Seven Bits of SDC Gold From Nevada

[Reno Chris]

Steve was going to spend a couple days prospecting in Nevada, so I decided to join him for the afternoon - because of family commitments I could only spend the day. So I only used the SDC for the afternoon yesterday, but still got seven little nuggets over at Rye Patch, in a place that has been pounded by everyone and his brother, friend, cousin, and neighbor for the last 20 years - and I got seven little nuggets. The total weight for the seven is only 0.7 pennyweight, or 1.1 grams, but I only detected 4 hours with the SDC. The bottom line is that I had a lot of fun and got some gold - what more can you ask for with a short session on a pounded patch? This time of year the weather can change to wet and cold in the Sierra Nevada, so I've pulled out of northern California to focus more on Nevada gold fields. The weather was beautiful - though this time of year the weather can be chancy and you just never know - but we hit it just right.

[Rick K - First Member]

Chris,

It's good to hear about the sucess folks are having with the SDC.

From what I have been reading, it sounds like the SDC is getting the same nuggets that the Gold Bug 2 is so good at getting. Of course, the SDC won't hear all the hot rocks and might detect the same small stuff deeper in highly mineralized ground.

It would be really interesting to run them side by side in the field and see how they compare on te same ground and the same targets.

[Reno Chris]

The results of any such comparison would be very dependent on the soils at the test location. If mild enough, the GB2 would shine. If heavily mineralized the GB2 would struggle and the SDC shine.

[Rick K - First Member]

Chris,

What you point out of course tracks with what I have read and to some extent experienced.

'Given the cost difference between the GB2 (or Whites GMT) detectors and the SDC it would be interesting to further describe by actual locale how they performed - one compared to the other.

Up to now, the PI machine's big advantage has been depth in mineralized soil. The SDC offers reduced depth compared to traditional PI detectors as a trade off for increased sensitivity to small gold and seemingly overall quieter operation. If they cost the same and the detectors weighed the same, then the remaining issues would be depth against a given target in a given level of mineralization. The hot rock issue is probably an even trade - SDC hot rock immunity for the GB2’s iron reject - which is not to be uncritically relied on but which can be pretty handy in some cases.

The details of comparative performance on a variety of sites would be really interesting. Hopefully someone who has both machines might get interested enough to run some comparison tests.