High-trash Area Prospecting VLF Or PI

[AussieMatt]

 

 

The CTX would be Next to Useless for Prospecting In Hi Trash Areas because of the Iron Masking

 

Good Luck,   John

Just wondering what you base this on? I know of one prospector (who posts here) that uses the CTX for just that - high trash areas. In 2012 he had netted over 2 ounces from these areas so I assume that would be much higher now. Not discounting the others - all good machines. The CTX statement seems a big call though?

Also my experience with the GMT on highly mineralised ground isn't glowing. It does ok but is a pain in highly variable ground & in some areas is useless. It overloads & doesn't handle the ground at all. In saying that I have found some gold with it but in milder conditions. Need to target specific areas with the higher frequency machines in my opinion.

I haven't used the MXT but have used its little brother the SST. It tracks well but was very susceptible to hotrocks even when dumbed right down. At 14khz I wasn't finding the usual bird shot etc. so I believe sensitivity in highly mineralised ground isn't good either. I had read elsewhere a claim that the 14khz MXT will find smaller than 0.06 gram bits in mineralised ground but I'd like to see that with my own eyes in ground that I consider mineralised. I doubt that the 14khz would be sensitive enough or the machine could handle the ground & maintain that sort of sensitivity. I could be wrong but like I said would like to witness that sort of sensitivity first hand.

VLF's can certainly still be useful in trashy goldfield areas & are underestimated I reckon especially in Australia. You do need to be choosey with areas though.

[vanursepaul]

I wondered the same thing since gold hound was using it successfully.

 

paul

[auminesweeper]

Just wondering what you base this on? I know of one prospector (who posts here) that uses the CTX for just that - high trash areas. In 2012 he had netted over 2 ounces from these areas so I assume that would be much higher now. Not discounting the others - all good machines. The CTX statement seems a big call though?

Also my experience with the GMT on highly mineralised ground isn't glowing. It does ok but is a pain in highly variable ground & in some areas is useless. It overloads & doesn't handle the ground at all. In saying that I have found some gold with it but in milder conditions. Need to target specific areas with the higher frequency machines in my opinion.

I haven't used the MXT but have used its little brother the SST. It tracks well but was very susceptible to hotrocks even when dumbed right down. At 14khz I wasn't finding the usual bird shot etc. so I believe sensitivity in highly mineralised ground isn't good either. I had read elsewhere a claim that the 14khz MXT will find smaller than 0.06 gram bits in mineralised ground but I'd like to see that with my own eyes in ground that I consider mineralised. I doubt that the 14khz would be sensitive enough or the machine could handle the ground & maintain that sort of sensitivity. I could be wrong but like I said would like to witness that sort of sensitivity first hand.

VLF's can certainly still be useful in trashy goldfield areas & are underestimated I reckon especially in Australia. You do need to be choosey with areas though.

Well Actually Many People have stated that the CTX is not a good Choice for Prospecting, Even Minelab field Testers will tell you that,

Multi Frequency Machines have a slow recovery speed as I said before, Even An ALDI's Detector will find gold if it is big enough.

The MXT will see small Gold and it will work in Highly mineralized Ground and the Fact is that Both the GMT and The MXT were Made to Be used in Highly Mineralized Black Sand, And If you read the Manuals on Both Machines they Cover the usage In Such Areas, I have personal found 0.10 gram Bits with the MXT in Areas of hi Burning, with the Standard Coil, As For The GMT It was made for working in Hot Ground where gold is found, It is not A GPX and using a GMT is more about Skill than Beeping, The MXT will work In Very hot Ground Also because have A Lower KHz than the GMT it deals with the Ground and Hot Rocks a Little Better, Both Machines were Made for Prospecting, The CTX is just another version of the Etrac with a few Extra's,

As for the Sensitivity The MXT will see things down to about 2 Grains = 480 to an OZT or 31.1034768 grams, where as the GMT will see things down to 1/10th of A GRAIN,

As for the CTX's ground Tracking system, it is way too slow and when you consider that it only Takes ONE or TWO pumps of the Coil to GB the MXT or the GMT they are Still Regarded as the Best GB System In The World To Date, Even Minelab Know That. Hence why they reversed Engineered the MXT when they Were Designing the 705,

Multi Frequency machines will find Gold but it has to be of some weight or shape or Size before it see's it and in an area that has a lot of Iron it will be Less than useless because the Iron Mask system and around Iron Stone it will be a waste of time because the Iron Mask Keeps Nulling out the Threshold, The CTX is A Great Coin Hunting Machine but in Junk filled Sites the MXT will Leave it for Dead, I have Proved it and just this week a guy from Melbourne Proved it to him Self with his Etrac,

One thing to Take into Account is that the MXT has been Whites Highest Selling Machine for the Past 13 Years, And There Is A good Reason For that, I have Own 2 GMT's and My 3 MXT will be coming next week, I found More Gold with my MXT In ONE WEEK than I did with my Quatro and my Sovereign GT and my Etrac In 5 Years searching the Exact Same Patch, The Biggest Lump weighing 9.7 Grams, In Medium soil and the Problem was the Iron Mask even when it is Switched off it is NOT Disabled and is still running in the back Ground,

And another thing even when fitted with the Little Joey Coil 6x10 they will still not see fine Gold Chains where the MXT Screams on them,

I asked the Dealer about why does the Etrac and the CTX give so many different sets of numbers for a single Item and I got told "Oh just ignore the Screen" WELL If I am Supposed too Ignore it then Why did Minelab fit a screen to it in the First Place,

The Other thing to realize is that Minelab Machines are NOT True Multi Frequency Machines, The Correct Term would Be,, They Actually run on MANY Harmonics of a Frequency,

Will They Find Gold?? = YES But only Under Certain Conditions,

Will the GMT and the MXT Find Gold = YES Even in Bad Ground, You May not get Blistering Depth in such Places But they will still Work there just the Same,

If you Look for Dave Johnsons White Paper on these Machines and read his Comments A Decade or So After Building them You will See why They Are The Standard By which All Other Machines Are Judged, Someone Found a ONE ONCE Nugget with the MXT 18" Deep and Jimmy Sierra found a 2LB Nugget with one of the Early GMTs at 32" Deep, And Steve Has Found A few Clunkers with His MXT and his GMTs Too,

I am sorry if you do not want to hear this, But the History that these Two Machine have, No Other Machine has been able to Match. and if you search this forum you will see all the Proof you need, Better machines are coming out all the Time, But the Laws of Physics are what Dictates how well these machines work Not Whites and Definitely Not Minelab and All that Makers can do is Build Machines that will work with Nature Not Against It, IE Ground Balancing,and even though there are other machine coming out they Still do the Same Job, Just in A Different way,

Good Luck, HH

[goldbrick]

Hello Karathound, You wrote "There is a lot of hunting on these properties also, so lots of shotgun shells, buckshot, birdshot, bullets, iron, foil, etc. Basically it is like a dump in some areas. "

A VLF will discriminate the ferrous but you will still have to dig all the trash left from hunters if you want to find nuggets.

Electronic prospector = garbage collector.

[auminesweeper]

For those of you who wish to Know How well the MXT works in Hot Ground, Here's A Link that will explain How well it does,

http://www.goldsearchaustralia.com/index.php/mxt_stories

HH, John

[Steve Herschbach]

Hi karathound,

Since you already have a MXT that is the obvious first choice. Give it a go - it is a capable machine.

The problem of course is hot red ground, or any really bad ground conditions. VLF detectors struggle under those conditions and so any choice is going to be problematic. In milder ground VLFs come into their own.

The CTX question here is a bit of a red herring, as you have stated you have no need of a multi-use machine, and I assume especially not a very expensive and heavy one. I do have a CTX and frankly I would grab a single frequency unit first. That said I think characterizing the CTX as useless for the application is harsh in that some people are indeed having success with them. I am sure I could go find gold with mine.

Mid-frequency VLF units are very competitive and most will do the job if you learn them. The Nokta and Racer I have concerns in the absolute worst ground as they exhibit a tendency as extremely high gain units to go into continual overload in such situations. I am trying to gather more data on that myself and have been watching the posts by Narrawa in Oz with great interest for the same reason. I am waiting still on the new Gold Racer with high hopes but it remains to be seen how that pans out. The Gold Bug Pro and the new variant, the F19, are very capable units, and a bit of a knee jerk recommendation on my part due to the proven success worldwide of that particular circuit. Though they struggle like all VLFs in severe ground.

Leaving it at the MXT for now I do ask myself what single VLF out of all I have which one I would keep for gold prospecting if I could keep only one. Other detectors have come and gone over the years, but there is only one model I have owned and used consistently since the day it came out about 20 years ago. That would be my Fisher Gold Bug 2. Not the deepest by far, but it has a very effective iron disc circuit. Better yet, it is a dedicated gold unit that still easily hits gold not PI can touch, even the SDC 2300. Mine worked so well in Oz I left it in the hands of a new member of the Gold Bug 2 fan club, Jonathan Porter.

The MXT is capable, and you already own it. Unbeatable combination I think. Good luck!!

[Gold Hound]

I use the ctx in heavy trash area's with larger gold like tailings over size piles with good success.

But on small gold in trash I'll reach for the gb2 over any other detector!

The ctx and gb2 cover my vlf/discrimination need's in the gold fields.

But my needs for a VLF in the gold fields are limited as I only use them in trashy area's

And even in trash I'll reach for a a gpx or zed first until trash gets unbearable.

But maybe a vlf is more useful in a broarder spectrum of areas in America where your soil is less mineralised.

[auminesweeper]

I agree Steve, Maybe I should Referred to the CTX AS Not Being the Best Choice as opposed to being Useless, Sorry About That,

I Own 3 Machines and they Are The TDI SL, and the GMT and The MXT Pro, (soon to be Replaced by the ALL Pro ) because the Pro is 3 years old and out of Warranty,

I use the GMT because it Gives the operator some Visual Feed Back Regarding the Ground and Iron Content, The MXT is easier on the Ears, The SL is the best on the Ears and A Smooth operating Machine, The MXT is the One I use for unknown areas because it covers all Bases But it Tells me whether I Need to use the GMT or the TDI etc and if the MXT does the Job then I just Keep Going with it. and if I want to run the MXT on the Edge then I set the GB up more Positive, I don't have to do that with the GMT Because of it high sensitivity the Areas I hunt are fairly Mild so it picks up just about everything anyway and The Angry Bee Threshold can drive you nuts if you run with the Threshold to High when you take your head phones off every thing sounds weird for about half an hour afterwards, but because they all sound so different after about 10 minutes of detecting I take the phones off to check my ears just to check that the Threshold is not doing weird thing to my Ears,

I am waiting to hear more on the Fors Gold Before I get one, there are A Couple of things I don't like about it, But I am sure with the Purchase of A Minelab GP upper shaft I can Put that Right,

But The Gold Bug II has my Interest at the Moment

[auminesweeper]

I use the ctx in heavy trash area's with larger gold like tailings over size piles with good success.

But on small gold in trash I'll reach for the gb2 over any other detector!

The ctx and gb2 cover my vlf/discrimination need's in the gold fields.

But my needs for a VLF in the gold fields are limited as I only use them in trashy area's

And even in trash I'll reach for a a gpx or zed first until trash gets unbearable.

But maybe a vlf is more useful in a broarder spectrum of areas in America where your soil is less mineralised.

I have used them up Around Gympie and In Red Dirt and they worked Quite well but where the soil is Changing A lot I ran it in Tracking as it is very fast and takes all the Guess work out of it,

John

[karathound]

Thanks again for all the great feedback. Unfortunately, my scenario is probably not a great one, but I think that I have some better idea of how to attack things now.

 

I want something light and easy to navigate with as a first pass, knowing that I am going to be in high-trash areas as a starting point. Once I locate a promising area, I can then switch over to a higher-power detector like the GPZ and work the area more thoroughly. 

 

I will also spend time in low-trash areas with the GPZ and cover more ground quickly. 

 

The other challenge I have, compared to desert areas, is the land is harder to read vs. the western desert areas. What I mean by this is that the ground is covered with heavy vegetation or years of leaf matter, so the changes in the soil are not as obvious. There are other signs, but not as clear as what I am used to out west. Anyway, this is getting a little off topic, but it would be interesting to see thoughts from folks on terrain like this and how you approach hunting these areas. Hence my focus on starting in the immediate areas of the mines, it should at least be reasonable to think that there will be some close to the older mining areas. 

 

I will let you know how the MXT does in the area as a starting point.

 

Best,

Hound