An FBS2 Observation

I just couldn't wait any longer so I looped a wire around the CTX's coil and hooked it up to my O'scope. What I saw was that the FBS2 transmitted signal was identical (but more sharply squared) to FBS(1)! The FBS2 transmitted frequency was variable with Noise Cancel exactly like FBS(1).
I haven't pushed all the CTX's buttons yet to see if anything else changes the waveform. I suspect Noise Cancel is the only variable.
This kind of points to the fact that FBS2 received signal processing is a highly refined improvement over FBS(1).

Pete

This is going to be good! OK yeasty, what does/could this mean to those previously in an ET but moved to a CTX performance wise?

Thanks
Randy

What advantage would there be to squaring the signal more, in lay mans terms please? ;-)

Any other ideas guys?

Curious about the ferrous coin setting and what changes there, also target trace...

Thx,
Albert

As it is known that FBS uses timing methods to determine target characteristics, a very distinct, sharp edge would help obtain precision timings. And hence more precise target info. Seems plausible?

Sharpening up the waveform would also help in the generation of harmonics. The ferrous-coin and target trace, in my opinion, are there because they are cool and can be done with the much faster processor. FBS(1) machines are probably not fast enough to do it.

The FBS2 transmit signal is the same as FBS, which is the same as BBS.

Geotech Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The FBS2 transmit signal is the same as FBS, which
> is the same as BBS.


Yes, I read somewhere where a guy scoped his FBS and BBS machines and found the transmit signal was exactly identical. That's odd, since BBS goes up to 25khz while FBS is said to go up to 100khz. What he said was that rather he thinks the way the received signal is processed is what actually is different from the two machines. Some, including myself, *in our soil or on our beaches* find that FBS is more unstable and not as deep as BBS in some situations. I think the higher frequencies in certain minerals might have something to do with that in those certain situations.

But, having owned 3 Explorer IIs that were not as deep as my GT in my soil, and having now seen a friend with an Etrac get just as deep as my GT and 12x10, I now believe the real reason may be that my Explorers never got the depth *in my soil* reported by other Explorer users is due to the lousy 10" coil they had. The stock 10" Tornado on the GT is a much better coil, and got deeper and separated better than my Explorers using the same sized coil.

The 10" Explorer coil seemed to have a real "fuzzy" detection field, and thus I think it was soaking in too much ground stew in my minerals and so was washing out targets at depth. That's why I think my friend's Etrac is getting better depth because it's using the much better Pro Coil...than my EIIs did.

For that reason, some day I will add another EII to my line up, but using a 12x10 as this coil is so sharp in it's field generation that I believe it rides on and sees even less ground than the 10" Tornado. The "fuzzy" field theory with the old 10" Explorer coils also holds merit to me because it was much harder to separate and pinpoint with than the 10" Tornado. The EII, with a 12x10, won't replace my GT, but only on those days I want to play with and stare at a computer screen I'll break out the EII, as I do miss that on some days when I'm in the mood for it.

The EII, many say, is the deepest of all the FBS machines on silver, at least in terms of the sound of silver at depth, and that includes even compared to the Etrac. Though those same people say the Etrac is a hair better in conductivity ID at depth than an Explorer. Oddly, some say the SE Pro is also a tad less good in terms of audio at depth than the EII. Why I'm not sure. I just know I've heard enough people rave about the EII's audio at depth compared to the SE and Etrac that that's good enough for me to take a chance on a 4th one, because with the proper good coil such as the 12x10 I feel it will be soaking in less ground stew in my soil and thus push it's depths and separation well beyond what I was able to do with my old EIIs.

Besides, there are some killer low used prices on EIIs. Even lower than what you can find a used Sovereign GT for. The Sovereign, even the older models, is rare to find used, let alone good prices on used. That says a lot, as even if people buy other machines many of them seem to hold on to and not replace their Sovereign. It's been made for years so there are many of them floating around out there. They just never seem to come up for sale that much.

2 + 4 + 5hrs. In the water.

I have no knowledge of signals and I have not yet pushed all the button, but it does seem to be worlds faster than..SePro & expII....processing.

It also runs much smoother in the water with auto. Sensitivity

Very hard to see the screen in bright sun with Polaroid sunglasses also.....I am going to look into nu view...?

Thanks for the info

.
.
<")))))<>(

Yeasty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just couldn't wait any longer so I looped a wire
> around the CTX's coil and hooked it up to my
> O'scope. What I saw was that the FBS2 transmitted
> signal was identical (but more sharply squared) to
> FBS(1)! The FBS2 transmitted frequency was
> variable with Noise Cancel exactly like FBS(1).
> I haven't pushed all the CTX's buttons yet to see
> if anything else changes the waveform. I suspect
> Noise Cancel is the only variable.
> This kind of points to the fact that FBS2 received
> signal processing is a highly refined improvement
> over FBS(1).
>

Have you tried the different ground settings yet? The E-trac has only 2; neutral and difficult. The CTX3030 has a few more.
> Pete

If that is true - and I have no reason to not believe it is no true - the difference must be in the processing of the main signal and the generated harmonics.

This site is always a education!


Bryanna

Geotech Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The FBS2 transmit signal is the same as FBS, which
> is the same as BBS.