Jump to content

AU_Solitude

Member
  • Content Count

    280
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Forums

Detector Prospector Magazine

Detector Database

Downloads

Calendar

Everything posted by AU_Solitude

  1. Jason, he didn't say, and unfortunately I didn't even think to ask at the time.
  2. Since a few people have breached the subject: I talked to a gentleman earlier in the year that was running the QED in Cal-Nevada grounds - he stated that in low mineral ground he thought the detector easily kept pace with the GPX for depth and SDC for sensitivity, with a bonus being the lightweight where he could cover ground quickly. He also said that the more mineralized the ground became, the less this was true, with high mineralization making it no more effective than the SD series, and some severe ground crippling it beyond use. That's one users review stateside so take it for what you feel it's worth. I know if I were in an area with mild to fair ground, like Simon, I would certainly take a look at simply from a weight and ground coverage perspective. Everyone wants an easy-to-swing pulse machine instead of the existing tanks.
  3. Absolutely fantastic! Those are the ones that keep the dream alive!
  4. What I am surprised by is that they even managed to last as long as they did. Coasting on 40 year old tech can only take you so far - and they aren't alone in this - hire a decent Electrical Engineer and try and make some real progress. Too much of what you see out there is just a rehash of the same old tech and designs.
  5. There is probably still some equity in the name they've established, you can only get by squeezing the juice out of that for so long though.
  6. I've followed you on Instagram for a while - just put together that you're also here! Just curious Mike, have you had it across any ironstone or serpentine yet?
  7. I was really hoping that the challenge you had posted would be met as well; I've held off from any major detector purchase for years thinking that what you asked for would likely be right around the corner. The SDC, my primary detector, is close but again utilized a military framework inducing extraneous bulk, and lacks the depth of the said ATX circuit. It's not like you set an unattainable bar - any of the major companies could produce a detector meeting the criteria. ☹️
  8. Nice one J.W.! I have a feeling that those of us in California will be having a similar overgrowth problem this year with the crazy amounts of rain and snowfall we have been receiving.
  9. While I like the idea of better ground coverage with the larger coils, what you end up giving up is the huge convenience factor that the SDC offers. The time that it takes to go from 0 to Detect will be significantly longer as now you have to put this adaptive assembly together. It kills the grab n' go. I love my SDC, but If I am ever in a situation I need to swing a larger coil there is the GPX. I say all this now, but if the 14x9 isn't absurdly expensive, I may give it a shot this summer.
  10. I didn't see this linked anywhere else yet - if it has been then please delete this Steve. Anchor from the richest shipwreck in history, supposedly in around 300 ft. of water. I'd be tempted to take a few weeks off and do some technical diving if I was any closer. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/anchor-found-cornwall-fresh-clue-14080977
  11. Enjoyed your write-up thoroughly - thank you Simon! And way to lend a hand to the new blood!
  12. I thought so as well. I wonder if when they put them on clearance they moved well enough they thought they'd give it another stab? The machine is back up to $400.00, if they'd leave it at the $289.00 I'd wager their volume would be better. Again, to beat a dead horse, if they'd simply put in a little iron disc this machine would sell like hot cakes.
  13. My honest opinion? a complete waste of money. Keep it simple. A few crevicing tools will accomplish whatever the little vac would, with less weight, and with pretty much no operational issues.
  14. Nice pieces! 1.6 grams is a good size nugget in my book, 90% of what I recover sits between .35 to .5 grams. ?
  15. Best of luck in your new endeavors! Don't be a stranger - I know I am just another one of many who enjoyed your presence on the forums, and your involvement and desire for feedback in what otherwise seemed to be a plugged-ears industry.
  16. I thought about picking one up, but at the price point, all it really has to offer versus similar detectors is the insanely light weight. The VLF market is incredibly saturated, unless you're offering something novel, what reason is there to buy? I don't see any reason to rush out and buy a new detector year after year.
  17. I don't know how large your fire pit is, but something sounds fishy...it should be wailing long before that. My initial thought would be some wacky settings but if the problem truly "comes and goes," like you say, factory reset isn't doing anything, it probably needs to be sent in. Maybe it took one too many knocks and got rattled. Good luck!?
  18. Rick, I have played with the VMH3CS extensively as well, and for a non-motion metal detector they pack some serious punch, even with the factory small coil. I would argue they hit even deeper than a white's TDI on coin size targets. They are definitely not a machine for the gold fields. Although they can handle difficult ground mineralization, exceptionally well, in my view the sensitivity just isn't there at depth for small gold. (The tool can be used for the job, but it definitely isn't the BEST tool.) If all an individual is after is larger than gram gold, and/or coins and relics, they are fantastic little machine - as are most of the units that Vallon has produced. The mosquito-esque piezo will wear on you after a while!
  19. It's just lead. I was going to suggest essentially what you've already done, lead has a low melting point, put a match to it, a lighter, it will quickly become apparent what it is.
  20. Looks awesome, Jim! That had to be quite the undertaking - do you have photo's of a prototype? Do you have plans to take this to market?
  21. One of the beautiful things about gold is that even if tomorrow massive placer gold deposits were discovered on Mars, the closest and most readily accessible celestial body, the cost of actually going there to retrieve the metal, then bringing it back, would far exceed the value of the metal itself. Even if recovery was simply picking it up from the surface. Moving things into, and out of space, isn't cheap. Gold prices are in no immediate danger from off earth mining - not in our lifetimes!
×
×
  • Create New...