A Question About GPZ Audio Response

[afreakofnature]

14 hours ago, jasong said:

AFON: I haven't addressed the 80% thing directly on my channel (USMiner), it was just some numbers I was randomly using or guessing at roughly to demonstrate a different way of looking at prospecting, and that there are cases where it pays to not dig it all. I'll grid and dig everything just like everyone else when the situation calls for it though. 

The way I look at it is kinda like the progression a lot of us went through when we first started running a sluice. At first we try to meticulously save every color, with tweezers if needed, maybe feed a little recirculator with a spoon for fear of one tiny speck going out the other end. And eventually you get to the point cleaning out your dredge 5 years later where you are tossing 100 colors out your pan back into the river because the time to clean them up is better spent doing something more productive. Of course it's not really exactly the same since you might miss a lunker somewhere when it comes to detecting nuggets, but it's a risk I am willing to take especially since I do eventually end up back gridding when times are lean.

For the same reason, I probably spend more time wandering around looking for specific types of dirt or specific geology or topography, or just for signs of old timers than I do swinging a coil when I'm prospecting, even if there is no trash around. Which is kinda taking the "don't dig everything" philosophy to the extreme and not even detecting at all now. Because while gold can certainly be anywhere, it seems to me that 80% of the time (random guess again) the better patches are somewhere close to an area that "looks right" to me so I just scout for them and pass over huge tracts of land that previously I would have spent weeks detecting. I probably miss a lot of 1 off nuggets or small patches, but I'm cool with that. Doesn't hurt that I actually like exploring and hitting rocks with hammers more than swinging a heavy coil all day too. 

That said, there does seem to be a point where someone just starting should dig everything no matter what, for a time. That's the only way to figure out what "looks right" in terms of what produces nuggets when they reach the point where it pays to stop digging everything and start covering more ground later.

*PS, if trying this approach I find it essential to keep all your tracks recorded on a GPS and a main database of them on Google Earth or similar. I recently lost a card that held a ton of my old tracks from 2008 to 2015 and it really made things difficult in places I had left incomplete to revisit later. Think of exploration like macro gridding. Find a place you are interested in with good geology then systematically cover it, maybe an area 25 miles square, the same way you'd cover a patch 100 meters square. Keeping GPS tracks is essential in my book. When you find a productive area you can also use your tracks to make sure you've not missed any tiny washes or other productive zones that are easy to miss on the ground.

Thanks for the reply jasong.  I understand your sluice and pan analogy, I have been prospecting for 15 years and as a geologist it helps some out in the field looking for those areas that "talk" to you.  But I am 5 years in now on MDing only and with no discrimination I still mostly dig everything.  Some I do not.  But I found that when I would wander I would not find much of anything.  I need to slow down and grid and that is when I tend to find gold.  That is easier to do in your home area knowing you can keep going back though, not so good if you travel long distance to an area with limited time.  I'll have to think about this some, because I have a lot of areas on maps that I want to hit, and not enough time to hike them out, let alone detect them out with my current methods.  The only thing that I do like this is that if I am not finding what I want in the first 2-3 hours, I move on.

[Andyy]

On ‎5‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 6:47 PM, flakmagnet said:

"For example, the audio response for small gold will be a low-pitched tone followed by a high-pitched tone. A ferrous signal such as a bottle cap will produce a high-pitched tone followed by a low-pitched one, enabling the user to discriminate the ferrous target."

Have you GPZ owners found that smaller gold does indeed signal with "a low-pitched tone followed by a high-pitched tone?"

 

Getting back to your original question ... in Normal Mode (with HY or General), I disagree with the above statement for the GPZ.  I consider myself an expert in the small gold arena .. LOL.  Never ... never.... never... has any of my small gold registered low/high in the above settings.

When it wavers, I know it is wire, like Jason said.  But I dig it.

When it goes low high, I know it is a cold rock or a iron.  But I dig it.

Note that I said "I know" but I still follow by "I dig it".  Because, I found a big piece of gold that was hiding under a larger cold/hot rock.  So I remind myself of that find any time I come across that sound that "I know" is iron or a hot rock.

Andyy

[afreakofnature]

6 minutes ago, Andyy said:

Getting back to your original question ... in Normal Mode (with HY or General), I disagree with the above statement for the GPZ.  I consider myself an expert in the small gold arena .. LOL.  Never ... never.... never... has any of my small gold registered low/high in the above settings.

When it wavers, I know it is wire, like Jason said.  But I dig it.

When it goes low high, I know it is a cold rock or a iron.  But I dig it.

Note that I said "I know" but I still follow by "I dig it".  Because, I found a big piece of gold that was hiding under a larger cold/hot rock.  So I remind myself of that find any time I come across that sound that "I know" is iron or a hot rock.

Andyy

Thats right Andy!  I have some holes where I will dig a few pieces of lead out before getting to the gold underneath it all.

[flakmagnet]

Yeah I don't agree with the MineLab statement either. I have heard a sound that almost always is gold, it's not waivery, but it has a sort of gurgle sound. If I hear a low-high signal that doesn't correspond with what I've been hearing that particular detecting session, I dig it. I pretty much dig anything I am not sure of if it's not outrageously out-of-bounds. It's a little OCD but there have been times when, to my shock, despite my misgivings about the signal, it's gold.  I suppose the effect that intuition plays in detecting is a whole other thread. But I think it has a place.