Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim
Thanks for your reply. As I understand it...you are not talking about a false reading or signal. The scenario you have explained indicates the gadget located an item it was supposed to locate. Not false at all.
I understand you want to make sure the test site is void of copper targets, now that you have further explained the protocol
Thanks for clearing that up.
|
Exactly.
When I said false signal, I was referring to a signal from a false copper target, different than the one we are testing for. It would be the same as trying to eliminate a false target when you are testing a metal detector to see if it could find a penny you put in a hole, and then find that you dig up a copper washer that is buried a few inches to the side. That is what I want to eliminate.
There is one complication: From what I have read, there are a few circumstances when other metals can actually give a false signal. This kind of false signal can be compared to the scenario above looking for the copper coin with a metal detector, except buryng a gold ring, and finding a US nickel instead, which can register the same as gold on some detectors. As I recall from the literature, this doesn't happen often with the Examiner, and can be avoided if precautions are taken. The best precaution might be if we pick a test field that doesn't have any metal in it. Maybe somewhere in the desert.
But regardless of the source of "stray signals", I will consider any pre-existing signals that can't be removed from a field to be false (false = not from the copper target we want to test). I will be looking for a test field in which the Examiner is not responding to any particular location before we start a test with the 1kg copper target. I think that is what osman was asking us to do in his test request.
Best wishses,
J_P