Minelab Responds To Critical You-tuber

[strick]

I don't usually post and run but I don't have time to look at the video...got to get off to work...I'll check it out tonight. 

strick 

 

 

 

[GB_Amateur]

Here's the 'Minelab' video referred to in the above video.  It's not new to those of us following the announcement from its early days as it's just one of several videos made on the 'European Tour' in September, highlighting engineer Mark Lawrie's knowledge of the new detector.

[dsb]

I saw that yesterday Strick.  Seems Merrill, "NYC" put out a youtube "Minelab lied", something about the 50% more power claim.  Mark Lawrie from Minelab contacted him and merrell took it down on his own he say's.  Now i guess after they talked about the claim NYC (Merrell) is going to put another out about the subject with some answers to manticore capabilities. Interesting in just minelab responding much less commenting on something like this.  "Minelab Lied"  was sure to get a reaction and Lawrie being the spokesman at the time I'm sure didn't appreciate it either. 

[dsb]

OK that is the new one with response.  Basically 50% more power to the coil as stated in Minelab YT's before release.  

[TampaBayBrad]

Here's Dankowski's reply the other day when asked about the power claim:

"

Question for Tom.
On one of the Faceache groups I visit there is a guy stating that the 50% increase in power of the Manticore is false.
According to him the FCC have a limit on transmit power of a metal detector, whereas I was under the impression there is no FCC limit any longer, I’m sure Troy Galloway confirmed this when he came to the UK to hunt with me several years ago.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2023 05:31PM by Dino- UK.

Reply Quote

NASA-Tom

Re: MINELAB MANTICORE: DATA & PERFORMANCE
February 01, 2023 03:02AMRegistered: 16 years ago
Posts: 9,650

Dino........ yes...... the Manticore does XMT much more power; yet, still within guidelines/limits.,.,.,.,., and on a International basis."

 

Then another poster went on to explain that the FCC limit of 1 watt that Merrill's video talks about pertains to certain radio devices. Metal detectors are not under that category. 

[CPT_GhostLight]

Well Merrill just gave the Youtubers the formula for viral videos. Just make extreme claims while providing anecdotal proof. I enjoy his videos and he is very humorous guy, but this is what got him his first viral video and all because he does not understand the difference between magnetic field transmission and radio frequency transmission.

Minelab marketing, however, set themselves up for disputes by not providing clearer explanations for that claim.

Mark Lawrie's inserted response video from the autumn press tour does clearly state that 50% power does not mean 50% more depth and that it can mean 2-3 cm depth increase depending on all the usual conditions, but Minelab has always been cagey with specific information most likely for business reasons. However, they should expect people to be curious about such a marketing claim without specific explanations attached.

[GB_Amateur]

This is the kind of in-your-face BS that goes on today, and many people seem to accept it.  Merrill (sp?) knows nothing about the FCC specs, and admits in this retract video that he doesn't even know what the abreviation on the units of the spec represent!  Lawrie's Youtube video where he explains the 50% increase has been out there 4 months.  I saw it shortly after it was put up.  The guy (i.e. Merrill) apparently teaches computer technology -- fine.  But does he ask students to do homework because he sure as hell didn't do his.  Uh, let's see, there's this new thing called the 'Internet' and you can search and quickly find tons of stuff on about any topic you want, including this one.  Suggestion for Mr. computer tech instructor -- use it!

BTW, in the video strick linked there is a response from Lawrie that explains how and why the FCC spec was quoted and complied with.  And, yes, the detector must comply with the spec and it does, and it's not bumping into the limit.  (See the vid.)

For Lawrie's example of 30 cm increasing by 2 to 3 cm (in the video I linked) from the 50% more power to the coil, refer to this post and thread where a 1.07 theoretical depth factor based upon 50% more power to the coil was discussed.  An improvement of 0.07 (7%) on 30 cm is 2 cm.  No marketing mumbo jumbo, no handwaving, just high school math.

[TampaBayBrad]

24 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

 

For Lawrie's example of 30 cm increasing by 2 to 3 cm (in the video I linked) from the 50% more power to the coil,

I think he was speaking of maximum depth there for larger targets? But.....

He also stated just after that sentence around 23:05 in the video that small targets like earing/small jewelry get "quite a bit more depth".

So....there is a reason for "more power".

They didn't just increase the battery size to give more power and extra expense and weight for no reason.

[TampaBayBrad]

I don't like the way the guy chose to edit his new video trying to explain what Mark explained to him what facts were wrong with his original video.

Why go to all this "Here's this part of the video from yesterday' and then insert a rambling interpretation of what you think Mark said.

Just say "This is what I said yesterday and this is what Mark had to say about that."

So much easier than muddying the waters on what was wrong about your original video and what you now know is correct after talking/corresponding with Mark.

 

[King-Of-Bling]

4 hours ago, TampaBayBrad said:

I don't like the way the guy chose to edit his new video trying to explain what Mark explained to him what facts were wrong with his original video.

Why go to all this "Here's this part of the video from yesterday' and then insert a rambling interpretation of what you think Mark said.

Just say "This is what I said yesterday and this is what Mark had to say about that."

So much easier than muddying the waters on what was wrong about your original video and what you now know is correct after talking/corresponding with Mark.

 

I agree on this one. I usually like his videos. Except for some of his sound effects and comedic bits he sometimes throws in. These were a bit strange. But I do give him credit for getting a response/reply from ML. Nobody else seems to get a reaction. Better than that other guy , who I just don't watch anymore.