Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Jennifer said:

Steve, this thread is great information and like others on here have mentioned, I would be super curious to see how the Nugget Finder Z-Search works in that same environment against those coils, specifically in relation to the Axiom. If you arrange another test out at the tooth, I would be happy to pack up my NF Z-Search and ship it up to you to take out for some testing, if you wanted to add a coil review to your site as well.... that would be cool, a coil review section......

I'll even pay for shipping both ways... let me know if you want me to send it up.... 

Jen

No, thank you, but I am not interested in being test central, and will leave that for others to do. I’ve got one other post I’m working on to explain my thoughts and position more clearly, and then I am personally leaving the this versus that debate behind. I know what I’m going to use, and need to get on with my life and my detecting, and don’t really care to use any more of my time on the issue. 

  • Like 6
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

An honest write up of a TRUE field trip experience, kudos to the guys for doing so, in reality this will likely be borne out once there are more machines out in the field but its nice to see honest feedback before the brand battles start.

One things for certain none of us can swing more than one detector at a time so strengths and weaknesses come to the fore when a decision is made about what machine you decide to swing.  

For depth I use the GPZ7000, it also runs nicer around EMI (in my areas) and has better ground handling ability, for lightweight fun and pinging the smaller gold I use the GPX6000 with either the standard coil or my new favourites the NF Xceed 12x7” or the NF 16x10”. I am not interested in depth on larger gold with the 6000 so do not operate it that way.

Good post and even better clarification post from Steve elsewhere.

JP

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, dig4gold said:

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

Yes, I and others have hunted this location carefully many times. I pulled a nice one out of it early this spring when I borrowed Condors Z, while abenson was using my GPX 6000. I got 90% of the good stuff out originally a few years ago gridding the area with my Z for a couple weeks, so now it's missed odds and ends, and eking pieces out of the trashy spots. Lots of people would do the old "got a nugget out of dead ground routine" on this, but frankly that's what we do almost every time we go out detecting. Pull gold out of places others give up on. :smile:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

I got 90% of the good stuff out originally a few years ago gridding the area with my Z for a couple weeks, so now it's missed odds and ends, and eking pieces out of the trashy spots. 

Do you chain Steve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice nugget Condor.  That area has been providing a few chunky ones for 15+ yrs. Almost a wandering patch. 

Glad you were able to do a quick comparison that day with those conditions and particular target. 

It's so hard for 1 person to do such comparing. Then when we have different coils on the detectors, it becomes more or less of..  this is what we found out with what we had.

Well done. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Steve Herschbach changed the title to The 17" Xcoil Concentric Coil And Some Ad Hoc Comparisons To Axiom And GPX 6000
On 8/20/2022 at 1:11 AM, Condor said:

I don't want to fuel the old "nugget halo" theory,...

Too late.  😏

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...