Jump to content

The 17" Xcoil Concentric Coil And Some Ad Hoc Comparisons To Axiom And GPX 6000


Recommended Posts

Thanks, Condor. Great idea. I can do the labor day weekend Sunday. PM me if you want to hook up.😀

GC

Link to comment
Share on other sites


And yeah, RP is mostly salt, and not harsh X. But nevertheless, good to compare

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Condor said:

I'll defer to Steve H for his assessment of how the Axiom was doing over the same target. 

Pretty simple, the Z was top dog in all situations, followed by GPX 6000, then Axiom. The differences were more pronounced on the in matrix target, less depth and much closer on same targets when reburied. I think the nugget was lodged in a hot clay seam that boosted the signal when first dug, the retest was in more generic soil. Interesting stuff, good time with Condor and abenson.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess a 17" coil is going to get the best depth on a deeper bit of gold, especially at 4.6 grams at 13-14 inches over the other coil sizes. The Zed factor would have an influence as well. Might have been up on edge & so presenting a narrower surface. Would have been interesting to see how the 6000's 14" DD might have done & even the 11" mono. Steve, had you been over that area with the stock ML coil on your Zed? A 4.6 gram slug of gold is not too shabby a find these days. Well done & thanks for not digging the signal when you first got it. Makes for a much fairer comparison. I am a firm believer in the halo effect from my experiences.

Thanks for your report.

D4G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Pretty simple, the Z was top dog in all situations, followed by GPX 6000, then Axiom. 

Steve since the 6000 had the CT 14x9 coil on for the test then I assume the Axiom had the 11 x7 coil on for the test?

Also, settings were mentioned for the 7000 with 17CC coil but no mention of settings for the 6000 and Axiom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Condor going back to AU!  I look forward to hearing your adventures.  I still wanna get there and beginning to draw interest from others in maybe 2 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, goldenoldie said:

Steve since the 6000 had the CT 14x9 coil on for the test then I assume the Axiom had the 11 x7 coil on for the test?

Also, settings were mentioned for the 7000 with 17CC coil but no mention of settings for the 6000 and Axiom?

We tried various coils and various settings. It was not a scientific test, and our only goal was to get information and impressions for our own purposes. Which we are sharing here. I only had 11x7 mono and 13x11 mono with me, so used those, and in this case there seemed to be little difference between the two. Different people might get different results in different locations. My general impression of relative machine performance with these three models changes almost with every change of location. Sometimes it’s a dead heat, sometimes differences are pronounced, sometimes positions switch. But in general it’s 1, 2, 3 for GPZ, GPX, Axiom, following the relative pricing in the U.S.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a perfect world all three would be running 17" Concentric coils and then it would be more about the detector than coil.  It's hard and not really fair to compare detectors on a target when all are using vastly different coils and I realise this wasn't any sort of intentional comparison, just by chance all three detectors were there and a deep target was found, awesome that you were in that situation to be able to run all three over it and even more awesome it turned out to be gold and not some deep junk 🙂

The result was interesting though, the most interesting thing to me is reburying it the same depth and none of them got it.  I'm a bit surprised at the initial result as I was under the impression high salt was one of the GPZ's weaknesses with the GPX good in it? You'll have to excuse my ignorance there as I don't have salt issues around here unless I intentionally go to a spot that has it and that's a very rare occasion and when I have I found the smallest coils worked best on the GPZ to handle the ground in the first place.   Either way, it's one target in one bit of ground, I'm sure a situation could be found each detector would have a strength over the others, I do really love the GPZ though. 

I like the idea of using an Axiom or 6000 as a patch hunting detector, as JasonG has pointed out and uses his for that reason, lightweight and easy, once something has been found and the area done with the PI then bring in the GPZ to see if anything was left.  Makes sense, I even use a similar approach on coins, Equinox first which is quick and easy followed by the CTX which I go slower and get deeper.

At the moment I'm trying to work out which detector I would personally prefer as the better patch hunter the GPX or Axiom as my mission for summer is to start to use this method and try find some gold somewhere new, at least new to me 🙂  The Axiom is ticking a lot of boxes on paper so far.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hot clay seam thing definitely enhances depth somehow. I'm working a salt area where I dug 10 or 12 deep holes when the ground was wet, just to find deep, wet clay lenses. This was with the 15" cc and I gave up on all the holes after hitting the clay and realizing I was getting some signal from the clay itself when out of the hole. I left the holes open to redetect when it dried out.

I redetected the area a few weeks later when dry, the clay removed from the hole was silent now, and waving the coil over the holes produced either no signal, or very slight signals. 

However, sticking the coil in the holes produced great signals in almost all the holes. Almost every hole had a deep, small nugget in it.

I dont put much into the halo effect proper. But different ground does seem to decrease or increase max depth. It's why I personally don't mind air tests. It's a neutral, universal raw test that negates localized ground effects.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to The 17" Xcoil Concentric Coil And Some Ad Hoc Comparisons To Axiom And GPX 6000

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
×
×
  • Create New...