australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com

Common interest forum. => General chat and discussion forum => Topic started by: Doug on Friday January 11 2019 14:16:50 AEDT PM



Title: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: Doug on Friday January 11 2019 14:16:50 AEDT PM
I don't agree with wash gravel on PA
https://www.prospectingaustralia. Test bed results are com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=463962#p463962
I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA who says that  test bed results are meaningless.
When  comparing  the performance of  different products to get a meaningful comparisons it is essential to eliminate as many variables as possible. Test beds  enable comparisons to be made under identical and standardized conditions  with same targets, same ground on the same day at the same location. If  test beds had no validity then detector companies would  not use themselves as they do! The only alternative to test beds is to spend an enormous amount of time field testing  competing detectors or coils over  many “virgin” targets comparing and recording the response, and then carefully excavating the target and recording its type, size and depth and soil type and then collating all the information. So test beds  results are not meaningless. Ideally  of course one should use a variety of different test beds with different  soil profiles and magnetic/conductive properties and  a range of different sized and  conductive targets.
doug ::419::


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: Doug on Friday January 11 2019 15:45:33 AEDT PM
 The militarily use  test beds to test new detectors and technology for  detecting land mines and  UXO. Again if test beds were useless then why would  the military and many companies in the field use them?
here are just two examples
Standardized UXO Technology Demonstration Sites

https://serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Munitions-Response/Support-Tools/MR-200103

Environmental Security Technology Certification Program Final Report for the Coaxial EMI Sensor for UXO Detection and Discrimination
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a608474.pdf
link-https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a608474.pdf
doug ::419::


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: mylab on Saturday January 12 2019 10:14:09 AEDT AM
Good point about the military.
I see the member on PA, who WG was agreeing with, then that particular member has confirmed his statement in his reply to WG saying "definitely" and these type of test bed results mean SFA. So he is now trying to justify the GPZ & GPX tests at the test site. He is also trying to parse the blame on the way BW worded the title of the thread here with the videos. Then this particular member, who seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the QED, continues on to say that the impression to some with the QED video is that it was done at the same time as the GPZ & GPX5000 videos. Funny that when you watch the three video it is obvious that the QED test was done in different weather conditions. I bet if a GPZ, GPX and QED were tested at the same time at this test bed site then the results shown would be the same. And of course then an argument would arise about settings used however as BW says why anybody would go to a test site and not spend time to get the settings optimum.


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: bugwhiskers on Saturday January 12 2019 12:10:21 AEDT PM
You are spot on.

To put an end to the negativity, another video session will be done next week and it will include a GPZ7000 with std 14" coil and an SDC2300. With a bit of luck there may be somebody there with a 4500/5000.

Meanwhile.... some more angst for the non believers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxXJ7HcWpyg&t=394s








  
Good point about the military.
I see the member on PA, who WG was agreeing with, then that particular member has confirmed his statement in his reply to WG saying "definitely" and these type of test bed results mean SFA. So he is now trying to justify the GPZ & GPX tests at the test site. He is also trying to parse the blame on the way BW worded the title of the thread here with the videos. Then this particular member, who seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the QED, continues on to say that the impression to some with the QED video is that it was done at the same time as the GPZ & GPX5000 videos. Funny that when you watch the three video it is obvious that the QED test was done in different weather conditions. I bet if a GPZ, GPX and QED were tested at the same time at this test bed site then the results shown would be the same. And of course then an argument would arise about settings used however as BW says why anybody would go to a test site and not spend time to get the settings optimum.



Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: BazzoG on Saturday January 12 2019 23:06:25 AEDT PM
Will just make more argument. Why the sdc2200. It is for shallow gold isnt it. Waste time on a test bed.


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: bugwhiskers on Sunday January 13 2019 05:16:56 AEDT AM
  
Will just make more argument. Why the sdc2200. It is for shallow gold isnt it. Waste time on a test bed.

It may be a waste of time for the reason you provided. However..... what if the video shows that you don't need 2 detectors (eg 5000 or 7000 and a 2300) to find all sizes of gold then the exercise will be very worthwhile and would save our fellow prospectors a lot of money.


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: Huego on Sunday January 13 2019 13:32:13 AEDT PM
I agree with you Doug, not because you are the admin, but like me you have worked in fields of R&D in science, where measuring things (eg responses from instruments etc ) is practised with some precision to improve & compare. I also KNOW that if you wish to have some chance of making certain conclusions (not guesses or estimates) from findings you must control or limit as many variables as possible when making comparisons (eg sensitivity of response) of instruments / detectors. Otherwise each contributes errors (uncertainty). I've been formulating my own views which are same as yours but just expressed in my (lengthy) way.

All the major detector makers first test in the development labs to measure, compare & optimise components circuits electronics, and responses. Then they move to test pads in the field with standardised  targets at known depths in goldfields soil to compare instruments & coils (the primary variables they wish to compare).

Variable soils ("gold dirt" as some call it) as well as operator experience with the machine (optimising settings for coil, target etc) are probably hardest to control / standardise. BUT that does not mean you can't come close in doing a comparison of machine sensitivity  or (coils) with "optimal" coils (thats another major variable) for the test targets (lead or ideally gold).

So you could say (I would) that with this machine, with this coil, at this test site with these buried targets and with these experience operators (who optimised target response) the results can be used to measure (& compare) metal detecting performance. That conclusion may not be transferable to the goldfields with all their variables. Ideally test sites in various goldfields and soils would also be worthwhile.

Relying on prospectors comments on forums is highly unreliable unless they are experienced and without an obvious bias. Some posters are more vocal, or want to justify / protect the status quo for their own reasons. Many critics have little of no experience with the QED or haven’t used it enough. Some forums posters (they are obvious) were critics of the QED, its developer and defenders during its development or even denied its existence, for many years.

Having said all that, carefully preparation for testing (to optimise each detectors performance with one coil) at test sites CAN provide COMPARATIVE RESULTS eg between detectors eg for their target sensitivity at various depths. Change the coil and results may change. Change operator & his preferred setting and results may change.

These test site results for sensitivity are NOT absolute performance measures. But they are or can be comparative. Nor are they in the REAL WORD prospecting eg measuring gold found, one may expect another “result”. Gold size / shape, or ground is different, or operator is tired or inexperienced, or there is a thunderstorm or electric fens nearby or there is a lot of trash about. THEN comparisons between detectors are less trustworthy. They are careful simulations and should have a objective,

I believe much of the gold found is now more a reflection of the skill& experience of the operator. Field testing by experienced operators and taking feedback for improvement has always been an essential o& ngoing necessity.

Huego


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: Reg Wilson on Sunday January 13 2019 13:48:09 AEDT PM
Well Huego, I reckon you've covered that pretty well. Nothing there I would disagree with.


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: sd220d Digger on Sunday January 13 2019 14:13:43 AEDT PM
I think what people don't understanding or are just ignorant because it's either a QED or a Minelab detector is that these test sites give that person an understanding of how their detector performs to get a response and the best performance outcomes to improve their knowledge of how their detector works.
This is why these test sites were made in the first place.
Nothing more, nothing less.


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: Doug on Sunday January 13 2019 16:39:08 AEDT PM
"washgravel" has said this today on PA
"------ I must say there is merit in what has been said there (here on this forum) in regards to test beds----"
However he questions the use of lead as test targets.
doug ::419::


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: Huego on Sunday January 13 2019 17:10:33 AEDT PM
  

Well Huego, I reckon you've covered that pretty well. Nothing there I would disagree with.



Phew ... thats' a relief Reg.  ::62::



Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: Huego on Sunday January 13 2019 17:18:58 AEDT PM
  
"washgravel" has said this today on PA
"------ I must say there is merit in what has been said there (here on this forum) in regards to test beds----"
However he questions the use of lead as test targets.
doug
::419::


I don't know if there is any magic (better) response to gold by PI detectors. Its a better conductor than lead. Both have high densities (& similar surface areas) for a given shape.

To me what does it matter? a lump of lead or a lump of gold... one may give a slight better or weaker response (ie detection depth) than the other but as long as the same targets are used in the comparison...  its ALL RELATIVE ... the variable should be the detectors.


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: Doug on Sunday January 13 2019 17:31:20 AEDT PM
  
  
"washgravel" has said this today on PA
"------ I must say there is merit in what has been said there (here on this forum) in regards to test beds----"
However he questions the use of lead as test targets.
doug
::419::


I don't know if there is any magic (better) response by gold to PI detectors. Its a better conductor than lead and both have high densities (similar surface areas) for a given shape.

To me what does it matter? a lump of lead or a lump of gold... one may give a slight better or weaker response (ie detection depth) than the other but as long as the same targets are used in the comparison...  its ALL RELATIVE ... the variable should be the detectors.

Ideally  one would have  a range of buried targets with different time constants from very short  to long. Not easy to do!
Your last point is the crucial one!
doug ::419::


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: sd220d Digger on Sunday January 13 2019 18:02:55 AEDT PM
I wonder if Mbasko has ever been to a test bed before?
Maybe then he'll understand the importance of one.
When you drop your test gold nugget on the ground in a gold bottle, you are doing the same, fine tuning your detector.


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: Doug on Sunday January 13 2019 19:49:06 AEDT PM
  
I wonder if Mbasko has ever been to a test bed before?
Maybe then he'll understand the importance of one.
When you drop your test gold nugget on the ground in a gold bottle, you are doing the same, fine tuning your detector.


This statement by Mbasko ("I was referring to testing different detectors on test beds & those results meaning SFA in the real world")  is complete nonsense because the military and many private companies developing developing UXO and landmine detectors do the testing using different detectors!!!! They want to find which detector/detector technology performs best under standardized conditions or how their detector compares with others.
To make the testing more meaningful the testers are often not made aware  of what if any buried objects are in the test lanes or the nature/size/depth  of the objects.
see:https://serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Munitions-Response/Support-Tools/MR-200103
link- https://serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Munitions-Response/Support-Tools/MR-200103
doug ::419::


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: Huego on Sunday January 13 2019 20:23:37 AEDT PM
  

You are spot on.

To put an end to the negativity, another video session will be done next week and it will include a GPZ7000 with std 14" coil and an SDC2300. With a bit of luck there may be somebody there with a 4500/5000.

Meanwhile.... some more angst for the non believers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxXJ7HcWpyg&t=394s


Agree, The above video should be convincing ... and without angst! To me its very convincing, assuming coils were optimal for that GOLD target & settings selected, by the experienced prospector, were optimal for the conditions there. WE have no reasons to think otherwise, the conditions settings were all revealed.

A different site on a different day may give a slightly different result (with this coil detector combo) but I don't think by much.  Reg may wish to comment.

If I had $2000 to spend I know which I would buy for performance, valueease of handling

Huego   ::62::

edit/  addition: I see egixe4 on PA (also a member here I think) refers to a ML test site where they (created) test lanes with varying soil, for a number of purposes during product development, such as:

   - Testing of algorithms .. to improve ground balance and discrimination, etc
   - to Compare various detectors to help determine the realistically obtainable performance of a new detector.
   - Test Performance of prototypes, concept demonstrators from R&D, advanced prototypes & finished products


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: Doug on Sunday January 13 2019 20:55:14 AEDT PM
 Here is  just one example of standardized testing of  different uxo detectors at  2 test sites in the USA.Their are many more in other countries as well.
I N S T I T U T E  F O R  D E F E N S E  A N A L Y S E S
IDA Document D-3280
Log: H 06-000819
January 2007
Interpreting Results from the Standardized UXO Test Sites
Michael May
Michael Tuley
https://serdp-estcp.org/content/download/4459/66241/file/MM-0103%20TR.pdf
link-https://serdp-estcp.org/content/download/4459/66241/file/MM-0103%20TR.pdf

C. STANDARDIZED UXO DEMONSTRATION SITES
The Standardized Sites were designed as a facility where blind testing could be conducted to provide system performance assessments under realistic conditions.
Recognizing the need for release of sufficient target data for demonstrators to understand their system performance, the Army, ESTCP, and SERDP have designed a plan for regular, partial reconfiguration of the sites so that limited amounts of ground truth can be released. IDA received and used the full ground truth in carrying out these analyses, but continuing blind testing limits the details that can be provided in this report about analysis based on portions of the two sites that have not been reconfigured. It is critical to remember that while the Standardized Sites do contain realistic challenges, the types, relative number, and placement of targets were designed to sample a wide variety of possible real-world sites. Further, the depth distributions were chosen to include challenging targets, and the ratio of clutter to intact munitions is much larger on real-world sites. Aggregate results from the Standardized Sites should not be interpreted as indicative of expected results from a particular (probably very different) real-world site. The value of the Standardized Sites lies in understanding each type of encounter separately.
The Army, in cooperation with ESTCP and SERDP, set up two Standardized Sites
for UXO detection and discrimination technology demonstrations. A third, a shallow water site, has been set up but is not the subject of this analysis. The sites are located at Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) in Maryland and at Yuma Proving Ground (YPG) in Arizona. To satisfy both the research-and-development community and the technology demonstration community, the Standardized Sites are made up of three areas, Calibration Lane, a Blind Test Grid, and a variety of operational challenges. Figure II-3 is an aerial photograph of the APG Standardized Site. Figures II-4 and II-5 show a portion of the Open Field at each site.
The Calibration Lane allows demonstrators to test their equipment, build a site library, document signal strength, and deal with site-specific variables. The calibration
portion of the test site contains munitions identical to those buried at other portions of the site and symmetric clutter. These items are buried at known locations, in various orientations, and at three different depths.

The Blind Test Grid allows the demonstrator to operate the sensor system without platform, coordinate system, or operational concerns. The Blind Grid is similar to the
Calibration Lane: the demonstrator knows the possible location of targets, but not II-5 whether a target is present, the target depth, or the target type. The operational challenges
include a flat, open area (the Open Field), a wooded area (APG only), and an area of rough terrain (both sites). These challenges document the performance of the entire system in conditions similar to actual range operations. The demonstrator does not know the number, type, or location of munitions and clutter that are emplaced. The challenges provide the demonstrator with a variety of realistic scenarios essential for evaluating overall sensor system performance.
The distribution of targets at the Standardized Demonstration Sites is designed to replicate a variety of encounters in the field. Burial depths are based on the UXO
Recovery Database created by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. However, because the Standardized Sites are designed to assess the limits of technology, some targets are deeper than might be expected in normal clearance operations. This depth distribution allowed evaluation of the capabilities of sensors to detect UXO down to the Corps of Engineers rule-of-thumb depth of 11 times the ordnance diameter (the “11× depth”)
The targets emplaced at APG and YPG consist of standard targets (Table II-1),nonstandard targets, and clutter. The targets are degaussed before emplacement, although there is anecdotal evidence that this process may not have been 100% effective or that some targets may have reacquired a magnetic moment after degaussing. Nonstandard ordnance items are those that differ from standard ordnance: they may be damaged,II-7 deformed, or from a different subclass of ordnance than the standard set. Emplaced clutter is selected to mimic the types of clutter found on ranges: nails, soda cans, range debris, UXO fragments, etc. The physical properties of each clutter item and nonstandard ordnance are recorded, a photograph taken, and the objects buried. The UXO in the table
are grouped according to size as designated by the AEC.
Great effort is made to accurately bury the targets. Holes are dug to a base depth with either a two-man auger or a vehicle-mounted one. With the two-man auger, a
positioning template, depth gauge, and dip protractor are used to measure the target’s position, depth (from the local surface to the center of the item), and orientation before covering the target. The significant difference with the vehicle-mounted auger is that diagonal penetration holes can be dug. The emplacement crew calculates the angle and depth necessary to emplace the target according to the range plan. The angle and depth are double-checked with a rod, and then the target is inserted into the hole.
Which detector is chosen for UXO or landmine detection is based on the results  from the  standardized test sites  results  not trying them under real field conditions! because lives depend on it!! It is accepted  that  the results may not reflect  what happens in the real word but must be the basis for selecting a suitable detector/detector technology.
Heavens even ML  use test beds to evaluate their detectors(and proably other competitors ones as well)
doug ::419::


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: mylab on Sunday January 13 2019 21:48:13 AEDT PM
  

Huego   ::62::
   - to Compare various detectors to help determine the realistically obtainable performance of a new detector.
  

Well there you go from ML themselves.


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: Doug on Sunday January 13 2019 22:50:44 AEDT PM
  
  

Huego   ::62::
   - to Compare various detectors to help determine the realistically obtainable performance of a new detector.
  

Well there you go from ML themselves.

Here is the link to the ML test site and pictures.
https://www.minelab.com/usa/go-minelabbing/treasure-talk/in-the-ground-is-where-detecting-really-counts
link-https://www.minelab.com/usa/go-minelabbing/treasure-talk/in-the-ground-is-where-detecting-really-counts
doug ::419::


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: WM6 on Monday January 14 2019 02:16:15 AEDT AM
  
  
  

Huego   ::62::
   - to Compare various detectors to help determine the realistically obtainable performance of a new detector.
  

Well there you go from ML themselves.

Here is the link to the ML test site and pictures.
https://www.minelab.com/usa/go-minelabbing/treasure-talk/in-the-ground-is-where-detecting-really-counts
link-https://www.minelab.com/usa/go-minelabbing/treasure-talk/in-the-ground-is-where-detecting-really-counts
doug ::419::



Field test is great, bit it is not repeatable in the same conditions, to compare different (or the same) detectors over extended time period.

So I can only agree with what is here argumented pro standardized bed tests.


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: Doug on Monday January 14 2019 11:25:04 AEDT AM
  
  
  
  

Huego   ::62::
   - to Compare various detectors to help determine the realistically obtainable performance of a new detector.
  

Well there you go from ML themselves.

Here is the link to the ML test site and pictures.
https://www.minelab.com/usa/go-minelabbing/treasure-talk/in-the-ground-is-where-detecting-really-counts
link-https://www.minelab.com/usa/go-minelabbing/treasure-talk/in-the-ground-is-where-detecting-really-counts
doug ::419::



Field test is great, bit it is not repeatable in the same conditions, to compare different (or the same) detectors over extended time period.

So I can only agree with what is here argumented pro standardized bed tests.


Also fundamental to do any testing is that you understand  how the detector you are using differs  in the way it works and is set up compared to what you may have used before. Even some that have used a QED for quite some time have shown by their posts and videos that they  have not understood or appreciated this!!!
doug  ::419::


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: sd220d Digger on Monday January 14 2019 13:12:48 AEDT PM
Rick (Araratgold)  keeps going on and on about his treatment, but what he didn't realise is that's it's him all along.
Rick might be a top bloke but he keeps carrying on about his treatment and what he doesn't realise is his attitude stinks.
It has nothing to do with detectors, it's his attitude, he needs to grow up. That's it and we won't have these excuses anymore.
Attitude, communication and cooperation will get a person a long way and new friends.

People keep away from a bad attitude and negativity.
In saying this, let's make new friends or be friends again in 2019 from being positive and with an open mind.
Cheers everyone.


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: Huego on Monday January 14 2019 22:42:18 AEDT PM
  
Rick (Araratgold)  keeps going on and on about his treatment, but what he didn't realise is that's it's him all along.
Rick might be a top bloke but he keeps carrying on about his treatment and what he doesn't realise is his attitude stinks.
It has nothing to do with detectors, it's his attitude, he needs to grow up. That's it and we won't have these excuses anymore.
Attitude, communication and cooperation will get a person a long way and new friends.

People keep away from a bad attitude and negativity.
In saying this, let's make new friends or be friends again in 2019 from being positive and with an open mind.
Cheers everyone.

I largely agree 2200 and have tried to limit my own responses over the past months, having often drafted responses but held back posting them in the interests of peace and tolerance- avoiding "bad attitude & negativity".  ::419::

Co-operation? that's best demonstrated between 3-4 willing testers in a shoot out. Like ML do on their test sites. There are good operators about, all with years of experience. A small audience of quiet observers / witnesses and a video would be good. Reg could use the QED even though his experience is limited he's confident, Rick I suggest for the Zed (if he's game) and there will be many willing "experts" (some here) for the 5000 and 2300 too.

They all need to agree on coils, target size and depth. Lets say one or two the experts can select from depending on targets in a test site. They could use their judgement to optimise settings on detectors they use.

I wont tell you what my prediction of outcomes will be, it would spoil the fun. But I will accept results as I suggest others here should under these conditions.

Huego  ::62::

PS very minor edits made for clarity


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: dasenator777 on Tuesday January 15 2019 00:42:04 AEDT AM
  
  
Rick (Araratgold)  keeps going on and on about his treatment, but what he didn't realise is that's it's him all along.
Rick might be a top bloke but he keeps carrying on about his treatment and what he doesn't realise is his attitude stinks.
It has nothing to do with detectors, it's his attitude, he needs to grow up. That's it and we won't have these excuses anymore.
Attitude, communication and cooperation will get a person a long way and new friends.

People keep away from a bad attitude and negativity.
In saying this, let's make new friends or be friends again in 2019 from being positive and with an open mind.
Cheers everyone.

I largely agree 2200 and have tried to limit my own responses over the past months, having often drafted responses but held back posting them in the interests of peace and tolerance- avoiding "bad attitude & negativity".  ::419::

Co-operation? that's best demonstrated between 3-4 willing testers in a shoot out. Like ML do on their test sites. There are good operators about, all with years of experience. A small audience of quiet observers / witnesses and a video would be good. Reg could use the QED even though his experience is limited he's confident, Rick I suggest for the Zed (if he's game) and there will be many willing "experts" (some here) for the 5000 and 2300 too.

They all need to agree on coils, target size and depth. Lets say one or two the experts can select from depending on targets in a test site. They could use their judgement to optimise detectprs they use.

I wont tell you what my prediction of outcomes will be, it would spoil the fun. But I will accept results as I suggest others here should.

Huego  ::62::

PS very minor edits made for clarity  best post i ve seen in a long long time well siad mate  ::62::


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: dasenator777 on Tuesday January 15 2019 00:48:38 AEDT AM
  
Rick (Araratgold)  keeps going on and on about his treatment, but what he didn't realise is that's it's him all along.
Rick might be a top bloke but he keeps carrying on about his treatment and what he doesn't realise is his attitude stinks.
It has nothing to do with detectors, it's his attitude, he needs to grow up. That's it and we won't have these excuses anymore.
Attitude, communication and cooperation will get a person a long way and new friends.

People keep away from a bad attitude and negativity.
In saying this, let's make new friends or be friends again in 2019 from being positive and with an open mind.
Cheers everyone.
great post 2200 couldnt agree more mate, he needs to get over it, go back on any of the forums before qed was released, aratgold was one of the baggers from day dot, so when he purchased one i thought it was so strange, hes been on the war path ever since, ive been suspended from finders, 4umer, and pa. every single time arguing with that big bubba. enough said, great post for sure.  ::620::


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: BazzoG on Tuesday January 15 2019 09:29:19 AEDT AM
You get put off other forums for you own attitude and comments. You're recent flair up on finder against a member that wasnt aratgold was terrible. Saying he should be dead. You deserve it there sorry. You single handed cause more problem for qed with fake photos and you're vinegar comments then any minlab supports could. Tone it down you not helping things


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: dasenator777 on Tuesday January 15 2019 10:40:06 AEDT AM
  
You get put off other forums for you own attitude and comments. You're recent flair up on finder against a member that wasnt aratgold was terrible. Saying he should be dead. You deserve it there sorry. You single handed cause more problem for qed with fake photos and you're vinegar comments then any minlab supports could. Tone it down you not helping things
an inhere and ararat gold supporter 3/4 of the comments were removed that night, you dont know what was written mate. GET FACTS RITE PLEASE.  ::620::


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: Doug on Tuesday January 15 2019 10:48:54 AEDT AM
 Members please refrain from  personal issues and  watch your language!! Lets stick to the topic.If you want to have a punch up do it privately by pm.
thanks,
doug ::419::


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: BazzoG on Tuesday January 15 2019 15:11:34 AEDT PM
  
  
You get put off other forums for you own attitude and comments. You're recent flair up on finder against a member that wasnt aratgold was terrible. Saying he should be dead. You deserve it there sorry. You single handed cause more problem for qed with fake photos and you're vinegar comments then any minlab supports could. Tone it down you not helping things
an inhere and ararat gold supporter 3/4 of the comments were removed that night, you dont know what was written mate. GET FACTS RITE PLEASE.  ::620::
I am a member on finder. Never post but read it. I read that full thread and you're terrible comments late one night before the finder owner removed them. Your wrong. I see all of what you wrote. All you're comments there and on here can be seen in public and by member. Finder owner would still have the removed posts for legal reasons if complaint is made


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: Doug on Tuesday January 15 2019 15:24:34 AEDT PM
  Lets stick to the topic please which is "I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA"
 Any more off topic posts will be deleted and the members concerned  suspended.
doug ::419::


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: dasenator777 on Wednesday January 16 2019 22:20:36 AEDT PM
no probs doug i usualy ignore most trolls but some just are worse than an infection.  ::62::


Title: Re: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Post by: Dontbstme on Sunday January 20 2019 01:45:34 AEDT AM
  
Again if test beds were useless then why would  the military...... use them?

doug ::419::
So they can blow them selfs up in the process... ::620::
Oh sorry. Just could't help my self.

Test beds are very useful, but there is the issue with how correct they are to the detectors tested.
Many detectors loose performance because of the air gaps in the test pipes. Others benefit from it. So the closer to the real target a test bed is the better.