Jump to content
Steve Herschbach

Under 4 Pound, Under $2000 Gbpi Challenge

Recommended Posts

I like the ATX because it is a repackaged Minesweeper which is fine with me but the weight is an issue, and over here the price has rocketed up, where it is cheaper to buy a GPX4500, They need to rethink this sudden price hike considering it is very old Tech now and If a person is serious about Gold then the GPX gets my vote, How hard can it be to put the ATX on a Diet ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no reason to put the ATX in the Recon housing. The option existed up front to use the Infinium housing and they went with the Recon housing instead. My theory is the Recon never was a real winner either so they wanted to try and get the sunk costs out of the housing development by sticking a consumer detector in a military housing.

Even the water hunters have lost enthusiasm for the ATX due to never ending issues with the rods locking up from sand intrusion and cable deterioration issues that Garrett seems to never address. I actually loved mine for saltwater use since it is stout and is nearly neutral in weight underwater but when my last one flooded (was replaced under warranty) I lost faith in the unit. I am convinced the ATX packaged properly could actually have given Minelab some decent low end competition and would have sold much better in the nugget detecting world, where it has now all but been forgotten. For the company that really helped launch electronic prospecting Garrett’s complete lack of interest in getting serious about gold detecting has always puzzled me. I tried to work with them but when it came to the area they most need to listen to someone like me about (practical prospecting ergonomics) they completely ignored me. When asked I said the Infinium housing, even with it’s own issues that need work (the rod sucks) would be preferable for the ATX. Not what they wanted to hear obviously, and to this day one of my greatest failures as a consumer advocate. Garrett so far refuses to make the Garrett LTX and until they do I will never touch another Garrett detector with a ten foot pole. It does not need to look like the unit below but under 4 lbs and under $2K should be no challenge at all for Garrett... if they simply cared to try.

Garrett LTX Prototype

4.73 perfectly balanced pounds including 8 AA NiMH batteries
Control box can be moved forward and back to re-balance for larger coils
Control box removable and can be chest or hip mounted
Employs standard inexpensive cable type coil options
PBSRP* $1999
Construction thread with more rod options here

garrett-ltx-lightweight-atx-modification

*PBSRP - Prototype Builder Suggested Retail Price before discounts. No, I'm not building any more and not selling these! :smile:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every point you hit on Steve, is SPOT ON! Could not AGREE with you more.

That's why I sold my ATX...

Many more (if there are any owners left) will do so as well

Beav

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Similar Content

    • By pinpointa
      Hi Guys,
      How many detector brands have Mixed Mode.  Thanks in advance.
       
    • By Andyy
      Just thought... it would be interesting if the technology ever came about where you could run one detector as either a VLF or a PI (orZVT).  What machines would you combine?
      I would go GPZ and Equinox
    • By GB_Amateur
      I started this project 2 or 3 years ago (so long I can't remember).  Spurred on by recent field experiences and also a recent thread on Equinox settings I've finally finished it. I don't know if it's a completely new idea.  I call it a 'test-stand' as opposed to 'test garden' just to distinguish it from the standard test gardens many of you either already have or at least are familiar with.  There are other similar variable depth test gardens out there (seen on YouTube).  This one has the advantage of continuous depth capability.  It also allows 3-d target orientation angle (similar to pitch, roll, yaw of airplane).  It's based upon the 30-60-90 triangle (remember that from geometry/trigonometry class in high school?):

      Here is a sketch which shows how to implement this concept:

      Shown in the sketch, buried at an angle, is a PVC pipe.  A test target can be slid into the pipe a distance 2*d which will result in it being located at depth d.  I used two sections of pipe (ID = 1.57 in., OD = 1.90 in.), side-by-side to allow me to put neighboring targets in the ground with some option of how close the two targets are separated.  Think of this as burying a double barrel (side-by-side) shotgun with the stock end deep in the ground.  All you see are the ends of the two barrels.  The concrete (bag of Kwicrete) locks the pipes in place.  Here's a closeup of those extruding barrels:

      Besides the tape measure (units of inches) you also see a hand-graded scale at left which I'll explain shortly.  Here is an overall view:

      The two PVC caps, attached together, are for keeping water, dirt, and varmints out of the pipes when not in use.  You'll notice a 1.5 in. diameter wooden dowel rod inserted into one of the pipes. More detail on that shortly, but the target is inserted into the dowel near its end and then the dowel is slid into the pipe.  Holes for locating pins (you can see one of those -- gray plastic -- inserted to register the intended depth) are 1 inch apart leading to a depth resolution of 1/2 inch.  (Again, refer to the 30-60-90 diagram to understand the relationship between insertion length and actual depth into the ground -- a 2::1 ratio.)
      Next I show the business end of the dowel rod:

      The black foam fills the chamber and holds the target (in this case a silver dime) in place.  The hole in the dowel is actually lined with a plastic film canister (remember those from 35 mm film days?) which has been modified to conform to the circular cross-section of the dowel and thus be able to fit into the pipe.  The second slightly smaller) large hole was put in there originally for a second target but so far I haven't used it -- likely of limited value.  You can see the registration holes.  The first one has a red '2'  (difficult to see) just above it; the next (representing 2.5" depth) isn't labeled; the third one has a '3'; etc.  These represent the resultant depth of the target when a registration pin is put in that hole and then the rod slid into the pipe until the registration pin keeps the dowel from going deeper.
      Although the chamber packing material can be made up of many materials, I chose ethafoam (polyethylene foam) high quality packing material.  You typically find this in higher end electronics packaging such as with desktop computers.  More commonly it is white but in this case I used black.  I initially cut plugs with hole saw (see next photo) and then trim with a pocket knife as needed to fit the pipe:

      Ok, so now you're still wondering what that specially graded (homemade 'yardstick') is for.  Again, referring back to the 30-60-90 triangle drawing, the 3rd side of the triangle is also related to the depth.  It is squareroot of 3 times the depth.  (Squareroot of 3 = 1.73.)  That yardstick will indicate how far downrange (along the ground surface) that the target is located.  This helps when you get an iffy response on your detector and want to confirm or deny that the surface location of the target is consistent with its depth.  The units written on the scale are associated with the depth of the target.  You can see from the sketch above that the max depth is 15".  The largest common US coin that will fit the chamber (with some force...) is a half dollar.
      I didn't keep track of the cost but it's probably $30 or so, mostly for the PVC pipe and caps and the dowel rods plus a bag of Sacrete.  (I'm counting labor as free.  😁)
      OK, now that I (finally!) finished this test-stand it's time to get busy making measurements.  I'll be posting those here on the forum as they become available.
       
    • By garikfox
      Anyone remember the old Popular Science ads?
      I thought this was a good classic to share. Even though this ad pre-dates me by 6yrs, it puts a smile to my face :) 
       


    • By Ridge Runner
      I’m not so sure if I really have a opinion but maybe each here may . So please let me hear from you on this subject.
       Thanks!
       Chuck 
    • By Johnnysalami1957
      Yeah well as in inherently curious person, I was wondering when someone will design a smart phone app that makes your smart phone into a virtual metal detector.  Might use a coil like the X35 on a carbon fiber shaft bluetooth connected or USB "c" connected. My Galaxy S10 + certainly has more than the processing power and ram required to do the job. Bluetooth headphone capable, gps, you name it. 
      Just thinking again
      Johnny
×
×
  • Create New...