The QED and me

bloodgold2 wrote:

Reg Wilson wrote:Today I saw the QED for the first time. As they are hand built, there is a queue. I am now in that queue.

Hi Reg, from the outside looking in some statements just don't add up? Just saying buddy.

I was having a holiday from here but I though I better step in on this  

Reg probable saw the finished model for the first time & put an order in for one plus deciding to do a deal to keep the prototype as it was the same  .

Jack .

Jack got it pretty right.
Bloodgold, just what doesn't stack up?

Reg Wilson wrote:Jack got it pretty right.
Bloodgold, just what doesn't stack up?

Hi Reg ' I don't think Bloodgold was looking to start any hassles  , he's a good bloke & now I'm sure will be happy his query was cleared up  .

Keep up the testing , so many are interested in what you think !  

Jack .

Jack outwest wrote:

Reg Wilson wrote:Jack got it pretty right.
Bloodgold, just what doesn't stack up?

Hi Reg ' I don't think Bloodgold was looking to start any hassles  , he's a good bloke & now I'm sure will be happy his query was cleared up  .

Keep up the testing , so many are interested in what you think !  

Jack .

==============================================================================================

Hi Reg.

I have been watching your reports with great anticipation.

They look good when you report on using a small coil.

But what about putting an 18"inch coil on it, and run the bigger coil over some very hot changeable ground.

Cheers ozgold.

Hi Reg you have had some very positives on the QED in regard to it ground balancing well and finding the smallest speck of gold you have seen under a coil. The detector sounds very impressive
Can you give some idea where the detector sits in the general pecking order.
I am asking an honest question, and hope for a direct answer. I know you have no vested interest and have been using it for a few sessions.
In most ground conditions that change as you walk around does the QED appear to you to have performance/actual detecting useability at least equal to say a 4500/5000?
If price difference is not considered would you recommend the QED over a 5000 as a better detector performance wise.
tributer

Maybe a bit early to start asking for recommendation preferences.
Instead of trying to nail Reg's feet to the floor for a commitment, it might be better to wait until a bit more testing has been done

Today testing was terminated by rain rather than heat, which is welcome as the ground has been as hard as concrete.
Again I was accompanied by Nick Soames With his GPZ hooked up to a borrowed 19" coil.
We worked on some country where the bottom is granite, and naturally both machines ran dead quiet, and although no gold was recovered, some deep targets were dug by both of us. In all cases targets were audible with both machines, so no real conclusions there, although it was obvious that using the QED was a lot less fatiguing, and pinpointing far easier using the edge of the coil. I started off using the 11" Elite, planning to change to the 18" Elite, but the rain came in before I could do so.
I feel it is far too early to make comparisons between different makes and models. I was criticized for being too hasty when I tested the Z 19"coil, but it was just a coil, whereas here I am not only testing a detector with all the combinations of settings, but also the types and sizes of coils as well. What I can say is that this is a very light detector with good (and fast) signal response, good depth on small targets (testing on large targets has not been done yet) and is damned good value for money.
One point I will make is that having the settings right is most important for getting the best out of the machine, although once set up you rarely need to make any changes on the area on which you are working, and it will remember your settings once shut down, and start up where you began.
As to the comments by gold ego, he has form as a heckler, and I will restate, "Ï have no vested interest in the QED''.

What does QED stand for ?

Will be very interested to see how it goes, as it would make a great spare or simple detector to have available.

I take it it uses standard Minelab wired Mono Coils ?

What is the battery life like

adrian ss wrote:Maybe a bit early to start asking for recommendation preferences.
Instead of trying to nail Reg's feet to the floor for a commitment, it might be better to wait until a bit more testing has been done

wombat

Reg Wilson wrote:Today testing was terminated by rain rather than heat, which is welcome as the ground has been as hard as concrete.
Again I was accompanied by Nick Soames With his GPZ hooked up to a borrowed 19" coil.
We worked on some country where the bottom is granite, and naturally both machines ran dead quiet, and although no gold was recovered, some deep targets were dug by both of us. In all cases targets were audible with both machines, so no real conclusions there, although it was obvious that using the QED was a lot less fatiguing, and pinpointing far easier using the edge of the coil. I started off using the 11" Elite, planning to change to the 18" Elite, but the rain came in before I could do so.
I feel it is far too early to make comparisons between different makes and models. I was criticized for being too hasty when I tested the Z 19"coil, but it was just a coil, whereas here I am not only testing a detector with all the combinations of settings, but also the types and sizes of coils as well. What I can say is that this is a very light detector with good (and fast) signal response, good depth on small targets (testing on large targets has not been done yet) and is damned good value for money.
One point I will make is that having the settings right is most important for getting the best out of the machine, although once set up you rarely need to make any changes on the area on which you are working, and it will remember your settings once shut down, and start up where you began.
As to the comments by gold ego, he has form as a heckler, and I will restate, "Ï have no vested interest in the QED''.

Sounds interesting, What kind of targets did you dig Reg and at what depth, can you share any specifics?, how much are these machines?

Wayne

Wayne, targets dug were your usual array of trash, bullets, bits of steel, copper, etc.
For pricing, specifications, and more check 'gold search'.

Harb wrote:What does QED stand for  ?

Will be very interested to see how it goes, as it would make a great spare or simple detector to have available.

I take it it uses standard Minelab wired Mono Coils ?

What is the battery life like

What does QED stand for ?
QED - Latin quod erat demonstrandum (which was to be demonstrated) ..I think from memory I could be wrong.

Will be very interested to see how it goes, as it would make a great spare or simple detector to have available.

I take it it uses standard Minelab wired Mono Coils ?
It takes all the Minelab PI mono coils

What is the battery life like - Aprox 450mA .. it in the pdf i think ..

http://www.goldsearchaustralia.com/our-products/interfacion-s-detectors/qed.html

Have a read of the Owners manual at Gold Search.
The QED is starting to sound like pretty good  detector to me and the price is right. 

Fingers crossed it turns out to be a quality unit, as the price is on point and it would be a good thing for PI coil makers like Nugget Finder & Coiltek.
"Unparalleled Earth Field cancellation" That sounds fancy!
I still think "Thunder Stick 10,000" would make a sweet detector name, but that's just me.
Cheers

Ye don't think Bugs will be changing names IMHO

I have been following this thread with great interest. A new detector with the capabilities that Reg says it has would be great And I would be interested in buying one but I am still sceptical. Especially when I learn who is behind this machine. And I don't just mean bugs, there are others involved who have very interesting reputations when it comes to anything to do with detectors. I was not happy, and somewhat disappointed when I found out who was involved and I'm not meaning Reg. Although I was surprised to hear that Reg, a self confessed big nugget addict who recons anything less than ten ounces is a colour. This makes me wonder why Reg is interested in a machine designed to find mainly small gold.

Despite this I am still interested in discovering the abilities of the QED but with the reputations of those behind it I doubt it will come to anything worthwhile. Since I first became involved in detecting in 1979 I have seen so many detectors and add ons that will be world beaters I have become very sceptical about anything like this. Maybe my scepticism will be unfounded, we can only wait and see.

granite2, you are presuming that the QED is a small gold detector, but I make no such presumption. Testing so far has been on small gold, however the next phase of testing will move to bigger coils and the search for bigger gold, although obviously the larger pieces may take some finding.
In fossicking for small bits I now believe the QED has the figures on the board, so the next step is to see if it makes the grade in prospecting, as this is the area of most interest to me personally.
Judging by posts on the forums, it seems many believe that finding big gold is dependent on using big coils. While a big coil may cover more ground (unless it is heavy and must be moved slowly) and should give greater depth, having a coil with a good fast response, and not being that heavy as to slow you down and cause fatigue, is the way to go when prospecting new ground. A large light coil, such as the Nuggetfinder 25" or my Lance Hewitt 23" are ideal for clear open ground, but for scrubbier country coil size may have to be reduced to 14" or even 11".
I can say that the QED has very good coil speed response, so it will be interesting to see how it performs with the larger coils.

Reg Wilson wrote:granite2, you are presuming that the QED is a small gold detector, but I make no such presumption. Testing so far has been on small gold, however the next phase of testing will move to bigger coils and the search for bigger gold, although obviously the larger pieces may take some finding.
In fossicking for small bits I now believe the QED has the figures on the board, so the next step is to see if it makes the grade in prospecting, as this is the area of most interest to me personally.
Judging by posts on the forums, it seems many believe that finding big gold is dependent on using big coils. While a big coil may cover more ground (unless it is heavy and must be moved slowly) and should give greater depth, having a coil with a good fast response, and not being that heavy as to slow you down and cause fatigue, is the way to go when prospecting new ground. A large light coil, such as the Nuggetfinder 25" or my Lance Hewitt 23" are ideal for clear open ground, but for scrubbier country coil size may have to be reduced to 14" or even 11".
I can say that the QED has very good coil speed response, so it will be interesting to see how it performs with the larger coils.

Reg , what do you mean by ''good coil speed response '' swing speed , I presume cheers .

hugh62, yes, the ability of the detecter to react to targets when the coil passes over them quickly.

Reg, how long have you been testing the QED?

Regards Axtyr.

Axtyr, one week, but not every day. Two battery charges in all. Some days have just been too hot to put in more than a few hours in the morning.

If you want a true report about this detector, then give Reg ago as he is the only one that is reporting on it. If you don't believe in his reports or think there is an alternative agenda then don't come on to this topic. Otherwise as soon as this machine come's out start doing your own tests and give us report. We are all interested in reports, and how well this machine really is. And your type of negative reply's will not help.  
Keep up the good job Reg.
wombat

Well said Bill

Reg Wilson wrote:Wayne, targets dug were your usual array of trash, bullets, bits of steel, copper, etc.
For pricing, specifications, and more check 'gold search'.

Thanks, I assumed so, but at what depths?

Wayne.

Wombat wrote:If you want a true report about this detector, then give Reg ago as he is the only one that is reporting on it. If you don't believe in his reports or think there is an alternative agenda then don't come on to this topic. Otherwise as soon as this machine come's out start doing your own tests and give us report. We are all interested in reports, and how well this machine really is. And your type of negative reply's will not help.  
Keep up the good job Reg.
wombat

This sounds pretty accurate to me.
Give the QED a fair go for a change. You know; The true Aussie way.

Look at all the crap that the intro into Australia that the Infinium, ATX and TDI went through along with the Midas series and the Quantum 2000.
Yet here we are many years later and these detectors (well most Of Them ) are well established in the market with a huge number of satisfied and dedicated operators all around the world.
Even Minelab machines get jumped on from a great hight.....But then they are waaaaay too expensive and so that draws a lot of intense focus from the hard core prospectors who then try to nit pick to the point of paranoia, every little aspect of the machine that could be a perceived weakness..

Also; The QED with the ability to handle salt conditions is likely to be of interest to more than just gold hunters. 

I don't know about the others but the infinium never was much of a gold detector. It is a good underwater and coin machine though. It was a pity to see the infinium promoted as a Minelab killer as it never was going to be. Garrett in the U.S. even said it was never designed to be a competitor to the then current GP range but Phil kept on advertising it as the best gold machine on the market and the greatest technology ever to be seen in any detector in Australia. This sucked in a lot of new chums who were exceedingly unhappy with their Minelab killers. And this is what happens when a new detector come out. Doug vowed and declared he would market a detector that would be a real Minelab killer but if the QED doesn't live up to its hype more people are going to get burnt. No detector should be shoved on the market before it has had very extensive testing by independent testers and all its pro's and cons revealed. But even now we see Whites, Garretts and other gold detectors being advertised with very misleading claims. As for the QED we will have to wait and see but I'd like to see many more people out there testing them.

heers, Jim

I once got sucked in by the Infinium myself Jim.

Jim Stewart and I gave it a thorough comparison/workout in Dead Mans Gully, Waanyarra and his old 2000 prototype with 11" monoloop shat all over it on both shallow and deep gold, and, by then his old proto was only working on one channel!

I traded it that afternoon for a new 2100 and got most of my money back. It wasn't too bad on coins though.

PS: Sorry Adrian, I know you're a bit of a "Finny" enthusiast, no offense meant

Not a problemo. No offence taken.

I can only speak for my exp with my own Infinium  and it is pretty good.  There are not many gold detectors on the planet that can work the deep ocean floor to the iron mineralised gold fields of Australia in wind and rain and heat. 
For interest sake my Infinium matches my 2300 on small sub g gold down to 0.12g when the 23 is set to the green preferred setting. My Finny is more sensitive to small gold than the normal run of the mill Infinium for reasons I will keep to myself. 
I guess I should not have mentioned it coz I knew it would kick off an argument.

The topic is about the QED . I should have known better.  

Being a bit of a gambler ' I'm going to grab one  if Reg's tests show  it to be excellent light weight fast response gold detector .
Some of the reasons for jumping in fast is the reasonable price & getting my hands on one before a possible mountain of orders pour in .

There are other ramifications to consider also  , like the effect on the perceived value of other units  

So I'm on the starting line ready to go depending on Reg's report  .

Jack

In answer to Waynes question re trash targets. All sorts of rubbish was dug using the QED, and the depth and strength of signal was comparable with the machines that I am used to using. One thing that became obvious, was that this is not a 'çheapy' surface detector, but the 'fair dinkum' thing, with some serious boogy for such a light weight machine. The fact that the control box is so small gives the impression that the performance is also diminutive. Not so. Modern miniaturization is amazing, and this machine proves it.
When I visited Howard's home he showed me boxes of circuit boards that he had developed that had not quite made the grade, or had become redundant as technology was advancing faster than he could put things together. Only now has he got a machine that comes up to his own high expectations, and I for one are initially impressed with its capabilities, to the degree that I pressed him to let me purchase my prototype.
The next few days are predicted to be a heat wave down here, which is really annoying, as I'm busting to get out with the QED and some bigger coils.