GPZ not stable in salty ground in WA

Just got a phone call from Tiboo Dave and the feedback is - GPZ is very unstable in and around the salt lakes in Western Australia.
Nothing he tried gave any hope of operating comfortably. The ferrite was of no help at all as he managed to get access to one on the field.
Frustrated with this so he got the 5000 out and managed to find 11 grams where the GPZ could not run.
His conclusion is that it's probably best to carry both machines to work the variety of ground.
I'm not saying this to condemn the GPZ. In fact for me here in Vic I feel it's the best machine I have ever owned.
Just giving feedback on some issues encountered, just like RCburke has clearly mentioned how it's all gone a bit quiet on the Western front.
cheers Bill

Bill,

Hi - "Western Front" here. ML always stated that the 7000 "wouldn't handle salt". That's a given. But what they didn't tell us was that it won't handle "salt of any kind". So we need to expand the definition of salt and not just make the ubiquitous assumption that "salt means a salt lake"

Having said that, I was getting the "hee haw" salt-like signal about 40% of the time just about all over Western Australia. Up hillsides, out on quartz flats, ironstone - everywhere. When I questioned ML why this was, I was told that "WA has salt just about everywhere". To which my response was "Well why didn't you put out a disclaimer with the advertising - "Not suitable for Western Australia".


It remains to be seen if my repaired machine is actually "suitable for Western Australia"!

So that's why it's all quiet on the Western Front?

Not many whoppers of any consequence yet?

I expect if they'd been many, Minelab would be buzzing all around them like bees to a honey jar to advertise them? (I had thought of a certain other analogy used for a certain other person, who delights in cherry picking and bot focusing all the bad reports, while ignoring the good, like an anthropogenic climate change disciple)

The ZVT tech white paper says that for saline soils Extra Deep is the least affected.
It has a lower frequency same as General, so I guess it is less sensitive to higher frequency saturable ground components?

Is even this gold mode stumped out West???

Maybe the moisture content of the sub-soil is still significant, perhaps the Z is a late season bloomer? (perhaps it was field tested out West during a drought year?)

All the best ichi-ban with your new machine...fingers crossed eh.

Alky,

The machine only got back from ML repairs last Friday arvo, so I'm still in Perth. Due to family issues and unforeseen major probs with the truck I can't get out again until mid-July.

However, despite enquiries, I know of only one recent big nugg find in WA (57 ounces in one lump) and I know a lot of prospectors and have an excellent network through my position in APLA. So nothing much to tell other than the usual "0.1 grammes at 6 inches",,,,,

You are spot on ichy-ban. The GPZ was unstable at least 2 km radius from the salt lakes in WA.
So as you have said it may seem almost impossible to operate comfortably on the western front.
Hope it all goes well for you when you get that machine on the ground.
Dave Tibboo did say that it was a lot worse after the rain so the moisture is a factor.
Had mine out today and I noticed the morning with wet grass and shrub gave it a bit of a groan but nothing to worry about and yes Alchemist once I went into extra deep it all settled.
cheers Bill

vasilis wrote:and yes Alchemist once I went into extra deep it all settled. cheers Bill

Hmmm, well what I notice is in "extra deep" I loose a heap of depth on small targets, (air test) because it hasn't found any big targets. It will need to be in the very big category to be getting a good signal in extra deep gold mode, and difficult ground type.

An example is an air test on 50 cent coin, I get about 600mm in high yield or general, I loose about 100mm at least in extra deep compared to High Yield or General in difficult ground type, and all other settings staying the same.

cheers dave

Sorry to disagree Davsgold but I will not get out of extra deep after what I experienced recently.
I can say that I found a .5 , 1 gram, and a 3 gram all in extra deep and before before I dug them out i did the real tests. As you say the air test also showed me a totally different world but I know everyone has their own preferred method and settings.
cheers Bill

vasilis wrote:Sorry to disagree Davsgold but I will not get out of extra deep after what I experienced recently.
I can say that I found a .5 , 1 gram, and a 3 gram all in extra deep and before before I dug them out i did the real tests. As you say the air test also showed me a totally different world but I know everyone has their own preferred method and settings.
cheers Bill

G'day Bill

I am glad your getting good results in extra deep, it just not what I've noticed, I am glad you put up your findings and settings, it gives others something to compare against.

cheers dave

No problem Davsgold. I know it can be a controversial issue and difficult to recommend settings as there are so many variables.
I always like to listen and then experiment for myself to get the best out of these machines.
I was extremely disappointed to hear that the GPZ is not performing in WA as this is one of the main reasons people have invested so much time and money. I'm sure we all want to experience the pilgrimage to the western front to seek and find experiences and glory. Perhaps not for gold this time.....
Cheers Bill

Vasili,

I had a chuckle when I read this comment from you, "You are spot on ichy-ban. The GPZ was unstable at least 2 km radius from the salt lakes in WA."

When I was having big "hee haws" with mine, we were on some of the highest "plateau ground" around Leonora and about 80 kms from the nearest known salt pan area! The ground was shallow top soil and in some place the "hard clay/ferrocrete false cap" was visible. We went to such a spot as it was legendary for heaps of small stuff. We were looking for deep pockets but the "hee haws" made me walk off in disgust.

Hey Bill, I hope the WA detectorists are using the right Ferret. This is an early production model that has now been trimmed down to a manageable 12"diameter and 1.5 Kgs. Warning! If it doesn't have "WA" stamped on it, your probably using the wrong one.  

Hi ichi-ban
Yes it does seem ridiculous that even the high country in WA is not workable. I was just relaying the feedback from Tiboo Dave and I must add he has packed away the Zed and is using the GPX 5000. What a joke this is really. I was also going to be on that trip but had to ditch it and now I am so glad I'm not there with only the use of my Zed.
I hope someone (minelab) comes up with a cure for this dilemma.
Hah perhaps slim has the answer ........ C'mon Slim I want a remedy.

Hi all ,

After working along side a GPZ for awhile now I think it does have an advantage over some grounds
over a GPX,, Just like a GPX will work better in certain places that the GPZ wont.
I have seen my friend detect along of me with his, and he seems to be able to swing over some salty type soils
so he can still keep working it.. just as I can although when I had a try it wasn't what I was used of hearing
it was a bit too noisy for me which could be something to get used too.
He had also the Ferrite ring and other tricks which seemed to help
His words were maybe many users of the GPZ try to run the machine like a GPX by keep hitting the quick
track button which then dumps all the info, Anyhow I am no expert on this machine by no means
either do I have any future plans to buy one ,cheers to all GFE

I think we were all conned slightly when ML offhandedly stated the ZED is "useless un salt". We all thought they meant "SALT LAKES", What they actually meant was ANY salt, even the small amount you put on yer chips. But seriously, when a ML person tells me that "there's salt everywhere in WA" I have to wonder why ML never put a makers warning on the ZED - "Not Suitable for WA".

Now we get this:

http://www.minelab.com/__files/f/279127/KBA_27-1%20Gold%20Detecting%20in%20Difficult%20Ground%20Conditions.pdf

Which, if you really study the text, effectively reduces all that "up to 40% depth" that you paid for and the sensitivity that was raved about is no longer there. I tried all this yesterday on a patch of the usual ironstone/quartz, blue bush flats in an area near Randwick in WA.. There's a million miles of this sort of ground in WA and I know this spot has gold in it as there are pushed dryblows and dig holes all around it. I was pegging a lease nearby. The hee haws made operator frustration kick in early. So we went to the page of the guru. I ended up with the coil at waist height and I’m 1650mm tall, before the “hee haws” stopped. That’s 825mm off the ground with the ZED at factory presets for sensitivity/high yield/difficult/ done the 15 second straight balance and the octopus – all of it. Nothing changed.

But wait there’s more. On the way back to camp I dropped in on few guys camped nearby. I thought I’d ask them if they had a ZED and what they thought of it. It was a revelation! There was mate from one of the forums (he comes in here a bit) and a couple of Yanks. Real nice people. They told me how they run their machines and it was completely opposite to what ML say in the above KBA.

These guys get rid of the “hee haws” by ramping up the Sensitivity to 18 to 20, cut the Threshold back, way back to around 8 (and I mean , Volume at 8 to 11 and run the ZED DEAD QUIET. But the signals still breakthrough easily and “The Howies” as the Yanks call ‘em are gone and “no headache”. These are very similar to the “Bogene Settings” of days gone by. Remember him?

Now, I’m not sure what to believe except what I saw with my own eyes and ears. It worked right there in front of me as we tested it on small nuggets of less than half a gramme. A much clearer signal with no background clutter and you still have depth and sensitivity. It works for them. I may work for you. It won’t work for me as I’m past caring. Mine is “For Sale” at the end of August due to other factors. Basically due to other prospecting costs I can't afford to hold onto the ZED, either the ZED goes or some of my leases go. No contest there. It hasn't paid for itself, not even one percent. The leases do. I have a 5000 and 4500 to fall back on. I can find patches with them rather than "go crumbing" with a very expensive ZED.

But wait, there’s even more! It was also let slip that a young fella on here that is doing amazingly well with his ZED “is doing everything wrong”! He’s running settings flat chat – Sens at 20, Threshold in single numbers etc and scrubbing the coil on the deck. There’s a guy in Leo doing that as well and he’s getting gold.

When you figure this lot out, let me know will ya!

What a mess , having heard of so much trouble with the 7< couldn't buy a 5 in WA.
So many returns, and about to be sold.
I love to inform the forum members of some things i do know, but , i cannot and will not until it hits the fan, in which time it be N/A.
Do you think its the best machine ever?
Have you bagged out those unhappy with it, even pro's?
I got bagged, and today i am redeemed, ha to funny koni!

gravel wrote:in which time it be N/A.

N/A    ????????
Not Applicable ?

Seems that where you use it, may be more important than, how you use it.

https://golddetecting.forumotion.net/t22224-north-qld-and-the-gpz-7000

The gpz has worked fine everywhere we have tried it in WA.

I find it funny to read about the so called experts and prospecting veterans blaming the detector for there own inability to operate it correctly

Well that's interesting it worked fine everywhere did you go near any salt lakes or edges,
I have worked along side a friend who owns one he has it working ok it seems ,but when I used it
for a short while it wasn't quiet and the ground wasn't that active,
I am sure he still has other things to try yet ,but we travel over lots of different soils when he visits me here
so good news if you have it running quiet maybe you should put up a demo/video how it runs over salty mineral grounds
it might help others who have the same machine ..Cheers GFE

Goldgeo wrote:The gpz has worked fine everywhere we have tried it in WA.  

I find it funny to read about the so called experts and prospecting veterans blaming the detector for there own inability to operate it correctly

G'day Goldgeo

I find that extraordinary that you would say this, and not funny at all. So how may different places in WA have you actually tried it in, because is some places it just won't work properly, even Minelab have said this is a fact, so if you have extra info please, go ahead and tell the rest of us what you have found out to make this so.

cheers dave

Hi, well it seems GoldGeo is just up the road from me so I wonder if he has used it around the salt lakes
I don't own one of these machines, but I would like to see what he says on the salty soils
as I spend a lot of time up north in that part with my GPX and I go over salt fairly well just with a DD
Cheers GFE

I have detected dozens of patches within 150km all directions from Meeka and havent had any significant problems. I havent used it on the actual salt lakes ( dont like detcting them) but have used it in lots of flats with visible salty patches with good results.
Using ground traking may be an error that many are making? Not ground balancing properly? I dunno, but reading about a machine that is 'hee hawwing 80km from any salt' is nothing like the experience i have had using one.

Hi , well Nannine is only 35kms south of meeka a well known spot ,and I hear ya don't like salty grounds no probs.
yes sure I also seen GPZ go over normal mineralized grounds easy ,What can say my GPX will run smooth over salt that is visible
to the eye on surface with no effect at all ,but then go another direction I might to have to make adjustments

The GPZ is the machine many are still sorting out although it has not much inside it ,
I don't own one so I just watch and listen to others but what seen and heard it wasn't what I wanted to hear swinging over the ground
although it always had a nice signal response in between some noise when hitting a target ...cheers GFE

I never said I don't like detecting salty ground, just that I find detecting lakes boring. There is plenty of salty ground that isn't on a lake and it has worked fine for me on these.

Everyone was kicked out of Nannine and the gates locked months ago, Metals X are drilling down there.

Ah ok I hear yah on that no worries then aye ,It looked quiet @Nannine when I drove past last week
I did hear that news tho a ,cheers 4 ,now GFE

Goldgeo wrote:I have detected dozens of patches within 150km all directions from Meeka and havent had any significant problems.  I havent used it on the actual salt lakes ( dont like detcting them) but have used it in lots of flats with visible salty patches with good results.
Using ground traking may be an error that many are making?  Not ground balancing properly? I dunno, but reading about a machine that is 'hee hawwing 80km from any salt' is nothing like the experience i have had using one.

G'day Goldgeo

What you say may well be the case, but without saying what settings your using is of no use, because if anyone tries using FP like in the manual it won't work, you need to be inventive and try different things till you get some settings that work in the areas your talking about.

I can understand that if your lowering the threshold down to about 4 and up the sensitivity to 20 then you can do what your saying with no problems, but where in the Minelab manual do they give you any clue as to try this in bad ground conditions where salt/alkaline type ground is found, and where the previous gpx detectors had no problems.

So if one want's to use the "Bogene" type settings then the detector will run silent and find gold in good ground and bad ground, and because its running silent you would never know the good from the bad ground.

cheers dave

Im trying to figure out how an amount of small "Flat" pieces is an indication that Qld is a 7 friendly environ.
A flat piece exceeds its weight by audio response many times, Applicable.
As for salt, salt salt everywhere, not only on lakes but everywhere, is it the salt?
I doubt very much salt is the primary design fault of the 7.
Works well on small gold, 2300 does to.
The 7 is a total donkey, no ifs no buts....
No one including myself can prove or disprove this without logged evidence.
I put it that this is the worst Machine ever made.

hi davesgold - your comments above-----

So if one want's to use the "Bogene" type settings then the detector will run silent and find gold in good ground and bad ground, and because its running silent you would never know the good from the bad ground.

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

can you give more details about your experience with the 7000 and "bogene" settings please.
this is a honest and dinkum question i ask, as i have just spent two weeks detecting at clermont in qld with the z, and found the threshold being lowered didnt seems to do anything to the machines sensitivity, depth, or capabilities, other than quietening the machine down. (i used to run the 5000, 4500, and 4000 at threshold level as per the book)

however with the 7000, with the sensitivity at 20, target volumes 15, max volume 10, in auto GB, and any choice of ground settings or search settings, the threshold was a non event,as the higher i set it, the noisier the machine got. after two weeks and 115 pieces of gold, and continueally testing and changeing settings to learn my machine i came to the conclusion the 7000 should have all other settings as stated above, and then lower the threshold until you are happy with the overall stability and quietness of you machine. this is definately contrdictory to the instruction manual i know, but their claim that you will loose the target signal at lower threshold (same as per 4000 4500 and 5000) IS DEFINATELY NOT TRUE. ... kev

kevlorraine2 wrote:hi davesgold -  your comments above-----

So if one want's to use the "Bogene" type settings then the detector will run silent and find gold in good ground and bad ground, and because its running silent you would never know the good from the bad ground.

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

can you give more details about your experience with the 7000 and "bogene" settings please.
this is a honest and dinkum question i ask, as i have just spent two weeks detecting at clermont in qld with the z, and found the threshold being lowered didnt seems to do anything to the machines sensitivity, depth, or capabilities, other than quietening the machine down.  (i used to run the 5000, 4500, and 4000 at threshold level as per the book)

however with the 7000, with the sensitivity at 20, target volumes 15, max volume 10, in auto GB, and any choice of ground settings or search settings, the threshold was a non event,as the higher i set it, the noisier the machine got.  after two weeks and 115 pieces of gold, and continueally testing and changeing settings to learn my machine i came to the conclusion the 7000 should have all other settings as stated above, and then lower the threshold until you are happy with the overall stability and quietness of you machine.  this is definately contrdictory to the instruction manual i know, but their claim that you will loose the target signal at lower threshold (same as per 4000 4500 and 5000) IS DEFINATELY NOT TRUE. ... kev

G'day Kev

Let me say firstly that I prefer to hear the threshold as it is an indication of the ground conditions.  But if the ground is going to be very noisy as in salty/alkaline type ground conditions then I have found that you can indeed lower the threshold to silent (below 10) and crank the sensitivity up to 20 and it will find gold no worries.

When doing this I first ground balance with the ferrite as per instructions, and then lock the GB in manual (fixed) that way you don't need to worry about the auto tracking going haywire as you won't be able to hear it.

I have found many nuggets this way on ground that basically gives you the sh!ts to listen to when detecting the normal way.  But on ground that is ok I still use the threshold at about 25 to 27 and lower the sensitivity to suit, and either use auto tracking and putting the ferrite down to re GB over or just lock the GB into fixed if the tracking drifts out to quickly.

cheers dave

good reply dave -  i cannot disagree with anything you stated as you are spot on.

heres the challenge, it will only take one minute of your time -----

next time you get a faint target while useing the threshold as per normal, before digging it, up the sensitivy to 20 and lower the threshold to 1.   change no other settings.

i will bet you a beer,your response will be louder, and clearer, that means you have got better depth, and with less extraneous noises also means you are less likely to miss a faint target due to the threshold noises.

the depth gain from having the sensitivity at 20 is huge.  the only downside is as you stated "you dont know if you are in good or bad soil"  that applied to the previous gpx machines also.   with their gain high, and target volume high, you didnt know what size or depth your target was until digging, with these machines the threshold was more stable (but you could tilt the coil and get a fair idea). i had great success with these machines, as many times i was with others running normal settings, got them to check my find, they couldnt hear a thing due to their lower gain.

as the main objective is to hear the target as number one, a quiet machine is best.
number two is to get the maximum depth out of your machine.

only two variables, sorry three, is  a persons hearing,  how fast they swing the coil, and one machine compared to another.

good debating with you mate, the aim is find that yella stuff, go get em ... kev

Someone posted one of my videos I made and put on Steve's forum back right after the US release of the 7000 where I was running the Threshold at 1, I think it's in the 7000 owners forum. I was running on the wet alkali and salt flats of Nevada.

Anyways, there wasn't a whole lot of interest in it back then over in the US at least until people started talking about Bogene later on, but I did some pretty extensive early testing with the Threshold (and all the settings for that matter) on various targets and depths. I was running in Nevada on top of very alkaline and salty wet soils and in part my settings were an adaptation to those grounds.

What I want to say is that while I'm a big fan of running my TH low (even on my 4500 I do this), there was no way around my observations that it did make a difference in depth and size sensitivity by throttling it back all the way to 1 (though no where close to what the manual infers you will lose in sensitivity, which I talked about in a few posts on Steve's forum too). To me the perfect balance is somewhere around 10-12. The problem is that you introduce more EMI and ground noise so I find that bumping the Sens back to 18 or 19 is a perfect compromise and I continue to use those settings today, I'll go to 20 Sens if the ground and air is quiet, but I hesitate to bring the TH below 10 anymore because I did miss a few small bits and a deeper one.

*edit to clarify: I think TH of 1 if you are in heavy salt pockets is still a good idea, and in some bad locations the only way to detect. I am replying more to the question about wether it makes a difference in sensitivity bumping the threshold down that low.

I agree that it is often good to listen to the ground, but my experience with the 7000 is it gives you *too* much ground information, for me personally, and I'm just one random guy with an opinion and nothing more, its just not useful past the point where I can tell when lenses/pockets start or stop, salt begins, permeable (iron) grounds change, etc. And you can determine all that with the TH in the background and far less sensitive than stock just as easily as when the entire shebang including all the EMI is hitting you head on and full blast.