New Whites PI

[Jim P.]

Hi Reg, good to meet you at the pushes. Thanks again for all the great info. See you next time. Later...Jim P.

[wyndham]

Reg, I remember a tv show about plate tectonics that showed the reversal of the poles by way of the polarity of the magnetics in the magma as it cooled. This was a method of dating the spread of of the plates.

The reason I bring this up is that ,I believe , viewing cut sections of some rocks with polarizing filter may show this orientation. i believe that this also was covered in some manner sometine ago

Some of the clay I use as a potter has a high iron content and it might be interesting to make a clay with a certain % of iron oxide to use as a baseline to measure other hot rocks against it . If this is of interest let me know and I will make several samples you could test. My thought is that the clay while cooling down may align the iron with the current earth magnetic field. I don't know if this could give helpful info or not. Since gold is listed as highly diamagnetic one wonders if a sample of gold has an opposite to iron alinment or not.

Wyndham

[Eric Foster]

Hi Wyndam,

Firing clay pots or bricks in a kiln does two things. It converts magnetite into maghemite which enhances the signal that PI's detect, and also as the fired clay cools, it "freezes in" a remanent magnetisation that is aligned with the earth's field. This latter is used for magnetic dating provided you have recorded the orientation of the bricks or pot before they are disturbed. Same with some rocks, as you say. A PI detector, if properly designed and set up, should be immune to remanent magnetisation, but it will still respond to magnetic lag, or viscosity, caused by superparamagnetic grains of maghemite. That is why in many areas, a method of ground cancellation is needed to remove this signal.

Eric.

[Reg]

Hi Jim,

It was great to meet you. Hopefully, we will get together again soon.

Reg

Hi Wyndham,

Eric provided a great response to your post. I hope it answered your questions. Now, one thing I can add is you might make a pair of test pieces using identical mixtures and only fire one of them and see just what the response difference is between the two. Also, you might duplicate that experiment trying significantly different mixtures of iron oxide to show just how one can vary or create a different or stronger response.

Such an experiment could show just why some ground may react differently and why an adjustable ground balance is needed in some areas, but may not be required to be set the same in others that just may look the same.

Reg.

[montana]

Wyndham. Interesting that you should bring up the iron rich clay in pottery. I have detected potsherds(pieces of native american pottery) on numerous occasions with a VLF detector in the desert southwest. I wasn't sure if this was caused by carbon from the firing process or iron in the raw material. I didn't consider alteration or alignment of the iron particles during firing . Interesting puzzle.----Bob

[Reg]

Hi Montana,

Most VLF's have some type of design built in to reduce or minimize the remanent magnetism. Some detectors have more than others, but generally some is built in I suspect you detected the pottery much like the PI does by sensing the ferrous signals caused by the maghemite in the pottery.

Reg

[Ridge Runner]

Whites has got to get in high gear if they have it out so Santa can put it under the tree for us big kid's.

If you would like to know why these toy's of ours cost so much just read the post from one end to the other.

Not only will you learn alot but have a great respect for the people who's got the technology up stairs and put into a circuit that works.

My mother who is 85 now is wanting a ATV from Tractor Supply that has a cover on top and has a truck bed on back.She has told me before she like to go with me but has to have more of the comforts of home.

We all got a wish list in life and if I get up Christmas morning and find a GP 4000 plus the new Whites detector under the tree it will take the mortician three days to get the smile off my face.

Again I couldn't let this post die it has yet hit 20 thousand!

Chuck Anders

[JW.]

Whites has got to get in high gear if they have it out so Santa can put it under the tree for us big kid's.

Any new news or is it still a spring release?

[Digger Bob]

Any new news or is it still a spring release?

Unfortunatly, we are now looking at a spring release I think. Second generation prototypes are now being assembled by hand and will be sent out to selected pros for further field testing.

And, of course, there have been bugs and glitches. Many different people want different things out of this machine. The results of my testing showed it needed a bit more tweaking. There needs to be a fine balance between sensitivity and stability. And there is a great deal of interplay going on inside between all the different controls and what the ground throws at you. Throw in a metal target and you get more variences. All this has been covered further up the post.

So, all I can say is hang in there for a bit longer.

Digger Bob

[fredm]

Bob, while I understand the value of having experienced "pros" evaluate detectors, I really think manufacturers miss a bonaza by ignoring the "amatuer"...we are, after all, the ones that buy the new toys...there can't enough "pros" to justify the expense of new detectors without a broader market ( that is the Amatuer). The forums are full of detectorists to choose from...why not send one to an "amatuer"? The name could be chosen at random from a pre-qualified list...Rob could even make a little contest or even Whites!!! That person could then give their opinions prior to production..."Amatuers" pay all the money but get very little credence from the Manufacturers...that just ain't right!

Fred

[Ridge Runner]

Fred

If you ever run from are for something you have got my vote. I agree on what you said. I'd like to send all that has been said on this subject to Whites so he'd know how long we have waited and wanted something good with American made on it.

Digger Bob

Thanks for your input on how the new detector is coming along. I know anything good takes time to get it right. I don't know how long they been at it but I'd think Whites and Garrett would had something before now.

Keep us posted when and if you can on how it's coming along.

Chuck Anders

[Reg]

Hi Bob,

Sorry to hear about he delay, but it doesn't surprise me. Developing a totally new detector using a new concept is not easy for the designer or the people testing it. To add to the problem is the expectation factor. Peple expect this new design to match the best at the onset. People fail to realize the ML didn't get from point a (the introduction of the SD 2000) to the GPX over night.

So, why do people expect the new Whites to be as good as the GPX right out of the starting box. It "aint" gonna happen. There is a learning curve for both the user and the designer and that is going to be there no matter what.

Now, Fred believes manufacturers are missing the point by not placing one in the hands of an "amateur" for evaluation. I don't agree. It is bad enough placing a new design in the hands of a "pro" who has a wealth of knowledge but is unfamiliar with the new design. Even then, extensive testing is required to determine the good and bad points. A prime example of what I mean is the introduction of the GS 5 and the criticisms of it.

For what it is worth, I feel there should be a formal testing program or procedure that requires the person or persons testing to try various tests and techniques for a finite period of time and then try to express the "good" and the "bad" as best as one can. Knowing what to do and how to do it should be a requirement in the testing procedure. This is something not easily done by the amateur. It could be learned, but that adds a lot of extra time.

Without a formal testing procedure, we get opinions based upon the individual's habits and expectations as a prime factor.

The reason for a much more thorough evaluation is simple. The only way to resolve a problem or a limitation is to fully understand that limitation. and be able to express it. It certainly wouldn't be a bad idea for each person testing to have two detectors, the one with the latest mods and one without them. This way a person can make a clear test that can be repeated and not just going by what one remembers of the previous design to try to determine which is best. Once the testing is done, the person testing sends the evaluation plus the detector displaying the less desirable features back for future mods.

PI's are strange creatures. One day a detector will appear to work better and the next day it will seem to fall on its face. This is especially true when testing in areas where noise is normally present and can vary. The only way to know for sure whether the latest design is truly better is to test two different detectors at the same time or be able to switch back and forth quickly. Anything else is just a guess.

I have said this before, but for every action there is a reaction. So, any change will or could have both good points a bad points. The trick is to recognize them as soon as possible. Then it is a matter of seeing whether the controls will minimize or eliminate problem or condition.

Now, if we step back away from the Whites PI and look at the present ML PI, we see the big plus is the versatility. It is the ability to try multiple combinations to try to minimize a problem or maximize a plus. We should also realize that what Montana has found makes sense. It doesn't hurt to use the technique of "Dumbing it down" to obtain better results.

Now, as a general rule of design, I am a strong advocate of having as much control as possible in being able to adjust a detector. I think that is what ML has done and I feel that is what Whites should do, but that is my opinion and no one else's. As an example, I felt or feel the operator should have a wide range control over the ground balance (GB) adjustment. Anyone who has used a GS 5 knows the detector is more sensitive in the straight PI mode. So, why not allow the operator to adjust from straight PI to full GB instead of a very narrow range of GB adjustment or no GB at all. Obviously, I am the only one who thinks this way.

Quite some time back I was able to make a very low noise opamp work in the GS 5 design. Today, I feel that is something that should be done on that design because it does work in reducing the noise base. At times it might not be obvious, but over the long run, it will help.

So, the design of such a detector is not a simple task and is subject to opinions. Also, it does take time to find the final perfect design. As such, people should not condemn what is available when it is finally introduced, but offer suggestions as to what they find to be good and bad. More importantly, people should try to explain why they feel the way they do.

Lets hope Whites gets their unit out soon and allows both amateurs and pros to use it. Lets also hope all will not expect it to start out as the best and give it a thorough evaluation. This could take months to be sure. One other thing Whites might consider and that is to produce what they feel is their best right now in a limited quantity and continue to work on major mods. Whites could admit they are in a learning curve and as such are offering this new unit with a plus feature. If significant breakthroughs are found within the next year or so, Whites could allow the present owners to trade up or upgrade their present unit for a reasonable charge. This would allow them to introduce the unit sooner and get a lot more feedback from both pros and amateurs. As an example, lets say the unit sells for $1800, then the upgrade may cost $200 to $400 or so for the first X number of new owners. Anyway, it is a suggestion which I like since it allows Whites to introduce their unit and still continue to try to find major upgrades without upsetting present owners.

It is something to think about.

Reg

[fredm]

Thanks Chuck!

Reg; you know I respect you and I yield to your vast knownledge over all things electronic...BUT...

The units will be sold to more amatuers than Pros so why should only the Pros have a voice in a new machine. If Whites were to limit their sales to only those claiming an expert level of knownledge I would quickly give over. Having someone such as yourself test a product will produce an expert opinion but you are inclined to make Allowances because you do know what is involved in developing a new product...Personally, I don't give rat's behind what it takes, I want what I want and will pay when I get it...when I don't get value for my money I don't feel a bit shy about complaining.

I know I can't measure up to many Experts in finds or experience but I have been doing this a while and feel my opinions are representative of many amatuers...

Yes, you are correct that Minelab has revised their design from the first 2000...that is how these products evolve. The reason us amatuers expect and demand a more perfect product from Minelabs competitors is because the Minelab series of PI machines sets the bar...they will do pretty much everything Minelab claims and if the intention is to go head to head with Minelab then Whites needs to show that their product is equal or better...and if they make that claim with a much less costly machine they still have a duty to match promises with proformance.

By the way, I have made this proposal to Garret and Tesoro and they run from the very thought so I don't actually expect any different results with Whites...

it is their ball and they can bounce it any way they chose...

Fred

[Reg]

Hi Fred,

AH!!! I knew my post would generate some response. Good !!!!!

Now, here is the problem from my perspective and that is from one who has done a lot of design work trying to develop a better PI.

There is a strong learning curve that can't be avoided when developing a new detector and there is no getting around that fact. Whites will experience this just like everyone else. The trick is to recognize it and accept the fact. Then it is a matter of moving forward from some base design but doing so with more input.

People, especially amateurs, expect all PI's to be at the level of the present ML GPX's and, as I said before, that "aint gonna happen" right out of the box. If you expect that, you might as well forget it. It doesn't happen in any other field of endevour, so it won't happen here either. Time, testing, and experience will allow Whites or any other manufacturer to go head to head with ML's best. In the mean time, as long as they make a decent PI with very decent depth, it will have advantages not found on the ML's.

So, if you want competition to the present ML, then you are going to have to accept the fact, any new PI is not going to go head to head with ML's best when it is first introduced. To expect that is the amateur mindset showing.

Now, I mentioned the issue that Montana brought up about dumbing down because it is very relevant. There has been an ongoing discussion about the GPX and some of the less than desirable conditions owners run into as well as solutions. So, why do such conditions exist? The answer is simple yet complex, pushing the limits too far or the ability to do so will cause some of the problems GPX owners are running into.

Now, "dumbing" down or backing off from those limits is not a bad solution which some ML owners have found out, especially if they want a PI that is quiet and easy to use with little or no problems from external noise.

Personally, this is where Whites has to start if they are to produce a PI that is going to exist a few years from now. It should be a solid unit that allows for a range of adjustments that isn't a monster to learn but still have decent depth.

Once it is in the hands of people and they get more experience with it, the success will follow. If it is easy to use and adjust, it will find gold.

When the Garrett Infinium first came out, there was a lot of hoopla and several people gave up after a few days of use. Well, today, there are a lot of silent owners that simply love their Infinium because of its features and wouldn't trade it for the best ML out there. The reason is simple, the owners took time to get to know their detector. Once they did, they could see and take advantage of its unique features.

The same will hold true for the first generation Whites unit. The trick is to fully learn the features of the detector and not try to make it into something it isn't. That is one of the biggest mistakes people make when trying any new detector.

Consider this, if you feel you should expect only the best, then why shouldn't everyone else including your boss do the same. Shouldn't your boss not expect perfection? Why shouldn't he fire everyone that isn't the best? After all, he or the company is putting out the money, aren't they? If this were to ever really happen very few people would be working. Now, everyone should ask themselves, are they the best? The honest ones will almost all have the same answer, no. (No, would be my answer). So, why expect perfection or be the best from someone or something else?

Fred, here is another question just for you. I know you found gold with your GS 5, and I suspect you have found gold with your ML. Now, only considering the difference in price you paid between the two, have you found enough gold to justify the price difference between the two? (I realize there were additional circumstances that helped in your decision to change detectors. However, if they didn't exist, what would have you done?)

I ask you this question, not to pick on you, but to try to get more people to think about and put all things in perspective. I strongly suspect the Whites unit will priced reasonably when compared to the ML's and as such, should be evaluated based upon its range of detectors to which it is priced closer.

One of the things I learned when I was field testing detectors for Lost Treasure is all have their good and bad points. One shouldn't try to compare any two based upon any one feature or series of features. Each detector has its own advantages. The trick is to find those advantages and find the best techniques to use when operating that detector. In other words, adapt to the detector and not try to reverse the adaption procedure. Once a person does this, he will be much more successful.

Reg

[Reno Chris]

Fred:

I have to agree with Reg on this one.

In addition to the issues pointed out by Reg, there are propritary issues as well.

There is no question that Bob and others testing this have a nondisclosure agreement with Whites that limits what they can say. Whites and others have to use folks they can trust completely. You would never as a business person consider turning over such an important task to someone you did not know well. Bob is a Whites dealer and has a vested interest to see that this is a good product.

Chris

[Goldman]

Fred, for one thing and the most important, the pros, know what they are talking about and can give good feed back . I don't know why this pre-release stuff always seems to float around! it does nothing, maybe it is good publisity to let people know it is coming, but to many opinions are formed and people don't enough know specs yet. Don

[fredm]

Well, Reg, I do in fact have an Amatuers mindset...it is intellectual snobbery to try and make that a low-class thing...in fact you make my point...let an amatuer try the machine and give feed-back...there are ways to protect the interests of the manufacturer...as for your other points, I know very well about learning curves and understanding one's detector...no argument from me....but the fact is almost anyone can find gold with any of the Minelab PI units with very minimal lessons. Of course, there has to be gold under the coil, and of course the amatuer will not do as well as an experienced operator...but, I stand by what I said; if they say the machine is as good as brand X then it better be...if it is sold on some other basis that is fine,then we have a lesser standard to hold them to. I don't think we are too far apart on much of this....

I knew, sooner or later the GS5 would rear its tattered head...I covered this ground before...for the record I did find a couple of nuggets with the GS5, I have found gold with every detector I have used since the Goldbug1...(I might be a BIG NAME by now if I could get more time on the ground...given a good mental state and time to get in the groove I would be happy to compete with anyone, anywhere there is gold to be found)...

After all the issues I had with the GS5 I sold it because I did not want to spend any more of my time with a machine I was completely frustrated with...yet, I did say when I decided to sell it that I thought some other person would find it to be a good machine for some purposes...I never felt the GS5 measured up to a certain distributors sales-pitch and I still don't...and by the way several of the issues I raised have been added to the GS5b...

I don't use a fork to eat soup I use a spoon...same with detectors some are better than others for a certain task..that is a good thing....

as far as the cost versus profit...I would love to say every detector has made me money, it just ain't so...I never faulted the GS5 on that basis...the detector can't find what I don't swing over...

Chris, I don't care if anyone agrees with me that is their right...I am only offering my viewpoint that I believe should be considered by all manufacturers...I think there are plenty of trustworthy people available...

Don, Pros are not any neccessarily better equipped to test these products than you or I...besides you are correct that the pre-release fanfare can help sales...at any rate it provides a basis for discussion and a bit of fun for me to get to stir the pot.

these are the three nuggets I found with the GS5...two from Alaska, one from Arizona...

[Reg]

Hi Fred,

I didn't bring up the GS 5 because of your difficulties with it but because that is the basic design of the Whites unit. Sorry if it seems like I did. Your difficulties were not my point or reason. Again, my reason is because the Whites unit is going to be based on the GS 5 design.

Again, I wish we could turn the clock back and make a few changes before the GS 5 did come out. It would have been nice if it could have used ML coils at the onset. That would have eliminated many of the problems you encountered. Unfortunately, hindsight is about the only one that is almost always 20 20.

Now, for the record, I do not consider it intellectual snobbery to point out the amateur mindset as I do. People easily get the wrong impression or idea and it is extremely difficult to get them to change or even challenge their ideas. A good example is the discussion on another thread of being able to detect charcoal. Also, it is the amateur mindset that believes it is simple to match anything out there. It doesn't work that way for anything except for those who "copy" a design.

Now, to change the subject, I drive a hybrid SUV made by Ford when doing any basic traveling of short distances. In its day, the Ford Model T was a form of SUV since roads were scarce at best. My Hybrid is still a 4 banger like the older Model T, but there are differences although both were made by Ford.

Now, I point this out because the GS 5 today is different than the earliest GS 5 models and many of the old problems are gone. Today, my Hybrid doesn't need a hand crank to start. Now, I am not sure just how the Hybrid starts but I dont' think it uses a conventional starter either. and the list of differences goes on.

BTW, did you know that Henry Ford was given credit for developing the charcoal briquette (this is more relevant to the other thread than this one, but I thought I would toss it in anyway). This may be true, but who cares, right? No one except those who just want to know things. The point of the hybrid, charcoal and other non relevant things is, things change and evolution goes on. My Hybrid will not compete with a Ferrari or even a Lexus but that doesn't make it a bad vehicle. However, it will do what I want it to do and that is to beat both other mentioned vehicles when it comes to gas mileage.

So, the point is as it relates to the Whites PI, is the new Whites PI will do what people want it to do and that is to find gold. No one is making any claims about how good it is or will be as it compares to other PI's. I am sure that Whites will not make those claims, but they can't stop others from saying what they want.

Now, I do not know what the distributor told you about the GS 5 as it compared to the ML. I do know that all the conversations via email I had with Eric, he never made any claims about his detector except to say the GS 5 appeared to match his SD for general depth on objects where he tested them. In retrospect, I think the fact the ML is much more sensitive to external noise and the fact that England is so much more congested did influence his tests. This is the reasons Eric has to rely on others for feedback. It is almost impossible to design and fully test a design in an environment that has a lot of noise. It also goes back to what I have said about testing in so many previous posts.

I would also like to point out that Eric was consistent in trying to point out that his building of the GS 5 had nothing to do with competing with any detector including the ML. It was a matter of making a detector for finding gold. It has been other people who insist on making the claims and comparisons.

As for Eric's discussion about his testing, I suspect the congestion where he works had a major influence in his design. I know, I live in town and I can readily see just how the noise does influence a design. Sometimes it is subtle and sometimes it is really obvious. Either way, it can have a dramatic effect. That is why I have to take all designs to the field to make my final determination. To do so, does add a whole bunch of time to a final modification since I can't just go when I like.

Getting back to the charcoal discussion again, my latest changes to a GS 5 will allow it to detect nuggets that ML's only dream of being able to detect. I think you remember the "invisible nuggets" we tested down in Greaterville. Well, I can detect them but still can't detect any charcoal or burnt wood since the signal from charcoal or burnt wood is gone well before the signal from the invisible nuggets. BTW, even the latest GPX can't detect those "invisible nuggets".

Now, I don't expect the Whites unit to be able to readily detect the "invisible nuggets" or charcoal either for that matter. It is extremely difficult to get a PI detector to do that and making a coil to match is even more difficult. What I do expect is a PI that will do a very decent job on most sizes of gold and have the advantage of a PI where it basically ignores black sand and most hotrocks. This is the true claim to fame of a PI.

I don't expect the Whites PI to be a "Ferrari" but have a price tag of one either. I do expect it to be lighter and better balanced than many other PI's. However, this is a guess on my part based upon what I see Whites do with their other detectors.

Reg

[fredm]

Reg; I can not, will not quibble with you...I agree with much of what you say...especially regarding people and their ideas and additudes. I think the term "amatuer" may have vastly different meanings to you, me and those other folks...

For the record I have never accused Eric of any misdeeds...I think he should muzzle his dealers though...case in point, Jack Lange is claiming in his ad in the Oz gold magazine that a GS5b will detect an Australian ( I assume) penny at 2 and 1/2 feet on the beach...I think from the other post you might agree that that is a bit of a reach on truth in advertising...If I am wrong, please show me and I will openingly apologize in public...I am an amatuer but I can be reasoned with...however, the proof is in the results. As for what Whites has or will say I don't know...as the subject was the GS5 platform as it relates to their new machine I have used their name...I should have keep my comments generic wherever appropriate. No disrespect intended to you Reg,Eric, Whites, Digger Bob or most anyone else...I look forward to learning more from you

Thanks

Fred

[Reg]

Geez Fred,

You are making it tough for me to pick on you. Just kidding. (It is easy to pick on you because I know you).

Now, here is something you may find interesting and that is it may be better to have a novice test a new detector by giving him explicit instructions on how it is turned on and what to expect or not expect as the basics. Sometimes, giving them even less info would be an advantage.

What I call amateurs are present owners who hunt with a detector as a hobby and do not have a whole lot of time to invest to experiment and try a lot of new and different things. The problem with this type of person is they get comfortable with something and seldom deviate from it. Now, give them a new detector and they will have a tendency to make the detector fit their techniques.

This doesn't work well and is about as effective as pounding square pegs into round holes on a strange puzzle. It can be done with enough effort but really isn't the best solution.

All too often we expect something that will not happen or should not happen because of the design. My favorite story that sort of relates to this involves another guy and our first outing with a new VLF many years ago. The detector was the Teknetics Mark 1 and was the state of the art at the time. It was also a radical departure from previous Teknetics instruments or other motion detectors in the fact the Mark 1 worked best when the coil was moved very slowly. Earlier versions required a fast motion of the coil for maximum depth. So, this new design required one throw out all they knew about using a motion detector if they wanted to get the most out of the new machine.

Well, the other guy, not knowing anything about previous units just puttered along with the Mark 1, while put in the mileage covering ground quickly just like I always did. After about an hour we stopped briefly and discussed the new detectors. He had about 4 or 5 old coins plus some junk jewelry and I had nothing. Needless to say, this was a blow to my ego since I was the " detector expert" on the scene. It would have been easy to simply say he had beginners luck, but I really knew there was something else that caused this to happen. So, swallowing my pride, I simply stopped and watched how he was hunting. His slow approach was totally different from what I was used to, but, hey it was working for him, so I tried it. Well, almost immediately, I began finding coins in areas I had just hunted. When it was all said and done, I ended up finding more than he did but only because he taught me how to use the particular detector.

The point being to this little story is to get to know the detector you are using and learn to use it the way it should be used. Don't rely on what you have always done or what you want to do, but use the methods that make the detector work best. Now, here is the hard part. Sometimes no one really knows just what is the best technique and people have to find it.

Today, most PI's are motion detectors but they do differ. So, just because one has used a PI doesn't mean they can use the same techniques on another design. It can be worse if they are just familiar with VLF's. It does depend upon the VLF they are accustomed to using. In many cases the change from one detector to the other simply doesn't work well. Since we humans are generally creatures of habit, it is difficult to change habits or techniques even though it is necessary. In the extreme cases, one simply does not want to change and the detector becomes more of a burden than the proper tool. At that point the two should part company.

Now, what makes me an expert on detectors? Nothing really. I really do not know how many I field tested for Lost Treasure but each one had to be evaluated only after trying to find the technique that worked best on that detector. I quit testing some time back but before I did, I had field tested the ML 17000, 18000, the Goldstriker, the Golden Hawk,and the ML SD2200, the Compass Au 2000, the Discovery gold Trax, the Fisher GB 2, the Tesoro Lobo and the LST and I suspect there were a couple of more designed for gold hunting that I can't remember, and this list doesn't take into account the large number of coin hunting detectors I field tested.

Again, the point being, each detector requires that it be operated in a particular way to obtain the maximum from that detector. sometimes, the switch can be very dramatic. This makes it very difficult to do. People should try to remember this when the Whites PI does come out and they are trying it.

Reg

[fredm]

Reg, I don't mind being picked-on as long as I get to pick too...but, I never intend any malice when playing and I know you don't either...I think I make my self clear when I am not playing...

As I have said before you are an Icon in this world and have my greatest respect.

I agree with your assessment of amatuers and you describe many of the things I have done and learned through the years. However, any machine made today should be usable by the novice unless it is clearly marketed as a professional grade tool....I don't have any problem with that.

The wonderful thing about these forums is that I can learn new techniques and methods from the postings of those much better suited to the kinds of things you do...I freely admit that I am not usually an innovator, more like a trainable monkey actually...we would still be eating weeds, roots and carrion if I had to be the one to develop tools!

Some people love modern atuomatic trannies and low-maintainance engines, others still love the v-w and other cars that require skill and passion to drive them...I will trade a slight proformace edge for ease-of-use; but the "PRO" wants that tiny bit more and they will squeeze it out...then some are generous enough to explain that technique on these forums and I get the benefit.

Thank you all for the education

Fred

[Reg]

Hi Fred,

Something you said is quite innovative in itself. Here is what you said.

"actually...we would still be eating weeds, roots and carrion!"

Actually, they tell us that today we should be doing more of some of this instead of our present diets. The only difference between what you said and what is being said today is they have replaced your "weed, roots" with the word vegetables. As for the carrion, they now say we should eat lean meat, or some other fancy name.

So, we really haven't progressed that much, have we except in the expansion of our language so it sounds better.

Reg