Myths - Associated with Gold Detection & Detectors

[Huego]

I am slowly looking around for a second hand GPX4500.
What would you recommend from another manufacturer that you consider has better performance and what are the performance capabilities that make it better?

Perhaps you were asking me. Although opinioned on some things I am not a good one to advise you, as I have never owned a GPX.
Alluvium has used all of them for decades and professionally so heed what he says.

Fox, I think what you read in Alluvium’s response was an expression of doubt, doubt in the sincerity of your inquiry! Others here “well versed in the art” of playing out tricksters and flounders as they fished for inside information (not for themselves), know exactly what I am talking about and I suspect you do too.  But, I enjoy your cleverness; its makes a change from the stupid, abusers and blind denigrators!

You said you were “looking around for a second hand GPX4500”.  Fair enough, a good machine and few would talk you outa doing that.  Caution where you buy it from is recommended. Some were problematic and subjected to recall, others made for stuffing the turkey and made there way back to Australia. Some may be without warranty. Many would have been traded on 5000s,

When you asked, “what would you recommend from another manufacturer?” thats a LOADED QUESTION! I remained mute as I lack the experience that some here have. The Whites TDI may be worth considering as it requires a bit of skill & you are smart enough to work it out. I believe there IS better performance coming or available (but not to you or many others) and the performance capabilities are subject to real world testing.

I have often raised for discussion what makes one detector “better” than another.  Every manufacturer would give a different answer. 
ML would say, ……… “you get what you pay for” (and you pay a lot!).  To others, value for money or affordability, ability handle noisy ground, detection depth, discrimination ability, weight, ease of use etc are equally important.

Huego

[Doug]

Crikey that's a loaded question.
How long did it take you to think up that??  

What do you see as being the issue with it? I don't see my question being as nebulous as your answer.

Are you not capable of describing a few of the features or capabilities of the various machines that you are familiar with to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of what you consider to be state-of-the-art?

This will be the year of big changes, mark my words.

It will benefit most prospectors, (But maybe not some Flounders we know).  

I am a person who relies on my tactile sense. Also, if I can hit it with a hammer and it gives off the right sound I know it really is there in front of me.

The new song as we detect will be, (Oh when the gold, keeps rollin in. When the gold keeps rollin in.
I want to be in the goldfields. When the gold keeps rolling in!!

Maybe you should be singing...

Oh, if it ever gets off the ground,
If it ever gets off the ground,
I would like to be in that number,
If it ever gets off the ground.

Pity you won't be one of the first to get these little beauties.  

Perhaps I will not be considering I might not be willing to wait that long as I would like to have a replacement detector while I can still walk around. No use to me in 10 years time as I could be in a wheel chair by then. Considering impecuniosity is not a problem, I will acquire that which takes my fancy from what is available to me now. Would you like to give me your valued input?

What are the features and capabilities in a detector (i presume for nugget hunting?) that are most important to you?
doug

[Gary]

The only way to get an accurate depth measurement of a nugget's true depth would be to dig and locate it still resting in situ and therefore measure an exact distance from the top of the nugget to ground level. I have only ever been able to located a nugget once as it rested in-ground.

Just to add further to my posting quote above I have attached a couple of pics below of that one situation when I was determined to carefully pinpoint and dig to locate a nugget while still in situ. In my case was a 7- gram piece at a depth of 10" detected with an 18" mono coil on a GP3000 using Normal Timing. I splashed a little water on the nugget to highlight its position before carefully removing it and resting it on the coil where you can still see the nugget's divot in the hole which is partly obscured by the coil.

Now an interesting observation I read in another thread by Alluvium on a nugget he located still in situ was:

 "It's all in the orientation of how it sat. I had a 42 gram piece once at 18"+ that gave a good wobbly signal. This was dug taking note of how it was sitting before it was finally extracted, it was sitting on end with the flat sides upright. When placed at the bottom of the open hole on its flat this time, the signal response was practically zero. Turning it on end again gave a good response, this phenomenon was because I was using Enhance timing. If I had used Normal timing the reverse would happen, as this mode likes the nuggets sitting flat in the ground."

 I hope Alluvium does not mind me using part of what he said in my quote above.

Therefore if my nugget was on its edge I may not have detected it in Normal Timing and most likely at a later date then located by the next bloke that came along using a GPX in one of its Smooth class of timings.





Gary

[Doug]

The only way to get an accurate depth measurement of a nugget's true depth would be to dig and locate it still resting in situ and therefore measure an exact distance from the top of the nugget to ground level. I have only ever been able to located a nugget once as it rested in-ground.

Just to add further to my posting quote above I have attached a couple of pics below of that one situation when I was determined to carefully pinpoint and dig to locate a nugget while still in situ. In my case was a 7- gram piece at a depth of 10" detected with an 18" mono coil on a GP3000 using Normal Timing. I splashed a little water on the nugget to highlight its position before carefully removing it and resting it on the coil where you can still see the nugget's divot in the hole which is partly obscured by the coil.

Now an interesting observation I read in another thread by Alluvium on a nugget he located still in situ was:

 "It's all in the orientation of how it sat. I had a 42 gram piece once at 18"+ that gave a good wobbly signal. This was dug taking note of how it was sitting before it was finally extracted, it was sitting on end with the flat sides upright. When placed at the bottom of the open hole on its flat this time, the signal response was practically zero. Turning it on end again gave a good response, this phenomenon was because I was using Enhance timing. If I had used Normal timing the reverse would happen, as this mode likes the nuggets sitting flat in the ground."

 I hope Alluvium does not mind me using part of what he said in my quote above.

Therefore if my nugget was on its edge I may not have detected it in Normal Timing and most likely at a later date then located by the next bloke that came along using a GPX in one of its Smooth class of timings.

Gary

Thanks Gary! The difference in responses between smooth and normal timings on nuggets like yours is intriguing! Why it should be so  is speculative  but perhaps the clue may lie in the fact that on edge nuggets would be expected to have a much shorter TC than when lying flat and  as a consequence the RX sampling windows may be very narrow which are not optimal for longer TC targets which may need much wider sampling windows?This would also explain why the detection depth in smooth timings  in our testing with bigger and more solid nuggets falls off dramatically compared to normal timings? The filter's in smooth timings may also have cut off frequencies more optimized for faster changing (higher frequency?) signals from small, short TC nuggets?
doug

[WM6]

When you asked, “what would you recommend from another manufacturer?” thats a LOADED QUESTION! I remained mute as I lack the experience that some here have. The Whites TDI may be worth considering as it requires a bit of skill & you are smart enough to work it out. I believe there IS better performance coming or available (but not to you or many others) and the performance capabilities are subject to real world testing.

Yes, the Whites TDI may be a good choice too.
From my point of view still a little overpriced, so......
..... after long awaiting of UD, I decided (a slight angry) to buy Garrett Infinium LS.
Already staying in front of retirement door, I cannot wait years more to UD.
Garrett Infinium LS is my actual choice (I owned one yet - from Santa surplus).
Regretfully wetter conditions here are too bad for first field tests.
 

[Alluvium]

Hello Gary,

Replying to your posed question below.

Your Quotes:  In my case was a 7- gram piece at a depth of 10" detected with an 18" mono coil on a GP3000 using Normal Timing.
Therefore if my nugget was on its edge I may not have detected it in Normal Timing and most likely at a later date then located by the next bloke that came along using a GPX in one of its Smooth class of timings.

The 7gm nugget you found looks fairly chunky to me in the pics.
It is most likely that if it was on edge, and seeing that you were using the larger 18"in mono coil with your 3000.

Plus only being at 10"inches deep, you would have had no problem still getting a signal response. (Normal timing).
Once nuggets of reasonable size get beyond 1'ft deep ,this orientation effect comes into play much more noticeable.

An example, at the test patch the 12"inch test hole starts off at the correct depth, but the blokes that drilled the hole in the bank angled down hill a bit.  This made the testing section really at 14"ins deep from the surface.

These extra 2"inches improve the differing signals from the same nugget when twisting it on the stick from its flat to an upright on edge position.
Using Enhance it gives a big signal on edge, when using Normal timing, it's a lot better when on its flat.
In the flat position Enhance give a rather poor response and vice versa when testing in Normal.

Orientation difference is very pronounced on our 42gram piece, yet it happens on the other nuggets too, even on 3 to 4oz nuggets at 14"ins.

Regards  Alluvium

Edit for Typo. Alluvium

[1Halfgram4three]

Hi just wanted to ask Doug if he has found gold with the qed detector

A little off subject, but does anyone worry about making their metal detector shaft out of fibre glass or no metal? As I've read I think (not 100% sure) that you can then get even more sensitivity out of your metal detector if the main shaft up to the "box" isn't metal?
Truth or Myth?

[Doug]

Hi just wanted to ask Doug if he has found gold with the qed detector

A little off subject, but does anyone worry about making their metal detector shaft out of fibre glass or no metal? As I've read I think (not 100% sure) that you can then get even more sensitivity out of your metal detector if the main shaft up to the "box" isn't metal?
Truth or Myth?

see my latest post:
http://australianelectronicgoldprospectingforum.com/general-chat-and-discussion-forum/another-dumb-idea!/msg19115/?topicseen#msg19115
Having a non metal shaft all the way up to the control box box some suggest improves performance and lowers noise.Probably true for motion type detectors but just how much of benefit it is i can't really say.
doug

[Huego]

We have a US member who sold carbon fibre shafts to replace the aluminium tubes of the original MLs.
Think his name is Herb or Harb. I believe he did some testing and can tell us.

Remember a post I made quoting a US guru (jim Swinney) who said (maybe tongue in cheek) modern detectors can pick up the metal belt buckle or the fillings in your mouth?  Read the last post......

http://australianelectronicgoldprospectingforum.com/general-chat-and-discussion-forum/72-ounces-of-gold-in-a-single-season!/msg18386/#msg18386

Huego


edited: to include extra data

[GEORGE]

We have a US member who sold carbon fibre shafts to replace the aluminium tubes of the original MLs.
Think his name is Herb or Harb. I believe he did some testing and can tell us.

Remember a post I made quoting a US guru (jim Swinney) who said (maybe tongue in cheek) modern detectors can pick up the metal belt buckle or the fillings in your mouth?  Read the last post......

http://australianelectronicgoldprospectingforum.com/general-chat-and-discussion-forum/72-ounces-of-gold-in-a-single-season!/msg18386/#msg18386

Huego


edited: to include extra data

  I am not posting much here anymore.  I read mostly for the daily giggles.  And Hugeo, you never let me down!!!

[Huego]

George, I do it for you and sawmill and a few others who need some humour in your dull lives!  

ENJOY!  


PS: Ever think of contributing a useful or funny or helpful comment about prospecting on the forum yourself?  Your comments are otherwise .. oh so dull!