northwest QED & Wet Ground
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Thursday August 22 2019 01:28:46 AEST AM
Home Help Login Register
News: Welcome to the Australianelectronicgoldprospectingforum founded in July 2010, an add free totally independent forum with over 70 boards and paid for and managed by the Admin.Topics: 9,245  Total forum Posts:46,357 Members:833. Total page views:12,263,130  Admin and  forum and domain name owner :marjen at optusnet.com.au. Guests can only see a limited number of boards at present and cannot see any hot links. Guests cannot post and never will be permitted too!Registration of new members must be approved by admin.
 All  original Photos and posts and  original materials displayed on this site are COPYRIGHTED and remain the property of the poster and the  Austalian electronicgoldprospectingforum.com. All messages on this forum express the personal views of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily being in accord with those of the forum owner and neither the owner of this forum and its domain name nor SMF or the forum software developers or the forum host shall be held responsible for the content of any message. Admin reserves the right to remove any offensive or objectionable posts. No defamatory material or politics/religion or issues of race will be permitted.
QED news
QED on facebook
link-https://www.facebook.com/groups/245308699667153/403446933853328/?comment_id=403472030517485&reply_comment_id=403476793850342&notif_id=1562580344994993&notif_t=group_comment
New GB timing algorithm being tested in the QED.
Climate news
Contribution to global warming by Australia. Australia has one of the highest per capita emissions of carbon dioxide in the world, with 0.3% of the world's population it produces 1.4% and rising(not the .08% the  finders forum dope "Inhere" claims!) of the world's greenhouse gases. Australia also has the highest per capita emissions in the OECD, with 26 tonnes of greenhouse gasses being emitted per person every year.
Australia's C02 emissions rise for the 4th year in a row.

australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Pi metal detector by Bugwhiskers  |  QED Detector ,latest updates  |  Topic: QED & Wet Ground 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: QED & Wet Ground  (Read 725 times)
GARY
invited members
Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 521


« on: Saturday May 25 2019 13:58:36 AEST PM »

Reg's test report on another forum is interesting with the QED over a wet mineralised ground test site.

It was also interesting how well the NF 20" mono performed over all targets from the largest and deepest to the smallest.

Reg could you possibly share the QED settings here for the 20" coil which I expect should work well with my NF18" mono?

Also I have found wet mineralised ground to be noisier than dry when using a GPX.

Gary.

 
Logged

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

Posts: 16771



« Reply #1 on: Saturday May 25 2019 16:21:27 AEST PM »

  
Reg's test report on another forum is interesting with the QED over a wet mineralised ground test site.

It was also interesting how well the NF 20" mono performed over all targets from the largest and deepest to the smallest.

Reg could you possibly share the QED settings here for the 20" coil which I expect should work well with my NF18" mono?

Also I have found wet mineralised ground to be noisier than dry when using a GPX.

Gary.

 

Gary on wet ground have you tried running  your Gpx in salt coarse timing ?
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”?
GARY
invited members
Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 521


« Reply #2 on: Saturday May 25 2019 17:01:19 AEST PM »

No Doug had not thought to try that.

Now some say that WET ground can enhance detection depth.

Also I have been told that MINERALISATION can enhance depth as well  although I had thought it to reduce depth.

Gary.


Logged

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

Posts: 16771



« Reply #3 on: Saturday May 25 2019 17:23:55 AEST PM »

  
No Doug had not thought to try that.

Now some say that WET ground can enhance detection depth.

Also I have been told that MINERALISATION can enhance depth as well  although I had thought it to reduce depth.

Gary.




Conductive ground may enhance depth on some conductive targets. Most soil  iron mineralisation is not conductive.What causes the soil conductivity in wet soils is the presence of salt or some alkaline salts.
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”?
GARY
invited members
Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 521


« Reply #4 on: Saturday May 25 2019 17:32:27 AEST PM »

Another variation in thinking is that small coils operate quieter over MINERALISED ground than larger coils although I say the reverse.

Also do smaller coils penetrate better through the same ground than larger coils?

And then does being WET swap the results around again?

Gary.
Logged

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

Posts: 16771



« Reply #5 on: Saturday May 25 2019 20:53:33 AEST PM »

  
Another variation in thinking is that small coils operate quieter over MINERALISED ground than larger coils although I say the reverse.

Also do smaller coils penetrate better through the same ground than larger coils?

And then does being WET swap the results around again?

Gary.

Smaller coils have a higher field strength than larger coils which make them more sensitive to smaller conductive objects.Larger coils have a smaller field strength but a "bigger field"(look at the field lines from a very small bar magnet compared to those from a very large magnet) which means they will in general give more depth on larger  conductive objects but are less sensitive to small conductive objects compared to a small coil.
Your comment about big coils being quieter over bad ground compared to small coils may have some truth to it because a big coil one might think is less susceptible to small but sudden changes in mineralisation because it covers a larger area (ground vol)per sweep and therefore might tend to "average out" small  but sudden mineralisation changes.
In wet  conductive ground i am not sure what happens!
doug smile
Logged

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

Posts: 228


« Reply #6 on: Saturday May 25 2019 20:55:39 AEST PM »

  
Another variation in thinking is that small coils operate quieter over MINERALISED ground than larger coils although I say the reverse.

Also do smaller coils penetrate better through the same ground than larger coils?

And then does being WET swap the results around again?

Gary.
Larger coils work better in every case.
In mineralised ground smaller coils are more noisy and would be much more affected by hot rocks.
The WET does not swap the results.
Logged
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228


« Reply #7 on: Saturday May 25 2019 20:57:37 AEST PM »

  
Reg's test report on another forum is interesting with the QED over a wet mineralised ground test site.

It was also interesting how well the NF 20" mono performed over all targets from the largest and deepest to the smallest.

Reg could you possibly share the QED settings here for the 20" coil which I expect should work well with my NF18" mono?

Also I have found wet mineralised ground to be noisier than dry when using a GPX.

Gary.

 
Can you post a link to this test report please?
Logged
GARY
invited members
Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 521


« Reply #8 on: Saturday May 25 2019 21:14:44 AEST PM »

  

Can you post a link to this test report please?


I do not like referencing links to other forums from here so Doug or Goldman if you know the forum and thread I am referring too, and you deem fit to do so, I will leave it up to either of you to post the link for Dontbstme.

Btw thanks for yours and Doug's replies to my questions.

Gary.
Logged

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

Posts: 16771



« Reply #9 on: Saturday May 25 2019 22:29:12 AEST PM »

Here is the link
  
link-http://golddetecting.forumotion.net/t26503-qed-in-wet-ground
As for depth bigger coils go deeper on larger objects than small coils due to the fall off in field strength vs distance from the coil according to the Biot Savart law which says that  the on axis field strength falls of as 1/R^3 (R being the distance) when the object is deeper than the coil diameter. Its easy to see then why a 18"mono will go deeper on large object than say a 9" coil. For the 9" coil a conductive target at 18" will only have a field strength of 1/8 that  at 9" but for the 18" the field strength will be bigger for the same target at 18".
doug smile
Logged

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

Posts: 228


« Reply #10 on: Sunday May 26 2019 01:38:58 AEST AM »

  
Here is the link
  
link-http://golddetecting.forumotion.net/t26503-qed-in-wet-ground
As for depth bigger coils go deeper on larger objects than small coils due to the fall off in field strength vs distance from the coil according to the Biot Savart law which says that  the on axis field strength falls of as 1/R^3 (R being the distance) when the object is deeper than the coil diameter. Its easy to see then why a 18"mono will go deeper on large object than say a 9" coil. For the 9" coil a conductive target at 18" will only have a field strength of 1/8 that  at 9" but for the 18" the field strength will be bigger for the same target at 18".
doug smile

Thank you for the link Doug.
And yes. I agree completely with your statement regarding large vs small coils. It is exactly like you said.
The one little addition is that depth is related not only to larger coils vs smaller coils, but also to larger targets vs any coil.
What I mean is this.
If you have any gives coil size, let say 10" and you want to double the depth, this can happen only to targets that have average diameter 4 times bigger than the coil it's self, 40" diameter.
However small coils are limited in their field strength at distance, so the mentioned above will apply probably for one step up, meaning if you have target 4 times larger in diameter that is detectable at twice the depth, increasing the target size 16 times will not necessarily double the depth again.
In the end the larger coils always win in the deep, for the bigger stuff.

With the GPX I have established that the "bigger" stuff is almost anything above 15-18 mm in diameter.
My 30" coil beats most other smaller coils on a depth for 18mm coin in the ground, but will fall short on half a gram gold nugget.
Logged
mylab
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« Reply #11 on: Sunday May 26 2019 09:57:18 AEST AM »

  
With the GPX I have established that the "bigger" stuff is almost anything above 15-18 mm in diameter.
My 30" coil beats most other smaller coils on a depth for 18mm coin in the ground, but will fall short on half a gram gold nugget.

An 18mm coin is slightly smaller in diameter to an Australian 5 cent coin which at one stage had been used by ML as a test target to gauge whether their GPZ was up to specs without an issue.
Logged
mylab
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« Reply #12 on: Sunday May 26 2019 20:50:35 AEST PM »

This discussion started off in regards to Reg’s test results between the QED, GPX &  GPZ and now Dontbstme mentions results with his 30” CC coil on an 18mm coin. As to the Aussie 5 cent coin test for the GPZ then with its standard 14”x13” DOD coil it should achieve 12” to 18” in an air test with ML advised settings of High Yield Normal, Sensitivity 9, and Volume 8.  Actually Reg posted back at that time his best result was 23” using High Yield Difficult, Sensitivity 16, Volume 3 and Audio Smoothing Low.
Logged
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228


« Reply #13 on: Sunday May 26 2019 23:51:20 AEST PM »

  
 Actually Reg posted back at that time his best result was 23” using High Yield Difficult, Sensitivity 16, Volume 3 and Audio Smoothing Low.
23" on what and with what coil? I missed that one.
Logged
mylab
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« Reply #14 on: Monday May 27 2019 07:59:55 AEST AM »

  
23" on what and with what coil? I missed that one.

GPZ on 5c coin with 14"x13" DOD coil.
Logged
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228


« Reply #15 on: Monday May 27 2019 15:26:58 AEST PM »

  
  
23" on what and with what coil? I missed that one.

GPZ on 5c coin with 14"x13" DOD coil.
Thanks. I hear the Zed was very sensitive to modern coinage. I got nearly the same coin at 21", but 12" of that are in ground and 9" above the soil on top of target location.
Shame that coins got nothing to do with gold nuggets.
Logged
Reg Wilson
invited members
Newbie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 102


« Reply #16 on: Monday May 27 2019 19:01:42 AEST PM »

Dontbstme, you are right about the GPZ being very good on coinage, and it has been remarked upon that when Jonathan Porter did comparisons between the GPZ and the QED coins were used rather than gold. Now this has always appeared a little odd that one of Australia's most successful gold detectors should choose coins for comparison when he would have an abundance of nuggets of various size and weight to use for testing
His tests did not really rubbish the QED as some had predicted he would, (being a Minelab agent) however one can't help but think that his testing may have been a little different had he used gold nuggets rather than coinage.
Logged
Dontbstme
regular members
Junior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 228


« Reply #17 on: Tuesday May 28 2019 01:52:56 AEST AM »

  
Dontbstme, you are right about the GPZ being very good on coinage, and it has been remarked upon that when Jonathan Porter did comparisons between the GPZ and the QED coins were used rather than gold. Now this has always appeared a little odd that one of Australia's most successful gold detectors should choose coins for comparison when he would have an abundance of nuggets of various size and weight to use for testing
His tests did not really rubbish the QED as some had predicted he would, (being a Minelab agent) however one can't help but think that his testing may have been a little different had he used gold nuggets rather than coinage.
It is common trick used by promoters of Minelab PI detectors to use coins for demonstration.
The trick here is that the PI detectors in general and more specifically Minelab are very, very sensitive to Nickel coins, Copper-Nickel coins and similar. The crappier the alloy the more depth the Minelab will get on them. Just like in my tests the kitchen scale can been a bit smaller than the hammered copper bucket is detectable at at least 1.5 times the distance, because the ML PI loves Nickel based trash and not so much highly conductive targets like hammered copper.
I also get better depth on 18mm Nickel coin than 5 grams 23.5K gold bar (23x14mm). Odd isn't it?
Unfortunately the hammered copper is the closest relative to the huge gold nuggets everyone is after, because of it's high conductivity.
So tests with coins and beer cans are a bit of waste of time as far as gold prospecting is concerned, but serve as some poor point of comparison.

It is honourable of Jonathan Porter to have exhibited a rival product, the QED, in real light rather than rubbish it.
Logged
bugwhiskers
invited members
Supreme Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2165



« Reply #18 on: Tuesday May 28 2019 06:21:37 AEST AM »

It is common trick used by promoters of Minelab PI detectors to use coins for demonstration.
The trick here is that the PI detectors in general and more specifically Minelab are very, very sensitive to Nickel coins, Copper-Nickel coins and similar. The crappier the alloy the more depth the Minelab will get on them. Just like in my tests the kitchen scale can been a bit smaller than the hammered copper bucket is detectable at at least 1.5 times the distance, because the ML PI loves Nickel based trash and not so much highly conductive targets like hammered copper.
I also get better depth on 18mm Nickel coin than 5 grams 23.5K gold bar (23x14mm). Odd isn't it?
Unfortunately the hammered copper is the closest relative to the huge gold nuggets everyone is after, because of it's high conductivity.
So tests with coins and beer cans are a bit of waste of time as far as gold prospecting is concerned, but serve as some poor point of comparison.

It is honourable of Jonathan Porter to have exhibited a rival product, the QED, in real light rather than rubbish it.



Dontbsme, can you see the contradiction between the first and last sentences of your post?
Logged

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

Posts: 102


« Reply #19 on: Tuesday May 28 2019 10:15:53 AEST AM »

Well Bugs, you can't be too hard on Mr. Porter. In my opinion, for what it is worth, he didn't do too badly with his testing considering his position, which must be taken into account.
Admittedly more emphasis could have been placed on using some nuggets of size, rather than coins, and that I'm sure would have been more relevant to what the QED is designed for. The in ground, in the field testing did not really prove anything either. Let's face it, a report that was too complimentary would have raised a few hackles in certain quarters, so I guess he was as fair dinkum as he was able to be.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Pi metal detector by Bugwhiskers  |  QED Detector ,latest updates  |  Topic: QED & Wet 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!
gold