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

Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.

very good video on depth...caint understand it ..But...watch

Ksdirt

Member
thought this was a good video on depth of the EQ ...can't understand what he's saying ( least I can't ) but you can see.....some may have already seen it ....but if you haven't ....https://youtu.be/iwtAPuVCjP4?t=17
 
yeah, we were just discussing this on one of the other threads here.
 
Looks like a good video, I wish I'd studied Russian.
 
sanjuro said:
There are plenty of other youtube videos with other detectors doing the same depth or more

13+ inches in the dirt. Show me the video!
 
Jason in Enid said:
sanjuro said:
There are plenty of other youtube videos with other detectors doing the same depth or more

13+ inches in the dirt. Show me the video!

Pretty impressive in any language. Wonder what the soil was like?
 
Doctorcoinz said:
Looks to be a good 15 inches - 16 inches down that coin..

He shows the tape measure from coin to coil was 35cm with converts to 13.78 inches. The only way I have gotten results comparable with my CTX was putting on the 17" coil
 
for anyone who wants to have a basic idea of what hes saying in the video, click on the gear icon, click the CC button and turn it on to automatically generated, then click it again and set it to auto translate into English (or the language of your chosing). It's not perfect, but you can tell most of what hes saying.
 
I did that, turned on the captioning. Thank you.

I didn't watch the whole video last time; I did this time, and saw that later in the video, he used a smaller, penny-sized coin. Again, the machine banged on it at 10"; next he tried 11.6", and it was a choppy, one-way signal, but still possibly diggable.

I am certainly impressed...13.7" good, diggable signal on one coin, and 11.6" a possible diggable signal for a penny-sized coin?

Wow.

Steve
 
n/t
 
Ksdirt said:
Jason in Enid said:
sanjuro said:
There are plenty of other youtube videos with other detectors doing the same depth or more

13+ inches in the dirt. Show me the video!

Yes show us the video,,

I really dont think we are going to get an answer. I dont think he actually detects. Look at his post history.... averages about 1 post a month, posts are in all different brand sub-forums. Last post I saw about mentioning a detector he owned was a nautilus 7 years ago.
 
Jason,

You may be right.

He just made a similar, skeptical post on another forum (which I am not allowed to mention here!) where he knocks another one of these "Equinox depth videos." No evidence to support his skepticism, just being negative for the sake of being negative, it seems. To each his own, I guess.

Steve
 
Twenty eight posts in seven years & now with no evidence to support his negativity?-----Does sound a little odd/strange.-----There's always someone that wants to "pee on the parade" I guess.------Myself, I think the reports/talks on this new Equinox are VERY interesting/refreshing from the "same old, same old".--------The real proof in the pudding (on this detector) can be summed up in three words-----"time will tell"!
sgoss66 said:
Jason,

You may be right.

He just made a similar, skeptical post on another forum (which I am not allowed to mention here!) where he knocks another one of these "Equinox depth videos." No evidence to support his skepticism, just being negative for the sake of being negative, it seems. To each his own, I guess.

Steve
 
Top