jasong

There could be some sort of charge controller/maintainer in the phones and it switches back to red while in float mode when it's maintaining the battery charge when plugged in. Red means charging, so it will draw current during that period, naturally. If this maintaining was happening, the oscillation between red/blue would be somewhat irregular, not always the exact same timing.

GB, I think most of those mini battery pack ratings are arbitrary fiction, the manufacturers just put basically whatever they feel like on them. I bought a wide range of them to test as battery backups for some offgrid crypto (Helium) mining rigs I built and not a single one was anywhere close to even 50% of it's rated capacity, many were seriously like only 10-15% rated capacity. And I was only using the ones that advertised like 10 or 15AH or something like that, these 44AH ones can't possibly be anywhere close to that in a package that size. Those car jump starters like in Valen's link are usually rated around real capacity and work ok for day trips and whatnot, that's why they are so much larger. But you have to remember to recharge them, and remember to put them back in the truck. A friend has something like that which also comes with a solar charger, and he was camping out the back of his truck with it for many days at a time detecting and running a small mini fridge as well as his ML chargers, and I believe it jump started trucks too. I can't remember what he said it was offhand though, but I think it was pricey, like $1k or something. If I can ever remember the name of it, I'll post it. I do a 100w (or 50w on my side x side) panel on the roof-->charge controller-->100ah LiPo battery-->1500w inverter, and then I run a switch to put that LiPo in parallel with my main battery in case I need a jump start. $300 to build but prices have probably gone up. Benefit being it recharges itself automatically, always. Even a cloudy day regens enough juice to turn over my starter a bit if I drained the LiPo the night before. Come to think of it, a switch to remove the dead battery and one to put the starter directly in parallel with the LiPo would be even more efficient, then switch the dead battery back in once the motor/alternator is going again...hmm. But all I own are vehicles that spend most their time in the dirt, not the streets, and which I don't care about driving self tappers through the roof or support bars, so this probably isn't much help for street vehicles.

No, not the lower with the key, it's the...middle I guess? The one you extend. Not sure what to call it. I have to correct it every 10-15 minutes when using the stock (or larger) coils. I'm definitely on the upper end of swing speed when I'm prospecting, compared to most people. It's part of the reason I got tennis elbow, and it puts a lot of stress on the shaft and coils when I'm in grasses, etc. But while I've a little twist problem on my 6000, it's not really bad enough for me to personally consider it a problem, as I only need to correct maybe 4 or 5 times a day, vs like 20 times a day with the GPZ. Clearly something is happening though, if people that didn't notice the shaft twist on the 7000 are all having issues with the 6000. That's what makes me think it's a manufacturing inconsistency, because if anyone should notice it, I would think I would have due to my very fast swing compared to most people I see detecting in the field. Plus I often abuse my coils and just push around grass, bushes, rocks, sticks, etc since I have a harder and harder time getting to the ground these days. Me too, I have to have my coils exactly right, I'll correct them if I notice they are even a little off.

I have an early 6000 from one of the first US shipments, and I don't have enough problem with shaft twist that it really bugs me. I do find I have to retighten it every so often though. Maybe it's just a manufacturing inconsistency between batches? Oddly, I had and still have a massive problem with the 7000 shaft twist, to the point I posted at least 5 or 6 times about it back in 2015, but no one else seemed to have the problem or find it to be a bother, so I eventually I stopped mentioning it, it still drives me crazy today though too. It happened on all 3 GPZ's I owned, and also on a replacement shaft. I think I might also just be increasingly out of touch with the things most the rest of people online find important in the detecting world these days.

I'm confused what you are waiting for, why not just send it days ago to whatever your service center is? Or is that just how it works in the US and not overseas? I sent a GPZ in with video back in 2017, they were unable to replicate the problem but saw my videos showing the issue, and they gave me a brand new GPZ. Took about 8 or 9 days total, I 2nd day aired it to them on the East Coast because I was in a hurry and in the field (I was living off my detecting at the time). Might have a new 6000 back in a few days from today if you had sent it in when you started this thread depending how fast mail goes over there... Are you asking for something very specific and waiting for a response or something? Or in NZ do they just not allow you to send to get serviced until you get a response from corporate?

Agree with most of that Steve. The reason I use the 6000 is ease of use, quickness, weight, convenience of having everything all in 1 unit with nothing extra required, no rig up/rig down or extra equipment required - which is also why I'm so adamant ML should fix their speaker issues, since it's a major part of the machine's desirability in my opinion. The 6000 is the first machine where I think it can be safely said that the subjective experience of using it, or the "intangibles" comprise a significant part of it's desirability. These vary highly between users who use it for different things. That said, I'm glad Simon posted that vid because while the 8" results didn't surprise me, the 12" spiral results do, even if it was a 0.044 grammer and not 0.03. If my gut feeling was wrong, I'd be interested to find out so I can have a better understanding how my equipment works.

Is that the same 0.03g piece of gold? I can try a similar test on Tuesday with a 0.03 grammer. I definitely don't think my 12" spiral is that much better than the 6000 on that small of gold(it definitely is on bigger stuff) but I'd be interested to see, definitely good to know if so. Only thing I can think may be unaccounted for, given the tiny size, is how specific pieces of different geometry/composition might hit harder on the GPZ than the GPX and vice versa, since they are different tech and different coils. You found that piece with the GPZ, so I'll try one I found with the 6000. I say that because there are absolutely nuggets I could hit with my 4500 deeper than the GPZ, odd shapes. I sent a video of one such nugget to Minelab back in 2015 to demonstrate such an effect. It's just so hard to tell from videos what is or isn't happening with each swing, but easier to understand in person. I'd do it sooner but my trucks transmission is out and my WM12 is in my truck at the shop which is closed tomorrow and I got an MRI on Monday. Ford is "no ETA" on tranmissions, might be a YEAR!! Speaking of parts shortages and company warranties...new truck under warranty and their only advice to me is buy another new truck, unbelievable. I haven't been able to prospect for 3 weeks already due to it and may lose an entire season.

I definitely agree, best to send to Minelab service and get one back that starts fresh with no issues. It's not fun 2nd guessing equipment in the field, leads to second guessing yourself eventually too. I owned 3 GPZs. The 2nd one I sent back to Minelab service with some detailed videos about what seemed pretty major to me but was probably a subtle thing to most, they were unable to replicate the issue there but gave me a new GPZ anyways. Just being able to get my mind off the question about wether some problem might be my machine was worth the wait since I never had to question that machine again. Re: EMI, I've had my 6 go completely unstable while it was just laying immobile on the ground running doing nothing. There is something happening with them where if you exceed a certain number of EMI sources in the air, it can't cope or find a proper channel anymore. The speaker is one of these EMI sources and so running it means this threshold number of EMI sources it can deal with before losing stability is reached quicker, I believe. I think the noise cancel is actually searching for quieter channels, but I don't think it takes a large enough "noise snapshot" sample for a long enough time span (which is why it's fast) while analyzing channels, and thus sometimes it ends up on a very noisy channel again where/when EMI is somewhat intermittent (even on the millisecond time frame), and the scanner just happens to intercept a "quieter" period on that channel and chooses it.

Oh also meant to say, the smaller coils on the 6000 should help clear up a bit of EMI too (plus make the 6 even lighter still). Smaller coils are always better with EMI than bigger ones, and that's another reason the 8" is buttery smooth. Well, aside from the GPZ just being a quieter detector than the 6 too. So anyways, give 'er a chance. You know my posts, I'm outright with every opinion and observation I have. And I think the 6 is a pretty good machine despite some really pretty bad flaws it also has as well. Also - my headphones have some weird background noise too, even when I'm not close to the coil.

If you are a big fan of smooth thresholds then I suggest you give Auto+ with no threshold a try. It's not exactly "zero" threshold, technically speaking. Might take some getting used to if you are a threshold guy though. It's all I use with the 6000, and I detect in places that are EMI central fairly often. I have always sought to get the most stable, quietest threshold I could, while maximizing sensitivity as much as possible in those constraints. The perfect detector makes no noise on anything but targets to me - no ground, no EMI. The difference between full manual and Auto+ is minimal in sensitivity, and in some variable grounds I think it's actually better since Geosense is keeping things optimized. But the lack of like 75% of the normal EMI and background drone - sooooooo much better and easier to pick good targets. Auto+ with no threshold is basically like running the GPZ at a threshold of 5-10 with low smoothing on (incidentally the settings I posted/used on my GPZ and copped years of flack for). Except, there isn't nearly as much sensitivity hit as you would otherwise take running low smoothing on the GPZ. Best of both worlds IMO. I only use threshold for really detailed patch cleaning now - and at that point, I just use the GPZ instead anyways and the 8" or 17" CC X Coil. So, my 6 pretty much always stays in auto+ no threshold now. I carried both detectors with me everywhere for the first month I had my 6000. I no longer take my GPZ at all anymore though, unless I'm specifically trying to ward off the skunk detecting old patches, or working deep washes. It's because the performance compared to the 8" is so close, the extra depth from the 6000 on bigger (1+gram? untested) nuggets is useful, and the 6000 is so much quicker to use and so much lighter, that it just ends up being what I reach for out of sheer convenience. That's why I was saying a while back that the concentric is the only reason I still keep my GPZ (and the 8" for salt). I'm curious if you end up finding the same thing. Glad you can see the EMI/speaker problem yourself now so someone outside the US can vouch for the issue now too. It absolutely has everything to do with where you are located and how much EMI is in the air. And people that insist it doesn't exist are either not paying attention or in places that have very little EMI to deal with. I've been posting this since the 6000 came out, since I travel quite a bit and detect many different places I noticed the pattern quickly. I think I have a good idea why it does it and why the speaker affects it, I outlined in another post. I can't prove it, but I am familiar enough with MCU's and similar processors (FPGA or whatever they are using for Fourier analysis) that I just "feel" the 6000 occasionally does too much and confuses itself, gets overwhelmed, or glitches/bogs. I can't explain it, but it's the same feeling I get when I just know something is wrong with my truck because I'm so used to it even though I don't design trucks.

Looks about right to me, at least in comparison to the 8". I haven't tested them side by side, but my experience is they are pretty much equal in sensitivity. In some cases I think the 6000 edges out the 8" if you swing it at just right angle and over just the right spot on the coil, but conversely in all cases in alkali/salt the 8" is superior. Outside the dinks, I think the 6000 is deeper overall though for larger gold, but again, just a sense, not tested. But that EMI...not good on the 6000. Not sure how it's even a debate. I'm surprised you could run it that long, my 6000 usually goes completely unstable after the first few minutes. Not just noisy - completely unstable with the speaker. A problem I can replicate easily and so I'm also utterly confused how it's even a topic of debate - it's real. It almost never loses total stability with the headphones though, but has happened. The 6000 appears to be highly sensitive to the specific spot on the coil you cover the target with, or potentially the specific angle with which you approach. It's too hard to gauge from a video what height your coil is at, which also makes a difference, but you can hear a wide variance in target response on different swings, some almost silent and some as good as the 8". As I noted in another thread, I miss not only nuggets in my scoop with the 6000, but nuggets in the ground because of this - which is the real problem I was trying to point out. And the fact it almost never happened with the GPZ. And I think a reason is the remarkably consistent target response of the GPZ compared to the 6000. Definitely worth trying a similar experiment in a lower EMI environment though too as you noted, just out of curiosity.

Agree 100%, hotspots exist with certain non-symmetric coils or like Geoff said, with ellipticals. They might exist on mono coils too depending how accurate and consistent the windings are, or if certain components are included inside the coil unsymmetrically. Also, there is a potential that multiple different constructive/destructive interference patterns (and thus hotspots) could exist with non symmetric coils at different distances from the coil as well depending on coil construction, design, geometry, etc.

That sucks man. But I'm glad you posted it. These are ultra premium detectors for ultra premium prices, we have a right to expect the best in them, not shortcuts. Certainly have a right to expect a working detector. Not even sure how that would escape even basic levels of QA/QC... Does the manual explain what that error is? Or like are the batteries chipped too and prone to failure or something? Might try one of JW's batteries just out of curiosity. Hopefully they get you a running one in quick order. It's actually a good detector, performance wise, once it works and I'm guessing you'll like it a lot (once you get a running one).

Interesting, I didn't know you could buy gel pads. The foam definitely lets a ton of noise in. I'll have to measure them and see if there are a set of gel seals that fit tomorrow, I took them to my shop a few hours ago to spray one of the cups with a few coats of Plastidip in hopes to knock some of the noise down.

Oddly, the holes are on the side with apparantly no electronics in them, guess there must be something in that side though. Who knows. I know there are a wide range of 3rd party headphones available. It's a philosophical thing for me though. The 6000 is the first real modern prospecting detector designed to not be used with headphones or any other extraneous gear. Being required to use headphones on such a machine alone is frustrating. Needing to buy a 2nd set of headphones for a $6000 detector designed specifically to not require headphone usage, just to be able to use it in fairly normal conditions in some parts of this country, is illogical to me. I know many people here are headphone users anyways, so it's not much of a deal. But I'm chosing to hold Minelab to task on this one because it's important to me, and I want them to do better in the future here, not go the opposite direction if no one cares.

I decided to take a closer look at the headphones to see if I could find some way to improve them simply. Maybe dip the shells in rubber tool dip to cut down on the hollow shell sound. Then I noticed there are 6 holes drilled into the top of one of the shells, but not the other. Why? This is a small part of the issue letting sound in from the outside, they must serve some kind of purpose. Anyone know what these are, why they are only on one shell, and if they can be covered up?

Nice work, that'd be a great nugget in the US too these days, for NZ I'm guessing even rarer. That one looks like it has a story, maybe a lode source closer than normal. Requiring these chips on basic, old school monos seems to defy rationality since it doesn't do the customer any good at all and is just one more route for failure and lost time for us the customers. I understood the rationality for (though disagreed with) the chip on the DoD/GPZ. But monos are old news, already public, and well understood, no IP to protect.

Just gave 2 of them a try, both worked for me. Might try to right click then "save link as" and save them manually to your computer and open with Acrobat instead of your browser? Guessing it's some security thing with some antivirus or similar type software?

Actually that brings up another topical question. Has anyone actually run a booster on their 6000 yet and does it affect the detector stability if it's attached to the side of the detector? Or do you have to separate it and carry the booster on your person instead? I know I could keep my phone on with the GPZ if I kept it far enough away. But with the 6000 I definitely can't keep my phone on while running certain apps and features on the phone or it eventually causes an instability chain reaction, and if I place my phone close to the control unit (as with the GPZ), I can actually hear the interference right away.

Two seperate and totally different things. The speaker induced EMI is random and not repeatable in the same sense a subtle target is repeatable, and a noise cancel doesn't make actual target signals go away. The speaker induced EMI is unrelated to targets or the coil position relative to the ground. And it gets so bad that the entire detector loses stability until a noise cancel is performed, it's nothing like "ghost signals". It's random, meaningless noise. It is replicatable though, and I'd be happy to demonstrate it to Minelab if they would like. Which I doubt they will, because every 6000 I've used has the exact same problem so they surely know about it already. I have a feeling where the problem is. Things are way more complex (and secret) than this in the detector obviously, but to simplify an example processing workflow if I had to guess, the FPGA or MCU doesn't have enough power to run full real time Fourier analysis along with the rest of the detector functions, so it takes a series of discrete "snapshots" of the atmospheric EMI as it runs, to analyze with it's noise cancelling algorithm. EMI is random, sometimes there might be 5 different sources, sometimes it might just be the speaker. But the speaker EMI is always there. I'm guessing when a snapshot is taken with just the speaker EMI, things are ok (and in a lab, it would appear ok as well). But in places like the US where there can be 10's or hundreds (or more) sources of EMI randomly turning off and on, occasionally a snapshot is taken with too many sources when added on top of the speaker EMI. The algorithm can't find a happy balance and keys in on a noisy channel, and the detector looses stability. The noise cancel process might just manually reset this whole process and starts from a fresh snapshot, which hopefully was taken with less EMI sources, except just the speaker again. Something like this would also explain why it apparantly seems much more common in very EMI-ridden locations like the US and less so in Australia or other parts of the world. And even within the US is much less common in more remote places, and much more common in noisier locations.

Thanks, I'll give it a try this summer when I move to a bigger yard I can tear up, easier to just take a big scoop out with my backhoe in this crazy concrete-like clay soil we have here. It's mild ferrous, but all ridden with varying degrees of alkali to greater or lesser extents.

Lots of boulders, not as big as where you are probably thinking about though. But none show any striations, nor does any of the bedrock. Could be erased by erosion though. The harder/crystalline boulders were often cleaved in half, but no wear on the broken faces. Like they were crushed under a press by enormous weight, but never moved after that. I do see remnant evidence of water erosion on them though (rounding, flow lines) predating the cleaving. I suspect they were glacial in origin, but transported by water later and then buried, crushed, later exhumed by winds. Just my guess though.

Would clad quarters be a sufficient substitute or will they hit deeper than silver? Were they in rolls, or randomly placed in the plastic container? I'm just kinda curious if the GPZ and this 17" concentric X Coil I have could hit it. It's the deepest setup I've ever run by a good margin. But I totally get the idea about many small eddy loops != one large loop too and the difficulty of the test. I'm just kinda curious.

Yep, in the days before the Rockies rose up, 55-75 million years ago, the rivers likely flowed from the West Coast areas (well, the East slope of whatever hills/mountains were there at the time) into the giant inland seas. These seas are the basis for much of the oil, natural gas, and coal reserves in the Western US from Texas up to North Dakota and into Alberta. It's hard to conceive of placer gold coming out of formations that old. But it does, at least around 45-50 million years. In 2006 a mudhand on a BP rig I was directional driller on mentioned while having coffee up in the doghouse that he saw gold come over the shaker tables in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah after he heard I was into prospecting. I laughed it off, we drill through micaceous or pyrite bearing rock often, easy to confuse with gold. Then I heard it again on a Noble rig I worked in the Piceance Basin. And then again in Wyoming I had mud hands insisting they saw gold come over shale shakers. So I resolved to go set a bucket under one and pan it out. Things were absolutely insane at the time though, I was working 45 hour shifts with 4 hours sleep in between, drilling 24 well pads on the fastest land rig in the world (at the time). I never did get to panning the shale shakers, or even getting to walk down to the mud system to take a look. But there absolutely are sedimentary formations right on surface bearing very find gold. I later discovered this was already known and wrote about. I've verified myself too, it's no mystery. It's not Carlin style mineralization though, it's straight up placer gold in mudstones, sandstones, claystones. But now I'm quite certain at least one formation is bearing nuggety gold too. Something happened in the young Rockies (early-mid Laramide), I'm sure of it. I don't know what it is yet, but some massive flooding happened out here like 35-45 million years ago. Some of the evidence is (I believe) misattributed to more modern glaciation, but I don't think it's entirely right. Silt, sand, gravel, all the way up to glacial looking massive boulder conglomerate. Over a truly massive area. I think it has something to do with the mountains rising up and the giant Cretaceous inland seas. Maybe they didn't simply dry up but formed massive lakes that also burst like the glacial lakes Missoula and Columbia in recent times in Washington as the Rockies rose up and dragged the lakes thousands of feet higher? Was it the rising up of the Colorado Plateau that elevated the remnants of an old cretaceous inland sea, and a natural (non-glacial) dam finally broke somewhere along the way? Something similar happened in more recent times to ancient Lake Bonneville, so it's not impossible to conceive of. We have evidence of something similar, in the same general time frame. It's called ancient Lake Gosiute. Most of the baking powder mined in North America comes from the remnants of this old lake. I think it's related. I've found an apparantly non documented ~70 million year old gap angular unconformity that corresponds with these flood formations so far, the bouldery conglomerates being the top layer of the angular unconformity, laying flat. Not sure if coincidence or what, but it appears that something has erased 70 million years of geologic record in localized areas, and a massive flood could have done such a thing. Fascinating stuff to me. So much more than just the gold. But the gold is a potential fingerprint to identifying and tracing what happened.

Simon, I think the internal speaker is ok actually until you get winds up over 20mph. Or maybe 15mph for those who have a bit less noise tolerance than I do. I got by using it all winter in Arizona, never touched the headphones until recently. Just have to noise cancel frequently. If the NZ wind situation is heavier than that though...yeah that speaker will be useless. Hmm that Pro Sonic is a consideration, I totally forgot about that thing. If it's even slower than the headphone latency though, that's no good IMO. The 6000 headphones juuuuuust barely verge on usable to me, due to their delay, and apparantly they are less delay than normal BT headphones? I agree though, I think Minelab really should release a WM14 or something that works with the 6000. There is a clear deficiency with the product there IMO both with the speaker and the headphones, and it definitely affects the usability of it. It's not like it makes the detector useless, but it's big enough that my personal opnion is it needs addressed, and I think others would agree when they get into conditions that make it almost impossible to use without buying an Avantree Torus or something else that doesn't come in the box/stock. I didn't realize it until I tried those headphones out for the first time and got into some serious wind. When the gusts start hitting 30-40mph, I have to stop detecting entirely. Not an option when I make a whole trip out as most place I go take a day to drive and a day to drive back at minimum. Not trying to sound like a whiner, I really believe this is something that should be addressed as a big part of the philosophy of the 6000 seems to be simplicity, streamlining, quickness, and the onboard speaker was a major factor in my purchase for these reasons too. It's insufficient, the headphones don't solve the insufficiency, and the speaker definitely is making the detector less stable. It's enough all combined to merit ML addressing with fix or workaround (WM14 or better headphones) IMO at this point.