TO: Dave Johnson, John Gardiner, Jorg, Carl

I have considered making an OO for my F75, I just have too many projects on the go. This is, in my opinion, the main Nexus advantage, the tuned coil arrangement is of secondary importance.

In principle, the Blisstool technique (boosting weak ferrous signals so they register as non-ferrous, in essence) could be added to machines like the Tek T2, as all of the main processing is done in 'software'. It would probably be easier to control and understand, as you could adjust and control the parameters in a more sophisticated way. But there's zero chance of it happening, I'm sure.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2015 03:03PM by Pimento.

Were they the machine that alledgely was hitting a quarter at over 25" on a wet SALT water beach?

Ok - is not a pulse machine with the ability to tone ID ferrous and Non Ferous. Getting close assuming it has the depth.. It ignores the ground matrix better and has potential for greater depth. Just need real target ID a nail from a nickel at full depth. Like you said this is an open field machine. Oh an let's make it good to ten feet in water. Keep coil no more then 10 want ground coverage but seperation also. There have been rumors about this type of machine. Maybe they will come true.

On the the Flip side I am with Steve we need a machine that can see thru iron. Also think it needs to split hairs in co target ID and iD needs to be spot on and consistent to 8 inches 10 would be better but 8 would still be pretty good. This is your not open field machine. A park vacuum or Ghost town terminator.

Bryanna - Nebraska

Current - New to me but not new MXT Pro and T2 SE2 - Previous Minelab Sovereign GT, Minelab Safari, Whites DFX, Whites Eagle Spectrum
Smile its a good for you!

I'm not sure how these detectors see through iron? only thing I can simply imagine is an id for a combination of metals ie copper/silver, iron/silver, gold/ silver. Just thinking outloud have not owned the more complex detectors yet. hh

What if someone reversed engineered the Natalius - upgraded the components keep it analog and maybe simplify it I have watched some videos and it does seem to have a learning curve to getting it set up correctly. Just a thought.

Keith Southern Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You need to give a nautilus DMC 2B a spin....The
> V3i is nice too, but they didnt quite get it to
> the DMC sound quality with their Dual mode when
> comparing it to the Nautilus...Whites is loosing
> the nuance in the difital audio report that the
> nauitlus offers in the analog audio..
>
> Nothing has been made or I guess will ever be made
> to replicate the nautilus Dual Mode ...Tonal
> bliss...DEEEEEEEP!!!!
>
> Dying breed..Im afraid..
>
> Keith

Bryanna - Nebraska

Current - New to me but not new MXT Pro and T2 SE2 - Previous Minelab Sovereign GT, Minelab Safari, Whites DFX, Whites Eagle Spectrum
Smile its a good for you!

"What if someone reversed engineered the Nautilus?"
Here, including link to .rar archive of everything:
[www.geotech1.com]
Rar:
[dfiles.eu]
I've had a quick look over the circuit diagram, it really is nothing special, just a typical 1980's analogue machine, no special parts. It should be easy to reproduce or re-engineer. It should also be easy to make more up-to-date, though there is the risk of 'ruining' whatever special qualities it posesses.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2015 12:51PM by Pimento.

Tom asked for a 2" improvement in depth . That is about a 16% increase over detectors that were made in the early 1990's , 25 years ago !! Seems like as much as science has improved so vastly in other areas,, that it would be possible.

That +16% figure represents little more than doubling the sensitivity of a machine. This of course means doubling the sensitivity to real targets, whilst not doubling the sensitivity to the ground.

I don't know what this great performance of the older CZs is about. I had two new CZs in the 1990s and neither could air test a dime better than 9" Still good, but not the beast everyone remembers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2015 03:25PM by Detectorist.

I guess you haven't read the CZ related threads on here, then? It seems they are not all equal.

Detectorist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know what this great performance of the
> older CZs is about. I had two new CZs in the 1990s
> and neither could air test a dime better than 9"
> Still good, but not the beast everyone remembers.


I had 2 of the older units and agree was a typical detector though looked attractive but looks does not find more coins.

Detectorist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know what this great performance of the
> older CZs is about. I had two new CZs in the 1990s
> and neither could air test a dime better than 9"
> Still good, but not the beast everyone remembers.

Sorry you got a couple of duds.
I've still got two...one does about 11.5" and the 3D is TD certified to 12.1"...with 8" coils.
The 3D gets 13.5" with the 10" coil. And properly IDs in mineralized ground. And finds coins on edge everyone else misses.

I don't know if I'd call it a 'beast', but it's certainly a coin magnet.

mike

guvmore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I had 2 of the older units and agree was a typical
> detector though looked attractive but looks does
> not find more coins.

I've had the opposite experience with CZs...I don't think the looks are particularly special, and the ergonomics are downright weak for me (especially on the later digital units)...but since it's not a 'typical detector', it sure does find more coins.
Dave Johnson did a great job.

mike

Mike in CO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> guvmore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I had 2 of the older units and agree was a
> typical
> > detector though looked attractive but looks
> does
> > not find more coins.
>
> I've had the opposite experience with CZs...I
> don't think the looks are particularly special,
> and the ergonomics are downright weak for me
> (especially on the later digital units)...but
> since it's not a 'typical detector', it sure does
> find more coins.
> Dave Johnson did a great job.
>
> mike


Why do you say it's not a typical detector, have used about 5 brands they all did the same thing find metal The faceplate was typical of any detector , may be the circuits but the average guy is not into electronics. It had a needle swinging from one end to another what is not typical of that.

This ought to be an ongoing "sticky" topic,ideas from anyone and anywhere can then be added very easily and the process of making the "pulse deep" machine that IDs accurately to the depth of the circumference of the coil in use could be made a reality.
The "see through" is a mystery to me also,I'd love to know the science behind it...surely a function of discrimination somehow??

I hate to say it but now that I have 2 different machines,I can definitely say that ALOT of the inability of people to find deep coins comes from the user not being able to understand what the machine is saying. My Explorer finds stuff by itself really well to 8", beyond that I have to learn what it's saying at greater depth,it won't spell it out for me. On the other hand,my IDX has been in my hands for a good long while now,and I understand it VERY well. The great finds I made initially with the Explorer were due to ME either not keeping an eye on the display of the IDX or simply not hitting the exact spots where the targets were. What I'm getting at is....unless the user has a real handle on the machines language,more depth is not going to be beneficial,UNLESS the ID improves dramatically. For the guys who know what they're doing and can eek every inch and every coin,then yes,a deeper seeking machine MAY be beneficial.

Given the average rate at which a coin gets buried or sinks,coupled with the average amount of fill dirt that is used to grade out schools and parks,it would be safe to say that there are many places which hold 100+ year old coins in the 12-15" layer. Personally,in my area,I don't want to be digging a whole lot of 12-15" holes. It would be cool to be ABLE to and to know you have a good reason to,but it would get old quickly. Field hunting....of course. Out of the way areas that don't get much foot traffic and have roots,rocks,etc.? Sure,break out the shovel. I'm not sure it's a good idea to even MAKE a machine with reliable ID any better than what we have,actually. One of the reasons I got my Explorer was that I wanted better ID in the parks so that I didn't wind up digging holes unnecessarily. If we have machines that can ID stuff at 15" there may be unintended consequences when people see us in the park with a hole a mile deep. These really deep seekers would have to be used responsibly,and that's just teaching new detectorists and some older hard headed ones good form. Do this here,don't do that there.....

It's 96 degrees outside right now in Wisconsin so that's why the long post I am waiting to venture out tonight with my fancy back lighted Explorer and what not. If I can't find anything lately in the daytime then maybe taking away the light will help...

Yes in a nutshell it may be knowing your detector and location, bells /whistles may be just marketing fluff odd lot of new models back on sale.

guvmore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Why do you say it's not a typical detector, have
> used about 5 brands they all did the same thing
> find metal The faceplate was typical of any
> detector , may be the circuits but the average guy
> is not into electronics. It had a needle swinging
> from one end to another what is not typical of
> that.

guvmore,
It's not a typical detector because of the way the multiple (2) frequencies are combined. It's a unique process...different even to the way Minelab works.
It will work on bad ground and on salt beaches much better than most 'typical' detectors.

Now, if you mean 'typical' in that it signals over metal instead of feathers...then, yes...all metal detectors are 'typical'.
But by that logic, a Ferrari is a typical car, a Rolex a typical watch, and an M134 Minigun is just a typical firearm.


mike



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2015 11:25PM by Mike in CO.

Mike in CO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> guvmore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Why do you say it's not a typical detector,
> have
> > used about 5 brands they all did the same thing
> > find metal The faceplate was typical of any
> > detector , may be the circuits but the average
> guy
> > is not into electronics. It had a needle
> swinging
> > from one end to another what is not typical of
> > that.
>
> guvmore,
> It's not a typical detector because of the way the
> multiple (2) frequencies are combined. It's a
> unique process...different even to the way Minelab
> works.
> It will work on bad ground and on salt beaches
> much better than most 'typical' detectors.
>
> Now, if you mean 'typical' in that it signals over
> metal instead of feathers...then, yes...all metal
> detectors are 'typical'.
> But by that logic, a Ferrari is a typical car, a
> Rolex a typical watch, and an M134 Minigun is just
> a typical firearm.
>
>
> mike

Ok get your logic now, but I would still be in mindset to call it typical, I'm a good hunter and that older CZ did not find more coins it was a typical detector re finds, may be wrong not first time.

Btw if was as unique as it may be it would be the detector of choice not really the case with so many to choose. hh

Detectorist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know what this great performance of the
> older CZs is about. I had two new CZs in the 1990s
> and neither could air test a dime better than 9"
> Still good, but not the beast everyone remembers.


9" was poor, & I would have sent it back. I have a dime buried at 10" & both of my CZ's will jump on it !! I took it out a few weeks back & was finding buried coins measured 10-11" deep.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2015 01:04PM by Esteban.

Some good info and perspective in this thread.

Wonder who,,,,who said something in this thread,,,has changed their mind or altered their thinking since their time of posting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2017 04:25AM by tnsharpshooter.

Is it still relevant with today detectors? Tom D

CZ

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.

Sounds like my Pirate on many levels! So I'm good!

Hodograph. find a deep signal and then search frequencies available for best response. Deep bullet? log that info for that site.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2017 12:00PM by Jackpine.

Multiple step frequencies Auto GB

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.

The timing of this 'thread-bump'........ is ironic (on two fronts).

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The timing of this 'thread-bump'........ is ironic
> (on two fronts).

Hmmmmmmmm??

Give me a single tone machine with visual ID and I would be a happy man, forget discrimination as that will only hinder things... Just need a beep and a look.

Hello Tom D....could you elaborate a bit on those two fronts you mentioned?

Ziggy....... you are well-experienced/seasoned.

mrb1268......... (((not yet)))