Show all posts by user
This Open Forum is now DISABLE to new posts due to the "Phorum" Forum Software being generally obsolete and basically no longer supported. Recently, the server that hosts this website upgraded to MySQL version 8.0.36 and Phorum 5.2.23 is not compatible with MySQL version 8.0.36. This Phorum base Discussion Forum will still be available for viewing and reference but is longer accept new postings and will be READ ONLY. To visit the NEW forum, CLICK HERE! Please note that those wishing to use the NEW Discussion Forum will have to re-sign up. Due to encryption of passwords, I cannot transfer users from the Phorum platform to the new forum platform. I am sorry for all the inconveniences.
This forum is currently read only. You can not log in or make any changes. This is a temporary situation.
Results 121 - 150 of 1312
jmaryt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .... although dated, the technology of cz equi
> pment
> was/is excellent in "salt water environments'',
Yup. No one could argue with the CZ ability (like the CZ6) on the inter-tidal wet-salt-sand zones ! The only thing I didn't care for, was the silent search, and the affinity to ID
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
Badger in NH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CZ21 is not a beach detector. It's a water hunting
> and diving detector. I've owned a CZ20 since 1998
> and still use it occasionally for detecting minera
> lized rocky beaches. I bought it with the intentio
> n of water hunting and possibly diving but discove
> red that diving was to
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
Wouldn't the answer be : "Depends on the objectives of what you're looking for, and the type-sites". Right ?
For example, if their objective is nuggets, then there's better nugget machines than the cross-over-Nox. Right ? Or if their objective is caches (and you don't care about, nor want, pesky singular coins) then a 2-box machine is the better choice. If
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
Badger in NH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>.... In almost any a
> rea with heavy iron, there are occasionally spaces
> here and there where you can pull out some very de
> ep coins.
Yes. I should not have poo-poo'd depth that much. Because, sure : On my sabre, for instance , it does GREAT on iron-see through. But guess what ? : When
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
kevinnc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just repeated the test with a rusty nail in plac
> e of the tab. Now multi does better than 4khz. The
> nail doesn't blind the machine as bad as the tab d
> id?
Thanx Kevin ! I enjoyed reading your test inputs for this topic !!
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
kevinnc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just did a test with a pull tab and a dime 4 inc
> hes apart. In the house on a table because it's st
> ill raining in the 30s. In multi in every mode and
> speed, the pull tab overtakes the dime when I rais
> e the coil a few inches. As long as the tab is und
> er the coil, it drowns the dime
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
tnsharpshooter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well,
> A few things.
> Some folks can only afford one detector maybe.
> We do know we can only swing one detector at a tim
> e.
>
I concede that, if I were to be restricted to a single machine, that, yes, you're right : The Nox is a good cross-over. I simply don't do enough j
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
Bayard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have owned an Equinox 600 for almost exactly thr
> ee years now. Compared to my Etrac, I consider th
> e Equinox to be a niche and specialty machine. I
> do 95% of my coin hunting with the Etrac.
>
>
Ditto. I'm using my Exp. II for 95% of my hunting as well. And hold-steady-in-competit
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kevin...... true. EQX is NOT the 'best' in iron; y
> et, it is way above average. XP GMP/Deus are still
> the flagship(s) in iron.
>
NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 600/800 is quite good in iron. BUT..... in 'ca
> rpets' of nail
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
kevinnc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... I am
> a little disappointed by all the hype that I have
> seen.
Kevin, you opened up a good post. I am enjoying reading all the replies.
As one having been through all the initial hoopala, and having tried one, and hunting along-side some good buddies who use them, here's my input :
I TOO ca
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
D&P-OR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>--------It's a whole different situation at this
> point in time however.
Granted, ok. So ... do tell ... is "it most certainly going to go to $50" then, this time ?
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
Harold,ILL. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am still waiting on silver to hit 50.00 an ounce
> like some predicted on here 6 months ago. I knew i
> t would not but was told I knew nothing.
I about fell out of my chair laughing at this post.
So too did I hear the apocalyptic predictions months ago, right-before the election, during the tumul
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
I would be skeptical of aftermarket coils, that are supposed to "spank stock manufacturer coils". Because, think about it : If there were a "better mousetrap" to go on a detector, don't you think that the manufacturer would be "All over themselves" to put that, stock, on to their own machines ? They put a TON of research into optimizing their own product,
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
I agree with the others here. The CZ line (like the CZ6, for example), was deep & great in wet-salt. But there were a few downsides for the CZ, that the Nox is going to be better on :
a) Nox will be a little hotter on lower conductors (like if, for some reason, you needed to find a tinsel thin chain or earring stud, you can opt the controls to get it that hot).
b) Nox = Better ton
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
Kickindirt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never run my audio response more than 2 in the b
> usted iron sites. Its just easier to tell good fro
> m bad. ....
Sure. But what about a coin UNDER a large rusty nail ? Might that give the very same reject signal now ?
I can get the Deus to "do the magic" and get a coin-under-a-nail (
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
Thanx Cal ! I will try 2 to 2.5 on the recovery/reactivity, versus 3. And I will try 2 -tones vs full-tones.
I definitely know what you mean about brain-over-load that 2-tones can solve . After all: The old-school 2-filter Tesoros were simply "beep or no-beep". With a progressive knob adjust on the disc. And no Tone ID whatsoever. They were essentially 2-tone, so-to-speak.
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
Cal, thanx for taking the time to do the video . I realize this video was about cans vs coins. And as such, yes, it can have merit. I think ALL OF US, over the decades, have gotten to where, sure, we can tell a can, a hubcap, etc.... vs a coin.
Starting at 1:45 : Why isn't the devil in the details there ? Ie.: yes it's true that each of those 2 targets "gives a differe
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
calabash digger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ".... Put your audio response on 3 this will help as it will add more nuance to the audio. Size shape etc...you have it set to high for what your trying to do....."
Tried it just now, in air-tests, at 3 vs 5. And EITHER way (either setting) , yes, I can hear the nuances of sounds of the cr#p
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
tnsharpshooter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ....
>
Well well well, Listen closely to what the fellow says between 9:25 to 9:45 in that video. He acknowledges THE VERY ISSUE that I'm grappling with :
That after all is said and done (the "tricks" that we can all agree to), that the moment someone goes to implement them (to pass
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
tnsharpshooter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
....
>
> Here’s one.
> Bottle Cap Identification.
>
thanx ! A picture is worth a thousand words. That was helpful to understand what you meant. I think I thought you were merely talking about going different angles of sweep. But now I see what you were talking about. Ok.
Now the millio
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
tnsharpshooter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom,
> Take junk targets lay on ground.
> Sweep from 4” above.
> As you sweep when you get signal on junk target (f
> errous) as you continue to sweep move coil fore an
> d aft. As coil’s perimeter goes over target. Li
> sten. With iron volume at 3.
> Repeat with nickel, gold ring,
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
Ok. I just tried it. Waved the various targets shown in the pix. From every compass degree swing angle . Ie.: As if I had "circled the target" in the field. And I'm afraid to say that all but one of them still gave a repeatable signal, from all directions. One of them ..... yes .... only sounded from a single direction. But the rest were repeatable
And yes, the nicke
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
tnsharpshooter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The term you use.
> Perfectly repeatable. Is in fact in error.
> Why?
> Try those iron junk targets in your pic and adjust
> your coil position fore and aft and sweep. Ensure
> iron tone is on where you easily hear.
> Try the same on bottlecap.
> Then try on a small gold coin, nickel
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
Got out to a location in CA that has given up gold rush era coins and goodies in the past. Eg.: Seateds from the 1840s/50s, foreign coins from the 1840s/50s, Chinese cash-coins, buckles and buttons, etc...... And the location has zones that are a CARPET of nails and iron. Was anxious to try the French poodle there. My two buddies were each using their 800s.
I purposefully went STRAIGHT
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
calabash digger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BTW please do tell how your running the machine .
> I cant find the post where you said what your prog
> ram is....
My settings are :
Disc: 5.5,
full tones,
sens. 90,
frequency : back & forth trials between 17 to 25,
iron volume 1,
reactivity 3,
audio response: 5,
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
thanx Tn-sharpshoot and CAL. Really appreciate your inputs.
I am going to take this "French poodle" out to a back-pocket site later this afternoon. With a few buddies. This site dates to 1849-ish, and was defunct by perhaps the early 1870s (barring random passerbys). It has given up early seateds, early foreign coins, relics, etc..... And after a short while (after getti
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum
But my post above is questioning the "masked" objects audio results. Where NO clean "line of sight" exists.
It fails to take into account another factor : Target separation. Because, for example, a nail *next* to a coin, can still be masked with the Explorer. Since they are so-close . Right ? Yet the Deus, with the super fast recovery, can realize the "clean
by
Tom_in_CA
-
Thomas Dankowski Metal Detecting Forum