Jump to content
Steve Herschbach

Selectable Frequency And Multiple Frequency

Recommended Posts


Good article. Thank you!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here is that full but probably incomplete list:

 

Selectable Frequency

1989 Minelab Eureka Ace Dual            8    19.5 kHz

1993 Minelab XT 17000                6.4    32 kHz

1994 Compass X-200                6    14 khz

1997 Minelab XT 18000            6.4    20    60 kHz

1999 Minelab Golden Hawk        6.4    20    60 kHz

2002 Minelab Eureka Gold        6.4    20    60 kHz

2005 Minelab X-TERRA 50                7.5    18.75 kHz

2006 Minelab X-TERRA 70            3    7.5    18.75 kHz

2009 Minelab X-TERRA 305            7.5    18.75 kHz

2009 Minelab X-TERRA 505        3    7.5    18.75 kHz

2009 Minelab X-TERRA 705        3    7.5    18.75 kHz

2009 XP DEUS            4    8    12    18 kHz

2016 Rutus Alter 71        Variable 4 - 18 kHz

2017 Nokta Impact            5    14    20 kHz

 

Multi Frequency

1991 Fisher CZ-6            5 & 15 kHz

1991 Minelab Sovereign            BBS

1992 Fisher CZ-5            5 & 15 kHz

1993 Minelab Excalibur            BBS

1994 Minelab Sovereign XS        BBS

1995 Fisher CZ-20            5 & 15 kHz

1996 Fisher CZ-7            5 & 15 kHz

1998 Minelab Sovereign XS2/XS2 Pro    BBS

1998 Minelab Excalibur 800/1000        BBS

1998 Fisher CZ-7a/7a Pro        5 & 15 kHz

1999 Minelab Explorer S/XS        FBS

2000 Minelab Sovereign XS2a Pro        BBS

2001 White's Beach Hunter ID        3 & 15 kHz

2001 Fisher CZ-70 Pro            5 & 15 kHz

2001 White's DFX            3 kHz & 15 kHz (Simulates single frequency by ignoring half the dual frequency signal)

2002 Minelab Sovereign Elite        BBS

2003 Minelab Explorer II        FBS

2004 Minelab Quattro MP            FBS

2004 Fisher CZ-3D            5 & 15 kHz

2005 Minelab Sovereign GT        BBS

2006 Minelab Explorer SE        FBS

2008 Minelab Explorer SE Pro        FBS

2009 Fisher CZ-21            5 & 15 kHz

2012 Minelab CTX 3030            FBS2


Selectable Frequency or Multi Frequency

2009 White's Spectra Vision        2.5 Khz or 7.5 kHz or 22.5 kHz or all three at once

2017 Minelab Equinox                  5 kHz or 10 kHz or 15 kHz or 20 kHz or 40 kHz plus multi frequency options

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it AKA machines never get a mention at all? With their single frequency coils, frequency can be changed the same way as the X-Terra range. With their selectable frequency coils, they don't utilise harmonics to select frequency, in contrast they utilise a simple mechanical switch to increase or decrease the amount of windings used inside the coil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because for all intents and purposes AKA machines do not exist in the United States. I wrote the article, and I only mention what pops into my head. I know next to nothing about AKA and they are far enough off my personal radar that I simply did not think of them. Nothing nefarious, just the way it is. I will attempt to get more familiar with them and even add them to the list when I know more, but the bottom line is if they want attention in the U.S. they need to do more to get it. A few dealers and a service center is the first step. I may be just a local yokel but if I have to mail it out of the U.S. to get service than I am not interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article Steve, but wrong on the harmonic info. Switchable frequency machines switch to different fundamental frequencies, not harmonics of the base frequency. Most of them run sinusoidal transmitters so there are no harmonics, and they switch in different capacitors to do so.

Also, the DFX doesn't really run in single frequency mode. It always transmits/receives 2 frequencies, just ignores one of them in "single" mode.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And by the way Ringmoney, feel free to start a thread on AKA and bring us up to speed. Like you asked, why does nobody mention AKA? That does include you also. I post stuff all the time just to be informative. There is no forum rule against others doing the same. I would welcome it!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Geotech said:

Good article Steve, but wrong on the harmonic info. Switchable frequency machines switch to different fundamental frequencies, not harmonics of the base frequency. Most of them run sinusoidal transmitters so there are no harmonics, and they switch in different capacitors to do so.

Also, the DFX doesn't really run in single frequency mode. It always transmits/receives 2 frequencies, just ignores one of them in "single" mode.

 

OK, I need to edit that. Now that you point it out and I think about it, kind of obvious. If you are running at a single frequency there can be no harmonic in use.

Thanks Carl - I love learning stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steve Herschbach said:

OK, I need to edit that. Now that you point it out and I think about it, kind of obvious. If you are running at a single frequency there can be no harmonic in use!

Well, it's more complicated than that. Instead of a sinusoid, you could run a square wave drive which generates a triangle wave current, which does have a fundamental and harmonics. This is exactly what a Fisher CZ does. A SF detector could demodulate only the fundamental (ignore the harmonics), and vary the square wave frequency to whatever it wants, the advantage of which no coil capacitor needs to be selected. The V3 does it this way (in SF mode), and I'd guess (but don't know) that the Alter 71 does it this way, too. But I expect most of the switchable frequency detectors on your list run sinusoidal transmitters.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try but there is a reason Carl why you design detectors and I just use them. I try to learn just enough to understand why the things I observe in the field happen the way they do, but my brain taps out after that. :smile: Luckily I stayed out of the whole harmonics thing in the magazine article.

I think my latest edit got it cleaned up - Thanks again.

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 MikePfeiffer
      First, I want to say this is one of the best forums I have ever seen. Steve has put together a GREAT website. The knowledge base on the forum is just phenomenal. I have learned so so much more about metal detectors from all of you.
       
      So let me explain assumed.
       
      I assumed:
      White's and Garret were the best metal detectors.
      Carl Moreland was still working for White's
      Metal detectors were 10 years behind technology of today. (just my thought)
       
      After making the assumptions, I realized how wrong I was thanks to this forum. I realized White' and Garrett have been a sleep. Carl Moreland either quit or was fired. White's and Garrett detector are whats 10 behind.
       
      When I got back into metal detecting last year. I was looking for a new machine. I looked at White's and Garrett with the assumptions. I thought about building my own detector. So I read Carl Moreland's book. (Great book) I realized that it would take me 2 to 5 years to develop my own detector. So I scrapped this idea. I could not understand why White's or Garrett had not built a detector with what I expected. I thought that with today's technology there should be a sweep frequency oscillator for the coil-s and an easy to read display. That being said, White's closest model was the V3i. Garrett had nothing. I quickly realized that I needed to look at everything. Because of the forum, I found Minelab was being discussed. When I found the Minelad Safari, I quickly realized it had what I was thinking of building. I don't like their LCD display. It does not look clear a crisp to me. However the machine looks promising. Then I looked at the E-track and CTX-3030. These also look to be very promising machines. Just the price is higher that I want to pay for a -2 times a month hobby. I really wish the best for White's and Garrett. They have their work cut out for them.
       
      I want to thank John, Chuck, Tom and Terry and many others I do not know their names for the knowledge your provided and a special thank you to Steve H for his superior knowledge and the wonderful website he has provided.
    • By MikePfeiffer
      Just found this on the web:
      http://md-hunter.com/garrett-at-concept-new-2016-or-a-fake/
      Looks interesting.
    • By Steve Herschbach
      The following information is from an apparent leak from a First Texas distributor meeting? The link is posted at http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/555-new-fisher-pulse-induction-multi-frequency-detectors/?p=10571 as part of the thread about upcoming Fisher products that have been circulating for a couple years. These leaks seem to jive with previous statements by Tom Mallory of First Texas.

      The main one of interest to the people on this forum would be a new CZX model aimed at gold prospecting. Here is the text from the posted screen shot:

      CZX - Fisher and Teknetics
      This machine is ground breaking technology Turn on and go 2 frequency - 9:1 ratio No need to ground balance or adjust the detector to the environment It automatically senses the ground and makes changes accordingly. First detector birthed from this platform is a gold unit priced around $1000, but deeper than current VLF, this detector will also see through red dirt, and highly mineralized soil. From this platform other machines will develop. We intend to develop the CZX and MOSCA platforms to offer more machines in the $1000 to $2000 range than have ever been available. Target release 2016 We have senior engineer Dave Johnson on this project The "Mosca" platform referred to is further described and apparently is aimed more at being a general purpose non-prospecting detector (coins, jewelry, relics). Again, here is the text from the posted screen shot:

      "Mosca" Fisher and Teknetics
      Waterproof up to 10' (3 meters) Wireless headphones - Waterproof loop and connectors for headphones 2 frequency - 7:1 ratio Hobby/Treasure Market - Great for Saltwater, Relic, Coin Auto Ground Tracking Single Pod Design LCD Pad, control buttons, 2 AA batteries Arm Pad in rear Retail target - $1200 - $2000 Target release 2016 We have dedicated engineers on this project
      OK, so a gold unit around $1000 that goes deeper than current VLF designs. I also have high hopes that knowing the proclivities of the engineer, Dave Johnson, that it will be relatively light and ergonomic. Dave also prefers simple and the design statements reflect that.

      We seriously need something that brings gold detector weights and prices back to earth and so hopefully this will be it. I have stated over and over again I would be very happy with ATX equivalent performance in a less expensive lightweight package. Garrett so far seems disinclined to make that unit but they have a year at least before it may be a moot point. The CZX would have to obsolete the White's TDI as it is aimed squarely at or below the same price point and unless it beats TDI performance would be dead on arrival.

      We will not have long to wait - 2016 is coming fast!
    • By DolanDave
      Has anyone heard any new information on the Fisher/ Teknetics CZX gold machine coming out soon?  Fisher claims a new ground breaking technology, that will be able to see through highly mineralized soil, and red dirt?
      Dave
    • By Steve Herschbach
      Steve's Law of Target Depletion - All good locations with high value targets will eventually be detected until no metal can be found. When any location contains items of great perceived value, detector technology will normally be applied in reverse order of aggressiveness. First will be VLF discrimination "cherry picking". This will be followed by varying degrees of "turning down the discrimination" to dig iffy targets and by using the barest of ferrous/non-ferrous discrimination. This will finally be followed by all metal detecting to remove masking effects by either VLF or PI detectors. If the location is considered good enough all targets will eventually over time be completely removed until no detector is able to acquire a target. At this point a site may be considered "hunted out" until a new technology arrives allowing for more depth or ground separation capability, when a few more remaining metal items will be removed. The key concept is that since discrimination is unreliable, all metal must be removed from high value locations in order to rest assured nothing has been overlooked.

      Nugget hunters and beach hunters get right with the program. If a nugget "patch" is located it will be relentlessly pounded until no metal remains. Beaches survive by being a renewable resource. Good relic locations can and will be subjected to the same attention given to nugget patches. The rule is that as long as you can find a piece of metal hope remains that good items can be found. If not you, somebody else can and will return until no metal remains. I have promoted PI detectors for all uses for this very reason for over 10 years now - see that last few paragraphs at www.losttreasure.com from 2005.
      Most people consider depth to be problem number one, but for many areas target masking is by far the more serious issue. Until detectors can actually see through trash instead of blocking it out, even the smallest surface trash can and will block deeper adjacent items from being detected. Superb discrimination only gets you so far and ultimately the only solution is to remove the surface trash to see what lurks below. The only real limitation we face in this regard is in areas sensitive to digging holes of any sort, like a well groomed park. Even there, slow careful extraction of surface trash over time can reveal old coins missed by others for decades.
      Beneath The Mask by Thomas Dankowski
    • By Steve Herschbach
      Subject came up elsewhere so I thought I would run a little poll. The poll only gives you two choices but if you want to post about what you think your number one most comfortable detector model has ever been that would be great. It could be a lousy detector in every other way, all I am looking for it what detectors feel best on your arm when held for long hours. There are no right or wrong answers - this is a personal preference thing, determined in large part by hand and forearm size.
      The "S" rod grip is where the grip is just part of the rod itself, not a separate element. The Post grip is a separate post attached to the rod. Lots of people call this a pistol grip, but that really is more about the shape of the grip. I have seen good pistol grips in an S rod design. There are also Post grips on S rods so it is not the S that makes for the S rod grip but the fact it is integrated into the S. The photos here make it more obvious. There is a difference simply between curved shafts and straight shafts but that is actually a separate subject so I will make a separate poll on it.

×