Feedback on the Teknetics "Eagle" please

[Tom_in_CA]

There was a short-lived Teknetics machine called the "Eagle", which came out in the mid to late 1980s. I have found out, so far, that it was the same as the "Condor", the only difference being LCD verses needle/meter readout.

Has anyone here had experience with this 3 filter machine? How did it compare to the earlier 9000 or 8500 (4 filter), and Mark 1 (2 filter)? I'm assuming the swing speed was slowed down, of course, as that was the evolution in those years. But how did the depth compare with those earlier Tek's? How did the TID's accuracy and tones compare? How did the ability in minerals compare? I'm assuming the "ability in minerals" was probably inferior to the 4-filter 9000 and 8500, right? Yet probably superior the Mark 1's ability in minerals?

I read a post a long time back, from the designer "George Payne", that he did not personally favor the resulting product. However, in that post, he never said WHY he wasn't too satisfied with the outcome. Yet I've heard of at least one user (using a Condor in San Francisco area parks) who did quite well with his Condor, during those years (and even still uses it, to this day). If anyone here had any experience on either the Condor or Eagle, please let me know your opinions on them.

 

[lastleg]

I had one of those stinkers for awhile. It took 18 AA batteries and after using it for a month I found out one batt was in backwards.
I lucked out and sold it to a guy wanting an MD for his kids to use. This was one of a list of detectors that underperformed in the
field. I fell for that George Payne endorsement too.

 

[Connecticut Sam]

Lastleg

Were you always backwards?

 

[vlad99]

Tek. Eagle

Ron Shearer ran Teknetics and was advised by Kellyco he needed a unit to compete with the new Eagle from Whites that had a LCD display They put George to work on a new LCD detector that would use 3 filters to Whites 4 filter design for more depth. It was deeper than the 9000/8500'B's and slower in sweep speed. Circuitry at that time was analog but converted. A analog signal can be converted into digital form for processing using "digital signal processing" or DSP for short. The DSP term is a very general and broad discription for manipulating analog signals digitally. In many cases using a DSP approach will cut parts count and cost but add little to actual performance. This is not to say that using DSP is no better than using conventional analog circuitry. Here is an example. It is possible to design analog filters in a digital format using what is called IIR filtering. There is a direct correlation between these two approaches. If we were to stop here the clear winner would be the analog circuit because it's generally cheaper. The analog Mk-1 was cheaper, slower, single sweep and much deeper. The Mk-1 had auto switching ground filters, and the detector would decide by ground mineral content how many filters to use. George had soon after the Mk-1 came out designed an auto ground balance for it that was flawless, but would add $100 to the price, but Tek felt that would make it too expensive in the market. The Eagle added nothing but price, and the Mk-1 was a current working design that was superior, and deeper, and adding the auto ground balance was far cheaper and made it a better more competitive design. Add to this that Teknetics did very little advertising, mainly seen on Kellyco, while Whites advertised, enormously, and the new Tek flopped. As to speed it was faster than the Mk-1, and like the Mk, 9000, and 8500, used 14 batteries.

There was a short-lived Teknetics machine called the "Eagle", which came out in the mid to late 1980s. I have found out, so far, that it was the same as the "Condor", the only difference being LCD verses needle/meter readout.

Has anyone here had experience with this 3 filter machine? How did it compare to the earlier 9000 or 8500 (4 filter), and Mark 1 (2 filter)? I'm assuming the swing speed was slowed down, of course, as that was the evolution in those years. But how did the depth compare with those earlier Tek's? How did the TID's accuracy and tones compare? How did the ability in minerals compare? I'm assuming the "ability in minerals" was probably inferior to the 4-filter 9000 and 8500, right? Yet probably superior the Mark 1's ability in minerals?

I read a post a long time back, from the designer "George Payne", that he did not personally favor the resulting product. However, in that post, he never said WHY he wasn't too satisfied with the outcome. Yet I've heard of at least one user (using a Condor in San Francisco area parks) who did quite well with his Condor, during those years (and even still uses it, to this day). If anyone here had any experience on either the Condor or Eagle, please let me know your opinions on them.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Thanx vlad99 !!