Nox speed separation

Trying to get some answers for over a year on why i need speed for separation i figured a tech savy group here could lead to some answers .

Simple one minute test pull-tab with dime 3 inches away on left side and a dime 3 inches to right of pull-tab same plane At 2 inches nox and ctx hit and id correct . Now raise coil to 5 inches no separation nox will only id as tab 13 or 14 ctx same however ctx will id correct to 10 inches using side of coil .Coil size did not matter.

Replace tab with nail nox does better will id to depth but with id of 12 13 14 or 16 17 the ctx well give proper id to depth .

What i think is happening is as the coil is raised the field becomes larger thereby encircling all the targets no separation now we have a blended signal .

I get the speed thing where the audio is shorten letting you hear the targets separately instead of bunched up but all you have to do is slow your coil sweep to hear the targets .(WHERES THE SEPARATION).

That 1 tab on the same plane kills the separation of the nox dead in it's tracks what about a tab in a 3d situation can only imagine .

Fairgrounds are the worst place you can run a detector nails big iron cans pull-tabs foil can slaw and every piece of junk know en to man .

So i need id the ctx is far better than the nox getting back to the dimes and pull-tab at 10 inches with the nox the dimes have to be 6 inches from the tab to get readings of a proper id (WHERE IS THE SEPARATION THEY TALK ABOUT) wondering if the daus would fair better

I seen all the guys whipping targets as fast as they can and say man that has separation yeah at 2 inches what about where the coins are good ones 6 to 12 now i could care less about separation at 2 inches im not looking for clad .All the test i have seen 2d 3d and on have been dun close to the targets what about at 5 inches i think all would fail .

So hoping to get some answers what is going on . sube

What are your settings on the NOX?

park 1 all metal fe2 0 recovery 6 did not make any deference what i used . sube

I'm not a Nox user, so I can't set up to do the bench tests that you're speaking of. But will chime in as follows: In my short stint with the Nox 800 (back when they first came out), I tried to treat it as if it were like the Exp. II (my long-time favorite machine). So I had set mine up at a rather fast 7, on the recovery speed. Because: On the Explorer, my experience had been that by choosing "fast" on the recovery, you don't actually loose any depth (IMHO). Instead, you just have to "pay attention more" to hear the faster beeps. Yet without loosing depth (provided your ears are tuned). But the on the Nox, I found that to be different : By lowering to slower recovery speeds, you DO IN FACT gain depth.

At first I didn't like that, because , to me, that meant I'd be compromising separation, eh ? But given that the Nox is *already* renowned for separation , then .... perhaps you're not killing yourself with masking ? I dunno. Also to factor in is that some machines are better at "averaging", but other machines tend to see only the target that is "on top" or bigger, etc.... Maybe Nox experts can say something more intelligent than this

The easier question would be to ask what detector does better at target seperation? I really can't come up with a better one than the Equinox. Maybe the Deus can compete. The CTX does a great job at target analysis, but for the price? So I just use what gives me the best chance and accept that as being good enough. I think it will be years until something comes out that will offer a definitive difference. Tests and targets? Great for learning your detector limitations. But in the end I just hunt.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2020 11:25PM by goodmore.

goodmore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The easier question would be to ask what detector
> does better at target seperation? I really can't c
> ome up with a better one than the Equinox. Maybe t
> he Deus can compete. The CTX does a great job at t
> arget analysis, but for the price? So I just use w
> hat gives me the best chance and accept that as be
> ing good enough. I think it will be years until so
> mething comes out that will offer a definitive dif
> ference. Tests and targets? Great for learning you
> r detector limitations. But in the end I just hunt

The detector was sold because it was to be good at separation
Not seeing it want to know why
4 post on findmall no one is talking about separation unanswered
Detector prospector 6 hours 40 views no reply
Looks like it's going to be hard to get answers

I like the detector finds stuff ctx does not but i don't thing it's from separation it is the differant freqs it runs where the coins are coming from .sube
> .

Sube...buddy....I have the answer you seek my friend. The problem is, nobody is going to want to read what I have to say, so I’ll give you a call tomorrow....

C'mon, spill your guts Kevin--I'm listenin!----Tell you what---you can send me a p.m. TU------Del------IDXMonster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sube...buddy....I have the answer you seek my frie
> nd. The problem is, nobody is going to want to rea
> d what I have to say, so I’ll give you a call tomo
> rrow....

If no one wants to read your answer, how good could it possibly be?

sube……… I documented/wrote a fair amount about this....on this forum. (I believe the: Minelab Equinox Owners: Question....thread).

In a nutshell...….. it is in the 3-Dimensional (dirt) World where the M-IQ exemplifies its separation characteristics the best. Nearly a Conductive Algorithm Prioritization. Differing from the CTX. (CTX is also no slouch).

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sube……… I documented/wrote a fair amount about thi
> s....on this forum. (I believe the: Minelab Equino
> x Owners: Question....thread).
>
> In a nutshell...….. it is in the 3-Dimensional (di
> rt) World where the M-IQ exemplifies its separatio
> n characteristics the best. Nearly a Conductive Al
> gorithm Prioritization. Differing from the CTX. (C
> TX is also no slouch).

Tom

I know this have been brought up before and that you have suggested lower recovery speed use in many instances. I'll ask again though. How much of a factor is the recovery speed setting for working iron and if possible why??

Tom...…. for consolidation purposes...…...and for better (more widely disseminated) coverage...… let me answer your question in the Minelab: Question thread.

Badger in NH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If no one wants to read your answer, how good coul
> d it possibly be?


I’m not going to try to start a pissing match. Whatever works for you, use it.

Thanks Tom!