Talk:Metal detector

message: Which types of materials can or cannot be detected by each type of detector? Aluminum, for example, is not magnetic, so would a gun made of aluminum pass through airport security undetected?
what type of tresure is realy rare to find in scotland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.106.229 (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific materials detected

message: Hello Gary, thank you very much for your edits on the history of the metal detector. I see that you removed the section on metal detectors and archaeology, I have re-instated this as it contains further information on the use of the device in archaeology and the legal situation which is valid and long-established information on the page. If you disagree with the text in question then we can discuss it here. adamsan 20:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Gary, please be assured I do not want to see a Britarch situation here either. Regarding your points:
When I wrote the sentance about metal detecting being generally permitted and certain conditions needing to be met in the UK , I was alluding to the need to ensure that one had the landowner's permission, and that one was not detecting on a SAM or a Countryside Stewardship Site without the right paperwork. I think this is a valid point and if you can help me find a more precise way of saying it, I think it should remain.
The bits about certain detectorists driving the hobby underground or the bit about helping scientists, or screens on handles were not  additions of mine and I agree that it they are biased without having citations to support them and likely to inflame. I have no objection to those parts coming out.
Regarding the elements about Nighthawking, I hope you agree that this is of genuine concern to everyone involved in studying the past. I support your efforts to  demonstrate the willingness of most UK hobbyists to detect responsibly but feel that the picture you describe of the hobby in Britain is not  the way the hobby is practised in much of the rest of the world where it is often illegal or unregulated. We must be careful not to give an unbalanced picture of the international situation based only on our own experiences. I look forward to your reply. Best wishes adamsan 18:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: April 2006

message: This article is currently dominated by the application metal detectors in archeology. I have added a list of some of the main uses of metal detectors I know about in the intro, and it seems at least the best known ones like demining and airport security ought to have approximately equal weight. Can we start reorganising? Does the archology/'treasure hunting' aspect need its own article? Billlion 09:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see also discussion at Talk:Magnetometer_screening Billlion 17:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs work

message: This para was added by an anon editor. Is it NPOV? Anyone else know about this?
:'While these advances push technology to its full potential, new genres of metal detector have made their appearance. BB (Beat Balance) and CCO (Coil Coupled Operation) were unveiled by the electronics press in 2004. Both were invented by electronics writer and designer Thomas Scarborough, and combine unprecedented simplicity with good sensitivity.'
Billlion 22:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this NPOV?

message: I am a dectorist and have had my whites 5900 for 2 years now.
As I was browsing through your page I saw you had no section on usage. 
I have a article typed and am going to add it, if you feel it is unusable I suppose you can remove it but I think you will find that it is truth on this subject. Also I realize that it may not be in the right spot in relationship to the other articles, but I didn't want to change more things than nessasary. If you think it should be moved to a better spot on the page go ahead.  THanks
                 User:Brettid 00:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a catagory that would cover correct usage Procedure of a metal detector 

message: Please go to this link:
http://www.answers.com/topic/metal-detector
The page is identical to the wikipedia article. Are them from the same author, it's a ripoff, ANSWERS.COM copied WIKIPEDIA or what? Thanks User: Uomo Grigio from Wikipedia Italia
:As the article in answers.com clearly states it is from Wikipedia "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia". Billlion 09:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright violation? 

message: Can i suggest we splinter off a new article metal detecting as a hobby and keep this about metal detectors. This would at least divert the debate and link spam from the main article? Billlion 06:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See 'proposed split' below S a g a  C i t y (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hobby new article?

message: I moved this section which was at the end after references. Is it encylopedic to say how to tune a metal detector? Should it be in a general article on metal detectors, or one specifically on those used to find buried objects?Billlion 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok so at least rewrite it in the style of an encylopedia article rather than a set of instructions. Also I have a feeling that the article should be split as there are many kinds of metal detectors and perhaps details of those that are portable and used for detecting buried objects could be in a special article. But what to call it? Billlion 21:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Usage Procedure 

message: I removed a bunch of links that had very little content and some were straight up commercial sites.  Corpx 18:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: There seems to be some disagreement above about British antiquities laws and their application. While the ethics of archaeological metal detection are certainly very important, perhaps a more general scope would be appropriate for an international readership. This issue is treated briefly in the article Archaeological geophysics:
::"Irresponsible (and often illegal) use of metal detectors by artifact collectors or treasure hunters has resulted in extensive damage to the archaeological record, both by the unrecorded removal of artifacts and the destruction of their context by uncontrolled excavation. However when used responsibly and in a systematic manner, they can be a useful tool in archaeological research."
As far as it goes, this is hopefully uncontroversial in the context of sites that have archaeological value, but what about elsewhere? And how dos the detectorist know the difference? Of course, ethical issues are inherently questions of POV. Is it possible to summarize some generalities about antiquities laws internationally? Is there a consensus on ethics between responsible detectorists and archaeologists that is strong enough to be uncontroversial? Tapatio 04:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archaeology and ethics

message: Relating to the above section, I have created an article on 'Nighthawking', a British term for illegal metal detecting. If anyone can add anything, feel free. Man from the Ministry 21:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nighthawking

message: "he metal detector was reduced to a size that even a child could use - and use them they did. Fabulous finds were made; prehistoric gold ornaments, chests of Roman coins, jewelled daggers, arrow heads- all types of metal artifacts were coming out of the ground. Suddenly, there was a huge demand for those early electronic magic wands which might make a man rich overnight."
reads more like a david dimbleby program than a wikipedia article
O keyes (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the above. The article takes on the appearance of sly-editing by mentioning current competitive manufactures and their alleged success. The is my first time reading the article today (12/15/07) and it seemed like one big sales-pitch, with small bits of pertinent information included. Too many names mentioned, and one mini-biography (does it really matter if someone worked in Ireland before starting a new biz in the UK) Jim (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Improvements- not written like a wikipedia article

message: Nearly all of this article is about military and hobby detectors, with only a paragraph on metal detectors used in security screening.  This seems like undue weight to me--as walkthrough and wand detectors used by security personnel are likely to be the most commonly encountered detectors today, shouldn't this article include more information on them?  That's what I came here wanting to see an article about, and was really disappointed by how little relevant info was in the article.  I have very little doubt that many others come to this page wanting to learn how security detectors work (particularly the walkthrough variety).  Heather (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See 'proposed split' below. S a g a  C i t y (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:UNDUE]]?

message: This article contains no information about the history, innovations, or uses of underwater metal detectors.76.70.117.165 (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Underwater Metal Detectors

message: The low cost metal detector made by Thomas Scarborough is not mentioned here; see Elektor's poor man metal detector
91.182.161.238 (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Low-cost metal detector

message: One long time problem of discrimination circuitry in metal detectors is that US nickels give virtually the same response as most gold rings, especially when buried vertically. The old style removable soda can pull tabs with the large ring shape were also the bane of the coin shooters and ring hunters throughout the 1970's and into the 1980's for the same reason. Early discrimination circuit designs could reject those ring tabs but still couldn't tell the difference between nickles and gold rings. There's a large amount of reference material on this in metal detecting and treasure hunting magazines. Bizzybody (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrimination difficulty 

message: I think this is getting over-loaded and confused, so propose a 3-way split as follows:
#Metal detector -- to cover the equipment and its science and technology
#Metal detecting -- to cover the use in archaeology and as a hobby
#Metal detection -- to cover the use in industry, the military and security.
Any comments?? S a g a  C i t y (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A "split" gives ample opportunity for dubious editing, shameless promotion and sly advertising. Just my opinion, just keep it simple. Jim (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think that is the right way as the titles are too similar. Better to have specific articles on each use. The hobby aspect attracts the most spam so it would be good to have that contained in one article.Billlion (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal was a year ago. Anyone else have an opinion?Billlion (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed split

message: This new section is generally OK in its tone and intent, but I don't think it conveys a good understanding of the nature of archaeological preservation. It speaks of ignoring sites or failing to excavate them as "looting by neglect", but that is quite contrary to current archaeological thought. Unless a site is explicitly threatened (by development, erosion, etc.), it is generally best preserved by leaving it in the ground. Site discovery can further preservation because recorded sites can be better protected, but excavation is inherently destructive and is considered a necessary evil in archaeological research. 
Regarding cooperation between hobby detector hobbyists and archaeologists, and better practices by hobbyists, that has been occurring, and I have seen many valuable collaborations. I think it has enriched the appreciation of detector hobbyists as well as serving research and preservation. Tapatio (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section: Politics and conflicts in the metal detecting hobby 

message: i'm pretty unfamiliar with using the Commons in my edits, but i do find it useful to have a readily accessible link to view images, maps, etc.. for an article that sometimes has few. but i'm not quite sure what i'm doing here. i don't fully understand the difference between the Commons' Gallery pages
i.e. 
and the Category pages, 
i.e.
.
as for Metal detector there is no Gallery page, (i.e. ), just the . page.
is it ok to use the Category when there isn't a Gallery?
i'm going to add it anyway (WP:BB). 
but someone please correct/remove if not appropriate. ≈Sensorsweep (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia Commons link 

message: Currently, this and other wikipedia articles claim that the Polish Mine Detector (I will call PMD for short) was the first effective man-carried mine/metal detector, but as I will show, that simply isn't true. The Germans had a number of mine detector types, their names consisting of a city and the year the production order was requested. The PMD was first used in the second battle of El Alamein, which took place in November 1942, but the Germans had mine detectors such as Tempelhof 41 or Berlin 40 as you can see here  that 
This PDF here  has further information and pictures of a Wien 41 mine detector, first produced in 1941. 
--74.59.112.163 (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: First mine detectors

message: https://www.cogentoa.com/article/10.1080/23311886.2017.1298397
©Geni (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: possible source for politics

message: The plugs for Garret scattered through this article, and particularly the subheading dedicated to this company, which is an overt commercial couched in advertising language, need to be deleted. Laodah 00:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Garret adverts

message: Just deleted the subsection on Bounty Hunter - it was a blatant attempt at using Wikipedia to advertise the company. Autarch (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bounty Hunter 

message: There's a reasonable amount of discussion on this page that feels a little too forumlike/off-topic (discussion on the topic, not discussion on the article), as well as not much recent activity.
In the interests of closing some of these discussions satisfactorily, and updating the article (both to improve sourcing and add relevance to modern applications (security screenings etc), I've added this article to the Open Tasks list on Wikiproject Technology. I'm happy to participate in discussions and edit content, but if there's anyone around who knows more about the technology and can help orient the article towards a more general applications/knowledge POV and help with sources I'd appreciate it. PenguinPhone (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinvigoration