Got to be a reason. Fish finder vs metal detector

[vlad]

.....think its more a price barrier, and what the customers are willing to pay. However..........
Barring a new incarnation of the PRG, it seems the P.I. will be the next big leap.
Look at their prices now, and they are relatively simple. Multiple functions breeds complexity which means higher prices--will the market support it?
(I'm told by George Payne some things have already been done in the commercial P.I. field, but they are very expensive--in relation to the current upper end hobby units.)

 

[vlad]

n/t

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Does anyone really believe that metal detector science has hit the wall?......

Yes. Current methods of metal detection, yes, maxed out. That's why you only see "whistles and bells" (re-packaged, snazzed up) stuff for the last 15 or 20 yrs. So to answer your question: Yes. Unless you meant something entirely different. But what we currently use to detect metal, will not be changed with "faster and smaller" electronics. Nor can you change the laws of physics.

You can not fit the empire state building into a plastic sandwich baggie , no matter how much cool science you apply.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... Jimmy Sierra tried it with his units and said it just did not work....

I heard the same thing about Jimmy Sierra and this tech. And that you could point it at an enormous acres-large field, and it would tell you which portion of the field had iron (single nail?) in it. Ok, since when haven't any of us had trouble finding nails in fields ?

About the only thing this might be helpful for is if you could point the thing at multiple-square miles, to determine where concentrations of iron are. So that, for example, you can find cellar holes with no surface clues, etc.... But once you got there, you *still* pull out your standard metal detector.

This is the same logic as magnetometers for ship-wrecks: All it does is tell you concentrations of iron. Once you are there you still have to resort to standard detectors.

 

[ROBOCOP]

Read about the Minelab GPZ 7000. On the Kellyco website you can review the operator's manual and see some specs. I found it interesting.

 

[Dancer]

Read about the Minelab GPZ 7000. On the Kellyco website you can review the operator's manual and see some specs. I found it interesting.

Well for a hunter with experience and handy to sites bearing gold, this seems like something to look into. So 40% better than the Gpx 5000. Believable? You think there's been some type of break threw? Not for the great unwashed, but for a semi/Professional who got some good sites. Maybe. $8 grand , better have some proven sites in mind. Huh? Lots of home work to do on that.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Well, getting back to the initial question of the thread: "Depth". And the GPZ 7000 is a nugget machine. Hence, sure, awesome depth (1.5 ft. on a dime I bet !!). But the devil is in the details: Heaven-help the coin/relic guy who attempts to use such a machine for turf or ghost-town or cellar hole type hunting. The bells of notre dame will ring off every pinhead and staple. And he'll have no usable disc. beyond the first few inches, etc.....

Thus advancements in nugget machines is fine and dandy for nugget hunters. But isn't going to help coin/relic guys for all other hunting.