Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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

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

  • The title was changed 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

Nugget halo makes sense to me. You'd expect iron-containing heavy minerals (ground noise) to settle in along with nuggets. It's not that the gold itself is interacting with its environment, but that the process that guides nuggets to their resting place also accumulates materials that give a bit of a signal. 

When digging, you break up the previously concentrated and defined volumes of metalliferous material which surrounded the gold. 

I'd be confused if a nugget in its "original" spot *didn't* sound different than the same nugget buried at the same depth, with same orientation, in the same now-disturbed ground.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, BrokeInBendigo said:

Nugget halo makes sense to me. You'd expect iron-containing heavy minerals (ground noise) to settle in along with nuggets. It's not that the gold itself is interacting with its environment, but that the process that guides nuggets to their resting place also accumulates materials that give a bit of a signal. 

When digging, you break up the previously concentrated and defined volumes of metalliferous material which surrounded the gold. 

I'd be confused if a nugget in its "original" spot *didn't* sound different than the same nugget buried at the same depth, with same orientation, in the same now-disturbed ground.

If it were a pure gold nugget I would expect it not to contribute to the halo, however the precipitates of iron, copper and other metals that were present with the gold in a buried nugget could leach out into the surrounding soil and create a larger halo target around the nugget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GotAU? said:

If it were a pure gold nugget Inwould expect it not to contribute to the halo, however the precipitates of iron, copper and other metals that were present with the gold in a buried nugget could leach out into the surrounding soil and create a larger halo target around the nugget.

Maybe a tiny amount of material would leach out but only the outermost molecules in the nugget would be exposed to the environment.

I'm more referring to the depositional environment - the bedrock or clay or whatever acts just like a sluice to catch gold particles. It also catches heavy materials like iron-rich minerals. Those other materials are concentrated along with the gold contribute to the response. When you dig, you disperse all the other stuff and the response is no longer the both gold + nearby concentrated minerals, it's mostly just the gold, hence a lesser response.

  • Like 4
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...