Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

How much of this is not true (long read)

Posted by sanjuro 
This forum is currently read only. You can not log in or make any changes. This is a temporary situation.
How much of this is not true (long read)
November 15, 2019 12:28PM
Posted today on a UK Facebook group

Metal detecting and treasure hunting myths and secrets Are you the proud owner of an all-singing, all-dancing ‘multi-frequency’, ‘digital’ metal detector sporting the very latest technology? If you believe this then you are perhaps sadly mistaken. What you actually have is an analogue, fixed frequency, induction balance metal detector – in essence, not much different from the units available 40 or so years ago. How can this be so you might ask?The original need for metal detecting equipment arose from a military requirement to find explosive landmines buried in the ground. Early hobbyists realised that such equipment could perhaps be used to recover historic artefacts and treasures. Military units however were originally intended to find quite large steel clad mines rather than small coins and other relics. They were also heavy, unwieldy and used large external power supplies due to the need to be used in battlefield conditions.There are four basic and practical operating principals that allow a metal detector to function. These are:•Beat Frequency Oscillation (BFO)•Pulse Induction (PI)•Transmitter Receiver (TR)•Induction Balance (Icool smileyThe first of these was used for some of the very earliest detectors made for the hobby market (such as the M L Beach ‘Prospector’, first offered at £12/10/00 in around 1970 with wooden coil housing and a small transistor radio clipped to the stem – I had one of these from new in early 1971 and, although it worked, it was unstable, went crazy every time the housing touched anything and hated damp conditions). Without getting into the electronics involved, the BFO system did not prove to be effective and I believe that no modern hobby detector uses this system.Pulse induction units were popular for a while and gave great depth penetration (C-Scope produced some models and other makes such as the C400 and Goldmaxx were around from late 1970s on). The main problems were (and are) that effective discrimination was not available on early units and the detectors were extremely sensitive to iron targets – a major problem for users who had no interest in recovering iron targets so were mainly limited to beach use where iron signals are not usually a serious problem but where the extra depth penetration was good for recovering coins and jewellery. Although modern PI detectors claim to have effective discrimination circuits, this has had an effect on the depths attainable. Transmitter Receiver units are usually a variant of the IB type and have, in recent times been limited really to the so-called ‘twin box’ / ‘two-box’ or ‘twin coil’ units which consist of two large coils or boxes carried on a horizontal shaft and used to locate large and deep targets or ore bodies (in mineral survey work). Such units are still made by CScope, Whites and Fisher for use as ‘hoard’ hunters.The induction balance principle, although very much ‘old school’ technology, has endured and is the one in use for almost all hobby detectors available today. The basics are that an electronic signal is transmitted from a wound wire coil and - rather like sonar or radar – this signal is reflected back from a target to be received by a second coil. The coils are tuned to a fixed radio frequency (there is no such thing as a ‘multi’ frequency detector; the only way to change the frequency is to exchange the coil for another that is tuned to a different frequency within the permitted range - the frequency operating range is strictly regulated and limited by government and international agreements; you would not want your heart pacemaker to be interfered with by transmissions from somebody using a metal detector near to you!) and the coils are electronically balanced together. Incidentally, coils are not all tuned exactly to the same frequency as, if this was so, they would all interfere with each other in use; slight variations, in combination with shielding to the upper coil faces, allow users to work in close proximity. Early Fisher detectors were notorious for interfering with other units; both Fisher and of other makes. At the same time, early Arado units were extremely sensitive to being interfered with by external electro-magnetic fields (such as generated by overhead power cables). At its simplest level, all that is then needed is a power source and a method of displaying when interference in the transmitted signal has occurred for such a detector to function. This is what the control box provides - everything else is simply refining or amplifying the signal, filtering and displaying the result to the user.In electronic terms, the most efficient and effective coil arrangement is to have transmission and receiving coils that are the same diameter and aligned side by side with a small overlap; such ‘double’ coils are sometimes seen today (the Nexus range, for example, only uses this configuration). There are practical problems with this. It is difficult to make, especially to mass-produce, a double overlapping coil structurally strong enough to keep the shape of the coils free from distortion (vitally important) without being heavy and cumbersome. Most manufacturers have adopted different, less efficient (but cheaper and easier) solutions by having a large transmission coil with a smaller receiving coil mounted inside it (concentric coils; this arrangement can clearly be seen on some coils with an openwork ‘spider’ design) or by having two D-shaped coils arranged side by side (a double-D coil). Nexus now solved the weight isssue with carbon fibre coils.So, having established the basics, what next? Everything else is rather a case of ‘smoke and mirrors’! Taking the first aspect, the control box circuitry must be tuned to the same frequency as that of the coil for optimum performance (so if you do use several coils, you will not get optimum performance from each unless they are all tuned to the same frequency). In mass produced units, there is an allowed tolerance for tuning and this can explain why two apparently identical detectors of the same make and model may have different performance characteristics and capabilities. There are two approaches for detectors: motion and non-motion detecting. Most units today have relegated non-motion responses to pinpointing, often via a trigger toggle switch; to obtain a response in normal use the coil must be actually moving when passing over a target.Then there is the matter of ‘ground balance’, where the control box circuitry allows a fixed or variable filter to be utilised to screen out all responses below a certain base level. All soils and minerals have a different level of electronic conductance; the capacity to conduct electricity or to respond to radio frequencies varies hugely. This is often referred to as ‘ground mineralisation’ in detecting terminology and can vary dramatically across a single field. The degree of such mineralisation is infinitely variable. A ground balance setting that proves effective on one site (or part of one site) will be near useless on another. The higher the setting needed to screen out unwanted background interference, the greater the adverse effect upon depth penetration and response to small or faint signal desired targets. Discrimination or the ability to screen out ‘unwanted’ (usually ferrous, iron-based) targets is another filter commonly used today. Early detectors had no ‘discrimination’ capability at all – the only way to find out what a signal might be was to dig it! Experience in using the detector gave some assistance but digging was the only real answer (and to this day I have many interesting iron finds from detecting; from foot pattens to keys to spearheads to cannon balls). Even today, with quite sophisticated discrimination filters (including such features as ‘notch’ – popular some years ago time with beach users who wished to ignore aluminium ring-pulls and similar junk), many iron targets will still show as positive signals; some of this is due to electronic characteristics – anyone who has detected will be aware of the phenomenon where pieces of iron that have holes, such as washers, give positive signals. The ability to discriminate at all takes advantage of the differences in electrical properties of different metals and alloys. In general, the more ‘metallic’ the target is, the stronger the response.The higher a discrimination filter is set, the more targets that will be ‘rejected’ or ignored – hence why serious detectorists searching a good site will work in ‘all metal’ mode to recover every possible target.The response of a detector to any given signal can be presented in several ways. The first is audio, through a loudspeaker/headphones and most detectors use this as the primary method. An audio response, whether against a ‘silent’ background or a rising tone response from a background base tone will indicate a potential target. Once again, whether factory set or user-selected, the base tone is achieved by filtering ‘unwanted’ responses below a set base threshold level. Some detectors have the ability to give a variable tone response – typically where non-ferrous responses give a higher pitched audio response, above that of the base tone and ferrous signals a correspondingly lower-pitched response. Many things will give a potential response, from ‘hot’ rocks to fired clay to iron pyrites nodules; all contain iron or other metals to some degree; some find these background so-called ‘false’ signals irritating but most can be eliminated by being non-repeatable. Filtering them all out risks missing small and deep responses.Reponses can also be displayed visually and most detectors do this as a secondary response or ‘target/signal analysis’ and it is here that most units apply the secondary filters such as discrimination. These displays can be ‘analogue’ (by a swinging needle meter) or ‘digital’ by using liquid crystal display screens (LCD), light emitting diodes (LEDs) or other means. The type of display is the nearest any detector can get to being a ‘digital’ unit – ALL metal detectors actually operate on an analogue system and, as said above, most on the induction balance principle. Any target analysis displayed, however it is presented to the user, relies on the electronic filters (preset or user-set). Some are simply presented; others have all sorts of ‘bells and whistles’ with flashing lights, multiple colours, multiple LCD bars, etcetera, etcetera, but they essentially they all do exactly the same job.Power supply is another vital area. In general terms, the more ‘powerful’ the signal generated, the greater the depth it is possible to obtain a target response from. Once again, government regulations restrict the signal power in order that interference with other equipment will be avoided. The signals sent from the transmission coil will attenuate the further they extend from the coil (the same thing happens with sonar and radar). Soil will absorb or smother the signal to the point where any possible response from a target is too weak or distant to be picked up by the receiver coil.The size (diameter) of the coils is also of great importance. In very general terms, the larger the coil diameter, the deeper the penetration of signal into the ground that is possible. However, again in general terms, there is a relationship between coil diameter and range of target sizes detectable. Broadly speaking, a large coil will be better at finding large targets deeply buried while a small coil will do better at finding small targets but with more limited depth. It is for this reason that the higher end detector makers often provide a range of additional coils of various types and sizes that can be fitted.Modern metal detectors have just about reached the limits of what induction balance is capable of. There may well be minor improvements and tweaks in control box circuitry that might be developed but unless there is a fundamental discovery of a new principle, there will never be much more than can be attained today. Indeed,in some areas, modern detectors are not as good as their forbears. I have been detecting since 1970 and, over the years, I have used many different units but I well remember my early CScope IB300 and TR400 detectors being easily capable of finding an old penny at 10”plus depth. Many modern and popular units today would struggle at 6”. For tone discrimination, the CScope Promet and Metadec detectors were well ahead of their time – I still use a Metadec II with 4” coil today and, on some sites, it is still unbeatable. Similarly, I still use an Arado 130 (where there are no overhead cables or other electrical fields!) and an Arado 95 on clay beaches – Lord alone knows what I will do when they finally die for good!Finally, all metal detectors have an element of compromise in them. The best will offer a range of coils that will make a detector more versatile but no one detector is the perfect unit to use on all types of sites or for seeking all types of targets; some will have greater ground balance stability on some soil types; others will be especially sensitive to small hammered silver coins. So, if your budget limits you to one detector only, how do you choose which is the ‘best’ for you? All I can advise is that you try and handle as many different units as possible (detector rallies where dealers will have a range of units on display are good) and talk to as many people who use the unit you are thinking about as you can; but do remember that detectorists are rather like fishermen and most like to think that they have the ‘best’ equipment – especially if they have paid a lot of money for it! A comment such as “I got this over 12 inches down in really contaminated ground” while showing you a tiny hammered farthing that actually only gave a whisper signal while lying on the surface is human nature! If you want a detector that will perform reasonably well in most conditions then almost any of the mass-produced intermediate level detectors will do (around the £500-£700 level) and it will be a choice of features, availability of other coils, weight and balance in use or perhaps what one has the most flashing lights or the most complex set-up options - if you want to spend an hour tapping through multiple screens selecting every possible variable......and then wondering whether maybe altering just one setting out of the dozens available will magically turn your detector into a super-detector that will just as easily find that huge bronze age hoard 4 feet down as that Saxon gold thrymsa worth thousands.....this way madness lies!Having made your choice, take the time to learn how to properly use it! You have invested what can be a large sum of money and to write it off after only a few hours trial is foolish. Read the manual from cover to cover and try it out on a wide variety of site types. Test the various settings and persist. It can take months of regular use to become really familiar with the foibles of a modern detector and to get the maximum performance from it. If all you want is the occasional outing then choose a detector with the minimum of variable controls. Preset ground balance and discrimination settings will work reasonably well in most places. Manual ground balancing is more of an art than a science as there are so many variations in site conditions.Detectors that operate at the limit of IB capabilities will take considerable time and experience to get the most out of them and are not the best choice for beginners or casual users. Sadly, there are those who are willing to criticise such units after only the briefest of test periods. I would not contemplate writing (let alone publishing) a test report on any but the most basic of detectors unless I had spent a bare minimum of a week of near full-time use with it. Setting up a detector manually where there is significant choice in settings and controls is not easy or simple; it takes considerable experience to get things right and achieve the best possible performance; this cannot be achieved with only a few hours of use. To give up and condemn after only a few hours use indicates a very amateur approach and one not to be taken seriously.If you don’t want to spend effort setting your detector up properly (and constantly tweaking it as conditions vary) or digging lots of deep holes, I suggest that a deep seeking, manual set up detector might not be your best choice. The same comment applies if your sites have large amounts of modern non-ferrous rubbish (303 rifle cartridges soon lose their appeal if you have to dig 18” down to retrieve them!). Most top range detectors do have some element of auto-setting that can be useful for practice; a few allow a fully automated mode to be used but relying on these will never achieve the maximum potential.Regardless of the detector chosen, luck will still play an important part. It does not matter what detector you have you will not find anything unless you pass the coil directly over something that is located within its detection range – and then make the decision to dig it up! There will always be the first time user, often with a ‘cheap’ detector, who will stumble by chance on a find that any experienced detectorist would give his right arm for! Isn’tlife fun?- Written by Christopher Wren
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 15, 2019 12:54PM
LOL, theres no way in hell I'm going to sit here and read through whatever that book was.

======================================================

You can see my videos here: [www.youtube.com]
My blog is here: [thesilverfiend.com]

======================================================
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 15, 2019 01:02PM
That needs paragraph breaks.
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 15, 2019 01:20PM
We all have been duped…… WHATEVER it is it is beating the socks off the other brands! NO I didnt read the book just the first 3 lines...
OBN
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 15, 2019 01:38PM
They must be having some bad weather over in the UK.

Blood Member of RingKeepers
2020......Gold Rings....73....Misc Gold 1 .......Silvers ...110
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 15, 2019 01:59PM
I read it.... very interesting I thought. It’s apparent he is well informed..... worth the read.
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 15, 2019 02:20PM
I read the hole thing, he sound like he knows what he is talking about.
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 15, 2019 02:32PM
Yeah , cult leaders sound like they know too....Just saying... I really dont care one way or the other. It outperforms all the others...
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 15, 2019 02:42PM
Not a bad read. . . . . and I can see this is from a years-experienced detectorist.
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 15, 2019 02:45PM
...a good read but more like 'an eye exam!'
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 15, 2019 03:46PM
Yes and No. Yes in that the basic operating premise is still in use, No in regards to operational processing and informational transference.


no..I could not spell "informational transference" correctly without spell check. I like it though. I think I'll make it my buzz word of the day. spinning smiley sticking its tongue out

HH
Mike



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2019 03:46PM by Mike Hillis.
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 15, 2019 03:53PM
And thought I was bad about not making paragraphs!winking smiley
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 15, 2019 06:36PM
I would disagree with the comment

''The coils are tuned to a fixed radio frequency (there is no such thing as a ‘multi’ frequency detector; the only way to change the frequency is to exchange the coil''

surely the Minelab multi frequency detectors Nox,CTX etc are actually using more than one frequency its just that the coil will not work optimally with each of the frequencies.
And to conclued:
November 15, 2019 07:11PM
Jeffery Epstein didn't commit suicide

"A Bird in the hand, is worth two in the bush"
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 15, 2019 11:56PM
Original here, complete with paragraph breaks:

https://www.nexusdetectors.com/articlespg2.html

Mr. Wren sounds like an experienced detectorist with a fairly shallow understanding of the technology. Apparently he is unaware of wideband circuit designs, where coils are not tuned at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2019 01:50AM by Geotech.
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 16, 2019 01:26AM
I have yet to find any other machine that can hold a candle to the FBS machines when it comes to ignoring/discriminating crown caps .
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 16, 2019 03:50AM
For all you that will not read it.

So it's true


Ignorance is bliss.
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 16, 2019 04:04AM
silverhound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have yet to find any other machine that can hold
> a candle to the FBS machines when it comes to igno
> ring/discriminating crown caps .


Amen amen AMEN!! I have found this to be one of the top three operating features of FBS. The other two are the FECO readout and ground handling abilities of multi freq. BTW....what is a “Metadec”? There will never be a “best for all machine”....the human component is too “all over the place” to try to get everyone to bond with a certain unit. I can say though....Mr. Wren is welcome to my town anytime with that...”Metadec” was it?...and we’ll go shoot deep old coins. Sometimes seeing really IS believing...
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 16, 2019 11:47PM
True about the FBS and crown caps. But...… with a tradeoff; that being...… not-so-good at unmasking.
Now...… try the M-IQ F2 on 7, 8 or 9...… and watch it match (and/or exceed) the FBS units on crown caps. Then try M-IQ F2 on 0, 1, 2 or 3...…. and see how it unmasks (compared to FBS). Yes/sure...…. in areas where steel crown caps are not as prevalent.
Incrementally technologically forging forward.
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 17, 2019 12:47AM
The FBS units are still tops at identifying deep silver with ID accuracy. I think it was Andy Sabisch (speaking of FBS) had mentioned that when using the Fast recovery (high trash) that the ID accuracy would slightly suffer. Now with the Nox is there a way to slow it down and maybe have better ID accuracy at depth. If so....my hope for the next generation Nox is that the numeric target ID will be expanded. By the way I also hate digging bottle/crown caps....LOL
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 17, 2019 02:20AM
NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True about the FBS and crown caps. But...… with a
> tradeoff; that being...… not-so-good at unmasking.
> Now...… try the M-IQ F2 on 7, 8 or 9...… and watch
> it match (and/or exceed) the FBS units on crown ca
> ps. Then try M-IQ F2 on 0, 1, 2 or 3...…. and see
> how it unmasks (compared to FBS). Yes/sure...…. in
> areas where steel crown caps are not as prevalent.
> Incrementally technologically forging forward.


After using it for about 125 hours now I’m beginning to tune in Tom. I have NOT updated my 800 to the new FE offering but even at that...learning that “knife edge” where it might be a mixture of targets as opposed to perhaps a single odd shaped target providing multiple responses....and working the FE setting down progressively lower...I am impressed thus far. I was not initially impressed because it wasn’t a CTX. I wasn’t plucking silver every hunt(or ANY hunt for the first 80 hours!) and I didn’t trust it. After a few minor tweaks it began to sing to me, just like the Explorer2 and CTX sing to me. I won’t BS you, it’s ALOT of machine. I won’t even follow that up with “for the money”. It’s just ALOT of machine with some astounding capabilities. Even though I’m a curious cat and always want to know the details, in the end, it WORKS. I’m pretty sure that’s the end game for everybody. For whatever hand you played in that game...well done.
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 17, 2019 03:39AM
Thanks IDX. I will have to say though...….. the factory presets on the EQX platform..... are a bit meek. (Which may possibly explain the rationale as to 'why' some folks..... initially...…. gave it a thumbs-down). Doing a head-to-head against the EQX whilst at (or near) factory presets...…. will surely give sub-par resultant(s).
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 17, 2019 08:14AM
Was this ever proven that Nexus had produced a detector that went deeper in ground than in air?

Quote from Nexus,

I was one of the most fears supporters of the idea that VLF detectors can not detect deeper (or at least better) in the ground than they ever could in air. Our best ever results in some conditions were air to ground same measurements, but never better in the ground.
The new Nexus Standard MP change that. The measured average signal detection in ground with the MP is 12-14% better than in air, BUT ONLY AFTER THE GROUND BALANCE IS DONE.

In absolute values VLF detectors will always be more sensitive in air than in ground, simply because their sensitivity in air can be boosted almost indefinitely and for detection in ground that same sensitivity will have to reduced dramatically for proper functionality.

So if one chooses to compare the absolute values then the answer is no.

But if one chooses the values in the real working environment then the answer is yes.
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 17, 2019 01:01PM
ghound……… correct report. (((although there is a limit as to 'how much' a unit is allowed to be boosted....for air-testing. EMI being one of the largest inhibitors))).

Almost 3-Decades ago...… I witnessed (then verified/validated) that a CZ platform did indeed detect deeper in a unique environment...…. at a freshwater wet-sand beach. I detected (and recovered) a clad dime at 12-1/2" deep. Then...……….. with the detector sitting (laying) next to the excavated pile of dirt (and hole).,.,.,.,.,.,.,. the CZ would air-test the coin to 11-1/2" in free air.
At other sites...………. I tried to get this phenomenon to replicate/duplicate. . . . . . . . and could not. At least...……… not to the order-of-magnitude as my unique encounter. In electronic terms; yet, in terms for the layman to understand/comprehend: = ………….. To get another 1" out of that CZ (a CZ-6)……. is a order-of-magnitude of "64X" ...…. for your purposes/ease-of-understanding. (((Electromagnetic energy dissipation is a 10-to-the-6th root formula))).

Fast-forward to today. We have a detector (technology) that can repeatably/reliably/consistently demonstrate just exactly this phenomenon. It'll detect a US Nickel (in my dirt test-garden) …….. to 12"...…… and about 12-1/2" in an air-test.,.,., on a clear/low EMI day. But...……… in a wet-salt environment...……. it'll detect a Nickel to 14"...….. reliably. We are capturing, harnessing and employing some unique physics phenomena …….. as of late.
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 17, 2019 01:26PM
This is interesting, is it only in mild dirt this takes place, most machines I've used, including the Nexus couldn't get anywhere near air test depths in ground.
In your dirt, was the audio report as good in ground as it was in the air test?







NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ghound……… correct report. (((although there is a l
> imit as to 'how much' a unit is allowed to be boos
> ted....for air-testing. EMI being one of the large
> st inhibitors))).
>
> Almost 3-Decades ago...… I witnessed (then verifie
> d/validated) that a CZ platform did indeed detect
> deeper in a unique environment...…. at a freshwate
> r wet-sand beach. I detected (and recovered) a cla
> d dime at 12-1/2" deep. Then...……….. with the dete
> ctor sitting (laying) next to the excavated pile o
> f dirt (and hole).,.,.,.,.,.,.,. the CZ would air-
> test the coin to 11-1/2" in free air.
> At other sites...………. I tried to get this phenomen
> on to replicate/duplicate. . . . . . . . and could
> not. At least...……… not to the order-of-magnitude
> as my unique encounter. In electronic terms; yet,
> in terms for the layman to understand/comprehend:
> = ………….. To get another 1" out of that CZ (a CZ-6)
> ……. is a order-of-magnitude of "64X" ...…. for you
> r purposes/ease-of-understanding. (((Electromagnet
> ic energy dissipation is a 10-to-the-6th root form
> ula))).
>
> Fast-forward to today. We have a detector (technol
> ogy) that can repeatably/reliably/consistently dem
> onstrate just exactly this phenomenon. It'll detec
> t a US Nickel (in my dirt test-garden) …….. to 12"
> ...…… and about 12-1/2" in an air-test.,.,., on a
> clear/low EMI day. But...……… in a wet-salt environ
> ment...……. it'll detect a Nickel to 14"...….. reli
> ably. We are capturing, harnessing and employing s
> ome unique physics phenomena …….. as of late.
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 17, 2019 02:02PM
Most interesting to me lately of how things have changed around here. In the past, when NASA Tom posts something, people would take notice. I still do and for good reasons. Yet lately, some folks ignore what he posts...especially when he is laying out data on M-IQ tech having an edge on FBS. If he would have said FBS is still the sharpest knife in the drawer, they would have been all over it and it would be brought up every time the topic came up. Since that is not the case, it gets ignored. What I like about Nasa Tom is that he don't argue the point. He states his case and lets it stand.
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 17, 2019 06:33PM
ghound……….. In wet-salt....is where I see the largest delta/phenomenon...….. with this MDT technology. In my (near-zero..... almost air-test) dirt..... I hardly see it. In medium mineralization..... I see a loss in depth (including a loss of ID)....as in comparison to air-test.....,,,,,,,, BUT...…. to a lessor extent when compared to other units. In high mineralization...… I see/witness/experience a greater loss in depth and ID.....,,,,,,,, but to an even lessor extent than other units. M-IQ starts to give the MDT a run for the money. The GPX series REALLY gives the MDT a run for the money.

Daniel = Yes. I data-dump my findings (state my case). Then...…….. I let the opinions/passion/differences/arguments fly. Tons can be gleaned from all.
It is a little disconcerting to put a large amount of 'blood' into a post/topic...… and nearly no one responds/cares.
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 17, 2019 08:14PM
NASA-Tom,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can say that personally, I couldn't agree more with Daniel -- that when you post something, I stand up and take notice. Period. It utterly puzzles me how anyone would not...

Whether I respond to a particular post, or not, I GREATLY appreciate the time you take to share knowledge/insight with us. I hope you being "disconcerted" at times, doesn't result in a diminishment of your willingness to continue to post. Rest assured, there are definitely a number of us who would count it a great loss not to have you sharing your input on things -- whether on a specific machine, or the technology in general, or anything else you choose to "put your blood" into...

Steve
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 17, 2019 09:18PM
F2 setting.......successfully discriminating crown caps (high setting) OR unmasking (low setting). In balancing the F2 setting to say setting of 5, would this give the Nox a clear edge over other models, including ID??? Would this balance change on a deep target? Thanks
Re: How much of this is not true (long read)
November 17, 2019 10:09PM
EQX of F2 '5'.... is a 'compromise' setting. Not the best at one. Not the best at the other. Still...…… even on a F2 '5' setting..... the EQX is one of the Worlds flagships.