jasong

Don't depend on a Commander for any longevity. I've owned 3 and had 3 fail. I'm guessing I'm not telling you anything new here, but I opened them up to diagnose after the 3rd and they all failed for the same reason - that foam inside is really soft/weak and the lip on the spool gets brittle and breaks off. That causes the windings to start moving around when swinging, and a lot of noise. If you swing into bushes/trees/rocks often, or mistankenly step or trip on the coil, those lips will break and the coil will fail eventually from my experience. 

If the Detechs are potted or use some more rigid spool material I'd say they are a win over the Commander based on that alone. 

That's definitely human disturbance. Wether it was mineral mining or not I'm uncertain. That looks like tufa/limestone or maybe something volcanic, which makes me think they were just after some kind of construction grade or industrial stone, road base for a local 1-off project, etc. No idea, just my impression based off a brief look at a photo/video. If you don't see ore/mineralization then I'd say construction would be a guess. 

There is a drilled hole for dynamite on one rock. Someone probably filed a permit or plan somewhere if they were blasting and it was fairly recent. 

I tried my best to buy one, or get one for testing, no luck for the general public in the US until FCC approval it sounds like. No timeline. Will be interesting to see reports come in, but my enthusiasm for a product I can't get access to, with no timeline on the horizon, has somewhat waned to idle curiosity. Maybe it'll get approval quick though, who knows.

Now I'm starting to wonder with this release and if we have to wait up to 1 year to get it here in the US, is Minelab going to be close to releasing something too by that time? If they do, it either has to be price-competitive to this machine, or something much better if it's more expensive, so I guess we will see if it gets them off their butts or not in terms of a new release people have been waiting years for, that a customer can actually buy.

I grew one of those myself back in the 80's, we called it the yep-nope or Kentucky Waterfall though. 🙂

3 hours ago, BigSkyGuy said:

Oops. I guess I should have read all of the posts more carefully!

It was a fast moving thread, I missed a lot too as I was skimming through to try to catch up. Anyways, I got an email from Algoforce and he kinda confirms the general discrim concept which sounds at least roughly along the lines of what we were talking about. I'm sure he can only say so much since it's a commercial product, so it will be interesting to see how testing shows it working in terms of usefulness.

I checked out the inventor/owner's Linkedin and he has a lot of experience with signal processing and also machine learning (aka AI). Probably some interesting stuff under the hood crunching data. Interested to follow these guys and see what they do. 

It's pretty cool to see a detector company take interest in it's customers, and be that responsive. They seem genuinely interested in providing a good product and a good customer service experience.

I agree. I posted something similar with regards to how this discrim must be working earlier in the thread.

We are used to hi/low. This is probably doing something similar to taking it from 2 discrete notches to 100. It's gotta be highly dependent on geometry as well as conductivity if so. But still, in some areas I can be about 90% certain that any low/hi's are not nuggets due to size alone, so having 98 more numbers to use may be even more useful if a guy understands what they mean, might be able to reduce even more the chances of leaving larger gold behind. 

For that reason a person is probably going to have to test the discrim out on a very large range of targets and ground types to really understand when/where to use it and when/where not to trust it.

Bits of tin will be tough if so, due to varying size and rust levels. But things of constant geometry and material consistency like shell casings or bb's may fall into a specific TID range that may or may not overlap with common nugget ranges (unfortunately, they are not symmetric, so orientation will be a monkey wrench in the gears, argh). Being able to eliminate 50 cal training casings, common hunting and plinker casings (.22, .223, 30-06, etc) would save a lot of time in some places. 

If this is how it works, I intend to do something similar to what Strick did with the Manticore and test these common target types along with a range of nuggets at different depths and soil types. Because if the discrim works it seems like it'll be ultra important to understand exactly how and on what, and when and where to use it. There are definitely times it pays way more to selectively choose to miss some nuggets by avoiding low probability targets in order to gain exponentially more time digging higher probability targets. 

This is what I'm really curious about testing. Unfortunately in NZ they just don't have this amount of firearms debris to find and test with. Simon has a lot of shotgun pellets though for sure, and the BB's vs nuggets and any potential overlap in the 0-99 scale will be very interesting to see at least. 

@PhaseTech Thanks for the answers to all those questions I asked. I have one more, feel free not to answer this though. 😄The US allows equipment that isn't FCC approved yet for things like "experimental use" or something similar. Are you allowed to sell to someone in the US for such experimental type use, or does the fact the item is exchanged for money void it from that classification?

---

After sleeping, this is my take (probably not so different than what others like Steve and Chase have said in different ways too):

This discrim has to just be doing what experienced detectorists already learned to do by gauging targets via hi/low and low/hi crossover points. Otherwise we'd be seeing patents I think. Maybe just throwing a lot more signal processing power (algorithms hence: algoforce?) at that data. How well this translates to usable discrimination is a real question I think, that will bear some real testing.

Experienced detectorists generally learn how to do that on their own eventually so it remains to be seen what additional capability the actual discrim feature offers I think, during testing. It might end up being a feature that takes longer to use than just doing it by ear?

Either way, $1500 for a lightweight PI that can run existing monos is pretty cool and the company gets major props from me for just offering people what they want and need at prices people can actually afford and that aren't offensive. 

42 minutes ago, phrunt said:

...but also have coils such as the NF 14x9" EVO, I see potential with its small gold capabilities

Nice. Looking forward to it. That and a Sadie are the two I'm curious about. 

Also how that 14x9 compares to the 6000 w/stock coil in terms of EMI (like the two just sitting on the ground listening to atmospheric background EMI), depth, and sensitivity if you get a chance to compare the two machines. Because the 14x9" and 11" are very similar in area and thus coil to coil should be similar in performance if the detectors were equal. But the 14x9 is faster to explore with, better for rocky washes and vegetation. 

I'll buy one of these anyways unless the results are really bad. But my curiosity is too great to wait. 😁

@HardPack You never happened to meet a detectorist named Chet Long back then by any chance did you?

Was trying to meet and/or get a hold of him or someone who knew him but never had any luck, but not many people know those areas, so I figured I'd ask if you were around there. 

@PhaseTech Compared to the 6000 is it about as fast in terms of bootup, noise cancel, ground tracking, and generally processing speed such that a person can swing it at a fairly decent clip for exploration? Good sharp signals on small stuff like the 6000 has?

The coil selection thing is kinda new, for PI's anyways. Do you know more about this, in specific is there a reason that each coil needs configured in the machine? I'm curious if it's just fine tuning, or if the machine itself is able to accept a wider range of parameters for coils (inductance, resistance, etc) than regular PI machines who require fixed values?

9 hours ago, HardPack said:

Over 20 years ago came across a log cabin in the Medicine Bow Mountains. Looking through a paned window I saw what I thought was a shaker table surrounded by piles of dirt. Thinking gold I quickly looked around the immediate area for any placer workings. Not finding any went on my way. 

Oddly, you are the 2nd person to mention a similar story, and I really wish I could remember who the first person was but it was on the Nuggetshooter forum and it's gone now.

Someone told me at the base of the mountains somewhere, a long time ago, they came across an old cabin with some kind of placer equipment in it and I might want to go check it out someday. They gave me a brief explanation of where, but it wasn't accurate enough for me to find and so I never tried. 

I found what I was pretty certain was a diamond while dredging up by Keystone about 25 years ago about the size of the tip of my pinky, no flaws and very clear. It would scratch beryl anyways and beryl couldn't scratch it, but that was all the testing I did as I wasn't really very educated about mineral ID at the time, coulda been sapphire I guess. It stayed in the console of my truck for years until I accidentally vacuumed it out while cleaning my truck. It still makes me cringe thinking about it because now that I'm older and wiser, I'm pretty sure it was a diamond but I'll never know.

I have a friend who has a few diamond claims up there now and has found some tiny diamonds in kimberlite. 

49 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

How can this possibly be real? I will refer you to a statement by famed metal detector engineer Dave Johnson. It is part of history now only available on the Wayback machine but has been in my mind for a long time:

DS: Are TID pulse units the hobby future? Or, what do you think will be the next great advancement in metal detector technology?

Dave: "About 1985 I built a real sweetheart of a discriminating PI unit, not very hot in air test, but it was simple, lightweight, powered by one 9 volt “transistor battery”, ran quiet in bad ground, had no bad habits, and you didn’t have to dig any trash. It morphed into a fully static TID machine which Fisher came close to releasing about 1989, but its reliance on fully static operation which was supposed to be an advantage, was in fact a fatal flaw for a TID machine. Stripped back down, it became the Impulse which was strictly all-metals.

 

This was way before my time so I'm probably missing some terminology, but what does he mean by a fully static machine? And in what way did that end up being a flaw?

I'm also curious if @Geotech could explain what the mechanism for TID was on this early PI, was it also done with just mono coils and not DD?

Interesting stuff. 

When I first read this I assumed the TID was accomplished through kicking into a VLF mode when you press the pinpoint button. But since they are just mono coils, that seems impossible too. So this must be some brand new PI-based conductive discrim then? Interesting. 

Am I missing something or is there apparantly no patent on this discrim method? Or maybe the patent just isn't public yet? If not, that means Minelab probably already knew how to do this too but didn't put it into detectors (yet)? No clue.

A lot to unwrap with this one. Glad Simon is getting one soon as I expect he'll be going deep into the weeds testing stuff out. 👌 😁

7 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

I am shocked, stunned, and amazed that everyone seems to be skating past that this machine is offering the first true 0-99 conductive target discrimination ever offered in a real PI.

I was literally just typing this same thing - just saw this new detector and finished reading this post. I'm buying one the minute it's available in the US for this alone. Not only true target ID, but it says it works in heavily mineralized conditions too. Something that bears testing. But this for $1500, definitely worth testing it out.

I'm also curious about the coil calibration, I just finished reading the manual and it seems to auto calibrate each coil. Which makes me wonder if that gives leeway to coil designers to go a bit outside of the box in terms of design parameters? No clue. Maybe it's just to optimize for slight variations in each coil?

The ambient noise feature is also interesting too. It allows you to still hear outside noises with headphones on. Which is always my major safety concern that causes me to avoid headphones - rock falls, bears, rattlesnakes, etc.

21 hours ago, MSC said:

I have tried but have not so far, found any detectable gold in Utah. I have found several areas that contain quarts and detected some of those areas but so far nothing. There is find gold to be found in some streams. 

There is stuff up to rice grain size supposedly up on those mesas below the La Sals by Moab, VLF could hit it. A long time back I found some old photos of miners running a long tom further up towards the mountains and it seems they mentioned some kind of coarse gold there too. Not sure it's plentiful enough to detect, but a GB2 or whatever else would hear it if so.  I never got up there as I was mostly dredging back then across the Colorado border. The San Miguel and Dolores across the border have large flake and occasional small pickers and nuggets, I'd see stuff while dredging I could pick up with my fingers.  

Pretty sure I remember reading they used to find larger nuggets around what is now the Bingham Canyon mine too, as it started out a placer. Not sure if that entire area got turned into an open pit or if there might still be some parts of the placer remaining somewhere if a guy looked around, or if there is even accessible land there or not. 

Interesting read, thanks. 

I don't see anything worth processing there, but pictures can be deceiving.

Lookup MBMMLLC (Mount Baker Mining and Metals) on Youtube, he's in Washington State. He manufactures commercial ore processing equipment, does assays, and does (or used to do) ore milling and refining. They might look at your stuff in person. But I wouldn't get your hopes up in terms of values there, unless there is something I'm not seeing in the photos. 

Hard to know from those pictures but I'll suggest the obvious thing and point you towards a doctor for the breathing problems and whatever else. I'd guess your health issues aren't from these rocks. Just toss them outside if you want. 

At least it's not asbestos, if that's any help.

Forget the 6000, get yourself a pet goat and take him with you. Chomp that grass down and you'll get a few more outta there. 😄

Good stuff Chet. This kind of DIY experimenting is part of almost every enthusiast community from cars to computers, it really makes it fun and interesting to follow or participate in modding equipment for many of us. Goes to show Minelab isn't going to stop it with silly chips, and they should embrace it instead. Everyone wins that way! Good on you for keeping the experimenting, modding, and innovating spirit alive in the gold machine world. 👍

Thanks, and interesting Simon. Good to see reports on equipment and new things here again on the forum, this is the stuff I come here for. 

Interested to see what else you find, I still have a 4500 laying around unused and curious if there is some non-relic/beach niche for the 4500 still between the 6000 and 7000. 

3 hours ago, Doc said:

A 24 inch pick shipping is $30 to New York

A 32 inch pick shipping to New York is $67.

32 inch pick is great until you want to carry it on a loop on your belt and it's whacking you in the leg.  But it's OK, I've been married 53 years and nothing I do makes my wife happy either.  😆
 

Would you offer just a pick head option though? I didn't see it on your store.

Something to be aware of is that belt loop mounting is impossible with the GPZ and larger CC coils. I can hear my pick at shoulder level with a 22" (especially when working slopes), near sternum level with a 15" (I'm 6ft). I'm guessing if the 8000 ever comes out, people will discover the same thing too since I'd guess it will be of similar performance.

On 12/7/2023 at 1:27 PM, Doc said:

How long have you had this design?

This is essentially exactly what I was explaining the Hermit Pick should be redesigned/updated to be back in 2015, in some of those old pick threads. No one knew of any similar design other than that Supercede one which they wouldn't ship to USA, a member named Isaac or something made a similar one but then never offered it for sale, and that was the last I heard of this design since 2015 until seeing this thread just now - good to see someone making it for sale. 

$99 is a good price - need 32" handles though or you don't get enough leverage for some stuff like hardpack or prying cobbles and can't use it for support/walking. What would just the pick head cost if you sold that alone?

24 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

I would like a coil coverage sensor as well, but it isn't happening with GPS.  Not precise enough.  If you miss just a square cm of ground coverage then you've possibly missed a target.  GPS is never going to give you that level of precision. You need something like drone mounted LIDAR or some other precision optical sensor that is tied tied into a gyroscopic coil position sensor as well as GPS.  I envision something that feeds a pair of Augmented Reality glasses that enables you to peer out onto your site from any position or angle and shows you how much of the site has been "painted over" by one or more sweeping detector coils while the drone or whatever was monitoring them.

IMU units are precise enough to do this. And now optical AI analysis can augment the IMU, which opens up more doors, but probably more for prospecting than relics for that part. 

A while back I posted about wanting the IMU/augmented reality idea to be implemented and I found some ML patents that were very vague but which I interpreted to likely be something very similar to this. Wether they implement it or not, who knows. Probably cost us $12k though. But I do think it's coming on some detector or another eventually. 

*This can technically be done already BTW with a bit of Python programming, an IMU on the shaft, an RPI4 and a set of those Meta Rayban glasses. I bought a set of the cheap Chinese knockoffs and it never arrived, got my money back, and lost interest in trying for now. 

These Wolverines have become my standard metal free, slip on, composite toe, waterproof detecting boot now. 

They go on sale for like $85 occasionally, in places. I have 2 pairs and haven't worn either out yet, the soles are vastly superior to the military/duty boots most people use for detecting, and the stitching stays together far longer too. The insole is also better, and the composite toe seems stronger than the Bates. These have lasted me 1.5 years with no major damage while the Reebok/Bates/5.11 style duty boots are usually nearing the end of their usability after 2-3 months in the field with me. 

Tom (forgot his handle) who used to work for White's recommended these Wolverine in another thread a while back, and no one else seems to talk about them. But in my mind are the best all around boot for detecting, machine/construction work, and the swiss army knife of footwear for people who like to wear boots instead of shoes daily.