afreakofnature Posted February 13, 2021 Share Posted February 13, 2021 8 minutes ago, Lunk said: It’s my opinion that it will replace the Z only on small to medium sized gold at depth, but certainly not on large nuggets, as the Zed is raw power, while the 6000 seems to have an edge on sensitivity. And with the lighter weight, the 6000 will excell at patch hunting, especially with the 17” mono. Interesting! So my first thought is kind of what Pieter said that day we spoke. Send the infantry in to search and find (GPX6000). The use the artillary to really clean up (GPZ). 😊 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasong Posted February 13, 2021 Share Posted February 13, 2021 If it's that much more sensitive on small gold than the GPZ, and it can run bigger coils, plus it has better EMI and ground filtering which then allow for higher RX gains, why exactly would the GPZ still be better at depth on bigger nuggets? Especially with a 17" mono on the 6000. I'm guessing the small gold increase in sensitivity comes from earlier sampling. But with all that noise filtering why not give us a lot more RX gain to play with too, unless it's kept lower intentionally to not outpunch the GPZ? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Catcher Posted February 13, 2021 Share Posted February 13, 2021 3 minutes ago, afreakofnature said: nteresting! So my first thought is kind of what Pieter said that day we spoke. Send the infantry in to search and find (GPX6000). The use the artillary to really clean up (GPZ An expensive armada....😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afreakofnature Posted February 13, 2021 Share Posted February 13, 2021 1 minute ago, Gold Catcher said: An expensive armada....😉 I know, was thinking that too. 🤔 What to do? 🤔 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunk Posted February 13, 2021 Author Share Posted February 13, 2021 4 minutes ago, jasong said: If it's that much more sensitive on small gold than the GPZ, and it can run bigger coils, plus it has better EMI and ground filtering which then allow for higher RX gains, why exactly would the GPZ still be better at depth on bigger nuggets? Especially with a 17" mono. I'm guessing the small gold increase in sensitivity comes from earlier sampling. But with all that noise filtering why not give us a lot more gain to play with unless it's kept lower intentionally to not outpunch the GPZ? I don’t think that will happen, just by virtue of ZVT vs PI; ZVT simply has more grunt on the big stuff. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunk Posted February 13, 2021 Author Share Posted February 13, 2021 1 minute ago, afreakofnature said: I know, was thinking that too. 🤔 What to do? 🤔 Get a second job, mortgage the house, get an auto title loan...whatever it takes, man!🤣 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afreakofnature Posted February 13, 2021 Share Posted February 13, 2021 Just now, Lunk said: Get a second job, mortgage the house, get an auto title loan...whatever it takes, man!🤣 🤣🤣. I actually did join Upwork to get some side gigs 🤣🤣 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasong Posted February 13, 2021 Share Posted February 13, 2021 15 minutes ago, Lunk said: I don’t think that will happen, just by virtue of ZVT vs PI; ZVT simply has more grunt on the big stuff. I'm not so sure. A 19" spiral Evo on a dinosaur relic of a 4500 can equal or outperform the Z14 on some smooth surface (like Q stuff) nuggets around ~1/4oz. a 17x13 Evo can come into the ballpark on 2-3+ gram stuff, even GB type angular gold. The 6000 has faster sampling, better EMI filtering, better ground balancing, better ground timings, and conceivably more RX gain to take advantage of those advancements. Plus a 17" mono. It's a beast of a machine compared to the 4500 on paper. I don't understand how that won't outpunch the GPZ on big gold. Or really all gold for that matter unless they also restricted the RX gain in order to not out compete the Z on depth. What am I missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunk Posted February 13, 2021 Author Share Posted February 13, 2021 5 minutes ago, jasong said: I'm not so sure. A 19" spiral Evo on a dinosaur relic of a 4500 can equal or outperform the Z14 on some smooth surface (like Q stuff) nuggets around ~1/4oz. a 17x13 can come into the ballpark on 2-3+ gram stuff, even GB type angular gold. The 6000 has faster sampling, better EMI filtering, better ground balancing, better ground timings, and conceivably more RX gain to take advantage of those advancements. Plus a 17" mono. It's a beast of a machine compared to the 4500 on paper. I don't understand how that won't outpunch the GPZ on big gold. Or really all gold for that matter unless they also restricted the RX gain in order to not out compete the Z on depth. What am I missing? When I say big gold, I mean multi-ounce to multi pound nuggets. Guess you'll have to do some side by side comparisons when you get one. Looking forward to your report! 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Catcher Posted February 13, 2021 Share Posted February 13, 2021 21 minutes ago, afreakofnature said: I know, was thinking that too. 🤔 What to do? 🤔 Perhaps selling some expensive dowsing rods to raise some cash for the real thing 🤑 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now