northwest 600 grams gold nugget at 70 cm in the ground.
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Wednesday April 24 2019 11:52:08 AEST AM
Home Help Login Register
News: Welcome to the Australianelectronicgoldprospectingforum founded in July 2010, an add free totally independent forum with over 70 boards and paid for and managed by the Admin.Topics: 9,245  Total forum Posts:46,000 Members:807. Total page views:12,263,130  Admin and  forum and domain name owner :marjen at optusnet.com.au. Guests can only see a limited number of boards at present and cannot see any hot links. Guests cannot post and never will be permitted too!Registration of new members must be approved by admin.
 All  original Photos and posts and  original materials displayed on this site are COPYRIGHTED and remain the property of the poster and the  Austalian electronicgoldprospectingforum.com. All messages on this forum express the personal views of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily being in accord with those of the forum owner and neither the owner of this forum and its domain name nor SMF or the forum software developers or the forum host shall be held responsible for the content of any message. Admin reserves the right to remove any offensive or objectionable posts. No defamatory material or politics/religion or issues of race will be permitted.

australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Common interest forum.  |  General chat and discussion forum (Moderator: bugwhiskers)  |  Topic: 600 grams gold nugget at 70 cm in the ground. 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: 600 grams gold nugget at 70 cm in the ground.  (Read 338 times)
Dontbstme
regular members
Newbie
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« on: Monday April 1 2019 06:37:12 AEDT AM »

Here is the thing. I came across this video that contains some fair amount of bs, but it also contains one curious fact. The man Matt is his name could not get a signal from a 600 grams gold nugget (a real one that he shows later in the video) with the GPX5000 and a coil that I am quite sure should be more than capable to do that.
Any thoughts?

  
Logged
mylab
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 175


« Reply #1 on: Sunday April 7 2019 00:38:19 AEDT AM »

  

 .....could not get a signal from a 600 grams gold nugget (a real one that he shows later in the video) with the GPX5000 and a coil that I am quite sure should be more than capable to do that.
Any thoughts?


Actually Dontbstme it is not a 5000 but a 4500 for no response on the 600gram (19.3oz) nugget at 70cm (27.5").

Here is the previous video of the 4500 on the 600 gram (19.3oz) nugget again without a response at 1 metre.
I believe you would think your 30" CC coil would have produced a response at 1 metre (39") on the 4500.
Although on your 600g lead/tin simulating a gold nugget, 39" was the maximum depth in air with your 30"CC on your 4500.

Also the mono coil he used, being eliptical in shape, is not all that large anyway.  


  

And apart from this bloke being a ratbag in regards to that radar thingy at least his in-ground tests with metal detectors appear real.

Logged
Dontbstme
regular members
Newbie
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #2 on: Sunday April 7 2019 03:45:44 AEST AM »

  
  

 .....could not get a signal from a 600 grams gold nugget (a real one that he shows later in the video) with the GPX5000 and a coil that I am quite sure should be more than capable to do that.
Any thoughts?


Actually Dontbstme it is not a 5000 but a 4500 for no response on the 600gram (19.3oz) nugget at 70cm (27.5").

Here is the previous video of the 4500 on the 600 gram (19.3oz) nugget again without a response at 1 metre.
I believe you would think your 30" CC coil would have produced a response at 1 metre (39") on the 4500.
Although on your 600g lead/tin simulating a gold nugget, 39" was the maximum depth in air with your 30"CC on your 4500.

Also the mono coil he used, being eliptical in shape, is not all that large anyway.  


  

And apart from this bloke being a ratbag in regards to that radar thingy at least his in-ground tests with metal detectors appear real.


The elliptical coil Matt is using may not be that big, but quite the same like the DD coil used with the Deep Hunter and the Deep Hunter IB detector gets all of the signals in the world from this nugget.

The maximum depth on my Tin/Lead 600 grams imitation of a gold nugget was 135 cm (53"), time index 3.40 on the first air test video.
This does not mean in any way that will detect properly the 600 grams gold or not to.

I am going to do some changes on the 30"CC that will increase its first exhibited depth by about 15-20% then detection will be  a bit more solid.

Logged
mylab
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 175


« Reply #3 on: Sunday April 7 2019 23:28:52 AEST PM »

  

The maximum depth on my Tin/Lead 600 grams imitation of a gold nugget was 135 cm (53"), time index 3.40 on the first air test video.
This does not mean in any way that will detect properly the 600 grams gold or not to.


The 39" (100cm) depth that I mentioned on your 600 gram imitation of a gold nugget was with the 4500 in these Settings: General, Enhance, Fixed, Cancel & FP for all other settings.

However for the test result you mention at 53" (135cm) then the settings on the 4500 were: Deep, Normal , Fixed, Cancel, Boost Audio and then raising some other settings above FP.

Therefore as you can see using Normal and with extra settings does make a difference compared to Enhance in FP settings.

I would say using Normal with those extra settings would create to much feedback from the high mineralsed ground in Oz even with your CC coils.
Logged
egixe4
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


« Reply #4 on: Monday April 8 2019 12:31:08 AEST PM »

Hi Mylab,

In that test video, the guy is not using a single 600 gram lump, it looks like a reasonable sized bit and a whole heap of smaller bit's to make up the 600 grams.

This would give a different response to one single 600 gram lump.
A single 600 gram lump should be able to be detected easier.







 
Logged
bugwhiskers
global moderator
Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2074



« Reply #5 on: Monday April 8 2019 16:27:57 AEST PM »

Unless multiple pieces of metal are in good electrical contact,  only the largest piece will be detected.
Logged

All posts are my opinion and are stated without prejudice and in the public and consumers interest.
egixe4
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


« Reply #6 on: Monday April 8 2019 16:50:26 AEST PM »

Exactly Howard thumbs up!

Mal

 
Logged
bugwhiskers
global moderator
Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2074



« Reply #7 on: Monday April 8 2019 17:04:08 AEST PM »

An interesting exercise is get a length of wire and put it near the coil and note the detection distance.
Now bend the wire into a circular loop but without the ends making an electrical connection and note the detection distance.

Lastly, squeeze the ends together so they make good electrical contact and note the huge increase in detection distance.
Logged

All posts are my opinion and are stated without prejudice and in the public and consumers interest.
bugwhiskers
global moderator
Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2074



« Reply #8 on: Monday April 8 2019 18:02:38 AEST PM »

The grand finale.
Twist the loop into a figure "8" and if you do it precisely it will be undetectable.

Logged

All posts are my opinion and are stated without prejudice and in the public and consumers interest.
mylab
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 175


« Reply #9 on: Monday April 8 2019 22:34:02 AEST PM »

  
Hi Mylab,

In that test video, the guy is not using a single 600 gram lump, it looks like a reasonable sized bit and a whole heap of smaller bit's to make up the 600 grams.

This would give a different response to one single 600 gram lump.
A single 600 gram lump should be able to be detected easier.


Good observation egixe4.

As Dontbstme has made the point about the IB detector able to get a response on a piece of significant size that the GPX 4500 (modified version) does not, than I have to ask why then has ML not invested in an IB detector for detecting gold on the Aussie goldfields.

Therefore the answer must be and if I may quote from WM6 reply:
"We must ask us about soil in testing location first.
No VLF/IB is able to go deeper than 15cm on really heavy Fe-mineralized soil.
On mild soil some VLF/IB  detectors can go deeper than PI detectors"



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

Posts: 161


« Reply #10 on: Monday April 8 2019 22:45:58 AEST PM »

  
  
Hi Mylab,

In that test video, the guy is not using a single 600 gram lump, it looks like a reasonable sized bit and a whole heap of smaller bit's to make up the 600 grams.

This would give a different response to one single 600 gram lump.
A single 600 gram lump should be able to be detected easier.


Good observation egixe4.

As Dontbstme has made the point about the IB detector able to get a response on a piece of significant size that the GPX 4500 (modified version) does not, than I have to ask why then has ML not invested in an IB detector for detecting gold on the Aussie goldfields.

Therefore the answer must be and if I may quote from WM6 reply:
"We must ask us about soil in testing location first.
No VLF/IB is able to go deeper than 15cm on really heavy Fe-mineralized soil.
On mild soil some VLF/IB  detectors can go deeper than PI detectors"



 

If you watch the video by Matt adding that he has no vested interests other than personal is a loaf of crap because why does he in the last part of the video start using the radar?
Also, I noticed that when the deepseeker detector is swung over the target, the responses do not match the swing speed and the responses were all over the place indicating that something is not right!

Why did Matt only use a small coil?
You need to use a big coil, like the deepseeker detector?
To me, this is a staged video.

Another question, why use a modified detector?

Logged
Dontbstme
regular members
Newbie
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #11 on: Monday April 8 2019 23:39:36 AEST PM »

  

Why did Matt only use a small coil?
You need to use a big coil, like the deepseeker detector?
To me, this is a staged video.

Another question, why use a modified detector?



The GPX and the Deep Hunter were both with similar coil sizes. The GPX was using mono, which should count for depth advantage as well especially over any IB.
Matt uses modified 4500 as he is convinced that detector is able to achieve more depth than standard factory version of 4500.



Logged
mylab
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 175


« Reply #12 on: Saturday April 13 2019 00:10:52 AEST AM »

Dontbstme you should get Matt to run some video comparison depth tests using your 30”CC coil at his test sites and see what his results are.
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Common interest forum.  |  General chat and discussion forum (Moderator: bugwhiskers)  |  Topic: 600 grams gold nugget at 70 cm in the ground. « previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

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