Reg Wilson
-
Posts
692 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Forums
Detector Prospector Home
Detector Database
Downloads
Posts posted by Reg Wilson
-
-
In a discussion with a mate recently about the amount of testing being done, or lack of, in regard to the public release of certain detector models, I recalled an amusing episode in this regard.
Way back in '87 Bruce Candy asked me if I was interested in testing a new advance since his highly successful GS15000, which proved that an Aussie built detector could match it with the 'big boys'. We had discussed the possibility of a metal detector which would ground balance itself, rather than having to constantly re ground balance every time the mineralisation changed, which could be quite frequently in many Australian goldfields. Bruce had built a prototype of just such a detector, which was revolutionary not only in the new technology, which he had called 'ground tracking', but also incorporated a light weight plastic housing, unlike the previous metal box configuration used by most detector manufacturers. Naturally I jumped at the chance to be involved, and shortly after our phone conversation the 'new toy' arrived, which was much more compact and lighter than the previous 15000.
It was important to put this technology to the test over many ground types, from iron stony rough bush to more open country. Months of testing and refining took place with the prototype going back and forth to Adelaide for changes and tweaking. While working in some open grazing country a problem surfaced that had both Bruce and I puzzled for some time. Occasionally a positive sounding signal would be encountered where the ground tracking would not tune out what sounded like a good 'deepish' response. This signal would disappear once the topsoil was removed but remain as a more faint hum when the hole was backfilled. There was no defining difference in the ground appearance where these signals were encountered and for some time this situation had me totally perplexed, and it only happened in the one bit of open ground.
The conundrum, when finally solved, turned out to be sheep piddle. When a sheep relieved itself it left a false signal, which sounded just like a deeper target and would not tune out. Back went the prototype again, and when it returned the sheep problem had been solved.
The rigorous testing that the GT16000 received turned up hundreds of ounces in its prototype form and went on to being a hugely successful breakthrough for Minelab, putting the company on a firm footing to become the world's best builder of metal detectors.
-
9
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Not so long back I had a farmer friend call me and let me know that he was pulling out a fence on his property and that it was crossing a line of gold that I had detected years ago. Would I be interested in detecting the old fence lining in the hope of picking up some possible gold that may have been hidden by the fence? Naturally I replied in the affirmative, and seeing how James was having his yearly time off from farming I asked my farmer friend if it would be okay to bring my good mate along as well? He said that if I vouched for him it would be fine. The percentage for each was agreed upon, so we loaded up the old van and headed south.
The fence line was a disappointment as there was old wire everywhere and soon proved to be a nightmare that yielded nothing. Also an old dam bank that could have been a chance was another waste of time.
An area that I had always thought a bit too far west of the main line of enrichment looked interesting, having the right mix of stone and soil, so I gave it a shot while James detected further north. A couple of small bits soon turned up so I decided to zig zag southward to see if the colours might continue. For a while it was only bullets and broken bits off farm machinery until there came a broad signal that whispered up from depth. I took a big deep breath and slowly scanned the suspect hum. It sounded good even though just a murmur, and too positive and regular to be ground noise, not changing at all no matter from which direction or slight ground balance change.
Once through the top soil the gravel began to show and confidence grew, although I was not 'spending the money' until at a couple of feet the source of the signal was unearthed. The dirty lump in my hand by its very weight told me what it was. With a wash and weigh the gold was revealed as a pretty ironstone and quartz bit over fourteen ounces. The best bit yet for my 6000 and 11' coil. Who says these are a 'flypoop' machine?
James and I then gridded out the run for a half kilo altogether, his best bit being a nice worn and clean 2oz lump. Needless to say, our farmer friend was surprised and pretty 'chuffed'.
-
21
-
2
-
2
-
Thanks Steve for jogging the memory.
Seems every time we get the book ready to go another lump turns up or another story, although it is getting to the stage where we must just get on with it.
-
9
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Okay, so the 6000 has a few things which could be improved, but it is still a bloody good detector. I for one have proved that it is not just a 'flypoop' machine. It will do me just fine until a better detector comes along. (maybe I just fluked a good one. I am pretty lucky with that sort of thing)
-
9
-
2
-
😁PL5 and PL6 ???
-
1
-
-
I seriously doubt that the big loop concept is practical, as if it was it would have been used by the pro prospectors, and what's more Minelab would have been all over it like the tar baby over brer rabbit. If Bruce Candy could not sort out the bugs and shelved the project that tells me that it was not a 'goer'.
-
3
-
-
Mick is the only one that I would ever consider in regard to modifications. A genuine 'good bloke'.
-
6
-
-
Don't get too excited about about this this load of BS from Woody. The truth about 'his' big loop is that Bruce Candy brought a setup as described here to Maryborough in Victoria way back in 1990.
I was at that time sharing a house with Ian Jacques and John Hider- Smith on a small property on the western side of Maryborough. We were testing the first PI detectors built in Australia when Bruce came up with the idea of a big circular loop that could be assembled over ground suspected of holding big gold. The idea being that the loop would be the Tx while the operator would use a Rx detector only.
This seemed like a good in idea in theory but in practice it had more bugs than a Bangkok dormitory. After much perseverance the idea was abandoned, although Bruce may have patented it. It is laughable that Woody claims to have come up with this concept when it fact it was a far more competent person involved in the original idea.
If this ever came to fruition it would be enormously expensive and a lot more complex than intimated in the video. A snowball's chance in hell of it ever seeing the light of day. If it were feasible, Bruce would have already developed it.
-
3
-
2
-
-
Sad but true. It ain't what it used to be. 'Reality' TV shows have been partially responsible for blowing up the prospecting scene as an easy cash cow, attracting some pretty ordinary characters, (adding to the dodgy buggers already established) which makes serious prospecting a business where you need to keep your wits about you.
-
3
-
-
Stolen? Probably repossessed.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
There are old timers who regularly find good gold using a pan. The secret is knowing where to use one. Same goes for detecting.
I know people who find good gold using a detector but wouldn't have a clue where or how to wash a dish. I also know detector operators who after years of swinging a coil have still not found enough gold to fill a tooth.
Chasing specks in the grass is not my idea of prospecting, so I will just leave them for those who have nothing better to do with their time. Don't care if I go weeks without a colour, but get a buzz when I dig something worth the effort.
-
13
-
I found a lot of gold using a Deep Seeker in the early eighties, but when I discovered a better machine I naturally made the change. Proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I will always use the best available regardless of brand. Even if the best detector was made in North Korea I would have no qualms about buying one as soon as I could get my hands on it.
As a matter of fact I have used an ATX and was quite happy to give it back to the guy I had borrowed it from.
-
4
-
-
Try a better detector. Garret was top dog in 1980, but things have changed since then.
-
2
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Will you guys please desist in callings specks nuggets. Buy a gold pan if 'dust' turns you on.
-
2
-
12
-
3
-
The 12"x6" hybrid is sensational on small gold and if compatible with the E1500 could be a winner. Ilya stopped making them but maybe available again.
-
2
-
-
There are pros and cons in regard to power packs. When Howard Rocky used a power pack for his PL4 the first batch that he ordered (without prior testing) turned out to be useless, so he then had to negotiate returning them. The ones that he settled for still had problems in that they turned themselves off at first start up and had to be restarted. I personally would prefer one of the model aeroplane batteries which both jr Beatty and I used with our prototype QEDs.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Simon's reference of his Kiwi 'specks' as nuggets always amuses me. I have no interest whatsoever in chasing 'flypoop' gold with a detector, as a pan is a much cheaper option, (probably more productive) so I am interested in how this machine will perform with a large Xcoil. (which I already have) If I hear small targets I will dig them, but I sure don't go purposely looking for them, so Simon's experiences, while enlightening, are just not my 'cup of tea'.
I am currently using a 6000, and although it has been classed as a small gold detector, my best result so far has been a 14oz specimen that contained over 8ozs of gold, found at surprising depth. I do not write off this new detector as a shallow small gold machine either until I get to actually use one. I liked Steve's comment about the 2200D as I also found that detector to have real boogy with a big coil. I recall having to re position my pick when I first used one.
The E1500 is pretty sophisticated, so not really for the novice, but more for those with experience who want a light weight ergonomic machine with broad adjustability. I doubt that this detector is going to be a simple 'turn on and go' machine, but worth the time spent in learning its idiosyncrasies.
-
10
-
Bureaucracy gone mad. A worrying trend here in Australia. Have these public servants nothing better to do?
-
9
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
This sure looks interesting, a whole lot more profession than the QED, and if Nenad is the agent then it already has credibility. Sure would like to get my hands on one for some testing, but know that Simon is bound to yield to his insatiable urge and add to his already extensive detector collection to give one the Kiwi 'flypoop' test.
I would like to see how it handles a big coil in Aussie conditions.
-
18
-
2
-
Summing it up I would say that it initially showed promise of positive evolution, but along the way took a number of wrong turns that inevitably could only end in extinction.
-
4
-
-
As usual Phrunt (Simon) has summed up very well the pro's and con's of the QED, and the experience of Good Amount having their first gold hunting experience with that machine was something shared by a number of 'new chums' to the detecting scene. It was the cheapest PI on the market by far, and its performance on mild ground (such as Pliocene) was fairly good. jr beatty and I found many ounces in such ground, and almost directly under power lines on one occasion. It was only after we went back over some of our patches that it became obvious there were holes in the QED's ability and it had missed gold in some circumstances.
What I have neglected to mention in previous comments is how good it handled beach detecting, which is not my usual area of interest. At one time I took a QED to Nha Trang in Vietnam where my mate Dave (Dingo), and ex alluvial miner from the Palmer in Queensland was living at the time. We took it to the local beach which had heavy tourist traffic with the hope of perhaps finding some lost jewellery. Well, the jewellery turned out to be scarce, but we did find Russian coins at a surprising depth with the QED going from dry to wet sand without a problem.
The builder of the QED, unreasonably expected QED owners to stay with that one brand, rather than move on to more advanced (and expensive) detectors if they decided to continue with their detecting pastime. Some of course decided that this was not the hobby for them and either sold their QED or let them gather dust in a cupboard. It was a natural progression for those that gained enjoyment from swinging a detector for whatever reason to advance to more sophisticated machinery, and many did.
-
6
-
-
The above comments are pretty spot on. The cheap price (AU$2,000.00) and 5 year warranty were good selling points, however the builder could best be described as a 'flawed genius' and fell out with just about everyone with whom he had dealings. Totally unable to take advice from those who could have helped him to be successful, he was a one man band with tunnel vision and a rather toxic personality.
I was approached to test the prototype and later became a dealer, and still own that original machine. I was initially impressed with the potential and urged the builder to abandon his obsession with 3D printing after I produced a more robust and user friendly version which I named the QED PL Pro. After market testing this version with positive response the builder agreed to let me build this unit as an alternative to the base model but reneged on the agreement after I had purchased at some expense the needed components, leaving me considerably out of pocket. He also changed the software a number of times claiming that it made the machine easier to tune and use, but the result was a loss in depth, which he strenuously denied although myself and many customers with experience tried to convince him of the problem.
After producing PL1, PL2, and PL3 the builder, against my advice, built the PL4, an absolute horror of a detector which had to be recalled because if left in the sun for just a short time began to 'melt' due to the poor (cheap) 3D plastic used in its construction. To add to the problem it was an ugly looking beast which used a cell phone power pack, something he believed was a revolution, but was in fact a backward step. It also lacked the depth of earlier models.
An opportunity unfortunately lost to produce an 'Aussie' entry level PI at an affordable price.
-
7
-
1
-
-
The only detector worth considering in 2002 would have been Minelab pulse induction. Fitted with the largest coil then readily available (18 inch) you may have been able to get a signal from a large target at a meter or more depending on soil conditions. Any other machine would basically be a waste of time.
-
2
-
1
-
-
The only detectors available in those days were most likely bulky Garret dual winding VLF machines. Pretty primitive and not very efficient, despite the claims of the manufacturer.
There were a team of treasure hunters using one of these machines in an attempt to locate a cache of Spanish gold supposedly buried at the shore of a bay near the town of Queenscliff in Victoria (Australia) back in the mid to late sixties. They were excavating with an old cable operated drag line and detecting the bottom of the hole. I got to have a play with their detector and was disappointed with its performance over a steel tool box. I then put it over a nearby railway line and found it would only react at about two feet from the rail. Pretty useless really.
PS They never found Bonito's treasure.
-
2
-
1
-
Patch Hunting In England With Old Detector Yields 2 Oz Nugget
in Detector Prospector Forum
Posted
Aureous, I think you worded that rather poorly, as some may get the impression that I tried to pass that nugget off as American.