Jump to content

Jonathan Porter

Members
  • Content count

    278
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Everything posted by Jonathan Porter

  1. Getting Large Gold With The GPZ

    The key to remember on any deep target is the signal you are trying to capture is from the target itself and that can be incredibly weak. The deeper the target is the wider the signal can be which makes sense when you consider the target is now in effect a coil itself. Therefore the Tx of the target has to get wider and broader the further away the Rx of your coil is. You also need to imagine the targets field as being sphere like not 2 dimensional, at the very center the field is at its strongest, the further away you get the weaker it is, therefore the receive coil has to be almost dead center over the strongest part of the field (where the Coils Rx is at its most sensitive) to get the strongest response. If you then allow for the way a Super D coil manifests its signal it makes sense that a Slow Motion filter and a wide accurate sweep is required to generate a recognizable response, the key here is repeat-ability and accurate movement of the coil through the targets field. Can you get the response to repeat when careful controls are in place to prevent Saturation and Salt signals? Having a VERY low noise floor in combination with minimal self inflicted noise input is vital in this process. JP
  2. He was referring to the salt signal, once a coil size reaches the tipping point salt dominates the signal negating the depth advantage. JP
  3. Getting Large Gold With The GPZ

    I did a Treasure Talk Blog on the differences between the GPZ 14" and GPZ 19 and included a video on a nugget signal I found using the GPZ 19" coil. I got a fair bit of feedback from people commenting on the less defined signal response of the nugget, this is typical of large coil use with any detector. When a nugget is being sensed right at the very edge of detection the response is extremely swing dependent and requires VERY careful coil control to manifest a recognizable signal. Also key to the GPZ is the inbuilt SLOW motion filters and the ability to turn off the Audio Smoothing, anyone half serious about finding extreme depth nuggets will super glue that control on OFF no matter what!! Guess what gets worse with slow Motion filters and larger coils? You guessed it SALT! Guess what happens if you lift the GPZ 19" coil suddenly whilst detecting? You introduce varying degrees of salt signal! Guess what happens to an edge of detection deep target signal when you inadvertently introduce salt signal due to poor coil control? The target gets lost in the salt response. JP Apologies for the crazy eyed screen shot grab Minelab used for the video!!
  4. There's a key issue to think about when using larger coils which is mainly why you don't see Minelab going much above 19" and I notice no one has mentioned it here in all the dialogue. SALT JP
  5. Steve I strongly disagree. The issue here is two fold; Firstly big nuggets give off big signals, however thanks to the inverse square law, depth tapers off the deeper a target is which then gives a very narrow band of opportunity for the deeper punching machines to find the gold missed by others. Secondly because detectors have progressively become more and more sensitive over the years people tend to focus on the more productive target sizes and neglect the modes and coil sizes best suited for larger nuggets at depth and the skills required to capitalize on this. In the case of PI the first SD series were on about par with an increase in sensitivity and less holes in the timings, the SD2200D really benefited from having auto GB. GP series machines then benefited from having Dual Voltage which mainly gave an improvement in sensitivity on fast time constant targets but also a corresponding increase in ground noise negating the deeper signal ability if an operator wasn't careful. GPX detectors were basically extensions and improvements on Dual Voltage with the added advantage of "Smooth" timings which really opened up a range of nuggets still atreasonable depth's but hidden by mineralisation and the inability of DD coils to cope in Normal type timings. In the case of GPZ that's a whole new animal and to be honest I'm VERY surprised by your lack of faith in ZVT tech on large gold, I think this lack of faith comes down to too few opportunities to prove this out thanks to a lack of larger pieces still existing in the field but probably more important your skepticism in my opinion is down to Minelab failing to get the ZVT depth message to market effectively (I doubt if this is even possible). The juxtaposition is because the high frequency stuff stands out so resoundingly on ZVT, producing results for even average users, the real benefits on larger nuggets which take effort, patience and skill in the right areas are being neglected. The GPZ/ZVT tech thrashes PI resoundingly on big gold if your prepared to let go of the high frequency stuff for a bit and go chase the heavy gold. Steve I hope my comments are not offensive to you, I felt I needed to respond in kind to your level of skepticism. I'm not defending ZVT as a zealot, my strong opinion is based around my experiences with this technology and the many hours of depth testing I've performed. On big gold there is no equal to ZVT, it resoundingly thrashes PI. JP
  6. Johnathan Porter GPZ 7000 Dvd

    The big motivator in creating material is the need to share something your very passionate about, at the end of the day the money I made on productions only gave me a basic income and covered expenses. As time went by the motivator became impacted upon by all the negativity associated with the constant pirating and less than enjoyable interactions with total strangers who used to just walk up and bombard with critique/abuse, Steve can attest to on a couple of occasions like this when he was over here visiting with me. JP
  7. QED Review

    So far there has been no real “direct” reviews of the QED, in effect just innuendo clouded by politics, which is not helpful. With the help of a friend I've just finished some testing of the QED and want to share our impressions here in the hopes of getting the ball rolling for some quality discussions (but maybe this is being too optimistic?) We hope and believe our tests were rigorously objective, the QED was used for general gold hunting and also comprehensively tested on buried real gold pieces of various sizes in a variety of soils, considerable care was taken to ensure no placebo/bias.* We deliberately tested on only frequently detected but historically very productive public fields, not private property in which it can be relatively easy to find gold using any technology due to only ever seeing a few detectorists. First and foremost, important details of the QED's method of operation that are different to other detectors which needs to be clearly understood: Unlike Minelab detectors, the QED has a “dead zone” that can be varied using the Volume control. The threshold is set using the Bias control and has 2 different audio threshold settings, an upper and a lower value. When the Bias is turned down in number below the threshold lower value, OR, turned up in number above the upper threshold value, the “Threshold” audio increases as per usual. Suppose for example, the lower audio threshold bias value of the Bias control happens to be 50 and the upper threshold bias number happens to be 60. Then if the Bias is turned down below 50 OR turned up above 60, the audio “threshold” level increases as per usual. For these threshold examples, 50 and 60, small gold (fast time constant targets) “in effect” produce signals less than 55 (half way between 50 and 60), and larger gold “in effect” produce signals more than 55. If the Bias is set at the lower threshold limit, 50 for example, then the detection of small gold will give the usual INCREASE in audio level response, and larger gold will give a BELOW threshold level response, OR If Bias is set at the higher threshold limit, 60 for example, then the detection of larger gold will give the usual INCREASE in audio level response, and smaller gold will give a BELOW audio threshold level response. Similarly with ground noise; some ground noise will in effect produce signals below 55, so that if the Bias is set at 50, this ground noise will give an increase in audio sound, but if the Bias is set at 60, this ground noise will give a below threshold audio response. Conversely, if the ground noise is in effect above 55, then if the Bias is set at 50, this ground noise will give a below threshold audio, but if Bias is set at 60, this ground noise will give an increase in audio level. Signals in effect BETWEEN 50 and 60 are in the “dead-zone,” for which the audio is below threshold. Signals in effect below 50 OR above 60 give an increase in audio. So if threshold is set at the lower threshold of 50, then faint signals from small gold will give an above threshold audio, and large targets a below threshold audio. Whereas its the opposite for the upper threshold of 60, faint signals from large gold will give an above threshold audio, and small targets below threshold audio. So for shallow small gold select the lower threshold limit, for big deeper gold select the upper threshold limit. Bigger target signals will produce above threshold signals regardless of whether they are small or larger targets. However the Volume control controls the dead-zone width; the gap between the upper and lower threshold Bias settings, that is, the dead zone gap is increased by turning the Volume down, or decreased by turning the Volume up. In fact the QED can be set to operate with NO dead-zone (like the usual Minelab PI audio). To do this: a. Vary the Bias between the upper and lower threshold. Note the gap. b. Increase volume a bit. c. Re-do a. and note the decrease in the gap. d. Continue to repeat a, b, c until there is no gap. (This will allow some feel for true ground noise etc.) However the QED audio has a very low level signal EVEN if below threshold, This below threshold faint audio signal is just the pitch signal only, and detects all signals, ground noise, target signals, whether long time constant or short, and EMI. But this below threshold pitch sensitivity is not as acute as the audio set at threshold per point 2 below, and it is very soft. Yet even further, if a target or ground noise (or EMI) does drive the audio below threshold, the nature of the audio is that it has the usual “re-bound” response once the coil has moved over and past the target or ground noise. I refer to the lower pitch audio following the initial target higher pitch audio (“high-low”) or the opposite; the higher pitch audio following the initial target lower pitch audio (“low-high”) effect known from Minelab PI's. So for moderately weak target signals that cause the audio to dip below threshold once the coil moves beyond the target and the audio then rebounds above threshold. To recap; for these targets, as the coil passes over the target the audio goes first below threshold THEN above the threshold. However for the fainter of these target signals (the important signals one listens for in thrashed ground), this rebound signal is hard to discern compared to the same signal that would occur if the Bias had been set at the alternative threshold setting for which the audio signal then would have given an initial increase in threshold as the coil passes over it and then a below threshold rebound. Therefore, it is important to understand that you EITHER need to set the Bias to chase the faint small targets in shallow ground (Bias at the lower number setting), but lose out a bit on the faint large target signals OR set the Bias to chase the faint larger targets in deeper ground (Bias at the higher number threshold setting) but lose out a bit on the smaller targets. The QED has a “motion” audio response; meaning the coil has to be moved to hear a signal. It can be operated both quickly, and also, remarkably slowly. If the coil is moved “remarkably” slowly it is possible to hear the average audio detect a very faint target above the audio “background random chatter”, considerably more readily than if the coil was moved at a typical realistic operational speed. When depth testing and when you know where the target is, beware that you do not slow down the coil swing to an artificial unnatural swing speed to enable the detection of a deep target at its known location.* Important recommendations: 1. It's very important to get the threshold (Bias) spot on for optimal results, If the threshold level is too high, then faint signals get drowned out, but if the audio threshold level is too low then only the residual very faint pitch signal remains, but this faint pitch only signal is less sensitive to target signals than the audio set optimally as per point 2 immediately following. 2. The threshold must be set so that it is just audible; in effect just immediately below the “real” audio threshold signal, so that what you are hearing is just between only the pitch signal and actual above threshold audio. 3. Note that the effective principal threshold control (Bias) is temperature dependent and requires reasonably frequent adjustment over time as the ambient temperature changes to get best results. Therefore there is NO actual specific optimal Bias number setting, rather it entirely depends on temperature. It can be as high as 70 in very hot conditions 4. Once 2. and 3. are optimally achieved, you will find that the GB setting has to be spot on for best results. If you find that it is not critical, you really need to re-address points 2. and 3. 5. The QED does produce ground noise that sounds on occasion like a target. If you aren't digging some ground noise you do not have it set up properly, especially in variable soils. With ANY detector (automatic GB or Manual) altering the GB setting slightly to eliminate a faint “deep target-like signal” will result in eliminating the faint signal whether it is ground noise OR in fact a deep real metal target. 6. You need to listen to the soft “subliminal” threshold of the QED very carefully, quality headphones are a must. 7. “Gain” acts as a sensitivity control as you would expect. I suggest that the QED is best used as a specialist very fine (Small) gold detector. It produced a reasonably clear but quiet response to the extreme small gold (of the order of 0.1 g), we managed to find 5 tiny pieces in well-worked ground in all totaling 1 gram, although the SDC would have picked 5 of the 5, but not so well in one location due to power line noise (This could be remedied somewhat by lowering the Gain of the SDC and using minimal threshold). However, we purposely went over exactly the same ground with the SDC with the SDC set at a lower threshold and 3 on the gain, and then found 3 more pieces of gold; we are 100% sure we had already passed the QED exactly over the target locations so we put this down to QED ground noise masking targets. The QED struggles compared to the SDC in the more mineralised soils, however the QED does seem superior to the ATX. To get the most out of the QED, use a small coil such as an 8” Commander mono, and set the Mode as low as possible so long as the ground signals do not become too intrusive. Usually 1 or 2 is OK for Minelab coils, but some other coils may produce too much ground noise at this setting so you may need to increase the Mode to 3 or above dependent on the ground. Further, we got some very thin aluminium foil and very gradually trimmed it down until the SDC could no longer detect it. This represents particularly fast time constant targets (“extremely” small gold), and found that the QED did still detect it, but only within several mm of the coil surface, not further. But this does mean that the QED will detect extremely small shallow pieces that the SDC will not. Alternatively we suggest the QED is also a suitable lightweight low-cost patch hunter when used with a large coil with the Mode turned up so that there is less ground noise. For the sake of completion, to answer questions posed of the QED depth for an Australian 5 cent piece compared to the Zed both using the same sized coils. We measured this carefully and we are not prepared to give exact figures to avoid any trivial arguments, other than to say that the QED detected between 60% to 2/3rd of the depth of the Z. The QED susceptibility to EMI in areas remote from mains compared to the 5k on EMI noisy days? In one word: “Good. The QED susceptibility to mains in urban areas compared to the SDC or Zed? In two words: “Typically Bad.” The QED’s main strength is its cost, light weight, ergonomics, and simplicity of use, and yes it IS definitely simple to use, but a bit “fiddly.” It has no “magic settings” once you understand exactly how it operates as described above. Going back to the SDC really highlighted the difference a light weight detector can have on general comfort and enjoyment of detecting, and our experiences with the QED underscored Minelab's poor ergonomics. In our opinion the QED fits a market where people are looking for a cheap detector capable of finding small gold in thrashed areas, and are wanting more coil choices without the specialised "one size fits all" approach of the SDC. Good value for money. Its main weakness is its underlying ground noise, which although having the advantage of being “hidden” in the dead zone, nevertheless limits depth compared to lower ground noise capable detectors, for targets other than the very fast time constant targets. In summary it works relatively best in the less mineralised soils for small gold. Beyond the scope of the above suggested prospecting (very small gold & patch hunting mainly in relatively unmineralised soils), I choose not to comment further, other than we will not be using the QED for purposes other than secondary activities, and still intend to use other well-known detectors for primary prospecting activities because of their other advantages. No doubt others with QED's will disagree with us. We welcome this, and would be happy to be proved wrong. Ultimately, time tells the truth by substantial gold finds or lack thereof in well-worked ground. *Note: because of the subtle audio, it is easy to imagine you are “hearing” a target above the general background ground noise when you know where it is. We endeavoured to avoid this tendency.
  8. New Detectors And Early Adopters

    Ouch very embarrassing. But goes to Show how often we have these types of discussions. JP
  9. New Detectors And Early Adopters

    Its about time Steve.
  10. New Detectors And Early Adopters

    Argyle, sometimes our expectations can be out of whack with the manufacturers targeted end user which is why you hear rave reviews from some people and nothing but complaint from others. One thing I've learnt over the years is opinions are like backsides, everybody has one. From the manufactures point of view it comes down to how well the detector eventually sells, they too take a lot of risk which can get very expensive if they miss the mark. I'm an innovator according to Steve's chart and don't mind taking a gamble which is probably why I have a GS5b and a QED in my detector collection (I could never find a nugget with the GS5b but have found quite a few pieces with the QED). Gold has been very good to me so I don't mind investing some of that money into new products/toys that I'm pretty sure will not reach muster and will only ever get used occasionally even if they are half reasonable. Some I hang onto for nostalgia's sake others I move on. There are too many end users for manufacturers satisfy all of them fully, ultra experienced operators are even rarer so their needs and wants will never get fully addressed especially in the more generic models such as VLF. As a full time ultra passionate/perfectionist prospector my needs and wants are always at odds with the engineers during development on projects I'm involved in. I'm fortunate that the people I work with are very performance based so they give me a lot more air time than I probably deserve sometimes but at the end of the day there are always trade offs in the final product. JP
  11. X-Terra 70 & X-Terra 705 As Nugget Detectors?

    Targeting shallow low mineralised areas with the Xterra 705 was the key to having a bit of fun on gold with that machine. I get a little frustrated with the continual manufacturer bias towards DD coils on VLF detectors to try and tame mineralisation, don't get me wrong they are needed but they do limit things a lot when you need to whip the coil to get into the tiny surface gold. I like to run a VLF hot and prefer a concentric coil for the Zip Zip response they produce, then its just a matter of targeting shallow less mineralised areas where tiny nuggets are prolific and then go have some fun. If the detector is too noisy turn the volume down a bit first before you back off on the sensitivity, sensitivity reduction on a VLF blows the target signal really quickly. The key is to clearly hear the Zip Zip signals over the ground feedback. JP
  12. Ground Balancing The 7000

    The averaging is happening on two fronts, since the release of the GPZ 7000 there has been a number of updates so the software has changed a few times, subsequently the averaging is not quiet so important with the ferrite balance any more and basically redundant in Semi Auto mode (I highly recommend users operate in Semi Auto mode at all times). If you are in doubt about your ground balance then its not hard to power cycle the unit (turn off then on again) which flushes the algorithm except for the last known fixed point. Best bet is to pass the coil over the ferrite with the Quick Trak button held in till there is no noise, then pump the coil nearby till there is no noise in either direction (Up or down) then pass over the ferrite again. Keep doing this process till there is no noise heard on the ferrite after the GB has been normalized nearby. You can use the sweep method of ground balance too but I've found there is more accuracy if the coil is pumped once the Quick Trak button is released. The accuracy I seek is down to the auto GB being very slow due to the nature of DOD coils to prevent tracking out deep targets, sweeping gives an averaging, pumping givings accuracy immediately under the coil, I use the pumping method to bring the detector back to a defined point then let the averaging go from there as I sweep the coil looking for gold. DO NOT PUMP THE COIL OVER THE FERRITE, always sweep the coil over the ferrite. There is no advantage in having the ferrite near the coil whilst detecting. JP
  13. Steelphase Audio Enhancement System

    Steve you are correct. If the subject was just about the SP booster then I would not have commented unless I had something to input on the subject. Obviously people are going to make comparisons but I've been following a growing trend of commentators around the net (especially on FB) denigrating the B&Z to promote the SP, this I take exception to. Not to nit pick but I made reply to the OP because there was a comment about the audio of the B&Z using headphones so made some suggestions to forum readers and the OP to hopefully improve their headphone experiences and at the same time gave away one of my closely held secrets. I feel I have a right to have a say because the B&Z was directly mentioned in the post and I'm sure Jin would not take exception to this especially considering at that stage he had not actually used the SP yet. The other comments in my opinion were just mischief making, unfortunately I was then forced to spell things out. JP
  14. GPZ 7000 Audio Problems After Latest Update

    I'd say there's a component fault in the Pod or your WM12 is on the fritz, either way I'd say it needs to go back to Minelab.
  15. Steelphase Audio Enhancement System

    I won't mention the B&Z in any thread if others don't. BTW I don't sell the Bose headphones!
  16. Steelphase Audio Enhancement System

    The key to using the B&Z with headphones is to lower the detectors audio so you can lift the B&Z volume above 2 1/2. If you want an amazing experience with the B&Z booster with headphones then get yourself some of these. http:// https://www.bose.com.au/en_au/products/headphones/earphones/quietcomfort-20-acoustic-noise-cancelling-headphones.html#v=qc20_samsung_black If your working in and around trees they remove all the wind noise especially the low frequency stuff, they are also excellent at removing traffic noise etc.
  17. Question For The Experts - GPZ Noise Cancel

    Interference from a GPZ's Tx is easily dealt with as mentioned by Steve above, however the biggest issue I have found is interference from Wi-Stream, the interference sounds like a rapid buzzing noise that is hard to identify and can be heard from a lot further away than the regular Tx/Rx if there is a direct line of sight to another GPZ operator. To fix you need to manually select another channel through the Connect WM12 menu option of the GPZ, this can be a bit hit and miss because there is no scan function. Best bet is to ask the other operator what channel they are working on then you selecting a different channel. JP
  18. GPZ 7000 Audio Problems After Latest Update

    Keep us informed on how things go, this fault can show up when going from Normal to Difficult or Difficult to Normal. JP
  19. Great New Profile Picture On Your Facebook Page JP !

    Pictures don't do it justice Steve. Not huge but good money at today's gold price, made approx AU$2K that day. Got myself a new Samsung Galaxy Note 8 which has dual cameras, thanks to the dual cameras you can do a live focus shot which gives fantastic depth of field images (Apple call it portrait mode). Trying to do a selfie in the bush yelling "cheese" at your phone was harder than actually finding the gold.
  20. Great New Profile Picture On Your Facebook Page JP !

    Steve you are on the ball. Found that piece a few days ago in some nasty red ground along with a 9 gram and a few smalls. JP Speci weighs 90 grams and has a nice heft to it so I'd say there is well over an ounce of metal enclosed.
  21. 38 Ounce Australian Nugget Found With GPX 5000

    I've had four goes at replying to this thread and realised there is nothing I can say that won't be misconstrued or shown as mischief making. In that thought process I also came to the realisation that moderation is a hard ask trying to keep a forum on track with wildly mixed personalities. Out of respect to a good friend I will bow out and refrain from further comment. JP
  22. 38 Ounce Australian Nugget Found With GPX 5000

    Reg you forget so easily. Donald Parker told me about slugs up to 50 ounces just inches below the surface that he had missed in Vic with VLF machines that just boomed at him with the SD 2000. What else does anyone seriously use in Australia these days? 6 inches can be a long way down if the ground signal is equal to or greater than the target signal. With the advent of Smooth timings on the GPX 4000 I was amazed by the amount of decent sized nuggets at shallow depths in the more mineralised/variable areas. Quite often its the ability to detect an area and ping that first deep piece that leads to the good discoveries, the Minelab detectors allow that to happen in North QLD. At the end of the day its a great story and at the same time good promotion for the NQ dealer and Minelab, a win win for everyone involved especially the guy who had the good fortune to find the nugget. JP
  23. Bit Of Local Gold

    Just returned from my annual trip away (that's another story for another day), I've been out 3 times detecting since getting home and two of those were training sessions. Yesterday morning it was my turn to do my own thing for a few hours before the heat beat me to a pulp. A few minutes later and I had a plucky 1 gram nugget on a continuation of a spot I detected with my son Timothy back in July (got AU$800 worth off there for the session, much to the delight of his pocket book). There is a fair amount of trash and the obligatory shot gun and 22 bullets along with the added hassle of a high voltage power line, so I had to concentrate on the wide broad deeper sounding targets mixed in with the Sferic and 50 Hz noise, 3 hours of this and you find yourself needing a little lay down. This location is also problematic because it is on a slope above a straight flowing gully so the coil is opened up to even more interference dependent on where you are working on the slope. Long story short I plucked some nice gold for the effort which made the little lay down later on justifiable. Interestingly I pinged a solid 5 gram chunk in my old scrape from the 5000 days, a boomer signal for the GPZ and not that deep so can only assume the quieter running GPZ 7000 was clearly an advantage in a high EMI area. Just below it I got a nice deep warble that made my skin goose bump and sure enough 16 inches down a 13 gram slugster came to light pushing the mornings total to 23 grams of 97%-98% Clermont golden goodness. Considering I spent 2 weeks in WA this year without a piece of gold this was pure heaven especially since I have more signals to investigate over the next few days. The GPZ still continues to amaze me, if only it was lighter and more manageable so that other people could tap into its potential more fully. The weight really does detract from good detecting practices with this technology. The Super D coils really do need to be kept above saturation effect for maximum depth on the deeper pieces, the coil sweep also needs to be evenly controlled, all vital methods that are are adversely impacted upon due to too much outright weight for the average user. JP
  24. Bit Of Local Gold

    The local gold scenario is continuing thanks to a few cool days, here's my take for 4 hours yesterday. This area has produced in the past but EMI has always been an issue, its actually been Sferic noise rather than EMI but either way its been masking all these pieces, thanks to the power of the GPZ Sferic noise is greatly reduced. The speci was deep in hard packed clay, long grass stopped me from investigating further as the speci was away from the main run suggesting there is more to the story. The GPZ is perfect for expanding patches, I tend to find the main locations can often be expanded into territory where nothing has ever turned up, so an ever widening circle out from known ground is an important part of my work flow these days. JP Speci weighs 11 grams so I'd say going by the signal and its depth it has at least 4 grams, so a total of 10 grams for the morning.
  25. A Lighter Weight GPZ 7000?

    Rigidity of design is vital with the GPZ, near zero flex in the shaft is all important for good coil control with the DOD design coil so to that end the housing and shafts used on the GPZ is brilliant, going back to a 5000 the day before yesterday really highlighted that for me. But like Steve said to that end I'm in full agreement. Not only does it have to be a goal is should be a main aim put right up there as being just as important as the detectors performance. I know this sounds like I'm being ungrateful, if I had to choose I OBVIOUSLY would choose what we have, its not really that bad for a 6 foot bloke like me but I have friends who are in their 70's who really do struggle if they use the machine for more than a few hours at a time, that is a window into my future 20 years from now if things don't start to improve gravitationaly speaking (gravity is already taking some cheap shots at my 50 year old carcass as it is ). In my opinion there is an obvious need for a smaller coil for those of us who work in mountainous or tight terrain, an approx 11" coil coming in well under a kilo would help a lot of people right now especially if they used a smaller and lighter CTX battery to help with balance. JP
×