panama rich
New member
Actually Dave J spends a lot of time on the LRL thread trying to beat up on anyone with anything good to say about them.
Rich
Rich
Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
New Nugget Detectors (or Lack Thereof)
- Thread starter steve herschbach
- Start date
I am new to this forum but have joined and lurked on others for about a year now. Nobody can answer my quesions but this thread is close. To the lack of new detectors (other than spruced-up user interfaces) it seems that maybe we have hit the wall? If each doubling of depth / sensitivity = 64 times the power then pushing that extra inch might be uneconomical for all but a very few. And if the rush to purchase driven by the gold prices is keeping these outdated detectors selling, then the Marketing / Sales people will have no incentive to develop anything new. But I am a bit puzzled none-the-less: In a 2008 interview Dave Johnson said great new things were coming.........now that was 5 years ago and we have nothing new from Fisher. Same for Whites, Tesoro etc. Now for my unanswered questions:
1) why is there no objective testing of these detectors for sensitivity, discrimination, etc? If I had a few extra $$ laying around, I could easily make a few test beds, both in mineralized soils and otherwise, and have a report that would be unique. I know that the user himself is a big influence, but this could be carefully eliminated. I know how to do this (I am a scientist) so it should be easy for the detector mags, forums, etc. who know more about it. I could even construct a simple rock wall with embedded veins, etc. This is really not that hard to do folks!
2) why is there no published data from the manufacturers on performance, with the exception of Fisher who actually do publish sensitivity data for their high end detectors. Nobody else does, not even Minelab (who I consider to be the only company even making an attempt to keep up)
3) why is this industry "dead". I cannot think of any other electronics-oriented company that would sit around for nearly 10 years before making an update (again, I am not refering to cosmetic graphic interfaces, etc but to real improvements).........can you imagine using your 10 year old cell phone, tube TV, etc?
Well, in case any Marketing people are reading this, the reason I haven't purchased a detector yet after 10 months is because I was just sure that someone would step forward and make a real update. Guess I'm wrong, but if I feel this way I wonder how many other 1000's are waiting too?
OK that's my 2 cents worth. I'm looking for a gold detector for California variable-mineralized desert rocks, which is also a decent relic shooter since I live in Kansas and won't be out there all the time. I have a few locations on BLM land, unclaimed, with very small visible gold in quartz, next to untouched dry-washes, only Jeep and topo map accessible. I know: the GB Pro, Tech G2, F75 / F70 or maybe even MXT or 705 would all be fine to start out with. But I'm leary of single 9 volt battery detectors re: power and sensitivity? and also 8 x 1.5 volt jobs re: weight and primitive technolgy, and other than forum opinions I can't seem to find any objective comparisons (OK, there is a German site with some data on largely discontinued detectors).
Thanks for letting me vent!
Bill
1) why is there no objective testing of these detectors for sensitivity, discrimination, etc? If I had a few extra $$ laying around, I could easily make a few test beds, both in mineralized soils and otherwise, and have a report that would be unique. I know that the user himself is a big influence, but this could be carefully eliminated. I know how to do this (I am a scientist) so it should be easy for the detector mags, forums, etc. who know more about it. I could even construct a simple rock wall with embedded veins, etc. This is really not that hard to do folks!
2) why is there no published data from the manufacturers on performance, with the exception of Fisher who actually do publish sensitivity data for their high end detectors. Nobody else does, not even Minelab (who I consider to be the only company even making an attempt to keep up)
3) why is this industry "dead". I cannot think of any other electronics-oriented company that would sit around for nearly 10 years before making an update (again, I am not refering to cosmetic graphic interfaces, etc but to real improvements).........can you imagine using your 10 year old cell phone, tube TV, etc?
Well, in case any Marketing people are reading this, the reason I haven't purchased a detector yet after 10 months is because I was just sure that someone would step forward and make a real update. Guess I'm wrong, but if I feel this way I wonder how many other 1000's are waiting too?
OK that's my 2 cents worth. I'm looking for a gold detector for California variable-mineralized desert rocks, which is also a decent relic shooter since I live in Kansas and won't be out there all the time. I have a few locations on BLM land, unclaimed, with very small visible gold in quartz, next to untouched dry-washes, only Jeep and topo map accessible. I know: the GB Pro, Tech G2, F75 / F70 or maybe even MXT or 705 would all be fine to start out with. But I'm leary of single 9 volt battery detectors re: power and sensitivity? and also 8 x 1.5 volt jobs re: weight and primitive technolgy, and other than forum opinions I can't seem to find any objective comparisons (OK, there is a German site with some data on largely discontinued detectors).
Thanks for letting me vent!
Bill
Roscue2
Active member
Sharkchow,
The Md companies have come out with new models in the last 5 yrs. Garrett: At Pro, At Gold, Ace 350, Propointer.
Minelab: Etrac, Ctx 3030.
Fisher: First Texas came out with the Eurotek and Eurotek pro this year, not sure what else they have done in 5 yrs.
Tesoro: Outlaw
Whites: Vx3, SST (?).
As for more depth technology, that is not what the hobby needs at this point. The hobby needs better discrimination and accuracy. PI machines need to be given discrimination like VLF detectors if at all possible. The manufacturers should continue to try to get better depth, but at some point, and that point is about now, depth gets shotgun to disc.
The Md companies have come out with new models in the last 5 yrs. Garrett: At Pro, At Gold, Ace 350, Propointer.
Minelab: Etrac, Ctx 3030.
Fisher: First Texas came out with the Eurotek and Eurotek pro this year, not sure what else they have done in 5 yrs.
Tesoro: Outlaw
Whites: Vx3, SST (?).
As for more depth technology, that is not what the hobby needs at this point. The hobby needs better discrimination and accuracy. PI machines need to be given discrimination like VLF detectors if at all possible. The manufacturers should continue to try to get better depth, but at some point, and that point is about now, depth gets shotgun to disc.
Thanks for the reply Roscue. Actually, I'm not considering any of those detectors above as "new" in so far as they do not take the performance up a notch. I can certainly see how being waterproof, having GPS, cool touchpad screens, et al are nice and new, but none of these features increases depth, discrimination, or performance. The forums are full of people who claim their old 20 year old detector is just as sensitive as anything out today, but missing the graphics and tones. What I'm looking for is something better in performance, plus the objective data to back it up. The back-up data is critical (to me). I've read every development sheet available, from Dave Johnson to Bruce Candy, and there is really nothing out today that didn't have its genesis back in 1999, or maybe 2002 at the latest, just re-packaged, new display, better ergonomics...........I am also aware that discrimination for VLF detectors has improved a bit over the years, and is more precise, which could be handy for coin shooters, but I do not consider that to be a leap of technology. Again, I'm interested more in prospecting........
I'm not saying any of these detectors wouldn't fit the bill, and I'm probably over-analyzing here, but as a scientist I'm interested in the technology and just wondering why its not advancing like I think it should.
Regards,
Bill
I'm not saying any of these detectors wouldn't fit the bill, and I'm probably over-analyzing here, but as a scientist I'm interested in the technology and just wondering why its not advancing like I think it should.
Regards,
Bill
i could give you a little information on what i know. it seems the minelab gold detectors are the most powerful at this point. of course they have no discrimination and are meant for gold. the first vlf detectors came out in the early 80's and were the most advanced with ground balancing. it seems like with the technology today the manufactureres have hit a depth limit. this may be due to power constraints or just the way the machine works with magnetic fields. the detectors also must comply with fcc regulations. i wouldn't blame the companies because if they came out with something new they could get ultra rich charging whatever they wanted. with the discrimination still if you knock out most common junk you knock out gold as well. i have used many detectors and i think minelab are the best. that is just my opinion. i think the explorer xs is a great detector and i have 2. another problem with greater depth is you're going to dig deep for junk as well as anything good. at this point using a detector is really just for a hobby. if someone found a crazy area with a lot of nuggets they could make money. a new technology just hasn't been invented and i wouldn't blame the companies.
Hi guys ,there is talk of a new Garrett PI gold detector being tested here in Australia on our hot ground and on a forum a dealer stated of its release this year and it will be a real winner against a reputable gold detector,if there is any truth in all this banter it could change things considerably ,and while I'm on the hot GOSS Ive also heard Minelab are doing away with the blue box and making the gp to look along the lines of the 3030 in a Pi but are having trouble with the battery power supply,now this is all hear say so dint hold me to it,If the gold price keeps falling a lot of things could slow down in the gold detector range but for me its not all about the price of the gold its just the thrill of being out there and having a go,the best detector i have is the gold pan,it always produces the goods,good luck to you all Bazz
Thanks for the "heads up". I can wait a few more months I suppose to see if either of these new products shows up, and to see if they are truly new or just re-packaged versions of already existing. The Garrett sounds interesting. I am a scuba diver too and the Infinium has interested me for awhile, but its #%@! 10 years old by now! Jeeze........there has to be some updated products coming along.
Regards,
Bill
Regards,
Bill
Hey There.
New member here.
Along those lines about companies not doing much new in regards to their dedicated prospecting models I just got off the phone with a gentleman at White.
I'm buying a used White GMT today and I called to ask if I should know about any upgrades that might be available or needed and his answer was that the GMT was a home run from the get go and no changes have been made.
I don't know if that's good or bad. Just passing it on.
Thanks for this great forum!
New member here.
Along those lines about companies not doing much new in regards to their dedicated prospecting models I just got off the phone with a gentleman at White.
I'm buying a used White GMT today and I called to ask if I should know about any upgrades that might be available or needed and his answer was that the GMT was a home run from the get go and no changes have been made.
I don't know if that's good or bad. Just passing it on.
Thanks for this great forum!
sharkchow said:
I feel your pain...Right after the Infinium came out, I found one at a local mining supply shop & the proprietor & myself tried to get it to sound off on a fair sized nugget...I wasn't impressed but since neither of us were familiar with the unit, it may have been operator error... Last weekend, I finally tired of searching & decided to give the AT Gold a shot so I called a sponsor of "Finds" & got a really good deal for just a basic unit plus the waterproof headphones...10 feet is better than nothing. Watching the youtube videos, I think the unit will work well for about 75% of what I want to do...
Some new things in metal detectors civilians cant see, because its double purpose instrument or more military stuff. Newest what I found in metal detectors is use Ground Penetrating Radar in the Pi detectors coil, its still primitive but its better what we civilians have. look this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AlbvVJxiP8
Quote "As for more depth technology, that is not what the hobby needs at this point. The hobby needs better discrimination and accuracy. PI machines need to be given discrimination like VLF detectors if at all possible. The manufacturers should continue to try to get better depth, but at some point, and that point is about now, depth gets shotgun to disc."
Gold prospecting detectors DO need more depth.............MO. The only disc. needed is ferrous \ nonferrous.
Gold prospecting detectors DO need more depth.............MO. The only disc. needed is ferrous \ nonferrous.
machineman
Member
I agree with Hobo, the PI detectors need a good disc before getting any deeper. As it is you may need a tractor to dig up your targets in some places.