northwest Re: videos of the QED at the coiltek test site comparison with GPZ, Gpx 5000
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Wednesday October 16 2019 23:47:33 AEDT PM
Home Help Login Register
News: Welcome to the Australianelectronicgoldprospectingforum founded in July 2010, an add free totally independent forum with over 70 boards and paid for and managed by the Admin.Topics: 9,245  Total forum Posts:46,357 Members:856. Total page views:12,263,130  Admin and  forum and domain name owner :marjen at optusnet.com.au. Guests can only see a limited number of boards at present and cannot see any hot links. Guests cannot post and never will be permitted too!Registration of new members must be approved by admin.
 All  original Photos and posts and  original materials displayed on this site are COPYRIGHTED and remain the property of the poster and the  Austalian electronicgoldprospectingforum.com. All messages on this forum express the personal views of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily being in accord with those of the forum owner and neither the owner of this forum and its domain name nor SMF or the forum software developers or the forum host shall be held responsible for the content of any message. Admin reserves the right to remove any offensive or objectionable posts. No defamatory material or politics/religion or issues of race will be permitted.
QED news
QED on facebook
link-https://www.facebook.com/groups/245308699667153/403446933853328/?comment_id=403472030517485&reply_comment_id=403476793850342&notif_id=1562580344994993&notif_t=group_comment
Interfacion Pty Ltd is pleased to announce that the QED PI Detector has been modified to allow the use of DD (double D) coils. This change involves a simple change to the electronics within the control box.
The firmware has also been upgraded to include a further improved Ground Balance.
All detectors being delivered to new customers from Monday 5th August 2019 will already have the above upgrades included.
As a show of commitment to all QED owners, the hardware modification to allow use of the DD and CC coils will be provided at no cost.
Of course and as per the QED warranty, the firmware update is provided free of charge, except for P&H.
Any QED owner who plans to attend the Laanecoorie Bash is encouraged to bring their detector along and have it upgraded at no cost.
Standard postage and handling arrangements apply to other owners. Send via Australia Post the box (minus batteries) along with a pre-paid, pre-addressed bag/box to:
Interfacion Pty Ltd
PO Box 106R
Redan VIC 3350
Howard Rockey
Director Interfacion Pty Ltd.

australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Common interest forum.  |  General chat and discussion forum (Moderator: bugwhiskers)  |  Topic: Re: videos of the QED at the coiltek test site comparison with GPZ, Gpx 5000 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Re: videos of the QED at the coiltek test site comparison with GPZ, Gpx 5000  (Read 1433 times)
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16855



« Reply #20 on: Tuesday January 15 2019 14:27:26 AEDT PM »

 Thanks for the videos. The SDC sounds like a sick bird!I think the QED  with a 8"mono would kill the SDC for depth!
doug smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin.
When is 1halfgram4three (a proven forum hacker and  village idiot!) going to stop telling lies on his “forum”?
bugwhiskers
global moderator
Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2201



« Reply #21 on: Tuesday January 15 2019 14:40:13 AEDT PM »

The QED set to small gold mode and tested over 0.033g  0.08g  & 0.24g nuggets.


  
Logged

All posts are my opinion and are stated without prejudice and in the public and consumers interest.
GARY
invited members
Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 558


« Reply #22 on: Tuesday January 15 2019 14:59:51 AEDT PM »

Thanks for all of the Videos and after watching then what BW said in another thread "However..... what if the video shows that you don't need 2 detectors (eg 5000 or 7000 and a 2300) to find all sizes of gold then the exercise will be very worthwhile and would save our fellow prospectors a lot of money." it has now been demonstrated.

Gary.
Logged

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16855



« Reply #23 on: Tuesday January 15 2019 15:25:54 AEDT PM »

  
Thanks for all of the Videos and after watching then what BW said in another thread "However..... what if the video shows that you don't need 2 detectors (eg 5000 or 7000 and a 2300) to find all sizes of gold then the exercise will be very worthwhile and would save our fellow prospectors a lot of money." it has now been demonstrated.

Gary.


Why any serious prospector would buy an sdc2300 or the gold monster is beyond me!
doug smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin.
When is 1halfgram4three (a proven forum hacker and  village idiot!) going to stop telling lies on his “forum”?
bugwhiskers
global moderator
Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2201



« Reply #24 on: Tuesday January 15 2019 16:14:46 AEDT PM »

Testing the GPZ7000 at the Coiltek test patch, Maryborough.
The small nuggets are 0.033g 0.08g & 0.24g.

  

Logged

All posts are my opinion and are stated without prejudice and in the public and consumers interest.
bugwhiskers
global moderator
Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2201



« Reply #25 on: Tuesday January 15 2019 16:30:11 AEDT PM »

The QED set to Large gold mode (MODE 15) at the Coiltek test patch, Maryborough. The small nuggets are 0.033g  0.08g  & 0.24g.

  






Logged

All posts are my opinion and are stated without prejudice and in the public and consumers interest.
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16855



« Reply #26 on: Tuesday January 15 2019 18:40:27 AEDT PM »

Gee you read some nonsense on other forums! Some clown now says that  lead is not an appropriate test target  because ML's perform better on Gold!!
Tries to justify this statement by a lot of techno waffle about the frequency response of gold  and some waffle about Ml's signal response to iron which of course has both and X@R component whereas gold  has mostly a pure R unless it contains ferrites and its frequency response or Tc depends predominately on the shape, surface area and conductivity and the length of the excitation pulse for larger higher conductivity nuggets. You can't win with these pro ML morons!
doug smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin.
When is 1halfgram4three (a proven forum hacker and  village idiot!) going to stop telling lies on his “forum”?
bugwhiskers
global moderator
Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2201



« Reply #27 on: Tuesday January 15 2019 18:54:06 AEDT PM »

  
Gee you read some nonsense on other forums! Some clown now says that  lead is not an appropriate test target  because ML's perform better on Gold!!
Tries to justify this statement by a lot of techno waffle about the frequency response of gold  and some waffle about Ml's signal response to iron which of course has both and X@R component whereas gold  has mostly a pure R unless it contains ferrites and its frequency response or Tc depends predominately on the shape, surface area and conductivity and the length of the excitation pulse for larger higher conductivity nuggets. You can't win with these pro ML morons!
doug smile

You can win.

If it was true then ML would have a Patent on it. Ask the clown for the patent number and claim number.
Logged

All posts are my opinion and are stated without prejudice and in the public and consumers interest.
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16855



« Reply #28 on: Tuesday January 15 2019 18:57:52 AEDT PM »

  
  
Gee you read some nonsense on other forums! Some clown now says that  lead is not an appropriate test target  because ML's perform better on Gold!!
Tries to justify this statement by a lot of techno waffle about the frequency response of gold  and some waffle about Ml's signal response to iron which of course has both and X@R component whereas gold  has mostly a pure R unless it contains ferrites and its frequency response or Tc depends predominately on the shape, surface area and conductivity and the length of the excitation pulse for larger higher conductivity nuggets. You can't win with these pro ML morons!
doug smile

You can win.

If it was true then ML would have a Patent on it. Ask the clown for the patent number and claim number.

The clown has made a total boo boo about the F14a timings and had to "correct"  a post!
doug smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin.
When is 1halfgram4three (a proven forum hacker and  village idiot!) going to stop telling lies on his “forum”?
GARY
invited members
Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 558


« Reply #29 on: Wednesday January 16 2019 12:44:44 AEDT PM »

I reviewed a discussion on another forum around this time in January last year and in it a post by Reg W when he performed some tests in his own backyard with real gold up to 27ozs with the QED. Then after seeing how the QED performed during his tests at Coiltek test site on the lead targets it seemed the QED liked real gold even better.

Also mentioned during the same discussion another member with the initial “H” said he had drilled a hole at 45 degree angle and lowered a 5.5 oz (20 x 40mm) fishing sinker down the hole to a real depth at 22 inches (55.88cm) until he could just hear the sinker with his 5000 and 15” Evo coil. He then stuffed the hole full of dirt. I assume it is the one off to the side at the Coiltek test site that some detectors are having trouble responding too.

Gary.
Logged

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
bugwhiskers
global moderator
Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2201



« Reply #30 on: Wednesday January 16 2019 12:50:15 AEDT PM »

Ideally, the holes at the CT test site should be filled with the same soil to cover the target. Without this covering a detector may just be responding to the "void". Test patches with the holes bored sideways are a closer approximation and should be the preferred type. Ideally, the diameter of the hole should suit the target to minimise the void.
Logged

All posts are my opinion and are stated without prejudice and in the public and consumers interest.
GARY
invited members
Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 558


« Reply #31 on: Wednesday January 16 2019 13:14:43 AEDT PM »

Yes BW as "H" said he stuffed the hole full of dirt which I have now edited into my reply above.

In regards to this particular test hole then if it is the one at a 45 degree angle then it appears in the video to have a small section of round plastic pipe expose at the surface that looks to be in a vertical position, as if it was at an angle then the target response should be off to one side and not above the end exposed at the surface?

I could be wrong but that is what I am seeing.

Gary.

Logged

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
Reg Wilson
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #32 on: Wednesday January 16 2019 13:32:27 AEDT PM »

Gary the lead sinker is not marked by plastic pipe. It has no marking (or at least it didn't when I was there.)
Logged
GARY
invited members
Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 558


« Reply #33 on: Wednesday January 16 2019 13:44:32 AEDT PM »

Okay thanks Reg.

Have attached a pic of what I a seeing in regards to the 5.5oz test target and the round section exposed at the surface.


* 5.5oz target.jpg (335.16 KB, 1283x642 - viewed 88 times.)
Logged

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
Reg Wilson
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #34 on: Wednesday January 16 2019 14:59:42 AEDT PM »

Sure looks like the end of a pipe. Must have been covered with dirt when I was there.
Logged
Goldman
Moderator
Junior Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 263



« Reply #35 on: Wednesday January 16 2019 16:18:29 AEDT PM »

It is definitely a top to a plastic pipe, I have been there multiple times in the last 6 months but only noticed it the last few times but given its general appearance I would say it’s been there a fair while.
The QED picks up a target underneath the pipe top as does my 4000. Having said that, that spot nearly always needs a separate ground balance although with MODE set high on the QED it seems to handle the changing conditions without an additional GB.
I have circled that area once GBd and no other targets are discernible, even with various machines (7000, gpx, QED).
I am very interested in what other people have to say regarding this target.
Logged
GARY
invited members
Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 558


« Reply #36 on: Wednesday January 16 2019 16:48:05 AEDT PM »

Thanks Goldman for your reply and yes I too am interested what others have to say as it appears to me the test target is laying vertically underneath the exposed pipe and therefore not off at the 45 degree angle, if indeed this is the 5.5oz lead sinker at 22 inch depth.

Gary.
Logged

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Common interest forum.  |  General chat and discussion forum (Moderator: bugwhiskers)  |  Topic: Re: videos of the QED at the coiltek test site comparison with GPZ, Gpx 5000 « previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder

BisdakworldClassic design by JV PACO-IN
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!