Az_Ed

Thanks Jeff, that is some good information. Everything is dug using all metal mode so target ID and discrimination is irrelevant. Very small target sensitivity is also not as important as depth for larger targets. I'd guess some good rechargeable batteries would be sufficient. Mineralization behavior would need to be tested in the field.

Thank you for the comments. The Minelab Vanquish 540 has been recommended and looks like a good fit to me. The current cost is very reasonable (<$400 new) and it is simple. It apparently has automatic ground balance and 4 modes. It looks like one can turn-on, set to all metal mode, adjust the volume and sensitivity and go. This might compare well to past Super-Traq usage.

Hi Jeff, I agree with your comments regarding the Super-trac. I was surprised when I heard it was the preferred detector. I'm hoping some test data may show it could be advantageous to move to a newer detector. Detector weight is most important since a lot of back-country ground is covered in search of artifacts while walking quickly. An ideal detector for these efforts would have simple controls and operation in all metal mode, lightest possible weight, loud speaker, and something like a 10" elliptical coil. The Archeologist is independent of any university and is an advocate of using detectors to help locate sites and has done so very successfully. My latest Super-trac repair was a loose terminal post on one of the battery packs and a loose On/off Threshold control.

Thank you for the comments Steve. The use of the detectors is an archaeology search so everything is dug. Thus All-Metal mode, no discrimination and the users adjust the sensitivity and threshold as-needed. I gather the archaeologists like the Super-trac due to simpler settings and no ground balance controls. They purchase used Super-tracs whenever found. I am an experienced electronic engineer and technician so working with the electronics doesn't worry me. I know I can't make any adjustments without a procedure, schematic or something as a guide. My primary alignment concern is the possible need to recognize a dirty or malfunctioning potentiometer. If I had some sort of technical guideline or even a description of pot function it could help with repairs. So far one unit was stated to "not sound right." It was very dirty inside with dust coating the PC board. I cleaned the pots with DeoxIT D5 and cleaned away the dust and re-seated the socketed IC. The speaker is glued-in and tested ok at about 16 Ohms. New batteries and it was back in the field, but still considered to "not sound right." I need a head-to-head comparison with a good one to see if I can hear the "not sound right" symptom. I have two other units, one DOA and the other unknown status. I have not yet looked at them to see what is wrong. Most likely something electro-mechanical like broken battery wires, etc. The Super-trac seems to be very good at small targets not too deep. It is looking like the archaeology efforts need to find larger (small horse shoe) targets as deeply as possible. I think they need larger coils. I'm in process of evaluating coil sizes, detector models and possible depths at a test range I rigged in my back yard. I buried a 3" OD tube at a 45 degree angle. I'll be able to place targets up to 31" deep. I have a series of different targets on wooden paint or yardsticks. I plan to spreadsheet a comparison to get a feel for what is possible. I'm most interested to see what the Garrett Axiom with the 16x14" mono coils is able to do. Thanks for any suggestions or comments. Ed. Tucson, Az

I'm helping an Arizona Archaeologist search for artifacts. The favorite detector used is the Tesoro Lobo Super-trac since it is simply a turn-on and go detector. Nearly any volunteer on the project can grab the Super-trac and be productive. I am refurbishing some of the failed detectors. Does anyone have an alignment procedure for the Super-trac? I notice about 6 potentiometers (variable resistors) on the PC board and I'm wondering if alignment checks might be useful. Thanks for any help. Ed, Tucson, Az.

I'm keen on metal detecting for nuggets and specimens in the southern Arizona area. I'd like to find another who wants to detect in some of the more remote areas. I like to hike into areas that are not so easily accessed and search mine dumps and areas of known gold. I also reconnoiter other remote areas that may have quartz or mineralization. If you are interested and capable of day trips that include 3 or 4 miles of hiking over hillsides cross-country please PM me. I'm retired so trips are often during the week when traffic is reduced. Weekends are also possible. I have a Jeep that can access most roads except the roughest. Summer outings start before dawn and shut-down at about 95 degrees. Send me a private message if interested and we'll discuss possible field trips. Az_Ed, Tucson

Welcome to the forum John. I also have the Garrett Axiom. It is my first pulse induction detector and I have found it easy to learn and operate. Watch the tutorials by Steve H shown at the top of this forum. They cover all the details of getting the most out of the Axiom. If you ever get down Tucson way message me. There are some good GPAA claims in southern AZ for detecting. You need to be a GPAA member to go. There are also some GPAA claims in the Wickenburg area and Mojave county. Good luck. Az_Ed

Using the technique described in the earlier (actual weight, buoyancy weight) referenced article, the specimen calculates at 1.888 oz-Troy Au. I used quartz as the host material. Actual weight is 102.75 grams.

Four of us went back to the find site today and searched the area. I found some thin wire and the remains of a blasting cap near the specimen location. There are some brecciated granite outcroppings up the hill that show hydro-thermal mineralization. I think I found a piece of a blasted vein that ended up downhill. Someone probably used too much dynamite and blasted the vein or visible gold into pieces. I think I was lucky enough to find a large unretrieved piece. There is a lot of mineralization and test prospects in area so future outings are planned. I'm going to detect the area with a large coil and see if I can locate any hidden veins or mineralization. Thanks for all of the comments. Az_Ed

Thanks for all the comments. Arky, that is a nice clean piece of quartz with Au in it. My specimen is not clean at all I guess due to all the mineralization. Thanks for the suggestions regarding calculating the amount of Au in a specimen. I'll try a couple of different ways and see if the numbers are close or agree. Good luck detecting!

I'd like to focus on searching for 1-3 oz (2-4 square inches) or larger size targets that are deeper, perhaps more than one foot down. The ground I'm searching is moderately mineralized and easily handled by the 11x7" mono. I currently have the 13x11" DD and the 11x7" mono. Would the 16x14" mono be a significant improvement in depth for larger targets? I understand the differences between the DD and mono coils, but I don't fully understand their differences in detection depth, especially on larger targets. Thanks for any help or comments. Az_Ed

Thank you for the comments. My buddy is using a new Equinox 900 which appears to be a very good VLF detector. I have some graduated cylinders, beakers and a precision scale on-the-way. I hope to calculate the amount of Au. I'm planning to fill one beaker completely full of water. Place the specimen in the beaker and capture the water over-flow. I'll then measure the over-flowed water in graduated cylinder. With this data I can calculated weight of quartz for that volume. The difference between calculated weight and measured weight should be the approximate weight of the Au.

I've been detecting for gold nuggets for several years without finding any Au. As many of you know, almost everything else is found: bullets, fragments of bullets, fragments of fragments of bullets, bullet casings, nails, hob-nails, foil, lead sinkers, lead shot, and the list goes on-and-on. We'll I finally found some Au! The first time out with my new Garrett Axiom after some backyard and nearby gulch practice I went to a southern Arizona location with a local detecting buddy. We have both been on a quest to find some gold. On a steep rocky hillside and after finding several lead bullets and a big jacketed rifle bullet I thought I found another when a large signal was heard. About three inches down was a flat dark dirt covered rock that was unusually heavy. My first thought was "that's a funny piece of lead." I called my buddy over to take a look at it. He hollered and identified it as a specimen piece of a gold vein! After all of our searches we were finally on the gold! After hundreds of hours of detecting my only hope was to find some small or tiny piece of a nugget....anything. What I found was about 3.6 ounces of specimen. I'm not certain how much Au is inside but I'd guess about one-half of it. I've scrubbed it with dish soap and also liquid Bar Keeper's cleaner but the gold is not clearly visible except on the edges. The piece is about 2.2" long, 2" wide and 1/2" thick, so it clearly is a piece of mineralized vein. I may consider cleaning it with Muriatic or hydrofluoric acid to remove everything except the Au and quartz, but it is such a nice example of a thin gold vein it I'd rather not damage it. I'm most impressed with the Axiom. I was using the 11" mono coil on a steep brushy and rocky hillside. The detector is well balanced and easy to use with only a little practice. My detector settings were Fine, Slow, and Manual ground balance. Unlike my past VLF detectors the Axiom virtually ignored the mineralization and hot rocks. This meant I could detect almost continuously with only an occasional manual ground balance. I'd guess compared to using a VLF machine I covered twice as much ground with far more confidence in hearing targets. For all of you still searching for your first gold detect I say stick with it. Perseverance pays off. One of the best suggestions I've heard from an experienced detectorist was to first be sure I was detecting in an area of known gold. Good luck and keep detecting. Az_Ed

I received an Axiom last week. I too was surprised how light-weight the unit is. I'll be able to backpack into the remote locations without any problems. The build quality seems very good. I've never operated a pulse induction detector before so I'm on the beginner's learning curve. I will be doing some field comparisons with the XP Deus I have. I hope to understand the differences in the two detector type capabilities. Thanks for the tutorials posted. I've watched them twice and taken notes. Ed, Saddlebrooke, Az

Thank you for the comments and suggestions. The history of the Minelab evolution is most interesting. I'll keep my eye on the used market for a good value.