northwest Detecting Larger Nuggets
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Tuesday November 19 2019 15:35:21 AEDT PM
Home Help Login Register
News: Welcome to the Australianelectronicgoldprospectingforum founded in July 2010, an add free totally independent forum with over 70 boards and paid for and managed by the Admin.Topics: 9,612  Total forum Posts:47,584 Members:861. Total page views:12,976,190  Admin and  forum and domain name owner :marjen at optusnet.com.au. Guests can only see a limited number of boards at present and cannot see any hot links. Guests cannot post and never will be permitted too!Registration of new members must be approved by admin.
 All  original Photos and posts and  original materials displayed on this site are COPYRIGHTED and remain the property of the poster and the  Austalian electronicgoldprospectingforum.com. All messages on this forum express the personal views of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily being in accord with those of the forum owner and neither the owner of this forum and its domain name nor SMF or the forum software developers or the forum host shall be held responsible for the content of any message. Admin reserves the right to remove any offensive or objectionable posts. No defamatory material or politics/religion or issues of race will be permitted.
QED news
QED on facebook
link-https://www.facebook.com/groups/245308699667153/403446933853328/?comment_id=403472030517485&reply_comment_id=403476793850342&notif_id=1562580344994993&notif_t=group_comment
Interfacion Pty Ltd is pleased to announce that the QED PI Detector has been modified to allow the use of DD (double D) coils. This change involves a simple change to the electronics within the control box.
The firmware has also been upgraded to include a further improved Ground Balance.
All detectors being delivered to new customers from Monday 5th August 2019 will already have the above upgrades included.
As a show of commitment to all QED owners, the hardware modification to allow use of the DD and CC coils will be provided at no cost.
Of course and as per the QED warranty, the firmware update is provided free of charge, except for P&H.
Any QED owner who plans to attend the Laanecoorie Bash is encouraged to bring their detector along and have it upgraded at no cost.
Standard postage and handling arrangements apply to other owners. Send via Australia Post the box (minus batteries) along with a pre-paid, pre-addressed bag/box to:
Interfacion Pty Ltd
PO Box 106R
Redan VIC 3350
Howard Rockey
Director Interfacion Pty Ltd.

australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Common interest forum.  |  General chat and discussion forum (Moderator: bugwhiskers)  |  Topic: Detecting Larger Nuggets 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Detecting Larger Nuggets  (Read 5501 times)
authere
invited members
Junior Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 348


« Reply #20 on: Tuesday January 20 2015 14:20:17 AEDT PM »

Hi All,

I know of a guy that regularly chases large nuggets,his coil of choice is only a 16" mono he does a double swing on every swing and certainly produces the goods,he also uses an 18" but not often

A lot of it boils down to getting to know your equipment and what to actually listen for, I've had a specie that gave a proper signal from the length of my pick handle deep that had 2oz's of gold mostly fines and a 1oz solid nugget that only gave a warble from 100mm depth others are just ground noises that get bloody loud the deeper you dig

So how many signals do we miss or misinterpret, the mind boggles

Ron
Logged
GARY
invited members
Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 567


« Reply #21 on: Wednesday January 21 2015 10:57:50 AEDT AM »

I thought I would add some colour to this thread with some pics in regards to my 2 trips to Wedderburn.

The first two below were taken when my friend snagged this 14 gram piece with his 11” mono during our 1st trip and him standing in its hole. This piece ended up being the largest found.






The pic below is our combined nugget haul over the 10 days we spent detecting for the 1st trip.






The next two pics below is the 9.5 gram piece I found with the 25” mono on our 2nd trip with me sitting and resting my feet in the large hole I had to dig to retrieve it. The close-up pic shows the nugget still encased in the clod of clay that came from the bottom of the large hole.






The pic below is our combined nugget haul again over a 10 day period spent detecting for our 2nd trip.






The final two pis below are at a monument to a large nugget found by a detector which for those of you who live in the Golden Triangle would be aware of, as well those who live near too or have travelled to the triangle.

If I had lifted something of that size out of a hole I would most likely Kark over in shock.






After each trip we shared both of our total haul equally between us by weight with my friend to keep his largest 14g piece and for me my 9.5g piece.

At least our nugget haul from both trips helped towards our fuel and accommodation costs.


Unfortunately the Nugget Sizes in the photos do not do justice to the heading of this thread "Detecting Larger Nuggets"

Edited by Gary to add the final sentance
 
Logged

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

Posts: 16888



« Reply #22 on: Wednesday January 21 2015 12:16:40 AEDT PM »

  
I thought I would add some colour to this thread with some pics in regards to my 2 trips to Wedderburn.

The first two below were taken when my friend snagged this 14 gram piece with his 11” mono during our 1st trip and him standing in its hole. This piece ended up being the largest found.






The pic below is our combined nugget haul over the 10 days we spent detecting for the 1st trip.






The next two pics below is the 9.5 gram piece I found with the 25” mono on our 2nd trip with me sitting and resting my feet in the large hole I had to dig to retrieve it. The close-up pic shows the nugget still encased in the clod of clay that came from the bottom of the large hole.






The pic below is our combined nugget haul again over a 10 day period spent detecting for our 2nd trip.






The final two pis below are at a monument to a large nugget found by a detector which for those of you who live in the Golden Triangle would be aware of, as well those who live near too or have travelled to the triangle.

If I had lifted something of that size out of a hole I would most likely Kark over in shock.






After each trip we shared both of our total haul equally between us by weight with my friend to keep his largest 14g piece and for me my 9.5g piece.

At least our nugget haul from both trips helped towards our fuel and accommodation costs.


Unfortunately the Nugget Sizes in the photos do not do justice to the heading of this thread "Detecting Larger Nuggets"

Edited by Gary to add the final sentance
 


Some nice nuggets! well done! happy face
doug smile
Logged

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

Offline Offline

Posts: 74


« Reply #23 on: Wednesday January 21 2015 16:36:02 AEDT PM »

Hello Ron & Gary.

Ron this bloke you know of, that's using a 16”in coil to find big gold should persist with swinging his 18”inch mono. There would a number of deeper bigger nuggets missed with his 16”in mono.
The field flux of each coil are different, he may think he is seeing all gold at depth, but I assure you he is not, even by using the double sweep method as you say,

Totally agree on knowing your equipment backwards, and about the many variables of nugget response characteristics.
Would there be any chance this chap detects mainly in WA? If he does, I can then understand why he sticks by using his 16”in, mono.
=============================================================
Gary thanks for those great photos of your Wedderburn adventures, you fellows done quite well there. You certainly would have paid you way each trip.
 
On noticing the depth of the hole dug by your friend for his nice piece, it looks about approx 1’ft in depth, this is why he could get gold responses in that depth ground when using his 11”inch mono with its more concentrated field.

Where it shows you standing in that hole up to near your knees in depth, I would say at about the 2’ft mark, knowing you are a tall bloke with long legs, these are 18”inch coil depths, where I would say it was the minimum size coil to utilize especially in that hot ground up there.

A little trick you could try next time, is to skid an 18”inch DD coil on the ground, while using it in Normal timing, place your 5000 in cancel mode, and then crank up your gain and stabilizer a bit, if it is getting a little noisy, put the Audio in Quiet mode.

What happens is it handles that hot ground  and EMI up there a lot better, and also has an advantage because it transmits on the TX winding as in a DD coil, but it receives any signals on both of the windings.

There is quite an advantage doing this, and the bigger the DD coil the better it works. Using Cancel this way still gets the depths required.

Good luck and Cheers.  Alluvium.



Logged
GARY
invited members
Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 567


« Reply #24 on: Thursday January 22 2015 11:04:10 AEDT AM »

Crikey Doug my photos are large enough as is and you reproducing them in your reply makes them overpowering.

Yes Alluvium, having now done a review of the video taken of the 14 gram dig, my friend measured it at 11.5” Also a review of the video on the 9.5 gram,  I see I forgot to measure, maybe due to expecting a larger piece after such a dig. I would say somewhere between 18” and 24” in depth. The first response I got at ground level with the 25” coil on this nugget was a very broad one, very much like a hot ground response. I decided to have a scratch so removed a few inches of clay and the signal started to sound more promising. I reckon an 18” coil would have given a clearer response at the surface than the 25” coil.

The other two nuggets shown beside the 9.5 gram piece on the top row in the photo of our total nugget haul for that 2nd trip, were found with my NF18” mono. They were both deep also for their size. The rest of the nuggets in both of the nugget haul photos were found with the Commander 11” mono and a NF12” mono.

Thanks for the little trick with a DD coil however I only have a 16 inch XP DD coil (reverse phase wound) which inverts the signal response to a Hi/Lo on larger gold. Of course with the GPX series you can now invert the response using the detector. Anyway what happens with this type of XP DD coil for it to cancel EMI you then have to switch into Mono mode. Therefore not sure if it still then works the same as a normal DD coil in Cancel mode and receive through both windings?

On a final note, which I had forgotten about from my video clips taken during the 2nd Trip, we met a local fella out on the goldfield who showed us a 48 gram piece he had detected at 18” with his 4000. However the biggest surprise was when he said he had to dig down 7 feet for a 106 gram piece. I questioned him with what detector and what size coil. He said the 4000 and a 42” x 26” coil which he pointed to in the back of his 4WD.

Gary

Edited by Gary to fix an error in what I said.
Logged

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
WM6
invited members
Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2007



« Reply #25 on: Thursday January 22 2015 11:14:55 AEDT AM »

  

 with his 4000. However the biggest surprise was when he said he had to dig down 7 feet (2.13m) for a 106 gram piece. I questioned him with what detector and what size coil. He said the 4000 and a 42” x 26” coil which he pointed to in the back of his 4WD.


Guy is fisherman obviously.
Logged

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

Posts: 567


« Reply #26 on: Thursday January 22 2015 11:53:16 AEDT AM »

Yes WM6 I was going to also write "I will let you all make up your own mind on that one."

The only true indication of a nugget's depth is to be very careful when digging and see it still resting in situ either in the side or bottom of the hole. Doing a measurement after the nugget is out in the ground taken from the hole is only an estimate of its exact depth.

I have only once taken enough time to dig and find a nugget still in situ, which is the one I have had a bail / bale (spelt two ways) attached to hang around my neck.

Edited by Gary for spelling
Logged

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
Alluvium
Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 74


« Reply #27 on: Thursday January 22 2015 14:31:30 AEDT PM »

Hello Gary.

Thank you for the details about your digs, it all fits in regards to the depths, coil size, etc. If an operator has a fair idea on the grounds depth that he is detecting in, it should be then detected accordingly, with the right sized coil.

It’s no good using a really large coil if you are only on 1’Ft or (300mm) deep soils. The exception is they can still be utilized on the shallower ground, if you want to cover a lot more area when out prospecting.

Your comment about that chap you met at Wedderburn who found a nugget at 7’ft deep, Mate he would have had to have a 10’ft ground loop, to even get a sniff on it.
He was either having a lend of himself, or thought he was putting it over you blokes. The coil he said he used, are a Mono loop.

Talking of fair dinkum nugget depths and coil sizes, a good friend’s Wife found a 120 oz nugget in hot ground at a genuine 1metre deep, it was below the upper soils and  through a washed gravel layer, sitting in clay on the bottom and had never been disturbed.

The amazing thing about this was she was using a SD 2200 and cop this, it was found with a small elliptical 12’in x 7”in NF mono coil, it was a very iffy signal to start with but she has good hearing, (Don’t they all).

Her husband could hear it much better with his GP 3000 using an 18” round NF mono coil, but then again, she had scraped a couple of inches off the top before he had walked over.

I think that this was an exception rather than the rule, as anyone that is really seriously looking for big deep gold, shouldn’t be using a small coil for a start, and especially an elliptical one.

Regards.  Alluvium.

Edit for correction, sorry.   Alluvium.
Logged
Alluvium
Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 74


« Reply #28 on: Sunday January 25 2015 13:35:12 AEDT PM »

  

There is a general perception that larger nuggets are (or should be) more easily detected (ie detected deeper).  
That is, the bigger the target, the easier it is, or should be, to detect at depth.

     - What factors, that we can control as prospectors, maximise detection depth?
     - Can it be explained in largely not technical terms to readers?
     - Are any new detectors (even prototypes) showing promise in achieving greater detection depths?

Allan says larger nuggets “have LONG TIME CONSTANTS” … OK, but what does that mean to a detectorist in selecting tools (eg detectors, coils), optimising settings or selecting ideal conditions for searching for them? …. from a prospectors, not designers, point of view.  

How can one maximise the detection or detection depth for large nuggets (1 oz + say)?  
Does one seek or avoid certain geology shallow or deep ground or soil type, always use largest coil, which detector settings? Generalities, not detail.

Perhaps Alluvium can do this from a successful (big nugget finder’s) point of view? If he were looking for a big nuggets (1+ oz) what tools would he want need to find them at depths over 30 cm?  

Huego  happy face

==============================================================================

Hi  Huego.

I had better start sometime, so I will put a few details together to try to help any new comers with what I have found out over the years in detecting for these larger nuggets.
Your quote:    - What factors, that we can control as prospectors, maximise detection depth?
                          - Can it be explained in largely not technical terms to readers?


There are a few basic factors when it comes to looking for big nuggets at depth, firstly an operator should use the best detector that you are able to afford, then assuming you know how to use it well, fit a large coil, with this meaning nothing under 18”inches across, and make that a round coil too.

What I use 98% of the time is a GPX 4500 detector with a Nugget Finder 18”in round mono coil.

There are a few hints I can give you on this and these are: - No matter what anyone tells you, the Normal Timing is the deepest penetrating one of them all, and has been throughout all the PI models.
Another Fact is, the larger the coil the bigger the field fluxes size, meaning that its field output goes deeper into the ground and over a wider area.

When talking on Coil Shape, a Round coil puts out to a large extent, a clearly better shaped field, and is much more superior to that of an Elliptical one.
An Elliptical Coil’s size is roughly judged by its width, rather than its length, therefore when searching for large deep gold a round coil is best for that task.

With Timings, the ones to use are dictated by the ground conditions that you encounter out in the field where you are detecting. This choice can only be made through the experience gained out there over a long period of learning.

But I will try to make it easier for say a newbie; in a lot of areas you cannot use Normal timing because of the high mineralization in the ground, so my next best choice to use, would be the Enhance Timing.
These 2 Timings on a 4500 or 5000 are your best chance of finding the deep gold; there are numerous other settings within these detectors that I will go into depth at another time.

Quote:    - Are any new detectors (even prototypes) showing promise in achieving greater detection depths?

Yes there are many new detectors that I have heard of, most know now or have heard of the new M/Lab detectors that are not far off.

This GPZ 7000 looks like Phil Beck has re-designed a 5000 board to fit in a 30/30 case, it’s very heavy and supposed to be simpler to use, but that is debatable. It does have a new chipped 14”in coil with its lead up the inside of the stem, but uses a different plug, also a pack of re-chargeable batteries on board, a sender unit for cordless H/phones and a GPS.    (Kitchen Sink an option).

This coil is a new style DD and is quite thick and heavy; they have tried to knock some weight off it in a remake, but didn’t cut the weight by much at all. It is not to replace the GPX 5000 and is in the mid range we have heard, although the proposed price does not reflect that. And all just in time for Easter this year.

Next we have the “Supergold” as one guy has called it, (Could it Be?) and is set for release mid-year.   -- - - - - - - - - It's (“The Deep detector”) You will need to sell lots of your gold to buy it, and a back hoe too.

Then there is First Texas (Fisher-Technetiks etc.) in the USA making up a new PI, we have heard it is a joint effort by Carl Moreland and David Johnson, so it should have what it takes, let’s hope it does anyway.

Whites where are you??

Alan Westerson in the United States should not be far away now with his PI, although there could be a twist of a possible Turkish delight to this somewhere??

There have been whispers about a better Garret PI, but that’s died down presently.

So now we have a look at a few from private techs in OZ.

There is the QED from bugwhiskers, then Moodz special PI hybrid, and now a bloke on the free forum posting some details, and a photo of his advanced PI circuit board,  he is named Pixulator.

I have been out with bugwhiskers and Moodz and can tell you they are not vapor detectors; we have been testing proto-types over the last 8 years and have seen remarkable ideas and top results.

Coil development is also ongoing, and there is surprising results here, that we have seen for ourselves when using them out in the field, and all on the detectors we are using today. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - -

This has a very big future and things should be moving along very soon.

Cheers for now Alluvium.



Logged
geof_junk
QED users
Newbie
*
Online Online

Posts: 181



« Reply #29 on: Sunday January 25 2015 21:46:17 AEDT PM »

Good post Alluvium Lets hope that I have a wide choice for a replacement for my aging ML3000 the current choice is no good, and I want it for my next trip to WA. fingers crossed.
Logged
GARY
invited members
Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 567


« Reply #30 on: Monday January 26 2015 16:04:37 AEDT PM »

Alluvium again has raised some more interesting points towards the problems that can increase or restrict the extra depth we desire.

If the Normal timing was able to handle mineralisation with a mono coil then less of the deeper gold would still be in the ground.  While at Wedderburn I had an opportunity to view a QED operating with both a 10” and 18” mono over the very mineralised ground at Beggary Hill. My GPX5000 in Normal with my 18” mono was incapable of doing the same until I switched into either of the other three timings designed especially for this type of ground. Apparently the QED only uses a single timing and from tests I have viewed on YouTube that single timing is capable of matching the depth in the ground of a GPX’s Normal timing.

I found this of interest also which I read on another forum that mono coils larger than 25” in diameter are of little use on any Minelab detector due to the pulse not being strong enough to generate the proper magnetic field. Therefore the detector will not operate correctly and why trusted coil manufacturers do not go any larger.




Btw Happy Australia Day today too us Aussies.

Gary



Edited by Gary to add extra wording



Logged

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
Huego
invited members
Revered Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4094



« Reply #31 on: Tuesday January 27 2015 09:15:32 AEDT AM »

Hi Alluvium, Gary and others

Alluvium, thanks for sharing your experiences and wisdom with me and others, over the recent years. I really do appreciate that as I’m sure many others do. Many don’t appreciate just how much MD history you have experienced and seen first-hand with the big name companies and their ‘tricks’ in the goldfields. (The biggest nugget I have found is still the one I purchased from you some years ago.)

The “best detector” is somewhat elusive as I know there are better than the 5000, even from personal experience …. and for the big ones my old 2200 is probably a pretty good machine. I tested and saw tested the early QED and know how light, quiet and good it is even on noisy ground and handling EMI too. As for what I can afford, well that depends on what is available to me … and I am disregarding any that the main manufacturers are offering, for now anyway.

I would need to upgrade my coil to one or two over 18” for the current detector.  Maybe a Nugget Finder 18” round mono coil would be too noisy with my 2200, so i will wait until a superior machine maybe a QED 2, is available to me. I think I have a large (heavy garbage-looking lid) coil maybe a DD that came with the 2200. I have never used it.  That a round coil is “superior to … an Elliptical one” is something I needed to hear.

A GPZ 7000 is certainly NOT on my list of dream machines, an any price, for Easter this year or any other time. Good luck  to Whites and Alan Westerson’s MDs …. and I still have an occasional  penchant for some Turkish delight.

As I keep in touch with Bugs occasionally, I will continue to look forward to seeing his latest upgrades to the QED- 2 and in action. But I know little of what Moodz has made but remain optimistic with that too.  I think there is a patent matter in progress which will show the true metal of justice vs bullying which may determine and open up the future of MD, and perhaps the goldfields, again.

I will speak to you later of coil developments and which you recommend. I enjoyed some long chats with Jim S before his passing about some ideas he was doodling with. He was a gem of guy too. I would be great to catch up with you again Alluvium as we have a lot we can discuss. Its been too long.


Best regards,

Huego  happy face

PS: always editing to correct spelling errors or improve clarity of expression or ideas. NO apolgies for that.
Logged

Views expressed are without prejudice, in the public/consumer interest & their "right to know". Huego reserves his right to: think freely & speculate, make & correct his mistakes, change his mind, expose fools & denigrators if/as required. Fighting greed & injustice with facts as he sees them.
Aziz
invited members
Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3977



« Reply #32 on: Wednesday January 28 2015 22:07:19 AEDT PM »

Hi all,

no need for new coil & detector technologies.
There is no gold in the ground anymore!
see here:   
*LOL*

One thing is for sure:
The ultimate thermo-nuclear melt-down to your wallet is coming...
With the new GPZ-7000!
(A drip-feed tech release of course. We will see at least three upcoming models with this technology in the future. Every model will be a drip-feed model. No interchanging & 3rd party coils. A hard wired coil will be there.)
*LOL*

If you guys keep follow your vested interests instead of working & sharing together for the same goal (developing a desired top technology detector to meet the thread title), you will blatantly fail. If you don't kill your evil greed, you will blatantly fail too.
I'm sick of this game. Either you work & share together or I'll initiate the ultimate end game..
Period.
^sif
Logged

Free science, knowledge and inventions to the mankind.
Huego
invited members
Revered Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4094



« Reply #33 on: Wednesday January 28 2015 23:25:33 AEDT PM »

  
Hi all,

....... The ultimate thermo-nuclear melt-down to your wallet is coming... With the new GPZ-7000!
(A drip-feed tech release of course. We will see at least three upcoming models with this technology in the future. Every model will be a drip-feed model. No interchanging & 3rd party coils. A hard wired coil will be there.)


If you guys keep follow your vested interests instead of working & sharing together for the same goal (developing a desired top technology detector to meet the thread title), you will blatantly fail. If you don't kill your evil greed, you will blatantly fail too.  I'm sick of this game. Either you work & share together or I'll initiate the ultimate end game..
Period
.

^sif

Aziz,

I follow you BUT you must be referring to a small handful of designers here who do the theoretical and practical side of MD development. (I am NOT one of those, my "skills", for what they are worth, lie elsewhere.)  Thats just a fact. So who are you imploring to?

Seems to me you can't get get others with ideas to always reveal (publicly) what it is you wish to hear, or want to know, that can allow for the collaboration you seek. Some may have invested or have made plans which they can't or won't change at this stage. Maybe there are risks they dont wish to take. Its the way of world.. everyone is an individual who DO things, SAY things, REVEAL things in their own way, and their own time. It can NOT be pushed. You have been generous with your time, ideas, simulations and knowledge but perhaps others are not feeling as enthused to share as you do.  good luck

Huego  happy face
Logged

Views expressed are without prejudice, in the public/consumer interest & their "right to know". Huego reserves his right to: think freely & speculate, make & correct his mistakes, change his mind, expose fools & denigrators if/as required. Fighting greed & injustice with facts as he sees them.
Larry
restricted
Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #34 on: Wednesday January 28 2015 23:40:52 AEDT PM »

  
  
Hi all,

....... The ultimate thermo-nuclear melt-down to your wallet is coming... With the new GPZ-7000!
(A drip-feed tech release of course. We will see at least three upcoming models with this technology in the future. Every model will be a drip-feed model. No interchanging & 3rd party coils. A hard wired coil will be there.)


If you guys keep follow your vested interests instead of working & sharing together for the same goal (developing a desired top technology detector to meet the thread title), you will blatantly fail. If you don't kill your evil greed, you will blatantly fail too.  I'm sick of this game. Either you work & share together or I'll initiate the ultimate end game..
Period
.

^sif

Aziz,

I follow you BUT you must be referring to a small handful of designers here who do the theoretical and practical side of MD development. (I am NOT one of those, my "skills", for what they are worth, lie elsewhere.)  Thats just a fact. So who are you imploring to?

Seems to me you can't get get others with ideas to always reveal (publicly) what it is you wish to hear, or want to know, that can allow for the collaboration you seek. Some may have invested or have made plans which they can't or won't change at this stage. Maybe there are risks they dont wish to take. Its the way of world.. everyone is an individual who DO things, SAY things, REVEAL things in their own way, and their own time. It can NOT be pushed. You have been generous with your time, ideas, simulations and knowledge but perhaps others are not feeling as enthused to share as you do.  good luck

Huego  happy face

Perhaps others don't have any new ideas to present. That is what I see.

I have been a lurker for a while, and I have to say, Aziz is just about the only member of this forum who is continually doing development work and presenting it to all members. Aziz seems to me to be struggling financially to purchase parts to do his development, and I think he is deserving of support to carry on his work, but no one seems to be willing to offer to help him out. How about 10 members donate $10 to Aziz to help him out to buy the parts he needs for his work?
Logged
Huego
invited members
Revered Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4094



« Reply #35 on: Thursday January 29 2015 00:06:47 AEDT AM »

  

Perhaps others don't have any new ideas to present. That is what I see.

I have been a lurker for a while, and I have to say, Aziz is just about the only member of this forum who is continually doing development work and presenting it to all members. Aziz seems to me to be struggling financially to purchase parts to do his development, and I think he is deserving of support to carry on his work, but no one seems to be willing to offer to help him out. How about 10 members donate $10 to Aziz to help him out to buy the parts he needs for his work?



Oh I believe there are lotsa ideas out there. But they are under wraps and Aziz knows or senses that and it frustrates him as he is so willing to show his skills and ideas.

From what I read it seems Aziz may well be short of funds but prefers to progress at his pace, one he can afford. He does not like to feel owing to others either. He also like to show how much can be achieved with so little capital. He has been offered help and finances before and rejected it. I don’t believe he wants or needs money, he wants to work together with others here. Tell me if I'm wrong Aziz.

 smile
Logged

Views expressed are without prejudice, in the public/consumer interest & their "right to know". Huego reserves his right to: think freely & speculate, make & correct his mistakes, change his mind, expose fools & denigrators if/as required. Fighting greed & injustice with facts as he sees them.
Alluvium
Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 74


« Reply #36 on: Saturday January 31 2015 12:23:47 AEDT PM »

               Minelab Detector Depths.       The Hype, the Promises.     Are you a believer??

==============================================================
                                                  
                                                               Detector Models.      

In discussing M/Lab detectors, and the extra depth promoted at each new models release. With this meaning, (that their latest detector will find gold nuggets at greater depths more-so than your last unit could). The question I put forward is, does it?

To answer the above, it basically comes down to always using your own judgment, not from listening to other people’s opinions. So when you obtain and test one, you can personally see if this new detector does actually have an advantage in depth over your previous model, as has been stated in the advertising.                                                                    

You will only gain accurate knowledge from your own findings and experiences, and that is achieved from being out there detecting yourself, and by using each new model extensively over a fair while, before passing any judgment about it.

But for a person to just go and blindly accept the spin and rumour used at every new models launch, and especially of being coaxed into believing that the manufactures predicted gain in depth percentage figures are gospel. This to me does bring some concern.                                                                                                                                          

We have all seen these (ongoing improvements) printed boldly in the glossy advertising brochures and magazines, well to look on these as a fact, would be unwise and totally wrong.                              

See my thoughts below on “depth gains” when using (Minelab’s own facts and figures), as stated in bold print from those many hand out brochures etc, at each new model’s release.

Side Note:   I have kept these brochures etc in my possession, ever since the company’s formation in 1985 and I will quote their actual figures in the text as written below.

============================================================================
 
To firstly obtain a depth reference, I will use a reasonable measure of 300 mm, =  (12”inches depth) . (This is an educated guess), and put forward just to get a starting point.  So therefore we can now propose the best depth obtained with a late model VLF detector.
 
With it also as having a reasonably clear audible response, when being swept over a (naturally buried in situ, 1oz + gold nugget) located 300mm down, in fairly mineralised ground.
 
This meaning that the 300mm is the Maximum target depth attainable on this VLF detector, under these above circumstances.
====================================================================
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                        The VLF Detector:                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
In mid 1993 at that particular time, the top of the range VLF model (before the PI machines), was the M/Lab, XT17000 VLF (blue box) detector, it was supplied with an 8”inch DD coil.

A very good detector in its day, and I had much success with one in Vic and WA.
It was sometime later stated in another brochure, that if the (newly developed) M/Lab 11”inch coil, was used instead of the supplied 8”in, this would increase a 17000’s depth capability by 20%.                                                                                

This would therefore add another 60mm depth to the 300mm. But for this exercise we will be fair, and go with the original 8”inch supplied coil and the 300mm depth.                                                                          

=========================================================================                                                                                                                                              
                           The Depth Facts:                          The SD Range of Pulse Induction detectors.

When the SD 2000 Pulse Induction detectors were released in April 1995, it was stated by M/Lab that a SD2000 was 3 times better in depth than the XT17000 in mineralised soils.

Using this statement above, we will add this to the original 300mm depth of the VLF machine.

So therefore, 300mm x 3 = 900mm. or (nearly 3’ft deep).

===========================================================================

In June 1996 the new SD 2100 arrived, it was promoted as up to 30% better in depth over the SD2000 on nuggets that were less than 5gms in weight, and 15% better depth on gold over 5 grams and up.                          

This extra depth over the SD 2000’s would mean this, 30% = 270mm + 900mm = 1170mm, depth.                          

Or if we only use the 15% = 135mm + 900 = 1035mm, or 3ft.4 ¾”ins, depth on the better size gold.
==========================================================================                                                              
A new SD 2200 D model in June 1998 is quoted in the M/Lab brochures as 4 times better in depth than a conventional VLF detector.                                                                                                                                            

So now if we go back to the start using the 300mm x 4  = 1200mm, or  3’ft 11 ¼”ins, depth attainable using a SD 2200D                                                                                                                                      

We would have to be talking at those depths, on finding a 30 to 50 oz fairly flat nugget sitting face upwards
towards the coil, to even have a chance to achieve this, especially if buried in mineralised ground.

Plus you would have to be swinging at least an 18”inch coil or bigger).                                                                            

But I can tell you, the above scenario is  highly unlikely to happen!

=========================================================================
                                                              
                                                           The GP Detectors.

The GP Extreme PI came out with much fanfare in November 2000, and M/Lab sent a letter out to all previous customers on its release, openly boasting of it having an increase in depth averaging 25% to 30% more than any, other detector.

(Quoting that on some nuggets found while testing were recorded at up to 55% deeper in depth, than on the SD2200 D).                                                                                                                                                          
A latter brochure toned that down a bit to 55% deeper on smaller nuggets, then saying it has gains of up to 18% more depth on larger gold nuggets.                                                                                                                            

Now if we only use their 18% figure here, added to the unlikely 1200mm depth quoted on the 2200D.
So 18% of 1200mm =  216mm  added to the 1200mm  = 1416mm, or  (4’ft 7”+ins).  
Being the quoted Depth obtainable on a GP Extreme on larger gold?

Really this is getting bloody ridiculous; we would now (possibly) be starting to look for an incredibly limited number, of very rare monster gold nuggets, with an extra large surface area and having an immense mass.                        

This nugget would theoretically have to be in the region of maybe 300 to 500 ozs weight, or more than likely, well upwards of that.     Then of the operator (fantasizing) or being very hopeful, that you could find one of these monsters, at that fanciful and improbable depth.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
Sure you may get a signal on a big ferrous target down there, but it’s likely to be a buried, Car Door.

==========================================================================

The next detector was the GP3000, released in July 2003 the brochure quoted an improvement in having, “An Enhanced stable Ground Balance and Clearer Target Signal, to Maximise detection depth”.                                                                                                              

This it did, but not at these previous depths quoted above for the GP Extreme.                                                                

Minelab must have woken up that their endlessly increasing percentage depths quoted about their detectors depth ability, and was now a little on the nose.

==========================================================================                                                    
In 2005 the GP3500 appeared with the usual promise of (More Depth, Sensitivity and Accuracy).                            

Quote:  ”As you can detect in Fixed mode more easily, this is giving greater depth”. This point is true but just to a very small advantage. Yet once again this detector only had very minor increments of depth gain (and only on certain targets).  

With no actual depth percentages quoted by m/lab again?

=========================================================================
                                                        
                                                              The GPX Range.

The GPX 4000’s released in late 2006 were promoted as a new revelation to gold finding, and to a fair extent they were.
With only mild suggestions stated about depth gains in their promotion of these.

=========================================================================

M/Lab’s next model in April 2008 was the GPX 4500; this was the 4000 souped up substantially, much more than the previous 4000, and they also promised some extra depth.                                                                            

Like the Extreme,  having this Quote: The GPX Depth Advantage allows you to find gold much deeper than ANY other detector.

But this was without any percentages stated, and not pushed or flogged to any extent.

=========================================================================

With the last detector released in late August 2010 being the GPX 5000, the Brochures quoted this machine as such, with all of these new features, combined with the established GPX ability to see through ground mineralisation, , that this results in you gaining the GPX Depth Advantage                                                                        

Will it ever end???

Unlike the 4500 it was very smooth running and has a silky threshold, the G/Balance was better and settled quicker, it also had a new timing added being the Fine Gold timing.

The new timing works at its best when hunting-out the many tiny sub-gram specks of gold, which are still out there in quite reasonable quantities, and the 5000 was also finding them at very good depths for their size, this was happening because most operators were using little mono-loop coils, 8”inch etc.

Fine Gold timing has been pushed and promoted continuously, and that is, it will find large gold at depth too, and  just as well as it finds the small gold.  

How can that be, when all our testing showed this not to be the Case There have been very few large deep nuggets found with the GPX5000 detectors over the last 4 years, and that’s mainly because 95% of operators are running it in the Fine Gold timing with tiny mono coils.                                                                                                                                  

It’s just not going to happen.
                                                                                                                                     

If you want to find big deep gold, the 5000 has to be used in Normal Timing with a large coil, and most likely, it would be best using a DD coil.                                                                                                                                                      
Note:  Even though the 5000 is quoted to better handle the atmospherics, it is still upset badly by EMI and  other similar interference sources, moreover just as much so as the previous GPX4500 model.

Re: What is the difference between a 4500 and 5000 Price??                                                                                                                                                                                  

Here is the story. The 5000 is near the exact same board as the 4500, basically the only difference is the two gain set resistors on the AD797 preamps, from 470 ohms (that was common on all models) but the 5000 has the resistors dropped down to 330 ohms.  

Apart from the switch layout and a few lines of code there is nothing different.
Everyone says it is much quieter, obviously correct, as it has not got the all important front end gain.

If the detector had one more gain stage to make up the difference, they could have retained the depth of the 4500 and still had the first stage head room that they are trying to achieve.

=================================================================

Who is game to believe this latest advertising brochure???

Cheers from Alluvium.

Edited for the grammar. Alluvium
Doug it still will not come up with a preview so I can edit it there???







* DDDDD.PNG (103.83 KB, 616x339 - viewed 238 times.)
Logged
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16888



« Reply #37 on: Saturday January 31 2015 12:38:36 AEDT PM »

Alluvium.
Bilbo on finders  i think agrees with your sentiments. and is certainly skeptical of ML depth claims.
doug smile
Logged

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

Posts: 16888



« Reply #38 on: Saturday January 31 2015 13:07:25 AEDT PM »

  
              Minelab Detector Depths.       The Hype, the Promises.     Are you a believer??

==============================================================
                                                  
                                                               Detector Models.      

In discussing M/Lab detectors, and the extra depth promoted at each new models release. With this meaning, (that their latest detector will find gold nuggets at greater depths more-so than your last unit could). The question I put forward is, does it?

To answer the above, it basically comes down to always using your own judgment, not from listening to other people’s opinions. So when you obtain and test one, you can personally see if this new detector does actually have an advantage in depth over your previous model, as has been stated in the advertising.                                                                    

You will only gain accurate knowledge from your own findings and experiences, and that is achieved from being out there detecting yourself, and by using each new model extensively over a fair while, before passing any judgment about it.

But for a person to just go and blindly accept the spin and rumour used at every new models launch, and especially of being coaxed into believing that the manufactures predicted gain in depth percentage figures are gospel. This to me does bring some concern.                                                                                                                                          

We have all seen these (ongoing improvements) printed boldly in the glossy advertising brochures and magazines, well to look on these as a fact, would be unwise and totally wrong.                              

See my thoughts below on “depth gains” when using (Minelab’s own facts and figures), as stated in bold print from those many hand out brochures etc, at each new model’s release.

Side Note:   I have kept these brochures etc in my possession, ever since the company’s formation in 1985 and I will quote their actual figures in the text as written below.

============================================================================
 
To firstly obtain a depth reference, I will use a reasonable measure of 300 mm, =  (12”inches depth) . (This is an educated guess), and put forward just to get a starting point.  So therefore we can now propose the best depth obtained with a late model VLF detector.
 
With it also as having a reasonably clear audible response, when being swept over a (naturally buried in situ, 1oz + gold nugget) located 300mm down, in fairly mineralised ground.
 
This meaning that the 300mm is the Maximum target depth attainable on this VLF detector, under these above circumstances.
====================================================================
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                        The VLF Detector:                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
In mid 1993 at that particular time, the top of the range VLF model (before the PI machines), was the M/Lab, XT17000 VLF (blue box) detector, it was supplied with an 8”inch DD coil.

A very good detector in its day, and I had much success with one in Vic and WA.
It was sometime later stated in another brochure, that if the (newly developed) M/Lab 11”inch coil, was used instead of the supplied 8”in, this would increase a 17000’s depth capability by 20%.                                                                                

This would therefore add another 60mm depth to the 300mm. But for this exercise we will be fair, and go with the original 8”inch supplied coil and the 300mm depth.                                                                          

=========================================================================                                                                                                                                              
                           The Depth Facts:                          The SD Range of Pulse Induction detectors.

When the SD 2000 Pulse Induction detectors were released in April 1995, it was stated by M/Lab that a SD2000 was 3 times better in depth than the XT17000 in mineralised soils.

Using this statement above, we will add this to the original 300mm depth of the VLF machine.

So therefore, 300mm x 3 = 900mm. or (nearly 3’ft deep).

===========================================================================

In June 1996 the new SD 2100 arrived, it was promoted as up to 30% better in depth over the SD2000 on nuggets that were less than 5gms in weight, and 15% better depth on gold over 5 grams and up.                          

This extra depth over the SD 2000’s would mean this, 30% = 270mm + 900mm = 1170mm, depth.                          

Or if we only use the 15% = 135mm + 900 = 1035mm, or 3ft.4 ¾”ins, depth on the better size gold.
==========================================================================                                                              
A new SD 2200 D model in June 1998 is quoted in the M/Lab brochures as 4 times better in depth than a conventional VLF detector.                                                                                                                                            

So now if we go back to the start using the 300mm x 4  = 1200mm, or  3’ft 11 ¼”ins, depth attainable using a SD 2200D                                                                                                                                      

We would have to be talking at those depths, on finding a 30 to 50 oz fairly flat nugget sitting face upwards
towards the coil, to even have a chance to achieve this, especially if buried in mineralised ground.

Plus you would have to be swinging at least an 18”inch coil or bigger).                                                                            

But I can tell you, the above scenario is  highly unlikely to happen!

=========================================================================
                                                              
                                                           The GP Detectors.

The GP Extreme PI came out with much fanfare in November 2000, and M/Lab sent a letter out to all previous customers on its release, openly boasting of it having an increase in depth averaging 25% to 30% more than any, other detector.

(Quoting that on some nuggets found while testing were recorded at up to 55% deeper in depth, than on the SD2200 D).                                                                                                                                                          
A latter brochure toned that down a bit to 55% deeper on smaller nuggets, then saying it has gains of up to 18% more depth on larger gold nuggets.                                                                                                                            

Now if we only use their 18% figure here, added to the unlikely 1200mm depth quoted on the 2200D.
So 18% of 1200mm =  216mm  added to the 1200mm  = 1416mm, or  (4’ft 7”+ins).  
Being the quoted Depth obtainable on a GP Extreme on larger gold?

Really this is getting bloody ridiculous; we would now (possibly) be starting to look for an incredibly limited number, of very rare monster gold nuggets, with an extra large surface area and having an immense mass.                        

This nugget would theoretically have to be in the region of maybe 300 to 500 ozs weight, or more than likely, well upwards of that.     Then of the operator (fantasizing) or being very hopeful, that you could find one of these monsters, at that fanciful and improbable depth.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
Sure you may get a signal on a big ferrous target down there, but it’s likely to be a buried, Car Door.

==========================================================================

The next detector was the GP3000, released in July 2003 the brochure quoted an improvement in having, “An Enhanced stable Ground Balance and Clearer Target Signal, to Maximise detection depth”.                                                                                                              

This it did, but not at these previous depths quoted above for the GP Extreme.                                                                

Minelab must have woken up that their endlessly increasing percentage depths quoted about their detectors depth ability, and was now a little on the nose.

==========================================================================                                                    
In 2005 the GP3500 appeared with the usual promise of (More Depth, Sensitivity and Accuracy).                            

Quote:  ”As you can detect in Fixed mode more easily, this is giving greater depth”. This point is true but just to a very small advantage. Yet once again this detector only had very minor increments of depth gain (and only on certain targets).  

With no actual depth percentages quoted by m/lab again?

=========================================================================
                                                        
                                                              The GPX Range.

The GPX 4000’s released in late 2006 were promoted as a new revelation to gold finding, and to a fair extent they were.
With only mild suggestions stated about depth gains in their promotion of these.

=========================================================================

M/Lab’s next model in April 2008 was the GPX 4500; this was the 4000 souped up substantially, much more than the previous 4000, and they also promised some extra depth.                                                                            

Like the Extreme,  having this Quote: The GPX Depth Advantage allows you to find gold much deeper than ANY other detector.

But this was without any percentages stated, and not pushed or flogged to any extent.

=========================================================================

With the last detector released in late August 2010 being the GPX 5000, the Brochures quoted this machine as such, with all of these new features, combined with the established GPX ability to see through ground mineralisation, , that this results in you gaining the GPX Depth Advantage                                                                        

Will it ever end???

Unlike the 4500 it was very smooth running and has a silky threshold, the G/Balance was better and settled quicker, it also had a new timing added being the Fine Gold timing.

The new timing works at its best when hunting-out the many tiny sub-gram specks of gold, which are still out there in quite reasonable quantities, and the 5000 was also finding them at very good depths for their size, this was happening because most operators were using little mono-loop coils, 8”inch etc.

Fine Gold timing has been pushed and promoted continuously, and that is, it will find large gold at depth too, and  just as well as it finds the small gold.  

How can that be, when all our testing showed this not to be the Case There have been very few large deep nuggets found with the GPX5000 detectors over the last 4 years, and that’s mainly because 95% of operators are running it in the Fine Gold timing with tiny mono coils.                                                                                                                                  

It’s just not going to happen.
                                                                                                                                     

If you want to find big deep gold, the 5000 has to be used in Normal Timing with a large coil, and most likely, it would be best using a DD coil.                                                                                                                                                      
Note:  Even though the 5000 is quoted to better handle the atmospherics, it is still upset badly by EMI and  other similar interference sources, moreover just as much so as the previous GPX4500 model.

Re: What is the difference between a 4500 and 5000 Price??                                                                                                                                                                                  

Here is the story. The 5000 is near the exact same board as the 4500, basically the only difference is the two gain set resistors on the AD797 preamps, from 470 ohms (that was common on all models) but the 5000 has the resistors dropped down to 330 ohms.  

Apart from the switch layout and a few lines of code there is nothing different.
Everyone says it is much quieter, obviously correct, as it has not got the all important front end gain.

If the detector had one more gain stage to make up the difference, they could have retained the depth of the 4500 and still had the first stage head room that they are trying to achieve.

=================================================================

Who is game to believe this latest advertising brochure???

Cheers from Alluvium.

Edited for the grammar. Alluvium
Doug it still will not come up with a preview so I can edit it there???







So the main reason the gpx5000 runs more smoothly and is quieter is that the coil preamp gain has been substantially  reduced?
This could  result in  potentially less depth on some nuggets compared to the 4500?
doug smile
Logged

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

Posts: 16888



« Reply #39 on: Saturday January 31 2015 13:21:59 AEDT PM »

 Maybe the 40% depth claim is only getting back the huge depth loss that occurs with some nuggets when one uses any of the smooth timings in the gpx!!!!
doug smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin.
When is 1halfgram4three (a proven forum hacker and  village idiot!) going to stop telling lies on his “forum”?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Up Print 
australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Common interest forum.  |  General chat and discussion forum (Moderator: bugwhiskers)  |  Topic: Detecting Larger Nuggets « previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

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