Jonathan Porter

Spot on, well worded Steve. 🥵🙏

None of use know what is in the ground, we can all guess but until something comes along that is better we all of us have to guess at what’s still down there. All of the discussions about size and sensitivity and aftermarket this and aftermarket that are pure conjecture when trying to do comparisons to what might be coming. The GPZ was a very good example, it was promoted as being new and different but not everyone had successes with it, the expectation has to be in alignment with reality, you cannot just base your expectations on a supposition of what ‘might” still be in the ground relative to a marketing expectation guide of performance and behaviour, especially marketing material that has not been officially released in your market yet. The expectation is what keeps us going out, the hopes there is still gold present. Over the years ML have had the uncanny ability to keep on generating products that open up more opportunities. At the moment thats all you have to go on, Minelab’s track record.

Think on a regularity basis, you do not consistently find those sizes with current tech (obviously the Monster is more restrained by ground noise). They happen on occasion but cannot be considered ‘plentiful’. There are places were the current tech can find those tiny sizes sure but that’s just the nature of the ground type and the specific gold shapes and densities available.

Once again just looking at the information that is available and not tapping into anything I actually know, MPF is very sensitive to small gold correct? The SDC does a pretty good job at finding tiny gold compared to any other PI like detector with timings (timings dictate the target sensitivity relative to ground signal, the shorter the delay from ‘on time’ to ‘off time’ the better the sensitivity but also the harder it is to get to work without introducing too much ground signal and electronic noise). The SDC has very narrow band width timings so ignores a lot of nasty ground signals but the trade off is depth, so in a quiet ground environment its performance signs off quite quickly because of the narrow band width timings. The GPZ has good sensitivity for a number of reasons, Less ground signal, saturation signal and the BIGGY less EMI The balanced DOD coils provide a buffer of sorts due to the null (irons out ground signals) The two receive windings on a DOD coil are quite small relative to the Tx so there is inherent sensitivity available there. However the delay of the GPZ even in HY Gold mode is always going to limit its ability to generate a signal response on the Fast time constant targets, the signature from those is long gone. You will notice though that there have been examples on the forum of pretty good sensitivity of the GPZ on tiny gold, however you should also have noticed in just about all instances the pieces of gold are solid and quite smooth. The GPZ does not really respond to the actual weight of the target but more the resultant field the target creates, as such the GPZ generates a very good signature on solid tiny little pieces that are well rounded by stream action, that’s because their signal is enduring enough to survive the delay process relative to ground mineralisation. JP

I bought an Infinium on the proviso I could hand it back on an agreed value, found gold with it just to prove I could find gold with anything even a stick with a bit of poo on the end😜 ...... and just handed it back as per the agreement. The ATX on the other hand is a whole different thing but too heavy and too touch sensitive when the sensitivity is elevated (you need to to get any serious performance out of it). JP

From memory I think the GPZ 7000 cost well over $12 million to develop. Another little thought bubble to consider with coil sizes ect.🤔 If you look at the graphs placed hereabouts on performance you will see the 6000 seems particularly good on the smaller more plentiful gold and that it seems to be walking the park with the SDC2300 which we all know is a dynamite small gold sniffer. Extend that thought into the supplied coil sizes and you very quickly see the disparity of the standard coil size of the SDC compared to the standard go-to size of the 6000, now extrapolate that thought into how damn sensitive would a smaller coil actually be or the thought ‘is it even possible to make a smaller coil’ because the tech is clearly pushing the boundaries well beyond what any of us are familiar with. Disclaimer: These comments are all ‘what if’s’ on my part that are easily teased out of the information that is freely available, not the ‘What is’ that I actually know on the subject but can’t really talk about. 😜😇🤐

The difference between NF and what ML have provided (I also very strongly feel the lack of coil choices), is ML designed the coils over 6 years ago and they are mass produced. NF build there coils by hand and build them differently after carefully studying the ML offerings to avoid the hurdles of mass production. I’m sure if ML went back to the design process they would do things differently as is evidenced by the very light GPX 6000. 🤐😎😇 I have no real insight into why more coils were not provided other than guessing at lack of engineering staff because of other projects, it is clearly a highly emotive subject but seriously I’m not trying to justify why they do what they do, I can’t because as close as I am on some things I’m well out of the loop when these decisions are made.

I’m pretty certain things don’t work like that at Minelab and I’m pretty deeply entrenched in the development side of things at a very early stage. The GPZ was not crippled by its coils, as I have said before on this forum I used concentric coils on the prototypes so know exactly how they are going to behave. Yes in some cases as has been shown they work just fine but in the vast majority of mineralised ground they do not. The detector has to work in the majority of ground types, the whole design process is dictated by this necessity. A company like ML is not going to invest big money into developing a detector that only works well in some areas, it has to work well in all areas especially where the majority of its sales are located.

There’s a snag in the twenty year rule concept of patents expiry, one is the competitor will be using patents that will produce a detector that is essentially 20 years old performance wise compared to more current patents and 2ndly those developing gear based around expired patents need to understand the art to be able to produce something in the first place. I don’t mean to sound arrogant or dismissive here. I presume the Garrett ATX and the QED both do that to some extent patents wise and from memory the QED did come up against some breach of patent query’s at one stage during its development.

I’m still effectively gagged with no comment 😂

APTx Low Latency🤫🤣

Hey Steve I kind of find it funny how I’m gagged 🤐 to a large extent yet ML people are travelling around showing it off.... thoughts? 🤔

It’s a big world that’s now linked down to the micro second via the net but in reality out on the ground its also a microcosm that is diametrically opposed to the bigger picture story that seems to be getting all the press. At the end of the day there’s lots and lots of discussion going on and heaps of google searches primping the data, happy days for the marketing troglodyte’s even if the reality is kind of weirding the regular peeps out.

The depth is limited but ML have done a pretty good job on the Equinox for wet beaches so I see no reason why it shouldn’t be good on the pure salt lakes. The real issue will be any highly magnetic mineralised ground associated with the lake, so areas like around the edge of Lake Austin near the Iron clad mine or Lake Annean will be a real problem. The real issue however is the vast majority of known salt lakes have been well worked with GPX machines which have the ability to either go into Cancel mode with a DD coil which limits depth relative to normal coils but still pretty good, (there is also a dedicated Salt timing)it is way better depth wise than the EQ or you can use any off the MPS machines using an AI coil. If the area has pure salt and not a lot else with shallow small nuggets to be had then the EQ might have a chance at some reasonable gold in beach mode thanks to the extra sensitivity, however that window is closing fast with the advent of the GPX6000 (spoiler alert 😝)

I think the definition of the smaller more numerous gold in relation to which detector is used is not in the occasional find but in the consistency and regularity of the finding of it. The SDC is consistent at finding small shallow pieces in nasty ground but the GPZ can also find those too, just that it requires a lot more commitment with less regularity due to coil size and the tech behind it. The GPZ and GPX 5000 can reasonably find bigger and also the more numerous half gram pieces down at reasonable depths that the SDC cannot. The key is none of us know what gold is actually still in the ground until ML bring something out that reveals the opportunity. The ground has secrets and ML have an uncanny ability at unlocking those secrets by developing new opportunities even when users are skeptical.

It’s such a weird disjointed feeling seeing something you’ve spent years and hundreds and hundreds of hours acutely involved in suddenly ‘out there’ in the real world. 🥴 I wish them well and I hope what we’ve done makes a difference to their lives.

Yes please Steve. 😎

It has to be because what you are saying is completely at odds with what mine and many others experiences. I’d send it back to at least get it checked.

That’s because it sounds like it might be faulty, that’s the only explanation I can come up with based on your results/reports.

Speaking of controls, how many people can honestly say they have fully mastered all the switch and menu controls of the GPX5000? All the possible permeations of the zillions of menu settings and switch combinations? I helped develop the thing and I spent all my time using General Search mode very close to the FP settings, the rest is just dross at best and confusion for even the most experienced operators. Something to ponder on as this discussion evolves. 😇🙏

We distribute the book in Australia and it sells well but freight kills things having it sent to OZ from the US so I think last time it was printed here. I’ve not heard from Chris in a long while so if he reads this maybe we could look back into the subject because the book is excellent.

There’s some good ideas/concepts in these threads, I hope ML are actually reading some of this highly speculative stuff, some could have merit. 😀

Guessing is half the fun, and seeing a totally new look is exciting.

I would say GEO Sense-PI says it all. It’s a PI machine? Logic would then suggest the 6000 is a continuation on from MPS, based on the GPX moniker.

They for sure will, I’m supremely confident that in the vast majority of ground they will provide significant advantages. 😇 Nice speci my son got with the ZSearch a few days ago