northwest I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Monday March 25 2019 14:17:06 AEDT PM
Home Help Login Register
News: Welcome to the Australianelectronicgoldprospectingforum founded in July 2010, an add free totally independent forum with over 70 boards and paid for and managed by the Admin.Topics: 9,245  Total forum Posts:45,152 Members:804. Total page views:12,263,130  Admin and  forum and domain name owner :marjen at optusnet.com.au. Guests can only see a limited number of boards at present and cannot see any hot links. Guest cannot post and never will be permitted too!Registration of new members must be approved by admin.Anyone known to have any past or present association with Codan/ML or acting on their behalf as a proxy or intermediary  will not have their registration approved.
All moderators from Prospecting Australia (PA) forum are banned until my membership there is reinstated. 1Halfgram4three the  village idiot and hacker from the cesspit,wacky conspiracy theories and the liars ,racists and homophobic forum is also permanently banned. All  original Photos and posts and  original materials displayed on this site are COPYRIGHTED and remain the property of the poster and the  Austalian electronicgoldprospectingforum.com. All messages on this forum express the personal views of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily being in accord with those of the forum owner and neither the owner of this forum and its domain name nor SMF or the forum software developers or the forum host shall be held responsible for the content of any message. Admin reserves the right to remove any offensive or objectionable posts. No defamatory material or politics/religion or issues of race will be permitted.

australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Common interest forum.  |  General chat and discussion forum (Moderator: bugwhiskers)  |  Topic: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA  (Read 992 times)
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Online Online

Posts: 16628



« on: Friday January 11 2019 14:16:50 AEDT PM »

I don't agree with wash gravel on PA
  . 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 smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin.
When is 1halfgram4three (a proven hacker and  village idiot!) going to stop telling lies on his “forum”?
Why is "the rat" too spineless and frightened to join this forum?
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Online Online

Posts: 16628



« Reply #1 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

  

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

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin.
When is 1halfgram4three (a proven hacker and  village idiot!) going to stop telling lies on his “forum”?
Why is "the rat" too spineless and frightened to join this forum?
mylab
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 169


« Reply #2 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.
Logged
bugwhiskers
global moderator
Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2051



« Reply #3 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.

  








  
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.

Logged

All posts are my opinion and are stated without prejudice and in the public and consumers interest.
BazzoG
restricted
Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #4 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.
Logged
bugwhiskers
global moderator
Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2051



« Reply #5 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.
Logged

All posts are my opinion and are stated without prejudice and in the public and consumers interest.
Huego
invited members
Revered Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4066



« Reply #6 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
Logged

Views expressed are without prejudice, in the public/consumer interest & their "right to know". Huego reserves his right to: think freely & speculate, make & correct his mistakes, change his mind, expose fools & denigrators if/as required. Fighting greed & injustice with facts as he sees them.
Reg Wilson
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #7 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.
Logged
sd220d Digger
invited members
Newbie
****
Online Online

Posts: 150


« Reply #8 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.
Logged
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Online Online

Posts: 16628



« Reply #9 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 smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin.
When is 1halfgram4three (a proven hacker and  village idiot!) going to stop telling lies on his “forum”?
Why is "the rat" too spineless and frightened to join this forum?
Huego
invited members
Revered Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4066



« Reply #10 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.  happy face

Logged

Views expressed are without prejudice, in the public/consumer interest & their "right to know". Huego reserves his right to: think freely & speculate, make & correct his mistakes, change his mind, expose fools & denigrators if/as required. Fighting greed & injustice with facts as he sees them.
Huego
invited members
Revered Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4066



« Reply #11 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
smile


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.
Logged

Views expressed are without prejudice, in the public/consumer interest & their "right to know". Huego reserves his right to: think freely & speculate, make & correct his mistakes, change his mind, expose fools & denigrators if/as required. Fighting greed & injustice with facts as he sees them.
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Online Online

Posts: 16628



« Reply #12 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
smile


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 smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin.
When is 1halfgram4three (a proven hacker and  village idiot!) going to stop telling lies on his “forum”?
Why is "the rat" too spineless and frightened to join this forum?
sd220d Digger
invited members
Newbie
****
Online Online

Posts: 150


« Reply #13 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.
Logged
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Online Online

Posts: 16628



« Reply #14 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-   
doug smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin.
When is 1halfgram4three (a proven hacker and  village idiot!) going to stop telling lies on his “forum”?
Why is "the rat" too spineless and frightened to join this forum?
Huego
invited members
Revered Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4066



« Reply #15 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.


  


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   happy face

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
Logged

Views expressed are without prejudice, in the public/consumer interest & their "right to know". Huego reserves his right to: think freely & speculate, make & correct his mistakes, change his mind, expose fools & denigrators if/as required. Fighting greed & injustice with facts as he sees them.
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Online Online

Posts: 16628



« Reply #16 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
  
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 smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin.
When is 1halfgram4three (a proven hacker and  village idiot!) going to stop telling lies on his “forum”?
Why is "the rat" too spineless and frightened to join this forum?
mylab
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 169


« Reply #17 on: Sunday January 13 2019 21:48:13 AEDT PM »

  

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

Well there you go from ML themselves.
Logged
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Online Online

Posts: 16628



« Reply #18 on: Sunday January 13 2019 22:50:44 AEDT PM »

  
  

Huego   happy face
   - 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.
  
link-https://www.minelab.com/usa/go-minelabbing/treasure-talk/in-the-ground-is-where-detecting-really-counts
doug smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin.
When is 1halfgram4three (a proven hacker and  village idiot!) going to stop telling lies on his “forum”?
Why is "the rat" too spineless and frightened to join this forum?
WM6
invited members
Senior Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1969



« Reply #19 on: Monday January 14 2019 02:16:15 AEDT AM »

  
  
  

Huego   happy face
   - 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.
  
link-https://www.minelab.com/usa/go-minelabbing/treasure-talk/in-the-ground-is-where-detecting-really-counts
doug smile



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.
Logged

Global capital is ruining your life?
You have right to self-defence!
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Common interest forum.  |  General chat and discussion forum (Moderator: bugwhiskers)  |  Topic: I don't agree with "washgravel" on PA « previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder

BisdakworldClassic design by JV PACO-IN
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
gold