northwest If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Tuesday July 16 2019 04:37:11 AEST AM
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:46,357 Members:822. 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.
QED news
QED on facebook
link-https://www.facebook.com/groups/245308699667153/403446933853328/?comment_id=403472030517485&reply_comment_id=403476793850342&notif_id=1562580344994993&notif_t=group_comment
New GB timing algorithm being tested in the QED.
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.
Australia's C02 emissions rise for the 4th year in a row.

australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Detector Technology and Electronics and new detectors  |  Detector Coils (Moderator: Goldman)  |  Topic: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector! 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!  (Read 1760 times)
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16739



« Reply #20 on: Tuesday January 29 2019 15:01:07 AEDT PM »

  
  
  
..My design runs at 1600 or 3200 Hz and uses just 150mA on 7.2v....
I use tricks with coils too but I can't fool the ground all the time...but then I know when I'm being fooled by the ground... happy face

cheers

muntari

I thought your design had been " lost"! SAD
doug smile

Yes, that has been put to bed as I said .....this is a new PI design analog/digital, very light, minimal controls, good GB, a very vanilla...but extremely quiet  PI happy face
main point of difference..it is designed as a system..coil specific.

that's about as much as I can say..  don't feed the trolls

Ill share more on a separate thread when its appropriate...

cheers

muntari

Great news!!! Clap Hands terrific  Look forward to  developments. Just make sure it can use very big  coils for mega deep  nuggets!!
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”?
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


« Reply #21 on: Tuesday January 29 2019 18:28:44 AEDT PM »

  

Now to your detector, is there anyone here in Australia that you know of that would be willing to share their experience. I ask this because it will help you move forward quicker by gaining interest from seeing the real thing in action.

I don't doubt your detectors work but we need to be convinced with a real machine in working conditions

cheers

muntari

I have been unable top get my customers to talk. No awards, no discounts or even expensive gifts would make them talk short of couple of guys on the MDF and now on the FB group.
The older Nexus models that were sold to Australian users are all resonant tuned and no of them will work on the hot grounds, not even from the soil. I have no idea where and what for they are used in Australia, but non of them have ever came up for second hand sale. This tells me that they are in use somewhere unless they all ended up in cupboards.
I have receives a genuine invitation to visit the Golden Triangle and some time this year will do that and we will see first hand what MP and the two box can do on your soil.
Untill then we will have to accept the comparative tests on Bulgarian hot ground as the only source of information.
Logged
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


« Reply #22 on: Tuesday January 29 2019 18:32:45 AEDT PM »

  


I would also add, that any detector using just CC coils that tries to eliminate close proximity signals is throwing the baby out with the bath water..
Despite all the years of technical advances and a plethora of companies and individuals trying to rid the ground signal from detector responses, the ground is still winning..
The best detectors are the ones that have a good operator and know the ground they are searching and know the target they are looking for, the  detector is 30% of the picture, the rest is operator..
Having said that, there are only a handful of detectors that I am aware of that can handle OZ GF ground well enough for the operator to fill in the rest of the puzzle.
Most are PI and they don't all hog or require huge amounts of power to operate...
My design runs at 1600 or 3200 Hz and uses just 150mA on 7.2v....
I use tricks with coils too but I can't fool the ground all the time...but then I know when I'm being fooled by the ground... happy face

cheers

muntari
Now we are getting on the same page. The ground can be removed effectively only by the spade (tractor ect.).
Logged
sd220d Digger
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 197


« Reply #23 on: Tuesday January 29 2019 19:04:54 AEDT PM »

  
  

Now to your detector, is there anyone here in Australia that you know of that would be willing to share their experience. I ask this because it will help you move forward quicker by gaining interest from seeing the real thing in action.

I don't doubt your detectors work but we need to be convinced with a real machine in working conditions

cheers

muntari

I have been unable top get my customers to talk. No awards, no discounts or even expensive gifts would make them talk short of couple of guys on the MDF and now on the FB group.
The older Nexus models that were sold to Australian users are all resonant tuned and no of them will work on the hot grounds, not even from the soil. I have no idea where and what for they are used in Australia, but non of them have ever came up for second hand sale. This tells me that they are in use somewhere unless they all ended up in cupboards.
I have receives a genuine invitation to visit the Golden Triangle and some time this year will do that and we will see first hand what MP and the two box can do on your soil.
Untill then we will have to accept the comparative tests on Bulgarian hot ground as the only source of information.

Yes, definitely.
This will be the best thing for you to come to the Golden Triangle in Australia and get your tests done, especially when toy say none of your customers will talk.
To me, to move forward you really need to do this trip.
Logged
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


« Reply #24 on: Tuesday January 29 2019 19:51:33 AEDT PM »

  
  
  

Now to your detector, is there anyone here in Australia that you know of that would be willing to share their experience. I ask this because it will help you move forward quicker by gaining interest from seeing the real thing in action.

I don't doubt your detectors work but we need to be convinced with a real machine in working conditions

cheers

muntari

I have been unable top get my customers to talk. No awards, no discounts or even expensive gifts would make them talk short of couple of guys on the MDF and now on the FB group.
The older Nexus models that were sold to Australian users are all resonant tuned and no of them will work on the hot grounds, not even from the soil. I have no idea where and what for they are used in Australia, but non of them have ever came up for second hand sale. This tells me that they are in use somewhere unless they all ended up in cupboards.
I have receives a genuine invitation to visit the Golden Triangle and some time this year will do that and we will see first hand what MP and the two box can do on your soil.
Untill then we will have to accept the comparative tests on Bulgarian hot ground as the only source of information.

Yes, definitely.
This will be the best thing for you to come to the Golden Triangle in Australia and get your tests done, especially when toy say none of your customers will talk.
To me, to move forward you really need to do this trip.

I will definitely do this as I am super interested to see all those Australian hot grounds and compare them to the hot soils I have seen in South Africa and all over Europe.
Logged
Muntari
invited members
Junior Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414


« Reply #25 on: Tuesday January 29 2019 21:41:27 AEDT PM »

  
  
  
  

Now to your detector, is there anyone here in Australia that you know of that would be willing to share their experience. I ask this because it will help you move forward quicker by gaining interest from seeing the real thing in action.

I don't doubt your detectors work but we need to be convinced with a real machine in working conditions

cheers

muntari

I have been unable top get my customers to talk. No awards, no discounts or even expensive gifts would make them talk short of couple of guys on the MDF and now on the FB group.
The older Nexus models that were sold to Australian users are all resonant tuned and no of them will work on the hot grounds, not even from the soil. I have no idea where and what for they are used in Australia, but non of them have ever came up for second hand sale. This tells me that they are in use somewhere unless they all ended up in cupboards.
I have receives a genuine invitation to visit the Golden Triangle and some time this year will do that and we will see first hand what MP and the two box can do on your soil.
Untill then we will have to accept the comparative tests on Bulgarian hot ground as the only source of information.

Yes, definitely.
This will be the best thing for you to come to the Golden Triangle in Australia and get your tests done, especially when toy say none of your customers will talk.
To me, to move forward you really need to do this trip.

I will definitely do this as I am super interested to see all those Australian hot grounds and compare them to the hot soils I have seen in South Africa and all over Europe.

yep, now we are the same page  good luck
Logged

All posts submitted by myself to this forum are my opinion and are done so without prejudice
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


« Reply #26 on: Wednesday January 30 2019 02:56:54 AEDT AM »

  
  

I don't doubt your detectors work but we need to be convinced with a real machine in working conditions
cheers

muntari

That is exactly right!We need to see it work in our GF and then do some depth testing using AL targets(closest conductivity to pure gold) at the various test sites.
doug smile


Now about Aluminium targets there is this little detail that could be a huge potential problem. The electrical conductivity of Al may be very close to gold, but in pure form the weight difference is about 1;6.78 . This means the Al target will have to be 6.78 times bigger to match the weight aspect other wise how do we know what relative weigh of gold we are simulating?
Then comes the Lead or Tin simulated nuggets. They got the weight good enough, but their conductivity is way too low, which instantly trows any test with PI in the pit, because PI has advantage in detecting low conductivity targets and lumpy gold is definitely not of low conductivity.

As far as huge gold nuggets are concern I would probably rely on Copper simulations more, because it is better to use a metal that is close enough to the weight/surface ratio of gold and more conductive. If the conductivity of the test target is higher and the detector gets it the desirable/test depth then the real thing should be more or less guaranteed. But if the conductivity of the test target is considerably lower then we are fooling our selves.

As far as IB detectors are concerned these things doesn't matter much as IB  averages most data and has no particular sensitivity to variety of conductance.
In IB case the higher the mineral/magnetic content the lower the detection capability to huge non-ferrous is (or to high conductivity).

I have tested the two box on a hammered copper bucket 8" diameter in detail. Now this targets is of the highest conductivity amongst all targets under ground.
After normal soil is balanced the bucket is detectable in air at 260 cm distance, relatively 200-220 cm in ground as the two box has no loss of detection in the soil.
After a highly magnetic huge rock is compensated the detection distance for the bucket drops to 130 cm in air, relatively about 90 cm in ground.
It seems like a huge loss, BUT PI wouldn't get this item even in air EVER at these distance.
So if we take this copper bucket as a substitute for a large chunk of gold (and I know some similar in size were found) where do we go with the detection of those?

Some say there are not so many of those nuggets out there. But how do they know this since I know for a fact that the most successful gold detectors to date, the ML PI are just not capable to get these things at depth?

I suggest that we get Gary's copper nugget for tests.
Logged
WM6
invited members
Senior Hero Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1980



« Reply #27 on: Wednesday January 30 2019 03:48:29 AEDT AM »

  

As far as IB detectors are concerned these things doesn't matter much as IB  averages most data and has no particular sensitivity to variety of conductance.

I have tested the two box on a hammered copper bucket 8" diameter in detail. Now this targets is of the highest conductivity amongst all targets under ground.

After a highly magnetic huge rock is compensated the detection distance for the bucket drops to 130 cm in air, relatively about 90 cm in ground.

It seems like a huge loss, BUT PI wouldn't get this item even in air EVER at these distance.

Some say there are not so many of those nuggets out there. But how do they know this since I know for a fact that the most successful gold detectors to date, the ML PI are just not capable to get these things at depth?



Sounds like we go in reprise this old test from metal detectors history:

Logged

Global capital is ruining your life?
You have right to self-defence!
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


« Reply #28 on: Wednesday January 30 2019 06:57:03 AEDT AM »

  

Sounds like we go in reprise this old test from metal detectors history:


So when it is not serving someones purpose the test is not proving anything. How typical.
The tiny insignificant detail in this story is the Lead that suppose to represent gold. Well it doesn't, because Lead is a low conductor and as such is detected very, very well by PI. So indeed the test proves nothing.
Logged
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16739



« Reply #29 on: Wednesday January 30 2019 08:36:30 AEDT AM »

  

I have tested the two box on a hammered copper bucket 8" diameter in detail. Now this targets is of the highest conductivity amongst all targets under ground.
After normal soil is balanced the bucket is detectable in air at 260 cm distance, relatively 200-220 cm in ground as the two box has no loss of detection in the soil.
After a highly magnetic huge rock is compensated the detection distance for the bucket drops to 130 cm in air, relatively about 90 cm in ground.
It seems like a huge loss, BUT PI wouldn't get this item even in air EVER at these distance.

"BUT PI wouldn't get this item even in air EVER at these distance."

This would be true for all hand held Pi's.But a ground loop Pi  i expect would!
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”?
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


« Reply #30 on: Wednesday January 30 2019 10:05:06 AEDT AM »

  
  

I have tested the two box on a hammered copper bucket 8" diameter in detail. Now this targets is of the highest conductivity amongst all targets under ground.
After normal soil is balanced the bucket is detectable in air at 260 cm distance, relatively 200-220 cm in ground as the two box has no loss of detection in the soil.
After a highly magnetic huge rock is compensated the detection distance for the bucket drops to 130 cm in air, relatively about 90 cm in ground.
It seems like a huge loss, BUT PI wouldn't get this item even in air EVER at these distance.

"BUT PI wouldn't get this item even in air EVER at these distance."

This would be true for all hand held Pi's.But a ground loop Pi  i expect would!
doug smile

1,5 x 1.5 m PI does get these things deep enough if you can get to use them that is. After all the size, weight and speed of operation are restriction on working time with these devices and this is crucial element in the chance for success.
To the absolute depth penetration one needs to add time needed to cover this depth. If it takes a day to search just few square meters (that's what most super deep huge detectors do as they are far too slow) what's the use?
I have seen a number of detectors that are super deep, if you know where the targets are and hoover over them, but to me its important to get to the targets fast in real search. Ground loops are just not in this category. 
I am not going to even mention the Iron trash problem with those ground loops.
I hear there is plenty of trash left over on the gold fields.     

Logged
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16739



« Reply #31 on: Wednesday January 30 2019 10:07:43 AEDT AM »

  
  

I have tested the two box on a hammered copper bucket 8" diameter in detail. Now this targets is of the highest conductivity amongst all targets under ground.
After normal soil is balanced the bucket is detectable in air at 260 cm distance, relatively 200-220 cm in ground as the two box has no loss of detection in the soil.
After a highly magnetic huge rock is compensated the detection distance for the bucket drops to 130 cm in air, relatively about 90 cm in ground.
It seems like a huge loss, BUT PI wouldn't get this item even in air EVER at these distance.

"BUT PI wouldn't get this item even in air EVER at these distance."

This would be true for all hand held Pi's.But a ground loop Pi  i expect would!
doug smile

Thinking more about this  i would be surprised if  a Pi with a 36" mono would not detect that target in air at 1.3m.
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”?
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16739



« Reply #32 on: Wednesday January 30 2019 10:13:25 AEDT AM »

  
  
  

I have tested the two box on a hammered copper bucket 8" diameter in detail. Now this targets is of the highest conductivity amongst all targets under ground.
After normal soil is balanced the bucket is detectable in air at 260 cm distance, relatively 200-220 cm in ground as the two box has no loss of detection in the soil.
After a highly magnetic huge rock is compensated the detection distance for the bucket drops to 130 cm in air, relatively about 90 cm in ground.
It seems like a huge loss, BUT PI wouldn't get this item even in air EVER at these distance.

"BUT PI wouldn't get this item even in air EVER at these distance."

This would be true for all hand held Pi's.But a ground loop Pi  i expect would!
doug smile

1,5 x 1.5 m PI does get these things deep enough if you can get to use them that is. After all the size, weight and speed of operation are restriction on working time with these devices and this is crucial element in the chance for success.
To the absolute depth penetration one needs to add time needed to cover this depth. If it takes a day to search just few square meters (that's what most super deep huge detectors do as they are far too slow) what's the use?
I have seen a number of detectors that are super deep, if you know where the targets are and hoover over them, but to me its important to get to the targets fast in real search. Ground loops are just not in this category. 
I am not going to even mention the Iron trash problem with those ground loops.
I hear there is plenty of trash left over on the gold fields.     



Ground loops would only be used in deeper virgin ground. with minimal deep trash.You could easily cover more than a few sq meters in a day!Once the ground loop is laid out and fired up then the detecting time inside the loop is about the  same time as it would take to detect the area without a ground loop.
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”?
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16739



« Reply #33 on: Wednesday January 30 2019 10:36:13 AEDT AM »

  
  
  
  

I have tested the two box on a hammered copper bucket 8" diameter in detail. Now this targets is of the highest conductivity amongst all targets under ground.
After normal soil is balanced the bucket is detectable in air at 260 cm distance, relatively 200-220 cm in ground as the two box has no loss of detection in the soil.
After a highly magnetic huge rock is compensated the detection distance for the bucket drops to 130 cm in air, relatively about 90 cm in ground.
It seems like a huge loss, BUT PI wouldn't get this item even in air EVER at these distance.

"BUT PI wouldn't get this item even in air EVER at these distance."

This would be true for all hand held Pi's.But a ground loop Pi  i expect would!
doug smile

1,5 x 1.5 m PI does get these things deep enough if you can get to use them that is. After all the size, weight and speed of operation are restriction on working time with these devices and this is crucial element in the chance for success.
To the absolute depth penetration one needs to add time needed to cover this depth. If it takes a day to search just few square meters (that's what most super deep huge detectors do as they are far too slow) what's the use?
I have seen a number of detectors that are super deep, if you know where the targets are and hoover over them, but to me its important to get to the targets fast in real search. Ground loops are just not in this category. 
I am not going to even mention the Iron trash problem with those ground loops.
I hear there is plenty of trash left over on the gold fields.     



Ground loops would only be used in deeper virgin ground. with minimal deep trash.You could easily cover more than a few sq meters in a day!Once the ground loop is laid out and fired up then the detecting time inside the loop is about the  same time as it would take to detect the area without a ground loop.
doug smile

Here is an Australian TD ground loop system used for detection of UXO.
With a ground loop system they claim they can  remediate an area of  1Ha/day
  
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”?
Muntari
invited members
Junior Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414


« Reply #34 on: Wednesday January 30 2019 10:41:34 AEDT AM »

"After a highly magnetic huge rock is compensated the detection distance for the bucket drops to 130 cm in air, relatively about 90 cm in ground.
It seems like a huge loss, BUT PI wouldn't get this item even in air EVER at these distance."

A single rock is not a good test for heavy mineral / magnetic soils and to say PI would never get these targets is untrue.
Australian goldfields have some of the highest concentrations of iron / magnetic soils in the world, you really do need to get down here and find out for yourself...

cheers

muntari
Logged

All posts submitted by myself to this forum are my opinion and are done so without prejudice
Muntari
invited members
Junior Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414


« Reply #35 on: Wednesday January 30 2019 11:04:48 AEDT AM »

  
  
  

I don't doubt your detectors work but we need to be convinced with a real machine in working conditions
cheers

muntari

That is exactly right!We need to see it work in our GF and then do some depth testing using AL targets(closest conductivity to pure gold) at the various test sites.
doug smile


Now about Aluminium targets there is this little detail that could be a huge potential problem. The electrical conductivity of Al may be very close to gold, but in pure form the weight difference is about 1;6.78 . This means the Al target will have to be 6.78 times bigger to match the weight aspect other wise how do we know what relative weigh of gold we are simulating?
Then comes the Lead or Tin simulated nuggets. They got the weight good enough, but their conductivity is way too low, which instantly trows any test with PI in the pit, because PI has advantage in detecting low conductivity targets and lumpy gold is definitely not of low conductivity.

As far as huge gold nuggets are concern I would probably rely on Copper simulations more, because it is better to use a metal that is close enough to the weight/surface ratio of gold and more conductive. If the conductivity of the test target is higher and the detector gets it the desirable/test depth then the real thing should be more or less guaranteed. But if the conductivity of the test target is considerably lower then we are fooling our selves.

As far as IB detectors are concerned these things doesn't matter much as IB  averages most data and has no particular sensitivity to variety of conductance.
In IB case the higher the mineral/magnetic content the lower the detection capability to huge non-ferrous is (or to high conductivity).

I have tested the two box on a hammered copper bucket 8" diameter in detail. Now this targets is of the highest conductivity amongst all targets under ground.
After normal soil is balanced the bucket is detectable in air at 260 cm distance, relatively 200-220 cm in ground as the two box has no loss of detection in the soil.
After a highly magnetic huge rock is compensated the detection distance for the bucket drops to 130 cm in air, relatively about 90 cm in ground.
It seems like a huge loss, BUT PI wouldn't get this item even in air EVER at these distance.
So if we take this copper bucket as a substitute for a large chunk of gold (and I know some similar in size were found) where do we go with the detection of those?

Some say there are not so many of those nuggets out there. But how do they know this since I know for a fact that the most successful gold detectors to date, the ML PI are just not capable to get these things at depth?

I suggest that we get Gary's copper nugget for tests.

You are contradicting  yourself here Dontbsme....

cheers

Muntari
Logged

All posts submitted by myself to this forum are my opinion and are done so without prejudice
WM6
invited members
Senior Hero Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1980



« Reply #36 on: Wednesday January 30 2019 14:10:01 AEDT PM »

  

A single rock is not a good test for heavy mineral / magnetic soils and to say PI would never get these targets is untrue.

muntari

Agree.
Single rock and bigger coil is more like no rock wall between coil and target.
With single rock coil should be size of 1/5 of rock to get more real results.
Heavy mineral / magnetic soils cannot be replaced by single rock.
Logged

Global capital is ruining your life?
You have right to self-defence!
WM6
invited members
Senior Hero Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1980



« Reply #37 on: Wednesday January 30 2019 14:17:56 AEDT PM »

  

Well it doesn't, because Lead is a low conductor and as such is detected very, very well by PI.

So indeed the test proves nothing.


So PI should perform better?

But isn't. Old VLF was better/deeper.

So test proves, that old VLF could be better than state-of-the-art (at those time) promoted PI.
Logged

Global capital is ruining your life?
You have right to self-defence!
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


« Reply #38 on: Wednesday January 30 2019 21:36:08 AEDT PM »

  
[

You are contradicting  yourself here Dontbsme....

cheers

Muntari

What do you mean?

I am just thinking out loud as all the information I gather on PI is very diverse and contradicting as well. Too many opinions, no middle ground.

Someone said - The proof is in the pudding. This is until we realise there is no pudding, then there is no proof.
Logged
Reg Wilson
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #39 on: Wednesday January 30 2019 23:05:12 AEDT PM »

Dontbstme, there is pudding mate, but most people don't know where to find it. Bring your detector over here, and we'll see if it's any good or not.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Up Print 
australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Detector Technology and Electronics and new detectors  |  Detector Coils (Moderator: Goldman)  |  Topic: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector! « 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