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


  • 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


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


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

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL










Gear Used:

Found 236 results

  1. Announced it today – three tones graphic screen under $100
  2. Is such a thing possible? I think we still have a ways to go to get the optimum gold nugget detector. Why is it that 2 or even 3 detectors might be needed if you want to succeed? Well, you need discrimination on a lot of sites due to ferrous trash - as of today, that means you need a VLF. Unless you have a GPZ, you probably need both a GPX and an SDC to cover the spectrum of tiny shallow to deep large nuggets. VLF's can discriminate but mineralization kills their depth in many areas. GPX machines can do most of it, but don't discriminate (much) and force the operator to choose between several very different set-ups (Each with its own set of trade-offs) depending on conditions of ground and likely targets. SDC kills on small gold and is easy to use but can't discriminate and is depth limited. Even the GPZ, for all it's depth and versitility is not easy to master and costs many ounces of gold. Can a new technical approach give us a detector which deals with all these issues at once? What would this miracle detector have to do? Ease of use - It would have to be "turn on and go". Mineralization - it would have to deal,with the most highly mineralized ground - without use of adjustment and without danger of "tuning out" small targets. Sensitivity - It would have to have sensitivity to small gold at least equal to the best current VLF detectors. Depth - it doesn't have to equal the GPZ or even GPX in raw depth, but it would have to deliver more depth than the SDC - and equal the depth of the best VLF's - and do so in any ground. Will those of us who are over 60 ever see such a "Wunderwaffe"? ---- I have my hopes. What would you pay for such a machine?
  3. Here is a machine I have not heard of before: http://www.metaldetector.com/drs-ground-exper-metal-detector?awt_l=3I64Qc&awt_m=K4CvxdoyBVWfZf It looks interesting but does it really work? I haven't even heard of the company before. Anyone have any info on this? There are quite a few videos which I haven't watched yet - but will. Just thought I would throw it out there for discussion.
  4. Just curious as to whether a gold detector can detect through several inches of bedrock?
  5. Has anyone here ever made their own gold detector from scratch or a kit? Any recommendations?
  6. From the Codan news release at http://www.codan.com.au/Portals/0/investorpubs/22 AXS Announcement - Minelab awarded $6.7m contract.pdf (copy below): "Cooperating with NIITEK Inc., the HDD will combine Minelab’s new Multiple Frequency Continuous Wave metal detection technology and NIITEK’s advanced ground penetrating radar." 31 August 2016 MINELAB AWARDED CONTRACT TO DEVELOP NEW HANDHELD DEVICE DETECTOR FOR THE AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE Minelab Electronics, a wholly owned subsidiary of Codan Limited, has been awarded a $6.7m contract by the Department of Defence to develop a new Handheld Device Detector (HDD). The funding received under this contract is to further develop a dual sensor metal detector which incorporates ground penetrating radar. It will partially offset the development costs of the product, and the project is expected to be completed by 2018. The development of the HDD builds on Minelab's success in technology development and product innovation for use in military programmes. Codan is particularly pleased to be of service to the ADF and to provide an enhanced capability that currently does not exist. Once the HDD enters into service with the ADF, we are confident that other militaries will seek the same level of capability, broadening our market for countermine products. The contract supports Codan's stated strategy of growing its profitability by improving and broadening our product offerings while ensuring our value propositions remain relevant and leading-edge. Previous to this award, in March 2014, Minelab was selected by the Department of Defence's Rapid Prototype Development and Evaluation (RPDE) programme to receive $1.0m in funding to further integrate metal detection and ground penetration radar technologies into a lightweight and compact mechanical platform. In December 2014, RPDE provided an additional $1.3m in funding, and Minelab subsequently produced an advanced prototype of the HDD. Cooperating with NIITEK Inc., the HDD will combine Minelab's new Multiple Frequency Continuous Wave metal detection technology and NIITEK's advanced ground penetrating radar. The HDD was designed taking into account the comprehensive requirements of the ADF, supplemented with feedback from Army User Groups. It will include advanced detection technologies as well as new standards of compactness and ergonomics. On behalf of the Board Michael Barton Company Secretary MORE INFORMATION ON THE NIITEK/MINELAB GROUNDSHARK
  7. This one by Dave Johnson of First Texas. of course a patent isn't a product and not every PI detector has ground exclusion and can be useful for nugget hunting - but still. https://hobby-detecting.com/download/documents/FTH-0005-02-US US9366778.pdf
  8. Just thought I'd start a new topic to get some discussion going. There seems to be more detectors on the market then ever. Yes a lot are variations on the same thing, but there are a few unique models such as GPZ7000, SDC2300, Gold Racer, Deus, etc. So what detector in your mind doesn't exist? Could a certain manufacturer mangle together a few of their features/patents and build something unique? Just curious
  9. USPTO Patent Application 20160041292 , Discrimination method of a metal detector. http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20160211ptan20160041292.php "In particular, the present invention is a discrimination method that is insensitive to the signals from both resistive and reactive signal components from the soil. It was discovered for the purpose of the present invention that the presence of resistive signal components from the soil may be confused with resistive signal components from metallic targets, and thus identifying the time constant spectrum of the metallic target yields in unsatisfactory results in the presence of substantial resistive signal components from the soil. The discrimination method offered by the present invention is insensitive to both resistive and reactive signal components from the soil, which may also include a component due to a substantially uniform conducting half-space (such as a saline soil)." and "One advantage is that it gives more information about the target, and therefore it confers a greater discrimination capacity. For instance, two different targets may have the same one-component approximated time constant spectrum, but they have different two-component approximated time constant spectra. Therefore, using a two component approximated time constant spectrum may allow these two targets to he distinguished from each other." Date. Minelab Electronics Pty Limited patents. 02/11/16 Discrimination a metal detector 08/06/15 Signal processing technique for a metal detector 06/18/15 Metal detector 05/28/15 Metal detector 02/05/15 Method for detecting fast time constant targets using a metal detector 11/14/13 Support arrangement for an implement 10/24/13 Communication between a sensor and a processing unit of a metal detector 09/12/13 Method for displaying metal detection information 06/20/13 Transmit signal of a metal detector 06/13/13 Method for separating target signals from unwanted signals in a metal detector 03/07/13 Metal detector sensor head 06/14/12 Metal detector with at least one transmit/receive switch 09/29/11 Metal detector sensor head 11/11/10 Metal detector with improved magnetic response application 06/17/10 Rectangular-wave transmitting metal detector 06/17/10 Metal detector for salt soils 06/10/10 Constant current metal detector with driven transmit coil 12/24/09 Real-time rectangular-wave transmitting metal detector platform with user selectable transmission and reception properties 12/24/09 Multi-frequency transmitter for a metal detector
  10. Hi Steve Just wondering if there is any new news on the Fisher rumors that were being talked about 6 months or so ago. I.e. multi frequency units. Pi units, etc. Anyone feel free to chime in.
  11. You also get to see the new GPZ 19 coil being tested. There is explanatory text to accompany the video at http://www.minelab.com/usa/go-minelabbing/treasure-talk/in-the-ground-is-where-detecting-really-counts
  12. Hi everyone, I hope someone can help me in understanding this. In all the forums we are told "If you go for gold you need to dig it all". And it says that – depending on ground conditions and depth plus surrounding targets – you may never be sure if it is aluminum or gold catching your detectors attention. IF this is true, why should anyone invest in gear like a Minelab CTX 3030 (which is what I am about to do...). Why not a simple Garrett AT PRO.... and why not a PI machine? I am aware of higher freqs = better for gold, lower freqs = more depth. And I am aware that every product has it's special strengths. But this does not answer the blunt question for me of why investing in fantastic ID capabilities if it's not worth it in practice. Thanks much for your piece of advice!
  13. A detector should have individual character and a distinguishing trait or quality. Isn't this why we buy that detector ? When you have a detector company that makes their product under one name you find what I said more true. Then other companies may have one name but they sell their products under different brand names of times past. I'm not saying it is not a good product they have. The trouble that comes into play is when they have the same father they start to look alike.Just by association and being conceive by the same person they all are going to be effected. If you go look at detectors that come out under different names but made by the same company you will see what I'm taking about. Oh it don't jump out and bite you but makes you think your seeing double. I don't care if it's the inner working are the skin on the outside it drift from one to the other. Okay I open this can of worms and now I'd like to hear from you on the above subject. Chuck
  14. Just found this on the web: http://md-hunter.com/garrett-at-concept-new-2016-or-a-fake/ Looks interesting.
  15. What's in the ultimate gold detector? I got to see a little bit of everything on my trip from the heaviest, most complicated to the light and simple. I'm a novice, maybe because of that I like simple. Knobs instead of menus. Light. Powerful. Long battery life. For fancy stuff like GPS I can use my phone. Iron ID would be nice. What's your idea of the best gold detector?
  16. This is purely my perception but when I look at the market as a whole today there are only two companies that seem to produce machines that innovate - Minelab and XP with the Deus. Everyone else just keeps rehashing the 1990s over and over again. Take away single frequency VLF detectors and non-ground balancing PI detectors from current lineups and look at what is left to get the real picture. First Texas - Fisher CZ3D and CZ21, multi-frequency 5 kHz and 15 kHz Garrett - ATX, multi-period ground balancing PI Tesoro - Nothing White's - V3i & VX3, multi or selectable frequency 2.5, 7.5, and 22.5 kHz; Beachhunter ID, multi frequency 3 kHz and 15 kHz; TDI, single channel ground balancing PI XP - Deus, selectable frequency 4, 8, 12, and 18 kHz Minelab - GPZ 7000, Zero Voltage Technology GPX 5000, multi-period ground balancing PI with dual voltage technology GPX 4500, multi-period ground balancing PI with dual voltage technology SDC 2300, multi-period fast ground balancing PI Eureka Gold, selectable frequency 6.4, 20, and 60 kHz X-Terra 705, 505, 305 - selectable frequency 3, 7.5, and 18.75 kHz CTX 3030, multi-frequency E-TRAC, multi-frequency Safari, multi-frequency Excalibur, multi-frequency It is even worse when you consider that the First Texas and White's offerings are all over ten years old. You can sum new tech up in the last decade as Minelab, Garrett with the ATX, and XP with the Deus.
  17. Here is a photo with some gold nuggets from Alaska, Australia, and California that I tested recently to show how VDI (visual display indicator) numbers vary dramatically with size, shape, and purity. Metal detectors do not know what metal is being detected. The target id number is based first on the conductivity of the item and also by the size of the item. Low conductive targets have low numbers, but the larger they are the higher the numbers go. Silver is the best conductor with gold being moderately conductive by comparison. Small gold items read very low, in the foil range, but the larger the nugget, the higher the numbers will go. Oddly enough adding silver to gold causes the conductivity to drop dramatically instead of adding to it. Pure metals are far better conductors than alloys. That being the case the Alaska gold has much lower conductivity than the Aussie or California gold. I have always used a U.S. nickel as a surrogate for about a 1/4 ounce gold nugget, a flattened nugget of that weight being close to a nickel in physical size. Part of this little study is to show how close to reality or not that may be, or any test items like lead or aluminum. I do not have much in the way of “normal” metal detectors these days. The closest I have right now is a White’s DFX which reads a nickel as 22 VDI, dime 78, and quarter 84. The White's VDI range is close to being a standard, with negative numbers relating to ground minerals and ferrous items, positive number non-ferrous. The range is from -95 to +95 with non-ferrous items falling between 1 and 95. The photo shows tests I just did on a variety of gold nuggets from Alaska, Australia, and California. The Australia gold is the purest, probably around 95% or better. The California is around 90% plus. The Alaska gold is much lower purity, closer to 80 – 85% average. You can see the purity differences in the color - pure gold is a very rich gold color, less pure gold much paler in appearance. Click for larger version.... Gold nugget target id numbers A few things become immediately obvious. Larger size means higher VDI numbers. However, purity appears to be even more important. Shape, thickness, and solidity all matter – skin effects? Smooth solid masses read much higher than nuggets with pitted surfaces. All weights are in grams except a couple larger nuggets which are Troy ounces (ozt). There are 15.43 grains to a gram. 31.103 grams per Troy ounce. In general in all three locales you can say that nuggets under 2 grams are going to read in the foil range. As nugget size increases however huge disparities are obvious due to purity, with all but the largest Alaska gold reading at much lower VDI ranges, and Australia gold very high numbers. There are some odd ones that prove the situation. The Alaska 29.82 gram nugget is just under one ounce, but VDI 21, almost an exact nickel reading. This is because this nugget is probably 75% - 80% gold. You can see the color difference compared to the Australian gold next to it. It also is deeply pitted. The 4.93 gram nugget directly under it is solid and smooth and about 85% pure and so has a VDI number double what you see in the much larger nugget. The Alaska 15.19 gram is round and solid but has quartz mixed with it, maybe 80% gold in metallic portion, only 12 VDI. The 1.25 oz Alaska in lower right has a lot of quartz and metallic portion is maybe 75% gold, so only 28 VDI. But get big enough, and at 6.52 ounces, 85% gold, solid and smooth, you get a reading up in half dollar 90 VDI range. For California gold I am guessing that at about 3 grams you get a nickel reading but in Australia it might be closer to 1.5 grams, and in Alaska closer to ½ ounce. Bottom line? The nugget size to get a U.S. nickel reading is all over the map from roughly 3 grams to 15 grams but can go up to nearly an ounce for nuggets of low purity with included quartz and pitted surfaces. Saying a U.S. nickel is roughly equivalent to a 1/4 oz nugget can be true and is probably as close as you will get to some sort of average, but reality is the range of nuggets that have a VDI the same as a nickel is pretty surprising. The final zinger is that these are air tests. Ground minerals will change the numbers, typically pulling them down. The worse the ground mineralization, the lower the numbers will shift. There are a few lessons here. The first being that if you know nothing about the gold you are chasing you need to dig all targets or at a minimum all non-ferrous targets. However, if you do have a target id detector and get to know the gold in your location well, you can cherry pick with some degree of accuracy. The number one factor really is size because large nuggets are very rare. Certain areas despite wishful thinking simply do not produce large gold. If you know for a fact all the gold ever found in an area is in small gram size nuggets and even smaller, you can figure high VDI numbers are probably shell casings or some other undesired target. Further, in places like Alaska with low purity gold (not all of it - Alaska is a big place) then low VDI numbers will be the norm. The numbers speak for themselves however and you can draw whatever conclusions you want. I have to admit that while I know all this intellectually from years of detecting to see it laid out clearly in a simple photo really drives the lesson home. It took rounding up some Australia gold and California gold to really make it a good comparison. To further illustrate that gold as a rough rule boils down to "the larger the gold, the higher the target id number" here is the standard White's scale as printed on several top end metal detector control boxes. It shows where gold coins, gold rings, and gold nuggets generally fall on the White's -95 to +95 scale where negative numbers are normally ferrous. Pay extreme attention to the fact that White's says small gold can fall as low as -20 on their scale - deep into the ferrous range. At the other extreme a $20 gold coin may read as high as a silver dime or quarter. The gold range covers the majority of the metal detector target id scale. White's Electronics standard target id scale -95 to +95
  18. Meet The Metal Detectives - Inside Engineering at Minelab Electronics A new video showing Minelabs new engineering facility and meeting some of the people that work there. Check out the blurred portions obscuring secret product developments! Amazing engineering staff at Minelab - I consider myself fortunate to have communicated with and even met a few of the people that work there. A few more details about the making of the video at Minelab's Treasure Talk Blog
  19. My recent experiences with new model metal detectors has convinced me of two things. First, I want every new model I might consider going forward to have built in wireless headphone capability. It eliminates the issues surrounding where to place a headphone connection on the metal detector itself, and also eliminates the possibility of a cord failure. Stress on the cord and eventual breakage is the number one reason headphones fail. Headphones, if included or optional, would be best if they had the ability to go wireless or use an optional cord, in case the headphone battery gives out in the middle of a hunt. Second, high end new models should have an ability to have the firmware updated at home by the owner. It has become nearly normal for there to be firmware updates, even multiple updates, in the first year after a new detector is released. I am not talking about getting new features for free, although that would be nice. I am talking about it becoming apparent that a bug exists or something was overlooked, requiring an update to the firmware. Nobody should have to go through time and expense to have to return a metal detector to the factory to get a firmware bug fix. There are just too many new detectors becoming available these days, and I decided I need to draw a line on certain features to help eliminate the majority that are just variations on what we already have. Right now the market is flooded with 13 - 19 kHz single frequency detectors and more arriving every month it seems. Yet models with built in wireless headphone capability are almost non-existent. Given that basic single frequency VLF tech is maxed out, it only stands to reason that manufacturers need to be looking hard at ergonomics and extra features like wireless capability to differentiate themselves from everyone else. It is after all the 21st century. Maybe I can't get my flying car yet, but asking for these two features in new detectors is not asking too much. My current core units: Garrett ATX - N/A Makro Gold Racer - Includes wireless headphone capability as an option Minelab CTX 3030 - Includes both wireless headphone and firmware update capability Minelab GPZ 7000 - Includes both wireless headphone and firmware update capability White's DFX - N/A XP Deus - Includes both wireless headphone and firmware update capability
  20. First, I want to say this is one of the best forums I have ever seen. Steve has put together a GREAT website. The knowledge base on the forum is just phenomenal. I have learned so so much more about metal detectors from all of you. So let me explain assumed. I assumed: White's and Garret were the best metal detectors. Carl Moreland was still working for White's Metal detectors were 10 years behind technology of today. (just my thought) After making the assumptions, I realized how wrong I was thanks to this forum. I realized White' and Garrett have been a sleep. Carl Moreland either quit or was fired. White's and Garrett detector are whats 10 behind. When I got back into metal detecting last year. I was looking for a new machine. I looked at White's and Garrett with the assumptions. I thought about building my own detector. So I read Carl Moreland's book. (Great book) I realized that it would take me 2 to 5 years to develop my own detector. So I scrapped this idea. I could not understand why White's or Garrett had not built a detector with what I expected. I thought that with today's technology there should be a sweep frequency oscillator for the coil-s and an easy to read display. That being said, White's closest model was the V3i. Garrett had nothing. I quickly realized that I needed to look at everything. Because of the forum, I found Minelab was being discussed. When I found the Minelad Safari, I quickly realized it had what I was thinking of building. I don't like their LCD display. It does not look clear a crisp to me. However the machine looks promising. Then I looked at the E-track and CTX-3030. These also look to be very promising machines. Just the price is higher that I want to pay for a -2 times a month hobby. I really wish the best for White's and Garrett. They have their work cut out for them. I want to thank John, Chuck, Tom and Terry and many others I do not know their names for the knowledge your provided and a special thank you to Steve H for his superior knowledge and the wonderful website he has provided.
  21. I do wonder what is up at White's Electronics. They have not put out a new detector platform since the V3i in 2009. Just rehashes of the MXT mostly. Yet they have been extremely busy on the research front, with the patent issued on half sine technology earlier this year http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/118-half-sine-metal-detector-technology-hybrid-induction-balance-pulse-induction-metal-detector/ And now a new patent for a constant current metal detector: http://www.google.com/patents/US8878515 United States Patent 8,878,515 Earle November 4, 2014 Inventors: Earle; John L. (Sweet Home, OR) Assignee: White's Electronics, Inc. (Sweet Home, OR) Family ID: 51798186 Appl. No.: 13/235,916 Filed: September 19, 2011 SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The new invention provides better target object characterization and identification while eliminating ground mineralization detection. A constant current in the energizing coil establishes a constant magnetic field that goes from zero to a strong, but constant, field very rapidly, as in less than 10 microseconds. Target objects such as coins and other eddy current objects have an energizing time constant usually exceeding 10 microseconds, wherein the eddy currents accelerate until field equilibrium is reached in the target object. A constant current or constant magnetic field does not produce a significant signal in a receive coil after the transition from zero to constant current from ground mineralization permeability (powdered iron or ferrite equivalent). Target object eddy currents do produce a signal of varying amplitude throughout the constant current period, depending upon eddy current charging time or inductance of the object, usually not a simple exponential due to configuration of the target object. i.e., diameter, thickness, conductivity, etc. It will be interesting to see if these patents result in any actual product. People often make the mistake of thinking a patent means something is ready to hit the shelves and the truth is just the opposite. Patents are often filed and nothing ever comes of it. Or it gets licensed to others, who actually produce the goods. Who knows what is going on in this case, but White's is obviously still attempting to move the technology forward. I hope the best for them as they are an old name in the business and a great bunch of people. What makes this doubly interesting is Minelab also has patents in the works on constant current technology. http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/311-minelab-bruce-candy-new-patent/?p=2291 The Minelab work is an application for patent that has been in progress since 2009. This White's deal is an actual patent granted. Is there conflict here? Obviously with these two big names at work on the same thing something is up. Sad story is I am not well versed enough in the technology end of things to truly understand how this may actually improve metal detectors for the end user. Other than what it says up above - better discrimination while eliminating the ground. How much better is better?
  22. What we are discussing is usually called "Recovery Speed" by most manufacturers. From the White's XLT User Manual: "Recovery Speed - Speeds target responses, so several targets that are close together can each respond. When a metal is detected, it takes a fraction of a second for the detector to process the signal before it can respond to another metal target nearby. The time it takes to process the first metal target signal so that the second metal target signal can respond is called RECOVERY SPEED. There are advantages and disadvantages to fast (high numbers) and slow (low numbers) RECOVERY SPEEDS. Faster RECOVERY SPEEDs work well in high trash areas. However, they will have some difficulties with very deep targets as well as double responses on shallow targets. Slower RECOVERY SPEEDs do not work very well in high trash areas. However, they will have better responses on very deep targets. Slower speeds also have more definitive discrimination sounds. A custom setting needs to be found that suits the preferences of the individual and the conditions in the area. As a general rule, the closer together the metal targets are in an area, the faster the recovery speed should be. The more spacing between targets, the slower the speed should be. Don't use the fast speed if you don't need to. In very trashy areas it is recommended to switch to a loop smaller in size than the standard 9.5 inch black loop. Smaller loops offer better separation between targets. However, larger loops detect deeper and cover more area with each pass. RECOVERY SPEED combined with a smaller loop can be used to search severely trashy areas." Just to confuse people White's decided to call it "Recovery Delay" on the V3i. A low recovery delay equates to a fast recovery speed. From the White's V3i User Manual: "Recovery Delay - 1 – 200 200 = slowest. Additional and separate (beyond filtration) selection for the signal response time. Short response time benefits performance in high trash by providing better target separation. A longer response time allows a larger window to detect deeper targets. Ideal Recovery Delay is dependent on Ground Filter selection, ground mineralization, trash density, and your average sweep speed (how quickly you move the search coil)." It would seem detector manufacturers abhor standard terminology, even the same manufacturer! XP has decided to call Recovery Speed by an even newer term - Reactivity. From the Deus User Manual:
  23. I'm sure most of you have seen that the price of some of the greatest detectors are under a thousand. The major ones have keep the price between 7 and 8 hundred with some less. This is all good news for us the buyer. For what I see I'm not getting something less in the detector but more for my money. I think detector companies know it's more of us out there that is willing and can afford 8 hundred are less. With the higher number of sales because of the lower price they'll make more money in the long run. That's my opinion but I want to know yours. Chuck
  24. Squeezed in a few hours this afternoon to complete a neat Pi project, the Pistol Probe. Also want to take the time to thank Gary Storm of Detector Pro for creating the Pistol Probe, Thank you Gary the pistol probe is one powerful pi. And Finnfoto for encouraging me to finish the neat gadget, thanks finnfoto! Well, Here it is the Pistol Probe converted into a pi detector. Yet, Retains the probe usage with adding back the Probe portion.... Was trying to retain the cool Pistol Probe appearance yet be able to shorten it up a little, hacked off the original Probe portion and added a connector. Using a Uniprobe probe stem allowed the project to work, just remove the Probe and connect the 10" 15us pi coil for pi detection.Was comparing this project with my HH Pi, both air tested the same and with the GrayGhost headset audio bangs out loud and clear. Only portion I hated was using an 1/8" headphone plug, had too no room for a regular size plug. None the less it may be the perfect solution, small yet effective allowing the GrayGhost headset to plug in. Three ways to use this, mounted on the S-handle, or hip mount inside a pouch or auctally it's small enough to fasten to the outer headset band if one wants to wade deep in water. Tomorrow, Sometime in the afternoon will hit a dry river bed. Should do well since both the Pistol Probe and HH Pi share the same 15us circuitry. Could have chopped it up into a smaller version, but that would destroy the neat Pistol Probe appearance. This was important, Maintain the neat stock appearance. I'll share tomorrows finds, thanks for taking a peek. Paul
  25. In most industries electronics folks get access to developers kits to build in their own tools and special features. By the time a product goes to market all of this control is stripped out to simplify the unit for general users, who are not usually experienced enough to use it. I was thinking why dont metal detector companies release two versions of code? One for beginners and another set for expert users. It would be easy i would think to pay a fee, get a key to plug in, else reprogram the units for a fee and get all the control i would ever need to work around any issue, gnd, etc out there. I am curious if other folks would like this and would pay for it?
  • Create New...