Jump to content
Jin

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

Recommended Posts

I was reading the Australian Electronic Gold Prospecting Forum today and noticed a post about detector depth. I was wondering what others think about today's detectors compared to what was available 25 years ago. I read somewhere that (Woody) the guy that does mods to detectors thinks that for outright depth the sd2000 still goes the deepest. I wouldn't know as I've never owned a sd2000 or a gpz7000. Anyway, i found the comments at AEGPF interesting and wonder if anyone here has actually done a depth comparison between the zed and sd2000. Heres the snippet from AEGPF 

Quote from AEGPF: "The deepest Pi detector ever developed in my opinion was a prototype  SD2000  that BC modified for the late Jim Stewart.BC slowed down the clock speed to give a very long pulse and made some other unknown changes to the circuit to cope with higher currents etc. At the time the SD2000 came out BC stated that it was at about 95% of the maximum potential depth that any handheld PI could ever achieve (and still pass emission standards). However, the deepest PI that has ever been made for gold was Corybns detector which detected a  nugget of around 10oz? at 3 feet in depth in WA. Somewhere on the forum is a reference to it and I will try and find the link when I have time.

"What is interesting is that the deepest nuggets ever detected by a Pi  was by a detector used in the early 1980's in WA-Corbyn's  wheeled detector! Pictures of it  and the depths of some of nuggets he found with it can be seen in Mike Wattones book: Quest for gold.NO Pi detector today could match the depths Corby got on at least one nugget! (4cm nugget at over 36" in mineralized ground)"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well jin, no takers on this subject. I have a few clues, but not sure I should post them, as it could stir up a hornets nest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My though is that PI detectors in the 2000 series, both mod'ed and standard, were a steady progression of improvements in sensitivity, ground balance and depth.  The 2000 was the most modified of the series and as the base model it was the most accepting of tinkering for outright depth.  However it suffered for sensitivity.  Could not have one for the other.  With the advent of the GP, GPX series the transition to digital processing has made greater depth with sensitivity to smaller targets that the 2000 series can not accomplish due to analog design restrictions.  As to outright power the 2000 has it, thru modification, but it simply cant perform as the later GP series can. There is no need to put the GPZ into this thought as its a different system altogether.  My thoughts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the results we see only happen when all the planets align and can not be repeated on a target to target bases, I have achieved extreme depths with both PI's and VLF's but I have never had either of them do it on demand,  The deepest small target I found was with the sovereign GT with a standard coil, Yet my 3500 with the 11"DD could not see it, Move on 10 years I found the Iron subway tunnel supports with my TDI SL at over 6 feet deep using the standard 12" DF coil,

Neither machine was/is outstanding on a daily bases but some targets seem to do the impossible when you lest expect it, The down side of that is that it give you false hope because just because they do it once or twice does not mean that is what is happening under the coil all the time,

I have air tested my machines till the cows come home and in doing so I except that I am getting 30% of that depth on a daily bases and anything deeper is a bonus, the real depth is a bit deeper but to avoid disappointment I set my expectations low, using this as a base line I look at the ground and think "Coils" as in do I go large and drop the sensitivity or do I use a smaller coil and crank it up, Knowing how deep the soil is in relation to the sub base has a lot to do with my coil selection, there is no point in using a big coil if the soil is only 10" deep, I tend to look at the ground as layers depending if I am coin shooting /relic hunting, If I can get down to the sub base on a few targets then I know I am not leaving much behind, but If I am trying to find Gold then coil selection to ground depth is a lot more critical that's when I start to second guess things, Sometimes it has worked and a lot of times it has not, this is another reason why I stopped chopping and changing machines, As point out we reached the max depth back in the 90's, My old 5900 is an 1989 model and it is the deepest VLF I have ever seen,

J.  

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Steve, the VLF's have plateau'd yrs ago on depth, my current experience with them is they are great for surface tiny gold 1-5 grains to maybe 3-4" max. We have to face it we are hunting mostly well flogged known gold areas now days and all that is left to find is 1-5 grain size nuggets, and extremely deep, 10" to 17"  deep, 1/2 gram to 3 gram nuggets missed by the earlier sd and gp machines. The GPZ is doing a bang up job on the 1/2 gm-3 gm size nuggets to depths its hard to believe, it seems they get around 3"-4" more depth on gram size gold than my 4500, from actual observation of digs.  The pi's like the gpx 4500-5000 are still a viable machine to use with the new tech flat wound coils, but not so much with stock coils. Hopefully there is more new tech machines available in the near future with the ability to find this type gold.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've probably stated this before, but the prototype PI seemed to have the most 'boogy' of any detector I've used.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would not surprise me Reg. Prototypes were often ungainly analog monstrosities from a retail standpoint, but they sometimes lose something in the translation from wild eyed prototype to well behaved retail product.

I will still bet every time on people who have top notch research and prospecting skills first. Asking which detector they use comes second. I like my detectors but frankly I don't see why they get so much credit in finding stuff. Consistently successful prospectors generally go from one machine to another and stay successful. People who don't take care of research and basic prospecting skills - well, half the time it does not matter what detector they use or if they use a detector at all. Bet on the prospector, not the machine.

  • Like 8
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having spent a few months this past year testing coils for my VLF I think the company who can get a VLF to put all that wasted power in to the ground will turn the detecting world on it's head,

One Coil I regret not buying sooner is my Detech Excellertor 14x10,  I was going to buy one back when they came out and the dealer said they were **** so that was the end of that, Now I have one it has become my must have coil for a couple of reasons 1) it is the same weight as my factory 10"DD, 2) it has the depth of the 12" Concentric and 3) being a DD it does not loose much depth compare to the 12"c. and 4) the size of it covers just the right amount of ground in open areas, 5) and it can see bits down to 0.03 grams on the surface.

During testing I was digging a hole using my pick and I kept hearing what I thought was faint EMI and every time I stopped digging the noise stopped then I realized it was signalling on me swinging the pick, I always point the detector away from where I am digging, anyways I measured how far the coil was from the hole and my pick is like an Aussie Walco Pick but the blade is only 10x3" and this coil was seeing it at a measured 5 feet away.

It is only a matter of time before this coil finds a deep target but when it does I hope it is a life changer,

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the PIs I`ve used topped out in sensitivity , depth and smoothness with the 5000, the GPZ has gone another step and increases that sensitivity, depth and smoothness again. These gains prove themselves over and over when I wander back to old patches. I believe these gains were made in the PIs with better capability to handle ground conditions through GB refinements and timings. The SDC illustrates this, I believe that has a lot to do with its single coil and it being "paired" to it electronically.

The Z has shown to me conclusively this is where it shines, its auto ground balance seldom gets it wrong if you get a persistent signal although very weak as you swing over the target a few times you can almost bet it is metal. I found I can trust the auto GB on the Z over the PIs(other then the SDC) this has lead to covering more area each day thus increasing production, this is especially so when patch hunting.

I`ve included the Z in my post because the thread is about depth comparison, between detectors. To me the Z has proven beyond doubt of the detectors I`ve used it ticks this box out there in the field where it counts, for me the 5000 comes a close second. I must state I take the replaced detector out into the field usually only once with the upgraded new detector, I am not into testing detectors rather I let their production prove them up.

  • Like 6

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 mn90403
      We've spent a lot of time here lately on whether to X or whether to CoilTek. 
      We don't know if we should Z or Q. 
      We have so many choices we don't know what to do.
      Make life simple and get the app:
      This might be easier.  Forget the coils and forget the manufacturer.  😁
      https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gamma.metaldetector&hl=en_US
    • By uncle Scrooge
      The black stone is pure magnetite. The purpose of this prototype is discrimination that can indicates very deep targets such as for digging . So far all very deep targets were missed , as well as non-magnetic targets are indicated by discrimination like magnetic (iron ) . The prototype was tested on sand of pure magnetite and can be used to search for golden nuggets , while at the same time rejects the shallow iron objects . In tests on different soils shows very low soil noises , and almost complete absence of false signals . There is a video with the same prototype in youtube , from October 2018 .
    • By Jasonj
      I’ve been hunting a good site using the Deus and Equinox which has nails and small iron mixed in with good targets, some good targets being deep, but near or in the iron. My question is, will a GPX with Iron Discrimination turned up and the smallest DD coil pull out the deeper, non-ferrous items amongst heavy iron? Has anyone had any experience with this? I think for shallow targets the Equinox or Deus works better for shallow targets in this “machine gun iron”, but would like to see what others may have insight on for using the GPX. I’m assuming the fast setting and special soil timing may need to be adjusted as well. Thank you in advance.
    • By Skookum
      Good evening,
      I’m venturing into the spotlight here with my first post to ask what likely amounts to a novice’s question.  
      It stems from an experience I had about a year ago with finding my largest nugget. The location was in a small creek bed, which had been conveniently cleared of cobbles and overburden down to a small patch of bedrock surrounded by smooth, silty clay by a dredger.
      Using a GM 1000, I had detected out several small nuggets from within the bedrock cracks that had been exposed, but not properly crevassed by the prior prospector.  However, the thick clay surrounding the exposed bedrock had pockets of varying degrees of moisture.
      This was providing me a bit of challenge since the wetter spots seemed to be behaving just like hot spots. After an extended wrestling match with the wetter signals and the available settings, I gave up.  
      However, by the time the next weekend came around, I just couldn’t get those wet spots out of my mind.  With the heat of the summer and record drought conditions, I guessed those spots may have dried just enough to deserve one final pass.
      Within minutes of returning, I had found a solid, repeatable, 2 bar non-ferrous signal in the deepest clay pocket on the upstream side of the rock. (This exact spot had seemed masked the week before.)  Digging 4-5 inches down into the smooth clay I found a “rock” that made my detector sing.  Cleaning it off revealed a beautiful 1/3 ozt. nugget. Call it beginner’s luck—because I do. 
      Now for my question. Were those wet spots of clay giving me fits because of greater relative mineralization, heterogeneity of moisture, or VLF technology?  Perhaps it was some of each?  
      Part of my curiosity stems from never having used a PI detector.  For those of you with plenty of PI experience, do you also struggle with wet spots or mud spots for lack of a better term?  And, if so, are certain PI detectors more resistant to the struggle?
      Thanks for any input you might spare.
    • By Dan Fox
      I believe there is not much more they can squeeze out of VLF technology, even multiple frequency has it's limits and is really only 2 frequencies.
      Are manufactures better off concentrating on coil design rather than just tweaking an existing design adding a letter or two to the name?
       
      After market coils quite often improve a detectors performance, so shouldn't manufactures be looking in this area rather than using the same coil designed years ago?
      Would like your thoughts
    • By Steve Herschbach
      I do what I can to foster competition that develops alternatives to the all too common VLF detector. There are plenty of options out there, but in my opinion they all weigh too much or cost too much. Usually both.   I envision people out there with a popular VLF metal detector for beach, relic, or gold detecting. These machines all sell for around $700 and weigh 2.5 - 3.9 lbs. Perhaps they would like to add a ground balancing PI (GBPI) to what they have. I think that for "normal people" with normal budgets a machine under $2K and under four pounds just makes sense. It would be more than twice what they spent for their VLF, and in this day and age there is no reason why a decent PI should weigh over 4 lbs.   To clarify what I am talking about here, I should say that for many people a $700 VLF detector is a great place to start and in many cases is all a person ever needs. However, there are places where extreme ground mineralization and mineralized rocks (hot rocks) severely impede the performance and use of VLF detectors. Alternative technology to deal with these conditions has been developed, by far the most familiar being the Minelab ground balancing PI (GBPI) detectors. These differ from common PI detectors by having the ability to ground balance. Other brands have offered the Garrett Infinium (discontinued) plus Garrett ATX and the White's TDI models.   These detectors are used not just for gold prospecting but also by relic hunters, beach detectorists, and others who face challenges regarding ground mineralization and VLF detectors.   Frankly, in my opinion GBPI technology is largely maxed out. The main room for improvement comes now in better ergonomics at lower prices. This challenge therefore limits detectors to those that weigh under 4 pounds with battery included, and which sell brand new with warranty after discounts for under US$2000. Detectors need not be ground balancing PI models, but must offer similar ability to ignore mineralized ground and hot rocks that trouble VLF detectors. I am going to rate detectors as to their relative performance using what I call the "Minelab Rating Scale. Details here.
      1. Minelab SD 2000 - crude first version, very poor on small gold, excellent on large deep gold
      2. Minelab SD 2100 - vastly refined version of SD 2000
      3. Minelab SD 2200 (all versions) - adds crude iron disc, ground tracking
      4. Minelab GP Extreme - adds greatly improved sensitivity to small gold, overall performance boost.
      5. Minelab GP 3000 - Refined GP Extreme
      6.  Minelab GP 3500 - Greatly refined GP 3000, last and best of analog models
      7. Minelab GPX 4000 - First digital interface, rock solid threshold
      8. Minelab GPX 4500 - Refined GPX 4000, solid performer
      9. Minelab GPX 4800 - Released at same time as GPX 5000 as watered down version
      10. Minelab GPX 5000 - Culmination of the series, current pinnacle of GBPI prospecting machine technology.
      All Minelab models leverage an existing base of over 100 coil options from tiny to huge.
      I am a very practical person when it comes to detecting. I know all the existing models and options by all brands very well, perhaps better than almost anyone. This is the way I look at it is this. If I personally were to spend a lot of money to go gold prospecting for one month, and needed a GBPI detector, considering machines past and present, what would I get and in what order of choice? Put aside concerns of age, warranty, etc. just assume functioning detectors.
      Here is the issue in a nutshell. On the Minelab scale of one to ten as listed above, I would be generous in rating the White's TDI SL as a 2. Same with the Garrett Infinium which I will mention in passing as it is no longer being made. If I was going to spend a month of my time and a lot of money going on a prospecting trip, I would choose a TDI in any version over the SD 2000. I might go with a TDI Pro over a SD 2100 but I would have to think real hard about that, and when push comes to shove I would go SD 2100 were it not for the realities of age I said to ignore. A newer TDI Pro might be a better bet than a very old SD 2100 from a reliability standpoint, but again, this would be a tough choice. The TDI SL not really. In my opinion I would be shooting myself in the foot to go on this hypothetical trip with a TDI SL instead of a SD 2100.
      You see the problem now?
      The Garrett ATX fares better. I would rate it a 3, roughly analogous to the SD 2200 variants. Still an agonizing choice really and the ATX being new versus SD 2200 being old might again be the tipping point, but from a pure prospecting options perspective the case can be made that the SD 2200 might be the better way to go. The problem for this challenge is the ATX weighs way over 4 lbs and sells for slightly over $2000. The price is close enough really but the 7 lb weight is way off.
      That's it folks. That is reality. The best of the best that the competition can offer can only go solidly up against models Minelab has not made in years. I am not saying that to be mean or as some kind of Minelab toadie, that is my pure unvarnished opinion as a guy who is pretty well versed on the subject.
      Let's bring it all home. This person with the $700 machine really, really wants that under 4 lb, under $2K GBPI machine, but if they do their homework they discover that truthfully, they would be better off shopping for a used Minelab than what the competition offers new. With the TDI SL rated as a 2 the ATX in a much lighter box at under $2K is a solid win as a 3. A well designed ATX with standard dry land coils would look very enticing as compared to the GP series Minelabs. But Garrett refuses to budge!
      White's can certainly do something, anything to improve the TDI SL. A battery that lasts all day would be a good start. In the end they are limited by the basic single channel design of the machine. The SD 2000 dual channel design was literally the answer to and the improvement on the single channel technology used in the TDI, the basics of which predate the SD 2000. Still, White's currently owns the under 4 lb under $2K GBPI category so they have the first out of the starting gate advantage. Anything they do would at the very least just show they have not given up.
      The Minelab MPS patent that formed the basis of the SD series has expired. Not sure about DVT, which formed the basis of the GP series. Where is the competition? What the heck is going on here? Much gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair is going on here, that's what!!!
      That is my challenge to the manufacturers. Under 4 lbs, under $2K, on the 1-10 scale I am offering, what is the best you can do?
      The TDI SL as a 2? Really? Yes, really, that is currently the best of the best in the brand new ground balancing PI, full warranty, under 4 lb, under $2k category. You can pick up a 3.5 lb TDI SL right now brand new for $1049. The White's TDI SL takes the crown.
      Hopefully we will see more competition in this wide open category soon. I have been beating this drum for years to no avail, but I do have reason to believe we are finally going to see more alternatives soon. I hope.

×
×
  • Create New...