goldenoldie

As I recall the QED was sold with a couple of those ferrite cores to attach to the coil cable next to where it connected into its control box.

Maybe phrunt when he owned a QED had found if the ferrite core made any difference when attached to the coil cable?

9 hours ago, Dutchman4 said:

So I picked up a GP3000 a few days ago including an assortment of coils.  This NF 17x11 is the only mono coil in the bunch and it appears to be an older model with a fiber glass body.  Do any of you old timers have any experience with this coil regarding depth (on 2g+ nuggets) and stability vs the more modern coils?

 

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.

14 minutes ago, phrunt said:

My ground balance numbers using the AGB never worked on my QED, they never really changed, I was told it was because my ground was mild, yet it didn't do anything much on a black sand beach either and certainly didn't balance, I just did it manually in all scenarios.  I found the numbers pretty pointless and not an indication of anything.

 

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.

3 hours ago, phrunt said:

 I'll take a mineralisation meter detector with me to check next time I go such as the Deus 1 or Teknetics T2 and see how bad different locations are.  

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.

28 minutes ago, phrunt said:

Out of interest, what made you use a cupro-nickel coin with 75% copper, 25% nickel weighing 15.55 grams and being almost 3.2cm diameter as a test target?  

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.?

30 minutes ago, Gold Catcher said:

.....the NF 12x7 is more stable in my hands. And without significant sensitivity loss compared to the stock 11. 

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.  

33 minutes ago, RONS DETECTORS MINELAB said:

The 17 x 13 is no slouch even though its not far behind the 11" on multi-gram bits, just have to lower sensitivity to manual 2 or 3 to handle the ground and EMI chatter and get that smooth threshold.

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.

2 minutes ago, Gold Catcher said:

Thanks. I think the difference might be more significant with gold at depth in hot soil. The ground processing of the Z is unmatched IMO, and even smaller super D coils can hear targets rather deep. 

GC

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

2 hours ago, Gold Catcher said:

 I wonder if the GPZ with the NF12 would beat the 6k with the big 17 mono on depth ( I bet it easily does, probably not even need to run hot!). But that's a topic for another thread. 😁

 

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.  

3 hours ago, Aureous said:

A solid lump of aluminium or lead would be heard far deeper. Aluminium is of course, in the same conduction range as gold, ........ 

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.

1 hour ago, phrunt said:

........anyone with an older early built coil as they have made changes to newer batch coils not only with build quality with the plastic cracking on the coil and ears but also in relation to stability, ................

A newer 17x13 might be a lot better than an early one.

 

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?

22 hours ago, phrunt said:

I wonder why you were only finding big nuggets with the stock coil? For me it's been very sensitive and easily finding 0.03 of a gram nuggets and similar more often than any others.

Maybe your stock coil is one of the many duds.

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. 

15 hours ago, phrunt said:

So you agree with the guy in the video? As his thoughts seemed to be similar sensitivity between the bigger 11" coil and the 12x7" except a bit of a louder hit on the 11", and the NF ran quieter.  

 

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.

12 hours ago, Gone Bush said:

...... once I get Axiom back I will call in on the way past for a quick swing and mess about with auto tracking and make a video.......

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.

1 hour ago, Gone Bush said:

I will head back out to the creek and try a few different things, including burying my test nugget, and post another video.
Please forgive my poor quality videos. 
 

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?

1 hour ago, Jeff McClendon said:

I got it all back together and attached the 14"DD coil and tested it in my house (WHAT!!!!) and in my backyard. I tested it using the 14" DD on normal and difficult using both the EMI Cancel setting and the Conductive Ground setting. Sensitivity was equal to the before the upgrade performance judging from my notes on the testing that I had done previously...

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.