Jump to content

steveg

Full Member
  • Posts

    1,200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Forums

Detector Prospector Home

Detector Database

Downloads

Everything posted by steveg

  1. Tim -- Excellent hunting. You described very clearly and explicitly how "hunted out" your park was... ...until it wasn't! LOL! Impressive that with only a handful of hours on the machine, you had it "opening up" your park again... I get it! ;) Steve
  2. LOL! I can't get out nearly as much as the Equinox wishes I would, and the CTX wants my attention, too! TOO much work, not enough free time! :) Steve
  3. VERY nice, Tim. EXCELLENT write-up, and I love the Merc pulled today on a short "lunchtime" hunt! You are doing very well, indeed! SUPER! Steve
  4. Here's a revised Excel spreadsheet showing the VDI chart -- this one including additional coins/jewelry (THANKS, SteveJJ!) Steve EquinoxVDIver2.xlsx
  5. For Heaven's sake, isn't THAT the truth (the part of your post I bolded, above). So many people just can't deal with/won't tolerate this kind of discussion, nowadays. To me, it's the old "iron sharpens iron" thing. Take an idea, and let's tear it apart together...debate -- even vigorously. But tear apart the IDEAS, not the participants in the discussion. This is how learning/discovery takes place -- logical exchange of ideas -- but this is becoming nearly extinct in our culture today. You can't debate someone with logic -- it immediately becomes personal, and usually devolves to name calling/ad hominem attacks as soon as you "challenge" someone's idea or statement. I could not possibly agree more with what you said, and how you said it, GB. Oh, and the rest of your post was informative, as well! Thanks for "getting" the "spirit" with which I was discussing your ideas... Steve
  6. GB_Amateur -- some good/interesting points. A few counterpoints... As for the "collecting world figuring it out," I am not sure. Yes, you could be right, but...on the other hand, I think it's possible they don't. Without any obvious difference in appearance, and without being "tipped off" by any records from the U.S. Mint, how would they know? Why would they "suspect" this? What would even tell them to "look" for such a thing (a few minted with no manganese), and how would they have discovered, or tested it (without sophisticated equipment)? Seems to me that our detectors may be telling us something, clueing us in to something that may not be widely -- if at all -- known. I can say this -- these really high-reading nickels are RARE. I have never dug a war nickel that read anywhere except very close to nickel. SURE, I have missed many that read just a BIT off -- just above, or just below nickel, as I generally try to avoid tabs and beaver tails, etc. and target only OBVIOUS nickel signals. BUT -- I DO dig high conductors, and I've never dug a war nickel anywhere near the "penny" range. With thousands of pennies and other similar targets dug, I should have dug some of these high-reading war nickels -- and so should everyone else have done so. In other words, IF there were many out there, more would be dug "by accident," by myself, and others. Instead, I have only heard of this EXTREMELY "rarely" (these ones that read WAY high), so just "extrapolating," there would seem to have been relatively few of them minted (if it is indeed a "composition" thing). My GUESS would be maybe a small PORTION of one "minting year?" Along those lines, it would be interesting to see if all of the high-reading ones come from one particular year... As for alloys being tricky, I agree (chemically speaking). BUT -- it's hard for me to imagine that ANY silver-copper alloy would not read "high" on a machine. After all, all of our silver coins ARE a silver/copper alloy (90/10), and other countries have minted "less pure" silver coins (more copper content, or whatever), and as I understand they are also relatively "high conductors" (presuming similar size). Now, gold alloys are totally different. Gold is a relatively POOR conductor, and it is frequently alloyed with any number of other metals -- including copper (common in 14K). This contributes to why an 18K or higher men's band reads MUCH lower than a 14K men's band (which often has a good bit of copper in it). This "gold alloy comparison" with respect to silver/copper alloys seems to maybe be a bit of an "apples to oranges" comparison (mixing a low conductor with a high one, in the case of lower-carat gold, versus a copper/silver alloy coin which would be a mix of two high conductors). Finally, on the "environmental" causes (chemical changes to the surface of the coin in the ground, causing different capability for the coin to generate eddy currents) -- I do think that is very possible, and I personally believe that it does happen. HOWEVER, I would be more willing to accept that as the cause of SMALL changes in coin ID, not large ones (i.e. a zinc penny reading a few digits low, for example). FURTHER, I'd be more willing to accept that hypothesis as a cause of our war nickel dilemma if war nickels were reading at least somewhat consistently at ALL ID numbers between the nickel range and the penny range. HOWEVER, it seems, from what I can tell, to be a case of where the vast majority of the war nickels read at "nickel," or very close to it (a few digits either way), and then a very few MAJOR outliers that read as "penny-type" targets...which to me, suggests more of a "different coin composition" issue, than a "ground causing chemical changes" issue. NOT definitive, of course; it still COULD be effects from the ground in very specific circumstances I guess, but I'm willing to say "not likely" with respect to the penny-reading war nickels... Definitely a mystery...good stuff! Steve
  7. Dan(NM)... I have a very close friend/detecting buddy, who was hunting a site a few weeks ago with his CTX. He was digging ONLY the deepest of targets (minimum 8" deep, as all the oldies at this site are 8" plus). He hit a target on the CTX that was reading 12-40 to 12-41. He figured "wheat cent," but due to the depth, he will occasional dig dimes at 12-39 to 12-40 to 12-41 at that site. So, he dug it, thinking wheat but hoping silver dime. And out popped.... ...A WAR NICKEL! SO, I told him -- NO WAY. There HAD to be something else in the hole, skewing that ID number...or else it was the fact that at just over 12" deep, the machine was unable to give accurate ID and it "up-averaged" it. He told me that he has seen them ID anywhere from 12-8 to 12-43. I thought "yeah, maybe in the ground, in strange situations/orientations or whatever..." Since I was still skeptical (to say the least), he fetched it, and air tested it for me. And?????? ... 12-42 to 12-45!!! Moral of the story? Your 24 war nickel is roughly equivalent to his 12-43 war nickel (both "penny" IDs on the respective machines). It also lines up with tnss's 43-conductive war nickel on his E-Trac. Here's my best guess: According to the U.S. Mint, war nickels were minted from 35% silver, 9% manganese, and 56% copper. SO, the REAL question -- and it's one I've asked myself MANY times, is WHY should a war nickel read AT ALL like a regular nickel? If you took out the 9% manganese, and made them 44% silver and 56% copper, or 35% silver and 65% copper, whatever, you'd expect a very high-conductive coin. So, it MUST be the manganese mixed in, right? A supporting piece of evidence is that manganese is a poor conductor -- SO, it stands to reason that mixing in some manganese to an otherwise high-conductive mix, that you could end up with something that conducts "roughly the same" as nickel, right? WELL, if I am right, and it's the poorly-conductive manganese that brings the target ID of a war nickel down, into "regular nickel" range, THEN...perhaps some batches of war nickels were made WITHOUT the manganese? Perhaps they are just silver/copper mixes -- and thus the crazy, "high-conductive" ID values? Interesting stuff, Dan! Thanks for sharing! Steve
  8. OK, a follow-up video, this time the same testing, but also including running the ring in Park 1 with NO discrimination. This reveals that the ring is being seen, when on-edge, largely as "iron" by the machine. I also ran the on-edge ring in Park 2 mode, with only marginally better results. Interesting how the machine deals with this target. For what it's worth -- while I will not include the link here, I also ran the same ring in the same hole using the CTX 3030. That video is also up on my channel, if interested. Steve
  9. NICE chart, dca2! Thanks for sharing! Steve
  10. martygene -- I believe you are asking for Cal Cobra's cheat sheet, yes? Steve
  11. Glad to help, dca2! Steve, didn't know that, about the pictures. Thanks for the tip! Steve
  12. OK, let's try it, Brian... ...HUH! Looks like it worked! Thanks for the tip! Here you go... Steve EquinoxVDI.xlsx
  13. Brain, SURE! I'm not sure I know how to attach a file can you do that? If you can let me know how, I will. Otherwise, PM me your email address and I'll email it to you. Thanks! Steve
  14. It's an excellent question, martygene, and one I will explore. I also have wondered if raising "iron bias" might improve the signal on the "on-edge" ring, as well. These are things I'll examine "just for kicks," but since performance is apparently adequate/good (I need to confirm) on both on-edge GOLD rings, and on on-edge "small" silver coins (dimes and quarters), this is a "quirk" in the unit that I can most DEFINITELY live with, no question about it... Steve
  15. Yep, that pretty much seems to sum it up, Steve. As has been said many times, by many of us, BBS/FBS and Multi-IQ are very "complementary" to each other -- both do many things extremely well, and anywhere one is a tad weaker, the other has its strength there. I can honestly say, this machine has impressed me significantly -- silver ring "oddity" aside. I feel extremely fortunate to be able to own both an FBS machine and a Multi-IQ unit. I feel that with EITHER, I am not "giving up much" as compared to any other VLF machine. But with BOTH units available on any given day, there's nothing I can imagine -- no site, no environment, no style of hunting, no targets to seek -- where I am "missing anything," in terms of top-notch capability. Steve
  16. Steve -- COINS on edge, I agree. Many machines struggle, and most if not all get reduced depth on a "on-edge" coin. That ring of mine surprised me, though. It's pretty wide -- MUCH wider than a coin's edge. I would have thought that the amount of surface area "facing" the coil, even with the ring on edge, would have been a plenty good chunk of silver for the machine to see (unlike a "coin edge.") I guess this will have to be chalked up as a "quirk," which is fine by me. This machine does so many things well, but there are bound to be "quirks" as you implied. Certainly, behavior of electromagnetic fields is way too complex for most of us to understand, who have not been trained in that particular discipline... Steve
  17. SUPER job, Cabin Fever. You really managed some great finds! I found my first silver with the Equinox a couple of days ago as well, fifth hunt, probably 20 hours total on the machine so far; ALSO in a very "hunted-out" park and ALSO a coin that "shouldn't have been there." I had swung over this coin multiple times in the past... No, depth is not a problem. At all. Nor is separating out the goodies from within the iron/trash. This machine is impressive. And -- as Steve likes to say, it's just "fun" to hunt with. Steve
  18. I plan to test further, also, Cabin Fever. Iron ID on the rings on-edge suggests "wrap around;" that's why I wish I would have included that testing in the video -- for the reason you stated (the iron grunts). I also plan to experiment some with iron bias; would the ring on-edge give more proper non-ferrous response with higher (or even maximum) iron bias? Will other modes give better response? Additional testing, as you suggested, is necessary... It MAY turn out to be something like Rick suggested -- when he said this: Steve
  19. Hi all, I produced a video to illustrate the "ring on edge" issue I mentioned earlier in this thread. Please forgive the quality -- I'm still learning how to do videos! :) Settings were Park 1, 16 sensitivity, recovery 3, iron bias 3, factory Park 1 disc. (+1 and below), 50 tones. I SHOULD have tried running over the ring, at the end of the video, with no disc applied (horseshoe button), but forgot to. Still, you can see the lack of response to the ring when on edge -- both lying on the ground, and buried about 3" deep. youtu.be/-BMMDbF1DRw Steve
  20. Yes, Steve -- I apologize about the "mix" of reporting -- some of my reporting was about the Equinox, and some obviously was comparing the Equinox to the CTX. I was not sure which place to put it, so if you feel it needs to be moved at some point to the "comparisons" forum, by all means, I get it! Steve
  21. Strick -- You are absolutely right that I was running it too hot for the conditions. I concur. Like I said, the reason I did that was that Auto +3 in that case would have been 19, and when I tested the coin at auto +3/19, I got ZERO response on that 10" quarter. The only way to get a few chirps out of it (and I mean target chirps, not EMI chirps LOL) was to run it that hot. I had to decide whether to do the testing at a more "stable" CTX level -- and then have people say "no wonder you were deeper with the 'Nox, you ran the 'Nox way hotter than you ran the CTX," versus whether to run the CTX "hot" so as to show that even at high sensitivity, the 'Nox compared favorably, depth-wise. It was a dilemma -- but you are right, that was way to hot to have run it otherwise, and with that much noise I'd have run a lower sensitivity "in the field." The other thing, though, is I agree with you, on the Equinox not fully "replacing" the CTX as a deep coin hunter in turf. I will not be replacing my CTX. At least, not full time. I envisioned before I got the 'Nox, and nothing thus far has told me otherwise, that it will be a "which type of site am I hunting today, 1800s home site, or city park" or "how trashy of a section of the park am I going to be in today," type of thing. It's a scenario where if I plan to hunt in a trashy location, I COULD use the CTX, and know I'd be good on any real deep coin, and still "OK" if in the nails/trash. But on the other hand, I might instead choose the Equinox, for that site. Doing so, I know I'd be in really good shape hunting trash, and yet still "capable" if I run across a deep one. In other words, they are "complementary." IF I simply HAD to choose one, right now, it would be the CTX -- because I am more adept at hunting DEEP, vs. hunting in trash. BUT -- if I ever become skilled at hunting "in trash," then I don't know...I think the Equinox's skill "in trash" MIGHT, just MIGHT, prove to be larger than the CTX's advantage on deep coin hunting in turf...but that remains to be seen. IN ANY CASE, I have no reason I NEED to pare it down to "just one," and thus I will very happily keep, and use, both. I think that's the best of both worlds...as they both have their advantages. That's how I see it. I will say this -- the 'Nox might eventually make my 6" CTX coil expendable; I could see a situation where BEFORE, I might say "this is a trashy site; I'll run the CTX with the 6" coil today," but now I'll say "this is a trashy site, I'll run the EQUINOX today..." In other words, the Equinox might "obsolete" the CTX 6" coil, for me! ;) LOL! Steve
  22. Chase -- I think that "locked" was a bad word choice on my part. To explain... I had no idea how GB worked in beach mode, prior to yesterday's testing. In other modes, the default GB setting is "zero." So when you switch to the GB screen, if you choose to do an auto GB, then the procedure is that you press and hold the "accept/reject" button, and then start pumping the coil up and down. You will hear audible feedback from the ground lessen, while at the same time the "0" default ground balance number starts to climb; eventually the number hits a point, and stabilizes -- in conjunction with the audible ground feedback decreasing to a very low level. Now you are "balanced;" the machine chose a "proper" setting. The "manual" GB process is the same, EXCEPT you don't press/hold the "accept/reject" button. You simply switch to the GB screen from the menu, and then bob the coil up and down, while you MANUALLY run the GB numbers up, gradually, listening to the ground feedback. You "stop" at the point where the audible ground feedback is minimized, and then you are "balanced" -- similar to the way the "auto" process works, except that YOU decide when you achieve "balance," not the machine. NOW -- with that said, I switched to beach mode, and I went to the ground balance screen. I saw the "0" on the screen, which is as expected, as that's the default, just like in other modes. BUT -- when I pressed the accept/reject button (to initiate the "auto" balance process) and started bobbing the coil, the balance number never changed. It stayed at "zero." I did not know it would do that; it surprised me at first. Hence, my choice of the wording that GB is "locked" in beach mode. HOWEVER, subsequently, it was said that if you don't use the "auto" procedure, but instead use the MANUAL GB process, you CAN adjust the ground balance to whatever level you wish. And so, "locked" is not a proper choice of words on my part. The better choice of words would be "the auto GB process in beach mode will not change the GB setting; if you wish to ground balance, you have to balance manually (or, select "tracking" ground balance)." Hope this helps to clear it up. Steve
  23. Thanks for the kind words, and I hear you, Dan. I had an 8" wheat of my own, in dense trash, on my first hunt, that gave me the same boost of confidence that you describe. Seeing the results in my test garden helped to push that confidence even a little further along. This machine is NO slouch, depth-wise, and looks like it is quickly shaping up to be the best I've used in trashy environments... Steve
  24. It is "subtle," but it's there. If I hadn't already had that sense (I did), there was no doubt when switching to gold mode -- that just hammered it home. It felt like I set down my "coin hunter," and picked up a totally different machine. The differences are more nuanced, but still there, when switching between other modes, but if you want to see the full spectrum of how "different" the machine is in different modes, just swing it for awhile in Park 1, and then switch to Gold 2. Wow... Steve
×
×
  • Create New...