goldenoldie

My detecting mate had one of those older FG body coils except it was a 10" Round and he believed it was the best mono coil that he ever owned.

Did BC have anything to do with the Gpx6000 as it not mentioned on the chart?

As the gold price continues to rise & rise that may justify the cost of next Minelab PI, in their thinking, if capable of outperforming all other manufactures at the time of its release.

Sorry to hear that as it was not the case with the QED that I used. Anyway, I did not mean to take the discussion away from the Algoforce.

One good thing that the QED had through the use of its MGB adjustment to complete a Ground Balance was to give a figure / number reading on its screen for the type of ground, that being the higher the figure / number reading the more mineralised the ground.

Yes, it was a 50c cupro-nickel coin and what I found interesting was this coin recorded a similar test result to that 4" x 2" x 3/8" Aluminium Block that I posted a pic of it in that comparison Video thread discussion. Therefore, I expect one could use this 50c coin to replicate a sizable piece of gold. Also, from my results then this 50c coin produced a few inches more than Chet's results with the USA $50 dollar 99% gold coin, when using the same three standard coils that come with the 6000. I think both coins are somewhat similar in dimensions.?

I have compared my 11 coil to my friend with the NF12x7 coil on my tiniest 0.03 gram piece and both produced the same result. However, the 12x7 will poke into tight places that the 11 cannot go or reach too.

Yes, as the tiniest piece that I have detected with the 17x13 coil on the 6000 has been a 0.08 gram and with the 11 coil a 0.03 gram.

Yes, no doubt the DOD coils are impressive and more so the higher the ground is mineralised.

A result, I have between the GPZ7000 in Difficult/ General with its 14 coil to the GPX6000 in Difficult / Auto + with the 17x13 coil on an Aussie 50c coin, was the same.

I expect why this block of Aluminium was created to mimic a larger Nugget of Gold for testing at inground test sites down your way.

I purchased my 6000 three months after its release date and have had no issues with the 11 coil. So, is there a date period that covers those older early built 11 coils that you speak of ? Also is there a date period for those early 17x13 coils that are not as good as the newer 17x13 coils, that you speak of as well ?

I have had NO such issues at all as Aureous has mentioned when I have been using my 17x13 coil including it producing extra depth over the 11 coil depending on the size of the nugget. No problems running high Manual or Auto settings from my experience. NF definitely produce great robust coils which can handle more rough use than the light weight 6000 coils.

Wonder how long before he performs all the tests as he explained in this video using all three detectors with various coil combinations?

From my experience I absolutely agree in regard to the stock 11 coil for the 6000 and down to 0.03 gram. I am yet to watch a video comparison between the 12x7 and 11 coils on the 6000, using the same settings, on a nugget still in-situ and the ground above untouched, to convince me for the extra expense of another coil. Also, my best depth so far with the 6000 was with the stock 17x13 coil on a 1.24-gram Specimen (0.9 grams of gold) dug up carefully at a depth of 10". The 6000 settings were Difficult / Auto Would have been interesting if I had connected up the 11 coil at the time to compare both responses before dug, but we do not think to do such comparison when out in the field.

Simon from both of that fella's in-ground and air test videos while comparing the 11 and 12x7 coils then both coils had similar stability with the 11 having the edge for outright depth in both videos. I hope to have an opportunity to compare both coils for myself in the near future.

Okay, thanks again GB for your reply. Also, when you are able to get your 6000 back to video test it there as well.

GB back on page 4 of this discussion I enquired if you had tried running that previous Axiom's Ground Track in Tracking over that highly mineralised creek ground, and you had for no difference to handle that ground compared to Ground Track turned Off. As you have another Axiom that is now performing much better, I am curious if this Axiom using one of its three options of Ground Tracking speeds in either Slow, Medium or Fast may help to tame that particular creek's ground more so than Ground Track set to Off. Also not knowing what the 6000's Ground Track speed is set too, I assume Slow, as well unable to adjust its speed as you can with the Axiom, then maybe, just maybe, Medium or Fast Tracking with that Axiom may tame that type of mineralised creek ground more so than the 6000 could?

Thanks for your reply GB on your setting for the 6000. Also look forward when you are able to perform that side-by-side video with a similar size coil on the 6000 as well, the NF 12x7 mono.

Great feedback GB in regard to the Axiom. Also, since have mentioned the 6000 in your review of the Axiom, then when you said you detect with the 6000 up at max sensitivity, so is that up at the max Manual setting or Auto+ setting with a threshold as well? And as you are to head back to the creek it would be good to video the 6000 in operation at the same location also?

Okay yes, I know see you had in your 4 posting in this thread.

Just curious have your tried running the Axiom only in Auto tracking instead of in Manual, unless you have mentioned that before?

Exactly what I did Jeff once my Gpx6 was returned then inside the house with the 14DD which produced the same air test results. Then later out in the G/field, with the 11 mono and using the speaker, it appeared to me to now operate the same as when I connected up the wi-fi headphones.

How does it sound when operating with a Threshold for the video test?