Do a speed test. 3 nickels and 2 quarters. Lay down nickel quarter nickel quarter nickel.Now use the setting of seven or eight and see if you can get the quarters. Put the coins 3 inches apart. Like to know if you can hear the quarters do they give you a ID. I have the 600 Nox it won’t do it. Just wondered if 800 can whit the faster recovery.
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.
Like for someone to do a test with nox 800.
- Thread starter lse450cc
- Start date
IDXMonster
Well-known member
LSE...always something to consider with really ANY DD coil....when doing that you CANNOT sweep the coil really close to the coins. WHY? Because the edges of the coil are hot as well as the center,not AS hot but they are indeed actively signaling on close-by targets. Try raising the coil 4-5” away from the coins to take the edges out of the game and see if it makes a difference in your test,unless this method does not match what you are trying to do.
And some DD coils edges are hotter than others. Coil design plays a big part when it comes to how fast the unit can recover from one target to the next.
My question for this test is, does the NOX see all 5 targets, ie hits all 5.
It may not ID accurately but does it hit them all ?
My question for this test is, does the NOX see all 5 targets, ie hits all 5.
It may not ID accurately but does it hit them all ?
dewcon4414
Well-known member
I agree therover......set your tones high for the quarter.... low for the nickel..... do you hear them change. lets be honest here ..... tones are what stop us in our tracks... rarely do i look at the screen until im trying to wiggle out the target to make a decision to dig. But then if i hear the tone im listening for...... more than likely that decision to dig was already made. I dont expect close targets to ID... you are getting a mixed signal from the coil HALO as you pass over targets that close.
Joedaddy276
New member
I know it sees all five I have done it not the same coinage but with6,7 coins in a row.i was testing against my at pro and it was not even close between the two.i know in ground at actual hunts the nox picks up machine gun targets a lot of of course your in thick junk,targets and I never run mine over 6 recovery.maybe I should I just feel like 6 will hit it if its there
You did indicate the 5 test samples you were using, three US 5¢ and two 25¢ pieces, and you did describe the orientation and position of aligning them in a row and spaced 3 inches apart in alternating coin orientation starting with the 5¢ coin.lse450cc said:
You did NOT clarify the Discrimination level you were using. You DID ask if you could sweep this set-up across the length of the set-up and asked if anyone could get an ID on the 25¢ coins.
You were not successful with your Equinox 600, even with increased recovery speed, but I believe you were only using the supplied standard 11" Double-D search coil. So without even having to try to set up this test myself [size=small]which I will do later today out of curiosity and to evaluate the other makes and models and coils that I own and use[/size] I know what the likely results would be, the negative aspects of radical adjustment settings, and what it would take to achieve better results ... and more importantly I know what causes the confusing results people might get from such a test case scenario.
1st.. You have 5 closely-spaced targets of alternating conductive properties, and that can make it difficult to get five good audio target responses in the first place because even though the targets are non-ferrous specimens, they are close and their signals will be 'blended' and this can create an errant numeric VDI read-out which also means a probably inaccurate audio Tone ID for each specific target encountered in a singular environment. In short, even though we are not talking about hunting in a dense nail or ferrous contaminated site, we are still talking about 'target masking' caused by one or more nearby metal objects of a different conductivity. All nice and round-shaped, but of different size [size=small](diameter)[/size] and conductivity. Close targets, different size and material = target masking.
2nd.. You are probably using a standard 11" DD coil and that is going to add to the problems of trying to isolate a target that, obviously, can't be isolated because it is too close to masking targets that are within the search coils effective/functional EMF. Therefore, regardless of coil type, Double-D or Concentric, opting for a smaller-size search coil would provide the ability to possible isolate one targets from other nearby offending targets to get a better response from each individual target.
Will that always result in a 'perfect' audible Tone ID or visual numeric Target ID? No, not always, but it might on occasion or it would at least be better or closer to a 'proper' response you would anticipate getting. Therefore, the #1 way to get the best performance from your described test scenario would be to switch to a smaller-size search coil when in any environment with a dense amount of targets, be then ferrous or non-ferrous based make-up.
3rd.. Realize that search coil 'type' [size=small](DD or Concentric)[/size] might have different results, but I can assure you that a DD design isn't always going to be the winner here, either. Yes, the Tx and Rx coils do overlap to create a narrower responsive field, but that also have some problems on approaches from opposing directions in many cases because the outer Tx winding or outer Rx winding encounters targets first and you can have different behavior on the effects of the EMF's than from many Concentric coils that have a more uniform EMF when swept from any angle.
4th..I had phones calls from two people who do not have a Minelab mode, but they tried this exact test using the same 5 coins in the layout and orientation you described and an assortment of search coils. The first caller said it about "killed my detector" as he couldn't get a good response at all when sweeping across the length of the 5 coins that were positioned 5¢ - 25¢ - 5¢ - 25¢ - 5¢. He was using a Racer 2 w/7" Concentric coil and also tried it with a CoRe and 5X9½ DD. Discrimination was at his default setting to still accept iron nails, but the audio responses were not good at all! Just kind of 'ticky' sounding. He also used an M6 w/6½" Concentric coil and had the same results.
The second caller was using a different brand/model and a standard 7X11 DD coil and also a smaller elliptical DD about 5X10 and his results were the same. In both cases I reminded the callers to make sure they kept their search coil ±2" off the ground or above the test targets. You do not want to have a coil positioned too close to the ground or targets if you want the best in-the-field performance. I also cautioned about using a too fast of a sweep speed and to keep the sweep slow and methodical as they swept the length of the targets. Naturally, I also encouraged them to use a smaller-size search coil.
5th.. I also explained that there was a reason why they had difficulty an that was not based o Discrimination in the way we thing=k of target rejection to handle unwanted trash, but really how the detector's digital circuitry was trying to process the different metal alloys it was encountering in the coil's sweep. The detector was trying to evaluate and process the signal of a lower-conductive 5¢ coin and process it when all-of-a-sudden the leading edge of the coil's EMF was encountering another nearby target [size=small](just 3" away)[/size] and it was of a higher conductive make-up and the circuitry was then trying to diagnose the two targets (and remember it is also dealing with a ground signal as well) and then, due to the search coil size, it again encountered another target, but now lower -conductive, and it was trying to process the multiple targets all under the coil and in the EMF at the same time.
This is difficult for any detector to handle, and the bigger the coil and EMF the more targets there are of different conductive properties to interfere with each other and the detector's ability to handle them.
6th.. I gave both individuals the following instructions, which they did as I listened in, and I knew what the anticipated results would be from the following test scenarios:
A.. Replace the 5¢ coins with a modern Zinc or Copper 1¢ coin and re-sweep the 1¢ - 25¢ -1¢ - 25¢ - 1¢ array of targets, all still about 3" apart. One thing you might notice is that you'll possibly get 4 audio hits, be them ticky, so-so, iffy or fairly good, but only from the four outer coins and not one from the 1¢ coin positioned between the two larger-size and higher-conductive 25¢ coins.
B.. Go back to the 5¢ and 25¢ arrangement and remove the 5¢ coin on the left side and re-sweep with the coil starting on the left side and encountering the 25¢ coin first, but sweep the entire length of coins. Note the audio responses you get from the original test scenario, than that from 'A' and 'B here.
C.. Just to show that there are effects from target masking due to the different coin alloy mixes that the detector is trying to process, and that the audio received can be less than a 'catch your attention' response, try this very simple test scenario: Replace the two 25¢ piece with 5¢ coins and have an arraignment of five of the 5¢ coins aligned just 3" apart. Now, using your standard coil, or any coil you have on hand for any detector model you choose, sweep across the length of these test coins with a slow and methodical sweep that is best suited for a trashy site and ... more likely than not ... you are going to hear five very distinct good-target hits!
In the 53 years I have been enjoying this great sport I have conducted the same and similar tests with many, many makes and models and coil sizes and types and have learned that there is no perfect detector or coil made and that with the number of variables we encounter afield, there will always be some favorable targets left behind because target masking is hard at work to challenge us ... and the detectors we use. The more high-tech the detectors get, the more problems we might face if we don't understand 'why' things happen.
Also, the more we expect out of visual Target ID and audile Tone ID, we can fall victim to over-reliance on it and ignore potentially good targets because we fail to accept errant readings caused by target masking. On the original test you did, I can get 4 good hits, off the outer-edge 5¢ piece and two 25¢ pieces but no response from the 5¢ coin in the center using a 7" Concentric coil on a Mojave. Again, just like using the 1¢ Zinc or Copper coins, the centered lower-conductive and smaller size coin isn't response because the detector's circuitry was trying to recover from the higher-conductive coins on each side.
I am sure that with enough control tinkering with the Equinox 600 or 800 models, especially once they have a smaller 6" DD mounted, there might be some improved performance to try and trick the detector into working OK on that one test scenario, but to do some would mean that in-the-field hunting would likely result in a loss of detection depth with a too speedy recovery time, and I'd be willing to bet there would be other shortcomings as well. Personally, I like to find some of the best general-purpose settings for any detector I use, then learn to understand the things that might cause a target response to be less-than-ideal. Then do the only practical thing, and that is recover the targets and take a look at it. Note my signature's leading statement below.
Monte
dewcon4414
Well-known member
Lets ask the simple question......would one of those tones encouraged you to dig? Likely yes.... and more likely you would have recovered the other coins as well. I wouldnt worry to much about a TEST the machine wont accomplish..... even if it did, it might not in the field.
Your write ups are works of art !
Bottom line for this scenario. If it were real world, once one of the targets was hit and dug up, depending on how big the plug was, another coin would probably be found on the first dig. The hole and area would then be re-scanned and another target found....etc. until all 5 targets would have been dug up. Assuming the hunter was digging for nickels as well as other coins and not discriminating them out.
Being the coins are so close together, even if the signals were blended I would imagine the signal would be in a high enough conductive range to indicate a dig signal. Then again, if the hunter was leaving zinc pennies in the ground depending in ID and the blended ID was in the zinc penny range, then maybe the coins would not have been dug.
Like Monte says....the most accurate discriminator is your eyes. Dig it or you will never really know.
Bottom line for this scenario. If it were real world, once one of the targets was hit and dug up, depending on how big the plug was, another coin would probably be found on the first dig. The hole and area would then be re-scanned and another target found....etc. until all 5 targets would have been dug up. Assuming the hunter was digging for nickels as well as other coins and not discriminating them out.
Being the coins are so close together, even if the signals were blended I would imagine the signal would be in a high enough conductive range to indicate a dig signal. Then again, if the hunter was leaving zinc pennies in the ground depending in ID and the blended ID was in the zinc penny range, then maybe the coins would not have been dug.
Like Monte says....the most accurate discriminator is your eyes. Dig it or you will never really know.
Ok not an expert here but curious as to why everyone is so interested in the recovery speed testing on targets with these superfast swing tests of the coils. I see a lot of videos and understand the reason for showing the recovery speed of targets but does it really matter that much as if I am correct in my assumption no one swings a detector at those speeds so if you mainly just listened to the tones of targets as you sweep the coil will that high of a setting really be that critical , don't get me wrong I know recovery speed with a DD coil is a large help in hearing Ferrous and non Ferrous targets close but if you really listened to the tones and used the coil at a short back and forth movement over a promising target will you not get a lot better result or dig or not dig decision . Just asking a simple question here not trying to ruffle any feathers. So please don't banish me . Still learning the Equinox tones and love it so far.
Those super brisk sweep speed were necessary with the first introduction of the VLF-Disc. or Ground Cancelling motion-based Discriminating detectors starting with George Payne's first, the Bounty Hunter Red Baron back in 1978. Those licensed to use their circuitry [size=small](I know White's did)[/size] also had sweep speed that closely resembled a good golf swing.BarryL said:
Into and through the '80s as more manufacturers started embracing motion-based Discriminators they dud get the sweep speed of what they referred to as "four-filter" detectors slowed to a more moderate sweep speed. Then there were the "two-filter' detectors, such as the Fisher 1200 series, Tesoro's and a few others, that definitely changed the game and allowed a slow and methodical sweep to better pick good targets out of trash.
In the past twenty years we have seen the transition to mostly slower to moderate sweep speed detectors and, as you noted, everyone is interested in "recovery speed" but in an effort to try and demonstrate it they go beyond the level of practicality. Even from the videos at Detectival we have seen super quick sweep speed using obvious favorable targets positioned to razzle and dazzle most onlookers, but the fast sweeps didn't mean that much to me because what I was seeing wasn't practical.
Besides, most of my detectors are used with a slow and methodical sweep speed for peak efficiency, and reading the Equinox Owner's Manual I note where the manufacturer suggests the 'proper' sweep speed is about 3 seconds for a round trip of left-to-right then right-to-left.. That's close to what I use and consider a 'moderate' sweep speed and, when conditions call for it I use a slower side-to-side sweep.
Correct. Get any 'decent', 'questionable' or just 'iffy' target response and you'll be best served if you recover that target first, then re-sweep the spot to listen for any other probable targets . Often I find a worthwhile target that was partially masked by offending trash which had an impact on lowering the favorable target's visual or audible ID signature, often to a read-out or tone that more closely resembled a lower to mid-conductive target that was just out of the likelihood of being good sounding signal,BarryL said:
Monte