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 219 results

  1. We've spent a lot of time here lately on whether to X or whether to CoilTek. We don't know if we should Z or Q. We have so many choices we don't know what to do. Make life simple and get the app: This might be easier. Forget the coils and forget the manufacturer. 😁 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gamma.metaldetector&hl=en_US
  2. The black stone is pure magnetite. The purpose of this prototype is discrimination that can indicates very deep targets such as for digging . So far all very deep targets were missed , as well as non-magnetic targets are indicated by discrimination like magnetic (iron ) . The prototype was tested on sand of pure magnetite and can be used to search for golden nuggets , while at the same time rejects the shallow iron objects . In tests on different soils shows very low soil noises , and almost complete absence of false signals . There is a video with the same prototype in youtube , from October 2018 .
  3. Has anyone had any experience with these things? Electromagnetic and magnetic interferences could be extremely annoying when you are looking for that hard to find gold nugget. Most of the noise is picked up by the search coil but a significant level of noise is being picked up as well by the sensitive electronics inside the control box. The control box is made of aluminium therefore the magnetic field easily penetrates it. To prove that, approach a magnet to the right side of your detector when switched on. Millions of less obvious noise signals are interfering with your detector. We have developed this Shield from the best quality material primarily used in sensitive medical and scientific electronics. After years of studying and testing different materials we have found this one ticks all the boxes. I have revisited the places where I've previously cleaned up and found more gold after installing the shield. It is 0.35 mm thick, held firmly around your control box by the armrest and the new improved version with dual layer shielding on the right side is only 175 g! We have tested it on the GPX 5000 with amazing results such as quieter threshold, better GB, resulting in slightly increased depth. The shield allows you to increase the Rx gain by a notch or two without compromising the threshold. Use Inverted Response when hunting for big deep nuggets. https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/MAGNETIC-INTERFERENCE-REDUCER-SHIELD-FOR-MINELAB-GOLD-DETECTORS/232594646908?hash=item3627b8a77c:g:8lEAAOSwYGFU0bvu I noticed it on Ebay today while I was looking for a cover for my GPX. I have noticed I've been able to quieten down my GPX by opening the control box up and scraping some paint away where the shielding touches the casing, on one end they had scraped away paint from one screw point during production, and the other end had no paint scraped away at all by the factory so it's sheilding was basically useless. By scraping paint away from a few areas on each end of the detector I was able to give the GPX a bit of a noticable quieten down. I am sure on later models Minelab would of scraped away more paint but as mine is a very early model made in Australia version this wasn't done.
  4. I’ve been hunting a good site using the Deus and Equinox which has nails and small iron mixed in with good targets, some good targets being deep, but near or in the iron. My question is, will a GPX with Iron Discrimination turned up and the smallest DD coil pull out the deeper, non-ferrous items amongst heavy iron? Has anyone had any experience with this? I think for shallow targets the Equinox or Deus works better for shallow targets in this “machine gun iron”, but would like to see what others may have insight on for using the GPX. I’m assuming the fast setting and special soil timing may need to be adjusted as well. Thank you in advance.
  5. Good evening, I’m venturing into the spotlight here with my first post to ask what likely amounts to a novice’s question. It stems from an experience I had about a year ago with finding my largest nugget. The location was in a small creek bed, which had been conveniently cleared of cobbles and overburden down to a small patch of bedrock surrounded by smooth, silty clay by a dredger. Using a GM 1000, I had detected out several small nuggets from within the bedrock cracks that had been exposed, but not properly crevassed by the prior prospector. However, the thick clay surrounding the exposed bedrock had pockets of varying degrees of moisture. This was providing me a bit of challenge since the wetter spots seemed to be behaving just like hot spots. After an extended wrestling match with the wetter signals and the available settings, I gave up. However, by the time the next weekend came around, I just couldn’t get those wet spots out of my mind. With the heat of the summer and record drought conditions, I guessed those spots may have dried just enough to deserve one final pass. Within minutes of returning, I had found a solid, repeatable, 2 bar non-ferrous signal in the deepest clay pocket on the upstream side of the rock. (This exact spot had seemed masked the week before.) Digging 4-5 inches down into the smooth clay I found a “rock” that made my detector sing. Cleaning it off revealed a beautiful 1/3 ozt. nugget. Call it beginner’s luck—because I do. Now for my question. Were those wet spots of clay giving me fits because of greater relative mineralization, heterogeneity of moisture, or VLF technology? Perhaps it was some of each? Part of my curiosity stems from never having used a PI detector. For those of you with plenty of PI experience, do you also struggle with wet spots or mud spots for lack of a better term? And, if so, are certain PI detectors more resistant to the struggle? Thanks for any input you might spare.
  6. 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.
  7. I don't know if I'm right on this but I've found my Teknetics T2 to be a good guide to mineralisation at an area, I use its Fe3O4 meter as a guide. Would I be right in using that as a guide?
  8. I believe there is not much more they can squeeze out of VLF technology, even multiple frequency has it's limits and is really only 2 frequencies. Are manufactures better off concentrating on coil design rather than just tweaking an existing design adding a letter or two to the name? After market coils quite often improve a detectors performance, so shouldn't manufactures be looking in this area rather than using the same coil designed years ago? Would like your thoughts
  9. Which metal detectors have the most reliable target ID numbers? Target ID is a function of depth - the deeper the target, the more difficult it is to get a clean target ID as the ground signal interferes. Other items directly adjacent to the desired target can also cause inaccurate numbers. The more conductive the item, the higher the resulting ID number, but also the larger the item the higher the number. Silver is more conductive than gold, so a gold item will give a lower number than the same size silver item. But a very large gold item can give a higher number than a small silver item, so numbers do not identify types of metal. Gold and aluminum read the same and vary in size so to dig one you dig the other. Only mass produced items like coins produce numbers that are more or less the same over the years but a zinc penny will read lower than a copper penny due to the change in composition. In general iron or ferrous targets produce negative numbers or low numbers. Aluminum, gold, and US nickels produce mid-range numbers. And most other US coins produce high numbers. Other countries coins, like Canadian coins with ferrous content, can read all over the place. The scale applied varies according to manufacturer so the number produced by each detector will vary according to the scale used. The 0-100 range for non-ferrous targets is most common but there are others. Minelab employs a dual number system on a 2D scale with thousands of possible numbers, but they are now normalizing the results produced to conform more closely to the linear scale used by other manufacturers. Increasing ground mineralization has a huge effect on the ability to get a good target ID. Ground mineralization is nearly always from iron mineralization, and this tends to make weak targets, whether very small targets or very deep targets, misidentify. The target numbers get dragged lower, and many non-ferrous targets will eventually be identified as iron if buried deep enough. Small non-ferrous readings and iron readings actually overlap. That is why any discrimination at all is particularly risky for gold nugget hunters. If you want target ID numbers to settle down, lower sensitivity and practice consistent coil control. The target number will often vary depending on how well the target is centered and how fast the coil moves. Higher sensitivity settings lead to jumpier numbers as the detectors become less stable at higher levels. The interference from the ground signal increases and interference from outside electrical sources also increases, leading to less stable numbers. Higher frequency detectors are inherently more sensitive and are jumpier. So lean lower frequency for more solid results. Multi frequency detectors act like low frequency detectors and tend to have more solid target numbers due to the ability to analyze a target with different frequencies. Another issue is the number of target categories, or ID segments, or VDIs, or notches, or bins (all names for the same thing) that a detector offers. For instance here are the number of possible target id categories or segments each detector below offers: Fisher CZ-3D = 7 Garrett Ace 250 = 12 Minelab X-Terra 305 = 12 Minelab X-Terra 505 = 19 Minelab X-Terra 705 = 28 Minelab Equinox = 50 Fisher F75 (and many other models) = 99 White's MXT (and many other models) = 190 Minelab CTX 3030 = 1750 Fewer target categories means more possible items get lumped together under a single reading, but that the reading is more stable. Many detectors will tell you the difference between a dime and a quarter. The Fisher CZ assumes you want to dig both so puts them under one segment along with most other coins. People who use detectors with many target numbers usually just watch the numbers jump around and mentally average the results. Some high end detectors can actually do this averaging for you! But I think there is something to be said for owning a detector that simplifies things and offers less possible numbers to start with. The old Fisher CZ method still appeals to me, especially for coin detecting. So do detectors like the Garrett Ace 250 or Minelab X-Terra 505 for the same reason. The problem is that as people strive to dig deeper targets or smaller targets the numbers will always get less reliable. But if you want to have a quiet performing metal detecting with solid, reliable target numbers look more for coin type detectors running at lower frequencies under 10 kHz or at multiple frequencies and possibly consider getting a detector with fewer possible target segments. And with any detector no matter what just back that sensitivity setting off and you will get more reliable target numbers. ads by Amazon... Detectors often use tones to identify targets and often use far fewer tones than indicated by the possible visual target id numbers. The X-Terra 705 for instance can use 28 tones, one for each segment. However, most people find this too busy, and so simple tone schemes of two, three, or four tones may be selected. I think it is instructive that many people often end up ignoring screen readings and hunting by ear, using just a few tones. This ends up just being an ultra basic target id system much like the simpler units offer. Reality is that most people do not need or care about huge numbers of target numbers. For many just three ranges suffice, low tone for iron, mid tone for most gold items, and high tone for most US coins. The meter could do the same thing, but for marketing purposes more is better and so we get sold on detectors with hundreds of possible target ID numbers. Perhaps this is a digital representation of an old analog meter with its nearly infinite range of response but the reality is we do not need that level of differentiation to make a simple dig or no dig decision. Finally, a picture often says it all. Below we have a shot of the White's M6 meter. I like it because the decal below illustrates a lot. You see the possible numerical range of -95 to 95 laid out in the middle. Over it is the simplified iron/gold/silver range. Note the slants where they overlap to indicate the readings really do overlap. Then you get the probable target icons. -95 is noted as "hot rock" because many do read there. The M6 can generate 7 tones depending on the target category. I have added red lines to the image to show where these tones sit in relation to the scale. It breaks down as follows: -95 = 57 Hz (Very Low) Hot Rock -94 to -6 = 128 Hz (Low) Iron Junk -5 to 7 = 145 Hz (Med Low) Gold Earrings, Chains - Foil 8 to 26 = 182 Hz (Medium) Women's Gold Rings/Nickel - Small Pull Tabs 27 to 49 = 259 Hz (Med Hi) Men's Gold Rings - Large Pull Tabs 50 to 70 = 411 Hz (High) Zinc Penny/Indian Head Penny - Screw Caps 71 to 95 = 900 Hz (Very High) Copper Penny/Dime/Quarter/Dollar Note that the screen reading of +14 is noted as being a nickel or ring but it can also be the "beaver tail" part of an aluminum pull tab or the aluminum ring that holds an eraser on a pencil, among other things. The best book ever written on the subject of discrimination is "Taking A Closer Look At Metal Detector Discrimination" by Robert C. Brockett. It is out of print but if you find a copy grab it, assuming the topic interests you. Always remember - when in doubt, dig it out! Your eyes are the best target ID method available.
  10. I do what I can to foster competition that develops alternatives to the all too common VLF detector. There are plenty of options out there, but in my opinion they all weigh too much or cost too much. Usually both. I envision people out there with a popular VLF metal detector for beach, relic, or gold detecting. These machines all sell for around $700 and weigh 2.5 - 3.9 lbs. Perhaps they would like to add a ground balancing PI (GBPI) to what they have. I think that for "normal people" with normal budgets a machine under $2K and under four pounds just makes sense. It would be more than twice what they spent for their VLF, and in this day and age there is no reason why a decent PI should weigh over 4 lbs. To clarify what I am talking about here, I should say that for many people a $700 VLF detector is a great place to start and in many cases is all a person ever needs. However, there are places where extreme ground mineralization and mineralized rocks (hot rocks) severely impede the performance and use of VLF detectors. Alternative technology to deal with these conditions has been developed, by far the most familiar being the Minelab ground balancing PI (GBPI) detectors. These differ from common PI detectors by having the ability to ground balance. Other brands have offered the Garrett Infinium (discontinued) plus Garrett ATX and the White's TDI models. These detectors are used not just for gold prospecting but also by relic hunters, beach detectorists, and others who face challenges regarding ground mineralization and VLF detectors. Frankly, in my opinion GBPI technology is largely maxed out. The main room for improvement comes now in better ergonomics at lower prices. This challenge therefore limits detectors to those that weigh under 4 pounds with battery included, and which sell brand new with warranty after discounts for under US$2000. Detectors need not be ground balancing PI models, but must offer similar ability to ignore mineralized ground and hot rocks that trouble VLF detectors. I am going to rate detectors as to their relative performance using what I call the "Minelab Rating Scale. Details here. 1. Minelab SD 2000 - crude first version, very poor on small gold, excellent on large deep gold 2. Minelab SD 2100 - vastly refined version of SD 2000 3. Minelab SD 2200 (all versions) - adds crude iron disc, ground tracking 4. Minelab GP Extreme - adds greatly improved sensitivity to small gold, overall performance boost. 5. Minelab GP 3000 - Refined GP Extreme 6. Minelab GP 3500 - Greatly refined GP 3000, last and best of analog models 7. Minelab GPX 4000 - First digital interface, rock solid threshold 8. Minelab GPX 4500 - Refined GPX 4000, solid performer 9. Minelab GPX 4800 - Released at same time as GPX 5000 as watered down version 10. Minelab GPX 5000 - Culmination of the series, current pinnacle of GBPI prospecting machine technology. All Minelab models leverage an existing base of over 100 coil options from tiny to huge. I am a very practical person when it comes to detecting. I know all the existing models and options by all brands very well, perhaps better than almost anyone. This is the way I look at it is this. If I personally were to spend a lot of money to go gold prospecting for one month, and needed a GBPI detector, considering machines past and present, what would I get and in what order of choice? Put aside concerns of age, warranty, etc. just assume functioning detectors. Here is the issue in a nutshell. On the Minelab scale of one to ten as listed above, I would be generous in rating the White's TDI SL as a 2. Same with the Garrett Infinium which I will mention in passing as it is no longer being made. If I was going to spend a month of my time and a lot of money going on a prospecting trip, I would choose a TDI in any version over the SD 2000. I might go with a TDI Pro over a SD 2100 but I would have to think real hard about that, and when push comes to shove I would go SD 2100 were it not for the realities of age I said to ignore. A newer TDI Pro might be a better bet than a very old SD 2100 from a reliability standpoint, but again, this would be a tough choice. The TDI SL not really. In my opinion I would be shooting myself in the foot to go on this hypothetical trip with a TDI SL instead of a SD 2100. You see the problem now? The Garrett ATX fares better. I would rate it a 3, roughly analogous to the SD 2200 variants. Still an agonizing choice really and the ATX being new versus SD 2200 being old might again be the tipping point, but from a pure prospecting options perspective the case can be made that the SD 2200 might be the better way to go. The problem for this challenge is the ATX weighs way over 4 lbs and sells for slightly over $2000. The price is close enough really but the 7 lb weight is way off. That's it folks. That is reality. The best of the best that the competition can offer can only go solidly up against models Minelab has not made in years. I am not saying that to be mean or as some kind of Minelab toadie, that is my pure unvarnished opinion as a guy who is pretty well versed on the subject. Let's bring it all home. This person with the $700 machine really, really wants that under 4 lb, under $2K GBPI machine, but if they do their homework they discover that truthfully, they would be better off shopping for a used Minelab than what the competition offers new. With the TDI SL rated as a 2 the ATX in a much lighter box at under $2K is a solid win as a 3. A well designed ATX with standard dry land coils would look very enticing as compared to the GP series Minelabs. But Garrett refuses to budge! White's can certainly do something, anything to improve the TDI SL. A battery that lasts all day would be a good start. In the end they are limited by the basic single channel design of the machine. The SD 2000 dual channel design was literally the answer to and the improvement on the single channel technology used in the TDI, the basics of which predate the SD 2000. Still, White's currently owns the under 4 lb under $2K GBPI category so they have the first out of the starting gate advantage. Anything they do would at the very least just show they have not given up. The Minelab MPS patent that formed the basis of the SD series has expired. Not sure about DVT, which formed the basis of the GP series. Where is the competition? What the heck is going on here? Much gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair is going on here, that's what!!! That is my challenge to the manufacturers. Under 4 lbs, under $2K, on the 1-10 scale I am offering, what is the best you can do? The TDI SL as a 2? Really? Yes, really, that is currently the best of the best in the brand new ground balancing PI, full warranty, under 4 lb, under $2k category. You can pick up a 3.5 lb TDI SL right now brand new for $1049. The White's TDI SL takes the crown. Hopefully we will see more competition in this wide open category soon. I have been beating this drum for years to no avail, but I do have reason to believe we are finally going to see more alternatives soon. I hope.
  11. Would love to get your opinions and feedback on this machine coming to market supposedly soon, and supposedly uses a BT connection from your phone or smart device to control the coil. Similar to Deus, but using a phone or iPod touch etc. as the controller. Believe it's single frequency. Here's a video demo. I've long liked the idea of a setup like this but I thought there were good reasons the major players have not created a machine utilizing a phone or iPod touch this way, so I'm skeptical.
  12. I myself like the looks of screen of my MX Sport but not the weight. It would be great for it to trim some fat off of it. Out of all the ID numbers it has to offer I’d like to be able to notch out one at a time. We all know that different frequencies is better than others depending on what you’re detecting. If I can I’d like it to be multi frequency where I can run in all and single one if I do wish. What I want is a detector that it will do the major part of my detecting. My thing I’m a coin hunter first be it on a beach are around some old homestead . I’ve never been a relic hunter but it would have to offer the same for that person too . I love nugget hunting but it’s just not a lot of gold in Texas but it would be great to have some high frequencies to nugget hunt. I don’t see the need that I should have to buy another detector for what little I do get to nugget hunt. We all different and our wants runs different too.I know too it’s other detectors offer the things I’m wanting from White’s right now but I’d like to see America made on the side. Chuck
  13. I've seen debate about this question over and over. Thanks to Minelab's vague description of their use of Multi-IQ on both machines. I measured both the 800 and the 600 (my backup machine) and can put this to rest. They both output identical spectrums.
  14. I hooked up a sensor coil to pick up the transmit frequencies from my 800. Connected to an audio spectrum analyzer I could see what was being transmitted in all the modes. Surprise, Park 1 uses only a single frequency ~ 15KHz. The amplitudes shown are relative.
  15. Just finished a second day hunting with the new Mirage PI. Short days, I seldom go for more than 2-3 hours, but enough to start learning a new to me machine. Something I notice and wonder about. The 9.5" mono coil appears more sensitive to iron near the edge of the coil, while nonferrous seems to hit harder near the center of the coil. Could that be a thing or am I deluded? If it is a real thing, is it a reliable way to make dig decisions? I could swear I read something somewhere about this, but am no longer sure because I am deluded in general anyway. Anyone got thoughts?
  16. I did a quick recording of items I had going from a small nickel silver bead through a screw cap. Total of 20 items 6" away in both all metal mode and discrim mode with disc at min. It is interesting how you can actually see the different sounds and how they have unique patterns. I plan on redoing the test when I can set up outside. There is a lot of emi here and my audio setup was not tuned so I couldn't hear the threshold through the computer even though it was pretty loud on the detector. The audio was also recorded really hot which I will correct next time. Wonder if digital machines have just flat signals with no variation other than tone and volume? I can't record my Garrett as it has a proprietary audio jack.
  17. i have my dual field that the pots were starting to act up a while ago and decided to get new pots etc so after removing the board to remove the pots i had to remove all connections etc so im not 100% on were they connect now on the board along with the speaker ,coil etc, if any one is able to help i really appreciate it . cheers
  18. How does IB detectors compare to VLF and PI's? Worth trying to build one or just a waste of time?
  19. The whole depth with VLF detectors thing in my opinion has been nothing but a red herring for decades. I have read a thousand posts from people wanting VLF detectors with "more depth". Yet VLF detectors maxed out for usable depth by at least 1990 if not before. I have not used any VLF metal detector since 1990 that got more depth on coins than my Compass Gold Scanner Pro. The only real improvement we have seen and are still seeing is in the ability to find and correctly identify items that are masked by the ground itself or adjacent undesirable targets. There are an amazing number of targets in the ground at depths achievable by any decent detector made in the last 25 years, but that are being missed because they are improperly identified and ignored or just completely masked and invisible. This is an area where the Minelab BBS and FBS detectors have excelled. They do not go deeper. They simply get more accurate discrimination at depths exceeding what most detectors achieve. Machines like the DEUS and a lot of other Euro machines are excelling not for the depth they get, but this ability to acquire and accurately identify targets at shallower depths that are missed by other detectors. If we had a detector that could simply see through everything and accurately identify coins to 10" the ground would light up with countless missed finds. I get a chuckle out of all the deep coins I see people talk about on the forums when the best detectors made can't accurately identify a dime past 5-6 inches in my soil. Anything deeper just gets called ferrous. There is huge room for improvement in metal detectors still not by getting more depth, but by simply finding shallower targets that have been missed by other detectors made up until now. How To Make Yourself Crazy! U.S. Versus Euro Style Detectors
  20. Published on Jan 19, 2019 - Just a quick video showing the benefits of the Vista Gold running at a higher kHz and using zero gain in highly mineralised soil Here are the videos, after further testing I can confirm that the 15 kHz hits stronger on deep silver in clean Non Mineralised Soil and both are exactly the same on the gold coin at depth in Non Mineralised Soil.
  21. Deep in the depths of winter here, I found myself partaking in some serious speculating. With all the controversy of whether or not the Equinox is multi frequency or not, I figure I'd bring some wood to keep warm lol. Some of you may recall in one of those threads I was trying to explain that the waveform we see can actually be comprised of more then one, two, three or more frequencies. Additionally I pondered if the multi frequency processing could just be done on the receive side using typical sinusoidal waves that are actually doing the work. Nonetheless here is the transmit side, the side that actually excites the target. Below you will see a FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) of the Equinox in Gold2. The scale goes from DC to 125 kHz. (Left to right) If you consider the advertised range of Multi-IQ frequencies as being 5 kHz to 40 kHz, you might be satisfied by this as the left half of this 125kHz graph is filled out nicely. There is even a couple little peaks up around 100 kHz, whether or not that is utilized I don't know. I'm way off base as to how MIneslab actually does this, but I just wanted to show the kind of information that can be extracted from these signals. I am not trying to prove anything specific other then to say I don't think Minelab is being misleading IMO. Assume something is a little off with my measuring, still that looks like multi-something. The approximate frequency peaks of interest measured from left to right are: -2.5 kHz -8 kHz -13 kHz -18 kHz -23.5 kHz -28.5 kHz -33.5 kHz -39 kHz -44 kHz -50 kHz -54 kHz -59.5 kHz That covers the advertised range of frequencies which exist on the left hand side of the graph, (Midpoint is 62.5 kHz) I wont bother with the higher frequency stuff as it may not be relevant. It doesn't really hit any of the single frequencies, on the other hand Minelab does not explicitly say what frequencies are used in Multi-IQ. (That I know of.) I am happy to see that low frequency response. I was thinking the Equinox was going to be all 8 kHz and higher, which it basically is, but I'm glad to see the 2.5 kHz peak right beside it and of almost equal strength.
  22. Version KBA 04-1 2010

    18 downloads

    Metal Detecting Terminology (Minelab) 2010 Knowledge Base Article KBA 04-1, 1.65 MB pdf file, 17 pages Metal detecting terminology and definitions, with an emphasis on Minelab technology wording and descriptions. Minelab Metal Detector Forum
  23. Version by Bruce Candy, Minelab

    54 downloads

    Metal Detector Basics And Theory by Bruce Candy, Minelab 1.42 MB pdf file, 24 pages Bruce is a co-founder of Minelab and the man behind their most advanced designs. This information delves into much greater detail than the above link and has many more illustrations and diagrams. Minelab Metal Detector Forum
  24. Version by Dave Johnson, First Texas

    39 downloads

    Gold Prospecting With A VLF Metal Detector by Dave Johnson, First Texas 10 Mar 2010 Edition, 2.93 MB pdf file, 56 pages Dave is the Chief Designer for First Texas Products and has been involved in designing most of the VLF gold prospecting detectors sold over the last 30 years. This is an excellent primer on using VLF detectors to prospect for gold. First Texas (Bounty Hunter, Fisher, Teknetics) Forum
  25. Version by Thomas Dankowski, Fisher Labs

    29 downloads

    Fisher Intelligence - Advancing the Hobby of Metal Detecting by Thomas J. Dankowski, Fisher Labs 5th Edition 04/2006, 6 MB pdf file, 48 pages Thought provoking articles on aspects of metal detecting not often talked about. First Texas (Fisher) Forum
×
×
  • Create New...