Ferrous - Conductive readings for non-ferrous targets......

[Digger]

Revisiting the rationale behind evolving the Explorer FE/CO discrimination method into the one used in E-TRAC and CTX 3030

http://www.minelab.com/usa/go-minelabbing/treasure-talk/ferrous-conductivity-readings-for-non-ferrous-targets

 

[UtahRich]

I had both an original Explorer XS and an E-Trac. I found that having the revised X/Y screen format on the E-trac was very helpful. The '12' line, being linear, simplified things a lot vs the S shaped target track on the Explorers. Some Explorer users had clear plastic graphs they would use over the screens as a reference tool of where common targets fell. Of course, either way works for somebody that uses their detector frequently and learns where different items fall. I liked my Explorer XS a lot and used it for about 10 years before I finally bought an E-trac. As good as the XS was, I found the linear E-trac display easier to use well.

Rich -

 

[IDXMonster]

Like Rich I have new and older...Explorer2 and CTX. I'll drive the wheels off of either one,understanding they're 2 different things. To me,and this might just be ME,running the EX2 is more of an "art",whereas the CTX is pretty friendly even to a new guy. It's also my opinion that the EX2 has a bit more raw depth,with similar coils,but to some it may seem like the CTX does because they're finding more deep stuff due to more stable ID at depth. Personally I like the older graphing better,I think it tells you more. I don't like every target being a 12-something,but then again I don't like cherry soda either so I might be the oddball. As with everything,even though something may be "technically better", it doesn't always translate into everyone liking it or finding it advantageous. I also dig way more rusty bent nails with the CTX with a 12-40/41reading,the EX2 hardly makes me dig those at all.
What I DO wish is that there is a way in the future with an update to revert the CTX back to the old style graphing so the user has the choice.