I am going to speculate here, for what it's worth.
I am certain that Minelab engineered the EQX design, to meet the standard of the waterproof rating that it carries. And, I am sure that they then tested their design, to confirm that it indeed performs "up to spec," and that they did not release it until the testing confirmed the design spec. And then, I think the fact that the design is sound, with respect to its waterproof rating, has been further confirmed, by the large number of folks using their Equinoxes underwater, WITHOUT leakage problems. In other words, when everything "happens properly," in terms of the production/assembly process, the machine IS waterproof to the degree Minelab states that it should be.
However, it seems clear that somewhere along the line, the "spec" that Minelab's engineering design calls for, has failed to have been met, at times. In other words, it sees pretty certain to me that the design itself is not the issue, but instead that a problem has crept in, during the production/assembly process. The issues could be many -- slight deviation from spec in terms of the size of the plastic control-box components -- resulting in a slightly improper mating of the housing parts; a bad batch of epoxy (that is not sealing the unit as it should); a lax process or procedure on the assembly line (i.e. a lack of "attention to detail" during assembly of the control-box housing); insufficiently thorough quality-control processes after assembly...the possibilities are many, but the bottom line seems to be that somewhere, something has not been done properly at times, during one or more of the production runs.
HOWEVER, I think the "good" news, for us, is that every one of these failures costs Minelab money -- both to repair/replace units, and ALSO in that some customers are being "scared off" from the Equinox as a result, just as you are stating personally, sandmartin. Thus -- I expect that there is substantial financial incentive there, to drive Minelab to have this corrected. I presume that Minelab is examining, and having discussions with everyone involved in the assembly process...parts and supplies manufacturers they contract with, the company running the assembly line, etc. etc. etc. I have to believe that Minelab would be diligently digging into why their design spec has failed to have been upheld at times -- thus resulting in these failures that are being observed.
The "moral of the story" here, is that I am sure Minelab will get this issue corrected; I think most would agree that the design itself is not the issue -- again, there are large numbers of units clearly being submerged, that are performing as Minelab has intended/specified. Instead, it seems that something is happening during the production/assembly process, somewhere along the "supply chain," where the spec is NOT being met, and I fully expect they will correct this -- if they haven't already. I would think that the observed "failure rate" is probably higher than they intend, and I am confident they will get to the bottom of it, find out where the "ball is being dropped," and take corrective action.
This is such a nice machine, and is SO popular amongst users, that I am sure Minelab will get to the root of the issue, and resolve it...and that will ultimately be good news for those of us who use the machines. Hopefully the resolution occurs sooner, rather than later (if it hasn't already). I guess my point is -- with no pun intended -- I know that I personally am not ready to "throw the baby out with the bath water," LOL; I have faith that Minelab will take care of this. And, in fact, where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, the ARE -- by replacing the units quickly and efficiently, when they DO fail. I expect that this is the "visible" aspect of their strategy for mitigating the problem -- i.e. the part that we as customers can "see;" meanwhile, behind the scenes, what we DON'T see is that I am sure they are taking the necessary steps to prevent the failures from happening in the first place, going forward.
Just my two cents.
Steve
