Another advantage for the Deus.

I just did a bit of coin hunting and took my Omega with me just to see if it still had issues at this particular site. As soon as I got there, and turned on the Omega, it started sputtering so I had to lower the sens to 50.

The Deus was able to run fine almost wide open at 90 sens. No problems with electrical interference at this particular spot.

Detectorist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just did a bit of coin hunting and took my Omega
> with me just to see if it still had issues at this
> particular site. As soon as I got there, and
> turned on the Omega, it started sputtering so I
> had to lower the sens to 50.
>
> The Deus was able to run fine almost wide open at
> 90 sens. No problems with electrical interference
> at this particular spot.

Ive noticed this at 3 problematic spots now ...2 of them I could 95 sens, w/o much chatter ....the first site I left it @ 90 and didnt try to bump it up.... I wish I could take the month off, for more Deus testing...

It also could be that the Omega is capable of higher sensitivity capabilities than the Deus, so sensitivity percentages would be moot in this case. Further testing (air tests) regarding sensitivity percentages of each machine should be done. As an example, from another user:

"I know air tests don't say a lot but I did air tests on all of my machines...G2 at full sensitivity don't hit as deep as the Omega 8000 set at 55.I set both machines as high as I could for testing inside and still be stable. Actually, the Omega with sens set at 55 was hitting coins as deep as my MXT Pro (set to +2 almost max sens) was in air tests indoors. I was very happy with those results. I've never had a machine that would go nuts at high sens settings like the Omega does and was worried I wouldnt get the depth due to using a much lower setting...however I was very wrong."


One of myy concerns is that as more users are aquiring the Dues, its becoming....... look what I found....... or I can run higher sensitivity.....or response speed with coins and new nails above ground. These are not what I consider head to head scientific field testing methods between detector models. This is not to denigrate the Deus, it looks to be a very capable unit. But let's not digress into invalid methodologies to evaluate a machine.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2012 09:34AM by TerraDigger.

True. I did many tests which I don't want to post. the bottom line is that my Deus, under my conditions, went deeper at 90 sens than my Omega at 50 sens. the Omega only lost about 25% depth at 50 sens as opposed to when I was able to set it at 90 sens.

Surprisingly, when setting it at 90 sens with all the EMI, the Omega did not appear to lose any depth on coins. Listening to the EMI was hell, though.

The Omega is still an awesome machine. I hope I can hold on to it.

TerraDigger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It also could be that the Omega is capable of
> higher sensitivity capabilities than the Deus, so
> sensitivity percentages would be moot in this
> case. Further testing (air tests) regarding
> sensitivity percentages of each machine should be
> done. As an example, from another user here:
>
> "I know air tests don't say a lot but I did air
> tests on all of my machines...G2 at full
> sensitivity don't hit as deep as the Omega 8000
> set at 55.I set both machines as high as I could
> for testing inside and still be stable. Actually,
> the Omega with sens set at 55 was hitting coins as
> deep as my MXT Pro (set to +2 almost max sens) was
> in air tests indoors. I was very happy with those
> results. I've never had a machine that would go
> nuts at high sens settings like the Omega does and
> was worried I wouldnt get the depth due to using a
> much lower setting...however I was very wrong."
> Earthmansurfer
>
> One of myy concerns is that as more users are
> aquiring the Dues, its becoming....... look what I
> found....... or I can run higher
> sensitivity.....or response speed with coins and
> new nails above ground. These are not what I
> consider head to head scientific field testing
> methods between detector models. This is not to
> denigrate the Deus, it looks to be a very capable
> unit. But let's not digress into invalid
> methodologies to evaluate a machine.

TerraDigger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It also could be that the Omega is capable of
> higher sensitivity capabilities than the Deus, so
> sensitivity percentages would be moot in this
> case. Further testing (air tests) regarding
> sensitivity percentages of each machine should be
> done. As an example, from another user here:
>
> "I know air tests don't say a lot but I did air
> tests on all of my machines...G2 at full
> sensitivity don't hit as deep as the Omega 8000
> set at 55.I set both machines as high as I could
> for testing inside and still be stable. Actually,
> the Omega with sens set at 55 was hitting coins as
> deep as my MXT Pro (set to +2 almost max sens) was
> in air tests indoors. I was very happy with those
> results. I've never had a machine that would go
> nuts at high sens settings like the Omega does and
> was worried I wouldnt get the depth due to using a
> much lower setting...however I was very wrong."
> Earthmansurfer
>
> One of myy concerns is that as more users are
> aquiring the Dues, its becoming....... look what I
> found....... or I can run higher
> sensitivity.....or response speed with coins and
> new nails above ground. These are not what I
> consider head to head scientific field testing
> methods between detector models. This is not to
> denigrate the Deus, it looks to be a very capable
> unit. But let's not digress into invalid
> methodologies to evaluate a machine.


Terra - I did have an Omega, but never had an MXT or G2. All my machines could be run hot here in Nürnberg. Did you mix up a quote there?

When I had my Omega I was almost always able to run it at max sensitivity and that is in the city of Nürnberg. I guess the EMI wasn't a problem. Same with all my machines.

Sorry Earth....did mix-up name. Edited & removed.

The true definition of "scientific testing" is paramount............ removing all variables..... so as to ascertain irrefutable datum. Hence; my methodology.

Circumstantial "hearsay" sure adds 'passion' (emotions) to the equation.

tom! you have a "flair" for the democratic!
if it was me,i would simply describe it as (b.s.!) (circumstantial "hearsay")
(lol!)

(h.h.!)
j.t.