Jump to content
Jin

How Deep Do Today's Detectors Go Compared To Older Technology?

Recommended Posts

I agree with Steve about the research and prospecting skills side of things. It's something I spend every day doing. I'm either researching or learning how the old timers looked for gold and how geology plays its part in understanding where to look.

The thing I wanted to know was am I wasting my time detecting areas that were known for deep gold as newer detectors aren't really punching any deeper than the older ones, (sd2000) especially the detectors that were made or modified to get around the government emission laws. I think Reg has answered my question.

Of course, there's the chance in those areas nobody got it all, but I think my time is better spent in areas of less attention as I just haven't had much success in the flogged areas running a large coil.

Last week I was in the exact spot that the prototypes found good gold. Detected all around that immediate area for nothing. Got me thinking maybe there's no gold left, maybe my detecting skills are poor or maybe this gpz4500 just doesn't go as deep as their detectors did. When you don't have years of experience under your belt all you can do is ask, hence the reason for the original post. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jin, you will see many people post that nobody gets it all and that is very true, I have gone over areas that have been used for rallies that have been hammered to death for over 40 years and I still find stuff, With your 4500 it is just a matter of getting the settings right and the right coil and with the right ground conditions you could find what others left behind,

If you are unsure of your skills, carry a note pad and write down your settings and ground condition etc then you will have something to go back too, even after all these years I still log the important things, But don't be afraid to try something new, like settings etc, just because someone gives you their hot settings does not mean they will work for you or where you detect. Knowledge is a major part of it but being able to adapt to the current conditions is a big part of a good prospectors arsenal.

J.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true, one cannot talk about detector depth without taking into consideration other variables, GB advances, different timings, even audio advances, and importantly different operators and who knows in what direction progress will be made in the future. I have a patch that with a lot of time with the PIs especially the SDC, and the Z you will get a few colours but only shallow yet that patch yielded to the A2B onto the GM2 thousands of colours with very few above a gram in weight in bugger all time. No doubt the Monster with time will score a few more there.

Another patch is different and it has yielded gold at depth and I know it will be so for many more years giving up more to tech advances whether  GB advances, different timings or simply depth advances. The Z 19" s magic exploited that and proved it up, if that patch were pushed many more ozs may come to light, but for me I`m content to leave it as is, a top proving ground patch, plus I`ve experienced what pushing returns, mostly not enough to pay for the diesel.

That completely hunted and dead patch will have this old fella on it in a blink if I too get those GPS Coords , Steve.:wink:

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW guys....what a great thread. I have too much going through my head right now & not the time to put it down in a post. Will be back on this one. Cheers

JW :smile:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2017 at 3:38 AM, Steve Herschbach said:

Honest opinions well stated don't need to stir a hornet's nest. It is the various side commentary where things tend to go astray. I am a big fan of dispassionate observation and leave the  rest out.

Same deal with PI in my opinion. The Minelab SD series in the late 1990's hits large deep gold about as far as it can be hit. The SD series was not that hot on small gold but that helped it on big gold since it is insensitive to many ground and hot rock issues also. Every Minelab PI model since has focused on improving threshold stability and sensitivity to small nuggets or tackling specific hot rock/salt issues. The GPZ further exploits PI weakness on porous or specimen gold, but I am not one of those that thinks it offers any significant improvement on large solid, sluggy gold in most normal circumstances.

As far as the big picture goes I think the bulk of the tech maxed out in the 1990's. What has gone on since is refinement and machines targeting specific weak areas of prior machines. But max depth on larger targets is a very tough nut to crack and I honestly don't pay much attention to claims made in that area. I avoid making such claims myself. The gains if any are so small and so target and site dependent it always boils down to opinionated hair splitting arguments - a waste of time.

Steve I strongly disagree. The issue here is two fold;

  • Firstly big nuggets give off big signals, however thanks to the inverse square law, depth tapers off the deeper a target is which then gives a very narrow band of opportunity for the deeper punching machines to find the gold missed by others.
  • Secondly because detectors have progressively become more and more sensitive over the years people tend to focus on the more productive target sizes and neglect the modes and coil sizes best suited for larger nuggets at depth and the skills required to capitalize on this.

In the case of PI the first SD series were on about par with an increase in sensitivity and less holes in the timings, the SD2200D really benefited from having auto GB. GP series machines then benefited from having Dual Voltage which mainly gave an improvement in sensitivity on fast time constant targets but also a corresponding increase in ground noise negating the deeper signal ability if an operator wasn't careful. GPX detectors were basically extensions and improvements on Dual Voltage with the added advantage of "Smooth" timings which really opened up a range of nuggets still atreasonable depth's but hidden by mineralisation and the inability of DD coils to cope in Normal type timings.

In the case of GPZ that's a whole new animal and to be honest I'm VERY surprised by your lack of faith in ZVT tech on large gold, I think this lack of faith comes down to too few opportunities to prove this out thanks to a lack of larger pieces still existing in the field but probably more important your skepticism in my opinion is down to Minelab failing to get the ZVT depth message to market effectively (I doubt if this is even possible). The juxtaposition is because the high frequency stuff stands out so resoundingly on ZVT, producing results for even average users, the real benefits on larger nuggets which take effort, patience and skill in the right areas are being neglected. The GPZ/ZVT tech thrashes PI resoundingly on big gold if your prepared to let go of the high frequency stuff for a bit and go chase the heavy gold.

Steve I hope my comments are not offensive to you, I felt I needed to respond in kind to your level of skepticism. I'm not defending ZVT as a zealot, my strong opinion is based around my experiences with this technology and the many hours of depth testing I've performed. On big gold there is no equal to ZVT, it resoundingly thrashes PI.

JP

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all JP, great stuff, just people expressing opinions. I certainly give a lot of weight to yours! Thanks for posting :smile:

Funny, I never thought of myself as a GPZ skeptic. I have total faith in mine finding gold if I get over it, including large nuggets at depth.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the 4500, I guess these many soil timing are to fill in the holes where certain types of nuggets fall through the net, I kind of hope ML bring out a 5500/6000 because the GPX series have been hugely successful and it would be a shame to phase them out in the end,

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2017 at 12:34 PM, Jin said:

The thing I wanted to know was am I wasting my time detecting areas that were known for deep gold as newer detectors aren't really punching any deeper than the older ones, (sd2000) especially the detectors that were made or modified to get around the government emission laws. I think Reg has answered my question.

Of course, there's the chance in those areas nobody got it all, but I think my time is better spent in areas of less attention as I just haven't had much success in the flogged areas running a large coil.

Last week I was in the exact spot that the prototypes found good gold. Detected all around that immediate area for nothing. Got me thinking maybe there's no gold left, maybe my detecting skills are poor or maybe this gpz4500 just doesn't go as deep as their detectors did. When you don't have years of experience under your belt all you can do is ask, hence the reason for the original post. 

Jin, it can be a bit of a combination of factors which vary between spots. 

The 4500 is well up to the task to find big deep lumps, it's just that people don't really set them up to target big gold. 

In milder/medium mineralisation I'd be using the biggest DD you can get your hands on and Sharp timing.

In hotter soils I'd be using Enhance and a big mono, 19" Evo or 20" NFA or 22" Gold Stalker. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic but highlighted by PhaseTech's post - Am I wrong or has there been precious little attention paid to the Sharp timings on the GPX models? That timing is extraordinary if used in the right way in the right environment. I do wish someone who has had experience using it would publish a short note on how it was to work with and their results with it. 

  • Like 2

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 nugget hunter
      can anyone  give me a idea on what ratio or scale  there is between different metals and depth with the same detector ....say  made out of  6 different metals ...  US nickel  size coins    .... silver , gold , alum , nickel , platinum ,steel and stainless steel ......
    • By Steve Herschbach
      The World's First Smart Detector & Imaging System that can display the shape, depth and dimensions of underground metals in real time. Ideal for Deep Treasure Hunters, Archaeologists, Municipalities, Utility Companies, CSI and Law Enforcement Agencies.
      http://noktadetectors.com/invenio-metal-detector.asp

    • By Steve Herschbach
      Which metal detectors have the most reliable target ID numbers?
      Target ID is a function of depth - the deeper the target, the more difficult it is to get a clean target ID as the ground signal interferes. Other items directly adjacent to the desired target can also cause inaccurate numbers. The more conductive the item, the higher the resulting ID number, but also the larger the item the higher the number. Silver is more conductive than gold, so a gold item will give a lower number than the same size silver item. But a very large gold item can give a higher number than a small silver item, so numbers do not identify types of metal. Gold and aluminum read the same and vary in size so to dig one you dig the other. Only mass produced items like coins produce numbers that are more or less the same over the years but a zinc penny will read lower than a copper penny due to the change in composition.
      In general iron or ferrous targets produce negative numbers or low numbers. Aluminum, gold, and US nickels produce mid-range numbers. And most other US coins produce high numbers. Other countries coins, like Canadian coins with ferrous content, can read all over the place.
      The scale applied varies according to manufacturer so the number produced by each detector will vary according to the scale used. The 0-100 range for non-ferrous targets is most common but there are others. Minelab employs a dual number system on a 2D scale with thousands of possible numbers, but they are now normalizing the results produced to conform more closely to the linear scale used by other manufacturers.

      Increasing ground mineralization has a huge effect on the ability to get a good target ID. Ground mineralization is nearly always from iron mineralization, and this tends to make weak targets, whether very small targets or very deep targets, misidentify. The target numbers get dragged lower, and many non-ferrous targets will eventually be identified as iron if buried deep enough. Small non-ferrous readings and iron readings actually overlap. That is why any discrimination at all is particularly risky for gold nugget hunters.
      If you want target ID numbers to settle down, lower sensitivity and practice consistent coil control. The target number will often vary depending on how well the target is centered and how fast the coil moves.
      Higher sensitivity settings lead to jumpier numbers as the detectors become less stable at higher levels. The interference from the ground signal increases and interference from outside electrical sources also increases, leading to less stable numbers.
      Higher frequency detectors are inherently more sensitive and are jumpier. So lean lower frequency for more solid results. Multi frequency detectors act like low frequency detectors and tend to have more solid target numbers due to the ability to analyze a target with different frequencies.
      Another issue is the number of target categories, or ID segments, or VDIs, or notches, or bins (all names for the same thing) that a detector offers.
      For instance here are the number of possible target id categories or segments each detector below offers:
      Fisher CZ-3D = 7
      Garrett Ace 250 = 12
      Minelab X-Terra 305 = 12
      Minelab X-Terra 505 = 19
      Minelab X-Terra 705 = 28
      Minelab Equinox = 50
      Fisher F75 (and many other models) = 99
      White's MXT (and many other models) = 190
      Minelab CTX 3030 = 1750
      Fewer target categories means more possible items get lumped together under a single reading, but that the reading is more stable. Many detectors will tell you the difference between a dime and a quarter. The Fisher CZ assumes you want to dig both so puts them under one segment along with most other coins.
      People who use detectors with many target numbers usually just watch the numbers jump around and mentally average the results. Some high end detectors can actually do this averaging for you! But I think there is something to be said for owning a detector that simplifies things and offers less possible numbers to start with. The old Fisher CZ method still appeals to me, especially for coin detecting. So do detectors like the Garrett Ace 250 or Minelab X-Terra 505 for the same reason.
      The problem is that as people strive to dig deeper targets or smaller targets the numbers will always get less reliable. But if you want to have a quiet performing metal detecting with solid, reliable target numbers look more for coin type detectors running at lower frequencies under 10 kHz or at multiple frequencies and possibly consider getting a detector with fewer possible target segments. And with any detector no matter what just back that sensitivity setting off and you will get more reliable target numbers.
      ads by Amazon...
      Detectors often use tones to identify targets and often use far fewer tones than indicated by the possible visual target id numbers. The X-Terra 705 for instance can use 28 tones, one for each segment. However, most people find this too busy, and so simple tone schemes of two, three, or four tones may be selected. I think it is instructive that many people often end up ignoring screen readings and hunting by ear, using just a few tones. This ends up just being an ultra simple target id system much like the simpler units offer. Reality is that most people do not need or care about huge numbers of target numbers. For many just three ranges suffice, low tone for iron, mid tone for most gold items, and high tone for most US coins. The meter could do the same thing, but for marketing purposes more is better and so we get sold on detectors with hundreds of possible target ID numbers. Perhaps that represents a digital representation of an old analog meter with its nearly infinite range of response but the reality is we do not need that level of differentiation to make a simple dig or no dig decision.
      Finally, a picture often says it all. Below we have a shot of the White's M6 meter. I like it because the decal below illustrates a lot. You see the possible numerical range of -95 to 95 laid out in the middle. Over it is the simplified iron/gold/silver range. Note the slants where they overlap to indicate the readings really do overlap. Then you get the probable target icons. -95 is noted as "hot rock" because many do read there.

      The M6 can generate 7 tones depending on the target category. I have added red lines to the image to show where these tones sit in relation to the scale. It breaks down as follows:
      -95 = 57 Hz (Very Low) Hot Rock
      -94 to -6 = 128 Hz (Low) Iron Junk
      -5 to 7 = 145 Hz (Med Low) Gold Earrings, Chains - Foil
      8 to 26 = 182 Hz (Medium) Women's Gold Rings/Nickel - Small Pull Tabs
      27 to 49 = 259 Hz (Med Hi) Men's Gold Rings - Large Pull Tabs
      50 to 70 = 411 Hz (High) Zinc Penny/Indian Head Penny - Screw Caps
      71 to 95 = 900 Hz (Very High) Copper Penny/Dime/Quarter/Dollar
      Note that the screen reading of +14 is noted as being a nickel or ring but it can also be the "beaver tail" part of an aluminum pull tab or the aluminum ring that holds an eraser on a pencil, among other things.
      The best book ever written on the subject of discrimination is "Taking A Closer Look At Metal Detector Discrimination" by Robert C. Brockett. It is out of print but if you find a copy grab it, assuming the topic interests you.
      Always remember - when in doubt, dig it out! Your eyes are the best target ID method available.


    • By Steve Herschbach
      Our cup runneth over!
      Just a few years ago the market for "over 30 kHz nugget detectors" was quite limited. For a long time there were only a few options:
      Fisher Gold Bug 2 (71 kHz) $764 with one coil
      Minelab Eureka Gold (6.4, 20, & 60 kHz) Discontinued $1049 when new with one coil
      White's GMZ (50 kHz) Discontinued $499 when new with one coil
      White's GMT (48 khz) $729 with one coil
      Things were that way for over a decade. Then in 2015 Makro introduced the Gold Racer (56 kHz) $599 with one coil. Sister company Nokta released the AU Gold Finder (56 kHz) $799 with two coils
      Then in 2017 we see the Minelab Gold Monster 1000 (45 khz) at $799 with two coils. And although not a dedicated nugget detector, the Deus high frequency coil options (up to 80 kHz) were also released, $1520 for complete detector with one HF coil.
      Now in 2018 we get another general purpose machine, the Equinox 800, that can hit 40 khz, $899 with one coil. And just announced...
      the Makro Gold Kruzer (61 kHz) $749 with two coils and
      the White's Goldmaster 24K (48 khz) $749 with two coils
      These last two announcements have made barely a ripple in the prospecting world, or at least going by other forums that seems to be the case. There are various reason for that (forums not being prospecting oriented or being Minelab centric) but still the lack of buzz is interesting. I do believe people are both burned out by all the new introductions and that the market is saturated with high frequency models. Leaving out the general purpose machines to sum up the current options it looks like the current "sweet spot" for pricing is a high frequency model at $749 with two coils.
      Makro Gold Racer 56 kHz - $599 one coil
      White's Goldmaster 24K 48 kHz - $649 one coil
      White's GMT 48 khz - $729 one coil
      White's Goldmaster 24K 48 kHz - $749 two coils
      Makro Gold Kruzer 61 kHz - $749 two coils
      Fisher Gold Bug 2 71 kHz - $764 one coil
      Minelab Gold Monster 1000 45 kHz - $799 two coils
      Nokta AU Gold Finder 56 kHz - $799 two coils
      High Frequency Gold Nugget Detector Roundup

    • By MikeM
      Hi, I am looking to purchase a gold finding metal detector that can handle mineralized soil well, but also locates smaller gold.   I live in southern Nevada and it seems that the more I read, the more confused I am getting.  I guess I'm looking for a detector that does well with tiny and larger gold.  I had the Gold Bug 2 for a while and it was way too sensitive for me and not rain-proof.  The Makro Gold Kruzer,  The Gold Monster and others on that level are all within my price range, so I am having trouble making a decision.  I understand that the right detector for someone may not be the right detector for someone else, but I do believe the right input is valuable.   I haven't seen any head to head videos using the Gold Kruzer yet (still too new) but it looks promising so far.  The reviews of these detectors are great, but nothing beats real world testing under various conditions and soil types.   I am not one for air testing due to it's controlled nature,  so the confusion grows.   I know many of these detectors can locate tiny gold due to their higher kHz, but there is a trade off.   I appreciate any suggestions.  Thank you, Mike  
    • By phrunt
      I don't know if I'm right on this but I've found my Teknetics T2 to be a good guide to mineralisation at an area, I use its Fe3O4 meter as a guide.
       Would I be right in using that as a guide?
×