Question on air test with an Explorer II

[Digger2]

How deep should a 1964 quarter air test on an Explorer II with an 8 inch coil?
How would the machine be set to get max distance in an air test?

Roy

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[fistfulladirt]

The quarter should ring in about a foot and less. Forget the air testing, and plant a coin garden. That's what I did as a new owner, and within a 20 minute learning curve I was out digging deep silver and oldies.

Explorer II is a great machine with excellent depth capability. It's my go-to detector, more so than my new Etrac.

 

[Digger2]

Thanks FistfullaDirt..
The quarter with my 8" coil, with factory reset, barely registers at 5 inches, if I put the explorer on manual sensitivity and run it to max sensitivity, with deep on, all it reads is 9 inches.
I agree air test has nothing to do with learning how the expII works, but to me it is an indication of how sensitive my coils are.
With the WOT I can reach 12 inches.
Me thinks my Explorer II needs a tune up?
When I hunt out an area (tried several times) with my AT Pro and I go over it with explorer II, the explorer finds nothing. I would like to believe that the explorer can hunt deeper than the AT. I guess I'll just have to clean out an area in my yard and start testing and comparing the two.
Thanks for your input, I value your opinion.
Roy

 

[atomicscott]

Thanks FistfullaDirt..
The quarter with my 8" coil, with factory reset, barely registers at 5 inches, if I put the explorer on manual sensitivity and run it to max sensitivity, with deep on, all it reads is 9 inches.
I agree air test has nothing to do with learning how the expII works, but to me it is an indication of how sensitive my coils are.
With the WOT I can reach 12 inches.
Me thinks my Explorer II needs a tune up?
When I hunt out an area (tried several times) with my AT Pro and I go over it with explorer II, the explorer finds nothing. I would like to believe that the explorer can hunt deeper than the AT. I guess I'll just have to clean out an area in my yard and start testing and comparing the two.
Thanks for your input, I value your opinion.
Roy

Test garden would be the best idea! The older the test garden the better depth you will usually get. As far as a tune-up, I don't think there is such a thing for your Minelab. either it works right or it's broken. Unless maybe your plugs need to be re-gapped? Lol!

 

[Bart@Big Boys Hobbies]

Test garden would be the best idea! The older the test garden the better depth you will usually get. As far as a tune-up, I don't think there is such a thing for your Minelab. either it works right or it's broken. Unless maybe your plugs need to be re-gapped? Lol!

Great post. Coin gardens need to be at least a year old before you get accurate results.

 

[christo000]

Great post. Coin gardens need to be at least a year old before you get accurate results.

And that right there is y I pop around i been detecting a while though I never made a garden been thinkin about it here & there, & that makes sence let the dirt settle around the coin or whatever let it mineralize with the earth good bit of knowlege there thanks

 

[Digger2]

I would think that the electronics of a metal detector (fueled by the on board batteries) is what generates the energy necessary to create the force to run the coil. For a given brand (in this case Explorer II) the electronic (generator for lack of a better word) power produced can vary (nothing manufactured is identical).
I am sure that the manufacturer has tolerances that they adhere to.
This being said an air test would be the best way to compare the sensitivity (or force emitting from the coil) of my detector with whomever has done testing with a silver quarter in another Explorer II.
Since silver 25 cent pieces can vary in the amount of silver year to year, I used a 1964 because it is probably one of the easiest to obtain, hence the test (if the other testers use a comprable 25 cent piece) would show a difference or similarity between the two explorer IIs.
My reasons have nothing to do with "learning how" to use the explorer II, but if several people are getting 1 or 2 inches more distance in an air test than I am, it is reasonable to assume that the detector I have is not reaching the depths it should.
The air test, I know for a fact, has very little to do with the actual hunting depth of a detector. Yes to learn a detector a test bed clear of metallic objects is the clearly the way to go.
I am looking for this information, because I find it odd that the explorer II cannot find a coin (in a test garden) as deep as my AT Pro.
At first I thought it was just me not being able to utilize the functions on the Exp, but now I am beginning to wonder if possibly the 10 year old technology of my Explorer II has something to be desired. Which is why I said it needed a tune up. By a tune-up, I was implying that it would possibly need better (or newer) technology installed, which I know minelab will not do. If I can possibly obtain tests done by other members, and I come to the conclusion that the electronics in my particular machine is insufficient, I will not sell it. If it seems to be "up to snuff" evident-ed by air tests. Then I would have to make a different decision.
Roy

 

[atomicscott]

I would think that the electronics of a metal detector (fueled by the on board batteries) is what generates the energy necessary to create the force to run the coil. For a given brand (in this case Explorer II) the electronic (generator for lack of a better word) power produced can vary (nothing manufactured is identical).
I am sure that the manufacturer has tolerances that they adhere to.
This being said an air test would be the best way to compare the sensitivity (or force emitting from the coil) of my detector with whomever has done testing with a silver quarter in another Explorer II.
Since silver 25 cent pieces can vary in the amount of silver year to year, I used a 1964 because it is probably one of the easiest to obtain, hence the test (if the other testers use a comprable 25 cent piece) would show a difference or similarity between the two explorer IIs.
My reasons have nothing to do with "learning how" to use the explorer II, but if several people are getting 1 or 2 inches more distance in an air test than I am, it is reasonable to assume that the detector I have is not reaching the depths it should.
The air test, I know for a fact, has very little to do with the actual hunting depth of a detector. Yes to learn a detector a test bed clear of metallic objects is the clearly the way to go.
I am looking for this information, because I find it odd that the explorer II cannot find a coin (in a test garden) as deep as my AT Pro.
At first I thought it was just me not being able to utilize the functions on the Exp, but now I am beginning to wonder if possibly the 10 year old technology of my Explorer II has something to be desired. Which is why I said it needed a tune up. By a tune-up, I was implying that it would possibly need better (or newer) technology installed, which I know minelab will not do. If I can possibly obtain tests done by other members, and I come to the conclusion that the electronics in my particular machine is insufficient, I will not sell it. If it seems to be "up to snuff" evident-ed by air tests. Then I would have to make a different decision.
Roy

Understood, and very well put! I still think a lot of the minelab technology was/is ahead of it's time though!

 

[fistfulladirt]

Digger, what settings are you using on the Exp II?
I run my sensitivity at 28 manual, gain at 9.
Deep off, fast off.
I use little discrimination, or iron mask. I also use the aftermarket 10X12 Sef coil.

 

[Digger2]

For hunting with the exp?
I've tried different settings, some of Andy Sabisch recommended settings, but not always.
My settings will vary,
I usually keep deep on., in trashy areas fast is on. I always hunt in conduct mode. Threshold so I can barely hear it, but loud enough so if it nulls on a find I will notice the missing threshold. Audio...sometimes normal, sometimes audio 1, I like audio 1 but I only use it in clean areas. The tones emitting from Normal are shorter in duration. I usually hunt in smart, listening to sounds. I clear the discrimanation settings, and usually run gain at 8.
Sensitivity I always try to run it close to max, and sometimes I do, I always keep sensitivity set to auto.
I usually run a WOT coil, the 'wild orange thing' from coiltek, the 8 inch exp coil, I don't use much. I use a SunRay Stealth S-5 coil for trashy areas.
I'm not having problems learning the detector, I am having doubts about my Explorers ability to hunt deep.
If I go to an area with the explorer, and I "clean out" a small area (someones front yard for instance), and then go over the area with my AT Pro I usually find other targets.
on the other had if I hunt with the AT Pro first, the pickens are from slim to nothing with the exp no matter which coil I try.
It is hard for me to believe that the AT Pro with the factory coil, can run deeper, separate faster, pinpoint easier then a machine that costs 1/2 the price of my Explorer II.
Right now, I am trying to exclude my self from the equation, and am trying to see If someone has did air tests with a 25 cent piece comparable to the one I used. I say some videos on the web of air test between the Exp II and the Tesero Vaquero. To me these test meant nothing in either ones ability to find targets in different soils. However an air test on similar machines (more than 2 machines), with similar setting, using similar targets,will give me an indication of coil strength on my machine. If my Explorer 2 has similar coil signal strength (as indicated in air tests) than other machines (whose owners are satisfied with their machine) I can then assume that I would need to take a much, much closer look at how I am running my machine.
Thanks
Roy

 

[Digger2]

The problem with my Explorer II has been solved. It is now working as it should.
Thanks to all who have responded to this thread

Roy

 

[dirtscratcher]

Just curious what was the problem.

 

[Digger2]

The problem was the switching mechanism on my X-1 probe. It was faulty,and I have sent it in for repair.
When I removed the shaft containing the x-1 probe and switching box, problem solved The machine now operates as it should.
The X-1 was installed a little over 9 years ago, so I guess it was entitled to an overhaul. Thanks to Steve (on another forum) who helped me identify the problem.
Thanks for asking......Roy

 

[Fletch88]

Good info Digger2. Thanks

 

[fistfulladirt]

The problem was the switching mechanism on my X-1 probe. It was faulty,and I have sent it in for repair.
When I removed the shaft containing the x-1 probe and switching box, problem solved The machine now operates as it should.
The X-1 was installed a little over 9 years ago, so I guess it was entitled to an overhaul. Thanks to Steve (on another forum) who helped me identify the problem.
Thanks for asking......Roy

I didn't realize you were using the probe; my machine started performing erratically, and I removed the passive probe and electronics and it seemed to cure the problem. I never thought about it until you now mentioned the probe, sorry.