Ground Balance discrepancy / clarification

If you read the instruction manual and on page 18 under the Quick Start section, point 5, it states to GB sweep the coil over the SAME spot of ground to obtain a good ground balance.
However, if you read the Knowledge Base Atricle / KBA 24-1, page 4 under Searching and Ground Balancing, the Important note in that section states to properly ground balance, to 'move forward at a slighly faster than normal walking speed, so as to cover as much DIFFERENT ground as possible'.

From JP's comments and explanation of an effective GB, the latter seems to be correct, but if you go by the user manual, it is therefore incorrect.
Am i reading this wrong, or what?

It's not incorrect, it is just gaining more exposure to more ground by moving & swinging while holding the button in for the 12 to 15 seconds.

You could just stand still and swing side to side with the button held in for the 12 to 15 seconds and the machine will be balanced to that particular spot, but if you move around it will get a better idea of the general ground in the area.

This is better to have the info now than not having it at all.

cheers dave

coreytroy wrote:If you read the instruction manual and on page 18 under the Quick Start section, point 5, it states to GB sweep the coil over the SAME spot of ground to obtain a good ground balance.
However, if you read the Knowledge Base Atricle / KBA 24-1, page 4 under Searching and Ground Balancing, the Important note in that section states to properly ground balance, to 'move forward at a slighly faster than normal walking speed, so as to cover as much DIFFERENT ground as possible'.

From JP's comments and explanation of an effective GB, the latter seems to be correct, but if you go by the user manual, it is therefore incorrect.
Am i reading this wrong, or what?

G'day coreytroy,

No you are not reading it wrong, as that is the way it reads and the latter is the right way as the processor in the 7000 needs to read as much ground as possible to get an accurate GB from the start. Hope this makes sense.

Cheers.

Mike.

Hello all, This ground balance technique is something of a weird proposition.
If by walking the machine into a superior balance, and by rejecting the past instruction of
"balancing still , what does this suggest about the ability for the 7000 to maintain performance
beyond the information digested within the primary balancing procedure area.
Is the discussion overly concerning, and their is no need for such balancing procedure, or
by virtue of interest in the conversation, is their an appearing weakness in the 7000's ability to accurately balance
variable ground by users with increasing 7000 experience.
Is the unit prone to conservative balancing over an area because of an increased balancing procedure
overly rationalizing the initial area and hence generalizing the ground mineralization.
I struggling to conceive how the machine is emboldened by this new balancing procedure.
I have tested two 7000's on a number of occasions including balancing (standing Still), and found
vast differences in performance.
I have "unofficially" put that down to production.
My old five, used 7 days a week since its release was rarely used out of fixed balance as i could not
be sure of targets being balanced out, the discussion currently does, for me, leave me thinking the same
with this new Minelab.
Perhaps some more technical information relating to the need for this new method could
explain it more clearly to the layman, thanks.

gravel wrote:Hello all, This ground balance technique is something of a weird proposition.
If by walking the machine into a superior balance, and by rejecting the past instruction of
"balancing still , what does this suggest about the ability for the 7000 to maintain performance
beyond the information digested within the primary balancing procedure area.
Is the discussion overly concerning, and their is no need for such balancing procedure, or
by virtue of interest in the conversation, is their an appearing weakness in the 7000's ability to accurately balance
variable ground by users with increasing 7000 experience.
Is the unit prone to conservative balancing over an area because of an increased balancing procedure
overly rationalizing the initial area and hence generalizing the ground mineralization.
I struggling to conceive how the machine is emboldened by this new balancing procedure.
I have tested two 7000's on a number of occasions including balancing (standing Still), and found
vast differences in performance.
I have "unofficially" put that down to production.
My old five, used 7 days a week since its release was  rarely used out of fixed balance as i could not
be sure of targets being balanced out, the discussion currently does, for me, leave me thinking the same
with this new Minelab.
Perhaps some more technical information relating to the need for this new method could
explain it more clearly to the layman,  thanks.

G'day gravel,

I would recommend that you read this link to Dr Bruce Candy's white paper.  I have copied it and pasted it in my Note pad, it will explain it all in laymans terms to everyone who is interested.  Hope this helps, everyone who is still not sure.  

http://www.minelab.com/__files/f/266297/KBA_24-1%20ZVT%20Technology.pdf

Cheers.

Mike.

Good Evening all
My humble take on this thread would be to go with JP and Bruce on this one after all
one is an exponent and the other is the creator of this fine machine,Jp in an early post
tells us the correct GB proceedure which is in accordance with KBA 24-1.The manual is not
wrong about the GB but the other 2 examples are a better way of balancing to give the machine more info
what is wrong with that? As far as more tech. info for laypeople I am a layperson and the info Bruce gives me in his paper goes over my head
but I will do it the way I am told it will work and hopefully find gold
Regards Dave C.

Thanks mike54, ill be reading it now, cheers gravel.

gravel, i sent you a private message, click on the notice at the top of the page, near your log in name ... kev