Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums


Recommended Posts

Here is something I came up with after seeing something similar on U Tube. The other guy used a very large, stationary box.

This unit is portable, and you can fill it with "local dirt" from where you are hunting. You can test your target at different depths, and test different coils as well.

Just place your target in one of the tubes, and use a stick or dowel to push it into position. Then swing away !!




Link to comment
Share on other sites

darn I knew I shoulda built and patented that, I thought about something like that about six yrs. ago, I was going to half of a blue plastic 55 gal. drum that I got from a fella that worked at the cheese factory. Oh well reckon I'll just have to dream up something else.

:lol: :lol:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

When Patrick sent me a pic of his idea I thought it was a great one. Then I made a recommendation and that was to build two identical buckets. Then I recommended he fill one with dirt from where he was hunting and leave the other empty. Next, I suggested that duplicate tests be made with one over the dirt filled bucket and then over the empty bucket and compare the results.

Now, he did this and got what I thought were strange results, so I duplicated his efforts and made two buckets myself. I filled one with dirt and left the other empty. I will let him explain what he found.

In my tests, I got the results I expected and that was there was minimal difference between the two tests. Since I have run a multitude of tests comparing air and buried ground tests and have found the results are the same, both give about the same results, providing EMI noise is not a factor. Add noise and the results can change.

Personally, I hope others try this bucket test and then compare air and real buried in the ground target tests and see what one finds to be true. Again, one has to be careful of the noise conditions and make sure the noise doesn't influence the final results.

It is best to use a range of small targets so the ground balance on auto ground balance detectors doesn't change. That can cause variations on targets that are close to changing tones. In my case I used a 1 and a 3 gram nuggets for the gold portion of my test. I also used a footprint tab off a pop can, and a 22 slug as some of my test objects. In all cases the results were the same.

Now, when EMI is abound, then I fully expect the buried ground test to display the best results, followed by the dirt filled bucket and then the empty bucket.

So, once again, I hope a few of you try this and let us know what you find to be true. It would be great to have a few more results.

Finally, once you do this, then we can discuss other things that can be done with the bucket idea to see what happens with multiple targets. That is what makes this bucket idea really a great project.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see test beds, test buckets,are good ideas but are very limited on accuracy and could be misleading.just to many variances to discuss, situ being the primary.then depth, EMI ect;But in short;test beds and test buckets are no more than a modified Air test,you can get a general idea of your machine's response to various combinations and only to a variant degree. lets say using the test bucket you put a small nugget and a hot rock togeather then try to learn the response of your machine,in the bucket the test will duplicate it's self time after time after time.But un situ its never goiing to be the same no matter what type of machine you are using.The matrix makes sure of this. the list goes on and on....Patrick i like your test bucket idea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T Bone,

I agree that the test bucket test is only relative and not much more than an air test. If the noise EMI level is minimal, this should also mimic an in ground test. I personally have run dozens of tests comparing air and in ground depth of detection and as a general rule, I see little to no difference, providing EMI doesn't interfer. Since the TDI is less susceptible to this type of noise, it is a good choice to make such comparisons.

What I was hoping for was for a lot more people to simply verify this condition with real world testing. One reason I would appreciate verification is because the test bucket idea is being ridiculed by a few on another forum and much of that by a guy who simply built a larger test bucket with a different shape. The ridicule is coming because I posted Patrick's idea on a different forum and the attack is really against me by calling the bucket idea down as well as my posting it, even though I gave Patrick credit for the idea, which he deserved.

The truth is, Patrick's idea is a good one regardless of what people think of me.

Proving this test bucket idea provides a simplified air test by others will only confirm what theory says should happen, especially if it is also compared to in ground testing. One variation that may display some differences might be if one used a wet clay type environment for the dirt. This is clay condition is discussed in the engineering notes by the Army Corp of Engineers as are other types of materials and what one could expect.

Now, with that said, the test bucket does have other advantages which include testing multiple targets and how their signals interact. This is much more difficult to do with a simple air test, especially if one wants to know how far away both sideways or depth wise one target causes a response change on another. The test bucket allows such testing to be done quite easily.

So, Patrick's design has clear advantages if one wants to see how two signals from different targets interact. Actually, this can be quite useful information for those interested, especially if one hunts trashy areas.

So, actually trying the test bucket idea can help those looking for more answers.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...