jasong

Not according to the X Coil pinout for the patch lead. It says 2 TX in 2 different diagrams. Do they have it wrong twice? I'd post it here but I'm uncertain if those were private or allowed to be shared.

5 wires coming out of the plug is 1 more than the GPZ has (RX has both shielding and wire to the plug, hence 5 pins and 4 wires). An X Ray of the 6000 mono and DD's would be most excellent. As to the 12 pin connector - there could be other wires terminating on the circuit board before the choke and under the hot glue that we don't see. Or they might be doing something like reducing skin effect losses in the wire/pin connection by jumpering each wire to 2 pins to increase the effective surface area of each connection? That's the kind of farm engineering I'd do though, not really a corporation maybe. That aside, something new is definitely going on. I guess the red is shielded RX? Blue is coax or coil shielding? What are the 3 black wires? A standard DD only has 1 TX, a DOD has 2 TX. Does this 6000 have 3 TX's?

They need to start keeping up, for being a "breaking news" type site they are well behind. I posted the link to those pictures over a week ago here. The 14 chips they are asking about are probably to encode/decode various channels (these channels are discussed in the patent). Remember the old analog cable TV that had 120 channels going through one wire on one signal? Similar concept. The detector appears to be based around an FPGA, which are pretty cool scifi like devices to me even now. You can reconfigure hardware to become whatever you want it to be, via programming a chip. The Microsemi's have a lot of security built in and it's doubtful anyone will be able to replicate the 6000. It's like basically either crack major unbreakable encryption, or cut the chip up and scan it with an ion beam to try to replicate it, good luck. That's probably why they haven't bothered to obscure any of their circuitry this go around. But to me, that board also shows that us needing to pay more $$ for "IP theft" may no longer be a particularly valid reason for arbitrarily high prices on this particular machine.

I think I recognize that. I took a 4500 up one of those slopes towards the top of the hill about 10 years ago and within a couple hours of turning the machine on I started tumbling down a slope and dislocated my shoulder/tore my rotator cuff. Drove home with 1 arm. No gold, just a handful of square nails that were like 10" into shaley bedrock somehow. Tried again some years later with a Fors Core, and it broke down within 15 minutes of turning it on, and I had no backup with me stupidly. If I ever go back it's going to be something light and with discrim for sure. I was wondering if other people detected those steep slopes at the time, I had only read reports about the place and never had yet to meet or talk to anyone who detected there so I wasn't sure where to look. I thought I was being pioneering climbing up there. Nope, ya'll had me beat by a long time.

Dang that sounds like an awesome read, please post the link here if you run across it again. I want to know if it's something a garage tinkerer could emulate, like are they doing some high frequency EM version of the static magnetic viewing film stuff? That's amazing. Do you melt most of them down, or how do sell them in bulk? I know nothing at all of beach hunting but now I want to try if I ever get within driving distance of an ocean. Is the EQ800 a good beach hunting machine or do you need a CTX?

Most excellent! I hope there's another 3/4 of a 6000 out there waiting for you.

Good summary. A lot of that was before my time! I forgot about the 4800 completely. It's almost like one could say there was a first gold detector revolution in the mid 90's SD's and then another with the SDC and 7000 in 2015. The GPX introduction in 2006 was a...half revolution? Anyways, it looks like every 10-ish years we see a new plateau from Minelab. Wonder if we are going to see something revolutionary in 2025ish like full discrim on PI/ZVT or the ultimate detector black swan idea - GPR. Or, if upon reflection GeoSense will be revolutionary enough to bring it 4 years early?

I just borrowed the field geologist's method of tying pink flagging tape to whatever rock or bush is handy, available anywhere and hundreds of markers worth fits in a pocket. Bring a sharpie and I can write quick notes on the tape (also stolen from geologists and surveyors). But usually I'm too impatient to not just dig everything immediately to see what it is unless I'm comparing different machines or coils.

I'm at lucky 13. I almost don't want to buy another because 13 has treated me good. A handful of those are things like buying a 2001: Space Odyssey-looking 1960's Fisher VLF because it looked so cool, or buying the old 80's Garrett for $10 out of my buddy's dad's garage, a Harbor Freight VLF just to tear apart and mess with the circuitry, etc. The other half are from coin detecting days before I found the nugget shooting light.

Honestly not trying to stir the pot and this is just my opinion based on the environment which I chose to detect. But the only two detectors that I really thought were worth the money since I started looking at PI's in 2007 were the 4500 and 7000. To me. YMMV. The 5000 let me down because the improvements in noise were so marginal in the already noisy places I worked (in my opinion) that I didn't see it worth the money, nor did I find Fine Gold to be useful anywhere I worked. It was a ton of money for very little feature that I could use. That release is singlehandedly responsible for making me hyper-aware of what ML is selling in new releases and wether it will or won't fit my needs. The SDC was irrelevant to me because it didn't fit the model of prospecting I use nor the type of gold I chase, and lacked coils to improve on any of those failings. Especially since I was only just starting to explore NNV at the time it was released and the 4500 was a better machine to prospect with in wide opens. The GM1000 was ho-hum to me. I bought one used recently to replace my GB2 but only because my GB2 was very old and might be ready to fail and I wanted to actually test a GM in hand. I find the GM to be a good detector now that I've used it, and I'm glad I replaced my aging GB2, but not worth the money if I wasn't out to replace my GB2 already IMO. I do find the GM is a bit of an upgrade when it comes to speed of operation though. So 3 out 5 releases since I started looking seriously at Minelab have either let me down or been something that wasn't particularly suited to my detecting, or not significantly better than what I already had. If anyone can't see why a person might be deeply researching a machine to determine wether it suits their actual, real detecting purposes or not then I'm gonna go ahead and guess you got a lot more money to burn than I do.

It's basically what the patent which I guessed GeoSense was months before the leaks started. That same patent also explained the no threshold mode too. In the patents, GeoSense seems to just be more of an algorithmic approach to using modern digital signal processing tech and digital controls of what would normally be manual dials to reduce ground and EMI noise by sensing the environment and then autoadjusting gain, threshold, ground balance, and potentially now maybe ground timings (the new patent seems to discuss autoadjustment of timings themselves whereas I can't recall if the old one does) to optimize performance. Seems like something that can be applied to any new detector. So might we see GeoSense PI, GeoSense ZVT, GeoSense VLF, GeoSense Hybrid on future detectors? Seems likely. (edit: "possible" is probably a better word here haha) Leaves me with a question though. If I buy a 6000 and keep my 7000 for deeper stuff since apparantly the 6000 won't keep up there for reasons I don't understand... then what happens when a GPZ 7500 w/GeoSense comes out a year later and I and others need to sell to upgrade? Just between 10 people who have a 6000 and a 7000, that's like $100k in used detectors to put onto the used market. A used market that seems to have shrunk since 5 years ago near as I can tell. Now what if 20 serious users are offloading gear to upgrade...or 50? I don't think the used market can bear that much. It really makes me wish Minelab would be more vocal and transparent because to me it's obvious there is a new flagship in the works from reading their patents. And if it were coming out shortly after the 6000 then I'd just wait for it and save my money and get the very best.

I read one of those newer patents just now. If I'm not mistaken one of those patents seems to clearly outline a new PI/VLF hybrid type detector with something very similar to GeoSense. As a VLF it was multifrequency from like 20khz to 100khz, but the patent also talks about a zone in which it acts as a PI. It also talks about exactly what I was saying a few days back about the potential for this Geosense to allow a machine like the 6000 to be technically as sensitive or more sensitive as the 7000 on all nuggets, unless they limited the RX gain or threshold somehow. Because when you lower the noise from ground/EMI, you can boost the gain. Or lower the threshold of detection, which in some ways is the same if the noise floor decreases and you can hear smaller signals. Are we sure the 6000 is even a pure PI given the performance on small gold on the big DD?

https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-starlink-internet-phone-service-confirmed/ Looks like he's going to offer phone service through the Starlink network now too.

Well, I believe this is the fundamental question anyone should ask themselves before making a new purchase. "If it isn't better than equipment I have already, then why buy it?" Why wouldn't a prudent person ask themselves this before buying a new product? That's the interesting part to talk about at this point IMO. What else is left? We know it's lighter and does good across a range of nuggets. How good though? Performance is relative to environment, nugget geometry, EMI, and any number of other factors. So, given the variables, the best relative measure of performance is how one machine performs against another in the same environment on the same nuggets. That's why, I for one like to see depth comparisons between new machines to older machines.

Zoned usage with GPS in control box+chipped coil would make that impossible. Lacking a GPS chip on the board or facing the user means nothing, they are using 2 FPGA's, it's possible to basically make your own, it's a hobby level project I've seen before. NOT saying that's what they are doing or there is any evidence at all that they would. To be totally clear there. But after the GPZ chip debacle it's clear they are trying hard to regulate coils, and other technology does limit use by zone or area via similar methods such as for subscription based service, or on cell phones. That's why I'm hoping for a specific answer from Minelab with regard to the 17" availability in the US because their chip situation has made me not trust what exactly I will and won't be able to buy and use on their machines.

Conversely, the lack of 17" mono in the US and Australia might be so that the 6000 doesn't cut too far into the 7000 sales and/or performance. I honestly don't see why it couldn't in theory equal or outperform the 7k on depth on all nuggets with a full array of coils 11, 14DD and 17, based on what we know so far and prior detector/coil performance. Namely because you can come close already with a 4500 and enough coils, which is obsolete tech in my book. That star chart says nothing about coils, it could be with the 11" mono against the Z14 for all we know. I'm kinda surprised I'm the only one coming to this conclusion here...? Has no one ever tested a 20" bundle wound mono on the 4500 against the 7000? It's not like it's hard for a PI to hit 1/4 oz+ nuggets at depth equaling or exceeding the GPZ with a PI with a big enough coil. Add in spiral coils, that distance narrows and you can go smaller. Soup that PI up even more with modern ground/EMI filtering, then logically it has to be capable of being equal or better with a smaller mono (like the 17") than 19" or 20" on a 4500. Assuming RX gain isn't limited. Hopefully they offer all sizes coil in all places of the world. It would suck to see the 17" limited by country. I've said my piece there why I think that though, so I'll shut up about it now.

If it were me in that situation and I was ready to drop the $6k on a 7000, I'd probably wait a bit longer and see how the 6000 does in the field. It always pays in my experience to have the best equipment possible for the conditions. It really boils down to what the conditions are in which you detect though. I want my gear to excel in the areas I mostly detect in. Generally in AZ I want depth in mild to medium ground and versatility. In NV I want salt performance, coverage and depth. The 6000 checks some nice boxes there so far, I'm just not sure how much and in what ways yet. I don't detect CA, but 6 and 7k lack discrim. The 6k is hitting a 0.03g nugget with a 14" DD in Cancel, so how is that 11" mono going to do in CA trashy mining camp areas if one wants it for the smaller/lighter coil? Will it require you to back off the gain so much that the 7000 outpunches it enough to be frustrating? It depends where you detect and what sort of gold you are chasing I think. I can see cases where either of all 3 detectors might conceivably be the preferable choice though, especially if money is a consideration.

That would be pretty cool. But... I'm guessing they are between a "40% deeper" rock and a "GPZ nugget depth/timings test chart" hard place when it comes to releasing test data. Both that claim and the chart data they provided us for the 7000 release were met with near endless criticism.

I'm not so sure. A 19" spiral Evo on a dinosaur relic of a 4500 can equal or outperform the Z14 on some smooth surface (like Q stuff) nuggets around ~1/4oz. a 17x13 Evo can come into the ballpark on 2-3+ gram stuff, even GB type angular gold. The 6000 has faster sampling, better EMI filtering, better ground balancing, better ground timings, and conceivably more RX gain to take advantage of those advancements. Plus a 17" mono. It's a beast of a machine compared to the 4500 on paper. I don't understand how that won't outpunch the GPZ on big gold. Or really all gold for that matter unless they also restricted the RX gain in order to not out compete the Z on depth. What am I missing?

If it's that much more sensitive on small gold than the GPZ, and it can run bigger coils, plus it has better EMI and ground filtering which then allow for higher RX gains, why exactly would the GPZ still be better at depth on bigger nuggets? Especially with a 17" mono on the 6000. I'm guessing the small gold increase in sensitivity comes from earlier sampling. But with all that noise filtering why not give us a lot more RX gain to play with too, unless it's kept lower intentionally to not outpunch the GPZ?

Honestly, if you are hitting tiny stuff with the 14" DD in Cancel mode at 3" that the GPZ can't hear at all, then I'd be more interested in a 3rd package option - the 17" mono and 14" DD. How much smaller of gold could we possibly want to find? That 11" mono in Normal has to be screaming hot. I know lots of people want a small light coil though, so probably why it's part of the US package. Ok, next person in Quartzsite see if you can get a rough depth estimate in air on that 14" DD on like a 1 grammer now.

Thanks Lunk. That's some good performance with a DD, not to mention a 14'er. Were you able to test that little nugget in Salt Cancel mode? I can't remember from the manual now, but it was a different timing than EMI cancel even though they both use the DD right?

Minelabs slogan is "Performance is everything". Yet that's what we know nothing about! That's the only big question left for me. Ergonomics isn't enough for me to spend $6000. Performance combined with ergonomics is though. How it does in salt and compared to the GPZ generally makes or breaks it for me. They need to let field testers talk about performance, or give it to some field testers in Australia and the US to go do independent testing if they want to generate more excitement. The leaks and the ads are ho hum at this point IMO.

I think it's pretty well implied which detector is being used. Besides, we had 5 years of talking about and extolling the virtues of the GPZ, I'm not sure there is much more new to add there. Whereas the coils were a new unknown thing, and thus were the subject of new conversation. I have to disagree with many here though, certain parts of the GPZ are fragile and should be redesigned. The foot and the battery design among the most often mentioned ones. The great thing is, looking at the 6000 it does appear that engineers have listened and they not only got rid of the foot and made the bottom wider, but they rubberized the bottom too (it appears?), like you find in high quality power tools. Also following the high quality power tool lead they seem to have used similar new rugged battery insertion schemes there too. So, it's a good thing people mention these issues, they appear to have been addressed and that's a win in my book. I also have to take slight exception at the amazement someone might drop their GPZ 1 foot. I do it all the time. It should take it. It's a field tool meant for rugged environments. It's not hard to design sensitive electronics to withstand 1 foot drops. I've dropped my phone 10 or 15 times from hip or chest level, no problem, and it's an office tool. Dropped my Hitachi framing nailer from 16 feet onto gravel, no prob. And dropped my Makita's more times than I can count from roofs, ladders, and hips with no issues.

You asked specifically about the 17" mono size in relation to the Z14 though, not the stock 11" mono. My point is that when it comes to monos in bad ground you have to take size in account because it makes a huge difference. Ground which a 10" mono struggles in can be fairly easy to work with an 18" mono for instance. And in some mineralized ground, depending on nuggets and mineralization, a 18" mono will get better depth on similar nuggets as a 18" DD. So since you asked about the 17" mono and not the 11" mono in reference to mineralized ground, I'm telling you that if anything, the 17" will do better in comparison to the Z14 in bad ground than the 11" will do. And thus there is no reason to assume it's mostly intended for the Africa Not true, depends on size of coils compared again and level of mineralization. And since the 6000 has GeoSense, that puts another variable in the loop.