Non ferrous CTX EQUINOX

[sube]

https://youtu.be/DFlv3i3lsdg I am looking at id and speed in this video what do you think .The only thing I am seeing now is that the nox is better in dirty ground more mineral over the ctx . sube

 

[lse450cc]

Nice vid. Keep up the good work.

 

[flysar]

sube, my ground is "dirty" in my part of WA and I've run a CTX the past 5 years in Ground Coin, following Minelabs advise. My good friend got a 800 and it is chatty, where my CTX runs quiet in the same soil, with similar manual sensitivity settings. I bought a 800 because his silver & old coin count has soared in Ground he's hit with a CTX, explorer, tesoro, etc over the years. In the past year I've found one Indian with the 800 where I've run my CTX before; maybe that's all there is?
After seeing your separation test in ferrous coin vs high trash, I'm tempted to run my CTX in FC to see if I can find a hidden high tone but it sounds like I may be wasting my time if you feel the 800 is better in dirty ground. For reference, dirty ground for me in A+3 is 8-12, with a high of 16 occasionally. I can run manual higher but it becomes chatty and many have stated the machine is better at selecting sensitivity than we are... I've yet to find anything in Manual that I couldn't see in A+3 so maybe they're right.
What are your thoughts?
Thank you for the videos?

 

[sube]

sube, my ground is "dirty" in my part of WA and I've run a CTX the past 5 years in Ground Coin, following Minelabs advise. My good friend got a 800 and it is chatty, where my CTX runs quiet in the same soil, with similar manual sensitivity settings. I bought a 800 because his silver & old coin count has soared in Ground he's hit with a CTX, explorer, tesoro, etc over the years. In the past year I've found one Indian with the 800 where I've run my CTX before; maybe that's all there is?
After seeing your separation test in ferrous coin vs high trash, I'm tempted to run my CTX in FC to see if I can find a hidden high tone but it sounds like I may be wasting my time if you feel the 800 is better in dirty ground. For reference, dirty ground for me in A+3 is 8-12, with a high of 16 occasionally. I can run manual higher but it becomes chatty and many have stated the machine is better at selecting sensitivity than we are... I've yet to find anything in Manual that I couldn't see in A+3 so maybe they're right.
What are your thoughts?
Thank you for the videos?

There are other members here like Bryan v and Daniel tn that have run the CTX and NOX in harsh ground try messaging them.

If it was in non ferrous video the high thrash mode was going in and out of the disc area making it sound bad .

Thing about ferrous coin mode it's no different from the other modes in finding targets it separates the first # on your screen from a 35 to 13 which are your ferrous real #s displayed in low trash high thrash and GC , So instead of seeing 31.45 bouncing to 27.45 the first # tells you the level of iron that's with the target rust nail whatever and the second # tells conductive okay . All ferrous coin does is put all the non-ferrous and ferrous # on the 12 line making it easier to see .

Take low trash for a example minelab says to use in low trash areas and that the signal of the strongest target under the coil well be the one reported WELL THIS HAPPENS IN ALL MODES but it also says it has the best id of all I think it said mild to moderate soil conditions .

But getting back to you wanting to run ferrous coin I say no ferrous coin separation was meant for mild ground WHICH IS TRUE you also stated that manual is no better than auto + 3 that's because your soil is not mild it is harsh you can't get anything to run hotter bad ground .

I would run high thrash which is for moderate ground conditions or stay with GC if you want to here those hidden high tones USE LONG with normal there very hard to hear long makes it long easier to tell iron or coin signals do the coin with nail on top of it but keep the coil 4 inches above it use normal than use long amazing and if you really want a overload of information use 50 tones and add long . Just remember if GC or high trash is used look on the bottom right corner for that silver coin coming off the bottom 32.45 bouncing to the 27.45 area or as for as the 47 area since in either mode .sube

 

[sube]

Forgot to say your ctx ran quieter than the nox 25 max for nox 30 ctx max so halfway would be 12.5 nox 15 ctx for sensitivity So what were the machines running at you can see the nox at 15 is higher than the ctx at 15 .sube

Maybe that's all there is try recovery on one and see what happens .sube

 

[BigTony]

Sube, another thinking great video.

Thank you!

Normally what do you keep sense at on NOX, 21 or lower?
Do you only use small coil?
Theory being that the larger coil hits the target with more Umph then a smaller coil.

Tony NJ

 

[sube]

Sube, another thinking great video.

Thank you!

Normally what do you keep sense at on NOX, 21 or lower?
Do you only use small coil?
Theory being that the larger coil hits the target with more Umph then a smaller coil.

Tony NJ

18 to 23 for sense
No stock and small coil

Something to think about dime on edge reads 7 8 or 9 on nox looking at it this way - to the coil ctx reads 12.09 10.11 all low conductors add iron ctx all over and id is bad nox 24 to 25 coin laying flat with the same two nails nox signal all over ctx solid 12.43 as you can see the nox smokes ctx with low conductor in iron when the dime is flat and reads high conductor ctx smokes nox . sube

 

[metalpopper]

Sube, another thinking great video.

Thank you!

Normally what do you keep sense at on NOX, 21 or lower?
Do you only use small coil?
Theory being that the larger coil hits the target [size=x-large]with more Umph[/size] then a smaller coil.

Tony NJ

************************

This post is a typical example of, LACKING DETAIL....and so can be misleading.

So Tony, can you re-submit, with typical large and smaller size coils, AND some example targets at defined depths which you think support your opinions....matt

 

[BigTony]

Matt, are you kidding me, really?

I have the largest coil for the NOX and I also own the WOT for my Explorer II. Plus I have the SEF 12 x 15 inch coil.

There were several posts back on the Explorer forum concerning coils and magnetism lines produced by such devices.
Testing has already been done but you might not be aware that it exists in the Explorer forum. Folks that understand more than I about electrons and coil windings.

Look for yourself, the information is there and they even drew pictures. Look up Charles from New York.

I don’t own a test bed because I live in a concrete jungle here but I have read and conversed with folks on these forums concerning coil windings and sizes.

Best of luck,

Tony NJ

 

[metalpopper]

https://youtu.be/DFlv3i3lsdg I am looking at id and speed in this video what do you think .The only thing I am seeing now is that the nox is better in dirty ground more mineral over the ctx . sube

????????????????????????????????????​

Good intentions vidio...BUT...operator made mistakes in his set-up of target...and machines.....and how he performed tests...matt.

Can you spot the errors ??????

 

[metalpopper]

Matt, are you kidding me, really?

I have the largest coil for the NOX and I also own the WOT for my Explorer II. Plus I have the SEF 12 x 15 inch coil.

There were several posts back on the Explorer forum concerning coils and magnetism lines produced by such devices.
Testing has already been done but you might not be aware that it exists in the Explorer forum. Folks that understand more than I about electrons and coil windings.

Look for yourself, the information is there and they even drew pictures. Look up Charles from New York.

I don’t own a test bed because I live in a concrete jungle here but I have read and conversed with folks on these forums concerning coil windings and sizes.

Best of luck,

Tony NJ

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^​

Thanks for replying Tony.....but I'm not kidding when I referred to your post being ambiguous....

Recall your summary...

Theory being that the larger coil hits the target with more Umph then a smaller coil.​

[size=large]

That is not true if the target is relatively SHALLOW for test purposes......​

[/size]

You cannot make such a definitive statements without specifying the coils involved....
AND THE RELATED TEST TARGET's DEPTHS.

You failed to tell readers what YOU mean by 'UMPH'. Do you understand the factors involved.....??????
I think that you don't.....but that not a criticism; for the electro-physics involved are complex.

Her's a simple example of how you should express yourself re coil-size (FOR THE SAME DETECTOR)

10 inch DD. excentricity 0.6. versus 6 inch DD., excentricity 0.6.
Tested on the same detector;
Target; 25.4 mm diameter, 1.8 mm thick, copper disc, conductivity 5.8 E7
.........
Both coils tested over target at depth (a)...4 inches (102 mm)

[size=large]

Smaller coil will hit target with more ‘umph’​

[/size].
.........
Both coils tested over target at depth (b)...7 inches (178 mm)

[size=large]

Larger coil hits target with more ‘umph’​

[/size].

NB.........BOTH COILS WILL RADIATE THE SAME POWER; if correctly designed for thte same detector, at the same frequency.

It is the individual coil’s radiated FLUX patterns that is the relevant factor...AT DIFFERENT DEPTHS......matt.

????????????????????

pps.....Also......If the target is relatively small, then you may not get any more depth than that when using the smaller coil, comparitively, than when using the larger coil !

 

[BigTony]

Matt, you certainly know more than I on this subject. Thank you for that additional information. Your testing explains plenty.


I guess I am a bottom line guy.

It’s my belief that a larger coil will give a better alert when a weaker signal comes into the field under the coil.

So this is my belief from real field discoveries.
I have used many small coils but I prefer a larger coil.

Tony NJ

 

[metalpopper]

https://youtu.be/DFlv3i3lsdg I am looking at id and speed in this video what do you think .The only thing I am seeing now is that the nox is better in dirty ground more mineral over the ctx . sube

????????????????????????????​

What in the video invokes this comment Sube?...The only thing I am seeing now is that the nox is better in dirty ground more mineral over the ctx . sube

The video as a movie is ok, but the CTX screen was not 'visible, so data correlation was not available....

The practicalities of the target arrangements, 'being on the surface for all tests', was wrong.....we needed some depth-testing.

MOST IMPORTANT.....We needed to see the [size=x-large]GB figures[/size] being obtained for the box of soil.

Only then, would your 'dirty soil' observations make sense.....matt

 

[sube]

https://youtu.be/DFlv3i3lsdg I am looking at id and speed in this video what do you think .The only thing I am seeing now is that the nox is better in dirty ground more mineral over the ctx . sube

????????????????????????????​

What in the video invokes this comment Sube?...The only thing I am seeing now is that the nox is better in dirty ground more mineral over the ctx . sube

The video as a movie is ok, but the CTX screen was not 'visible, so data correlation was not available....

The practicalities of the target arrangements, 'being on the surface for all tests', was wrong.....we needed some depth-testing.

MOST IMPORTANT.....We needed to see the [size=x-large]GB figures[/size] being obtained for the box of soil.

Only then, would your 'dirty soil' observations make sense.....matt

If you watch the video I never said anything about mineralization till the end I should of worded it different sorry . It's what other people are saying the nox is deeper in bad ground than the ctx where my bad ground is rusted away bottle caps . The nox gave a clearer audio than the ctx and the ctx gave a raspy audio but still dig able audio and trace .The trace was not as stable in dirty ground compared to mild ground it would smear around the cursor instead of a solid edge

Judging from the cleaner hit I say the nox should go deeper than the ctx in that situation the deeper you go the worst the audio would sound on the ctx don't know if the nox will keep it cleaner audio deeper than the ctx . But judging by the coins I have dug using both detectors to check audio nox wins in dirty ground but who knows what it ids at deeper you go. But maybe it's the higher frequency's that it's running that it's able to compensate for mineral .

Now back to the video (I am looking at id and speed in this video what do you think) I know the nox can hit 15 targets faster than the ctx (WOW) even though the ctx well hear them all moving at the speed you are suppose to be moving at thick thrash iron . My ? is if my slow detector ctx can separate just as well as the nox but give better id (WHY DO I NEED SPEED) ???? judging by the video I don't see any difference where speed made a difference in id or separation .

I value your opinion can you explain the speed thing . sube

 

[metalpopper]

(partial QUOTE:-

Now back to the video (I am looking at id and speed in this video what do you think) I know the nox can hit 15 targets faster than the ctx (WOW) even though the ctx well hear them all moving at the speed you are suppose to be moving at thick thrash iron . My ? is if my slow detector ctx can separate just as well as the nox but give better id (WHY DO I NEED SPEED) ???? judging by the video I don't see any difference where speed made a difference in id or separation .

I value your opinion can you explain the speed thing . sube

***************************************************************************************​

Hi Sube !
Thanks again for your comments; now let me see if I can answer your queries.
..
(1) re...Now back to the video (I am looking at id and speed in this video what do you think.

Sube, I think the video initially demonstrates that you can’t separate two very close items.

All the twiddling and fiddling of Rec. Speed and Iron-Bias settings and physical sweeping tactics, failed to accomplish a clear indication of ‘separability’; (either audibly, or by VDI persistence.)

Only when he separated the two items BY A SPACING EQUIVALENT to approximately HALF the COIL’S WIDTH (or more,) could the detectors correctly identify each item individually. REMEMBER...all this was about two non-ferrous items SITTING ON THE SURFACE of assumed neutral soil.

So the rule is:- ‘Minimum separation must be half the ‘width’ of a DD coil’ or more.​

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^​

Now regarding settings: RECOVERY SPEED.

The use of Recovery-Speed (audio response-curtailment) Is the electronic gimmick of terminating the ‘natural audio response period’ of a target,and limit 'smearing' in readiness to alert you to the next ‘target’ in the sweep. This is more effective when sweeping relatively-slowly in areas of high target density.
I prefer to use a slower Recovery-Speed sufficient to hear a coin’s ‘normal’ width, at ‘my average sweep rate.
The effectiveness of this is entirely dependent on YOU; the rate of sweep and choice of setting
.
Problem with commenting on this video, is the limitations of the testing carried out.

It was ‘artificial’ because of the need to visually show viewers, the target’s proximities.

If only he could follow it up with repeating the sequences again, BUT WITH THE TARGETS UNDER THE BOX OF SOIL, if shallow enough.....or buried 5 inches down in the box...... I wonder if any results would have differed.

An interesting test which would be informative, is the one I describe in the following paragraph, on the ‘wider spaced-targets’.
With the Dime and tab parted by at least, half the DD search-head’s width; begin sweeping in the normal direction over the targets, then continue sweeping whilst circling around the targets through 90 degrees. Repeat for various ‘Recovery’ settings.
Can you anticipate the various audio/VDI outcomes?

Also, what effects does raising and lowering the search-head have on the responses, whilst performing any such testing?

Sube, when I hit a target, I quickly circle, (or pivot the head,) through 360 degrees of scanning to extract any indications that may expose singular or plurality of targets, or other than ‘normal’ alignment.
Ultimately, regardless of any variance of tone or VDI...IF THERE IS A REPEATABLE sniff of a ‘GOOD’ tone....I DIG I
.
When using my E-Trac, and I initially Pin-Point (its then ALL-METAL), it will FIRSTLY lock onto any Ferrous item involved. I remove that and then I go over the spot again, and look for what ever caused the good tones. I have found many of my deepest finds using that method.
So my motto is; IF IT ‘REPEATS’ (regardless of erratically doing so,) DIG IT.
..........................................
One point to mention...I think the gent had the sensitivities TOO HIGH for such close order testing.
So Sube, I don’t know if my interpretation of the video will be of any help; matt.
p.s. Perhaps our video maker will repeat the same tests, but with the two spacing scenarios set at depth; say, 5 inches in his box of soil ?

 

[sube]

Thanks metalpopper for your reply.

I did try at 5 inches the non ferrous next to the non ferrous results were the same .However ferrous to non ferrous -o nail coin the nox read lower like before dime nail 20 to 21 with a occasional 25 .

Now with nail across the dime east west hit the nox was giving 35 to 39 at times and 20 to 21 at other times swinging north and south it was giving 20 to 21 so a digger in my book .

As for recovery speed 6 to 8 you would miss or plain not hear it because of depth recovery 1 gave the best audio (on first pass ) where as recovery 234 and 5 would give audio but not consistent as 1 would .When in 1 there was a definite delay in audio but it was a very strong audio compared to the other speeds tried .

So we can say half the coil width is max separation of targets regardless of the speed you choose .

Now recovery 1 will give audio on all targets but with a lag in where the target reports on the ground but it's a better audio than the other recovery speeds . The other speeds tend to clip the audio making it harder to tell if coin .So choosing recovery speed is a two sided sword clipped signal or a lagged signal now the ctx has different audio setting by using long or smooth the signal is stretch out making it easier to tell coin from other signals because the signal is not clipped .

Now the recovery speeds work fine on targets that are free of junk but adding nails seem to clip the signals more so on the higher recovery speeds .

And yes repeat from two directions is that means your 20 to 21 both ways or plus 1 to 39 the other way with no negative #s showing is going to be a digger. anytime you get negative #s or audio on the 90 degree change chances are good you will be digging iron .

Again I thank you for your insight sube