Bosch DTEC 100 Wall Scanner
- Thread starter Argee
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
I do not have that particular model but a previous less featured one - the DMO 10. Mine just finds metal and wires (they have to be live). To be honest I was a bit disappointed in its performance as there is so much that can confuse it although I must admit that I was using it in challenging circumstances ie damp walls plastered over metal mesh etc. Mine only worked to a limited depth and in thickly plastered walls would not register. When it did register it did so from a fair distance either side of the metal, so you had to sweep back and forth to judge the centre.
I forget how much I paid for it, but must say I did not think it worth the money.
Technology has moved on in the last four years and judging by the price they are asking I can only assume that your model would be much more sensitive and accurate.
David
I forget how much I paid for it, but must say I did not think it worth the money.
Technology has moved on in the last four years and judging by the price they are asking I can only assume that your model would be much more sensitive and accurate.
David
I belong to a few trade fora where the general concensus seems to be that all of these devices, including the big Bosch, are next to useless if the wall is anything other than dead flat thin plasterboard on studs. As soon as you get Artex, mesh or anything else they are about as useful as a choccy teapot.....
Scrit
Scrit
Tarkin
Established Member
Would most definatly concur with Scrit, I've used a variety of these devices, and unless you've got bear plasterboard and studs, it's usless. Even that af-fresco spongy wallpaper stuff confuses it no end. That said, if you often find yourself working with plasterboard and stud walls, it's worth having, and don' think you have to buy a bosch one. The best one I've ever used is a 9.99 B&Q one!
Colin C
Established Member
I bought one from Lidl's ( £6.99 I think ) and that has saved me from drilling in to some wire a few times when I have fitted the odd kitchen 
.
.RogerS
Established Member
-David-":3a68abvn said:
David - you just saved me an expensive mistake! I read your first sentence, looked up the Bosch on the Axminster site, thought 'hah' just the jobbie. Then I read the rest of your post! Oops...a close call.
Bottom line requirement...I need to be able to locate metal conduit, with reasonable accuracy, beneath a layer of approx. 15-20mm plaster. Any suggestions, guys?
RogerS
Established Member
Argee...that looks one serious bit of kit! There are a number of threads on the Screwfix forum about these devices...but the general consensus is that they are all useless! One useful tip about earthing your bare hand adjacent to the scanning area to eliminate false positives.
The other point that I gleaned is that they seem to be horses for courses and it depends on exactly what you are trying to scan for. Wood studding. Metal conduit. Live cables (but how do they detect cables that aren't switched on..like lighting cables...). IMHO if you are trying to detect studs then those that detect metal as well are next to useless unless you can desensitise the metal detection as it's much easier to detect nails etc than detect the subtleties of wood behind a 1" layer of plaster...especially if the wall is lath and plaster...where trying to find the main vertical support studs throws the units I've tried into a tizzy.
Oh..BTW...the Screwfix thread didn't rate your expensive Bosch...but having said that...they might have been trying to use it to detect something it wasn't that well suited for...and your requirements might be different...if that makes sense.
The other point that I gleaned is that they seem to be horses for courses and it depends on exactly what you are trying to scan for. Wood studding. Metal conduit. Live cables (but how do they detect cables that aren't switched on..like lighting cables...). IMHO if you are trying to detect studs then those that detect metal as well are next to useless unless you can desensitise the metal detection as it's much easier to detect nails etc than detect the subtleties of wood behind a 1" layer of plaster...especially if the wall is lath and plaster...where trying to find the main vertical support studs throws the units I've tried into a tizzy.
Oh..BTW...the Screwfix thread didn't rate your expensive Bosch...but having said that...they might have been trying to use it to detect something it wasn't that well suited for...and your requirements might be different...if that makes sense.
johnelliott
Established Member
Seems to me to be one of those situations where one has to wonder who to believe. Considering the claims Axminster are making it really is difficult to believe that the unit is 'next to useless'. There would certainly be a trade descriptions act problem if it was.
I think Argee should buy one and, if it works, let me know and I will buy one too.
John
I think Argee should buy one and, if it works, let me know and I will buy one too.
John
RogerS
Established Member
John
I didn't say that Argee's proposed unit was 'next to useless'. If one goes back basic physics, it seems to me that there are three methods (maybe more) if 'seeing' something hidden.
1) ultrasonics...as per Argee's Bosch unit. In theory it should show you what lies underneath...but not if the cable is live...but to what degree of resolution?
This from one of the Screwfix posts I had a demo of the Bosch and not so impressed for the money. It shows something(a change of density) is there but doesn't give any indication of what it is. Also wont work through foil backed plasterboard or of there is a void.
2) inductive loops...where the Q changes in the presence of metal..or maybe even in the presence of studding ?? But in my experience there is never a sharp dilineation between stud/non-stud and any metal fixings, nails etc are going to have a far greater impact on any alterations to the Q then the studding, IMHO...so you end up guesstimating where the studding actually is.
3) electromagnetic induction...to pick up live cables radiating mains
4) any other technologies? NMR?
Combining any/all of these, common sense would suggest, is not necessarily the way to go unless you can selectively turn some off.
I didn't say that Argee's proposed unit was 'next to useless'. If one goes back basic physics, it seems to me that there are three methods (maybe more) if 'seeing' something hidden.
1) ultrasonics...as per Argee's Bosch unit. In theory it should show you what lies underneath...but not if the cable is live...but to what degree of resolution?
This from one of the Screwfix posts I had a demo of the Bosch and not so impressed for the money. It shows something(a change of density) is there but doesn't give any indication of what it is. Also wont work through foil backed plasterboard or of there is a void.
2) inductive loops...where the Q changes in the presence of metal..or maybe even in the presence of studding ?? But in my experience there is never a sharp dilineation between stud/non-stud and any metal fixings, nails etc are going to have a far greater impact on any alterations to the Q then the studding, IMHO...so you end up guesstimating where the studding actually is.
3) electromagnetic induction...to pick up live cables radiating mains
4) any other technologies? NMR?
Combining any/all of these, common sense would suggest, is not necessarily the way to go unless you can selectively turn some off.
johnelliott
Established Member
Thanks for that, Roger, though actually I was actually referring to a phrase in Scrit's post. I do note, however, that you reported earlier that 'the general consensus is that they are all useless!'
Anyway, I'm don't have a position on the effectiveness of the unit in question, but I am interested in the Trade Descriptions position should the unit turn out to be less effective than stated.
John
Anyway, I'm don't have a position on the effectiveness of the unit in question, but I am interested in the Trade Descriptions position should the unit turn out to be less effective than stated.
John
RogerS
Established Member
The Special Condition caveat would put me off using one, to be honest
Under unfavourable conditions, the unit cannot detect certain objects
as a result of the principle involved, for example:
– Empty plastic pipes and wood in hollow spaces and light construction
walls
– Metal surfaces and damp surfaces with high water content cannot
be penetrated.
– Damp areas in a wall can possibly be indicated as an object (e.g.
for high water content).
– For walls made up of several layers, e.g. with wall covering, possibly
only the first boundary layer (e.g. hollow space behind the wall
covering) is indicated.
– Hollow spaces in a wall are indicated as objects.
– Large cylindrical objects (e.g. plastic or water pipes) can appear in
the display smaller than they actually are.
Take item 1 - central heating pipe in a drained down system? Waste pipe from a sink or bath? Drill through any of those and you'd not necessarily know it.
Also, I would be concerned about the wheels. What are they covered with? If some sort of 'tacky' substance like rubber then no problem. If they are hard plastic then IMHo forget it. I bought one of those automatic measuring devices that you roll across the wall. The wheels are so hard that they skip and so any reading is way out. The instructions suggest that linear distacne along the wall is important and if used as a basis for their calculations then these would be inaccurate.
Still looks a sexy bit of kit :lol:
Under unfavourable conditions, the unit cannot detect certain objects
as a result of the principle involved, for example:
– Empty plastic pipes and wood in hollow spaces and light construction
walls
– Metal surfaces and damp surfaces with high water content cannot
be penetrated.
– Damp areas in a wall can possibly be indicated as an object (e.g.
for high water content).
– For walls made up of several layers, e.g. with wall covering, possibly
only the first boundary layer (e.g. hollow space behind the wall
covering) is indicated.
– Hollow spaces in a wall are indicated as objects.
– Large cylindrical objects (e.g. plastic or water pipes) can appear in
the display smaller than they actually are.
Take item 1 - central heating pipe in a drained down system? Waste pipe from a sink or bath? Drill through any of those and you'd not necessarily know it.
Also, I would be concerned about the wheels. What are they covered with? If some sort of 'tacky' substance like rubber then no problem. If they are hard plastic then IMHo forget it. I bought one of those automatic measuring devices that you roll across the wall. The wheels are so hard that they skip and so any reading is way out. The instructions suggest that linear distacne along the wall is important and if used as a basis for their calculations then these would be inaccurate.
Still looks a sexy bit of kit :lol:
I think that with a piece of kit like this it will only become truly useful, timesaving and trustworthy after a prolonged amount of usage where you always test the results that it shows. I do not think that it can ever be definitive in its readouts - look at the arguments with 'Geophysics' in Time Team. So the results are always there to be interperated, just as with any radar or sonar operator or even a dowser.
David
David
If you want some idea how good ground radar is I watched the water people turn up last year outside our unit with a big impressive ground radar unit, a GPS satellite ground set and a set of drawings - it still took them 3 holes before they found the leaking pipe they were looking for. They used to use a 4 ft steel rod with a forged bell end at the bottom to do this - mind you it was no more accurate .
I think the biggest problem with these units will be on older houses - the older they are the less consistent the walls and the more variable the readings are going to be. I'm glad that electricians run cables vertically these days (in the main) and that water/gas pipes can normally be "detected" using the good old awl. Maybe I should now touch wood.
Scrit
. I think the biggest problem with these units will be on older houses - the older they are the less consistent the walls and the more variable the readings are going to be. I'm glad that electricians run cables vertically these days (in the main) and that water/gas pipes can normally be "detected" using the good old awl. Maybe I should now touch wood.
Scrit
RogerS
Established Member
Scrit":3s371swk said:
Yup...DAMHIKT
