LukeJMG1986

9 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

A bunch of relevant discussion here

Excellent, thanks, I have to start searching on the forum, before posting a thread that may have already been discussed. There is a gold mine of info contained here!

On 6/17/2020 at 12:22 AM, Sinclair said:

I cant't speak for rivers, but fresh water lakes in my area behave exactly the same.

After some investigation, I found the stones / sand to be surprisingly heavy mineralized. Some of the smaller stones even stick to a strong mangnet(!). My salt water beaches behave completely different.

Perhaps you can throw a strong magnet in there. If it attracts small stones and particles, that will perhaps be your problem.

Mineralisation here is definitely a thing. I have to remember we do deal with alot of it in Sonoma County, CA. I appreciate the feedback. Thank you

13 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

Since there are now two Iron Bias scales (independent -- user gets to decide which one) it might help if you told us which you are referring to:  FE or F2.

I don't water hunt so my replies may not be relevant to what you are experiencing; thus I'll refrain.  I will be posting soon what I've been finding by experimentation in the field, playing with the F2 settings.  I may wait until I get more testing done, though.  IMO it's a very confusing feature.  I'll leave it at that.

Hey, thanks for the reply

     I actually tried both, but I spent the majority of the time in FE. I do keep it pretty low, and a friend actually told me there is a good deal of mineralization here in Northern California, which could be part of what I was experiencing. I resorted to simply digging the target, grunt or not, just to be sure. I would definitely like to know for certain what causes it, so I can better understand, well, everything really. 

22 hours ago, phrunt said:

Is there a reason you're lowering your iron bias from default?  Some good reading for you.

 

     Hey, I appreciate the input. I lowered the Iron Bias, because I didn't want to run the risk of the Iron Bias masking nearby non ferrous items. I usually go 1 or 2, because I did notice I was digging some nails and rusty metal flakes on zero. I'm a novice, with less then a year under my belt. I may be overthinking it, but I can't stand the thought of going over a good item, because the iron bias is masking it. Frankly, I'm still putting the pieces together from 6 months of reading, and detecting like crazy, so I have alot of info swirling around that I'm not 100% on, as I simply don't have the time under my belt yet. 

Hey folks,

     I noticed today, while doing a 7 hour river hunt (Fresh Water), in Northern California (Wine Country), that almost all my targets would give an iron grunt as the coil passed off the target. I thought perhaps there was small iron nearby the target, so I replaced the target (100 yen coin) in a clean spot and swept back and forth, receiving a small grunt here and there. 

     I had been hunting in Beach 1 All Metal Mode for the day. I did this so that I could check to see if I had a bear cap, or pull tab by swinging over then pulling off the target to reveal the Iron (Something I read in "The Equinox Serious, by Andy Sabisch) I did notice that discriminating -9 - 0 It obviously did away with the grunts, but my question is, what would cause that? 

     My sensitivity ranged for 10-20. The Iron Bias was set to 0, and also 4 (with similar results) I noise canceled frequently, and did a ground balance every now and then as well. My recovery delay was 4, or 5. In case any of these settings would cause it. 

     I'm very much a novice, with less then a year experience, and have never hunted extensively in water. I know alot of you guys know your stuff, so I figured I'd see what kind of answers I could get here. Hopefully I gave all the pertinent information. I appreciate your answers, and happy hunting!

~ Luke

15 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

Below is a pretty detailed rackout of iron bias including how F2 compares to FE when I replied to you after you asked a similar question here a few weeks back.  Short answer is the F2 filter is a more powerful filter than FE but it can also has drawbacks including target masking.  Whether or not your soil is mineralized really has no bearing on the effectiveness of iron bias mitigating high tone ferrous falsing.  If your trashy site is mostly non-ferrous junk then you won't really see any beneficial effect from iron bias regardless of its setting.  Anyway, check out my response again below and click on the embedded links in the post for more in-depth info - good luck and HTH:

Post back if you have further questions.

I completely forgot I had posted that question. When I posted it, I didn't even know there was an F2 option. I was watching a YouTube video in which I saw

15 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

Below is a pretty detailed rackout of iron bias including how F2 compares to FE when I replied to you after you asked a similar question here a few weeks back.  Short answer is the F2 filter is a more powerful filter than FE but it can also has drawbacks including target masking.  Whether or not your soil is mineralized really has no bearing on the effectiveness of iron bias mitigating high tone ferrous falsing.  If your trashy site is mostly non-ferrous junk then you won't really see any beneficial effect from iron bias regardless of its setting.  Anyway, check out my response again below and click on the embedded links in the post for more in-depth info - good luck and HTH:

Post back if you have further questions.

Thanks for the info,

     I had completely forgotten that I asked about Iron Bias. Sorry about that. I actually just found out the F2 setting even existed. I was watching a YouTube video, and saw a guy hit the accept/reject button, to switch from FE to F2, which was what prompted me to ask this similar question, as to what the difference was between the two iron bias settings. I definitely appreciate the input, and I'll try and be careful not to post the same question twice. I haven't used it in bias really, as I'm afraid of losing good targets, but given the trash density, and my lack of experience with a device like the equinox, I may want to bump it up a hair. That's where the question came to mind, that if there are two different iron bias settings, what is the difference, and does the newer F2 work any better then the older FE. I appreciate your patience BTW. I'm also a bit of a newb on forums. 

Hey all,

     So I just figured out that there was an F2 setting, I've been running the machine in FE. I'm in Northern California, with Moderate, to extreme soil conditions. My question is, does F2 perform better then FE, especially when hunting for coins in trash infested areas? I watched a few videos, but had a hard time coming to a conclusion. Any input on these settings would be greatly appreciated!

     Hey I wanted to thank everyone for the input.

I'm looking forward to getting back out there and hunting some more. I'm also looking forward to them easing up restrictions on park access, and beach access here in California! HH

I was curious about the depth I was getting when doing an air test with different settings. I noticed that with a recovery speed of 7, the target (no matter the size) seemed to drop off, and disappear at about 4 1/2 to 6 inches. The most I was able to squeeze out of it was 11 1/2 to 12 inches, but this was with very unstable readings. I know air tests are not the same as an actual test bed, and even a test bed dosent account for the halo effect theory. I live in Northern California, so I have to deal with some highly mineralized ground conditions. I like hunting for everything from relics, to gold Jewelery, but what I'm really searching for at this moment is old coins, namely silver, but any old coins (seems to be my favorite kind of treasure so far) I thought the conveyor belt analogy was great by Steve H, and I adjusted my recovery speed to 7. I see people posting videos where there Equinox 800 is getting depths of 10 in and up with a recovery speed of 7, but my air test only produced 4 to 6 in. I unfortunately don't know the machine well enough to know if it has any issues. I'm also generally running minimal sensitivity, because most of the areas I hunt are pretty trashy. The only spot I'm able to hunt under the lockdown order is an old junkyard turned into a trail head. The ground is saturated with old car parts, and modern trash. I read everything on this forum, and have learned a ton, but I'm still struggling to find even one silver coin, or indian head penny. Any thoughts or ideas would be greatly appreciated! 

I'm confused about iron bias. I hunt a trail head that use to be a junk yard. Needless to say it's packed to the gills with trash. Would I want to slightly increase iron bias? Or leave it at the factory preset (which is zero I believe) Also, will increasing the iron bias increase the odds of missing gold or silver?

Steve, this is a brilliant analogy. I'm going to have to call you the metal detecting preacher haha. I'm new to the hobby, only 2 months in, maybe three. The conveyor belt analogy you used helped me to understand, with a little more depth, how recovery speed works. It would be cool if you had an analogy for all the basic functions of a metal detector. The nice thing about analogies / parables, is they make a complex idea, understandable to even the most lay person. I appreciate the time and effort you put into these articles. I know they say when you're just starting out with the Equinox 800, that it's good to just start in park one and leave the settings alone, but I wouldn't mind upping the recovery speed to seven based on your analogy. 

Thanks for all the advice guys. I've been plugging away at the information contained In these forums. As you can see if you view my cover photo, I went with the Nox 800. I liked the idea of maybe doing a little prospecting. Ive gone out a couple times, and this animal has a steep learning curve indeed. It is just so much different then a 100.00$ Bounty Hunter Tracker VI. I will continue to read from the quality advice I've found here on the forums. 

I have notice this as well

Hi, I'm new to this forum and fairly new to metal detecting. I currently have a bounty hunter tracker 4, and I'm definitely looking to upgrade. I had my eyes set on the minelab equinox 800. Upon further research I sort of realized that the 600 is only really lacking the 20 and 40 kilohertz frequencies. Obviously the 800 also has many more options as far as settings go. My question is is the 800 simply a better machine for gold prospecting? and will a 600 perform just as well at finding gold jewelry? I'm not particularly into gold prospecting in the traditional sense but I do like Urban prospecting 4 jewelry. Will the 20 and 40 kilohertz frequencies be of any benefit in hunting for jewelry? Or will the 600 do just as well for the $400 less? I'm a poor man so if I can get a quality machine out of the 600 I'm all for it, but if the 800 is that much better then I'll fork over the $400 I guess LOL