Hi all, can anyone advise if the Coil cable attachment to the SDC is the same as GPX 5 pin standard? I noticed that Coiltec have a accessory pack to adapt to the SDC 2300 shaft then use a Coiltec coil instead of the supplied unit.
I have old coils that I would like to try out.
Wondering what effect using another manufacturers coil would do to the product warranty also, cheers sturt
By South Padre Treasure
Good Morning Treasure Detectives,
My wife was kind enough to purchase for me a New Open Box GPX 4500, for putting up with her for 29 years. Not exactly her version of this story. June 29 will be 29 years, where did the time go.
Back to subject, it came with the mono and double d coils, but need advise on what coil that is waterproof would be good for saltwater beach. Thinking 15" or about similar size. I have used my Simi Eliptical Mono Commander on my TDI and got great results in wet sand area. but did not put under water, because its only water resistant not proof. I would like to be able to use in wading depth. Yes I know expensive machine for being around water. I have waterproofed my TDI SL and will waterproof the GPX as well. need the extra depth. Didn't know they would be releasing the AQ so soon. would have told wife to wait. I thought the AQ was a year down the road. Maybe on our 30th anniversary. Right now have to use what I have. Moderate mineralization beach looking for jewelry size targets.
Any help would be greatly appreciated, Happy Hunting and Stay Safe and Healthy to all!
I figured I should post this here as I posted the information elsewhere on the forum that's less relevant than here.
Our extremely innovative Russian friends have managed to make a range of aftermarket coils for the Equinox, they remove the security chip out of your coil, reseal your coil and give you an adapter which then allows you to run aftermarket coils. They make a range of sizes too. My pick of the bunch would be the 9.5x5.5!
That's the range of sizes and pricing in Russian currency.
You can find out more about it here on these Russian forums, you'll have to use Google translate or something similar to read it.
And videos from them about the coils
and lucky last 🙂
When nobody can do it, the Russians do and they do it well.
By Rick N. MI
That is 1/4" half round plastic on the edge of the coil. It is on with double sided tape so can be removed. The added weight isn't noticeable.
It swept in the water easier. On my Gold Kruzer the coils are thicker a 1/2". I added 1/2" half round and it was noticeably easier to sweep in the water.
Now I'm just waiting for my T2 rod for the Nox. It's going to be nice.
With the official announcement on May 15 of the (hopefully) mid-summer release of the Garrett Apex there was considerable discussion of the (only) stock coil planned for release and its affects on depth. Within that discussion Chase gave me incentive to do some testing. This post is a result of that, but since I think my testing is applicable to more than just the Garrett Apex I'm creating this post in the general DetectorProspector forum.
The gist of the topic there was how much compromise the 6" (wide) X 11" (tall/high - my choice of word) Apex stock would have on depth. As I mentioned I have quite a few coils for each of my detectors, but subsequently I realized there was one detector (Fisher Gold Bug Pro) and coil combinations (5" DD round and 5" X 10" DD elliptical) which would best address this issue. (I also have some other options -- White's TDI SPP and Minelab X-Terra 705 -- but those are a bit less ideal as will be discussed later. Since I have two other coils for the GB Pro I decided to include those for completeness although they add more variables/concerns and thus don't fit quite as neatly as the other two.
I initally started with my variable depth test stand which allows me to vary the depth of small targets in 1/2 inch increments from ~ 1" down to 12" depth in the ground. However, in the midst of that part of the study I realized that I have some (likely iron) trash targets in the field-of-view which compromise the tones/measurements. Fortunately I also have two cleanly placed buried coins -- a copper alloy Lincoln Memorial USA penny buried at 5" depth and a Jefferson nickel alloy 5 cent piece at 6 inch depth. Neither of these currently suffers from nearby trash targets. I subsequently altered my study to use those targets for the coil performance tests. Unfortunately these also aren't ideal since under the conditions of testing they are too shallow to determine in-ground depth limits. What I did as a hybrid compromise is to carefully (i.e. measurably, with shims) raise the coil above the ground until the signal disappeared. For a second (more/less confirmation) test, and one that should be easily repeatable by anyone with the same/similar detector and coils, was to then perform a standard air test.
Let's start with the conditions of the tests:
1) Ground conditions -- moist ground (we've had a typical wet Spring season), Fe3O4 mineralization measure of 2.5 bars on both the Fisher Gold Bug and Fisher F75 (2.5 meaning that about half the time I see 2 bars and half the time 3 bars).
2) Gold Bug Pro running in "all metal" ("motion all metal" in USA terminology which I like to call minimally filtered), max gain, threshold at 11 (which is about where Kevin Hoagland calls "mosquito buzzing in your ear"), no headphones (so detector's speaker).
3) My precision for "depth" is 1/2 inch. That coincidentally was the height of the shims I used in the hybrid test and also my ability to control the hand-held coin distance in the air test.
4) My determination of (maximum) depth limit was simple. I increased the depth until I thought I could barely detect an audio signal. I then decreased the target-->detector distance by 1/2 inch and required that I subsequently heard a clear signal. If not I reduced the depth/distance and repeated.
Here are the raw data results. I'll explain the meaning of the columns shortly.
You can see the four coils I tested. The first three are all Fisher manufactured and the last is the NEL Tornado. Rather than to use the nominal product quoted dimensions ('dim' short for 'dimension' in the column headings) I actually measured the coils and interpolated to account for the fact that a coil doesn't typically have a single extent but rather is a bundle, and further that the bundle obviously fits inside the housing. For the closed coils this is obviously more vague but in those cases I just used half an inch less than the housing dimension. An addition oddity is that DD coils aren't really simple ellipses but some overlap of two independent elliptical coils. 'geom mu' is the geometric mean of the two just determined transverse dimensions -- more specifically the square root of their product. Hopefully you'll see later why I calculated that quantity. It's not really relevant for the main conclusions I draw. The last two columns are the actual distances between the target and coil for the limiting distance (see item 4 above). In the case of the air test that is obvious. In the 'part ground' test that is the sum of the depth of the coin in the ground and the height of the coil above the ground for both coins.
At this point I think it's worth discussing some caveats/assumptions/limitations of this test. Then if you've stayed with me I'll go a bit farther and hypothesize on how to use these data to draw conclusions for other coils.
1) Although I chose a detector/coils combination that was as consistent as I could be (same manufacturer and same 'width' coil), it has been discussed on this forum previously (sorry, no link) that the quality control of coil manufacture is a difficult task. It's certainly possible, although not necessarily likely, that my 5" x 10" elliptical coil is a high end tail performer among its peers and/or my 5" round is a low end performer.
2) With any measurement, there are in particular systematic errors and biases. I can't "double blind" my method. That is, I do know which coil I'm testing at a given time and if I have a prejudice for or against a certain coil that could show up in the results. Also, statistical uncertainties (more succinctly, how repeatable are my data) can contribute to errors.
It is worth pointing out that swinging the heavy NEL 15" coil effectivly makes taking in-ground measurements with it difficult. As a result I was unable to confidently get a max depth reading for the penny using that coil, which is why that cell is blank. No problem with air tests because there, as is standard (?) I mounted the detector in a stationary horizontal position and just 'swung' the targets to determine the (max) limit distances.
Again, it's really the 5" round DD and 5" x 10" elliptical DD that are most relevant. The others are include for information purposes but also to add to the plots I show later. As you can see, in these tests there is a clear and significant advantage for the 5" x 10" elliptical over the 5" round in both the hybrid test and in the air test.
OK, I now go a bit deeper. Is there a mathematical relationship which can predict coil depth performance if I know the coil dimensions? Compared to above this is another leap into the unknown with additional uncertainties. However, here are a couple plots which seem to indicate relationships between the potential maximum detectable depth and the geometric mean of the coils width and height dimensions.
(Sorry for the confusion but the Blue dots in both plots are for the 1 cent piece and the red dots are for the 5 cent piece.) It's better to look first at the 2nd plot -- air test. There appears to be nearly linear relationship between max depth and the geometric mean of the coil's dimensions, although it appears to trail off with the large (NEL) coil. Superimpose upon that the effects of ground noise and you see a further deterioration both in absolute depth and also in the trend which is shown in the first plot. Simply put, it is well known that mineralized ground, even moderately mineralized as in my back yard, negatively affects attainable depth. The larger the coil, the more ground it "sees", and thus the more ground interferes with performance.
I'll finish by pointing out that this isn't the first study I've made. Back 3 years ago when DetectorProspector member Karelian made detailed measurements of a large collection of mono coils on a White's TDI in both ground and air, I noticed the depth vs. geometric mean relationship. However, without a theoretical (physics/engineering) reason to expect this relationship, at this point it's merely a convenient correlation. Karelian's data are further muddied by the fact that the coils studied have many manufacturers: Coiltek, White's, Miner John, Nugget Finder, Minelab,... I could show those results but I think I'll await the reactions to the above. I can also do more tests (e.g. with the X-Terra although there is not clean comparison of round vs. eliptical coils with the same width, at least in my collection) or repeat these. I await your posted reactions (including yawns 😁).