steveg

GB_Amateur -- ON the CTX, E-Trac, and Explorer series, the Ferrous scale WAS "monotonic" as you put it. BUT -- it seems it's not, on Manticore. SO -- it appears that in some way, instead of that horizontal line being a "12-line," it really looks like it may be a "zero ferrous line" of sorts, with FE numbers increasing BOTH in the "up" direction on the Y-axis, AND in the "down" direction. Or maybe it is sort of a "-50-line," so to speak, on a scale of 0 to -99. In other words, FE ID of 0 to -49 on the "bottom half" of the screen, and -50 to -99 on the top half...(or vice versa). This is very interesting, and it somehow, I think, relates to Tom's assertions about the "99 bins" of Ferrous ID. Some are obviously ABOVE the horizontal "zero line," or "-50-line," or whatever it may be, and some BELOW. At THIS point, from what I've seen, SMALL iron appears to fall on the top half of the screen, in terms of Ferrous ID, and BIG iron appears to fall on the bottom half of the screen, in terms of Ferrous ID... Hmm... Steve

I liked that part of the video very much. That was very FBS-like, in that the reason the wedge was not detected was because he adjusted the FERROUS discrimination. If you noticed, the coin he swung over was mid 30s for its conductive ID, which was very similar to the "conductive" ID of the wedge (the conductive ID for the wedge ranged up as high as mid 30s also, see my picture, below). On the Equinox, the only way to discriminate the wedge, if you wanted to (since there is only conductive information, and no "2-D" ability) would be to set disc up in the mid teens -- which discriminates NOT ONLY the wedge, but also a nickel (or the coin shown in the video). BUT -- with 2-D (ferrous AND conductive) information available for each target, you can discriminate based on the FERROUS information, only, if you choose. And in that way, while both targets ID in the mid 30s on the CONDUCTIVE side, the FERROUS ID of each target is much different. So, proper setup of your discrimination -- with your discrimination based off of the FERROUS ID, means you can discriminate the wedge, but still detect a coin that, from the "conductive" perspective, would ID very similar to the wedge. There's no way to discriminate the wedge from the coin, on an Equinox; on the Manticore however, just like on the CTX, E-Trac, or an Explorer, you can EASILY discriminate the wedge, and NOT a coin that has a similar conductive ID. For anyone familiar with FBS, what I just said is very basic. But, for those, like GB_Amateur, who are not familiar with FBS machines, hopefully this helps, in that this is a good illustration of what having 2D target information (FE as well as CO) allows you to do, in terms of setting up the machine. NOTE -- of COURSE the primary discriminator needs to be the one "between our ears," with audio being "where it's at," in terms of discerning targets. We all know this. But, all I am trying to illustrate is that having the ability to discriminate based on FE ID is a tool that is helpful, and it's a tool I really missed on the EQX... Steve

dewcon -- exactly! When you learned how deep coins "moved" in their ID, with depth (nickels were a great example of that, as you note), that was key to unlocking the depth capabilities of the Explorer series. A deep nickel for me was high teens FE many times, and once you learn that, you were able (with the stock coil) to KILL on deep nickels. The interesting thing, though, is I found that the stock 11-inch "Pro" coil was the only one you could do that with, on the nickels specifically. When I switched to the Detech 13" ultimate, I gained depth for silver coins, which is really what I target, BUT, completely lost the Pro coil's ID behavior on deep nickels... Anyway, good memories! And for those who I exasperated with that earlier, long post trying to answer GB_amateur's questions, my apologies... Steve

GB -- I think it was a bit of "dumbing down," as you say. For me, and I know other Explorer users who said so, the way FE numbers behaved gave helpful information to the user, whereas once you "force" the FE numbers to read "12" all the time, you lose some of that... Just my opinion. Steve

GB_Amateur, I can take a speculative shot at this, having been a pretty long-time FBS user. I am going to guess that this X,Y screen is FE in the vertical (y-axis) and CO in the horizontal (x-axis). The horizontal line across the screen is probably similar to the "12-line" on an E-Trac or CTX. What the 12-line means is that when moving from the Explorer series (where FE numbers were different for each different target), they were "normalized" for "good" targets to a "12" FE number with the E-Trac, and again on the CTX 3030. For instance, on an Explorer, a nickel was like 11 (FE) - 06 (CO), a copper penny was 04-28, a dime 03-29, a quarter 01-29, etc. Meanwhile, a nail might ID in at 25-29. So, while the "CO" number of a nail may be the same as a dime or quarter, the FE number was the "giveaway." It was MUCH higher than a coin's FE number. THEREFORE, many folks would set up the machine so as to cue their tones off of the CO number (you could choose to cue your tones off of either -- the CO number or the FE number), and then set their "iron bias" at somewhere around 20 FE. What that then means, is you are discriminating based on the FERROUS number, so any target with a FE ID of 20 or greater would be disc'd out. The reason it was set around 20, is that no good targets air test with a FE number higher than 11 or 12 (nickel), BUT -- the interesting thing with Explorers is when bad/irony dirt would start to "screw with" the ID numbers, THE VAST MAJORITY of that effect was limited (through FBS wizardry) to the FERROUS side; the CO number stayed pretty steady, but the FE number would up-average on a deeper coin, in bad/irony dirt. SO, that 03-29 air-test silver dime, down at say 8" deep, might read, on successive sweeps, 15-29, 13-28, 09-30, 16-28, 06-29, 05-28, 11-30. The CO number would only vary by a digit or so either way, but the FE number might range all the way up into the teens. THAT is why you had to set your "iron bias" (FE discrimination) up to at least high teens or around 20. Make sense? Meanwhile, on the 2D screen, where the FE-CO numbers represent an x,y coordinate, those "bouncing" FE numbers as I illustrated above, would create a similar "bouncing pattern" on the screen, if you watched the movement of the cursor. Number guys (like myself) would watch how the NUMBERS bounce, but folks who ran the 2D smart screen, instead of the numbers screen, would watch how the cursor would "bounce," and they learned over time that certain locations of the cursor, and how the cursor would "bounce," on successive sweeps of the target, would indicate things about the type of target. But then, along came the E-Trac, and Minelab felt it would be "easier" for users, instead of having to memorize TWO numbers for each target, and ALSO learn how the FE number would change, on deep coins, to instead just memorize CO numbers. To allow this, they decided to "normalize" the FE number of any good target; they chose "12" as the number to "normalize" to. So, even a deep coin was supposed to maintain a FE number very close to "12". This was the case with most "good" targets (silver dollars, and half dollars, to some degree, would give lower FE numbers). So, a copper penny that would read about 12-43 or so, a dime 12-44 to 12-45, silver dime maybe up to 12-46, and a quarter 12-46 to 12-47, would maintain that "12" FE number, even at depth -- maybe dropping to 11 or increasing to 13 at depth. Meanwhile, moving over to the smart screen, the obvious change with the E-Trac, compared to the Explorers was that now, a good target should not display the "cursor bounce" like you'd see on an Explorer. Instead, you would look for targets where the cursor stayed roughly "fixed" along the "12-line" (i.e. a horizontal line drawn through "12" on the y-axis, which is the FE axis). KEEP IN MIND, though, that "bad" targets would have FE numbers NOT normalized to 12, so the FE number of a "bad" target will usually be higher -- i.e. low on the screen. So, focusing on targets that fall along the 12-line, was a visual aid that helps imply what are "good" targets, and others not falling on the 12-line being generally junk. NOW -- applying this, speculatively, to the Manticore... If you look, you'll see a horizontal line through the screen, about 2/3 of the way up toward the top of the 2D coordinate system. Let's call that the "12-line." That's essentially what it is, as the videos I have seen paint a good target around that horizontal line. So, it's essentially, very likely, a "12-line." And, all that target trace is, instead of your cursor readout being "instantaneous only" -- i.e. where the cursor location at any moment, corresponds to the target ID AT THAT VERY MOMENT (as it was on the E-Trac, and the CTX also when not in "target trace mode") -- the target trace is simply a "memory" of cursor positions over the last roughly 5 to 10 seconds. It plots the cursor as a pixel on the screen, and so if you do the "Minelab wiggle" over a target, you are getting an increasingly dense plot of multiple, successive cursor positions (ID readouts of the target). And yes, those cursor positions will form a "shape." But, you can't think of the shape as something like a ground-penetrating radar, where it is showing you the "outline" of the target. Let me explain further... Again, recall that what those cursor positions are, are plots of TARGET ID. So, you can imagine that a shallow, easy-to-ID coin is going to read VERY CONSISTENT, in terms of ID, almost like an air test. SO -- imagine a shallow penny, on a CTX, that is IDing at 12-43, or VERY close to that. This means that a "plot" of every cursor position is going to be very small, and nearly "round." The "round" is representing the very slight "x-axis" variation in the target (CO) and the very slight y-axis variation (FE). Thus, you get a small, round plot of cursor dots in target trace (and, centered along the "12-line"). BUT, imagine a 2" long, 1/2" diameter brass cartridge casing. Sweeping across the "short" axis, will give a tight ID readout, similar to a coin. But, turning 90 degrees, and sweeping the "long" axis, will result in a DIFFERENT ID, and probably less "tight" (more variation in the CO number). So, you can imagine that a plot of all those IDs, as you rotate the target, would "elongate" the plot...narrow when sweeping in one direction, but "longer" -- i.e. a more variable range of IDs, and focused in a different place along the "12-line" when sweeping across the target in the other direction. SO -- you get a "shape" that is more "oblong," as opposed to tight and round. MEANWHILE, a nail that is "falsing" with a high tone at times, is going to give you an elongated trace vertically, as it GENERALLY gives a correct FE ID down well below the "12-line," but other times, when it's "false high-toning" and masquerading on that sweep as a "good" target, you'll get some cursor plots near the "12-line." Again, that would result in an elongated target trace -- suggestive of a "non-coin" target, some plots near the 12-line, but most being farther down the screen, and thus "elongated.") SO -- while a coin should look "tight" and "round" (if no other object is nearby that the machine is detecting simultaneous to the coin), the "round" is not DIRECTLY proportional to the fact that the coin is round, but the INDIRECT relationship is there, because of the fact that a round non-ferrous object generally IDs consistently/accurately on a high-quality ID machine. And thus, with little variation in any direction of the target ID (FE, OR CO), the plots of the ID will all be concentrated in a small, generally circular shape. Meanwhile, an elongated target that IDs differently when swept in one direction, versus another, will give an elongated trace...make sense? Sorry for being so long-winded, but that's it, in a nutshell, what I feel is likely going to be the case with Manticore. Steve

Steve -- That's pretty good...!! 😄 Did Minelab's marketing department write that? Kind of sounds like it. LOL! Steve

Thanks, Pimento. Very much appreciated! I'll dig into that info once again. It's been a couple of years... THANKS! Steve

Thanks for this further explanation, Pimento. I am surprised to hear how little power runs to a detector coil. I would have thought that it would take much more power than that, to enable the coil to transmit a signal into the ground that is "strong" enough such that it is capable of not only initiating an electrical current in a target buried in the ground, but also one that is then discernible by the receive side of the coil. I had no idea we were dealing with such small wattage (or apparently, milliwattage, in this case). Steve

Pimento -- I, and I would assume others, don't understand the issue here, and you didn't do anything to explain WHAT the issue is. So, just saying "stop it" is of little use. You and Chase clearly see some issue in this discussion. I don't, and so a bit of explaining would have helped... Anyway... Can you talk a little more about this "pseudo-PI" transmission that you say FBS uses, and how that allows the generation of an "FE" signal? I find this fascinating, but don't have enough knowledge to entirely follow. But, this "trick" of which you speak sounds quite fascinating and I'd like to understand better. So, are you saying that there could be two DIFFERENT transmissions going on -- an "EQX-like" waveform, and then an "FBS-like" waveform, such that Manticore, in a way, actually COULD be a sort of blend of both FBS and Multi-IQ (just as the "Manticore" name would imply -- i.e. the mythical "multi-species" creature)? Steve

Chase, maybe I missed something, and I'm not an engineer, but I'm not sure what the issue is, with Tom's statement. Here is the full statement he made... "IF you could figure out a way to wire a EQX coil to the new Manticore...... the Manticore would blow/burn it out. Soooo...... coils are NOT interchangeable. (There's also other reasons for incompatibility)." In context, he was just dumping information about the new machine. These were bullet points, that he was dropping. So it's just a "stand-alone statement" in context, trying to give those who are curious some info about the new unit. Really, this appears to me to be just a statement saying "it wouldn't be wise to try to hook up an EQX coil to the Minticore." In his "engineer" way, I think he was simply explaining that the coils are not compatible; in the context it was stated, he never mentioned or implied anything about the "50% more power to the coil" thing specifically, being the issue with coil compatibility. I assumed MYSELF that this "incompatibility" had to do with "more power to the coil," and thus that the coil's electronics would be "burned up" due to the higher "power" going to the coil. Am I incorrect there? Steve

Brian, Thanks for the post; I entirely agree with you, and I MUST POINT OUT that the quote from me, that you included in this post, was an error on my part. I FORGOT TO TYPE THE WORD "NOT!" What I INTENDED to say, was that "I am fairly sure it is NOT all a 'marketing gimmick'" Very sorry about the mistake -- that "not" is a very important word! I corrected my original post, so as to include the "not," and the bottom line is that I entirely agree with you, Brian! Steve

Dew -- I assume you are considering a Manticore, at LEAST to fill in as your "new" backup to the MDT? Better waterprooofing (if true) should be right up your alley... Steve

I believe I have seen Mark Lawrie say "50% more power going to the coil," than the Equinox, and Tom Dankowski said that if you somehow were to wire an Equinox coil up to connect to the Manticore, you would essentially "blow out the coil." So, I am fairly sure it's NOT just all a "marketing gimmick." (Just to note, I am NOT saying 50% more depth, nor 25% more depth, nor even 10% more depth...of course not; I'm just saying that there is apparently 50% more power going to the coil, and not just a marketing gimmick where the extra power is going to the backlight, keypad, flashlight, etc. -- each of which probably use very little power, i.e. flashlight being LED, etc.) Steve

palzynski -- Yes, my biggest disappointment with this shaft is the expense. I always try to offer customers the best possible prices that I can. But, this was a VERY expensive shaft to design, as each part (lower rod end, remote control mount, handle, and arm cuff) had to be designed from scratch, several molds had to be purchased in order to produce these parts, etc. So, that drives up the cost significantly. Think about it this way...compared to my Equinox straight shaft, this shaft has three additional components, right off the bat, that the Equinox shaft does not require -- the remote-control mount, the S-handle, and the arm cuff. While the cost per piece of the remote-control mount is not high, the injection mold that will be required to produce this part will be costly (initially, this will be a 3D-printed part). But, the S-handle and the arm cuff require not ONLY expensive molds to produce them, but even once the molds have been purchased, they are expensive parts to produce (due to being carbon fiber, and not plastic). For these reasons, the cost on this shaft is higher than I would like, and I will likely have to raise the price more, eventually. But, I wanted to get it out there at the lowest possible introductory price. And no, that price does not include shipping to Europe. In the U.S., shipping will add about $21 USD ($250 total price), but obviously more to ship overseas -- probably around $50 USD for shipping to the UK/EU. And YES -- a 2-piece shaft WOULD be lighter; about 1 1/2 oz. lighter due to the elimination of one of the cam locks. And I can CERTAINLY build a 2-piece shaft for anyone who does not require the collapsibility that the 3-piece offers. I know many users like the way the stock XP shaft collapses for travel, and so I wanted to maintain that ability for those who like it. BUT -- for those who don't require it, and are happy with a two-piece shaft, another approximately 1.5 oz. can indeed be shaved from the shaft just by eliminating the upper cam lock. Steve

Done, LOL! 😉 Steve

palzynski -- The introductory price on my shaft will be $229 USD plus shipping. Also, thanks for the information/specifications on the Deus Lite S-Stem -- the lighter alternative to the standard Deus stem. So, yes -- while my shaft is a hair lighter than the standard Deus shaft, it is not quite as light as the Deus lite. What I can say, is this. First, if I made my shaft shorter (Deus length), obviously it would be lighter, as you noted. In fact, building my shaft to Deus standard shaft length, would reduce my shaft weight by almost an ounce (0.9 oz.) I can do that, for any customer who doesn't need the extra length. At "Deus length," my shaft weight would then be reduced to approximately 15.4 oz. In addition, the Deus shaft uses neither an arm cuff pad, nor an arm cuff strap. Eliminating those from my arm cuff, would remove another half ounce (0.55 oz.). This is also something I can do, for any customer that doesn't need a pad or a strap. So at that point, my shaft would be reduced to 14.85 oz. -- and would be within 0.85 oz. of the weight of a Deus Lite shaft (and just over an ounce and a half lighter than the Deus standard shaft). Further, there is one additional thing I will say, which I think is a very important consideration -- BALANCE. To elaborate... The standard Deus arm cuff weighs 2.2 oz., if I am not mistaken. With the strap and pad included on my cuff, mine weighs 5.6 oz. (it checks in at 5.0 oz. without the strap and pad). And that 3-ish ounce difference accounts for the reason I can't quite match the Deus Lite shaft weight. While my cuff is carbon fiber, it is larger, and quite heavy-duty. It also has a larger/taller stand on the bottom than the stock Deus cuff, so that my shaft will rest properly upright, when a coil is attached. Finally, my cuff uses four small bolts and locking nuts (marine-grade stainless steel) to attach it to the shaft. Given those features, it ends up just over 3 oz. heavier than the Deus cuff. HOWEVER, while I could have substantially reduced the cuff weight by making the cuff less heavy-duty, I did not want to do so, as I am all about solid, heavy-duty builds. BUT -- but more importantly -- I DID NOT WANT to reduce the weight, because having a cuff on a Deus shaft that is slightly heavier, is a POSITIVE. The reason is BALANCE (and thus, user comfort). Like other machines, a Deus has nearly all of the weight at the "coil end" of the shaft, and next to NO weight, at the butt end. This, of course, means it is nose-heavy. While the Deus 9" coil is light enough that the imbalance is not a major problem for most users, it is still nose-heavy, which is not ideal. And therefore, adding 3 oz. of extra weight to the butt end of the shaft (via the arm cuff) IMPROVES the balance of the shaft, and OFFSETS the fact that my shaft is a fraction of an ounce heavier than a Deus Lite shaft. This fits neatly in line with what I feel is the philosophical foundation of a perfect shaft design. And that is, do everything you can to reduce the weight of the shaft as much as possible FIRST, AND THEN -- once you have the lightest shaft possible -- ADD A BIT OF WEIGHT, in the RIGHT PLACE (the butt end) to bring better BALANCE. This maximizes the ergonomic comfort of the detector, making it a more comfortable machine to swing. Reducing the "absolute" weight of a detector is just ONE consideration, when attempting to design a comfortable machine to swing; balance is just as important, IF NOT MORESO, than the "absolute" weight. And, from an ergonomics perspective, BALANCE is, in my view, the most neglected aspect of today's detector designs. Steve

Sandheron -- THANKS for letting me know! Sounds like, then, they are very close. Mine runs about 1/2 oz. lighter, as it weighs 15.9 oz. without the strap on the arm cuff, which D2 cuff does not have. One other note, is that my shaft is also designed to be longer than the Deus stock shaft -- extending about 6" longer than the Deus shaft can. It's also longer from the handle to the arm cuff; that section of the stock Deus shaft is too short, in my opinion; mine is a few inches longer in that dimension. So, if I built my shaft to the same dimensions as the Deus shaft, it would end up lighter still; probably an ounce so lighter than the stock shaft. And of course, I'm happy to build a "shorter" shaft for anyone who prefers that, to shave a bit of additional weight. Thank you! Steve

abenson -- how did you get on a list already? Steve

bigtim -- no, I don't have one in hand right now. So, I'm not sure how it compares to the stock... Steve

bigtim, I just finished assembling the first shaft (to be sent out for field testing soon). Total weight of the shaft, everything included except a coil, and with remote control NOT attached (but with remote control mount included) is 16.3 oz. total weight. I'm not sure how this compares, in an "apples to apples" way to the stock shaft (no coil, no remote attached), but perhaps someone can chime in? Thanks! Steve

Brad, Thank YOU! Steve

palzynski -- yes, sir -- most definitely. Each of the things you mentioned is being addressed. My shaft allows quite a bit more distance between the arm cuff and handle. And, not only will the extension length of the "standard" shaft be longer than the Deus shaft, I can customize for anyone that needs a longer-than-standard shaft, as well... Chase -- thank you sir! Steve

F350 -- understood, LOL! Nope, won't fit the stock shaft. Needs a round one... Steve

F350 -- sorry, my friend! They are going to be installed on field-test prototype shafts in the next couple of days, and then will be sent off to the testers... 😞 Are you needing an arm cuff? I have an earlier plastic prototype of this cuff -- very similar, but a bit larger, that I'd sell you for a really good price... bigtim -- not sure yet; I haven't assembled a prototype shaft using my "production-grade" parts yet; earlier prototypes were all using 3D-printed parts. Once I get one assembled, likely this weekend, I'll be able to comment on the weight... Thanks! Steve

The project is moving along at a good pace. A surprise arrived today, that will now allow me to get the field-test prototypes sent out to testers soon... The arm cuffs were produced by my supplier with matte finish, not glossy, by mistake -- but they'll be glossy (to match the rest of the shaft) in the production model. For more information regarding the shaft, what it will feature, and what I'm attempting to achieve in terms of improvements, etc., you can find details in my latest "blog" entry (dated 8-24-22) on my website, at https://www.stevesdetectorrods.com/blog/index.php Thanks, all! Steve