Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Came across a post on Facebook, about this gentleman testing a few aftermarket coils. This really opened my eyes this morning. I was under the impression that the Minelab coils were chipped and no aftermarket coils could be used. If this was the case? Why did they wait so long? The smaller coil would suit my needs just perfectly.   http://golddetecting.forumotion.net/t26022-gpz-18-coil-test-report

FB_IMG_1533479516672.jpg

Screenshot_20180805-073147_Facebook.jpg

Edited by Sourdough Scott
Spelling error
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is with great interest that I have been following the development of these coils on the Australian 4umer forum.

Having had a good run with the GPZ7000, (found enough gold to pay for it in less than two weeks) I looked forward to the production of the 19" coil which promised much extra depth. (according to the advertising, one could expect at least 30% more than the standard 14" coil) After much delay, I was at my local ML dealer early on the day of release. When I picked up the box I wondered what else could be in there, as surely all that weight could not be just a coil. Wrong. Oh, well, never mind, if it gives me all that extra depth I can put up with the weight. The appalling design meant I had to make up a workable skid plate, as the one supplied had little rubber patches that gripped on any grass, and worked as a brake.

 After exhaustive testing I could not get the thing to perform any where near the claims of the manufacturer, and the settings suggested by ML's 'guru' were just unworkable in most Victorian ground. I did find gold with it, but there was little hope that it would "unlock all those big nuggets at greater depth".

I then made the mistake of posting my findings on the 4umer forum, and stated that the 19" coil was over weight, over rated and over priced. I called it 'The Dog'. (a name that stuck) Having once been a tester for ML, finding hundreds of ounces with some of their prototypes, I mistakenly believed that I had some sort of credibility. Wrong again. I was abused, denigrated, and accused of being a sour old 'has been'.

To compound the situation, I was involved in testing a new Australian built and designed detector, which then resulted in another Australian forum devoting eleven pages of some really disgusting and personal abuse. One member of management of 4umer then banned JR Beatty and myself from their forum for life. Reason given. Trouble making.

I now read with great amusement: "I and a lot of others got burnt by the ML 19" coil"  Slim Pickins - 4umer management.

Exonerated, after all this time?????

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reg, please leave the grievances you have with other individuals on other forums at the door when you enter. This forum exists in large part for people, you included, to get away from all that. So don’t bring it here. Thank you.

There has been a thread about these aftermarket coils ongoing since April on the Minelab Forum.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, I merely made the point that honesty is not always the best policy if one wishes to avoid abuse, and we the prospecting public are sometimes just tools for profitability. To not speak out about products that are less than claimed only encourages companies to continue to take us for granted.

I wish the company producing these coils all the best, but regret that this advance has had to come from Europe and not Australia. From what I can gather both Coiltek and Nuggetfinder wanted to produce aftermarket coils for the 7000 but for whatever reason were unable to do so. This has been a less than desirable situation, as there has certainly been demand for such products. Healthy competition is always beneficial for us the consumers, but has been lacking in this area.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reg Wilson said:

Steve, I merely made the point that honesty is not always the best policy if one wishes to avoid abuse, and we the prospecting public are sometimes just tools for profitability. To not speak out about products that are less than claimed only encourages companies to continue to take us for granted.

Perhaps that is the case elsewhere but not here. Anyone is welcome, in fact encouraged, to post honest reviews based on actual use. I have never deleted a negative review of any product as long as it is above board and avoids name calling and stays factual/dispassionate in nature. Anyone abusing other forum members may be banned without warning. I simply will not tolerate it.

All I ever ask is people realize opinions can vary as to product usefulness and applicability at locations around the world. Each persons experience applies to them alone and do not apply globally. My opinions apply to my uses at my locations for my purposes and your opinions are based on your locations for your purposes. Therefore opinions may differ and any wise person looks at a wide range of opinions instead of relying on any one source. Cross talk and weighing in on people personally is never called for. The bottom line is I am sorry other forums allow that kind of behavior but I do not. That includes dredging up grievances from other forums and bringing it here. I expect this to be the end of the discussion on that matter. Thank you.

This thread is about these aftermarket coils. Let’s stay on topic.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it's me that posted up about the new aftermarket coil on facebook and have been helping Stan do some testing, this 1 coil is in Australia and, now another 2 have arrived so there is only 3 in total so it takes some time to make sure they will work well and hopefully give the GPZ7000 users some extra choices in a range of coils.

I mostly use the GPZ14" coil on my 7000 but I did run the 18" prototype coil on my 7000 for a week or so and found a bit over an oz of gold with it in total, and the biggest nugget I found with it was a 4.14 gram nugget at aprox 8" deep in extremely mineralized  ironstone ground in Western Australia, as this is where all the testing has been done in Australia so far.

I was very impressed with the prototype 18" coil, it weighs about the same as the 14"GPZ coil has great sensitivity and I found it in some ways similar to a mono coil around the outer edge and the extra coverage with the bigger coil compared to the standard 14"GPZ was also a bonus.  It was finding nuggets from 0.1g up to 4.14g and plenty of 0.5g and 1.0g sizes.

Stan found some quit large pieces in his 6 day detecting trip, which he has posted about on the other forum

It ran very similar on the same ground when compared to the standard 14"GPZ coil  

I am looking forward to testing the other size coils as well.

cheers dave

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another picture of some more coils that will be getting tested for the 7000, really looking forward to testing these.

 

cheers dave

IMG_5939.jpg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this overseas company can do it why can't or wont Coiltek &/or Nuggetfinder, or even Minelab for that matter??

JW :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, kiwijw said:

If this overseas company can do it why can't or wont Coiltek &/or Nuggetfinder, or even Minelab for that matter??

JW :smile:

Good question JW, as far as I know Nuggetfinder did some work on this very thing and for whatever reason stopped, and the others, well Minelab could for sure if they wanted to, but no word if they are or have, so overseas entrepreneurs have taken up the challenge and have something that works, does it work better, well that's where/why a bit more testing is going to be happening with this latest batch of 4 coils.

 

cheers dave   

  • 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 longhn
      I am new here. Want to buy a GPZ 7000, but also want to wait until the next model of GPZ technology coming out. It would feel horrible to buy GPZ 7000, and new model come out in half a year. 
      So does anyone know or hear anything about when new GPZ metal detector will come out?
      Thanks a great deal.
    • By Steve Herschbach
      Minelab GPZ 7000 Getting Started Guide (English only version), 3.96 MB pdf file, 15 pages  
    • By wirelessguy
      I am starting a thread on GPZ discrimination.  In this missive I use “discrimination” with reference to both hot rock and junk identification. 
      Let me start with my hypothesis then describe how I got there.   I am very much asking for corroborating or contradictory evidence to my hypothesis and other notes as well as any other useful info on GPZ 7000 discrimination.
      Hypothesis:
      Natural gold from small, barely perceptible signal return, to huge enough to provide overload, always produces a high-to-low tone when in high yield gold mode / general ground type settings.  Natural Gold can sound either high-to-low or low-to-high in difficult or severe ground type settings.  Ground type is the only user changeable setting that effects tone changes high-to-low or low-to-high on a particular target.
      Required Conditions:  negligible EMI, negligible other metal or overriding hot rock present.
      The one thing that has been true to date in my field experience and experiments, is that every natural gold find or test nugget from small, barely perceptible to huge enough to provide overload, had a high-to-low tone when in high yield/general.  I understand this hypothesis is no giant breakthrough enabling classification of the Zed as anything other than an all-metal machine as the Minelab manual and advertising clearly classify it.  Nonetheless, it’s the entire useful conclusion I’ve come to in as few words I can make it.  (I have trouble with writing few words.  J  )   Minelab makes no mention of discriminating sounds yet the pitch change of high-to-low or low-to-high is impossible to ignore, and naturally causes the curious to explore.* 
      Early in my experimentation and Zed education, I spent hours determining what controls affected a reliable pitch change in different junk materials and hot rocks and gold.  All kinds of elaborate charts in my notebook.  I am glad I have not posted on this topic earlier because I have been through many cycles where experiments and field experiences would give me some preliminary beliefs which would soon thereafter be disproved by another experiment or field experience.
      What has emboldened me to make this post (as simple as the hypothesis is) is that I was fortunate recently to experiment on a very large gold in quartz specimen.  Not certain on the mass of gold (> several ozs for sure) yet the return signal easily produces overload response on all gold type/ground type combinations. (No, not my gold.  L )   The specimen produced high-to-low on high yield/general, low-to-high for difficult and severe ground types.  Always true as I backed the Zed coil away from the specimen.
      This was enlightening and counter to my early Zed experimentation on aluminum where size of aluminum changed pitch direction.  I found that the Zed, with no change in settings, will respond high-to-low on small pieces of aluminum foil (several mm x several mm) yet respond low-to-high on large (>100 mm x >100 mm) keeping high yield/general constant as well as all other settings.   Zed responds low-to-high on soda and beer cans with high yield/general.    So, I have wandered about assuming the same for gold (size of metal can affect pitch change) and hence I have NO DISCRIMINATION at all.   I “convinced” myself of this when I tested a 1 gram nugget (high-to-low) then a very large men’s gold wedding band (low-to-high) keeping high yield/general constant as well as all other settings.   Hence my hypothesis states “natural gold” to distinguish from alloys.
      Hot rocks, iron or mineral based, produce a symphonic range of return sounds and can be high-to-low or low-to-high on any ground type or gold mode setting.   (another thread necessary on hot rock strategies.)  My hypothesis of “Ground type is the only user changeable setting that effects tone changes high-to-low or low-to-high on a particular target.” is not in conflict with the fact that you can put audio smoothing on high and totally eliminate a return from a weak target.   Audio smoothing setting does not change the pitch direction on a target.
      Iron.  Man made iron and high % iron alloy objects produce low-to-high on all ground types only if the iron is not rusted heavily.  If the iron is rusted it can produce high-to-low or low-to-high.   This of course is near useless info for the prospector because most all iron stuff we find is rusted. 
      Since I work in a hard rock environment, "dig it all" is just not practical.   Hence, my experiments and documentation on the GPZ7000 tones to try and get any possible discrimination info out of it. In my environment, that mostly means hot rock.  In my environment, I can prospect in high yield/general at least 90% of the time.  Mineralization puts me in difficult or severe less than 10% of the time.  I also have the “luxury” to mark interesting signal location first located by GPZ, then come back with my Whites MXT to try and discriminate.  (Also have GMT, GB II and GB Pro available.)  This works well on strong signals, or near-surface hot rock, however weaker GPZ signals produce inadequate response for any accurate discrimination from the VLFs.
      Even if your environment requires you to mostly search in difficult or severe ground type settings, you could always go high yield/general as a discrimination test right over the target.  Of course then you might have "overriding hot rock" condition.   I think the most opportunity for uselessness of my hypothesis, even if it's accurate, is that I just don't have much experience of gold in difficult or sever ground environments whereas that is much the norm elsewhere.
      * My previous Minelab experience is just ~ 80 hours with a GP3000, so I come to GPZ 7000 without much Minelab audio discrimination experience.  I’m told on other posts in this forum that is a Zed education advantage.
    • By Steve Herschbach
      This is it folks - most of your questions answered, and fodder for forum controversy for sure!
       
      Official Minelab GPX 7000 Sales Brochure Full pdf Version






    • By Steve Herschbach
      The Minelab GPZ 7000 audio Smoothing function was directly derived from the Stabilizer control used on the GPX series. From JP at http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/715-gold-i-found-in-victoria-with-the-gpz/?p=6424
       
      "On the subject of Audio Smoothing: Off on the GPZ = 20 on the GPX 5000, Low equals 15 and High equals 10."
       
      JP at the link referenced obviously prefers Smoothing to be left off, but I do have to pop some bubbles here. Just because JP prefers to do something one way does not necessarily make it gospel. Sorry JP! The point being some people are experimenting with higher audio smoothing settings combined with either hotter Gold Mode settings or higher Sensitivity settings or both. I think this is a good thing so do not go thinking it is "wrong". There is no right or wrong per se, it is all about what works for each prospector and their personal tolerance for noise or the lack thereof. And believe it or not somebody might just teach JP a trick or two! Experimentation is good.
       
      I thought it would be informative to copy what the GPZ manual (page 66) has to say about the Stabilizer control. Warning: the GPX Stabilizer control is backwards. The highest setting if 20 is the off position. Lower numbers increase smoothing. So the GPZ at off is same as GPX at 20 (off). Note that the GPZ High setting is the same as the GPX default setting of 10. The default for the GPZ 7000 is Low Smoothing which is the equivalent of a setting of 15 on the GPX.
       
      One final note. RX Gain as referred to on the GPX is the same as the Sensitivity control on the GPX.
       
      From the GPX manual:
       
       
      I guess I should say that my preferences tend to follow JPs - I run with audio Smoothing off under nearly all circumstances. But I wanted to make this post to create a thread on the subject as it is very clear people are having success with other ways of thinking and again, I like out of box thinking. Lunks settings at http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/830-lunks-zed-settings/ are at the other end of the spectrum. I also liked Jason's observation on the subject at http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/827-minelab-video-gpz-7000-ground-type/?p=8276
    • By Rail Dawg
      Heading to Rye Patch, NV next week with new detector.
      Very little mineralization out there and far away from any type of EMI.
      Looking to go as deep as possible.
      Reading the manual cover-to-cover but thought you all could provide some guidance on the initial settings.
      Thanks!
×