Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


goldenoldie last won the day on January 15 2014

goldenoldie had the most liked content!

Community Reputation


About goldenoldie

  • Rank
    Copper Contributor

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,484 profile views
  1. On what size larger targets. Okay the Nickel coin I used was 21.2mm diameter and 75% Copper 25% Nickel and the Quarter was 24.3mm diameter and 91.67% Copper 8.33% Nickel So I have now tested using the same settings with the 8” coil on an 1864 30.8mm Bronze Penny coin and the result is 16” clear to 17” faint response and was basically the same result for a 1919 30.8mm 97% Copper Penny coin. On an Australian twelve-sided 50c 31.5mm 75% Copper 25% Nickel coin which is heavier than the pennies the result is 18” clear to 19” faint response. Since I am mentioning older coins then again with same settings and 8” coil on a 1950 23.5mm diameter 50% Silver Shilling coin the result is 13” clear to 14” faint response. And on a 19mm 92.5% Silver Sixpence coin the result is 12” clear to 13” faint response. Now with THS-B still at Null and lowering THS-A down to 30 Default and raising the Gain up to 10 maximum then on the Pennies and the 50c coin the results were less. I suppose it is a bit of a balancing act with the settings as a high to max THS-A can pick up more EMI as does a high Gain which also is more prone to reacting with the ground.
  2. Phrunt I do have a 5000 so in Coin Relic Mode with an 8” round mono coil and testing using my wife’s 19mm diameter 2.05-gram 18K gold wedding ring the result was a 15” clear to 16” faint response using settings of Gain-12, Stabilizer-8 & Audio Type-Normal. Then testing the QED in Beach Mode with the same 8” mono coil and same gold wedding ring the result was 14” clear to 15” faint response using THS-B-Null, THS-A-90 & Gain-1. Also, on a US-Nickel coin the result was a 14” clear to 15” faint response and on a US-Quarter coin was a 12” clear to 13” faint response.
  3. Phrunt thanks for your review with the QED at the beach be it only for a short time spent with the weather conditions. From your results it seems Beach Mode 11 (Disabled Ground Balance) operates successfully on dry sand even though slightly black and wet by rain. However as you got closer to the water the sand required the QED to be Ground Balanced to the conditions therefore no advantage from Beach Mode's extra depth capabilities. I noticed on the QED FB site that a fella said he ran his QED in Beach Mode 11 with a 17x13 NF coil on a wet black sand very mineralised beach and it worked fine. Although I am mystified by the settings he used being able to raise his THS-B way up at 85 with the THS-A as high as 85 as well. Also he said even though the GB is disabled he was able to still GB the detector to the conditions with a reading at 220. I note from your test you changed Modes instead of thinking to try and perform a Ground Balance with the QED while set in Beach Mode 11. Unfortunately I have no opportunity to test this idea at a beach. Hopefully you can test this when another opportunity arises to visit a mineralised beach with your QED and detect closer to the water's edge or on another of NZ's beaches that you say are virtually pure black sand and provide us with another review, even a video clip if possible.
  4. Thanks phrunt for the info at the beach, be it only a brief try on wet and dry sand with your QED set in Beach Mode 11 and then able to have the Gain set way up in its highest 10 setting with the 11' mono coil.. However, as you say it was not a black sand beach although at a guess NZ would have many black type sand beaches to test the QED out on to see if Beach Mode would handle such conditions. Now In regard to the Beach Mode default pulse delay being at 7.5uS apparently further delay is added to that default delay based on the Ground Balance number. That is, the smaller the Ground Balance number then the pulse delay is closer to 7.5uS and the higher the Ground Balance number then the delay is incrementally more than 7.5uS. I assume due to your mild soils there would be little difference in the Ground Balance numbers for all the other Modes from 1 to 10 so what would your manual Ground Balance ( MGB) number reading be when you Ground Balance to your ground before you switch your QED into Beach Mode?
  5. Just in regards to the QED's Beach Mode which operates without a Ground Balance then it appears the Fisher Impulse AQ also operates without the use of a Ground Balance.
  6. First of all thanks Steve H for moving my thread to the correct Forum and discussion. Yes Skullgolddiver the QED is definitely not submersible including the coil. As far as I know this is the only video of a QED operating over wet salty sand at a Beach environment although this is an earlier PL1 version that may not of had the Beach Mode included.. The operator does not mention what settings and if it had or was being used in Beach Mode which operates without the use of a Ground Balance. Therefore he may of been operating using one of the QED's other Modes which allows you to Ground Balance to the ground conditions so the QED PL3 in my test if set for example in Mode 10, which operates at 12.5uS, then the distance on the 9K & 18K Gold rings drops by around 6" to 7".
  7. Those impressive video results of the Fisher Impulse AQ with its 12.5” mono coil on the 10K Gold ring at 17”-18” and 14K Gold ring at 19”-20” as did a 22K Gold ring drove my curiousity to air test two Gold rings using a QED in its Beach Mode-11 operating at its pulse delay of 7.5uS with a NF 12” Advantage mono coil. For my test, the QED’s settings were Threshold-B at 5 below Null and Factory Default for Threshold-A at 30 and Gain at 1. (Threshold-A settings range from a 1 up to 90 and the Gain settings range from 1 up to 10} The results for a clear response on a 3.04-gram 9K 21mm diameter Gold ring was 17” and on a 2.05-gram 18K 19mm diameter Gold ring was 16”. I have no idea how a QED using its Beach Mode would operate within a Beach environment and my intention is not to compare in anyway the QED to the Fisher Impulse AQ only results using a pulse delay of 7.5uS.
  8. Here are two videos of an SDC unable to get a response on a 14K gold rope chain at the beach except on the clasp. The 2nd video has the speaker in action on the SDC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVRUtDeWED8&feature=youtu.be http://youtu.be/QWDNXBWYnX0
  9. Fair enough and that’s your call however as videos footage of the QED being compared with other detectors at a test site over several nuggets and targets in the ground the video displayed visual evidence for comparison so why not the same with the X coil. And if it was good enough to take footage at that test site testing a GPZ using different sized X-coil and the tester who just happens to be the same fella selling these X-coils, then did a comparison using a GPX with a Nuggetfinder Evo coil. Okay do the same, grab a GPX using the same settings, that 12” round X-coil and a Nuggetfinder 12” round Evo and do a comparison.
  10. Yet to see, or should I say view results of a proper coil to coil ( of same dimension to Aussie brands) comparison testing on goldfield ground in Australia including over in-situ targets, bump or bash testing or whatever to justify its structure and cost for the GPX, GP or SD. In regards to the GPZ X-coils then of course the use of different sized X-coils are going to produce a different result to the GPZ standard coils as has been the case with different size coil options released by NF & CT for the GPX, GP & SD.
  11. Not for long with all the hype and promotion of these X-Coils.
  12. So much for the Aussie coil manufactures being left out of the market.
  13. Nuggetfinder toughness...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=606&v=aVpgbK_H8Vo&feature=emb_title
  • Create New...