GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

vasilis Sat Nov 19, 2016 5:13 pm

I want to see a re- call of the new 19 inch coil.
After testing 2 new 19 inch coils and doing a direct comparison with my GPZ and the 14x13 coil on air test with a measuring stick.
We used my personal collection of nuggets that have been found by me and Kon61 and a range of sizes from 1.2 to 194 grams with varying types of nuggets including a 89 gram specimen (mostly gold)
Kon will follow up with a picture to prove the scene.
So it was Slimpicklings, (I changed his name) Kon 61 with 19 inch coils and 2 machines, Me -with the 14x13 coil and grasshopper as an assistant.

Please refer to slims recorded test results that show there is no great depth increase on a range of gold nuggets.
I am not impressed with this false claim by minelab on getting an average depth increase of 30 % (average) over the 14x13 coil.
We will be happy to give specific information if there is some detail missed. We will be out again tomorrow looking for more test areas and trying to do tests on undisturbed targets to get a more realistic idea of performance.
I kept my new 19 inch coil off and stayed with the 14x13 so we could have the 2x19 inch coils and 3 GPZ 's operating for the test.
I want to return my coil as it is still in the box based on misleading information from Minelab and I think there needs to be a re-think and re-call for all used coils unless we get some answers from the big 'M'

Stay tuned and we welcome other peoples experiences.
Cheers Bill

Right,as promised. Bellow are some of the nuggets we used to do our first set of air tests, (regarding depth of gold targets) between the 14x13 inch GPZ coil & new 19 inch

GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so....... Vce_ce12

GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so....... Vce_ce12

GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so....... Vce_ce10

GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so....... Vce_ce11

Now don't think for a moment good people,that we don't know what air tests between coil & positive targets are,or that air testing over targets is far from being a reliable source of determining depth, far from it, for many are the variables that come into play when determining the depth of a target.
It's just one form of testing between detectors/coils/timings/settings etc, on/over conductive targets, giving us some idea as to possible target depth variation, obtained between the 2 coils.
Over the last 3.5 days,swinging over a variety of past nuggety gold producing localities, (gullies/flats), using the new 19 inch super D coil, (Slim with his 7000 & 14x13 inch coil (for target sound comparison) Bill & I,came up empty handed,of any form of colour.
I had a feeling we had done a good job at cleaning these gold localities out, but I never expected such a good job of it. Shocked

The new 19 inch ground breaking coil technology,produced no colour whatsoever, less the few bits of trash found which could be counted in one hand.
Settings used when detecting were, General, Ground Difficult, Sensitivity 15, Smoothing Off, volume 15, threshold 20,Ground balance in Auto.These settings made the large coil run reasonably smooth. The deepest target encountered was a lead ball of 17.2 grams, buried deep in a crevice,down in a clay pocket,of which both the 14 & 19 inch coils picked it up at similar depth.One other target (an old nail 3.5 inches long x approximately 10mm thick) which barely gave a signal to the 19 inch,came in loud & clear when tested up against the 14x13 inch coil.The depth of the nail was a measured 10 inches. Shocked

Now, I do know that you won't get gold where gold don't exist, or is out of detector coil reach, but to get nothing after working 4 gullies & 3 flats with reasonable depth (within the 2 foot mark) that produced good nuggety gold for us in the past, is just unacceptable.
No matter what we did,to improve the performance of the 19 inch coil,over that of the 14x13, we could not achieve more than an overall average of (+-) 5% over any of our gold targets, or newly found undisturbed trashy ones. This to me is an appalling result, as compared to Minelabs claims of an expected average of 30% greater depth,over a majority size/type targets, over that of the 14x13 inch coil.Oh, by the way, in regards to the 89 gram gold specimen,no mater where we placed the ohm meter probes on the exposed gold parts, the gold was found to conduct a positive reading, all the way through, from one side of the specimen to the next.
Now,I'v given my honest opinion on our 3+ days detecting/testing the new 19 inch super D coil & am not here to deter anyone from investing their hard earned cash on it (by all means do so & do your own testing) as for me,I feel like a not so jolly jumbuck, who's not only been fleeced & crutched standing upright,but done so with the wool pulled over my eyes. Shocked

Cheers guys Kon. Q11

kon61 Sat Nov 19, 2016 5:47 pm

Disappointing to say the least. Reg I tip my hat off to you & JRBeaty for stating the facts,on the performance of the new Minelab 19 inch Super D Coil,as compared to the 14x13. Now unless we're missing something or not doing something right,in the way of ground/detector coil performance,I too failed to see the average depth of 30% on natural gold nuggets,in an air test,(or dug up & then back filled ground test) over that of the 14x13 inch GPZ coil. I will be putting up a picture of the nuggets in question soon, but because we're still out on the field,going over old patches that produced good sized gold in the past,it will be in another couple of days. Mind you,3 localities searched so far have produced squat,in terms of any deep targets.

Cheers Kon. Q11

alchemist Sat Nov 19, 2016 9:21 pm

I am very sorry I spouted how good this was going to be and how much extra depth we could expect. Judging by the homebrew coils I've made for many years now I confidently expected gains in line with what I have observed. Never have I seen a larger coil that didn't outperform a smaller on penatration, I just don't get it.

I apologize to any who made this purchase based upon any incitement on my part. I am bitterly disappointed especially with myself.

rc62burke Sat Nov 19, 2016 9:48 pm

Okay,now I shall speak Shocked

the above info reflects what I have been told directly from 1 operator & 2nd hand from 3 others working old patches in NQ since the 19" was released, they are very dissapointed in the short term.

nero_design Sat Nov 19, 2016 10:00 pm

Respectfully, this all sounds very unscientific.
Translating what was written, it would appear that the GPZ 19 inch coil that was used in the comparison was able to find the same nuggets as the GPZ 14x13 coil.

* Measuring stick with air-tests? Most would consider this method is useless. ESPECIALLY with a 19" coil.
* Backfilled holes with nuggets planted in them? Most would consider this method useless due to surface disturbance and soil laxity considerations.

You chose a good range of gold nugget sizes to experiment with but surface area is what registers the strongest reaction from the coil/detector and orientation of any nuggets in the ground is just as important as the coil and settings used.

The best examples will come from undug targets found and tested with both coils BEFORE unearthing them. The undug soil will have a baked on layer of minerals on the surface and that interferes with the detector/coil response. The 19" coil is more immune to ground noise but far more susceptible to EMI than the 14x13 - so I can only assume that you turned off other equipment before operating the machine used for testing.

The GPZ 14x13 coil is going to have certain strengths and weaknesses, as will the GPZ 19 coil.
What detecting mode did you set for each coil when it was mounted? There's no mention of it above and yet this plays a VERY important role in the success of finding larger nuggets at greater depths. I feel confident that the big 'M' would be asking you all the questions I just did. I don't doubt your results at all... but the methods used (as described above) are not scientific. Again, getting the most out of the coil's enhanced depth capabilities requires a very specific combination of settings and target sizes.

I have a couple of friends up North and out West using these coils right now and have asked them to give me some specific feedback. If I get any positive or interesting results, I'll be sure to post on the details for you. But I get the impression your mind is already made up. Keep on with the testing and lets see some pictures. I think everyone is curious to hear and see more.

EDIT: I see another comment came in from Alchemist while I was writing the comment above. I'm now genuinely curious to hear more from other users. Please don't think I'm being dismissing of your experiments. I'm just trying to assure myself that your experiments and comparisons were fair. The 89 gram specimen you've been testing with may or may not be ideal. So many influencing factors here that it's impossible to tell if the tests done by members give an accurate portrayal of the coil's potential.

rc62burke Sat Nov 19, 2016 10:11 pm

nero_design wrote:Respectfully, this all sounds very unscientific.
Translating what was written, it would appear that the GPZ 19 inch coil that was used in the comparison was able to find the same nuggets as the GPZ 14x13 coil.

* Measuring stick with air-tests? Most would consider this method is useless. ESPECIALLY with a 19" coil.
* Backfilled holes with nuggets planted in them? Most would consider this method useless due to surface disturbance and soil laxity considerations.

You chose a good range of gold nugget sizes to experiment with but surface area is what registers the strongest reaction from the coil/detector and orientation of any nuggets in the ground is just as important as the coil and settings used.

The best examples will come from undug targets found and tested with both coils BEFORE unearthing them. The undug soil will have a baked on layer of minerals on the surface and that interferes with the detector/coil response. The 19" coil is more immune to ground noise but far more susceptible to EMI than the 14x13 - so I can only assume that you turned off other equipment before operating the machine used for testing.

The GPZ 14x13 coil is going to have certain strengths and weaknesses, as will the GPZ 19 coil.
What detecting mode did you set for each coil when it was mounted? There's no mention of it above and yet this plays a VERY important role in the success of finding larger nuggets at greater depths. I feel confident that the big 'M' would be asking you all the questions I just did. I don't doubt your results at all... but the methods used (as described above) are not scientific. Again, getting the most out of the coil's enhanced depth capabilities requires a very specific combination of settings and target sizes.

I have a couple of friends up North and out West using these coils right now and have asked them to give me some specific feedback. If I get any positive or interesting results, I'll be sure to post on the details for you. But I get the impression your mind is already made up. Keep on with the testing and lets see some pictures. I think everyone is curious to hear and see more.

EDIT: I see another comment came in from Alchemist while I was writing the comment above. I'm now genuinely curious to hear more from other users. Please don't think I'm being dismissing of your experiments. I'm just trying to assure myself that your experiments and comparisons were fair. The 89 gram specimen you've been testing with may or may not be ideal. So many influencing factors here that it's impossible to tell if the tests done by members give an accurate portrayal of the coil's potential.

Can you give any more indication on state , district ??? will it make much difference ???? I don't know I've only detected in one district or maybe not LOL

vasilis Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:23 pm

Ok let's try and simplify our claims and testing procedure.

First of all each detector was re-tuned in the same location and yes all other detectors were turned off when one was being tested.

The ground was clean of all factors that may interfere with the tests.

The tests were simply a comparison between the 14" and the 19' as you can see on the posted results.
Tweaking and adjusting with each coil was not done so as not to discredit the actual air test.

I do not disagree about the true test on undisturbed targets in the ground and we did spend some of today trying to do exactly this but to no avail.
All our ground was cleaned out thoroughly with our previous detecting sessions over many years.

Why can we not do a simple comparison test on factory pre-set with the 2 coils to see the difference between the 2. We know we can up all the settings when we want to but that was not the aim.
It's not rocket science doing a comparison.
Do I get my ferrari delivered and then match it against my mazda to find that they drive a similar speed with the same reading on the tachometer needle.
We have suggested that the test on the 192 grammer was changed to extra deep in both coils and only found a difference of 8.8 %. so still far off the suggested 30 % Av increase.
I look forward to seeing some other test results.
cheers Bill

GypsyGoldAu Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:38 pm

vasilis wrote:Ok let's try and simplify our claims and testing procedure.

As for Reg, i am sorry your disappointed, but as you say above, lets keep it simple. Methodology aside, this is about 'perception' and some appear to miss the point.

This is clipped from another 19" coil thread;

..."As for the fine print from the big 'M' : "The information displayed in this diagram is a coil-for-coil comparison, is indicative only, and is based on the results of laboratory measurements and field testing undertaken by, and for, Minelab, using appropriate and identical detector settings. Please be aware that the depicted results give a relative and realistic comparison of the two GPZ coils for typical goldfields conditions for detecting the weight ranges of gold shown, but do not represent performance under all conditions, and should not be regarded as conclusive. Minelab does not warrant or represent that the performance levels depicted will always be achieved, as performance of the two coils will vary depending upon prevailing conditions. Relevant factors in detector plus coil performance include, but are not limited to, detector settings, ground type, mineralisation levels and type, electromagnetic interference, gold nugget size, shape and composition, and operator skill level."

The underline and bold are mine, and should be ignored at your own peril...and in some cases, that appears to have occurred. Others appear not to be as bothered and are enjoying their new purchase.

ML cast a hook, and that's what most of you have wrongly and blindly focused on.

Again, sorry for any disenchantment, but some only have themselves to blame.

If your testing has not met ML's figures, you just haven't detected ground/targets the same as them, and that's not the same as saying it doesn't work as advertised.

Additionally, as the results are derived as an 'average' from locations around the globe, there will be some results from BENIGN ground that may actually EXCEED the proposed numbers interspersed in the 'avg'...can we hear a YAAAA for ML exceeding their figures?

Seems some miss the concept of 'avg' as the benchmark being proposed, and have built an 'expectation' of 'always'... cyclops

In saying that, and as my final, Don't shoot the messenger...if you feel you have a legitimate claim against ML, take it to court and settle it there (be sure to provide 'evidence'), not point pick against each other here, it's really not a good look for the hobby.

Good Luck to all//
Gypsy

Martin R Sun Nov 20, 2016 8:18 am

I wonder if ML would allow an outsider with a 19" coil on their test bed to do a 14 v 19" comparison
and if the claims can then be achieved that should be the end of it
Anyone live near them ?

M.

GypsyGoldAu Sun Nov 20, 2016 9:03 am

Martin R wrote:I wonder if ML would allow an outsider with a 19" coil on their test bed to do a 14 v 19" comparison
and if the claims can then be achieved that should be the end of it
Anyone live near them ?

M.

Read back a bit Martin, ML take samplings from around the globe, not just one set testbed....your idea would still not produce results to calm the angry hoard...that, coupled with everyone appearing to become illusionists and converting ML's 'average' % numbers, unbelievingly to minimum performance numbers... Evil or Very Mad

Gypsy

rc62burke Sun Nov 20, 2016 9:09 am

Excuse my ignorance here, but does any one here know if there is a diagram around showing the detection field of the GPZ14 & GPZ19 coils ??

kon61 Sun Nov 20, 2016 9:43 am

GypsyAU, stop with the jargon and start giving us your test results between the 19 inch super D & 14x13 inch coil on a variety type/size nuggets. I'v had enough of hearing you quote or refer to what Minelab has stated. Gold nuggets are not found in laboratories,they're found on a gold field.If air tests are so drastically wrong,how do Minelab testers go about in testing out on the gold fields? Or maybe they too bring along their own laboratory with them for testing? I know air tests are far from being conclusive,but can anyone here tell me how to obtain the promised average of 30% greater depth on a majority sized nuggets by using the 19 inch super D coil, over that of the 14x13 inch super D coil?
3 brand new 19 inch coils $3900 worth put to the test on or in ground targets, for almost 0 results. Now we must all be stupid for we don't know what we're doing, right?
We bought in good faith, with the greatest of motivation & anticipation,only to find out that the 30% average claims on a variety of nuggets are not there.
Disregarding my 25 years in the metal detecting game and a few thousand nugget finds to show for it, not to mention the many a coil/detector I'v gone through over the years, Please someone, anyone, using a GPZ 7000, coupled to the new 19 inch super D coil, prove us drastically wrong. Is there anyone out there, or am I talking to a brick wall?

Cheers Kon

Martin R Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:06 am

GypsyGoldAu wrote:
Martin R wrote:I wonder if ML would allow an outsider with a 19" coil on their test bed to do a 14 v 19" comparison
and if the claims can then be achieved that should be the end of it
Anyone live near them ?

M.

Read back a bit Martin, ML take samplings from around the globe, not just one set testbed....your idea would still not produce results to calm the angry hoard...that, coupled with everyone appearing to become illusionists and converting ML's 'average' % numbers, unbelievingly to minimum performance numbers...

Gypsy

Sorry but I feel that the test beds they show in the 19" add https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeCkhUt9ukM&index=2&list=PL-wOIlBb-BId41w7SXIKU3sEMKtShv6Vk
is a guide line bed that they use , sampling from around the globe is nice if you can afford to fly everywhere, hence the test bed in OZ at their place it would still give them a good range to work on

I never said for hoards of Z owners at one time , I said 1 Z owner on the same test beds they use , it would allow the Z owner to see 1st hand of any difference in a controlled bed

A mate of mine said he is somewhat dump founded that there was not a firmware upgrade for the new coil he went on to say why but it went straight over my head made scene at the time though

Have you got a 19" coil ?
If so what did you make of it so far ?

M

GypsyGoldAu Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:09 am

kon61 wrote:GypsyAU, stop with the jargon and start giving us your test results between the 19 inch super D & 14x13 inch coil on a variety type/size nuggets. I'v had enough of hearing you quote or refer to what Minelab has stated.

Calm down Kon.

Your happy to continually read misinformation from members and take it as gospel ie; everyone quoting 30%.....which is a continual reference to "what ML has said"....Hypocrite much?

Gold nuggets are not found in laboratories,they're found on a gold field.If air tests are so drastically wrong,how do Minelab testers go about in testing out on the gold fields? Or maybe they too bring along their own laboratory with them for testing?

Being snide & facetious helps no-one, and you know as well as anyone, the 30% is an "average"...not a constant, and NOT taken from any ONE field, it's an AVERAGE from around the WORLD!!

Here's a thought,....for those dissatisfied with their %'s...find benign ground targets and your %'s will increase

I know air tests are far from being conclusive,but can anyone here tell me how to obtain the promised average of 30% greater depth on a majority sized nuggets by using the 19 inch super D coil, over that of the 14x13 inch super D coil?

So you concede there's an issue replicating ML's testing, yet can definitively call out ML about their figures???....just what i have been saying all along, yet all i'm getting here is grief for being the rational one. Perhaps, there-in lays the difference...the ABSENCE OF EMOTION.

3 brand new 19 inch coils $3900 worth put to the test on or in ground targets, for almost 0 results. Now we must all be stupid for we don't know what we're doing, right?

I have never said any such comment....strawman much??

We bought in good faith, with the greatest of motivation & anticipation,only to find out that the 30% average claims on a variety of nuggets are not there.

The obvious response is cover more ground, and more variable ground, and your "avg" will change...

Disregarding my 25 years in the metal detecting game and a few thousand nugget finds to show for it, not to mention the many a coil/detector I'v gone through over the years, Please someone, anyone, using a GPZ 7000, coupled to the new 19 inch super D coil, prove us drastically wrong. Is there anyone out there, or am I talking to a brick wall?

Cheers Kon

Now, having answered your direct post i will now re-direct up 3x posts above yours to assist you understanding all the confusion here.

No-one makes you read my posts Kon, how you respond to them is down to you...but like i said earlier...Don't shoot the messenger. I'm NOT RESPONSIBLE for your, or anyone else's, flawed basis of expectation, and have the same freedom to express that as anyone else. Smile

Regards
Gypsy

GypsyGoldAu Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:12 am

Martin R wrote:
Have you got a 19" coil ?
If so what did you make of it so far ?

M

I hear what your saying Martin, i just don't see a ML bed in Adelaide replicating more benign ground where better than the 30% "average" has been recorded. Some miss this point...

No, i don't own the Z.

Gypsy

Martin R Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:18 am

Where are all the other Z owners here that have the coil, may still out in the field tonight should be good then with the fireworks starting once they get home and start reading all of this and add to it

M.

redcaveman Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:22 am

fingers crossed for all you that have 19 zed coil , hope its just a firmware update oversight by ML ,cheers red

Reg Wilson Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:25 am

Kon, Gypsy says, "Don't shoot the messenger". Boy!!! That's a bit rich, coming from him. Hypocrisy????

Liquid Gold Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:26 am

nero_design wrote:Respectfully, this all sounds very unscientific.
Translating what was written, it would appear that the GPZ 19 inch coil that was used in the comparison was able to find the same nuggets as the GPZ 14x13 coil.

* Measuring stick with air-tests? Most would consider this method is useless. ESPECIALLY with a 19" coil.
* Backfilled holes with nuggets planted in them? Most would consider this method useless due to surface disturbance and soil laxity considerations.

You chose a good range of gold nugget sizes to experiment with but surface area is what registers the strongest reaction from the coil/detector and orientation of any nuggets in the ground is just as important as the coil and settings used.

The best examples will come from undug targets found and tested with both coils BEFORE unearthing them. The undug soil will have a baked on layer of minerals on the surface and that interferes with the detector/coil response. The 19" coil is more immune to ground noise but far more susceptible to EMI than the 14x13 - so I can only assume that you turned off other equipment before operating the machine used for testing.

The GPZ 14x13 coil is going to have certain strengths and weaknesses, as will the GPZ 19 coil.
What detecting mode did you set for each coil when it was mounted? There's no mention of it above and yet this plays a VERY important role in the success of finding larger nuggets at greater depths. I feel confident that the big 'M' would be asking you all the questions I just did. I don't doubt your results at all... but the methods used (as described above) are not scientific. Again, getting the most out of the coil's enhanced depth capabilities requires a very specific combination of settings and target sizes.

I have a couple of friends up North and out West using these coils right now and have asked them to give me some specific feedback. If I get any positive or interesting results, I'll be sure to post on the details for you. But I get the impression your mind is already made up. Keep on with the testing and lets see some pictures. I think everyone is curious to hear and see more.

EDIT: I see another comment came in from Alchemist while I was writing the comment above. I'm now genuinely curious to hear more from other users. Please don't think I'm being dismissing of your experiments. I'm just trying to assure myself that your experiments and comparisons were fair. The 89 gram specimen you've been testing with may or may not be ideal. So many influencing factors here that it's impossible to tell if the tests done by members give an accurate portrayal of the coil's potential.

My question is, do minelab test their coils on undug gold targets at various depths?, I don't think so. How can they justify the 30% increase if they can't do real tests like you've suggested "undug targets found and tested with both coils BEFORE unearthing them". I think minelab should come clean here and take this opportunity to justify and prove their claims. These claims look to be false according to some of the most experienced operators on this forum.

GypsyGoldAu Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:28 am

Reg Wilson wrote:Kon, Gypsy says, "Don't shoot the messenger". Boy!!! That's a bit rich, coming from him. Hypocrisy????

Unlike you Reg, i have not lowered myself to attack ANY individual.

Strawman much?

GypsyGoldAu Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:30 am

Liquid Gold wrote:
My question is, do minelab test their coils on undug gold targets at various depths?, I don't think so. How can they justify the 30% increase if they can't do real tests like you've suggested "undug targets found and tested with both coils BEFORE unearthing them". I think minelab should come clean here and take this opportunity to justify and prove their claims. These claims look to be false according to some of the most experienced operators on this forum.

The obvious is to work backwards using the 19" to detect targets beyond the 14" coils ability, and slowly scrape a layer at a time until the 14" hears the target...compare the numbers and work out that target, on that ground, with your machine set that way...will give you the % difference...Easy.

But unlike others, don't be fooled into thinking it's going to be 30% 'EVERY" time, as appears some here appear to do.

rc62burke Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:36 am

GypsyGoldAu wrote:
Liquid Gold wrote:
My question is, do minelab test their coils on undug gold targets at various depths?, I don't think so. How can they justify the 30% increase if they can't do real tests like you've suggested "undug targets found and tested with both coils BEFORE unearthing them". I think minelab should come clean here and take this opportunity to justify and prove their claims. These claims look to be false according to some of the most experienced operators on this forum.

The obvious is to work backwards using the 19" to detect targets beyond the 14" coils ability, and slowly scrape a layer at a time until the 14" hears the target...compare the numbers and work out that target, on that ground, with your machine set that way...will give you the % difference...Easy.

Well Well Well
I call BS on this statement, we should all know that this will not reflect the true mineralisation of the said ground as the surface few inches will be greater in mineralisation, hence will have a different outcome with the more dirt you dig out.

Guest Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:38 am

Hi GGA
You seem to get right into the mix of things.. yet you don't own a gpz7000
What i can't understand is..
Unless you a lawyer or something.
How come you are defending the 19 inch coil?

Can't you see how peeved off the owners are.. and its not just one or two..
Its a whole bunch..
all over the internet these coils are up for sale..

I would appreciate it if you could back off a bit.. let the owners of these machines tell their story's
As there are many that have years of experience in the detecting world.
I am sure there will be many more that would come on to tell their story.

Thankyou
Jen

Martin R Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:46 am

Another way to look at is to dismiss the 30% ML claim
Lets go back to the 5000, 11" std coil now go out and buy a 14" coil one would see an increase in depth now change to a 18" and this would blow the other coils out of the water for depth but increasing the EMI now bring on the Z far better on EMI and dismissing many sounds that the 5000 didnt.

Std coil 14" buy the 19" coil and one would thing going by past experiences , the 19" coil should blow the 14" coil all day long, however the Z owners with the 19" coil are saying this is not so, something along the track during manufacturing this coil must have gone wrong
lets hope its just a firmware realignment

M

GypsyGoldAu Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:50 am

Jen58 wrote:Hi GGA
You seem to get right into the mix of things.. yet you don't own a gpz7000
What i can't understand is..
Unless you a a lawyer or something.
How come you are defending the 19 inch coil?

Can't you see how peeved off the owners are.. and its not just one or two..
Its a whole bunch..
all over the internet these coils are up for sale..

I would appreciate it if you could back off a bit.. let the owners of these machines tell their story's
As there are many that have years of experience in the detecting world.
I am sure there will be many more that would come on to tell there story.

Thankyou
Jen

Thank-you Jen.

If you have been following, you will note on at least two threads i have signed off the discussion, my continuation comes from the sniping directed to me. Believe me, i'm well over it myself, so if others can avoid quoting me or making direct queries, then i will have no need to respond. Cool

I can see all the issues you mentioned, and my apologies for trying to help people understand their own misconceptions, and i understand why they're upset. I am not "defending ML or the 19", but i also don't stand on misinformation, obfuscation or slander when public comments are made based on a false premise.

I am hopeful some who ARE getting advertised or better results will share...i like a good gold ending as much as the next guy/gal.

You can be rest assured, with the exception of direct queries, i shall here-forth hold my piece... Wink

Gypsy

GypsyGoldAu Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:54 am

rc62burke wrote:
Well Well Well
I call BS on this statement, we should all know that this will not reflect the true mineralisation of the said ground as the surface few inches will be greater in mineralisation, hence will have a different outcome with the more dirt you dig out.

Well...if the 14" couldn't get it but the 19"does...YOU tell me how YOU intend to work out the depth % difference please?
No...really, i want to understand how YOU come to your conclusions about coil performance. (Sure, i can learn lots more, so give me the mail?)

Gypsy

Guest Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:56 am

GypsyGoldAu wrote:
Jen58 wrote:Hi GGA
You seem to get right into the mix of things.. yet you don't own a gpz7000
What i can't understand is..
Unless you a a lawyer or something.
How come you are defending the 19 inch coil?

Can't you see how peeved off the owners are.. and its not just one or two..
Its a whole bunch..
all over the internet these coils are up for sale..

I would appreciate it if you could back off a bit.. let the owners of these machines tell their story's
As there are many that have years of experience in the detecting world.
I am sure there will be many more that would come on to tell there story.

Thankyou
Jen

Thank-you Jen.

If you have been following, you will note on at least two threads i have signed off the discussion, my continuation comes from the sniping directed to me. Believe me, i'm well over it myself, so if others can avoid quoting me or making direct queries, then i will have no need to respond.

I can see all the issues you mentioned, and my apologies for trying to help people understand their own misconceptions, and i understand why they're upset. I am not "defending ML or the 19", but i also don't stand on misinformation, obfuscation or slander when public comments are made based on a false premise.

I am hopeful some who ARE getting advertised or better results will share...i like a good gold ending as much as the next guy/gal.

You can be rest assured, with the exception of direct queries, i shall here-forth hold my piece...

Gypsy

Ok... i will hold you to " i shall here-forth hold my piece"
But false premise. Too many are complaining.. cant see anything false..
I Don't want you to answer.. Evil or Very Mad

GypsyGoldAu Sun Nov 20, 2016 11:01 am

Jen58 wrote:

You can be rest assured, with the exception of direct queries, i shall here-forth hold my piece...

Ok... i will hold you to " i shall here-forth hold my piece"

But....But....ok, i apologize for responding to rcburke62 calling me a BS'er.
But false premise. Too many are complaining.. cant see anything false..
I Don't want you to answer..

Guest Sun Nov 20, 2016 11:01 am

GypsyGoldAu wrote:
rc62burke wrote:
Well Well Well
I call BS on this statement, we should all know that this will not reflect the true mineralisation of the said ground as the surface few inches will be greater in mineralisation, hence will have a different outcome with the more dirt you dig out.

Well...if the 14" couldn't get it but the 19"does...YOU tell me how YOU intend to work out the depth % difference please?
No...really, i want to understand how YOU come to your conclusions about coil performance. (Sure, i can learn lots more, so give me the mail?)

Gypsy

I thought you were going to "I SHALL HERE-FORTH HOLD MY PIECE"
If you can not back off.
You will be looking at going on a holiday!!!

GPZhunter Sun Nov 20, 2016 11:09 am

Has anyone tried using the GPZ with 19" Coil in extra Deep mode in ironstone rich red noisy clay conditions and deep ground, ( bedrock 3 - 5 feet ).
I know of a location with these conditions and it has produced me a nugget over an ounce to GPZ 7000 14" coil HY, Difficult @ 14" it was a screaming target i am actually very surprised it was still there.
The nugget would have been audible to GPX series machines and possibly SD & GP but it was there amongst diggings with almost NO TRASH at all in the vicinty. The location is on Doug Stone & Tully maps etc on public land
in the GT. After virtually 30 years of gold detecting the nugget was still there?

GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......

Re: GPZ 19 inch depth increase ?? - I don't think so.......