Jump to content

jasong

Full Member
  • Posts

    2,443
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

 Content Type 

Forums

Detector Prospector Home

Detector Database

Downloads

Posts posted by jasong

  1. Haha yeah I've been chasing all sorts of blind leads in the lower elevations. We didn't get much snow this winter, so I was able to do a bit of exploring so far. But we just got 2 days of snow so I'm back stuck at home pounding on my keyboard now. 🙂

    The ore body prospecting invention I was proposing was something between seismic refraction and GPR: ULF/ELF ambient military transmissions (they can travel through the ocean/around the world/into ground). Depth similar to sound waves, but imaging via conductive interface changes like GPR. But not imaging in fine resolution like GPR, just looking for large scale conductive interface refraction (metallic ore bodies, buried lithium reserves, large salt domes, oil reservoirs, aquifer mapping, etc) as with seismic. Sorta both, but neither. 

    I'm guessing this is what this company is using along with a combo of other sources for finer/deeper occurences when the noise exists? No idea though. 

  2. 31 minutes ago, Jim in Idaho said:

    Still seems to me, Jason, you'd have to know the strength of each random noise source, relative to each other in order to make it work. GPS works because the initial impulses are at a set timing, so distance can be calculated at the receiver, and compared to other delays to calculate angle, and thus location. I'm still not confident that random noise would be much use, other than having the random noise from a known source location. Even then you'd have to know the comparative distance from each sensor in order to determine the earth effects. Maybe I'm just slow....LOL

    Jim

    With seismic (sonic) waves, you are not measuring strength but instead measuring the difference in time between refracted or reflected impulse that results from the interface of two different materials which two different velocities which sound travels through it. You are measuring the initial impulse (thump) time and then measuring the arrival time at an array of sensors. It's all time based. Signal strength is only really relevant insomuch as you want a strong enough impulse to travel as deep as you need it to go., but how strong it is is mostly irrelevant for the imaging other than max depth. Time is the critical measurement to generate subsurface imagery.

    Velocity is a function of time, distance between sensors is known, thus time is your critical measurement for this type of subsurface imaging.

    Similarly like with sound waves - EM waves travel through different rock types with different velocities. So you can use very similar methods to measure time and determine where formations change. In this case it's not so much the density of the rock (as with sound waves) as it is the conductivity changes in the rock.

    Seismic refractometers (oilfield thumpers) are an example of the sound wave frequency range tools.

    GPR are an example of the EM frequency range tools. 

    They both work similarly, by measuring time in order to generate the imaging. 

    Anyways, if one really needs signal strength, you just measure the magnitude of the incident signal at t=0. Then the strength of the reflect signal at t=t2. 

    • Like 1
  3. I don't know Ray Mills, but reading his class description that Swegin posted, that's the sort of thing I'd be spending my money on if I started from day 1 again, rather than trying to learn it all myself. Learning a gold machine takes a week or less if you spend time testing everything out (and you already know how to use your machines). Learning to actually prospect takes years, and many people never figure it out even after that much time, that kind of experience is invaluable because it can't be garnered in a week of testing, it takes a lifetime of prospecting to understand it and if someone is willing to distill it down into a class and share it, it's probably worth it. 

    And if you are in California you can probably find some smaller/local clubs better than the GPAA that have actual productive ground to work. Or, use the GPAA locations to familiarize yourself with the geologic/topographic settings nuggets are found in and use that to extrapolate to new locations you explore. That's prospecting. Location is everything, even in good locations much of the ground often doesn't have nuggety gold, learning where it's at is key.

    • Like 4
  4. 11 hours ago, GotAU? said:

    Should’ve, would’ve, could’ve patented your idea!  Curious- have you delved into soil resistance mapping yet? It seems like a pretty cool technology as well.

    Not me, but Jim has. 🙂

    Separately, a company I sold a project to did some resistivity surveys with a professional contractor. That contractor ended up unfortunately lighting a part of the mountain face on fire in doing so a few years back! 

    • Haha 2
    • Oh my! 1
  5. 16 hours ago, Jim in Idaho said:

    I'm curious how they can use random noise, at unkown distances, to determine anything. I can see how known power going into the ground, at a known point, being used however. I also see how measuring the ambient soil voltage could indicate a conductive ground anomaly.

    Jim

    If you measure the noise signals at a set reference point as a baseline then you do have a known reference frame. Then you measure how the signal changes at different points of interest around the baseline to see how the environment affects it. Wether you generate/transmit that signal or you use an existing ambient signal, it's still a usable signal. 

    A similar concept already exists that can see through walls using ambient wifi RF.  

    Similarly, you could use tectonic movements from half the planet away as stimuli for seismic refraction measurements (depth to bedrock measurements, formation layers, etc). Essentially taking the place of the stimulus from a thumper truck, dynamite, a sledgehammer, etc. Problem being these events are not happening constant enough to depend on alone or to be highly useful. Technically you'd just need to look at how the signal changes across many measurements/locations though to generate some useful information about underlying geology, I'm not sure a baseline would even be required to get useful data, as the reflection/refraction times themselves just need to be measured relative to the time of the initial impulse (thump) rather than magnitudes, but dunno. Not totally unlike the way GPS works, in a way, except listening for "echos" of reflectance/refraction relative to the time of arrival of the initial impulse.

    Extrapolate from that and you could also use blasts from nearby quarries, or other ambient noise. Going further, you can move from the sonic spectrum into the EM noise spectrum, especially very low frequencies, and you can penetrate some distance into the ground and get info from those as well. These signals are more common. All of them combined I imagine is closer to whatever this company is measuring - to get a wider frequency range picture and to ensure there are at least some elements of some frequencies present wherever in the world they deploy. 

    • Like 1
  6. Interesting. This is similar to the large scale conductive ore body detector I proposed a while back using existing ULF/ELF submarine and other ambient low frequency transmitter frequencies out there.

    An idea I've had for over a decade and had every electronics/detector techie sort I've told this to tell me it was not possible. 😅

    • Like 1
    • Sad 1
  7. 6 minutes ago, phrunt said:

    If you can pick out which episode it is let me know.

    Episodes | Gold Rush: Dave Turin's Lost Mine | Discovery

    You can click where it says Season 4 to go back through the older seasons episode lists.

     

    It might have been a few of those first season ones? Definitely E1 and E102 from the thumbnails. I'm way disconnected from TV these days. I must have seen their operation out there after they were already done, which means they probably didn't get very far on it. 

  8. 4 minutes ago, GhostMiner said:

    I wonder if Sanchez still owns that claim. If it's for sale I might be interested in partnering with some people if it proved out. He owns a bar somewhere in Montana as well. Maybe I can hunt him up.

    Eh, I bet you could find better. I think that's just a part of an old channel that probably pops up other places too. Though, looking at that big nugget - if it really did come out of there - it seems likely to be locally derived, not nearly as water worn as I woulda guessed and bears crystalline structure remanants. 

    It's just basically this little chunk of gravel up on a hill. It'd be mined out quick IMO. 

    • Like 1
  9. He was out working that Marble Rock prospect or whatever people call it in NV with a mini ex for some TV show that wasn't this one, I was ATV'ing around and saw the machine down in the pit then someone said he was set up next to them at the RV park.

    That show never make it to TV, or what happened to it?

    I was hoping to see what kind of gold they got out of there - I'm positive that's an old tongue of a paleoplacer, lots of boulders in that whole area for miles that aren't coming from the mountain there, and I've never known or met the owners to see what type of gold comes out of that place, I suspect it's river worn gold and not the local area crystalline stuff? Woulda liked to see more there just for knowledge sake. I love searching for those old river channels. 

    • Like 3
  10. Those are the best places to detect! I love that feeling where you think yeah I can take the camera out here and probably not be wasting time.

    Some of NZ reminds me of detecting the Rockies here, except of course minus the nearby ocean. Looks somewhat like home.

    The quartz face may be a slickenside. You can find it in shear zones, areas with lots of faulting, etc. It's when two faces move/grind across each other with enormous pressure, which ends up polishing the surfaces (and often leaving lines/striations called slickenlines). Similar things can result with glaciers and a lot of that hydraulic area looks like glacial till. 

    • Like 3
  11. 3 hours ago, RONS DETECTORS MINELAB said:

    Minelabs definition of GeoSense-PI™ technology analyses and responds to ground signals with great clarity and precision, so you can detect in difficult environments once thought undetectable. It rapidly suppresses unwanted signals via three overlapping feedback systems for superfast detection of even the tiniest gold pieces.
     

    Sounds like Minelab did improve on the 6000 handling with Geosense over the previous DVT & SETA systems by adding a third feedback system. Maybe they can add more feedback systems to even better remove more unwanted signals.
     

    Still not overly sure how it works as it does not handle the more mineralized ground conditions we have here. It works more like the salt/gold timings on the 5000 as it can handle conductive ground but will still hear the more mineralized ground conditions.

    I wish they weren't so opaque on what it's actually doing. But I suspect - and this is just a guess - that we will see more robust improvements in the future dealing with hotter and more variable ground. Cutting a great deal of ground noise and EMI out while maintaining sensitivity to gold would make a detector I am definitely interested in throwing money at. 

    Like with most tech, the initial attempts are usually rudimentary and not very impressive, but improve with further revisions. I'm kinda curious to see what they can do there, wether with Geosense or whatever comes after it and improves on it. 

    • Like 1
  12. I'm really hoping the sales on the 6000 and 7000 is early indication they are clearing stock for new flagship gold models and not just axing the EQ600 and backdoor fixing the 6000 coil issues.

    And I hope we get surprised and it's not a GPZ8000 but something new entirely. H1 or something. Hybrid PI/Z, I know that's all buzzwordy, but I want to see something truly new after this long of a wait. 

    • Like 6
  13. 4 hours ago, tboykin said:

    The biggest gains to be had with gold detectors lies in their ability to distinguish magnetic/ferrous from highly conductive/low impedance targets. This would be two-fold -

    1. Better depth in ferrous ground conditions
    2. True iron discrimination

    I'm not talking about the ability to do standard discrimination, blanking/muting the threshold over ferrous. But instead the ability to balance a ferrous signal out completely, and "see through" anything with a ferrous component. This would also keep the ability to pick up nuggets covered in manganese or other ferrous minerals.

    I think I remember a Minelab patent that covered this, and I would bet that the next big breakthrough will come in this type of detecting. I just hope it comes before I get too old to swing a detector!

    Gold detectors already do this to some degree. They look at both X (ferrous) and C (conductive) components of a signal as separate entities. The problem is that gold nuggets are in that unfortunate zone of overlap between X and C I think so they have both components and eliminating or reducing one could affect nugget signal. But as with everything - there are places where this is a bigger problem than other places, and more detector control would allow an experienced operator to change settings and adapt.

    I think it's possible right now actually. To some degree, I think this may be an end goal of Geosense, but I'm unsure. Maybe that was an application of the patent?

    1 hour ago, phrunt said:

     The 6000 didn't really bring anything new, the sensitivity it has the GPZ already had, but was just locked out with coils. 

    The 6000 is more advanced than you give it credit for Simon, and I'm saying this as one of it's biggest critics. I'm guessing it's because you tend to hunt the same places and stick within small, defined areas. Most of the positives I've found relate to using it as an exploration machine. 

    The 6000 blows away the 7000 in conductive ground (salt), even with a 10" X Coil on the GPZ. Yet, it retains the sensitivity of the GPZ with the 10". I can explore salty ground 4x faster with the 6000 than I can with the GPZ due to both it's performance in salt as well as the weight reduction. It's far more sensitive than a 5000 with an 11" round too.

    Also, I'm not ready to sell Geosense short or underestimate it just yet. I have documented well my issues with what I perceive it to be doing and how it can negatively affect a detectorist without them even realizing it, but I also still use Auto+ almost entirely, it's just too convenient when covering tons of different grounds types while exploring. When in variable ground, it does well adapting and letting me concentrate on other things besides fiddling with settings - it saves tons of time for me and I expect the next iteration will be better.

    This stuff here is why I said earlier they really need to get exploration prospectors on the testing crew. Because that's exactly the strength of the machines like the 6000 and they need to start getting input from people that can point out things that I feel a lot of current tests may underestimate if not miss entirely. 

    • Like 2
  14. If they are coming out with new detectors, I feel they need to be actually new at this stage. Like the 7000 was. It was a new paradigm. Adding a few controls and tweaks to an old machine doesn't do much for me anymore personally. 

    If it's fractional improvements on old ideas, I'll just wait for a new Algoforce or Nokta or whatever at 1/4 the price, no hurry.

    Stop milking the same cow already, Minelab. The 7000 and 6000 seemed steps in the right direction finally, I hope they don't go backwards with something like a revamped 5000. Design for exploration prospecting in addition to sensitivity, and get some of exploration prospectors on the testing crews so the engineers have an ear towards the types of concepts that are import there too.

    If they revamp anything, it should be the 6000 and 7000, not the 5000 IMO. And even a revamped 7000 at this stage would be a letdown to me as I think a new redesign and model would be better in almost every way. The concept of putting X old detector in Y new updated package has no appeal to me anymore for any model, unless it's done fairly quickly after release - like 2 years. That's just me though. Tech moves too fast now, times have changed.

  15. One of those boards has an SMA connector, its usually microwave or similar stuff like cellphones. GPR (ground penetrating radar) is often in that same frequency range too interestingly. Could just be communication with remote peripherals too though I guess like multiple coils, receivers, whatever. Just utter guesses, nothing more. 

    He seems to indicate this new detector is his, or related to some company he works with? 

  16. 1 hour ago, Steve Herschbach said:

    I know a lot of what I call "real miners." Alaska still has plenty of small placer mining operations, many of them family operations. Or serious gold dredgers. Almost to a person they consider metal detecting for a gold a complete waste of time. They have a family to feed and bills to pay and no time for toys. In the world of gold mining metal detectors are toys. Useful toys at times perhaps, but still toys. Me on my favorite mining tool....

    There is something ultra satisfying about turning big boulders and new dirt over with machinery. I feel like a kid on a playground running that kind of stuff sometimes. 😁 It's like zen satisfying to watch stuff that would take weeks to move by hand just yield and give way in a few minutes. That kind of digging I like. I'll dig trenches for water, electrical for friends just for fun because it's relaxing for me to move dirt like that, almost feels superhuman.

    This was my winter fixup project, old abused ranch mini ex with bad cylinders and swivel, bent dipper. Granted, a few magnitudes smaller than the dozer, but still fun. 

    image.png.5b6ce4d6c7d4603bd9ea9d5b7e0289df.png

    • Like 4
  17. I totally get what everyone says. So with hesitation I will answer honestly and say I'm the most jaded and miserable SOB detectorist ever here. 😆 I don't care about nuggets if they aren't paying for my trip and time. I usually just leave the tiny shallow stuff and only come back for them when I need some psychological boost. Or leave them there to have a place to take someone new to teach how to detect on the harder targets. 

    The thrill, enjoyment, and wonder I read other people detailing here with regards to digging nuggets, I think for me comes from finding where the nuggets are hiding, solving that mystery, and the research and adventure leading up to it. I don't care for digging or the nuggets themselves. I suppose there is a rush in finding the big ones though still, anything over 1/4 oz still gives me an immediate "heck yeah" feeling still. Small faint surface stuff I often pass up unless I really need some rattle. 

    I'd dig nothing at all if I could make that pay better though. Nuggets do nothing for me. If I can sell locations instead of gold so I can get back to the hunt quicker, I'm all for it. If I was in the 1800's I'd be a scout like Jim Bridger and not a miner, really love exploring and solving mysteries. 

    • Like 4
  18. 9 hours ago, phrunt said:

     

    gpxcable.thumb.jpg.8896ab9de98fb058bd1ab048ab623927.jpg

    Nice find, the weird connector alone is worth that since it's not easy to replicate. At least I couldn't find any when the 6000 first came out.

    I'm unconvinced those chips aren't hackable too, with a little sideways thinking on what they are. Not that I would ever do such a thing. But I have thought of some ways it could be done if the world ended and zombies raided my place and my life depended on me hacking that stupid chip to create a super anti-zombie weapon in order to escape. 😛

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...