Only question pertaining to Minelab Equinox 800 I would like NASA-Tom to answer

In relation to his previous comments here pertaining to Nokta Impact:
Quote extracted from the following thread/post.
[www.dankowskidetectors.com]



> * Each MODE on the Impact is to be looked upon as
> a completely different metal detector. Then, , , ,
> changing frequencies WITHIN EACH MODE, is ALSO a c
> ompletely different metal detector. With 12 differ
> ent MODES.....and 3 different
> frequencies per MODE........ this equates to 12 x
> 3 = 36 (different detectors in one unit).

So how does Equinox 800 figure here?
You can comment on Equinox 600 too if you like.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2018 02:47PM by tnsharpshooter.

Tn... if Tom is to restricted to reply..... then these questions should be answered by the ML representatives that Steve said is watching our forums. We have been told different algorithms are used and freqs. Symantecs.... different machines vs multi use machine.

tnsharpshooter, great question. I've been hunting so far exclusively in Park 1 as I learn the machine. But as a traditional turf hunter, I am especially curious as to how Field 1 compares to Park 1. Field 1 seems to be the other possible mode that would be well suited to turf coinshooting. Looking at the manual, the only settings that are different, besides tone settings, is iron bias. But what is happening "under the hood" between the two modes is still a complete mystery. Of course many hours of trial and error will eventually suss out the differences, but any clues from Tom or Minelab to get us started on educating ourselves about the differences would be much appreciated. So I'm all ears ...

I'm trying to figure out.... how NOT to 'infringe'.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm trying to figure out.... how NOT to 'infringe'
> .

What's the fine Tom,,,,,,go-rebel will pay it!!

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm trying to figure out.... how NOT to 'infringe'
> .

just writeup what you feel is relevant and send it to Minelab for approval prior to posting...

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm trying to figure out.... how NOT to 'infringe'
> .

Tom

Some practical applications of each mode would be great and a little better defined than what's in the literature.

Tom

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In a democracy, it is difficult to win fellow citizens over to your own side, or to build public support to remedy injustices that remain all too real when you fundamentally misunderstand how they see the world.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm trying to figure out.... how NOT to 'infringe'
> .


One downside of This is that they are public knowledge. They cannot be kept secret by their owners.

Those who wish to keep their process secret can obtain some protection through trade secrets. These extend to business practices, information, and technology that provide a competitive edge to their users.

Trade secrets protect businesses from those who obtain and use their secret information without express permission. Some things that can be considered trade secrets are:

Operating system code
Secret chipset layout
Search algorithms

It allows for reverse-engineering of substantially similar products or processes...........,,,,,,,, A lot of this information we are not looking for.............,,,,,, Only Thoughts on performance...... Nasa's inability to share his findings is disquieting

Folks, I'd like to offer a perspective here.

I know many of us would love NASA-Tom's insight. Me included. And by him not giving it, many are assuming "conspiracy" or "cover-up" or "nefarious, ill-intented secrecy" on the part of Minelab. I suggest something different.

As diggs4ever implied above, when considering metal detector companies one of the ONLY things with respect to detector development that allows top manufacturers to "separate themselves" from the pack, is in the area of technical design -- mainly software, but possibly also hardware -- that comes from their engineering and physics teams. WHAT a detector does is no secret; HOW it does it, IS the secret. And obviously, if you can't protect that "secret," then you have no edge over your competition.

Now if Minelab decided to hire me as a field tester, with no electronics/engineering background I'd pose little risk to them of learning "secrets." They'd want my "pragmatic" input -- i.e. what works well and what doesn't, but only BEHIND THE SCENES would the "why" of my feedback be discussed, and possibly adjusted for in the software. I'd never know what they did or how they did it -- I'd be on a "need to know" relationship and the "why and how," they would say, I don't "need to know." If I say "the machine doesn't seem to do 'x' well," they'd consider it, figure out from an engineering and physical perspective how to "correct that," and then correct it and send it back to me saying "try again."

HOWEVER, when they made the choice to bring NASA-Tom aboard, it would be an entirely different scenario, for them. NO WAY -- with him being a NASA engineer -- could they involve him, without by default knowing that he'd become quickly and intimately knowledgeable about extremely proprietary things. Not only would he quickly "figure things out" by observation and "osmosis," they would obviously want his input on some of those very technical, proprietary aspects of the design due to his expertise -- which would futher ensure that he'd be exposed to the most sensitive of information with respect to the technical/scientific aspects of the unit.

So, here we are; we have this forum that already, generally, leans toward and caters to the more "technical" or "high-end" user. As such, many of us want to know "more," in terms of the "how's" and "why's" of these units. And -- the issue is -- the HOST OF THIS FORUM has EXACTLY this knowledge! So, it's no surprise to me that purely from a "protect our trade secrets" business perspective, Minelab would -- as soon as they brought him on board -- know that they'd need to really restrict what he can say. Because even in "informal discussions," here on the forum, NASA-Tom has so much knowledge and understanding about the inner workings of the unit that almost anything that would tend to come out of his mouth could risk crossing "lines" that Minelab wants to protect. Even if we think we are not asking for "secrets," but only for "general" things like how to set up the machine, what the various functions do, etc. -- it would be almost impossible for him to answer us, in his very scientific, technical style, without inadvertently "spilling beans." Whatever might flow from his mouth is so rooted in and biased toward the "technical/engineering/physics" side of things, that it would be almost impossible for him not to "spill beans." It's just the way it is...you can't ask a brain surgeon a seemingly simple question about the brain, without him very quickly going far deeper into brain function than any of us mere mortals would understand. It's simply the way an expert in a given field thinks and talks. They can't HELP but speak technically and in detail. Same thing, in this case, with NASA-Tom talking "Equinox" with us. And so, he opts for the safest route, I'm guessing...to say very little.

KUDOS for Minelab for involving him; they felt it important enough to bring in his unique expertise, so as to ensure that this machine was the best it could be. The downside -- and they know it -- is that simply through him becoming involved, he will acquire "inside access," due to his intelligence and expertise, that they'd really rather not allow to anyone "non-Minelab" to possess. I'm glad they didn't "play it safe," and choose to be so "locked down" that they opted not to involve him. But because they did involve him, I am guessing that we might simply have to be grateful that his "insight" was utilized in the design process, but accept that what he will be able to say is going to be very limited, publicly.

Obviously, I'm speculating here, and obviously I'd like as much of the information he's allowed to share, as possible. But, I'm sure it's not simple to know exactly how to "walk that fine line," and so NASA-Tom would obviously want to "play it safe," and say little, so as to not risk inadvertently saying "too much." Sure, Minelab theoretically could "proofread" and then "approve" anything he might say, and maybe someday he will release some write-up of some sort that Minelab has previously reviewed/approved. But obviously, he can't run every single forum post he'd like to make past Minelab's engineering team. They, nor he, have the time for that.

Yes, it's frustrating, for those of us who want to "know more." The ONLY solace I can find, is that as I said, at least I know -- and appreciate -- that his involvement undoubtedly led to a better machine for us to use.

Steve



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2018 08:37AM by steveg.

Well said Steve! You put to words, my thoughts on the subject, better than I ever could have.
Thank you!

Still waiting on the preorder list.......

Cliff

It’s not about releasing ‘trade secrets" or "proprietary things."

It’s about sales.

Can you imagine the feedback on this forum if Tom wrote: "..........the Equinox exhibits 0.15-0.20" less depth compared to a well sorted CZ3D in my Florida inert soil........ separation of the new Minelab unit is approximately 10% less compared to the GMP platform using stock coils while exhibiting iron falsing equivalent to their decade old Etrac/CTX platforms........"

If Tom gives a fair-and-balanced review of the Equinox, he won’t be testing prototypes of the Equinox 1000.

go-rebels Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Tom gives a fair-and-balanced review of the Equ
> inox, he won’t be testing prototypes of the Equino
> x 1000.

The same hand grenade that gets lobbed at every tester at some point. As if Tom is some destitute slob groveling for access or a free detector. I could of give a rip if I ever test another metal detector for anyone and I would be surprised if Tom does not feel the same way. We are people with lives and this is a sideshow. Most of the speculation here on NDAs is pure ignorance. When you have access to proprietary information from a company famous for enforcing legalities you darn well better think hard about what you say. I sidestep the entire issue by simply refusing to delve into deeper technicalities. I will let Minelab speak on how Multi-IQ works because to do anything else gets a bit too spooky for me. I stay well away from the edge.

Tom being who he is better understands those technicalities and would no doubt love to expound on them at depth. But how to do that and not get into warm waters? I get it entirely. Sales? Tom can come out tomorrow, say Equinox is a crap detector, and it will make absolutely no difference. Hard core users vastly overestimate the impact of forums outside our insular little worlds. There is nothing in an NDA that prevents him from coming out right now and just saying he is not all that impressed and would rather just not get into it. Why don’t all you conspiracy nuts just give the poor man a break and let him collect his thoughts. And stop right now with the “he won’t be entirely honest for fear of not getting to test another Minelab”. What complete and utter drivel.

Sorry, I try to stay off here due to some people who like to shovel crap but as Tom knows I can run hot and this is pissing me off.

AMEN Steve!


Steve Herschbach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> go-rebels Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If Tom gives a fair-and-balanced review of the E
> qu
> > inox, he won’t be testing prototypes of the Equi
> no
> > x 1000.
>
> The same hand grenade that gets lobbed at every te
> ster at some point. As if Tom is some destitute sl
> ob groveling for access or a free detector. I coul
> d of give a rip if I ever test another metal detec
> tor for anyone and I would be surprised if Tom doe
> s not feel the same way. We are people with lives
> and this is a sideshow. Most of the speculation he
> re on NDAs is pure ignorance. When you have access
> to proprietary information from a company famous f
> or enforcing legalities you darn well better think
> hard about what you say. I sidestep the entire iss
> ue by simply refusing to delve into deeper technic
> alities. I will let Minelab speak on how Multi-IQ
> works because to do anything else gets a bit too s
> pooky for me. I stay well away from the edge.
>
> Tom being who he is better understands those techn
> icalities and would no doubt love to expound on th
> em at depth. But how to do that and not get into w
> arm waters? I get it entirely. Sales? Tom can come
> out tomorrow, say Equinox is a crap detector, and
> it will make absolutely no difference. Hard core u
> sers vastly overestimate the impact of forums outs
> ide our insular little worlds. There is nothing in
> an NDA that prevents him from coming out right now
> and just saying he is not all that impressed and w
> ould rather just not get into it. Why don’t all yo
> u conspiracy nuts just give the poor man a break a
> nd let him collect his thoughts. And stop right no
> w with the “he won’t be entirely honest for fear o
> f not getting to test another Minelab”. What compl
> ete and utter drivel.
>
> Sorry, I try to stay off here due to some people w
> ho like to shovel crap but as Tom knows I can run
> hot and this is pissing me off.

2xs Steve H

In regard to the last 3 postings, well thought out and right on IMHO. Few people on the planet have Tom's experience working with (not for) top manufacturers of detectors. He is a trustworthy guy. Only he knows the agreements governing his disclosure restrictions. Most of us want to know more than we need to as end users. The extensive reports Tom has done on other units have been invaluable to those of us who own or intend to buy those detectors. I have faith that as soon as he can Tom will provide similar info on the Equinox.
(and Tom if you read this... please text me everything and I promise I won't tell a soul! )

Past(or)Tom
Using a Legend, a Deus 2, an Equinox 800, a Tarsacci MDT 8000, & a few others...
with my beloved, fading Corgi, Sadie

Well, sometimes the elephant in the room needs addressed so here is my shot at it.

It seems very few are capable of forming their own opinion these days. Whether it be from a political standpoint or from metal detectors, people these days are relying on other people to formulate an opinion for them.

In the way of testers, there seems to be two or three "camps" that people will identify with at least one. The first camp is the side that put all their faith into certain testers. What they say, is gospel to the people that follow them, and they will never do any other research or study beyond what their favorite testers say. I see this a lot in church too. Despite the Word telling everybody to STUDY as to be able to rightly divide the word of truth, they will latch onto their favorite preacher or preachers and take everything they say as fact. That's how cults are started and thrive. Then there are the camps that are against the testers, no matter what. In Go-Rebels example above, I will use the opposite of that as my example. If Tom were to say that the Equinox surpassed every test and machine that he has ever tested previously, then you would see this other camp rear its head. You'd have the Tom following camp be all giddy and wanting an Equinox based on the positive results. Then you'd have the other camp saying "Oh you're just saying that because you are on the Minelab test team now and getting free stuff. We need real world data by actual purchasers of the machine.".

The other camp is probably the one that is shrinking in size these days, and that's the people that will buy something and test it for themselves and then form their own opinion based on the results of their own testing.

I like NASA Tom and Keith too and read their posts on machines but I don't let that be the end all deciding factor for me.

I'll have to consider that I fall into the same camp as Daniel here in that I will eventually get my hands on an 800to make my own determination regardless of Tom and Keith's reviews whenever they show up.

However , bias , like hypocrisy is the hardest thing for the one affected to recognize and I openly admit that if my observations do not correlate with their(Tom,Keith) assessment I will question my own observations . If my observations do not correlate with Anthony Fremont's twin and the other Minelab testers , I will most like attribute the lack of agreement to corporate pressure.

As for when we may hear from Tom and Keith we might remember that , at least with Tom , we did not have a review until he was done using a production model . He recently posted something about 11.5 hours on one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2018 06:04PM by shoveler.

You conspiracy nuts? Really???

”When you have access to proprietary information... . Did you see Minelab’s NDA with Tom? I’ll answer that for you. No. How do you know that Tom has proprietary information that would be of any value to a competing company? Remember what you said: “Most of the speculation about NDAs is pure ignorance.” That goes for both you and I. Go to Geotech and much of the new, gee-whiz stuff that Minelab dribbled out has already been discussed and/or already patented.

“There is nothing in an NDA that prevents him from coming out right now and just saying...” How do you know that? The NDA can be crafted however one wishes. Just ask Stormy Daniels.

If Tom says the Equinox is a crap detector I’m not buying one right away; I’ll wait for more opinions to come rolling in. And I doubt I’m the only one who thinks that.

”And stop right now with the ‘He won’t be entirely honest for fear for fear if not getting to test another Minelab.’” Who says Tom won’t be completely honest? Now you’re just building a weak straw man argument. He can’t say anything until a certain date, if documented in the NDA, or until another trigger as written in the NDA. It has nothing to do with ‘honesty.’

I doubt Tom, being a poor man, needs more time to gather his thoughts. With the NDA expired I’d expect Tom to have a lot to say, mostly good and maybe some bad.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2018 11:29AM by go-rebels.

The trouble with most of us is that we would rather be ruined by praise than saved by criticism.>< Not referring to Tom



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2018 07:37PM by Diggs4ever.

Speculation gone wild it would appear . As much as I enjoy reading the reports on new machines I have always been in the camp that prefers to buy and try at my sites and at my own pace. Has worked very well for me these last 40 plus years of detecting.

The new or new too me machines I buy either please me in performance at my sites or I sell them and move on. I gave up a long time ago on finding the "magic wand" of detectors and just do my best to be the best I can at utilizing my favorite machines.

I have to laugh when I read about so many self proclaimed masters of multiple machines on some of the forums . It takes a lot of time in the field to master any of the better detectors we have to choose from. It is a bit easier if sticking to a single brand but when several brands are used with varied ways to operate and or set up the learning curve only grows exponentially in my opinion .

Steveg and SteveH. Well said

Give it time......all testers will be released from the contract/gag order. In the mean time dig everything, and the treasure will come with the nox.

Steve should change his name to SpaceX Steve haha. Get it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2018 02:31AM by Diggs4ever.

Disn't mean to cause a ruckus.

Let's see, Mulit frequency, 5 single freqs, 8 detect modes, 8 speed settings, 10 iron bias settings - Whew, that should add up to a mighty big number, far bigger than 36.

Just thinking out loud. Lol



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2018 03:00AM by tnsharpshooter.

Steve is another EG tester so he probably has a pretty good idea on the NDA

go-rebels Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You conspiracy nuts? Really???
>
> ”When you have access to proprietary informatio
> n... . Did you see Minelab’s NDA with Tom? I’
> ll answer that for you. No. How do you know that
> Tom has proprietary information that would be of a
> ny value to a competing company? Remember what yo
> u said: “Most of the speculation about NDAs is pur
> e ignorance.” That goes for both you and I. Go t
> o Geotech and much of the new, gee-whiz stuff that
> Minelab dribbled out has already been discussed an
> d/or already patented.
>
> “There is nothing in an NDA that prevents him f
> rom coming out right now and just saying...”
> How do you know that? The NDA can be crafted howe
> ver one wishes. Just ask Stormy Daniels.
>
> If Tom says the Equinox is a crap detector I’m not
> buying one right away; I’ll wait for more opinions
> to come rolling in. And I doubt I’m the only one
> who thinks that.
>
> ”And stop right now with the ‘He won’t be entir
> ely honest for fear for fear if not getting to tes
> t another Minelab.’” Who says Tom won’t be co
> mpletely honest? Now you’re just building a weak
> straw man argument. He can’t say anything until a
> certain date, if documented in the NDA, or until a
> nother trigger as written in the NDA. It has noth
> ing to do with ‘honesty.’
>
> I doubt Tom, being a poor man, needs more t
> ime to gather his thoughts. With the NDA expired
> I’d expect Tom to have a lot to say, mostly good a
> nd maybe some bad.

Every NDA can be different.

I taught(sic) that when the NOX was released that:

1. No more wars
2.No more hunger
3.Fair winds and following seas
4.Erybody(sic) luvs erybody.


Wifey says I am like an old biddy checkin' on the latest gossip.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2018 06:29PM by doc holiday.

TabZilla Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steve is another EG tester so he probably has a pr
> etty good idea on the NDA
>


The Guy knows his stuff That's for sure.

Yes....... Minelab (and myself) are very protective about intellectual property. (Think: China. Large copyright infringement Country).

Tom, I just gotta know one small detail... will you have one in your arsenal? Thanks

John