Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Tom what detectors do you like best and why?

Posted by jamt225 
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 03, 2017 02:53PM
Hi Tom,
Regards the Gold Racer. Hunting tiny gold in my turf situations requires low sensitivity settings in order to focus on the signals I actually want to hear. Running at higher sensitivity settings actually mask my desired target signals. I have the best luck with units that can maintain the 'hots' with low or sometimes even mininum sensitivity settings. Does the Gold Racer keep it's "hots" at a mininum sensitivity setting?

Thanks
Mike



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2017 03:30PM by Mike Hillis.
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 03, 2017 04:17PM
Mike Hillis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Tom,
> Regards the Gold Racer. Hunting tiny gold in
> my turf situations requires low sensitivity settin
> gs in order to focus on the signals I actually wan
> t to hear. Running at higher sensitivity settings
> actually mask my desired target signals. I have
> the best luck with units that can maintain the 'ho
> ts' with low or sometimes even mininum sensitivity
> settings. Does the Gold Racer keep it's "hots" at
> a mininum sensitivity setting?
>
> Thanks
> Mike

Mike

Tom D is certainly more qualified to answer this than myself but, given the frequency the GR runs at I highly doubt you could dumb it down enough to allow the differential in signal response of small non-ferrous foil targets vs the more solid response of small gold jewelry that the gain/sensitivity settings of the lower frequency machines are capable of. Audible discrimination?

The other Tom

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 03, 2017 10:23PM
Mike (and Tom) ...... There is a fairly large ramp-down in ""micro"" jewelry detection/performance on the Racer Gold when you start to lower the Sens down off of the mid-to-high 90's settings. Also..... with any 'micro-jewelry' detector (and there's not many) ........... IF you choose to NOT detect the little micro-flecks of chewing gum foil..... this also discriminates the 'micro-jewelry'....... completely defeating the 'micro-jewelry intent........... a unwanted condition.

It is still my strongest recommendation for true micro-jewelry hunters to buy/purchase have/own a 10Kt White Gold single-post earring stud........ even without a stone. They'll only cost a few dollars at a local jewelry store. A earring stud that can hold (about) a 1/2 Ct diamond/stone. Then....... tape this needle/stud earring on the end of a ruler with clear tape. Then.......... learn your detector(s)! (((((Don't cry...... upon 'eye-opening'!!)))))
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 04, 2017 01:51AM
Then....... tape this needle/stud earring on the end of a ruler with clear tape.

Wouldn't need the ruler with the CTX/E-Trac just rub it on the coil to get no response.
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 04, 2017 03:06AM
Hey Tom, what depths in dry sand can you detect that earing stud you described, and with what machine? I'd like to challenge your depths with my 71 one day. smiling smiley
If you like , mail me a loaner stud , Ill test it and mail it back .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2017 03:17AM by possum mo.
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 06, 2017 01:38AM
John = Exactly!

possum mo = I have been scrambling to find a few moments to read/catch-up on this forum. Swamped at work....... especially lately.
I have (extensively) tested Racer Gold vs. Fisher Gold Bug-2........ both comparably equipped with identical 10" coils. Some specs you may find of value...... that were performed in dry silica sand:

U.S. Nickel
Racer Gold 13.6"
Gold Bug-2 12.0"

U.S. Dime
Racer Gold 9.3"
Gold Bug-2 9.0"

Open hoop 14K gold earring
Racer Gold 3.9"
Gold Bug-2 3.3"

Thin Diameter 14K gold chain
Racer Gold 3.9"
Gold Bug-2 4.2"

1/4Ct diamond stud earring 10K yellow gold
Racer Gold 3.7"
Gold Bug-2 4.1"

1/4Ct diamond stud earring 10K white gold
Racer Gold 0.9"
Gold Bug-2 1.9"

Now....... It may appear that there is a (almost) clear winner........ but.......... FIRST ....(and most importantly)....... pay attention to ONLY the gold targets. (You are not on the beach to find nickels & dimes).

My summational conclusion:

Tiny jewelry = Racer Gold
Micro-jewelry = Gold Bug-2

This does NOT disqualify the Racer Gold for micro-jewelry hunting....... at all.
This does NOT disqualify the Gold Bug-2 for tiny jewelry hunting.......... at all.

But...... it does allude that one may have a slight advantage over the other ....... in one department. And........ the other unit may have a slight advantage over the other...... in another department. In the real-world....... I seem to be coming home with the same amount of 'qualifiers' (good targets)...... when I hunt with one unit on day-1....... then hunt with unit two on day-2. Yes...... the Gold Bug-2 is clearly more sensitive to micro-micro......... jewelry gold. . . . . . . and it pays off...... and shows!!!! But....... the Racer Gold will find more (slightly larger) targets..... to slightly greater depths.

And the Excal, CZ, CTX detects none of them! (Minus the coins).

And many people will (wrongfully) conclude that: "I want to find the larger gold items ... because they are more valuable." This is a wrong/incorrect analysis/assumption.

And yes, possum mo...... I could send you a few of my 21-year standardized 'test-standard' targets for "exact" analysis/testing......... yet, I'm somewhat reluctant ...... not because of any 'dollar' value...... but these "established standardized test-standard" exacting targets 'could' get lost in the mail system. I am willing to take the (low) risk......... if you wish.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2017 05:34PM by NASA-Tom.
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 06, 2017 05:22AM
Tom, thanks for the reply. I'll swing over to the jeweler one day and pick one up. Hold on to your test specimens!
I'll post my test results in the rutus 71 thread when I get done testing.
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 06, 2017 01:48PM
Thank you, Tom. One last question regards iron discrimination between the Gold Racer and The GB2. Do both units exhibit the same degree of ferrous rejection that allows one to reject iron and still find the micro gold?

HH
Mike
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 07, 2017 12:58AM
Mike......... funny thing is........... you can 'split-hairs' with the tone-break/iron-discrimination control on the Racer Gold; yet, , , , , , I find no fault in the 'Iron Disc' switch (and subsequent performance) on the Gold Bug-2. The only thing I feel that I gain with the Racer Gold......... is having the ability to find the Stainless Steel jewelry.,.,.,via using the Tone-Break.

Now......... i JUST received 2 brand new Gold Bug-2 units.........and......... upon a quick check for function and performance.......... they seem to be hotter than previous models....... and more EMI stable. I need to more positively/scientifically test......prove...... and validate this claim.
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 10, 2017 01:40PM
For the first couple of years after my re-entry into detecting I suffered under the delusion that most of my local area (around Greensboro) is very low mineral soil with almost no "impact" on detection depth. Slowly, that veil began to lift and one of its first casualties was my confidence in the F75SE (now with DST). As I prefer to go after CW relics, my "tests" were burying minie balls and brass buttons in farm fields and comparing my detectors. My F75 fared worse than my Makro/Nokta units and my MX Sport, exhibiting the greatest fall off in acquired depth in what I would call moderately mineralized soil.
So in your benign soil, Tom, I can understand your choice of the F75 for depth/tones, but if that depth starts to creep upward with mineralization, are those four tones still worth the difference?

You have stated your detector preferences (in your soil). I'd be curious as to how those preferences might change for SLIGHT mineral, MODERATE mineral, and HEAVY mineralized soils?

If a detector can measure mineralization, can it not be made smart enough to automatically change its programming to best suit the current level of mineralization?

Wayne

Pleasant Garden, NC
AT Max, Nokta Impact, MX Sport, Nokta FORS Relic, GPX 4800, Infinium, Racer, Deus, F75SE, Nautilus DMC II (order of acquisition, last to first)

Does an archeologist argue with a plow? A bureaucrat with a bulldozer?
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 10, 2017 01:59PM
ncwayne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If a detector can measure mineralization, can it n
> ot be made smart enough to automatically change it
> s programming to best suit the current level of mi
> neralization?
>
> Wayne


That's what the Tracking on/off feature is for. Some machines have it/some don't.
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 10, 2017 05:00PM
Nope, don't think so, MRH. Tracking is a function of ground balancing to the "phase"/conductivity of the ground, not the level of mineralization.
There is a LEVEL/AMOUNT/DEGREE of mineralization and there is a TYPE of mineralization.
Machines that do not measure mineralization can still have tracking.

Of course, I could be wrong...

Wayne

Pleasant Garden, NC
AT Max, Nokta Impact, MX Sport, Nokta FORS Relic, GPX 4800, Infinium, Racer, Deus, F75SE, Nautilus DMC II (order of acquisition, last to first)

Does an archeologist argue with a plow? A bureaucrat with a bulldozer?
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 10, 2017 09:40PM
I wondered if any machines on the market actually 'do things differently' based on the ground signal strength measured during "fastgrab / equivalent". It's tempting to suggest there ought to be something that can be optimised. But in reality, it's not the ground signal strength that matters, it's how much it wobbles up and down as you sweep --- and the wobble isn't necessarily closely tied to the ground signal. I'm sure some 'strong' ground actually has much less wobble than would seem likely, and of course uneven ground, like ploughed (plowed) farmland can have a lot of wobble relative to the raw signal.
So measuring the 'wobble' is more important, which you can do on-the-fly. If I understood correctly, the F75 / T2 switch from 2nd order to 4th order filters automatically, based on measurements of 'wobble', and maybe other factors.
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 10, 2017 11:02PM
ncwayne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nope, don't think so, MRH. Tracking is a function
> of ground balancing to the "phase"/conductivity of
> the ground, not the level of mineralization.
> There is a LEVEL/AMOUNT/DEGREE of mineralization a
> nd there is a TYPE of mineralization.
> Machines that do not measure mineralization can st
> ill have tracking.
>
> Of course, I could be wrong...
>
> Wayne

You asked = "If a detector can measure mineralization, can it not be made smart enough to automatically change its programming to best suit the current level of mineralization? "

Tracking refers to the ability of the detector to track changes in ground mineralisation and automatically adjust the ground balance to suit - on machines with auto tracking that is. This ensures perfect ground balance and maximum detection depth, eliminating the need for the operator to stop and manually adjust the detector as ground conditions change.

There are 3 types of metal detectors re: tracking

those with "fixed" tracking (factory set) no way to ground bal manually (just turn on and go)
those with "manual" tracking (operator invoked via ground grab/etc)
those with "auto" tracking (turned on in menu/with switch/etc) and it automatically tracks and changes/adjust with the ground mineral as it changes
(disclaimer = bad thing about auto tracking is - IF you swing over a target too many times the machine will actually tune it out thinking it's mineral)

some detectors have manual AND auto tracking features that you can turn on/off as you wish (very nice/welcomed feature)

Now the "type" of mineral can be almost anything

so your statement that a machine that doesn't measure mineralisation and can still have tracking is correct because all machines have one or more of the above "tracking" abilities/features

as to measuring the "type" of mineral though = a detector with an FE bar scale reads the "level" of iron mineral present in the soil at any given time/point and that's why if you're using a manual ground bal machine and you see the bars change up/down +/- you have to re-ground bal as needed per the "level" of iron mineral or else lose depth big time.
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 11, 2017 01:27AM
Wayne. Valid questions. As the intensity of the mineralization increases........ a 3-or-4 tone option........ becomes slightly reduced. There is still intelligence in tones.......even in heavier mineralization; yet, somewhat subdued.

Also........ for all to understand (((if my semantics don't confuse the issue even further!))). If the mineralization of the dirt you are detecting...... gives a Grnd Balance reading (Phase-Angle) of ......... say........... '76' on your faceplate.......... then you will have about the best depth and ID capabilities from your unit.....if you adjust your Ground Balance to '76'. Now........ say the Phase Angle of the dirt remains the same (at 76)......... but the magnitude of the dirt ...goes from 2-bars (Fe3O4)...... to 5-bars......... ((((even though the Phase Angle remains at '76')))) ........ your detector will operate at a severely reduced performance level. The Phase Angle remained '76'...... but the intensity/thickness/magnitude of the dirt became more nasty. If the dirt you are detecting ..... is so thick in mineralization....... that it's akin to detecting on top of a Volkswagen hood...... changing the frequency, Sensitivity, Ground Balance...... etc....... even via a Auto-Ground-Tracking methodology......... you still gain nothing. This sect of Physics can not be infringed nor mitigated. To the best of my knowledge........ and to the best of our current technological advancement(s)......... inductive-coupling electromagnetic energy ...... will be severely crippled. If you are driving at night........ and go from light-fog....to thick-fog.......... there's only so much light-energy (photon) can do. Shining a brighter light into thick fog...... may not be the answer.
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 11, 2017 02:46PM
Thanks for the ground balance/mineralization explanation, Tom. I believe it confirms my general understanding of the difference between them, but how is the phase angle measured and what is it in layman's terms?
And while on ground balance/mineralization, sometimes there is a reference to "magnetic mineralization." Iron oxides. Is that the only thing that determines the level (you referred to it as thickness) of mineralization that can affect detection depth?
What about ag fields and fertilizers? Can they affect detection depth or do they just affect the phase angle/ground reading?

And regarding my question to you specifically about your preference for the F75, it appears I did not phrase it correctly. Let me try again.
In my experience, the F75 does not retain its depth of target acquisition as mineral intensity grows as well as the Racer/Relic (and I expect the Impact to do just as well) and MX Sport. Perhaps your experience is different?
So, in my experience, at some level of mineralization any preference for the F75 and its 4 tones would give way to a detector that suffers less detriment to its depth of target acquisition.
My question to you is this: If you encounter levels of mineralization sufficient to reduce detection depth of the F75, will you stay with the F75 and accept less depth of detection, and if not, what detector(s) will you choose to use in levels of MODERATE and HEAVY mineralization?
Please pardon any appearance of drilling on this question, but varying degrees of soil mineralization is very much a real world consideration in one's choice of detectors and I don't find much in the way of enlightening discussion on any forums or other media such as magazines or youtube about it. Having said that, I do give Keith credit for showing some head to head comparisons on targets in his highly mineralized test garden.

Thanks

Wayne

Pleasant Garden, NC
AT Max, Nokta Impact, MX Sport, Nokta FORS Relic, GPX 4800, Infinium, Racer, Deus, F75SE, Nautilus DMC II (order of acquisition, last to first)

Does an archeologist argue with a plow? A bureaucrat with a bulldozer?
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 11, 2017 06:03PM
Hi Wayne, I can step in here a little....Minerals are dealt with using filters. Filters rely on the "rate of change' of the target signal vs the rate of change of the base (ground) signal). The higher the mineralization the faster the target signal's rate of change has to be in order to overcome the ground signal.

I posted this on Findmall a while back to help V3 users with their filter selections.....It should help with understanding filtering.

Ground filters are used to separate out and block the slower changing ground signal and pass the faster changing target signal. White’s engineers are using hertz to designate how fast a target signal needs to change in order to pass through the filter. They are measured in 'rate of change'.

In addition, they have provided two types of filters for each speed; a ‘Band Pass’ filter and a ‘High Pass’ filter.

A ‘Band Pass’ filter is exactly what it says it is. It will pass a certain signal “rate of change” that falls within or between the lower and upper ranges or boundaries that have been defined for that ‘band’. It will block all signals that fall below or above that Band’s range. It will pass ONLY the signals whose ‘rate of change’ falls inside the acceptance band. It is like using “Notch Accept” only instead of notching in a metal target’s phase response, you are notching in a particular signal “Rate of Change”.

A “High Pass” filter is different than the Band Pass filter the same way the notch feature is different from the discrimination feature. High Pass is like setting the Disc on your detector. Targets below the Disc Setting are blocked, targets above the Disc setting are reported. High Pass Filters block the signals whose ‘rate of change’ is less than the lower range defined for the filter and pass ALL signals whose ‘rate of change’ is above that range.

I would suggest that the upper end of all the available “Band Pass” filters are the same and that the filter speed selections allow you to raise or lower the lower limit of the Band Pass filter.

To say it another way, the Band Pass filter’s high limit is fixed. The filter speed selected moves the lower limit toward or away from that fixed upper limit.

I would suggest that a certain hertz High Pass filter and its related Band Pass filter share the same lower limit of the filter. The High Pass filter is only removing the upper limit of the Band Pass.

So…with the basics out of the way….let’s look at the filter selections…

5 kHz Band Pass = This filter is used for very low mineralized ground. Since there really isn’t a very big ground signal to block, this filter’s lower limit will allow very slow changing signals to pass. It has a high limit in place that a signal’s “rate of change” has to fall below. At this point…the mineralization effect of the ground does not significantly affect a target signal.

5 kHz High Pass = Same as the 5 kHz Band Pass except there is no upper limit.

7.5 kHz Band Pass = Now I’m starting to get some low to moderate ground response, more ground signal is received. At this point the ground signal is starting to have an effect on the target signal. This speed raises the lower limit of the Band Pass filter to compensate and requires a little faster “rate of change” from the target signal to report it as compared to the 5 kHz filter. It still has the same upper limit in place.

7.5 High Pass = Same as the 7.5 kHz Band Pass except there is no upper limit.

10 kHz Band Pass. = Now I’m into moderate to high ground mineralization. The ground response is significant. Surface irregularities can report as a metal target. The signal is degraded and weak signals are being masked by the ground signal. To compensate, this filter raises the lower limit even higher, requiring an even faster rate of change to pull the target signal out of the ground response.

10 kHz High Pass = Same as the 10 kHz Band Pass except there is no upper limit.

12 kHz Band Pass = High to very high ground mineralization. Weak signals are invisible and even moderaly deep signals will report as iron. Ground irregularities will report as metal targets. The target signal is highly degraded. This filter selection raises the lower limit to it’s maximum range to compensate. This is the narrowest Band Pass filter available.

12 kHz High Pass = Same as the 12 kHz Band Pass except there is no upper limit.

Next….How to select the right filter…….


Basically, as the mineral strength increases you have to find a way to increase the 'rate of change' of the target signal. The F75 filtering being used requires you sweep faster, not slower. Disturbed ground minerals like you create when burying a target mask the target to some degree, depending on the mineral strength. The disturbed ground actually becomes a target to the metal detector as the mineralization increases. To isolete a target in high mineral disturbed ground is quite the feat as even if it pulls the target signal out of ground signal, the signal recived is a composite signal of both the mineral and the target. You see this response as higher phase readings for the target, which is what the iron response really is. Especially so on high conductive coins.


HH
Mike



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2017 10:24PM by Mike Hillis.
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 15, 2017 01:32PM
Thanks, Mike, that's quite a bit to absorb.

So explain, in layman's terms, what is happening when one detector reads a buried (minie ball in this example) deeper in moderate to heavy mineralized soil than another detector does. Does it mean that one detector has better filtering or better processing of the filtered data? Or could it be due to something else, and if so, what?

And regarding rate of change of the target signal, does that not mean that all (VLF) detectors should be swept faster over targets in mineralized soil? And does this apply to PI detectors, which also require ground balancing?

Thanks.

Wayne

Pleasant Garden, NC
AT Max, Nokta Impact, MX Sport, Nokta FORS Relic, GPX 4800, Infinium, Racer, Deus, F75SE, Nautilus DMC II (order of acquisition, last to first)

Does an archeologist argue with a plow? A bureaucrat with a bulldozer?
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 17, 2017 01:40PM
Mike, I'd like to read the rest of that post on findmall. I will go search for it now but just in case I don't have any luck will you post a link to it here?
Thanks,
Chris
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 18, 2017 12:30AM
I am struggling to find.....even just one moment to answer some questions. Wayne...... your questions are still unanswered by me.

First...... When you Grnd Balance any unit...... the Grnd Balance number that the unit lands on...... (say ...you get a '72' on a F75 or T2)........ is NOT an actual phase-angle; however........ there is a correlation to the true phase-angle (shift). Mineralization does 'skew' (deviate) the phase-angle from 'base/standard/norm'....... which is usually 'reference' based.

Outta time
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 18, 2017 02:08PM
I understand, Tom. Not a problem. All things in good time!

Wayne

Pleasant Garden, NC
AT Max, Nokta Impact, MX Sport, Nokta FORS Relic, GPX 4800, Infinium, Racer, Deus, F75SE, Nautilus DMC II (order of acquisition, last to first)

Does an archeologist argue with a plow? A bureaucrat with a bulldozer?
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 21, 2017 07:40PM
"So explain, in layman's terms, what is happening when one detector reads a buried (minie ball in this example) deeper in moderate to heavy mineralized soil than another detector does. Does it mean that one detector has better filtering or better processing of the filtered data? Or could it be due to something else, and if so, what? "

Hi Wayne.

Its not just ground filtering but also how the detector handles high conductive wrap around. All units have a fixed cutoff point for high conductive targets. Once you pass that cutoff you hit a dead spot (variable in size depending on the mfg) then move into the ferrous range. Once the ground response gets strong enough it starts up averaging the target response, pushing it higher up the conductive scale. If the combined ground/target response gets high enough to pass the high conductive cut off point, it can either land in the dead spot and not report at all, or it can continue to move further around into the Ferrous range.

This design feature, in combination with ground cancelling and ground filtering determines what you the user gets by way of a response. You can get a broken ferrous signal (deadspot ferrous bounce) or a straight ferrous response, or if the design can hold it in place longer, you can get a non-ferrous response.

The CoinStrike is a great example of a design where the high conductive cut off point was put very far away from a normal high conductive target response. The non-ferrous range is +1 to +99, yet a 34 TID number was a silver dollar TID. There was still lots of non-ferrous range available to handle the mineralization addition to the response. A dime TID is 28. Yet my minerals would push a 8" deep dime up to a 42 to 44 response. All other units would report this dime as ferrous, yet the CoinStrike had enough high conductive range left to keep it reporting as non-ferrous. As the minerals got stronger and continue to push the target upward in response even the CoinStrike would eventually wrap around to the iron range, but the -99 to 0 ferrous reporting range had enough discrimimation to id targets that did that. Daniel TN has a good post about using the CoinStike in very high minerals where the bullets wrapped into the negative numbers and could still be identified by their TID.

Anyway, its the combination that determines how it operates.

Regards sweep speed, again its back to the design of the above. Each mfg is different and faster / slower sweep speed affect each mfg's units differently depending on how they designed the thing to work.

HH
Mike

I don't know why the whole post is in Italics. I only italicized the quote. Shrug?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2017 07:43PM by Mike Hillis.
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 22, 2017 02:55PM
NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wayne. Valid questions. As the intensity of the mi
> neralization increases........ a 3-or-4 tone optio
> n........ becomes slightly reduced. There is still
> intelligence in tones.......even in heavier minera
> lization; yet, somewhat subdued.
>
> Also........ for all to understand (((if my semant
> ics don't confuse the issue even further!))). If
> the mineralization of the dirt you are detecting..
> .... gives a Grnd Balance reading (Phase-Angle) of
> ......... say........... '76' on your faceplate...
> ....... then you will have about the best depth an
> d ID capabilities from your unit.....if you adjust
> your Ground Balance to '76'. Now........ say the
> Phase Angle of the dirt remains the same (at 76)..
> ....... but the magnitude of the dirt ...goes from
> 2-bars (Fe3O4)...... to 5-bars......... ((((even t
> hough the Phase Angle remains at '76')))) ........
> your detector will operate at a severely reduced p
> erformance level. The Phase Angle remained '76'..
> .... but the intensity/thickness/magnitude of the
> dirt became more nasty. If the dirt you are detec
> ting ..... is so thick in mineralization....... th
> at it's akin to detecting on top of a Volkswagen h
> ood...... changing the frequency, Sensitivity, Gro
> und Balance...... etc....... even via a Auto-Groun
> d-Tracking methodology......... you still gain not
> hing. This sect of Physics can not be infringed no
> r mitigated. To the best of my knowledge........ a
> nd to the best of our current technological advanc
> ement(s)......... inductive-coupling electromagnet
> ic energy ...... will be severely crippled. If
> you are driving at night........ and go from light
> -fog....to thick-fog.......... there's only so muc
> h light-energy (photon) can do. Shining a brighter
> light into thick fog...... may not be the answer.


That is an excellent analogy.
May I use that elsewhere?
Thank's Tom.
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
April 24, 2017 01:16AM
Absolutely. Education is paramount.
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
June 21, 2017 08:31PM
BUMP (for mrb1268)
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
June 22, 2017 01:09AM
"...that one detector ['i']has better filtering..."
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
March 29, 2019 01:55AM
I bumped this in March of 2017, so why not once more here in March of 2019. Me, with so few posts, I guess I found my calling/purpose in life..
With that said, I’m sure we would welcome “again” for Tom to revisit his list(if allowed to do so).
Though this time maybe he waits until the new Fisher is on the market and in his hands, as this might be another turning point..
Anyway, no pressure, Tom.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2019 01:59AM by Edct.
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
March 30, 2019 01:59AM
Gold Bug-2 = Micro-Jewelry Hunting

Tarsacci = Wet-Salt Beach Hunting

Equinox = General Inland Hunting

XP-GMP = Carpets of nails Relic Hunting

F-Pulse = Inland/Turf mandatory pinpointer


Narrative:
The Tarsacci has completely replaced my (highly modified) PulsePower AquaStar-II. Almost exactly the same performance; yet, the Tarsacci has Full-Spectrum ID.
I am continuously testing (stuff) with the EQX. The product did indeed achieve (and exceed) 'public release' status; yet, the engineering process continues. I have been asked too many times (mostly by forum folks)..... that I feel prompted to make this statement: We did not 'Hold-in-Reserve' anything with this platform. In other words: We did not 'Hold Back' any performance..... in order to have a 'trump-card' in our back pocket...…. so as to release another revenue-generating unit in the future. There was never a 'plan' for a future Equinox-1000. BUT...…. that being said...…. even though we laid all cards on the table.... at the time the EQX was released...…….,,,,,,,,,, being in the engineering-mindset; CDE & DE brains never sleep. The revolutionary product was released. . . . . . subsequently, the evolutionary process commenced. . . . . (and is quite healthy today).
We DO 'Hold-in-Reserve'..... a couple of things with the MDT. (One is a substantial-cost issue). (The other..... a bit more 'finite' engineering required).
The EQX is a: GEN-1.
The MDT is a GEN-1.

-----Technology-In-Motion-----

You are living in the times of: THE DAWN OF A NEW ERA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2019 11:32AM by NASA-Tom.
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
March 30, 2019 02:24AM
Wow those are some hefty words regarding the Equinox. I look forward to the updates..something to make the 6" worth owning. Speaking of the 6", buried a dime at about 8" in a local nail filled, old school and couldn't hit the dime for anything in multi.. switched to 5khz a boom there it was.. Need to get the 11 back out there and test it with it.. finished the day hunting in 5 and got a couple of targets I passed over in multi..

Thanks for the heads up!
Re: Tom what detectors do you like best and why?
March 30, 2019 02:28AM
The XP GOLDMAXX is probably one of the most underrated machines around except in the UK, where its still being used by those who know & appreciate it’s amazing capabilities in heavy iron.

And.. it’s been around since 2003!

Aaron

TARSACCI - “Digging deeper, BEHIND the competition!”
[forums.tarsaccisales.com]
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 56
Record Number of Users: 19 on May 15, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 429 on October 09, 2020
Gold Prices Silver Prices


EPIPHANY METAL DETECTING Announcement

PERSONAL TRAINING....BY PHONE!!!

This forum powered by Phorum.
Forum page views since Jan. 1, 2010.