GPX 5000 Or 6000 On 2 Gram Nugget?

[Tony]

1 hour ago, Chet said:

Did they indicate which coils were used to develope the chart?

 

No....but those making this official chart shouldn't be on LSD at the same time.

[geof_junk]

3 hours ago, phrunt said:

Anything to help sales.  I've stewed on this chart for a long time as it's well, a lot of garbage mainly as they didn't give any indication of things like coils used and ground type, the idea of this chart I think was with the standard main coil in the package, so for the GPZ it's obviously the 14" DOD, the GPX 6000 is the 11" semi-spiral coil, the 5000 is the 11" Mono Commander and so on, then you have to take soil into account, then who knows what soil they tested them in.  The GPZ with 14" DOD standard coil on the 0.05 gram nugget is the most unrealistic of them all to me, to say it's the same as a 5000 with a 11" Commander is a joke.

And a 6000 being more sensitive than a Gold Monster, biggest load of garbage I've ever seen, but then, with their undeclared soil conditions perhaps they can manipulate it to fit the chart with the right soil type.

So, what Minelab are indicating there, is the 6000 with its 11 semi-spiral is deeper on a 1-gram nugget than the 5000 with the 11"  Commander Mono coil, and if they're going on averages across all types of gold such as the porous type the 5000 is weak on then they're very likely correct.   If the GPX had a 15" EVO on it for example, then we likely would see different results as the gold its good on it will hit deeper than the 6000.

The biggest problem with the chart is the lack of information given with it, but that lack of information was intentional, as it helps sales of the 6000 that the chart came out to market, and as we all know the new detector on the market has the most potential for sales so it's no problem for them to encourage sales to that rather than the others and they wanted people to "upgrade", they're only competing against themselves anyway with the chart, the chart was without a doubt to encourage GPX 6000 purchases.

What the chart doesn't take into account is when people swap their standard coil to another coil, and then the results can dramatically change and a little disclaimer at the bottom of the chart saying something like this would have gone a long way to giving them some credibility, to me the chart is pushing the boundaries and becoming false advertising.  They just needed to say something like "Tested using standard supplied coils with the package in highly mineralised ground in Western Australia, results may vary with other coils and ground conditions" 

The one thing I learnt when their first "Goldseeker 15,000 detector" came out. Was their hype or it manipulated ability was real come in sucker advertising crap.

[abenson]

I've been reading this thread wondering myself if the 6000 or 5000 would do better on a 2 gram nugget. We've had a spell of good weather this last week so I decided to get out today before the next storm moved in and do a depth test. I don't have a 2 gram nugget, but I do have a .95 & 2.69. I buried the .95 gram nugget at 8" and the 2.69 at 9" I also buried a 1 oz lead slug at 10" and 2 .58 cal minie balls that weight 1.5 oz and buried those at 12" and 14". The soil I did the test in was damp and on the Deus 2 will almost fill the mineral bar half way, my soil is also alkaline. Obviously results in other soil types may be different. I don't have the 5000 but I do have a 4500 so that is what I used. Both the 6000 and 4500 had 11" mono coils on them. BTW I tried using the Deus 2 with 11" coil and it failed to hit any of the targets.

First up was the 6000, on the .95 it was a soft but obvious signal using normal timing, sensitivity 2 notches from max. The 2.69 gram nugget was stronger and very obvious, 1/2 oz slug was very loud, 12" 1.5 oz was soft but obvious, 14" was a no go. Next up was the 4500 11" mono commander coil, running normal timing, motion slow, sensitivity at preset, GB fixed. 4500 couldn't hear the .95 I also tried sensitive extra with no luck. 2.69 was very obvious and feel like it gave a better response than the 6000. 1 oz slug was also very loud on the 4500. 12" 1.5 oz was very obvious and the 14" was a no go. I don't have a large coil for the 4500 yet, but I did try the 13 x 17 mono on the 6000 and still couldn't get the 14" 1.5 oz lead. But over the 12" it boosted the signal to the point that I felt like it sounded like the 4500 with the 11" mono.

I wish I'd of had time to bury some of the targets deeper and maybe bury the 14" 1.5 oz somewhere else as there may have been a hot rock of something interfering with it. But a snow storm was coming over the mountain and I had to leave. I did a video of the test and at some point will post it on YouTube.

Side note as I know this thread was about the 5000 vs 6000. I took the Axiom as well with the 11x13 mono. It wouldn't hit the .95 gram at 8" But did hit everything else with obvious signals except the 14" 1.5 oz slug.

As far as 11" coils go, I feel like on multi gram targets all 3 machines are fairly close in performance, within an inch. However, I'd give the edge to the 4500 especially since there are way bigger coils available for it.

[RONS DETECTORS MINELAB]

41 minutes ago, abenson said:

I did a video of the test and at some point will post it on YouTube.

Looking forward to seeing the video and testing done.

Thanks for sharing all this great information.

 

Ron

[phrunt]

When the 5000 can run coils like this 32", the 6000 has absolutely no hope on deep bigger targets.  Equal size coils maybe, beyond that is the strength of the older GPX, coils so suit the task at hand. The find was an ancient helmet.

2 grams is a size target that I'd expect the 5000 and 6000 to be pretty competitive on though, as they both have suitable size coils so it comes down to gold composition more than anything, I think.

[EL NINO77]

9 hours ago, abenson said:

I've been reading this thread wondering myself if the 6000 or 5000 would do better on a 2 gram nugget. We've had a spell of good weather this last week so I decided to get out today before the next storm moved in and do a depth test. I don't have a 2 gram nugget, but I do have a .95 & 2.69. I buried the .95 gram nugget at 8" and the 2.69 at 9" I also buried a 1 oz lead slug at 10" and 2 .58 cal minie balls that weight 1.5 oz and buried those at 12" and 14". The soil I did the test in was damp and on the Deus 2 will almost fill the mineral bar half way, my soil is also alkaline. Obviously results in other soil types may be different. I don't have the 5000 but I do have a 4500 so that is what I used. Both the 6000 and 4500 had 11" mono coils on them. BTW I tried using the Deus 2 with 11" coil and it failed to hit any of the targets.

First up was the 6000, on the .95 it was a soft but obvious signal using normal timing, sensitivity 2 notches from max. The 2.69 gram nugget was stronger and very obvious, 1/2 oz slug was very loud, 12" 1.5 oz was soft but obvious, 14" was a no go. Next up was the 4500 11" mono commander coil, running normal timing, motion slow, sensitivity at preset, GB fixed. 4500 couldn't hear the .95 I also tried sensitive extra with no luck. 2.69 was very obvious and feel like it gave a better response than the 6000. 1 oz slug was also very loud on the 4500. 12" 1.5 oz was very obvious and the 14" was a no go. I don't have a large coil for the 4500 yet, but I did try the 13 x 17 mono on the 6000 and still couldn't get the 14" 1.5 oz lead. But over the 12" it boosted the signal to the point that I felt like it sounded like the 4500 with the 11" mono.

I wish I'd of had time to bury some of the targets deeper and maybe bury the 14" 1.5 oz somewhere else as there may have been a hot rock of something interfering with it. But a snow storm was coming over the mountain and I had to leave. I did a video of the test and at some point will post it on YouTube.

Side note as I know this thread was about the 5000 vs 6000. I took the Axiom as well with the 11x13 mono. It wouldn't hit the .95 gram at 8" But did hit everything else with obvious signals except the 14" 1.5 oz slug.

As far as 11" coils go, I feel like on multi gram targets all 3 machines are fairly close in performance, within an inch. However, I'd give the edge to the 4500 especially since there are way bigger coils available for it.

Andrew, I will tell you.. that you have done a very interesting test...
When you wrote that the Deus 2 on the 11" coil did not detect any of the tested targets... it is obvious that this terrain is really difficult and extremely difficult.../ even if the mineralization meter of the Deus 2 is at half of the mineralization scale/

Furthermore, it is also interesting how quickly the detection properties of PI detectors change in relation to the depth and size-weight of the target...

Another surprise in this test is the finding... that the depth of 14" on a 1.5 ounce 0.58 Minie bullet is probably the limit even for 11" coils with such very good PI detectors...

 

I have one question... can you publish a picture of a 0.95 gram gold nugget..._?

I am interested in the shape, size and structure of this nugget..

Thank you for this test...👍

[abenson]

5 hours ago, EL NINO77 said:

Andrew, I will tell you.. that you have done a very interesting test...
When you wrote that the Deus 2 on the 11" coil did not detect any of the tested targets... it is obvious that this terrain is really difficult and extremely difficult.../ even if the mineralization meter of the Deus 2 is at half of the mineralization scale/

Furthermore, it is also interesting how quickly the detection properties of PI detectors change in relation to the depth and size-weight of the target...

Another surprise in this test is the finding... that the depth of 14" on a 1.5 ounce 0.58 Minie bullet is probably the limit even for 11" coils with such very good PI detectors...

 

I have one question... can you publish a picture of a 0.95 gram gold nugget..._?

I am interested in the shape, size and structure of this nugget..

Thank you for this test...👍

Yes and I forgot to mention the clay in the soil, when wet it is really difficult. Hense my disclaimer about different results by others. Too many variables for the test to be conclusive.  This simply shows how they compare at this particular site with the targets mention. First photo is the .95 second one is the 2.69