Jump to content
Jin

How Deep Do Today's Detectors Go Compared To Older Technology?

Recommended Posts

I agree with Steve about the research and prospecting skills side of things. It's something I spend every day doing. I'm either researching or learning how the old timers looked for gold and how geology plays its part in understanding where to look.

The thing I wanted to know was am I wasting my time detecting areas that were known for deep gold as newer detectors aren't really punching any deeper than the older ones, (sd2000) especially the detectors that were made or modified to get around the government emission laws. I think Reg has answered my question.

Of course, there's the chance in those areas nobody got it all, but I think my time is better spent in areas of less attention as I just haven't had much success in the flogged areas running a large coil.

Last week I was in the exact spot that the prototypes found good gold. Detected all around that immediate area for nothing. Got me thinking maybe there's no gold left, maybe my detecting skills are poor or maybe this gpz4500 just doesn't go as deep as their detectors did. When you don't have years of experience under your belt all you can do is ask, hence the reason for the original post. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jin, you will see many people post that nobody gets it all and that is very true, I have gone over areas that have been used for rallies that have been hammered to death for over 40 years and I still find stuff, With your 4500 it is just a matter of getting the settings right and the right coil and with the right ground conditions you could find what others left behind,

If you are unsure of your skills, carry a note pad and write down your settings and ground condition etc then you will have something to go back too, even after all these years I still log the important things, But don't be afraid to try something new, like settings etc, just because someone gives you their hot settings does not mean they will work for you or where you detect. Knowledge is a major part of it but being able to adapt to the current conditions is a big part of a good prospectors arsenal.

J.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true, one cannot talk about detector depth without taking into consideration other variables, GB advances, different timings, even audio advances, and importantly different operators and who knows in what direction progress will be made in the future. I have a patch that with a lot of time with the PIs especially the SDC, and the Z you will get a few colours but only shallow yet that patch yielded to the A2B onto the GM2 thousands of colours with very few above a gram in weight in bugger all time. No doubt the Monster with time will score a few more there.

Another patch is different and it has yielded gold at depth and I know it will be so for many more years giving up more to tech advances whether  GB advances, different timings or simply depth advances. The Z 19" s magic exploited that and proved it up, if that patch were pushed many more ozs may come to light, but for me I`m content to leave it as is, a top proving ground patch, plus I`ve experienced what pushing returns, mostly not enough to pay for the diesel.

That completely hunted and dead patch will have this old fella on it in a blink if I too get those GPS Coords , Steve.:wink:

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW guys....what a great thread. I have too much going through my head right now & not the time to put it down in a post. Will be back on this one. Cheers

JW :smile:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2017 at 3:38 AM, Steve Herschbach said:

Honest opinions well stated don't need to stir a hornet's nest. It is the various side commentary where things tend to go astray. I am a big fan of dispassionate observation and leave the  rest out.

Same deal with PI in my opinion. The Minelab SD series in the late 1990's hits large deep gold about as far as it can be hit. The SD series was not that hot on small gold but that helped it on big gold since it is insensitive to many ground and hot rock issues also. Every Minelab PI model since has focused on improving threshold stability and sensitivity to small nuggets or tackling specific hot rock/salt issues. The GPZ further exploits PI weakness on porous or specimen gold, but I am not one of those that thinks it offers any significant improvement on large solid, sluggy gold in most normal circumstances.

As far as the big picture goes I think the bulk of the tech maxed out in the 1990's. What has gone on since is refinement and machines targeting specific weak areas of prior machines. But max depth on larger targets is a very tough nut to crack and I honestly don't pay much attention to claims made in that area. I avoid making such claims myself. The gains if any are so small and so target and site dependent it always boils down to opinionated hair splitting arguments - a waste of time.

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

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all JP, great stuff, just people expressing opinions. I certainly give a lot of weight to yours! Thanks for posting :smile:

Funny, I never thought of myself as a GPZ skeptic. I have total faith in mine finding gold if I get over it, including large nuggets at depth.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the 4500, I guess these many soil timing are to fill in the holes where certain types of nuggets fall through the net, I kind of hope ML bring out a 5500/6000 because the GPX series have been hugely successful and it would be a shame to phase them out in the end,

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2017 at 12:34 PM, Jin said:

The thing I wanted to know was am I wasting my time detecting areas that were known for deep gold as newer detectors aren't really punching any deeper than the older ones, (sd2000) especially the detectors that were made or modified to get around the government emission laws. I think Reg has answered my question.

Of course, there's the chance in those areas nobody got it all, but I think my time is better spent in areas of less attention as I just haven't had much success in the flogged areas running a large coil.

Last week I was in the exact spot that the prototypes found good gold. Detected all around that immediate area for nothing. Got me thinking maybe there's no gold left, maybe my detecting skills are poor or maybe this gpz4500 just doesn't go as deep as their detectors did. When you don't have years of experience under your belt all you can do is ask, hence the reason for the original post. 

Jin, it can be a bit of a combination of factors which vary between spots. 

The 4500 is well up to the task to find big deep lumps, it's just that people don't really set them up to target big gold. 

In milder/medium mineralisation I'd be using the biggest DD you can get your hands on and Sharp timing.

In hotter soils I'd be using Enhance and a big mono, 19" Evo or 20" NFA or 22" Gold Stalker. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic but highlighted by PhaseTech's post - Am I wrong or has there been precious little attention paid to the Sharp timings on the GPX models? That timing is extraordinary if used in the right way in the right environment. I do wish someone who has had experience using it would publish a short note on how it was to work with and their results with it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By phrunt
      Has anyone had any experience with these things? 

      Electromagnetic and magnetic interferences could be extremely annoying when you are looking for that hard to find gold nugget. Most of the noise is picked up by the search coil but a significant level of noise is being picked up as well by the sensitive electronics inside the control box.
      The control box is made of aluminium therefore the magnetic field easily penetrates it.
      To prove that, approach a magnet to the right side of your detector when switched on. 
      Millions of less obvious noise signals are interfering with your detector.  
      We have developed this Shield from the best quality material primarily used in sensitive 
      medical and scientific electronics. After years of studying and testing different materials we have found this one ticks all the boxes. 
      I have revisited the places where I've previously cleaned up and found more gold after installing the shield.
      It is 0.35 mm thick, held firmly around your control box by the armrest and  the new improved version with dual layer shielding on the right side is only 175 g!
      We have tested it on the GPX 5000 with amazing results such as quieter threshold, better GB, resulting in slightly increased depth.
      The shield allows you to increase the Rx gain by a notch or two without compromising the threshold. Use Inverted Response when hunting for big deep nuggets. 
      https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/MAGNETIC-INTERFERENCE-REDUCER-SHIELD-FOR-MINELAB-GOLD-DETECTORS/232594646908?hash=item3627b8a77c:g:8lEAAOSwYGFU0bvu
      I noticed it on Ebay today while I was looking for a cover for my GPX.
      I have noticed I've been able to quieten down my GPX by opening the control box up and scraping some paint away where the shielding touches the casing, on one end they had scraped away paint from one screw point during production, and the other end had no paint scraped away at all by the factory so it's sheilding was basically useless.  By scraping paint away from a few areas on each end of the detector I was able to give the GPX a bit of a noticable quieten down.  I am sure on later models Minelab would of scraped away more paint but as mine is a very early model made in Australia version this wasn't done.
       
       
       
       
    • By Steve Herschbach
      We just went through a few years on constant releases of new prospecting detectors. And now the flood has subsided, with almost nothing on the horizon.
      There is the “any moment now” Makro Gold Kruzer, running at 61 kHz and waterproof to 15 feet. After that however it gets pretty thin.
      First Texas has new detectors in the works, but nothing rumored that is aimed specifically at prospecting this year, but maybe later. Right now a PI beach detector appears to be up next. Garrett - maybe they are working on it but personally I have given up waiting on a lighter weight ATX. Tesoro - nothing going to happen there obviously.
      Minelab still “owes” us GPZ owners a smaller coil but with Equinox occupying all their efforts....?
      Nok/Mak outside of the Gold Kruzer has been working on a PI for years, but absolutely no hints on it getting any closer to market.
      XP I thought might bring a version of the low cost DPR 600 to first world markets but no sign of it happening.
      And White’s? Who knows. Maybe we will see a repackaged GMT but the shine has worn off of repackaged detectors these days.
      Long story short is it often takes new detectors to stir up activity on forums. For now at least the future is looking pretty quiet. The good news is we can just focus on using what we already have to best effect without being tempted or distracted by new shiny toys! 
    • By oldmancoyote1
      Hi Steve:
      Just re-read your "Steve's Guide to Threshold, Autotune..."  It helped a lot.  Thanks.  
      I do have a question though.  I understand V/SAT.  It's about how fast autotune re-adjusts the threshold after encountering some disturbance like a target.  However, I'm unclear on how that relates to Ground Balancing and Tracking.  It sounds like they are the same.  Would you please explain that?
      Thanks
    • By wanderer
      What are some of the least expensive pi machines? Can used ones be found?
    • By vive equinox
      Hello , 
      It would be great if the youtubers like calabash and others  who have lot of followers make a video of that to share at maximum .
      - Take 12-15 differents coins of your country ( the coins you use all the day ) 
      -Make a pile (heap ?) with that coins ,like a little tower 
      -Keep this pile beetween your thumb and other finger .
      -Swing that in front of the coil , at 3-4 inches , the side of the coins ! 
      -Now try that with all the detect mode , not need to change factory presets ( maybe only the accept to 0,1,2 in field 2 ) , you are free to try differents settings later .
      -The only and important setting for the moment is to change frequency , try 5,10,15,20,40 and multi in each detect mode . Of course multi in the two beach and 20,40,mutli in gold .
      What is happening ?
      I know the results , but i want to know the result of the coins of USA,England, australia ,canada .... So please share your results in comments or video
      Make that with different detectors , if you have impact or deus or other who have various frequency , try to switch all frequency . 
      You can try that with HF white coil if you have , but ....
       
      The conclusion is multi IQ obsolete the others single freq .   It is more or less to say what calabash said in his video .
       
      We can debate of that .
×