Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'detector tech'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Metal Detecting & Gold Prospecting Forums
    • Detector Prospector Forum
    • Metal Detecting For Coins & Relics
    • Metal Detecting For Jewelry
    • Metal Detecting For Meteorites
    • Gold Panning, Sluicing, Dredging, Drywashing, Etc
    • Rocks, Minerals, Gems & Geology
    • Metal Detecting & Prospecting Classifieds
  • Archive - Closed To Active Posting
    • Forum News
    • Amazing Finds
    • Gold & Treasure News
    • Research
    • General Questions
    • Metal Detector Advice, Reviews, & Comparisons
    • Metal Detector Technology
    • Fisher Gold Bug Metal Detector
    • Fisher Gold Bug 2 Metal Detector
    • Garrett ATX Metal Detector
    • Makro Racer Metal Detector
    • Minelab GPZ 7000 Metal Detector
    • Minelab GPX Metal Detectors
    • Minelab SDC 2300 Metal Detector
    • Minelab SD & GP Metal Detectors
    • Nokta FORS Metal Detectors
    • White's MX Sport Metal Detector
    • White's TDI Metal Detectors
    • XP DEUS Metal Detector
    • Other Metal Detectors
    • Pinpointers, Headphones, Harnesses, Scoops, and Other Accessories
    • ATVs, Vehicles, Trailers, Campers
    • Alaska
    • Arizona
    • California
    • Nevada
    • Other States
    • Australia
    • Other Countries
    • Miscellaneous

Categories

  • Catalogs & Brochures
  • Owners Manuals
  • Minelab CTX 3030 Programs
  • Spreadsheets

Calendars

  • Calendar

Found 67 results

  1. One thing I have never heard talked about I don't think. Is does what we see as far as reaction to differing targets' conductivity (and size) wise using discrimination with Vlf metal detector,,when using different frequencies,,,does this carry over to the All Metal side of the house??? In terms of separation and depth,,,with all other things being equal. Solo sitting nonferrous targets,,deeper,,,does frequency make a difference? Is it as critical as when using discrimination side of detector?? Just maybe the reason,,this has not been addressed is because there aren't that many detectors that can toggle to different frequencies while wearing the the same coil. I plan to be running AM next week weather permitting,,,and could use any and all worthy info maybe to help me. I have used all metal,,not a whole lot,,,certainly not with Xp Deus,,,I can't keep it tuned. Would like to hear some folks weigh in here,,,and besides this new Impact detector is right around the corner for some. They may could use some worthy info too like me.
  2. Hi steve Herschbach Sir Hope you are good Sir i want to buy metal detector that can detect upto 15 feet I belong to pakistan Here the soil is mineralized Some people suggested me GPZ 7000 Some suggested the jeo hunter 3d dual pack (made in turkey) I have also searched the BR Royal Analyzer Basic which is launched recently in 2017 Sir i want the best detector thats why i need your help Pls suggest me the best detector . Waiting for your reply Sir
  3. Like a lot of people I like keeping up on the latest and greatest. I am always on the lookout for something new in detecting. However, now that we have several forums I have been thinking about what constitutes a prospecting detector these days as opposed to machines made for coin or relic detecting. It is obvious that any detector specifically marketed as a prospecting detector is of interest on this forum. Ones where the advertising clearly is all about gold prospecting. The problem is mostly with VLF detectors and the fact that nearly any decent VLF detector made these days can double as a prospecting metal detector. Machines designed to run in the "teens" from 13 kHz to 19 kHz are overrunning the market. Most are marketed as general purpose machines. Sure, you can also use them for prospecting, but there is nothing in particular about them that makes them of special interest to prospectors. Two recent example on the forum; the Nokta Impact and the Rutus Alter 71. These are two new entries that run up to 20 kHz and 18.4 kHz respectively, and which can be used for prospecting along with the other uses the machines were designed for. However, neither of these detectors is being marketed specifically to prospectors but are aimed mostly at coin and relic hunters. I don't care too much where threads start out. This forum software is really great and just keeps getting better. I can move threads around easily, and I can leave a thirty day temporary link pointing to the new location. An example right now is my moving the Nokta Impact thread from the Detector Prospector Forum to the Metal Detecting For Coins & Relic Forum. In general from now on most new threads on VLF detectors will get started in the Coin & Relic Forum, or, after they start here, get moved when interest wanes on the DP Forum. Exceptions will be VLF type detectors that really are marketed specifically for prospecting, or which have exceptional capability in that regard. I do not consider machines running at 20 khz or lower to be rare any more. However, any VLF detector that offers 30 kHz or higher is exceptional still and so will get my interest as a possible nugget detector. No big deal and nothing anyone need worry about. I will keep stuff sorted out but just wanted people to know what the rationale is behind some of the moves.
  4. 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.
  5. The reality here is there are a lot of great do it all detectors that are fabulous for jewelry detecting. A lot waterproof beach detectors are for all intents and purposes jewelry detectors. Yet as many people as there are for whom jewelry is the number one thing, I do not recall any company ever selling a detector that specifically targeted that market. White's has a leg up in a way in my opinion. The DFX with BigFoot is my favorite park and field jewelry detector. The Big Foot coil is a large part of that, but the DFX 15 kHz raw "un-normalized" mode is hot on jewelry and the SignaGraph is one of the best jewelry hunting digital displays ever designed in my opinion. I think there is a market for a premium price machine sporting a BigFoot type coil, running in a native 15 kHz type range. This does cause coin responses to lump up on the high end but spreads out responses on various aluminum items, allowing certain pull tabs etc to be better identified, and if need be, ignored. There has to be an ability to notch items, especially on the high end. One thing I do not like is machines with discrimination schemes that assume you are looking for coins and do not allow the high end to be blocked out. If I am cherry picking for gold jewelry, it is the high end coin range I am likely to block out, not anything in the low end. A stripped down DFX would be the ticket, or, if White's does not want any new metal box designs, something similar in the MX Sport package. Tesoro could easily come out with a machine that used a Cleansweep coil mated to a properly designed Golden uMax if they went for a tone based unit. Or, a machine with dual disc controls. One knob starts at the bottom and eliminates items as you turn it up, just like a normal disc knob. But I want a second knob that starts at the top end, and eliminates items into the coin range as you turn it down. These two knobs could either be straight forward reject item controls, or better yet, set the break point for three tones. Turning the one knob up sets the low to med tone break, and the other knob the med to high tone break. I tried to get Makro to make a BigFoot coil, but nothing has come of it so far. Mated to a Racer 2 you would have a great unit. An X-Terra 705 in native 18.75 kHz mode with a BigFoot/Cleansweep would do the trick. A Fisher F44 with a Cleansweep coil - water resistant! The key to all this is name the machine so that people know it is a jewelry detector, and sell it as a jewelry detector. Given that nobody makes a BigFoot right now Tesoro could do this with more of less off the shelf parts if they desired, and it would help freshen up their lineup.
  6. Well, it is that time of year that I always get the itch to by a new detector. I am primarily a beach hunter here in So. Cal., so I have owned most of the latest and greatest detectors that are suitable for wet sand. The CTX 3030, E-trac, CZ 21, Dual Field, ATX, TDI SL just to name a few. Here are my thoughts....regardless of brand, there is little discernible difference between high end multi frequency machines. The same goes for pulse machines, no real performance difference say between a TDI SL and a Dual field. With that said, I am going to hold off buying any new detectors for a awhile. It is my opinion only that current pulse and VLF technology has reach its limits. Again, I am referencing technology for beach hunting and maybe even coin shooting. I will be in the new detector market only when new technology offers one of two things: 1. When a multi-frequency (discriminating) machine can cut through black sand like a pulse (or) 2. When and if a true discriminating pulse detector becomes available. What are your thoughts?
  7. I was looking at some old metal detector catalogs and got a chuckle out of these charts from the 1973 Garrett catalog. People get up in arms about advertising claims these days but get a look at these. To their credit they say "large metal objects" and do not define what that is (dump truck?) but we are talking 1973 BFO detectors here. I need to ditch my new detectors and get one of those old machines! Unfortunately depths were measured in inches then, not feet, on normal targets. The irony is the page is addressing "misleading advertising".
  8. I keep reading and hearing that a person will find MORE nuggets with a good VLF unit than a PI unit and my questions is WHY? If a person has a good PI machine that they know how to run that will find nuggets as small as a few tenths of a gram, in highly mineralized soil among Hot rocks where a VLF won't work or will at least Struggle to work, as well as in milder soil, then How can a VLF find more gold for them? I am completely New to Nugget hunting with a detector so take that in to account when answering please. But it would seem to me that the PI units would be the way to go if a person just had One machine to use? What am i Not understanding? Any info appreciated. Thanks
  9. I am curious as to which machine you prefer for inland gold jewelry hunting and why. Always like learning about other peoples machines and methods. Thank you.
  10. A pretty fascinating set of photos posted over at http://md-hunter.com/homemade-metal-detector-amazing-photos/
  11. What kind of HMI (human/machine interface) do you like in a metal detector? Asking for... a friend. CONTROLS- Knobs or buttons? One control per function or menu-based? If menu-based what kind of controls do you like to have at your fingertips? Examples of machines that, in your mind, "got it right" when it comes to controls AUDIO- Do you prefer beep and dig, or do you prefer machines that have "language" (i.e. multiple tones)? Any thoughts on Stereo Mixed Mode (like V3i - all metal in one ear, toneID in the other)? Iron ID - prefer a threshold NULL or a GRUNT? DISPLAY- What kind of info is essential for you to see? (personally I don't like screens, prefer to look at my surroundings) Thanks to any who share their thoughts on this. I know it depends on what kind of machine, but for the sake of this thread let's say it's some flavor of VLF that is geared towards prospecting.
  12. Over on the Geotec Forum, somebody (probably not a native speaker of English) posted a long rant on how all the folks over there were wasting their time trying to experiment with pulse induction detectors, that the future was with induction balance machines (or complex machines with IB coils such as the GPZ). Eric Foster (who is generally acknowledged as being the pioneer of bringing the PI concept out of the physics lab and into field use) tossed the BS flag. See below. Here is Erics input. After 50 years in PI there is no way I am goes to stop. PI is everywhere, airport security, underwater wreck hunting, gas and oil pipeline detection, tramp metal detection in mines and quarries, the best military and humanitarian mine detectors are PI. From what I see on this forum, there is a lot of very valuable and novel development work in PI being done by enthusiasts, outside of the largely secretive manufacturing establishments. Long may it continue.There is plenty of room on this forum for all technologies, so there is no basis to feel threatened. Maybe Funfinder just had a bad dream in which he was encircled by PI detectorists displaying all their finds. Even the Grim Reaper has swapped his scythe for a PI detector Eric. Having said that - are conventional PI detectors for nugget hunting in the same position as the Super Constellation or DC-7 - perfect piston driven airliners but a concept not capable of further development? ML's newest detector is a complex sort of hybrid and it uses IB searchcoils. Here is the link - the discussion runs to two pages now and is pretty interesting - including Carl Moreland (Carl NC) chiming in for more work on BFO's! http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?23511-Stop-building-PI-detectors!
  13. Tieing into what daniel TN is saying for the only drawbacks...that is why i made those two wishes(see below). I could use my Wish 1 V series(multifrequency) unit for most everything but really tough ground where i would want my wish 2 gold/relic unit. It's all about customer demand and numbers for these small manufacturers in the metal detecting space. I think often we the metal detector customers dont call the owners and let them know what is going on. Other causes call the owners, collect numbers online that show support, and gather money support online which always directs and causes change. Personally like many of you folks i get tired of waiting for the best machines to come out. Especially gold machines which can pay for themselves. I also get these companies are small and don't have infinite resources. But i think in the new online modern age WE can change that model. Like many folks today we can put up money for a kickstarter or indiegogo effort if white's would agree to such a crowd sourced development effort. Just like all other kickstarter/indiegogo cases those that invest larger amounts equal to the unit price get a free unit and more. For instance a 1000 investor/customers for each would be worth like... Wish 1 unit cost~2k-- available funding=2 million dollars Wish 2 unit cost-4k- available funding=4 million dollars I dont know if this the amount they need, less, or more to develop these units, it would depend on what White's said. But if minelab took 10 million for development of GPZ as folks are claiming online. i think 6 million dollars could get the job done quickly for whites on these two "wish" machines or something similar! And they would get out the top 2 machines price/function wise on the high end for all metal detectorists. Steve--maybe this is something you talk to White's on and co-lead with White's the online/partners effort for? Reminder of wishes... Wish 1---ultra-ultra rugged/water proof design(leupold like casing) for the V series. Shouldnt be too hard since leupold makes their stuff in newberg, oregon at 3D plastics not too far from whites electronics HQ. Want it to be chest mountable. Would love it if they could do what depar and xp are doing and add that fourth frequency for gold hunting! Then all of my gmt and mxsport coils could work on that unit. Wish 2--same type of cased design as wish 1. But i want a super high power--nautilus level voltage(44Volts) + TDI level current--multi channel pulse gold/relic detector. I want more power to punch deeper into rough ground! I would also like some type of auto ground tuning to check strength, phase and other properties. While asking for my holy grail i want it to optimize the channels/pulses/machine to reduce the effect of the ground and environment around the machine based on profiles i setup on the fly or ahead of time. Also how about some ultra light weight accessory coils to compete with mindlab's new GPZ coils! Miner john, Coiltech or Detech could build these for white's if they think they are too low volume to make themselves.
  14. https://blog.csiro.au/finding-gold-rush/ Not for us folks but maybe of interest.
  15. The following information is from an apparent leak from a First Texas distributor meeting? The link is posted at http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/555-new-fisher-pulse-induction-multi-frequency-detectors/?p=10571 as part of the thread about upcoming Fisher products that have been circulating for a couple years. These leaks seem to jive with previous statements by Tom Mallory of First Texas. The main one of interest to the people on this forum would be a new CZX model aimed at gold prospecting. Here is the text from the posted screen shot: CZX - Fisher and Teknetics This machine is ground breaking technologyTurn on and go2 frequency - 9:1 ratioNo need to ground balance or adjust the detector to the environmentIt automatically senses the ground and makes changes accordingly.First detector birthed from this platform is a gold unit priced around $1000, but deeper than current VLF, this detector will also see through red dirt, and highly mineralized soil.From this platform other machines will develop. We intend to develop the CZX and MOSCA platforms to offer more machines in the $1000 to $2000 range than have ever been available.Target release 2016We have senior engineer Dave Johnson on this projectThe "Mosca" platform referred to is further described and apparently is aimed more at being a general purpose non-prospecting detector (coins, jewelry, relics). Again, here is the text from the posted screen shot: "Mosca" Fisher and Teknetics Waterproof up to 10' (3 meters)Wireless headphones - Waterproof loop and connectors for headphones2 frequency - 7:1 ratioHobby/Treasure Market - Great for Saltwater, Relic, CoinAuto Ground TrackingSingle Pod DesignLCD Pad, control buttons, 2 AA batteriesArm Pad in rearRetail target - $1200 - $2000Target release 2016We have dedicated engineers on this project OK, so a gold unit around $1000 that goes deeper than current VLF designs. I also have high hopes that knowing the proclivities of the engineer, Dave Johnson, that it will be relatively light and ergonomic. Dave also prefers simple and the design statements reflect that. We seriously need something that brings gold detector weights and prices back to earth and so hopefully this will be it. I have stated over and over again I would be very happy with ATX equivalent performance in a less expensive lightweight package. Garrett so far seems disinclined to make that unit but they have a year at least before it may be a moot point. The CZX would have to obsolete the White's TDI as it is aimed squarely at or below the same price point and unless it beats TDI performance would be dead on arrival. We will not have long to wait - 2016 is coming fast!
  16. Perhaps of interest, a place to collect info of detectors from our past and their modifications. There were a few homegrown detectors about in the 80`s in OZ, their manufacturers no longer operating, perhaps also were others throughout the world, these were "the building blocks" of the sophisticated machines we use now. Some like the Goldseekers 12000 which lead to ML, and another that enjoyed some popularity was the Bridgewright. This photo is of a Bounty Hunter RB10 that has a added pot on the front near coil plug, I believe this modification may have come from not yet ML technicians back around 83-84, unfortunately I`ve lost the operator instructions which had a extra page explaining the use of this pot in GBing the detector.
  17. Announced it today – three tones graphic screen under $100
  18. Is such a thing possible? I think we still have a ways to go to get the optimum gold nugget detector. Why is it that 2 or even 3 detectors might be needed if you want to succeed? Well, you need discrimination on a lot of sites due to ferrous trash - as of today, that means you need a VLF. Unless you have a GPZ, you probably need both a GPX and an SDC to cover the spectrum of tiny shallow to deep large nuggets. VLF's can discriminate but mineralization kills their depth in many areas. GPX machines can do most of it, but don't discriminate (much) and force the operator to choose between several very different set-ups (Each with its own set of trade-offs) depending on conditions of ground and likely targets. SDC kills on small gold and is easy to use but can't discriminate and is depth limited. Even the GPZ, for all it's depth and versitility is not easy to master and costs many ounces of gold. Can a new technical approach give us a detector which deals with all these issues at once? What would this miracle detector have to do? Ease of use - It would have to be "turn on and go". Mineralization - it would have to deal,with the most highly mineralized ground - without use of adjustment and without danger of "tuning out" small targets. Sensitivity - It would have to have sensitivity to small gold at least equal to the best current VLF detectors. Depth - it doesn't have to equal the GPZ or even GPX in raw depth, but it would have to deliver more depth than the SDC - and equal the depth of the best VLF's - and do so in any ground. Will those of us who are over 60 ever see such a "Wunderwaffe"? ---- I have my hopes. What would you pay for such a machine?
  19. Here is a machine I have not heard of before: http://www.metaldetector.com/drs-ground-exper-metal-detector?awt_l=3I64Qc&awt_m=K4CvxdoyBVWfZf It looks interesting but does it really work? I haven't even heard of the company before. Anyone have any info on this? There are quite a few videos which I haven't watched yet - but will. Just thought I would throw it out there for discussion.
  20. Just curious as to whether a gold detector can detect through several inches of bedrock?
  21. Has anyone here ever made their own gold detector from scratch or a kit? Any recommendations?
  22. From the Codan news release at http://www.codan.com.au/Portals/0/investorpubs/22 AXS Announcement - Minelab awarded $6.7m contract.pdf (copy below): "Cooperating with NIITEK Inc., the HDD will combine Minelab’s new Multiple Frequency Continuous Wave metal detection technology and NIITEK’s advanced ground penetrating radar." 31 August 2016 MINELAB AWARDED CONTRACT TO DEVELOP NEW HANDHELD DEVICE DETECTOR FOR THE AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE Minelab Electronics, a wholly owned subsidiary of Codan Limited, has been awarded a $6.7m contract by the Department of Defence to develop a new Handheld Device Detector (HDD). The funding received under this contract is to further develop a dual sensor metal detector which incorporates ground penetrating radar. It will partially offset the development costs of the product, and the project is expected to be completed by 2018. The development of the HDD builds on Minelab's success in technology development and product innovation for use in military programmes. Codan is particularly pleased to be of service to the ADF and to provide an enhanced capability that currently does not exist. Once the HDD enters into service with the ADF, we are confident that other militaries will seek the same level of capability, broadening our market for countermine products. The contract supports Codan's stated strategy of growing its profitability by improving and broadening our product offerings while ensuring our value propositions remain relevant and leading-edge. Previous to this award, in March 2014, Minelab was selected by the Department of Defence's Rapid Prototype Development and Evaluation (RPDE) programme to receive $1.0m in funding to further integrate metal detection and ground penetration radar technologies into a lightweight and compact mechanical platform. In December 2014, RPDE provided an additional $1.3m in funding, and Minelab subsequently produced an advanced prototype of the HDD. Cooperating with NIITEK Inc., the HDD will combine Minelab's new Multiple Frequency Continuous Wave metal detection technology and NIITEK's advanced ground penetrating radar. The HDD was designed taking into account the comprehensive requirements of the ADF, supplemented with feedback from Army User Groups. It will include advanced detection technologies as well as new standards of compactness and ergonomics. On behalf of the Board Michael Barton Company Secretary MORE INFORMATION ON THE NIITEK/MINELAB GROUNDSHARK
  23. This one by Dave Johnson of First Texas. of course a patent isn't a product and not every PI detector has ground exclusion and can be useful for nugget hunting - but still. https://hobby-detecting.com/download/documents/FTH-0005-02-US US9366778.pdf
  24. Just thought I'd start a new topic to get some discussion going. There seems to be more detectors on the market then ever. Yes a lot are variations on the same thing, but there are a few unique models such as GPZ7000, SDC2300, Gold Racer, Deus, etc. So what detector in your mind doesn't exist? Could a certain manufacturer mangle together a few of their features/patents and build something unique? Just curious
  25. When I posted the video showing the Makro Gold Racer recovery speed using two nails and a gold ring, it caused me to reflect on the various internet nail tests. Nearly all employ modern round nails, when these items rarely present issues. The common VDI (visual discrimination scale) puts ferrous items at the low end of the scale, and items with progressively increasing conductivity higher on the scale. The problem is the size of items also matters. Small gold is low on the scale, and the larger the gold, the higher it reads on the scale. A silver quarter reads higher than a silver dime, etc. All manner of ferrous trash including medium and smaller nails fall where they should when using discrimination and are easily tuned out. The problem is large iron and steel items, and ferrous but non-magnetic materials like stainless steel. Steel plates, large bolts, broken large square nails, axe heads, hammer heads, broken pry bar and pick tips, etc. all tend to read as high conductive targets. Usually it is just the sheer size pushing it higher up the scale. Detectors also love things with holes, which makes for a perfect target by enabling and enhancing near perfect eddy currents, making items appear larger than they really are. Steel washers and nuts are a big problem in this regard, often reading as non-ferrous targets. Oddball shapes cause problems, particularly in flat sheet steel. Old rusted cans often separate into irregular shaped flat pieces, and roofing tin (plated steel) and other sheet steel items are my number one nemesis around old camp sites. Bottle caps present a similar issue in modern areas. These items produce complex "sparky" eddy currents with both ferrous and non-ferrous indications. Many thin flat steel items produce remarkably good gold nugget type signals in old camp areas. Two general tips. Concentric coils often handle ferrous trash better than DD coils. A DD coil is often the culprit when dealing with bottle caps where a concentric coil often makes them easy to identify. Another thing is to use full tones. Many ferrous items are producing both ferrous and non-ferrous tones. Blocking ferrous tones allows only the non-ferrous tone to be heard, giving a clear "dig me" signal. This was the real bane of single tone machines with a simple disc knob to eliminate ferrous objects. You still heard the non-ferrous portion of the signal. Multi tones allows you to hear the dual ferrous/non-ferrous reports from these troublesome items, helping eliminate most of them. Certain detectors can also show multiple target responses on screen at once, like the White's models featuring the SignaGraph (XLT, DFX, etc.) and CTX with target trace. These displays show target "smearing" that stands out differently from the clean VDI responses produced by most good items. A machine with a simple VDI numeric readout can only show you one number at a time and the on,y indication you might get is "dancing" numbers that refuse to lock on. Usually though the predominate response overrides and fakes you out. This is where a good high end visual display capable of putting all VDI response on screen simultaneously can really help out. I have been collecting these odd iron and steel items to practice with and to help me evaluate which machines might do best in ferrous trash. The main thing I wanted to note here is contrived internet videos with common round nails often present a misleading picture. Many machines do very well on nails yet fail miserably on flat steel.