Iron Bias Fe Versus Fe2

[Steve Herschbach]

10 hours ago, Raphis said:

Steve, I remember you, some months ago, uploading an image comprised of FE and F2 Iron Biases, where you had stated that FE-0  was equivalent to F2-4, and the entire FE Iron Bias range (0-9) falls within an F2 Iron Bias range between 4 and 6, inclusive.  Does this pic still have meaning after your tests you ran today??  ....  F2-4 in your test above didn’t produce the same result as FE-0 did.....Also, along those same lines of questioning, is F2-0  still considered “less” Iron bias than FE-0 ??? ?

The chart was originally posted here created from information Tom Dankowski posted based on what he thinks he knows about the control. I’d say based on my simple test that the information is now suspect.

Tom said the new FE2 vastly expands the control range both higher and lower, with the original FE setting spanning the middle of the new range. Tom is equating Iron Bias 0 with the F2 setting of 4 and Iron Bias of 9 with F2 setting of 6. 

However, in my video you can see that a FE2 setting as low as 1 has more effect that a FE setting of 9. The FE2 setting of 2 makes it very obvious. Based on my simple test it looks like a FE setting of 9 is more like a FE2 setting of 0.9

So is FE2 setting of zero actually applying less bias than the FE setting of zero? Tom says so, but my current answer is “I don’t know” until I create a scenario that proves it. That would mean a FE2 setting of zero would have to produce a nonferrous reading on a target that the regular FE setting of zero called ferrous. Right now that seems a poor bet since all FE settings appear to fall in the FE2 region between 0 and 1.

Based purely in my video the FE settings of 0 - 9 appear to equate to FE2 settings of 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, all the way to 0.9

Or another way to look at it is that if the original FE setting tops out at FE9, then the FE2 setting of 1 would be the equivalent of FE10.

None of this information about how FE and FE2 relate to each other is anything other than speculative and should be taken with a huge grain of salt. The only thing I know for sure is the FE2 range is far more aggressive than the original and kicks in earlier than I thought based on what Tom had said.

 

[mn90403]

Everyone here is using the latest update?

[Chase Goldman]

1 hour ago, Steve Herschbach said:

None of this information about how FE and FE2 relate to each other is anything other than speculative and should be taken with a huge grain of salt. The only thing I know for sure is the FE2 range is far more aggressive than the original and kicks in earlier than I thought based on what Tom had said.

I love this discussion.  What I find interesting based on Steve and Jeff's testing how little FE affects certain mixed targets.  I think it is just tough to compare FE with F2.  Perhaps they react differently to different types of targets.  If I take Steve's latest theory on the FE to F2 scale comparison the following observations come to mind (which I am dubbing the Herschbach IB scale to differentiate it from the Dankowski IB Scale):

1.  If FE indeed reacts so minimally compared to F2,  I wonder why ML chose to retain FE other than to avoid complaints from Equinox users about removing desired capability.  I know that personally, I have never invoked FE ever since F2 showed up in the Ver 2.X update.

2.  Steve's theory might also support the notion that Fe 0 and F2 0 actually both represent completely turning off the IB filter.  That notion sort of went out the window when I first embraced the "Dankowski IB Scale" that showed FE 0 ~ F2 4.

3.  Finally, I find it interesting that ML took care to select different FE IB default settings for different modes including "0" for Park 2, Field 1, and Field 2 and 6 for everything else.  And, counterintuitively, set the F2 IB default to 6 across the board.  Hmm...

BTW Using the 3.0 update.

[cudamark]

I've used the F2 setting pegged at 9 quite a bit and haven't seen any down side to doing it......yet anyway. I'm still getting tiny foil non-ferrous readings of 1 in modes Park 1 and 2; Field 2, and Beach 1 and 2. I'll try to remember to experiment with Field 1 (which I almost never use) and the Gold modes. My only concern might be what effect it would have at depth.....or maybe in depth would be a better term. In using F2 @9 I don't "feel" it's detrimental, but, maybe it is and I haven't noticed it.

[Raphis]

7 hours ago, cudamark said:

I've used the F2 setting pegged at 9 quite a bit and haven't seen any down side to doing it......yet anyway. I'm still getting tiny foil non-ferrous readings of 1 in modes Park 1 and 2; Field 2, and Beach 1 and 2. I'll try to remember to experiment with Field 1 (which I almost never use) and the Gold modes. My only concern might be what effect it would have at depth.....or maybe in depth would be a better term. In using F2 @9 I don't "feel" it's detrimental, but, maybe it is and I haven't noticed it.

I would consider an F2-9 IB setting detrimental to my type of hunting, which is trashy parks.....I wouldn’t feel comfortable with that high of a setting because I have tested the F2 IB on deeper targets (6-10”) in trashy, iron infested turf, and have noticed a difference between an  F2-4 and an F2-0 on real iffy targets... F2-0 IB hangs on to the non-ferrous signal “longer” than F2-4 (while doing the Minelab wiggle on your coil)....so I’d imagine F2-9 would be even more obscure on the non-ferrous response than F2-4 would be.

Higher iron bias settings favor the ferrous response of the target more than the non-ferrous response. 

[mn90403]

I just came back from a beach hunt.  Mind you conditions are not right at the beach for a lot of targets so I took it slow and easy on the first few 'tests.'  I used B1, 23, 6, F2 0 and then saved F2 9 and switched back and forth on the find, during the dig and after recovery.  I would have to say that several of the targets were the same on both with the 15" coil.  Lead seemed very similar.  Before I got to the wet sand I had a target and the 9 clearly had an effect on it.  It kept it in the negative numbers and sound and it was a dry bottle cap.  That was the best test where I could see a clear difference.  If other targets had responded the same way I'd use some F2 but I found a jumpiness with it that would take a learning curve to interpret.  I'm familiar with 0 sounds and expected targets.  F2 9 will not be something I use often, maybe in a park but that would be all.  I tried a bit of F2 5 and it was much less jumpy on the little swings.  I just didn't feel like the time it would take to switch back and forth would be worth it.  I'd already have dug the target.

I think I should try the difference between B1 and B2 rather than FE or F2.

Mitchel

[Sinclair]

I never set F2 above 4, because otherwise our most valueable clad (2€) tends to render ferrous - they're composed out of two different Materials. Even then I still don't feel 100% comfortable I don't miss something...

FE on the other hand always felt useless to me, with the kind of targets I have to deal with on my beaches..

 

[EL NINO77]

 

I tested the differences between Iron Bias FE and Iron Bias F2 last year right after upgrading equinox to soft 2.0.

The tests included a field depth test + signal repeatability in 10 sweeps with a coil over a deep target, a separation test..... and tests to eliminate 3 differently corroded bottle caps ...

the results..

1..Train field depth test - Iron bias F2 had much better signal repeatability than Iron bias FE when iron bias was set to a higher value. For example Iron bias value 7 ...... F2 got 7 good sweeps from 10 max. FE had 4-5 sweeps from 10 max ...

when setting iron bias FEa F2 to 0 ... the results were very similar .... with little advantage for Iron bias F2 ..- emotionally ..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Highly demanding Separation...." Monte performance nailboard Test" on a 13mm hammered coin .... that's why Equinox is tested on a small 6 "coill" ...

 In this test you can safely set iron bias F2 to the value F2 = 3 .... and the separation results will be reduced by only 1/2 point / 6 points out of 8 points max / compared to Iron bias F2 = 0 ... /6.5 points out of 8 points Max / ..
even the higher setting of iron bias F2 is less aggressive ... on Iron bias F2 = 6 you still get 4.5 -5-points out of 8 points max ...

When setting Iron bias FE, there is only one effective setting, and that is FE = 0 .... where it achieves the results in the separation on a small coin with 6 points out of 8 points max ...

Already when Iron bias FE is set to 1 .... this setting will severely limit the separation ..because you will only achieve 3-3.5 points out of 8 points in the separation ...

 From this separation test it is clear to see the advantages of setting Iron bias F2 ..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 .Test is a test to eliminate 3 botle caps with varying degrees of corrosion ....

Iron bias F2 set to 4 can eliminate 2 bottle caps out of 3 ....
And when F2 is set to 6-7, it can reliably eliminate all 3 bottle caps.

Iron Bias FE cannot reliably eliminate all 3 bottle caps even with the value Iron Bias FE = 9 max .. still hear parasitic signals as well as mixed ID ..

After these 3 tests I can state ... is Iron Bias F2 is the second and strongly improved generation of Iron Bias settings at Equinox ...

 

[Raphis]

2 hours ago, EL NINO77 said:

After these 3 tests I can state ... is Iron Bias F2 is the second and strongly improved generation of Iron Bias settings at Equinox .

Very good write up/tests! ??  Could you also conclude after doing your tests that FE-0 and F2-0 are pretty much identical, meaning a 0 value for either iron bias filter setting is as close to “Off” as one can achieve, or will you still give a slight  advantage to F2-0 with regards to non-ferrous unmasking and deeper iffy targets??