Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'detector tech'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Metal Detecting & Gold Prospecting Forums
    • Meet & Greet
    • Detector Prospector Forum
    • Metal Detecting For Coins & Relics
    • Metal Detecting For Jewelry
    • Metal Detecting For Meteorites
    • Gold Panning, Sluicing, Dredging, Drywashing, Etc
    • Rocks, Minerals, Gems & Geology
    • Metal Detector Advice & Comparisons
    • Metal Detecting & Prospecting Classifieds
    • First Texas - Bounty Hunter, Fisher & Teknetics
    • Garrett Metal Detectors
    • Minelab Metal Detectors
    • Nokta / Makro Metal Detectors
    • Tesoro Metal Detectors
    • White's Metal Detectors
    • XP Metal Detectors

Categories

  • Best of Forums
  • Gold Prospecting
  • Steve's Guides
  • Steve's Mining Journal
  • Steve's Reviews

Categories

  • Catalogs & Brochures
  • Owners Manuals
  • Minelab CTX 3030 Programs
  • Spreadsheets

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Skype


Location:


Interests:


Gear Used:

Found 184 results

  1. I always have one question in mind which is the best frequency for silver and gold jwellary or treassure hord at the same time i know 7 to 15 khz is for silver relics tressure 15khz to upper is for gold suppose if i find a cannal full of silver and gold jwellary which frequency is best suited for it
  2. Looks funny but there is not far between this video and a decent beach detector at least. Just need the digger scoop arm on the back. Kind of like turning a Roomba loose on the beach!
  3. Steve, your a great source for unbiased information. I trust your opinion greatly. Don't fret over what just happened. Many many people view you as a great resource. As you know I have been metal detecting for 30 years. I still consider myself a newbie. However, it is with the same old machine. Back when I purchased my machine we were told it will detect everything, it's a do all machine. I new of prospecting machines, but never knew the difference or seen the demand until I came to this forum. So if you have time, please answer these question. I am going to throw these out as I don't really know how to ask the correct question. What if the difference in a gold machine vs a regular machine? What makes them stand out? I know there is a frequency difference, but what make them stand on when looking for gold? Are they just not tuned for gold?
  4. On his forum at http://www.dankowskidetectors.com/discussions/read.php?2,121626 This gives a very rare, in fact as far as I know, never before seen inside look at the prototyping process and field test reporting. Thomas Dankowski is a true "engineer nerd" (I say that as a compliment) and so goes to extreme lengths and detail beyond what would normally be seen. His extremely lengthy and copious notes also provide many insights about what to possibly expect from the new Nokta Impact. Keep in mind things changed from the early reports to the final product so things Tom talks about early on change at later dates. Quoting from his thread out of context could cause a lot of misperceptions to arise. The thread well illustrates something I have observed for some time. When it comes to max depth, standard single frequency induction balance detecting technology is tapped out. Look at the struggle to obtain not another inch but even just another 0.1 inch of depth. The main advantages have come as of late in recovery speed and the ability to separate closely spaced targets. Max depth however is at a standstill. Tom's testing just confirms what I have been seeing for years. It is near impossible to discern more than hair splitting differences for max depth between most top of the line VLF detectors these days. And now a Report on the Nokta Impact from Keith Southern And a Report From Ziggy Report from Lawrenzo - Low-Boy/LCPM Report from tnsharpshooter Report from goodmore Report from Sven1
  5. Steve, Every since you posted that you lose depth when you ground balance, It is in the back of my mind........ "Ground balancing is a filter and not all that different that the way the discrimination system works. The ground signal or salt signal (or both) are identified and then tuned out. The ground effect is still there, but the detector subtracts it from the overall signal. The key word there is "subtracts". Ground balance methods work by subtracting part of the signal, and all subtractive methods create depth losses of some sort the closer any detected item gets to the "hole" created by subtracting the ground or salt signal. Signals are not perfect but spread over a small range, and so eliminating any signal usually means taking out a small range of signals. " I have always tried to keep my detectors ground balanced while using them.... Now I wonder if I should? Can you put my mind at ease......
  6. I got my first metal detector in 1986. It was a White's Coin Master 6000 DI Pro. I bought it because I live near the beach and a friend of mine had a friend who was selling them. I didn't know much about detectors and I used it on the beach in the dry sand only for about 3 years before life happened and I put it away. I didn't get another detector until 2010 and it was a ML 5000. Now that I had it I had to start learning about the desert and more about metal detectors. One of the first things that I 'noticed' about a detector is that you don't have to be directly over a target to hear it. You get a sense for a target by coming close. You get a bigger sense for an aluminum can than you do a quarter for instance. I've searched and searched over the years for a way to describe this near to target sense which is much greater in the 5000 (PI) and the 7000 (ZVT) than with the Coin Master (VLF). Today I was reading an email from Kellyco who is the company that services most Minelabs in the United States. They also sell most other detectors and give advice to their customers. The email that I received led me to a reprint of an article: How Metal Detectors Work Reprinted with permission from Modern Metal Detectors. The full article is here: https://www.kellycodetectors.com/catalog/how-metal-detectors-work#more In that article it uses the term Fringe Area Detection and that gave definition to what I had been trying to describe for years. I had tried to say a coil is like a Nerf ball with many targets off the search area and you are drawn to a target like a moth to a flame. As it turns out this is just 'fringe area detection' which lets us push our detectors to much greater finds. I think you will see how many times we have discussed this part of metal detecting without using this term. The fringe area on my 7000 is larger than the illustration shown. Here is what the article says about fringe area detection: Fringe Area Detection Fringe area detection is a phenomenon of detection, the understanding of which will result in your being able to discover metal targets to the maximum depth capability of any instrument. The detection pattern for a coin may extend, say, one foot below the search coil. The detection pattern for a small jar of coins may extend, perhaps, two feet below the search coil as illustrated in the drawing on the facing page. Within the area of the detection pattern, an unmistakable detector signal is produced. This illustration shows the location and approximate proportional size of the fringe detection area in which faint target signals from around the outer edges of a normal detection pattern can be heard. What about outside the detection pattern? Does detection take place? Yes, but the signals are too weak to be discerned by the operator except in the fringe area around the outer edges of the detection pattern as shown in the drawing above. A good set of headphones is a must, if you desire to hear fringe area signals. The next more important thing, is training in the art of discerning the faint whispers of sound that occur in the fringe area. Skill in fringe area detection can be developed with practice, training, concentration and faith in your ability. Develop fringe area detection ability to a fine art and you are on your way to some great discoveries that many detector operators will miss. The ability to hear fringe area signals results in greatly improved metal detection efficiency and success. Mitchel
  7. If somebody has offered you at option: 1. to reduce the weight of your favourite detector by half 2. to increase its depth by 10% What would you choose?
  8. No, I'm not talking about politics and being a Moveon.org trainer. I'm talking about resistivity detecting. Electrical resistivity tomography From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) or electrical resistivity imaging (ERI) is a geophysical technique for imaging sub-surface structures from electrical resistivity measurements made at the surface, or by electrodes in one or more boreholes. If the electrodes are suspended in the boreholes, deeper sections can be investigated. It is closely related to the medical imaging technique electrical impedance tomography (EIT), and mathematically is the same inverse problem. In contrast to medical EIT however ERT is essentially a direct current method. A related geophysical method, induced polarization, measures the transient response. The technique evolved from techniques of electrical prospecting that predate digital computers, where layers or anomalies were sought rather than images. Early work on the mathematical problem in the 1930s assumed a layered medium (see for example Langer, Slichter). Andrey Nikolayevich Tikhonov who is best known for his work on regularization of inverse problems also worked on this problem. He explains in detail how to solve the ERT problem in a simple case of 2-layered medium. During the 1940s he collaborated with geophysicists and without the aid of computers they discovered large deposits of copper. As a result, they were awarded a State Prize of Soviet Union. Andrey Nikolayevich Tikhonov, the "father of ERT" When adequate computers became widely available the inverse problem of ERT could be solved numerically, and the work of Loke and Barker at Birmingham University was among the first such solution, and their approach is still widely used. With the advancement in the field of Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) from 1D to 2D and now-a- days 3D, ERT has explored many fields. The applications of ERT include fault investigation, ground water table investigation, soil moisture content determination and many others. In industrial process imaging ERT can be used in a similar fashion to medical EIT, to image the distribution of conductivity in mixing vessels and pipes. In this context it is usually called Electrical Resistance Tomography, emphasising the quantity that is measured rather than imaged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_tomography Here is one unit being offered by Kellyco. https://www.kellycodetectors.com/blog/find-gold-resistivity?utm_source=email&utm_medium=BlogBUTTON&utm_content=BlogGoldResistivity&utm_campaign=MSTRBlogGoldResistivity20170624&utm_term=Lead_SuperBowlGiveaway2016 Mitchel
  9. As a rule do the lower vlf frequencies punch deeper than the higher ones, say 4.8 verses 14khz? But what is the trade off? Are some frequencies better for silver coins? How does iron enter into this? Need to understand how this all fits together! Thanks for any and all answers.
  10. A lot of detectors let you notch out (silence) a target identification (TID) band but are there any that let you choose which tone (audio frequency) to assign to a band?
  11. I do what I can to foster competition that develops alternatives to the all too common single frequency VLF detector. There are plenty of options out there, but in my opinion they all weigh too much or cost too much. Usually both. I envision people out there with a popular VLF prospecting machine like the Gold Bug Pro, GMT, AT Gold, X-Terra 705, etc. These machines all sell for around $700 and weigh 2.5 - 3.9 lbs. They would like to add a ground balancing PI (GBPI) to what they have. I think that for "normal people" with normal budgets a machine under $2K and under four pounds just makes sense. It would be more than twice what they spent for their VLF, and in this day and age there is no reason why a decent PI should weigh over 4 lbs. To clarify what I am talking about here, I should say that for many people a $700 single frequency detector is a great place to start and in many cases is all a person ever needs. However, there are places where extreme ground mineralization and mineralized rocks (hot rocks) severely impede the performance and use of single frequency detectors. Alternative technology to deal with these conditions has been developed, by far the most familiar being the Minelab ground balancing PI (GBPI) detectors. These differ from common PI detectors by having the ability to ground balance. Other brands have offered the Garrett Infinium and ATX and the White's TDI models. These detectors are used not just for prospecting but also by relic hunters, beach detectorists, and others who face challenges regarding ground mineralization and single frequency detectors. Frankly, in my opinion GBPI technology is largely maxed out. The main room for improvement comes now in better ergonomics at lower prices. This challenge therefore limits detectors to those that weigh under 4 pounds with battery included, and which sell brand new with warranty after discounts for under US$2000. Detectors need not be ground balancing PI models, but must offer similar ability to ignore mineralized ground and hot rocks that trouble single frequency detectors. I am going to rate detectors as to their relative performance using what I call the "Minelab Rating Scale. Details here. 1. Minelab SD 2000 - crude first version, very poor on small gold, excellent on large deep gold 2. Minelab SD 2100 - vastly refined version of SD 2000 3. Minelab SD 2200 (all versions) - adds crude iron disc, ground tracking 4. Minelab GP Extreme - adds greatly improved sensitivity to small gold, overall performance boost. 5. Minelab GP 3000 - Refined GP Extreme 6. Minelab GP 3500 - Greatly refined GP 3000, last and best of analog models 7. Minelab GPX 4000 - First digital interface, rock solid threshold 8. Minelab GPX 4500 - Refined GPX 4000, solid performer 9. Minelab GPX 4800 - Released at same time as GPX 5000 as watered down version 10. Minelab GPX 5000 - Culmination of the series, current pinnacle of GBPI prospecting machine technology. All Minelab models leverage an existing base of over 100 coil options from tiny to huge. I am a very practical person when it comes to prospecting. I know all the existing models and options by all brands very well, perhaps better than almost anyone. This is the way I look at it is this. If I personally were to spend a lot of money to go to Australia for one month, and needed a GBPI detector, considering machines past and present, what would I take and in what order of choice? Put aside concerns of age, warranty, etc. just assume functioning detectors. Here is the issue in a nutshell. On the Minelab scale of one to ten as listed above, I would be generous in rating the White's TDI SL as a 2. Same with the Garrett Infinium which I will mention in passing as it is no longer being made. If I was going to spend a month of my time and a lot of money going on a prospecting trip to Australia, I would choose a TDI in any version over the SD 2000. I might go with a TDI Pro over a SD 2100 but I would have to think real hard about that, and when push comes to shove I would go SD 2100 were it not for the realities of age I said to ignore. A newer TDI Pro might be a better bet than a very old SD 2100 from a reliability standpoint, but again, this would be a tough choice. The TDI SL not really. In my opinion I would be shooting myself in the foot to go on this hypothetical trip with a TDI SL instead of a SD 2100. You see the problem now? The Garrett ATX fares better. I would rate it a 3, roughly analogous to the SD 2200 variants. Still an agonizing choice really and the ATX being new versus SD 2200 being old might again be the tipping point, but from a pure prospecting options perspective the case can be made that the SD 2200 might be the better way to go. The problem for this challenge is the ATX weighs over 4 lbs and sells for over $2000 That's it folks. That is reality. The best of the best that the competition can offer can only go solidly up against models Minelab has not made in years. I am not saying that to be mean or as some kind of Minelab toadie, that is my pure unvarnished opinion as a guy who is pretty well versed on the subject. Let's bring it all home. This person with the $700 machine really, really wants that under 4 lb, under $2K GBPI machine, but if they do their homework they discover that truthfully, they would be better off shopping for a used Minelab than what the competition offers new. With the TDI SL rated as a 2 the ATX in a much lighter box at under $2K is a solid win as a 3. A well designed ATX with standard dry land coils would look very enticing as compared to the GP series Minelab's and with a stronger battery system might rate 4 to 6 on my comparative scale. But Garrett refuses to budge! White's can certainly do something, anything to improve the TDI SL. A battery that lasts all day would be a good start. In the end they are limited by the basic single channel design of the machine. The SD 2000 dual channel design was literally the answer to and the improvement on the single channel technology used in the TDI, the basics of which predate the SD 2000. Still, White's currently owns the under 4 lb under $2K GBPI category so they have the first out of the starting gate advantage. Anything they do would at the very least just show they have not given up. The Minelab MPS patent that formed the basis of the SD series has expired. Not sure about DVT, which formed the basis of the GP series. Where is the competition? What the heck is going on here? Much gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair is going on here, that's what!!! That is my challenge to the manufacturers. Under 4 lbs, under $2K, on the 1-10 scale I am offering, what is the best you can do? The TDI SL as a 2? Really? Yes, really, that is currently the best of the best in the brand new ground balancing PI, full warranty, under 4 lb, under $2k category. You can pick up a 3.5 lb TDI SL right now brand new for $1089. The White's TDI SL takes the crown. Hopefully we will see more competition in this wide open category soon. I have been beating this drum for years to no avail, but I do have reason to believe we are finally going to see more alternatives soon. I hope.
  12. Can someone please explain the differences in a PI machine and a VLF machine in layman's terms or point me in a direction on the site if it has already been posted up some where just trying to learn
  13. I know this topic has appeared off and on over the years, but I'd like to better understanding on the theory and principle of using one over the other, ie. depth, and target id and what compromises do I induce. The reason I ask is the new V4 for XP Deus has the ability to set a minus discrimination. It kills the ability to use the "horseshoe" screen for ferrous target ID, but VID numbers are tolerable. What theoretically happens if I set a negative discrimination, but use Notch to handle ordinary ferrous trash?
  14. Can you guys help me to compile a list of all current VLF detectors on the market that will run in a true ALL METAL no/non motion setting as a user defined base mode, not a hold trigger or pinpoint button held type option but a base mode of operation. Much like what the original M Scope Fisher Gold Bug 19 khz unit operated as. I am seeking a VLF unit with least amount of or no discrimination that operates in all metal no motion, ability to turn up gain and sens as well as GB preferred and has ability to add large format aftermarket coil. I believe that the Tesoro Outlaw has all metal no motion mode.
  15. Is Minelab the only one that uses electronic noise cancel feature?? Do they have patents associate with this feature? Would like to see other manufacturers use some thing similar on their detectors. Or a manufacturer should provide actual visual indication of emi levels depending on frequency used to include offsetting. Not have the user have to use their ears to decide or even try comparing on buried targets. Should not be trial and error. And maybe even a system were the operator is warned,,say if emi changes and the current selected frequency is possibly not operating at optimum. I do realize with a coil being swept over the ground, this could be difficult to do.
  16. For over a decade I've ask for one small feature to a good detector. Say for instance on the Fisher F75 detector or another machine of comparable abilities. Add a two tone function in the motion all metal mode. Nothing fancy, just one tone for ferrous and another for non-ferrous. Being a computer programmer for several years I can't imagine this would be very difficult. Now on the F75, while in motion all metal mode the machine gives better depth and also gives an ID for detected metal objects. So since nothing is really needed except assigning a tone to the ID number scheme why is it so hard to acquire a unit with that feature. I know the V3i has a feature similar, but it lacks the depth capability of the F75 in my ground. Now I've ask again. I'll check back in another decade.
  17. How many of you are "beepers" vs. "peepers"?
  18. On subject of coils and systems... I was out working some areas for relics with a couple others and one guy was killing it with an very vintage 70s Garrett Master Hunter BFO unit with a large home made looking square coil of pvc looking material. After looking into I found that BFO is Beat Frequency Oscillator and was popular before T/R VLF format machines. BFO was not good for small coin shooting and nugget hunting and lacked ability for quality discrimination from what I read but excelled in depth ability, especially on large ferrous cache targets as well as finding mineral deposits like drifts of black sands or veins of ore. So are there currently any units that still use a BFO mode or format? I can find vintage BFO type units available very reasonably priced, is there any information out there on how to bring them up to current on a battery system and build large coils suitable for this type of cache detecting?
  19. Detector coils are not antenna. They are part of a highly tuned inductive coupling system.
  20. Good afternoon everyone, I am looking for a long range detector and I would like to know if anyone can design/produce a stand-alone (not hand held) long range detector suitable for detecting gold from a 30-50 metres height. This is a serious enquiry which foresees the purchase of large quantities of such locators/detectors as well as the development of different detectors for other metals/minerals. For a better idea of what I am looking for, please see my drawing below. Thanks, Law-Italy ( lawrencebon@hotmail.it )
  21. Everyone needs to watch this video. We talk all the time how lower frequencies ignore ground better and penetrate deeper on larger targets, but how high frequencies are better at getting small targets to respond. This video does a superb job of illustrating how high frequencies do a better job at "lighting up" a small gold target. The key is we are using one detector and coil with all the settings just the same - the only thing that changes is the frequency. This eliminates other extraneous factors that usually play into comparisons of this sort. What this video does not show is how higher frequencies not only "light up" the target but also mineralized ground, creating difficulty with penetrating deeply in that ground. One of the great lessons in metal detecting is that there is no free lunch, and very often improving one thing comes at a cost somewhere else. You can skip right to "the good part" at 2:45
  22. Note: thread was split from this previous thread Tone By TID Selection Option? Thanks for posting that reminder on the F44 Mike. I had forgot about it, and added the chart page to your post. To my mind for coin and jewelry detecting I simply have no interest in owning machines that do not allow me to customize tone ranges and tones. My current stable of coin/jewelry machines are the White's DFX, Minelab CTX, Nokta Impact, and XP DEUS, and all four offer this capability (the ability to cusomize tone ranges and tones) in one form or another. It really is a killer feature on the F44 at such a low price, only $349 these days. If all I could have is one detector and had to buy a new one under $400 I have no doubt the F44 is what I would end up with. Funny that it gets so little interest on the forums but I guess that reflects the fact most of us tend to be using higher end product. This is a case where Fisher may have sold more by pricing it higher! People may snicker at that but there are sound sales reasons for why that may be true. Look at what you get in a Gold Bug Pro and you would think it should be $349 and the F44 should be $649.
  23. For background on electrical interference in VLF detectors here is a great essay on electrical interference by Dave Johnson of First Texas Products. You can also find a more detailed discussion that includes PI detectors in section 2.1 of this Minelab document by Bruce Candy. OK, so I am bench testing my new Teknetics G2 at home recently. The 19 kHz models are renowned for being immune to EMI (ElectroMagnetic Interference). No electrical interference ever (well, almost never) even at highest gain levels. As a rule, the lower the frequency, the more issues you have with EMI. It is especially bad under 10 kHz. DEUS owners may see significant EMI at 4 kHz, only a little at 8 kHz, and none at 12 and 18 kHz. Another reason why manufacturers favor mid frequency over low frequency detectors these days. I have been bench testing detectors in my house for years so think I know the EMI levels. No issues with previous 19 kHz units like the Gold Bug Pro and F19. Yet this new G2 chatters like crazy! I fire off an email to First Texas asking if some change I was unaware of. Nope. And could not be a bad coil because both coils I have did it. Then on another go I noticed the EMI was bad on one end of house but not the other. I walk around and the detector leads me to a new LED bulb I installed recently. This thing is pumping out 19 kHz EMI like crazy! Not long ago I installed a number of these cheap LED bulbs in my house. https://www.amazon.com/Feit-Electric-Replacement-CEOM60-927/dp/B01BJ0Y1MC Looks like my mission to upgade my house to all LED just ran into a snag! More on LED bulb interference - https://www.google.com/search?num=30&q=led+bulb+electrical+interference&oq=led+bulb+electrical+interference Just shows how more and more we are surrounded by new forms of electrical interference to make life harder for detector engineers.
  24. The "holy grail" of metal detecting has been a detector that can offer VLF type discrimination to PI detector depth. Many years ago I put it as "a White's MXT that can detect as deep as a Minelab GP". I once offered $10,000 for such a detector, back when it seemed ludicrous to think detectors would ever reach such a high price. We have had a lot of progress in the last 30 years on sheer depth of detection, but really not much at all when it comes to how deep a target can be detected and identified with decent accuracy. When it comes to accurate target id at depth multi frequency units set the standard for performance in all soil types. The Fisher CZ and Minelab Sovereign both came out in 1991, and in my opinion other than refinements nothing has really changed since then when it comes down to the classic question of "how deep can you detect and correctly identify a U.S. dime?" For single frequency detectors my old Compass Gold Scanner Pro back in 1989 punched as deep on a dime as anything made today. We need some sort of real breakthrough. What this would really mean is a machine that handles and eliminates ground better to deliver depth as close to air tests as is possible while retaining good discrimination. The long rumored (since 2015) Fisher CZX promises "groundbreaking technology" in the form of a two frequency detector that is "deeper than current VLF, this detector will also see through red dirt, and highly mineralized soil." For even longer we have known about the White's Half Sine Patent that states "A new hybrid metal detector combines induction balance and pulse induction technologies. Target signals are generated from a transmitted wave that has both induction balance and pulse current inducing characteristics and uses pertinent sampling of the receive data. Combining the two data sources provides eddy current target identification while excluding ground permeability and remanence obscuration." Now, the Fisher price target was said to be in the $1000 - $2000 range. Frankly, that seems way too low for something that would knock the industry on its ear if it came to pass, but it may be we are all assuming the CZX to be more than it really is. The talk is mainly about being simple and handling bad ground well, but how well it can identify targets at depth is really not discussed. All the CZX may turn out to be is my long hoped for ergonomic detector that outperforms the White's TDI in the $1000 - $2000 price range. The Mosca machine mentioned on the same thread has different engineers involved and so these are probably two separate projects. OK, long lead in to the AKA Intronik STF as described at http://md-hunter.com/aka-intronik-stf-price-starts-from-12000-the-most-expensive-detector/ and said to be selling for $12,000.00. Another thread here states "AKA succeed working out VLF detector working 2 frequency at once. This detector sees no differance if ground is heavely mineralized or it's a non salty sand or even air, it's not being influanced by mineralisation at all. It's deep as Signum MFT but with right identification at any depth." Looks to be translated poorly from original Russian, or at least I hope that's the excuse for the butchered English! However, what the AKA Intronik is promising is a two frequency machine that ignores ground mineralization, and that sounds a lot like what the Fisher CZX is promising. The White's is a different beast but same basic result being discussed - a breakthrough in the ability to discriminate targets at depth. And in my book all that means is something clearly better than what we have, not results so close that endless videos and arguments on the internet produce no clear winners. We want something that when put up against a Fisher CZ and F75 and Minelab CTX everyone clearly agrees "this thing accurately sees a dime deeper" Many nugget hunters may be ignoring all this, but the applications for a detector that really can get the depth and identify trash better are huge. In fact, I am willing to bet many of the best finds remaining in the United States at least are in those areas that are full of so much trash that PI operators have barely put a dent in them. Clear open trash free patches have been pounded to death, but there are many places where the volume of deep nails alone continues to defeat even the most patient hunters. People are/were will to pay $8000 - $10,000 for a GPZ 7000. How much is a GPZ with discrimination worth? Quite a bit perhaps to many gold hunters. What I wonder however is what the limits are for the coin and relic hunters. My gut feeling was that the coin hunters were not as willing to spend big bucks as the gold hunters. It is easy to rationalize high price gold machines if you are the sort of person who is confident you can find enough gold to pay for your detector. The thing is I never thought the GPZ would sell very well because it as priced so high. Then I opened my eyes. There are people here in the U.S. buying GPZ detectors that have found little if any gold in the past with detectors. There are people that show up at outings with a 24 foot motor home pulling a side by side ATV behind. There are people for whom buying a $10,000 metal detector is no different than buying a high price set of golf clubs or a snowmobile or a boat. Yes, I understand many people have tight budgets, but it is also obvious many people have lots of money to throw at their pastimes and playthings. The GPZ 7000 shocked me with how many people bought them. I was honestly hoping the price would limit the numbers seen in the field for at least a year or two. The relic people seem to be the same way. There was little resistance to moving up to the GPX 5000 back east in the big relic hunts when it became obvious those machines would deliver the goods VLF detectors missed. The GPZ has not has made as much impact there simply because it is too sensitive to tiny trash so a relic hunter is normally better off with a GPX, which has more ability to deal with at least some trash. Lots of beach hunters are using GPX detectors now. And even some park hunters in the never ending quest for more depth. So I am wondering just how much more I would be willing to shell out to be the first kid on my block to have a real leg up on the competition with a machine that could make silver coins easy to find again in U.S. parks by offering better discrimination at depth. I then of course I figured I would ask you all the same question. What is the most you would shell out for such a machine if it really delivered the goods? Me, I looked at the $12,000 for the AKA Intronik and initially thought that was crazy. The more I think about it however I am not so sure - if it really worked. Sure, that would price many people right out of the thing, but oddly enough that would make others crave it even more. There is always something attractive in basic marketing 101 for people having possession of something other people can't afford. What say you forum members? Would you buy an AKA Intronik if it really performed as advertised and for such a high price? If not, what would it be worth to you? Please note - I am not saying the AKA Intronik does do what it says in any way. I truly have no idea. But if it does, what is the "right price"?
  25. I am going to bring this up for you to maybe shed light on. Since you have been it seems testing and using detectors for a while. First up,,,has any manufacturer who you are testing a detector for,,,have they ask you if you are currently testing any other manufacturer's model detectors (prerelease)?? Next since you likely signed non disclosure agreements,,,and they are pretty straightforward,,,like you can't discuss or talk until you are given ok to do. I consider you a very ethical person btw,,,this next question is not to insinuate anything,,,I just want to hear your thoughts here. What about if you are testing a unit,,,and let's say the testing phase is more or less concluded,,,but this specific detector model isn't quite released yet,,,and you happen to be testing another unit from a different manufacturer. Is it proper to use this detector you have already tested (not released yet) and do head to heads with another test unit,,,and this other unit let's just say is still further from official release than this other unit. So in keeping all this head to head under wraps,,,but when the first unit you tested is released,,,obviously the non disclosure agreement is null and void on this unit,,,,so with maybe some previous head to head testing done before this first detector release,,,so then a tester could actually maybe provide comparison data (done before first detector release) to the second detector's manufacturer when the first one releases. I hope this makes sense. Remember I'm not insinuating anything,,,you are far more expert in this dept than I. And obviously comparing a detector under formal testing to an already publically released detector is a different animal,,I see no problems doing this. Steve do you think a person should be testing 2 or more detectors (pre release) simultaneously from different manufacturers??
×