Jump to content

jasong

Full Member
  • Posts

    2,443
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

 Content Type 

Forums

Detector Prospector Home

Detector Database

Downloads

Everything posted by jasong

  1. Yes, you can claim locatable minerals on private land. Reconveyed minerals sometimes are leasable. This is the concept behind the split estate. There are a number of different ways the minerals rights may have been retained as public - SRHA is the most common one in my experience. With SRHA the procedure is legally defined more or less, and you can read the actual law pertaining to prospecting public minerals on private surface lands here. The lead geologist in your local BLM office generally will be familiar with the process and I would suggest talking to them to get more information. Basically - it requires a bunch of notices and paperwork and compensation to the surface owner. And there is common law to consider such as reasonable surface use. You may prospect public locatable minerals on private land if you have permission from the surface owner to enter upon the land. It gets sticky with reconveyed/leasable minerals though technically speaking.
  2. I don't think there are any coils that could get the 6000 close to the Z in depth performance. Two different technologies. It's more likely they aren't building larger coils for the 6000 because there is little to be gained from using them. If there were serious gains to be had in terms of depth, I'm guessing X Coils would be doing it with an adapter already. The 17x13 is underwhelming, and evidence of this lack of performance with larger coils. What Woody found is exactly what I was saying too for some time - it's not just the unshielded components, the control box itself lacks shielding and is a source of a lot of noise. I tried wrapping it with carbon fiber but it didn't help a lot, I didn't exactly cover everything though. I'm curious what Woody can achieve. We knew early on the fix was replacing unshielded inductors - these allowed the speaker to couple with the control board and self induce noise. But those components and maybe others as well were also susceptible to high EMI environments as well, so it wasn't just a purely speaker-related thing (this was the easiest to observe though). Both the speaker as well as high EMI environments would force the 6000 into instability.
  3. There are a ton of different ways that could be implemented now that we have the processing power to do them. A lot of this stuff was techniques that were well known in the 90's because it's what we had to do to adapt lab equipment and tools to specific uses in school. A bunch of ideas probably wouldn't work. I probably misunderstand others. That's science and engineering - experiment and try. But I've seen enough in other products and instruments to be pretty comfortable saying that I really don't think detectors are seriously using the power we have available cheaply today. But again, this is stuff I see greatly benefiting exploration prospecting. Stuff that speeds up ground coverage, saves time. Not as beneficial for flogging old patches type detecting where one is already going slow, and a slow/noisy rig doesn't matter as much. In terms of raw power for getting every last deeper crumb out of an old patch, it's going to be hard to be beat an old GPZ with a larger CC X Coil, I agree there. These changes will be smaller advantages for that type of work. That rig is also a poor exploration machine though.
  4. Right, this is one commonly used method in instrumentation. I've posted about this years ago, but the way it's done is by doing something like a gradiometric analysis. In other words - you sense noise from two different spots in real time, and then look at the rate of change and direction when possible of the E field. Vector gradient analysis. (fancy terms for looking at rates of change and direction) The difference between the signal from the ground to the coil is much higher than the difference between taking that same reading somewhere else, say the control box. Now the same analysis can be applied to EMI. Since it originates from the sun, lightning, planes, cell towers, etc the difference in magnitude is far less as it's picked up between those same two points. So you can more easily determine those types of signals are likely to be EMI. Now - with enough CPU speed you can do further analysis on the signals to differentiate them, and still have results in "real time" before the brain hears anything like Fourier analysis on top of the gradiometry. You can even take gradiometry further and do vector (directional) analysis with a fast enough CPU and some clever circuitry to determine which direction the signal is coming from. This is a massive oversimplification but I'm trying to keep it understandable for all.
  5. I'm not talking about throwing more power at obsolete design paradigms. I'm talking about adapting new design principals to the power we available today. Until very recently, most detectors were still designed like it was 1995, even when they did use more modern components. Like procedural style programming instead of object oriented. One thing at a time type stuff, it's ultra inefficient. Throwing more processing power at old designs and ideas accomplishes little and is not what I'm suggesting. EMI is absolutely something that can be dealt with more effectively. It's done already in scientific instrumentation via numerous different methods, though these are complex. I suggested one simple way that I know already works in electronics other than detectors - real time noise monitoring and channel selection. That alone would save the 30 seconds of noise cancelling plus would keep you on average on a much quieter channel. I'm just repeating myself here though. I guess people either understand what I'm saying or not.
  6. It is when you do complex signal processing, multiple things in parallel like the examples I gave. This is nothing specific to detectors, just electronics in general. A lot of this is done in the MCU now in general. That takes clock cycles up. Now, running multiple Fourier transforms simultaneously, doing stuff like monitoring all the channels for the lowest noise constantly, analyzing ground constantly, you'd benefit by either multiple cores or faster clock speed when you add a bunch of parallel tasks together that are always operating in the background if you moved to a real time, constant noise reduction and ground monitoring system. The 6000 does this with ground I think, to some degree. Add to the signal processing all the routine functions of the detector like writing to the screen, operating audio, bluetooth, user interface/buttons, stuff like discrim/TID calculations, configuring operation of the analog circuitry (changing timing patterns/pulse configuration/etc). It all takes clock cycles up. Even if technically you have enough speed to complete all the tasks individually, electronics get "sticky" or laggy when too many processes all compete for those cycles during the same time frame. So you have to slow the operation down or reduce functionality in those cases, even though you have enough speed technically speaking. This is why multiple cores benefit applications running many things in parallel even if you aren't using all the capabilities all the time. Or multiple processors. I'm not suggesting throwing more processing power at current or obsolete (IMO) detector designs. It'd be pointless for a 5000 for instance. I'm suggesting changing the way detectors are designed to take advantage of all this cheap processing power today that wasn't available cheaply 15 years ago.
  7. The x^6 problem is well known, it's not related to the point I'm making though except tangentially (I'll touch on that in a moment). What I'm saying is that ignoring depth gains entirely, exploration prospecting really can benefit greatly from faster, quieter detectors. This is achievable by throwing more cheap signal processing power at it. Namely - EMI and ground noise reduction. These two things slow a detector down greatly and the faster you can work, the more ground you can cover, the more gold you can find. Noise of any sort massively slows exploration down. Now back to the x^6 limitation. First off - yes, it's true. But understand that it's an ideal model. In other words - it's like looking at air tests in a Faraday cage with no noise. We don't detect in a Faraday cage, thus we don't use these machines in environments where we get close to that theoretical asymptote/limit. We have to deal with EMI and ground noise. The first thing we do in these cases is bump back RX gain. Then maybe some audio smoothing/stabilizer. Then maybe change timings. All of these reduce us even further from this x^6 limit. The 2nd thing I'm saying is this: by working on reducing EMI and ground noise we don't just make exploration faster, we can also bump RX gain back up and thus actually, we do gain depth. We can not use smoothing, and gain depth. We can use more sensitive timings, and gain depth. And thus, get closer to that x^6 limit each time we eliminate more and more noise.
  8. Like with computers though, eventually different design approaches minimize the need for the ever increasing clock speed race. Same approach can be used for improvement in new detectors and people insisting we've reached some wall because TX power and sensitivity is at it's limit of usefulness - that isn't everything, there is plenty of room to improve by looking at different design considerations. Those ARM chips are $20 each now. Toss a 2nd one in to channel surf every channel and constantly keep the detector on the quietest channel - no down time stopping and pressing the noise cancel button plus reduced noise. Similarly, keep the 2nd chip running EMI reduction algorithms. Have it do auto ground tracking/ground signal processing too. This stuff makes a massive difference in time savings when you are exploring, which really is the strength of these lightweight detectors like the 6000 (and presumably the E1500). It's hard to understand this for people that just work old patches slowly though as the need isn't as great as it is in situations where you aim to cover lots of ground and that ground (and EMI environment) changes and alters greatly. Saving time = more ground covered. There is a lot of processing power that can be thrown at detectors cheaply now. Make them faster, quieter. In terms of power, you don't need more raw power to get more sensitivity, another approach is to lower the noise floor another magnitude and boost the RX gain. RX gain is limitless (well, essentially). I've been saying this for a decade. I think modern detector design is starting to show this idea now that a ton of power can be put to signal processing.
  9. I watched the total eclipse from my backyard in Wyoming with my mom and it'll be forever memorable to me. Similarly, we were both much less impressed by the sun/moon which we had seen photos of already than we were by the strangeness around us. The streetlights came on, the temperature dropped, and everything was this strange blueish twilight in daytime. The light still getting through was somehow different, diffuse, the atmosphere was very unique. It's easy to see how humans in the past were confused and awestruck by an event like that and assumed supernatural explanations.
  10. This, definitely. You also brought up another point about the variable ground. It's one thing to have hot ground but when that ground is highly variable and hot combined, its a nightmare working with a slow detector or one that has trouble balancing. When ground coverage is the name of the game while exploring, that can make or break a detector no matter the price.
  11. For the last 12 years, my main detecting pack has been a CamelBak MULE Milspec pack, they are perfect for me. I don't touch the harnesses as these hydration packs are so much better. Small and light. Has D rings in the right spot on the shoulder (not sure all newer models do today though, verify), 100oz water bladder, carries everything I need for a day. I toss a frozen plastic water bottle inside the bladder to keep the water cool, then at the end of the day if I run out of water I know I still have my backup icy bottle left to drink out of. Bungee stays connected always, a backup is kept in the lower pouch. I can hook a gold pan on, keep a Leatherman, pistol in the rare cases I want it in griz or drug country, extra batteries, food for a day, and my pinpointer clips onto the D ring on the other shoulder with a Key-bak. The rest I keep in my ATV saddlebags. But if I'm taking any amount of larger tools or lots of samples/rocks I do need a larger pack. Might go to Cabelas or REI or someplace and test fit some packs in person, some packs have D rings but are placed too low, you want it up on your shoulder and then if you need it extended you can always clip a carabiner on. I just looked and they appear to have changed the design from what I bought, apparantly removing D rings from some of them, so looking in person is probably good.
  12. Algoforce still isn't showing up on the FCC website. Unless it's under some different name? That makes me wonder though - Minelab's FCC testing and permits generally only pertain to the Bluetooth and/or wifi frequency emissions, and not the metal detector itself. I'm guessing because the bt/wifi stuff is regulated frequency bands while a PI detector operates in unregulated bands? If that's the case, I'm wondering what exactly Algoforce is waiting on the FCC to test for in the US since it doesn't have Bluetooth included, thus nothing to test for? I must not be seeing the whole picture.
  13. Unfortunately Minelab made serious detecting for gold all about money. It was a skeezy move. Here is some fact that gets lost too easily among a largely retiree age crowd on this and the older AZ forums: Until my 2nd GPZ, every single detector I bought, I purchased on credit at 18% interest or a commercial line of credit at 8.5%. I had to make it pay or I couldn't do it. I couldn't afford to buy a detector otherwise. It's no mystery why there were and still are so few younger people doing this. When I had a Youtube channel I got 3-6 inquiries a day about what detector I was using and how much they cost - my audience was principally 18-35 year olds at the time. As soon as I told them - they lost the dream quickly. Hopefully that's changed with the Algoforce. Unfortunately, it does come a little late in the game. But exploration prospecting is still a viable method to find gold - the days of pointy fingers and reworking old patches is pretty much over though.
  14. Just epoxy one right onto the lower shaft if it needs to stay there anyways. Nothing to lose, always there, never moving. Or, if more powerful detectors+coils going forward require much less cable movement, maybe clips need molded into lower shafts in the future by manufacturers. These would be easy to 3d print BTW, if you had the shaft and cable dimensions. I wonder how much cable diameters vary though across brands?
  15. I like the power pack method. I have to carry one with me anyways because with my GPS and camera, my phone is down to 10% battery towards the end of the day anyways and needs charged. Usually I need my GPS to get back out of new places, especially in dark. Can just use my detector battery now if I really need to, always there in a pinch. I'll probably end up going with a large pack just to cover all bases. Keep a spare in my pack, a spare in the RV, and I still haven't spent what 1 ML battery costs, and it'll charge my phone too, and not need bizarre adapters and cords to work. If other detectors follow the same path than you can use battery packs for them too. Can use it to recharge a bit of my jumper pack for my ATV and sidexside too in a pinch, for 1 jump. USBC batteries have been on my list of wanted features on new detectors for years, I like it. Hope other manufacturers follow.
  16. Haha man, 100,000 is a new record I think...that's hilarious. 😅 I love how it's tiny, like half the size of a phone too, they aren't even trying to convince anyone anymore haha. Technically we have laws against it. My guess is that the problem is as soon as the FTC pursues one of them for false advertising they simply change their name like from "Unvqint" to "Exoslarp" and then sell the same thing again with a slightly different case to make it seem different. Problem is I am sure Walmart, and probably Best Buy too, are buying this stuff and repackaging it into more American looking non descript packages to sell in store. They should know better. Certainly anyone buying from Amazon should just avoid those brands with clearly nonsensical names anyways. Which unfortunately is getting harder and harder every year since Amazon's algorithm gets paid to push them. I tried finding a Rugged Country winch last year I had bought 5 years ago to buy another one, and even putting the exact term in quotes it still gave me nothing but knockoff products 5 or 6 pages deep. I was only able to find the winch by searching my old orders and going to the product page from there.
  17. This may be a suitable thread to mention something which may trip up some US users especially new guys - the cheap $10-$20 battery banks you can get at Walmart, Amazon, etc are often vastly overrated. Like they just write whatever rating number they think will sell best. Some are ok, some are absolute garbage. The ones at the checkout aisles that are rated 10000mAH from Walmart, I disassembled one because I was using it for a different application and it would run out very quickly. The actual batteries inside were only 2500mAH. Later I bought one that was 20000mAH and took it apart and surprise surprise - 5000mAH battery in it. Bought one off Amazon that was 20000mAH to recharge phones with remotely, and it lasted about exactly as long as the Walmart one but I didn't take it apart. I can see people going to Walmart for a battery and wondering why their detector is only running 90 minutes off a "20000mAH" pack. 🙂 In this case it probably pays to go with the more trusted, name brand ones for an extra $10 or so like the Belkin Simon posted.
  18. @GoodAmount Nice, yeah seems like ABS is doing good. No plastic will avoid scratches on rocks since it's just a matter of hardness. On your slicer do you just do solid with no infill? What nozzle and layer thicknesses out of curiosity? Yeah the Amazing Goo I just put on the edges of all my old NF Advantage coils because I got so tired of burning through skid plates. Actually the bottom of the coils themselves stayed fairly intact, just really scratched up. I haven't used any of them for quite some time though since the GPZ first came out. The goo itself didn't really get damaged at all though, and I always thought there was something there in terms of making better coils. The really soft plastic compounds actually wear better than the harder ones since they are self healing - like a skateboard/rollerskate wheel, or rubber. I think there is something there if it can be done to look nice on a 3d printer, that's the problem though. I think it's awesome that we are almost to a quasi-Star Trek replicator type situation for some parts. Just download a file and print it out, and voila - endless replacement parts for pennies on the dollar.
  19. Thanks for the report. XP may be onto something with the wireless coils if PI's get even more sensitive and the coil cable turns into a problem with more powerful detectors. Of course then I guess, that voids the convenience of using standard, older coils for free or cheap, so maybe not a great idea. I wonder what the feasibility would be of a tiny transmitter on the coil and a receiver on the detector, then cutting the cable to make a coil wireless. Course then we are back to X Coil thing where people don't want to cut a cable. Ah well, ignore my ramblings thinking out loud, sounds like it's just a minor problem anyways just when setting the detector down and not while swinging it as long as the cable is fairly secure? Unless you get into heavy bushes/vegetation anyways? I have that same problem you seem to have with blood, for me with cactus spines. I stuck myself a few times where it made me almost pass out and vomit, while I'm sitting there with Leatherman pliers trying to pull them out of me. No fun. Minute I see my own blood I get faint and want to puke.
  20. Thanks, good to see some testing of that TID feature. Do your shotgun pellets on a stick show in the nugget TID range out of curiosity? Also curious how bits of rusty tin/iron show up on that conductivity scale (in nugget range?), all new to me, I don't even have a guess. Seeming like so far nuggets under 1 or 2 grams are generally under like 30 on the TID maybe? Too early to see patterns? It doesn't look like you ground balanced the detector yet, or are your gravels 50 50? Curious if the ground balance shifts the TID around too, and how much if so, if you get a chance to look at that later.
  21. I saw another vid where they were using salt to maintain the shape, it left grain imprints though. I have a bag of hot mud (drywall compound) that is ultra fine powder, I might give that a try in an oven too to hold shape during annealing. I kinda want to try experimenting with printing TPU directly onto a coil, then get rid of coil skid plates entirely if possible but yeah like you experienced, bonding probably will be the problem. I use Amazing Goo on some of my old ones instead of skids, and it worked great, never wore through, and it's kinda similar to TPU, I'd love to be able to just replicate that in nice controlled, even layers to save on weight and make it look nice. Other problem though is my print bed is small so I'm limited to the small coils like a Sadie or maybe 8" X Coil. But like you, I've not figured out a good way to print it yet, mine just turns out all stringy and messy, not professional looking. I'm still very much learning here. Thanks, snagged your .stl. That's another thing I'm still learning, using Fusion 360.
  22. Looks like I'm waiting for the E2500 already then dangit. 😄 Still a pretty interesting machine at $1500, kinda still want one just to keep 24/7 in my truck instead of the 6000. Much less money to lose if a theft occurs, and still looks capable as an exploration prospecting machine. Thanks for reporting testing. I'm still very interested to see how the conductive TID does though, especially on US-specific constant geometry/alloy targets like shell casings, pellets, bullets, etc and how it varies in different soils/depths. Also how much the TID varies over nuggets.
  23. WD-40 makes a contact cleaner with the straw too which you can get locally, I can't remember where I got mine, want to say Walmart or some big store like that. It was under $10 and seems to work decently. Here's the same one on Amazon, $7.60.
  24. @GoodAmount Does it help the cover stay on if you angle the vertical edges in towards the coil some small amount like 0.5 or 1mm to keep the edges on the coil in tension? A solid TPU skid plate might be interesting too - it's flexible so you could angle the lip in quite a lot or put a locking ridge on the top, and pop it over a coil with no tape at all - just like a cell phone case. And it would be way quieter to detect with. TPU is tough enough that it would be interesting to get rid of the skid plate altogether and see if just a layer of it on the sides and bottom of a coil would be sufficient. I think I could actually print a layer onto existing coil bottoms with some kind of glue or bonding agent, too bad the sides aren't really doable. Watching some vids on it last night, I think oven/water annealing might get a 3d printed coil to closer to the same toughness as a vacuum formed or injection molded. Between that and a good material selection, I'm thinking now it's probably possible to make an equal if not better coil housing/skid (in some cases) on a 3d printer than the commercially available ones if done with annealing and using tough plastics.
×
×
  • Create New...