......1236 X2 at 5Khz to act like a 14Khz machine??????? Usually the lower freq units are hotter on silver but this 1236 X2 ..... just loves to hit hard on gold rings and jewelry.... it is "hot" on gold. This was a backup detector that is quickly becoming my main machine!!!! I think this machine is a real sleeper and often overlooked. Am I just deluding myself or has anyone else had similar results on gold targets with this machine??? Wonder how they accomplished such sensitivity on low conductors... obviously frequency isn't the whole story. Any ideas???
Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
Does anyone know how Fisher got the..........
- Thread starter Ivan
- Start date
reddirtfisher
New member
Man I have been wondering the same thing. I got a thin gold ladies wedding ring with small diamond at 8 inches on a worked out beach using a Fisher 1266X..., go figure 
Always told low freq good for silver and higher freq good for gold..Every day I read inaccurate info or perhaps info taken out of context. One wonders as I have gotten gold rings with both and imagine other factors have to be dialed in..Perhaps some learned individual could add further info as my electronic ability is limited at best..
Hi Dan
I believe that some of this mis-information comes from looking at the frequencies used for gold nugget unit, and coming away with the opinion that's what needed to find all gold items.
They are some silver coins that respond to higher frequencies better than lower, and other silver coins that respond better to lower frequencies.
"A silver dollar would most likely respond best to 800 Hz. frequency, a dime, 2.7 Khz, and a nickel at 17 Khz." (George Payne). This holds true for some thin gold rings. This is pertaining to the All Metal Mode. Using Discrimination Mode, and things change around quite a bit. This doesn't mean that all your targets are going to fit into this range. We have another factor not taken into consideration, the earth mineral make up we hunt in.
The best way to handle this is to try out a few detectors that you
I believe that some of this mis-information comes from looking at the frequencies used for gold nugget unit, and coming away with the opinion that's what needed to find all gold items.
They are some silver coins that respond to higher frequencies better than lower, and other silver coins that respond better to lower frequencies.
"A silver dollar would most likely respond best to 800 Hz. frequency, a dime, 2.7 Khz, and a nickel at 17 Khz." (George Payne). This holds true for some thin gold rings. This is pertaining to the All Metal Mode. Using Discrimination Mode, and things change around quite a bit. This doesn't mean that all your targets are going to fit into this range. We have another factor not taken into consideration, the earth mineral make up we hunt in.
The best way to handle this is to try out a few detectors that you
hi bill!
i guess i was concerned with my personal situation on that one!..,that is why i needed clarification!..to the point!..i cannot afford to buy more than one detector and although there,exists a few dealers in my "neck of the woods" so to speak,i know for a "fact" they would "never" allow me to "borrow" the equipment to "try" it out as you suggest!..i wish i WAS in the enviable position of having access to many different detectors,,.,as THAT scenario WOULD be the "best" situation possible as you mentioned!
(h.h!)
j.t.
i guess i was concerned with my personal situation on that one!..,that is why i needed clarification!..to the point!..i cannot afford to buy more than one detector and although there,exists a few dealers in my "neck of the woods" so to speak,i know for a "fact" they would "never" allow me to "borrow" the equipment to "try" it out as you suggest!..i wish i WAS in the enviable position of having access to many different detectors,,.,as THAT scenario WOULD be the "best" situation possible as you mentioned!
(h.h!)
j.t.
hi bill!
trying them out around here at a dealer, as i explained is out of the question!..so having explained that to you,what other recourse would i have to TRY them out ,so to speak,UNLESS i "borrowed" or "bought" them!...apparently you just misunderstood me,,so an explanation was in order!
(h.h!)
j.t.
trying them out around here at a dealer, as i explained is out of the question!..so having explained that to you,what other recourse would i have to TRY them out ,so to speak,UNLESS i "borrowed" or "bought" them!...apparently you just misunderstood me,,so an explanation was in order!
(h.h!)
j.t.
My Minelab Musky's at 5 khz. like the 1236 are pretty good on small gold rings also. In my experience the biggest difference has been the lower freq. handles my bad ground conditions and hotrocks better and has better iron discrimination than the higher freq. detectors. In my testing of high freq.vs.low freq. detectors the conductivity of the target in this case being gold was not an issue but the size of the target was where the difference came into play. My Musky and 1236 hit small gold rings just as hard as my Compass gold scanner Pro to a certain point but as the targets got smaller like earring studs and gold chains the lower freq. started whimpering out while the higher freq. was still hitting them. My Minelab Advantage is my favorite beach machine because it does hit on gold so well plus it handles the blacksand, hotrocks and iron better than any detector I've tried. My 1236x2 does a great job also especially with the 5X10 elliptical coil. This coil was advertised as DD coil but some have said it's not a true DD coil. Even if it's not it sure acts like one and works extremely well in the trash.
There are far too many variables to say why your machine works for you, where you live, better than, say, for me where I live. Some of it is attributable to the soil - well, alright, a lot of it is soil related. Some of it could be moisture and/or depth of the targets in the soil. Some of it could even be lain down to simple operator enthusiasm. But lets look at it like the detector does.
A gold ring is really just a pultab / is really just a lead bullet / is really just a large wad of foil. However, rings DO present a homogenous, single loop inductor to the induced field from a detectors antenna, meaning they couple that signal very well. Further, It is a function of their conductivity that that they fall into the range of targets mentioned...
In a nutshell, your detector only knows there is a good inductor beneath its coil, in the midrange of conductivity. It gets the same result from a pulltab, but the pulltab is not as good of an inductor with it's multi-facted surfaces. So within the depth range of the detector, the ring is likely to hit pretty hard, whereas the pulltab will drop off sooner. When it comes to alloy gold rings, with their high copper content (as high as 71% in 10K), less is dependent on frequency.
I'll wager, though, that the 1236 would be as challenged as any VLF discriminator to accurately and strongly hit on free gold nuggets in the smaller grades, say a matchhead size. I would be surprised if it hit on flake or flour deposits at all in the DISC mode.
Most of your purpose built gold detectors are of somewhat higher frequency, yes, as free gold seems to respond better to these freq's. This is especially so for the smallest of nuggets and flake deposits. But, they are also designed to handle ground mineral fluctations and are invaribly all metal type detectors. Bill is right - this is really a poor comparison in terms of frequency on gold rings.
A gold ring is really just a pultab / is really just a lead bullet / is really just a large wad of foil. However, rings DO present a homogenous, single loop inductor to the induced field from a detectors antenna, meaning they couple that signal very well. Further, It is a function of their conductivity that that they fall into the range of targets mentioned...
In a nutshell, your detector only knows there is a good inductor beneath its coil, in the midrange of conductivity. It gets the same result from a pulltab, but the pulltab is not as good of an inductor with it's multi-facted surfaces. So within the depth range of the detector, the ring is likely to hit pretty hard, whereas the pulltab will drop off sooner. When it comes to alloy gold rings, with their high copper content (as high as 71% in 10K), less is dependent on frequency.
I'll wager, though, that the 1236 would be as challenged as any VLF discriminator to accurately and strongly hit on free gold nuggets in the smaller grades, say a matchhead size. I would be surprised if it hit on flake or flour deposits at all in the DISC mode.
Most of your purpose built gold detectors are of somewhat higher frequency, yes, as free gold seems to respond better to these freq's. This is especially so for the smallest of nuggets and flake deposits. But, they are also designed to handle ground mineral fluctations and are invaribly all metal type detectors. Bill is right - this is really a poor comparison in terms of frequency on gold rings.