northwest If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Tuesday July 16 2019 04:22:31 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 1758 times)
Muntari
invited members
Junior Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414


« Reply #40 on: Thursday January 31 2019 00:02:51 AEDT AM »

  
  
[

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.

Its quite simple, in your earlier posts you say you do comparative testing as it hasn't let you down yet
but then you go on in latest posts and say aluminium is not a suitable test metal for gold. It has to be bigger in size and weight to simulate gold.
So at what weight and size is appropriate?...its just like asking  how long is a piece of string....

I've dug a very flat 3 gram nugget out from 400 mm that sounded off like a coke can right under the coil, then dug another 5 gram that was lying on top of the ground sun baking...It was hardly audible and almost cube shaped..

You would know that it is the surface area presented to the detector coils, the make up of the metal , conductivity,skin depth related search frequencies used that determine how well a target is detected...among other things of course, so weight has less to do with it.

If we are comparing one detector against another, aluminium, lead, gold, who cares....each detector will be subjected to same test by competent operators and standard blind testing.

and this...

"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)."

Are you saying that it is amplitude and no phase change you look for?

Some gold will appear to a detector as iron.....some Iron will appear as gold....no matter if the detector is VLF/IB or PI.

We are searching for gold in heavy mineral soils, predominantly with PI, doesn't  mean a VLF wont work...but unless you have some form of black magic, your machine will struggle from what you have been saying to date..

One other thing you have to realize, most of the areas that could contain deep gold, are generally under mining leases and the operators will, if need be, scrape the ground with machinery in perhaps, 300 to 600 mm layers and spread the gravels or soil they believe would contain gold.
They then run over that exposed area with detectors and then either process the gravels further if gold is found, or continue on removing layers.
It depends on the size of the operation... detectors are used as prospecting tools in this case, they don't need deep seeking detectors.

Other members with more experience on this method please chime in...I'm no expert on that process but I have been onsite where this is done.

Anyways, I will leave further comments on PI out of the thread...its heading is VLF mega nugget.....

Cheers

muntari
Logged

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

Posts: 514


« Reply #41 on: Thursday January 31 2019 00:12:00 AEDT AM »

  

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.

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


It is interesting now “Dontbstme” is mentioning that copper could probably be relied upon on as simulating gold nuggets more so than lead or aluminium, both of which I have used for testing more so than my large copper targets in the pic below. The coin is in the pic also for a size comparison.
  
Btw the hole I dug for the 9 gram nugget that I detected with the 25” round mono coil was definitely deeper than 8” although I cannot recall the exact depth but it was at least 12” or more, however I was impressed by the result for such a large coil.

Gary.


* Copper Pieces & 1919 Penny.jpg (203.42 KB, 998x763 - viewed 124 times.)
Logged

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


« Reply #42 on: Thursday January 31 2019 00:38:46 AEDT AM »

  
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.

I am talking about the impossible amount of bias one needs to get through to pass any test result as a legitimate one.
The pudding you are talking about - if I was not convinced that it exist I wouldn't bother developing crazy detectors for it. happy face
Logged
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


« Reply #43 on: Thursday January 31 2019 00:58:31 AEDT AM »

  
  
  
[

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.

Its quite simple, in your earlier posts you say you do comparative testing as it hasn't let you down yet
but then you go on in latest posts and say aluminium is not a suitable test metal for gold. It has to be bigger in size and weight to simulate gold.
So at what weight and size is appropriate?...its just like asking  how long is a piece of string....

I've dug a very flat 3 gram nugget out from 400 mm that sounded off like a coke can right under the coil, then dug another 5 gram that was lying on top of the ground sun baking...It was hardly audible and almost cube shaped..

You would know that it is the surface area presented to the detector coils, the make up of the metal , conductivity,skin depth related search frequencies used that determine how well a target is detected...among other things of course, so weight has less to do with it.

If we are comparing one detector against another, aluminium, lead, gold, who cares....each detector will be subjected to same test by competent operators and standard blind testing.

and this...

"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)."

Are you saying that it is amplitude and no phase change you look for?

Some gold will appear to a detector as iron.....some Iron will appear as gold....no matter if the detector is VLF/IB or PI.

We are searching for gold in heavy mineral soils, predominantly with PI, doesn't  mean a VLF wont work...but unless you have some form of black magic, your machine will struggle from what you have been saying to date..

One other thing you have to realize, most of the areas that could contain deep gold, are generally under mining leases and the operators will, if need be, scrape the ground with machinery in perhaps, 300 to 600 mm layers and spread the gravels or soil they believe would contain gold.
They then run over that exposed area with detectors and then either process the gravels further if gold is found, or continue on removing layers.
It depends on the size of the operation... detectors are used as prospecting tools in this case, they don't need deep seeking detectors.

Other members with more experience on this method please chime in...I'm no expert on that process but I have been onsite where this is done.

Anyways, I will leave further comments on PI out of the thread...its heading is VLF mega nugget.....

Cheers

muntari


My comparative tests never let me down on comparing IB detectors as their response is very linear.

About the rest I will consider to comment in return if you consider to be a bit less obnoxious, provocative and superior.

Cheers. happy face




Logged
Muntari
invited members
Junior Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414


« Reply #44 on: Thursday January 31 2019 01:01:57 AEDT AM »

  
  
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.

I am talking about the impossible amount of bias one needs to get through to pass any test result as a legitimate one.
The pudding you are talking about - if I was not convinced that it exist I wouldn't bother developing crazy detectors for it. happy face

The most legitimate test is on site in real ground ...in the end
And nothing wrong with developing crazy detectors ... happy face
As we have said earlier, a lot of members on this forum have witnessed detector claims etc for years and have hardened up views because of  trolls. The bias you speak about is unfortunately as much a result of thus as anything else.
Most members are very savvy and just because they don't answer a post, does not mean they are not taking it all in or don't understand concepts...
If your detector is as you claim, you will have plenty of sales and good reviews but be sure it is as you claim else you will be disappointed with the resulting negatives that will follow... We would like you to succeed..not fail good luck
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 #45 on: Thursday January 31 2019 01:06:27 AEDT AM »

  
  
  
  
[

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.

Its quite simple, in your earlier posts you say you do comparative testing as it hasn't let you down yet
but then you go on in latest posts and say aluminium is not a suitable test metal for gold. It has to be bigger in size and weight to simulate gold.
So at what weight and size is appropriate?...its just like asking  how long is a piece of string....

I've dug a very flat 3 gram nugget out from 400 mm that sounded off like a coke can right under the coil, then dug another 5 gram that was lying on top of the ground sun baking...It was hardly audible and almost cube shaped..

You would know that it is the surface area presented to the detector coils, the make up of the metal , conductivity,skin depth related search frequencies used that determine how well a target is detected...among other things of course, so weight has less to do with it.

If we are comparing one detector against another, aluminium, lead, gold, who cares....each detector will be subjected to same test by competent operators and standard blind testing.

and this...

"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)."

Are you saying that it is amplitude and no phase change you look for?

Some gold will appear to a detector as iron.....some Iron will appear as gold....no matter if the detector is VLF/IB or PI.

We are searching for gold in heavy mineral soils, predominantly with PI, doesn't  mean a VLF wont work...but unless you have some form of black magic, your machine will struggle from what you have been saying to date..

One other thing you have to realize, most of the areas that could contain deep gold, are generally under mining leases and the operators will, if need be, scrape the ground with machinery in perhaps, 300 to 600 mm layers and spread the gravels or soil they believe would contain gold.
They then run over that exposed area with detectors and then either process the gravels further if gold is found, or continue on removing layers.
It depends on the size of the operation... detectors are used as prospecting tools in this case, they don't need deep seeking detectors.

Other members with more experience on this method please chime in...I'm no expert on that process but I have been onsite where this is done.

Anyways, I will leave further comments on PI out of the thread...its heading is VLF mega nugget.....

Cheers

muntari


My comparative tests never let me down on comparing IB detectors as their response is very linear.

About the rest I will consider to comment in return if you consider to be a bit less obnoxious, provocative and superior.

Cheers. happy face






haha, fair enough, perhaps you could stop treating members here the same then?

Cheers

Muntari
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 #46 on: Thursday January 31 2019 01:06:39 AEDT AM »

  


It is interesting now “Dontbstme” is mentioning that copper could probably be relied upon on as simulating gold nuggets more so than lead or aluminium, both of which I have used for testing more so than my large copper targets in the pic below. The coin is in the pic also for a size comparison.
  
Btw the hole I dug for the 9 gram nugget that I detected with the 25” round mono coil was definitely deeper than 8” although I cannot recall the exact depth but it was at least 12” or more, however I was impressed by the result for such a large coil.

Gary.


I know I suggested earlier that the copper nugget may be too conductive, but later as I have explained I realised that tests will better done with targets that are more conductive, therefore less likely to be detected at depth, because if this happens then the less conductive gold in similar size will be guaranteed at the tested depth.
If the tests are done with Lead or Thin or what ever else of low conductivity or low density the expected real results would be lesser in my opinion.

This is the way I always test about everything. The test should be by a degree more difficult that the real experience so we can have more certainty of what to expect.


Logged
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


« Reply #47 on: Thursday January 31 2019 01:11:50 AEDT AM »

  
  
  
  
  
[

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.

Its quite simple, in your earlier posts you say you do comparative testing as it hasn't let you down yet
but then you go on in latest posts and say aluminium is not a suitable test metal for gold. It has to be bigger in size and weight to simulate gold.
So at what weight and size is appropriate?...its just like asking  how long is a piece of string....

I've dug a very flat 3 gram nugget out from 400 mm that sounded off like a coke can right under the coil, then dug another 5 gram that was lying on top of the ground sun baking...It was hardly audible and almost cube shaped..

You would know that it is the surface area presented to the detector coils, the make up of the metal , conductivity,skin depth related search frequencies used that determine how well a target is detected...among other things of course, so weight has less to do with it.

If we are comparing one detector against another, aluminium, lead, gold, who cares....each detector will be subjected to same test by competent operators and standard blind testing.

and this...

"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)."

Are you saying that it is amplitude and no phase change you look for?

Some gold will appear to a detector as iron.....some Iron will appear as gold....no matter if the detector is VLF/IB or PI.

We are searching for gold in heavy mineral soils, predominantly with PI, doesn't  mean a VLF wont work...but unless you have some form of black magic, your machine will struggle from what you have been saying to date..

One other thing you have to realize, most of the areas that could contain deep gold, are generally under mining leases and the operators will, if need be, scrape the ground with machinery in perhaps, 300 to 600 mm layers and spread the gravels or soil they believe would contain gold.
They then run over that exposed area with detectors and then either process the gravels further if gold is found, or continue on removing layers.
It depends on the size of the operation... detectors are used as prospecting tools in this case, they don't need deep seeking detectors.

Other members with more experience on this method please chime in...I'm no expert on that process but I have been onsite where this is done.

Anyways, I will leave further comments on PI out of the thread...its heading is VLF mega nugget.....

Cheers

muntari


My comparative tests never let me down on comparing IB detectors as their response is very linear.

About the rest I will consider to comment in return if you consider to be a bit less obnoxious, provocative and superior.

Cheers. happy face






haha, fair enough, perhaps you could stop treating members here the same then?

Cheers

Muntari

Please give me an example and I will apologise.
Logged
Muntari
invited members
Junior Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414


« Reply #48 on: Thursday January 31 2019 01:26:05 AEDT AM »

  
  
  
  
  
  
[

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.

Its quite simple, in your earlier posts you say you do comparative testing as it hasn't let you down yet
but then you go on in latest posts and say aluminium is not a suitable test metal for gold. It has to be bigger in size and weight to simulate gold.
So at what weight and size is appropriate?...its just like asking  how long is a piece of string....

I've dug a very flat 3 gram nugget out from 400 mm that sounded off like a coke can right under the coil, then dug another 5 gram that was lying on top of the ground sun baking...It was hardly audible and almost cube shaped..

You would know that it is the surface area presented to the detector coils, the make up of the metal , conductivity,skin depth related search frequencies used that determine how well a target is detected...among other things of course, so weight has less to do with it.

If we are comparing one detector against another, aluminium, lead, gold, who cares....each detector will be subjected to same test by competent operators and standard blind testing.

and this...

"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)."

Are you saying that it is amplitude and no phase change you look for?

Some gold will appear to a detector as iron.....some Iron will appear as gold....no matter if the detector is VLF/IB or PI.

We are searching for gold in heavy mineral soils, predominantly with PI, doesn't  mean a VLF wont work...but unless you have some form of black magic, your machine will struggle from what you have been saying to date..

One other thing you have to realize, most of the areas that could contain deep gold, are generally under mining leases and the operators will, if need be, scrape the ground with machinery in perhaps, 300 to 600 mm layers and spread the gravels or soil they believe would contain gold.
They then run over that exposed area with detectors and then either process the gravels further if gold is found, or continue on removing layers.
It depends on the size of the operation... detectors are used as prospecting tools in this case, they don't need deep seeking detectors.

Other members with more experience on this method please chime in...I'm no expert on that process but I have been onsite where this is done.

Anyways, I will leave further comments on PI out of the thread...its heading is VLF mega nugget.....

Cheers

muntari


My comparative tests never let me down on comparing IB detectors as their response is very linear.

About the rest I will consider to comment in return if you consider to be a bit less obnoxious, provocative and superior.

Cheers. happy face






haha, fair enough, perhaps you could stop treating members here the same then?

Cheers

Muntari

Please give me an example and I will apologise.


Well start with your reply to me...
The post 26 28 to wm6
A few others...maybe it's lost in translation...you talk straight so do I...

But really...?
You don't need to apologise for anything..nor do I ..

Cheers

Muntari



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 #49 on: Thursday January 31 2019 01:39:03 AEDT AM »

  


Well start with your reply to me...
The post 26 28 to wm6
A few others...maybe it's lost in translation...you talk straight so do I...

But really...?
You don't need to apologise for anything..nor do I ..

Cheers

Muntari





What exactly did you find offensive in those replies? I am lost.
There was nothing particular at you or at anyone else.

I understand that while many may be curious about what my test results will turn out you actually exhibit behaviour of someone who's threatened.
Just get your design out there, demonstrate it and let the potential buyers decide if they like or not.
Squabbling with me will get you nowhere.
Logged
sd220d Digger
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 197


« Reply #50 on: Thursday January 31 2019 02:28:10 AEDT AM »

Minelab had a VLF gold detector called the GT 16000.
This detector found a lot of gold over the years and it's a proven detector.

How much better are your VLF detectors in detecting gold nuggets in the Australian Goldfields?
Logged
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


« Reply #51 on: Thursday January 31 2019 02:48:54 AEDT AM »

  
Minelab had a VLF gold detector called the GT 16000.
This detector found a lot of gold over the years and it's a proven detector.

How much better are your VLF detectors in detecting gold nuggets in the Australian Goldfields?

I have sold some units over the years to Australian customers, but have no feedback on what they used the detectors for.
The current Nexus MP that is a true IB detector for mineralised conditions has not entered Australia yet, so I would't know how good it will be on your soil for gold. I know how good it is here in Europe pretty much in the rest of the world where folks use detectors for archaeology.

You seem impatient, but it will be few months before I am able to produce a video that will demonstrate what MP or Pathfinder can do on gold nuggets. It's winter here. In the mean time I will proceed with lightweight CC for ML's GPX detectors 30" and 41".
Logged
Muntari
invited members
Junior Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414


« Reply #52 on: Thursday January 31 2019 09:36:16 AEDT AM »

  
  


Well start with your reply to me...
The post 26 28 to wm6
A few others...maybe it's lost in translation...you talk straight so do I...

But really...?
You don't need to apologise for anything..nor do I ..

Cheers

Muntari





What exactly did you find offensive in those replies? I am lost.
There was nothing particular at you or at anyone else.

I understand that while many may be curious about what my test results will turn out you actually exhibit behaviour of someone who's threatened.
Just get your design out there, demonstrate it and let the potential buyers decide if they like or not.
Squabbling with me will get you nowhere.


I'm not threatened at all, I don't need to or want to sell anything..I'm just over claims of world beating detectors..we have seen it all before.
If your IB is truly ground breaking, get it out here for testing, it was released in other areas in 2015 is that about right?
Do you have a system you could ship to OZ now?

cheers

muntari



Logged

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

Posts: 514


« Reply #53 on: Thursday January 31 2019 16:19:01 AEDT PM »

Well as is my usual addition I ran an air test comparison with a PI detector using the copper piece, gold nugget & lead piece as test targets in the photo below.

All three targets produced similar air depths and level of signal response.

Hmmm even the 1919 copper coin produced a similar type result.

I suppose food for thought.

Gary.


* Copper, Gold & Lead test pieces (Small).jpg (116.36 KB, 849x480 - viewed 79 times.)
Logged

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16739



« Reply #54 on: Thursday January 31 2019 16:39:54 AEDT PM »

  
Well as is my usual addition I ran some air test comparison with a PI detector using the copper piece, gold nugget & lead piece as test targets in the photo below.

All three targets produced similar air depths and level of signal response.

Hmmm even the 1919 copper coin produced a similar type result.

I suppose food for thought.

Gary.


Thanks Gary.
The reason for your result i think is because the Pi Tx field only induces surface or near surface eddy currents. If you wanted to see  a real difference that would be reflective of the differences in size/conductivity then you need a pulse length that is close to the time constant of the target sufficient to see the true late time exp response. The more conductive the target  the longer the exposure time to the time varying TX field is required and the skin depth of the induced eddy currents  requires a lot of low frequency content (ie very long TX pulses) as skin depth is frequency dependent.
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 #55 on: Thursday January 31 2019 17:01:53 AEDT PM »

  


I'm not threatened at all, I don't need to or want to sell anything..I'm just over claims of world beating detectors..we have seen it all before.
If your IB is truly ground breaking, get it out here for testing, it was released in other areas in 2015 is that about right?
Do you have a system you could ship to OZ now?

cheers

muntari





Muntari I have never used the term "world beating detector" or that my designs will definitely out perform all there is under the sky. Nor do I use "black magic" and similar.
My claim is (and it the truth) that the Nexus Standard MP (this model alone) is the best IB detector to date and it is designed specifically for hot grounds, but it will outperform all IB on any ground too.

I have system that I can ship any time anywhere, but I will not do that, because of this massive bias against IB detectors as a whole.
It is obvious that no one amongst you have the experience to work with IB detectors on your hot conditions and as a result of your bias you would probably take any little problem as proof of how right you were about VLF and now this "new" Nexus claims. NO.

I will come my self and test my self everything. Establish the limitations and advantages (if any) and will take it from there.

Until then please no more trolling.
Logged
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 210


« Reply #56 on: Thursday January 31 2019 17:11:56 AEDT PM »

  
Well as is my usual addition I ran some air test comparison with a PI detector using the copper piece, gold nugget & lead piece as test targets in the photo below.

All three targets produced similar air depths and level of signal response.

Hmmm even the 1919 copper coin produced a similar type result.

I suppose food for thought.

Gary.


Thanks for sharing Gary. As Doug suggested a bigger target is required to do this test. So if you can make a lump of Lead or Tin as big as your huge copper nugget this would demonstrate better if PI would show preference over one metal or another.
In IB detectors the huge copper nugget will give a strong response in the discrimination channel and relatively weak audio, where a similar size Lead will produce strong audio, but weak discrimination response.

I would like to have your copper beast for testing around here, before I get to Australia to have basis of comparison. I know many will say, but this soil, that soil ect. For me a single test piece is a good staring point of comparison between soil conditions as my MP detector has a multi turn dial for the GB which makes it easy to compare one soil condition to another.
Logged
sd220d Digger
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 197


« Reply #57 on: Thursday January 31 2019 17:20:55 AEDT PM »

  
  
Well as is my usual addition I ran some air test comparison with a PI detector using the copper piece, gold nugget & lead piece as test targets in the photo below.

All three targets produced similar air depths and level of signal response.

Hmmm even the 1919 copper coin produced a similar type result.

I suppose food for thought.

Gary.


Thanks for sharing Gary. As Doug suggested a bigger target is required to do this test. So if you can make a lump of Lead or Tin as big as your huge copper nugget this would demonstrate better if PI would show preference over one metal or another.
In IB detectors the huge copper nugget will give a strong response in the discrimination channel and relatively weak audio, where a similar size Lead will produce strong audio, but weak discrimination response.

I would like to have your copper beast for testing around here, before I get to Australia to have basis of comparison. I know many will say, but this soil, that soil ect. For me a single test piece is a good staring point of comparison between soil conditions as my MP detector has a multi turn dial for the GB which makes it easy to compare one soil condition to another.

As soon as you move that dial to maximum to compensate for our mineralized ground, you will notice that even your best coil will not get much depth.
Logged
sd220d Digger
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 197


« Reply #58 on: Thursday January 31 2019 17:47:28 AEDT PM »

  
  
  
Well as is my usual addition I ran some air test comparison with a PI detector using the copper piece, gold nugget & lead piece as test targets in the photo below.

All three targets produced similar air depths and level of signal response.

Hmmm even the 1919 copper coin produced a similar type result.

I suppose food for thought.

Gary.


Thanks for sharing Gary. As Doug suggested a bigger target is required to do this test. So if you can make a lump of Lead or Tin as big as your huge copper nugget this would demonstrate better if PI would show preference over one metal or another.
In IB detectors the huge copper nugget will give a strong response in the discrimination channel and relatively weak audio, where a similar size Lead will produce strong audio, but weak discrimination response.

I would like to have your copper beast for testing around here, before I get to Australia to have basis of comparison. I know many will say, but this soil, that soil ect. For me a single test piece is a good staring point of comparison between soil conditions as my MP detector has a multi turn dial for the GB which makes it easy to compare one soil condition to another.

As soon as you move that dial to maximum to compensate for our mineralized ground, you will notice that even your best coil will not get much depth.

All the best coming to Australia and doing all your testing.
Best of luck and I hope you find some gold too.
Logged
Muntari
invited members
Junior Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414


« Reply #59 on: Thursday January 31 2019 18:50:06 AEDT PM »

  
  


I'm not threatened at all, I don't need to or want to sell anything..I'm just over claims of world beating detectors..we have seen it all before.
If your IB is truly ground breaking, get it out here for testing, it was released in other areas in 2015 is that about right?
Do you have a system you could ship to OZ now?

cheers

muntari





Muntari I have never used the term "world beating detector" or that my designs will definitely out perform all there is under the sky. Nor do I use "black magic" and similar.
My claim is (and it the truth) that the Nexus Standard MP (this model alone) is the best IB detector to date and it is designed specifically for hot grounds, but it will outperform all IB on any ground too.

I have system that I can ship any time anywhere, but I will not do that, because of this massive bias against IB detectors as a whole.
It is obvious that no one amongst you have the experience to work with IB detectors on your hot conditions and as a result of your bias you would probably take any little problem as proof of how right you were about VLF and now this "new" Nexus claims. NO.

I will come my self and test my self everything. Establish the limitations and advantages (if any) and will take it from there.

Until then please no more trolling.
Dontbsme... There is no massive bias against vlf. Many here have used them on the goldfields before Pi became the norm. You assume members don't know.
  I am glad you will be coming down to test yourself.
As to me not giving any unit a fair test, that's simply not true..

As to me trolling... If that's what you call a response to claims fine


Cheers

Muntari

Logged

All posts submitted by myself to this forum are my opinion and are done so without prejudice
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