2nd April 2011, 07:27 AM
(This post was last modified: 2nd April 2011, 08:20 AM by Stephen Jack.)
The Daily Sport ceased trading yesterday.
Is 'Costing the Earth' an indication of unexpected changes and consequences at the BBC. In this new media age of reducing costs, employing an archaeologists instead of journalists may be cheaper, but at what cost and to what hidden agenda?
No longer do you need to buy the Daily Sport to find WW2 bomer found on the moon, you just need to listen or read Costing the Earth on the BBC, "a new detector has been produced which triples the depth at which small objects can be detected."
The origin of this claim is interesting as there is only one source that matches, and as it is such a massive exaggeration with the same flaw, I am sure it is the source.The flaw is depth, it is not the improvement in depth that is the technolgical advance, it is the identification of the target, ID.
Example, a few years ago I tunned a CZ20 manufactured in 1995 to a point where it could detect a 2p copper coin at 42 inches in an air test. In the ground I would reduce this distance by one third so that would be 28 inches. So my 1995 detector is already 10 inches deeper than the Costing the Earth triple depth revelation. To actually identify this to a high degree of accuracy I would have to half that depth to 14 inches in a low mineralized soil.
If one looks at a Nexus detector which was firsted manufactured around 2004, this machine can ID small targets at 18 inches. http://www.nexusdetectors.com/Testsmetal...rison.html
Established technology rarely makes advances of 300 percent its usually an incremental 5 to 10 percent if your lucky.
The source of the claim is Heritage Action.
http://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2010...l-advance/
This was not mentioned in the program nor was any associations with this group. Is the archaeologist that presented the program a member? I noted a reference to Hertiage Action on the Barford website, thanking Heriage Action for advance notice of the program.
The end of the Costing the Earth program showed Ireland as the way to go, banning detecting. The problem with Ireland is that a country which has had such a highly level of secrecy built in to the fabric of the communities during the era of the IRA is hardly going to provide the level of data required to draw any conclusions.
There are real issues here but once again we have a facade of a program that fails badly.
For the record I was banned from Minelaowners forum 3 years ago for starting a thread on plough depth, I only wrote one paragraph, it was something like this.
"Is it in the interests of the detecting hobby for Minelab to develop detectors which ID targets ever deeper, going beyond the plough layer?"
The detector Heritage Action quote is made by Minelab.
Is 'Costing the Earth' an indication of unexpected changes and consequences at the BBC. In this new media age of reducing costs, employing an archaeologists instead of journalists may be cheaper, but at what cost and to what hidden agenda?
No longer do you need to buy the Daily Sport to find WW2 bomer found on the moon, you just need to listen or read Costing the Earth on the BBC, "a new detector has been produced which triples the depth at which small objects can be detected."
The origin of this claim is interesting as there is only one source that matches, and as it is such a massive exaggeration with the same flaw, I am sure it is the source.The flaw is depth, it is not the improvement in depth that is the technolgical advance, it is the identification of the target, ID.
Example, a few years ago I tunned a CZ20 manufactured in 1995 to a point where it could detect a 2p copper coin at 42 inches in an air test. In the ground I would reduce this distance by one third so that would be 28 inches. So my 1995 detector is already 10 inches deeper than the Costing the Earth triple depth revelation. To actually identify this to a high degree of accuracy I would have to half that depth to 14 inches in a low mineralized soil.
If one looks at a Nexus detector which was firsted manufactured around 2004, this machine can ID small targets at 18 inches. http://www.nexusdetectors.com/Testsmetal...rison.html
Established technology rarely makes advances of 300 percent its usually an incremental 5 to 10 percent if your lucky.
The source of the claim is Heritage Action.
http://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2010...l-advance/
This was not mentioned in the program nor was any associations with this group. Is the archaeologist that presented the program a member? I noted a reference to Hertiage Action on the Barford website, thanking Heriage Action for advance notice of the program.
The end of the Costing the Earth program showed Ireland as the way to go, banning detecting. The problem with Ireland is that a country which has had such a highly level of secrecy built in to the fabric of the communities during the era of the IRA is hardly going to provide the level of data required to draw any conclusions.
There are real issues here but once again we have a facade of a program that fails badly.
For the record I was banned from Minelaowners forum 3 years ago for starting a thread on plough depth, I only wrote one paragraph, it was something like this.
"Is it in the interests of the detecting hobby for Minelab to develop detectors which ID targets ever deeper, going beyond the plough layer?"
The detector Heritage Action quote is made by Minelab.