Jump to content

Recommended Posts

OK, here is that full but probably incomplete list:


Selectable Frequency

1989 Minelab Eureka Ace Dual            8    19.5 kHz

1993 Minelab XT 17000                6.4    32 kHz

1994 Compass X-200                6    14 khz

1997 Minelab XT 18000            6.4    20    60 kHz

1999 Minelab Golden Hawk        6.4    20    60 kHz

2002 Minelab Eureka Gold        6.4    20    60 kHz

2005 Minelab X-TERRA 50                7.5    18.75 kHz

2006 Minelab X-TERRA 70            3    7.5    18.75 kHz

2009 Minelab X-TERRA 305            7.5    18.75 kHz

2009 Minelab X-TERRA 505        3    7.5    18.75 kHz

2009 Minelab X-TERRA 705        3    7.5    18.75 kHz

2009 XP DEUS            4    8    12    18 kHz

2016 Rutus Alter 71        Variable 4 - 18 kHz

2017 Nokta Impact            5    14    20 kHz


Multi Frequency

1991 Fisher CZ-6            5 & 15 kHz

1991 Minelab Sovereign            BBS

1992 Fisher CZ-5            5 & 15 kHz

1993 Minelab Excalibur            BBS

1994 Minelab Sovereign XS        BBS

1995 Fisher CZ-20            5 & 15 kHz

1996 Fisher CZ-7            5 & 15 kHz

1998 Minelab Sovereign XS2/XS2 Pro    BBS

1998 Minelab Excalibur 800/1000        BBS

1998 Fisher CZ-7a/7a Pro        5 & 15 kHz

1999 Minelab Explorer S/XS        FBS

2000 Minelab Sovereign XS2a Pro        BBS

2001 White's Beach Hunter ID        3 & 15 kHz

2001 Fisher CZ-70 Pro            5 & 15 kHz

2001 White's DFX            3 kHz & 15 kHz (Simulates single frequency by ignoring half the dual frequency signal)

2002 Minelab Sovereign Elite        BBS

2003 Minelab Explorer II        FBS

2004 Minelab Quattro MP            FBS

2004 Fisher CZ-3D            5 & 15 kHz

2005 Minelab Sovereign GT        BBS

2006 Minelab Explorer SE        FBS

2008 Minelab Explorer SE Pro        FBS

2009 Fisher CZ-21            5 & 15 kHz

2012 Minelab CTX 3030            FBS2

Selectable Frequency or Multi Frequency

2009 White's Spectra Vision        2.5 Khz or 7.5 kHz or 22.5 kHz or all three at once

2017 Minelab Equinox                  5 kHz or 10 kHz or 15 kHz or 20 kHz or 40 kHz plus multi frequency options

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it AKA machines never get a mention at all? With their single frequency coils, frequency can be changed the same way as the X-Terra range. With their selectable frequency coils, they don't utilise harmonics to select frequency, in contrast they utilise a simple mechanical switch to increase or decrease the amount of windings used inside the coil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because for all intents and purposes AKA machines do not exist in the United States. I wrote the article, and I only mention what pops into my head. I know next to nothing about AKA and they are far enough off my personal radar that I simply did not think of them. Nothing nefarious, just the way it is. I will attempt to get more familiar with them and even add them to the list when I know more, but the bottom line is if they want attention in the U.S. they need to do more to get it. A few dealers and a service center is the first step. I may be just a local yokel but if I have to mail it out of the U.S. to get service than I am not interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article Steve, but wrong on the harmonic info. Switchable frequency machines switch to different fundamental frequencies, not harmonics of the base frequency. Most of them run sinusoidal transmitters so there are no harmonics, and they switch in different capacitors to do so.

Also, the DFX doesn't really run in single frequency mode. It always transmits/receives 2 frequencies, just ignores one of them in "single" mode.


  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

And by the way Ringmoney, feel free to start a thread on AKA and bring us up to speed. Like you asked, why does nobody mention AKA? That does include you also. I post stuff all the time just to be informative. There is no forum rule against others doing the same. I would welcome it!

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Geotech said:

Good article Steve, but wrong on the harmonic info. Switchable frequency machines switch to different fundamental frequencies, not harmonics of the base frequency. Most of them run sinusoidal transmitters so there are no harmonics, and they switch in different capacitors to do so.

Also, the DFX doesn't really run in single frequency mode. It always transmits/receives 2 frequencies, just ignores one of them in "single" mode.


OK, I need to edit that. Now that you point it out and I think about it, kind of obvious. If you are running at a single frequency there can be no harmonic in use.

Thanks Carl - I love learning stuff!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steve Herschbach said:

OK, I need to edit that. Now that you point it out and I think about it, kind of obvious. If you are running at a single frequency there can be no harmonic in use!

Well, it's more complicated than that. Instead of a sinusoid, you could run a square wave drive which generates a triangle wave current, which does have a fundamental and harmonics. This is exactly what a Fisher CZ does. A SF detector could demodulate only the fundamental (ignore the harmonics), and vary the square wave frequency to whatever it wants, the advantage of which no coil capacitor needs to be selected. The V3 does it this way (in SF mode), and I'd guess (but don't know) that the Alter 71 does it this way, too. But I expect most of the switchable frequency detectors on your list run sinusoidal transmitters.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

I try but there is a reason Carl why you design detectors and I just use them. I try to learn just enough to understand why the things I observe in the field happen the way they do, but my brain taps out after that. :smile: Luckily I stayed out of the whole harmonics thing in the magazine article.

I think my latest edit got it cleaned up - Thanks again.

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
  • Similar Content

    • By WhiteRabbit
      Hello, now here’s an opener that might just get me banned on my first post!
      Bear with me, my intentions are pure :)
      Does anyone know if it would be possible to jam an MD signal? The reason I ask is to combat the evident problem we have in the UK with “nighthawks”, illegal detectorists.
      Over here, any landowner can grant permission for detecting on their land (with caveats, known historic sites are protected by law). What often happens is that such a permission is granted and a detectorist innocently sets about his / her business. Someone less scrupulous spots this person and assumes there may be something important there, so shows up at night with a couple of friends and the landowner awakens to a field / lawn full of holes, then bans metal detecting.
      Historic sites are also looted.
      Just an off the wall question, how tricky would it be to build a device to block this on a piece of land? Anyone any ideas?
    • By ColonelDan
      99% of my detecting is done on central Florida beaches. Since it’s impossible to establish a well stocked test garden at a public beach, I sorta brought the beach home with me and developed my own private beach garden!
      I cut slots in two large empty chlorine tablet buckets at various depths as shown from 2 -16 inches. I then filled one with New Smyrna Beach sand and the other with soil...for the few times I land hunt around here.

      I embedded numerous examples of ferrous and non ferrous targets into paint stirring sticks. I also have several blank sticks I use for gold and silver jewelry as well as artifacts that I don’t want permanently attached to a stick.

      I then insert the target(s) in the slots, each at its desired depth, and start scanning.

      This allows me to rapidly change the targets, depth and relative position of each.  I can now test for sensitivity at depth as well as separation of ferrous and non-ferrous targets in a variety of scenarios using actual beach sand where I do my detecting.
      If I want to test in wet salt sand, I just soak the bucket sand with authentic sea water that I also brought home from New Smyrna Beach...and the Atlantic Ocean never even missed it.  😉
      Works for me.....
    • By Steve Herschbach
      I always have my ears perked up for something new in metal detectors and metal detecting technology. I’m not educated enough to really get deep into the technical side of it, but I have a general layman's knowledge of the subject.

      A couple years ago Carl Moreland, the Engineering Manager for White's Electronics, was interviewed on a radio show. I tripped over a reference to the interview on another forum and checked it out. It is very long, and near the end Carl dropped a bombshell. At least I thought so, but it went unnoticed and uncommented on in the metal detecting online world. I thought about posting it on a forum back then but decided to wait and see what developed. Here is the applicable portion of the interview:

      Relic Roundup Radio Show, January 17, 2012, Interview with Carl Moreland, Engineering Manager, White’s Electronics

      Transcript beginning at 50:57 mark:

      Carl Moreland - “I can mention one technology that we’re working on because the patent has already been published… or the application, not the patent hasn't gone through yet. We’re working on something called half sine technology, which has actually been around since the 1960’s in geophysical prospecting applications. This is where instead of transmitting a sinusoidal signal you actually just transmit half of the sine and you can do that at extremely high voltages and high ? rates and so on. It’s technically not pulse induction but it’s not VLF either and it is a time domain method. And with that we can get really good depth and we can even get target id information and do discrimination and so forth.”

      Can you see why I perked up at that? I am still amazed it did not get any notice at the time. Nothing happened for a long time. Then I got this PM from Rick Kempf recently:

      Sent 29 January 2014 - 09:04 AM

      Was looking for info on my new SD 2100 this AM when I sort of fell down a rabbit hole of old forum posts and emerged reading Whites new patent. About the first thing I noticed was that you were cited in "prior art".

      Here's what they cited: http://www.voy.com/76600/7/475.html

      The patent is here: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110316541

      Is this something you knew about? Just wondering.

      Rick Kempf

      I told Rick, yeah, heard about that. It was the patent finally being granted from the application Carl mentions in the interview. It was fun getting a mention in a patent though I think it was just the examiner studying up on the subject and finding my old post helpful in simplifying the subject.

      For a long time the Holy Grail in metal detecting has been something that combines the target identification of an Induction Balance (IB or more commonly known as VLF) detector with depth of a Pulse Induction (PI) detector. There have been many promises and false starts over the years, and that was one reason I kept the radio interview mention quiet the last couple years. Frankly, I had half forgot about it until Rick brought the patent being granted to my attention. Notice the title:

      Hybrid Induction Balance/Pulse Induction Metal Detector

      A new hybrid metal detector combines induction balance and pulse induction technologies. Target signals are generated from a transmitted wave that has both induction balance and pulse current inducing characteristics and uses pertinent sampling of the receive data. Combining the two data sources provides eddy current target identification while excluding ground permeability and remanence obscuration.

      Is it time to sing Hallelujah? Well, there is a big gap in between getting a patent and bringing a detector to market. Many patents get filed and you never even see something directly related to the patent. Maybe it looked good on paper but does not pan out well in reality for numerous reasons. So just because White's was granted this patent does not mean something is around the corner. However, they have been working on it for over two years already obviously. And it has been some time since White's put something new out. I do not count remakes of the MXT etc as new. So I think there is reason to be hopeful we may see something one of these days.

      John Earle is one of the unsung heros in the industry. He had a hand in many of the best products at Compass Electronics before moving over to White's after Compass went under. To this day I have never used a VLF that goes any deeper than my old Compass Gold Scanner Pro. John was one of the brains involved in that, as well as the White's Goldmaster 3, regarded by many as being the pinnacle of the analog development of that model line. I was fortunate to have met John at the factory some years ago. He is listed as the inventor on the new patent. Half sine technology is also mentioned in an earlier patent filed by White's, again with John listed as inventor at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7649356.pdf

      Looks like serious stuff brewing. Bruce Candy of Minelab makes mention of half sine technology in a patent application at http://patents.com/us-20130154649.html which makes me wonder about the new "Super Gold Detector" he is working on. But it is this most recent patent by White's that seems to put the finest point on it. Maybe the Holy Grail of detecting is soon to be a reality. The fact it is White's certainly gives me more hope than what we have seen in the past.
      Edit May 2015 - see also White's patent for Constant Current Metal Detector
    • By kac
      Found this patent that Whites filed and got a patent on in 2014 on a hybrid IB/PI machine.
      Curious if anyone heard anything about this. Maybe Garrett will take it on?
    • By NV-OR-ID-CAL-AU
      I know we have had some great advancements in VLF metal detector's over the recent past, but I am hoping that we can keep some of the older design features that seemed to work well. 
      My favorite new technological features being offered in VLF's are Multi-IQ and single frequencies options, fully programmable settings, waterproof, noise cancel, USB chargers, li-ion batteries, Bluetooth headphones, prospecting & coin/relic options, and lightweight. Really a great job by the inventors of these detectors.
      IMHO I hope we do not lose some of the past designs that worked well, such as the ergonomics of the balanced s rod that would separate in three places for backpacking, the hip mountable brain box, the detectors that would not fall over when put on a little bit of an uneven surface, the 6.5 inch elliptical concentric or double DD coils for great access in rocky areas, the 1/4 inch headphone jack, the spare interchangeable battery pack that takes regular batteries to serve as a back-up for the li-ion battery pack, and higher frequencies options.
      I would like to see what else had worked well with other detector user, seems like we are always buying aftermarket parts to retain some of these older features where possible. 
    • By schoolofhardNox
      Not sure where this belongs on the forum, (or if it even belongs here), but this seemed to be the best category to discuss this. Ever since information on the GPX 6000 started to trickle out, I had this nagging feeling something in detecting has changed for those of us who like the thrill of getting to know a new detector. I never would have envisioned the GPX line morphing into a simplified detector. After having the GPX 5000 for a bunch of years now, and using it for relic and beach hunting, I could not imagine relying on a machine that adjust everything for you. I get it that money talks, and when you are a publicly traded company, you go for profit first, and then deny it 😄 And now that there market has switched to an area that probably has very little experience with detectors, the GPX 5000 must have been daunting for them.  So they cater to that market. But I was hoping that a new GPX would fix some of the issues that the 5000 had. I was naive. Minelab has never kept the good parts of their previous machines and just added the the things that needed improvements. On the E trac, the best part of it was the depth it had in finding deep silver,  in long tones, multi. Also the bouncy numbers helped ID deep Indians. When the CTX came out, it lost some of that fluety tone and they tried to straighten out the numbers to a number 12 line. So a two dimensional screen that worked well was transformed into a 2 dimensional screen that bunched most targets on one line. The The EQ comes out and squashes out the numbers even further. So why I thought the 6000 would not do the same is beyond me. I guess I'm disappointing that the "trend" is to make machines where the manufacturer decides on how your machine is going to be set. I hope someone in my area gets a 6000 and is willing to bring it to the beach to compare settings on deep silver. If it wins, then I will eat my words. I know I will get some slack with people saying it's a gold machine, not a relic or beach machine, but to them I would say.... you should be worried when a company controls your ability to fine tune your machine. Thoughts?
  • Create New...