Mark Gillespie

Nice rings

On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 10:49 AM, Steve Herschbach said:

The why of it is simple - you are reading things into the careful gaps Minelab leaves in their advertising. I am not reading it the way you are, and so I am not offended because I do not feel I am being mislead. You are reading something else into it and feel unhappy because you feel you have been mislead somehow. It all boils down to debating perceptions of what you think the advertising means as compared to what is really going on under the hood. Since you don't 100% know what is going on under the hood, you just don't know.

All detectors are transmitting on at least one primary frequency and many harmonic frequencies. This can be determined with a scope and if you count harmonics it is just a matter of picking a number you want to advertise when it comes to transmitted frequencies. You have no idea how many are being processed unless you know the processing algorithms.

This back and forth with Minelab and the others has been going on for years. Garrett picked 96 frequencies for a Garrett Infinium ad as a direct poke at Minelab. How many people thought the machine was really transmitting and processing 96 frequencies based on the ad? It is all about transmitted because a PI detector does not receive and compare frequency information. Meaningless fluff, an industry insider joke.

Get your 96 frequency detector right here....

Garrett Infinium ad - 96 frequencies!

Carl Moreland weighed in with his frustration on another thread. White's even gave room over in the V3i manual, probably with Carl's input, to comment on the situation. From the White's V3i Owner's Manual, page 6:

"There is much confusion - some of it deliberate - over how many frequencies a detector actually uses, and whether multiple frequencies are truly better than a single frequency. What defines a multi-frequency detector? What do multiple frequencies really do for depth and discrimination?

A multi-frequency detector is defined as one that simultaneously—or, in automated sequence— transmits, receives, and processes more than one frequency. Some detectors have the ability to operate at one of several selectable frequencies, but they still are single frequency detectors because during operation they can only transmit and process a single frequency. The same is true of detectors that have a control to slightly vary their operating frequency to minimize interference; even though they have the ability to operate at many (slightly) different frequencies, they are fundamentally single frequency designs. Currently, all multi-frequency hobby detectors run their multiple frequencies simultaneously as opposed to sequentially; they are all characterized by having multiple processing channels in the receive circuitry. Therefore, a 2-frequency detector will have two processing channels. Spectra V3i has three independent processing channels; it is a true 3-frequency detector.

This all sounds easy, so where is the confusion? It turns out that (currently) all multi-frequency detectors create a transmit signal that is composed of digital waveforms which are designed to produce peak energies at the desired frequencies. As a side-effect, these digital waveforms also produce undesired harmonic frequencies. Lots and lots of harmonic frequencies, 10’s or even 100’s of them. These harmonics have no useful energy and are not part of the signal processing. So while we can claim to transmit many, many frequencies, we cannot claim to process or use them. Therefore, we could easily claim the Spectra V3i transmits 17 frequencies, or 28, or 39, or 55—we could get plain silly with this. And such a claim would be true, technically speaking, but since all those extra frequencies are not actually used, it would be misleading to make such a claim. White’s chooses, instead, to claim the number of frequencies we are actually using and processing. It may not sound as impressive as a 55-frequency detector, but it’s honest and accurate.

Pulse Induction (PI) detectors also utilize a digital (pulse) transmit waveform, so they transmit a tremendous number of harmonic frequencies as well. So is it fair to include pulse induction as a multifrequency technique? Not really, because PI detectors process in the time domain, not the frequency domain. So even though they use broad-band signals, they are not frequency-based detectors at all. Calling them “multi-frequency” is simply another attempt to confuse the consumer.

Once we get beyond the marketing hype, the real question is: What does multi-frequency do for depth and discrimination? The truth is, any time a detector is simultaneously transmitting more than one frequency, the transmit energy must be divided amongst the frequencies. Therefore, a single frequency detector can usually squeeze out slightly more depth than a multi-frequency design at that certain frequency. But this is an advantage only at one frequency, which tends to favor only a narrow range of targets."

 

These are old debates going back to Minelab BBS and it’s 17 transmitted frequency claim. I reference it all in my discussion at Selectable Frequency And Multiple Frequency

Anyway, interesting subject for armchair engineers and armchair attorneys. Hopefully you all get it sorted out while I am out metal detecting! 

This is another machine I've always wanted to try.

8 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

From everybody and everyone for decades. What I object to is this idea that Minelab is inherently evil and lies about everything while the rest of the companies get a pass. It gets tiresome. If the best the competition can do is rag on Minelab's advertising methods, well, it's not a good look either. Anyone who thinks this line of inquiry is being pushed purely by frustrated consumers is even more naive than those who think Minelab is going to explain to their competition proprietary details via advertising. I would rather see competitive hardware than counter information campaigns myself.

Oh, there is that cynic again.... 

The main thing for me is, will it outperform my present detectors.  The answer is yes, but my TDI in bad ground is still my trump card.  But that is not a fair comparison.

Awesome write up.?

That is an awesome piece of gold.  To me that is very valuable.

On 8/25/2018 at 11:49 PM, steveg said:

Hello all!

Based on requests from several folks who are curious, I went ahead and did some air testing with my new Minelab 6” coil, attached to my Equinox 800.  I wanted to give some idea of the relative capabilities of this coil as compared to the 11” coil.

While all the normal caveats of air testing apply – such as air-test results in no way mirror in-ground results, etc. etc. etc., I do think there is at least a little bit of value when doing side-by-side air testing of two different coils for comparison purposes.  Anyway, how much value exists in such a test is up to each individual to decide; I simply wanted to provide the data.  I also did a Youtube video, which I will post a link to as soon as it is done uploading.  In the video, I did NOT record the testing of all the coins; I ran only the silver Roosevelt dime in the video to show you, audibly, what quality of signal I listened for in order to call it a “hit.”  In other words, how repeatable of a signal I listened for before I assigned a depth value to that particular coin, with that particular coil.  The rest of the video is just some discussion of a few points regarding the coil, and the testing.

Anyway, here is the data…

Minelab Equinox 800

11” and 6” coils, air-test comparison, done indoors

Park 1 Mode

Sensitivity 18

Noise Cancel Channel 7

All-metal mode (horseshoe button engaged)

Ground Balance 0

Recovery Speed 4 (on the 800, equivalent to 2 on the 600)

Iron Bias 2 (on the 800, equivalent to 1 on the 600)

 

Here are the results:

 

After this “apples to apples” comparison, where I tested both coils using identical settings, I then re-tested a couple of coins (specifically the silver dime and the silver quarter) on the 6” coil, but this time bumping sensitivity to 22.  I found that I was able to run sensitivity about 3 points higher, as the 6” coil is (as expected) less affected by EMI.  Since “18” is a rather conservative sensitivity for a 6” coil, (but that is as high as I could go with the 11” in my indoor testing, and since I wanted to keep it “apples to apples”), I wanted to see how much depth gain I would get on the 6” coil if I bumped sensitivity up some.

 

Here are those results:

 

In summary, you can see that the 6” coil (at 18 sensitivity) loses roughly 1 ¾” depth on each coin, in an air test, as compared to the 11” coil.  You can also see that by bumping the sensitivity on the 6” coil up from 18 to 22, you “gain back” most of the loss of air-test depth, getting to within ½” to ¾” of depths achieved by the 11” coil, set at 18 sensitivity.  SO…while you DO lose depth with the 6” coil, as expected, you may – in a real-world scenario – be able to gain most of that depth back, due to being able to run it  at a higher sensitivity setting.  Overall, I am thus far impressed with the coil, and can’t wait to use it “in the field,” where I can begin to get a feel for its REAL value – its ability to separate, in trashy sites.

Steve

Wow,I wonder how it would compare to in ground targets.

Well I broke into my wife's jewelry box, not really, she dug out the gold bracelets and necklaces for me to test.  Sure enough they read anywhere from -1 to 3.  And stretching them out on the ground proved one thing, the equinox can detect the finer stuff.

To start with I have nothing to gain from either Minelab or 1st Texas by any statements mentioned in the following post.

Let’s take a moment and state the known facts:

Minelab has been in the business of developing and manufacturing metal detectors for 33+ years.

Minelab is a major competitor of 1st Texas metal detecting products.

They're several people on this forum, that are regular testers for 1st Texas products, who will jump at a chance to accuse their competitors for possible gain, which in turns causes damage to the competition.

Minelab has developed many new detecting technologies which has increase the demand for their detectors, as other companies.

With each new technologies developed, more and more hunted out sites come back to life, as other companies.

They strive to provide its customers with what they ask for, as do other companies.

They strive to improve on each machine release based on customer complaints and concerns, as do other companies.

They make good quality equipment, as do other companies.

Minelab employs some very bright and well educated engineers, as do other companies.

Now let’s explore any possible assumptions:

We are assuming that Minelab have purposely deceived the public with the Equinox’s claims of multi-frequency transmission, but multi merely means, more than one or at least two or more.

I must assume there is a lot going on in the internal signal processing of the Equinox that the general public will never know.

I must assume the engineers were not naive enough to believe, that if they tried to fool the public, someone would reveal their deceptive tactics.

Conclusion, my opinions:

Not sure scoping the output of the equinox is enough to come to the 2 frequency conclusion

The interaction of the system attached to the coil may be necessary to have a true picture of what is actually going on with the Equinox.

I have tested and tested the different program functions many times over and know for sure the Multi-IQ is better than any of the  single frequency choices on the Equinox.

It provides the most accurate ID of any single frequency machine I’ve owned.

Case in point.

I have many different coins buried in my test garden of 10+ years and will confess the Equinox is the only detector to accurately ID my deepest targets.

Hats off the Minelab for a job well done.

Mark Gillespie

A 13 on my Equinox, I thought for sure it was a nickel, very surprising.

All but two of the gold items are smaller in diameter and should ID below a nickel.

I've dug a lot of tabs in my life, I hate those things.  Imagine what it would be like if they were never invented???????????

Well after a length phone conversation with "Tinfoil" last night I might have programmed my range a little off.  Originally the gold range was 3-13 and the reason it was this range was, of all the rings I've found, all fell between those numbers with the exception of two wedding bands that rang up as 17 and 18.  Normally I dig quite of bit of pull tabs but wanting to cover more ground in hopes of finding a ring I limited the tabs I dug that day.  But during our talk he mentioned my range and then indicated that most chains might fall down to maybe a -2.  Jerry "Tinfoil" is one of the original ole timers to the forums and has a wealth of detecting knowledge that he has shared with me over the years.  Thinking more deeply, he is right as usual.

Awesome recovery

Very impressive rings to say the least.

Going back and checking all the gold rings I've found in the past 20 years I've fabricated my own Equinox program to attach the majority of the rings in one group of ID/audio signatures.  When I'm hunting for gold I never pass up a nickel because the majority of rings I've found read 12-13 on my Equinox.  I love that pile of nickels.  The Equinox is a super nickel finder to say the least.

Always enjoy Carl's knowledge inputs.

Now I'm waiting on a true PI detector with a good discriminator or a time function to eliminate unwanted metal targets.  "If man can think it, he can make it" with time.

My TDI has found a lot of good targets masked with iron.  And to add just a little, even gold that has eluded even the very best VLF's in the world.

Very good to see you finding stuff at the beach.?

The sensitivity being to high will cause any detector to false over bits of iron.  I would suggest, as already mentioned, open up the discrimination and work around some of these iron signals.  By that I mean rotate a little around some of these clipped audio reports and see if the clipped audio starts to clear up, if so there might be a good target mixed in with the iron trash.  Any kind of metal mixed in with good targets will cause false audio reports from any detector.  Iron can both increase and decrease both the ID numbers and the audio signals from any good target.

Good example below.  

Being a hard wired coil, I wonder if all the TDI coils would work, but would require internal work, which might void warranty if the end user changed.  Can't imagine the internal workings are different, jut water proof.  Now at the beach I always have my switch to all or the ground balance off:  This is a wonderful machine at the beach and since I don't venture into the water it's more than sufficient for me.

From page 11 of the manual:

"Target Conductivity Target Conductivity refers to the reactance of the target either above or below the ground balance point of the TDI. Generally-speaking, gold is considered to be a low conductor (high tone) and silver a high conductor (low tone). Iron often produces a confused, warbly pitch that jumps back and forth between high and low tones. The two-tone response is disabled when ground balance knob is turned to the OFF position.  Be aware that target conductivities can vary considerably, even targets of the same metal. Small gold nuggets are usually low and large gold nuggets are usually high, but where the transition occurs depends on the composition of the gold alloy. Be mindful that searching in low-conductivity mode could eliminate very large nuggets, if any happen to be in the area1. The same is true for relics and jewelry. Many bullets, buttons, and most buckles register as high conductors, but cuff buttons often respond as low conductors. Most small jewelry responds as low conductors, but larger men’s rings can easily fall in the high-conductive range. Most coins fall in the high range, except for e.g. US nickels and small or thin coins like hammered silvers or very small bronze coins."

Daniel, believe or not using the small coil I bought from you many moons ago I can actually tell if a target is a bobby pin before I dig.  I was hunting with my TDI SL at a ball field where a lot of girl softball leagues play (looking for gold jewelry) and I was shocked at the number of pins I was digging.  I was hunting with my conductivity switch set to all with GB at 7 1/2.  I was almost ready to pack it up and head home when I noticed I could hear a difference.  Started experimenting and to my amazement I could hear a difference, the audio was slightly elongated with a slight jitter to the audio.  Ended up finding my best ever gold ring with the TDI and the small coil. 

Both are very good sites, but neither has what I'm looking for.  Not critical, but thanks for the links.

Didn't know there was a site like that, thanks for sharing.

How many here might remember the Tesoro forum, the original one, that went down several years ago.  It had some of the very best adventure stories I've ever read.  Very motivating and the information learned about Tesoro detectors were very good.  At that time I was using the Vaquero and I can honestly say I found a lot of rings with that machine.  The audio, in my opinion was superior for me.  I could tell if a target was a pencil eraser end without digging.  A few years later I bought a Tejon at the advise of Gene Scullion (when he was the owner of Badger Metal Detectors) and wow what a fantastic machine.  The audio again was superior and I found more rings.  But keep in mind these are purely audio machines which lends itself to finding more rings because I didn't have an display to inform me as to what the target might be.  But the dual discrimination feature was a plus over the Vaquero and helped with not digging some junk targets, but still found more rings.  Now it did have a serious drawback and that was recovery speed and the relationship to target masking (which at the time was not published information). 

But finally after years and the relentless detector advertising on both the internet and TV I gave in and bought my first display detector.   Its been a very exciting journey, detecting that is.  Met many hunters along the way and found some interesting artifacts to boot. 

It would be nice if there was a way to pull up or locate the original Tesoro forum website.  A lot of lost information and fantastic stories of past hunters and their experiences.

In recent months I've had the great opportunity to meet many new relic hunters.  No young guys all between 50-70 years of age and very avid hunters.  Conversations from modern day sites to colonial and everything in between.  Being very curious, at some point I ask, what detecting forum do you belong to?  Answer 100% of the time has been, none.  Thinking, how can it be 100% no.  So it got me to thinking, just how much history has been recovered with no record, other than their own experience.  One guy even stated he would not post his finds, even if he belonged to a forum because he was afraid someone might see and follow him to his private hunting site.  Now that make sense.  Just sharing my thoughts and encounters.

Awesome recoveries, you must have had a ball.