Goldpick
Chris Johnson
Looking at the previous (and current) attempts to make general purpose coin/relic/beach detectors waterproof, it is apparent that some of them seem to suffer from issues in one way or another. Some are isolated cases, though they still occur all the same.
The CTX is an obvious one, with long running issues surrounding the battery seals (has been addressed to a degree), the Whites MXS has already had some examples take in water through the faceplate in an effort to emulate the success of the AT Pro, though even the AT Pro has had occurrences of warped front covers that might have lead to water ingress. There is also the issue of complex coil/headphone connectors, with the AT Pro an example of a detector with fiddly and expensive plugs that are prone to pin breakage (looking at $50+ just for the plug). I am betting that those that have had issues in the past with water ingress, would have little or reduced confidence on taking their "waterproof" detector back under water again, especially if warranty is in short supply.
My point being, should waterpoofing be allocated only for dedicated beach/river/lake detectors vs general purpose detectors that will spend 90+% of their time spent on dry land, or at worse, only working shallow water or use during wet weather?
Ideally, a splash/weather proof detector would in theory be competant enough to survive an accidental drop in the water if detecting the shallows, and also offer all weather capability.
In many cases waterproofing simply adds extra cost, weight and complexity to a detector that is rarely going to see a full submersion in its lifetime, though no doubt it is a good marketing tool for the manufacturer (or more of a headache in some cases). Yes there is a market out there for those that detect lakes and rivers with a VLF, or in the surf with an FBS or dual/multi frequency detector, though I would think probably not enough to warrant making general purpose, mass produced dirt detectors as rated fully waterproof.
Is it desirable, yes, absolutely necessary, probably not.
Whites and Tesoro originally had the right idea by introducing dedicated fresh/saltwater waterproof detectors, along with the Excalibur from Minelab, and CZ-21/1280X from Fisher, though even these are not completely immune from the odd leakage, depending on the amount of use and preventative maintenanced applied. I can't speculate on what the yet to be released new Fisher models offer with regards to waterproofing, time will tel I guess.
Even the not so popular Fisher F44 had the right line of thinking for a lightweight coin detector, being weatherproof enough to withstand wave splashes and heavy rain, just not complete submersion, persinally that's all I would expect or want from a dirt/beach detector.
What are your thoughts on the subject. Should waterproofing be relegated to specialised detectors, or also applied to general purpose mid to top end detectors as well - is it worth the hassle for both the consumer/manufacturer?
The CTX is an obvious one, with long running issues surrounding the battery seals (has been addressed to a degree), the Whites MXS has already had some examples take in water through the faceplate in an effort to emulate the success of the AT Pro, though even the AT Pro has had occurrences of warped front covers that might have lead to water ingress. There is also the issue of complex coil/headphone connectors, with the AT Pro an example of a detector with fiddly and expensive plugs that are prone to pin breakage (looking at $50+ just for the plug). I am betting that those that have had issues in the past with water ingress, would have little or reduced confidence on taking their "waterproof" detector back under water again, especially if warranty is in short supply.
My point being, should waterpoofing be allocated only for dedicated beach/river/lake detectors vs general purpose detectors that will spend 90+% of their time spent on dry land, or at worse, only working shallow water or use during wet weather?
Ideally, a splash/weather proof detector would in theory be competant enough to survive an accidental drop in the water if detecting the shallows, and also offer all weather capability.
In many cases waterproofing simply adds extra cost, weight and complexity to a detector that is rarely going to see a full submersion in its lifetime, though no doubt it is a good marketing tool for the manufacturer (or more of a headache in some cases). Yes there is a market out there for those that detect lakes and rivers with a VLF, or in the surf with an FBS or dual/multi frequency detector, though I would think probably not enough to warrant making general purpose, mass produced dirt detectors as rated fully waterproof.
Is it desirable, yes, absolutely necessary, probably not.
Whites and Tesoro originally had the right idea by introducing dedicated fresh/saltwater waterproof detectors, along with the Excalibur from Minelab, and CZ-21/1280X from Fisher, though even these are not completely immune from the odd leakage, depending on the amount of use and preventative maintenanced applied. I can't speculate on what the yet to be released new Fisher models offer with regards to waterproofing, time will tel I guess.
Even the not so popular Fisher F44 had the right line of thinking for a lightweight coin detector, being weatherproof enough to withstand wave splashes and heavy rain, just not complete submersion, persinally that's all I would expect or want from a dirt/beach detector.
What are your thoughts on the subject. Should waterproofing be relegated to specialised detectors, or also applied to general purpose mid to top end detectors as well - is it worth the hassle for both the consumer/manufacturer?
