Preferred method for waterproofing NOX 800

[hound]

In the watch world this is how you read waterproof ratings.

Non-Water Resistant: The watch cannot be exposed to water, not even for cleaning.
50M/165 ft: The watch can be worn while showering.
100M/330 ft: The watch can be worn while swimming in shallow water.
300M/1000 ft: The watch can be worn while scuba diving.
1000M/3000 ft: The watch can be worn for deep sea diving.

The same goes for any ratings on waterproof equipment. It may just be my experience diving, but I think the metal detection community has unrealistic expectations for something rated for 10ft. Just because some people get away with it doesn't mean it should be done. I've worked with military equipment with much better seals on it than either the Nox or AT and they weren't meant to be submerged. Something that's designed to be submerged has obvious design features that those detectors lack.

Another thing that drives me crazy is people diving with no training. Yes you may have self taught, but if you have an injury while diving and you have no PADI/IANTD/etc. certifications your insurance will very likely refuse to pay. I've seen it happen more than once. If you dive outside of the parameters you're certified for and you need medical attention they can and will refuse to pay. I even had my navy training converted over to IANTD certs mainly because they were the only civilian dive organization that supported the training level and the rebreathers I was trained on. All for insurance purposes.

A PADI open water certification is cheaper than your metal detector and not difficult.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Xraywolf]

hound, that was sound reasoning based on your experiences and logic but I sure don't think it is "unrealistic expectations" to expect something you pay good $$ for and advertised as waterproof to be exactly that - I would say thats as a reasonable expectation as expecting for a saltine to have salt on it when you buy them.

What you are saying, if accurate, sure makes the case for blatant false advertising if nothing else.

 

[hound]

hound, that was sound reasoning based on your experiences and logic but I sure don't think it is "unrealistic expectations" to expect something you pay good $$ for and advertised as waterproof to be exactly that - I would say thats as a reasonable expectation as expecting for a saltine to have salt on it when you buy them.

What you are saying, if accurate, sure makes the case for blatant false advertising if nothing else.

Waterproof to 10ft means the static pressure of 10ft of water. When you move something around underwater that water doesn't compress well so you create pressure spikes along surfaces and seals. That's why you need a watch rated for 100m of static pressure to swim with it because of rapid arm motion creating pressure spikes along the body of the watch. It's even worse for a metal detector because it has more surface area. You can stick a Nox just under the surface, push your arm forwards and backwards a few times and already exceed 10ft of static pressure. They are advertising static pressure ratings so it's not false advertising. Welcome to the reality of how waterproofing measurements are made.

Watch water resistance standards

Watches have ISO standardized testing and even then that chart I posted is the advised levels for activities.

 

[Xraywolf]

I disagree, the claim of being water proof to 10 ft is either true or false, you seem to be saying it is both and are fine with that.

I seriously doubt if your logic would hold any water in a court of law, and I for one am not qualified to argue the finer points of submersion dynamics.
[My At Pro btw has lasted over 5 seasons in the water without failure] So do you think I have a super mil spec unit with extra heavy duty seals good to 1,000 ft ?

 

[hound]

I disagree, the claim of being water proof to 10 ft is either true or false, you seem to be saying it is both and are fine with that.

I seriously doubt if your logic would hold any water in a court of law, and I for one am not qualified to argue the finer points of submersion dynamics.
[My At Pro btw has lasted over 5 seasons in the water without failure] So do you think I have a super mil spec unit with extra heavy duty seals good to 1,000 ft ?

It has, that's how the watch waterproofing standards have evolved. That's why there's an ISO standard for testing them that includes a bit of dynamic pressure testing. Even then that recommended level for activities applies.

I'd say the AT series could probably pass a higher static pressure test than what they chose to put on the box.

That said. I do agree with you if it says waterproof to 10ft you should be able to use it at that depth without issue. Legally though they only have to support a static pressure test unless some kind of testing standard is specified. Someone would need to take them to court to see what a judge would rule on that. The whole watch waterproofing thing is based on ratings from Rolex, ETA, and others. There has been court cases over them, and any case involving waterproofing will likely reference to those cases.

 

[Xraywolf]

"I do agree with you if it says waterproof to 10ft you should be able to use it at that depth without issue."

That is the crux of the matter, everything else is just fluff.
If/when a class action lawsuit is started, I doubt if watch standards will be much of a factor, though you are right ML will likely try to make it so.
Watches don't come in big boxes saying "WATERPROOF !" on them, for one thing. So much in law comes down to what a judge thinks a reasonable person would conclude, and any reasonable person would conclude when they see a box [or over the top www promoting in the case of minelab] that say "Its waterproof ! Take it in the water up to 10 ft and find gold rings !!", they would assume it is indeed waterproof, and will not think of or know anything about rolex static pressures.

 

[vferrari]

"I do agree with you if it says waterproof to 10ft you should be able to use it at that depth without issue."

That is the crux of the matter, everything else is just fluff.
If/when a class action lawsuit is started, I doubt if watch standards will be much of a factor, though you are right ML will likely try to make it so.
Watches don't come in big boxes saying "WATERPROOF !" on them, for one thing. So much in law comes down to what a judge thinks a reasonable person would conclude, and any reasonable person would conclude when they see a box [or over the top www promoting in the case of minelab] that say "Its waterproof ! Take it in the water up to 10 ft and find gold rings !!", they would assume it is indeed waterproof, and will not think of or know anything about rolex static pressures.

I seriously doubt there is going to be any such lawsuit unless there are some lawyers about who are keen to benefit from such action, because the consumer seldom benefits and the company at fault seldom feels much pain from the exercise both in terms of payout, lost sales, and lost reputation. Especially when the stakes don't involve loss of life or limb but simply involve what is essentially a hobby toy.

But from a less cynical and more pragmatic standpoint, it is hard to tell simply from the anecdotal evidence of people posting to metal detecting forums the extent of the problem beyond what can be considered an acceptable failure rate (every line of tech products suffers from an "acceptable" or "expected" failure rate no matter how well they are designed or manufactured). I have shifted my thinking from this being an initial manufacturing quality control problem to some sort of other more insidious design and/or manufacturing issue based on failures that happen well after the initial submersion. The fact is however, there is also anecdotal evidence that plenty of people are using their Equinox in the water on a regular basis without issue.

The question is, how likely is failure due to the whatever is the root cause. I know this does not fit in well with your "wronged consumer" narrative, but the the fact is, ML only has to guarantee that the Equinox is waterproof for 3 years from the time of purchase (the warranty period). Seals wear out, seams are stressed from both the dynamic forces of submerged water use. As long as ML can prove that their qualification test methods met the standard needed for them to verify the the design was watertight and print waterproof to 10 feet on the box, then there is not much of a case. Especially if ML is replacing any failed units in accordance with the warranty, no questions asked. Which seems to be the case. I am not saying ML doesn't have a problem, I am just saying the way the problem is being handled by ML does not appear to rise to the level that they are going to have answer for it in court, as unsatisfying as that may seem.

 

[Xraywolf]

I am advancing no "narrative" any more than anyone else, simply calling things as I see them.

I get the feeling that many if not most who own one of these units are like me, inhibited from taking them for a dunk in fear they'll fry, then get a RA from ML, pack things up, run to the PO, wait for another one, hope a porch pirate doesn't swipe it before you get home, ect.

 

[vferrari]

I am advancing no "narrative" any more than anyone else, simply calling things as I see them.

I get the feeling that many if not most who own one of these units are like me, inhibited from taking them for a dunk in fear they'll fry, then get a RA from ML, pack things up, run to the PO, wait for another one, hope a porch pirate doesn't swipe it before you get home, ect.

I know it is a pain to have to deal with the warranty process and all that goes along with it, especially since it appesrs they are having supply chain issues. I get it. But I would rather know the situation with my particular detector before the warranty runs out. Makes no sense to not use something for its intended purpose if it is covered by the warranty. If that is the case, why bother getting it in the first place. There are plenty of other waterproof detectors out there if you need a waterproof detector. Agree it is not a good situation any way you slice it.

 

[smokeythecat]

I know it is a pain to have to deal with the warranty process and all that goes along with it, especially since it appesrs they are having supply chain issues. I get it. But I would rather know the situation with my particular detector before the warranty runs out. Makes no sense to not use something for its intended purpose if it is covered by the warranty. If that is the case, why bother getting it in the first place. There are plenty of other waterproof detectors out there if you need a waterproof detector. Agree it is not a good situation any way you slice it.

If you have a machine, use it and don't worry about it! Like everything else, no machine lasts forever and just assume one day after the warranty expires you will buy something else if you want something else.

These are just metal detectors. It's not like if one fails it will cause you to wreck, like a car, and get killed.

 

[Xraywolf]

If you have a machine, use it and don't worry about it! Like everything else, no machine lasts forever and just assume one day after the warranty expires you will buy something else if you want something else.

These are just metal detectors. It's not like if one fails it will cause you to wreck, like a car, and get killed.

Yeah, and if you accidentally flushed your $1,200 iphone down the toilet, life would go on as well, theres no end if you want to start advancing those types of arguments.
Bottom line for me is, did I get what I paid for, as advertised ? I bought it primarily as a backup for the AT, and would possibly even sell the AT if it worked out good, obviously that scenario has changed with the flood of failure reports. I don't get to get out in the water as much as I'd like so when I do, I need something reliable, I need something as advertised *waterproof to 10 ft* and that means all the time, not sometimes or usually.

Now comes the "anything can fail" argument ,,, I just don't think this thing is waterproof, certainly not reliably. My AT has proven itself to be so I'll continue to use that and look for another water backup while I decide the fate of my barely used, never seen water, mint condition [with headphones!] Nox 800.

 

[Tommybuckets]

Two wrongs make a right! I just left my Nox in a moderately warm car and the heat seems to have forced the little bit of water out of it again. Not recommended but nothing I do is. I should be the tester for these units because I put them through the paces. I've had the Nox to at least 5ft deep- again not recommended but its still ticking. Relax and enjoy, the unit is definitely better waterproofed than an AT pro.

 

[Xraywolf]

Relax and enjoy, the unit is definitely better waterproofed than an AT pro.

Curious, what makes you say such a daffy thing ?
The only thing we really have to go off of is the volume of reported failures and AT had/has no where near the volume in 5 years that the nox has had in 1, not even close. Also, most AT failures were due to a deteriorated battery door cover Oring, which at least is identifiable and preventable [never had a failure of mine with over 100 hours underwater] With the nox we have half a dozen theories how water is entering them, none really much better than the other, or it could well have multiple entry points..

 

[smokeythecat]

Xraywolf, time to buy a truly waterproof machine then? And yes, the Noxes aren't apparently waterproof...Calabash had at least 3 go bad so far.

And the bad part is, there isn't anything else you can do...

 

[Xraywolf]

Xraywolf, time to buy a truly waterproof machine then? And yes, the Noxes aren't apparently waterproof...Calabash had at least 3 go bad so far.

And the bad part is, there isn't anything else you can do...

I have confidence in my AT since it has proven itself year after year, don't feel the need for an Ex2 at the present moment but who knows, maybe some day I will.

 

[smokeythecat]

I know some folks who still use the AT underwater all the time...no runs, drips or errors. Beats me, and Vferrari is correct, no legal recourse with ML on this one.

Maybe by the time the warranties start to run out late this year and first quarter next year, if you have a lemon then something else will be available you'll like better. Just keep truckin' in the meantime. Not much else to do.

 

[Toecutter]

I know some folks who still use the AT underwater all the time...no runs, drips or errors. Beats me, and Vferrari is correct, no legal recourse with ML on this one.

Maybe by the time the warranties start to run out late this year and first quarter next year, if you have a lemon then something else will be available you'll like better. Just keep truckin' in the meantime. Not much else to do.

My back up is the ATpro and has never failed, made in the USA does have its advantages...

 

[flgliderpilot]

I used both my AT Pro and my Equinox for primarily water hunting. I spent many many many hours with it completely submerged and never had a leak. I sold my CZ-21 after purchasing the equinox because it (at first) seemed to work well enough to fill both roles.

I've since decided to switch to another detector for water hunting because digging tiny little bits of foil in the water is simply maddening.

 

[Xraywolf]

Personally if the nox does well for me on land I'll keep it, the water thing irks me but is not a deal breaker.