bearkat4160
New member
I'm forced to do the bad ground test... Lol. Might have to dig in frozen dirt for a bit, but I will do it to answer the few remaining questions.
BK
BK
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 video: Mono Coiled GPX 5000 vs Garrett ATX's DD on 4 Gold Nuggets
- Thread starter bearkat4160
- Start date
steve herschbach
New member
I repeat Reg, what experience do you personally have with the GPX 5000 and Garrett ATX?
Absolutely none to my knowledge. Since I have actually used both in the field to find gold nuggets I will thank you to let me draw my own conclusions about the detectors based on my own personal experience. I am not going to lend credence one way or the other to tests performed by others. I am not saying the ATX will not do better than the GPX 5000 under actual field conditions than a GPX 5000 but then again I am not say it will either. When I have used the ATX enough in the field in real world conditions on found targets to draw such conclusions then I will know the true facts of the matter. I will say that based on my use so far I will continue to use the GPX 5000 as my primary nugget detector. All detectors miss gold but I have confidence for my hunting in my ground the GPX 5000 is the best option. I certainly know far more on the subject than you do but you are too busy attacking me to listen so I will not waste my time any further with you.
Absolutely none to my knowledge. Since I have actually used both in the field to find gold nuggets I will thank you to let me draw my own conclusions about the detectors based on my own personal experience. I am not going to lend credence one way or the other to tests performed by others. I am not saying the ATX will not do better than the GPX 5000 under actual field conditions than a GPX 5000 but then again I am not say it will either. When I have used the ATX enough in the field in real world conditions on found targets to draw such conclusions then I will know the true facts of the matter. I will say that based on my use so far I will continue to use the GPX 5000 as my primary nugget detector. All detectors miss gold but I have confidence for my hunting in my ground the GPX 5000 is the best option. I certainly know far more on the subject than you do but you are too busy attacking me to listen so I will not waste my time any further with you.
bearkat4160
New member
""(albeit so far in relatively mild ground)""--- Since when did a 78 of 100 become mild ground? Their changing the narrative and your falling for it. 
78, as I said in my videos, is "medium hot ground" my exact words. Always has been...
Hot ground, to me, starts at around 80...
Change the narrative...technique # 3.
Bearkat
78, as I said in my videos, is "medium hot ground" my exact words. Always has been...Hot ground, to me, starts at around 80...
Change the narrative...technique # 3.
Bearkat
bearkat4160
New member
The question of the day to JP: ""Are you trying to say that if the ground was worse, none of these things would happen?""
Good question Reg...
I'll find out for myself soon when I do the hotter dirt test.
BK
Good question Reg...
I'll find out for myself soon when I do the hotter dirt test.
BK
Hi JP,
I would like you to explain to us on what bases you are making these 2 statements:
1) "I seriously doubt the ATX would continue to provide the shown abilities in more heavily mineralised soils"
2) "appeal to people who want to take that next step up from a high frequency VLF in moderately mineralised soils"
In other words, it seems that you already know as a concrete fact that the ATX is not capable of handling heavily mineralized soil and as such you are trying to downgrade it so it is not mistaken for a "High End PI Detector", but the "next step" for VLF people. The Warren's video of the ATX in the Australian iron stone gravel doesn't support this "moderately mineralised soil" evaluation of yours.
Well, perhaps you know something we haven't found out about and you might want to share it with us. Thanking you in advance.
Jerry
I would like you to explain to us on what bases you are making these 2 statements:
1) "I seriously doubt the ATX would continue to provide the shown abilities in more heavily mineralised soils"
2) "appeal to people who want to take that next step up from a high frequency VLF in moderately mineralised soils"
In other words, it seems that you already know as a concrete fact that the ATX is not capable of handling heavily mineralized soil and as such you are trying to downgrade it so it is not mistaken for a "High End PI Detector", but the "next step" for VLF people. The Warren's video of the ATX in the Australian iron stone gravel doesn't support this "moderately mineralised soil" evaluation of yours.
Well, perhaps you know something we haven't found out about and you might want to share it with us. Thanking you in advance.
Jerry
bearkat4160
New member
Well when JP says so! Lol 
Changing the narrative to suit their bias...
78 always has been medium hot ground to me...
BK
Changing the narrative to suit their bias... 78 always has been medium hot ground to me...
BK
BK, I don't own Garrett AT Gold to comment on the 78 reading, but when I watch that Aussie Warren's video and he declares his ground to be "almost iron", it certainly looks hot to me and typical Aussie soil. His reading is the same as that of yours, 78. Warren is a man of integrity and he was making a point there. His test bead is specially constructed with HOT ground for such important tests, otherwise he could have performed the test in his vegetable garden!
If you think you'll ever win this argument with the ML people, frankly, I don't think so! But keep on testing and making videos. There are lots of us there who greatly appreciate your efforts and are able to look at your videos objectively. Thanks.
Looking forward to your next one with that "whopper nugget". Pity you haven't got the ATX Deepseeker coil. It would be very interesting to see what that one can do!
Jerry
If you think you'll ever win this argument with the ML people, frankly, I don't think so! But keep on testing and making videos. There are lots of us there who greatly appreciate your efforts and are able to look at your videos objectively. Thanks.
Looking forward to your next one with that "whopper nugget". Pity you haven't got the ATX Deepseeker coil. It would be very interesting to see what that one can do!
Jerry
bearkat4160
New member
Thanks for the words Jerry...yes I have seen Warrens video and saw that his AT Gold said 78 also. I told JP this but of course he did not respond.
Big nugget video coming in a few days...
Hope to get the big coil soon...maybe next couple weeks.
BK
Big nugget video coming in a few days...
Hope to get the big coil soon...maybe next couple weeks.
BK
steve herschbach
New member
n/t
That would be great BK. I've got a Deepseeker on order as well as an 8" mono coil. I just wonder whether the 20" coil is only good for very large objects buried very deep, or if it could also extend the depth on say larger nuggets (like your whopper) or perhaps not AS big. What do you think?
Jerry
Jerry
bearkat4160
New member
Jerry, I'm quite sure the big coil will extend the depth of that big nugget as I will test that as soon as I get the coil and the ground thaws. As far as how small a target it will find, I think the jury is still out on that one...
Bearkat
Bearkat
bearkat4160
New member
the Fe3O4 info the Fisher Gold Bug/F75 offers on its ground balance display for the "amount" of mineralization? How is that different than Garrett's other than showing the Fe3O4 numerics? I still don't think 78 is mild dirt though. Proof being, I had a very deep whole dug at the lake while testing and did air test over the hole with the ATX and GPX both got a mild signal...then covered with dirt and ATX lost signal and the GPX was a wisp...so the dirt is definitely hot enough to change the response of both PI's. I think JP saying I might have well done an air test was a bit off in his assessment of the test, knowing what I just told you.
Maybe the AT Gold is just a b*d a*s detector! Lol
BK
Maybe the AT Gold is just a b*d a*s detector! Lol
BK
I like this video the best and you said it right at the start" A KILLER COMBO".
.
I can see that all the way and its not just about the gold but the environment the ATX opens up for you as well. It fits a niche very well. Many places I hunt are too hot for a VLF and the Atx May Open up some of that ground making it a option for the finer gold where your VLF is a nightmare.
Today we have to use all the tools at our disposal!
Jim
.
I can see that all the way and its not just about the gold but the environment the ATX opens up for you as well. It fits a niche very well. Many places I hunt are too hot for a VLF and the Atx May Open up some of that ground making it a option for the finer gold where your VLF is a nightmare.
Today we have to use all the tools at our disposal!
Jim
bearkat4160
New member
Lol Hobo, yep true true...
BK
BK
bearkat4160
New member
Hobo you quite a perceptive fellow...
BK
BK
Reno Chris
New member
Reg said -
"I am not saying the ATX is better or will do better than the GPX because in most cases it will not. I am saying it appears the ATX is a capable detector that should be able to find gold and do so at a less expensive price. Also, it appears there are circumstances where the ATX may do better than the ML. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out as far as I am concerned. Now, to be clear, this doesn't mean the ATX is better than the ML, but it does mean there may be circumstances where the ATX shines.
People purchase certain detectors to find gold and then hope they succeed. Most will never find enough gold to pay for their detector or even to pay for the gas they use on their trips for that matter regardless of how much they pay for their detector.
Many people can't afford the most expensive PI made but would like an alternative PI detector that is capable of finding gold, so they don't buy the most expensive. In many cases, these are people who have experienced the limitations of a VLF and now they would like to use a PI rather than a VLF, so they look at all the less expensive alternatives.
So, the question that is asked is the ATX a detector that might fit their needs? My opinion the answer is yes. I probably won't buy one because I also like the TDI series, which is what I use. Will I find gold at the depths of the most expensive brands? Nope, I know that but I didn't spend what I spent on my used truck either to buy my PI.
I am like a lot of other people who will only hunt for gold on a casual basis and as such I don't want to spend a tremendous amount of money on my hobby. Instead, I try to learn as much as I can about the detector I am using and take advantage of its strengths and avoid the weaknesses. This is something I strongly recommend of all owners, regardless of brand."
Although I stand accused of being some sort of rabid Minelab addict, I agree with all of what Reg said above, I just don't think a simple test by a Garrett dealer trying to sell product constitutes a reliable definition of what the realistic actual field situations are for which the ATX might perform better than a GPX. I am quite sure if this was a Minelab dealer (which bearkat is not) demonstrating the superior performance of a ML detector over Garrett, most folks would see the insincerity of that - and I think the bearkat videos fall into that category. However, like Reg, I think the ATX will prove to be an excellent product and provide a useful alternative to prospectors who, for whatever reason, can't or don't want to spend the money to buy a GPX. I am sure bearkat Alan will sell loads of them - I hear from dealers I know that the ATX is already selling very well.
bearkat4160 said -
"Hot ground, to me, starts at around 80..."
OK, so we agree that 78 is not hot ground. Bearkat if you want to call it moderate, that's OK by me. The point he ignores is that the ground was suitable for a VLF and in the bearkat test scenario the VLF was just as good as any PI for finding gold - it did as well the GPX or ATX. Reg will verify that in soils that are mild or moderate enough, a VLF will give performance close to or under the right circumstance even the equal of a PI. It's in the really nasty, highly mineralized soils in which PI detectors shine. So in ground where a VLF does the job, why do you need anything more than something like the AT? - and that's what I am saying the bearkat video proves.
"I am not saying the ATX is better or will do better than the GPX because in most cases it will not. I am saying it appears the ATX is a capable detector that should be able to find gold and do so at a less expensive price. Also, it appears there are circumstances where the ATX may do better than the ML. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out as far as I am concerned. Now, to be clear, this doesn't mean the ATX is better than the ML, but it does mean there may be circumstances where the ATX shines.
People purchase certain detectors to find gold and then hope they succeed. Most will never find enough gold to pay for their detector or even to pay for the gas they use on their trips for that matter regardless of how much they pay for their detector.
Many people can't afford the most expensive PI made but would like an alternative PI detector that is capable of finding gold, so they don't buy the most expensive. In many cases, these are people who have experienced the limitations of a VLF and now they would like to use a PI rather than a VLF, so they look at all the less expensive alternatives.
So, the question that is asked is the ATX a detector that might fit their needs? My opinion the answer is yes. I probably won't buy one because I also like the TDI series, which is what I use. Will I find gold at the depths of the most expensive brands? Nope, I know that but I didn't spend what I spent on my used truck either to buy my PI.
I am like a lot of other people who will only hunt for gold on a casual basis and as such I don't want to spend a tremendous amount of money on my hobby. Instead, I try to learn as much as I can about the detector I am using and take advantage of its strengths and avoid the weaknesses. This is something I strongly recommend of all owners, regardless of brand."
Although I stand accused of being some sort of rabid Minelab addict, I agree with all of what Reg said above, I just don't think a simple test by a Garrett dealer trying to sell product constitutes a reliable definition of what the realistic actual field situations are for which the ATX might perform better than a GPX. I am quite sure if this was a Minelab dealer (which bearkat is not) demonstrating the superior performance of a ML detector over Garrett, most folks would see the insincerity of that - and I think the bearkat videos fall into that category. However, like Reg, I think the ATX will prove to be an excellent product and provide a useful alternative to prospectors who, for whatever reason, can't or don't want to spend the money to buy a GPX. I am sure bearkat Alan will sell loads of them - I hear from dealers I know that the ATX is already selling very well.
bearkat4160 said -
"Hot ground, to me, starts at around 80..."
OK, so we agree that 78 is not hot ground. Bearkat if you want to call it moderate, that's OK by me. The point he ignores is that the ground was suitable for a VLF and in the bearkat test scenario the VLF was just as good as any PI for finding gold - it did as well the GPX or ATX. Reg will verify that in soils that are mild or moderate enough, a VLF will give performance close to or under the right circumstance even the equal of a PI. It's in the really nasty, highly mineralized soils in which PI detectors shine. So in ground where a VLF does the job, why do you need anything more than something like the AT? - and that's what I am saying the bearkat video proves.
Chris,
I have never owned the AT Gold but reading the manual, the ground numbers between 65 and 99 are "Highly ferrous (ferrous oxide minerals, black sands, magnetite, hot rocks)". I would think the manufacturer knows the range and what it means better than any of us. Based upon the numbers ( 78 ) indicated, I would think the ground is to be determined as highly mineralized ( with ferrous concentrations ) as does the factory. Regardless, I see no reason for you or anyone else to use this as an excuse or reason for the results
My testing of PI's here in the US is they don't vary that much depth wise from the mild ground through the extremes I have encountered, meaning simply, they (the PI) won't get better or go deeper as the ground changes for the worse. A PI will usually do better than a VLF as the ground changes because of the ferrous mineralization, but that is a different situation.
In other words, based upon my experience and testing of PI's I have found little difference in what to expect from mild to extremely bad ground and never improve depth wise as the ground gets worse. So, if a test doesn't show well in "mild" ground it won't get better in bad ground. It simply doesn't work that way.
As for you being a rabid "minelabber", well that is well known. When a weakness, quirk, or whatever one wants to refer to something less complimentary to a ML in terms of performance you, like others are quick to criticize those making the information known. You have displayed that on different forums includng the one in OZ.
Personally, I would thank any person(s) for providing informative information that points out limitations or characteristics of any detector I use that would be valuable when hunting, but that is where we differ.
Personally, I found Bearkat's testing to be extremely valuable should I ever decide to purchase the GPX. BTW, you can tell Steve I don't own one. I thought that I made that clear when I stated I have never paid as much as I did for my used truck. I guess I should has stated on this forum I paid $5000 for that truck. Maybe that would have made more sense. I also stated I probably would never buy an ATX, which should tell people I don't own one now.
Getting back to Bearkat's testing, certain things that surfaced in the testing that raised a red flag for me that would cause me to be very concerned if I was using a GPX. Of course, you MInelabbers know what I am referring to, right? So for me, Bearkat's videos are extremely valuable in increasing my knowledge especially of the GPX. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, a video is even more valuable.
Reg
I have never owned the AT Gold but reading the manual, the ground numbers between 65 and 99 are "Highly ferrous (ferrous oxide minerals, black sands, magnetite, hot rocks)". I would think the manufacturer knows the range and what it means better than any of us. Based upon the numbers ( 78 ) indicated, I would think the ground is to be determined as highly mineralized ( with ferrous concentrations ) as does the factory. Regardless, I see no reason for you or anyone else to use this as an excuse or reason for the results
My testing of PI's here in the US is they don't vary that much depth wise from the mild ground through the extremes I have encountered, meaning simply, they (the PI) won't get better or go deeper as the ground changes for the worse. A PI will usually do better than a VLF as the ground changes because of the ferrous mineralization, but that is a different situation.
In other words, based upon my experience and testing of PI's I have found little difference in what to expect from mild to extremely bad ground and never improve depth wise as the ground gets worse. So, if a test doesn't show well in "mild" ground it won't get better in bad ground. It simply doesn't work that way.
As for you being a rabid "minelabber", well that is well known. When a weakness, quirk, or whatever one wants to refer to something less complimentary to a ML in terms of performance you, like others are quick to criticize those making the information known. You have displayed that on different forums includng the one in OZ.
Personally, I would thank any person(s) for providing informative information that points out limitations or characteristics of any detector I use that would be valuable when hunting, but that is where we differ.
Personally, I found Bearkat's testing to be extremely valuable should I ever decide to purchase the GPX. BTW, you can tell Steve I don't own one. I thought that I made that clear when I stated I have never paid as much as I did for my used truck. I guess I should has stated on this forum I paid $5000 for that truck. Maybe that would have made more sense. I also stated I probably would never buy an ATX, which should tell people I don't own one now.
Getting back to Bearkat's testing, certain things that surfaced in the testing that raised a red flag for me that would cause me to be very concerned if I was using a GPX. Of course, you MInelabbers know what I am referring to, right? So for me, Bearkat's videos are extremely valuable in increasing my knowledge especially of the GPX. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, a video is even more valuable.
Reg
Bearkat and Jerry,
There is a simple rule of thumb that one can use when operating with a mono coil that is reasonably accurate when trying to determine if one will gain depth when increasing coil size. That rule of thumb is this; if a buried object is detected deeper than half the diameter of the coil, the object may be detected deeper with a larger coil. The closer the object is detected to the diameter of the coil or can be detected deeper than the diameter. the greater the depth it should be able to be detected with a bigger coil.
If the depth of detection is close to or less than half he diameter of a coil, then using a larger coil will most likely result in a depth loss.
One exception is on small objects that might be detected by the coil edge. The magnetic field around the coil edge is extremely strong but only extends out a few inches. So, one might detect very small objects up to a few inches from the edge that are not detected when passed over with the center of the coil. This edge effect can cause some serious problems when trying to find the object and can lead to holes being dug way too deep.
Reg
There is a simple rule of thumb that one can use when operating with a mono coil that is reasonably accurate when trying to determine if one will gain depth when increasing coil size. That rule of thumb is this; if a buried object is detected deeper than half the diameter of the coil, the object may be detected deeper with a larger coil. The closer the object is detected to the diameter of the coil or can be detected deeper than the diameter. the greater the depth it should be able to be detected with a bigger coil.
If the depth of detection is close to or less than half he diameter of a coil, then using a larger coil will most likely result in a depth loss.
One exception is on small objects that might be detected by the coil edge. The magnetic field around the coil edge is extremely strong but only extends out a few inches. So, one might detect very small objects up to a few inches from the edge that are not detected when passed over with the center of the coil. This edge effect can cause some serious problems when trying to find the object and can lead to holes being dug way too deep.
Reg