The QED and me

Decided to do a quick test this morning before the heat got too severe.
My 50 acre property between Castlemaine and Maldon has an ancient riverbed (pliocene) that runs eastward through the entire property toward the Muckleford fault line which is less than 1/2 a K away. There has been a small amount of surfacing between here and the fault line, although there has been little gold found East of the Smith's reef line of enrichment. I suspect that this area was detected many years ago, although I have managed a few bits, the best being 20 grams. The ground on the edge of the old lead contains ironstone and quartz dykes showing on the surface, and is therefore very shallow.
Using the Coiltek 18" Elite I set up the QED altering the settings to get the best response in the quieter ground I worked my way across the lead and into the shallower and ironstone riddled country. Surprisingly, no alteration of setting were necessary, and the QED just hummed along nicely, picking out shotgun pellets quite easily. (unfortunately that's all I found)
These are the settings used.
delay   151
bias   046
vol    20  (using Jabra NC headphones)
gain   001
mode  002
Verdict......Seems to handle a large coil quite well, but only put in a couple of hours before the heat beat me.
Tomorrow will try a Nuggetfinder 25".

Reg I realise the weather is against you and you have many test to do ,just wondering if you have had the qed near any power lines or Telstra cables regards john

Good point John, there are some massive power towers that run up the Muckleford valley, and over some damned good looking pliocene ground, so will be testing this very soon. Will let you know how I get on, but already know that the QED is not effected by power sources in an urban setting. ei. town backyard.

Reg: Good to know the QED handles the 18" Elite. I have that coil, and am most impressed with its performance on both deep and shallow, little and big targets.

I've tried hard to detect a decent colour on Reg's property (purely to annoy him) but failed.

I still reckon there's a chance of a deep colour hiding somewhere between where the old gutter crosses the lane, and before it crosses your drive, along that change of slope. There must be good depth there, and the power pole drillhole gravel throwouts look excellent.

The trouble is, I know that finding a decent colour there wouldn't actually annoy him at all, he's like that!

It's good to see the QED has finally arrived. I must say the initial reports sound promising and I'm keen on hearing more from users. Thanks to all who have taken the time to give their feedback   .

Hi All

Is this the right info????
http://www.goldsearchaustralia.com/our-products/interfacion-s-detectors.html

G'day Lee,

Yes that's the right info.

Cheers.

Mike.

rc62burke wrote:Hi All

Is this the right info????
http://www.goldsearchaustralia.com/our-products/interfacion-s-detectors.html

Good on ya Burkey!....Wow!!!....$1200 for the business end and rig up your own platform... now that's very interesting and seemingly very affordable for the DIY freaks among us, god knows some of us like to rig up our own Shite.... Eh Burkey , thanks for the reply Reg, Junk eh got to love it , sadly its not the metal we seek but surely even junk targets have some indicative value, does it possess any discrimination ability?, I continue to watch on with much interest.

Wayne

nil discrimination settings

gef50, the QED has no discrimination and runs on mono coils.
I put in a couple of hours with the NF 25" this morning and was pleasantly surprised at how smooth it ran, even over some ironstone ground. I was able to run a lower GB setting than the 18 " Elite that I tested yesterday, and although no buried targets were encountered, I was happy with its usability. I intend to try the QED on Coiltek's test site in the near future, and Wombat has said he will be happy to come along to see how it performs. For those interested, the settings used today are as follows,
delay....135
bias......47
vol.......20    ( using Jabra noise cancelling headphones ) Koss may require higher setting.
gain......2
mode....2

This seems to be going on and on with out any head to head test .
How about a test bed with undisturbed ground and targets at different depths, up against the 5000 with newer coils and of course the 7000.
Just saying it runs smooth doesn't make me want to run and buy one .
Reg if you can get me one to test l know of a test bed in highly mineralized ground.
Pap

Reg Wilson wrote:gef50, the QED has no discrimination and runs on mono coils.
I put in a couple of hours with the NF 25" this morning and was pleasantly surprised at how smooth it ran, even over some ironstone ground. I was able to run a lower GB setting than the 18 " Elite that I tested yesterday, and although no buried targets were encountered, I was happy with its usability. I intend to try the QED on Coiltek's test site in the near future, and Wombat has said he will be happy to come along to see how it performs. For those interested, the settings used today are as follows,
delay....135
bias......47
vol.......20    ( using Jabra noise cancelling headphones ) Koss may require higher setting.
gain......2
mode....2

correct Reg ..just answering a previous question

papoutsi wrote:This seems to be going on and on with out any head to head test .
How about a test bed with undisturbed ground and targets at different depths, up against the 5000 with newer coils and of course the 7000.
Just saying it runs smooth doesn't make me want to run and buy one .
Reg if you can get me one to test l know of a test bed in highly mineralized ground.
Pap

Not dismissing any of the testing done to date but most would be interested in more direct comparisons. The TDI can be made to run quietly by adjusting things manually too. It loses sensitivity and depth in many cases to do it. The QED sounds similar in some ways to it. Totally different in others as well. Consistent gold finds both small and deep were it's archilles heal. Hopefully the QED is different. We need the competition in the marketplace.

papoutsi wrote:This seems to be going on and on with out any head to head test .
How about a test bed with undisturbed ground and targets at different depths, up against the 5000 with newer coils and of course the 7000.
Just saying it runs smooth doesn't make me want to run and buy one .
Reg if you can get me one to test l know of a test bed in highly mineralized ground.
Pap

Should Reg not be afforded the opportunity to gain an indepth knowledge on how this unit runs & what settings give the best performance before doing a head to head test against a GPX or GPZ that i would say he is intimately familiar with????????
Stands to reason does it not?????
Many a tester, do not even advertise that they are testing new detectors until they are confident in them !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reg has stated he is going to a test bed!!

rc62burke, some good points you have made.
Seems after much name calling, rubbishing and ridicule, the mud slingers now make demands, stamping their feet with impatience. The QED should be thrown into the arena, post haste, to do mortal combat with the GPX and the Z. They of course hope that it will fail to come near the mighty ML duo, thereby saving face, and negating the need for them to eat crow.
I have no idea at this stage how such a face off would result, but I don't intend to conduct any comparisons until I am much more familiar with the QED, just to entertain those that have done little or nothing to advance prospecting.
Let me put it this way.....If Porsche gave you a Carrera 3 to test, would you take it straight to Philip island and flog it flat stick around the course, or would you familiarize yourself with it before opening it up a bit?

Take your time Reg, the more you test the better the review.

Reg Wilson wrote:rc62burke, some good points you have made.
Seems after much name calling, rubbishing and ridicule, the mud slingers now make demands, stamping their feet with impatience. The QED should be thrown into the arena, post haste, to do mortal combat with the GPX and the Z. They of course hope that it will fail to come near the mighty ML duo, thereby saving face, and negating the need for them to eat crow.
I have no idea at this stage how such a face off would result, but I don't intend to conduct any comparisons until I am much more familiar with the QED, just to entertain those that have done little or nothing to advance prospecting.
Let me put it this way.....If Porsche gave you a Carrera 3 to test, would you take it straight to Philip island and flog it flat stick around the course, or would you familiarize yourself with it before opening it up a bit?

When you took this on Reg you must have known people would be impatient. The QED is hardly the new kid on the block and a lot have watched the drama unfold for many years.
The Minelab brigade giving their best to the QED crew and the QED crew returning serve with just as much enthusiasm and venom and vice versa. Both as bad as each other from what I can tell? My only point was it needs laying to rest the sooner the better. Either way I bet the drama does not stop there?

MBZed wrote:

Reg Wilson wrote:rc62burke, some good points you have made.
Seems after much name calling, rubbishing and ridicule, the mud slingers now make demands, stamping their feet with impatience. The QED should be thrown into the arena, post haste, to do mortal combat with the GPX and the Z. They of course hope that it will fail to come near the mighty ML duo, thereby saving face, and negating the need for them to eat crow.
I have no idea at this stage how such a face off would result, but I don't intend to conduct any comparisons until I am much more familiar with the QED, just to entertain those that have done little or nothing to advance prospecting.
Let me put it this way.....If Porsche gave you a Carrera 3 to test, would you take it straight to Philip island and flog it flat stick around the course, or would you familiarize yourself with it before opening it up a bit?

When you took this on Reg you must have known people would be impatient. The QED is hardly the new kid on the block and a lot have watched the drama unfold for many years.
The Minelab brigade giving their best to the QED crew and the QED crew returning serve with just as much enthusiasm and venom and vice versa. Both as bad as each other from what I can tell? My only point was it needs laying to rest the sooner the better. Either way I bet the drama does not stop there?

Mate I get what you are saying BUT

The QED is brand new for all intents as this is the first time it has been available to anyone other than the development team as far as I know that is!!!
Wouldn't it be better to do it right rather than just settle for it to be settled?????????

Reg will test the thing his way  then let us know the results , if you don't agree with his methods then post your own tests  
I'm excited to see the final outcome , imagine if it turns out to be a ripper  

Jack.

It is now 2017 andif l am correct the QED has been under developement for 10 or more years.
It has testers in every state except Tassie is a claim made about it.
Is it now commercially available for purchase.
So it is hard to fathom that the manufacturer would release a detecter to the public for purchase without knowing its full capabities regarding comparisons on inground targets: Also the actual amount of how much gold at what depth and size was located during testing because one would assume that for accurate testing for developement purposes those results would be recorded and verified. Why the silence from the developer and why leave it up to Reg to cop the flak over questions the developer should be answering on behalf of prospective purchasers.

So when genuine questions about comparisonsand depth asked why is the answer avoided or twisted to make out the asker is anti QED with a agender.

Now Reg you say you haven't haven't had time to fully evaluate the QED yet fair enough. But for awhile now you have been telling people they will be eating crow why do you say that.

Now to wait for the spin twins or is it triplets answer on behalf of the developer.

GB, why do I say that some very vocal critics will be eating crow? I saw very early that even if the QED did not come up to Minelab PI standards, it was way ahead of many other machines, and with its lightness it would make a good prospecting tool, as just depth is not the end all of prospecting. As a matter of fact, many or even most of my best finds were not due to a detectors penetration, but rather its versatility, lightness, and ease of use. Deep penetration is more important in most situations when 'scrounging' over worked areas rather than proving up new ground. The QED has in my estimation proved that it can find small gold in already scrounged areas, and if it can prove to match or come near GPX or Z performance on bigger targets, then it will be a game changer. It has already proven to be stable on ground that makes a ML moan and groan, it can work under power lines, and its ground balance, although manual is excellent. Already more than enough reasons for the knockers to eat crow.
The last phase of my testing has to be be done with me being familiar enough with the machine to get the best that it has to offer, otherwise I am not doing the detector justice. That is why I refuse to rush things just because a few noisy people demand it of me. If I were them I would be in no hurry to eat crow.

G.B. wrote:
A proven track history of producing top quality proven gold detecters backed up by proven after sales service history and excellent warranty period.

Hey GB ' not sure if you were using MLs stuff back when this add appeared I was ,  part of proven track history as you say  

At $1200 (without a coil) ive heard enough to give it a go,on the list,stability and as reg says quiteness over ground is a big thing over here,its not allways about max depth,if ya think it is ya just fooling yourself,fast swing speed -stability sounds promising,90% of gold we find is no stunning depths,thats reality no bullshite but at the moment it will be just a backup until i see maybe some benefits,bloody cheap though.....

Jack outwest wrote:

G.B. wrote:
A proven track history of producing top quality proven gold detecters backed up by proven after sales service history and excellent warranty period.

Hey GB ' not sure if you were using MLs stuff back when this add appeared I was ,  part of proven track history as you say  

Nope never had an Extreme but l'm led to believe they found a lot of gold did they not.

Now Jack can you tell me the proven history of the QED since it was first announced over  10 years ago. Can you tell me the claims that were made about how good it was back then and until now. Jack can you tell me why it wasn't released 10 years ago.

Maybe your answers to those questions is why l'm cautious about jumping straight in without having the manufacturer answering the questions l'm seeking. And yes Jack l'm very interested in the QED because if it lives up to its claims of being better than a Zed and other claims then l have a definate use for it that might reward me very nicely.

Oh and before l purchased my 4500 l also did my homework and asked questions and the answers l got were easily forthcoming and favourable and time has proved l wasn't mistaken with the 4500 nor was l mistaken for purchasing the Zed.

I tried the SDC close to its release date which l was able to get as a demo one from Coilteck Maryborough but didn't like it and probably didn't ask enough questions about it but was probably wrong on my first impressions as it is also now a proven gold detector.

So that is why l ask questions about the QED because when l decide to buy or not buy l will only have myself to blame should l make the wrong decision.

Regardless of the price of the QED it will be a financial loss if l make the wrong choice or a great investment if it works out.

I am led to believe that there is not a demo model available for use at Gold search.

So therefore it is in my interest to ask the questions to help make an informed decision because in this instance there is no proven favourable track record.

Hi GB , my  SD2100 did better then my mates Extremes , ask any older users who have used both for the same opinion .

Like you I'm keen to see a positive outcome to the QED after all these years ' so lets hope it works as good or better then the over the top expensive other units  .

Made in Australia !  

Jack.

Reg or YF both having used the QED how does it handle hotrocks and clay domes does it give many false signals.

How close to other detectors can you use it.

GB, good points you raise in relation to false signals etc.
I took the QED over some ground where even the Z had been fooled by some extreme ground noises . The Z is very good at eliminating ground noises, and I have covered this in past posts. All but one ground noise, which was an intense patch of deep charcoal was able to be eliminated by noting the GB reading, and then taking it up and down a few digits. false signals noticeably drop off, where as a real signal will not.
False signals in nasty changeable ground will only sound one way and are easy to ignore.
Hot rocks only sound off in very shallow situations and are likewise easily eliminated as when checked with the edge of the coil, as they have poor reaction.
PS You can use it close to a Z

Reg Wilson wrote:rc62burke, some good points you have made.
Seems after much name calling, rubbishing and ridicule, the mud slingers now make demands, stamping their feet with impatience. The QED should be thrown into the arena, post haste, to do mortal combat with the GPX and the Z. They of course hope that it will fail to come near the mighty ML duo, thereby saving face, and negating the need for them to eat crow.
I have no idea at this stage how such a face off would result, but I don't intend to conduct any comparisons until I am much more familiar with the QED, just to entertain those that have done little or nothing to advance prospecting.
Let me put it this way.....If Porsche gave you a Carrera 3 to test, would you take it straight to Philip island and flog it flat stick around the course, or would you familiarize yourself with it before opening it up a bit?

I reckon that straight up testing the 1800 dollar   QED against the 10,000 Dollar Zed would be a brave move and a not so smart one at this point in time.
    Testing should have carried on quietly and not posted on the forum until all results were in, thus avoiding a lot of flack from the ML defenders / share holders.

If I recall correctly.  The trouble encountered by the QED builders years ago was more to do with patents issues and not so much to do with detector performance??.
A lot of those patents have lapsed now and so the issues may have disappeared??

Just some random thoughts based on hearsay and unsubstantiated rumours. 

adrian, the history of the development of the QED has never interested me, although naturally I have seen various remarks over the preceding years. It was only recently that I agreed to test this detector which has finally reached production.
the specimen makes a valid point about asking questions, and by posting as testing proceeds, I can take note of various queries, and where possible, address them. I don't in the least mind answering serious requests for information, and can even take a little sarcasm, as long as those that dish it out can take it in return.

I guess one big advantage of having an experienced, well known  and impartial Field tester conducting the tests  is that the reporting will be accurate and more believable than if the makers did and reported their own testing. People would say that they are embellishing the results for their own benefit.
      So you have a challenge mate and we are all watching and waiting.....For myself tho, the tecta sounds to be a good gold finder and I am keen to hear how it goes on the deeper stuff.