Freshly Burying Targets Doesn't Prove "In Ground" Performance

"Elevating nails 'around' a non ferrous target instead of placing nails directly over it in a freshly dug hole, doesn't display unmasking ability of a machine. It shows the guy doing the demo is clueless"

Ladies and Gentlemen it appears I'm being watched from a distance and inadvertently poked, this short blog post isn't going to go down too well with the rats that scurry after the piped piper of bullshit that hangs out in a test garden on the other side of the world .... Hey a little bit of drama makes certain individuals feel important .. right? This will be the first and last thing I'm going to say on the subject.

Stayed Tuned......

So Lets Get Straight Into It

When it comes to testing a machines performance by freshly burying targets, be it for depth testing or unmasking demos, it's totally pointless. The only thing being proved here is that the person doing it has no idea how metal detectors work. I've explained that you can't replicate in ground performance above the ground and you certainly can't replicate it with freshly buried items. As to not sound like a hypocrite, I've also stated that most my demos and tests are pointless as well, metal detectors are designed to find stuff in the ground.

There are certain machines that perform better in the ground than in air, digital machines don't fall into this category because of all the filters being used on them. Now when I say "certain machines" perform better in the ground, I'm talking about real world hunting conditions where ferrous and non-ferrous have been in the dirt for a long time. When the ground is enclosed around a target the roots of the earth in-pregnant themselves around the metals, and depending on ground conditions, mineralisation can occur. 

This can be severe or mild, add metals leaking into the surrounding soil, among a shitload of other 'happenings' and suddenly you have all these other elements working themselves into the equation. This has an effect on machine performance, all of these elements don't come into play when you dig a hole and freshly bury ferrous and/or non-ferrous metal in it. So using this scenario to try to prove a point about "in ground" performance, it's not only pointless it's actually laughable to me. 

Just to make it clear, the little tub of soil I use when I'm showing some of my "unmasking" demos also falls into the category of laughable and I make no secret about this. It's a fabricated scenario that gives a very 'surface area' demonstration of POTENTIAL performance. Should it be taken as gospel? hell no it shouldn't.

To tell you the honest truth, on some of my 'above ground' tests I've actually done a disservice to my Nexus machines because their performance in the ground is supernatural compared to how they perform above the ground, especially when I'm using a concentric coil, concentric coils perform better in the ground than they do above it. All of the "elements" I've mentioned above have little to no effect on Nexus detectors, but Nexus is in a league of its own in regards to single frequency analog machines and really shouldn't be in the same conversation as the one we're having right now. The only real reason I'm bringing them up is quite simple, they will never be outdated or obsolete.

The mainstream single frequency analog machines, Tesoro, Whites, Fisher etc will obviously be effected when it comes to all the elements that occur around targets that have been in the ground for ages, it effects all machines to varying degrees. But I still stand by my point that Tesoro's perform better in the ground than in air and I've arrived at this conclusion by swinging all my machines for hundreds, if not thousands of hours on one of the most challenging environments on the planet, which is the river Thames. I hunted the Thames for years before I started making videos.

Let Me Just Bury The Best Case Scenario

Are Digital Machines More Versatile Than The Older Single Frequency Analog? ... YES of course they are, they're a 'jack of all trades set of detectors', so you can make them go deeper, you can change the recovery and the tones and use them on the beach to great effect, they're very convenient and user-friendly. But the long and the short of it is, if you're trying to aggressively push the point that they outperform every single frequency analog metal detector ever made by freshly burying iron and coins etc. You're not proving anything other than the fact you're an idiot.

Apologies if this blog comes across as a little direct it's just I've never seen such ridiculous politics around fucking metal detectors and metal detecting. There's far more important things in life to be concerned with, I can only assume that if you're so determined to force your point of view onto others and covertly make digs at specific individuals, your life must be really sad and lonely. The line is now being drawn in my participation of such stupidity and hopefully there will be far more positive things to write about regarding this "kick ass" pass-time in the future. 

Thanks For Reading