GPZ Settings Vs. The GPX 5000

[russ]

I can't wait to use the extra deep mode with the 20" DOD...   I can dream can't I?

 

Now if I can only attach a helium balloon to the 20" coil to raise it just above the ground.

[jasong]

I was wondering about that too, in places like Chemehuevis littered with all these impossibly tiny pieces of wire mesh you could just kick the 4500 into Enhance or even Salt Coarse and completely pass over all the tiny annoying trash bits but still hit on the 1/2+ grammers deep enough.

 

Wondering how much the Very Deep mode loses on those bits of gold compared to high yield or general? 1/2 to like 3 grams, pretty common finds.

[Norvic]

Top thread this one, as yet cannot offer any more, basically am just following Steve and JP`s recos and really they are the fellows who have had the "coil on the ground". Only definite for me at present the reset is certainly a top feature, gets you out of the pooh. Impatiently waiting for winter and prolonged trips, this old codger has had enough summer prospecting.   Getting soft.

 

Vic

[AUddicted]

If a person had the patience, each time he/ she had a target, before digging, they could try those combinations (re-ground balancing after each setting change) and then record the findings. When changing locations you might get different results due to hotter/ quiter ground or stronger/ weaker EMI. So each location would need separate records. But eventually you could have some good useful data and know your machine much better. 

If I were to do this I would record the info. for lead targets as well.

 Is it better to run High Yield at moderate Sensitivity, or General with max Sensitivity? Better to run Smoothing off at lower Sensitivity, or Smoothing on at high Sensitivity?

[Jonathan Porter]

High Yield/Normal is frighteningly powerful but in some cases it can become a handful (most Aussie operators will not have the privilege of being able to regularly use High Yield/Normal), however if the hot rocks do become too bothersome then go to my favourite Normal Gold Mode setting "General" and have an easier time of things whilst still enjoying amazing performance benefits.

 

Another thing of note, you can be more aggressive with the use of the Quick-Trak button in the Normal Ground Type modes, the Normal modes garner a lot more information from the ground even in mild soils than Difficult does so I've found its OK to use it more regularly even if you are operating in Tracking mode. 

 

When you trigger the Quick Trak button after doing the initial GB procedure, (I've explained elsewhere on this forum (post # 14) http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/741-warm-up-for-gpz-7000-some-clarification/ ) the detector from then on performs a loop style recording regime where it very slowly updates certain aspects of its GB data based on what the coil is exposed to over the duration of the session, when you trigger the Quick Trak button you dump the oldest information in that loop, when you power cycle the detector you dump everything except the last GB setting.

 

Hope this helps

 

JP

[Gold Hound]

Thanks JP

I can see the advantages the gpz has over the older machines in its smarter gb processing and how to apply them thanks mate.

[Trent King]

Thanks for the tip JP, more learning = more gold .

[DDancer]

Wow, that really puts a kink in the testing that's been displayed.  So if I get this correctly one has to normalize the detector after turning it off to get best data after re-doing a ground balance.  That also seems to dove tail into what Cris Reno has been mentioning about redoing the EMI after cycling the detector off and on.  Dumping the normalized data by power cycling verses dumping the old GB info with Quick track tells me its just better to leave the unit on or reset it if things get bothersome.

[Steve Herschbach]

I think too much is being made of the idea that something is not right with the GPX until time has passed. I doubt there is much difference between me doing a cold start, Quick Track, and testing a target, versus standing in place waving the coil over the ground for twenty minutes, and testing the same target. The benefit of time would be in wandering around on variable ground and getting a cumulative ground balance. Staying in place or wandering homogenous ground would see less benefit.

Next thing people will be afraid to turn their detectors off and trying to invent aftermarket systems that charge the battery while running to keep it on for weeks at a time.

[DDancer]

Hehh, I doubt the after market thing would work. I am not fearful that turning off the detector will suddenly make me lose a target.

Or that multiple cycles of power or GB are going to hurt my activities.  Just that enhancing performance is a matter of using the technology properly.  Its a new tech and a little care is all I'm looking for to back up my feeling that I'm doing it right.

 

Not sure that it does mater, power cycling or Quick Track, but I'm looking at it from a standardization point of view Steve.

I've been a calibrations technician and currently work on aircraft so when I look at testing and performance my thoughts are to make things as equal as possible as well as have the equipment working in a realistic environment at optimal settings.  This allows me to pick out the relevant information I'm looking for as well a discover things that I may have missed.

 

   Kinda hard to do with two differing technologies but people are making the attempt and I do

find it informative.  Not for promotions sake of either the technology or product but simply as information and experience to gain what I feel is a clearer view of what is actually occurring with use.

 

PI's set up very quickly and optimize very quickly when cycled.  The GPZ does not and to optimize tests or comparisons between the units that has to be taken into account when I look at standardizing the testing.  I'm not being critical on what others are doing.

I'm being critical on the testing.

  Homogenous soils are fine however they are not a standard when testing.  The standard there is that the machine tested is being used at optimum performance in the conditions its being tested in.  So waving a detector around for 20 min to optimize it after a power cycle is not unreasonable if it is felt that that is what is required.  As you point out the benefit is time and that is something the GPZ needs to get over the hump for optimum performance as those comparisons are assumed to be optimum tests to some degree or another.  Just a thought.

 

I don't think the results will be much different than what's been presented to date however its something I observed in the video's and its something that makes me wonder as I pick up new bits of information and relating it to observed information.  I'm not looking for faults just facts.  With something so new the quirks are noteworthy and the more I, or anyone, learns can make some impact for better experience.