New video: Mono Coiled GPX 5000 vs Garrett ATX's DD on 4 Gold Nuggets

[bearkat4160]

Chris, I say in at least 10 of my videos that 78 ground balance is medium hot, that is the exact term I used to explain the ground balance in my videos, not moderate. I don't remember telling anyone to buy the Garrett ATX from me in my video....please remit.

I see you have joined Steve and JP in the change the narrative to "the dirt is not hot enough" to distract from the performance of the GPX 5000 not getting all the nuggets.
That is the narrative... Not the AT Gold or the dirt.

Who is doing this narrative change here in this thread? Well it is the Minelab dudes named Steve, JP and Chris.
The Minellab clearly had trouble getting all the nuggets, but let's not talk about that, let's talk about the "moderate soil" instead. Lol... You guys are just too funny...

It's almost like watching politicians spew their talking points and they all say the same thing... Different person, same narrative. Like it was planned.
That is just way too out there and funny, good job guys...

REG is right on in all his post...

BK

 

[bearkat4160]

Good stuff there Reg... Have read a lot of your stuff regarding the TDI and PI's. Learned a lot on those post.

Bearkat

 

[bearkat4160]

Wow Reg, I could not have said it better... That is why I say in my videos that 78 on my AT Gold is medium hot per Garrett's recommendations in their manual.
Thanks Reg for getting the subject back to the main narrative of my video, which is, can the ATX or the GPX get all 4 gold nuggets? Well NO for the Minelab! Lol

 

[Jonathan Porter]

Seriously Alan, I'm not talking about the numbers your AT Gold shows, I could care less about them because they are obviously not reflecting the mineralisation levels, I'm talking about the fact that your AT Gold just purred along on the so called Medium to Hot ground you were supposedly working in and got equivalent depth to the PI's, of course the ground is quiet!!! I can show you ground here in Australia that the GPX will easily pick up the targets you tested yet a VLF will scream its guts out, how do you account for that, and how do you think a super sensitive PI like the ATX will go in that environment? I bet you wouldn't be running your sensitivity flat out like you've been doing in the video!!! I do this every day of the year including today and yesterday and the day before yesterday and the day before that and so on for the past 3 weeks or so let alone the four months I spent away from home this year prospecting in WA, and I can tell you I regularly pick up gold like you've got on display at even greater depths than your showing, and in mineralised soils that would make you blush!!

Like I said before this is not about denigrating the ATX, this is about your misrepresentation of it, either deliberately in the hopes of making sales, or through a lack of understanding of what makes a PI metal detector tick in the real world!! If I thought for a nano second the ATX could do for me what you are trying to imply I would have one no questions asked, theres enough of them out there now for people to start showing off their finds, the only gold I've seen is by good competent operators like Steve Herschbach and Chris Gholson, so far I've heard sweet diddly squat from Aussie operators who I'm sure have gone straight to their sweet spots to see what it can do.

Alan have you actually found any gold with the ATX or is that a rude question?

Regards

JP

 

[Reg]

Hi JP,

I hope you don't mind my jumping in, but we don't live in Australia, we live in the US where the ground is no where near as mineralized as that you work in in your country.

What is considered high mineralization to us is probably low to you. In fact many ML owners complain about some places they claim are highly mineralized here in the US I found to be quite mild with my PI.

A few years ago, Eric Foster asked people to send a sample of what they thought was the worst ground they detected in and he measured it. What he found is the worst sent to him was extremely mild compared to your ground. Such samples were sent from what people claimed to be the worst ground to be found here in the US. It is the same ground that many ML owners here in the US complained about as being highly mineralized. I know I have hunted with several of those ML dealers/owners in the areas they complained about.

So, in simple terms, what measures or is thought of as high mineralization here isn't what you might call high mineralization over there. Instead, even ML owners here call our ground in some locations as high mineralization that I am sure you would claim to be mild.

BTW, Eric also took a TDI to OZ and spent time trying it in your country. What he found is the actual Ground Balance ( GB ) setting there was still very close to that setting used here in the US. So, the actual GB adjustment required didn't change even though the intensity of the ground signal did. What the intensity increase did was make the GB touchier to get set right. Eric's accessment was that all that was needed was a vernier control on the GB and his detector worked fine there. Since all PI's work fundamentally the same, I expect the ATX did or will work well also if the GB adjustment is fine enough. Since Garrett has been around making detectors long enough, I am sure they figured that out.

Personally, I don't think Bearkat misrepresented anything. Garrett in their manual on the AT states that a reading that Bearkat obtained on the VLF is to be considered highly mineralized. Since they built the detector and made the assessment doesn't mean Garrett doesn't know what they are talking about. Just because our ground doesn't have a lot of lodestone to mess up things, doesn't mean it is that easy to hunt with a PI or a VLF for that matter. In fact a lot of ML owners might disagree with you if you think otherwise.

One thing Bearkat might do is turn off the ground balance on the GPX in his next video if that is possible and bob the coil a couple of times. In other words, if the GPX screams and simply can't be used with no GB applied, that should be sufficient to answer the question.

Thanks for providing your reason for your asessment though.

Cheers,

Reg

 

[steve herschbach]

Ok done with you...you are a waste of life's precious time...

 

[Hobo lobo]

Bearkat ; If you were to preform the exact same test in "hot" ground it should end this "Hot soil" debate in regard to PI detection depth. one way or the other, but it would probably not .

 

[bearkat4160]

Hey man, that's my line from the other forum...you can't use my line, make up your own, Lol...hehe
As usual you do not answer my statements!

BK

 

[bearkat4160]

Hi JP, thanks for your reply...at least you are responding with rich content. And yes; much respect to you for doing what you do everyday and I do believe you can probally set up your GPX 5000 better than me, but I did find that 5.4 oz nugget so my set up cant be that far off.

Yes; the AT Gold purrs well at that location as not much iron to disturb it...even in hotter ground in does weil if it is consistent and not rapidly changing. Just so you know I will do the hotter ground test when the weather gives me an open door.

I don't know if you have seen all my vids, but I did one in a iron infested volcanic basalt area to show the ATX just quiet as a mouse in both motion and non-motion modes in full sensitivity. I did hit patches of rapidly changing soil and it did make some noise but quieted down after it kept sweeping or I hit retune button.

And to your last question, YES! I have found one nugget with it after hunting about 4 hours standing about 12 feet away from a small pocket mine. I got a small wisp of a signal and called a guy over with his Whites GMZ to compare signals as I was just learning the ATX. He hit it also, which at the center of the target there was a rock. He said "it's probally a hot rock". I said " just move that rock and lets see". He was the one who bent over and moved that rock, and under that rock was this little .24 gram nugget shinning in the sun. He picked it up, since he picked it up, he kept it...no big deal, I have a lot of gold he does not. The ATX, after the nugget was disturbed only picked it up at a half inch or less depending on where under the coil it lay. rather than the 1.5 inch undisturbed height. He just sent me this picture of it for you to see here below. So, for not putting in on the forum is because the rock did sound off still by itself and we were not sure if we actually were picking up the nugget or the rock...so I did not tell they story as I could have detected that hot rock instead. Just could have been luck that there was nugget under the rock...hard to say. But without the ATX it would not have been found either way.

Also I have found gold ore in an old gold mine where the ATX detected the ceiling and got a "mineral" type hit. Went home crushed the ore and found fine gold. I have not told this yet as I have this on video and was waiting to get it on Youtube to tell the story as I am about 10 videos behind in getting them on Youtube. I still have dredge videos from this summer to get online...so I'm way behind.

There ya go,

Bearkat

 

[Jonathan Porter]

Reg I appreciate what you are saying, but you seem to have missed the gist of my post. What's the point of using the ATX if the ATGold gets as good or even better signal response on those four targets in the ground shown in the video? I have detected in the US with Chris Gholson on a couple of occasions in Arizona and I found the ground to be quite heavily mineralised in places, a hell of a lot more mineralised than what is shown in the videos, and I can just about guarantee the ATGold would have made a huge amount of ground noise in those areas!! The GPX 5000 sells well in America, surely your not suggesting people have been buying them without the need of its excellent performance in mineralised soils? Look at the amount of regular posts put up by operators using the GPX 5000, even Steve Herschbach showed a beautiful 1/2 ounce specimen recently!! Lastly lets be clear on something, I'm not saying the video test sight is not mineralised, its just not noisy enough to make a direct comparison between the ATX and an ATGold let alone the GPX 5000.

JP

 

[Hobo lobo]

Hey man, that's my line from the other forum...you can't use my line, make up your own, Lol...hehe
As usual you do not answer my statements!

BK

No need to answer, you said it all.

 

[bearkat4160]

Point taken JP...will rectify it soon!

BK

 

[Reg]

JP,

I understand fully what you are saying, but, I have been building modifying and designing my own PI's for over 13 years now and have owned/used ML's, GS 5's, TDI's and a few others so I feel I can speak freely and accurately when I say if a PI doesn't display well in "mild ground" it won't get better in bad ground. By getting better I mean it won't go deeper or do better on particular targets. This includes the conditions where targets begin to disappear.

So, if you are saying the opposite then we clearly agree to disagree.

I am simply saying regardless of whether the ground is mild or bad, the tests display issues that have been brought forward like the fact the GPX didn't find the small gold (which even to me is no big deal), but what is a big deal to me is the fact that changing modes may cause larger gold to be missed.

I am sure that when the weather permits, Bearkat can verify my opinion and my concerns I brought forward.

Do you agree or disagree with my findings that changing modes may cause larger gold to be potentially missed regardless of ground conditions?

I would think you and/or Steve would be aware of what I noticed and as such maybe you would expand on it so novice ML owners will know when to be concerned.

Cheers,

Reg

 

[lytle78]

My 2

 

[jerrym1]

Reg, thank you for your explanation to my big coil question. BTW, I enjoy reading your posts.

Jerry

 

[robby_h]

Reg said , "In other words, I hope you, Chris, or J. Porter are not stating that if the ground was worse, the ML would then detect those same nuggets at the same depth and do better on the ones where it displayed no or poor response. In my opinion, that will never happen and my opinion is based upon studying all PI's from a technical standpoint for the last 14 plus years".

Reg,
You once said you could adjust a SD2100's ground balance to ignore a particular nugget. It should be rather obvious though that the 2100 wouldn't have ignored that nugget if the ground required a critical GB setting, as it does here in Oz.

So, the GB setting is critical for hot ground but the auto GB will set itself noticeably either side of the critical setting if the ground is moderate.... but it will set itself almost anywhere if the ground isn't mineralized and this may cause a detector to perform better or worse than another or display a hole in the response or lack of sensitivety that it otherwise wouldn't. It also means that 10 detectors could all end up with different GB settings for the ground in the video but would all end up with the same GB setting for hot ground in a goldfield.

If testing any of the smooth timings such as Enhance on a GPX then it should definitely only be tested on ground it was designed for, ie, hot variable ground or hot ground with abundant hot rocks. Surely it isn't difficult to at least place a few hot rocks on the ground during these tests?

More regarding holes in the response.
A single channel PI has more holes in the response than a dual channel PI and we don't know if the ATX has a single or dual channel so we also need to test it at critical GB with a large number of nuggets of different size and time constants to determine if these holes are a significant problem. A buyer won't be impressed if he discovers that the ATX ignores a broad range of nuggets that another PI detects.

We also need to know if the four nuggets in the video just happened to favour the ATX timings.

The GPX will howl at very ordinary ground if the GB is turned off so that can't be used to determine the level of mineralisation.

--------------------------------

Designing a PI that will detect fine gold isn't all that difficult but doing this while also ignoring nasty ground and hot rocks is a real challenge. A PI transmits a pulse, turns the pulse off and then listens for a signal from the nugget, and the earlier it listens (samples) the smaller the nugget it can detect but sampling early makes it respond to some rocks and ground that late sampling ignores.

Sample early enough and the coil sees itself and/or the change in the coil's properties caused by the ground, and noise caused by problems which the ML Enhance and Smooth timings address. All designs suffer the same problems if sampling early, if a PI doesn't then it's only because it has low circuit gains or the designer has come up with a fix for the problems and this will almost definitely be covered by patents.

It's rather obvious that the ATX and 5000 should be compared on hot ground with hot rocks. I think most would agree it would be alarming if they purchased an ATX based on these videos only to then discover the delay had to be increased to combat these problems. This would destroy any chance of detecting fine gold in hot ground.

One video shows a guy balancing out the hot rocks. This can't work if the ground is hot enough to require a distinctly different GB setting than the rocks.... and a simple non ground balancing PI ignores some minerals that drive a VLF nuts so we obviously can't determine hot PI ground with a vlf.

Rob.

 

[Reg]

Hi Robby,

Good to hear from you again and thanks for the information. As you probably know, I am fully aware of the "hole" condition but your explanation helps in pointing out something every GPX owner should be made aware of and that is, there will almost always be conditions where some size gold will be ignored. The mono video clearly shows that even large gold can drop into the "hole". As you are aware, this "hole" effect causing larger gold to be ignored was pointed out on a different forum and those on that forum took a lot of verbal abuse for pointing it out.

BTW, off topic regarding the GPX, I have explained extensively this "hole" and what to expect as the GB is adjusted but my explanation is for using the TDI. As you know, it is this "hole" effect that allows the ground balance to function.

Now, you are also correct in the fact that if the ground balance adjusts, the "hole" will move, meaning a different size gold will be ignored or at least have the signal reduced dramatically. In other words, in very important terms, the "hole" doesn't go away. What wasn't known by me was what happens or what gold migh be ignored when you change modes (timings) on the GPX, or better yet, when one might have to be concerned. The mono video helps fill in some of the unknowns. I thank Bearkat for that.

I mentioned the video testing the GPX with a mono coil pointed out something important that every GPX should be aware of and you were the only one to bring this issue (in generic form) forward. For that, I thank you.

Personally, I believe a GPX owner should be fully aware of this, but more importantly they should be made aware of just what size gold might be ignored as "timings" are changed. I feel that would be a great help to a new owner. Obviously, most diehard ML users are not willing to bring this information forward as they did not do here.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Reg

 

[Reg]

Hi Robby,

Wow, you remembered something I think I initially said 13+ years ago. I have learned a bit more since then about PI's.

Now, I thought I should address separately a couple things you stated. I hope you don't mind. First, are you kidding when you say a single channel timing will have more holes than a multi channel???? You know that isn't correct. A multi channel will have more holes simply because of the design. The holes may not be as deep cut they will be there. Use two signals to GB and you will have two holes. Two is greater than one in my book. Use more signals to GB and the number of holes will be equal to the number of signals used to GB.

"You once said you could adjust a SD2100's ground balance to ignore a particular nugget. It should be rather obvious though that the 2100 wouldn't have ignored that nugget if the ground required a critical GB setting, as it does here in Oz. " You are kidding again, right? Are you forgetting with even the design engineer, Bruce Candy said when he stated some gold could be ignored????? The fact is, any gold that mimics the ground signal decay wise at the point of sampling will try to be ignored.

You of all people should know the actual GB range needed to cancel most ground is very narrow. In fact, you said so. Eric Foster also proved that when he was finalizing the TDI design. His solution was adding a vernier GB control to fine tune the GB.

Canceling some rocks and basalt will require a wider GB but that isn't tracking the ground. The narrow GB will only shift things a little meaning the size of gold that will be ignored will only change by a very small amount. Now, if the GB on the ML can't track mild ground well enough, then don't you think it should be stated that the recommended setting would be a fixed GB? As for the ML GB wandering in mild ground, as you said, that can make a big difference in how certain gold is detected. It is a neat trick that can be used to enhance or deter signals when trying to sell $400+ coils though.

If the auto GB can drift or wander in mild ground, wouldn't that "widen" the hole, or at least have the potential to do so?

"We also need to know if the four nuggets in the video just happened to favour the ATX timings." You are kidding, right? If someone could select 4 different size nuggets that would favor the ATX would mean the ML can't handle the 4 sizes as well. Are you really wondering whether this is true? IF so, ML has a real problem.

As for Bearkat running through all the different timings, I am sure he did that because he was accused on another forum of picking the wrong timing and that is why the ML didn't fair as well. So, by going through all the timings or at least, most of them, when he made the mono comparison, he dispelled that myth.

Finally, Bearkat is very clear in the videos that he isn't recommending replacing the ML but rather maybe a person should consider adding the ATX to compliment the GPX. So, in simple terms, he isn't saying you only need the ATX, especially after saying he wouldn't sell his GPX. That by definition implies it isn't better or perfect in my book.

Now that leaves a different question, is the difference between the ATX to find gold worth the extra $3000? Any person with common sense wouldn't expect a detector that cost a little more than 1/3 the cost of another to compete completely with the higher priced unit. As to which to buy is, I believe, an individual question that can only be answered by the one thinking about making the purchase, especially if he/she is only going to be a casual user. Obviously, full time gold hunters like JP and Steve would and should select the GPX if they are only going to own one. No one is disputing that.

Again, thanks for your contribution.

Regards,

Reg

 

[steve herschbach]

Personally, I believe a GPX owner should be fully aware of this, but more importantly they should be made aware of just what size gold might be ignored as "timings" are changed. I feel that would be a great help to a new owner. Obviously, most diehard ML users are not willing to bring this information forward as they did not do here.

Reg

Reg, I am so fed up with you and your accusations that people are being kept in the dark that I have to comment. Yes, I agree you have kept yourself willfully ignorant of how a GPX 5000 works. However, any owner can read the manual and extensive charts provided by Minelab. Also, this Minelab owner back on April 10 posted a collection of that information at http://www.findmall.com/read.php?81,1891862 This information has never been secret.

If you ever bothered to learn this information you would see different timings detect different gold at different depths. The main goal however is to compensate for increasing mineralization and to pull gold out of mineralization that kills other detectors, including previous Minelab models. The new Fine Gold setting is brilliant at pulling small gold out of ironstone. However, only an inexperienced or confused operator would run this setting in low mineral ground because it is intended as the charts show for high mineral settings. As a general rule one should always use the settings as far left on the chart as possible, working the way up the timing chart as mineralization causes issues and forces timings to be changed. I run in fairly moderate ground and will usually run in Normal but this summer spent most of the time in the Sharp setting. However, when people like Alan ask for settings, I refuse to provide what cannot be provided except by being there and tuning the detector myself. There is no stock setting that works in all situations and the machine must be set for the circumstances. The only way Alan would get Steve H settings in a video is if I am standing there to provide them.

At the extreme end everybody I have ever met knows Sensitive Smooth is only for the worst of the worst as it really cuts back and loses gold in situations it is not intended for. You guys want to call them holes, I just call it gold that cannot be found at a certain setting. These are not state secrets or information never talked about.

This is all common knowledge among Minelab owners who care to learn their detectors. You guys are acting like children who have found a new toy that you think nobody else has, oohing and aaawing over your discovery, when all I see watching all this is people who do not know what they are doing. I was the guy taking the heat for defending the Infinium and the TDI right along with you Reg, in case you forgot, and now you turn on me in a heartbeat because I am not endorsing Alan's videos. Why would I endorse something I personally believe was stupid and ill advised? The only bias I am seeing is yours and Alan's, you in particular with whatever beef you have with Minelab. At least he is a salesperson so I get where he is coming from.

I like JPs videos because he spends every minute trying to teach MInelab owners how to get the most out of their detectors. It is too bad Alan has not gone to remotely anything like that effort to show people how to get the best out of the ATX instead of wasting time trying to show up the GPX. I can make a video showing a Gold Bug 2 showing up an ATX on small gold and go on and on and on about it as if it means anything. Oh my, why has not Garret revealed this giant " hole" in the ATX capability. If I were a Fisher dealer I could make a great video showing why a $499 Gold Bug standard, not even the Pro model, would equal or exceed an ATX in performance as long as I pick the ground and the nuggets. Why waste $2120 when $499 will do the job? All Alan proved to me is he was in ground favoring a VLF and should have tossed the PIs aside and used the AT Gold.

The implication in the videos is if you are running the ATX you will get gold the GPX is missing because the ATX gets it all in one setting. Sorry, no. I am extremely serious about my prospecting. I do it to make money. I invest a lot of money and time doing it, and I expect to make a profit on the investment. All this bs is totally extraneous to the reality of smart electronic prospecting and the nuances involved. Absolutely, there are scenarios out there where the ground type and gold mix will favor an ATX. Just like in another scenario a Gold Bug 2 or GMT would be preferred.

All things come at a cost. The ATX has basically a single mode that can be modified with Gain and Pulse Delay. The machine is particularly hot on small gold and that means there will be a trade off in the ability to handle hot ground and hot rocks. Tricks like balancing to a hot rock will produce one of your holes. Depth in high mineral ground has been sacrificed to gain sensitivity on shallow small stuff. The GPX will hit larger gold deeper than an ATX, and not by being fair but by having the best coil on it to get that result. I cannot afford, literally, to run an ATX to get that tiny stuff the GPX is missing if it comes at the cost of missing the bigger larger stuff I am after. It would make just as munch sense to run my GPX in Sensitive Extra optimized for shallower smaller stuff knowing I will be missing the bigger deeper stuff. But when it gets down to that I break out a VLF.

The machine I want and most serious guys want is that machine that will make us sell the GPX 5000. I am not seeing that here. All I am seeing is smoke and mirrors and that is why I asked for a clear statement from Alan to save GPX owners the time of sitting through all the video. Just cut through the crap.

The ATX represents an incredible value right now in a prospecting PI simply because Minelab stopped making the SD2200v2. Minelab provided the opening, and Garret was kind enough to fill the gap, and with a detector that is very simple to operate. That simplicity comes at a cost however. From my perspective I think Garrett missed a big opportunity here. I think the machine is hobbled by the overly heavy waterproof housing. Who ever thought somebody would take the "too heavy" crown from Minelab? The ATX weighs too much for no good reason except to utilize an already existing housing. A lightweight housing specifically designed for the machine would have been welcome. The coils are a real pain to change out due to the connection being buried in the housing. The coils, headphones, and battery doors all have orings that collect dirt like they were designed for that, and the tiny pins are too delicate for fat fingered prospectors. The coils selection is extremely limited, and prone to false signals when knocked. And quite expensive as each comes with the lower rod. If the ATX were designed just for prospecting it would be something I could rave about, but the decision to go with a hybrid design holds it back from being a great prospecting machine. It is taking a square water machine peg and trying to drive it into the round prospecting machine hole. I see real potential there but a complete physical redesign is called for to bring it to fruition.

So as I have time and if I have the inclination to post any more (really lacking at the moment) I will try and do my best to help ATX owners get more out of their detectors. I like my ATX and am going to do well with it by putting it in situations where it shines. I am not going to waste time trying to use it if a GPX or a GMT is the better option. You guys can keep flogging the ATX versus GPX thing all you want but it is story over for me.

 

[El]

n/t