The only thing that matters is the detector's range - the myth is still doing quite well

In virtually every treasure hunt conversation, the starting topic is the detector - it's not weird, because the squeaking and unusual looking object arouses interest. As long as the interlocutor does not ask us, more or less eloquently, to leave his estate, this is usually heard: "Sir, this detector takes deep?”

There is nothing to be surprised about. Detection depth is the most illustrative form of detector quality for bystanders, and for many novice detectorists the range, right after the budget, is the main explanation for the selection of the first detector. Hundreds of users wage war on Internet forums, trying to convince the world, that deeper is better. Are you sure?

In this post, I will absolutely ignore the question of selecting a detector for the purpose of the search, especially that there are not many typically "military" devices on the domestic market compared to universal detectors and strictly groupage detectors. We will focus on the issue of coverage itself. A large range for metal objects requires the design of the detector - without going into technicalities, we can assume quite generally, that the range now defines the sensitivity of the detector and the size of the coil. This is where the first basic problems arise. A highly sensitive detector will be highly unstable and there will be problems with correctly identifying the target. While significant "overclocking" the sensitivity in many technologically advanced detectors can give excellent results, this is related to the very specific work of the detector, in which the less advanced user will simply get lost and will not achieve the intended results by incorrectly identifying it, what the detector says to him. It is also impossible to increase the size of the coil, because even taking into account only detection considerations, not ergonomic, searching for small objects with a large searchcoil can be very difficult in many environments. So how do you find a golden mean?

Every engineer on the detector design team asks himself this question. Unfortunately, the unpredictable nature of the search (impossible to fully estimate working conditions of the detector and the nature of the objects found) does not make the task easier. That is why we have hundreds of models on the market, definitely differing from each other. However, looking at the needs of prospectors and market trends, seems to, that the principle of "range above all" is a bit of a background. This is a great trend, because range does not define the effectiveness of the detector, despite such appearances. Why?

This is perfectly illustrated by the example of clearing the area of ​​hazardous materials, where there is a need to clean a specific area of ​​all objects of a specific nature in the shortest possible time. Additionally, these searches concern only objects up to a certain depth (for example up to 30cm) and greater than, let's put on a human fist. The effectiveness of work in this area will not increase in direct proportion to the range of the detector. Moreover, too sensitive and too deep a detector may adversely affect the effectiveness of the search. Of course, you need equipment with good detection depth parameters, but we must add the appropriate selectivity of the equipment and ergonomics of use. Many say, that the seat reservation is 90% success in your search. But what do we have in perfect terrain, if we do not move around it efficiently? The secret of effectiveness is not finding only spots of the best sort and a super deep detector, but appropriate use of equipment and capabilities, what specific place does it give us. Then, extraordinary effects can be achieved even in seemingly poor terrain.

Returning, however, to the example of ground clearance - the key to success and high efficiency is the appropriate adjustment of the detector to the existing conditions. While changing the size of the coil for most of us in the field will be impossible, it's worth having a detector, which in a given price group may not be the deepest, but his "brain" will be able to help us in our search. In a hypothetical situation in the field, where the deep seeker and the effective seeker will meet, the first one will have a larger pool of finds, however, it will not be able to translate it into results. Happiness in the search is needed, but if you want to achieve interesting results, better to rely on skills and appropriate equipment. Then happiness will be the icing on the cake, no exception to the rule.

Let me also, for example, known to me very well from the network, where there are discussions about "A cheap detector with a large coil or a more expensive detector". This dilemma most often occurs in the economic segment of detectors, where some of the seekers recommend very technically limited for searching, but rather deep and very non-ergonomic monsters with coils more expensive than the detector. I realize, that the long range and sweep area option is a tempting option. But what to do, when the terrain is littered and difficult, and the detector configuration options are missing? Or sit down and cry, or bury yourself in the garbage for good, which probably does not have much to do with effectiveness generally understood.

I realize, that this is just a contribution to the topic, however, I will try to show you its practical development on YouTube as soon as the severe frosts are over, as digging is currently quite difficult. I hope, that this text will lead at least one "scout" to a good way of preferring effective detectors, and not just deep.