jasong

If we're just dealing with DC then that would be true but even with a pulse you have reactant components to the coil since delta functions (perfect impulses) only exist on paper. The coil has both inductive and capacitive properties that are not constant and can change due to a lot of different factors. The mag field also rings to some extent which provides another AC component to consider, though a big part of their invention I believe is to reduce this effect so that the coil is always in a critically damped state, but even then we still have AC components since it the coil still has a finite decay time (it's physically impossible not to, I believe). So even in the case of a pulse we still have to look at the entire system from an AC perspective, and voltage and current can be out of phase with each over an inductor in AC and voltage can be zero when the current is constant. That's where you get V = L*(di/dt). di/dt is the derivative of the current with respect to time, in other words - what is the rate of change of current over time. I ignored L (inductance) for simplicity sake since it doesn't change the real important part of it all, which is that when current is not changing, ie has a rate of change equal to zero, then voltage must be zero. So, that's why in the sample waveforms you see the current staying at some non-zero value at all points during the operation of the detector. Another way to look at this, which to me was one of the most interesting things I ever learned in school, is from a Fourier perspective. Any pulse, and even more generally any waveform (even a square wave) can be broken down and described in terms of an infinite summation of sine wave of varying frequencies. I can almost guarantee part of the programming in the GPX and GPZ uses Fast Fourier Transforms to analyze the RX signal, a lot of MCU have the capability built right into the chips these days.

I like electronics like some like cars. Love driving them but love taking them apart and modding them too. Well actually im more like the guy that stands with a beer watching the real mechanics work and manages to pick something up here and there. Eurodigger - I couldnt even begin to answer that question with any authority or experience but if you want a guess I would say no. Or at least not without serious reprogramming and modding. But again im like the guy holding the beer not the wrench. And sometimes people manage to find a square to fit a circle hole, but more often something just breaks. Patents are intentionally vague and confusing so its also like trying to draw a recreation of a painting by only looking at small patches of the original. What may look like an orange could actually be a star among a galaxy.

I spent some time reading the US public patent document last night and I think I have a very basic idea and perhaps not fully correct of how that coil works now. They use one (or both, the patent isn't clear) of the D's to monitor changes in the TX coil due to varying ground permeability aka mineralization and then use a negative feedback amp to keep the current constant in the TX since the reactance of the coil changes as you move over different ground or targets. So that basically ground noise and effects are nulled out constantly at what the monitor sample rate is. I think that's also where they get the term Zero Voltage Transmission since V = 0 when absolute value of di/dt > 0, but I'm not sure about that and abs(di/dt) > 0 is only true when speaking in terms of averages which they do explain. I can't figure out if I am missing something on understanding the bigger ZVT picture though or if it's kinda a semantics thing? You can see in the provided sample waveforms there is always a non-zero current present which differs from traditional PI designs. The other net effect is that the coil remains in a critically damped state more or less constantly rather than changing as you swing and thus interefering with the decay time and thus the RX sampling period as with a traditional PI - a simple way to think about that is if your coil is still ringing during RX sampling then you have a hard time listening for target responses. It seems like that is where they are able to sample and detect lower conductivity or quick decay rate gold targets maybe? So it's kind of a mono coil but not, and kind of a DD coil but not. Looking at the sample waveforms and their description it looks like a PI in theory still, but kinda not too. Also, there is a point made about programs and updates in that document. Which leads to some interesting speculations about future models...maybe just program updates? No idea at all, just guessing. Am I understanding all this correctly or have I steered awry somewhere? Getting through the patent legalese speak is kinda tough in that document for me.

I wonder if we're gonna start pulling lots of deeper meteorites up now too that got missed with PI's with the increased sensitivity to lower inductance and lower conductivity gold seems like it might be a possibility. Wish I could sell them like gold.

Hey Klunker, I may take the plunge on a 7000, want a make a deal after I'm done cherry picking my old patches if so? Only semi-joking, I gotta pay this thing off quick if I were to buy it. I'm scared to see how much accesory coils cost because if I do buy it that 14x13 just doesn't cut it in a lot of places, and I won't have much to spend on the coils I need after that big purchase. If coils are like $1000 or something crazy that might kill it for me...waiting with crossed fingers.

BD, did you get your hardrock operation going? I have a question, I built a 4" impact mill and while my screens don't go down far enough to know for certain, I have a lot of 200- mesh crushed ore, maybe even closer to 400 mesh, it feels like very fine ground flour. Net result is it basically turns the water to a slurry even with stuff like Jet Dry, etc. It's hard just to pan, let alone sluice out so it's way slow going. Trying to stay away from amalgamation or cynadization since it's all free milling gold but I can't figure out any better solution. Mill pounds gold to tiny little spheres so something like a miller table is a no go since it rolls right off. Thinking of a wave or shaker table type setup but it's pricey and I'm not sure the slurry solids drop out in that a whole better than a sluice anyways. I remember the old mongolian miner threads with the pop and son sluices and stuff but I'm having no luck with those at all, can't get the slurry to drop out enough for any kind of riffle to be useful. Thanks for the refiner input guys, recommendations go a long way in businesses like that.

Thanks, coincidentally I'll be in Portland shortly so I can stop by in person which is preferred.

Thanks for replies. One last question, generally speaking how much better is the noise/interference cancelation abilities? If you still have the machine could you for instance tune out noise standing directly under or fairly close to a transmission power line?

I'm not prefacing it by implying I won't believe the answers at all, in fact I've been reading your detector reviews since you started writing them back on the AK forum. However, I've asked questions like these in many places and many forums for many machines and more often than not received responses from people saying depth tests mean nothing, or you can't fairly compare X machine to Y machine, etc without receiving an actual answer. Which is why I tried to tiptoe around it by saying I know these are controversial. But apparantly that approach doesn't work either.

I'm ultra sketched out mailing off big slugs but the time has come and needs to be done. Anyone out there using a refiner they've done business with and trust? Some of the joints I found online look fly by night and none are close enough to visit in person (actually some don't even allow visits). Hoping someone out there has some positive experience.

On normal nuggets that the old GPX series hits on solid and strong and in fairly neutral to mild ground, are depths/sensitivity essentially equivalent between the 5000 and 7000 given a 14" RM? Even if it's a slight difference is it more/less sensitive in these conditions? I do understand the point of the articles where the 7000 really shines on the stuff GPX's didn't hear and it's raising my eyebrows, but I still need to understand this bit here if it were to be my full time detector. I don't want to sell my GPX and then discover I'm missing stuff I used to hit with it and be back to square 1. I'm sure a number of other potential buyers are thinking the exact same thing even though I feel this question may be met with some reservation since I'm sort of side stepping the 7000's moment to shine as a unique star, but... Have any quantitative tests been done?

Very interesting, thanks to both of you. You stated PI had reached it's limits, knowing what you know about the 7000 do you think the ZVT technology has room to grow? Also, coils: whats the story with this detector and coils? Is there the potential for an aftermarket or is there anything like a chip that makes them Minelab only? Is there a limit to how slim an elliptical coil can be, does that main central winding need to be more or less round for some reason or another? How is it swinging this thing all day? Does the added weight bear down on a guy even with a harness and bungee? Having never used a CTX is the new form factor better at carrying the weight? For shallow stuff (small, spongy, crystalline, etc) how does the 7000 compare to a good VLF like the GMT or GB2? I know people won't like this question for a long list of reasons but it's inevitable so I'm asking.

Was thinking the same thing, free trip down under always wanted to try detecting there, plus a bit of room and board on top of that... Anyone know if there is like some sort of export tax or other hangup that'd raise the price?

Gold with a bad camera white balance setting? Maybe lead or rusty tin bits? Yep, notoriously hard to ID stuff from photos.

Wow, nice. Looking forward to trying one of your machines.

Judging by the lukewarm to cold response so far maybe the next contest question should be how many months until minelab lowers the price. And bonus question how many thousands of dollars do they take off? Really surprised the gag order is still in effect now. If you want to kick someone right in the wallet you should probably hang a carrot in front of their nose at the same time so they dont pay as much attention...

My bread and butter are nuggets 5 grams or under. In light of that and looking at this chart again, the SDC apparantly gets up to 25% depth increase over the 5000 w/11RM which is not far off from the performance they are quoting for the 7000. Is this like only for extreme boundary conditions like ultra spongy or specimen gold, or does the SDC actually hit deeper on a 4-5 gram normal nugget? The small text states "typical conditions" so I'm assuming no crazy ground. Finding that hard to believe but I've not used an SDC. Just curious because that metric also appears to be the same one they use for the "up to" 40% increase on the 7000.

Well, Kellyco has it listed today on pre-order for $9,999 USD. Hopefully that's just an error. Any other US dealers have a price today?

Another potential black swan idea: using our actual cellphones as the "brain" of the detector. Maybe latency or bandwidth issues over USB/BT/Wireless, hmm not sure. Probably some good reason it wouldn't work or it seems like at least one company would have tried it by now.

Right, I'm talking about literally writing new custom programming, Java, C++, ASM, etc. Not just changing settings around in the OEM menu. Think writing your own timings on a 5000, not choosing a preselected one. Or, and maybe more realistically, companies just opening up an API for anyone to tinker with. This is almost a standard model on the internet nowadays not to mention an increasing amount of hardware. Also at least breaking out the MCU pins especially on the ADC and maybe releasing a schematic or two or at least making the components identifiable and not under layers of goo. I know there aren't a lot of people with the desire or skill to program or hack hardware when it comes to metal detectors. But in part I can't help but think that part of this is because metal detecting is quite literally the only pursuit I have ever come across where user modding (other than simple stuff like amps, coils, etc) is virtually to completely impossible. It's like if I could only put new tires on my truck but not touch the suspension, put a tail fin on but not be able to put something useful like a supercharger or turbo in, etc. Adopting an open system like Android could make small strides to rectify that situation since you can insure cross platform compatibility and a guy from basically any CS background can jump right into Java, or even ASM when needed with a bit more patience. But you are right that there aren't a ton of guys out there waiting to do this, and a healthy development community is part of the reason those communities succeed so that is a problem. But I am not suggesting shifting paradigms for the benefit of tinkerers. I am suggesting shifting to benefit the consumer by way of the aftermarket supply of program innovations and peripheral addons that might be created which I think would move a relatively stale detecting development environment into a fairly healthy one. I may be way off base here and this is just completely impossible from a tech standpoint. But the frustrating thing is I can't even determine that for myself because my $5000 machine is completely encassed in opaque epoxy to hide anything that might matter and getting any access to the coding is even more impossible.

Yep sorry, didn't mean to change the subject. Just thought Makro might be the type of company to listen, and/or tell me it ain't happenin' son. Ok, no more hijacking.

Coils are basically antennas and can be matched for impedence, frequency, etc. I'm not suggesting the selling point would be that anyone can muck around and screw their detectors up though. Think about it this way, if your Dell computer only ran programs built by Dell would you buy it? Or if they only allowed Microsoft programs to operate on Microsoft operating systems? Or Google only allowed Google apps on your phone? If a person had an idea to improve something and those companies made it competely impossible to do so how do you think using your phone, your computer today would be? If anytime someone had an idea they had to ask the company to do it and hope the company listened how slow do you think we would see tech advances and how much money do you think they would charge on those monopolies? That's pretty much how the detector world seems to work. It's an outdated paradigm. Further, in those examples those are companies with hundreds of thousands of top notch engineers globally. There are so very few "detector engineers" in the world I have a hard time believing that they alone have optimized and perfected detecting technology.

I understand what you are saying, but most phone users aren't DIY'er or garage tinkers either, yet take a look at the thriving Google/Apple app markets. You do not have to know how to program your phone to use any range of apps that turn your phone into an x, y, or z. I'm not suggesting that most people would need to learn to program an MCU. I'm suggesting opening up that possibility so that those of us who do enjoy doing so can create programs for ourselves and to share with or sell to others. There could eventually be a detector program market that exceeds the aftermarket coil market or greater. (inevitably someone would also bank off making an "app" store too - note to first adopter manufacturers hint hint). Eventually it may be that requesting x detector have y feature be as easy as waiting for some tinkerer to make that program. With so much reliance on digital electronics now, I'm not certain I believe that 1 detector can't be great at 2 different functions, even if that is true with OEM stock models in the present time. Similarly, open up the hardware platform and schematics to those people who enjoy EE/Physics/etc. Detecting technology has frankly, been more or less in the stone age compared to the rest of the tech world with the possible exception of the last few years, at least that's how it seems to me, especially after disassembling a few and being shocked at whats inside...not taking advantage of dirt cheap MCU and DSP and relying on circuitry that looked like it was based off older circuitry from the 70's - I'm looking at you US companies... I have a hard time making the same limited assumptions that I see about what a machine can be that a lot of others make on forums.

With modern ARM or similar type MCU's with some of the DSP capabilities built in and programming easily altered or updated I'm not sure I understand anymore why we are still stuck with the solid state mindset that x detector has to be y frequency only. A guy shouldn't have an issue switching to 60khz or 30khz or 7.5khz or whatever he wants without having to buy proprietary peripherals like special coils. This doesn't have a lot to do with the Makros in particular, but this line of thought leads me to really wonder when we see the first "open source" detector. IE, one that allows us to go in and hack around in the programming, and open source schematics so we can make custom mods without figuring out how to dissolve 5 layers of epoxy potting without killing the components or having to brute force decrypt MCU coding. So, since I know the Makro guys read this forum, if a company really wanted to take the next step and to be revolutionary in the detector world - provide us all with 2 open source platforms (meaning both software and hardware open source) - a PI and a VLF. Breakout all the relevant MCU pins too or allow easy access to hook up another dev board like the BeagleBoard, Raspberry PI, etc along with the interface to a computer for programming. Detectors, even Minelab, until the last few years have really been stuck in the stone age it seems to me any computer or phone nowadays allows for all kinds of mods and hacking. I think you'd see a lot of real interesting innovation happening by DIY'ers within a few years with a platform like this, and it might give Minelab some pause at offering detectors at (disclaimer, just a guess) $8,000 or whatever. Sorry to ramble, this post just got me thinking.

Any gauge on how the target ID accuracy is at depth compared to an F75 or similar? Looking forward to seeing the Gold Racer review, I'm looking for a detector to cherry pick ultra trashy sites for nuggets as well as have the versatility to do some abandoned homestead and old yard coin hunting and adding these two to the radar.