Jump to content

Finally - The QED Arrives?


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Ridge Runner said:

Steve

This is just one of many that did not come to be in 2016. I'm sure we will hear of more that will never see the light of day in 2017.

I'm still here waiting for the V 4 and the coils to go with my XP Deus. We have all this advance technology but we keep advancing to the rear.

Chuck

The difference is XP is a metal detectors company with a proven track record of delivering product. V4 may be delayed but you can rest assured it will arrive and it will work. With a new guy on the block trying to prove their stuff however the old rule still applies - first impressions matter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I'm not sure what other forums you guys watch to get your info on this machine, but I wonder how tight it packs down? The harness in the video has me worried, I hope it's not another "operator tethered to battery" configuration. Is that the battery issue they are changing? Please let every new gold detector from here on out be wireless and not tethered to a battery...

I feel pretty forgiving if its a single person trying to bring an entire machine to market. I get more frustrated when companies with a lot of resources make promises they don't back up. My 45 is going on 8 or 9 years old so I'm thinking its time to start looking for another newer one or a replacement altogether. Is this supposed to be better or worse than a 4500?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question thinking about this QED for anyone in the engineering or lawyering biz - my understanding is that patents only apply for business purposes and people are free to build whatever they want for non-business purposes, patent or not.

So, could people be untetethered by patenting quagmires if they just set out to build a good machine for themselves and their friends? Could someone sell a machine like that for cost of parts only and not for profit and still be able to design it however they want without worrying about being sued by some company? If so, then to add to the other topic also on kickstarter - could a person do a non-profit kickstarter and just get a cheap machine out there to replace aging machines like the 4500 and 5000?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, jasong said:

A question thinking about this QED for anyone in the engineering or lawyering biz - my understanding is that patents only apply for business purposes and people are free to build whatever they want for non-business purposes, patent or not.

So, could people be untetethered by patenting quagmires if they just set out to build a good machine for themselves and their friends? Could someone sell a machine like that for cost of parts only and not for profit and still be able to design it however they want without worrying about being sued by some company? If so, then to add to the other topic also on kickstarter - could a person do a non-profit kickstarter and just get a cheap machine out there to replace aging machines like the 4500 and 5000?

The short answer is no. And no. And no. And no.

A patent forbids you from even making a personal device that infringes, with one exception: you can build the device for the purpose of evaluating the patent claims.

If you build a device for normal use, that's infringement whether you sell it or not. If you build a device and give it to someone else to use, you both are infringing. If you sell a kit that, when built, infringes, then you are guilty of inducement to infringe. Etc etc.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok thanks, wasn't sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jin said:

Not sure if its just me but the sound that detector makes is annoying. Didn't seem to be any difference in the audio levels when he picked up the target before digging, to when he was directly swinging over the gold. Usually you get a faint target response and as you dig deeper the response gets louder until it blanks out when directly over the target. I'm in no way an expert (only been detecting a year and a bit) but that's what I noticed when watching the video. 

To me the audio response did appear to get louder as the coil got closer to the nugget. However the signal response at the surface, before the nuggets were dug, did appear loud so I would have liked to have seen the operator lift the coil up off the ground until the signal response was faint. Although not the ideal way for the overall depth potential of the QED with the 8" mono on those sized nuggets, it may have given some idea. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first thing I noticed when listening to the audio is that the threshold level seems to be set too low, which clips the target response; a faint target below the clipping point will not be audible. Also, notice how the target response is inverted. Instead of the traditional high-low tonal response to a small nugget. the QED produces a low-high response. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jasong said:

I'm not sure what other forums you guys watch to get your info on this machine, but I wonder how tight it packs down?

Jason, the link to the forum with the info you seek is in the first post on this thread. The battery was supposed to be in the control box. Then on top of the control box. It changed again after that I believe but I have not kept up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Lunk said:

The first thing I noticed when listening to the audio is that the threshold level seems to be set too low, which clips the target response; a faint target below the clipping point will not be audible. Also, notice how the target response is inverted. Instead of the traditional high-low tonal response to a small nugget. the QED produces a low-high response. 

Going on reply #273 by the developer the BIAS adjustment may have something to do with what you have noticed. 

Also it appears the prototype using in the video was an earlier version and now the current one produces the traditional high-low tone response on small nuggets. However there is now a option to reverse that response if one so wishes, as is on my GPX.

Many are conditioned to the high-low on small nuggets and I assume maybe the reason for the developer's decision.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From watching the video it appears that there is no threshold.

If thats the case then l have no doubt that it will miss gold on the edge of detection.

I may be wrong but l also believe that by running no threshold or an extremely low threshold the EMI that the detector would generally be reacting to will still be there but at a much reduced audio level. Same with general ground noise responses.  

So with this all reduced how could you tell if the detector was balanced properly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...