Jump to content

How Does The 15x12'' Equinox Coil Compare To The 15'' Coiltek Coil?


Recommended Posts

I found my only silver dollar with the  15'' wot coil on my explorer.It was 10  '' down   but sounded like a 5'' zinc penny  except  it hit in the upper right hand corner of the screen in  ferrous.It was a solid hit at that depth with that coil.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I spent a few hours yesterday with some Mano a Mano testing on the ML15 and the CT15.  

Disclaimer:  This is what I observed in my testing, my ground, my occasional surmising, and feedback from the targets I marked.  Your results will most definitely vary.  I am not a scientist, nor an engineer... just a guy trying to find the best way to use the equipment I have.  I am also not trying to speak poorly of either coil - as both have merits.

I ran both coils with the exact setup - including noise cancel setting (it took me a few times to get the same setting though they were pretty close between the two) and pumping for the ground balance on the first coil - resulting in 0, then ensuring same on subsequent coils.  Park 1, 50 tones, Horseshoe, Recovery 6, F2=6, Sensitivity 20.  

I marked 10 targets with the ML, then followed the same path with the CT and marked any additional tones.  Then went through the process again starting with the CT and followed the same path with the ML marking any additional targets.  Targets ranged in depth, wanting to better understand the VID comparison at varying depths as well as the sheer depth from each coil. 

Unfortunately, nothing spectacular for the virtual finds table (I guess I need to tag along with Gerry to his silver fields :)), but I wasn't expecting anything but some results I could use on other locations.

Without diving into the details of each dig, what I found was:

  • Both coils have similar depth in my ground, which is also to say - neither coil is deeper than the other - at least in the targets I tested.  I found the audio feedback to be very similar on deep targets.  One specific target was a piece of smashed copper tubing that was 15" deep (I'm lucky this ground was conducive to digging), and gave me a similar faint-ish signal bouncing between 17 and 20 on both coils - (quarter for size reference):
  • 20210426_103221.thumb.jpg.0a3372ebb4fa0496bd9d66076103f050.jpg

 

  • I mentioned this in my earlier post - I am finding it more difficult to pinpoint the CT coil, as I don't think the hot spot is centered on the coil.. more testing needed.  But using the wiggle back method works, as long as there are no other targets under the coil (which is 3" wider than the ML obviously), especially on the deeper, more faint targets.  I have some initial ideas on how to approach pinpointing with the CT, having swept over the ML targets with it... but again, I need to do more testing to verify my thoughts.

 

  • ID's are somewhat equal on each coil with one exception noted - the CT coil seems to false on rusty iron more than the ML.  Again, this was one test run, however in my test method listed above, I found 4 additional targets with the CT following the same ML path... all were repeatable (one way... which is the fall back to keep from digging iron I understand) and ended up being bent nails when dug - and this was in F2=6... if I was running F2=0, this may have been a different story - more testing needed.  When I started with the CT on fresh targets, the ML didn't find any additional targets, and 3 of the CT targets ID'd as iron with the ML.  One wheat seemed to hit a little harder on the ML (9"), but I was going by memory, and the swing path was most likely slightly off... so difficult to tell.  Both coils gave me the "dig" tone and id.

 

  • It should not go without mentioning (again) the weight of the CT coil is noticeably heavier than the ML.  I will most likely feel the effects of that if I were to spend a long day detecting with the CT.  I am also interested to see what it feels like in the water - hopefully a trip to the beach soon to test it out.  

So, my first test I was able to target a range of coins and trash at depths between 4" and 9" (plus the one dig down to 15"), both coils accurately ID'd the non-ferrous targets (I recovered several clad coins and a host of copper pennies - including 4 wheats, no silver on this hunt, several ring pulls and square tabs, along with some aluminum trash and 3 or 4 .22 brass casings). 

Again, one hunt, one guy, non-scientific, my opinions.  For my own edification, I will want to continue testing at different locations before I determine if there are any advantages for one over the other.  As I led out with - there are most likely merits on both - just want to identify where each of them fit in my hunting. 

~Tim

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Tiftaaft said:

I spent a few hours yesterday with some Mano a Mano testing on the ML15 and the CT15.

Excellent writeup, Tim.  I like the disclaimer (which, IMO, applies to everyone who does detector and accessory comparisons of any kind.)

When you flagged targets with each coil before following up to see what the other coil showed, did you only flag targets which showed (exclusively) non-ferrous tones?  If so, did either coil find a non-ferrous target that the other 'thought' was clearly ferrous?

I was curious about how the extra weight of the Coiltek Nox 15 would feel.  Obviously the impact will vary from one detectorist to another, but sounds like you clearly noticed it.  FWIW, I took the ML 12"x15" out for a 3 hour hunt yesterday.  I haven't used that coil much and at least one time in the past I thought that the weight was oppressive, but yesterday (on flat ground with fairly uniform length grass -- especially important) it didn't really bother me.  When leaving I took it across a slope and then it was quite noticeable.  Obviously everyone has his/her discomfort threshold for coil and detector weight, and in my case it seems to vary with time, and not in just one direction.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's an excellent test of large coils ...... Tim..👍:wink:

Which explains a lot ... I think both coils are quite similar in detection .. according to me 15 "Coiltek can have an edge on many larger objects ... maybe in buckle size ...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

When you flagged targets with each coil before following up with to see what the other coil showed, did you only flag targets which showed (exclusively) non-ferrous tones?  If so, did either coil find a non-ferrous target that the other 'thought' was clearly ferrous?

Thanks GBA.  I only targeted non-ferrous on this test... but good comment, marking targets on the ferrous side of the scale is another telling test.  I think that would be a good test running F2=0 as well.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, EL NINO77 said:

it's an excellent test of large coils ...... Tim..👍:wink:

Which explains a lot ... I think both coils are quite similar in detection .. according to me 15 "Coiltek can have an edge on many larger objects ... maybe in buckle size ...

Thanks El Nino!  For future tests and hunts I will try to get more adept at running my GoPro.  Interesting thought on larger items... I'll pay attention to that when I have them out again.  ~Tim.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tiftaaft said:

I only targeted non-ferrous on this test... but good comment testing on the ferrous side of the scale is another telling test.

I actually wasn't suggesting you dig purely ferrous sounding targets (but it's your time :biggrin:).  If I understood your post, three targets that the Coiltek 15" round indicated having non-ferrous possibilities but that the Eqx 12"x15" showed ferrous only tones all turned out to be ferrous.  If so, could that be either due to coil control or pinpointing accuracy (related properties)?  And did the extra weight of the Coiltek contribute to those (in a negative way)?  Three targets is a very small sample so I'm not suggesting we put much stock in these data.  More testing (and not just by you) will hopefully either clarify and possibly even refute.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

I actually wasn't suggesting you dig purely ferrous sounding targets (but it's your time :biggrin:).  If I understood your post, three targets that the Coiltek 15" round indicated having non-ferrous possibilities but that the Eqx 12"x15" showed ferrous only tones all turned out to be ferrous.  If so, could that be either due to coil control or pinpointing accuracy (related properties)?  And did the extra weight of the Coiltek contribute to those (in a negative way)?  Three targets is a very small sample so I'm not suggesting we put much stock in these data.  More testing (and not just by you) will hopefully either clarify and possibly even refute.

Hey, sometimes a day of digging iron is what the ground gives you! (I have the rusty horseshoe and railroad spike from last week to prove it) 😄  

I agree, the sample size is too small to use as empirical data.  I hope I am wrong (most likely I am) as falsing on iron probably was well vetted by the CT team.

I was thinking that throwing in a few deep iron signals on each "pass" could identify how each coil treats a deep non-ferrous item is a good suggestion you made, especially if one ID'd as ferrous and the other as non-ferrous or vice-versa.  Of course there are always the variables of approach angle, swing angle, swing speed, and other man-made (at least this man) inconsistencies from one path to the next.  I will say that I have spent a lot of time (probably at least half of my total swing time) with the ML15 on the 800 since purchasing it... I know that machine and coil as well as any I have.  The CT "feels" different... just trying to figure out how to use that to my advantage.  👍

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tiftaaft said:

I spent a few hours yesterday with some Mano a Mano testing on the ML15 and the CT15

Thanks a million for the excellent feedback Tim.. I really appreciate it.. As I said I've been hesitating on buying the CT but from what you and others are reporting I get the feeling that it could provide a depth advantage, especially on the beach.. This is ultimately what I'm after on a patch I've called the 'Silver Mine' where the ML is getting as deep as it can possibly go and there could be more silver coins lurking below.. Again, thank you for your help in making up my mind..   

  • Like 2
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 Dances With Doves
      They      have the coil molds for a 9'' coil from the X-terra  which is a  waterproof coil and  one that I never broke the ears off.I have all 3 of the 9'' concentric coils for the X-terra and liked the 18kz  the best because it was good on gold.Maybe this machine is like the T2 and can't handle a  concentric coil.They also have a 6'' coil  mold which would be nice for small gold if this machine could use a concentric coil.Could a concentric make this machine even better in iron?
    • By mn90403
      I own an Equinox 800.  I've had it as one of the first ones in the United States and was the first one to find gold nuggets with it after Steve H who found his during testing.  I now have 6, 11 and 15 inch coils.  None of them has had a 'coil ear' problem.
      When the Equinox came out with this particular coil design I was very disappointed and knew it was only a matter of time before coil ears would break.  How did I know this?  It is because I had coil ears break on my 17" CTX 3030 many years ago.  At the time the ears broke I didn't even know what to call them.  I tried to heat and melt them back into position.  I tried every glue and epoxy and it would still re-break.
      I was on another forum at the time and some suggest an individual who made a 'yoke' out of space age rubber.  You see the problem with my ears was that they just did not flex enough to let me tighten the coil to keep it from flopping around.  The ears broke laterally just above the coil.
      The first yoke I received from the guy was not really very good.  It was designed to be glued on to the broken coil after you smoothed off the old ears.  A few months later the guy in New York sent me his next fix and it still works today.  You attach that yoke to the detector with plastic ties.  I haven't had any problems.  Maybe some of you have fixed your coils the same way.
       

    • By ColonelDan
      Coil ear bracing has been the subject of numerous posts so I thought I'd add my approach. Yes, I've used several different  designs of stiffeners and sad to say, my coil ears still cracked and I was out of business until I could replace the coil. Fortunately, those coils were still under warranty. My concern was finding a way to prevent this recurring after the warranty expired.

      The ultimate solution is, without doubt, for Minelab to field a redesigned coil ear that is a lot tougher than the current design. Failing that, the best approach in my opinion is to epoxy the stiffener to the coil making the stiffener, the coil and the ears one solid unit. Midalake has done this and as I see it, ensures a solid repair. My concern with this approach would be two fold. One, would that void whatever warranty remains and two, if the coil is sent to Minelab for replacement, there goes the stiffener.

      I wanted a method by which I could attach the stiffener to the coil, be able to remove it if necessary and still use the coil cover.

      mn90403 has done this as shown on another post within this forum by using zip ties. A workable approach but his method shows the zip ties over the coil cover so you couldn't remove the cover to clean the coil without cutting the ties. Having said that, his system will work as he intended.

      I thought I'd share my approach which I've found to be simple yet effective in accomplishing my goals. The key is making the ear stiffener one with the coil so even if the ears snap, the stiffener holds the coil and shaft in place. I decided to use zip ties but in a somewhat different way than mn90403. I wanted the stiffener to be solidly attached and still be able to remove and replace the skid plate.

      I threaded the zip tie through and around the stiffener and bare coil without the skid plate attached. I then installed the skid plate over the coil as before covering the zip ties. The skid plate remains in place, the stiffener is solidly attached to the coil and there is no modification to the coil which risks voiding the warranty and if I have to return the coil, I can save the stiffener. Bottom line; with this approach, even if the ears break, I'm still in business.

      It works for me....
    • By karelian
      I had one coil that had a cable that was badly sun burnt and brittle. A bit of heat shrink and tape fixed it, but looked nasty. The Snake Skinz covered the mess nicely. Looks like a useful solution to a common problem. Probably will fit most coils, certaily good camo for repairs. All the best.
       
    • By F350Platinum
      FWIW, I notice Serious Detecting is showing the Coiltek 10x5 NOX as in stock this morning. $235. 
      https://www.seriousdetecting.com/product/coiltek-10-x-5-dd-search-coil-for-minelab-equinox-600-800-metal-detector/
    • By water spider
      is it possible? something beyond the norm and what we are used too. could coils be more than the type of coil they are now? could they play a greater role with advanced tech?
       
×
×
  • Create New...