vferrari
Silver Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2015
- Messages
- 4,910
- Reaction score
- 8,378
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Near Ground Zero for Insanity
- Detector(s) used
- XP Deus with HF/x35 Coils and Mi6 Pinpointer/ML Equinox 600/800/ML Tarsacci MDT 8000 GPX 4800/Garrett ATX/Fisher F75 DST/Tek G2+/Delta/Whites MXT/Nokta Simplex/Garrett Carrot
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Vf - your logic is sound - if the problem is that the device was never sealed properly in the first place. If the problem - at least sometimes - is that the device developed a leak due to thermal cycling or mechanical shock, the leak could occur anytime when submerged.
I got interested in how these kind of devices can be tested and found this on the website of a leading company in the field of this kind of testing.
This shows the two-step test. A container with the device in it is pressurized to a given level. If that pressure decreases, i means the air has leaked into the device (the interior of the device is at ambient pressure to begin with - a pressure lower that the level the chamber is pressurized to.
pic upload
upload photo to internet for link
https://www.cincinnati-test.com/uploads/4befb91cd388269d64af2ae5850972f0.pdf
Yes, I agree that shock or other mechanical damage can subsequently cause a leak on a marginal design. I was really basing the "first dunk" likelihood on what was being reported by those who experience leaks. It either leaks fairly soon after the first submergence or typically not at all after that. With time and mechanical agitation, I suppose leaks could develop, but less likely. I think the weak link that one should worry about if it does survive the initial submergence is damage or degradation of the double O-rings that are used to seal the battery compartment. That is why even though the battery is user replaceable, Minelab has recommended that the unit be sent in to the repair center for battery replacement once the battery dies.
Last edited: