Coiltek Coils For The GPX 6000 - Confirmed!

[phrunt]

The reason people often want small coils isn't just about increasing the small gold sensitivity, it's often about necessity, the elliptical shape somewhat helps with the small size and ground coverage and also gives you a pointy nose to get up into spots rounded coils can't do.  Having a big round coil, and yes I consider 11" to be quite big is just useless in a lot of places where you can't get the coil to the soil.

Gold is where you find it, sometimes it's in big flat wide open spaces, other times it's in a rocky rough terrain where a standard coil on something like a GPX/GPZ will really perform poorly as you just can't get it near the ground and it's just awkward. 

Where I hunt often using a GPZ or GPX with their Minelab coils would be pointless, and I'd be forced to use a different detector.  It can be quite annoying having a very expensive detector that you just can't use and have to pick up your cheap VLF instead as at least it has a suitable coil.

VLF gold hunters knew the 10x5" Coiltek Nox coil would be popular before they even knew how well it worked, why? Because everyone's always wanted that size, it's one of the necessity coil sizes for a VLF gold detector.  I was not at all surprised by the demand for that coil, it was a given.

If a manufacturer makes a coil that is more sensitive to hot rocks or whatever because it's very small, if they just put that in their sales blurb that the smaller more sensitive size will respond more on certain ground types and hot rocks people would accept that, as long as they're aware of it then it's a non issue.  Coils designed for a certain task that you otherwise wouldn't be able to do is a good thing and opens up opportunities.  I see coils as more a tool in the toolkit, you have certain coils for certain situations, not so much one coil for every job.

This thread clearly demonstrates the demand for smaller coils in different parts of the world, I expect a similar thread on an Aussie forum to be the other direction with people suggesting larger sizes from 14x9" and up.

12x8" is quite a nice size but the nose is quite rounded still, 12x6" gives a skinnier noise to get into rocky spots, 10x6" is a good size.

[Jonathan Porter]

3 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Nobody in the U.S. cares about that JP. You can’t find gold where coils won’t fit, and even the 11” mono is too large for many locations here. And, we have lots of mild ground with no hot rocks. So make it smaller, and make it HOT. If it won’t work in some places, oh well. It’s all about where it will work, not where it won’t work. We desperately need a small GPZ coil here, and since that seems impossible unless you go X Coil, then give us one for the 6000.

The 10” x 6” form factor has always been the most popular nugget coil size here, and yet it’s always the last coil we can seem to get out of Minelab. Trevor is surprised by demand for the 10” x 6” Equinox coil? I have been pounding the table, and pulling my hair out, since day one trying to make it understood that is the coil everyone wants here. If we could just get people to listen to us…. from April 2018

And yes, people here still want a plug and play small coil, like the 11” round or smaller, for the GPZ. It’s all GPZ owners here talk about, like wishing we could win the lottery. One factor in my selling my GPZ was my feeling that Minelab reneged on the promised smaller coil, and that still bugs me to this day.

All good points Steve and sorry for not seeing “How it is” in your neck of the woods.? My concern is based around the ultra sensitivity of the 6000 and if that then might impact on the ability to actually make a coil that small, hence the cautionary remarks.? I understand the “need” and especially your frustration for not having what is a glaring requirement for a coil size that will complement the areas you work.

As an example of supply and demand though I can actually have a pretty good guess at the numbers of the new NF Zsearch coils that have gone out and as it currently stands I’d say my business here in Clermont has shifted an equal amount of Zsearch 12 coils as the whole of the US orders. Now to be fair the US winter gold season is only just starting up and the Zsearch was hard to get hold of at the end of the US season earlier this year along with the subsequent release of the GPX 6000 (plus the Zsearch is also an expensive add on), but this example probably goes a long way to explain why the need in the US has never been fully addressed which is a shame. ? 

In the case of the 6000 I think a smaller coil will be a very good seller in the USA so hopefully Coiltek will do their best to develop a coil that is more suitable for your conditions, knowing Coiltek they WILL as they have a very good following and an expansive dealer network over there. Hopefully by this time next year there will be lots of examples of happy 6000 owners showing off their finds on the forum. ? 

JP

[Calmark]

I'm located in California, USA and would also like to see an elliptical coil with a width in the 5-6 inch range. That size would make scanning bedrock crevices and rocky areas much easier to accomplish.

I don't want a more sensitive coil than the 11in factory round, as it already finds tiny nuggets. I think a traditionally wound small coil could tame it some against really nasty ground, yet the small size help it still find gold the size the partially flat wound 11in round Minelab already cleans up on.  

[Jonathan Porter]

20 hours ago, Skookum said:

Interesting feedback. Even with a smaller coil wouldn’t a PI have less reactivity to hot rocks than a hot VLF?
 

P.S. Not a challenge to what you have seen. Just trying to understand theories. The only thing I can compare to here is the SDC.

Yes a PI will have less ground reaction, in the case of the 6000 it’s pushing the PI tech to crazy extremes (even crazier than Steves insane sensitivity settings ?), because of this ‘pushing of the envelope’ there can be undesirable behaviours in certain conditions like a tendency to be more prone to EMI, Salt and Saturation signals.

My point was if the standard 11” coil is achieving such ridiculous amounts of sensitivity in a ‘pushed to the very limits’ detector then there might be an issue in pushing that even further by making a smaller/more sensitive coil. All conjecture on my part and not intended to burst anyone’s balloon.  Logically a super sensitive PI is still going to be a better option than a VLF assuming the gold present is conducive to PI. 

JP

[Jonathan Porter]

5 minutes ago, Calmark said:

I'm located in California, USA and would also like to see an elliptical coil with a width in the 5-6 inch range. That size would make scanning bedrock crevices and rocky areas much easier to accomplish.

I don't want a more sensitive coil than the 11in factory round, as it already finds tiny nuggets. I think a traditionally wound small coil could tame it some against really nasty ground, yet the small size help it still find gold the size the partially flat wound 11in round Minelab already cleans up on.  

The issue is when making a smaller coil they will inherently be more sensitive due to the smaller size (more winds of wire to get the inductance right), everything gets more cramped inside a smaller coils housing so things like the solder joints can become incredibly problematic along with the proximity of the coil lead itself (I’ve discussed the GPX6000’s ability to ‘see’ its own coil lead on another thread).

An elliptical shape can very quickly leave the developer will nil room to put anything. I’m not saying it can’t be done just that there is a high chance that such a small coil could be problematic with GeoSense. The good thing about this forum is one of the developers is actively participating on the forum and will see the comments here and take them on board, the more people who ask the more incentive there will be to invest time and energy into overcoming any pitfalls. Demand will always drive incentive to invest. I highly recommend my American prospecting mates to put their name to this thread and push hard for this to happen, this is your chance to finally get the coil you desire. ? 

JP

 

[Calmark]

46 minutes ago, Jonathan Porter said:

The issue is when making a smaller coil they will inherently be more sensitive due to the smaller size (more winds of wire to get the inductance right), everything gets more cramped inside a smaller coils housing so things like the solder joints can become incredibly problematic along with the proximity of the coil lead itself (I’ve discussed the GPX6000’s ability to ‘see’ its own coil lead on another thread).

An elliptical shape can very quickly leave the developer will nil room to put anything. I’m not saying it can’t be done just that there is a high chance that such a small coil could be problematic with GeoSense. The good thing about this forum is one of the developers is actively participating on the forum and will see the comments here and take them on board, the more people who ask the more incentive there will be to invest time and energy into overcoming any pitfalls. Demand will always drive incentive to invest. I highly recommend my American prospecting mates to put their name to this thread and push hard for this to happen, this is your chance to finally get the coil you desire. ? 

JP

 

I can definitely imagine the construction of a smaller coil while keeping within the confines of the GPX 6000's requirements and managing it's extreme sensitivity will be a challenge. 

I know fully flat wound coils for the older GPX detectors were a maximum of 8-9" along the smallest dimension, due to space issues.  I wouldn't be surprised if there are considerations in manufacturing smaller coils like these that also hold true for the 6000.

I just hope we don't get something like a "plain vanilla" 8 inch round as the smallest coil due to technology or economic constraints.  While still much more user friendly at 8in over the 11in round, I'd be a little bit disappointed if that's as small as it got, as my SDC already has a stock coil that size for small gold.  Sure, the 6000 will beat the SDC for depth, but in confined, cramped areas, depth isn't everything.

 

[Norvic]

Small coil sizes, increased sensitivity, more reaction to ground etc etc, takes me back to the swing from low frequency VLFs to higher frequency of the GM2 and GB2 with their small ellipticals and their productive popular performance, to just yesterday the success of the smaller X coils on the Z, tis elementary Coiltek and ML a small elliptical mono for the 6K will sell like hot cakes not just in the US but OZ too. You ever detect in FNQ OZ grass up around your ears you`ll know where I`m coming from.?

[Gold Catcher]

Size does matter.....? But aren't we at a better place already? I remember those days trying to poke that Z/14 inch stock coil into small crevices, desperately trying to unleash modern technology into areas where usually only small VLF coils would fit in. Now with the 6000 we already have three great coils and more are coming, hopefully including smaller ones for us California bedrock freaks. Yes, we are at a better place. ?

GC

[PhaseTech]

The 6000 being able to use mono coils opens up a world of possibilities for coil options. 

Round, elliptical, semi-elliptical, spiral wound, bundle wound, stacked-spiral..... the options are endless. 

What I want in the arsenal is a bundle wound mono in between the 11" round and 17x13". Reason is they are both too sensitive in some areas, and I want something that's deeper than the 11", but also smoother running. I think a bundle wound coil would achieve this, and I wouldn't be fussed losing sensitivity to the stuff smaller than 0.1 of a gram. Detech have a 12.5" round size which is an excellent compromise size, and loved that on my 4500. A less sensitive coil also means I'd be able to use Normal in more places, especially when the ground dries out. Mineralised clay and charcoal don't like being wet!