Florida PI/Xcal users

[dewcon4414]

Ive got a good number of hours behind the wheel of the Xcal now hunting in PP with the advantage of reverse disc. For those using a PI and HAVE used the Xcal using reverse disc.... what kind of depth difference are you getting on say a clad dime.... since thats a consistent target? Im not looking for FISHERMANS TAPE measurements to justify what you are using. Give me some realistic guesses. I say guesses because i know depth out there is just that a guess. But .... if you have used both machines long enough to KNOW them id like to hear what you have to say on depth as well as a PIs SENSITIVITY to small gold over an Xcal here in Florida. Ive yet to get my hands on a PI to check targets and the work involved over a VLF. Yes i could jump out and buy one and do my own testing..... and may well have to. Its not about the money as much as changing my style for a just a small amount of depth and loosing the ability to cover a beach more quickly. Im also VERY happy with the Xcal.... but a PI is a different second machine to be used in the winter mostly.

Dew

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[wrecker]

That's exactly what I was going to ask one of these days! Is it worth buying a PI in order to try and find deep targets I might have missed with my Excal 1000 in All Metal in the water?

 

[hamiddetecting]

In my life hunting on the beaches, i used over 100 metal detector in the world same if china metal detector i used it. I used VLF and PI. For me in the now i like Sov GT and Excalibur to end my life. I know why.
detecting on the beach is not the depth but its study where is no deep. Hoppe you understand me.

 

[cdv1]

this could be an interesting post to follow since I just got an Excal. Probably the best way to answer this is a buddy hunt with the two different type of detectors and each one testing the existing signal prior to the dig.

Cliff

 

[stevemc]

In the saltwater a PI will go farther on about everything, than an Excal, or any other detector. But do you want to dig 2+ feet deep? I have dug huge pits only to find it was a pulltab or a padlock, or something. What you need to do is take the same smallish, thin, 14 Kt gold ring and tie a string to it, and bury it in sand under saltwater. Not a lead weight or coin. Do side by side until it cant be found by either. PIs that can find gold jewelry have a high pulse rate. The higher the better they are on gold jewelry. PIs that have a low pulse rate wont find gold jewelry, but find anything else. That is how some people use the pulse delay to disc (sometimes) on a PI with high pulse rate. Another good test is use a stainless steel screw, just a 1" small sainless screw, and do the same testing, all in saltwater. A low pulse PI wont pick up stainless or gold jewelry, but a good PI will hit on both. As will an Excal. But an Excal will disc, and tell you if it might be gold, where a PI cannot really do that.

 

[dewcon4414]

Thanks Steve..... already got a string attached to a 10 and 14K rings to take out tomorrow with a friend who has a SS. Ill try it in the water as well as the wet sand. You say high pulse rate.... are you talking uS? Im hoping a good test will enlighten me a bit. I do hunt a good bit in PP with the Xcal its trashier out there than you think running in disc. But i like the weak signals i miss in disc.... just never know until you take off some sand what you might end up with.

Dew

 

[Hag730]

I'd be real interested in the results. I used the Sand Shark all summer.....I cant tell you how many holes I dug. All the gold I found was within 10 inches of the surface, but most of them looked like pretty recent drops. I did manage to dig some pretty large holes......large holes always turned out to be bottle caps or large iron/lead objects.

 

[dewcon4414]

Hag.... i hear ya on those deep holes at least after a scoop i can tell most of the time if im chasing a bottle cap with the Xcal. 10 inches.... id say here in Fl id be getting those with the Xcal. Determining depth out there is a real guess for me and i think i PP pretty well.

Dew

 

[stevemc]

Some of the newer PIs will really hit on gold jewelry. Tesoro Sand Shark, Garrett Mark II, and Infinium-but it is not really a true water machine, White's Dual Field, I am sure a couple more, will hit gold jewelry deep. Some will not hit gold jewelry, and are still being sold, and say they will find gold but wont, some sell for a fortune, but I would never use for beach and shallow water hunting. Like the Fisher Pulse 8X, and a few others. Like I said, if it wont find a small stainless steel screw, it wont find gold jewelry. Some wont find a large piece of stainless. Yes I think that is the symbol for the pulse rate. Dont have any pulse delay or disc, or you wont find gold.. And remember turn off the detector not being tested, it will mess up the other.

 

[search and recovery]

Dewcon and Steve, you have my attention with this thread. I own and use the dual field, sand shark, and excal. The sand shark I just do not have enough hours on to justify an opinion on it's ability to find small gold at depth. Although Les in Fla. and Dewguru can sure attest to that fact. The dual field in the water ( salt water ) has such great depth and hits on gold so well that I do not mind the time lost digging a little trash. I just go away from it in the water if there is a lot of iron and trash to deal with it. The excal is an amazing machine on the wet sand and up to about waist deep in the water. Very accurate on target ID and very good depth. Once you have to submerge the control box on the excal the depth really begins to drop off ( again, I am talking about salt water because that is where I spend most of my hunting time ). Of course the salinity level of the salt water that you are in will have different levels of effects on your machine depending on what section of the country you are in and what time of year you are hunting that particular beach. Then the deeper you submerge the excal in that same water, the greater the effects on your machine. That means even less depth. I know I am probably just rehashing the obvious to those more experienced treasure hunters on this sight, and I am far less experienced than many of you. But I do have a great addiction to this hobby and have learned so much from so many terriffic people on this sight and like you are always trying to learn more. I am not knocking an excal in any way. Actually I probably find more gold with it than the dual field because of the fact that, like you said, you can cover more ground with it in less time by not having to dig much trash and the fact that on rough days in the water, I will sometimes opt for the excal so as to not have to waste my energy digging any more trash than I can help. Still, the depth of small gold in actual salt water conditions would be great to know as a reference point to real world conditions on the different machines. I keep planning on doing just this test on the beaches that I hunt, but somehow never seem to take the time to do it.

 

[Sir Gala Clad]

Please help (anyone) on clarifying comments made on the Xcal: " Very accurate on target ID and very good depth. Once you have to submerge the control box on the excal the depth really begins to drop off ( again, I am talking about salt water because that is where I spend most of my hunting time ). Of course the salinity level of the salt water that you are in will have different levels of effects on your machine depending on what section of the country you are in and what time of year you are hunting that particular beach. Then the deeper you submerge the excal in that same water, the greater the effects on your machine. That means even less depth.


- Tone ID very accurate. I assume that you are referring to clad coins which are primarily copper or old pennies. As jewlery is alloyed for hardness and audio tones are mulit-variable it requires a good ear for music and lots and lots of experience to accurately determine what the object is. Some of the best tones which just had to be gold turned out to be the narrow round rings from wine bottle seals.


- I don't understand why submerging the control cylinder on the Xcal would cause the detection depth to drop off, other than that it may be due to a change in salinity effecting the search coil. If this is true and it is linear, I doubt you would be able to detect much when wreck diving in deep water.

- Has anyone noticed a drop off in depth due to submerging the control cylinder of an Xcal in fresh water?

I am not trying to nitpick, I am trying to understand why there would be a noticeable drop off in detection depth in deeper than waist deep water. I have seen this documented many times, by PI users as well as Xcal users, however I do not understand why it would be true.

Dewcon and Steve, you have my attention with this thread. I own and use the dual field, sand shark, and excal. The sand shark I just do not have enough hours on to justify an opinion on it's ability to find small gold at depth. Although Les in Fla. and Dewguru can sure attest to that fact. The dual field in the water ( salt water ) has such great depth and hits on gold so well that I do not mind the time lost digging a little trash. I just go away from it in the water if there is a lot of iron and trash to deal with it. The excal is an amazing machine on the wet sand and up to about waist deep in the water. Very accurate on target ID and very good depth. Once you have to submerge the control box on the excal the depth really begins to drop off ( again, I am talking about salt water because that is where I spend most of my hunting time ). Of course the salinity level of the salt water that you are in will have different levels of effects on your machine depending on what section of the country you are in and what time of year you are hunting that particular beach. Then the deeper you submerge the excal in that same water, the greater the effects on your machine. That means even less depth. I know I am probably just rehashing the obvious to those more experienced treasure hunters on this sight, and I am far less experienced than many of you. But I do have a great addiction to this hobby and have learned so much from so many terriffic people on this sight and like you are always trying to learn more. I am not knocking an excal in any way. Actually I probably find more gold with it than the dual field because of the fact that, like you said, you can cover more ground with it in less time by not having to dig much trash and the fact that on rough days in the water, I will sometimes opt for the excal so as to not have to waste my energy digging any more trash than I can help. Still, the depth of small gold in actual salt water conditions would be great to know as a reference point to real world conditions on the different machines. I keep planning on doing just this test on the beaches that I hunt, but somehow never seem to take the time to do it.

 

[Sir Gala Clad]

The first assumption is that there are targets deeper than you can detect with an Xcal 1000 in any mode but can detect with a PI.
The second assumption is that these targets are valuable.
The third assumption is that you can recover them in a time effective manner.
The fourth assumption is that you are willing to master the use of a PI
The fifth assumption is that you have the stamina to dig deep and dig dig dig.
If all of the above assumptions are true, then it's just a matter of determining which PI(s) would be best for your use.

 

[captaindoug]

About a year and a half ago my buddy and I each decided to buy a water machine, he went with the ex-cal and I opted for the Sand shark. Neither of us have hunted as much as we would like and probably only averaged two days per month, all on the west coast of Fla. There is no doubt that I have outscored him on jewelry and coins probably 4 to 1. The only variation between the two of us is that he is very methodical in his hunting and therefore covers a smaller area but does it much more thoroughly. On the other hand I have the most trash.

 

[dewcon4414]

I dont see some of those as assumptions at all. Take a look at the machines being used and whats being found. That puts the first two assumptions to rest. Recovery is time consuming out there especially until you master some of the trash tones.... even with the Xcal. You bob like a cork lol. As far as digging.... im ok with that its the scoop ya have to worry about lol. I agree the deeper you go the more salt content and you may have to adjust your sensitivity a tad, but im finding little loss on deep targets down here in neck deep water. Mineralization may be a bigger factor. I dont know that it has a thing to do with the pods its just the salt content. As far as the Xcal tones they are more robust longer and can be distinguished after awhile. However, i dig everything except a shallow bottle cap with any depth to it.... tones change at depth. Dont know that my test will prove anything since every beach has its own unique conditions to include salt and mineral content. But it should give me a general idea. Thanks Steve.... you got some good advice as always.

Dew

 

[search and recovery]

Let's see if I can clear up some of your questions and assumptions on the excal and PI's as I understand them Sir Gala Clad for that is what makes this sight so informative and enjoyable. Like I said, I am nowhere near an expert on detecting but am learning all the time. The excal loses depth in salt water because of the salinity (conductivity ) of the salt water and in most everywhere else except most of Fla. the combination of black sand added to that. A VLF machine struggles to read through both salt and black sand. A PI machine has no problem reading through both. Simply a different technology. I really do not know why as depth increases the excal loses more depth, if it is an increase in salinity or pressure. I only know that it does and that is why so many divers use PI machines. As far as ability to descriminate especially on gold targets, no VLF machine can do it with 100 percent guarantee that it is a gold target. But the excal can come very close, especially on rings because a ring is such a strong small round target. The excal locks on it so well. Sure a 10k ring will give a higher tone, but only because there is more copper in the makeup of the ring, but it will rarely give a higher tone than a nickle would. The excal has more tone levels than any machine out there and the fact that it will null on iron is a hugh advantage. You just have to check at a different angle on any null to make sure that the iron is not close to another target and masking it. Experience is the best teacher on learning the sounds of the excal. But for a newby on this machine I would highly recommend the $10 CD Sounds of the Excalibur that Kelleyco sells. It will teach you the basic sounds of most gold,silver, and coins as well as some of the trash. The advantage of the PI machines ( in my case that would be a Dual Field ) is depth pure and simple. But in an iron infested or trashy area you will waste so much time and energy digging trash it is just not practicle to use a PI even if it is giving you twice the depth of an excal. So the best solution is to own and use both machines where the situation is best for each. No one machine does it all. All opinions stated are in my own humble opinion and not to be taken as undesputable facts. Sorry about being so long winded, but I enjoy this sport so much and am passionate about learning all that I can about every aspect of detecting. I only have a little over a year and a half of water detecting experience, but over twenty years of relic hunting with VLF machines. PI machines are a great tool in the right application.

 

[Jason in Enid]

Gala-clad. the excal doesn't lose sensitivity because the control housing goes underwater. It looses sensititvity because, by the time the control housing goes under (assuming you are probably walking with it) you have 3+ feet of saltwater above the coil. Coils detect above as well as below them. This is the same as hunting a HIGHLY mineralized drysand beach. It works, but not optimally. PI's aren't affected by saltwater mineralization, so it doesn't matter how deep underwater you place the coil.

 

[dewcon4414]

Good point jason..... but the MLs do it as well as any VLF in tuff situations just because they are multi freq that doesnt really GB, but ignore. When i get out there chest deep i shut off the Xcal turn the sensitivity down a bit then restart it. Does it help?.... i think it does. Depth loss by the Xcal in chest deep water to me would be like arguing which is deeper CZ or Xcal .... depends.

Dew

 

[stevemc]

I agree that in salt water you must turn down the sens, more than on wet salt sand. But maybe it is because the housing is not fully sheilded it does something when housing is submerged.. The newer Excals have a shielding on the sides but not the end caps. Maybe some aluminum tape to fully shield, or have it neck mounted. In other words when the housing is submerged, some of the transmit signals can be picked up in the housing-I assume. I havent noticed a differerence, but I do turn down the sens, especially if any waves. I do know Mel Fishers dive crews did use Excals, for a short time, maybe they were given a bunch to use, and I do know they dont use them any more. I have used my Excal under deep water, and as all sensitive detectors will do in deep saltwater, you have to have the coil down on the sand, up too high and it will read the saltwater. Even an Excal. But as I already said, a PI is better-stable and deeper, in saltwater, in shallow or deep, but when shallow water beach detecting, you dig too much iron with a PI that you could be digging non-ferrous only with an Excal, and hitting more good targets instead.

 

[bigscoop]

Dew, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the basic problem being addressed is deep soft sand, and you're trying to figure out the best way of doing battle with it in order to access those deeper targets? Yes?

If this is the case, then there simply is no perfect solution. You can go with the Sov GT or Excal and a WOT on the dry and wet sand and actually compete with PI machines and still have the advantage of some discrimination. But, once you enter the salt water the game changes. Yes, you can still use the WOT, but in this situation the WOT is actually so large the machine's processor is really laboring to process the enormous amount of information the WOT is sending it, not to mention how important absolute control becomes the deeper you go. As a result, sensitivity usually has to be reduced in order to sustain stability and depth is likewise lost. On the other hand, the PI is little effected by this increase in saline, so it's ability to continue to hunt deep is maintained with little loss, but at this point it's a dig everything situation. I've found myself in many situations with the Excal & WOT where i would have been much better off with a stock coil because I would have been able to hunt it at more sensitivity and better stability with better coil control and pretty much the same depth as the unstable larger coil, but obviously losing coverage. This is why we VLF users are always doing this.........once that deep sand rolls in, because we really don't want to start having to dig it all and we keep looking for a way not to despite what we already know. Question is, will all the extra digging really be worth it? Only one way to find out to know for certain.

PS: And the saline issue becomes a compound problem when it is turbulent or moving rapidly. I just wasted the better part of the summer borrowing various PI machines to prove all this to myself.

 

[search and recovery]

Jason, Steve, Dewcon, and Bigscoop, all great posts. The PI machine measurement is US. The lower the US measurement the greater the sensitivity to gold. The problem is in maintaining stability of the machines signal ( meaning little or no falsing ) . Eric Foster who engineered the dual field, set the machine to run at 15 US. This is about as low a US setting on a production machine as is sold. Very stable and great depth. He did make a custom machine that was very expensive that ran at 10 US. All hand tuned by him personally. It is considered the best PI for depth by far and super sensitive on gold. I,like many detectorists would love to actually see one in use. Unfortunately, his health stopped him from producing them. So he came up with the Dual Field which he sold to Whites. His knowledge of pulse technology is what led me to buy a Dual Field in the first place. Again, stability of the machine is all important and Eric Foster found a way to get a machine down to 10 US and still maintain the stability needed. There are machines out there that get great depth, but in real world use are so unstable ( read false like crazy ) as to be completely unuseable. Hammid may have the best point here. The trick is in learning to read the beach. Finding where the overburden of soft sand is at its least and to hunt that area on that day. I sure have not mastered that skill yet. I could use a lot of help in that area from you more experienced detectorists. Great thread guys.