goldenoldie

On 6/29/2020 at 1:48 AM, Skullgolddiver said:

Interesting to know other machines are available with so low pulse delay...However, with my tdi, minimum of 10uS is only stable on the wetsand.

If you go in the saltwater, sooner or later you'll find mandatory to raise up to 20uS to find an acceptable in-ear noise level🤐...

Qed not submersible and NF coils too if I'm correct, mean that You can try it on the beach far enough from waves and should be fine at 7.5uS.

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".   

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.

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 2^nd video has the speaker in action on the SDC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVRUtDeWED8&feature=youtu.be

Nuggetfinder toughness......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=606&v=aVpgbK_H8Vo&feature=emb_title

I expect planted gold as usual.

1 hour ago, jrbeatty said:

Previous page has my amateurish phone vid of a sub oz piece at about 16".

Yes an amateurish video as you say with no mention of depth including a measure.

Is there a video of the QED detecting a decent size nugget at depth. Plenty of photos of gold but no actual video footage of their depth.

Yes a smaller coil produces extra sensitivity for the tiny nuggets.

1 hour ago, Reg Wilson said:

goldenoldie, .......there are always people who just like to pick holes in such videos.

As to the 'spurious' sounds you refer to......, If you are referring to the demonstration video, then it was stated that it was hot ground and any detector will be noisy on hot ground unless it is detuned to the point of being almost useless.

Thanks Reg and you have hit the nail right on its head, as the saying goes, from what you have said of which I have quoted.

17 minutes ago, AussieMatt said:

Why are you here??

Looking towards purchasing one at some stage although I read more negative comments than positive, except for a few.

I am curious is there any other reason other than the GB issue that you have highlighted that may cause the QED to have spurious noises from the ground, such as displayed in the video?

So would I.

So why are the likes of Reg, AM or others not making videos, at least this person is having a go.

Interesting video although going by the date of its update it is not the latest as AussieMatt says "Mine is a PL2 & has been recently fully upgraded & includes the new beach mode." 

AussieMatt you should grab a video camera and show us how to operate the QED properly.

Actually just found this video test between a GPZ and GPX on an undug target using larger coils.

 Hopefully Nenad does not mind me posting his test here on this forum and subject.

There appears to be very little difference between both the GPX and GPZ on this target.

I would like to see a test on large nuggets between a GPX in its deepest setting with the 19" Evo mono against a GPZ in its deepest setting with the 19" DOD.

On ‎13‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 4:30 PM, Jonathan Porter said:

I wish to stress again that the QED "works relatively best in the less mineralised soils for small gold." Together with good ergonomics, this is clearly its niche. This is my sincere advice based on my experiences with the QED.

 

Thanks Reg and interesting that you own two QEDs.

So would your production model have all of the latest updates and if so have you found it now more capable of operating in the more mineralised soils as Jonathan stressed it worked best on less mineralised soils although his QED may not have had the latest updates added to his QED since his review.

Therefore why I enquired in my previous post if Jonathan has now had his QED updated and wondering if those updates may have improved its performance on the more mineralised soils.

To JP's credit It was good to read in the "New Detectors And Early Adopters" thread that he still has the QED in his detector  collection which he used for his QED Review test report thread here.

There has been good test reviews on the ProspectingOz forum by other QED users after having the QED's latest update added to the QED.

Therefore it would be good to have someone of JP's profile and experience to perform another QED Review if Jonathan's QED has now been updated and read of the differences in performance after the QED updates as what happened after the GPZ updates.

29 minutes ago, Reg Wilson said:

I can assure you that Bruce Candy is an electronics wizz, but erganomics has never been a top priority.

Makes me wonder how BC came by a PI in the first place?

Wondering if the operators of the prototypes get to keep all the gold found with the prototypes?

Thanks JR for the pics and your words in the other thread regarding my triumph over cancer. And speaking of triumph it was that photo of Reg with that nugget in the GG & T magazine that inspired me with my 1st detector the GT16000 which if I am correct was the same detector that located that particular nugget. 

Reg should be a millionaire by now and that pic makes my mouth water.

Thanks for sharing, the pic that is although I wouldn't mind a share in those nuggets.

Actually started detecting just after 1989 when I beat Leukaemia and had gold fever ever since.

On ‎28‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 12:57 PM, jrbeatty said:

 Some of my best finds came from the Victorian "Golden Triangle" It's a bit hammered these days but, like all popular areas, will continue to reward the lateral thinkers.

Thanks JR for your interesting results with the QED.

You mentioned an area that you had marked out and gridded then detected over with  your QED ( I assume with the 14" Elite) and it detected nuggets missed by the 5000 and 14" Elite on that same gridded area.

Therefore those hammered areas within the "Triangle" should be where the QED would shine also on missed nuggets by the GPXs and be worth your effort to try those hammered areas although the GPZs should be cleaning up as well.

Well said Steve.

It is a shame that Dave Emery's Pulse Devil project did not reach the market as some of his work is incorporated within the QED. 

What would you say Reg was the hardest part of the QED's settings to get use too?

11 minutes ago, matt said:

Can you post a link to the thread?

If I am allowed then here is the link

http://finders.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9362&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=1050

Steve please delete the link if I have breached a rule.

Thanks.