Jump to content

mh9162013

Member
  • Posts

    851
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Forums

Detector Prospector Magazine

Detector Database

Downloads

Calendar

Everything posted by mh9162013

  1. Based on what others had experienced, my personal observations and experiences with the AT Max were normal. The issue I had with the AT Max was not its performance, but its MSRP. Taking its performance in isolation, it's an amazing machine. But once you factor in its price, it's not a good machine. And it's not a "good" machine because of what you're getting for money you're spending. How does this relate to marketing? Garrett knows the AT Max is overpriced, so they have to market it in a way to try and justify its high price.
  2. I agree that when a company oversells, the customer (even the newbies) usually find out pretty quickly. But that doesn't always hurt the company's reputation to a significant extent. I think a great example of this is Garrett and its AT Max. In other words, if a company's reputation is big/good enough compared to its competitors, they can get away with a lot more overselling. Combine this fact with the ignorance and naivety of many new metal detectorists who are just starting out and it's no wonder Garrett continues to market the way they do. TL;DR: when there's a "sucker born every minute" there's little incentive to be honest.
  3. That 2D Target Trace feature seems really nice. I really appreciated the E-Trac's Co:Fe feature and it seems like Manticore has something even better in that you can potentially approximate the targets shape, too. I'm primarily a coin shooter, so this is a feature I think could be a game changer for me. If I had the money, I'd definitely be pre-ordering this machine.
  4. I agree. You generally want to use one cell instead of two, as that halves the chances for a bad cell to make the device inoperable. So why would Minelab go from one cell to two? Higher voltage requirements is one possibility, but like PimentoUK said, that's not a compelling reason as you can step up or down voltages fairly easily. So providing additional current is probably it...and my guess it's not that the Manticore pulls that much juice over extended periods of time. Rather, it's that the Manticore might have relatively high current draw at peak moments and Minelab engineers felt they could improve cell life by reducing the current draw on the cells.
  5. How many other manufacturers have spent the time and effort to improve their SMF technology the way Minelab has? I personally think the 50% more power thing is more of a marketing thing than anything else. But I also think that the Manticore will be able to make use of that power more effectively than the AT Max did when it was released and much of the marketing mentioned its greater sensitivity and increased power.
  6. What do you guys think about this part of the arm rest (that I circled in green)? Room for a weight to help balance the machine or hold an extra battery pack during a hunt, a la the N/M Legend? EDIT: Looks like it's part of the arm cuff adjustment mechanism. Still might be able to serve double duty to hold an extra battery or counterweight, though.
  7. Or he could just be subject to an NDA.
  8. Or a CTX 4040? I know it looks more like an Equinox than a CTX, but I get the impression it has target ID abilities like FBS II machines, but doesn't carry the slow recovery speed or weight of those machines.
  9. That's what it looks like to me. I loved my E-Trac, but it killed my shoulder. I can't imagine an Equinox with the target ID accuracy (for silver, at least) of an FBS II machine...
  10. Great post, thanks for sharing. Hypothetical question for you: If the Equinox 600 had vibration and waterproofness that equaled what the Legend offered, would you still choose the Legend over the 600?
  11. If you followed a company's recommendations, the only way this could happen is if there's a defect with the product.
  12. More power to ya! And yes, I do think there's something in the charger or connected to the battery that's limiting the current sent to the battery. You talk about R/C hobbyists doing these things to reduce internal resistance. But that's not the same thing as increasing a battery's life span. As PimentoUK already mentioned, these R/C applications require top performance where drivers are willing to sacrifice a battery's longevity to get a few extra mahs and tenths of a volt from their battery packs. So what they're doing may not necessarily lead to a longer battery life for low-drain applications like metal detecting. Lithium batteries might benefit from being broken in. But I don't know what that benefit is. Also, even if that benefit relates to increasing cell life, I don't know what the exact procedure needs to be. For example, assuming your "partially charge, then rest..." method increases cell life, how do you know how long the rest and charge periods need to be? I assume you're making educated guesses, so there's no way to confirm that any benefits you're gaining are outweighing the drawbacks.
  13. In my opinion, most of that is necessary and it might even shorten the overall life of the battery. I can MAYBE see using the 1amp charger for the first few charges to help with the "break in," but I'd be surprised if that makes a difference. Also, in my experience and from what I've read, the life of a lithium is primarily dependent on the number of charge cycles. This assumes you're not charging or discharging it at extreme temps or at extreme rates (1C or greater). So it's my thought that all this "unplug and rest...then plug in" will actually hurt the battery more than it will help. I could be wrong, but that's my opinion. You imply this can be done with the 1amp charger, but are you sure that makes a difference? Most consumer chargers without any adjustability will only give what the device/battery can take. For instance, if you have a 10watt USB charger for phones, but a phone and its battery are designed to be charged at a rate of 500ma, then that USB charger effectively becomes a 2.5watt charger when plugged into that phone. I don't know how N/M's chargers work, but I imagine they work on a similar principle where the charger only gives the battery what the battery is willing to accept. I guess it's possible the Simplex's battery is designed to accept a charge at a 2amp rate, but I doubt it, as the battery is rated as having a 2,300 mah capacity. This would mean the battery can be fully charged (from empty) is less than 1.5 hours. This is NOT good for the long-term health of a rechargeable lithium battery. All of this to say, I don't think switching between a 1amp and 2amp charger will make a difference in the current sent to the Simplex's battery. So here's what I would do: just follow N/M's recommendations. If doing the above is enjoyable for you, knock yourself out! You bought the Simplex to have fun with and if that's fun for you, I'm not one to judge. But if you're doing it ONLY to help your battery last longer, I'd be surprised if you're accomplishing those results.
  14. I completely understand. I get the desire to figure things out and how some of the "maintenance tasks" associated with a hobby can be part of the fun. For example, one reason I enjoy metal detecting is that it gives me an excuse to play with my batteries (which are almost all serial numbered by me so I can keep track of their histories). All that being said, it's usually best to follow a manufacturer's guidelines as to how to charge and maintain their batteries. This doesn't mean they're 100% right in 100% of situations. But it's safe to assume that it's a good "general rule of thumb" that balances out various competing interests (long run time, long-term health of the battery, convenience, etc.). Now, if you learn of something that says a company's recommendations on how to charge or store a battery are wrong (as well as the reason why that company is spreading incorrect information), but all means let us know! But I'm not aware of any of that information currently existing with the major metal detecting companies.
  15. I've had similar thoughts. For example why can't the metal detector be programmed for the user to tell the machine what was found? After the user does this enough, the detector will have "learned" how to identfy targets in the ground based on what it was detecting and what was ultimately dug up. It can be limited to just American coins, for instance. Let's say a user (I'm gonna used Minelab's MIQ scale here) finds a target that rings up as a 25 and is 4 inches down. The user thinks it might be a copper penny. The user carefully digs it and notes how deep it was, its orientation in the soil (if that's possible to discern...it sometimes is when the coin is neatly stuck to the side or bottom of the plug) and what the object actually was. So in my hypothetical, it turns out to be a 2004 Zincoln, not a copper penny. The detector will make a "mental note" of the find and several variables that corresponded with it (including the GPS coords of the find). If a user is willing to take the time to teach its detector to do this, the machine would be pretty darn good after just a dozen or so digs in the same general location. The problem I see with this approach is threefold. First, it requires a lot of time and patience. Second, there's the problem of "garbage in, garbage out." If the user is wrong in the data it gives the machine (gives the wrong depth of the coin, for instance, when the user swings the coil higher off the ground than is recommended), then the detector can't properly learn. Third, you're basically teaching a machine to do what a neurotypical human being who's really into metal detecting is doing anyways. Basically, this hypothetical machine isn't just a metal detector, but a notetaker and pattern finder. But humans are already pretty good at seeing patterns. They're just lousy with memory and tend to be lazy in their habits. So it's too easy for them to incorrectly remember: the find, the settings used and the ground conditions at that time. A simpler process would just be to use the machine, tell the machine to note a given signal, then after digging it up, simply telling the machine if it was a "good" or "bad" target. This boolean "process" could also teach the detector about what's a potential good find or not. For coin shooters (gven how standardized the desired targets tend to be), this could be pretty effective. I think in its ideal form, it would still give a tone and VDI like any other detector, but it would have a "confidence bar" to go along with it. It's this confidence bar that would be constantly altered as the machine learns from the user.
  16. Presumably the price hikes are due to inflation, supply-chain and COVID-related pressures. But I agree that there's probably more going on, like the psycological effect it would have on potential customers or mainting a particular "image" with a certain price level. I think Garrett's price hike is especially atrocious. I don't care if their costs of production have gone up...their machines were already overpriced by 50-200%. So these higher costs of production are just "economic karma" in my opinion.
  17. I know it's subjective, but in my opinion, Minelab, Garrett and N/M all have equally cringeworthy or eyeroll-y marketing videos.
×
×
  • Create New...