Jump to content
phrunt

Qed Major Upgrade Announced

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, phrunt said:

It appeared to be using the coil properly too, not just as a DD in mono mode.

Have you checked if the max target response with the DD coil on the QED is at the centre of the coil and not off on the left side?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, goldenoldie said:

Have you checked if the max target response with the DD coil on the QED is at the centre of the coil and not off on the left side?

Yes, it was at the centre of the coil.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, phrunt said:

Yes, it was at the centre of the coil.

Showing my DD lack of knowledge here.  Where should the max target response be?

 

Question 2 - for anyone to answer - Is the biggest benefit of a DD coil that it handles hot ground better than a mono?  If that is the case and Phrunt can use a mono in Beach mode with Gain 10 - is there any benefit for him at all or is he actually losing performance using a DD.

 

Question 3 - for Phrunt - When you use the GPX at full throttle (or even half throttle) do you have issues with Ground Balance?  

 

You have Ground Balance issues that we all wish we had  😀

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 11:50 AM, phrunt said:

 

 

On 8/12/2019 at 10:37 PM, Steve Herschbach said:

I’m not so sure I would trade a GPX for a QED but going from nothing to a QED would be a big step up! Since I have no PI currently it’s on my short list of potential buys next year. :smile:

Upgrades/service do concern me though. I guess I could send the control box only to Oz and back. It would lower the cost but still not be free.

Dont know how Phrunt got quoted!?

With you there Steve. My experience is, keep your GPX. 😀 Dont worry be happy.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dd do handle hot ground better, but he doesn’t have hot ground!

the advantage for him would have been under or near power lines using his Minelab in cancel....

I have no clue about the qed...and dd

fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of any reason I'd use a DD but I imagine it might be handy for someone in hot soils where mono's struggle.  The normal benefit to me using a DD on my GPX would be EMI handling benefits but that doesn't matter with the QED.

I was just testing it worked as it's a new feature of the QED.  I believe if the DD was working in Mono mode like I can do on my GPX the left side of the coil would be the hot zone, if I switch my GPX to DD mode the center of the coil becomes the hot zone.  The QED had the center of the coil being the hot zone which means it was running the DD as a proper DD, not as pseudo mono.

My GPX rarely had any ground balance issues either, I've gone entire days forgetting to even do a ground balance on it,  just switch on  and go.  To be honest I have no idea what difficult soil is like, I've experienced hot rocks and find them annoying but I haven't had soil cause me a concern.

KiwiJW took me to one location that was very salty soil, it was even white in colour and tasted salty, I found my GM 1000 struggled to work here, for the first time I had to run it in manual 6 to get it to work well, it is usually maxed out.  It was only a small area, like a dried up little salty lake covering about an acre or two at most I guess. This was my first and only experience with problematic soil.  I switched to my GPX at this spot and it ran normally and found a bit of gold.  A good sized bit for NZ too 🙂

Something else I'd like to point out, a lot of people say detecting after rain makes it more difficult for them, they say it livens up the soil mineralisation.  Well here it's the opposite, after rain we are more likely to find bits of gold we missed when the soil was dry, it livens up the targets!  Both JW and I have found this to be true.

My struggle with ground balance from my first day detecting was working out why I can't ground balance like everyone else on the YouTube videos and on forums with people explaining how ground balance works, they get noise and it clears up as they ground balance.... I never got the noise so didn't know if I was ground balancing properly.  Even my VLF's I can just use as switch on and go.  I still try do a ground balance as I like to have my equipment running at it's peak but I don't get problems if I don't.  I normally run my GPX at between 12 and 15 (max) on the gain, it's not the soils that make me back it off, it's the EMI. 

The QED doesn't suffer from the EMI like the GPX does and if you recall I've done many posts about GPX and EMI trying to find ways around it as it's been my biggest issue with my GPX as our gold fields are often at or near high voltage power lines from Anti Interference coils to a possible snake oil Anti interference shield.  Maybe it's a placebo but I think the AI shield works to an extent.  I was able to detect quite close to JW and his GPZ wasn't bothering me, within about 20 feet and we both had our detectors running near flat out.  I normally had to keep well away.

When I first got my QED I contacted Reg asking him how the Auto Ground Balance button works as I press it in and do my coil lowering thing and absolutely nothing happened.  I thought I had a faulty button but no, it didn't work as the detector was already balanced from power on. 

I've never owned or used an SDC2300 but I see the QED as an alternative to what I'd use an SDC for if I owned one, the QED is my version of an SDC, it can find absolutely tiny gold for a PI machine and even JP's review of the QED backed that up.  It's also my go to PI if I have to detect near power lines as it really doesn't care much about them at all, places I can't use my GPX the QED excels and that's why I wanted one.  It didn't cost much more than buying an anti interference coil or two.

People shouldn't expect to be able to go buy a QED and run it in No ground balance mode maxed out like I appear to be doing now,  it's my mild soils that seem to be allowing that, KiwiJW has talked about our mild soils in virtually all of his posts. 

I'm pleased that people on this forum have been kind to me about the QED, I'm glad people on this forum have put whatever history there is with the QED behind them and been nice about it.  I've purposefully not read other forums on the QED or even read old QED threads here as I have no interest in history,  It's not about "people" to me, it's about the detector and It's now I care about not the past and how it works for me so thanks to everyone for being good about it, it just shows how good the people on this Forum are and it's turned out to be quite a viable detector for me after all and you can't beat the price...  🙂

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very informative post, Simon....you seem to getting on top of things very well!

we should all. Suffer with mild soil...so 😞 

fred

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, phrunt said:

I was just testing it worked as it's a new feature of the QED.

Thanks for answering all my questions  👍

I thought I was perhaps missing something but it sounds like a mono will give you better performance over  a DD in your soils considering there is no (or little) mineralisation to contend with.  

Nice to hear the DD does work on your QED.  Hopefully it will help those of us cursed with mineralisation.  I wonder if that will help hot rocks too - that would be very interesting 🤔

Cheers, NE. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phrunt said:

My GPX rarely had any ground balance issues either, I've gone entire days forgetting to even do a ground balance on it,  just switch on  and go.  To be honest I have no idea what difficult soil is like, I've experienced hot rocks and find them annoying but I haven't had soil cause me a concern.

I am guessing the ground where you detect is mostly composed of Granite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Northeast said:

Thanks for answering all my questions  👍

I thought I was perhaps missing something but it sounds like a mono will give you better performance over  a DD in your soils considering there is no (or little) mineralisation to contend with.  

Nice to hear the DD does work on your QED.  Hopefully it will help those of us cursed with mineralisation.  I wonder if that will help hot rocks too - that would be very interesting 🤔

Cheers, NE. 

 

DD, DOD Coils’ and Concentrics, Max target sensitivity is at the centre of the coil, makes for easy pin pointing.

The main benefits of a Double D on the GPX series

Ability to use Iron reject in trashy area’s

Ability to use Cancel in area’s where EMI is a problem

Better performance in > than medium mineralisation

 

For the QED the benefits are

Ability to use the newly released large Concentric coils.

Better performance in > than medium mineralisation.

Mal
  • Like 3

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...