GPZ 19" Coil

Yes Jason I mentioned above that it's Eric's graph for monos.

But the same laws govern all magnetic fields independant of their geometry so long as you are comparing like for like. In this instance the RX coils of the 14" DOD and 19" DOD

I looked at it from two angles

1) calculating the area of the two RX coils on both the 14" and the 19" and then equating that area to an equivalent mono for each coil.

2) from my experience with my Zee guaged what I believed was an equivalent mono to the 14" and scaled that up to an equivalent 19" mono.

In both of these situations I arrived at an average gain of 2.5 inches over the two coils from 0 detection range to 3 times the radius of the coils which works out to be an average of 15 to 16%

Granted, CC TX does produce a much stronger initial field than traditional PI and we would expect greater range as we have seen with the 14", but the air testing conducted by the members here and external to this forum also arrive at similar results to that modelled.

I don't think Zee likes air testing, it prefers to sink its teeth into something so in ground results will be a little better. Additionally we have the lackluster field results so far from very capable prospectors downunder.

I believe that in the US it may be performing better but I suspect the 30% will be a novel and irregular experience.

Here's a larger image, using a native diameter, you will see that even if we equate the 19" to a much larger coil the range will not increase much more as the 14" is aready a substantial radiator. We need to increase the coil diameter by 50% to double the depth range difference.

If only I hadn't made that mistake I could've alerted members not to expect a pile maker.

Cheers Kev.

hi philsgold ,
bingo,give the man a cigar
cheers red

Found this on another site. It might over come one large problem.

https://player.vimeo.com/video/75880467

Absolutely agree there Alchemist. The GPZ does better on undisturbed targets in the ground,than any an air test & I & the few mates who prospect with me, will not disagree with what we have actually seen as depth, on gold targets in the ground. The air test,like digging a hole at a certain depth in the ground floor, or on the side wall of a gully, reveals only a form of of depth reading/testing, over gold targets, when comparing detector/coil combinations.It is far from being a true indicator to actual target depth,as compared to a positive signal,buried deep down,on undisturbed, undug, mineralized ground conditions. This is where this new GPZ technology excels over that of past PI technology. (less this new 19 inch Super D Duffer)

Cheers Kon.

Jeff, now that looks better than the ML harness. Any idea how much?

kon61 wrote:This is where this new GPX technology excels over that of past PI technology. (less this new 19 inch Super D Duffer)

Cheers Kon.

Kon,

Is that a typo - did you mean to write GPZ instead of GPZ?

Yep & Cheers for pointing out that critical error, for me Lenoil.

Cheers Kon.

redcaveman wrote:hi adrian ss , seems the chart was made up by the testers ,lol

Seems to me if you want to come up with a more accurate representation of a coils detection ability then it would be better to test several nuggets of widely varying size With say 10 of each of the same weight and differnt type by testing each nugget separately with each coil being tested at increasing depths from the surface to a point where no signal can be discerned. 

That means 10 x 0.1g, 10 x 2g, 10 x 10g etc.

       Testing each nugget and coil in this manner will give a somewhat more accurate indication of how the coil performs in relation to another different coil of the same or any other size.

A truer indication of a coils capability eg the 19 on nuggs from itty bitty to very large will be the result and each nugget set will have an average increase or decrease of its own.
         Even tho an average detection depth increase of the 19 incher can be calculated based on the way it was achieved in the ML chart, the resultant 30%  is not and can never be a true indication of the coils performance on all nuggets.

Are you in the best mode for your area, Does it GB better on the ferrite, are you sweeping at the optimum speed?
Maybe  you are getting peed off because it is too heavy or because it is getting stuck in the grass and twigs n rocks because it doesn't have a solid skid plate?

Things like that along with the high purchase price can start a lot of negative thoughts which makes you nit pick on everything ... even stuff that is not there?

I know you blokes know your detectors very well so these are Just some thoughts.

Reg Wilson wrote:Jeff, now that looks better than the ML harness. Any idea how much?

It looks good for big heavy coils. How ever I only seen it on the WEB.
for more details you might get some info from the link in this link

http://www.levitatetech.com/

Adrian, swing one, then get back to me. You know, 'proof of the pudding, and all that.

Wish I could Reg.
The nearest one is 160 kays away. But those blokes who have been swinging the 7000 and the 14 inch since release  are more than capable of testing the 19 inch and are in the ideal locations. Time in the field will tell how it all pans out I guess.