Running The 15" Cc X Coil Over A 6000 Patch

[Aureous]

7 hours ago, Norvic said:

As stated previously I hope X coil can give us coils for MLs magic 6K in particular a small CC.

As previously stated elsewhere, the Russkistanis are NOT continuing to make 6000 coils coz the difficulty in extracting the chip and  building the adapters is proving a big headache....sometimes its easy, sometimes its a clusterf%&k. Not worth  the hassle, gambling with someone else's coil. 

[jasong]

Hate to say it but even though they are great on a GPZ, sounds like CC's just won't offer as much performance gain on PI's using monos already as they do on the GPZ when compared with using the DOD. Talking to/reading Simon (who I assume is getting some info from X Coils guys), Chet, and others I think I have a rough idea why this is the case, but I make no assertions as to the accuracy of my rough understanding.

A PI using a mono has both a large RX and TX loop already (same loop), it's kinda maximized depth for a given size coil already. Sounds like the CC's have advantage over the DOD's because the windings are different sizes and in the case of a CC, one of the lobes (I can't even remember which is which now, TX or RX) is larger than it would be on a DOD, which is one reason why depth is increased. And some more stuff having to do with winding coupling, distances, etc that are a bit beyond my understanding. But compared to detectors already running monos that by nature already have both RX and TX loops maximized for a given size (since they are the same loop), the CC's are going to have either the RX or TX lobe (again I forget which) be smaller, so performance gains may not be as large.

That doesn't mean there might not still be room for some clever coil design on 6000 coils though. Obvious one being if the aftermarket coils are not (apparantly?) using flat windings. Which, after all the talk, we still have no clear answer on and are left guessing (and will surely get our wrists slapped for venturing such guesses).

3 hours ago, Jonathan Porter said:

And that there folks is testament to why I hang on this forum, the moderator is a decent person who allows everyone to voice their opinion even if it does not concur with his. Nothing but respect for Steve Herschbach. 😎

Good sentiment and I'm sure you'll rake the likes in since no one out there disagrees. But you might want to tone down the calling us "bitchers" and telling us our opinions are like an ass (presume yours are golden though?) if you want a better reception from people. No one attacked you, no one even mentioned your name. No need to come in hot and look for a fight. Just because we don't have an inside line to Bruce Candy or Minelab engineers doesn't mean we aren't allowed to talk about things we find interesting. And yes - that means guessing at some things that involve information we'd love to learn, but simply are not priivy too. Doesn't mean the topic is off limits to discuss.

[phrunt]

X-coils have yet to make any concentric coils for the GPX, I'm sure if they think it's worthwhile they will, they seem to love a challenge and if they think the concentric coils are worth making I'm sure they'll do it at least for their own inner circles use, if they don't want to sell them.   They're exceptionally intelligent people with high level educations in related fields that benefit coil making, not just some guys that liked gold detecting and decided they'd slap together some coils.

The reason for them not selling GPX coils at this stage has nothing at all to do with the adapter or the other brands making them, the guy making adapters for everyone in Australia is quite happy to take on making everyone's GPX adapter too and although it looks drastic it's not as difficult as it looks, he's a real guru too and there is constantly people wanting to buy them.  They have good working coils that run quieter than the standard coils, it's more the difficulty and cost of shipping holding them back, if that changes I think watch out and I certainly look forward to running X-coils on my GPX along side the other aftermarket coils I'll be buying from the other brands.

The outer winding on the concentric is the transmit on the GPZ and the two inner windings are the receive.   So, with the GPX already having the hots for small gold even with the 11" stock semi spiral mono coil I would assume by lets say having an 11" spiral concentric coil on it that little inner single receive winding the GPX coils would have would be pretty hot on small gold too although Concentrics never really took off on the older GPX model so who knows and that's what I'm sure many of us concentric users are dying to find out.

I prefer to keep things a nice friendly discussion about something we have a shared interest in so I now blank out when it turns into anything else,  it is very interesting to see different peoples perspectives on such things though. 

Are Minelab being nice thoughtful people giving us aftermarket options with GPX coils or was their hand forced early on with their futile attempt at stopping it by moving the chip to a more difficult location failing on them within weeks of release.  Either way, people now get options above and beyond the stock offerings so thank you whoever helped make it happen. 

[jasong]

59 minutes ago, phrunt said:

The outer winding on the concentric is the transmit on the GPZ and the two inner windings are the receive.   So, with the GPX already having the hots for small gold even with the 11" stock semi spiral mono coil I would assume by lets say having an 11" spiral concentric coil on it that little inner single receive winding the GPX coils would have would be pretty hot on small gold too although Concentrics never really took off on the older GPX model so who knows and that's what I'm sure many of us concentric users are dying to find out.

Seems in physics, everything has a give and take. Sort of the nature of thermodynamics and no free lunches. Make gains here, and you lose some gains over there, etc.

If I understand what you are saying here, I think you are right. The CC will "give" up a bit of raw depth to big stuff vs monos, but the smaller RX on the CC might "take" some sensitivity/depth to the smaller stuff relative to a mono. Maybe start getting some performance close to or even outdoing the 8" on the GPZ?

All this stuff really has me thinking seriously about learning to make my own coils so I can just answer my own questions and stop wondering.  

 

[phrunt]

You probably know just as much as me if not more 🙂 I just pick up things I hear here and there and piece it together, all I know for a fact is what works best for me and what I enjoy using, and that's what I will use and nobody saying otherwise is going to change that.

I hope we get to find out one day just how well Concentric coils go on the GPX, and I'd be surprised if we don't get to find out some way or another.

[geof_junk]

My main complaint about MineLab coils is that I have to buy one. I can't buy a ML detector without the extra cost of their expensive coils, that I have only used for testing the detector against coils that are made elsewhere that fit my special requirements. So many ML coils sitting in the shed, that cost a large fortune because I had to buy them to get a ML detector. This money could of been used to buy another ML detector without a coil or other detecting equipment. Who is in the same boat wasting resources paying for coils that are not used.

😢

[Aureous]

4 hours ago, phrunt said:

I hope we get to find out one day just how well Concentric coils go on the GPX, and I'd be surprised if we don't get to find out some way or another.

Is everyone forgetting that Detech makes an 18" and a 24" CC coil for GPX?? I am going to get an adapter made up and start trialing the old coils plus an 18" CC.

[jrbeatty]

 

6 hours ago, jasong said:

Hate to say it but even though they are great on a GPZ, sounds like CC's just won't offer as much performance gain on PI's using monos already as they do on the GPZ when compared with using the DOD.

Nope:

Sorry to disagree but CC's are just as good on earlier GPX's

As Aureous mentioned, Detech (and Nexus) both made commercial CC coils for the earlier GPX's. Nothing new there-  Reg and I both tested the big 36" (from memory) prototype Detech some years back on my 5000. 

HOWEVER! Many years ago, my late detecting buddy Jim Stewart and colleague Tony Honey wound experimental CC's for the older GPX's with stunning success. 

A dozen years back In the WA Pilbara, Tony heard a faint signal deep in solid ironstone (with his modified GPX fitted with 18" homebuilt CC) He tried every other coil he had with no result, and he had plenty!

It took a Makita to eventually recover it:

Turned out to be a deep 14 oz specimen:

One of Tony's home made spiral wound CC's. He has many-

Note that Tony's inner receive winding has much greater diameter than commercially available options. 

He believes this gives greater depth with the trade off being far less stability- 

Sorry if this is slightly off topic but as a CC convert I thought it relevant-

 

 

 

 

[Norvic]

10 hours ago, Aureous said:

As previously stated elsewhere, the Russkistanis are NOT continuing to make 6000 coils coz the difficulty in extracting the chip and  building the adapters is proving a big headache....sometimes its easy, sometimes its a clusterf%&k. Not worth  the hassle, gambling with someone else's coil. 

Au, when X coils say to me directly NO I might stop believing they`ll make me a 6K CC coil, as I know from experience they make the best quality, best performing coils for the Z on this planet.

[Aureous]

NV, I'm just quoting what they told Simon. They prefer to let others gamble with making the adapters. The coils themselves are no different to earlier GPX coils, same inductance, same resistance values...plus same design and winding parameters. So, the crucial thing is to safely and efficiently build an adapter, not the coil.