Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/24/2022 in all areas

  1. Some time ago I have started adventure with Atrex and I have to say it is an exelent detector for places detected to dead. Atrex bring new live and new discovery. On such a field I manage to make discovery of a year a little gold weding band with latin inscription inside. It is dated 16 cent. Few day later on same place about 50 meters away next tiny gold weding band.... also an old one.
    10 points
  2. As an introduction, I am the president of a small placer gold mine exploration & leasing company. While doing research on one of our mine properties I came across an old leather journal & thought i'd post the entries over time here. I named it "Lost Gold At The Dead Man's Mine." Hopefully the old timer who wrote it won't mind. I tried to find any relatives but have run into one dead end after another. I felt it was a story worth telling & over the period of posting the entries I will include pictures of the area as it looks today and what our modern activities at the site have been. The journal was mentioned in a 282 page government report that I stumbled upon while doing research. I was able to secure the original journal from the descendants of the president of a defunct mining company who did some work in the area back in the mid 1960's. The journal itself was written by a prospector who worked the area in 1936. He hit a gold strike of epic proportions and lived an adventure that is very fascinating to say the least. It's a wild ride showing a glimpse back into a long lost time. I hope you enjoy the journal.* PROLOGUE : This is a journal of the experiences written in the first person in 1936 by a prospector by the name of Jed Stevens while mining at the Whiskey Jack Mine. Jed had several claims in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California. This area of claims produced large amounts of gold from the mid to late 1800's. The old placer mines were abandoned in the late 1800's as a result of California's Sawyer Decision which banned or severely limited hydraulic gold mining operations and left large amounts of undiscovered gold in the gravels. Here is the first entry : APRIL 12 1936 : Today I filed all the paperwork at the county court house for the mining claims I now hold near Lost Ravine. I then drove my Ford truck out to my claims. There was a good spot near Jake's Creek up to the north about 1500 feet from the main road that follows Morgan Creek where I set up my camp. It took the entire day to pitch the tent and set up my kitchen. The tent is a 15 foot cabin tent with a stove jack. I have a first rate box stove set up inside to be used for heat and some cooking. I also set up a second stove about 200 feet from camp for the main cooking jobs during good weather. Today was a good day for getting camp set as it was sunny and not too cold. Tomorrow my plan is to investigate one of the claim sites where the old diggings took place and get a bearing on my situation as far as where I might sample gravels and old tailings. I am losing daylight and getting cold so I will get into my sleeping bag on the cot and get some sleep. TO BE CONTINUED .................................... Here is a picture of Jed's journal as it looks today. It is in fairly good shape & also included some old maps. *this story is based on a real gold strike in 1936 according to what reports I have in my possession, but the journal itself is a work of fiction.
    9 points
  3. This morning I sold my GPX 5000 to a prospector who lives 3 hours away.. he was willing to make the 6 hour return trip for the price I asked for it.. I wasn't using it enough to justify its existence.. I was after a scuba detector and was looking at a secondhand Sea Hunter but when I saw the Deus 2 is now available in Australia (Detect-Ed) I ordered one straight away.. They said they would send it express post and I'll have it in my hand by the end of the week.. So today has been a bit sad for saying goodbye to the GPX but also looking forward to being able to dive with a (hopefully) reliable detector.. 😁 The Deus 2 will be another world altogether but that's always good..
    9 points
  4. APRIL 17 1936 Got a good nights rest. I was able to drive the truck up to the dig site with my buckets. I worked on getting in further and as deep and close to country rock as I could. Then I filled about a quarter ton of good gravels in some buckets and drove down to the creek. I set up the tom and grizzly and set a good angle on the tom. Worked the rest of the day processing and finished up the panning from the heavies that were pulled. When weighed out it was about 20 cents to the ton. Not glory days but working wages at least. My thinking is there is better pay in there to be found. Tomorrow I will begin doing the road work out to the eastern drift mine I sampled. There is an old wagon road out there I can use once it's fixed up some. Then I plan to get a good test on that mine. Fixing a good supper of hoover stew with coffee spiced with Irish whiskey and turning in. TO BE CONTINUED ....................
    6 points
  5. So, the great news is Nokta are working on a Pulse Induction Gold prospecting detector, it was delayed a bit due to other projects, I can only assume the Legend but it's back in development now and to be honest I'm quite excited about it. The market has long needed a good quality low cost relatively high performance PI option. While I don't expect them to match the performance of the GPX 6000 or GPZ 7000 that's not overly necessary, they're likely going to put their detector in a very competitive price bracket to enable a larger number of people to take up prospecting with a PI detector. I would not be surprised if the performance exceeds my expectations though, Nokta never ceases to amaze people with the products they come out with for the price they sell them. I figured it's time to start a thread on it so Nokta can get a bit of feedback from various detector prospectors as to what they'd want in a new PI detector. I'll kick it off with something that I would like, for me I would love the detector to support existing GPX coils, not GPX 6000 coils obviously, the earlier GPX coils. People have a bunch of these things, manufacturers have started long running businesses solely around making coils for the GPX series of Detectors, there are literally hundreds of coils available for the GPX detectors, this would give the Nokta machine a big head start and a also attract a lot of buyers to it knowing they can use their existing coils. There are a range of coils available for the GPX to suit just about any environment with DD, Mono, Concentric, Anti Interferance and so on, a coil for every occasion in every size you can imagine. It would just really make sense for Nokta to take advantage of that if at all possible. Other detectors are running GPX coils fine so technically and legally it's not a problem, it is more so if there detector is designed to suit them. They could even do what Fisher were intending to do and do a Land (gold) and Sea (beach) version of the detector to get more out of their R&D. I could go on for ages on the features I would want it to have and I'll do that in time if others don't chime in with the same requests. So, what would you want in the new Nokta Makro PI Gold machine?
    5 points
  6. Usually a concentric that has the same volume as a DD will have a little more depth. DD coils have a very narrow and directional null that help in high mineralization and trash as you can better isolate targets where a concentric's null is much wider and more apt to have multiple targets in the same null. Null is the area where the Tx and Rx intersect. Any time a metallic object passes through the null it disrupts the signal and the machine will sound off. Little bit like feedback with a mic and speaker. The null on concentrics is between the Tx and Rx, not the very center as most think. Why a shallow target can cause a double hit more than a dd. Because the detection field is much larger on a concentric they can be noisy in high mineralization or perform poorly such as in the salt. Monty's Nailboard test is a good example of what Jeff is saying. As for Concentrics there are standard 2 coil types Tx outer with Rx inner (reverse wound) and Co-planer where the Tx and Rx are wound flat and the Tx has a reverse wide only around the Rx creating a forced and well defined null. My guess is it would do better in iron infestation than the others but in the case of analog machines may flatten the audio response. Co-planers are more difficult to make as I don't think you can machine wind them.
    5 points
  7. Agree strongly with Hugh about iron rejection. Something I would also like to see is a waterproof or at least rainproof. Also light weight, under 4 lbs for sure and under 3 if possible. Even though the GPX's are pretty adjustable I would like a new PI even more so. I don't want it going the direction of the GPX 6000 where it does all the thinking for you. That might be fine for a gold specific version but I also want to use a PI for beach and relic hunting and be able to set it up for those conditions. Wireless headphones and rechargeable batteries. I know tall order but hey why not ask for it all.
    5 points
  8. The day started out a little wet and rainy, but the sun came out and we got into the mid-60s here in Central Texas. Beautiful day for digging in the dirt. Stopped by an old school for about 3 1/2 hours, I don't think it's as old as I thought only 4 Wheaties from the 50s, the little Bull Durham pendant and a boatload of clad. Went over to a park by the river got a couple more mercs and two Wheaties. The last three hunts have produced multiple silvers, I've been very fortunate to be able to get my coil over some keepers.
    4 points
  9. I'm including some illustrations to help understand the construction (not necessarily the operation) of the different types of IB searchcoils. First is general, from Lagal and Garrett p. 27 (1979) and note that DD (labeled a) is a specified there are a type of co-planar as is the concentric (d). Later illustrations below go into some more detail but DD isn't covered: Next three are from Garrett pp. 127, 128, 130 (1985). I've typed in the figure captions since they didn't scan well: Figure 11-4: ILLUSTRATION OF CO-PLANAR SEARCHCOIL WINDINGS (SAME PLANE). This illustration of co-planar searchcoil construction shows that the windings are placed one on top of the other and lie in the same plane. Co-planar searchoils have been in use for several decades. (Note: inner circular coils is labeled 'Receiver' and outer coil is 'Transmitter'.) Figure 11-5: ILLUSTRATION OF CO-AXIAL SEARCHCOIL WINDINGS (SAME AXIS). Co-axial searchcoil windings are placed one above the other with one transmitter winding sancwiched in between two reciever windings. This type winding placement gives the most uniform detection pattern of all VLF and TR detector types and is affected the least by outside electromagnetic field interference. Figure 11-7: ILLUSTRATION OF CONCENTRIC SEARCHCOIL WINDINGS (SAME PLANE AND AXIS). Concetnric searchoil windings lie in the same plane and are centered about the same axis. This newer type searchcoil is operationally equivelent to co-planar serachcoils. Here are some details from the text in chapter 11 which may give some details of advantages/disadvantages of different types: (p. 127): Co-planar searchcoils are one of the preferred types because they produce very sharp, quick target response characteristics. These characteristics result in excellent coin and small object metal detection capabilities. (p 129): ...Co-axial searchcoils give the best performance in areas of high voltage powerlines and electromagnetic interference. (cut a sentence) They are, however, slower response searchcoils. That is, they produce a slower detector audio "turn on" time when targets are detected.
    4 points
  10. I met him at the ferry terminal in Townsville.. he just handed me a bundle of cash, I deposited it at my bank on the mainland, went online at a mate's place and ordered the Deus! am back on the island now.. probably doesn't sound like much but it's always a bit of a mission when wheeling and dealing from here.. I'll start posting first impressions etc.. and also how it performs underwater.. 😃
    4 points
  11. APRIL 16 1936 Got woke up last night by loud screaching sounds which lasted an hour or so. Might have been lion or bobcat. There was more than one and they came close to camp. I spent the day working on the road up to the fault line. All hand saw and pick and shovel. Was too tired to take more samples. Tomorrow I should be able to get my truck up to the dig site. I will load some gravels to take down to the creek. I have a tom sluice that will sit in the creek where the flow is right. The creek is running good from all the melt off up higher on the mountain. My claims are anywhere from 3500 feet to 4000 feet in altitude. I have a hard wood grizzly screen to set over the head of the tom. I'll shovel onto that to screen out anything over two inches. The tom is 20 feet in length and 18 inches wide. I've got it lined with carpet matting and riffles. Got a nice supper of dried beef and beens. Turning in now. TO BE CONTINUED ........................
    4 points
  12. Just a note here : Jed's use of the term country or country rock was and still is another name for bedrock. Later in the journal when things become clearer on what he is doing I will post pictures of the area he is working as it looks today and also what we are finding.
    4 points
  13. Happens on a rare occasion. When the flies/nats are bad, I try to keep the gold trap shut. Notice one on my chin. he wanted to join a mouthful of flies I already had eated that day. The really rare occasion I find something odd and start to think, will that ostrich egg fit?
    4 points
  14. Iron reject. Noticeably missing from the GPX 6000. I would have been happy if ML would have just ported over the algorithm from the GPX 4500/4800/5000 intact (no improvements or other R&D needed). But alas, it was left off the 6K. So Nokta, here's a chance to grab not only prospectors but hot dirt relic detectorists (not an insignificant number of relic detectorists in the US who use the GPX/TDT/ATX machines) who are weary of the old GPX/ATX form factor and who ML chose to cut loose with the introduction of the 6000.
    4 points
  15. To the local ballfield today with temps in the upper 50s. I know, most of you feel bad for me having to endure the cold here in Florida. I was so cold I had to wear PANTS! Running the Equinox 15" coil on 24 sensitivity and 4 recovery in Park 1, I got an iffy high tone mixed with some iron grunts which sounded a lot like other silver dimes I have dug on the same field. While Rosie has seen better days, the hunt ultimately had a silver lining.
    3 points
  16. This post was a response buried deep in a thread on the Equinox Forum, but got long enough on a subject I think about a lot, that it deserved its own thread. Here you go. I find the whole George Payne way of conceptualizing things to be rather out of date myself. That was back in the day when only one thing mattered - detecting coins. Silver coins in particular. So he was looking at frequency, and most importantly, coin size targets. If you do that, fix target size, you get the false idea that frequency corresponds to type of metal. Nickels respond here. Gold coins here. Copper coins here. And the biggie, silver coins here. That's how the first coin discriminators were conceived. But it has also lead to this mythology that frequency corresponds to metals. Gold is high frequency, silver low frequency. No, it's not. There is no correlation between frequency and type of metal if you do not fix the size at some artificial limit. In fact, gold ranges from ground readings all the way to so-called silver readings. If you fix the metal type, frequency corresponds to size. Low frequency big gold, high frequency small gold. There was also ground to deal with, and ground reacts less well at low frequencies, so a double bonus for silver hunters. You might think it is low frequency working better with silver. But you might also think of it in terms of the detector simply being better able to see the silver, for not seeing the ground. It's all about conceptualization, and you can conceive of the same thing from different angles. I consider the old George Payne way of looking at things as obsolete from my perspective. It really was only something that worked well in the United States, and only because of an accident in our coin size and metal types. It allowed a scale to be created that worked well with silver coins and nickels, while knocking out a lot of trash items. In most other countries, our target id scale is worthless because their coins do not fit our classic scale. I detect for gold. I think in different terms entirely. For me frequency does two opposing things. Higher frequency is better for small targets. Small gold, small silver, small copper..... small stuff. But high frequencies also enhance ground, and especially, hot rock responses. The two effects offset each other, and can reverse things if ground is severe enough. This also totally applies not to nugget hunters like myself, but almost anybody hunting coins and relics under any situation but the classic U.S. silver coin regime. Let me explain. So I want to find gold nuggets. I must first think about the nugget size that I am looking for. I can look for the more common small gold, or the rarer large gold. If I want tiny gold, I usually want a high frequency detector, the higher the better. Now, here is the kicker. High frequency does just fine on large gold also. In fact, high frequency just detects well on everything - in the air. So air test a Gold Bug 2 on things, and it is amazing. Unfortunately, the high frequency also "lights up" the ground to an amazing degree, and it is hard to get good depth on anything at very high frequencies. The signal attenuates rapidly in the ground, and the worse the ground is (more magnetite in general), the faster the depth drops off. Hot rocks that never responded at low frequencies are now everywhere at high frequencies. Lower frequency starts looking better not just because it does better on large targets, but just as much because it is less reactive to the ground. The 71 kHz Gold Bug 2 is an amazing detector. I can find pinhead gold with it. The big caveat is that in most nugget ground it has low penetration, and is very poor on large nuggets at depth. Not because it air tests poorly on large gold, but because the ground sucks up the signal. 71 kHz is great for small gold, and even large gold in the mildest soils, but in bad ground it has poor depth, and makes hot rocks a real issue. If I am looking for large gold at depth, I might very well use a lower frequency VLF in the old days, just as much because it is responding less to the ground as anything else, allowing large gold to be more easily found at depth. For my purposes, a PI detector for a long time was just a high power, super low frequency detector. Huge punch on large gold, with minimal ground response. So PI took over early on from the VLF low frequency, large nugget detectors of the time. I mentioned relic detecting and coins in other countries. If you detect Europe, our U.S. coin scale is garbage. It's not "low frequency = silver." Over there silver can be all over the target id map. Huge silver coins. Or tiny silver coins. Or small coins hammered thin as foil. Or those hammered coins cut to make change. Silver under those circumstances occurs anywhere on your target id scale from ground to the highest reading, 0 to 100. It all just depends on the size, with a little ground effect tossed in to drag things down. So in Europe, if you want to chase tiny silver cut coins, or very small gold coins, higher frequencies work well, whether it is gold or silver. The metal does not matter. It is size that matters. Relic hunters see the very same thing. High frequencies find the small bits, regardless of what they are - worst fact being tiny ferrous. I long ago tossed the frequency and metal thing in my garbage can. Here is my reality. High frequency will help me with smaller targets, but also make dealing with the ground harder. Low frequencies simply have less ground and hot rock response, and also less tiny trash stuff response, making them better if I want want to focus on larger targets, like coins or rings. In my lifetime experience there is a crossover point for gold, and going too high enhances tiny gold nuggets, but also loses depth due to ground issues. A sweet spot develops around 50 kHz, which White's chose ages ago in the Goldmaster II, as being great for small gold nuggets, while still retaining punch in bad ground on larger gold nuggets. Minelab rediscovered this with the Gold Monster, and went with 45 kHz for this very reason. They found pushing high did better on tiny stuff, but the cost in larger heavier gold was not worth it to serious nugget hunters in bad Australian type ground. If I was hunting tailing piles for ounce type gold nuggets, it is hard to beat a 15 kHz type detector, just like that ancient 15 kHz Garrett Groundhog circuit, that was at the time a high frequency, but in retrospect was a great large nugget lower frequency. The White's MXT at 13 kHz is superb on large nuggets in trashy locations. If you are in Europe, that 15 kHz sweet spot applied for a long time, but more recently people have discovered the benefits of higher frequencies on these tiny cut silver and small gold coin finds. Pulse Induction did serve as super low frequency for a long time. You gave up small gold to get big gold as deep as possible. The lack of ground response allows use of extra large coils. It is interesting to me that as newer PI detectors are pushed to get more sensitive to small gold, that ground and hot rocks have also become more problematic. The newest PI nugget hunters suffer from hot rock responses you never saw on the old PI models. PI is getting more like VLF over time. So Billy, does Minelab put all this in Multi-IQ processing? Of course. But not in the way you think. They think more like me. It's every bit as much about ground, and saltwater, and even EMI, and what you do not want to detect, more so than metal types. A primary choice is saltwater - that forces a low frequency mix simply to avoid the salt response. Which, as I seem to have explained to beach guys a million times, also knocks out small gold responses. For large coin detecting a lower frequency mix gives clean responses on larger targets like U.S. coins and rings, while getting less ground response, fewer hot rocks, and far less tiny trash signaling. It is not targeting silver coins per se, just larger stuff. For tiny items, gold nuggets, small hammered silver coins, a higher frequency mix works well, but you will deal with more ground and hot rock response, more tiny trash. Forget metal type. Think size and ground, including saltwater, and hot rocks. As you increase frequency, everything responds better, and small items that respond poorly or not at all at low frequencies will do better. Ground, saltwater, and hot rock signals also increase with frequency. The first cut off is at saltwater. To work there, you must have a lower frequency mix to eliminate salt signal, and you lose all tiny stuff as well, tiny aluminum, tiny gold. This can also do very well on large targets in any ground. The teens are really nice for general detecting, right on the edge of the salt range. 12 kHz - 15 kHz hits really well on most desired detecting targets, while not being overly sensitive to ground and the tiniest trash targets. 40 - 50 kHz is a sweet spot for gold nuggets and all really small targets, like the smallest cut silver coin, targeting the sub-gram range kind of stuff with some alleviation of ground and hot rock issues that develop at extreme frequencies. You get up above 50 kHz and you really are just surface skimming for the tiniest bits. Depth just drops off rapidly due to the ground, and so this is specialty range for the smallest targets. Multifrequency changes none of this, and making a machine that found everything best at all frequencies just gives you a detector that reacts to everything and finds nothing. It is about picking a few divergent frequencies that when differentials are applied, can add extra target information. This is as much about ground as anything else. The classic is the salt beach, where you want to notch out both salt response and ground response. Single frequency can't get you there except in crudest form, eliminating both, while losing a lot of gold. Using two frequencies lets you notch back in some gold jewelry missed by eliminating both ground and salt with a single frequency. Looking at two frequencies that are close together is a waste of time and processing power. The target and ground response is the same. But pick two very divergent frequencies, and you will see differences in target response and ground response. This whole idea of having a detector look at and analyze 100 frequencies simply makes no sense, and reveals the nonsense we have been fed for ages about more frequencies being better. Again, there are only a handful of gross frequency ranges that really matter. Under 10 kHz = find U.S. large coins well, minimal small trash and ground responses, few hot rocks. Call this Park Mode, with a special subset that tunes out salt, called Beach Mode 15 kHz plus or minus, great on a large range of small to large targets, while still not being overly sensitive to ground and very tiny trash. Call this Field Mode. This is an excellent all around compromise mode between low and high. 40 - 50 kHz is great for sub-gram targets, but will make dealing with ground and tiny trash problematic. Let's call this a Gold Mode. 70 - 80 kHz is basically surface skimming for pinheads, max hot rock and tiny trash response. Pinhead Mode? A niche area for sure. Four basic options, and really three, since the highest is very niche. It is also comparing results in these three or four options that give you the most bang for the buck in multi. They diverge enough to provide the basis for good differential algorithms. Again, multifrequency really just adds better ground and target id capability for cleaner, more accurate responses across the board. It's not some magic about finding all targets best at all frequencies by lumping them all together. Most frequency discussions simply miss the reality of what is going on, and what is being achieved by going multifrequency. I will say it one last time. Think of frequency, whether single frequency, or a mix of frequencies, in terms of the desired target size, offset by the added ground/salt response. Think of the target id scale as a size scale, low numbers are small targets, high numbers large targets. Think less about it being an indication of type of metal. Aluminum responds anywhere on the scale. So does gold, lead, silver, copper. Small foil a low single digit, and aluminum can like a silver quarter. Pick your frequency mix and your target id numbers to match the size of the targets you are seeking, and life will get easier. And quit thinking of multifrequency in terms of finding more targets better the more frequencies you use. Nonsense, just marketing nonsense. The White’s chart below kind of says it all. I’d certainly be picking a high frequency VLF for the tiny gold. But $20 gold coins? Any good detector is going to work, and I’d be far more likely to go 15 kHz or lower. Newer Thread in a Similar Vein
    3 points
  17. A couple of Deus 2/Multi Kruzer comparison videos in English on Swiss hillside pasture. Very fair comparisons by an experienced Multi Kruzer user. Both videos are fairly long but are live relic/coin digs with tones and target ID numbers.
    3 points
  18. APRIL 23 1936 Well today did not go as expected. As I drove up to the fault line claim there was a surprise waiting. I spied two men with shovels working at my test hole. Upon seeing my truck they looked at each other but stood their ground. My claims are well posted and marked so I thought the worst right from the start. I stopped short of them and got out but stayed close to the truck. I hollered to them asking what they were doing. There was no reply so I asked again but louder. One of the men was a pretty big guy aboud middle aged and the other looked younger. The big one said they were thinking of buying or staking a claim. I told him these claims were taken and were well marked. The big one said he didn't see any markers. That was a lie because he had to walk right past one right near my hole. I called him out on it and told him I didn't think he was telling the truth and to get off my claim. He looked at me with a sneer and said I needed to prove this was my claim. I reached in my truck and pulled the paperwork I always make sure I carry. He laughed and said I might have made those papers up myself and they didn't mean anything to him until he checked the claim at the courthouse. He said he was going to dig some samples whether I liked it or not. The other guy just stood there not saying anything. I told him once more to leave. Both of them just looked at me with blank expressions and shook their heads no. That was about enough for me. I reached in my truck and pulled out my rifle. I leveled it right at them and pulled it up about two feet over their heads and squeezed one off. They jumped and started looking nerveously at each other. I told them the next one would be lower. Luckily they weren't armed. I tried to ask them where they were from but they wouldn't talk so I just told them to git and don't ever come back here. I fired another round over their heads and they high stepped it up the mountain. It took me awhile to settle down but I eventually got to work digging. Spent the rest of the day digging and loading buckets into the truck and took them down to the creek, I'll wash the gravels tomorrow and see what I get. I am going to have to keep an eye peeled for claim jumpers now. TO BE CONTINUED ..................
    3 points
  19. I did some testing & hunting this weekend with my new to me stock 8.5X11 coil for the MDT 8000. I like it just as well as the 12" The practical depth seems to be about the same. I did not dig any targets that confirm an improvement in separation, but that is just 2 short hunts. I will keep it mounted for now & continue to see how it does. I realize I am pushing the MDT to perform in nails that it really is not set up for. Just trying to learn it's capabilities so I can use it to best effect.
    3 points
  20. Another note from me here : I tried to figure a rough calculation on what Jed got on his first test of the fault line. Gold was about $35/ounce in 1936. I like to figure my estimates in American dollars per cubic yard. He was figuring his values based in per ton. So doing the calculations I estimate somewhere arounf $25 per cubic yard based in today's gold values give or take a few dollars a yard either way. So when he said working wages I figure if he worked hard all day he might have got 2 - 4 yards a day so maybe $50 - $100 a day in gold in today's values. Also, it's hard to figure dollar values exactly as the price of goods has inflated at different rates. I also found it kind of humorous when he said glory days weren't there yet. We all know that feeling for sure when prospecting. However, not to give too much away, but he had no idea what was about to happen to him. I also found out he was working innitially under the direction of a very prominent geologist so that must explain why he chose to file claims in this location. I have tested this area as well & will give my values at a later date. Let's just say for now that there are some very good areas.
    3 points
  21. Thanks guys, I was thinking it might just hit big or shllow targets. I hope it gets to US. before long. I am 70 years old and might not have much time left, if i go i want to go detecting. Thanks so much, i will get on a waiting list. If you find out any more, post it and i will see it. Thanks Dean
    3 points
  22. DD coils will also average two adjacent targets. Put a nail on top of or next to a US dime. In your scenario the Equinox will average the iron nail and non ferrous target when the center spine of the DD coil is parallel to the nail's orientation. With iron rejected the Equinox will more than likely null when the center spine of the DD coil is perpendicular to the nail's orientation. Depending on the detector's iron filtering quality, using a concentric coil in your scenario the targets will give a good response and be averaged (if you have a display), partially broken up but averaged or nulled. This is why most experienced relic hunters or hunters that detect in thick iron usually have all or most of the iron range target IDs accepted whether they are using a DD or concentric coil and why suspected borderline iron targets are approached from more than one direction when swinging a coil over them especially when using a DD coil.
    3 points
  23. If two different targets are detected by a concentric coil (like a nail and clad coin), the signals of each could be averaged. So let's say you've got your discrimination set up so only iron is eliminated. Then a concentric coil passes over a modern coin next to an iron nail. Assuming the machine/coil can't separate them, you might still get a signal from your machine telling you there's a target under the coil. But this signal will probably be some sort of average or blend of the nail and coin signals. If a DD coil passes over those same 2 targets, AND the DD coil and machine can't separate them (and only iron is discriminated out), then you might get no signal from your machine. This is why my Tesoros (with their concentrics) matched, if not exceeed my Equinox 600 when run with my modified Monte's Nail Board test.
    3 points
  24. From my understanding, the answer is yes. Concentrics will sometimes "average" two signals (such as an iron nail and a coin) while a DD coil could miss both due to iron masking and insufficient recovery speed and/or target separation.
    3 points
  25. The “blade” is largely a marketing myth, easily disproven with a coin and a couple coils. Disc modes mask the true nature of the electronic field, and running a DD versus concentric in a genuine all metal mode reveals the truth. Surely most of you see that even with a DD coil your best signal is dead center, and drops off to the tips? Are we to ignore superior depth just because it’s concentrated in the center of the coil? Blades versus cones deflects from the facts, which is a concentric can get better depth than a DD in mild ground, whereas a DD is generally a better choice for mineralized ground. Concentrics are easier to pinpoint with, and better identify ferrous targets. DD coils have an edge in dense trash due to the concentration of field in the centerline. However, items under the edge are seen and contribute to masking, despite super shooting ray gun blade depictions the marketing folks put out. But that DD edge in dense targets does exist regardless. The simple reality is Minelab marketing had a lot to do with making DD so popular that they became a default choice, with concentrics not being demanded as on option by people who’ve bought the DD line hook and sinker. Lack of demand means lack of sales, which means fewer options. The pattern is self perpetuating, though some headway has been made via forums like this one in educating people, and getting more concentric options out there. Nokta/Makro in particular have done well in this regard. Some detectors are designed around the stock coil, like the Tek T2 and it’s DD only design. I suspect Equinox is optimized for the stock 11” DD coil. But in general almost all detectors can run both, and users benefit from having both options. But unless people actually buy them, and most will not, then these days I count myself lucky to be able to get a concentric option, and it sometimes drives my choice in detectors as a result. VLF Concentric vs DD Search Coils
    3 points
  26. Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but with the recent push towards digital multifrequency flagship detectors, why have concentric coils been shunned? I don't think it's an engineering/physics issue although I can't rule that out. The White's Vision/V3/V3i/VX3 had concentric coil options and it was digital multifrequency. Did any of the Minelab BBS, FBS, FBS2 models have compatible concentric coils, either in-house or 3rd party aftermarket?
    2 points
  27. I agree. There is a long way to go and the journal gives an insight into the cut throat life back in the depression era. It's going to get intense. I will eventually post pictures of the area as well that will show what Jed's diggings look like today. It's pretty amazing.
    2 points
  28. Steve Agree 100%! As a manufacturer here in the USA myself, a LOT of company's here are trying to ween themselves of having to buy or have their products made/assembled in China or other countries due to lead times/shipping issues and control of their products. First Texas has always been primarily a contract manufacturer of electronic assemblies for a myriad of US manufacturers. The metal detecting wing is/was just for ha ha's. Right now they are swamped and expanding the contract manufacturing side of the business. The metal detecting side is taking a real backseat and is not where they make their money.
    2 points
  29. I'm not a prospector, but I pop into the prospecting forum from time to time to admire the finds and such. Reading this thread is quite interesting. I'm primarily a relic hunter and some of my sites have really tough ground, I have one desert stage stop in a sea of alkali soils that cause machines fits to GB at. I've found I have to use beach mode at some of these sites on the EQX to handle the alkali soils. Wouldn't the XGB ground balance technology work wonders at relic sites with difficult soil conditions as well (alkali soils, red volcanic grounds like Culpepper, etc)? Could this be incorporated into a SMF detector?
    2 points
  30. Great read, I find DD's have a slight edge in depth but not by much and are quite often difficult to rely on in the iron trash areas I hunt. My detecting started with the tesoro machines and most came with a concentric and then a DD. Just my opinion but Tesoro's really shine with a concentric vs DD. Then came the Multi Kruzer, Which is an awesome machine. I ran the DD's for some time and had Pretty good luck with them until I bought the 9 inch concentric. It was a game changer for the MK. In all fairness the best DD I have ever used was the Nel superfly, oddly it almost seems like a hybrid of the DD and concentric configurations. As of lately I buy up concentric's at a high rate of speed, and fearing they will no longer be available. If I had to pick only one I would always choose a concentric. I wish minelab or someone else would step in and make a 9 inch concentric, I think it would make the 600/800 a machine that would be hard to beat in the performance arena. For now I run my tesoro's with concentric's for clean up in high nail infested sites.
    2 points
  31. Minelab has owned the gold market so long now that if you ignore all other brands it does not hurt you. Can an argument be made that the 24K is competitive with the Monster? Sure. But the U.S. manufacturers long ago ceded the field to Minelab, and getting that lost market back is all but impossible at this point. Minelab has a plethora of models that offer an upgrade path. Garrett, or anyone else, basically nothing. If a person wants to be a dealer selling nugget detectors they can sell Minelab and ignore the rest, and basically give up nothing. That being the case, Minelab right now almost completely owns the distribution market in places like Africa, whereas Garrett has little to no dealers at all. If a dealer is doing well selling Monsters, (and they actually are Simon, best seller at my old Alaska dealership), then what real incentive is there to switch horses? Because the 24K is better? Maybe, but if you are selling detectors splitting hairs over stuff like that does not put food on the table. You just go with what people want, and people want Minelabs. A huge issue also is Garrett product being overpriced in Oz. If it was me, I’d eat some margin to invest in some price equalization measures to offset the shipping costs and import fees. If Garrett wants to make headway they may need to buy a little market share.
    2 points
  32. I guess I must get up before the likes are passed out. Only got one before I was out !😜 I'll come back later after the new batch arrives !!!! Good luck with your new pendulum....
    2 points
  33. Joe, I like that you praise the Lord when you find a gold ring.
    2 points
  34. I will post a map of Jed's area tomorrow. I hope everyone is enjoying the journal. It's about to get pretty interesting.
    2 points
  35. Thank you...The good of being retired, I can choice the very best days with the best odds on finding gold. Calm water I can hear the faint signals so much better.
    2 points
  36. APRIL 15 1936 I woke to a cold and snowy scene this morning. About three or four inches of snow. I broomed the roof of my tent and fixed a breakfast of hot water corn bread and coffee. The snow had stopped before I woke so I set out on the hike back to the fault line and also seeing some bear tracks that looked fresh. Up at the base of the fault line I spied the critter. He looked to be needing nourishment and no doubt had not been too long out of hibernation. I have a good holler and he bolted up into the woods higher up the mountain. I worked the gravels swinging the pick and scooping out gravels by the shovel full at the base of the fault. There seemed to be broken country rock at the base. I went straight in and tried to get some depth which was hard work. After several hours of this I had myself a good hole going into the fault. About mid afternoon I was in deep enough to take some good sample buckets down to the creek. I saw lots of fines and very good heavies that weighed out rich. I went back out with a hand saw and started cutting back brush and small pine in order to fashion a crude roadway for my truck. At the last of light I went back down to camp and heated up beans on the stove and poured a good cupful of Irish whiskey. I began to formulate my mining plan as darkness took the camp. TO BE CONTINUED ....................
    2 points
  37. Seemingly lost in all this is the fact that this detector was released 3 1/2 years ago (Sept-Oct 2018, right?) by White's, and (AFAIK) it's the same detector now that Garrett is selling it. I realize there has been occasional praise (Steve H. for example) in that time period, but for the most part it seems like a secret. Apparently White's demise (although that was well over a year after its release) and the detector's disappearance from the market for ~2 years explains it some. Throw in the fact that it's a specialty detector. An apples to apples comparison is the ML Gold Monster 1000. Was that so calmly released and received? Still, with all the hubub we're hearing now for the XP Deus II (and don't forget the pre-release frenzy of the ML Equinox), I'm surprised it's taken so long for this to get exposed. I blame you, Simon.
    2 points
  38. I like this image because it is one of the only ones I have seen that illustrate the effect on size instead of type. Minelab tried to take credit here, but it really was White's that found the 40 - 50 kHz sweet spot for small gold. Again we have marketing at work. This frequency range is great for many small gold locations, while still doing well on large gold. But it is the gold on site that matters. If the location is old bucket line tailing piles, then there may be no small gold at all. Just larger oversize nuggets, say 1/4 ounce or larger, with main hope a multi ounce nugget. Then this chart is simply wrong, and that 18 kHz detector is now the winner. Conversely, what is there is nothing but 0.1 gram and smaller gold? Not that unusual actually in the goldfields. Now that 71 kHz machine reigns supreme. You have to know enough to read between the lines when it come to marketing, and in this case it is really telling you lower frequency for larger stuff, higher frequency for smaller stuff. Again, does not matter if it is silver, copper, or gold. It's all about size.
    2 points
  39. Gold prospectors are way more in the know. All three coils made for the Gold Bug 2 are concentric, though half the people that own them don’t seem to know it. DD was the way to go on Minelab PI back in the SD and GP days, but since GPX most people favor mono. Not exactly the same thing as concentric, but the principle is the same. DDs actually suck at small near surface targets. An Equinox plays an actual medley on small surface aluminum, as the complex DD coil field passes over the item and gives varying target id numbers at different places along the journey across the windings. A small concentric is a real pleasure by comparison. I have a White’s DFX not only to run the BigFoot, but also the Eclipse 6” concentric, and the 6” concentric does pretty much stay on the Garrett 24K.
    2 points
  40. Part of the problem could be the likes of Garrett that include Concentric coils in their entry level machines and market the better DD coil on the next models up. The Ace series in particular worked this way, with the Ace 150 and 250 coming with Concetric coils, and a big benefit of getting the Ace 350 was it came with the better DD coil, and their marketing pushed the DD coil as giving the Ace 350 a big advantage. I distinctly remember this advertising when I was buying my first detector as it is this marketing that influenced me to buy an Ace 350 (Euroace) over the cheaper Ace 250. Marketing like that makes people think Concentric coils are just for cheap detectors. You still see a lot of entry level machines with Concentric coils as their primary coil. Most gold prospectors especially in milder soils are particularly fond of Concentric coils on VLF's. For some reason I don't understand Concentric coils on the GPZ handle bad ground just as well as the DOD coil, if not better so I think Concentric coils have a healthy future ahead and we may see more of them from Minelab one day too. When I purchased the Garrett 24k I went to the other end of the earth to get a Concentric coil for it no matter the cost, I ended up buying two to try and get one and I'm glad I did, that coil is my stock coil until Garrett comes out with their own Concentric coil. As for Nel and the likes, they sell what the market demands, very few people want them and still now manufacturers are always saying DD is best. I think we'd have more chance of seeing them out of Detech, they seem more open to taking on risks and producing coils others won't with the Arrow a prime example.
    2 points
  41. I, too prefer Concentric coils in many hunting scenarios. Particularly to better ID Alum trash & reduce falsing from nails. I always try to purchase them to go with any detector I have. Garrett & Nokta Makro have been especially good at providing them. I hope to see them for the new SMF machines also.
    2 points
  42. Hello Guys, I’m Riccardo and write from Italy. Have been following this forum since years and love it. Have had many detectors but unfortunately can’t do prospecting because in this area there are no nuggets. Have had pulse inductions as well and that’s why I discovered this forum. Thanks for the opportunity to write in this great forum and to learn. Bye for now guys! Riccardo
    1 point
  43. GotAU that same coil is for sale on the forum here at a great price. I was trying a trade for my 6” but he has one. Right now I don’t want to spend the money because I’m saving just maybe for another detector. You just can’t have too many detectors. Chuck
    1 point
  44. Thanks, I've got a good feeling about the whole deal.. 😁
    1 point
  45. Glad you survived that "horribly cold" weather !! The scratches on the back of the '46 Rosie look like from a plow push across some pavement... I have many examples , but none on SILVER !!!!!
    1 point
  46. I've had the Red Racer, Racer 2, Impact, and MMK and they all had a rich selection of both factory, as well as after market coils. I don't see why the Legend will be any different, Dilek said they're happy to work with 3rd part coil vendors, as long as it made sense for both parties. She also ran a poll on their Facebook page to sequester polling on the most requested coils for the Legend. I see a 6x10 closed loop elliptical DD coming 🙂
    1 point
  47. Call her Gooddog , that's what she will be hearing from you most for the next 15 years anyway....
    1 point
  48. I use notch audio on my MK in 4 tone as it doesn't have a 99 tone but still incredibly effective for coin shooting at campsites. There is a post somewheres that shows my notch pattern I use using the Normal scale so you can swap frequencies and not shift the breaks.
    1 point
  49. OK, new forum is done, threads moved. https://www.detectorprospector.com/forums/forum/61-xp-deus-ii-forum/ I normally keep detector comparison stuff in a separate forum to stop detector wars. But the Deus II versus whatever videos have been pretty favorable, and not much dissension, so I have moved them all there also. Just seemed like one stop shopping is best. As long as people keep acting like adults it will work. Thanks in advance for that.
    1 point
  50. I will never forget this guy that visited my Moore Creek gold mine in Alaska, where the goal was finding multi ounce gold nuggets in bad ground. He had a 71 kHz Fisher Gold Bug 2, and I was sporting a 13 kHz Fisher F75. He swore his Gold Bug 2 could out detect my F75. I told him yeah, on small stuff, but not the large. He said "nope, tested them, the Gold Bug 2 wins." I asked "air test." He nodded. I knew I had him. So I got a larger nugget, forget exactly what, but 1/4 - 1/2 ounce type thing. We air tested the machines, and sure enough, the Gold Bug 2 blew the F75 away. He was smiling. Then we buried the nugget at about where I knew the F75 would reach. Decent signal. Gold Bug 2. Nothing. Not a weak signal, no signal. The guy was stunned. Absolutely stunned. This simple story is why I tend to scoff at air tests. They serve some purpose in showing theoretical depth max info, so if he and I were in Florida on white sand, he would indeed have beat me. Air tests are a nice way to learn target id numbers. But air testing detectors is like testing race cars with wheels jacked off the ground. Dyno tests only tell you so much, what counts is when the rubber meets the road, and with detectors, when coils meet the ground. I habitually hunt bad ground, and not only find air tests of little value, but even results from most detector test gardens, as they are in mild ground. 12" dimes? Are you kidding me? Not even close in my ground. I see often see results half what others see in mild ground. I wonder how many newbies have that happen, watch the internet, and think their detector is defective?
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...