Went to a spot with the e-trac and picked up clad .32, 10 wheat. Then when went back over it with the f75 got .14 clad, 4 clad nickels & 3 war time nickels. Put the nickels under the e-trac and the NO. was 12.11 to 12.15 , you would pick up a lot of pull tab if you dug all these no... The id on the f75 was 29 and 30 most of the tabs are above are below the 29 or 30. I think that the e-trac you will dig more pull tabs looking for nickels.
e-trac v/s f75 on nickels
- Thread starter John S
- Start date
Lightningjack
Forum Supporter
I know its a different machine, but over a year now with my explorer 2 & I still haven't found an old nickle..
cliff490
Forum Supporter
I don't get many nickels with the SE either and when I do they are usually shallow
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 3,708
I dig nickels all the time. Not as many as on my MXT, but enough to know that most nickels are a pretty solid 12-13. The deeper they go, the more they jump around, but that's the same on any detector or deep coin.
BountyHunter
Elite Member
The Fisher F75's IDing range compared to an Explorer's Conductivity range
@John S
and all others.
I completely forgot to post about this at the start of May 2009 when I did my post of the thread:
Finding small gold with Minelab Explorer SE
http://metaldetectingforum.com/showthread.php?t=30253
After doing the research on small gold I did a various target testing to exactly see how they spread on each the the detectors( as I have both of the detectors titled in this here thread).
And what you are reporting here is exactly what I had found that the Fisher F75 would spread out more on its ID range , those pennies(for example) than you would get on the Minelab Explorers' Fe-Con range.
The F75 would separate more the pennies I had, into different IDs than what would be interpreted on the Explorer. It is easier to know for some targets, like pennies, what you have under the coil than with the Explorer.
Mind you the Explorer did see them also as beeing different, just not as different as the simple one coordinate F75 target IDing would show you.
I had also looked at how my collection of pulltabs was spreading out on both of these marvoulous ;-) detectors hahaha! as some of these pull-tabs have the same ID as one of my "test gold ring".
It resulted in having not to discriminate the same model of pull-tab on each machine in order to catch my "test gold ring".
Again, the Fisher F75 spread out in a more rememberable ID range what the Minelab Explorer would do with its two number coordinates.
It is as if the F75 would take the Explorers' twin number coordinate, then transform this into one number and then multiply it so as to spread the resultant.
This as been "fixed" on the Minelab E-Trac as now the Conductivity range as been expanded to 50 instead of 32 and they even added a bit to the Ferrous range by having it go to 35 instead of 32.
They have doubly expanded the perceived separateness of the targets by rotating the axis 90degrees so as to have the expanded Conductivity range horizontally. So you are now relying much more on a targets Conductiveness than its Ferrousness as compared to an Explorer.
I had also done the test with my trusty ole' BH TimeRanger. It was like caressing the same fine woman but with many fingers amputated when comparing my result the the other two pre-cited detectors
Thank you John S for bringing this up.
@John S
and all others.
I completely forgot to post about this at the start of May 2009 when I did my post of the thread:
Finding small gold with Minelab Explorer SE
http://metaldetectingforum.com/showthread.php?t=30253
After doing the research on small gold I did a various target testing to exactly see how they spread on each the the detectors( as I have both of the detectors titled in this here thread).
And what you are reporting here is exactly what I had found that the Fisher F75 would spread out more on its ID range , those pennies(for example) than you would get on the Minelab Explorers' Fe-Con range.
The F75 would separate more the pennies I had, into different IDs than what would be interpreted on the Explorer. It is easier to know for some targets, like pennies, what you have under the coil than with the Explorer.
Mind you the Explorer did see them also as beeing different, just not as different as the simple one coordinate F75 target IDing would show you.
I had also looked at how my collection of pulltabs was spreading out on both of these marvoulous ;-) detectors hahaha! as some of these pull-tabs have the same ID as one of my "test gold ring".
It resulted in having not to discriminate the same model of pull-tab on each machine in order to catch my "test gold ring".
Again, the Fisher F75 spread out in a more rememberable ID range what the Minelab Explorer would do with its two number coordinates.
It is as if the F75 would take the Explorers' twin number coordinate, then transform this into one number and then multiply it so as to spread the resultant.
This as been "fixed" on the Minelab E-Trac as now the Conductivity range as been expanded to 50 instead of 32 and they even added a bit to the Ferrous range by having it go to 35 instead of 32.
They have doubly expanded the perceived separateness of the targets by rotating the axis 90degrees so as to have the expanded Conductivity range horizontally. So you are now relying much more on a targets Conductiveness than its Ferrousness as compared to an Explorer.
I had also done the test with my trusty ole' BH TimeRanger. It was like caressing the same fine woman but with many fingers amputated when comparing my result the the other two pre-cited detectors
Thank you John S for bringing this up.
Jack Flynn
Elite Member
12-13 most always in this middle Georgia dirt. On pulltabs the ferrous number jumps up most of the time and the tone has what I'll call irregularities in it instead of smooth. I've dug at least 20 in the last month or so I've has the E Trac. Not even half that many in the last 6 months with the other detectors.
I liked the post on the research on small gold ring . I just wanted people to know if they wanted all the nickels they would have to dig more then 12.13. And you are right on the f75 the pennies are every where. I'm thinking that the old cz's were better bough of these detectors .@John S
and all others.
I completely forgot to post about this at the start of May 2009 when I did my post of the thread:
Finding small gold with Minelab Explorer SE
http://metaldetectingforum.com/showthread.php?t=30253
After doing the research on small gold I did a various target testing to exactly see how they spread on each the the detectors( as I have both of the detectors titled in this here thread).
And what you are reporting here is exactly what I had found that the Fisher F75 would spread out more on its ID range , those pennies(for example) than you would get on the Minelab Explorers' Fe-Con range.
The F75 would separate more the pennies I had, into different IDs than what would be interpreted on the Explorer. It is easier to know for some targets, like pennies, what you have under the coil than with the Explorer.
Mind you the Explorer did see them also as beeing different, just not as different as the simple one coordinate F75 target IDing would show you.
I had also looked at how my collection of pulltabs was spreading out on both of these marvoulous ;-) detectors hahaha! as some of these pull-tabs have the same ID as one of my "test gold ring".
It resulted in having not to discriminate the same model of pull-tab on each machine in order to catch my "test gold ring".
Again, the Fisher F75 spread out in a more rememberable ID range what the Minelab Explorer would do with its two number coordinates.
It is as if the F75 would take the Explorers' twin number coordinate, then transform this into one number and then multiply it so as to spread the resultant.
This as been "fixed" on the Minelab E-Trac as now the Conductivity range as been expanded to 50 instead of 32 and they even added a bit to the Ferrous range by having it go to 35 instead of 32.
They have doubly expanded the perceived separateness of the targets by rotating the axis 90degrees so as to have the expanded Conductivity range horizontally. So you are now relying much more on a targets Conductiveness than its Ferrousness as compared to an Explorer.
I had also done the test with my trusty ole' BH TimeRanger. It was like caressing the same fine woman but with many fingers amputated when comparing my result the the other two pre-cited detectors
Thank you John S for bringing this up.
NiagracountyNY
Elite Member
Ive dug a ton of Nickles with my E-Trac the last month,Alot more than i did with my SE..When i get a nickle hit its dead on 95% of the time..I feel the nickles lock on well.I also dig alot of the lower tones tho in my search for gold jewlry.my deepest nickle signal was 2 days ago(8 inches)..Maybe with some more time on the machine you will Get a better feel for those signals.Good luck with your Hunting,thx for the post.
Cherry Picker
Forum Supporter
I believe, as EPI stated, the E-Trac is more a tone reliant detector. I'm not sure how accurate the E-Trac emulator is, but I did some testing and this is what I found.
While the E-Trac has the most target segments, something like 1750, the VDI isn't that accurate. For example, a nickle may read a FE of 12-13 and a CO of 12-14. That is a variance of 6 possible target ID's for a single target. On the DFX, for example, with only 190 target ID segments that same nickles VDI variance is 18-21, or only a variance of 3.
I do believe the E-Trac, with experience, can be just as accurate on target identification, just not on the visual display. Its all about the tones.
While the E-Trac has the most target segments, something like 1750, the VDI isn't that accurate. For example, a nickle may read a FE of 12-13 and a CO of 12-14. That is a variance of 6 possible target ID's for a single target. On the DFX, for example, with only 190 target ID segments that same nickles VDI variance is 18-21, or only a variance of 3.
I do believe the E-Trac, with experience, can be just as accurate on target identification, just not on the visual display. Its all about the tones.
Last edited:
