Minelab Equinox owners - Question

I have noticed that when nails are spread out say a foot and a half to a foot there is more nail falses and when you have nails 8 to 6 inches apart there will be less falsing big coil .Using the 6 inch coil in the same 6 to 8 inch nail cover produces more nail falses but if nails are 3 to 4 inches apart you will have less falsing .Tom is this because there is always a nail under the coil thereby not letting the nail you are checking false because of the other nail under the coil .Then again with nail test are they really that accurate because we don't included the orange halo from the nail .Ferrous oxzide orange halo thoughts . sube

sube……..correct. In areas where nails are spread apart..... you have the strong chance of passing "by" a nail...…..whereby...…… the coil just barely 'clips' the nail. . . . . . . either with the tip of the coil.....or the heel of the coil. This is what predominantly produces a 'false'.
If nails are 'thick'...… and the coil (regardless of coil size) is always over top of a nail...……..even though there may also be nails at the tip or heel of the coil...……. the predominant signal-strength from the nail that is directly underneath the coil.....overrides the weaker false-inducing: perimeter nails.

In the recent past...…. Minelab has REALLY focused on proper "iron ID".....and subsequent byproduct of falsing nails/iron. The EQX presents this. Going one step further...….and even more recently: MUU-2 (2nd EQX upgrade) M-IQ has allowed us to unmask...to the next level......simply due to: a bit less falsing. (Iron still fatally cripples everything.....EM-wise).

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

On a side-note...…….. What's crazy is: To me = There is a TREMENDOUS difference in performance with this new M-IQ...…. from a physics/engineering standpoint.
To the hobbyist = BBS...….FBS...….M-IQ...….,,,,,,,,, are all about the same. Depth performance is similar. ID is similar. Sounds are similar. Some characteristics ((Minelab 'signature')) are similar. Only minute' differences.

Did I...… Do I: speak clearly? ((( I just reread my own writings (above)….. and it's clear-as-mud )))!!!

Clear as a bell Tom thanks .What effect does all this iron oxide have that encircles every nail the orange halo . sube

Oops ……. I didn't get to that!

There's a ton of falsities/farcities….. about 'halo'...… and halo-effect.
If you have a sensitive enough instrument..... you can measure 'halo' in ppm or ppb. --- But...…….... not with a metal detector.
As far as ElectroMagnetic (EM) energy that emanates from a coil...…. it simply can not see a 'halo'.
BUT...…… THAT being said...….. what it DOES do.....is...… "electrically connect" the target better to the surrounding dirt matrix. . . . . . subsequently; allowing for a bit better detection.
The type of metal that is MOST affected (due to halo)…… is oxides of iron....and iron itself.
And...…………….. what activates the iron even further.....is...… water. Wet soil. Go try and detect carpets of nails....after a hard rain! You will see/witness/encounter a stronger iron response..... and greater falsing.

Brian,

Interesting -- and paradoxical -- indeed. I appreciate your thoughts.

It seems as though sube's speculation as to the why, which is then confirmed by NASA-Tom, would explain the "why" of this paradox.

Good info, guys!

Thank you --

Steve

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steveg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NASA-Tom -- Very interesting. I, like the other
> s,
> > went almost straight to F2=0 once downloading MU
> U-
> > 2. At this point, after a bit of "getting used
> to
> > it," I find it to be excellent, and easy to unde
> rs
> > tand the "language nuance" -- to the extent that
> a
> > t this point I can think of no reason why I woul
> d
> > want to ever set a "higher" iron bias. I really
> l
> > ike the intelligence that I feel can be gleaned
> fr
> > om the audio, using F2=0. I don't know what eff
> ec
> > t going even farther "down" might have, but I'd
> ce
> > rtainly be "game" for it, if you felt it to be a
> n
> > improvement.
> >
> > Brian -- I'm curious; how do you find F2=0 to be
> a
> > detriment, when working in LESS iron-polluted ar
> ea
> > s? I'd love to hear your thoughts; I've not fel
> t
> > as though I've noticed anything "negative" about
> r
> > unning F2=0 in "cleaner" ground...
> >
> > Steve
>
> Steve I felt that in areas with less iron I was di
> gging more iron (counter intuitive), yet in iron i
> nfested areas I was digging more conductors and le
> ss iron.
>
> Somewhat or a paradox isn't it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2020 11:54PM by steveg.

NASA-Tom,

Interesting, what you said about how a hobbyist views BBS/FBS/M-IQ.

My take on that, is this. I have always believed that because of FBS's skill with ID accuracy (at depth), that FBS units (can't speak about BBS as I never used a BBS machine) are the "gold standard" specifically in terms of digging deep, old coins from turf-type trashy sites. Period. I know that ruffles feathers, but I believe that to be the case, hands down. If your focus is on digging deep old coins from parks, school yards, church yards, etc., FBS is the top-performing platform in that "niche," and to me it's really not even close. You are unnecessarily handicapping yourself, if you hunt those targets in that environment, and do so with another platform. I hope I don't get "flamed," for that, but it's truly what I believe.

SO -- for that reason, amongst FBS users who are specifically "deep coin hunters," there's a REAL hesitation to switch to "something else." In other words, FBS is the standard to which this subset of hunters compare all other units. SO, from that angle/mindset, when an FBS user "sees the Equinox as very similar" to FBS, that's actually a supreme compliment to M-IQ, in my opinion. You are extremely exacting, and the "nuances" are a focus of yours; however, to a deep coin hunter, coming at it from the perspective of "I wonder if the EQX will 'measure up' to my CTX/E-Trac/Explorer," it's a different perspective. It's more of a case of "does the EQX achieve the depth, and the ID accuracy with depth...enough of the 'Minelab DNA'...to allow me equal (at least) success with the Equinox, as I have enjoyed for years with FBS?" And -- as in the case of myself -- the fact that the answer to that question is "yes," speaks to the impressive capability of the M-IQ platform. There's a "high bar" that the EQX needs to clear, in the minds of an FBS user, in order to even CONSIDER a switch. The fact that for so many, it HAS "cleared that bar," is something that in my opinion should not be considered lightly/dismissed. It's a HUGE testament to the capability of the platform.

So, that "as good as FBS" characteristic of the Equinox is what gets it "in the door," i.e. allows it to be "part of the conversation" for a long-time FBS user. After that, as far as "us" realizing the improvements in performance that "you" already know to be there, takes time...since, to most of "us," those improvements are more "subtle" than they are to you. For "us," depth -- and accurate ID with depth -- are most important. M-IQ achieves that. After that, it's only over time, that the "improvements" -- which are somewhat difficult to explain/quantify (at least for me) -- are gradually (and fortuitously) realized/discovered.

One thing that I think will push M-IQ "over the top," and allow the "skill" of the platform to become more obvious, will be if (hopefully "when") Minelab releases the Multi-IQ "flagship." I think a M-IQ machine, with "CTX-like" features (smartfind screen, FE/CO numbers, target trace, etc.), plus a few new "twists" in terms of allowing users to more successfully glean information from the platform visually/audibly/graphically, will (to borrow a Minelab term) "obsolete" Minelab's FBS line of detectors...

Steve



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2020 12:24AM by steveg.

Steve: In works.

NASA-Tom --

Understood. Waiting with bated breath...

Steve

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sube……..correct. In areas where nails are spread a
> part..... you have the strong chance of passing "b
> y" a nail...…..whereby...…… the coil just barely '
> clips' the nail. . . . . . . either with the tip o
> f the coil.....or the heel of the coil. This is wh
> at predominantly produces a 'false'.
> If nails are 'thick'...… and the coil (regardless
> of coil size) is always over top of a nail...……..e
> ven though there may also be nails at the tip or h
> eel of the coil...……. the predominant signal-stren
> gth from the nail that is directly underneath the
> coil.....overrides the weaker false-inducing: peri
> meter nails.
>
> In the recent past...…. Minelab has REALLY focused
> on proper "iron ID".....and subsequent byproduct o
> f falsing nails/iron. The EQX presents this. Going
> one step further...….and even more recently: MUU-2
> (2nd EQX upgrade) M-IQ has allowed us to unmask...
> to the next level......simply due to: a bit less f
> alsing. (Iron still fatally cripples everything...
> ..EM-wise).
>
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> On a side-note...…….. What's crazy is: To me = The
> re is a TREMENDOUS difference in performance with
> this new M-IQ...…. from a physics/engineering stan
> dpoint.
> To the hobbyist = BBS...….FBS...….M-IQ...….,,,,,,,
> ,, are all about the same. Depth performance is si
> milar. ID is similar. Sounds are similar. Some cha
> racteristics ((Minelab 'signature')) are similar.
> Only minute' differences.
>
> Did I...… Do I: speak clearly? ((( I just reread m
> y own writings (above)….. and it's clear-as-mud ))
> )!!!

Thanks for the explanation Tom, confirms what I had suspected and observed in the field.

It's not a major issue IMO, paradoxical I suppose, but by design, I can't argue with pulling more conductors out of iron thickets.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NASA-Tom,
>
> Interesting, what you said about how a hobbyist vi
> ews BBS/FBS/M-IQ.
>
> My take on that, is this. I have always believed
> that because of FBS's skill with ID accuracy (at d
> epth), that FBS units (can't speak about BBS as I
> never used a BBS machine) are the "gold standard"
> specifically in terms of digging dee
> p, old coins from turf-type trashy sites. Period.
> I know that ruffles feathers, but I believe that t
> o be the case, hands down. If your focus is on di
> gging deep old coins from parks, school yards, chu
> rch yards, etc., FBS is the top-performing platfor
> m in that "niche," and to me it's really not even
> close. You are unnecessarily handicapping yoursel
> f, if you hunt those targets in that environment,
> and do so with another platform. I hope I don't g
> et "flamed," for that, but it's truly what I belie
> ve.
>
> SO -- for that reason, amongst FBS users who are s
> pecifically "deep coin hunters," there's a REAL he
> sitation to switch to "something else." In other
> words, FBS is the standard to which this subset of
> hunters compare all other units. SO, from
> that angle/mindset, when an FBS user "sees the Equ
> inox as very similar" to FBS, that's actually a [b
> ]supreme compliment[/b] to M-IQ, in my opinion. Y
> ou are extremely exacting, and the "nuances" are a
> focus of yours; however, to a deep coin hunter, co
> ming at it from the perspective of "I wonder if th
> e EQX will 'measure up' to my CTX/E-Trac/Explorer,
> " it's a different perspective. It's more of a ca
> se of "does the EQX achieve the depth, and the ID
> accuracy with depth...enough of the 'Minelab DNA'.
> ..to allow me equal (at least) success with the Eq
> uinox, as I have enjoyed for years with FBS?" And
> -- as in the case of myself -- the fact that the a
> nswer to that question is "yes," speaks to the imp
> ressive capability of the M-IQ platform. There's
> a "high bar" that the EQX needs to clear, in the m
> inds of an FBS user, in order to even CONSIDER a s
> witch. The fact that for so many, it HAS "cleared
> that bar," is something that in my opinion should
> not be considered lightly/dismissed. It's a HUGE
> testament to the capability of the platform.
>
> So, that "as good as FBS" characteristic of the Eq
> uinox is what gets it "in the door," i.e. allows i
> t to be "part of the conversation" for a long-time
> FBS user. After that, as far as "us" realizing th
> e improvements in performance that "you" already k
> now to be there, takes time...since, to most of "u
> s," those improvements are more "subtle" than they
> are to you. For "us," depth -- and accurate ID wi
> th depth -- are most important. M-IQ achieves tha
> t. After that, it's only over time, that the "imp
> rovements" -- which are somewhat difficult to expl
> ain/quantify (at least for me) -- are gradually (a
> nd fortuitously) realized/discovered.
>
> One thing that I think will push M-IQ "over the to
> p," and allow the "skill" of the platform to becom
> e more obvious, will be if (hopefully "when") Mine
> lab releases the Multi-IQ "flagship." I think a M
> -IQ machine, with "CTX-like" features (smartfind s
> creen, FE/CO numbers, target trace, etc.), plus a
> few new "twists" in terms of allowing users to mor
> e successfully glean information from the platform
> visually/audibly/graphically, will (to borrow a Mi
> nelab term) "obsolete" Minelab's FBS line of detec
> tors...
>
> Steve

Exception = TomInCA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2020 05:45AM by Cal_cobra.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steve: In works.

Brian --

LOL! It's funny you say that. I had Tom_in_CA in mind, as the "exception," when I wrote that entire post! LOL!

Steve

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> steveg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NASA-Tom,
> >
> > Interesting, what you said about how a hobbyist
> vi
> > ews BBS/FBS/M-IQ.
> >
> > My take on that, is this. I have always believe
> d
> > that because of FBS's skill with ID accuracy (at
> d
> > epth), that FBS units (can't speak about BBS as
> I
> > never used a BBS machine) are the "gold standard
> "
> > specifically in terms of digging d
> ee
> > p, old coins from turf-type trashy sites. Perio
> d.
> > I know that ruffles feathers, but I believe that
> t
> > o be the case, hands down. If your focus is on
> di
> > gging deep old coins from parks, school yards, c
> hu
> > rch yards, etc., FBS is the top-performing platf
> or
> > m in that "niche," and to me it's really not eve
> n
> > close. You are unnecessarily handicapping yours
> el
> > f, if you hunt those targets in that environment
> ,
> > and do so with another platform. I hope I don't
> g
> > et "flamed," for that, but it's truly what I bel
> ie
> > ve.
> >
> > SO -- for that reason, amongst FBS users who are
> s
> > pecifically "deep coin hunters," there's a REAL
> he
> > sitation to switch to "something else." In othe
> r
> > words, FBS is the standard to which this subset
> of
> > hunters compare all other units. SO, fro
> m
> > that angle/mindset, when an FBS user "sees the E
> qu
> > inox as very similar" to FBS, that's actually a
> [b
> > ]supreme compliment[/b] to M-IQ, in my opinion.
> Y
> > ou are extremely exacting, and the "nuances" are
> a
> > focus of yours; however, to a deep coin hunter,
> co
> > ming at it from the perspective of "I wonder if
> th
> > e EQX will 'measure up' to my CTX/E-Trac/Explore
> r,
> > " it's a different perspective. It's more of a
> ca
> > se of "does the EQX achieve the depth, and the I
> D
> > accuracy with depth...enough of the 'Minelab DNA
> '.
> > ..to allow me equal (at least) success with the
> Eq
> > uinox, as I have enjoyed for years with FBS?" A
> nd
> > -- as in the case of myself -- the fact that the
> a
> > nswer to that question is "yes," speaks to the i
> mp
> > ressive capability of the M-IQ platform. There'
> s
> > a "high bar" that the EQX needs to clear, in the
> m
> > inds of an FBS user, in order to even CONSIDER a
> s
> > witch. The fact that for so many, it HAS "clear
> ed
> > that bar," is something that in my opinion shoul
> d
> > not be considered lightly/dismissed. It's a HUG
> E
> > testament to the capability of the platform.
> >
> > So, that "as good as FBS" characteristic of the
> Eq
> > uinox is what gets it "in the door," i.e. allows
> i
> > t to be "part of the conversation" for a long-ti
> me
> > FBS user. After that, as far as "us" realizing
> th
> > e improvements in performance that "you" already
> k
> > now to be there, takes time...since, to most of
> "u
> > s," those improvements are more "subtle" than th
> ey
> > are to you. For "us," depth -- and accurate ID
> wi
> > th depth -- are most important. M-IQ achieves t
> ha
> > t. After that, it's only over time, that the "i
> mp
> > rovements" -- which are somewhat difficult to ex
> pl
> > ain/quantify (at least for me) -- are gradually
> (a
> > nd fortuitously) realized/discovered.
> >
> > One thing that I think will push M-IQ "over the
> to
> > p," and allow the "skill" of the platform to bec
> om
> > e more obvious, will be if (hopefully "when") Mi
> ne
> > lab releases the Multi-IQ "flagship." I think a
> M
> > -IQ machine, with "CTX-like" features (smartfind
> s
> > creen, FE/CO numbers, target trace, etc.), plus
> a
> > few new "twists" in terms of allowing users to m
> or
> > e successfully glean information from the platfo
> rm
> > visually/audibly/graphically, will (to borrow a
> Mi
> > nelab term) "obsolete" Minelab's FBS line of det
> ec
> > tors...
> >
> > Steve
>
> Exception = TomInCA

It's a good thing he has no interest in the Equinox and doesn't read the Equinox forums, I mean when the Exp2 is so mighty, why waste time reading about the lowly Equinox right?

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brian --
>
> LOL! It's funny you say that. I had Tom_in_CA in
> mind, as the "exception," when I wrote that entire
> post! LOL!
>
> Steve
>
> Cal_cobra Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > steveg Wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -----
> > > NASA-Tom,
> > >
> > > Interesting, what you said about how a hobbyis
> t
> > vi
> > > ews BBS/FBS/M-IQ.
> > >
> > > My take on that, is this. I have always belie
> ve
> > d
> > > that because of FBS's skill with ID accuracy (
> at
> > d
> > > epth), that FBS units (can't speak about BBS a
> s
> > I
> > > never used a BBS machine) are the "gold standa
> rd
> > "
> > > specifically in terms of digging
> d
> > ee
> > > p, old coins from turf-type trashy sites. Per
> io
> > d.
> > > I know that ruffles feathers, but I believe th
> at
> > t
> > > o be the case, hands down. If your focus is o
> n
> > di
> > > gging deep old coins from parks, school yards,
> c
> > hu
> > > rch yards, etc., FBS is the top-performing pla
> tf
> > or
> > > m in that "niche," and to me it's really not e
> ve
> > n
> > > close. You are unnecessarily handicapping you
> rs
> > el
> > > f, if you hunt those targets in that environme
> nt
> > ,
> > > and do so with another platform. I hope I don
> 't
> > g
> > > et "flamed," for that, but it's truly what I b
> el
> > ie
> > > ve.
> > >
> > > SO -- for that reason, amongst FBS users who a
> re
> > s
> > > pecifically "deep coin hunters," there's a REA
> L
> > he
> > > sitation to switch to "something else." In ot
> he
> > r
> > > words, FBS is the standard to which this subse
> t
> > of
> > > hunters compare all other units. SO, f
> ro
> > m
> > > that angle/mindset, when an FBS user "sees the
> E
> > qu
> > > inox as very similar" to FBS, that's actually
> a
> > [b
> > > ]supreme compliment[/b] to M-IQ, in my opinion
> .
> > Y
> > > ou are extremely exacting, and the "nuances" a
> re
> > a
> > > focus of yours; however, to a deep coin hunter
> ,
> > co
> > > ming at it from the perspective of "I wonder i
> f
> > th
> > > e EQX will 'measure up' to my CTX/E-Trac/Explo
> re
> > r,
> > > " it's a different perspective. It's more of
> a
> > ca
> > > se of "does the EQX achieve the depth, and the
> I
> > D
> > > accuracy with depth...enough of the 'Minelab D
> NA
> > '.
> > > ..to allow me equal (at least) success with th
> e
> > Eq
> > > uinox, as I have enjoyed for years with FBS?"
> A
> > nd
> > > -- as in the case of myself -- the fact that t
> he
> > a
> > > nswer to that question is "yes," speaks to the
> i
> > mp
> > > ressive capability of the M-IQ platform. Ther
> e'
> > s
> > > a "high bar" that the EQX needs to clear, in t
> he
> > m
> > > inds of an FBS user, in order to even CONSIDER
> a
> > s
> > > witch. The fact that for so many, it HAS "cle
> ar
> > ed
> > > that bar," is something that in my opinion sho
> ul
> > d
> > > not be considered lightly/dismissed. It's a H
> UG
> > E
> > > testament to the capability of the platform.
> > >
> > > So, that "as good as FBS" characteristic of th
> e
> > Eq
> > > uinox is what gets it "in the door," i.e. allo
> ws
> > i
> > > t to be "part of the conversation" for a long-
> ti
> > me
> > > FBS user. After that, as far as "us" realizin
> g
> > th
> > > e improvements in performance that "you" alrea
> dy
> > k
> > > now to be there, takes time...since, to most o
> f
> > "u
> > > s," those improvements are more "subtle" than
> th
> > ey
> > > are to you. For "us," depth -- and accurate I
> D
> > wi
> > > th depth -- are most important. M-IQ achieves
> t
> > ha
> > > t. After that, it's only over time, that the
> "i
> > mp
> > > rovements" -- which are somewhat difficult to
> ex
> > pl
> > > ain/quantify (at least for me) -- are graduall
> y
> > (a
> > > nd fortuitously) realized/discovered.
> > >
> > > One thing that I think will push M-IQ "over th
> e
> > to
> > > p," and allow the "skill" of the platform to b
> ec
> > om
> > > e more obvious, will be if (hopefully "when")
> Mi
> > ne
> > > lab releases the Multi-IQ "flagship." I think
> a
> > M
> > > -IQ machine, with "CTX-like" features (smartfi
> nd
> > s
> > > creen, FE/CO numbers, target trace, etc.), plu
> s
> > a
> > > few new "twists" in terms of allowing users to
> m
> > or
> > > e successfully glean information from the plat
> fo
> > rm
> > > visually/audibly/graphically, will (to borrow
> a
> > Mi
> > > nelab term) "obsolete" Minelab's FBS line of d
> et
> > ec
> > > tors...
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > Exception = TomInCA

It would be nice if they could fashion some good non-ferrous discrimination with Multi IQ that could compete with the Etrac or V3.

BBS was good in that you could charge up a target and with an expanded meter and get pretty good id but it was so slow and every target needed a charge up.. FBS added the two dimensional discrimination, Etrac added the ability to only report on the strongest non-discriminated signal, and CTX added the sweep view. EQX appears to be mostly focused on iron masking. Hopefully at some point they will add the non-ferrous discrimination to it.

I'm waiting for it anyway.

HH
Mike



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2020 10:34PM by Mike Hillis.

For those of you that are Equinox beach hunters...… here is another tip:

The EQX is capable of finding small targets in wet salt. If you are running your Target Recovery Response speed at..... say: '6'...………… small targets will sound merely like a click or tick...…. which emulates minor false chatter; subsequently,.... small targets go 'missed'.
If you run your Target Recovery Response speed at '2'...….. those small targets will audibly sound more discernable ……… audibly longer than merely a click or tick rapid response.
Select your Target Recovery Response speed WISELY!

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For those of you that are Equinox beach hunters...
> … here is another tip:
>
> The EQX is capable of finding small targets in wet
> salt. If you are running your Target Recovery Resp
> onse speed at..... say: '6'...………… small targets w
> ill sound merely like a click or tick...…. which e
> mulates minor false chatter; subsequently,.... sma
> ll targets go 'missed'.
> If you run your Target Recovery Response speed at
> '2'...….. those small targets will audibly sound m
> ore discernable ……… audibly longer than merely a c
> lick or tick rapid response.
> Select your Target Recovery Response speed WISELY!

I always enjoy your posts. I am not sure what the fantasy is to find "small gold". Quite frankly small gold does not pay the bills. It seems like there is some false sense that there is some untouched supply of small gold just waiting to be found. [i disagree] .
What readers should know that dropping your recovery to 2 will also allow the machine to false more in and around moving water, it will also be exaggerated if you have black sand. If you have a trashy beach it will be harder to work.

Dave

midalake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NASA-Tom Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For those of you that are Equinox beach hunters.
> ..
> > … here is another tip:
> >
> > The EQX is capable of finding small targets in w
> et
> > salt. If you are running your Target Recovery Re
> sp
> > onse speed at..... say: '6'...………… small targets
> w
> > ill sound merely like a click or tick...…. which
> e
> > mulates minor false chatter; subsequently,.... s
> ma
> > ll targets go 'missed'.
> > If you run your Target Recovery Response speed a
> t
> > '2'...….. those small targets will audibly sound
> m
> > ore discernable ……… audibly longer than merely a
> c
> > lick or tick rapid response.
> > Select your Target Recovery Response speed WISEL
> Y!
>
> I always enjoy your posts. I am not sure what the
> fantasy is to find "small gold". Quite frankly sma
> ll gold does not pay the bills. It seems like ther
> e is some false sense that there is some untouched
> supply of small gold just waiting to be found. [i
> disagree] .
> What readers should know that dropping your recove
> ry to 2 will also allow the machine to false more
> in and around moving water, it will also be exagge
> rated if you have black sand. If you have a trashy
> beach it will be harder to work.
>
> Dave

It's not the small gold itself, but what can be attached to the small gold, like diamonds.

Small gold adds up. Some folks fancy finding. Smaller gold is better than no gold at all.

I know I've mentioned this many, many times; yet, I feel it's worth mentioning again:

Statistically speaking...….. I have noted/found/discovered...……. small gold is where the bulk of the stones are; subsequently, (statistically speaking) greater value.

On a tangential note: I recently found a 18Kt chain, 27" long...…. and 12-grams. To a metal detector...… it is 'tiny gold'..... with near-zero detection depth abilities. Very rarely do I find a 12-gram ring.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know I've mentioned this many, many times; yet,
> I feel it's worth mentioning again:
>
> Statistically speaking...….. I have noted/found/di
> scovered...……. small gold is where the bulk of the
> stones are; subsequently, (statistically speaking)
> greater value.
>
> On a tangential note: I recently found a 18Kt chai
> n, 27" long...…. and 12-grams. To a metal detector
> ...… it is 'tiny gold'..... with near-zero detecti
> on depth abilities. Very rarely do I find a 12-gra
> m ring.

This winter I found two gold wrist chains. Both open, both solid locks with IB-4 and Recovery 6. I KNOW what the detector will do on your settings Tom.

There are trade-offs people should know. If I would run your settings, on any given day I would be able to detect about two blocks less of the beach where I hunt. Chasing ticks, digging a few more undesirable targets and generally making my head more tired. Now that may not sound like a lot. But two blocks less by 5 days a week, 20 blocks less in a month. I hope some can see the point.

I am fairly convinced after two years on the Nox which way I want to hunt. I also want to add that I keep a second program to check iffy targets. IB-0 recovery-4. In two years do you know how many targets I dug that were of worth because of the second program? Zero, zip, Nada. With trade-offs comes your conditions where you are. If all you have is two blocks of beach to hunt well recovery of 2 and moving like you on a walker might be the option. Good luck to us all, always!

And people want a super PI lol. A lower recovery does give you a bit longer tone. I normally use 4 or 3 in the water depending on how near the hard pan I am hunting. Recent drop time I like to cover a bit more beach as well. But there are times I switch it up and prefer a working an area slowly if I see the right conditions. No doubt the Nox has a lot of flexibility and you can grab some smaller gold than most of the detectors now being used. The lowers the recovery the better the modulation. I’ve gotten some pretty small gold with the Nox working active areas... because when they drop it it’s gone. It’s not micro gold ... just smaller that this machine has more sensitivity to with added depth., well unless ya have the 800. Yes a lot of people are moving along faster looking for recent drop big gold and could care less about small gold .... but not me. If I find gold even small gold I had a very good day.

If you change Target Recovery Response speed...….. don't forget to re-Ground Balance. If not...… the detector can be 'chatty'.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you change Target Recovery Response speed...…..
> don't forget to re-Ground Balance. If not...… the
> detector can be 'chatty'.

That's a great tip I didnt know. Thanks!

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you change Target Recovery Response speed...…..
> don't forget to re-Ground Balance. If not...… the
> detector can be 'chatty'.


I have yet to find a program that beats auto GB in my location, regardless of any other settings. However if things get chatty I noise cancel and go to manual GB, then back to auto. However at this point it is almost always EMI issues.

EMI is a massive performance inhibitor. Silent EMI is even worse...…..as...….. the operator would not know EMI was being encountered; subsequently, would never attempt to mitigate ...if he does not know it exists.
That is one good thing about the T2 & F75 platforms. Rarely did they encounter 'silent' EMI. Nearly all of their EMI encounterings were audibly presented. Nothing hidden (silent).
Plenty of other platforms that could/would encounter silent EMI...….with subsequent unsuspecting loss-of-performance...…..and the operator would never know it.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> EMI is a massive performance inhibitor. Silent EMI
> is even worse...…..as...….. the operator would not
> know EMI was being encountered; subsequently, woul
> d never attempt to mitigate ...if he does not know
> it exists.
> That is one good thing about the T2 & F75 platform
> s. Rarely did they encounter 'silent' EMI. Nearly
> all of their EMI encounterings were audibly presen
> ted. Nothing hidden (silent).
> Plenty of other platforms that could/would encount
> er silent EMI...….with subsequent unsuspecting los
> s-of-performance...…..and the operator would never
> know it.


Boy Tom, you hit the nail square on. I would take it a little further. If you have to back down your sensitivity due to EMI, you will have performance issues on the Equinox. PERIOD.
I have [i think] experienced silent EMI as you speak of. I think most experienced operators can hear it. However it can only be heard during a recovery. I notice small pulses in sound when recovering the target. I also notice a lack of performance. However the machine is actually running silent and only pulses when over a target. I will say if you don't have a quality set of noise dampening headphones on you most likely will not hear it.

Dave



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2020 05:25PM by midalake.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> EMI is a massive performance inhibitor. Silent EMI
> is even worse...…..as...….. the operator would not
> know EMI was being encountered; subsequently, woul
> d never attempt to mitigate ...if he does not know
> it exists.
> That is one good thing about the T2 & F75 platform
> s. Rarely did they encounter 'silent' EMI. Nearly
> all of their EMI encounterings were audibly presen
> ted. Nothing hidden (silent).
> Plenty of other platforms that could/would encount
> er silent EMI...….with subsequent unsuspecting los
> s-of-performance...…..and the operator would never
> know it.

I have an opportunity to take the EQ800 to Golden Gate Park last weekend, and at one field it was exceedingly EMI chatty. It wasn't surprising given the overhead utilities and unshielded high voltage overhead MUNI bus electrical feed, but interestingly at one point, all was quite, for a period of about 20 minutes. I took the EQ800 to an area I fought the EMI to eek out a silver dime in the noise, and with it nice and quite I was able to pull out an early teens wheatie just a few feet away from where I'd recovered the silver dime, I just couldn't hear it in the noise when the EMI was out of control Interestingly after about 20 minutes, the EMI returned with a vengeance.

Dave...….. I have a ton of data on this forum about EMI/silent-EMI. I am on a all-out maximum campaign to rid EMI

Brian..... exactly. I've had that experience multiple times..... where EMI was non-existent. Then...… all of a sudden...… "something" turned: 'ON'..... EMI went through the roof.........and depth went away. I have actually gone out of my way ….to 'seek' previous sites where EMI was quite bad...…. "just-to-see" if (by chance)….. EMI is (now) non-existent. I seem to have about a 10% success rate (thus far).

LCD Depth gauge on the EQX. It consists of 5 LCD triangles. The more triangles that are lit-up (blackened.......and visible)....... the deeper the target. Here is a "general" Real-World tip:

1-Triangle = 1"
2-Triangles = 2"
3-Triangles = 3"
4-Triangles = 6"
5-Triangles = 9"

This is a 'general' (rough) average for coin-sized targets. General rule-of-thumb.

For me........ here in tropical sandbar (high sink-rate) Florida....... I can use this data to great advantage. In VERY stable dirt (slow sink-rate)...... I will dig/recover 4-and-5 Triangle depth targets. In normal/typical (high sink-rate) Florida dirt........ I will ONLY recover 5-Triangle depth targets.
In YOUR dirt (your State/Country)........ use LCD depth gauge Triangles..... accordingly..... to YOUR conditions.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dave...….. I have a ton of data on this forum abou
> t EMI/silent-EMI. I am on a all-out maximum campai
> gn to rid EMI
>
> Brian..... exactly. I've had that experience multi
> ple times..... where EMI was non-existent. Then...
> … all of a sudden...… "something" turned: 'ON'....
> . EMI went through the roof.........and depth went
> away. I have actually gone out of my way ….to 'se
> ek' previous sites where EMI was quite bad...…. "j
> ust-to-see" if (by chance)….. EMI is (now) non-exi
> stent. I seem to have about a 10% success rate (th
> us far).

Hi Tom

With some talk of new detectors on the market and the ongoing EMI/Interference issues. I have a few questions with the Nox.

Can you comment on how important coil shielding is for a VLF Multi?

Can good coil shielding help EMI?

Can good coil shielding help with moving Salt Water?

Would you rank on a 1-10 scale what you think about the Minelab Equinox shielding? 10 best of course!

Thanks Dave