Target ID Chart Differences Between Equinox 600/800 And Equinox 700/900/manticore

[mcjtom]

16 hours ago, midalake said:

Like today, my conditions did not warrant skipping tabs.

How did the conditions differ?

[midalake]

When the wave conditions are right, soft waves and sand can bring lighter targets in.  I could have 100 14's banging my ears. On those days, I skip 14's.

[Lynk]

Thanks for the inspiration @BigSkyGuy. Here is a very similar chart to yours, but done in Excel, for the 800 vs the 900.  There were 40 items tested with both using the 6" coil. The settings are below. The 900 had lower than max sensitivity for stability purposes. 

(Sorry if the pic is huge. I couldn't adjust it.)

 

A couple of notes:

• The one iron item was a square nail.
• The stack at 1 on the 800 is foil, a 0.054 g flake, a 0.65 g nugget with host rock, and a 1/2 vile of dust.
  • A chunk of graphite was 1 on both.
• The stacking of data points for the 800 may represent more perceived stability, but versus the larger scale could just give that impression.

To test the last bullet, here is a chart of the 900 TID divided by the 800 TID vs the 800 TID data point.  It's not surprising on the low end (1 or 2) the multiple gets out of whack as a 4 on 900 would obviously 4X a 1 on the 800, but that extreme doesn't carry through.  The chart does provide another way to look at and, I think, confirm the attempt at a higher resolution mid range. 

 

 

 

[BigSkyGuy]

Looks very similar to my plot Lync. Good to have it confirmed using a different set of items and different detectors. Have you tried plotting the line to your results using the equation that I provided?

[Lynk]

Good call....

It did work quite well, I think.  Not surprisingly the two things that cause issues are iron (negative numbers) and very low positive numbers.  A couple gold nuggets were off by 5 or 6.

 

(Not sure why these don't paste smaller!)

The square nail was by far the largest issue. Ex that the standard deviations come in a far amount.