Menu
What's new
Find's Treasure Forums

Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!

You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.

Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.

Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.

Click here to register!

Need Support Help?

Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you

Explorer Etrac charts

Hi, Great chart, but I'm confused. The E-trac's x-axis is Conductivity (1 - 50) and y-axis is Ferrous (1 - 35). The Explorer's x-axis is Ferrous (0 - 31) and y-axis is Conductivity (0 - 31). The numbers on your axes don't seem to match. If you can correct them then I think we will have a very useful tool for analysis. Maybe you can even transpose one, re-scale, and overlay it on the other.

Thanks, Erik
 
Yes, Erik - I kept the same axis orientation for both charts. That means that you could lay them on top of each other just as they are, and see the essential difference between the two machines on these particular targets
.
 
But the Ferrous only goes up to 23 and one axis starts at 1 and the other at 0. Can you rescale the Explorer values to map to the E-Trac grid? Hope you're OK down there in TX! My thoughts are with you and yours!
 
Doesn't look like I'll be able to do more on these. Expecting to lose power at any moment, and it could stay down for many days. Besides, I think you can pretty much see the main difference between full ferrous readings and those that have been scrunched up into basically one value.

Personally, I'd like to add jewelery to these charts, but that will require another volunteer with both an E-Track and an Explorer.
 
Hi Andy,

If the added in testing difficult option is preferred for most US conditions it begs the question of where and what type of hunting the e-trac was originally designed for. Something other than US users perhaps, or did the engineers simply blow it with the original software?

Tom
 
Hi - Hope you're OK - watching CNN right now. When things get back to normal give me a shout as I'd like to perfect these charts with you - I think they will be invaluable tools both for learning and explaining the differences between the Exp and the ET. Best wishes....
 
Cx = Explorer conductivity
Fx = Explorer ferrous

Ct = E-Trac conductivity
Ft = E-Trac ferrous

Scaling Explorer values to the E-Trac domain:

Ct = int(((Cx + 1) * 50 / 32) + 0.5)
Ft = int(((Fx + 1) * 35 / 32) + 0.5)

Scaling E-Trac values to the Explorer domain:

Cx = int((Ct * 32 / 50) + 0.5) - 1
Fx = int((Ft * 32 / 50) + 0.5) - 1

BTW, this ould have been a trivial software feature to add to the E-Trac to map the values to and Explorer like screen - though they would probably hit at different areas than they do on the Explorer, but it would probably have made the transition for some a little easier. Still would not have solved the Ferrous sounds issue, but the prior "flawed" mapping could have been an option as well and would just have been a simple look-up table in memory. This would have been analogous to the more advanced Intel chips 80386, 80486, etc. being able to run as a fast 8086 chip.

If Minelab had done this everyone would be happy and we would have more options which is a good thing. Minelab if you're reading this please send me a PM!
 
so if I had an explorer and penny or dime has a conductive # of 28.....the answer in e-trac would be 45.8125......or did I flunk? :stars:
 
Well you didn't flunk :thumbup: but you forgot to apply the int() function which just drop the fractional part of the number.....that would make the value 45 which incidently is generally where silver seems to hit on the E-Trac!
 
If you mean freshwater beaches or some of the white sugar sand beaches in Florida, then maybe that is a good recommendation. The trick to seeing if that option will work is to look at the right hand bar of the sensitivity graphic . . . . if it indicates "22-24" or higher, then the Neutral option is a good bet. On the vast majority of salt water beaches where you have black sand and salt, Difficult is required for stable operation.

Another application of Neutral is when hunting tilled fields which tended to not play well with Explorers (disturbed ground). In this case, the Neutral option combined with FAST recovery seems to handle these conditions.

Andy Sabisch
 
You posted that difficult and high trash combined are best for most areas. Still I wonder based on the differing results people are posting about iron falsing if difficult is the best setting for hunting in old iron. Since TID around iron is not that accurate anyway would the neutral setting perhaps help eliminate some of the high falses? Heck, the detector ain't seeing much of the ground signal anyways in those high iron trash filled spots a lot of us hunt!!

I know the X70 works good around iron with tracking on or, with the GB manually set close to the preset of around 27-30 at least in my ground.

What exactly does the "trac" in etrac refer to anyways... Hmmm??

Tom
 
Tom,

Trash Density is trash dependent not ground dependent. I have been in some super hot ground (like Atlanta yesterday) where I was running in trash density low but Ground = Difficult.

As a possible solution to the iron "falses", let's see some people that are hunting these sites use the following:

- GROUND = DIFFICULT
- TRASH DENSITY = LOW
- RECOVERY FAST = ON

The Trash Density Low reduces some of the "see through" capabilities but if you are running low discrimination which it sounds like most in iron-site are, there should be no real downside.

I have a spot at an old church here in Chattanooga I will try to get to this afternoon . . . .be interested in seeing if anyone else that gets a chance to try these settings has any sucess

Andy
 
At a site I hunted with the ETrac on Wednesday, my sensitivity hovered at 10 in auto + 3. We had 4.5 inches of rain and on the same ground yesterday, my auto sens+3 hovered from 20-23??? Thought that was fascinating.
 
I wasn't referring to the trash densitity setting... My point is that since rusty iron is both magnetic and conductive that the neutral ground setting might be better in those conditions. Could be way off base with my train of thought because I have no idea what the actual software difference is between difficult and neutral ground settings but, is it not worth a try??

Tom
 
It's ideas like that one, with a smidgen more knowledge from ML, that we could take to the next level and beyond. Keep thinking: even when they ignore you, laugh at you, or scoff at you.....Oh, and I'll watch someone else get hammered for a while.:rofl:

You may be way off base or right on, but that is the beauty of that particular setting...nobody seems to know exactly what is happening and therefore, it is truly impossible at this moment, to turn it on or off and truly know that you are correct in doing so.

They say in the manual that if you can get high auto sensitivity; to then use the neutral soil setting and if you can't get high auto sensitivity levels, to use difficult, what happens when the reason for your auto sensitivity level is because of Existing EMI or a lack of it and has nothing to do with the soil??????????????????????????

And how would you know which...the soil or the EMI??:shrug:
 
I used neutral ground in the iron and the machine actually falsed less than the day before, in the difficult ground setting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top