For FET's sake Minelab!!!!!

[jjbond]

Ok, now those of you who know me, know I'm not keen on woody's hacks but he has a good point with this particular issue.... his other video on this topic caught my attention as well... this is pretty sad for a machine we pay almost $5,000 for....

I'm not trying to start a debate over Minelabs service, we already have that drama on some of the Aussie boards I'm on... I'm only providing these link so you all can (if you dare) crack er open and make sure you don't have this wire close to the back of your FET (FET=Field Effect Transistor for those who care) and the metal back is at ground potential).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE7NCY-svFk

Here's his earlier post which shows the FET wire issue a bit clearer.... the other link shows it's still an issue...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOhN-yL8yAc

Jennifer

[AZNuggetBob]

Jenn I suspect there is is a logical explanation for the bare (wires) in the GPX's knowing Candy's seemingly never ending bag of tricks. I suspect that they are likely a new form of heat sinks considering the heat buildup in that area of the board rather than a QC issue, but obviously the unintentional grounding on the back of the FET was not part of the original design. AzNuggetBob

[jjbond]

Jenn I suspect there is is a logical explanation for the bare (wires) in the GPX's knowing Candies seemingly never ending bag of tricks. I suspect that they are likely a new form of heat sinks considering the heat buildup in that area of the board rather than a QC issue, but obviously the unintentional grounding on the back of the FET was not part of the original design. AzNuggetBob

It's the proximity of the bare transformer wire to the back of the fit that's a concern. Simple to gently move away. )

[Inhere]

Jen, I would be careful believing too much that this guy puts up on youtube.

he is a prominent member of the local OZ hate Minelab forum.

I suggest that if the wire was "Simple to gently move away", it would also, be simple to gently move in any direction. How many of these things have you heard of, emitting smoke???

The only one I have heard of, was after a so called modder, who shall be nameless, modded a 4500 to make it quieter, (less affected by EMI). Well It came back quieter, but the box started smoking after a while, and then It got noisier. :lol:

[nero_design]

Hi Jennifer!

Most of the modded detector owners are advised by the modders to use "smaller coils" at their recommendation ...and then they claim to find smaller nuggets. Why do you suppose that is? And the sensitivity after modding may be in question: partly because the lab tests shown by the modder were conducted under a set of neon transformer catalysts with a 'test coil' (which is designed to ignore the EMI from the aforementioned lighting). Not the most scientific way to conduct a test.

The modder claims (and I quote) that "A modded GP-3000 will blow it {a GPX-4500} away". Forgive me but that's a little outrageous. Those are fighting words. He's been trawling Youtube and commenting on related detectors and videos in order to get people to view his videos... which link directly to his modding site. It's a bit of a shame really because I suspect he might be able to pump a bit more life into the older SD2000 & SD2100's. I've spoken with this person a couple of times in the past and he comes across as fairly straight-forward. But I'd put my faith & money on the folks at ML ... some of whom are essentially rocket scientists with all their own patents and tech to play with.

I have had recent word that the last two modded detectors received for repair were so 'dumbed down' from a recent "modding" that they were actually shorted in some places and were "so badly wired that the person who did it was probably some sort of idiot". Those are the words repeated to me. Perhaps they lost a bit of warmth in the translation. The mods may not have been done by the person above... so don't shoot the messenger - there's about 6 guys modding now in Australia. I think at least four of them have no idea at all. The website inferred to has such a hatred for Jonathan Porter and myself that they had devoted a section of their stickies board to each of us... which was kind of amusing. They also hate ML with a passion for some reason, and yet that's the only detector brand they ever use. I don't get that bit.

Some of the mods reduce the setup procedure to just 29 seconds instead of the standard 60 seconds. And that would imply the detector is being 'overclocked'. Still, if the detector is old enough to warrant a little manual manipulation, overclock it anyway - it might be interesting to see what happens. We all know what occurs when a computer is overclocked, right? The chipsets and components can burn out real quick unless they are heat-stabilized with liquid, cryo or forced air.

Be a real shame if any detectors of 'tomorrow' happen to have their components immersed in a block of opaque resin to prevent tampering. But that's how we protected our electronic circuit boards from duplication way back in the late 1980s!

Go figure.

By the way, why would anyone ruin their perfectly functional Warranty by cracking open a GPX 4500? As you may have noticed, this detector may exceed the price of a small car! Last I heard, the modder in question was complaining about obtaining second hand GPs at a less expensive price and was hoping the 4500's would come down in cost to allow him to get into one. Someone must have donated him a couple of 4500s. But WHY would they do this if the Warranty is '5 years' PLUS the detector was less than a year old? Something seems a little out of place here... didn't anyone else pick up on this? If a customer had a problem, they'd send it back to the Manufacture or dealer for repair, right? That's what I'd do.

I'm simply leveling a little of the same scrutiny that this group leveled at me when I appeared on the boards recently. If I'm off the mark and this guy is on the money, I owe him a beer or two. Testing needs to be independent in order to be objective. If the person selling the mods is running the tests and putting out negatively geared videos which could be used to generate business by "tainting the landscape", it's not unreasonable to at least question the information offered.

To address the video itself, the "goo" appears to be silicone or possibly hot-glue which was placed between components to prevent movement and act as a barrier. The so called "burn through" in the second video appears to be the result of the entire unit being wired and then painted - and the wire in question has masked the rear of the FET from the spray. Usually a burn-through from this type of DC voltage will pitt the conductor, leaving behind a more spectacular mark. Applying heat to the wire whilst adding components will also generate enough heat to score the contact. The author says that the exposed wire might lead to "rub-through" and yet the wire is not sheathed to begin with. And it has no slack with which to rub. The kicker is that he "thought the other one was a one-off, obviously there's a pandemic of these things out there" (quote).... now I would assume that if a person opened up two detectors that had the same, identical wire-placement, that this would obviously have been an intentional decision by the manufacturer. The Author then tells people to "have a look at your detectors and make sure that that wire is not" the same as in his own two examples. I'd say the odds are strong that they are. But any fault in the wiring would have resulted in an immediate recall. And the local consumer affairs department would be onto the situation. Again, something doesn't quite make sense in this pattern. These units are hand finished so variations in a dollop of glue/sealant and differences between lengths of wire should not be a concern.

The video caries the frightening fearful title of "Minelab GPX4500 GPX-4500 Shock Horror 180 volts insulation issue". Eh?

A speech bubble appears at the bottom and top of the video at 0.57seconds. Bubble number one says "$$$$$$$$$$ Repair Bill" and the other reads "So when smoke billows from your expensive detector, you will know what caused it. Engineering Excellence lol". Again, this is a little odd. And fairly rude. The company obviously felt that a big warranty would show confidence in their products. If someone ever had a problem with their machine, I have no doubt they'd send it to the manufacturer under warranty rather than to a third party who would eventually be voiding the same said warranty. I'm still shaking my head over this one.

Cheers!

[jjbond]

Love you all but as I said, my intent wasn't to start a pro woody or con woody thread (now that sounds perverted).... but thank you all for your input (going back to all the PM's I received on this..jeeezuz)