Dan,
The process that I described "seems" to work very well. I had never thought about your suggestion to let the first party perform a Noise Cancel operation. Then, after that has been completed, the 2nd party then does a Noise Cancel. I can see how the two stage Noise Cancel might even be better yet. An example of how this might work is as follows. This illustration assumes that there are no noise sources except the two Explorers.
#1 STARTING CONDITION
Say #A hunter is using channel 6 and #B hunter is also using channel 6. There will be a lot of interference.
#2 THE FIRST NOISE CANCEL OPERATION
If #A hunter does a Noise Cancel, he might end up at channel 1 (or channel 11) to get the best performance. At this point #B hunter is stil at channel 6. They are separated by 5 channels in either case.
#3 THE SECOND NOISE CANCEL OPERATION
If #B hunter does his own Noise Cancel, then he might end up on channel 11 (or channel 1). Now they have 10 channels of separation. This should produce better performance than if they stopped after #2
I do not claim any great expertise on how two hunters, using Explorers, might be having interference in such a manner that the interference is not noticeable, but still have the performance of their detector operation compromised. In my Engineering career I spent quite a bit of time designing what are called "correlation detectors" used in the space program. Generally speaking, this technique can almost completely reject and "crosstalk" from adjacent channels. Having reviewed the Minelab patents my conclusion is that they are using a correlation detector process. But, I could be completely wrong on this
Thanks for your comments and HH,
Glenn