Need some setting Excalibur to assist a friend in Maui!

[diverhy]

I would really appreciate someones help?
I am going to help a friend in Kihei Maui that has an explorer SE and Excalibur. I do own an Explorer Se but have only used very little at home in California. I use my minelab 5000 for gold )))). They have tried both machines on beach. They put their own jewelry in the sand and was not able to get a signal to find. They said that they have been cleaning all the garbage off the beaches LOL!!!!! I was hoping someone could help me understand some saltwater settings to go help them. I am thanking you all in advance for your kind help.

 

[Critterhunter]

If it's fine jewlery, meaning thin chains or tiny gold earrings, Minelabs can't see much of that stuff well, if at all in many instances. Now, a gold ring, even a super thin small woman's plain band, a Minelab will bang at super deep depths just like old coins. Why? Because the ring is an intact loop, and so presents a much bigger picture (much like a coin) to the detection field. There are far better machines for thin gold chains or tiny earrings, but I'll put my money on any Minelab when it comes to even a super thin gold ring at extreme depth.

I filmed a video comparing numerous Sovereign/Excalibur coils on my GT to each other, using various finer gold jewlery items. Chains, a gold cross, a few earrings of various sizes, and such. I wanted to see if the old rule of thumb of a smaller coil, or perhaps rumors of certain larger coils, being more sensitive to fine stuff was true or not on these BBS units. I haven't finished editing the video to judge results, because it was a virtual misical chairs approach swapping coils left and right and I pretty much lost track of what did what. So I await finishing editing the video to review the findings. A ruler was placed in the foreground of the camera to measure any depth differences between the coils as good as possible. When I get around to finishing editing the video I'll post it.

But in terms of setting to find gold jewlery on the beach. Discrimination at zero on the Excalibur in disc mode. Volume at full. Sensitivity as high as the machine will remain stable and not chatter or null due to EMI or sand mineralization. Don't swing the coil like your killing snakes real fast. Threshold just high enough to barely hear.

For the SE, zero discrimination. Meaning completely open screen, or perhaps just with a tad bit of iron rejection...not too high though, as fine gold like chains can start to bump down into the iron range. Auto sensitivity until they learn how it should act when stable (same deal with the Excalibur) and then raise it only as high as it remains stable like that you learned in auto by using manual later.

Much gold reads in the foil or nickel or tab range, so dig all hits above iron. Might be wrong but it sounds like they might be using high discrimination on the machines like they were clad hunting and are thus discriminating out the gold, unless like I said the gold items are just too fine to be picked up well by a Minelab if at all.

Good luck,...

 

[Neil]

" Now, a gold ring, even a super thin small woman's plain band, a Minelab will bang at super deep depths just like old coins."

not true.......but I wish it was.

 

[Neil]

I would really appreciate someones help?
I am going to help a friend in Kihei Maui that has an explorer SE and Excalibur. I do own an Explorer Se but have only used very little at home in California. I use my minelab 5000 for gold )))). They have tried both machines on beach. They put their own jewelry in the sand and was not able to get a signal to find. They said that they have been cleaning all the garbage off the beaches LOL!!!!! I was hoping someone could help me understand some saltwater settings to go help them. I am thanking you all in advance for your kind help.

You should try the beach forum, I think there are some posters there from Hawaii who could give you the best info.

explorers SE settings I use when beach hunting are either low iron mask or simply clear your smartfind screen and notch out nails.
gain at 8
sens matched to the location
variability at 8
noise cancel every so often
so basically low disc and as high as sens as you can go, swing slow, they really do better with nice even slow swings, keepiing even over the ground.

excal basically the same
0 disc
sens as high as you can without to much falsing, a little is fine.
0 notch
disc or all metal? see what works best and use that mode(try each on different targets)

real small jewelry is hard to get and the smaller rings are even harder to get the deeper they are. I wish they were as easy as coins but they are not. Now nice big bands are easier, like a mans gold wedding band. forget the small stuff in the wet sand, not many machines will touch that stuff unless its really shallow.

best advice is finding a person who actually hunts there with a minelab who can help you out. Ive read about micro waves over there from the military that can be bothersome, not sure where there, Ive never hunted there myself or been for that matter.

best of luck, enjoy that tropical weather

 

[Critterhunter]

As a after thought...

Just because a machine, in particular and as a *general rule of thumb*, with a single higher frequency tends to be more sensitive on fine gold than a multifrequency Minelab, that doesn't mean that other machine is necessarily deeper on even the thinnest of gold rings.

If you do some digging in various forums I think you'll find a general consensus along those same lines that I tend to agree with based on personal experience. Maybe some others have found exceptions in their realm of owned machines but that hasn't been true for me, and that doesn't change the general belief that Minelabs will hit very deep on the thinnest of gold bands, even deeper and better than machines known for fine gold sensitivity on thin chains and such. I have owned a few machines known for such abilities, and I can assure you they won't touch the depth of the GT on the thinnest of plain gold woman's bands. Not in my soil anyway.

An intact metal loop, due to it's properties in a detection field, presents a much larger target to a machine's detection field, and in this particular case to a Minelab where it's legendary depth abilities come into play. The field warps and wraps around that outline, as thin as it is, and is then presenting a rather large target much like it was a solid object like an old coin, where we all know Minelabs have a legendary reputation for extreme depth on such things. Eddy currents don't per say see the solid of the object, but rather travel along it's outer dimensions because of the path of least resistance. You can see this effect in how lightning will hit an object with an outer metal \shell at the parameters and travel right down it's sides without touching anything in side.

Next time you have the chance, take a piece of copper wire and create a circle with it without connecting the ends (IE: Much like a thin gold chain without the links being physically joined together), and then scan over it with your Minelab and see what kind of reponse it gives. Rather poor, right? Then solder the two ends together and re-scan it again. I think you'll be shocked by the impact of how hard it hits because now it's a complete path for the eddy currents to flow along. It is now presenting an image much like a solid coin to some extent, and we all know how deep Minelabs will hit on those types of things.

By the same token, take a intact ring with fine spider webbing and scan that. Probably a rather bad sound and jumpy ID. Then take a ring of similar size and shape but without the fine spider webbing and scan that. Even though the entire spider web style ring may be a complete loop, and even though it's the same general size and shape of the other ring, what you are seeing is the detection field being scattered by the fine webbing (very fine, much finer than the thinnest of gold bands), versus a more direct path for the eddy currents to travel along. The same thing happens with a super thin plain tiny gold woman's band. It has an imagine or outline to follow along, where as with say a thin gold chain with the links not joined in physicial fashion the eddy currents have no clear path to follow.

And now you know why a Minelab will shine against many machines known for fine gold sensitivity. Two different birds of nature, where a Minelab's ability to see a coin *shaped* object at great depths will shine, combined with it's unique way to ignore the ground signal like no other machines for the most part to reach those depths in some of the worst of grounds. They go hand and hand. And, while some machines are stellar at fine gold items like tiny earrings or thin gold chains, there is a trade off. The machines I owned with such abilities would bang hard and solid on the smallest of foil flakes and other junk, and have me digging thinking I had something really good sounding and substantial here.

Yes, in certain situations I'd want that, for say beach hunting for fine gold chains, but on land I found it far more problem than perk and made for a rather bumpy ride. I'd rather have the tiny stuff sound sick or be ignored to I can avoid it. Besides, by the way I look at it most gold lost is in the form of rings, and in that case I want a Minelab for extreme depth on those. Only at the beach, after having cleaned an area of the rings, would I want to re-work it with a machine of finer gold abilities. That's why I may add an AT Pro to my lineup one day. It may not be the best on fine gold, but far better than a Minelab from what I hear...

 

[Critterhunter]

Here, see this gold ring...
[attachment 256922 ring.jpg]

It's two woman's pretty much plain bands fused together. Yes, not as plain due to the tiny crown nor as thin as some rings being that these are fused together, but still they represent a non-solid object with low conductivity properties.

You might think then that a Minelab, not being known for hitting hard on fine gold, would get less depth on this ring than on a clad dime in a basic air test. But in reality it gets a substantial amount of more depth on that ring than it does on a clad dime.

This video I did a while back will demonstrate what I'm talking about here depth wise with this very ring being used...

http://youtu.be/G817__EOC8A

And if you look at various other videos on my channel, you'll see this same stock 10" Tornado coil using the exact same settings (including full blast manual sensitivity in this low EMI environment), consistently gets only 10.5" on a clad dime time and time again.

So why is that then, that the Sovereign should get a good bit more depth on that ring than it does a clad dime, being that the ring is only an outline and made of a lower conductor (gold)? Is it that the Sovereign likes low conductors better? No, because I've tested low conductors of similar size of a dime and found no depth difference between them and a dime.

The key is the ring's diameter in outline is somewhat larger than a dime, presenting a much bigger image to the detector despite being hollow and lower in conductivity than a dime, and more to the point it's an intact loop. If I were to put a fine crack in this ring to interrupt that loop, the quality of ID and tone on this ring probably will degrade badly, and the depth as well.

The whole point is those Minelabs will do fine on gold rings at extreme depths, so your friend should be finding something sooner or later if they are set up and used properly. All a matter of the law of averages then, with the proper amount of time and effort put in. Unless as said the discrimination has been cranked higher than simple iron rejection on them, because there is a lot of gold rings that read well down into the foil range...

 

[Neil]

now its general belief? you still dont know what your talking about and lots of words to confuse your lack of experience doesnt help matters. why lie to the guy? he was simply asking for some saltwater settings to maximize the explorer and excals response to smaller gold. since you dont hunt salt water why not try an honest approach and not respond?

 

[Neil]

the AT Pro is excellent on smaller gold and from what Ive seen from using it and the AT Gold I have now I would say the Pro is more coin oriented with its notch system and the way the meter is setup, versus the gold with its all metal mode is more oriented for gold hunting. But they are very close on small gold that a jewelry hunter is after. Now gold flakes I cannot say, Ive never hunted for those.

 

[Ytcoinshooter]

I was going to pass on any response to this as there are so many long time users here. however I don't see the response I'd expect so here goes two cents of advice you can take or pass on. These guys in Maui (or anywhere) should take some time to do some testing on the sites they hunt. Bury a desirable target at a couple of different depths - for example around 6 inches and say 10". Starting with no disc and sens at max do 2 things: over a clean spot lower and raise the coil to check if the threshold remains close to steady, constant...not greatly increasing or nulling. Reducing the sens and tweak the threshold until the unit is smooth. Next swing over the targets and check target response. They may have to additionally tweak to find the point where they hit well on the the targets and have a threshold that neither blares or constantly nulls when no target is under the coil. I have not hunted in volcanic rock or its sediment but these principals remain true for almost any detector I can think of with a threshold. This is done faster than I have explained it.
Some of the detectors I use require this kind of optimization to get the results that me ME happy.
Good luck to your friends in Maui...Oh I can wish I was there....30+ inches of snow here!
HH-Bruce
aka - Maniac

 

[diverhy]

Thank you very much for replying. From what they told me, they did bury a necklace, other jewelry could not get a signal over it. I just read a reply that gold chains are very difficult to pick up. They are only looking for things people lose at the beach. I will go get my machine out and try messing with the sens and threshold here before leaving, I have a month to learn. before going to help them out.
Thanks again for helping the beginners out.

 

[diverhy]

Thank you,
I will go out and mess with my machine and put some different targets out.

 

[dewcon4414]

Neil is correct...... a small gold ring will maybe at best be responsive 1/2 the depth of a clad dime on ANY machine. Sorry Critter, but i do to much beach hunting to be told other wise..... add minerals and you have an even harder time. I didnt read all he said (i never do), but that part is not correct. Depth is about response to a target...... its going to respond differently to various metals and its surrounding. So to say you get the same depth for a high conductor like a dime and a low conductor like a small womens ring.... well it wont..... even white gold or those with stones will respond differently.

Please dont take this wrong, but your friends apparently have little experience especially with the Xcal. There will be micro or small gold they will walk over.... some because of settings or their experience others because of the design, factory salt setting, and the ole saying you have to walk over it. You can waste your time testing all you want on a beach with an Xcal.... but in almost every location like Neil said, sensitivity is about the only adjustment needed. Its just such a simple machine. In disc dig everything that beeps but a shallow bottle cap. An explorer on a beach is just a more complicated machine requireing you to adjust it to your location. Like was mentioned..... talk to some of the guys over there who will fill you in on what it takes to run it properly.

 

[Mel Parker]

not necessarily the size of the target. Thats why a broken or cracked ring will not be as loud as a complete ring. The crack reduces the flow of eddy currents in the target that the receive coil sees.

 

[Critterhunter]

Yea Mel, exactly my point. One point being that the ring is larger in outline, even though not solid, but that intact loop presents a bigger image than the clad dime due to it being an intact loop, so that's why that ring got more depth than a dime on my GT. Had the ring been the same diameter as a dime, then the depth would be the same for both. I've tested this and low or high conductors of the same diameter don't seem to change the depth on my GT.

Fortunately most rings are going to at least be dime sized or bigger in diameter, so that's where the Sovereign will rock and roll at extreme depths on even a super thin one, just like it will on old silver coins in the worst of grounds. If that intact loop does get small enough, much smaller than a dime in diameter, that is where you might start seeing the Minelab fall behind in it's depth abilities to a machine with fine gold sensitivity, and sooner or later reach a point where it won't be able to see it at all no matter how close it is to the coil.

IE: Getting closer to the other end of the scale diameter wise, all the way down to a link in a thin gold chain. Where that line is crossed where the depth of the Minelab or even it's ability to see that loop takes place, where the fine gold detector takes the lead, would be interesting to test that out via various soldered complete loops of say copper wire of continued smaller diameter to see where it really drops off a bunch. But as said dime size in diameter (that's a pretty danty finger even for a woman to be able to fit a ring that small on it) or bigger and it's digging all the way to China for me on the GT.

It's how conducive the object is to the flow of those eddy currents in a detection field- Meaning it's an intact loop, and being bigger than a dime in diameter it gives more depth on my GT even though it's not a solid object. Way I always heard a round "ring" like object, such as a gold ring or say a brass ring from an old horse harness presents as good of a "solid" object image to the detection field as an object with no hole in the middle will, such as say a coin. It's the loop around the diameter of the ring, being intact, that is very conducive to the flow of the eddy currents in the field that interact with it. That's why a Minelab will bang a gold ring deeper than a machine know for fine gold sensitivity. It's the fine stuff that aren't intact loops, such as thin gold chains or tiny earrings, that a Minelab has issues with seeing. In that case a machine known for fine gold sensitivity will see it deeper, or at the very least much better, than a Minelab, but when it comes to even the thinnest of gold rings I'll put my money on the Minelab depth wise in most situations.

When I tested over 100 gold rings for scanning/graphing the VDIs on them for curiosity sake, I found only a small handful (like 6 or 7) rings that the GT gave a rather sick sound and jumpy ID to. Those rings were either- A) cracked and no longer a complete loop, or B) had VERY fine spider webbing patterns in them. Meaning not solid patterns but with holes of various odd shapes, created by very fine webbing. I'm not talking about rings with hollow patterns in them either. Most of those will read just fine. It's the ones that the entire ring seems to consist of just very super thin and fine webbing. What I think happens is the detection field gets scattered across that webbing, without any clear path through it, much in the way of an electrical circuit being re-routed through so many pathways that eventually there is a measurable voltage drop at the other end compared to what your source voltage is. Would stand to reason I would think then, that the detection field's return "image" to the RX winding gets weaker when the eddy currents don't have any one clear path to flow through.

 

[John(Tx)]

I use the Excal II 1000 on the beach and have found many gold rings, both big and small. Super depth on the small gold? No, not very deep but the bigger ones, yes. The AT Gold on a saltwater beach, don't think so. will not give you the good depth, freshwater, yes. Hunt a beach with black sand, the AT Gold is worthless just like any single frequency machine, be better off with a pulse. HH

 

[Neil]

has been referenced to your own words when you first replied to this post.

you wrote" Now, a gold ring, even a super thin small woman's plain band, a Minelab will bang at super deep depths just like old coins".

 

[Neil]

I use the Excal II 1000 on the beach and have found many gold rings, both big and small. Super depth on the small gold? No, not very deep but the bigger ones, yes. The AT Gold on a saltwater beach, don't think so. will not give you the good depth, freshwater, yes. Hunt a beach with black sand, the AT Gold is worthless just like any single frequency machine, be better off with a pulse. HH

Hi John,

Garrett has been pretty clear that their AT Gold doesnt have the ground balance range for salt water beaches. Their AT Pro does and although its no BBS/FBS/Pulse it does a pretty good job and will hit the small stuff those detectors wont on salt water beaches.
And when your done with salt water you can go to a park and coin hunt......try that with a pulse
all machines have their pros and cons.

 

[John(Tx)]

we all know a pulse has it's place. What I am saying is that the AT will not get the depth of the Excal in saltwater, period. Yes, it will find the small stuff but not at great depths, in blacksand, forget it.......Period.

 

[Neil]

you are correct John, the gold or pro will not match the depth of any of the bbs/fbs/pulse machines Ive used. I havent tried my AT gold on a saltwater beach but Garrett says it wont work, but have used an AT pro there along with a few other single freqs including the Xterra 70 and they do operate smoothly there and get decent depth but your right, not the excals depth.

 

[John(Tx)]

good luck on your hunts Neil, I've used my G2 on the beach and it does hunt pretty good finding dimes at 4-5", not bad for a high frequency machine in wet salt sand. I believe the G2 is close to the AT Gold in the frequency department. HH John