Menu
What's new
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.

Noise Cancel Again

A

Anonymous

Guest
The best way to start a hunt is to noise cancel at each and every hunt site. There are a lot of good reasons for this but I will spare everyone the technical side of the issue. If you look at the actual electronics it is clear why we need to ground balance. Not only at the start of a hunt but anytime we suspected lack of stability due to external EMI.
We should sweep the coil to find a clear area of the soil then Noise Cancel at that location. The idea is not to be over an iron target or location where EMI is reflected that is not typical for the area we will be searching. It is not sweeping the coin that kicks in the ground balance as there is none to kick in. The Explorer compensates for the soil so will update the historical and instantaneous ground data immediately. Ground compenstatio is done with each pulse of enegry and is a component of the detection process. <span style="background-color:#ffff00;">So we don't need to worry about ground balance as with other detectors because the Explorer don't work that way. </span>
The variables that are important to noise cancel are not constant at a site. They can change from areas within a site and from one day to the next. Once we noise cancel properly and run in Semi-auto we should be able to hunt for hours or even all day with no need to noise cancel again. However, if we start to get those snaps and crackles from EMI then find a clear spot and noise cancel. If we use manual then we will need to noise cancel more often to keep stability.
Noise Cancel, proper threshold, and all the other settings are cumulative and make the difference between doing well and outstanding. They add up or subtract from the easy and effectiveness of the using the Explorer.
HH, Cody
 
<STRONG><span style="background-color:#ffff00;">Noise Cancel is the only control the user has of the TRANSMITTER.</span></STRONG> I don
 
I intended to say <STRONG><span style="background-color:#ffff00;">it is clear why we need to Noise Cancel and not ground balance.</span></STRONG> I was thinking of the ground blance for my DFX and how that differs from my Explorer ground compensation.
HH, Cody
 
Cody's posts may be a little Techie but one by one he is examining the facets of an Explorer. Indeed knowing what each facet does will enable to set up out Explorer for more efficient operation. To many this may be old hat but to newbies to the Explorer is like having a mentor on board. It puzzles me to not see much interaction from other forum members. Come out of the closet guys and gals and let us hear your feelings. Keep them coming Cody your enthuiasm and knowledge is appreciated. Finally yep the noise cancel takes about 1/2 a minute or so and in a hunt that may last several hours may indeed reap rewards..
 
Can I deduce that by makeing a proper noise cancel (free of metal targets and typical of the hunting area), I am allowing the flux to penetrate the soil with the least amount of resistance, giving greater depth and better reception of targets? I am thinking the least resistance equals more lines of force (flux) reaching target therby more moving electrons are induced into target.
It would then seem, that as the day goes on, and one has moved several feet away from the inital noise cancel area, another noise cancel could be benefical and certainly wouldn't hurt.
Would this be correct?
 
<span style="background-color:#ffff00;">Noise cancel will allow the sensitivity to be increased to maximum.</span> Anytime the sensitivity is adjusted then we should be sure to noise cancel and I would do that before and after the change. If we don't use noise cancel in conjunction with semsitity then we find that we cannot run the sensitity nearly as high which is one problem.
How much noise cancel has to do with flux penetration is something I cannot quantify. I do know that penetration has a lot to do with the frequencies. Noise cancel adjusts the spectrum for best performance. I can speculate and from what I know noise cancel takes into considertion the soil and not just external EMI. I think external EMI is the major reason but not the only one. I will ask the folks at Minelab the next time we talk.
HH, Cody
 
But it is thought of as noise cancel because thats what it does. Tis similar to dolby noise reduction. Nobody really calls it hi-freq booster.
I have not yet heard of finds getting better from switching channels, which appears to be what you are alluding to. But if you have knowledge of targets getting "lit up" better by certain noise cancel channels, cough it up Cody, and dont keep us in suspense <img src="/metal/html/wink.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt=";)">
Your posts here are most appreciated. Whether I agree with you or not is unimportant. The fact that you stimulate the minds of MDers is a benefit to the hobby in itself.
 
It is not important to me if anyone agrees or not.
I am not at all suggesting more depth from Noise cancel as if the signal from the TX coil penetrates the soil deeper. I am suggesting more depth because we can run the sensitity higher as well as audio gain. <span style="background-color:#ffff00;">More depth is obtained in the receiver circuits and processing of the data.</span>
Jump in and let me know where you disagree. The only thing I ask of anyone that disagrees or agrees is tell me how a statement is right or wrong. To say I have alwasy done this another or the same way and have used the detector for X number of hours or months really does not explain anything. However, to know from a design or electronic level why it is wrong then there is somethign to deal with and we have discussions and good exchanges. It is hard to debate that 2 x 2 is 4 but we can debate forever as to how many angles can dance on the head of a pin.
HH, Cody
 
ok
lets say we have a good noise cancel channel........say 5
5 found using manual channels under noise.
if i just hit noise cancel buttom, it selects channels on it own..............mine jumps from 6 to 9 to 10............sometimes from 6 to10
how do we know which one is the better for depth, etc, providing we have no noise.............
i hunt the beach exclusively and noise is not bad, sometimes i get some from the bigger motels, or at least that is where i think it comes from.
now is i crank up the sensitivity over 26 or so, she wants to run little erratic, but i have found it really works much better in the 22 24 range where i hunt
advise
thanks all
 
I guess I put too many thoughts into one post.
When I said "Whether I agree with you or not is unimportant." I was not referring to your post above, but was commenting on the discourse that you promote in this forum. A compliment.
And "I have not yet heard of finds getting better from switching channels, which appears to be what you are alluding to. But if you have knowledge of targets getting "lit up" better by certain noise cancel channels, cough it up Cody, and dont keep us in suspense <img src="/metal/html/wink.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt=";)">" was meant to coax more info from an intriguing subject (more depth from tweaking noise cancel).
Rgds, bing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top