Chase Goldman

9 hours ago, phrunt said:

Now to find a handle or mini shaft handle type option.  I guess I could buy a Chinese clone Deus 1 shaft cheap and chop it up to make a mini one.

Folks make a lot of 3D printed accessories for the Deus.  This should be a cinch for someone who already makes such accessories, such as XP Deus coil centering blocks, etc.

P.S. Arrgh, I just remembered the 9x5 XP White HF elliptical coil (as well as the 9" round HF coil) has an external shaft mounted battery, so that somehow has to be accommodated in the handle design if an HF coil coil were to be used...  Doable, but it just complicates matters and constrains the dimensions of the handle to accommodate the battery.

On 5/15/2024 at 2:26 PM, phrunt said:

That would be cool if it was a small coil, as the bigger coil often defeats the purpose of doing it in the first place especially when using it for a gold pinpointer

I agree that a smaller coil would be best.  The D1 works well in this capacity with the 9x5" coil.  Again, for scanning sidewalls of larger pits for coin and button sized targets while discriminating out nails using the coil standalone is much easier than using the entire detector even with the 9" and 9x5" coils.  IMO XP missed a huge opportunity with the wireless MI6 pinpointer by not enabling it to have discriminating and target ID features like a Sunray Probe.

2 hours ago, L David Keith said:

Taking a quick look, some are post war "wad cutters" and some Minie's may be from NSSA (Civil War Skirmish Assoc.) but I do see what appears to be Williams regulation "Minie's" and his type 3 "bore cleaners." Those would be of the period (1860's). Usually the patina would be much thicker on lead unless recovered from very wet ground or water. Can you count the "lands and grooves" on a few bullets? That can tell a bit more info. I suspect most will mic in the .577 to .579 diameter. 

Hmm. That might also help to explain the lack of other CW period military finds like uniform buttons or soldier acoutrements like backpack parts or buckles.  Great digs nevertheless.

1 hour ago, Gary985112 said:

Ok, so this charger is giving me fits. May be because my metal detector barely loses a charge it doesn't pick it up, unsure.

So - I plug the charger onto the back of my MineLabs 800 Equinox, no green light blinking. I have to play with it forever. Changed chargers once, it worked for about a week, now it will not charge again. 

I fiddle with it trying to get the green light to light up, it lights up sometimes but doesn't look like it is making a good connection.

Any ideas?

What I have done

- Tried another charger

- Tried to air duster clean the ports of both charger and detector

- Tried different ports

When I changed the charger wire itself, it worked like a charm with a new wire. I do mainly beach detecting so making sure no sand is in it. It's a relatively new one. 

If its working fine with the second charge cable/wire it sounds like your first charge cable has an internal intermittent connection which makes it unreliable.  If your detector is still within its 3 year warranty, I suggest requesting a warranty replacement for the broken charge cable.

Compressed air might be insufficient to clean magnetic dirt or metallic particles off the magnetic charge wire and detector connector.  But if you don't see any dark or red particles or metallic pieces clinging to the detector or charge cable connector, you should be fine.

Waiting for the battery to drain down more before charging shouldn't matter, the charge light will simply change from blinking to solid green if the battery is fully charged.  If you are getting no light, then there is a problem with the charge cable or charger.

HTH

1 hour ago, Ridge Runner said:

When I’m in the field one day and I need help with a problem that I may be having will they be there? 

I don't expect so, but I also don't rely on my local dealer (who is reachable and knowledgeable) for that either unless my detector is just plain dead (and even then, I am going to the manufacturer's warranty support dept anyway).  If my phone is actually working in the field, and I have a question about how to do something with the detector that is not in the user guide, I would just post the question on Detector Prospector.  Plenty of help here (including all these legendary dealers) and multiple brains are better than one (or none). 

Say what you will about the XP wireless coil and peripherals, but see below for one of the actual advantages of the XP wireles architecture.  Just scan the recovery area with the coil.  Hold the remote or smart puck in your hand for target ID.  Use wireless phones or your remote's speaker for audio.  Only wish they had a small elliptical that was compatible with the D2.  I've used this method often for scanning sidewalls and removed dirt piles for excavated relic pits.

I don't actually have this coil handle, I just remove the lower rod from the stem of my XP and have at it using the stem as a handle, but have often thought about fabricating such a thing.

17 hours ago, Airtemisa said:

The area that the concentric M9 would see would be double that seen by the M8, so I do not share the feedback due to mineralization in difficult environments.

It could make sense due to the greater precision of the concentric coils, but... How much better compared to the M8, if it sees half the mineralization and is already as accurate? Hard to justify... IMO. 

Except ithe M9 is not a concentric it's a round DD per the Minelab link.  I agree, though, that the M9 would likely not see less high mineralization than the M8, it's a tradeoff of footprint depth (M9) vs. seeing less ground (M8).  Those competing factors would overlap, so depending on the actual specific ground conditions it is not clear which coil would have greater depth on coin or ring sized targets in any given case.  I clarified my previous post.

M8 footprint: 34.6 sq. Inches

M9 footprint: 63.6 sq. Inches

M11 footprint: 95 sq. Inches

FWIW

2 hours ago, Airtemisa said:

And the question is:

what can the M9 contribute over the M8 and M11? Environment depending?

9" round DD per the ML site makes a little more sense.  It will give you a little more depth and coverage than the M8 and sees less ground mineralization/salt than the 11" (as Tom D said) so might perform better than the 11" in extreme ground conditions and perhaps better than the M8 in mild to medium mineralized ground conditions.

4 hours ago, Scanman said:

https://seriousdetecting.com/products/minelab-9-inch-m9-dd-waterproof-coil-for-manticore-metal-detector
 

 

4 hours ago, fishersari said:

Oh I thought it will be 9' round DD coil.. the pic is m8 coil

 

3 hours ago, Scanman said:

Good catch, I missed that. Same seller has the M9 listed on EBay with the M8 price.

My Manticore, M8, ProFind40 and XP Backpack was delivered Thursday! I look forward to checking it out when I return from FL next week. 🙂

Curious, what the M9 will offer from the M8? (Will check out the video later today)

The OP video alludes to the M9 being Concentric (or Coaxial, if elliptical) vs. DD, however, the Serious Detecting link states its a 9" DD elliptical without any mention of the width and also shows a pic of the M8, so that should all be taken with a grain of salt.

M9 (9" DD elliptical) makes little sense with the M8 out there already, too similar.  A concentric/coaxial, though, is a different beast altogether and, if true, raises some interesting possibilities as well as being the first concentric/coaxial coil released for any of the post-Equinox crop of SMF detectors released by any of the major detector manufacturers (ML, XP, Nokta, Garrett, or Quest).  But right now just unverified rumor and hearsay.

If ML is actually sticking with a DD elliptical form factor, a 10x5 or 10x6 (M10 DD elliptical) makes a little more sense, similar coverage to the M11 but with weight savings and slightly less depth as the tradeoff. 

So the M9 seems to be a real thing but we just don't know what it's specs will be other than one dimension will likely be 9".

Frankly, these ML accessory coil marketing/design decisions (what to make and when to deliver it) appear to have little rhyme or reason.  But if the rumor is true regarding the M9 being concentric/coaxial, that is compelling.  Wouldn't necessarily be a great choice for hot dirt, though, as a DD has slightly more depth in that case.

We'll see...

Those poor dogs, hope Jaws didn't get them.    Looks like you had a fun week!

20 minutes ago, Ridge Runner said:

It didn’t say free on the last one but it did say 79.99 but that’s just less than the full price.

 I’d say that’s the nearest you can get to 80 without being it .

 Chuck 

Actually, it did said FREE and also 79.99 on the third (Simplex) advert you posted, Chuck (take a look at your post).  Not your fault because Nokta obviously made a graphics mistake that they corrected in a subsequent version of the email, which probably explains why people received multiple versions of the email.

2 hours ago, midalake said:

Does anyone know if there is a coil support made for Tarsacci?  Any other thoughts? 

Nope.  I had to send it out to someone I know who had the skill to build up the ear from scratch using epoxy and a special buy of plastic material. It was not easy and it's not yet clear how the repair will hold up to the rigors of water hunting.  Not sure if that person is willing to do it again as it was such a pain.  If you want something that is going to hold up in the water, you are probably looking at a new coil.

2 hours ago, D&P-OR said:

Which of these makes the best gold (nugget) hunter----the Equinox 900 with Coiltek 5X10" & Minelab 6" coils---or the XP ORX with the 5X10 h.f. coil? 

@Jeff McClendon or @abenson can probably do a deeper dive, but from a purely technical standpoint I think it breaks down like this...it depends.

Not trying to be snarky, it's just that the question as you presented it is a little open ended since you didn't specify whether you were primarily interested in just general nuggets or also being able to Sniff out micro, subgram gold.  Furthermore, ground conditions matter for this comparison. 

I'll give you my thoughts from a purely technical basis from a detector standpoint (I own both and have done some air tests), but avid gold hunters like Steve H., Jeff, Andrew, phrunt and others who have used both can weigh in with their practical field experience.

I think overall, it's a close call based on test and real world results I've seen posted here and elsewhere.  Probably a slight performance edge goes to the Nox because of the overall versatility that Simultaneous Multifrequency brings to the table in terms of hot ground handling.  Maybe Orx handles itself slightly better in ferrous trash situations.  I know Deus 2 does much better than the Nox 900 in that regard and also in regards to Target ID accuracy/stability.  The D2 is held back slightly, however, because the smallest available coil is the 9" round.

If you ignore ground handling, the Orx may have a slight edge in subgram gold sensitivity solely based on the higher frequency (80+ khz) it can achieve with the 10x5 HF coil.  I don't think the Nox 900 is far behind though, if at all, especially with the 6" coil (vs. the 10x5).

On larger nuggets I would probably give the edge to the Nox as that Coiltek coil has great depth for its footprint on larger gold targets vs. the Orx.  It's still close.

For hot ground handling, the Nox in Simultaneous Frequency Mode is better than the SF Orx and also has ground tracking unlike the Orx. But the Orx still performs ok in hot ground and is easy to rebalance with single button ground grab.

Finally, the Nox 900 is an overall more versatile detector vs the Orx for detecting in general.

So overall edge to the Nox.  Orx will cost you a lot less however ($550) vs. $1000 for the Nox (includes the 11" and 6" coil) + $235 for that Coiltek 10×5.

TBH however, based on the recent $500 price drop on Manticore down to $1200, I would also strongly consider getting Manticore over the 900 and pick up the $250 M8 5x8 coil which should give you everything you need (it effectively combines the best of the 6 inch round coil and the 10x5 coil with perhaps a incremental hit on depth and coverage).  The cost Delta is only about $200 even if you factor in the cost of the 10x5 Nox coil vs. M8 Manticore coil But you do end up with one less coil overall because the Nox package includes the 11" and 6" coils.  Also, the Manticore is just a better all around detector than the 900.  There is nothing the 900 can do that the Manticore can't.  FWIW.

My recommendation:  

For pure nugget hunting value, consider the Orx.

For overall performance Manticore + the M8 coil.

Splitting the cost difference (slightly, by $200) Nox 900 + Coiltek 10x5.

31 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

My purchase date was 2/27 and registered 3/5 so over 30 days. Went unused due to poor weather until now. I did fire it up initially but with the 5x8 coil which works. Only found out yesterday the 11’ coil is bad. 

Gotcha, so that 30 day thing even if it is a thing wouldn't apply in this case.  I will stop frothing at the mouth now.

On 4/25/2024 at 7:24 PM, wprandy said:

The deepest this unit has been in the South Florida Saltwater is less than 24" inches, and the antenna wire is turning black at the bottom 😞    I spent $1,430 on the machine, and it is already having issues.

You never describe what issues you are having other than the antenna wire turning black.  If the unit is still working when you submerge it (i.e., the remote is still receiving a signal form the coil) then the discoloration on the antenna wire is a non-issue.  The warranty is 5 years and no Deus 2's are past warranty at this point.   Regardless, if the only problem you are having is the antenna and you don't get warranty relief if it has failed, an XP branded replacement wire costs about $20-$25 and there are descriptions online about how you can home brew one yourself from an even cheaper length of coax you can order online.

Yes this is not safety critical military-grade diving gear and I don't like having to use an antenna, so I understand your trepidation, but the rest of the unit is robustly designed for repeated dives to 60 feet (provided you insert the dive plug) and other than antenna corrosion and cable failures associated with the submersible hard-wired Bone Phones, I have not heard reports of water/dive related degradation of the key hardware (remote and coils).  So I would not paint the entire detector as a being unable to stand up to the rigors of water detecting. 

On the other hand, for daily salt water detector, I think investing in a fully carbon fiber shaft and stem system is worth it.  Here is the one I use:

https://www.stevesdetectorrods.com/product.php?id=XP.D2-01

Steve is a forum member here (@steveg) and I can vouch for his equipment quality and craftsmanship and, above all, his customer service.

I'm on the east coast, but I've heard good reports of it performing well on west coast beaches with black sand and appears to be a very popular detector amongst the west coast beach detectorists.  Though it seems to struggle with the black sand at @midalake's Mexican resort beaches.  Midalake is a hard core beach hunter and vouches for the D2, but also likes to use a couple other detector brand/models under certain circumstances.  I think you should stick with the D2, but I'm biased.  If it really doesn't sit well in your gut, then consider alternatives like the Minelab Manticore or Equinox or the Nokta Legend or Nokta Double Score which are great value detectors.  I've heard good things about the Garrett Apex on wet salt sand beaches, though it is only weather resistant, not submersible.  Good luck.

4 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

I of course get to pay the shipping to send back the defective coil

That is totally unacceptable for a DOA coil right out of the box.  I thought ML had a policy that if you have a failure within the the first 30 days with a detector/component, they will give you a pre-paid FEDEX return label and ship you out a new component upon receipt of the defective.  That is how my return went down when my brand new Equinox 900 had a broken Horseshoe button right out of box in December 2022.  They paid for me to ship it back and sent me a new detector upon receipt.  Maybe things have changed in just two years, maybe their policy had to do with the fact that the Nox 900 was a newly released detector at that time, or maybe it doesn't apply to coils.  Whatever the reason, it does not seem right despite the small shipping fee for the coil.

See my post below.

https://www.detectorprospector.com/topic/21284-update-on-nox-900-horseshoe-button-failure-and-a-surprise-on-pinpoint-function/?do=findComment&comment=226970

22 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Because the odds might be low, they are not zero. So you guys hit a place repeatedly, notching out your low odds targets. Eventually the target id numbers you are digging will find nothing. It’s not a matter of if, but when. At that point you either abandon the location, or go dig the numbers you passed up before. If you don’t, somebody else will. As good finds deplete people drift more and more to digging everything, because eliminating any trash item also can eliminate good items. Thats why looking for reasons not to dig is in the long run a fruitless endeavor. It only works when cherry picking works, and eventually cherry picking will play out at any location. Nugget hunters figured this out a long time ago.

Exactly,  in the grand scheme of things, metal detectors are a shortcut to finding treasure you can't see.  The alternative is simply digging holes (based on research or other relevant clues (e.g., surveys or probes) or at random) - which is what miners, prospectors, some relic hunters, and archeologists do.  We keep adding features to detectors add more shortcuts (i.e., cherry picking), but at some point you are just left with the trash and you need to do the hard work (i.e., dig up and recover the "trash" to ID it or get it out of the way) if you want to have the hope of squeezing any more treasure out of the site.

22 minutes ago, Digalicious said:

If an aluminum target is hit at 1 Khz and then 100 Khz, would the target signature change? If a gold target is hit at 1 Khz and then 100 Khz, would the target signature change?

What I'm getting at with the above, is if there is an amount of change in the signatures between the two, or one signature changes and the other doesn't, then can that amount of change (or lack thereof) be used to help differentiate between gold and silver?

 

The short answer is yes.  That's why ground compensation and ferrous discrimination/ferrous bias are more effective with multifrequency detectors.  Without multifrequency there is no iron bias and high mineralization ground is harder to tame.  I think the issue is that it's a lot easier to identify the frequency-based signal processing deltas for ferro-magnetic targets than it is for purely ferrous targets and the signal processing has to really work hard to identify those small signature changes AND differentiate them from noise.  Again, this is where applying machine learning might provide a leap.

I understand where @IBMe is coming from.  It's good to see the perspective and out-of-the-box ideas of newcomers to the hobby who are not biased by being steeped for years in the technologies and features that the detector manufacturers feed us.  Technology is not holding this idea back, because it has been tried before.  This is more about human biology (how humans process sensory input) and human factors engineering (how to present information in a manner that enables efficient and effective processing by a human) than it is about technology.  Furthermore, it probably makes more sense to directly "visualize" the processed target signal rather than the processed audio from that processed target signal.  And guess what, that has also been done with the various target trace implementations. 

The fact is, target audio is no accident, it is designed to provide the detectorist with a lot of target information that is embedded in the nuances and subtleties of the audio signal (volume, tonality, harmonics), and with repeated "training" and "muscle memory" via target recovery and audio conscious and subconscious signal association, enables the detectorist to learn those nuances and become even more effective than what can be visually displayed and interpreted on the fly.  That is not to say that visual target representations are not effective.  Of course they are, as evidenced by the more sophisticated target trace displays successfully used by detectorists on high end detectors.  But like I said, those are processed from the "source" target signal, rather than secondarily from the processed and generated audio waveforms.

Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say.  And the need to discover buried ordnance in the wars of the first half of the 20th century was the real the impetus for refining the induction balance and pulse induction metal detecting principles that are also used in the hobbyist detectors of today.  It is really defense and security applications, followed by gold prospecting that keep the technology progressing for the hobbyists.  If defense or security applications can be more effective with more sophisticated visual target representations, you can believe the detector manufacturers will invest and leverage that technology for hobbyist applications, if it is cost effective.

They key to "visual" target representation, whether you do that from the processed target signal directly or from the processed target audio, is determining how to effectively visualize the target attributes in a manner that enables the operator to enable the operator to efficiently, unambiguously, and reliably interpret those visual queues and to effectively integrate them with the audio target information they are also getting (without confusing the operator).  If the graphic visual target implementation can be picked up by the operator rather naturally with little need for "training" (i.e., swinging the detector for hundreds of hours before it "clicks") then that is a bonus. There have also been incremental advances in coil winding technology that have improved coil performance (depth and sensitivity) and ergonomics (weight).

Discrete tube-based circuits, gave way to semiconductor electronics, which fostered in more compact integrated circuits that enabled more sophisticated target processing in the form of rudimentary ferrous discrimination and ground effect compensation circuits as well as more sophisticated visual and audible target identification.  High speed digital signal processing and power electronics ushered in even more sophisticated target ID interfaces as well as enabling a greater ability to separate targets in high target density environments (high recovery speeds vs. depth), generate higher transmit powers with less weight and heat, enabled more sophisticated EMI cancellation, and also enabled advanced features like the myriad of simultaneous multiple frequency transmission protocols that exist today.

The next enabling technology for advancing the sophistication of both visual and audio target ID representations from where they are today probably resides in the detector designers' effective harnessing of the power of artificial intelligence/machine learning.  Imagine a detector that gets smarter/more effective at target identification (and has the ability to evolve how it presents that more effective data to the detectorist) the more you swing it.  That is probably the next frontier or evolution/revolution in advancing the state of the art in metal detection.

At least that's my take.

7 hours ago, Bob Sickler said:

I honestly do not care for portrait style, cellphone-like control housings, pods, and the like to be mounted far above the center of gravity. Don't lose the beautifully simple designed Apex display and the perfectly simple menu structure actuated by the current button tactile pad array!

Agree!

Would like to return to this thread after the "storm" arrives.  I'm thinking a lot of the folks who thought the Apex just slightly missed the mark for their detecting environment are rooting for Garrett to close that remaining gap with their next generation VLF detector design.

38 minutes ago, UKD2User said:

I think the main reason they did that is EU regulations that are coming into force mandating that consumer electronics gear has a USB-C charging connector (and USB-C is just better!).

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220930IPR41928/long-awaited-common-charger-for-mobile-devices-will-be-a-reality-in-2024

Yep.  Forgot about that.  Any future XP detector generational design iteration will be required to have USB C.  But they should just do it because its the right thing to do.  Its a much more capable standard including the ability to operate at voltages higher than 5 VDC which can be leveraged to provide more efficient charging for more energy dense battery designs (perhaps facilitating a 10x5 coil, and now that I think about that, the fact that they would have to add USB-C compatible interface to that component may be another thing that is causing them to drag their feet).

48 minutes ago, Rattlehead said:

I agree. I wish they'd do something like a quick connect magnetic charger for both the coil and remote, similar to what Minelab has. In the meantime, this is a welcomed upgrade for me. I absolutely hate the screw-on connector. 

37 minutes ago, Jeff McClendon said:

I love my Deus 2 but I recently sold my remote partly because I absolutely hated screwing on that charging connector and partly because I just don't need the full remote. The WS6 Master setup works good enough for me since I won't be doing any diving or submerged Deus 2 water hunting. 

I like that new charging cable as long as the pins don't break. Now maybe XP will also come out with a different coil charging clip.....PLEASE!

They need to change the coil charging clip design, definitely.  It is interesting they went USB C on the new Xtreme Hunter coil.  

The problem with a magnetic connector on the coil itself would be that it would eventually magnetize and  collect a ton of magnetic oxide particles and other magnetic debris, risking damage, unreliability, or overheating during charging (due to a high resistance connection) and a debris cleaning/removal hassle for the end user to avoid these issues.

But there are a ton of more elegant coil charging interface solutions that could be incorporated going forward and many that could also be backfit onto the existing coils.  XP should make a decision to just rip the bandaid off and move to USB C, while at the same time designing a better coil charging solution.

5 hours ago, phrunt said:

Unfortunately, I have too many detectors, so having another gold machine in my cupboard is very unlikely unless it betters what I have, and that's unlikely but we can hope and dream!

Said like a true detector addict in denial, Simon.  And being one myself, I don’t believe a word of it.  

31 minutes ago, Bob Sickler said:

Exactly, Jeff, Chase, of course! I hope you both read my post 3 up from bottom on page 2.

I did, that's why I paraphrased you in my post.  Basically, it's not the tool you chose to use that necessarily makes the most difference (although in some environments, like salt water and hot dirt, specific tools may not cut it) but how and where you use it.

32 minutes ago, Bob Sickler said:

When comparing detectors, we also have to compare customer support and service, and for my time owning Garrett's, I've never had more efficient and quicker service than theirs, even to this day.

Totally agree with that, Garrett's personalized customer service in the US is unrivaled.