northwest 30" CC for Minelab GPX, GP, SD and similar.
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Saturday May 25 2019 15:56:28 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:46,142 Members:809. 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.
Climate news
Contribution to global warming by Australia. Australia has one of the highest per capita emissions of carbon dioxide in the world, with 0.3% of the world's population it produces 1.4% and rising(not the .08% the  finders forum dope "Inhere" claims!) of the world's greenhouse gases. Australia also has the highest per capita emissions in the OECD, with 26 tonnes of greenhouse gasses being emitted per person every year.

australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Detector Technology and Electronics and new detectors  |  Detector Coils (Moderator: Goldman)  |  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] 6 Go Down Print
Author Topic: 30" CC for Minelab GPX, GP, SD and similar.  (Read 2614 times)
Reg Wilson
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


« 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
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« 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
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 180


« 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: 177


« 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
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« 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
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #85 on: Monday May 6 2019 15:53:23 AEST PM »

I would like to continue the discussion regarding the 30"CC here as the other thread was not meant for this topic.

The 30"CC was tested on another GPX4000 and the tester reported identical results to Matt's. 57 inches on a big piece of Lead.
The QED did not agree with this oil, because of it's internal dumping resistor on the RX end. Similar situation to the use of ML DD coils with QED. So Howard suggested he could send one QED detector to me so I can put together a big mono coils for the QED, which is in both our interest.

It was nice to see you Howard.

If you want to go ahead with this idea please contact me on my Facebook - Georgi Chaushev
or through my web site    so I can give you a delivery address. When I have a ready coil I will return the detector to you together with the developed coil, so you can market it in Australia and we can get some business going on.
Logged
Goldman
global moderator
Newbie
****
Online Online

Posts: 148



« Reply #86 on: Monday May 6 2019 20:04:22 AEST PM »

  
I would like to continue the discussion regarding the 30"CC here as the other thread was not meant for this topic.

The 30"CC was tested on another GPX4000 and the tester reported identical results to Matt's. 57 inches on a big piece of Lead.
The QED did not agree with this oil, because of it's internal dumping resistor on the RX end. Similar situation to the use of ML DD coils with QED. So Howard suggested he could send one QED detector to me so I can put together a big mono coils for the QED, which is in both our interest.

It was nice to see you Howard.

If you want to go ahead with this idea please contact me on my Facebook - Georgi Chaushev
or through my web site    so I can give you a delivery address. When I have a ready coil I will return the detector to you together with the developed coil, so you can market it in Australia and we can get some business going on.


I used my 4000 to test the 30”CC coil today but didn’t video the result as Matt wanted the video he shot today (before we got there) to be used instead. I want to wait until that video is posted before agreeing that the distances achieved today are in fact (near) identical to Matts 4500.

It is also worth noting that performing tests with coils is all about comparing one coil against another of the same physical size with the same detector over the same target in the same ground and at the same time.

So testing the 30” CC coil in isolation today is only half the story as we did not have an equivalent size coil to test it against. Therefore all we can say is that it achieved a certain detection distance - full stop.

Howard and I also tested the 30”CC coil on the QED and I can confirm that even though the 30”CC coil worked on the QED, the detection distance was below that of the 4000. However after direct discussion between Howard and Georgi at the test patch today (after the tests) the technical reasons why the coil didn’t perform as well on the QED were identified. It should be noted that this is a technical/electronic mismatch between the QED and the coil and NOT a comparison of the relative performance of the GPX Vs the QED, as the QED achieved very good depth on the same target at the same depth with a different (normal) coil.

Cheers Goldman
Logged
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #87 on: Monday May 6 2019 23:37:08 AEST PM »

  

So testing the 30” CC coil in isolation today is only half the story as we did not have an equivalent size coil to test it against. Therefore all we can say is that it achieved a certain detection distance - full stop.

Cheers Goldman
Do you believe that any other coil in similar size would achieve this same certain detection distance in Cancel mode?
Logged
mylab
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #88 on: Tuesday May 7 2019 00:32:21 AEST AM »

Dontbstme going by the results by Matt and his 4500, although it is modified, & now Goldman and his 4000 then if both of their detectors were tested in Normal timing with your 30”CC coil instead of the Enhance timing on the 4500 & Smooth timing on the 4000 then the a 5000 in Normal timing would have produced the same result on that big piece of lead.

From the results that you removed it showed the 5000 in Normal timing with the 30”CC compared to the 5000 in Fine Gold timing with a 25” mono on a 26oz piece of lead then the result was extra 1” of depth going to Fine Gold & the 25” mono. However unfortunately the 25” mono is not capable of handling Normal timing on either the 5000, 4500 or 4000 over highly mineralised ground in Australia and therefore either Fine Gold, Enhance or Smooth timing on the 4000 are required to operate a mono successfully over such ground conditions.

I suppose what I am trying to say is the 30” CC coil using Normal timing, the deepest setting on the GPX, then Fine Gold and maybe Enhance are capable of matching the depth on a large target with a 25” mono as a 30”CC coil in the deeper Normal timing.

Therefore I would expect you do have to increase the size of the CC coil as you say up to a 41” to be capable of producing more depth than the 25” mono using  Fine Gold & Enhance timings on the GPX.

So I would not be surprised that the GPX with Reg’s 36” mono in Fine Gold or Enhance would match the 41” CC coil in Normal timing on a large target.

And as far as using Cancel mode then it appears for some reason the CC type coil requires it to produce the best depth whereas a Mono coil requires the Mono mode to produce the best depth.
Logged
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #89 on: Tuesday May 7 2019 01:12:09 AEST AM »

  
Dontbstme going by the results by Matt and his 4500, although it is modified, & now Goldman and his 4000 then if both of their detectors were tested in Normal timing with your 30”CC coil instead of the Enhance timing on the 4500 & Smooth timing on the 4000 then the a 5000 in Normal timing would have produced the same result on that big piece of lead.

From the results that you removed it showed the 5000 in Normal timing with the 30”CC compared to the 5000 in Fine Gold timing with a 25” mono on a 26oz piece of lead then the result was extra 1” of depth going to Fine Gold & the 25” mono. However unfortunately the 25” mono is not capable of handling Normal timing on either the 5000, 4500 or 4000 over highly mineralised ground in Australia and therefore either Fine Gold, Enhance or Smooth timing on the 4000 are required to operate a mono successfully over such ground conditions.

I suppose what I am trying to say is the 30” CC coil using Normal timing, the deepest setting on the GPX, then Fine Gold and maybe Enhance are capable of matching the depth on a large target with a 25” mono as a 30”CC coil in the deeper Normal timing.

Therefore I would expect you do have to increase the size of the CC coil as you say up to a 41” to be capable of producing more depth than the 25” mono using  Fine Gold & Enhance timings on the GPX.

So I would not be surprised that the GPX with Reg’s 36” mono in Fine Gold or Enhance would match the 41” CC coil in Normal timing on a large target.

And as far as using Cancel mode then it appears for some reason the CC type coil requires it to produce the best depth whereas a Mono coil requires the Mono mode to produce the best depth.
The 30"CC that is in Matt's hands is a PROTOTYPE and its performance is not sufficient to demonstrate what the 30"CC can really do.

All of the mentioned above conclusions by you are a waste of time as they do not reflect the properties of the real finished product. That's why I deleted the first measurements with the 5000 as they are not consistent with the expected product parameters.

Wait to see the production samples that are average of 20% deeper than the prototype.

The first for Australia is going to Queensland within the next few weeks and the buyer will make his own videos to demonstrate what that coil does.

The report from Goldman (with whom I had a pleasant chat today on FB video) was to validate or not Matt's test results, which it did, but it was most certainly not a final word of any kind for what the 30"CC can do as Goldman tested a prototype, not a product.


Logged
Goldman
global moderator
Newbie
****
Online Online

Posts: 148



« Reply #90 on: Tuesday May 7 2019 08:56:31 AEST AM »

  
  
Dontbstme going by the results by Matt and his 4500, although it is modified, & now Goldman and his 4000 then if both of their detectors were tested in Normal timing with your 30”CC coil instead of the Enhance timing on the 4500 & Smooth timing on the 4000 then the a 5000 in Normal timing would have produced the same result on that big piece of lead.h

From the results that you removed it showed the 5000 in Normal timing with the 30”CC compared to the 5000 in Fine Gold timing with a 25” mono on a 26oz piece of lead then the result was extra 1” of depth going to Fine Gold & the 25” mono. However unfortunately the 25” mono is not capable of handling Normal timing on either the 5000, 4500 or 4000 over highly mineralised ground in Australia and therefore either Fine Gold, Enhance or Smooth timing on the 4000 are required to operate a mono successfully over such ground conditions.

I suppose what I am trying to say is the 30” CC coil using Normal timing, the deepest setting on the GPX, then Fine Gold and maybe Enhance are capable of matching the depth on a large target with a 25” mono as a 30”CC coil in the deeper Normal timing.

Therefore I would expect you do have to increase the size of the CC coil as you say up to a 41” to be capable of producing more depth than the 25” mono using  Fine Gold & Enhance timings on the GPX.

So I would not be surprised that the GPX with Reg’s 36” mono in Fine Gold or Enhance would match the 41” CC coil in Normal timing on a large target.

And as far as using Cancel mode then it appears for some reason the CC type coil requires it to produce the best depth whereas a Mono coil requires the Mono mode to produce the best depth.
The 30"CC that is in Matt's hands is a PROTOTYPE and its performance is not sufficient to demonstrate what the 30"CC can really do.

All of the mentioned above conclusions by you are a waste of time as they do not reflect the properties of the real finished product. That's why I deleted the first measurements with the 5000 as they are not consistent with the expected product parameters.

Wait to see the production samples that are average of 20% deeper than the prototype.

The first for Australia is going to Queensland within the next few weeks and the buyer will make his own videos to demonstrate what that coil does.

The report from Goldman (with whom I had a pleasant chat today on FB video) was to validate or not Matt's test results, which it did, but it was most certainly not a final word of any kind for what the 30"CC can do as Goldman tested a prototype, not a product.




Hi everyone, the major settings used yesterday on my 4000 were: cancel, normal, fixed, deep, also gain at 12.
After performing the depth test I walked the coil around the immediate area still using the above settings and the 4000 remained fairly quiet, noting that it was still in ‘cancel’. This is by no means a comprehensive usability test, which I believe must be performed as we all need to know how it performs over the ground actually looking for gold. Can those setting really be used for this purpose- don’t know is the answer.
In addition, much more testing is required especially considering the suggested outlay - not sure whether an additional zero has been added by mistake.
Cheers Goldman
Logged
GARY
invited members
Junior Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 488


« Reply #91 on: Tuesday May 7 2019 13:14:25 AEST PM »

Thanks Goldman for your test report.

I found this diagram interesting from a major detector manufacturer.


* Search Coil Verse Mineralization.jpg (23.68 KB, 251x448 - viewed 101 times.)
Logged

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
Goldman
global moderator
Newbie
****
Online Online

Posts: 148



« Reply #92 on: Tuesday May 7 2019 14:21:21 AEST PM »

Hi Everyone,

Here is the link to Matt's YouTube video.

  
link-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh4NMfBOi4A
Cheers,
Goldman
Logged
Goldman
global moderator
Newbie
****
Online Online

Posts: 148



« Reply #93 on: Tuesday May 7 2019 14:51:17 AEST PM »

Further to my previous post, I can now add some more detail after watching Matt’s video.

We measured from the coil we used with the QED to the target in the hole and measured 36”, note that due to the (flat) size of the lead target, it does not sit on the bottom of the conduit).

The coil used with the QED before testing the 30”CC was a 18” NF (not EVO) and we achieved 42-44 inches using Matt’s lead target, which Matt was witness too.

Using my 4000 with the 30”CC, as described earlier, a detection distance similar to Matt’s test was achieved. We did not use Matt’s rock skyscraper but held the coil at various heights above the ground whilst the target was being moved in and out.

The coil is not heavy at around 800g, did feel solid and did not flex.

As I said earlier, two things now need to happen once a production coil is available to test:
1) direct comparison against same (similar) sized production coil from any of the major coil manufacturers to see what advantage the CC may offer, and
2) use it to actually detect over our normal, highly mineralised ground to see if the settings used for the tests can be carried forward to the real world Australian conditions.


Cheers Goldman
Logged
sd220d Digger
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 180


« Reply #94 on: Tuesday May 7 2019 16:45:46 AEST PM »

Don'tbullshitme or Candigger as you call yourself on Prospecting Australia forum.
Why are you using such stupid names???
This makes no sense.

Why don't you be a decent human being and introduce yourself?
And use your real name or even your company name? (nexus)
What have you got to hide?

Don'tbullshitme, do you even on now what this means in English?

Logged
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


« Reply #95 on: Tuesday May 7 2019 16:56:10 AEST PM »

  
Thanks Goldman for your test report.

I found this diagram interesting from a major detector manufacturer.

This diagram is a marketing bs, nothing more. It is also related to VLF, not PI.
In reality DD, CC and figure of 8 (the Nexus coils) or/and any other, which are made with the same surface area (not circumference) and tuned at the same frequency(for VLF) they will all exhibit the same depth - period.

I have compared 11"DD ML to my 11"CC test coil. The CC coil outperforms in all grounds the DD on every target. I will produce videos soon on the subject.

Think about if. CC coil will always have much bigger TX than equivalent size DD. How is DD going to work better then? On what basis?
Logged
GARY
invited members
Junior Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 488


« Reply #96 on: Tuesday May 7 2019 17:36:16 AEST PM »

  

This diagram is a marketing bs, nothing more. It is also related to VLF, not PI.

I have compared 11"DD ML to my 11"CC test coil. The CC coil outperforms in all grounds the DD on every target.

I will produce videos soon on the subject.


I was not sure if the diagram only referred to VLF Detectors.

Look forward to your videos on the subject.

Thanks again Goldman for further results from your tests.
And yes those " two things now need to happen once a production coil is available to test:"

Gary.
Logged

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
sd220d Digger
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 180


« Reply #97 on: Wednesday May 8 2019 14:14:56 AEST PM »

  
Don'tbullshitme or Candigger as you call yourself on Prospecting Australia forum.
Why are you using such stupid names???
This makes no sense.

Why don't you be a decent human being and introduce yourself?
And use your real name or even your company name? (nexus)
What have you got to hide?

Don'tbullshitme, do you even on now what this means in English?



HOW MANY OF US MEMBERS AGREE TO GIVE DON'TBULLSHITME OR CANDIGGER A TRUE FORUM MEMBER NAME

EITHER GEORGI OR NEXUS?

What do you think boys?
Logged
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16672



« Reply #98 on: Wednesday May 8 2019 14:25:55 AEST PM »

  
  
Don'tbullshitme or Candigger as you call yourself on Prospecting Australia forum.
Why are you using such stupid names???
This makes no sense.

Why don't you be a decent human being and introduce yourself?
And use your real name or even your company name? (nexus)
What have you got to hide?

Don'tbullshitme, do you even on now what this means in English?



HOW MANY OF US MEMBERS AGREE TO GIVE DON'TBULLSHITME OR CANDIGGER A TRUE FORUM MEMBER NAME

EITHER GEORGI OR NEXUS?

What do you think boys?

Members are free to use whatever forum name they like providing its not offensive, obscene,defamatory, racist or bigoted or political or advocates  any illegal activity.
doug smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin.
When is 1halfgram4three (a proven forum hacker and  village idiot!) going to stop telling lies on his “forum”?
egixe4
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #99 on: Wednesday May 8 2019 18:05:11 AEST PM »

Well I did come up with a new name for you sd220d Digger

But then I saw Doug's rules in his reply

So unfortunately, I can't suggest it, and you would be unable to use it.

Mal




 

Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Go Up Print 
australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Detector Technology and Electronics and new detectors  |  Detector Coils (Moderator: Goldman)  |  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!