Set locator on 3, how many settings.
My Schoenstedt only has a variable knob that ranges from zero to infinity.
When I am broad searching it is probably at 60% or more and when it gets a hit lower it and then lower it to get within a foot and about 15% or less to zero in.
A Harris, post: 419097, member: 81 wrote: Set locator on 3, how many settings.
My Schoenstedt only has a variable knob that ranges from zero to infinity.
When I am broad searching it is probably at 60% or more and when it gets a hit lower it and then lower it to get within a foot and about 15% or less to zero in.
I used to have one like that then it died. I sent it off for repair and they just sent back a new model with the click knob. I believe it has 6 or 7 positions. Number 3 or #4 is good for an area sweep, then down through the lower numbers to home in and get an idea of the depth.
Holy Cow, post: 419091, member: 50 wrote: The prize of the year is available to all. It's the Tarzan and Jane clip as they go for a dip.
Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O'Sullivan. Classic. I particularly liked the part when Cheetah played "keep away" with Jane's clothes.
Dead rebars happen, how many check them after setting them?
Another surveyor, [USER=467]@John Evers[/USER], tells me that he checks polarity on his rebar, before setting.
Interesting...
My GA-52C started acting strange a few years ago. Now it's dead silent until it's right over a rebar. I sent it in to the $175 guys (Atlas?), but it came back the same.
Maybe after 24 years it's time to retire it. I've heard enough unfavorable comments about the retractable model that I don't want to buy one. I'd be interested in hearing user feedback about the Maggie (other than the bizarre name).
You get maximum sensitivity if you set the tone in the medium frequency range and listen for subtle changes. Other posts have indirectly suggested that. For whatever reason, his "dead" rebar is giving a tone down in the "growl" range where it is much harder to hear changes and he should change settings.
Even changing the direction you approach the target may raise or lower the tone since you will be comparing the sensor in the detector tip against a different magnetic field at the sensor up in the middle of the shaft if you use a different orientation.
I couldn't be sure because he moved too fast, but at times I thought it sound like he had an AC power hum modulation on it. Did anyone else sense that? It may explain why the rebar has lost any original magnetism. Over time, the AC would work like a tape recorder's eraser. The soft-iron effect would still distort the earth's magnetic field, but you would need more sensitivity compared to a bar that had been magnetized by some means.
Jim Frame, post: 419109, member: 10 wrote: Now it's dead silent until it's right over a rebar.
I know you like to tinker. Before giving up on it, you might want to see if you can find some adjustment inside to change its operating range.
A good reason to avoid setting rebar if you can. Too many surveyors will not dig if they don't get a squeel. I always search like I'm searching for a stone.
Aliwhat, I'd set a rock fer ya! 🙂
aliquot, post: 419125, member: 2486 wrote: ...I always search like I'm searching for a stone.
Here, here. Back in the days of dip needles we had a protocol for pin recovery:
1. We didn't just dance (pace) up to a point and then swing the dip needle around in a 10' radius. The "spot" was determined by measuring from some verified starting position. If we were three or four corners into a search that had yet to yield a find; we had left so many chaining pins at our previous look spots.
2. Dip needles were notorious for not indicating a small rebar. If no dip was noticed we used a shovel or sharpshooter to penetrate the ground about 4 to 6 six inches at approx. a 45 degree angle without actually removing any soil. This was done with enthusiasm in such a density that a rebar couldn't escape. One can get real good at determining whether you "tinked" a pipe or rebar...or just a piece of broken glass.
3. Particularly if an adjoining or previous corner had been discovered (and the initial search provided nothing) soil would then be removed, usually about 4". Then the dip needle was again used to search for magnetic anomalies. If none were found the densified angular penetration of the ground was repeated. The entire process could be repeated ad infinitum...depending on how big a jerk your PC was or how sure you were there existed a pin at depth. In notes it was paramount for those attempting to follow you that the depth was accurately noted.
Just for funnies (if you have the time) you all should attempt to find pins somewhere like a new residential subdivision without the pin-finder using just a tape and a shovel. It can be an eye opening and skill honing treat. We depend way too damn much on the assumption our 'buried treasure' is ferrous and will 'sing' for the Schonstedt.
Happens to me all the time. Weak ring off to sides, nothing until you get extremely close. Try finding pins under 3' of snow, in ground full of magnetized rocks. You learn to slow way down and methodically narrow down the search area and often it's the tiniest fleck of color in the top few inches of soil or the faded white remnants of the knuckle of flagging wrapped around a branch that reassure you you're not wasting your time. Magnetic fields are not uniform. A real good experience that helped me visualize what was going on came from an avalanche training course locating objects buried at various depths using avalanche beacons. Orientation of the beacon is random. Fifteen minutes and your buddy is dead. The trick is to intercept the beacon's signal field and then follow it in. It rarely leads you straight to the spot to dig, but close enough to know where to probe. Has helped me locate a lot of corners and spikes that didn't 'sing'.
paden cash, post: 419135, member: 20 wrote: Here, here. Back in the days of dip needles we had a protocol for pin recovery:
1. We didn't just dance (pace) up to a point and then swing the dip needle around in a 10' radius. The "spot" was determined by measuring from some verified starting position. If we were three or four corners into a search that had yet to yield a find; we had left so many chaining pins at our previous look spots.
2. Dip needles were notorious for not indicating a small rebar. If no dip was noticed we used a shovel or sharpshooter to penetrate the ground about 4 to 6 six inches at approx. a 45 degree angle without actually removing any soil. This was done with enthusiasm in such a density that a rebar couldn't escape. One can get real good at determining whether you "tinked" a pipe or rebar...or just a piece of broken glass.
3. Particularly if an adjoining or previous corner had been discovered (and the initial search provided nothing) soil would then be removed, usually about 4". Then the dip needle was again used to search for magnetic anomalies. If none were found the densified angular penetration of the ground was repeated. The entire process could be repeated ad infinitum...depending on how big a jerk your PC was or how sure you were there existed a pin at depth. In notes it was paramount for those attempting to follow you that the depth was accurately noted.
Just for funnies (if you have the time) you all should attempt to find pins somewhere like a new residential subdivision without the pin-finder using just a tape and a shovel. It can be an eye opening and skill honing treat. We depend way too damn much on the assumption our 'buried treasure' is ferrous and will 'sing' for the Schonstedt.
I found with my dip needle I have to go very slowly.
Holy Cow, post: 419072, member: 50 wrote: I don't know about everyone else's case, but when the video is over for me two other potential videos appear to be selected. The one on the right is a banned scene from a Tarzan movie made in 1934. My, oh my !
I know that video. The underwater scenes are a professional swimmer not because Maureen was shy but because she didn't think she would swim attractively underwater. This may have been one of the films that lead to the Hayes code.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarzan_and_His_Mate
The scene that caused the most commotion, the Û÷underwater balletÛª sequence, was available in three different versions that were edited by M.G.M to meet the standards of particular markets.[1] Gibbons' wife Dolores del Rio had performed a risque nude swim in Bird of Paradise (1932), a sequence that is said to have inspired the one in Tarzan. Tarzan and Jane (O'Sullivan's swimming double, Josephine McKim, who competed in the 1928 games with Johnny Weissmuller), dance a graceful underwater ballet with a completely nude Jane. When she rises out of the water, Jane (now Maureen OÛªSullivan) flashes a bare breast. Such big-screen impropriety was rare at the time, and if seen at all was usually done by dancing girl extras, or non-white actresses due to the time's double-standards (witness the topless Û÷nativeÛª girls at the start of the film, or the topless Û÷nativesÛª in the 1935 classic, Sanders of the River). The new Production Code Office thought O'Sullivan's scant costume coupled with her sexual charisma was too much. In April Joseph Breen, director of public relations of the MPPDA, reported to his president Will Hays that Tarzan and His Mate had been rejected because of shots in which "the girl was shown completely in the nude."[5][3]
Breen: "The man in the shot wore a loin cloth, but a critical examination of the shot indicated that the woman was stark naked. There were four or five shots of the womanÛ? which showed the front of the woman's body."[5]
I've noticed that if the soil is saturated pins give weaker returns. I'll often expect to dig several tenths based on the signal strength and then find the pin just below the surface. I've gone back later once the ground has dried out and gotten a completely different signal on the same pin. My co-worker used to say I was imagining the difference but I've actually found a research paper that agrees with my observations. A police lab in Florida was testing magnetic locators, metal detectors, and ground penetrating radar to determine how deep each device could detect a buried weapon. Their test site was located in the high end of a detention basin and they were incrementally burying the items deeper and waiting a couple of weeks for the soil to compact before they ran the next round of tests. After heavy rains left their test site saturated, they noticed anomalies in their data and realized that the saturated soil was the cause. They didn't go into detail on the anomalies other than to say that they redesigned their methodology to ensure that all testing with the metal detectors and magnetic locators would be in dry conditions.
[MEDIA=youtube]jWwKvmCJUv0[/MEDIA]
[MEDIA=youtube]sTFIUyL0-Ow[/MEDIA]
Listen to the videos. The old GA 52's have the BEST sensitivity.
So, IF you buy Schonstedt, buy the GA52, for highest sensitivity.
I have been trying to figure out what is the BEST. (I still don't know)
But, we can TAKE it from the SHONSTEDT people, that the 52 is their MOST sensitive model. I wish it had a display. I like the display, when working near a road. I don't like waiting for a noisy vehicle to pass, to continue....
I am ALL FOR a shootout on metal detectors.
BASED on what the Shonstedt guy above said, about LONGER is more sensitive, what about this 55" long one? For perspective, that is 5" less than 5 feet!
http://www.ssilocators.com/products/ML-3L It has an "Auto zero function" to zero out a fence...
Now, I own:
3 Shonstedts.
1 Garrett.
and one Javad that's mine, is in the hands of Fex Ex, as we speak. So, I have not tried it.
I PREDICT that in our future, there is some sort of metal detector, that does MORE than Ferrous metals. And has alot more features.
Stay current. Learn new things. Be brave.
Another thing I like about modern detectors, is they WARBLE when detecting a HOT electric wire....
Proper use of the shovel. is pretty important.....
N
Instead of getting more sensitive metal detectors, maybe we should all be moving towards setting more substantial monuments, like pipe. I've never seen one loose its magnetism, it'll sing out even 100 years after it has been set.
The first Schonstedt video above contains a pretty glaring goof: the guy cautions that stainless steel will be harder to detect because it has "little or no ferrous content." All commercially-available stainless alloys are over 60% iron, and most are 85% or so. I think the magnetic property is related more to the crystal structure than to the percentage of iron.
I'm going to get all technical on you all here. Most Schonstedt-style locators (two sensor) depend on detecting the differential reading of a magnetic field between the two sensors. One is usually in the tip of the locator, the other at some location up the shaft. Just because there is no great "squeal" over some targets doesn't necessarily mean the target itself lacks any magnetic properties. It merely means the locator cannot detect a difference between the two sensors great enough to oscillate the sought after "squeal".
Granted a null field at both the tip coil and the mid-point coil doesn't return a signal. But I'm sure we're all familiar with the ghost squeal that happens as we walk and search side to side with the locator. Where a signal makes you stop and back up a foot or two and you satisfy yourself it was nothing and then continue.
The point I'm making is there are weak magnetic fields all over and they don't have to emanate from metallic objects. Although most metals with an iron content are prone to possess a field, the water in the ground and vegetation can exhibit weak signatures. Manganese in an alloy can also have a direct effect on the ferrous properties of an object. Even a dry wind blowing over non-ferrous things can create a static charge differential. The earth itself probably has more to do with it than we realize.
If the earth in a specific are has a strong enough cathode (or ground) the weak magnetic field surrounding a ferrous object may be distorted to the point it is almost undetectable to a Schonstedt. If there is aerial electric distribution in the area that is almost certainly grounded there may exist a voltage potential because of the current demand on the distribution system and the ability of the conductors to meet that demand. This can create migrant currents in the ground that will most certainly affect the weak magnetic fields of small ferrous objects in the ground. Ground moisture can also affect current migration through soil. It's probably a helluva lot wetter near the root ball of a crepe myrtle bed than it is out in the middle of a vacant lot.
Although Schonstedt-style locators usually work well and most common rebar has a dependable ferrous signature, the system is not fool proof. I believe the in-situ conditions are a greater factor than we acknowledge. I guess one way to tell would be to remove a length of rebar from the ground that exhibits a null or weak signal from a locator and place that rebar in a different area to see if the it was more the material or the environment in which it rested.
Another yet untried idea I've had over the years would be to employ the services of a canine with a good nose, like a beagle or a bird dog. If you raised it from a pup and had it with you daily, a goodie presented to the animal every time you dug up a pin might instill desire and behavior to "seek" pins (plastic caps or flagging, too). After a little training you could probably just tell the animal to "hunt 'em up" and he or she would go to work for its goodie.
Whether you named the dog "Schonstedt" or "Dip" would probably depend on the dog's other personality traits....;)
