northwest 30" CC for Minelab GPX, GP, SD and similar.
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Wednesday April 24 2019 12:32:24 AEST PM
Home Help Login Register
News: Welcome to the Australianelectronicgoldprospectingforum founded in July 2010, an add free totally independent forum with over 70 boards and paid for and managed by the Admin.Topics: 9,245  Total forum Posts:46,000 Members:807. Total page views:12,263,130  Admin and  forum and domain name owner :marjen at optusnet.com.au. Guests can only see a limited number of boards at present and cannot see any hot links. Guests cannot post and never will be permitted too!Registration of new members must be approved by admin.
 All  original Photos and posts and  original materials displayed on this site are COPYRIGHTED and remain the property of the poster and the  Austalian electronicgoldprospectingforum.com. All messages on this forum express the personal views of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily being in accord with those of the forum owner and neither the owner of this forum and its domain name nor SMF or the forum software developers or the forum host shall be held responsible for the content of any message. Admin reserves the right to remove any offensive or objectionable posts. No defamatory material or politics/religion or issues of race will be permitted.

australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Detector Technology and Electronics and new detectors  |  Detector Coils  |  Topic: 30" CC for Minelab GPX, GP, SD and similar. 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] Go Down Print
Author Topic: 30" CC for Minelab GPX, GP, SD and similar.  (Read 1682 times)
Reg Wilson
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #80 on: Wednesday March 27 2019 10:39:12 AEDT AM »

Well Gary a DD does work on a QED, but only one D operates. I'm interested to see if the CC coil will work on a QED. I already have large coils that work on GPX or QED, and my guess is that they are damned close to the performance of the CC coil, but are susceptible to high mineralization noise.
Logged
Dontbstme
regular members
Newbie
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #81 on: Wednesday March 27 2019 14:30:31 AEDT PM »

  
What about your coil on QED. I think most people on this forum are more interested in how it performs, or if it performs on QED. The weight situation is also of more interest with this combination.
You come on this forum flogging your large but expensive coil, and ignore the QED. Not so clever.

Reg I am not ignoring QED. Not one little bit. Just got no one available to test with it. After the tests are done with the people I work we can arrange probably some tests with QED too.
ML various GPX models seem to exhibit huge difference in behaviour to the same coil, which I find disturbing as changing coil parameters from one model to another is impossible for such expensive coil constructions. If I have to change my coils every year I will never make anything out of it.
So in this regard QED may prove to be a better successor for these coils than Minelab.

It also occur to me that if the QED happens to work a lot better with my CC than the GPX I can easily design a huge Mono for the QED that will be at a lot more favourable price tag than the CC as mono is not any near as complcated to manufacture like huge CC or DD coils.
Logged
sd220d Digger
invited members
Newbie
****
Online Online

Posts: 161


« Reply #82 on: Saturday March 30 2019 22:22:50 AEDT PM »

  
There are new results to come. So the first test I will consider irrelevant for now.


Sounds like you have some work to do on your coils.

Logged
mylab
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 175


« Reply #83 on: Sunday March 31 2019 00:30:03 AEDT AM »

  
The coil works in Oz on mineral level 7 out of 10 according to tester estimate.
The first test on GPX5000 was a bit misleading as the 5000 does not seem to cope well with this coil, but older 4500 model does. Mine is 4500 from 2011 and it works perfect. I will wait for next more detailed tests with older 4500 to see what come out of it.

Dontbstme I can’t seem to find those 1st test results as that GPX5000 may of had some sort of a problem and maybe the tester should have tested another 5000. Also why an earlier model 4500 can cope with your coil and not a later model  is a mystery. Whatever the issue I still look forward to the next more detailed test results with your 30” CC coil on the older 4500 and the settings it used over those, as I recall, 4 test targets of various sizes.

Also were the previous test target results with the 5000 an in ground test and do you know if the next detailed test target results with an older 4500 are to be an in the ground test?
Logged
Dontbstme
regular members
Newbie
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #84 on: Sunday March 31 2019 16:43:42 AEDT PM »

  
  
The coil works in Oz on mineral level 7 out of 10 according to tester estimate.
The first test on GPX5000 was a bit misleading as the 5000 does not seem to cope well with this coil, but older 4500 model does. Mine is 4500 from 2011 and it works perfect. I will wait for next more detailed tests with older 4500 to see what come out of it.

Dontbstme I can’t seem to find those 1st test results as that GPX5000 may of had some sort of a problem and maybe the tester should have tested another 5000. Also why an earlier model 4500 can cope with your coil and not a later model  is a mystery. Whatever the issue I still look forward to the next more detailed test results with your 30” CC coil on the older 4500 and the settings it used over those, as I recall, 4 test targets of various sizes.

Also were the previous test target results with the 5000 an in ground test and do you know if the next detailed test target results with an older 4500 are to be an in the ground test?

I deleted the results with the 5000 as they did not represent everything for the 30"CC that I need to see and also the 30"CC needs construction upgrade to handle the fine timings on 5000, which are not present in 4500. This is why 4500 works with the 30"CC flawlessly and not so the 5000.

I also considered that 30"CC may not be of a huge interest to Australian market as in ideal conditions 30" coil will not add more than 10% depth over 25" NF mono. 10% depth increase is not enough to justify the price difference (no matter the manufacturing costs involved) and prospectors do not seem to be interested in proper discrimination, which I find odd considering the old timer sites.

I will move to 41"CC construction soon with pre calculated weight below 1.5 kg. The 41" coil will add average of 30% depth increase over 25" mono coil, that is if the GPX do not put a brake on this because of existing RX in the CC. I do not know how the GPX is processing the RX signals and loop presence exactly. This needs to be measured in detail. I suspect that the discrimination will come at some cost of depth, but need to see to what extend.
If the loss of depth is too much because of RX coil in the design I will consider constructing simple mono coils instead for gold prospecting.
For treasure hunting all that was said above is quite irrelevant as treasure hunting does not need all of those super fine timings that 5000 utilise.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] Go Up Print 
australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Detector Technology and Electronics and new detectors  |  Detector Coils  |  Topic: 30" CC for Minelab GPX, GP, SD and similar. « previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder

BisdakworldClassic design by JV PACO-IN
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
gold