Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
EL NINO77

Fisher Gold Bug Pro / Teknetics G2 For Meteorites ?

Recommended Posts

... Is Fisher Gold bug-pro / TekneticsG2 a suitable meteorite detector..?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EL NINO77 said:

... Is Fisher Gold bug-pro / TekneticsG2 a suitable meteorite detector..?

Yes, just run them in all metal mode and ground balance them.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your advice ... SnakeJim ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any dedicated gold machine is a good meteorite hunter. Of course you will also find any other bits of metal that you may swing over. For chrondrites do not use any level of discrimination. I would not use any D ever for meteorites.

The area you are in will likely have all types of rubbish from a few thousand years of occupation and war.

Good Luck

fred

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Yes, you are right, there is everything ... even when it comes from the locality .., Meteority is for me a new theme, sometimes there is some hot-rock, and I always tried to eliminate them .. I'm interested now. ..
 Fredmason ....Thank you ..
 
 

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By N7XW
      So I found this Gold Bug detector for sale.  The owner says it is the GB2 which it appears to be by the housing, but I think it may be an earlier version (?).  Id appreciate if anyone could give me some info on this unit.  In particular, my questions are:
      What frequency does it run on?
      Is it as sensitive as the GB2?
      Is this maybe something similar to the CZ3D where the older models are more desirable/better?
      Thanks guys.
       
      Jon






    • By GB_Amateur
      With the official announcement on May 15 of the (hopefully) mid-summer release of the Garrett Apex there was considerable discussion of the (only) stock coil planned for release and its affects on depth.  Within that discussion Chase gave me incentive to do some testing.  This post is a result of that, but since I think my testing is applicable to more than just the Garrett Apex I'm creating this post in the general DetectorProspector forum.
      The gist of the topic there was how much compromise the 6" (wide) X 11" (tall/high - my choice of word) Apex stock would have on depth.  As I mentioned I have quite a few coils for each of my detectors, but subsequently I realized there was one detector (Fisher Gold Bug Pro) and coil combinations (5" DD round and 5" X 10" DD elliptical) which would best address this issue.  (I also have some other options -- White's TDI SPP and Minelab X-Terra 705 -- but those are a bit less ideal as will be discussed later.  Since I have two other coils for the GB Pro I decided to include those for completeness although they add more variables/concerns and thus don't fit quite as neatly as the other two.
      I initally started with my variable depth test stand which allows me to vary the depth of small targets in 1/2 inch increments from ~ 1" down to 12" depth in the ground.  However, in the midst of that part of the study I realized that I have some (likely iron) trash targets in the field-of-view which compromise the tones/measurements.  Fortunately I also have two cleanly placed buried coins -- a copper alloy Lincoln Memorial USA penny buried at 5" depth and a Jefferson nickel alloy 5 cent piece at 6 inch depth.  Neither of these currently suffers from nearby trash targets.  I subsequently altered my study to use those targets for the coil performance tests.  Unfortunately these also aren't ideal since under the conditions of testing they are too shallow to determine in-ground depth limits.  What I did as a hybrid compromise is to carefully (i.e. measurably, with shims) raise the coil above the ground until the signal disappeared.  For a second (more/less confirmation) test, and one that should be easily repeatable by anyone with the same/similar detector and coils, was to then perform a standard air test.
      Let's start with the conditions of the tests:
      1) Ground conditions -- moist ground (we've had a typical wet Spring season), Fe3O4 mineralization measure of 2.5 bars on both the Fisher Gold Bug and Fisher F75 (2.5 meaning that about half the time I see 2 bars and half the time 3 bars).
      2) Gold Bug Pro running in "all metal" ("motion all metal" in USA terminology which I like to call minimally filtered), max gain, threshold at 11 (which is about where Kevin Hoagland calls "mosquito buzzing in your ear"), no headphones (so detector's speaker).
      3) My precision for "depth" is 1/2 inch.  That coincidentally was the height of the shims I used in the hybrid test and also my ability to control the hand-held coin distance in the air test.
      4) My determination of (maximum) depth limit was simple.  I increased the depth until I thought I could barely detect an audio signal.  I then decreased the target-->detector distance by 1/2 inch and required that I subsequently heard a clear signal.  If not I reduced the depth/distance and repeated.
      Here are the raw data results.  I'll explain the meaning of the columns shortly.

      You can see the four coils I tested.  The first three are all Fisher manufactured and the last is the NEL Tornado.  Rather than to use the nominal product quoted dimensions ('dim' short for 'dimension' in the column headings) I actually measured the coils and interpolated to account for the fact that a coil doesn't typically have a single extent but rather is a bundle, and further that the bundle obviously fits inside the housing.  For the closed coils this is obviously more vague but in those cases I just used half an inch less than the housing dimension.  An addition oddity is that DD coils aren't really simple ellipses but some overlap of two independent elliptical coils.   'geom mu' is the geometric mean of the two just determined transverse dimensions -- more specifically the square root of their product.  Hopefully you'll see later why I calculated that quantity.  It's not really relevant for the main conclusions I draw.  The last two columns are the actual distances between the target and coil for the limiting distance (see item 4 above).  In the case of the air test that is obvious.  In the 'part ground' test that is the sum of the depth of the coin in the ground and the height of the coil above the ground for both coins.
      At this point I think it's worth discussing some caveats/assumptions/limitations of this test.  Then if you've stayed with me I'll go a bit farther and hypothesize on how to use these data to draw conclusions for other coils.
      1) Although I chose a detector/coils combination that was as consistent as I could be (same manufacturer and same 'width' coil), it has been discussed on this forum previously (sorry, no link) that the quality control of coil manufacture is a difficult task.  It's certainly possible, although not necessarily likely, that my 5" x 10" elliptical coil is a high end tail performer among its peers and/or my 5" round is a low end performer.
      2) With any measurement, there are in particular systematic errors and biases.  I can't "double blind" my method.  That is, I do know which coil I'm testing at a given time and if I have a prejudice for or against a certain coil that could show up in the results.  Also, statistical uncertainties (more succinctly, how repeatable are my data) can contribute to errors.
      It is worth pointing out that swinging the heavy NEL 15" coil effectivly makes taking in-ground measurements with it difficult.  As a result I was unable to confidently get a max depth reading for the penny using that coil, which is why that cell is blank.  No problem with air tests because there, as is standard (?) I mounted the detector in a stationary horizontal position and just 'swung' the targets to determine the (max) limit distances.
      Again, it's really the 5" round DD and 5" x 10" elliptical DD that are most relevant.  The others are include for information purposes but also to add to the plots I show later.  As you can see, in these tests there is a clear and significant advantage for the 5" x 10" elliptical over the 5" round in both the hybrid test and in the air test.
      OK, I now go a bit deeper.  Is there a mathematical relationship which can predict coil depth performance if I know the coil dimensions?  Compared to above this is another leap into the unknown with additional uncertainties.  However, here are a couple plots which seem to indicate relationships between the potential maximum detectable depth and the geometric mean of the coils width and height dimensions.

      (Sorry for the confusion but the Blue dots in both plots are for the 1 cent piece and the red dots are for the 5 cent piece.)  It's better to look first at the 2nd plot -- air test.  There appears to be nearly linear relationship between max depth and the geometric mean of the coil's dimensions, although it appears to trail off with the large (NEL) coil.  Superimpose upon that the effects of ground noise and you see a further deterioration both in absolute depth and also in the trend which is shown in the first plot.  Simply put, it is well known that mineralized ground, even moderately mineralized as in my back yard, negatively affects attainable depth.  The larger the coil, the more ground it "sees", and thus the more ground interferes with performance.
      I'll finish by pointing out that this isn't the first study I've made.  Back 3 years ago when DetectorProspector member Karelian made detailed measurements of a large collection of mono coils on a White's TDI in both ground and air, I noticed the depth vs. geometric mean relationship.  However, without a theoretical (physics/engineering) reason to expect this relationship, at this point it's merely a convenient correlation.  Karelian's data are further muddied by the fact that the coils studied have many manufacturers:  Coiltek, White's, Miner John, Nugget Finder, Minelab,...  I could show those results but I think I'll await the reactions to the above.  I can also do more tests (e.g. with the X-Terra although there is not clean comparison of round vs. eliptical coils with the same width, at least in my collection) or repeat these.  I await your posted reactions (including yawns 😁).
       
    • By Steve Herschbach
      There are three versions of the First Texas 19 kHz circuit for sale at many retailers. One is based on the original Gold Bug Pro model, sold with various coil options, and includes the now discontinued Teknetics G2. There is also a basic Gold Bug version with no manual ground balance, the bottom dollar variant.
      The third version is a later design that added features to the Gold Bug Pro, the result being the Fisher F19. This is now also being sold with various coil options. The F19 is also available under the Teknetics label as the G2+, and now just released under the Bounty Hunter label as the Time Ranger Pro.
      To reiterate, the Gold Bug Pro and G2 versions are the same circuit board, the only difference between the models are coil and rod options plus cosmetic differences.
      The same goes for the F19, F19 Ltd, G2+, and new Time Ranger Pro. The same circuit board with different coil and rod options.
      It is interesting then that the Gold Bug DP, the Gold Bug Pro with 7" x 11" coil sells for $200 more than the more capable Time Ranger Pro. "How can this be," you wonder? The power of name brand and a name, plain and simple. Fisher has a name equated with more expensive detectors, and the Gold Bug name carries it's own cachet. The Bounty Hunter name is usually for lower price models. Welcome to Marketing 101. Based on comparative capability I’d say the Gold Bug Pro is more like a $349 detector these days, so it’s fetching quite a premium.
      Guide To Gold Bug Versions
      Gold Bug Pro / G2 versus F19 / G2+
      click or double click for larger versions....

      Fisher Gold Bug DP and Bounty Hunter Time Ranger Pro

      Gold Bug Pro and Time Ranger Pro features comparison

      Gold Bug Pro and Time Ranger Pro controls
    • By Steve Herschbach
      I as just alerted by a forum member that Cabelas is advertising the Fisher Gold Bug 2 for $574, a new low price. I do not know if this is a clearance sale, or a permanent price reduction, or if it is offered at other dealers. I'm sure we will sort that out real fast! 
      They also have the basic Gold Bug on sale for $375. Do not confuse this with the Gold Bug Pro. The Pro has both ground grab and manual ground balance, the basic Bug has ground grab only. Otherwise however they are the same detector.
      https://www.cabelas.com/catalog/browse/_/N-1104188?CQ_view=list&CQ_ztype=GNU&CQ_ref=~type-Gold%2BDetectors

      This may be temporary but it also in my opinion is overdue as a permanent move on the basic Gold Bug at least. That model really should just be discontinued in favor of the nearly identical Gold Bug Pro, but if not it sure needed to come down in price. It adds to the confusion out there and some people buy it thinking they are getting the Pro. Just clear it out and discontinue it.
      Gold Bug 2 is a tougher story. It is in a class of it's own as an old analog model that with 6" concentric still may best the best tiny gold getter on the market. Newer machines at lower prices may very well equal it though, or close enough for most people. The main problem with the Bug 2 is it is expensive to manufacture so I am not sure a permanent price reduction would be sustainable. Fisher has discontinued several models in the last couple years and may be consolidating or revamping their lineup around the introduction of a new website.
      Lond story short this may be just a temporary sale or a sign of bigger things... we will see.
    • By Steve Herschbach
      I as just alerted by a forum member that Cabelas is advertising the Fisher Gold Bug 2 for $574, a new low price. I do not know if this is a clearance sale, or a permanent price reduction, or if it is offered at other dealers. I'm sure we will sort that out real fast! 
      They also have the basic Gold Bug on sale for $375. Do not confuse this with the Gold Bug Pro. The Pro has both ground grab and manual ground balance, the basic Bug has ground grab only. Otherwise however they are the same detector.
      https://www.cabelas.com/catalog/browse/_/N-1104188?CQ_view=list&CQ_ztype=GNU&CQ_ref=~type-Gold%2BDetectors

×
×
  • Create New...