Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

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.

qed-gold-prospecting-metal-detector.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an old subject here Reg.

http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/2690-finally-the-qed-arrives/

http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/3022-qed-review/

Just to let you know I am well versed on all the goings on surrounding the QED on other forums. I certainly welcome any first hand knowledge you may have to add to the situation as relates to the performance of the machine. I am totally disinterested in all the drama surrounding the detector however. It is just a metal detector. People here are interested in it first hand knowledge of how it performs, but that is all.

Please read this post also http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/3096-hi-everyone/?do=findComment&comment=34661

And with all that, welcome to the forum. Your finds are legendary! I am sure people here would enjoy some tales of early day detecting in Australia if you care to offer some.

QED Draft Owners Manual

qed-gold-prospecting-metal-detector-controls.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumor has it the QED lacks FCC approval for sales in the United States. If true, it vastly reduces the interest at this time in the machine for the U.S. members of the forum, although the Australian members may be interested. Does anyone have any information regarding that subject? Is such approval even being sought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, I come here as a victim, not as a perpetrator. As one of the first testers for this machine, I was and still am uninterested in the childish politics involved. My only interest is that of a long term prospector, and one time tester for Minelab, in the advancement of metal detector technology, and in particular the ergonomics, as for me at my age a light and comfortable machine is more important than it used to be.

I have no financial interest what so ever in the QED, I just wish to see a good product get a fair evaluation without being persecuted by others with agendas. There are an increasing number of QED users in Australia who have found it to be most impressive, as have I,

               Thanks, Reg.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Reg,

Yes, and please do not take my commentary as a passing of judgement or a taking of sides. Frankly, from my perspective here the drama over the QED is much to do over nothing. We discuss new detectors here all the time. I also evaluate machines for companies and right now am playing around with the Nokta Impact. The QED is just another one of many new detectors and all the importance attached to it on the Oz forums is totally lacking here. It is, as I say, just a metal detector. People may as well get up in arms talking about the latest shovel. Most detectors serve a purpose for some people at some budget level. The goal is to sort it out.

That said I was not kidding when I said I know you have a long history prospecting and finding gold in Australia. Success finding gold is really all I care about, no matter who or where or with what. Any write up you want to present on the QED from personal perspective is welcome. I always strive to highlight what machines are good at and what they are not good at. I abhor detector wars and trying to prove this one is better than that one and all that nonsense. Let's just figure out what the QED may be useful for and who it may interest. The goal here is simply to help people get answers from people who may have those answers. Since you have used the QED I am sure some people may have questions that you can help them with.

And anyone that can help others is welcome here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi just wondering how many units have been sold in Australia.

I see a used one for sale on prospecting Australia website. I'm not sure but if someone frim USA or Canada purchased that one privately and being a second hand/used detector would that unit have to comply with FCC approval or would it only apply to commercially distributed production model imported into the states by a approved distributor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I surely am no expert but I would think FCC rules are about manufacturers selling new product into markets. I doubt anyone is running around checking used metal detectors. I know a lot of guys are buying all kinds of foreign made detectors and bringing them into the U.S. so I have my doubts even oddball new purchases made from overseas get checked. More like something that would be an issue to import and do sales directly via dealers in the U.S.

If anyone knows more on the subject though......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I was thinking that if anyone from the USA wanted one now then buying a second hand one from Australia may be the way to go at this stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not at the price of that one on GPA...swap for a new model 4500 in excellent condition

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/laboratory-division/general/equipment-authorization

"Radio Frequency (RF) devices are required to be properly authorized under 47 CFR Part 2 prior to being marketed or imported into the United States. "

There is no FCC Compliance statement in the manual or on the detector which I believe is required once authorised as compliant for selling into the US. It passed the Australian version which is just as stringent, if not moreso, so it would most likely just be a matter of compliance testing, payment & authorisation?

Doug of AEGPF stated on a thread on that forum something along the lines of it would be a long time before overseas sales were explored. Used might be the short term option?

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By phrunt
      Great news for all the QED owners, it was announced today the QED has been updated with new ground balance firmware along with support for DD and CC coils like the new Concentric coils from Detech that have just been released.
      Here is the official announcement from Howard, the God of the QED.
      Interfacion Pty Ltd is pleased to announce that the QED has been modified to allow the use of DD (double D) and CC (Concentric Coplanar) coils. This change involves a simple change to the electronics within the control box.
      The firmware has also been upgraded to include a further improved Ground Balance.
      All detectors being delivered to new customers from Monday 5th August 2019 will already have the above upgrades included.
      As a show of commitment to all QED owners, the hardware modification to allow use of the DD and CC coils will be provided at no cost.
      Of course and as per the QED warranty, the firmware update is provided free of charge, except for P&H.
      Any QED owner who plans to attend the Laanecoorie Bash is encouraged to bring their detector along and have it upgraded at no cost.
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Awesome news, I'll be sending mine off ASAP. 
      You can find out more about the QED on their official website here http://www.qedmetaldetectors.com.au/
       
    • 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...