22 posts in this topic

As far as I know it can only be purchased from Goldsearch in Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, sounds like JP is busy digging up yellow with the QED...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Tortuga said:

Can someone in the USA purchase this detector and if so from where?

Don't think it has FCC compliance for sale or export to the USA yet? From what's been said on the AEGPF forum overseas sales are a long way off? It's reportedly up to a 2 month wait for one Downunder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish to stress again that the QED "works relatively best in the less mineralised soils for small gold." Together with good ergonomics, this is clearly its niche. This is my sincere advice based on my experiences with the QED.
 
To respond to some queries around the net: Obviously the QED was tested thoroughly on a large range of gold, up to several tens of ounce nuggets, and in a variety of soils.
 
I draw readers attention to the inference of what I've written in the review:
 
Quote
"Beyond the scope of the above suggested (QED) prospecting (very small gold & patch hunting mainly in relatively unmineralised soils), I choose not to comment further, other than we will not be using the QED for purposes other than secondary activities, and still intend to use other well-known detectors for primary prospecting activities because of their other advantages."

JP

 
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What coil(s) did you guys use for which parts of the testing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jasong said:

What coil(s) did you guys use for which parts of the testing?

A range of different sizes, 8" as mentioned and 15" x 12" Commander Mono's for 'size for size' comparison with the GPZ14, plus many others. 

JP

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any larger ones like a 18" mono ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some impressive test results on larger gold with the QED in a comparison test against the GPZ and GPX now  posted on the Finders forum here in Oz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, goldenoldie said:

There are some impressive test results on larger gold with the QED in a comparison test against the GPZ and GPX now  posted on the Finders forum here in Oz.

Can you post a link to the thread?

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Similar Content

    • By mn90403
      No, I'm not talking about politics and being a Moveon.org trainer.  I'm talking about resistivity detecting.
      Electrical resistivity tomography
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) or electrical resistivity imaging (ERI) is a geophysical technique for imaging sub-surface structures from electrical resistivity measurements made at the surface, or by electrodes in one or more boreholes. If the electrodes are suspended in the boreholes, deeper sections can be investigated. It is closely related to the medical imaging technique electrical impedance tomography (EIT), and mathematically is the same inverse problem. In contrast to medical EIT however ERT is essentially a direct current method.
      A related geophysical method, induced polarization, measures the transient response. The technique evolved from techniques of electrical prospecting that predate digital computers, where layers or anomalies were sought rather than images. Early work on the mathematical problem in the 1930s assumed a layered medium (see for example Langer, Slichter). Andrey Nikolayevich Tikhonov who is best known for his work on regularization of inverse problems also worked on this problem. He explains in detail how to solve the ERT problem in a simple case of 2-layered medium. During the 1940s he collaborated with geophysicists and without the aid of computers they discovered large deposits of copper. As a result, they were awarded a State Prize of Soviet Union.
        Andrey Nikolayevich Tikhonov, the "father of ERT" When adequate computers became widely available the inverse problem of ERT could be solved numerically, and the work of Loke and Barker at Birmingham University was among the first such solution, and their approach is still widely used.
      With the advancement in the field of Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) from 1D to 2D and now-a- days 3D, ERT has explored many fields. The applications of ERT include fault investigation, ground water table investigation, soil moisture content determination and many others. In industrial process imaging ERT can be used in a similar fashion to medical EIT, to image the distribution of conductivity in mixing vessels and pipes. In this context it is usually called Electrical Resistance Tomography, emphasising the quantity that is measured rather than imaged.
       
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_tomography 
      Here is one unit being offered by Kellyco.
      https://www.kellycodetectors.com/blog/find-gold-resistivity?utm_source=email&utm_medium=BlogBUTTON&utm_content=BlogGoldResistivity&utm_campaign=MSTRBlogGoldResistivity20170624&utm_term=Lead_SuperBowlGiveaway2016
      Mitchel
       
    • By Condor
      I know this topic has appeared off and on over the years, but I'd like to better understanding on the theory and principle of using one over the other, ie. depth, and target id and what compromises do I induce.  The reason I ask is the new V4 for XP Deus has the ability to set a minus discrimination.  It kills the ability to use the "horseshoe" screen for ferrous target ID, but VID numbers are tolerable.  What theoretically happens if I set a negative discrimination, but use Notch to handle ordinary ferrous trash? 
    • By Rege-PA
      As a rule do the lower vlf frequencies punch deeper than the higher ones, say 4.8 verses 14khz?
      But what is the trade off? Are some frequencies better for silver coins? How does iron enter into this?
      Need to understand how this all fits together!
      Thanks for any and all answers.
       
    • By DSMITH
      Can someone please explain the differences in a PI machine and a VLF machine in layman's terms or point me in a direction on the site if it has already been posted up some where 
      just trying to learn
    • By Steve Herschbach
      When I posted the video showing the Makro Gold Racer recovery speed using two nails and a gold ring, it caused me to reflect on the various internet nail tests. Nearly all employ modern round nails, when these items rarely present issues.
      The common VDI (visual discrimination scale) puts ferrous items at the low end of the scale, and items with progressively increasing conductivity higher on the scale. The problem is the size of items also matters. Small gold is low on the scale, and the larger the gold, the higher it reads on the scale. A silver quarter reads higher than a silver dime, etc.
      All manner of ferrous trash including medium and smaller nails fall where they should when using discrimination and are easily tuned out. The problem is large iron and steel items, and ferrous but non-magnetic materials like stainless steel. Steel plates, large bolts, broken large square nails, axe heads, hammer heads, broken pry bar and pick tips, etc. all tend to read as high conductive targets. Usually it is just the sheer size pushing it higher up the scale.
      Detectors also love things with holes, which makes for a perfect target by enabling and enhancing near perfect eddy currents, making items appear larger than they really are. Steel washers and nuts are a big problem in this regard, often reading as non-ferrous targets.
      Oddball shapes cause problems, particularly in flat sheet steel. Old rusted cans often separate into irregular shaped flat pieces, and roofing tin (plated steel) and other sheet steel items are my number one nemesis around old camp sites. Bottle caps present a similar issue in modern areas. These items produce complex "sparky" eddy currents with both ferrous and non-ferrous indications. Many thin flat steel items produce remarkably good gold nugget type signals in old camp areas.
      Two general tips. Concentric coils often handle ferrous trash better than DD coils. A DD coil is often the culprit when dealing with bottle caps where a concentric coil often makes them easy to identify. Another thing is to use full tones. Many ferrous items are producing both ferrous and non-ferrous tones. Blocking ferrous tones allows only the non-ferrous tone to be heard, giving a clear "dig me" signal. This was the real bane of single tone machines with a simple disc knob to eliminate ferrous objects. You still heard the non-ferrous portion of the signal. Multi tones allows you to hear the dual ferrous/non-ferrous reports from these troublesome items, helping eliminate most of them.
      Certain detectors can also show multiple target responses on screen at once, like the White's models featuring the SignaGraph (XLT, DFX, etc.) and CTX with target trace. These displays show target "smearing" that stands out differently from the clean VDI responses produced by most good items. A machine with a simple VDI numeric readout can only show you one number at a time and the only indication you might get is "dancing" numbers that refuse to lock on. Usually though the predominate response overrides and fakes you out. This is where a good high end visual display capable of putting all VDI response on screen simultaneously can really help out.
      I have been collecting these odd iron and steel items to practice with and to help me evaluate which machines might do best in ferrous trash. The main thing I wanted to note here is contrived internet videos with common round nails often present a misleading picture. Many machines do very well on nails yet fail miserably on flat steel.


    • By Tnsharpshooter
      Is Minelab the only one that uses electronic noise cancel feature??
      Do they have patents associate with this feature?
      Would like to see other manufacturers use some thing similar on their detectors.
      Or a manufacturer should provide actual visual indication of emi levels depending on frequency used to include offsetting.
      Not have the user have to use their ears to decide or even try comparing on buried targets.
      Should not be trial and error.
      And maybe even a system were the operator is warned,,say if emi changes and the current selected frequency is possibly not operating at optimum.
      I do realize with a coil being swept over the ground, this could be difficult to do.