26 posts in this topic

I appreciate people posting relevant links - what would the Internet be without links?

3 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


now that Iv purchased my own QED unit and had time for some testing and a general play... why have you made it sound so confusing to operate?

its made me actually concerned wondering why you even bothered to do a review on the QED to begin with?

your dead right tho' it's pretty good with small coils, but also impressive with larger ones too...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of worrying about JPs motives how about doing your own review instead Luke? JP offered his opinions and they are welcome. Your opinions on the QED are welcome also.

If you do so I will be as excited by people casting aspersions on your motives as I am with you casting aspersions on JPs. Anybody is free to offer opinions and reviews on this forum without having motivations questioned by other forum members.

Frankly, where you see negatives I saw a fairly positive and informative review from JP that helped legitimize the QED at a time when the information available from other sources was nil to none.

4 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All, Not much interested in another detector but it is ALWAYS good to hear from JP!!:biggrin:

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a great report JP, and you pointed out the glass is half full with this machine with it have so many possibilities and it does so much when you take in to account the price point, and to find Gold in an area that has been well used is saying a lot, Nothing is ever going to match certain well known machines, But the QED seems to offer the best bang for the buck along with giving less well versed people a chance to get in the thick of it.  

It seems like the QED is the perfect machine for someone who is just getting in to the hobby or on a limited budget, This hobby needs more machines like this to cater for the young and old as well,

thanks again,


2 people like this

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 LipCa
      Every since you posted that you lose depth when you ground balance, It is in the back of my mind........
      "Ground balancing is a filter and not all that different that the way the discrimination system works. The ground signal or salt signal (or both) are identified and then tuned out. The ground effect is still there, but the detector subtracts it from the overall signal. The key word there is "subtracts". Ground balance methods work by subtracting part of the signal, and all subtractive methods create depth losses of some sort the closer any detected item gets to the "hole" created by subtracting the ground or salt signal. Signals are not perfect but spread over a small range, and so eliminating any signal usually means taking out a small range of signals. "
      I have always tried to keep my detectors ground balanced while using them.... Now I wonder if I should?
      Can you put my mind at ease......
    • By Senior Grappa
      If somebody has offered you at option: 1. to reduce the weight of your favourite detector by half 2. to increase its depth by 10% What would you choose?
    • By Steve Herschbach
      "Righto, this is based on my last 4 or 5 trips combined. Today was the 2nd time I've been able have 2 QED,s on the ground as well as a GPX 4500 and a souped up GP 3000 to compare."
      QED Thread On This Forum
    • 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.
      Here is one unit being offered by Kellyco.
    • 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.