Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I probably didn't word it correctly. I'm not asking for more controls for the sake of controls. What I was poorly trying to say is that removing too much from us leaves us vulnerable to no options if the machine, for some reason does not work in my area. Even though it says all gold, all soils, all the time, I'm a bit hesitant to give all the control to automated features. Even though the 5000 has a lot of combinations in it, I can say for sure that the 4800 would not do for me what the 5000 does because of the 5000's extra timings. The Blisstool ūüėÜ that is an example of what I don't want. Even when it came out it was a no go for me. After watching one video that was supposed to make it look good, I saw things that I did not like. Anyways, my point was that if it works, I will eat my words, but if it doesn't work as advertised, you spent a lot of money, and can't do anything about it. If the Equinox did not have single frequencies, I would not have been able to continue some of the archaeology projects I was on, due to EMI. It was an option that made the difference in success or failure. I hope it does work for all the gold guys that can find great things without any need for different settings.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a matter of not having more controls but the right controls. A turnoff for me is having a machine everyone else has that is so automatic that just leaves the chance of finding something just a matter of walking where they didn't. Removing the skill factor takes a lot away from the hobby for me.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2021 at 6:15 PM, kac said:

Not a matter of not having more controls but the right controls. A turnoff for me is having a machine everyone else has that is so automatic that just leaves the chance of finding something just a matter of walking where they didn't. Removing the skill factor takes a lot away from the hobby for me.

IMO you nailed a big concern among many experienced detectorists.  We all acknowledge the competition between manufacturers but there is also a competition among detectorists themselves.

I've seen this same concern in other areas -- the rich wanting to stay rich (figuratively).  (That's not a slam.)  A lot of sweat time went into becoming a good detectorist and they don't want that neutralized by a detector that turns a less experienced user into an expert, leveling the playing field.

Is that a realistic concern?  I think the answer is 'yes', to an extent.  But if the more experienced take advantage of the new technology then they will stay ahead of the less-experienced competition.  However, from what I've seen in other areas the edge decreases.

And we still don't really know for whom the GPX 6000 is a (relative) advantage....

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes competition is a concern, many of my finds last year were in some of the worst areas I could hunt. The other concern is I enjoy the challenge. Just walking around waiting for a beep seems boring. I like investigating signals and that mental debate to dig or not to dig. To me that makes the hobby.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kac said:

Not a matter of not having more controls but the right controls. A turnoff for me is having a machine everyone else has that is so automatic that just leaves the chance of finding something just a matter of walking where they didn't. Removing the skill factor takes a lot away from the hobby for me.

Actually, the most difficult part is putting the coil above gold, at least here in the US. Many gold producing areas are depleted, and it gets harder and harder to find nuggets, unless you have access to private claims. You can still be succesfull but you have to do a lot of research and planing, much more so than in earlier days. What kind of detector you are then using is somewhat less important. I would say it contributes to about 30%, which of course can still make a big difference. So, even though the 6000 might make everyone a better detectorist due to automation, you still need to know where to look. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, kac said:

Not a matter of not having more controls but the right controls. A turnoff for me is having a machine everyone else has that is so automatic that just leaves the chance of finding something just a matter of walking where they didn't. Removing the skill factor takes a lot away from the hobby for me.

You said it better than me KAC in a lot less words.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kac said:

The other concern is I enjoy the challenge. Just walking around waiting for a beep seems boring. I like investigating signals and that mental debate to dig or not to dig. To me that makes the hobby.

And again.   

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Blisstool has a ton of external controls. Many could have been just factory fixed settings on the circuit board and they could have then built 5 different models. Such as Compadre to Tejon.........................Guess Bliss didn't want to that and gave to the detector owner operator full control so you can operate it like a Compadre or Tejon so to speak. Mild to wild. What's nice, I have a choice how to set it up with no limitations. But, its a beep and dig, you have to mentally visualize and understand the controls. Kind of like learning a foreign language. Takes time.  Modern machine have push buttons and pictures (icons) graphs bars to show what is happening, and a software processor doing the work, makes it very easy to learn how to use a detector.  The Bliss Beast and the Nokta Simplex covers my bases for most of my needs.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, kac said:

Not a matter of not having more controls but the right controls. A turnoff for me is having a machine everyone else has that is so automatic that just leaves the chance of finding something just a matter of walking where they didn't. Removing the skill factor takes a lot away from the hobby for me.

That is my biggest concern. I need to be able to tweak a machine, but not like the BlisstoolūüėĄ I already speak another language and I do it poorly, so I don't want to control everything.¬† Also, the skill factor is a big one for me too. I like the adventure that detecting brings. The thought put into where and how to hunt a location. I guess if they make it simple and very effective, it becomes more of a race to get the goods. I guess what Gold Catcher said is true. You still have to have the insight to find the actual location. That is what will make the difference in a flooded market.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Gold Catcher said:

Actually, the most difficult part is putting the coil above gold, at least here in the US. Many gold producing areas are depleted, and it gets harder and harder to find nuggets, unless you have access to private claims. You can still be succesfull but you have to do a lot of research and planing, much more so than in earlier days. What kind of detector you are then using is somewhat less important.

You can replace the word 'gold' with {coins, relics, jewelry} and your point still rings true.  50+ years of easily accessible and affordable detectors have taken their toll on every corner of detecting.  Just like modern improvement allow the weekend gold detectorist to scrape out a few nuggets left behind, the same is true for these other targets.  (I realize the GPX-6000 is nearly exclusively for native gold, but breakthroughs/improvements in other detectors lead to parallel opportunities.)  As you note, there are still some unsearched locations but most are private (requiring permission not always easily obtained) and almost all are off the beaten path.  Most of the low hanging fruit is long gone.

  • Like 2
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 GB_Amateur
      This is a topic relevant to every(?) form of detecting -- ground coverage.  I'll list several questions concerns I've had but any replies of course aren't limited to these, nor do they need to address  any of them.  Just tossing out some ideas to prompt further discussion.
      1) What methods and efforts do you apply to ensure full ground coverage in the cases where that is one of your goals?
      2) Is your sweep a straight line path or an arc?
      3) How long is your sweep?
      4) How much do you overlap consecutive sweeps in the direction you walk?
      5) How much do you overlap side-to-side swings when following parallel paths (e.g. when walking two side-by-side swaths in the same direction how much does the left end of one path overlap the right end of the next path or vice-versa)?
      6) Have you ever measured your coverage?  How well do detectors with GPS (e.g. Minelab GPZ-7000 and Minelab CTX-3030) monitor ground coverage to this detail?  Have you used other devices to measure ground coverage.  E.g. I can imagine a drone with camera could provide useful data.  Are there smartphones app that would help quantify coverage?
       
    • By nebulanoodle
      Just dreaming...
      What'dya think? Minelab technology going on the next moon mission?
      X6 must be space-worthy.
    • By AUgetter
      If this question has been addressed elsewhere, I apologize in advance and hope someone can give me a link for it.  I have noticed that other companies besides Minelab are coming out with PI detectors for less than $3K.  How do these detectors compare to the best Minelab detectors for Gold and also relic hunting?
    • By JCR
      On the Anfibio Multi (and I think Kruzer & others) there is a definite step in sensitivity between 39&40 Gain and again between 69&70 Gain. Is this a change in the Internal Threshold? In a way this would be the inverse of the way the F75 adjusts sensitivity according to Mike Hillis.  Regardless, it is a very good set up in difficult sites. Most NM users know about the difference in response speed between 89 & 90 Gain on 3DI. This is different. I had read about these steps in a forum post that quoted Alper of NM. I can't seem to find that post now that I want to re read it.
    • By jasong
      https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2021016649A1/en?assignee=minelab&scholar&oq=minelab&sort=new
      This is the most out of this world Minelab detector patent I've ever read. There is so much here, some very sci-fi like, I don't even know where to start. My takeaway is they seem to be positioning themselves for a drone based detector eventually (main details in this patent could be easily transferred to a drone based platform - IMU, GPS, magnetometer, heads up display, FPV, remote control, robotic/vehicle mount, etc) . That is 100% a guess. But in the meantime, there is some interesting, novel items in the pipeline that we might actually see on a machine in closer future?
      No clue if this is a coin machine or gold machine or if it's something they are actually working on right now or just trying to get control patents on such things for the future which may or may not arrive. One thing is for certain, Minelab is BUSY in the engineering department. A few of the highlights:
      Heads up display over glasses/head mounted display (aka augmented reality). Settings, target visualization, shading of detected/not detected areas (I asked for this specifically 5 or 6 years ago here, awesome to see it in a patent now). Plus a camera showing the coil (why would you need that if not operating remotely as from a drone?) The detector has a camera, IMU (accelerometer) and magnetometer to determine position with accuracy. The IMU tracks the position of the coil in real time in relation to both the ground and the target, and combined with the camera video feed will provide a "visual" of the target in the ground through the glasses/head display, as in form of a heat map which increases accuracy with each pass of a coil over the target. A GPS tracks the machine position to properly map the IMU/coil visual target data on the ground and let's a user see the mapping as they detect. This data is recorded for future historical use and can be shared.  Centimeter accuracy with the visual target heat mapping. Potential operators/users include entities other than humans such as "robots" and "an AI (artificial intelligence) using a metal detector" and this line: "The metal detector may be handheld, mounted on a robotic arm of a vehicle or a robot."  Wireless connectivity to computers and phones, transfer of files containing settings configurations from instructors or expert users Remote control of the metal detector through apps on laptops or phones Ability to upload maps, including detecting data, historic human activity, buildings, or other items that seem to indicate custom mapping capability Internet connectivity, potential control through the internet (again, why if not for a drone type device?) "Teamspeak" to other detecting members in the area wirelessly Visual/spatial discrimination Accurate depth measurement Synthesized audio mode, eliminating noise completely and allowing the detector to "recreate" a synthetic audio stream based on data from prior swings Delayed audio processing (enhanced audio) mode or real time audio mode, ability to seperate multiple close targets, reason for this I venture a guess why below ---> This patent actually seems to be describing a completely new method of RX in a detector. Which is actually similar in some ways to the wacky idea I had years ago of reducing EMI/ground noise by emulating a radio telescope array. But in this case they appear to be describing a fairly ingenuous method of doing something similar with only one coil by monitoring RX of the same target at different points in the swing (with the IMU tracking these points) and combining all those RX signals. In this way (and this is my guess, the patent doesn't explain this), you can form a sort of comparator, gradiometer, or interferometer to seperate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. If that's what they are doing, then I find it to be brilliant. If not, then I just gave them one hell of an idea to patent for the future. 
      That probably sounds like jibberish to non-engineers. But I want people to understand the brilliance in simple terms. Consider this: EMI is random. At any given point in your swing you'll get noise here, but not there. So if you compare two points in the same swing, you will hear noise one point but not the other point because the "zap" already ended. But you might hear a good target at both points in the swing since it's not random like EMI, it's always there in the ground. So, you can effectively eliminate EMI by comparing what signal is not there at two very close points in the swing, and keep the target since it's always there.
      Similarly, with ground, the ground changes as the alluvium changes since soil is inhomogeneous. But a target is still the target. So, a similar method can be applied to the ground.
      In theory, you could use ideas like this to essentially get rid of the Difficult type timings and keep your gains boosted high, and deal with EMI/ground in this way instead which does not require reducing sensitivity. A totally new, novel approach to RX in a metal detector. The audio processing is very slightly delayed because they are using that time to compare measurements at a few different coil positions before letting the audio processor signal that there is a target present. That's my guess. If that isn't what they are doing, then someone else should patent that and thank me for it later when Minelab buys it. Either way, they have something totally new in the RX department here. And the future of detecting looks bright and interesting to me still.
    • By WhiteRabbit
      Hello, now here’s an opener that might just get me banned on my first post!
      Bear with me, my intentions are pure :)
      Does anyone know if it would be possible to jam an MD signal? The reason I ask is to combat the evident problem we have in the UK with ‚Äúnighthawks‚ÄĚ, illegal detectorists.
      Over here, any landowner can grant permission for detecting on their land (with caveats, known historic sites are protected by law). What often happens is that such a permission is granted and a detectorist innocently sets about his / her business. Someone less scrupulous spots this person and assumes there may be something important there, so shows up at night with a couple of friends and the landowner awakens to a field / lawn full of holes, then bans metal detecting.
      Historic sites are also looted.
      Just an off the wall question, how tricky would it be to build a device to block this on a piece of land? Anyone any ideas?
×
×
  • Create New...