Jump to content
phrunt

Qed Major Upgrade Announced

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Reg Wilson said:

Just to clarify a few points.

Firstly QED was never sold by Coiltek, but was sold by Detech, who still provide components for one of the QED options.

Maldon Gold Centre had problems with the premises they were renting in the town of Maldon, which has eventually led to the business winding up once stock is cleared.

etc.....

Thanks Reg... I always appreciate your contributions,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

madtuna, I shall ask Howard who the WA tester was. The tester may or may not wish to be identified, but I will message you if I can.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Reg, much appreciated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would something like this be eligible for the upgrades?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a PL1, it's had the PL2 software upgrades on it with the AGB button too which is why its being advertised as a PL2, all QED's at the moment are eligible as the QED has it's warranty extended to 5 years, all existing QED's that had the lesser warranty were also upgraded to the 5 year warranty. 

Interesting method of mounting with the Gold Bug shaft.  The battery system was greatly improved between the earlier PL1 and the PL2 in my opinion.  I assume the batteries are what hes got hanging off the back of the arm cuff there? The PL2 just uses 2 x 18650's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could very well of been purchased like it is as a PL2. The PL2 was originally sold like that & later as an option in the current configuration until that became standard.

That's one of the positives of the QED - regardless what model you buy PL1 or PL2 they are all upgradable to the latest configuration & software if you prefer.

I know when the 2 seperate PL2 configurations were offered/available there were some that preferred the older PL1 style set up. IMO the current set up is better but as I've said before could still do with a few improvements re: battery holder/cover, replace or conceal ribbon cable, 3D printed stand but they are minor & can be easily fixed yourself if inclined.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this QED and I do recall Reg Wilson talking about for the QED to be sold in the USA it would need modifications to have resistance to the EMI from the power network there, seeing AU/NZ are 230v and 50hz which the QED is tuned for and USA 110v with 60hz.   Unless this one has had that mod, it will likely be noisy in the USA near power sources, It's probably best to get the serial number and ask the QED manufacturer if it's good to use this in the US.

One of the great things about the QED is it's resistance to EMI and being able to run right near power lines.

It could even be why it's for sale.

http://www.qedmetaldetectors.com.au/contact

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Simon. That QED probably needs to go back to Howard for the latest updates and to be adjusted for American power source. The good news is that these mods are free and that unit is now under a 5 year warranty from original date of purchase.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my QED is on it’s way back across the pond to get it’s updates, it was sad waving goodbye to it at the post office, I’ll likely be without it for two or three weeks due to postage times but I can't complain about the price, only $14 NZD so about $10 USD I guess to send from here to OZ.... 😞  Everything I’ve read so far on the updates mean it was most certainly worth parting with it although I left the post office without it in my hands and it felt kinda lonely 🙂

A brief rundown of what I know so far about the updates from posts by Goldman and bugwhiskers (Howard the QED creator) over on Australian Electronic Gold Prospecting Forum

A lot of this is just copy and pastes of what they've said which I've consolidated into a single post to make it easier, I asked them permission to post this here and was given the go-ahead.  That forum is where Howard the creator of the QED hangs out so It always has the latest QED information but I thought I'd put it here as I know quite a few people are interested in how the QED is coming along.

Information provided by Goldman

The new ground balance is just that, a completely new method of performing the GB. All with the same physical circuitry, with a more advanced method of GB being performed via the software/firmware.

The changes you will see are the range of MGB is now 1 - 300, with the factory preset at 150.  (The old QED software had a range of 200 for the GB)

The GB is still performed in the same way as before, as is the AGB method.

The values of a few QED electronics components have changed, which has enabled the QED to accept DD and CC coils. This has greatly expanded the use of the QED and it is now able to use all of the latest coil designs (i.e. concentric coils).

It should be noted that the QED accepts these coils without having to ‘select’ via a switch selection the type of coil your using (DD or CC or Mono) as is the case with other detectors.

One other change incorporated with the updates is that the number of modes has changed.

There are now only 10 modes, with mode 11 being Beach mode. Default is still mode 3. (phrunt: Beach mode is a mode with no GB similar to Coin and Relic on the GPX)

What you will find is that you may be able to use a slightly lower mode with your favourite coils. Where I needed to use mode 3 with my 11 elite before, I can now use mode 2.

Information provided by bugwhiskers (Howard)

The new GB (DSM) starts at 8uS with 0.5uS per MODE increment to Mode 10, Mode 11 is now beach mode with no Ground balance.  

And the technical stuff I don't understand that bugwhiskers has mentioned 🙂

The decay of different grounds doesn't just affect the earliest possible sample time, the whole decay curve changes shape, albeit very slightly.

This is why DSM works so well, a repeating cycle of 36 TX's with different lengths are averaged.

And some results from the WA tester of the new ground balance system

To those wanting a review of the QED with the latest ground balance in WA, I offer the following excerpt from “the tester in WA”:

It seems to handle hot rocks much better with new ground balance
The big trick is to get null and Gb properly before you start plus sort out mode and  gain to suit
Using the 8 inch Minelab coil

Settings
Gb 204  (and didn't change up or down ) very stable even when a little bit off the ground.
Ground balance  seems to behave better right on null

A : 70
B : 51 ( null )
M : 4
G : 6

So the important parts of this review are:

1) better hot rock performance
2) ground balance is very stable and didn’t need to change it up or down whilst detecting

All of this information thanks to bugwhiskers and Goldman.

Goldman actually has a really good QED tips section which supplements the manual over at that forum which has helped me immensely in using and understanding my QED, worth checking out if you own a QED and haven't seen it yet.

Thanks also to Steve for allowing external forum links to be posted on his site for the benefit of it's users.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent report Simon. I think Howard should make you the Pacific agent for QED as you seem to really have a grip on this new detector. The latest updates are a real positive, especially the DSM, giving the QED great stability and basically doing away with the need for ground tracking. 

James Beatty and I have already enjoyed the benefits of DSM and will soon be able to report on the performance of the concentric coils as we have ordered the Detech 18" model, and await delivery.

It is my intention to do some work with the DD on some highly mineralized ground to see just how well the QED DD combination really works, and will report here on results and impressions.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

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 Reg Wilson
      The new compact, super light PI from Ballarat, Australia. This machine uses any Minelab PI compatible mono coil and is dynamite on small as well as larger gold. It is almost totally unaffected by  EMI enabling it to be used near or practically beneath power lines. All hand built, on a limited production scale, this little beauty is creating great interest in Australia, where it can handle the highly mineralized soils.

    • By Steve Herschbach
      I wonder how it would do on Florida beaches? Very light weight, super hot on small stuff, can use Minelab compatible coils.
       
    • By Steve Herschbach
      AussieMatt pointed out on another thread that lo and behold, the QED has appeared. I am not going to mess with all the long back history. Instead, it looks like we may finally have a new detector model from an independent designer after so many false starts over the years. If nothing happens to upset the cart reports should be coming in from Australia in the near future.
      Anyway, congrats to bugwhiskers and company. I truly do wish for it to go well for all involved.
    • 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."
      https://www.prospectingaustralia.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=341762#p341762
      https://www.prospectingaustralia.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=341951#p341951
      QED Thread On This Forum
    • By Reg Wilson
      Lanny, there is a super light weight PI built here in Australia, at a good price. I use one and love it. Unfortunately it is not yet available in the USA. It is called the QED. It is being constantly improved by the dedicated inventor. Hope one day you will be able to get one.
    • By Jonathan Porter
      So far there has been no real “direct” reviews of the QED, in effect just innuendo clouded by politics, which is not helpful. 
       
      With the help of a friend I've just finished some testing of the QED and want to share our impressions here in the hopes of getting the ball rolling for some quality discussions (but maybe this is being too optimistic?) We hope and believe our tests were rigorously objective, the QED was used for general gold hunting and also comprehensively tested on buried real gold pieces of various sizes in a variety of soils, considerable care was taken to ensure no placebo/bias.*
       
      We deliberately tested on only frequently detected but historically very productive public fields, not private property in which it can be relatively easy to find gold using any technology due to only ever seeing a few detectorists.
       
      First and foremost, important details of the QED's method of operation that are different to other detectors which needs to be clearly understood:
       
      Unlike Minelab detectors, the QED has a “dead zone” that can be varied using the Volume control. The threshold is set using the Bias control and has 2 different audio threshold settings, an upper and a lower value. When the Bias is turned down in number below the threshold lower value, OR, turned up in number above the upper threshold value, the “Threshold” audio increases as per usual.
       
      Suppose for example, the lower audio threshold bias value of the Bias control happens to be 50 and the upper threshold bias number happens to be 60. Then if the Bias is turned down below 50 OR turned up above 60, the audio “threshold” level increases as per usual. For these threshold examples, 50 and 60, small gold (fast time constant targets) “in effect” produce signals less than 55 (half way between 50 and 60), and larger gold “in effect” produce signals more than 55.
       
      If the Bias is set at the lower threshold limit, 50 for example, then the detection of small gold will give the usual INCREASE in audio level response, and larger gold will give a BELOW threshold level response,
       
      OR
       
      If Bias is set at the higher threshold limit, 60 for example, then the detection of larger gold will give the usual INCREASE in audio level response, and smaller gold will give a BELOW audio threshold level response.
       
      Similarly with ground noise; some ground noise will in effect produce signals below 55, so that if the Bias is set at 50, this ground noise will give an increase in audio sound, but if the Bias is set at 60, this ground noise will give a below threshold audio response. Conversely, if the ground noise is in effect above 55, then if the Bias is set at 50, this ground noise will give a below threshold audio, but if Bias is set at 60, this ground noise will give an increase in audio level.
       
      Signals in effect BETWEEN 50 and 60 are in the “dead-zone,” for which the audio is below threshold. Signals in effect below 50 OR above 60 give an increase in audio.
       
      So if threshold is set at the lower threshold of 50, then faint signals from small gold will give an above threshold audio, and large targets a below threshold audio. Whereas its the opposite for the upper threshold of 60, faint signals from large gold will give an above threshold audio, and small targets below threshold audio. So for shallow small gold select the lower threshold limit, for big deeper gold select the upper threshold limit. Bigger target signals will produce above threshold signals regardless of whether they are small or larger targets.
       
      However the Volume control controls the dead-zone width; the gap between the upper and lower threshold Bias settings, that is, the dead zone gap is increased by turning the Volume down, or decreased by turning the Volume up.
       
      In fact the QED can be set to operate with NO dead-zone (like the usual Minelab PI audio).
       
      To do this:
       
      a.    Vary the Bias between the upper and lower threshold. Note the gap.
      b.     Increase volume a bit.
      c.    Re-do a. and note the decrease in the gap.
      d.    Continue to repeat a, b, c until there is no gap.
      (This will allow some feel for true ground noise etc.)
       
      However the QED audio has a very low level signal EVEN if below threshold, This below threshold faint audio signal is just the pitch signal only, and detects all signals, ground noise, target signals, whether long time constant or short, and EMI. But this below threshold pitch sensitivity is not as acute as the audio set at threshold per point 2 below, and it is very soft.
       
      Yet even further, if a target or ground noise (or EMI) does drive the audio below threshold, the nature of the audio is that it has the usual “re-bound” response once the coil has moved over and past the target or ground noise. I refer to the lower pitch audio following the initial target higher pitch audio (“high-low”) or the opposite; the higher pitch audio following the initial target lower pitch audio (“low-high”) effect known from Minelab PI's. So for moderately weak target signals that cause the audio to dip below threshold once the coil moves beyond the target and the audio then rebounds above threshold. To recap; for these targets, as the coil passes over the target the audio goes first below threshold THEN above the threshold. 
       
      However for the fainter of these target signals (the important signals one listens for in thrashed ground), this rebound signal is hard to discern compared to the same signal that would occur if the Bias had been set at the alternative threshold setting for which the audio signal then would have given an initial increase in threshold as the coil passes over it and then a below threshold rebound. Therefore, it is important to understand that you EITHER need to set the Bias to chase the faint small targets in shallow ground (Bias at the lower number setting), but lose out a bit on the faint large target signals OR set the Bias to chase the faint larger targets in deeper ground (Bias at the higher number threshold setting) but lose out a bit on the smaller targets.
       
      The QED has a “motion” audio response; meaning the coil has to be moved to hear a signal. It can be operated both quickly, and also, remarkably slowly. If the coil is moved “remarkably” slowly it is possible to hear the average audio detect a very faint target above the audio “background random chatter”, considerably more readily than if the coil was moved at a typical realistic operational speed. When depth testing and when you know where the target is, beware that you do not slow down the coil swing to an artificial unnatural swing speed to enable the detection of a deep target at its known location.*
       
      Important recommendations:
       
      1.     It's very important to get the threshold (Bias) spot on for optimal results, If the threshold level is too high, then faint signals get drowned out, but if the audio threshold level is too low then only the residual very faint pitch signal remains, but this faint pitch only signal is less sensitive to target signals than the audio set optimally as per point 2 immediately following.
       
      2.     The threshold must be set so that it is just audible; in effect just immediately below the “real” audio threshold signal, so that what you are hearing is just between only the pitch signal and actual above threshold audio.
       
      3.     Note that the effective principal threshold control (Bias) is temperature dependent and requires reasonably frequent adjustment over time as the ambient temperature changes to get best results. Therefore there is NO actual specific optimal Bias number setting, rather it entirely depends on temperature. It can be as high as 70 in very hot conditions 
       
      4.  Once 2. and 3. are optimally achieved, you will find that the GB setting has to be spot on for best results. If you find that it is not critical, you really need to re-address points 2. and 3.
       
      5.  The QED does produce ground noise that sounds on occasion like a target. If you aren't digging some ground noise you do not have it set up properly, especially in variable soils. With ANY detector (automatic GB or Manual) altering the GB setting slightly to eliminate a faint “deep target-like signal” will result in eliminating the faint signal whether it is ground noise OR in fact a deep real metal target.
       
      6.  You need to listen to the soft “subliminal” threshold of the QED very carefully, quality headphones are a must.
       
      7.  “Gain” acts as a sensitivity control as you would expect.
       
      I suggest that the QED is best used as a specialist very fine (Small) gold detector. It produced a reasonably clear but quiet response to the extreme small gold (of the order of 0.1 g), we managed to find 5 tiny pieces in well-worked ground in all totaling 1 gram, although the SDC would have picked 5 of the 5, but not so well in one location due to power line noise (This could be remedied somewhat by lowering the Gain of the SDC and using minimal threshold). However, we purposely went over exactly the same ground with the SDC with the SDC set at a lower threshold and 3 on the gain, and then found 3 more pieces of gold; we are 100% sure we had already passed the QED exactly over the target locations so we put this down to QED ground noise masking targets. The QED struggles compared to the SDC in the more mineralised soils, however the QED does seem superior to the ATX.
       
      To get the most out of the QED, use a small coil such as an 8” Commander mono, and set the Mode as low as possible so long as the ground signals do not become too intrusive. Usually 1 or 2 is OK for Minelab coils, but some other coils may produce too much ground noise at this setting so you may need to increase the Mode to 3 or above dependent on the ground.
       
      Further, we got some very thin aluminium foil and very gradually trimmed it down until the SDC could no longer detect it. This represents particularly fast time constant targets (“extremely” small gold), and found that the QED did still detect it, but only within several mm of the coil surface, not further. But this does mean that the QED will detect extremely small shallow pieces that the SDC will not.
       
      Alternatively we suggest the QED is also a suitable lightweight low-cost patch hunter when used with a large coil with the Mode turned up so that there is less ground noise.
       
      For the sake of completion, to answer questions posed of the QED depth for an Australian 5 cent piece compared to the Zed  both using the same sized coils. We measured this carefully and we are not prepared to give exact figures to avoid any trivial arguments, other than to say that the QED detected between 60% to 2/3rd of the depth of the Z. 
       
      The QED susceptibility to EMI in areas remote from mains compared to the 5k on EMI noisy days? In one word: “Good.
       
      The QED susceptibility to mains in urban areas compared to the SDC or Zed? In two words: “Typically Bad.”
       
      The QED’s main strength is its cost, light weight, ergonomics, and simplicity of use, and yes it IS definitely simple to use, but a bit “fiddly.” It has no “magic settings” once you understand exactly how it operates as described above. Going back to the SDC really highlighted the difference a light weight detector can have on general comfort and enjoyment of detecting, and our experiences with the QED underscored Minelab's poor ergonomics.
       
      In our opinion the QED fits a market where people are looking for a cheap detector capable of finding small gold in thrashed areas, and are wanting more coil choices without the specialised "one size fits all" approach of the SDC. Good value for money.
       
      Its main weakness is its underlying ground noise, which although having the advantage of being “hidden” in the dead zone, nevertheless limits depth compared to lower ground noise capable detectors, for targets other than the very fast time constant targets. In summary it works relatively best in the less mineralised soils for small gold.
       
      Beyond the scope of the above suggested 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. 
       
      No doubt others with QED's will disagree with us. We welcome this, and would be happy to be proved wrong.
       
      Ultimately, time tells the truth by substantial gold finds or lack thereof in well-worked ground.
       
      *Note: because of the subtle audio, it is easy to imagine you are “hearing” a target above the general background ground noise when you know where it is. We endeavoured to avoid this tendency.




×
×
  • Create New...