Tc as this depend on what L and R are (increasing L results in a longer TC and the same applies if we reduce R so tell us again why a higher Q will not necessarily result in longer TC??) and for a spider wound coil depends on the L/D ratio and is frequency dependent (coil Q is frequency dependent) (we are talking metal detector frequencies here) and you must take into account the inner and out winding diameters (I did!! read it again). Also where did I say i used enhance timings? You do not know what timings or detector I used parrot! (I was referring to when you criticised Enhance based on flawed tests conducted on ground suitable for Normal timings). As for detecting small nuggets the spider wound coil is clearly much faster which CAN ALLOW EARLIER SAMPLING than an equivalent bundle wound coil (The detector doesn't automatically sample earlier though does it Doug?) and because of a higher Q is more energy efficient(Q= inductive reactance divided by the sum of all resistances associated with ENERGY LOSSES in the coil) both of which must aid the detection of short TC targets!!! (More energy means slower, not faster) I don't know what the coil Q was but was told it was substantially more than the miserable 3.9 you quote (a member here said Q higher than ~3.9 won't work, how did you address this?). I am still waiting for someone to come up with a RECOMMENDED COIL TESTING PROTOCOL.ie what test's should be done, why they should be done and the best way of doing them and how the test results should be interpreted with regard to other coils. You and poor old PJ or Ufox=Paul 99 are clearly incapable of this task!!!

You won't tell us how you tested the coil but you want us to tell you how it should be done????????

You should wear floaties when you jump in the deep end Doug.

[mickstv]

Don't you think it was a good caricature of Doug??

Sorry I don't actually know Doug, never seen him.

[Paul99]

No I'm not one eyed.

I just happened to be skimming through the latest posts in this thread, when I couldn't help but notice that picture you posted (then removed), it took up most of the page. I decided it was going too far, simple as that.

Don't you think it was a good caricature of Doug??

[mickstv]

You wouldn't be just a little one eyed would you??

No I'm not one eyed.

I just happened to be skimming through the latest posts in this thread, when I couldn't help but notice that picture you posted (then removed), it took up most of the page. I decided it was going too far, simple as that.

[Paul99]

No thats just a cover story to try and keep yourself out of trouble.

Hell mickstv, you can see through me but you cannot see through Doug. You wouldn't be just a little one eyed would you??

By the way mick, what do you think of the load of tripe from Doug in post #1135?

How would you rate his "testing protocol" and his claim that a spider wound coil is "far superior to any commercial coil" or are you gullible to his BS also?

[mickstv]

Gee mickstv, that was meant for another forum.

No thats just a cover story to try and keep yourself out of trouble.

[Paul99]

So Paul, why did you remove that obscene picture ? Not that it matters I have a screen grab of it. But better still you've been reported and if mods needs to see it I'll gladly forward it.


Have a nice day.

Gee mickstv, that was meant for another forum.

Now you also have a nice day, won't you!

[Paul99]

coil Q is frequency dependent

Would you like to detail how relevant is frequency dependence/variability of Q at the frequencies of a PI detector?

[mickstv]

Doug, you explain the science behind WHY a spider wound coil should be better than a bundle. Others have presented why it won't be better.



As the expert on how to repetitiously make unfounded performance claims for the spider coil, why don't you recommend a coil testing protocol?

So Paul, why did you remove that obscene picture ? Not that it matters I have a screen grab of it. But better still you've been reported and if mods needs to see it I'll gladly forward it.


Have a nice day.

[Doug2]

Doug, you explain the science behind WHY a spider wound coil should be better than a bundle. Others have presented why it won't be better. As the expert on how to repetitiously make unfounded performance claims for the spider coil, why don't you recommend a coil testing protocol?

My testing was purely in the field but apparently this is just not appropriate, or valid.So its up to you or others suggest a better coil testing protocol or for a commercial coil maker to tell us what they think is the most appropriate coil testing protocol or how they go about testing a new coil.