Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'detector tech'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Metal Detecting & Gold Prospecting Forums
    • Meet & Greet
    • Detector Prospector Forum
    • Metal Detecting For Coins & Relics
    • Metal Detecting For Jewelry
    • Metal Detecting For Meteorites
    • Gold Panning, Sluicing, Dredging, Drywashing, Etc
    • Rocks, Minerals, Gems & Geology
    • Metal Detector Advice & Comparisons
    • Metal Detecting & Prospecting Classifieds
    • First Texas - Bounty Hunter, Fisher & Teknetics
    • Garrett Metal Detectors
    • Minelab Metal Detectors
    • Nokta / Makro Metal Detectors
    • Tesoro Metal Detectors
    • White's Metal Detectors
    • XP Metal Detectors

Categories

  • Best of Forums
  • Gold Prospecting
  • Steve's Guides
  • Steve's Mining Journal
  • Steve's Reviews

Categories

  • Free Books
  • Bounty Hunter
  • Fisher Labs
  • Garrett Electronics
  • Keene Engineering
  • Minelab Electronics
  • Miscellaneous
  • Nokta/Makro
  • Teknetics
  • Tesoro Electronics
  • White's Electronics
  • XP Metal Detectors
  • Detector Programs
  • Spreadsheets

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Facebook


YouTube


Instagram


Twitter


Pinterest


LinkedIn


Skype


Location:


Interests:


Gear Used:

Found 211 results

  1. both are considered excellent conductors of electricity?
  2. I'm wondering from those of you using detectors much longer than I have what would you say was the first 'smart' detector? Part of this question will be a definition of smart. I think of smart as being a detector that can do more than just 'respond' to a signal. It would do some processing. Certainly smart devices now have chips with algorithms. Would you define smart as a detector with a coin meter? Just wondering. Many definitions of smart devices now say it is a connected device. I'm not very 'smart' so that is why I am asking the question. Mitchel
  3. The latest issue of the ICMJ is out, and I have an article in it titled Selectable Frequency vs Multi Frequency Detectors. Those of you with a digital subscription can read it online. The ICMJ has a policy against mentioning brand names in articles so I wanted to post this as a supplement to the article. Most metal detectors run at a single frequency. Low frequencies, that is single digit frequencies under 10 kHz, react well to high conductive targets, like coins, or large items, even if those items are of low conductivity. If you look at this typical metal detector target scale below you will note that non-ferrous items read higher not just based on conductivity but size also. Low frequency detectors also do not "light up" the ground or hot rocks as much as detectors operating at higher frequencies. Many do not even offer ground balance controls because a factory preset level works well enough for some uses. Low frequency machines under 10 khz therefore tend to be aimed at the coin detecting market. There are too many models to list but most people have heard of the 6.5 khz Garrett Ace 250 as a perfect example. High frequencies 30 khz and over have extreme sensitivity to low conductive and small items, but also struggle more with ground penetration and hot rocks. Their extreme sensitivity to tiny trash items like aluminum bits do not make them very practical for any detecting except gold prospecting. Machines 30 khz and higher tend to be dedicated prospecting machines. Examples would be the 48 khz White's GMT, 71 kHz Fisher Gold Bug 2, 56 kHz Makro Gold Racer, and 45 khz Minelab Gold Monster 1000. In 2002 White's introduced the White's MXT at 14 kHz, and it is a perfect example of how detectors running in the "teens" make excellent "do-it-all" detectors. Since then everyone and their brother has jumped on that bandwagon, and there are too many machines running in the 10 kHz - 20 khz region to mention. Prospectors in particular would recognize the 19 khz Fisher Gold Bug Pro, but few know it is also sold in slightly different versions as the Teknetics G2, Fisher F19, and Teknetics G2+, all 19 kHz detectors sold to the general coin and relic market. Garrett has the 15 kHz AT Pro and 18 khz AT Gold to name a couple more popular metal detectors. Well if low frequencies are good for coins and high frequencies good for gold, why not make machines that can do both? Or both at once? Selectable frequency refers to machines that can select from one of several possible frequencies, but analyze the signal from only one frequency at a time. These may also be referred to as switchable frequency detectors. Multiple or multi frequency detectors analyze the signal from two or more frequencies at once. In theory this multifrequency analysis can be done simultaneously or sequentially at a very high speed. The end resultant is the same - the results from two or more frequencies are compared to derive information that cannot be had by analyzing a single frequency alone. Multiple frequency detectors usually have a fundamental frequency, and then other "harmonic" or secondary frequencies they also use, but the power (amplitude) fades with distance from the primary frequency. From page 9 of Minelab's Metal Detecting Terminology: You can find more information on harmonic frequencies at http://www.ni.com/white-paper/3359/en/ and here also. Coils normally must be wound specifically to make use of any given frequency or set of harmonic frequencies. A coil will usually work best at the given fundamental frequency making it difficult to get the best possible performance at all frequencies using one coil. The Minelab X-Terra series specifically requires a coil change to achieve a frequency change for this very reason. People who own them know 3 kHz coils weigh more than 18.75 kHz coils. Why? Because heavier windings are used at 3 khz for optimum performance at that frequency. Here is what is probably an incomplete list of selectable frequency detectors and year of release: 1989 Minelab Eureka Ace Dual 8 kHz 19.5 kHz 1993 Minelab XT 17000 6.4 kHz 32 kHz 1994 Compass X-200 6 kHz 14 khz 1997 Minelab XT 18000 6.4 kHz 20 kHz 60 kHz 1999 Minelab Golden Hawk 6.4 kHz 20 kHz 60 kHz 2002 Minelab Eureka Gold 6.4 kHz 20 kHz 60 kHz 2005 Minelab X-TERRA 50 7.5 kHz 18.75 kHz 2006 Minelab X-TERRA 70 3 kHz 7.5 kHz 18.75 kHz 2009 Minelab X-TERRA 305 7.5 kHz 18.75 kHz 2009 Minelab X-TERRA 505 3 kHz 7.5 kHz 18.75 kHz 2009 Minelab X-TERRA 705 3 kHz 7.5 kHz 18.75 kHz 2009 XP DEUS 4 kHz 8 kHz 12 kHz 18 kHz 2016 Rutus Alter 71 Variable 4 - 18 kHz 2017 XP DEUS V5 Additional 14 kHz 30 khz 55 khz 80 khz options 2017 Nokta Impact 5 kHz 14 kHz 20 kHz 2017 Makro Multi Kruzer 5 kHz 14 kHz 19 kHz 2018 Nokta Anfibio 5 kHz 14 kHz 20 kHz Multiple frequency or multi frequency machines have become very confusing, as a lot of marketing material has focused on the number of frequencies transmitted. What really matters is what frequencies a detector receives, and how the information is compared and processed for results. Some commentary here. Many people look at the marketing material and assume that a machine processing multiple frequencies is somehow working across the board to deliver the best possible results at all frequencies. However, the two issues outlined above do apply. The machines are employing harmonic frequencies, and so cannot compete with a machine optimized at a single frequency as opposed to one of the distant harmonics running at less amplitude. Second, making one coil run perfectly at all frequencies is extremely difficult, again giving the dedicated machine an edge. I highly recommend people not go down the technical rabbit hole but instead focus on what the machines do, on how they act. Two things are very apparent. First, the big market for a long time was coin detectors, and the goal always was to identify coins as deep as possible while ignoring trash as well as possible. Processing two or more frequencies simultaneously gives the detector engineer more information to work with. All the focus was on developing great coin detectors and guess what, the multi frequency machines for all intents and purposes act just like very good lower frequency coin detecting machines. Good ground rejection, and great discrimination on coins for as deep as it can be achieved. The multi frequency machines don't really go deeper than single frequency coin detectors, they just do a better job delivering clean discrimination results to depth. Here is a list of introductory models of multi frequency detectors and year of introduction. I am not listing all the derivative models to reduce clutter. I will post that later. 1991 Fisher CZ-6 5 & 15 kHz 1991 Minelab Sovereign BBS 1999 Minelab Explorer S/XS FBS 2001 White's DFX 3 kHz & 15 kHz (Simulates single frequency by ignoring half the dual frequency signal) 2012 Minelab CTX 3030 FBS2 Second, single frequency detectors have a ground balance problem. They can ground balance to mineralized soil, OR they can ground balance to salt water. Multi frequency machines can reduce signals from both mineralized beaches and salt water simultaneously, making them ideal for saltwater use. 1993 Minelab Excalibur BBS (Sovereign in waterproof housing) 1995 Fisher CZ-20 5 & 15 kHz (CZ-6 in waterproof housing) 2001 White's Beach Hunter ID 3 & 15 kHz (DFX in waterproof housing) There is a third class of machine that can run either as selectable frequency OR multi frequency detectors. Quite rare at this time. 2009 White's Spectra Vision 2.5 Khz or 7.5 kHz or 22.5 kHz or all three at once 2018 Minelab Equinox 5 kHz or 10 kHz or 15 kHz or 20 kHz or 40 kHz plus multi frequency options In my opinion multi frequency has delivered well on its promise. The Minelab BBS and FBS machines are renowned for their ability to discriminate trash and detect coins due to their sophisticated processing. Again, focus on what they do. Not even Minelab in their marketing tells anyone these are prospecting detectors. Second, the Fisher CZ-20/21 and various Minelab Excalibur models are without a doubt the most popular and successful non-PI saltwater beach detectors made. I have a White's DFX and I think it is a fantastic jewelry machine in particular. A good coin machine but lacks a bit of punch. The Vision/V3i upped the ante but while amazing on paper suffers from interface overload. The Minelab units are simple by comparison and a lesson on how people in general just want the detector to get the job done. Feature overload is not a plus. However, I think White's has the right idea. The ability to run either separate frequencies or multiple frequencies at once is very compelling. I just think nobody has really done it right yet in a properly configured package. The V3i has the ingredients, but needs to be stuffed in something like an MX Sport with a simplified interface and improved ground balance system. (2018 note - Minelab Equinox released). It really never did beat the White's MXT in some ways and many people when "upgrading" to the V3i end up going back to the MXT. Selectable frequency has yet to really deliver on its promise in my opinion. So far it has been difficult to produce a selectable frequency machine that truly performs at all frequencies on par with a dedicated single frequency machine. The Minelab Eureka Gold at 60 kHz just never gets mentioned in the same breath as the White's Goldmasters/GMT or Fisher Gold Bug 2. Also, most selectable frequency machines in the past have been very feature limited prospecting machines, restricting their overall market appeal. I personally think we have seen enough variations of single frequency detectors. I do not believe much can be done to exceed the performance of the dedicated single frequency VLF type machines we currently have. What can obviously be done is a better job of packaging machines that deliver true punch at different frequencies, or multi frequency machines that bring across the board performance closer to what is expected of PI detectors. I do think we are seeing this happen now. The new Nokta Impact and the new DEUS V4 update are expanding the available options in selectable frequency in more usable packages. The Minelab GPZ and other hybrid platforms blur the line between what is traditionally considered PI and VLF and simply need the addition of discrimination to go to the next level. There is still a lot of potential to deliver machines that might reduce the number of machines many of us feel compelled to own by delivering more across the board performance in a single machine that would now take several detectors. Exciting days ahead. For those who want to try and get their head around selectable frequency and multi frequency technology, Minelab and White's have a gold mine of information in a few of their references. Dig into the following for some great explanations and diagrams. Minelab - Metal Detector Basics and Theory Minelab - Understanding Your X-Terra White's - Spectra V3i Owners Guide White's - V3i Advanced Users Guide Better yet are the last three parts of the DFX instructional video by White's featuring engineer Mark Rowan explaining frequency and multi frequency methods:
  4. I am primarily a prospector but have also been coin and jewelry detecting since 1972. Like most people when in parks I use discrimination to pick targets but when prospecting I usually dig it all. Not always though, sometimes I am tired or an area is just too trashy so I crank in a little VLF discrimination to sort things out. The problem is when prospecting I have seen some pretty scary things. It is one thing to walk away from a dime because your detector called it a nail. Think about walking away from a solid multi ounce chunk of gold because your detector called it a nail. Not likely, you say? Far too likely, I am afraid. I and others dig big nuggets other people leave behind on a regular basis, and I know I have missed some very big ones myself in the past. It gets your attention to realize you may have walked away from $40,000.00. I have this pile of detectors headed my way to check out. One, the Nokta Fors Gold, showed up yesterday. Good first impression out of the box, but that is another story. The main thing is today I got it out along with a Gold Bug 2, Gold Bug Pro, F75, White's GMT, and CTX 3030. I rounded up a 1 gram gold nugget and a collection of nails and hot rocks and did a little playing around this afternoon. I am still waiting for the XP Deus to show up and a V3i so this was more about coming up with some methodology more than anything. My interests run more towards hot rocks and magnetite sand than would be the case with most people. So the particulars do not matter at the moment, except this. Discrimination sucks! You fire these babies up in all metal and they are all powerful detectors that do the job, with some amazing depth for VLF units (not counting the CTX which lacks a true all metal mode). It is pretty easy to compare units as it really just boils down to depth and how well they handle hot rocks, which is mostly a function of frequency and ground balance. EMI is a big factor in urban areas also but much less so when prospecting. So then I put the detectors in disc mode and I just cut the legs out from under them. Bam, instant lost depth. Also, target masking or so-called reactivity is usually a non-issue in pure all metal modes. Not so at all in disc modes, and disc modes that lack true zero discrimination settings mask targets immediately even when set to zero. Anyway, all I can say is playing around for awhile with these units and my pile of hot rocks and little nails was rather disheartening. It was just so darn easy to get that little nugget to bang out loud in all metal, then disappear entirely in disc modes. Or get detected but called ferrous. Or get masked by a nearby hot rock or nail. It just hammered home with me once again the huge difference in raw power between something like a GPX 5000 and even the best VLF detectors in all metal mode, and how that huge difference becomes an almost impossibly large gulf once you turn to disc modes. When you just go detecting in a park you do not see what you are missing. But in my case it was all to visible and really kind of bummed me out seeing just how far we have to go when it comes to metal detector discrimination. The only icing on this cake is that there is a huge amount of fantastic stuff in the ground, and not deep at all. It is there, quite shallow, just under or near that thing you discriminated out. If we could see through discriminated items rather than be blocked by them an amazing amount of stuff would come to light. Beneath The Mask by Thomas Dankowski The Painful Truth by Thomas Dankowski
  5. I think maybe it's time for some additional terminology. We now have more and more machines with one single freq, some with with multiple single freqs, and some with multiple simultaneous freqs. There seems to be some confusion when using the term "multi-frequency" as to whether it means "more than one" or "several at the same time". Even machines with one-at-a-time multi-frequencies are sometimes referred to as being single frequency. Saying "simultaneous-multi-frequency" is more than a little cumbersome I think. "Multi IQ is proprietary and soon there will surely be more machines coming out from other companies with simultaneous-multi-frequencies. I have tried but so far I can only come up with silly suggestions like "1F", "MF", and "SMF". If you agree that there is this problem with confusing terminology then I'll bet many of you can come up with much better, compact, catchy terms.
  6. Minelab Electronics Pty Limited Method and Apparatus for Metal Detection Employing Digital Signal Processing US 20070296415 A1 This invention relates to a metal detector using multiple frequency signals generated and processed digitally. The detector transmits sinusoidal signals using a multiple frequency resonator or square waves, with optional modulation. The operation of the transmitter is continuously monitored to allow for tuning, detection of abnormal conditions and correction of phase shifts.
  7. https://www.minelab.com/usa/go-minelabbing/treasure-talk/equinox-technologies-part-3 Cliff EQUINOX Technologies (Part 3) January 15, 2018 Minelab Electronics This is the third instalment in a blog series introducing and explaining the technologies inside our new EQUINOX detectors… (Read Part 1 here. Read Part 2 here.) Our goal was to develop a true multi-purpose detector that could not only physically be used in all-terrain conditions, but also be suitable for all types of detecting for all detectorists, and particularly those not requiring a specialist premium flagship detector optimised for only one aspect of detecting – e.g. coins, beach, gold, jewellery, water, discrimination, artefacts, etc. This multi-purpose requirement is something that could only be achieved by going beyond single frequency and creating the next generation of multi-frequency technology. Equally adaptable to all target types and ground conditions – just select your detecting location and go! An important update on the Detect Modes… Previously we have stated that Park, Field and Beach would run in multi-frequency and that Gold would only use the single frequencies of 20kHz and 40kHz, giving better results for gold nugget hunting. Our ongoing collaborative field testing feedback from around the world has resulted in further improvements to Multi-IQ to the point where multi-frequency is now the best option for Gold Mode as well, and will be the default setting. Please refer to the revised Getting Started Guide for updated product functions. Now, back to the technology: looking into our Multi-IQ diagram further… a single frequency is most sensitive to a narrow range of targets and multiple frequency is equally sensitive to a wider range of targets (e.g. the orange curve versus the white curve below). According to Philip Wahrlich, “From our testing, the Multi-IQ deployed in EQUINOX detectors has shown no significant trade-offs relative to the best single-frequency detectors and exceeded performance benchmarks in many important attributes, especially discrimination. And, for good measure, EQUINOX can also be operated as a single-frequency detector” While we could delve into this aspect further, many of our readers are likely more interested in what happens within the white Multi-IQ band itself, rather than single versus multi. What has Minelab developed new, and uniquely, with frequencies to give better performance across the whole range of targets for different conditions? The Multi-IQ transmit signal used in EQUINOX is a complex waveform where multiple frequencies are combined in a very dissimilar way than our proven BBS/FBS technology in Excalibur II / Safari / E-TRAC / CTX 3030 detectors. If you view the BBS signal amplitude on an oscilloscope, it looks something like this: In comparison, Multi-IQ looks something like this: Hence – Multi-IQ is not a derivative or evolution of BBS/FBS. Multi-IQ is a DIFFERENT method of simultaneous multi-frequency metal detection. We could also debate “simultaneous” versus “sequential” semantics; however the real detection ‘magic’ doesn’t happen with what is transmitted to and received from the coil alone. Remember, in Part 2, we discussed how frequencies are “combined AND processed” as being important for achieving better results? Let’s assess Multi-IQ for the different Detect Mode search profiles: Park 1 and Field 1 process a lower weighted frequency combination, as well as using algorithms that maximise ground balancing for soil, to achieve the best signal to noise ratio. Hence being most suited for general detecting, coin hunting, etc. Park 2 and Field 2 process a higher weighted combination of the Multi-IQ band while still ground balancing for soil. Therefore they will be more sensitive to higher frequency (low conductive) targets, but potentially more susceptible to ground noise. Beach 1 also processes a lower weighted combination, BUT uses different algorithms to maximise ground balancing for salt. Hence being most suited for both dry and wet sand conditions. Beach 2 processes a very low weighted frequency combination, using the same algorithms as Beach 1 to maximise ground balancing for salt. This search profile is designed for use in the surf and underwater. Gold 1 and Gold 2 process the higher weighted combination of the Multi-IQ band while still ground balancing for soil. However, they use different setting parameters better suited for gold nugget hunting. Will Multi-IQ technology really obsolete all single frequency detectors? We’ll continue the discussion in Part 4…
  8. After years of a reputation for high priced equipment, Minelab now seems to be on a more for less campaign and it could have lasting effects on how much we are willing to pay for metal detectors and what we expect for our money. At this point, even an X-Terra 305 starts at $259. It seems that even at the low end we are going to begin to expect a couple of frequencies to play with. Minelab has the low to mid range locked down for those that are paying attention. Is multifrequency and multiple selectable frequencies becoming an industry standard like VDI? What low end machine can compete with an X-Terra 305 at $259? What mid-upper range machines could compete with the Equinox 600 at $649, or an 800 at $899. How will Garrett's AT Series and Whites' MX Sport compete with even the Equinox 600? How will they justify offering less at $722 and $749 than the Equinox 600 does at $649. How Will XP Deus justify $800-$1,500 for a machine that cannot run its frequencies simultaneously, with some requiring a whole new expensive HF coil to attain. One thing is for sure. Watching the industry clamor to figure out what their response to what Minelab is offering for between $259-$899 is going to be very interesting. Add this to the fact that Minelab now offers the only pinpointer of its kind with iron tone. It's going to be an amazing year for them, and a year of huddling for everyone else as they figure out how to market against so much performance at these values.
  9. I am writing this in hopes that some metal detector manufacturers will read this and see what is wanted by the people in the field. What manufacturer to you think is on the leading edge? (why) What manufacture do you think needs a wake up call? What is your favorite all purpose detector? (coin, jewelry, and relic) What is your favorite prospecting detector? What do you wish the manufacturers would incorporate in new machines? I am not going to answer the question as I do not feel my knowledge base is at the level of the people on this forum. I still use a 30 year old detector. Everything I have read shows that this forum has the highest knowledge base of ones I have seen. Add any additional question that you think may be of interest.
  10. Mark Gillespie

    Very Unlikely

    After you've had the top of the line detector from what ever the manufacturer, it's almost impossible to settle for a lower end machine from the same company. Case in point, over the past several years I've owned, actually remember, seven Fisher F75's, some original and some the LTD mode. I've had the opportunity to try lower cost machines like the Gold Bug Pro, F19, F5, but can say for surety I've yet to find a machine that comes close to enjoying anything like the F75. I recently purchased a new F19 with the intentions of only using for relic hunting, but even though it is a great machine, it still can't fill the void filled by the F75. Just amazing, you get what you pay for, in most cases when it comes to detecting. It's something how companies put out a flag ship machine then do spin offs of lesser performance an features.
  11. This post is in part to help newbies and or folks who don't hunt as often. I'm posting it here, as the Equinox is getting many people excited and even Prospectors who are used to running gold machines without depth indication on their units. If it helps you, then great. I'll even post a video I did on pinpointing a few years back that could help some swingers. Reading some posts below, I read a statement Steve H replied to pertaining Pinpointing and signal strength. He brought up a very very valid point that WAY TO MANY people don't understand. Why do I say so, because when all the training classes we do on Coin/Relic detectors, that seems to be one of the points most folks miss. I'll try to explain it again. The depth readout on the screen of most detectors is set from the factory on Coin Size Targets. Remember that bit please "Coin Size Targets" as well as a few other engineer magics I won't go into. But if you remember the above, you'll be fine. So here are two examples I'll use to show the opposite of correct Depth ID (incorrect). A beer can at 12" deep could read .25 coin on readout and depth show at 5-6" giving a strong signal tone. It is actually much bigger than a coin and so that is why it says it is shallower. When I hunt beaches for gold rings or old silver coins and my Depth readout says 6", but I have dug down 8" or more, I am most certain it is not a ring or coin and in fact is a larger target that is deeper. A stud earring could read 4" with a soft chirp weak tone, when in actuality it is less than an inch deep. I enjoy hunting for diamond studs and have learned they are near the surface and not as deep as the Depth Indication shows. Also point of interest for those who don't know. My White's TRX Pointer is much better at finding gold nuggets and stud earrings than my Garrett Carrot. But I do prefer my Carrot when hunting coins/rings size targets. Here is a video that is of an older machine, but the technique is the same. Hope it helps some of you newer users or old salty prospectors converting to new machines.
  12. I few years ago I was giving a class on "How to Find Gold Rings" with the Minelab X-705 and realized something different about a coupe of the detectors in the class? Most gave the same readout display, but a couple machines were a number off? I went home stumped that night and tried to figure out how the same model of detectors with the same SENS setting and same DISC patterns could give a different reading on the same target at the same depth? Finally I figured out the puzzle and when doing so I actually upped my odds of finding gold rings. So my questions is? Has anyone attempted changing the kHz setting before digging a target to see if the exact same Identification # is given? Or do you think it will/will not do it? Watch the video to see what I learned/taught myself.
  13. Tnsharpshooter

    VLF Versus Hf?

    Someone here please tell me what is exactly is the break point for calling a detector Vlf vs HF frequency wise?? I will be using the Equinox and reporting on it. The coil sizes that will be available at first,,there is chance we may not know just how good or bad the Equinox is. Should prove interesting nonetheless.
  14. This is an official Minelab response to a question on their YouTube channel back in late November (overlooked until now): Question from cache mole - "Will Multi IQ obsolete FBS?" Answer from Minelab Metal Detectors - "A very good question! We are generally stating that Multi-IQ obsoletes single frequency detectors, not simultaneous multi-frequency detectors. This really has captured market attention! It is quite likely that some people will become EQUINOX supporters, while others will want to keep using their favourite FBS detector (not too dissimilar to GPX vs GPZ). So the best honest answer to your question right now is: "Multi-IQ has the future potential to obsolete FBS technology." For some users, that may be immediate when they buy an EQUINOX. For others it may be with a future product with Multi-IQ, or an enhancement of it. If you refer to our first TT blog on Multi-IQ technology: https://www.minelab.com/usa/go-minelabbing/treasure-talk/equinox-technologies-part-1 and look at the timeline diagrams - there were/are several generations of BBS/FBS detectors. We are only at the very beginning for Multi-IQ. When EQUINOX is released, CTX 3030 will remain as our flagship treasure detector, having many functions that EQUINOX does not have - Fe/Co discrimination, Target Trace and others. A significant advantage with Multi-IQ is it's FAST. Think of it as the typical multi-frequency performance of a Minelab detector, at the speed of any good single frequency detector you are familiar with. Also, expect no performance downside running in "Multi" compared to a single frequency. Unless in Gold Mode, we recommend "Multi" as the best frequency option. But, you can use a single frequency if you wish, in Park and Field modes." Multi-IQ Technology Explained
  15. Now that I've got your attention ... One interesting alternative I've seen to traditional walkin' 'n swingin' metal detecting is called the Hot Foot Rug. I'm sure many reading this have heard of it. Basically, from the looks of it it's a search coil apparently embedded into a flexible, rectangular carpet-like piece of material measuring from 18" to 6'. The carpet must, of course, be attached to a box, which the user can keep by their side or clip to a belt. The carpet itself can either be attached to a harness and pulled while walking or dragged behind a vehicle, enabling detectorists to cover a lot more ground -- and with less walking required -- than traditional "stick" detecting. The only thing that makes me not even consider buying one is what I consider to be the excessively-high price (then again, in my opinion MOST metal detectors and search coils are way overpriced.) Especially when dragging the carpet behind a vehicle I would assume the user absolutely must use a good set of noise-canceling headphones. I'm very surprised that the device mentioned above is about the only one of its type I've seen for sale. In my opinion -- and especially with so many detectorists being middle-aged and/or retired folks who aren't as mobile as they used to be -- you'd think there'd be quite a variety of such carpet-like search coils available. Does anyone here prospect with such metal-detecting rugs? My main interest is in prospecting for large, deep nuggets and this technique -- especially with my bad knee -- really appeals to me, as the rug search coil can be several feet wide, which dwarfs even the largest traditional round/oval coils. Any feedback or information on such carpet-type detectors would be appreciated.
  16. I was reading the Australian Electronic Gold Prospecting Forum today and noticed a post about detector depth. I was wondering what others think about today's detectors compared to what was available 25 years ago. I read somewhere that (Woody) the guy that does mods to detectors thinks that for outright depth the sd2000 still goes the deepest. I wouldn't know as I've never owned a sd2000 or a gpz7000. Anyway, i found the comments at AEGPF interesting and wonder if anyone here has actually done a depth comparison between the zed and sd2000. Heres the snippet from AEGPF Quote from AEGPF: "The deepest Pi detector ever developed in my opinion was a prototype SD2000 that BC modified for the late Jim Stewart.BC slowed down the clock speed to give a very long pulse and made some other unknown changes to the circuit to cope with higher currents etc. At the time the SD2000 came out BC stated that it was at about 95% of the maximum potential depth that any handheld PI could ever achieve (and still pass emission standards). However, the deepest PI that has ever been made for gold was Corybns detector which detected a nugget of around 10oz? at 3 feet in depth in WA. Somewhere on the forum is a reference to it and I will try and find the link when I have time. "What is interesting is that the deepest nuggets ever detected by a Pi was by a detector used in the early 1980's in WA-Corbyn's wheeled detector! Pictures of it and the depths of some of nuggets he found with it can be seen in Mike Wattones book: Quest for gold.NO Pi detector today could match the depths Corby got on at least one nugget! (4cm nugget at over 36" in mineralized ground)"
  17. Editors Note: this thread split from http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/4335-the-reg-wilson-gold-album/ Nice stuff again... I'm having cardiac palpitations seeing all this gold....lol I wonder if you could tell us how your sled was rigged up. That looks nice for some open ground. Keep it coming....
  18. Jonathan Porter

    QED Review

    So far there has been no real “direct” reviews of the QED, in effect just innuendo clouded by politics, which is not helpful. With the help of a friend I've just finished some testing of the QED and want to share our impressions here in the hopes of getting the ball rolling for some quality discussions (but maybe this is being too optimistic?) We hope and believe our tests were rigorously objective, the QED was used for general gold hunting and also comprehensively tested on buried real gold pieces of various sizes in a variety of soils, considerable care was taken to ensure no placebo/bias.* We deliberately tested on only frequently detected but historically very productive public fields, not private property in which it can be relatively easy to find gold using any technology due to only ever seeing a few detectorists. First and foremost, important details of the QED's method of operation that are different to other detectors which needs to be clearly understood: Unlike Minelab detectors, the QED has a “dead zone” that can be varied using the Volume control. The threshold is set using the Bias control and has 2 different audio threshold settings, an upper and a lower value. When the Bias is turned down in number below the threshold lower value, OR, turned up in number above the upper threshold value, the “Threshold” audio increases as per usual. Suppose for example, the lower audio threshold bias value of the Bias control happens to be 50 and the upper threshold bias number happens to be 60. Then if the Bias is turned down below 50 OR turned up above 60, the audio “threshold” level increases as per usual. For these threshold examples, 50 and 60, small gold (fast time constant targets) “in effect” produce signals less than 55 (half way between 50 and 60), and larger gold “in effect” produce signals more than 55. If the Bias is set at the lower threshold limit, 50 for example, then the detection of small gold will give the usual INCREASE in audio level response, and larger gold will give a BELOW threshold level response, OR If Bias is set at the higher threshold limit, 60 for example, then the detection of larger gold will give the usual INCREASE in audio level response, and smaller gold will give a BELOW audio threshold level response. Similarly with ground noise; some ground noise will in effect produce signals below 55, so that if the Bias is set at 50, this ground noise will give an increase in audio sound, but if the Bias is set at 60, this ground noise will give a below threshold audio response. Conversely, if the ground noise is in effect above 55, then if the Bias is set at 50, this ground noise will give a below threshold audio, but if Bias is set at 60, this ground noise will give an increase in audio level. Signals in effect BETWEEN 50 and 60 are in the “dead-zone,” for which the audio is below threshold. Signals in effect below 50 OR above 60 give an increase in audio. So if threshold is set at the lower threshold of 50, then faint signals from small gold will give an above threshold audio, and large targets a below threshold audio. Whereas its the opposite for the upper threshold of 60, faint signals from large gold will give an above threshold audio, and small targets below threshold audio. So for shallow small gold select the lower threshold limit, for big deeper gold select the upper threshold limit. Bigger target signals will produce above threshold signals regardless of whether they are small or larger targets. However the Volume control controls the dead-zone width; the gap between the upper and lower threshold Bias settings, that is, the dead zone gap is increased by turning the Volume down, or decreased by turning the Volume up. In fact the QED can be set to operate with NO dead-zone (like the usual Minelab PI audio). To do this: a. Vary the Bias between the upper and lower threshold. Note the gap. b. Increase volume a bit. c. Re-do a. and note the decrease in the gap. d. Continue to repeat a, b, c until there is no gap. (This will allow some feel for true ground noise etc.) However the QED audio has a very low level signal EVEN if below threshold, This below threshold faint audio signal is just the pitch signal only, and detects all signals, ground noise, target signals, whether long time constant or short, and EMI. But this below threshold pitch sensitivity is not as acute as the audio set at threshold per point 2 below, and it is very soft. Yet even further, if a target or ground noise (or EMI) does drive the audio below threshold, the nature of the audio is that it has the usual “re-bound” response once the coil has moved over and past the target or ground noise. I refer to the lower pitch audio following the initial target higher pitch audio (“high-low”) or the opposite; the higher pitch audio following the initial target lower pitch audio (“low-high”) effect known from Minelab PI's. So for moderately weak target signals that cause the audio to dip below threshold once the coil moves beyond the target and the audio then rebounds above threshold. To recap; for these targets, as the coil passes over the target the audio goes first below threshold THEN above the threshold. However for the fainter of these target signals (the important signals one listens for in thrashed ground), this rebound signal is hard to discern compared to the same signal that would occur if the Bias had been set at the alternative threshold setting for which the audio signal then would have given an initial increase in threshold as the coil passes over it and then a below threshold rebound. Therefore, it is important to understand that you EITHER need to set the Bias to chase the faint small targets in shallow ground (Bias at the lower number setting), but lose out a bit on the faint large target signals OR set the Bias to chase the faint larger targets in deeper ground (Bias at the higher number threshold setting) but lose out a bit on the smaller targets. The QED has a “motion” audio response; meaning the coil has to be moved to hear a signal. It can be operated both quickly, and also, remarkably slowly. If the coil is moved “remarkably” slowly it is possible to hear the average audio detect a very faint target above the audio “background random chatter”, considerably more readily than if the coil was moved at a typical realistic operational speed. When depth testing and when you know where the target is, beware that you do not slow down the coil swing to an artificial unnatural swing speed to enable the detection of a deep target at its known location.* Important recommendations: 1. It's very important to get the threshold (Bias) spot on for optimal results, If the threshold level is too high, then faint signals get drowned out, but if the audio threshold level is too low then only the residual very faint pitch signal remains, but this faint pitch only signal is less sensitive to target signals than the audio set optimally as per point 2 immediately following. 2. The threshold must be set so that it is just audible; in effect just immediately below the “real” audio threshold signal, so that what you are hearing is just between only the pitch signal and actual above threshold audio. 3. Note that the effective principal threshold control (Bias) is temperature dependent and requires reasonably frequent adjustment over time as the ambient temperature changes to get best results. Therefore there is NO actual specific optimal Bias number setting, rather it entirely depends on temperature. It can be as high as 70 in very hot conditions 4. Once 2. and 3. are optimally achieved, you will find that the GB setting has to be spot on for best results. If you find that it is not critical, you really need to re-address points 2. and 3. 5. The QED does produce ground noise that sounds on occasion like a target. If you aren't digging some ground noise you do not have it set up properly, especially in variable soils. With ANY detector (automatic GB or Manual) altering the GB setting slightly to eliminate a faint “deep target-like signal” will result in eliminating the faint signal whether it is ground noise OR in fact a deep real metal target. 6. You need to listen to the soft “subliminal” threshold of the QED very carefully, quality headphones are a must. 7. “Gain” acts as a sensitivity control as you would expect. I suggest that the QED is best used as a specialist very fine (Small) gold detector. It produced a reasonably clear but quiet response to the extreme small gold (of the order of 0.1 g), we managed to find 5 tiny pieces in well-worked ground in all totaling 1 gram, although the SDC would have picked 5 of the 5, but not so well in one location due to power line noise (This could be remedied somewhat by lowering the Gain of the SDC and using minimal threshold). However, we purposely went over exactly the same ground with the SDC with the SDC set at a lower threshold and 3 on the gain, and then found 3 more pieces of gold; we are 100% sure we had already passed the QED exactly over the target locations so we put this down to QED ground noise masking targets. The QED struggles compared to the SDC in the more mineralised soils, however the QED does seem superior to the ATX. To get the most out of the QED, use a small coil such as an 8” Commander mono, and set the Mode as low as possible so long as the ground signals do not become too intrusive. Usually 1 or 2 is OK for Minelab coils, but some other coils may produce too much ground noise at this setting so you may need to increase the Mode to 3 or above dependent on the ground. Further, we got some very thin aluminium foil and very gradually trimmed it down until the SDC could no longer detect it. This represents particularly fast time constant targets (“extremely” small gold), and found that the QED did still detect it, but only within several mm of the coil surface, not further. But this does mean that the QED will detect extremely small shallow pieces that the SDC will not. Alternatively we suggest the QED is also a suitable lightweight low-cost patch hunter when used with a large coil with the Mode turned up so that there is less ground noise. For the sake of completion, to answer questions posed of the QED depth for an Australian 5 cent piece compared to the Zed both using the same sized coils. We measured this carefully and we are not prepared to give exact figures to avoid any trivial arguments, other than to say that the QED detected between 60% to 2/3rd of the depth of the Z. The QED susceptibility to EMI in areas remote from mains compared to the 5k on EMI noisy days? In one word: “Good. The QED susceptibility to mains in urban areas compared to the SDC or Zed? In two words: “Typically Bad.” The QED’s main strength is its cost, light weight, ergonomics, and simplicity of use, and yes it IS definitely simple to use, but a bit “fiddly.” It has no “magic settings” once you understand exactly how it operates as described above. Going back to the SDC really highlighted the difference a light weight detector can have on general comfort and enjoyment of detecting, and our experiences with the QED underscored Minelab's poor ergonomics. In our opinion the QED fits a market where people are looking for a cheap detector capable of finding small gold in thrashed areas, and are wanting more coil choices without the specialised "one size fits all" approach of the SDC. Good value for money. Its main weakness is its underlying ground noise, which although having the advantage of being “hidden” in the dead zone, nevertheless limits depth compared to lower ground noise capable detectors, for targets other than the very fast time constant targets. In summary it works relatively best in the less mineralised soils for small gold. Beyond the scope of the above suggested prospecting (very small gold & patch hunting mainly in relatively unmineralised soils), I choose not to comment further, other than we will not be using the QED for purposes other than secondary activities, and still intend to use other well-known detectors for primary prospecting activities because of their other advantages. No doubt others with QED's will disagree with us. We welcome this, and would be happy to be proved wrong. Ultimately, time tells the truth by substantial gold finds or lack thereof in well-worked ground. *Note: because of the subtle audio, it is easy to imagine you are “hearing” a target above the general background ground noise when you know where it is. We endeavoured to avoid this tendency.
  19. I am going through one of those periods where I load up a bit on new detectors and let it all sort out. Darwin's Survival Of The Fittest Detectors! This winter a number will not survive and will be looking for new home. This is the only way I have found that works for me. Detectors that serve a good purpose for me get used, others end up sitting. If they sit long enough, they are no longer needed. I have my nugget detecting fairly well sorted out. The GPZ 7000 gets used 90% of the time. I might pull out a VLF for a really trashy place, or for where the gold is smaller than the GPZ can hit (really small!). I do keep a Garrett ATX around to handle salt ground or oddball hot rocks the GPZ has trouble with but those situations have proven quite rare so far. So the GPZ is an obvious keeper. The ATX does double duty as my favorite water hunting machine so there is another. In the land of VLF however it is more complicated. I have this idea that a good selectable frequency detector might really do the trick in replacing two or more other models. The key there however is what I am going to go ahead and call "frequency spread" for lack of a better term. What do I mean by frequency spread? Simply put, the number of kHz between the lowest and highest frequency the detector can operate at. The lowest frequency is basically the "large item" frequency that more easily handles bad ground, and the high frequency is the "small item" frequency that tends to have more issues with mineralized ground or hot rocks. The high frequency option is critical for a person like me who nugget hunts. To really be able to replace machines like the 45 kHz Minelab Gold Monster 1000, 48 kHz White's GMT, 56 kHz Makro Gold Racer, or 71 kHz Fisher Gold Bug 2, the highest frequency option of the detector needs to be 30 kHz or higher or as close to that as is possible. Low frequencies in the single digits are great for coin hunting or very large gold nuggets in bad ground. Frequencies in the teens are a great compromise. Some examples: Nokta Impact 5 kHz, 14 kHz, and 20 kHz (15 kHz lowest to highest) XP DEUS Low Frequency Coil 4 kHz, 8 kHz, 12 kHz, and 18 kHz (14 kHz lowest to highest) Rutus Alter 4.4 kHz to 18 kHz in 0.2 kHz steps (13.6 kHz lowest to highest) White's V3i 2.5 kHz, 7.5 kHz, 22.5 kHz (20 kHz lowest to highest - bonus - runs in multifrequency mode) I am still waiting on the XP DEUS High Frequency Elliptical Coil 14 kHz, 30 kHz, and 81 kHz (67 khz lowest to highest). The XP HF 9" round running at 14 kHz, 30 khz, and 59 khz (45 kHz lowest to highest) is currently available. In theory the White's V3i is a real winner here but I have just never really taken to the V3i as a prospecting detector. I have to be honest and say that so far the Impact floats my boat more in that regard due to its more traditional approach to a detector interface, all metal modes, and ground balancing. The problem with all of them though is they just don't reach high enough to be used both as coin and jewelry machines and yet still be capable of retiring the high frequency nugget detectors. And that is why I am still patiently waiting for that XP Deus V4 high frequency elliptical coil. At 81 kHz (or 59 kHz in 9" round version) the Deus HF coils on paper at least could in theory make the high frequency nugget detectors redundant. I have to admit I still have doubts however. So far dedicated specifically tuned single frequency detectors have always won the day. For a lot of people however, a selectable frequency machine might prove to be "good enough". The downside with the Deus is that to get the deeper seeking lower frequency large coil option you have to wrap up quite a bit of money into two coils. The 9.5" elliptical is just not going to reach real deep due to its small size. I have the 11" round low frequency coil which can run as low as 4 kHz, so together the two coils make a pretty formidable package. The other machines however can run both much smaller and much larger coils, and at considerably less cost than what DEUS coils cost due to each one being a self contained metal detector. It may be that the XP HF 9" round running at 14 kHz, 30 khz, and 59 khz (45 kHz lowest to highest) is the better compromise option for most people than the 5.5" x 9.5" elliptical. The Impact does suit me as far as the way it functions and I like the excellent inexpensive coil selection. It is a shame it weighs twice as much as the DEUS, but that may actually be a benefit when it comes to balancing large coils. Overall at the moment I am really liking the Impact - I just wish the frequency had topped out higher. I really wanted more like 5 - 15 - 30 kHz. Going from 14 kHz to 20 kHz is not quite providing the extra "pop" on tiny gold I would like to see.
  20. I've been comparing numerous detectors as of late. I wonder about iron audio. I've been thinking about this,,based on what I see with some of my detectors,,,and am wondering if there would be some benefits. Iron volume as far as it being ON,,,does give distinct audio when the coil passes over detected ferrous material,,,but the being able to hear the iron volume tone(s) seems is tied to disc setting(s). Meaning run too high a disc setting,,,no iron tone whatsoever (with it selected). Could this be changed,,,where iron audio would be provided no matter the disc setting if a user wanted?? I could see at least some application,,where it might come in handy. For example hunting in a site with gobs of maybe lower conductive materials,,,just turn up the disc and hunt,,,,but operator might want to know if any areas seemed to be maybe moreso afflicted with iron and nails,,,,to maybe want to hunt this particualr area,,,using different strategy, detector settings,,,or even another coil or detector. I may be off base here,,,but would like to hear some folks thoughts on this. BTW,I do realize maybe notch could be used along with lower disc and do maybe the same thing.
  21. Here it is folks. Loaded with tuning tips! http://www.minelab.com/__files/f/254716/KBA%2024-1%20Basics%20of%20the%20GPZ%207000%20Technology%20Zero%20Voltage%20Transmission%20(ZVT).pdf "A significant technical achievement of GPZ 7000 ZVT technology was in creating the ultra‐stable transmitted magnetic field during the receive period, to ensure that the large reactive component of the soil signal, X, is not detected, in the same way that it is not detected in PI." Figure 2 shows a comparison between the ZVT VRM soil signal and the nearest equivalent PI soil VRM signal; both transmitted magnetic signals being bi‐polar, with the same fundamental frequency and same rapid change of magnetic field period. It should be noted that the PI receive period is half that of the ZVT period, because the PI system shown in figure 2 transmits for half the time and receives for the other half of the time, unlike ZVT that transmits and receives simultaneously just about all of the time. The important difference in the VRM signals is that the PI signal decays away substantially faster than the ZVT system. This indicates that the receive signal for PI is less sensitive to longer Time Constant (TC) components compared to shorter TC targets than ZVT, and this is one of the main reasons why ZVT technology is better at detecting large nuggets compared to PI; another main reason being from the double length receive period in ZVT compared to PI for the same fundamental frequency.
  22. Hi, Regarding the VLF detectors.Can someone answer for me what constitutes a VLF with good discrimination?.I feel to discriminate that speed is a factor as well.Otherwise no matter how good,if a target is next to iron it will read off a good hit. The Deus has fast reactivity,so is this now a good discriminator.Between ferrous and non ferrous?. How does this compare to say the Nokta Impact for speed discrimination. Thanks in advance Ash
  23. The more I learn (by reading and experience) the more I realize that unmasking is the holy grail future of induction balance (IB) detectors. Dankowski has been emphasizing the issue for years (as your link to a 2000 article shows Dankowski - Beneath The Mask). The sites I hunt are visciously peppered with iron, small and large. That goes for old homesites here in the Midwest and out West, at old abondoned mines, placer sites, and ghost towns. As bad as littering is today, at least we have trash barrels, recycling, refuse collection, and advertising pleas to keep the world a beautiful place. I get the impression that back in the 19th century the thought didn't even occur to them. People can still cherry pick (using strict discrimination) to avoid the trash. If all you're after is recent drops (clad, zinc, and maybe a few pieces of silver jewelry) then go for it. I want old stuff and, as you note, that means dealing with lots of trash. But even careful hunting today is hampered severely by masking. As Tom D.'s report shows, not only don't you hear the good target, sometimes you don't even here the bad ones! How do you know there might be good target being masked if your detector responds as if there is no metal at all within its search field?! It's my impression that masking is just as big of a problem for nugget hunters. Does it just get less attention because most nugget hunting is done with pulse induction (PI) and zero volt transmission (ZVT) technology, which (AFAIK) doesn't offer much discrimination anyway. If you're really going to dig-it-all, including iron, then eventually you're going to find just about every piece of detectable metal within range.
  24. http://md-hunter.com/new-xp-q-mond-machine-novelty-2018-look-at-that/ Is this for real, why not go with the smart phone?????????
×