Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'detector tech'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


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


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


  • Metal Detector Reviews


  • Free Books
  • Bounty Hunter
  • Fisher Labs
  • Garrett Electronics
  • Keene Engineering
  • Minelab Electronics
  • Miscellaneous
  • Nokta/Makro
  • Teknetics
  • Tesoro Electronics
  • White's Electronics
  • XP Metal Detectors
  • Metal Detector Settings


  • Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL










Gear Used:

  1. I do what I can to foster competition that develops alternatives to the all too common 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 metal detector for beach, relic, or gold detecting. These machines all sell for around $700 and weigh 2.5 - 3.9 lbs. Perhaps 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. I am drawing the hard line at 5 lbs and refuse to ever buy a metal detector again that weighs 5 lbs or over. I am setting under 4 lbs more as an aspirational goal that I think can be achieved, but recognize that battery power and coils are key inhibiting factors in high power PI systems that may make sacrifices in depth necessary to get total weight under 4 lbs. To clarify what I am talking about here, I should say that for many people a $700 VLF 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 VLF 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 (discontinued) plus Garrett ATX and the White's TDI models. These detectors are used not just for gold prospecting but also by relic hunters, beach detectorists, and others who face challenges regarding ground mineralization and VLF 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 VLF 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 detecting. 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 gold prospecting for one month, and needed a GBPI detector, considering machines past and present, what would I get 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, 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 way over 4 lbs and sells for slightly over $2000. The price is close enough really but the 7 lb weight is way off. 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 Minelabs. 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 $1049. The White's TDI SL takes the crown. Note that a challenger has a half pound of weight they can add to the TDI SL and still make the 4 lb mark, and retail can be almost double the $1049 of the TDI SL and still come in at the 2K mark. I therefore do not think my challenge is outright crazy. 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. Maybe? All I know is I have had it. I sold both my 6.9 lb Garrett ATX and 7.2 lb Minelab GPZ 7000 and am boycotting metal detectors that weigh over 5 lbs from here on out. I don’t care how well they work, I simply refuse to buy such heavy beasts anymore. In the future I will support and give my dollars to companies that pay attention to and prioritize lightweight, more ergonomic designs. White's Electronics TSI SL metal detector
  2. I mostly hunt in lakes and the bottoms are mostly all sand. A test on a sandy beach with the Equinox 800 and Xp Orx, both hit hard on a 14k 3.7 gram gold ring buried at 14". For mild ground I don't see a need for multi frequency. I do like the multiple frequencies on the Orx. Is there an advantage to multi frequency in mild ground?
  3. THIS !! All the people boo hooing will be in line to get one at that price point. It will also force the hand of ML with their price structure. ML raised their price on the 800 and NM absolutely crushed that price point. The Legend doesn't have to be better, just equal to turn the fortunes in their favor. ML and their arrogant "obsolete" charge is foolish. Obsolete by definition means no longer produced or used. Many detectorist and their single frequency machines are still out there making great finds and having fun. Furthermore, single frequency detectors are still being made and sold. NM build quality is far and away superior to the Nox detectors.
  4. We have the Deus 2 just announced, Nokta/Makro Multi on the way, possibly the next generation Equinox from Minelab, and maybe even another Garrett multifrequency model to follow Apex, all coming in 2022. I guess we should even toss First Texas in there, as they just officially discontinued the CZ-3D, with the possibility something new will replace it soon. If this does not mean we are moving past single frequency, I don’t know what does. Or are we? There will no doubt always be a place for a finely tuned single frequency detector. However, if you consider Deus as selectable frequency, and Equinox as selectable/multi, then very many of us have already moved past a simple single frequency detector as our primary detectors. This is the thread to speculate on what is coming, where we are, and where we are headed. 2022 is shaping up as the year SMF (simultaneous multifrequency) finally takes off for real. In some detectors, it’s just companies chasing the latest marketing catchword. Multifrequency is only as good as the way it is implemented, otherwise we’d all have been swinging White’s DFX ages ago. It’s not enough to make a SMF detector, it also has to have genuine performance advantages. About the only given is that any multifrequency machine will outperform a single frequency on a saltwater beach. The rest, however, is very much up in the air. For some detailed explanation of the technology, and a history of past selectable and simultaneous multifrequency detectors, see my write up on Selectable Frequency And Multiple Frequency Where it all started, Fisher CZ-6 and Minelab Sovereign, both released in 1991. I think Fisher wins claim to being first, since Minelab takes a swipe at them in their Sovereign introduction. Notice how the misdirection on transmitted versus received and processed started on day one. Fisher CZ-6 Quicksilver. The technology: Dual frequency Fourier Domain Signal Analysis. Patented state-of-the-art analog/digital electronics transmit two VLF signals (one 5 kHz, one at 15 kHz) deep into mineralized soil. The receiver circuitry had two ground compensated target signals to analyze, compare and identify. The result? Deeper targets, more accurate target identification. Wet sand is no problem for the CZ-6, it compensates for salt and ground mineralization simultaneously! Source Fisher CZ-6 Datasheet "The Sovereign" is the first of the latest generation of metal detectors from Minelab featuring Minelab's new technology called Broad Band Spectrum or BBS for short. This revolutionary new technology which is unique to Minelab has already been awarded patents in the USA, Canada and Australia and has several pending. Unlike other metal detectors which operate at just one frequency, or even the "newest" two frequency machines, "The Sovereign" actually transmits over a wide spectrum of frequencies. The resulting signal that is received from a target buried in the ground is processed by a microprocessor that removes interference caused by ground mineralization which limits the depth at which targets can be found, and often results in inaccurate target identification. The remaining signal can then be analysed to determine the actual composition of targets even if they are deeply buried, or if the ground is mineralized or salt water is present. Thus it is the only detector that can simultaneously reject both salt and mineralization while at the same time accurately discriminating the target, making it ideal for black sand beaches and many desert areas. In many areas that are highly mineralized and have been heavily searched in the past, "The Sovereign" will prove that many of the valuable targets are still there waiting for a Treasure Hunter with the proper detector to locate them. Source Minelab Sovereign Instruction Manual
  5. I thought I was pretty damn good, but this technology has me beat. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/mining-gap-companies-push-find-raw-materials-electric-vehicle-boom-rcna5077 Might be time to invest?
  6. I often see posts on various forums where people use high GB phase numbers as examples of hot, mineralized ground. I thought that GB phase numbers are only indicative of the TYPE of ground(rock,soil,clay,salt). Rock, soil, and clay can actually be pretty benign or very mineralized. Isn't the determining factor for hot ground that affects metal detectors the amount of Fe3 in the soil? A phase reading of 89 may be mild soil if the amount of IRON in the soil is low. Conversely a phase reading of 65 may be very hot ground if the ground consists of clays with high iron content. Some VLF detectors now have Fe3 meters on them and the higher the reading is on that meter the more the ground will affect your detection depth and the accuracy of the VDI number(if supplied). It seems like many people are confused by this. I think it is important info that can affect your coil selection(size and type), the amount of discrimination you may choose to use, and the mode(all-metal or discriminate) that we run in. We need somebody that knows their stuff to give us a definitive answer!
  7. Metal detectors often seem to have a 'Depth Gauge'. How is it calculated? Is it the strength (or inverse of it) of the amplitude of the return signal? So, for instance, everything else being equal, the 'deep' target would mean either a stronger target at greater depth or a weaker shallow target?
  8. While we're all abuzz with the announcement and advertised feature and performance characteristics of the XP Deus II, I'm wondering about tests that distinguish between detectors' target separation abilities. 'Word on the street' is that in trashy iron sites, the original Deus is still the best available. Presumably those reports are based upon in-field testing, which of course is the real proof. But the downside is, (AFAIK) these are qualitative observations, not quantitative. Subjectivity involved? Unfortunately, yes. We do have Monte's Nail Board Test for a special case -- iron nails near a single coin, all in the same plane and typically all on the surface of the ground. Add depth combined with some mineralization (burying the MNB) and you've included another real world dimension. But in the field, multiple nearby targets are seldom in the same plane. So you hopefully see the purpose of this post. Has anyone seen/tried other methods to better simulate actual in-field conditions to differentiate between competing detectors to best be able to handle trashy sites?
  9. I'm wondering from those of you using detectors much longer than I have what would you say was the first 'smart' detector? Part of this question will be a definition of smart. I think of smart as being a detector that can do more than just 'respond' to a signal. It would do some processing. Certainly smart devices now have chips with algorithms. Would you define smart as a detector with a coin meter? Just wondering. Many definitions of smart devices now say it is a connected device. I'm not very 'smart' so that is why I am asking the question. Mitchel
  10. I love coinshooting, and I'm often in my local parks or private permissions searching for clad and silver coins. But I noticed that when digging up shallow clad coins (3 inches or less), my AT Max with the stock coil would say the coin is 6 inches down. Sometimes, a surface coin would read at being 4 inches deep. I didn't think this was that big of a deal, b/c I could always pull out my F-Pulse and see if the assumed coin target was truly shallow or not. Also, the incorrect depth reading wasn't keeping me from digging a desired target. Tonight, I read: and http://www.fisherlab.com/hobby/davejohnson/SearchcoilfieldshapeApril2012.pdf Both of these mentioned anomolies or issues with DD coils and shallow targets. Is what I'm experiencing with my shallow coins and AT Max one of these anomolies? Or is there something else going on?
  11. speculation please. what does the future hold? what advancements might happen? keith southern are you out there?
  12. I got in a few hours of metal detecting yesteday with my AT Max, which included some time at a park and a few permissions (private homes). Nothing of note was found, although I continued to struggle with trying to find good targets in high-trash soil. Given how I'm using the Garrett AT Max, I know have two primary options for finding good targets (silver coins) in these types of conditions. First, get a smaller coil, like the 5x8. Second, start digging the trash targets to clear up the ground and reveal possible good targets that are being masked or otherwise "overshadowed" by all the bits of aluminum, nails and other garbage. The second approach is not a viable option for most places I hunt (parks and private permissions). Not only do I not have the time to implement that strategy, my body can't readily handle that much digging. Also, I'm pretty sure digging almost everything is bound to lead to the loss of any good graces I have with property owners and park maintenance crews. Ok, so that leaves the first option. But before I go that route, I have to concede the possibility of getting an Equinox. Based on my experience with my Vanquish, limited time on the Equinox 600 and experiences with my AT Max and Fisher F2, I'm confident that one of the advantages of getting an Equinox will be more stable VDIs and more accurate VDIs at depth. And right now, I think I can live with that. I understand that getting a solid signal (a good, repeatabe signal from both swings and in 2 directions) on a dime or quarter at 6+ inches in my mineralized soil isn't always realistic with the AT Max. But I know the AT Max is at least capable of getting a decent signal (a good, repeatable signal from at least 1 direction and in 1 swing). Put another way, I get how the AT Max may not get me the "dig me!" type of signal that an Equinox can, but I at least need it to get me the "take a closer look, please" signal. All of that to say that I'm thinking about how my AT Max's target separating ability and recovery speed limitations (using the stock coil) will compare to an Equinox 600 and a stock coil. I came to this realization when running the AT Max with only iron discrimination set at 35 resulted in information overload for me and notching out everything below 70 was likely leading me to completely miss "take a closer look, please" signals that might lead to silver coins, dimes or quarters. Therefore, I want to use Monte's Nail Board. I know it's not ideal, and I plan on using Steve's approach of using both the AT Max and Equinox 600 on real-world targets. But I think the Nail Board will offer quantitative data when comparing the AT Max and Equinox.I also plan on using it with my Fisher F2 and Vanquish 340 to help put things into perspective. So how do I go about doing this test? Here's my approach so far: Step 1: Create Monte's Nail Board and use it with a modern, clad dime and new nails. Step 2: For each of the 4 passes, I will give it a rating: Will Dig, Maybe Dig, Won't Dig. Step 3: I will set the sensitivities at either 50% or the highest possible given EMI Step 4: I will run each machine with zero discrimination and with enough notching so that it's only going to sound on dimes and quarters (and maybe copper pennies). Step 5: For the AT Max, I will also test it with iron discrimination set to 35. Step 6 (maybe): Run the test with the AT Max using both its stock and 5x8 coils. So here's my first real question: what changes or additions would you all make to my current approach? My second real question(s): what "base" setting should I use with the Equinox 600. I'm thinking Park 1 with recovery speed set at the highest setting (3?) and a small or moderate amount of iron bias. Should I also run some tests with the Equinox 600 in 4KHz mode? My third real question: would it be benefitical to modify Monte's Nail Board so that the nails are replaced by either clumps of aluminum or maybe pulltabs? A lot of my hunting is in parks and yards that are often littered with more aluminum trash than iron trash. Any insight is appreciated. Thanks!
  13. From what I can gather, higher frequency VLF detectors are more suited for smaller gold but ground mineralisation may be something to factor in. Would there be a “better” frequency for nuggets 1 gram and above in heavy ground? I’m not too concerned if I miss sub gram nuggets if there is a better suited frequency. The old Garrett Groundhog circuitry was legendary in this country…..I think it was around the 15 kHz mark. Is this frequency range a good starting point or do I need to consider other things such as better ground balancing capabilities or Garrett’s extra coil voltage. My Minelab PI units will be mainstay detectors but as mentioned in another post, I have ground littered in man made iron junk and the ground mineralisation is severe. There are plenty of nuggets in the 1 gram to 5 gram range (maybe bigger) but the iron signals are as dense as 5 per square metre 🤬 Thanks for any ideas.
  14. I’m a newbie and saving up to buy my 1st metal detector. Meanwhile I’m rockhounding a lot. I’m curious if folks have successfully applied portable ground penetrating radar (or other portable detecting devices) to predict likely location of crystal pockets in the hard rock, like in dolomite (for locating pockets of Herkimer Diamonds) or in granitic pegmatite (for locating pockets of gem tourmaline crystals) ? Any pointers would be appreciated.
  15. Norvic asked why I was so proud of a VLF when I own and have posted much success with the other higher end detectors. It was my post on rating the higher end Minelabs....so here goes. There are many factors to my craze and style of detecting, but my finds are the facts and not many people can compare, unless they too use the tools (detector) and hunt the style I do. I consider myself a gold hawg or gold pig. I chase it all in terrains flat or tall. Terrain - I live in the Northwestern state of Idaho and much of my detecting in the surround state of ID., is Oregon, Nevada and occasional Montana. For the most part, OR, MT and ID are pretty much the same with steep terrain mountainous rough country. A day of electronic prosecting and hiking in such states, is much harder on the body for a guy my age, heck it’s harder for anyone. Going to Arizona, Rye Patch and other Northern Nevada high desert areas is a treat for my body in more ways than one. Maybe that is why so many people detect there? It’s easy to drive and get to without walking…boy are most of us lazy? YES, including me at times, but not in my home state (backyard where I play). The ID, OR, MT mountains have steep ravines/canyons and the water is at the lowest point. Here is the many miles of hand placer workings, dredge tailing and hardrock mining ore dump piles. The gold I am chasing is the stuff the old timers missed. Pic below - This huge ore dump pile produced a few thousand dollars in Specimens. This is the not so steep side and we had to tie off with ropes on the other side. Half the targets would roll down the hill and need to be found during a break when we were at the bottom. The PI's can't see this time of gold. Trash - Trash is my treasure in a way.. as I know the site has not been hunted as hard. Trash is what most detectorists hate, and I too get that way on occasion, but I know if I'm patient, I'll eventually be rewarded. A big factor I run into is 100 to 150 yr old man made trash from the early prospectors. They left much of it on the hill, in the placer digs and tailing piles. Many of the small mining camps were right on or near their diggings and they just tossed the old food cans, tobacco/coffee tins and worn out leather boots with hundreds of nails and broken, picks/ax heads shovels aside. Pic below- In old tailing piles a lighter, faster, better ID detector is best. He who digs the most non ferrous targets in a day, get to smile all the way home. Pic below- is the 1 pound specimen after cleanup. Tools – Know your detector, its limitations, strong and weak points. Bigger deeper detector is great in flat terrain and areas with limited trash. Raw depth and power is amazing to have, when the target you dig a foot or so deep is not a sardine can. How about a shovel head at 2 feet or more? Think about it and what you do when digging 5 or 6 of those an hour with your big deep penetrating detector. What does your body have left in the tank? My lighter VLF is easier to swing in rough terrain, has better Iron and Target ID, is not as deep or powerful in trashy sites. It saves me time from digging unknown iron targets, it saves me energy from digging deep holes, it saves me energy from having to pack around a bigger bulky detector. The proper detector for the site is a must and in many cases my lighter, faster, better target Identification, sub $1000 investment is the right tool. Pic below - This golden oreo was recovered in old hand placer workings with my VLF. Having what I consider the best identification VLF gold detector on the market saves me time. Pic below - It was recovered at 16" with Minelab EQ-15" coil. Yes I'll be going back over this area with the new CoilTek NOX 15" round as it is even deeper. Gold Knowledge- This is confusing to so many people as they think gold is gold. Yes I too used to think the same way. Luckily I hunt a variety of gold producing locations and sites I like to detect and learn from. My many years of comparing/testing detectors at such sites has given my staff and I an understanding of gold, its characters, density and how the elusive Au responds to the varying detector models from the different manufactures. Many of the nugget photos being shared on social media in years past were dense solid gold pieces and they are beauties. That’s what the detector could easily respond to. In more recent years, the sizes of the nuggets became smaller and we started reading about and seeing some nice specimens. The newer GPX detectors with their advanced tuning and soil timings (Fine Gold) would outperform their older brothers (SD/GP’s) on smaller and courser gold, so when get to make more of those finds and share them. Most recent years has us using SDC-2300 and GPZ-7000’s. Again, the gold gets smaller and the amount of crystalline gold, wire gold, salt/pepper specimens are being unearthed with these detectors supersedes that of their older brothers the GPX series. Pic below - This softball sized specimen was found with a VLF and has multi ounces of gold. VLF picks it up deeper than many bigger detectors. Pic below - This beautiful 3" long quartz and gold specimen came from a trashy ore dump pile with a VLF. Pic blow- These quartz cocoon wire gold specimens bring a premium and come out of hard rock ore dump piles. Pic Below - The PI's don't see these rare pieces, the 7000 barley does on a select few. Pic below - I have a feeling the extra sensitivity of the new GPX-6000 will do even better. Proof – The facts are in the vault at the bank. I own beautiful specimens pieces recovered with detectors and have tested many on a variety of detectors. I have gold finds that are multi ounce pieces and they contain 2 or 3 ounces of gold in them, but for some reason an SD or GP don’t see them, even less than an inch. I also have such pieces my GPX 5000 does not see, but my GPZ-7000 does. What is most amazing, is I have pieces of gold with multi ounces of metal and even the ZED has issues or can barely respond an inch or two away. If this is the case, then why do I have these find gold pieces of art? I’ve taken the time to test and learn my detector tools and have found a certain trusty VLF sees them all, can ID them all, is lighter in weight and so I get to hunt longer, saves me energy since I don’t dig as deep for unwanted targets. Pic below - This specimen came from dredge tailing and the speckled pieces like this get missed by most PI's. Pic below- Over $800 in gold in this 3 ounce specimen and my VLF does better than my GPX-5000 and my SDC-2300. The SDC goes deeper than the GPX. You better know your gold and your detectors capabilities or lack of. Pic below - This 3 ounce specimen was found in trashy hand workings. I actually had a GPZ-7000 here for a couple hours and gave up because of the amount of item trash. A GPX-5000 with DD coil run with DISC mode would be better than my GPZ, but then again my NOX does even better. Better target identification of my NOX, is most important at the site this 3+ oz'er came from. GPX-6000 – A new tool and one that has Gerry very very excited. Now we are about to get a revolution of Geo Sensing Technology with PI power and capabilities for a wider variety of gold textures, densities, characters and sizes. Minelab (and their track record) is even telling us some of such capabilities and so I and a few of the guys who do not like to miss gold, are getting ourselves prepared, getting our old sites, lined up and making sure we are going to take advantage of the stragglers. Remember when the SDC-2300 and GPZ-7000 came out and all the slow response from the majority. You folks missed the opportunity of a lot of gold. My guys and I were killing it in NV and AZ on those so called worked out sites. Was it a gamble to spend that kind of money? If that’s what you love/enjoy and if you have a good track record with Minelab, it’s bet I’ll take most every time. I don’t lose detector bets very often. Pic below- This stunning collectible specimen was found by my brother with his SDC-2300. It came from a place he had previous hunted and found gold with his GPX-5000. The 5000 does not even whisper on it. Minelab claims the GPX-6000 is more sensitive than the SDC-2300 & GPZ-7000. I can't wait to use the GPX-6000 at the site and many others. Hopefully this story and the pics I shared will help educate some of you on how the different detector technologies produce more gold. I realize it's hard to put down your old reliable detector as it has probably and hopefully served you well. If your sites are getting thin of targets and or gold, just maybe a new detector can put the smile back on your face? I'll go back to this simple statement I have said below in other posts and it is the absolute truth. You can't find what your detector don't see. PS - I’ll be honest though, for me it’s the lighter weight, better ergonomics, not being tethered in a harness and User Friendly that has me sold. The extra gold my new GPX-6000 is going to find, is a bonus. PPS – I’m just as eager to test the GPX-6000 with some of my gold and see how much better/worse it does than my GPX, SDC and GPZ. (I'm educating myself). PPPS – I still feel there will be a place for my VLF, as it’s lighter, and have better target ID. See you in the gold field, where the most knowledge is learned. Or speed it up with our 3 days Field Training at www.gerrysdetectors.com Happy Hunting. Gerry
  16. After the good new I realized when tested a few days ago my machine after It drowned and I've succesfully reanimated It.... Now the horrible gasket Is fighting to stay out of the housing against any kind of attempt😒. So I'm in the middle of a headache manutention session with scarce results. That's the Mood guys😑
  17. So Im curious... with Makro/Nokta we saw a ton of You Tube videos on the Kruzer in various settings. Even Dilek posted on the machine on the forums before it came out. Even the AT Max we say a little here and there on the unit. Where was the early info on the Equinox? I know there was/is a "gag order" in place, and boy did they do a good job... not a word from anyone hardly! But when does the gag order lift? 1 year, 10 years Never? I'm interested in the "seasoned" testers that were able to use early models. These early thoughts to me are a real gem on what was changed, improved, altered. Any ideas?
  18. Don’t know any other better subforum to place this. When manufacturers design make sure platform can allow at least 2 software versions or at the very least allow what I call both newer version update (whole) and a older subset (portion of older version) to be used. Why? Makes testing easier if and when a newer version is designed and requires pre release testing in the field for validation. Would allow users after version release to use different versions and gain first hand feedback of the benefits or lack thereof of different versions or version subset(s). Case in point. Notice Minelab left old iron bias to be user selected when they released newer version with iron bias F2 option. So in a nutshell this allows the detector versions ( or version subset) to be compared to the themselves in the field by the user. Xp should have done this too. They should have designed Deus imo where at least 2 complete version allowed to be uploaded to unit. Notice the later released Ace Apex. Garrett should have allowed on it too. Don’t know what added production cost this would cause. Hopefully not much.
  19. See NASA-Tom’s comments https://www.dankowskidetectors.com/discussions/read.php?2,181189
  20. 99% of my detecting is done on central Florida beaches. Since it’s impossible to establish a well stocked test garden at a public beach, I sorta brought the beach home with me and developed my own private beach garden! I cut slots in two large empty chlorine tablet buckets at various depths as shown from 2 -16 inches. I then filled one with New Smyrna Beach sand and the other with soil...for the few times I land hunt around here. I embedded numerous examples of ferrous and non ferrous targets into paint stirring sticks. I also have several blank sticks I use for gold and silver jewelry as well as artifacts that I don’t want permanently attached to a stick. I then insert the target(s) in the slots, each at its desired depth, and start scanning. This allows me to rapidly change the targets, depth and relative position of each. I can now test for sensitivity at depth as well as separation of ferrous and non-ferrous targets in a variety of scenarios using actual beach sand where I do my detecting. If I want to test in wet salt sand, I just soak the bucket sand with authentic sea water that I also brought home from New Smyrna Beach...and the Atlantic Ocean never even missed it. 😉 Works for me.....
  21. I'm looking for a Compass metal detector catalog that includes the Compass Gold Scanner, and Compass Gold Scanner Pro models. The full line catalog, and this would be about 1990-1992 or thereabouts. I'm adding a few key older metal detector catalogs to the Downloads Area to provide basic info on older models. I do not need a ton of catalogs, just key years where major model changes occur, as things moved slower back then. If the catalog was in pdf format that even better, but Googling only turns up a couple older catalogs, nothing I can find covering the Gold Scanner era. I am more than happy to pay for a print version if need be, so I can scan into pdf and put up for people to download. Thanks in advance for any help. Me and my Compass Gold Scanner, back around 1990:
  22. This was mentioned by geof_junk in another thread and had a little Google. Found this https://www.phys.k-state.edu/reu2011/nnorvell/Metal_Detector_Research.html I don’t really understand the technical side of metal detectors. Does this have any application to current day detectors? Will it help cancel out ground noise more? Will the current crossing/not crossing the ‘bridge’ tell you something about what is under one of the receive coils. Although I don’t understand it, I am amazed and a little in awe of those that do 👍
  23. This is a topic relevant to every(?) form of detecting -- ground coverage. I'll list several questions concerns I've had but any replies of course aren't limited to these, nor do they need to address any of them. Just tossing out some ideas to prompt further discussion. 1) What methods and efforts do you apply to ensure full ground coverage in the cases where that is one of your goals? 2) Is your sweep a straight line path or an arc? 3) How long is your sweep? 4) How much do you overlap consecutive sweeps in the direction you walk? 5) How much do you overlap side-to-side swings when following parallel paths (e.g. when walking two side-by-side swaths in the same direction how much does the left end of one path overlap the right end of the next path or vice-versa)? 6) Have you ever measured your coverage? How well do detectors with GPS (e.g. Minelab GPZ-7000 and Minelab CTX-3030) monitor ground coverage to this detail? Have you used other devices to measure ground coverage. E.g. I can imagine a drone with camera could provide useful data. Are there smartphones app that would help quantify coverage?
  24. If this question has been addressed elsewhere, I apologize in advance and hope someone can give me a link for it. I have noticed that other companies besides Minelab are coming out with PI detectors for less than $3K. How do these detectors compare to the best Minelab detectors for Gold and also relic hunting?
  • Create New...