australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com

Detector Technology and Electronics and new detectors => Detector Coils => Topic started by: Doug on Monday January 28 2019 14:15:45 AEDT PM



Title: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Doug on Monday January 28 2019 14:15:45 AEDT PM
If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega  nugget detector!
This is the sort of detector that in my opinion is needed!
GEM-3&GEM-3 Array
http://www.hengda-century.com/en/product/2017/1114/243.html
http://www.geophex.com/Product%20-%20Gem5-Array.htm
http://www.geophex.com/Product%20-%20Cart%20-%20GEM3-R.htm
http://www.geophex.com/Pubs/SensorConfigurations.htm
doug ::419::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme on Monday January 28 2019 16:10:45 AEDT PM
  
If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega  nugget detector!
This is the sort of detector that in my opinion is needed!
GEM-3&GEM-3 Array
http://www.hengda-century.com/en/product/2017/1114/243.html
http://www.geophex.com/Product%20-%20Gem5-Array.htm
http://www.geophex.com/Product%20-%20Cart%20-%20GEM3-R.htm
http://www.geophex.com/Pubs/SensorConfigurations.htm
doug ::419::

These systems are deep, but also ridiculously retarded and slow to use. For archaeology this is not a problem as the area searched would be rather limited. Fr mines too as those need to be detected slowly and removed slowly.
But in practical terms you need time to get over the big nuggets in the dessert and that space is vast.
My two box is far better as it allows to search huge areas in very short amount if time without detection of Iron, hot rocks or any junk smaller than 8" or so.

I have build to customer requests long time ago detectors with dual 40" coils (175cm x 100 cm) that were super deep, but also got all of the Iron on the planet. The name was Nexus Exselsior and the price was 15000 Euros. Never advertised those comersially as they were for tha mad men only.

Getting the super big nuggets, not detecting any trash and walking fast in variable terrain. This is what you seriously need. This is what I am bringing to the market.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Doug on Monday January 28 2019 16:41:39 AEDT PM
  
  
If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega  nugget detector!
This is the sort of detector that in my opinion is needed!
GEM-3&GEM-3 Array
http://www.hengda-century.com/en/product/2017/1114/243.html
http://www.geophex.com/Product%20-%20Gem5-Array.htm
http://www.geophex.com/Product%20-%20Cart%20-%20GEM3-R.htm
http://www.geophex.com/Pubs/SensorConfigurations.htm
doug ::419::

These systems are deep, but also ridiculously retarded and slow to use. For archaeology this is not a problem as the area searched would be rather limited. Fr mines too as those need to be detected slowly and removed slowly.
But in practical terms you need time to get over the big nuggets in the dessert and that space is vast.
My two box is far better as it allows to search huge areas in very short amount if time without detection of Iron, hot rocks or any junk smaller than 8" or so.

I have build to customer requests long time ago detectors with dual 40" coils (175cm x 100 cm) that were super deep, but also got all of the Iron on the planet. The name was Nexus Exselsior and the price was 15000 Euros. Never advertised those comersially as they were for tha mad men only.

Getting the super big nuggets, not detecting any trash and walking fast in variable terrain. This is what you seriously need. This is what I am bringing to the market.

Thanks.How do you process the inphase or quadrature  ground /target responses or does your processing ignore or remove the inphase response?
doug ::419::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Doug on Monday January 28 2019 16:49:32 AEDT PM
  
My two box is far better as it allows to search huge areas in very short amount if time without detection of Iron, hot rocks or any junk smaller than 8" or so.

So what is the smallest nugget that your large coil nexus can detect at depth? An 8" nugget would be potentially be  many hundreds of ounces!!
doug ::419::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Doug on Monday January 28 2019 17:26:38 AEDT PM
  
These systems are deep, but also ridiculously retarded and slow to use.
Their is a smaller portable version available but this one is TD not FD.
Man-Portable Vector EMI Sensor for Full UXO Characterization
MPV TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
2.1.1 Electromagnetic sensor
The MPV is a man-portable, wide-band, time-domain, EMI sensor composed of a single
transmitter coil and an array of five receiver units that measure all three components of the EM
field (Figure 2). The sensor was specifically designed to (1) be man portable and therefore easy
to deploy, maneuver and adapt to a survey environment, and (2) acquire data that is suitable for
discriminating unexploded ordnance (UXO) from non-UXO targets. The MPV sensor head for
this demonstration comprises a 50-centimenter (cm) diameter circular loop transmitter coiled
around a disk that intermittently illuminates the subsurface, and five multi-component receiver
units (cubes) that measure the three orthogonal components of the transient secondary EM field
decay with three air-induction 8-cm square coils. One receiver cube is co-axial with the
transmitters while four receivers are placed off-axis around the transmitter loops in a cross
pattern. Gasperikova et al (2007) and others have shown that having multi-component receivers
placed at multiple locations can help reduce the ambiguity between the size and depth of a buried
target by more readily allowing recovery of the components of the polarizability tensor
associated with a buried metallic object, an indicator of the target shape.
The MPV is a programmable instrument. The duration of the excitation and time decay
recording can be adjusted to any given time to accommodate survey needs. The MPV features
distinct operating modes for detection and discrimination with a seamless switch between the
two. Detection mode consists of dynamic data collection for digital geophysical mapping
(DGM). It is based on fast EMI transmit-receive cycles so that the sensor can continuously move
(e.g., 1 millisecond [ms] time decay, similar to Geonics EM-61). Discrimination mode is tailored
for optimizing data quality and the ensuing target characterization. In this mode the sensor is
static so that signals can be stacked (averaged to reduce noise); longer EMI cycles are applied to
capture variations in time decay rates (e.g., 25 milliseconds (ms), similar to Geonics EM-63).
This late-time information has been shown to be very useful for distinguishing between intact
ordnance and thinner walled shrapnel and cultural debris (Billings et al., 2007). Other currently
available systems with multiple time channel measurement capabilities (e.g., Berkeley UXO
Discriminator [BUD], Geonics EM63, Time Domain EM Towed Array Detection System
[TEMTADS]) are required to be mounted on a cart platform due to the size and weight of the
multiple coils of wire required for the transmitters and receivers.
The MPV user interface has real-time monitoring and feedback capabilities on data quality,
spatial coverage and other key features (signal intensity, time decay, secondary targets, and
presence of magnetic soil). For example, the interface includes a target location tool obtained by
displaying the direction and amplitude of the measured EMI field at each receiver unit (the socalled
“dancing arrows” in top left corner of Figure 3). All these features assist the field operator
in efficient data collection, so that detection and discrimination data can be collected as part of
the same survey, thus limiting the need to revisit an anomaly for further characterization
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a562060.pdf
The portable FD (hand held) is here:
http://www.geophex.com/Product%20-%20Hand-held%20Gem3.htm
http://terraplus.ca/products/electromagnetics/gem3.aspx
you can get it with a 96 cm detecting head
doug ::419::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme on Monday January 28 2019 19:00:53 AEDT PM
  
  
My two box is far better as it allows to search huge areas in very short amount if time without detection of Iron, hot rocks or any junk smaller than 8" or so.

So what is the smallest nugget that your large coil nexus can detect at depth? An 8" nugget would be potentially be  many hundreds of ounces!!
doug ::419::

The two box Nexus pathfinder will easily get my simulated nugget 600 grams at 1 meter depth. I have also done some tests with far smaller than that, but they are not a two box material, more for DD coils.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme on Monday January 28 2019 21:52:55 AEDT PM
  


Thanks.How do you process the inphase or quadrature  ground /target responses or does your processing ignore or remove the inphase response?
doug ::419::
It's all analogue and true all metal mode at all times. My circuits do not discriminate/reject against remnants of ground interference instead they rely on proper tuning.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme on Monday January 28 2019 22:07:48 AEDT PM
The GEM arrays emulate basic concentric coil design, no more no less. As such they would have to deal with the worse for the IB principal ground interference.
Also in the concentric coil design it does not matter if the TX loop is out side or inside, because the detection capabilities of concentric coils are determined by their total surface area and not solely by the size of TX.

I also have done probably hundreds of experiments with multipole RX loops in IB systems. They all turned out  a time waste as there was no real improvement in any aspect and there was a considerable loss of efficiency.

Loss of efficiency I find to be acceptable only if we can gain something else, like PI is not so efficient, but very stable on ground. Two box IB is not efficient at all, but it exhibits the best possible discrimination amongst all detectors and it is also super smooth and stable on grounds of any kind.

Now let see how deep is the understanding of IB detectors here.
Does anyone here knows for what reason the GEM systems are using that exact size wheels and not smaller or larger?


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Muntari on Monday January 28 2019 23:54:03 AEDT PM
What are you proposing?
A 2 box vlf for prospecting or supplying Cc coils for Pi or both?

As I said in an earlier post, stability of build and stability of electronics ...is the most important thing.
Regardless of the technology used..
I would be very interested in your methods and hope to see one of your systems down here on the goldfields. Or perhaps someone who already owns one here could share their experience?




Cheers

Muntari



Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Doug on Tuesday January 29 2019 00:07:01 AEDT AM
  
  


Thanks.How do you process the inphase or quadrature  ground /target responses or does your processing ignore or remove the inphase response?
doug ::419::
It's all analogue and true all metal mode at all times. My circuits do not discriminate/reject against remnants of ground interference instead they rely on proper tuning.

So are you saying that by proper "tuning" you  simultaneously eliminate  or ignore  the inphase and quadrature  effects of any  ground mineralization?
doug ::419::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Doug on Tuesday January 29 2019 00:16:13 AEDT AM
  
Does anyone here knows for what reason the GEM systems are using that exact size wheels and not smaller or larger?

I think reading the  gem3 coil patent will provide the answer.
doug ::419::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme on Tuesday January 29 2019 03:33:43 AEDT AM
  
  
Does anyone here knows for what reason the GEM systems are using that exact size wheels and not smaller or larger?

I think reading the  gem3 coil patent will provide the answer.
doug ::419::
I know the answer without reading the patent. I was curious if anyone else does, but no.
This patent only provides information of how the coil system operates and to tell you I wouldn't use this system not even under penalty of death.
The reason is the multipole audio responses such a system exhibits over every single target that may be close to the surface. Also in IB detectors concentric coils exhibits this very steep logarithmic response, which is far more difficult to manage that the more linear DD or figure of 8 coils. I have made measurements with such a system years ago in attempt to isolate the strong close proximity ground interference (the positive signal when IB coil is very close to the ground).
I found that by using more than one TX or RX loops in the concentric coils one can extend or shorten significantly this zone of positive signal from ground, but at the expense of Mad Max audio should should you go over some little bit of trash. Unless this system is used with proper digital processing to eliminate all near proximity signals it is useless except for very clean sites.

Now the answer to my question.
Every IB coil system will exhibit the mentioned above close proximity interference zone in front of the coil. For a coil with size of 1 x 1 meter (40"x40") this positive zone will be about from zero to 9". So if the coil is moved uniformly above the soil surface at that very distance 9"(or a little higher let say 10-12") the discrimination channel (or an analogue equivalent)  will work with highest stability and most reliable analysis, because in that area of space in front of the coil the ground interference input in the discrimination channel is at its minimum. This comment should give you a good idea how the creators of this detector came up with that specific size wheels.
Above that level the ground interference will tend to pull a negative signal in the detector, thus causing loss of depth to all non-ferrous targets by partially canceling their positive input signals.
Bellow that level the signal interference will be positive, which will result in false positive signals making it difficult to distinguish non-ferrous from false signals. However this condition would also result in increased  sensitivity to non-ferrous targets.
The major problem with big IB coils is that while they increase dramatically the over all amplification of the system they also bring more troubles with ground interference mainly of soil conductivity nature. Big coils are more difficult to use in wet soil conditions.
Here is a picture of my madness coil system for the Nexus Exselsior. 2 x 40" loops (175 cm x 100 cm), 4.5 kg, 9 full resonant frequencies from 1 to 10.5kHz. Fully collapsable construction for easy transport.



Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme on Tuesday January 29 2019 03:45:50 AEDT AM
  
What are you proposing?
A 2 box vlf for prospecting or supplying Cc coils for Pi or both?

As I said in an earlier post, stability of build and stability of electronics ...is the most important thing.
Regardless of the technology used..
I would be very interested in your methods and hope to see one of your systems down here on the goldfields. Or perhaps someone who already owns one here could share their experience?






Cheers

Muntari



I will offer both 2 box VLF and CC coils for PI. I could offer also DD coils for PI, but don't see the point since my max size is 20" and a pile of companies are doing it already.
I will also demonstrate later what the MP (VLF) with the big dual 30" coil can do. You will be surprised to say at the least.
The stability of electronics and coil design is quite evident from all of my videos on You Tube. You can check there or ask on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/nexusdetectors/
or the UK MDF forum in the Nexus section.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Doug on Tuesday January 29 2019 09:44:13 AEDT AM
  
  
  
Does anyone here knows for what reason the GEM systems are using that exact size wheels and not smaller or larger?

I think reading the  gem3 coil patent will provide the answer.
doug ::419::
I know the answer without reading the patent. I was curious if anyone else does, but no.
This patent only provides information of how the coil system operates and to tell you I wouldn't use this system not even under penalty of death.
The reason is the multipole audio responses such a system exhibits over every single target that may be close to the surface. Also in IB detectors concentric coils exhibits this very steep logarithmic response, which is far more difficult to manage that the more linear DD or figure of 8 coils. I have made measurements with such a system years ago in attempt to isolate the strong close proximity ground interference (the positive signal when IB coil is very close to the ground).
I found that by using more than one TX or RX loops in the concentric coils one can extend or shorten significantly this zone of positive signal from ground, but at the expense of Mad Max audio should should you go over some little bit of trash. Unless this system is used with proper digital processing to eliminate all near proximity signals it is useless except for very clean sites.

Now the answer to my question.
Every IB coil system will exhibit the mentioned above close proximity interference zone in front of the coil. For a coil with size of 1 x 1 meter (40"x40") this positive zone will be about from zero to 9". So if the coil is moved uniformly above the soil surface at that very distance 9"(or a little higher let say 10-12") the discrimination channel (or an analogue equivalent)  will work with highest stability and most reliable analysis, because in that area of space in front of the coil the ground interference input in the discrimination channel is at its minimum. This comment should give you a good idea how the creators of this detector came up with that specific size wheels.
Above that level the ground interference will tend to pull a negative signal in the detector, thus causing loss of depth to all non-ferrous targets by partially canceling their positive input signals.
Bellow that level the signal interference will be positive, which will result in false positive signals making it difficult to distinguish non-ferrous from false signals. However this condition would also result in increased  sensitivity to non-ferrous targets.
The major problem with big IB coils is that while they increase dramatically the over all amplification of the system they also bring more troubles with ground interference mainly of soil conductivity nature. Big coils are more difficult to use in wet soil conditions.
Here is a picture of my madness coil system for the Nexus Exselsior. 2 x 40" loops (175 cm x 100 cm), 4.5 kg, 9 full resonant frequencies from 1 to 10.5kHz. Fully collapsable construction for easy transport.



Their is another more important reason for the wheel size other than the ground proximity effects. The wheels may contain  some metal which will  be partially excited by the outer TX and thus  destroy the bucking or null (magnetic cavity) of the inner RX coil  perhaps more so when the cart is being wheeled. For a specific wheel size this effect can be  removed either electronically or by digital processing so the inner RX coil is still in a magnetic cavity and the only signal responses are from  the ground or ground+ target. In the GEM3 the quadrature phase is relatively insensitive to variations in coil height (ground proximity effects) and provides very reliable detection of targets even in magnetic /conductive soils
doug ::419::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Muntari on Tuesday January 29 2019 10:09:14 AEDT AM
  
  
  
Does anyone here knows for what reason the GEM systems are using that exact size wheels and not smaller or larger?

I think reading the  gem3 coil patent will provide the answer.
doug ::419::
I know the answer without reading the patent. I was curious if anyone else does, but no.
This patent only provides information of how the coil system operates and to tell you I wouldn't use this system not even under penalty of death.
The reason is the multipole audio responses such a system exhibits over every single target that may be close to the surface. Also in IB detectors concentric coils exhibits this very steep logarithmic response, which is far more difficult to manage that the more linear DD or figure of 8 coils. I have made measurements with such a system years ago in attempt to isolate the strong close proximity ground interference (the positive signal when IB coil is very close to the ground).
I found that by using more than one TX or RX loops in the concentric coils one can extend or shorten significantly this zone of positive signal from ground, but at the expense of Mad Max audio should should you go over some little bit of trash. Unless this system is used with proper digital processing to eliminate all near proximity signals it is useless except for very clean sites.

Now the answer to my question.
Every IB coil system will exhibit the mentioned above close proximity interference zone in front of the coil. For a coil with size of 1 x 1 meter (40"x40") this positive zone will be about from zero to 9". So if the coil is moved uniformly above the soil surface at that very distance 9"(or a little higher let say 10-12") the discrimination channel (or an analogue equivalent)  will work with highest stability and most reliable analysis, because in that area of space in front of the coil the ground interference input in the discrimination channel is at its minimum. This comment should give you a good idea how the creators of this detector came up with that specific size wheels.
Above that level the ground interference will tend to pull a negative signal in the detector, thus causing loss of depth to all non-ferrous targets by partially canceling their positive input signals.
Bellow that level the signal interference will be positive, which will result in false positive signals making it difficult to distinguish non-ferrous from false signals. However this condition would also result in increased  sensitivity to non-ferrous targets.
The major problem with big IB coils is that while they increase dramatically the over all amplification of the system they also bring more troubles with ground interference mainly of soil conductivity nature. Big coils are more difficult to use in wet soil conditions.
Here is a picture of my madness coil system for the Nexus Exselsior. 2 x 40" loops (175 cm x 100 cm), 4.5 kg, 9 full resonant frequencies from 1 to 10.5kHz. Fully collapsable construction for easy transport.




I would have thought the size of the wheels used was obvious...they could be larger or smaller , coils larger or smaller  but the thinking is flawed in real use on real ground...go over a small bump or rocky ground and response is compromised...unless the response is mute down by filtering and then its too slow....its all been done before.

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


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Doug on Tuesday January 29 2019 10:24:46 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 ::419::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Doug on Tuesday January 29 2019 12:32:29 AEDT PM
  
  
  
  
Does anyone here knows for what reason the GEM systems are using that exact size wheels and not smaller or larger?

I think reading the  gem3 coil patent will provide the answer.
doug ::419::
I know the answer without reading the patent. I was curious if anyone else does, but no.
This patent only provides information of how the coil system operates and to tell you I wouldn't use this system not even under penalty of death.
The reason is the multipole audio responses such a system exhibits over every single target that may be close to the surface. Also in IB detectors concentric coils exhibits this very steep logarithmic response, which is far more difficult to manage that the more linear DD or figure of 8 coils. I have made measurements with such a system years ago in attempt to isolate the strong close proximity ground interference (the positive signal when IB coil is very close to the ground).
I found that by using more than one TX or RX loops in the concentric coils one can extend or shorten significantly this zone of positive signal from ground, but at the expense of Mad Max audio should should you go over some little bit of trash. Unless this system is used with proper digital processing to eliminate all near proximity signals it is useless except for very clean sites.

Now the answer to my question.
Every IB coil system will exhibit the mentioned above close proximity interference zone in front of the coil. For a coil with size of 1 x 1 meter (40"x40") this positive zone will be about from zero to 9". So if the coil is moved uniformly above the soil surface at that very distance 9"(or a little higher let say 10-12") the discrimination channel (or an analogue equivalent)  will work with highest stability and most reliable analysis, because in that area of space in front of the coil the ground interference input in the discrimination channel is at its minimum. This comment should give you a good idea how the creators of this detector came up with that specific size wheels.
Above that level the ground interference will tend to pull a negative signal in the detector, thus causing loss of depth to all non-ferrous targets by partially canceling their positive input signals.
Bellow that level the signal interference will be positive, which will result in false positive signals making it difficult to distinguish non-ferrous from false signals. However this condition would also result in increased  sensitivity to non-ferrous targets.
The major problem with big IB coils is that while they increase dramatically the over all amplification of the system they also bring more troubles with ground interference mainly of soil conductivity nature. Big coils are more difficult to use in wet soil conditions.
Here is a picture of my madness coil system for the Nexus Exselsior. 2 x 40" loops (175 cm x 100 cm), 4.5 kg, 9 full resonant frequencies from 1 to 10.5kHz. Fully collapsable construction for easy transport.




I would have thought the size of the wheels used was obvious...they could be larger or smaller , coils larger or smaller  but the thinking is flawed in real use on real ground...go over a small bump or rocky ground and response is compromised...unless the response is mute down by filtering and then its too slow....its all been done before.

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.



cheers

muntari

The coil stand off distance and hence wheel diam  for the GEM3 will vary according to coil size and  soil mineralization level. Its a compromise  between  minimizing   changes in the in phase signal over  conductive/ magnetic soils and  the detection distance. Over mild mineralization the wheel diameters can be smaller(smaller standoff distance) and over high mineralization large diam wheels(bigger standoff  distance)  would be used.
doug  ::419::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Muntari on Tuesday January 29 2019 12:51:09 AEDT PM
  
  

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 ::419::


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... ::62::

cheers

muntari


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Doug on Tuesday January 29 2019 14:15:41 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... ::62::

cheers

muntari

I thought your design had been " lost"! ::02::
doug ::419::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Muntari on Tuesday January 29 2019 14:28:52 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... ::62::

cheers

muntari

I thought your design had been " lost"! ::02::
doug ::419::

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 ::62::
main point of difference..it is designed as a system..coil specific.

that's about as much as I can say.. ::600::

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

cheers

muntari


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Doug 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... ::62::

cheers

muntari

I thought your design had been " lost"! ::02::
doug ::419::

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 ::62::
main point of difference..it is designed as a system..coil specific.

that's about as much as I can say..  ::600::

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

cheers

muntari

Great news!!! ::23:: ::74::  Look forward to  developments. Just make sure it can use very big  coils for mega deep  nuggets!!
doug ::419::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme 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.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme 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... ::62::

cheers

muntari
Now we are getting on the same page. The ground can be removed effectively only by the spade (tractor ect.).


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: sd220d Digger 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.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme 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.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Muntari 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  ::402::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme 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 ::419::


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.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: WM6 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:

(https://i59.servimg.com/u/f59/19/61/60/05/sd_gp_10.jpg)


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme on Wednesday January 30 2019 06:57:03 AEDT AM
  

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

(https://i59.servimg.com/u/f59/19/61/60/05/sd_gp_10.jpg)
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.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Doug 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 ::419::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme 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 ::419::

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.     



Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Doug 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 ::419::

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 ::419::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Doug 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 ::419::

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 ::419::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Doug 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 ::419::

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 ::419::

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
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Remke_Van_Dam/publication/320016244_Innovative_UltraTEM_Metal_Detection_Technology_to_Improve_Mining_Operations/links/59c8e5da0f7e9bd2c01a3e50/Innovative-UltraTEM-Metal-Detection-Technology-to-Improve-Mining-Operations.pdf
doug ::419::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Muntari 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


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Muntari 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 ::419::


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


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: WM6 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.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: WM6 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.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme 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.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Reg Wilson 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.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Muntari 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


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: GARY 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.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme 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. ::62::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme 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. ::62::






Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Muntari 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. ::62::

The most legitimate test is on site in real ground ...in the end
And nothing wrong with developing crazy detectors ... ::62::
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 ::402::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Muntari 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. ::62::






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

Cheers

Muntari


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme 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.




Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme 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. ::62::






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

Cheers

Muntari

Please give me an example and I will apologise.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Muntari 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. ::62::






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





Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme 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.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: sd220d Digger 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?


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme 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".


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Muntari 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





Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: GARY 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.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Doug 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 ::419::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme 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.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme 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.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: sd220d Digger 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.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: sd220d Digger 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.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Muntari 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



Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme on Thursday January 31 2019 20:05:03 AEDT PM
  

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


Those VLF detectors were not Nexus Standard MP.
Since you have attributed words to me that I have not used my self I have no idea what to call it but bias.
Claims that you have exaggerated greatly (as if I made them) and then went on a rant. Tat's what I call trolling.

I hope we are clear now and can have more calm and normal conversation.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Muntari on Thursday January 31 2019 20:17:55 AEDT PM
  
  

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


Those VLF detectors were not Nexus Standard MP.
Since you have attributed words to me that I have not used my self I have no idea what to call it but bias.
Claims that you have exaggerated greatly (as if I made them) and then went on a rant. Tat's what I call trolling.

I hope we are clear now and can have more calm and normal conversation.


Your words imply members here don't know about in Vlf/IB
The words I posted implied I was over claims made by anyone who implies they have the best...
You can't take everyone literally.
You call it a rant..that's fine. Trolling. Hardly.
I will assume you have a great detector design but  please don't assume everyone else on this site has no knowledge.
Can we now revert to pleasant calm conversation..that would be good

Cheers

Muntari


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: GARY on Thursday January 31 2019 20:48:03 AEDT PM
  

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.


Thanks for your reply.

Unfortunately where I detect my ground is not as mineralised as the majority of ground in the Golden Triangle in Victoria and the large size nuggets that exist there at depth, as I am not close.

However if and when you travel to Australia the ground in the Golden Triangle would be a good place to test your detectors and coils.

Gary.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Doug on Thursday January 31 2019 21:14:27 AEDT PM
  
  

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.


Thanks for your reply.

Unfortunately where I detect my ground is not as mineralised as the majority of ground in the Golden Triangle in Victoria and the large size nuggets that exist there at depth, as I am not close.

However if and when you travel to Australia the ground in the Golden Triangle would be a good place to test your detectors and coils.

Gary.


Testing in WA would also be necessary because  some WA ground may be worse than that in the GT where we don't for example have lateritic soils.
WA also  has conductive soils on the margins of salt lakes.
doug ::419::


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Muntari on Thursday January 31 2019 22:31:25 AEDT PM
  
  
  

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.


Thanks for your reply.

Unfortunately where I detect my ground is not as mineralised as the majority of ground in the Golden Triangle in Victoria and the large size nuggets that exist there at depth, as I am not close.

However if and when you travel to Australia the ground in the Golden Triangle would be a good place to test your detectors and coils.

Gary.


Testing in WA would also be necessary because  some WA ground may be worse than that in the GT where we don't for example have lateritic soils.
WA also  has conductive soils on the margins of salt lakes.
doug ::419::

I agree with Doug, GT and WA would give the best overall test

cheers

muntari


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme on Thursday January 31 2019 23:33:12 AEDT PM
  


Thanks for your reply.

Unfortunately where I detect my ground is not as mineralised as the majority of ground in the Golden Triangle in Victoria and the large size nuggets that exist there at depth, as I am not close.

However if and when you travel to Australia the ground in the Golden Triangle would be a good place to test your detectors and coils.

Gary.


I have a couple of questions if you don't mind.

On your soil conditions where is not so mineralised as the Golden circle, can you tell me on average what sensitivity level you use when it is dry and when it is wet and with what size coil?

If you are to test your big copper how deep would you expect to get it on your soil?

Cheers.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Reg Wilson on Friday February 1 2019 00:10:00 AEDT AM
Dontbstme, with all due respect, your question is inane. The soil, subsoil, and bedrock conditions vary so much as to make your request impossible to grade or answer. There is a big difference between ground riddled with ironstone dykes, intrusions and conglomerates to areas where gold has been left stranded on most innate decomposing granite or kaolin. These are extremes, with many different soil conditions in between, all giving different responses. In Western Australia we high levels of salt, and Laterites which present their own problems. I can't see you getting the information or experience any other way beyond actually being here.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: GARY on Friday February 1 2019 00:31:28 AEDT AM
  
  


Thanks for your reply.

Unfortunately where I detect my ground is not as mineralised as the majority of ground in the Golden Triangle in Victoria and the large size nuggets that exist there at depth, as I am not close.

However if and when you travel to Australia the ground in the Golden Triangle would be a good place to test your detectors and coils.

Gary.


I have a couple of questions if you don't mind.

On your soil conditions where is not so mineralised as the Golden circle, can you tell me on average what sensitivity level you use when it is dry and when it is wet and with what size coil?

If you are to test your big copper how deep would you expect to get it on your soil?

Cheers.



Okay I will try to answer your questions.

In regards to the sensitivity level then when dry I am currently using it on average between 5 & 2 positions below maximum with a 12” FW mono coil. As for wet I have not used it when conditions are wet.  

In regards to the big copper then l have not tested it under the ground however from what I read in a posting of yours on Geotech back in 2017 you said the following so I  hope you do not mind me quote you here on what you said : “ My experience with GPX 5000 and  Garrett ATX shows that there is no difference between air and in ground test with them. At least non that I can measure out of the random error level. The reason for PI not to lose depth in ground is simple. It does not discriminate ground interference like IB detectors. Now there are those who insist that a PI goes actually deeper in ground especially in mineralised soil, but I have found no evidence of this”

Therefore having not tested my biggest copper piece in ground and only air tested using several PI’s set in their strongest setting with the same 18” mono coil then if the air depth result being the same as if the big copper was in the ground, as you appear to say, then I would expect a depth underground at 3ft or 36”.

Unfortunately due to high mineralised ground here in OZ those strongest settings are unable to be used all the time with a mono coil and the DD coil was required to help tame the ground in which case the depth result I achieved in air with an 18"DD was 34".

Later models of PIs have allowed the use of mono coils in hotter ground with a certain amount of depth loss as you would no doubt be aware when you had the GPX 5000 if your ground over there required you to use its settings to tame a mono coil over high mineralised ground.


Gary.






Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme on Friday February 1 2019 03:02:39 AEDT AM
  



Okay I will try to answer your questions.

In regards to the sensitivity level then when dry I am currently using it on average between 5 & 2 positions below maximum with a 12” FW mono coil. As for wet I have not used it when conditions are wet.  

In regards to the big copper then l have not tested it under the ground however from what I read in a posting of yours on Geotech back in 2017 you said the following so I  hope you do not mind me quote you here on what you said : “ My experience with GPX 5000 and  Garrett ATX shows that there is no difference between air and in ground test with them. At least non that I can measure out of the random error level. The reason for PI not to lose depth in ground is simple. It does not discriminate ground interference like IB detectors. Now there are those who insist that a PI goes actually deeper in ground especially in mineralised soil, but I have found no evidence of this”

Therefore having not tested my biggest copper piece in ground and only air tested using several PI’s set in their strongest setting with the same 18” mono coil then if the air depth result being the same as if the big copper was in the ground, as you appear to say, then I would expect a depth underground at 3ft or 36”.

Unfortunately due to high mineralised ground here in OZ those strongest settings are unable to be used all the time with a mono coil and the DD coil was required to help tame the ground in which case the depth result I achieved in air with an 18"DD was 34".

Later models of PIs have allowed the use of mono coils in hotter ground with a certain amount of depth loss as you would no doubt be aware when you had the GPX 5000 if your ground over there required you to use its settings to tame a mono coil over high mineralised ground.


Gary.






You told me all I needed to know Gary. Thank you.
If this slab of copper (the huge one) is not too precious to you, would you consider sending it over to me so I can run some measurements on the same piece? I'll pay the two way shipping what ever it is.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: GARY on Friday February 1 2019 11:02:50 AEDT AM
  

You told me all I needed to know Gary. Thank you.

If this slab of copper (the huge one) is not too precious to you, would you consider sending it over to me so I can run some measurements on the same piece? I'll pay the two way shipping what ever it is.


First of all I need to CORRECT the figure I said above for the large copper test piece at 3ft or 36” as that result was for a 15oz lead target which is displayed in the photo of my reply #6  in my ” Imitating Gold Nuggets” thread.

Also there are further results in that reply #6 for the test pieces in the photo.

Therefore a check of my test records actually show the large copper piece air tested with 18" mono coil at 41” . (1.04 Metres)

As far as sending my large copper test piece over to you for testing, unfortunately No.

Gary.


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: GARY on Friday February 1 2019 12:09:02 AEDT PM
Here is pic of some other of my copper test pieces which are precious to me...and if only they were gold...

As I've said I have an addiction with testing.

Gary


Title: Re: If we are serious about a VLF deep , mega nugget detector!
Post by: Dontbstme on Saturday February 2 2019 06:24:25 AEDT AM
  
Here is pic of some other of my copper test pieces which are precious to me...and if only they were gold...

As I've said I have an addiction with testing.

Gary
I was out today to test my two box on mineralised soil. It was also very muddy after raining there for days apparently. It just stopped last night.
The mineral level is not comparative to the Golden Triangle for sure, but high enough to trow in the bin the XP Deus with its latest coil and software. It was disabled there and the operator is one of the foremost competent users of this detector in BG. He is also an XP dealer.

What ever. After ground balance it turn out my two box did not require any kind of compensation for the level of magnetite and hot rocks in that area. Also my simulated nugget 600 grams on the picture below was detectable at 60" in air. This basically means in that soil this piece will be detectable at about 45"max.
My 8" hammered copper bucket was detectable at 75" in air.