Gold Catcher

Some people can handle a PI full bore at all times (not many though- and also not really advisable), but a VLF you can render essentially useless at very high gain, up to a point where you can't even hear anymore a quarter 1 inch deep.

GC

6 hours ago, Gerry in Idaho said:

It's time to dust off the Fisher Gold Bug-2 with 6" coil.

The only noise that has ever been worse than my tinnitus is that God awful screechy threshold sound of the GB2 😃 But the detector is unmatched in mild soil and shallow gold.

GC    

11 hours ago, RONS DETECTORS MINELAB said:

On the manual gain settings I am also surprised that you can go from 1 to 10 and really do not loose sensitivity to targets as you would expect from all the previous legacy models.

You don't loose that much sensitivity for shallow targets when you reduce gain, but the loss in depth is much more profound.

GC

3 hours ago, VicR said:

So is the 6000 "significantly" different (improved) to the SDC in terms of being able to detect small gold?

In certain situations the SDC is still the better choice and beats the 6k IMO, in particular in grounds with high hotrock burden and magnetized small particles. The MPF timings paired with the small mono coil can really make a difference, in particular because the 6k tends to be rather sensitive to hotrocks. But in every other situation the 6k is superior.

GC

Size and depth matters for me when comparing 6k and 7k. For shallow <=5 inch fast gold the 6k beats the 7k  when run hot, no doubt. For depth > 5 inch the 7k beats the 6k in HY/Normal, even when the gold remains very small. So, it is not just the coil size that matters, it is the ground processing ability that the Z has that is just unmatched and that favors small gold recovery at depth. So, there is no "general cleanup detector" IMO. It all depends on the conditions and for what type of gold size/depth the cleanup needs to be done. The NF!2 is the ideal coil for the Z IMO to balance depth/sensitivity and DOD configuration to support optimal ground processing. I have found gold with the 7/NF12 that did not register on a 3 digit scale. Pretty impressive sensitivity even for tiny gold. But important are also the settings used. With smoothing on and in difficult the fast gold is often too fast....

GC

Beautiful finds. The Z with the NF12 remains my preferred detector for a reason.

GC

For hunting gold it is all about these faint targets. Subtle treshold variations is what you have to listen for. Getting IDs comes way later for deep targets once you have begun digging and you are within about 3 inch or less. Most nuggets I recovered had no ID nor any other visual indicator at first. It's all about your ears.

GC

The real difference for me would be to be able to accurately discriminate at depth with PI or ZVT technology. If you can hunt at a trashy mine site and punch a foot deep and still ID a 0.2g nugget, this is where the real value would come in. So much gold is still locked up in 12-15 inch depth zone at mine sites that currently can only be explored with a VLF at 1-2 inch depth. I think AI technology could eventually get us there, but would need some really smart engineering. And even better, solve the lead/gold problem! But the latter might just remain a pipe dream forever.

GC 

That's right. Weight alone would not cut it for me neither. After a full day of detecting with the 7000 I need 4 Advil to feel almost good at night. That would give me 137 years of pain free detecting, assuming I spend 8k on advil ($0.04/pill) and detect every day, instead of spending 8k for a light weight (and otherwise nothing) gpz 8000. 😁

GC

2 minutes ago, phrunt said:

Still, the Target ID is incredibly good compared to the GM probability meter 😛  That thing is next to useless unless a big obvious target.

Could not agree more. The monster meter has probably fooled me in 90% of times, and I usually never paid attention.

M8 performance is excellent, close to the monster with small coil in ideal conditions. Things change though in hot ground compared to air, sensitivity maxes out at about 20-22 for me before getting too unstable. Also, higher gain will make the target ID performance less accurate. For small gold the depth remains moderate (as expected for VLF), and I would say in trashy ground the target ID is usable down to 1-2 inch depth.

GC

I wonder if they would make a Sadie for that one. Would get you the really small stuff. 😁

He is one of the most knowledgeable gold miners on YouTube, and one of the most educational one to watch for river prospecting. One of the key points: look for gold where gold was found before.

GC

Instructive video, and the SDC is actually pretty respectable in comparison. Again, not a machine made for depth (not its design purpose) and also different/smaller coil. The MPF timings shine somewhere else.

GC

1 hour ago, Nedkelly said:

The stable ground balance is the most impressive thing for me. I'm certainly not ground balancing as much as I would have expected in hot variable ground with a sensitive detector. 

Is this not reason for concern though if true? I would expect a high-performance detector to be very sensitive to changing mineralization conditions, hence the need for frequent GB when run in manual. This was the reason why auto track was introduced (for those who like it). Unless the detector is less sensitive and does not need frequent fine tuning, of course, despite variable ground. I don't think you can have it both ways, something has to give.

GC

Thank you Mitchel. A topic I am interested in too. In particular, how does the PI target ID compare to the Manticore ID for small nuggets in mineralized ground. And at what depth. I said before we should not compare too much detector performances. However, for this one I make an exception. Getting nuggets accurately IDd, or at least clearly separated from small iron/tin trash, is a topic of huge interest, with VLF meters not working very well, doesn't matter what tech.

GC

Unless there are technical issues to be resolved, they should just open the coil floodgates and let the customer deceid what coil would work best for them. Total compatibility. And If certain coils won't meet their high standard spec. requirenment for optimal detector perfomance, so be it. Worse comes to worse and the dector would then just not operate a peak performance, but the customer would still be in full control. If anything, this is what the huge interest in the Algo should teach them.

GC

PS: would love to see a big round spiral for the 6 (I think the 17 ML is semi spiral if I am not mistaken). As long as it can handle the ground. And with the Woody fix even better 😁

1 hour ago, Norvic said:

the center 'Klingon D7 Battle Cruiser'

I can clearly see that. You decloaked it with the Z 😁🖖

4 hours ago, Norvic said:

then along came the Z and WOW.

Awesome, Norvic! Now that's a pic! Right there is probably what the Z cost, and then something.... Just curios, was this found with the DOD stock or with the 15CC? I know you guys have mild soil, just wondering how you see DOD vs CC/spiral wrt to depth.

GC

If I had just one to keep it would be the GPZ. If I had just one to buy it would for sure be the Axiom. 🤠

GC

11 minutes ago, phrunt said:

Some great reports are coming in from Aussies using the Algoforce on Facebook, particularly in regards to handling ground, it's running over hardpack ironstone like a dream and no issues with the red and orange clays in Victoria, the guy was finding bits around Bendigo. 

None of this surprises me.

Which coils do you recommend for the Algo that you liked the best thus far?

2 hours ago, Gerry in Idaho said:

Do you know it's background? It's housing is the exact one provided to the military

Thanks Gerry and yes, I know. When the MF5 came out I hoped for a next gen SDC, but that did not happen...

GC

2 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Calling people bashers is a way of downplaying or disrespecting opinions that do not fit the mold of being happy with anything a company does.

Fair point Steve, and I certainly did not want to insult anyone. So, apologies for that. I just sense that many folks hate ML so much that whatever they do or not do is bad. I have noticed that across many threads over the years, and also in other forums. Now, everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is of course totally fine. You have been involved with ML way longer than I have and on a much deeper level, so I am sure there are many reasons why this company is so much disliked, and I heard of some of them. I can just say that I enjoy their detectors and like their innovative thinking. I am not sure why they had a monopoly for so long, but I suspect it is not because they aggressively prevented others from emerging, or because of some unfair business practices, but rather because there were not many companies who would spend a similar R&D budget to come up with all these innovations (which also comes from their military work). Anyway, I am glad we now have true alternatives (Axiom, Algo, etc) and this will be good for everyone.

GC