Jump to content

Tarsacci Waterproof Rating Ip68 - Kruzer/anfibio Rating Ip68


Recommended Posts


You are mixing up two things - what IP68 means, and what the manufacturer says it will warranty.

Devices backed by an international standard rating of IP68 are deemed fit enough to withstand dust, dirt and sand, and are resistant to submersion up to a maximum depth of 1.5m underwater for up to thirty minutes. That is what it means, period.

Equinox has some IP68 rated coil connectors, and if you go by the weakest link then an Equinox is also IP68. Same goes for almost all waterproof detectors except ones with custom coil connectors. I suspect that all models rated to 10 feet would pass only an IP68 test at best.

But manufacturers can promise more under warranty. So I tell you ten feet all day, it leaks, I fix it free while under warranty. Many machines never see water, so it is a bit of a gamble. And most IP68 machines will make it just fine, but others will not. I'm sure there are weak IP68 fittings and strong IP68 fittings on the market. In other words, some barely make the rating, while others meet it easily and in excess.

I do not consider any model rated to 10 feet to really be anything more than a wading detector or light snorkel use. Real dive models are rated to 100 feet plus.

A related note here:

"The 8 at the end means the phone has been tested at depths more than 1 metre, and found to be unharmed. While the standard testing doesn't specifically mention an exact depth, you'll find manufacturers do list them. For instance, Samsung says its IP68-rated Galaxy Note 10+ can survive being up to 1.5 metres deep for up to 30 minutes. 

The iPhone 12 Pro is also IP68 rated, meaning that it will be happy with complete submersion and Apple say that will survive in up to 6 metres of water."

So even Apple does it.

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

I'll add to the above by saying that Tarsacci is being more conservative than anyone else in that they just quote the actual IP68 spec. Most everyone else is adding their own test results and extending beyond what IP68 says in their specs.

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

6 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

I do not consider any model rated to 10 feet to really be anything more than a wading detector or light snorkel use. Real dive models are rated to 100 feet plus.

Steve, that really helps me in thinking about using my 800 in the creeks near me. Some of them are deeper than 6 feet and I was going to use my scuba tanks with it, now I think I will just keep it above the water most of the time.

Thanks for the information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres a good chart.... note what the 8 means.... and like Steve said the manufacturer has the final say.  

http://www.dsmt.com/resources/ip-rating-chart/

you have a mix of hardware and connectors.   Some simply go by the rating of the connectors.  Its difficult to rate the entire component.   Testing will tell.  I also agree Demitar maybe conservative in his rating.   However.... it appears he is better waterproofing his box and the battery area to say yes its waterproof if you saw that video Steve posted.  He spent a little extra time on mine to waterproof it.  Mostly what hes doing now... sealed off my speaker and the wires coming in from the bottom of the box.  Other than that this things pretty tight.   Yes .... anything rated to 10' to me is a wader and about 98% of us need to detect out there..... provided the manufacturer has a good warranty and stands behind it.   Thats HUGE for any machine going in the salt water.   You also have to consider this is a small growing company.....it doesnt have a ML size repair shop.    thus far im not aware of any systemic repair issues with this machine and as Steves video also shows its evolving based on our suggestions id say.

  • Like 1
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
  • Similar Content

    • By Gerry in Idaho
      I thought I was pretty damn good, but this technology has me beat.
      https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/mining-gap-companies-push-find-raw-materials-electric-vehicle-boom-rcna5077
      Might be time to invest?
    • By mcjtom
      Metal detectors often seem to have a 'Depth Gauge'.  How is it calculated? Is it the strength (or inverse of it) of the amplitude of the return signal?  So, for instance, everything else being equal, the 'deep' target would mean either a stronger target at greater depth or a weaker shallow target?
    • By GB_Amateur
      While we're all abuzz with the announcement and advertised feature and performance characteristics of the XP Deus II, I'm wondering about tests that distinguish between detectors' target separation abilities.  'Word on the street' is that in trashy iron sites, the original Deus is still the best available.  Presumably those reports are based upon in-field testing, which of course is the real proof.  But the downside is, (AFAIK) these are qualitative observations, not quantitative.  Subjectivity involved?  Unfortunately, yes.
      We do have Monte's Nail Board Test for a special case -- iron nails near a single coin, all in the same plane and typically all on the surface of the ground.  Add depth combined with some mineralization (burying the MNB) and you've included another real world dimension.  But in the field, multiple nearby targets are seldom in the same plane.
      So you hopefully see the purpose of this post.  Has anyone seen/tried other methods to better simulate actual in-field conditions to differentiate between competing detectors to best be able to handle trashy sites?
    • By Rick N. MI
      I mostly hunt in lakes and the bottoms are mostly all sand. A test on a sandy beach with the Equinox 800 and Xp Orx, both hit hard on a 14k 3.7 gram gold ring buried at 14". For mild ground I don't see a need for multi frequency. I do like the multiple frequencies on the Orx.
      Is there an advantage to multi frequency in mild ground?
    • By Steve Herschbach
      We have the Deus 2 just announced, Nokta/Makro Multi on the way, possibly the next generation Equinox from Minelab, and maybe even another Garrett multifrequency model to follow Apex, all coming in 2022. I guess we should even toss First Texas in there, as they just officially discontinued the CZ-3D, with the possibility something new will replace it soon. If this does not mean we are moving past single frequency, I don’t know what does. Or are we? There will no doubt always be a place for a finely tuned single frequency detector. However, if you consider Deus as selectable frequency, and Equinox as selectable/multi, then very many of us have already moved past a simple single frequency detector as our primary detectors.
      This is the thread to speculate on what is coming, where we are, and where we are headed. 2022 is shaping up as the year SMF (simultaneous multifrequency) finally takes off for real. In some detectors, it’s just companies chasing the latest marketing catchword. Multifrequency is only as good as the way it is implemented, otherwise we’d all have been swinging White’s DFX ages ago. It’s not enough to make a SMF detector, it also has to have genuine performance advantages. About the only given is that any multifrequency machine will outperform a single frequency on a saltwater beach. The rest, however, is very much up in the air.
      For some detailed explanation of the technology, and a history of past selectable and simultaneous multifrequency detectors, see my write up on Selectable Frequency And Multiple Frequency
      Where it all started, Fisher CZ-6 and Minelab Sovereign, both released in 1991. I think Fisher wins claim to being first, since Minelab takes a swipe at them in their Sovereign introduction. Notice how the misdirection on transmitted versus received and processed started on day one. 

      Fisher CZ-6 Quicksilver. The technology: Dual frequency Fourier Domain Signal Analysis. Patented state-of-the-art analog/digital electronics transmit two VLF signals (one 5 kHz, one at 15 kHz) deep into mineralized soil. The receiver circuitry had two ground compensated target signals to analyze, compare and identify. The result? Deeper targets, more accurate target identification. Wet sand is no problem for the CZ-6, it compensates for salt and ground mineralization simultaneously! Source Fisher CZ-6 Datasheet
       
       

      "The Sovereign" is the first of the latest generation of metal detectors from Minelab featuring Minelab's new technology called Broad Band Spectrum or BBS for short. This revolutionary new technology which is unique to Minelab has already been awarded patents in the USA, Canada and Australia and has several pending. Unlike other metal detectors which operate at just one frequency, or even the "newest" two frequency machines, "The Sovereign" actually transmits over a wide spectrum of frequencies. The resulting signal that is received from a target buried in the ground is processed by a microprocessor that removes interference caused by ground mineralization which limits the depth at which targets can be found, and often results in inaccurate target identification. The remaining signal can then be analysed to determine the actual composition of targets even if they are deeply buried, or if the ground is mineralized or salt water is present. Thus it is the only detector that can simultaneously reject both salt and mineralization while at the same time accurately discriminating the target, making it ideal for black sand beaches and many desert areas. In many areas that are highly mineralized and have been heavily searched in the past, "The Sovereign" will prove that many of the valuable targets are still there waiting for a Treasure Hunter with the proper detector to locate them. Source Minelab Sovereign Instruction Manual
    • By mh9162013
      I love coinshooting, and I'm often in my local parks or private permissions searching for clad and silver coins. But I noticed that when digging up shallow clad coins (3 inches or less), my AT Max with the stock coil would say the coin is 6 inches down. Sometimes, a surface coin would read at being 4 inches deep. I didn't think this was that big of a deal, b/c I could always pull out my F-Pulse and see if the assumed coin target was truly shallow or not. Also, the incorrect depth reading wasn't keeping me from digging a desired target.
      Tonight, I read:
       and
      http://www.fisherlab.com/hobby/davejohnson/SearchcoilfieldshapeApril2012.pdf
      Both of these mentioned anomolies or issues with DD coils and shallow targets. Is what I'm experiencing with my shallow coins and AT Max one of these anomolies? Or is there something else going on?
×
×
  • Create New...