Review Policy & Evidence Limitations
How we compare detection hardware and the boundaries of our research methodology.
Explicit Evidence Limitations
Ground Phase reviews are based entirely on specification research and document analysis. We do not conduct empirical field tests, bury target testbeds, perform destructive metallurgical testing, or execute laboratory bench tear-downs.
Any metric provided by a manufacturer or retailer is presented as "Seller-Claimed" and has not been verified through empirical measurement by our team.
Evaluation Criteria
Our comparative assessments measure direct-import rigs and recovery tools across four core technical categories:
Circuitry & Frequencies
Verifying whether a device uses genuine pulse induction (PI), multi-frequency processing, or single-frequency VLF, and matching stated kHz to intended target depth and conductivity.
Coil Footprint & Geometry
Analyzing search coil type (Double-D vs. Concentric) against mineralization resistance, target separation in iron trash, and overall search sweep coverage.
Ingress & Marine Seals
Evaluating stated IP ratings (such as IP68) across control housings and pinpointer bodies to identify risk points in surf line and shallow freshwater recovery.
Hardware Metallurgy & Rigidity
Examining stated gauge and grade of metals (e.g., carbon steel vs. 304/316 stainless for sand scoops), cam lock designs, and stem deflection under heavy leverage.
No Guaranteed Outcomes
Detection depth and signal clarity vary drastically based on local ground phase angles, soil mineral content, target orientation, electromagnetic interference (EMI), and salinity. Ground Phase provides analytical frameworks rather than guarantees of specific recovery performance.