Jump to content
Jin

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

Recommended Posts

I would like to see a test on large nuggets between a GPX in its deepest setting with the 19" Evo mono against a GPZ in its deepest setting with the 19" DOD.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, PhaseTech said:

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

Right on the money!

I've had good success on old deep patches doing just that with an 18" Coiltek DD.

Jim Stewart and I found that using DD coils larger than 18" (on SD/GP detectors) gave minimal advantage and any slight depth advantage was outweighed by the inconvenience factor. Apart from the obvious size and weight issues, this includes deep false signals caused by mineralisation when running in "sharp" timing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Nenad, I do have a DD 24" and have tried it in sharp before just not on ground known for deep nuggets. Talking about a larger mono (22" coiltek) coil,  reminded me of a video that showed the difference between Enhance and normal timings on big gold. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually just found this video test between a GPZ and GPX on an undug target using larger coils.

 Hopefully Nenad does not mind me posting his test here on this forum and subject.

There appears to be very little difference between both the GPX and GPZ on this target.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, flakmagnet said:

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. 

Pretty much all I ever ran while in Alaska with my GPX was the Sharp timing. I generally run the most powerful timing the ground will allow, and Sharp is one of the most powerful Timings on the GPX. From the Minelab GPX 4000-5000 Manuals & Timings Charts:

“Sharp is similar to Normal but creates a more powerful detection field. It is capable of an improvement in depth, but is more susceptible to interference and will increase the severity of false signals in difficult grounds. This timing is best used in quiet conditions and can work well in combination with Deep Search Mode with a reduced Rx Gain setting. Sharp is an excellent tool for pinpointing faint signals due to the very "sharp" signal response. Sharp will work best with DD coils in most gold field locations.”

Sharp works well if the ground allows, and not well if the ground objects. I get the impression people pick timings based on internet posts or what a friend said, when they should be using the method outlined in the chart below to discover the best timing for the ground they are on. There is no “best” timing. The detector must be adjusted to fit the conditions. “The best timing is the deepest timing with no ground noise”.

Minelab GPX Timing Selection Chart - Click on image for larger version

minelab-gpx-choosing-correct-timing-larg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that VLF  depth  hit its peak depth years ago.  I have to disagree with that. Look at the depths the VLFs coming out of Eastern Europe are attaining.   This past summer I did some depth testing with my Rutus  ALter 71 on a freshwater beach.  I buried a silver half dollar  20 " deep in the dry sand , but the detector in deep mode (  not the super deep mode), close to max sensitivity,  disc at 40, one tone, 11" dd coil, and I get a repeatable signal.    How many VLF detectors from years ago could hit that?  No visual ID , but the audio gave a nice repeatable signal.  The Detech Chaser looks like its even deeper than the 71.  However  some of these machines are very fussy to set up,  and have their quirks also. But that comes with the territory.  The Russian AKA  machines are also very deep, but challenging to balance to  higher mineralized ground.  But if you spend a lot of time using these depth monsters , you will dig deep!.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Redneck said:

How many VLF detectors from years ago could hit that? 

No way to say without doing direct head to head tests. Possibly more than you are assuming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Redneck said:

Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that VLF  depth  hit its peak depth years ago.  I have to disagree with that. Look at the depths the VLFs coming out of Eastern Europe are attaining.   This past summer I did some depth testing with my Rutus  ALter 71 on a freshwater beach.  I buried a silver half dollar  20 " deep in the dry sand , but the detector in deep mode (  not the super deep mode), close to max sensitivity,  disc at 40, one tone, 11" dd coil, and I get a repeatable signal.    How many VLF detectors from years ago could hit that?  No visual ID , but the audio gave a nice repeatable signal.  The Detech Chaser looks like its even deeper than the 71.  However  some of these machines are very fussy to set up,  and have their quirks also. But that comes with the territory.  The Russian AKA  machines are also very deep, but challenging to balance to  higher mineralized ground.  But if you spend a lot of time using these depth monsters , you will dig deep!.  

 

Sorry to burst your bubble but (Almost) any modern machine with an "All Metal" threshold will signal on a large coin at that depth, No ID but you will know it is there. depending on the current EMI.

One thing I'd like to point out is that detecting in dry/power sand is comparable to doing an Air Test and as such has no real world benefits/Value

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony (an old detecting friend) has inherited Jim Stewarts coil winding expertise. They spent a lot of time together in the workshop at Laanecoorie Park experimenting with ground loops, different coil configurations, etc. He also communicates regularly with Rowan (Nuggetfinder)

Tony has wound a number of concentric (coplanar) coils for the GPX and demonstrated some of them to me at the Laanecoorie test site earlier this year. Here's one not yet painted:

mlicTv0.jpg

On deep targets this type of coil clearly outperformed (depth wise and size for size) all the other coils we tested. These included flat wound and DD's.

Tony related how, using this type of coil he had clearly heard a 14 oz colour deeply encased in solid ironstone (in WA, dug up with a Makita jackhammer) when no other coil he tried could hear it, even when partly excavated.

Although we didn't test one on the day, Tony is of the opinion that this type of coil (size for size) will outperform the GPZ on deep targets:

H9TdRQO.jpg

So far I'm unable to bribe him into making me one :sad:

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That coil reminds me back in the A2B days the large concentric coil made by Dtex (spelling may be incorrect) was the coil for depth and was no slouch in sensitivity. It would be great to see these aftermarket coil manufacturers be given the green light for Z coils, I think they would do what they`ve done to the PI coils and by now maybe we`d have a selection of coil sizes and performance gain coils that push the depth boundaries even further.

Hopefully whatever it is that stops these innovative people doing so is overcome.

  • Like 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 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?
×