jasong

Probably a combo of ironstone and fractures then. Fractures, even partial ones, could in theory effectively cause a nugget to be 1/2 the size or less when viewed from a metal detector's reference frame even if the nugget is still connected with itself. If you have 2 fractures, then maybe 1/3rd the size. It all depends on the geometry though. Mag fields are also additive so there is the additional issue that fractures or even maybe other geometric irregularities can potentially cause destructive interference between two induced fields at different angles. Or at least not add up to the same field strength as it would if it were a whole nugget. I'm just saying this based on the finite element modelling we did on iron and aluminum, but I think it would apply with gold too.

Are those fractures that go all the way through the nugget or larger pieces of ironstone? Are there little holes in it? Anything that reduces the ability of eddy currents to establish will probably also reduce the signal response on a PI. Reason I ask about fractures is the way we reduced or eliminated eddy currents on a research project I did in school was to cut holes and slots into the conductive metal (a projectile in our case, but same principle).

It probably means they might not have surveyed it yet, at least with whatever version of the public survey you are using. Check the Master Title Plats to see if they might have surveys now, they are usually kept updated. You can get them and a lot of other stuff here: https://glorecords.blm.gov/default.aspx, and the county recorder will usually have a more detailed and more updated MTP too, but requires searching through physical books usually at the office and is quite laborious. Anyways, heading back out to work.

Yeah there is definitely potential. You do seem to be doing real well in a place a lot of people might not find anything at all. There is always Arizona next door if that fails. Or Colorado if you want a real exploration challenge! CO is probably the most underrated, underexplored terrain in the lower 48 when it comes to detecting. Check out the San Juans though if you want to see some truly awesome mining terrain and history and some of the most underappreciated mountains in the US, depending where you are at in NM it may be quicker to drive to them than other parts of NM. One of these days when I strike it rich, I'll retire in Telluride or Ouray, I love it down there but damn it's expensive.

There are definitely some areas out there underprospected still with lots of wide open space. Especially in a place like NM that isn't exactly a hotbed for prospecting discussion online like some of the more Western states. Places that get mentioned online get way too much attention and then get really hard to prospect. The reason I started learning all this stuff though is because I started out where it appeared every square inch of decent land was claimed since there were only a few known places to find gold near me and years worth of exploration outside those areas ended fruitless. So I went to great lengths to figure out exactly how to map this stuff accurately and find the tiny fragments between the existing claims that I might be able to get a foothold into. When I started panning and later dredging in 2003, there wasn't even a complete copy of General Mining Act of 1872 online anywhere, the best one online was some weird scanned version with lots of artifact errors that was missing the last 5 or 6 paragraphs, and had some other act accidentally scanned in, which people as a result thought was part of the Mining Act. I spent 2 years searching for a copy in a library and finally found one on a trip to Denver, which I hand transcribed and put on an old page of mine that no longer exists, later linked and used on Wikipedia (which itself had been using the incorrect copy until then), and subsequently other sites later copied that one and I'm pretty sure that is the text most use today. It blew my mind that people could be so specifically sure of what they thought was right, yet would link a completely incorrect and incomplete copy of the law they were quoting. I even had guns pointed in my face in a few cases. That's when I realized I couldn't trust what people said on forums and online in general in relation to the law and I had to do my own research. I would recommend the same. Don't even trust what I say.

It's complicated, but it's freedom to me, I get real claustrophobic in places with all private land. That is a sticky issue that someone else can tackle. I've made my case over the years in a number of places and I'm done with that now. The answer you'll get from most in the mining community not named "jasong" though is "no". Read the law and court precedents and come to your own conclusions though if you have a lot of time to waste. Easier is just to move on and find some place not claimed at all.

Also, lode claims are 20.66 acres in size if the person claims the full amount allowed. This isn't always the case since lode claims do not need to conform to the PLSS lines (they need only to be tied to one point on the PLSS), they can go any direction and people claim fractional claims to infill. So, with lode claims you can't always say there is X amount per 160 1/4 section. They may be crisscrossing all over the place. Similarly, placer claims need not stay in within any specific 1/4 section or 1/4 1/4, etc though they do need to conform to the fractional PLSS lines. I believe the BLM allows fractions down to 2.5 acres, which can't be corner to corner, must be side to side. There are exceptions in the cases of gulches and unsurveyed areas. But you can get one placer claim like a half mile long and going across many 1/4 1/4 sections.

This one gets a bit stickier. There are lots of skewed or otherwise non-standard sized sections, both larger and smaller. I've seen them up around 720 acres in Nevada, and I've also seen fractional sections (and entire fractional townships) where the sections are like 180 acres total. Usually unless it's someone who knows what they are doing, the person just claims as normal without realizing it. When done with aliquot parts in a larger section this means their claim technically is larger than 20 acres and thus requires 2 people to claim or 2 seperate claims. A lot of times the BLM doesn't catch this, sometimes they do. Sometimes you'll see verbiage on claim papers "this claim contains X acres, more or less" That leaves gray areas where people think they have more claimed than they do. And that leads to an entire 'nother complex discussion about wether that is kosher or not. In other cases people's claims overlie partial private lands or partial private or withdrawn mineral rights. They rarely realize this either. When I write claim papers up in these instances I include the verbiage "excluding any private or withdrawn minerals or surface" and I recalculate my total claim acreage. To answer the 160 acre thing - that can be done in 1 claim, it just requires 8 claimaints (and 8 claim fees). Or 8 seperate claims with one person.

If you don't have it already, here is a PLSS WMS overlay (actually REST but works like WMS) from the BLM. You can download the whole database as a .shp file from their website if you want to import in ArcGIS or something, just Google that one, it's a very large file. https://gis.blm.gov/arcgis/rest/services/Cadastral/BLM_Natl_PLSS_CadNSDI/MapServer/export? These things change or go down from time to time so links have to be relocated. This one is harder to read than the one they had working last year that allowed you to change font sizes. If you find a better one easier to read the T/R/S let me know, I can't get this one to let me increase the font.

Yes, you have to pull the papers from the county recorder or off the location monument in the field. Even then, half the time the people filing the claim seem to not know what they are doing and their location is often impossible to nail down. I can't count how many times I've found lode claims with no tie to the public survey or placer claims using a lode claim form but attempting to still use aliquot parts and making no sense at all. And a thousand variations in between making the claim impossible to locate more accurately. A lot of recorders now have the last 20 years or so of records online, but now some of them are starting to charge for it and require signing up, which in some cases can takes weeks for the ones the require you to mail a form in. You'll want to get a PLSS overlay onto Google Earth or into your GIS program so you can map aliquot parts or tie the claim to the survey and calculate metes and bounds. When you are mapping a ton of claims this makes it way quicker. You'll do all that work and realize a ton of prospectors just go out and play dumb and detect over valid claims until someone says something to them.

4 years ago it was sometimes hard to ask a question that might be construed by some as questioning ML products or business. Often required was a preface - "I love my Minelab, but..." in order to get a serious discussion. Today we now have photo montages of instructions on how to hardware hack and bypass their IP security to run a product which has apparantly bypassed their licensing department in a way not so different from some Chinese business practices. Except we do it for them. Things can sure change quick with the prospect of a little better performance. I'm curious, is the DOD design patented too as part of some of their broader GPZ patents? Or is it a gray area? Might that be why they have not gained licensing? If so, is this Russian company doing anything so different than the Chinese do with IP theft? I mean, I'm buying an X Coil too just like a lot of people because there is literally no other option, but as much as we don't hear from Minelab we've heard equally little about this actual Russian company. I mean, I'll do what I please with my GPZ since I paid for it, but still, so many unknowns... Should these things be discussed or are they irrelevant? Absurdity abounds. However, I'm reminded a little of the fight in court here in the US involving farmers against John Deere and the right to modify and repair equipment you purchase, plus have access to firmware and not be locked out of it. We may soon have legislation saying exactly what is and isn't right there, some states I believe already do.

ML wouldn't even need to sell a physical patch. They could just update the firmware to bypass the chip authentication if they really wanted to allow customers to use more coils. It'd be free and require no cable doctoring and would cost ML $0 in manufacturing costs. They could still charge $200 for that probably if they wanted to and make even more profit. But then we are right back to square one wondering why instead they wouldn't simply license a code to a 3rd party to build coils and allow that code in a firmware update rather than disabling their code altogether, the manufacturers would pay for the license instead of the customers. And the snake just eats it's tail again leading us around an endless circle of wondering why this or that isn't happening. The GPZ was designed for firmware updates and coil upgrades yet they appear to have no desire to let either of them happen and no desire to tell us why. Some larger piece of the puzzle is clearly missing that altered business road maps, and which we as general public are not privy to.

The part I really don't get is the radio silence. If so, I don't get the point of the security chip at all. What exactly is it protecting? Why require a chip when they have nothing economically to lose if someone else makes coils? That chip indicates to me they were wanting to create their own coil market and be exclusive sellers (or sell licenses to 3rd party manufacturers). The only other explanation I can fathom is it was intended to prevent knock off GPZ's from using a real ML coil, but they are punishing customers way more than counterfeiters there if so. I also don't get why JP, ML's most well known tester, is himself testing X Coils and was provided a chip bypass by ML themselves. Does ML have some sort of interest in X Coils like rebranding the coils as their own or buying them out, or...? If not and they make patches for people to use for their own benefit, why can't we buy one too? So many things don't make sense to me here. I wish they would just say something. A large amount of people are about to chop up machines, some still under warranty and close to new, and still just...nothing, not a peep letting anyone know wether to wait or not.

It would be good to know if the models being sold now incorporate this change or not, if Dave or the manufacturer could comment. If so, how much weight does it add? Speaking just for myself, I almost only detect fairly mild ground so if the weight is significant I'd prefer a lighter option even if it has trouble in hotter ground which I never find myself in or could use the stock coil if I do. I decided to order a 12 and 17 so I can test them for myself compared to the stock coil since few seem interested in doing so in a way that provides the sort of data I want to see personally. I am curious what I will receive, dont want a heavier one if i dont need it... I'm potentially cutting 2+ years out of my warranty (my 2nd gpz) so I want it to be worth it since I cant uncut the wire.

Au_solitude, did the user mention if it tended to struggle just on ferrous type mineralization or also on salt (conductive) type hot ground too? The GPX is a lot better on salt than my GPZ and that's one reason I keep it around still.