Jump to content

Early Minelab Testers Question??


Recommended Posts

So Im curious... with Makro/Nokta we saw a ton of You Tube videos on the Kruzer in various settings. Even Dilek posted on the machine on the forums before it came out.

Even the AT Max we say a little here and there on the unit.

Where was the early info on the Equinox? I know there was/is a "gag order" in place, and boy did they do a good job... not a word from anyone hardly! 

But when does the gag order lift? 1 year, 10 years Never? I'm interested in the "seasoned" testers that were able to use early models. These early thoughts to me are a real gem on what was changed, improved, altered. 

Any ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


That is not how things work. There are different types of “testers”. Most so-called testers are people given units that are basically completed. They are kind of a last minute check on things looking for bugs, and are commonly the people you see yakking it up about new detectors when they first come out since they are the first people to have detectors in hand. I have done this sort of thing myself.

Then there are the people that are working with engineering early on during the true product development phase. These people often never reveal themselves. If they do, they are usually bound by non-disclosure agreements that in general prevent them from revealing anything learned during that phase forever more. Every bit of what went on and how is proprietary information. No company publicizes this phase with only one exception I can think of ever - Nokta and the Impact via Tom Dankowskis released notes. That was a one off exception and even then may have been a detector mostly finished in all the important aspects. Anything else you ever thought you saw at any point was most assuredly of the first type described above.

Lest anyone think I am making all this up here is an excellent essay on the subject by Dave Johnson at First Texas - About Field Testing.

Long story short if that is what you are waiting for you will be waiting a very, very long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, if what you really want is a chronological running commentary of late term Equinox development and testing, you might want to look at the earlier posts in this forum that date back to late last year.  It was created by Steve in response to the unprecedented demand for the Equinox due to ML's marketing blitz and Steve, as one of the pre-release tester's posted as much as his NDA allowed. When he realized he was on to a potential game changer, he provided as much information as he could. In the process, this forum had posts that linked to a number of pre-release videos from testers leading up to product launch.  As a result, this forum gave people as much information as possible so folks could have a running start when the Equinox finally arrived. Take a look for yourself and dial back a few months to see what all the early fuss was about.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to thank Minelab for showing me the trust they did in allowing me wide latitude in creating this forum and running with the ball. It has been a genuine honor to have been involved in my own tiny way in this project. Thanks gents - you know who you are. :smile:

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone wanted they could write a manual for the equinox just be perusing this forum from as far back as Steve began writing about it. In terms of learned information, this forum has been a reliable, go to source for information on the use of the Equinox. Unlike other forums, the Equinox is discussed intellectually here and that's because Steve and a lot of the posters here are data driven folks and have left the emotional garbage for others. 

If you do some searching throughout the different forum topics you'll see it's a who's who of the detecting world that congregates here.  

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, even the host Steve admits he indeed may learn a thing or 2 from other Nox users.

He's not on some high horse pounding his chest about being a detectorist for so many decades and no one here can really offer him or anyone else any worthy thoughts or info for any detector model or the hobby in general.

Amazing.

None of this garbage here my stick is bigger than yours.

The Equinox is talked about for what it is nothing less, nothing more.

I truly think some folks, oh they read here alright as guests, but they also know if they come in here they will have to play by some rules.

Rules if they violate, the host here will send them packing and quick.

So romper room theatrics here, yeah have no place.

Now, I see folks here have disagreements.

And this is good.

But I don't see these disagreements as unhealthy where mutual respect goes by the wayside.

Yeah EQUINOX is good alright.  One reason why is Steve. One of the many players of seems like a successful team.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve fulfilled what a huge number of detectorists had been longing for; a gathering place that shared detailed information, a site that allowed disagreements as long as they stayed on point and stayed civil, an outpost for early information on new products and how to use them well and most of all an energetic moderator who had earned the right to lead this whacky bunch of people who love what they do. Now it's up to us not to screw it up, and so far it's been great.

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good gosh, there are many people who are better detectorists than I am! Seriously, I am no wizard. I basically cheat by putting in huge hours, talking about the good days, and forgetting to mention the bad! :smile: Good photographers don’t take perfect pictures every time. They take a zillion pictures and toss all but the best ten. That’s my secret to successful detecting. Hours, lots of them.

I like to think of myself as a student of metal detecting. The day I can’t learn from others is the day I die. A person simply asking a question I don’t know the answer to triggers my learning process. I don’t have all the answers - I just chase them down when people ask, and then we both learn something. My favorite line at work... “I don’t know, but I will find out and get back to you.” Pretty grand when you think about it. So thank you all - you help me in more ways than you know.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

I basically cheat by putting in huge hours... That’s my secret to successful detecting. Hours, lots of them.

I wouldn't call this 'cheating' -- just the opposite in fact.    From http://www.thomasedison.com/quotes.html here's a pertinent quote from Thomas Edison (he had many similar):  Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

For every successful person born with a skill that makes it look easy, there are thousands born without the knack but who become successful by brute force.  And note I qualified both types with 'successful'.  There are multiple times as many who aren't successful because they aren't willing to put in the hours of effort, and that includes most who were born with an edge.

 

  • Like 5
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 Steve Herschbach
      The whole depth with single frequency VLF detectors thing in my opinion has been nothing but a red herring for decades. I have read a thousand posts from people wanting VLF detectors with "more depth". Yet VLF detectors maxed out for usable depth by at least 1990 if not before. I have not used any single frequency VLF metal detector since 1990 that got more depth on coins than my old Compass Gold Scanner Pro.

      The only real improvement we have seen and are still seeing is in the ability to find and correctly identify items that are masked by the ground itself or adjacent undesirable targets. There are an amazing number of targets in the ground at depths achievable by any decent detector made in the last 25 years, but that are being missed because they are improperly identified and ignored, or just completely masked and invisible. This is an area where the Minelab BBS and FBS detectors have excelled. They do not go deeper. They simply get more accurate discrimination at depths exceeding what most detectors achieve. Machines like the DEUS and a lot of other Euro machines are excelling not for the depth they get, but this ability to acquire and accurately identify targets at shallower depths that are missed by other detectors.

      If we had a detector that could simply see through everything and accurately identify coins to 10" the ground would light up with countless missed finds. I get a chuckle out of all the deep coins I see people talk about on the forums when the best detectors made can't accurately identify a dime past 5-6 inches in my soil. Anything deeper just gets called ferrous. There is huge room for improvement in metal detectors still not by getting more depth, but by simply finding shallower targets that have been missed by other detectors made up until now.
      How To Make Yourself Crazy!
      U.S. Versus Euro Style Detectors
    • By Tony
      From what I can gather, higher frequency VLF detectors are more suited for smaller gold but ground mineralisation may be something to factor in. Would there be a “better” frequency for nuggets 1 gram and above in heavy ground?
      I’m not too concerned if I miss sub gram nuggets if there is a better suited frequency.
      The old Garrett Groundhog circuitry was legendary in this country…..I think it was around the 15 kHz mark. Is this frequency range a good starting point or do I need to consider other things such as better ground balancing capabilities or Garrett’s extra coil voltage. 
      My Minelab PI units will be mainstay detectors but as mentioned in another post, I have ground littered in man made iron junk and the ground mineralisation is severe. There are plenty of nuggets in the 1 gram to 5 gram range (maybe bigger) but the iron signals are as dense as 5 per square metre 🤬
       Thanks for any ideas.
       
    • By water spider
      maybe we could have a multi frequency coil, that recieves a single frequency or selectable single frequency and effectively distorts and amplifies the single frequency resulting in frequency variants up and down, mimicking or creating smf
    • By Skullgolddiver
      After the good new I realized when tested a few days ago my machine after It drowned and I've succesfully reanimated It....
      Now the horrible gasket Is fighting to stay out of the housing against any kind of attempt😒.
      So I'm in the middle of a headache manutention session with scarce results.
      That's the Mood guys😑
       

    • By Tnsharpshooter
      See NASA-Tom’s comments
      https://www.dankowskidetectors.com/discussions/read.php?2,181189
    • By Tnsharpshooter
      Don’t know any other better subforum to place this.
      When manufacturers design make sure platform can allow at least 2 software versions or at the very least allow what I call both newer version update (whole) and a older subset (portion of older version) to be used.  
      Why?
      Makes testing easier if and when a newer version is designed and requires pre release testing in the field for validation.   Would allow users after version release to use different versions and gain first hand feedback of the benefits or lack thereof of different versions or version subset(s).  Case in point.  Notice Minelab left old iron bias to be user selected when they released newer version with iron bias F2 option.  
      So in a nutshell this allows the detector versions ( or version subset) to be compared to the themselves in the field by the user.
      Xp should have done this too.  They should have designed Deus imo where at least  2 complete version allowed to be uploaded to unit.
      Notice the later released Ace Apex.  Garrett should have allowed on it too.  
      Don’t know what added production cost this would cause.  Hopefully not much.
       
×
×
  • Create New...