Jump to content

Chase Goldman

Moderator
  • Posts

    5,249
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

 Content Type 

Forums

Detector Prospector Magazine

Detector Database

Downloads

Events

Posts posted by Chase Goldman

  1. 5 hours ago, ByTheLake said:

    I'm not so sure I want the coin signals spread all over the VDI range.  I'd then have to dig just about everything.  Today, just about all coins ring up 80 and above, and the X-Y screen gives added assurance.

    It wouldn't spread them "all over the VDI range", it would spread them out a little better in the 90's (provide a better ability to resolve small differences in high conductors) like with the Deus 1 operating at less than 18khz, (i.e., more consistent with other detectors with 0-99 VDI scales.)

  2. 14 hours ago, George Kinsey said:

    Hyper Q seems to be what has that ability to transmit 80.

    George, I'm just going by what Quest actually wrote in their marketing materials.  Nothing there about 80+ simultaneous frequencies. 80khz is the top end frequency in simultaneous multi-frequency but, like Nox, Manticore, Legend and D2 we are probably  talking 2 or at most 3 frequencies being transmitted simultaneously.  It really doesn't matter though.  As Steve said. what matters is how they are processing the resulting target signal and how it ultimately stacks up against Legend, Nox, Nanticore and Deus 2.  On paper it looks really great and the mega bundle looks like a great value.

    • Like 2
  3. 3 hours ago, George Kinsey said:

    I have had great luck with several Quest Detectors. Hyper Speed processor. Using multiple frequencies (80+). Will give it a look see when it becomes available.

    George - this source says HyperQ (that's original) can transmit from 7khz up to above 80khz, but not 80+ multiple simultaneous frequencies.  It does say it will transmit 5,10,15, 20, 40, and 60 khz simultaneously (where's the 80 khz?).  It also seems they are contradicting themselves a la Minelab's Nox marketing information error on MultiIQ by conflating the multiple individual selectable single frequencies with the HyperQ SMF frequency range, as metal detector designers know that trying to blast 6 frequency waveforms into the ground simultaneously is not necessarily a good SMF implementation.  All the other usual suspects and features are here - that's a good thing - as well as reasonable price points.   Sounds like the Quest "Hype" machine is going full blast. 

    All that all being said, I have liked the quality of my Quest accessories and am interested to see what the V60/80 actually bring to the table and like that another manufacturer has entered the simultaneous multi-frequency detector fray (good for competition).

    • Like 3
  4. 9 hours ago, CTidwell said:

    Aren't high freq's usually better for gold than low?

    You are correct, though as mentioned previously gold conductivity target ID varies greatly with the mass, shape, and purity of the gold alloy so there is no ideal frequency.   Generally, lower frequencies get maximum ground penetration and depth vs. higher frequencies but they are less sensitive to micro targets and lower conductors like alloyed gold.  A large gold ring of higher gold alloy content that will ring up with a high TID might be hit deeper with a lower frequency setting or Park mode in dry sand, but it is not generally an ideal setting on a wet salt beach and will be less reactive to smaller gold.  Any single frequency or even "Park" modes on a simultaneous multifrequency (SMF) detector like an Equinox, Manticore, Deus 2, or Legend will run less stable in wet salt sand or saltwater than an SMF dedicated "Beach" mode that is designed to balance salt out.  So I don't know what the 800 guy on the beach was saying to the OP about 4 khz hitting gold better at the beach.  Perhaps he was trying to "throw off" a percieved newbie/competitor (it unfortunately does happen with unscrupulous detectorists when there's competition for scarce targets), was being imprecise about how he was actually using 4 khz with the 800 there, or he genuinely was misinformed.  Regardless, it appears to be a stunningly bad "general" tip to pass along (without specific context), especially since he was running a SMF detector with more optimal beach modes.

    On the beach, higher frequencies do interact with salt more (for the very same reason they "excite" gold targets more) giving more ground noise chatter such that it's hard to run the machine in a stable manner.  So for single frequency machines that have multiple adjustable frequency settings you can get more wet salt stability by running the machine at lower frequencies but you do sacrifice depth and sensitivity on gold and lower conductive precious metals and micro-jewelry.  And if the machine is not designed to balance to salt at those settings, it may still run unstable.  For SMF machines, you generally can't get the machine to run stable in wet salt sand in the SIngle Frequency or non-Beach SMF modes.  OP apparently found this to be the case.

    That's why on a salt beach, there really is no reason not to run the designated multifrequency "beach" mode if you are running in wet salt sand or salt water to get maximum stability and performance across low and high conductive targets.  Beach modes are not optimal for small gold and micro targets on dry sand, but will work.  Therefore, on dry sand, where salt stability is a non-issue, even at salt water beaches, run whatever frequency or mode is most conducive to the primary target of interest (low frequencies or SMF "Park" modes for deep high conductors like coins or higher frequencies or SMF "gold" modes for gold and micro jewelry).

    HTH

    • Like 2
  5. Yeah, I think Citizens or Seiko.  Though Seiko dive watches usually have a stem and crown offset from the standard 90 degrees orientation (more like 120 degrees).  Sometimes the crown has some marks on it.  The rotating bezel is somewhat unusual with the Zero's between the 10 minute increments and its also unusual to see "60" vice "0".  The knurled bezel looks "Seiko-ish".

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  6. 4 hours ago, Carolina said:

    Gary, is there any gain or loss from using the filters in the following way ?

    He used disc. 10 / notch 11 thru 40.

    If he used disc. 6 / notch 7 thru 40

    Does one filter suffer the depth over the other, or would the loss of depth due to filter used make a difference?

    Hopefully, Gary chimes in too.  But I can tell you what I know based on my experience with both D1 and D2 so far, but need to do some additional testing verify some things.  Also, see my previous post responding to CPT_GhostLight.

    First of all with respect to the settings above, there should be no appreciable performance difference with those two different disc and notch settings.  It's just a matter of whether you want hear ferrous (or other) targets between 6 and 10.  If you don't, pick 6. If you do, pick 10.  I don't think that soil mineralization would have much impact on this unless you were searching for low conductive non-ferrous micro or ferrous masked targets.

    During Deus 1 boot camp sessions, Andy Sabisch would demonstrate using air tests that there is no depth performance hit even if you run Disc up to 15 which is really the upper ferrous limit but practically, not very much ferrous rings up between 10 and 15 in my experience.  I have seen people test the D1 and ORX with disc as high as 60 with seemingly little to no depth loss in mild, sandy soils.  I suspect, but haven't verified, that you would take a depth hit if you ran disc that high in moderately to highly mineralized soils.  Also, you have the issue I mentioned previously regarding all targets below the high disc setting sounding off as ferrous.

     

    • Like 2
  7. On 1/26/2023 at 11:58 AM, CPT_GhostLight said:

    As far as relic hunting goes, sometimes relics are made of iron and also non-ferrous relics can have iron rusted onto them if they've been in the ground together for a long time, so notching out iron will lose some good targets and not all targets will unmask.

    If you don't run disc too low (i.e., set it to between 7 and 10) then you will still hear the iron up to 7 or 10 or falsing big iron (97-99) even if you notch to 40 or 50 because you have iron volume but all that lite non-ferrous junk is silenced. But that's also the reason why you don't disc to 40 or 50 because everything up to 40 or 50 will sound off with a ferrous tone with iron audio on.  Also, you might take a target depth performance hit running disc that high but that's subject to conjecture (see my post below in response to Carolina).

    • Like 1
  8. 2 hours ago, Carolina said:

    Tones, Tones, Tones, updatable. That’s my wishes. Good luck on you spin. On another note, Dew told me several years ago, Dimitar had one in his driveway beating the living daylights out of it and the screen with a hammer. Now that’s tough!!!

    Yeah, but can it survive the USPS? (Inside joke for those of you not familiar with Carolina's shipping experience a few years back...) 😉

  9. Yes.  The high conductors are really scrunched up there in the 90's.  I do think XP is going to address this.  I know it is possible to spread these TIDs out because they did so on the original Deus if you used the lower frequencies.  On Deus 1, if you normalized target ID then all target IDs were normalized to what they would be if running 18khz regardless of the actual operating frequency (Note: TID normalization was only applicable to the original LF and X35 coils, the HF coils did not feature TID normalization as an option, so TIDs varied with frequency and the IDs were really compressed significantly when running the HF coil at 25khz or greater).

    So hopefully XP will give us the option to select the normalization reference to spread the target IDs as the user sees fit.  Perhaps two normalization settings - Legacy and "Wide".

    But frankly, it's not really a show stopper for me, as even on the D2, zincolns and pennies rarely masquerade as dimes, quarters, or halves and frankly whether it's ringing up as a dime, quarter, or half makes no practical difference in my dig decision (i.e., I've never personally encountered a situation where I'm cherry picking halves over quarters), so I'll find out what it really is once I get it out of the ground, anyway.

    • Like 6
  10. Not with the stock coil.  Seemed to run more stable TID at a local ball field, but at relic sites I've been to the last couple of weeks could not get it to run stable above 16 sensitivity due to EMI so went with the D2 which was stable close to Max sensitivity.  So there's that.

    • Oh my! 1
  11. 51 minutes ago, dino57 said:

    Hello folks...can anyone tell me how to connect the WSA headphones to my WS4 puck after the XP DEUS 1  V6 update..thanks !

    It's in the new Deus 1 V6 Manual you can download here.

    The specific pairing instructions are on p. 24.  See excerpt below:

    1374558074_SmartSelect_20230125_174631_AdobeAcrobat.thumb.jpg.724e1a29efd650c921562182b487f67e.jpg

  12. 3 hours ago, midalake said:

    LOL> It is black "so you don't have to worry about that discoloration." 

    Well, that "discoloration" is the inside wire being eaten up by salt water. Now I cannot monitor it>>>great! 

    Guess I have never been the out-of-sight, out of mind guy. 

    It's a non-issue as long as there is any continuous conductor present because neglible current is flowing and you just need continuity to the unshielded end.  I doubt it will corrode enough to break or that you can actually visually monitor the progression to know when it will fail.  The outer silver oxide corrosion layer may actually inhibit and slow down corrosion of the copper clad.  Anyway, you'll quickly ascertain when it does fail (loss of signal submerged)  so it makes sense to have a ready backup length of coax or spare OEM antenna assembly in standby.

    • Like 3
  13. 6 hours ago, NCtoad said:

    Thanks for the explanation Chase.  I had surmised that the co-ax radiated it’s signal from the unshielded end.  However, in the original post Parkgt’s photo shows the end of the cable sticking just past the end of the lower rod.  When he puts the lower rod in the upper metal, the end of that cable is then enclosed in the upper metal tube and as shown in the video it works fine.  Why is that?

    Gotcha.  I just figured the the further you run it up the metal shaft, the more attenuation occurs, with the mid point probably being the worst.  The closer you are to either end of the upper less attenuation.  Couldn't say where in the upper Parkgt terminated the waveguide so I just assumed it was being attenuated by the upper shaft metal.  I'll have to run some tests myself because the "cut to suit" coax solution seems best.  It also looks like that's where XP is headed with their new antenna pack.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  14. 15 minutes ago, NCtoad said:

    What you posted above is what is confusing me about the remote losing it’s signal.  In that post Parkgt said that he tried running the co-ax cable all the way up the upper shaft but the signal wasn’t good.  What I’m not understanding is that if you run the co-ax cable just long enough so that it hangs out of the top of the lower shaft, some of that cable is still inside of the upper metal shaft.  If the metal shaft is causing interference, why doesn’t it cause interference when the co-ax end is is at the bottom half of the upper shaft?   In other words, if I run the co-ax so it just hangs out of the top of the lower shaft like Parkgt shows in his pic in the original post, the top of that cable will still be inside of the upper metal shaft.  If I made that cable longer so the end is near the top of the upper shaft, why would that make the signal worse?   Maybe I’m misunderstanding something.  Sorry if I am. 

    See my explanation in the previous post above.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  15. 4 hours ago, midalake said:

    I have the antenna wire from coil to remote in the CF rod. For what it is worth the last part to the remote goes through my metal hand grip. 

    I have not had signal issues. Will post a pic tomorrow. 

    Yeah.  That shouldn't be an issue.  It's a wave guide so it's only radiating at the unshielded end of the coax (not along its length), so as long as there is no metal between the end of the waveguide and the receiver (remote or WS6) then there should be no issue even if it passes through metal.  The problem people were having was if they terminated the waveguide run inside the metal shaft where the metal shaft was blocking the rf radiating from the end of the waveguide to the receiver  If you do this, the radiating end of the coax needs to get close to the receiver or you can just terminate it in the non-metal CF lower shaft and it will work unless the waveguide tip gets submerged.  Remember, the signal is normally transmitted from the coil all the way to the remote without the need for a waveguide, so as long as the coil transmitter or waveguide tip is neither submerged in water nor enclosed in metal (e.g., the waveguide run is not terminated within the upper metal shaft), then the wireless signal to the remote should be unimpeded.

    • Like 4
  16. 4 hours ago, TampaBayBrad said:

    On the waterproof subject....here's a quote from page 2 of NASA Tom's Manticore thread:

    "The only other thing I want to clarify: We learned some lessons with EQX water intrusion. MC is improved; yet, retains IP68 rating........to 5M (16-feet)."

    So there it is from the horse's mouth. 🙂

    Thanks for pointing this out. 

    Based on some of Tom's over the top proclamations (like Nox coils burning up if they were connected to the higher power Manticore) its not clear to me whether he has the expertise to actually be part of the ML M-core design team or just an outside expert user offering feedback as a consultant/tester to ML (one of many) that also happens to have a lot of loyal website users.  To me the "horse" would be Mark Lawrie - ML's Chief Engineer.  If Tom is speaking for ML as a designer with his "We" statement, it would be an interesting formal admission from ML that there were indeed some potential design shortcomings with the original Nox watertight design.

    Regardless, this is a great reminder that ML did get an IP68 rating for Manticore (and Equinox 700/900 for that matter).  ML appears to have definitely improved Manticore and Nox 700/900 design in terms of waterproof integrity over the first gen EQX and the fact that they are able to actually specify an IEC Ingress Protection (IP) rating this time around (and not with the first gen Equinox which has NO advertised IP rating) which requires submission of documented test results to advertise the 5M submersion spec as IP68, is a good sign.  Plus they have never been accused of not standing behind their warranty (and in some cases even beyond the warranty) on the original Nox with all the reported water intrusion issues. 

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...