Using The 7000 To Pick Up The Scraps Missed By The 6000

[dig4gold]

21 hours ago, phrunt said:

You could see in that you were used to using the 6000, leaving the Zeds coil way too close to the dig hole setting it off all the time digging?

You can get away with doing that with the 6000, but not the GPZ. 

In all fairness the pick is a large target for the GPZ 7000 & as we know the 7000 is king when it comes to larger targets at depth. He also had moved that rock that he got the signal from with the 7000. Had he moved the rock & then waved the 6000 over it I am sure he would have got that signal with it. So did he really get a scrap the 6000 missed? He didn't give it a chance & should have waved the 6000 over it after moving the rock so I am not a believer. He also should have waved the 6000 over the ground he had cleared for the 7000, maybe he did but he didn't say, but most likely waved the 7000 over it & only got that signal he showed after moving that rock. I would definitely believe he could have got a bigger bit of gold at depth with the 7000 that the 6000 wouldn't have got. 

How many of you have got gold from moving a rock/rocks no matter what detector you are using? All of you I bet.

D4G 

[Lesgold]

That’s a valid point. Nearly all of the targets would have been easily recovered using the 6. The point is, this area was detected well with the 6000 on previous trips with no targets being heard. The 7000 picked up 3 signals in close proximity to each other and were recovered from good depth. This resulted in rocks being moved and gravel shifted in order to cover the ground well. What you saw in the clip was a result of that activity. If we didn’t take the Zed with us on this trip, the gold would still be in the ground. I’m not putting down the 6000, (it is actually our go to machine) I was just pointing out what happened and how the 7000 really does sniff stuff out that the 6 can’t hear. The two machines are a fantastic combination. The small patch area was detected really well with the Zed until I was satisfied that there was nothing else to be found. The problem I did face was the machine was trying to tell me something but no matter what I did, it could not give me enough information and lock onto a target. As this was a flood gold deposit, I assume that there will still be some small pieces present and possibly some pan size specs. With Easter coming up, and family visiting, the plan is to head back with my daughter and grandson to have one more play at the patch. This time the 6000 and a pan will be used. It is amazing how the 6 can absolutely scream on a small piece and yet the 7000 won’t even hear it. Im hoping they can have some fun and share in the thrill of holding some pieces of gold. I’ll report back if the 6 does find anything.

[phrunt]

19 minutes ago, Lesgold said:

It is amazing how the 6 can absolutely scream on a small piece and yet the 7000 won’t even hear it.

This is largely an illusion caused by the lack of coil options.    Yes, there is likely some pieces a 7000 will miss the 6000 won't and also vice versa but the number isn't near what it appears to be,  I think.  The 7000 has a well-known depth advantage as the gold gets bigger though.

Sounds like a spot to hit with a VLF if it can handle the soil, as a VLF truly does pick up smaller bits the 6000 and 7000 can't see at all.

There is no one detector that excels at it all, largely due to design choices by the manufacturer to sell more detectors.

And Dig4gold has a point there, now more than ever I'm flipping rocks to get results, it pays off.

[Lesgold]

You are right phrunt. Coil sizes and types do make a difference. I’ll take the 6 back with the 10x5 attached to try and sniff out some small pieces. It would have been good to have both detectors on site at the same time but I’m not that keen to carry two machines the long distance required for this exercise. My mate and I have always done a lot of comparison testing on live undug targets just for the fun of it. When ever new coils or machines come out we often grab a couple of detectors and search hard for some faint signals and then run the different coils/machines over them using a range of settings. I’m not a big fan of planting targets unless there is no other real option. Some people say that we are wasting prospecting time doing this but we don’t care. We enjoy doing it and the discussion and surprise makes it worth it. I would love to try a small X coil on the Zed. I have heard it is very sensitive to small gold. What’s your opinion of it?

[Slade]

6000 vs 7000 people are really missing the point here on the settings they are using. If you run a 6000 in difficult, wiggly lines, however you want to call it. You can miss gold at a certain size and depth. That same nugget two inches deeper and the 6000 will get it. The 7000 in difficult has less of a problem with this phenomenon, although it is still present. I have good evidence to back this up. Look at the last minute or so from this video and it will prove it. 

this video is testing the algoforce but just by chance I witnessed this exact situation when running the 6000 over the test nuggets. 

 

[phrunt]

The 8" coil is my favourite of the smaller coils, being the smallest, more of a specialty coil as you're not going to cover ground with it, but it's ideal in this situation you're in there and I would not be at all surprised if it picked out gold you're currently missing with both combinations.  A compromise is the 10" as it gets a more normal ground coverage with just a little less sensitivity which of course means a little less depth on the smallest bits but a bit more depth on bigger bits but even coils like the 15" Concentric are very competitive with the 8" on small gold, only falling slightly behind more similar to the 10" while providing plenty of other benefits and would be my overall pick of coils.

If only Minelab made more coils for the 7000, or at least sanctioned other brands to do so to make them more mainstream I think these 6000/7000 comparisons where people favour the 6000 by a large degree on smaller gold would largely disappear.

[klunker]

  Sourdough Scott and I played hooky and snuck out detecting between storms. I took him to a place and showed him where I found a few bits once before which was about a 30' x30' knob of bedrock. I went over it one more time with the 7000 and found nothing so I figured I would send Scott there with his 6000, knowing that I had left absolutely nothing. Dang it! The son of a gun found 4 bits that the 7000 missed. I got skunked that day but I'll eventually get over it.

 So I can't say which detector is the best for final cleanup.

[Gold Catcher]

Size and depth matters for me when comparing 6k and 7k. For shallow <=5 inch fast gold the 6k beats the 7k  when run hot, no doubt. For depth > 5 inch the 7k beats the 6k in HY/Normal, even when the gold remains very small. So, it is not just the coil size that matters, it is the ground processing ability that the Z has that is just unmatched and that favors small gold recovery at depth. So, there is no "general cleanup detector" IMO. It all depends on the conditions and for what type of gold size/depth the cleanup needs to be done. The NF!2 is the ideal coil for the Z IMO to balance depth/sensitivity and DOD configuration to support optimal ground processing. I have found gold with the 7/NF12 that did not register on a 3 digit scale. Pretty impressive sensitivity even for tiny gold. But important are also the settings used. With smoothing on and in difficult the fast gold is often too fast....

GC

[Sourdough Scott]

Well, I had to really work to find them 4 lil bits. And they could have possibly been left by Klunker because he is tired of digging small bits. I really enjoy running the 6000 in hilly areas. It's just plain lighter and you can place the coil in more areas over the course of a day because of that. I'm running the 6000 with a 12x7 NF on the difficult with the lowest possible sensitivity. But in all fairness,  I've found super tiny bits with the 7000.