Equinox Depth-Part 2

[sgoss66]

Yes, Wayfarer. I think we "think" things similarly, in terms of what's going on with a machine, what it's "trying" to do, and how that affects what arrives to our eyes and ears when a target is located.

I would not be surprised in the Equinox can "eke out" a tiny -- but valuable -- bit more depth. My only concern is, without the 2-D smartfind screen and FE-CO info (and target trace), will it be as effective at clueing us in, with respect to a dig/no-dig decision...

We shall see, but not doubt my interest is piqued! Bottom line, I think an FBS machine and the Equinox, in ones arsenal, should give them a great advantage, in terms of detecting ability, over almost any other machine combination I can think of. I can't imagine any other pair of machines that would -- collectively -- be a better pair than what I expect FBS and Multi-IQ to be.

Steve

Hey, Wayfarer, don't tell my dad (electrical engineer) about my mis-usage of voltage vs. wattage in this context!

Yes, I figure that with that much more energy draw, it's probably unlikely that that's how things are working in the Equinox. You are probably much more likely with "fast sequential" being the way it's working...and then some heavy-duty processing crunching numbers/info...

Steve

Ha ha! Well that's about the extent of my own electrical engineering knowledge, and that's only because my other hobby is ham radio.

I thought I could hold off getting too excited about the Equinox, but I'm about to reach orbital velocity with my anticipation now that a release date is out and it only a few weeks away. I know you are like me and VERY interested in what's "under the hood" and how that will translate into real-world performance, especially when it comes to deep Target ID on those old deep coins. My CTX and MXT were the best in this regard, and I'm just hoping, fingers and toes crossed, that the Equinox can eek out even a half inch more depth with accurate Target ID.[/quote]

 

[sgoss66]

Good stuff, everyone. Good discussion, IMO.

Steve

 

[TomNH]

Great thoughts, and well stated!

Thank you for the accolades Jason. I did OK for a tenth grade education didnt I !

Anyhow IMHO EQ uses a modified FBS & multi IQ is mostly software. I guaranty you all the competition has
black boxed FBS machines & knows just how they work & could clone them at the drop of a hat. Just wish
someone with the skills would read the patents & give us an idea how things work. Its just curiosity, I spent 40
years in electronics & I just gotta know ! But alas, I was just a technician, not an engineer............

73
Tom
LFOD !

 

[pasttom]

Having little knowledge in the physics here aids in thinking out of the box. The Equinox claims to be an evolved form of FSB technology, but just how is a trade secret. A bit of reverse engineering should unmask that, but I doubt White's people had access to an Equinox when that statement was made. I also would not be 100% confident that a competitor is the best person to analyse and REPORT the competition's tech. A bigger point I see here is the tendency to reduce a multi variable problem to a single variable or zero sum. Things are not equal and there is little consideration of that here (or did I miss that?). Look at the evolution in computer chips, every generation is more power efficient, faster and more powerful, yet drawing less power. Simply put, a detector tests the environment, collects data then analyses it and reports it. If you increase the speed/efficiency at any significant level and it should perform better. It is not so much a matter of more raw power or battery bank draining as it is improved efficiency (improved algorithms?) collecting more data, that is then analysed even faster. Ergo, we get better indication of the target- deeper, more precise or less iron drift at depth? The proof will be in the real world usage by a gaggle of hunters. Until then we are all just guessing and or gassing. I hope this did not come off too stuffy, its just my 2 cents!

 

[Architex]

"Guessing or gassing"
I love it.

 

[amberjack]

didn't they say that the FBS platform has gone as far as it can go in one of their blogs , this is not based off the FBS platform from what I read its based off the xterra platform its how they made the board small and that's only what I seen from reading what they have posted.

AJ

 

[Jason in Enid]

didn't they say that the FBS platform has gone as far as it can go in one of their blogs , this is not based off the FBS platform from what I read its based off the xterra platform its how they made the board small and that's only what I seen from reading what they have posted.

AJ

Interesting that you mention this. Many people tend to believe the EQ is designed off the FBS as a base. Some of the things ML had said gives this impression, but they never said (that I can remember). When the E-Tac was released, many people assumed (and many still do) that it was a next generation of the Explorer platform. One of the ML engineers has said however that the E-Trac is based off the Quattro detector.

I think this could be a case of "it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" but its really a goose.

 

[pasttom]

I was using evolved rather generally/generically now that you mention it I do seem to remember them saying that.