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
    • Makro / Nokta Metal Detectors
    • Minelab 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


  • Catalogs & Brochures
  • Owners Manuals
  • Minelab CTX 3030 Programs
  • Spreadsheets

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL






Gear Used:

Found 178 results

  1. 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?
  2. I often see posts on various forums where people use high GB phase numbers as examples of hot, mineralized ground. I thought that GB phase numbers are only indicative of the TYPE of ground(rock,soil,clay,salt). Rock, soil, and clay can actually be pretty benign or very mineralized. Isn't the determining factor for hot ground that affects metal detectors the amount of Fe3 in the soil? A phase reading of 89 may be mild soil if the amount of IRON in the soil is low. Conversely a phase reading of 65 may be very hot ground if the ground consists of clays with high iron content. Some VLF detectors now have Fe3 meters on them and the higher the reading is on that meter the more the ground will affect your detection depth and the accuracy of the VDI number(if supplied). It seems like many people are confused by this. I think it is important info that can affect your coil selection(size and type), the amount of discrimination you may choose to use, and the mode(all-metal or discriminate) that we run in. We need somebody that knows their stuff to give us a definitive answer!
  3. Hi, I am looking to purchase a gold finding metal detector that can handle mineralized soil well, but also locates smaller gold. I live in southern Nevada and it seems that the more I read, the more confused I am getting. I guess I'm looking for a detector that does well with tiny and larger gold. I had the Gold Bug 2 for a while and it was way too sensitive for me and not rain-proof. The Makro Gold Kruzer, The Gold Monster and others on that level are all within my price range, so I am having trouble making a decision. I understand that the right detector for someone may not be the right detector for someone else, but I do believe the right input is valuable. I haven't seen any head to head videos using the Gold Kruzer yet (still too new) but it looks promising so far. The reviews of these detectors are great, but nothing beats real world testing under various conditions and soil types. I am not one for air testing due to it's controlled nature, so the confusion grows. I know many of these detectors can locate tiny gold due to their higher kHz, but there is a trade off. I appreciate any suggestions. Thank you, Mike
  4. Our cup runneth over! Just a few years ago the market for "over 30 kHz nugget detectors" was quite limited. For a long time there were only a few options: Fisher Gold Bug 2 (71 kHz) $764 with one coil Minelab Eureka Gold (6.4, 20, & 60 kHz) Discontinued $1049 when new with one coil White's GMZ (50 kHz) Discontinued $499 when new with one coil White's GMT (48 khz) $729 with one coil Things were that way for over a decade. Then in 2015 Makro introduced the Gold Racer (56 kHz) $599 with one coil. Sister company Nokta released the AU Gold Finder (56 kHz) $799 with two coils Then in 2017 we see the Minelab Gold Monster 1000 (45 khz) at $799 with two coils. And although not a dedicated nugget detector, the Deus high frequency coil options (up to 80 kHz) were also released, $1520 for complete detector with one HF coil. Now in 2018 we get another general purpose machine, the Equinox 800, that can hit 40 khz, $899 with one coil. And just announced... the Makro Gold Kruzer (61 kHz) $749 with two coils and the White's Goldmaster 24K (48 khz) $749 with two coils These last two announcements have made barely a ripple in the prospecting world, or at least going by other forums that seems to be the case. There are various reason for that (forums not being prospecting oriented or being Minelab centric) but still the lack of buzz is interesting. I do believe people are both burned out by all the new introductions and that the market is saturated with high frequency models. Leaving out the general purpose machines to sum up the current options it looks like the current "sweet spot" for pricing is a high frequency model at $749 with two coils. Makro Gold Racer 56 kHz - $599 one coil White's Goldmaster 24K 48 kHz - $649 one coil White's GMT 48 khz - $729 one coil White's Goldmaster 24K 48 kHz - $749 two coils Makro Gold Kruzer 61 kHz - $749 two coils Fisher Gold Bug 2 71 kHz - $764 one coil Minelab Gold Monster 1000 45 kHz - $799 two coils Nokta AU Gold Finder 56 kHz - $799 two coils High Frequency Gold Nugget Detector Roundup
  5. First Texas (Bounty Hunter, Fisher, Teknetics) - last new models Fisher F75+ and Teknetics T2+. Next up a new pulse induction (PI) beach detector. A new digital multifrequency to replace the Fisher CZ3D is long overdue but at this rate we will be lucky to just see the PI before the end of the year. Garrett - last new model the AT Max. Hard to believe the flagship GTI 2500 has been around since 1999 with no updates. Garrett so far has shown no interest in multifrequency. The most I was hoping for was a lightweight dry land version of the ATX, but so far no sign of that happening either. I doubt we will see anything else from Garrett this year but they could surprise. Makro - last new models the Multi Kruzer and Gold Kruzer. Makro has mastered single frequency so everyone would like to see what they can do with multifrequency or pulse induction. I expect Makro is done with new models for the year. Minelab - last new models Equinox 600 and 800. I have no idea what’s up next for detectors but I sure would like to see that small coil for my GPZ 7000. I really don’t expect anything new for the rest of the year besides Equinox accessories. Nokta - sister company to Makro. Last new detector the Nokta Impact. I actually bet on a PI under the Nokta brand rather than Makro brand simply because the Nokta housings like the new Impact housing would better contain a high power PI. Tesoro - Who? What? White’s - last new models the MX7 and TDI SL Special Edition plus the just announced Goldmaster 24K. Hopefully that new tech will eventually see the light. Right now just getting the 24K out the door is job one. XP - last new products the HF coils for the Deus, with X35 coils due by end of year.
  6. The following information is from an apparent leak from a First Texas distributor meeting? The link is posted at http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/555-new-fisher-pulse-induction-multi-frequency-detectors/?p=10571 as part of the thread about upcoming Fisher products that have been circulating for a couple years. These leaks seem to jive with previous statements by Tom Mallory of First Texas. The main one of interest to the people on this forum would be a new CZX model aimed at gold prospecting. Here is the text from the posted screen shot: CZX - Fisher and Teknetics This machine is ground breaking technologyTurn on and go2 frequency - 9:1 ratioNo need to ground balance or adjust the detector to the environmentIt automatically senses the ground and makes changes accordingly.First detector birthed from this platform is a gold unit priced around $1000, but deeper than current VLF, this detector will also see through red dirt, and highly mineralized soil.From this platform other machines will develop. We intend to develop the CZX and MOSCA platforms to offer more machines in the $1000 to $2000 range than have ever been available.Target release 2016We have senior engineer Dave Johnson on this projectThe "Mosca" platform referred to is further described and apparently is aimed more at being a general purpose non-prospecting detector (coins, jewelry, relics). Again, here is the text from the posted screen shot: "Mosca" Fisher and Teknetics Waterproof up to 10' (3 meters)Wireless headphones - Waterproof loop and connectors for headphones2 frequency - 7:1 ratioHobby/Treasure Market - Great for Saltwater, Relic, CoinAuto Ground TrackingSingle Pod DesignLCD Pad, control buttons, 2 AA batteriesArm Pad in rearRetail target - $1200 - $2000Target release 2016We have dedicated engineers on this project OK, so a gold unit around $1000 that goes deeper than current VLF designs. I also have high hopes that knowing the proclivities of the engineer, Dave Johnson, that it will be relatively light and ergonomic. Dave also prefers simple and the design statements reflect that. We seriously need something that brings gold detector weights and prices back to earth and so hopefully this will be it. I have stated over and over again I would be very happy with ATX equivalent performance in a less expensive lightweight package. Garrett so far seems disinclined to make that unit but they have a year at least before it may be a moot point. The CZX would have to obsolete the White's TDI as it is aimed squarely at or below the same price point and unless it beats TDI performance would be dead on arrival. We will not have long to wait - 2016 is coming fast!
  7. ☠ Cipher

    Air Metal Detectors

    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.
  8. Someone has X-rayed a equinox coil. Pretty good sized circuit board inside! https://md-hunter.com/minelab-equinox-coil-x-ray-is-it-really-the-half-of-machine/
  9. Here's another, a second interesting product I've run into recently. This one has a bit of a giggle factor for me, but I could be wrong. See what you think.
  10. Legendary metal detector engineer George Payne laid the foundations for much of what we consider to be modern metal detector technology. He or companies he worked for hold a host of basic patents. I tripped over this old lawsuit between White's Electronics and the old Teknetics company (acquired by First Texas in later years) over George's invention of basic target discrimination / target id technology. The following is from the public record of the legal findings at https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/court-of-appeals/1984/677-p-2d-68.html: I thought it provided an interesting peek at some early industry history and so here you go..... Decided February 22, 1984. *69 J. Pierre Kolisch, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Jon M. Dickinson, Francine H. Gray and Kolisch, Hartwell & Dickinson, Portland. Edward T. Monks, Eugene, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Kenneth A. Morrow, Morrow, McCrea & Divita, Eugene, and Gary S. Kindness, Seattle, Wash., of counsel. Before GILLETTE, P.J., and WARDEN and YOUNG, JJ. GILLETTE, Presiding Judge. Plaintiff White's Electronics, Inc. (White's) commenced this action seeking the imposition of a constructive trust for its benefit in all rights, patentable or otherwise relating to an invention developed by defendant George Payne. White's also sought an injunction restraining defendants from selling any product embodying such an invention and from using any trade secrets or other proprietary information belonging to plaintiff. The trial court denied White's any relief. We affirm. White's is a manufacturer of metal detectors. In 1969, White's hired Payne, an electrical engineer, to invent new metal detector technology. In 1971, Payne signed *70 an employment agreement with White's that stated that he would assign to White's any invention that he developed during and for six months after termination of his employment that related to White's activities or was the result of tasks assigned by it. During this period of employment, Payne assigned to White's two patents covering inventions pertaining to metal detectors. In mid-1976, he terminated his employment and went to work for Bounty Hunters, one of White's competitors. He remained there until late 1978, when he sought reemployment with White's. Because of a noncompetition agreement with Bounty Hunters, he did not become reemployed by White's until January, 1980. He did, however, work as a consultant for White's during the intervening period. When Payne was rehired, he did not sign a new employment agreement. As during his previous employment, he worked to develop innovations in the metal detector field and to solve problems related to White's product line. He assigned one patent to White's during this employment period. The evidence concerning the events of January, 1981, is both conflicting and confusing. Payne testified that on January 9, 1981, he conceived an idea that would enable a metal detector automatically to provide the user with target identifying information, unlike any detector then on the market. He stated that he told defendant Morris, White's marketing manager, of his idea, but that he did not work any further on its development until January 15, when he assembled a breadboard a board containing electrical circuits to test his idea. The breadboard failed to achieve the desired result. On January 17, 1981, following a period of internal management disruption at White's, Payne and Morris both quit. Payne testified that, on January 19, 1981, while working to develop his idea of January 9, he "found something that is going to make this thing work, or allow me to continue development of it." He stated that, following this "breakthrough," he still had to work for many more months before his concept was perfected. On January 28, 1981, Payne and Morris, along with defendant Smith, organized defendant Teknetics, Inc., to market metal detectors in direct competition with White's. In December, 1981, Teknetics introduced a metal detector which incorporated Payne's target-identification concept. Plaintiff contends that Payne's "breakthrough" on January 19, actually occurred earlier while he was still employed by White's. In support of this contention, plaintiff introduced Payne's engineering notes containing circuitry designs dated January 18, 1981. Payne admitted that the date on those notes was in error and that they were probably prepared sometime before the 18th. Plaintiff's expert, an electronics engineer, testified that he or someone similarly skilled could build a target-identification circuit based on the information provided in the drawing. Payne testified to the contrary, stating that the key element to his target-identification concept did not appear in his notes until January 19, after he had left White's employ. The trial court found that Payne conceived his target-identification concept on January 9, but that he did not exert time and effort to develop it until after January 17, the date he left White's employ. According to the court: "The idea achieved the status of invention sometime in March of 1981, as evidenced by the order for print out circuitry systems from another company. Prior to reaching this posture, [Payne] had to address himself to and solve problems of target identification as they related to ground rejection." The trial court concluded from the foregoing that plaintiff was not entitled to either the assignment of the patent or the imposition of a "shop-right." This appeal followed. Absent an agreement to the contrary, an employe who is hired to invent, and who succeeds during his term of service in accomplishing that task, is bound to assign to the employer all rights in the *71 invention. United States v. Dubilier Corp., 289 U.S. 178, 187, 53 S. Ct. 554, 557, 77 L. Ed. 1114 (1933); Mainland Industries v. Timberland Mach., & Eng., 58 Or. App. 585, 589, 649 P.2d 613, rev. den. 213 Or. 801 (1982), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 103 S. Ct. 1498, 75 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1983). Furthermore, the practice by an employe of assigning patents to an employer constitutes persuasive evidence of a duty to assign. Mainland Industries v. Timberland Mach. & Eng., supra, 58 Or. App. at 591, 649 P.2d 613. In this case, when Payne was rehired by White's in 1980, no new employment agreement was executed. Although Kenneth G. White, president of White's testified that he intended to rehire Payne on the same terms as his previous employment, the issue apparently was never discussed by the parties. The evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion that the 1971 agreement was revived by Payne's reemployment. However, even without an express agreement, we find that Payne was obliged to assign to White's inventions created during his employment. Payne was hired precisely because of his exceptional inventive abilities in the metal detector field. His duties were to invent and develop improvements in White's product line. This, in conjunction with Payne's practice of assigning patents to White's, including during his last period of employment, convinces us that he had a duty to assign all inventions arising during his employment. Thus, the central issue in this case is whether Payne's target-identification concept was sufficiently developed at the time he left White's employ so as to constitute an "invention" to which White's is entitled. Because White's is seeking the imposition of a constructive trust, it must prove its case by strong, clear and convincing evidence. Pantano v. Obbiso, 283 Or. 83, 87, 580 P.2d 1026 (1978). We are unable to find any Oregon cases dealing directly with this issue. Both sides cites numerous cases from other jurisdictions in which the term "invention" has been defined under a variety of factual circumstances. Most courts have adopted a definition which requires that an invention be something more than a thought in an inventor's mind. As stated in National Development Co. v. Gray, 316 Mass. 240, 55 N.E.2d 783 (1944): "Of course there is a distinction between the conception of an idea and the reduction of the idea into practice. The idea is only the starting point, and it does not become an invention until it is developed and perfected and becomes embodied in some tangible form which becomes some novel and useful device or process." 316 Mass. at 249, 55 N.E.2d 783. In Gray, on which plaintiff places great reliance, defendant Lawson, an employe of a company that manufactured shoe-heeling machinery, conceived of an idea for an improved model of that kind of machine while he was in that company's employ. Before he quit, he had reduced his idea to a drawing. The court ruled that, even though he had not yet constructed a working model of the machine, "* * * the idea had crystallized into such definite form by the time Lawson left the plaintiff's employment that he and those with whom he spoke concerning the new machine knew in a general way the principles governing its operation and its probable practical value. * * "It is plain from the evidence * * * that the drawing was the nucleus from which the machine emerged; that whatever Lawson accomplished up to the time he quit belonged to plaintiff, * * * that the activity of Lawson in reference to the new machine constituted a breach of his contract with the plaintiff; and that the latter was entitled to the patent." 316 Mass. at 250, 55 N.E.2d 783. We find the National Development Co. analysis helpful, but we reach a different result as an evidentiary matter. In our view, the evidence in the present case is not clear and convincing that the unsuccessful breadboard Payne assembled prior to his leaving White's employ was the "nucleus" *72 from which his target-identification concept emerged. We are not convinced that, at the time Payne left White's, his idea had "crystallized into a definite form." In fact, one of the key elements of the idea was not developed until after his resignation. When Payne left White's he left with an idea and a goal, but not with an invention. White's, therefore, is not entitled to a constructive trust or to assignment of the patent. White's argues that such a holding will encourage employed inventors deliberately to refrain from putting ideas into tangible form in order to circumvent employer's rights. Our response is that employers could protect themselves by requiring inventors to enter into contracts that provide that the employer is entitled to any inventions conceived during the term of employment and during a reasonable period of time after termination. In fact, White's required Payne to sign such an agreement during his first period of employment. Its failure to obtain such an agreement the second time around is fatal to its case. White's contends in the alternative that it is entitled to a "shop-right" in Payne's target-identification concept. A "shop-right" is a non-assignable license to a patent granted to an employer when an employe who works in a general or noninventive capacity creates an invention using the employer's time and materials. Mainland Industries v. Timberland Mach. & Eng., supra, 58 Or. App. at 593, 649 P.2d 613. Payne, however, was hired specifically as an engineer whose duties included inventing and developing improvements in White's product line. Thus, the facts do not warrant the application of the "shop-right" doctrine. White's final contention is that it is entitled to a permanent injunction to prevent defendants from using trade secrets, propriety knowhow or confidential information acquired from White's. Our review of the record does not reveal any evidence to support the granting of such an injunction. Affirmed.
  11. Anyone out there know any information on this machine ? It supposed to be being tested and could be really interesting when released . May be able to discriminate Iron out . You Tube this . AQUAMANTA A1 TESTS HARDELOT . All in capitals . It is compared to the Sovereign and CTX , the Aqua is the last one tested . Unfortunately LIKE the Equinox most of the time before release , its in a foreign language .
  12. Maybe this is a dumb question wit regard to PI machines why is that one machine will excel at small nuggets but can't do so well on bigger nuggets., Doesn't make sense to me. It would seem logical that iit can find small stuff big stuff should be easy?
  13. The ads came from mags dating back to 66. I can say I remember them all. Just maybe you remember some if not all. Chuck
  14. 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.
  15. We just went through a few years on constant releases of new prospecting detectors. And now the flood has subsided, with almost nothing on the horizon. There is the “any moment now” Makro Gold Kruzer, running at 61 kHz and waterproof to 15 feet. After that however it gets pretty thin. First Texas has new detectors in the works, but nothing rumored that is aimed specifically at prospecting this year, but maybe later. Right now a PI beach detector appears to be up next. Garrett - maybe they are working on it but personally I have given up waiting on a lighter weight ATX. Tesoro - nothing going to happen there obviously. Minelab still “owes” us GPZ owners a smaller coil but with Equinox occupying all their efforts....? Nok/Mak outside of the Gold Kruzer has been working on a PI for years, but absolutely no hints on it getting any closer to market. XP I thought might bring a version of the low cost DPR 600 to first world markets but no sign of it happening. And White’s? Who knows. Maybe we will see a repackaged GMT but the shine has worn off of repackaged detectors these days. Long story short is it often takes new detectors to stir up activity on forums. For now at least the future is looking pretty quiet. The good news is we can just focus on using what we already have to best effect without being tempted or distracted by new shiny toys!
  16. Hi Steve: Just re-read your "Steve's Guide to Threshold, Autotune..." It helped a lot. Thanks. I do have a question though. I understand V/SAT. It's about how fast autotune re-adjusts the threshold after encountering some disturbance like a target. However, I'm unclear on how that relates to Ground Balancing and Tracking. It sounds like they are the same. Would you please explain that? Thanks
  17. If you read between the lines on the various search modes, Minelab seems to imply that the ground balancing is done automagically, regardless of whether you do a ground grab or not. For example: Park 1 Multi-IQ processes a lower frequency weighting of the multi-frequency signal, as well as using algorithms that maximise ground balancing for soil, to achieve the best signal to noise ratio. Hence Park 1 is most suited for general detecting and coin hunting. Park 2 Multi-IQ processes a higher frequency weighted multi-frequency signal while ground balancing for soil. Field 1 Multi-IQ processes a lower frequency weighted multi-frequency signal, 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 and coin hunting. Field 2 Multi-IQ processes a higher frequency weighted multifrequency signal while ground balancing for soil. Beach 1 Multi-IQ processes a low frequency weighted multi-frequency signal, and uses special algorithms to maximise ground balancing for salt. Beach 2 MultiIQ processes a very low weighted multi-frequency combination, using the same algorithms as Beach 1 to maximise ground balancing for salt. Not to be confused with auto tracking, but it appears that the Equinox is doing some ground balancing specific to each search mode irregardless of whether you do a ground grab (auto ground balance in EQ speak) or not. Not that I would skip doing a ground grab, but I find it interesting that Minelab seems to be implying they process the ground balancing differently for each search mode, even if you don't do it. Steve do you see this as the case?
  18. This may seem crazy or even funny but I was watching a TV Show last night called Untold Stories of the ER. A Patient entered the hospital by ambulance that had been shot in New York while out on the town Friday night drinking, they were using an Ultrasound to try find the bullet in the area of the entry hole but it was nowhere to be found. After a HUGE amount of messing around with a handheld ultrasound machine for considerable time they ended up finding the bullet have travelled down an artery into the guys leg. They then decided they'd just cut the guys leg open and try find the bullet by hand, digging around in his leg with the surgeons fingers trying to find it, The surgeon was having a great deal of trouble finding it. I was amazed they haven't got some sort of medical metal detector for this purpose yet. I seem to be able to find bullets when I'm trying not to. If I was the surgeon on this show I could of used my Garrett Carrot and found that bullet in seconds, without having to rummage around in his body with my fingers all over the place to try find it. The guy almost lost his leg as the artery was blocked for so long by the bullet causing no blood to go to his lower leg. Seems an opportunity being wasted by metal detecting manufacturers to me, you would think there would be big money in it.
  19. What are some of the least expensive pi machines? Can used ones be found?
  20. Hello , It would be great if the youtubers like calabash and others who have lot of followers make a video of that to share at maximum . - Take 12-15 differents coins of your country ( the coins you use all the day ) -Make a pile (heap ?) with that coins ,like a little tower -Keep this pile beetween your thumb and other finger . -Swing that in front of the coil , at 3-4 inches , the side of the coins ! -Now try that with all the detect mode , not need to change factory presets ( maybe only the accept to 0,1,2 in field 2 ) , you are free to try differents settings later . -The only and important setting for the moment is to change frequency , try 5,10,15,20,40 and multi in each detect mode . Of course multi in the two beach and 20,40,mutli in gold . What is happening ? I know the results , but i want to know the result of the coins of USA,England, australia ,canada .... So please share your results in comments or video Make that with different detectors , if you have impact or deus or other who have various frequency , try to switch all frequency . You can try that with HF white coil if you have , but .... The conclusion is multi IQ obsolete the others single freq . It is more or less to say what calabash said in his video . We can debate of that .
  21. Subject came up elsewhere so I thought I would run a little poll. The poll only gives you two choices but if you want to post about what you think your number one most comfortable detector model has ever been that would be great. It could be a lousy detector in every other way, all I am looking for it what detectors feel best on your arm when held for long hours. There are no right or wrong answers - this is a personal preference thing, determined in large part by hand and forearm size. The "S" rod grip is where the grip is just part of the rod itself, not a separate element. The Post grip is a separate post attached to the rod. Lots of people call this a pistol grip, but that really is more about the shape of the grip. I have seen good pistol grips in an S rod design. There are also Post grips on S rods so it is not the S that makes for the S rod grip but the fact it is integrated into the S. The photos here make it more obvious. There is a difference simply between curved shafts and straight shafts but that is actually a separate subject so I will make a separate poll on it.
  22. Hi steve Herschbach Sir Hope you are good Sir i want to buy metal detector that can detect upto 15 feet I belong to pakistan Here the soil is mineralized Some people suggested me GPZ 7000 Some suggested the jeo hunter 3d dual pack (made in turkey) I have also searched the BR Royal Analyzer Basic which is launched recently in 2017 Sir i want the best detector thats why i need your help Pls suggest me the best detector . Waiting for your reply Sir
  23. When Minelab offered the statement that the new Equinox would obsolete single frequency VLF detectors there was a hue and cry of disbelief from a group of end users. Yet the manufacturers, even before the first Equinox was available for retail sale confirmed that statement by lowering prices. There were two aspects of the statement issued by Minelab that seems to have been missed by some end users: 1. The statement was 90% aimed at other manufacturers. 2. The statement was forward looking at the economic viability of future production of single frequency VLF’s. Now an end user may think that the Acme 4000 was the greatest relic detector ever made and cannot be displaced by an Equinox. However if the sales numbers fall to a certain point then the Acme 4000 will end up being discontinued. So even if an end user loves and is totally invested in an Acme 4000 there is no guarantee it will survive the sales onslaught of the Equinox. To those who say “hogwash” then may I ask how many new recent model BFO or T/R detectors do you see being for sale by manufacturers? Why aren’t there any? Because Technology moved on, just the same as is occurring with the Equinox. Tough time to be a product or sales manager at a competing metal detector company!
  24. Lots of good stuff here to chew on! From https://www.minelab.com/anz/go-minelabbing/treasure-talk/equinox-technologies-part-4 EQUINOX Technologies (Part 4) March 20, 2018 10:05am Minelab Electronics This is the fourth installment in a blog series introducing and explaining the technologies inside our new EQUINOX detectors… (Read Parts 1-3 here.) In Part 3 we ended with mentioning the different Multi-IQ “frequency weightings” for the different search profiles. Part 4 explains further why it is not a simple matter of just referring to specific individual frequencies for learning more about Multi-IQ technology. Let’s now consider one of the key practical detecting outcomes and then discuss how this was achieved… “A lot of people are going to be surprised at how well the machine works in saltwater. At the outset we weren’t sure whether reliably detecting micro-jewelry in a conductive medium was even possible, but – with the help of our field testers and the subsequent fine-tuning of the Multi-IQ algorithms – we’ve found the EQUINOX to be more than capable.”Dr Philip Wahrlich Background and considerations While Multi-IQ may appear as ‘magic’ to some, to our team of signal processing experts, it’s the result of a significant number of man-years of development. So where did they start? By assessing the metal detectors and technologies available in the market at that time, along with typical customer perceptions about their practical applications; and actual detecting results achieved: So, an important goal with developing Multi-IQ technology was to retain the above simultaneous multi-frequency advantages AND greatly improve performance in the two key areas where many single-frequency detectors typically excel – fast recovery in iron trash and finding low conductors in all conditions. Speeding up the process Most comparable low-power Continuous Wave transmit-receive detectors (for the same coil size) will have a similar raw detection depth at which the transmit signal penetrates the ground and has the potential to energize a target. To increase detection depth significantly typically requires higher power and Pulse Induction technology. This has advantages for gold prospecting, but discrimination is poor for identifying non-ferrous targets. While we continue to push for depth improvements, Multi-IQ also aims to provide substantial speed improvements, resulting in being able to better find ALL non-ferrous targets among trash in ALL locations. You could therefore say “fast is the new deep, when it comes to EQUINOX!” Let’s start with considering signal processing not as a ‘black box’ where ‘magic’ happens, but more as a complex chain of applied algorithms, where the goal is to more accurately distinguish very small good target signals from ground noise, EMI and iron trash. Now, ‘fast’ by itself is not enough – you can have fast with poor noise rejection and poor target identification, giving no great advantage. Fast is also not just a result of microprocessor speed. Processors operate at much higher speed than is needed to ‘do the signal processing math’. You can think of the signal processing chain broadly as a set of filters and other processes which are applied to the metal detector signals to convert these signals into useable, informative indicators, such as an audio alert or a target ID. For Multi-IQ, keeping the ‘good’ properties of these filters, while keeping them lean and removing unnecessary processing, was an important step towards achieving ‘fast’ for EQUINOX. It’s also important to recognize that these filters are not the coarse filters of the analogue electronics hardware of last century – it all happens in software these days. Perhaps think of the older analogue TV standards versus current digital TV. (Standard digital HDTV has approx. 10 times the resolution of analogue NTSC.) With metal detectors, a fast higher resolution filter set will result in improved target recognition. Factoring in the ground conditions However, speed without accuracy is not enough to produce a “game changer” detector – and improved accuracy cannot be achieved with a single frequency alone. Why? – “multi-frequency has more data-points” Philip Beck, Engineering Manager. This is worth explaining in more detail… All transmit-receive detectors produce in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) signals that can be processed in various ways depending upon the response received from targets, ground and salt. This processing happens through ‘channels’ that have different sensitivities to the different signals received. It is important to recognize that channels are not exactly frequencies. This is why it is more complex to explain than just correlating optimum frequencies to specific target types. With a single frequency detector there are two basic channels for information (i.e. I and Q) that respond differently to good and bad signals, depending upon the frequency of operation and whether you are looking the the I or Q signal. It is also possible to scale and subtract these signals, while taking ground balance into account, to best maximize good signals and minimize bad signals. You could thus think of single-frequency being Single-IQ, with a limited set of data (e.g. I, Q, I-Q, Q-I) that works well for a particular set of conditions. To further enhance performance for a different set of conditions, you need to change frequency and detect over the same ground again. Therefore a selectable single frequency detector has an advantage with more data available, but not all at once (e.g. I1, Q1, I1-Q1, Q1-I1 OR I2, Q2, I2-Q2, Q2-I2 for as many frequencies that you can select from). Now, getting back to Philip Beck’s “more data-points”, and just looking at two frequencies, a simultaneous multi-frequency detector would be able to process (for example) I1, Q1, I1-Q1, Q1-I1 AND I2, Q2, I2-Q2, Q2-I2 AND I1-Q2, Q2-I1, I2-Q1, Q1-I2 to give better detection results. Increase the number of frequencies further and the number of extra data-points also increases accordingly. What Multi-IQ does is process different optimized channels of information (not just individual frequencies) for the different modes. We have previously explained this as “frequency weighting” (in Part 3), where the various EQUINOX Search Profiles are matched to the respective ground conditions and target types. Here is a very simplified example where you can see the result of processing more than a single channel of information (remember, a channel is not a frequency): Channel 1 has a strong target signal, but the salt signal is stronger still. Channel 2 has weaker signals for soil, salt and the target. If the detector just responded to either Channel 1 or Channel 2, the target would not be heard through the ground noise. If the detector processes a subtraction of the channels (e.g. ch.1-ch.2), then it is possible to ignore the ground noise and extract a strong target signal. Now, think back to the high number of possible combinations of I and Q for simultaneous multi-frequency compared to single-frequency and the frequency weightings for the modes. All of the EQUINOX Park, Field, Beach and Gold Search Profiles have dedicated signal processing to best suit the conditions and types of targets being searched for. Conclusion Multi-IQ = more data-points = sophisticated processing = better ground noise rejection = more finds Just as targets are more sensitive to certain frequencies, so is the ground – an important reason why air testing has inherent limitations when comparing detector performance. As soon as you have ground to consider in the signal processing equation, it can greatly impact on the ability of a single-frequency detector to accurately identify a target. Also, the deeper a target is buried, the weaker the target signal is, relative to the ground signal. The most difficult ground response to eliminate is the salt response, which varies greatly between soil, dry sand, wet sand and seawater. It is not possible to eliminate the salt response and the soil mineralization response (e.g. black sand) with just one frequency. However, within the carefully calibrated Multi-IQ channels, EQUINOX is able to identify both signals and therefore mostly ‘reject’ them (just as you would notch discriminate an unwanted target) BUT still detect gold micro-jewelry. If you haven’t tried EQUINOX yet – why not give it go – with Multi-IQ being fast AND accurate, those diminishing and elusive targets are running out of places to hide! (Part 5 to follow…)