Jump to content

Equinox / Vanquish Iron Bias " Bug "


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, phrunt said:

If I lived in the US I certainly wouldn't want to waste my time with Dimes and Nickels unless they were old silvers.

But you can't have it both ways here in the USA.  Others have answered, but consider these numbers:

USA 1 cent coins (we call them 'pennies' but they aren't like the British Commonwealth coin denominations) -- basically the same size, weight, and composition from 1864 to 1982.  Almost everyone (except the gold snobs 🤑) values finding an Indian Head:  1864 to 1909.  Many of the mintmarked Lincolns from 1909 to 1932 carry value.

USA 5 cent coins (we call them 'nickels' but they are actually cupro-nickel being 75% copper and 25% nickel).  With the exception of World War II when nickel was anticipated to be needed for military use and they used 35% silver, 56% copper, 9% manganese) these are the same size, shape, weight, and compositions from 1866 until the present.  Again, prior to the Jefferson image coins which began in 1938, most detectorists value finding the earlier issues.  Some of the Jeffersons also carry a nice premium.

USA 10 cent and 25 cent and 50 cent coins -- these were 90% silver, 10% copper going well back to the 18th Century and kept the same size, weight, shape, and composition right up thru 1964.  After that the half dollars went through 5-6 years of 40% silver, 60% copper and then joined the 10 cent and 25 cent compositions which were 'clad' starting in 1965 with a pure copper core and outer layers of the same composition as the 'nickel'.  However, and I guess unfortunately for us detectorists, the copper core drives the TID's to be very close to the desirable 90% silver prior issues.

USA dollar coins -- these have the more checkered history.  From almost the beginning of the country (1794 was first year of issue) thru 1935 they had pretty much the same 90% silver composition of the lower denom. silver coins, and they kept their size, shape, and weight throughout their mintage history.  In 1971, clad versions were created but again, with high TID's due to their copper cores.  The size was reduced in 1979 while keeping the clad composition, but those only lasted 3 year due to their unpopularity, particularly because the size was close to the 25 cent piece and therefore easily mis-identified by the public.  When the similarly sized brass Canadian Lunie proved popular there starting in 1987, the USA government decided to copy that with our own $1 brass coin -- still minted today but never popular.  We still are addicted to the $1 note so why should we have to duplicate the denomination with a coin?  (That's the public talking, not I!)

That's a lot of detail, but it drives home the point that kac and others made -- you can't find the desirable old coins without digging the modern ones worth only face value.  And because of their unpopularity, modern dollar coins and even half dollars (since at least the 1980's) don't appear often because the public dislikes them.  Even the despised Stinkin' Zincoln (copper coated zinc pennies minted since 1982) have digital TID's very close or coincident with the Indian Head pennies.  You who stuck with Great Britain's standards for way longer than we mutinous (former) Colonists have the advantage of the changing monetary system and its resulting coins with different digital TID's for the new (face value) coins than the old desirables.  Even Canada has $1 and $2 coins in circulation if their detectorists choose to cherry pick those over their now very low TID coins that Jeff detailed above (except their 1 cent pieces which stayed pretty close to historical standards, as he also notes).

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I went water hunting  over the weekend where there are plenty of bottle caps and being able to use f2-7 in iron bias I dug  90% less then I did a year ago when it was not an option.I could have probably did better if I tried f2-9.If they had a concentric coil it could be even better with the bottle  caps  .I found no gold or silver on this trip but 4.54 in change,3clad jewelry and 2 musket balls.I did dig plenty of pulltabs and even had 9 nickels  . You can't  win them all.My gold count is only 4 this  year.I  also found no gold at this spot the last time I hunted but found 7 silver jewelry,1 merk,and 5 buffalo  nickels and only a  few bottle caps.i like the f2 option indeed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I am happy if my Vanquish misses 5% of the good targets , and hits the rest (  95%  ) .. After 30/40 hours testing the 340 and the 540 I can say that the Vanquish either the 340 or 540 is very sensible to targets of all sizes/metal types . With the V8 coil I can even hit shotgun pellets , not sure that entry level detectors of other brands can do the same ... Perhaps there is a little concern with specific ( nickel ? )  targets in specific positions , but from my standpoint the Vanquish does an excellent job  , either using the All Metal mode ( that I prefer )  or the other COIN JEWELLERY modes...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Dances With Doves said:

I went water hunting  over the weekend where there are plenty of bottle caps and being able to use f2-7 in iron bias I dug  90% less then I did a year ago when it was not an option.I could have probably did better if I tried f2-9.

The new F2 settings also do a great job causing flat “tin” steel, like old rotted steel can portions, to break up or be eliminated entirely. The old iron bias settings did nothing at all to help with that type of undesirable target that is very common around old ghost towns and cabin sites. The benefits to the new settings far outweigh the possible downsides in locations where you really need them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Oh, a loaner. I get that. I just can't see any reason I'd use a Vanquish instead of an Equinox. You answered that. The 340 though is really a turn on and go detector and for $199 a great little loaner unit.

The 340 really works well. I could easily make an opinionated list of thirty or more detectors that cost more than the Vanquish 340 to choose from that would be good for general detecting conditions and I would pick the 340 over all of them because of its simplicity, excellent ergonomics and excellent target ID accuracy while detecting normal targets................ The Equinox, Vanquish 440, and 540 would not be included in the list by the way.

Jeff

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When  I   used the old f e-0 setting I had to pullback on them to  get them to give me that grunt which is very time consuming after a  while because the caps are so plentiful  . I  still dug a lot of  them  because many times I was not sure I heard the   grunt because of being    exhausted with all these caps.It  is much more enjoyable now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vanquish 340 is a multifrequency for $ 200 ... which is practically the price of a better pinpointer ... it is practically free ...

It is clear that I would also like the programs all metall, coin, jewelry could have different iron bias settings ... but at this price it is a detail .... which can be forgotten ....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2020 at 12:58 PM, Steve Herschbach said:

I read with wide eyed wonder a thread on another forum where it is stated that with the high Vanquish iron bias setting, or higher Equinox iron bias settings, that a dime stacked on a nickel returns a ferrous result. This has been called a bug, and some rather strident demands are being made that Minelab do something about it “or suffer the consequences."...

Thanks for posting this, Steve - it's quite instructive for someone, like me, who is relatively new to detecting and still learning how all of the many different filters and settings on detectors truly work and interact with each other. I read a thread on another forum about a month ago that may well be the one you're talking about - upon reading it, I tested the scenario on my EQ800 on both a nickel/dime and a pulltab/dime stack. Frankly, I had to work pretty hard to duplicate what folks were making the stink about. I did find a surprising (to me) result depending on "depth", and I posted to that thread to ask about it, but no one ever responded to the question. Maybe someone here can shed some light on what I found:

When that thread first posted, I went out to the garage to try a dime/nickel stack, and at first I was left scratching my head - I couldn't duplicate the "problem" of the stack being reported as ferrous, even with my IB set at F2 9 (a setting I never use in the field - I typically hunt at F2 0). I consistently was getting expected non-ferrous readings/tones on the stack. After a time, I realized I was swinging with the coil roughly 5 to 6” above the dime/nickel stack the whole time. I also have a significant amount of EMI at my house, so I needed to turn my sensitivity down to 10 to quiet/stabilize the machine enough to do the test. On a whim, I swung the coil within an inch of the targets, and I finally duplicated solid -4 and -5 ferrous signals for the stack using F2 9 only.

So my question becomes, does anyone know of an explanation for the detector interpreting the signal more accurately with increased “depth” in this situation? When using the highest iron bias setting on the EQ800, the detector seems to report the tone/VDI in the correct range at larger distances rather than smaller distances for this particular target type (nickel/dime stack, or even pull tab/dime stack). I'm not concerned about it being a "bug" - I'm just curious, as a relative newbie, if there's something about this behavior that can teach me something useful about how the detector works and/or how the settings interrelate that I can use in the field? Or maybe since I generally hunt at IB 0, I can just forget about it as an interesting quirk?  😄

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AirmetTango said:

So my question becomes, does anyone know of an explanation for the detector interpreting the signal more accurately with increased “depth” in this situation?

It’s just a function of DD coils and the complex interplay of the electromagnetic fields at close proximity. You will actually get triple hits up close as all three major winding areas react. With distance the readings meld and get more predictable.

This article might help explain some of the quirks people observe. Getting consistent results is not as easy as people imagine, and was easier with old detectors. Equinox is literally seeing things too quickly and too accurately, reporting in real time what old detectors just glossed over, sometimes to their benefit.

http://www.fisherlab.com/hobby/davejohnson/SearchcoilfieldshapeApril2012.pdf

This is new stuff, and as Minelab learns and applies more advanced signal processing to what Multi-IQ is reporting, we can expect quite a bit of refinement to occur in the second generation Equinox. The first go is just a crude “proof of concept” in many ways, with lots of room to grow. I’m really excited by what’s coming next!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

It’s just a function of DD coils and the complex interplay of the electromagnetic fields at close proximity. You will actually get triple hits up close as all three major winding areas react. With distance the readings meld and get more predictable.

This article might help explain some of the quirks people observe. Getting consistent results is not as easy as people imagine, and was easier with old detectors. Equinox is literally seeing things too quickly and too accurately, reporting in real time what old detectors just glossed over, sometimes to their benefit.

http://www.fisherlab.com/hobby/davejohnson/SearchcoilfieldshapeApril2012.pdf

This is new stuff, and as Minelab learns and applies more advanced signal processing to what Multi-IQ is reporting, we can expect quite a bit of refinement to occur in the second generation Equinox. The first go is just a crude “proof of concept” in many ways, with lots of room to grow. I’m really excited by what’s coming next!

Thanks Steve - and very interesting article. I always knew that those profile and cross-section views of coil search fields were over simplified, but that article truly underscores how much more complex it really is!

Agreed - I'm quite pleased with my EQ800 (using since late 2018), but I have no doubt that as Multi-IQ concepts become even more mature, we can expect even more impressive capabilities in future iterations of Minelab's machines.

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...