RE: DETECTORS

with the advent of GPX, GPZ, SDC machines have the older machines, which were good in their day, now gone right out of existence and not used anymore by anyone due to the diminishing quantity of gold remaining in the ground.. I ask this because as an avid reader of this forum I never read, or hear, of finds by the older detectors... As have those machines gotten old, so must have those who used them decades ago and maybe age has them also tucked away somewhere.. Any thoughts?? dundiggin.

Those old school metal detectors like the Garrett Deep Seekers, A2B Whites Vsat, Gold Bugs and even the Gold Seeker 15000 are just as capable of finding gold today as they did 20 or more years ago. The Vsat was referred to as the vacume Cleaner and it did well around Tibboburra and where gold was near the surface although it only just managed to handle high iron minerals and some dexterity was required in the use of the Ground bal controll.
The Hand Of faith was found with an oldie VLF. The Gold Bug was credited with some big finds. These detectors could not penetrate to great depth in heavily iron mineralised ground. Nevertheless, a great qty of gold was recovered with these machines once the operators mastered the ground balance control and learned to wind down the sensitivity a bit.

As time passed deeper penetrating machines were required and so the Pulse Induction detectors which were mainly used for salt beach and scuba work searching sunken ships etc in heavily salt mineralised areas were adapted to handle the iron mineralisation of the gold fields. It was then found that the PI was not very sensitive to small gram and sub gram gold and then along with high speed computing chips ML introduced the higher pulse rate PI's that we have today and these machines can do it all from finding fine gold at reasonable depth to locating the big deep nuggets.

So in a nut shell, yes the oldie VLF's are still capable machines in skilled hands, they are just a bit fussy about how they are used in high iron mineralised ground

dundiggin wrote:with the advent of GPX, GPZ, SDC  machines have the older machines, which were good in their day, now gone right out of existence and not used anymore by anyone due to the diminishing quantity of gold remaining in the ground.. I ask this because as an avid reader of this forum I never read, or hear, of finds by the older detectors... As have those machines gotten old, so must have those who used them decades ago and maybe age has them  also tucked away somewhere.. Any thoughts??  dundiggin.

 

                      Well just my 2 cents worth , I suppose yes many have been retired ,but also for many the ground they where going over was getting more flogged and with better technology , people updated and for the reasons Adrian stated. Thou some times I've wondered about getting an ol SD2200 with a big mono or dd , ( IF I HAD ) the mild enough ground in order to use it of course  !! using it for its timings / capability's ,in a comparasion test with my 5k ,probably more outa curiosity than any thing else Of course then the other problem would be in knowing / learning how to use it's capability to full advantage

Both dundiggin, you could basically say both. Both the older model detectors have all but become obsolete (for the reasons you'v stated above), as well as the gold becoming a lot scarcer to find, not so all the people swinging coils from the late 70's on-wards. I'm sure some are still involved in the prospecting for gold game with a hand held metal detector, but using the newer, more advanced model PI detectors to find gold with.
Lets face it, even with all the new detector breakthroughs we've had over the last 20 odd years or so, not much has changed in way of ground breaking technology towards depth on gold in highly minerazed soils. All that's been achieved, is the refining of detecting technology, capable now of reaching, slightly better depth on the gram sub-gram gold within the foot mark.
The older series pulse or VLF day detectors, were regulated with much lower pulse/KHz rates, giving pretty much similar depth over the multi-gram/ounce slugs of gold, over/in mineralized soils. This is why little of the much larger multi-ounce slugs are seen to be un-earthed today, with newer technology. All that's been done towards advancements in the world of hand held metal detectors of today, is refining them, to better achieve/find smaller gold, that otherwise wouldn't be found or couldn't be picked up by the earlier VLF/PI units, lying within the one/two foot mark & although detectors today, (whether in VLF or PI form), come with plenty more bells/whistles, they can't make up for the gold that's been found/removed within that one/two foot depth in the past & now missing. Hence the scarcity.
There has been some debate on here in the past, regarding depth on gold by detectors, some saying they prefer not to dig any deeper with what the current range of metal detecting technology already has to offer, but I say, give me a detector that goes 3 feet on an ounce of gold, in mineralized soil & let me worry about the time it takes to dig the target out. Besides, anyone digging a 2/3 foot hole for gold, surely don't believe it would be for a gram or two, but more in the likes of a multi-ouncer.    Now isn't a multi-ouncer worth one's while spending even 3 or 4 hrs of digging time on       Of course one must remember to stay away from detecting in/over old mining heaps, old timers holes or on/over deep chucked out mullock, in which the old boys tended to leave some of their metal junk buried at the bottom.  

Cheers Kon.

It was a pleasure to reads the historical, practical and interesting posts on detectors, and to some of the early swingers who for whatever reason still swing an early pi,vlf,, it must be a comfort to know the "old grey mares" (green, Blue,red )can still pull the plow when conditions are right.. And as you explained, the refinements to the basic detecting principles uncovers the gold the early ones could not "see". And yes,, it may seem daunting to dig down 2-3 feet but the thought of something in the kilogram range would melt old age away with renewed vigour.. Because of his inherent nature man will continue to refine detector technology to the extent that one day the mighty GPZ will lose its place in the field. Boundries are never static, or at least for a little while.. My thanks to kon61,adrian & hugh62 for your thoughtfully interesting compositions.. May the yellow continue to shine on you even at great depths..dundiggin.

Re adrian's comment about the ( Minelab) Gold Seeker 15000 and Tibboburra. I detected with this machine on the Easter Monday Dry Blowing heaps, visited a few years later with a SA detecting cub and the heaps were now leveled, think I was then using a 16000 or Eureka Ace and I remember the discussion about one members GP 2000 it had just come out for sale, was the first we had ever come across, comments were along the lines of how heavy it was, how hard to swing.

The SD 2000 was much heavier & more demanding on the wrist/shoulder swinging the much heavier larger coils, (till the introduction of bungee/Easy Swing Arm) but it was not until one saw what the SD 2000 could do on gold in mineralized soil, over that of VLFs, was both the eye opener as well as the game changer.  That's when the ones already experienced in the finding of gold with a VLF realised, it was worth every bit the $4900 introductory price.
Mind you till this day we have not, nor are likely to see such a breakthrough in performance, over positive targets, buried in mineralized ground, as that of the change from VLF to Pulse Induction.

Cheers Kon.

Re (Mind you till this day we have not, nor are likely to see such a breakthrough in performance)
Totally agree, we would go to the Vic Golden Triangle and find 4 or 5 gms on a long week end (or less), first weekend with a 2000 at Mountain Hut found 23gms, SWMBO still had the 16000.

I never possessed a sd 2000 but the couple of posts praising it (?) makes me wonder if any are still the mainstay of some detectorists. I have heard over the years the 2000 was good for deep targets which makes me think that that description was merely due to experiencing the leap forward that PI had over VLF. Would their depth capacity be on par say, with a 5000?? Of course the electronic wizardry of GPX and now GPZ would relegate the 2000 and the GPs as relics to be brought out on special occasions or whims of fancy.. I find it hard to comprehend they are the mainstay,, or perhaps they are all that their owners could afford and could not or would not move with the times... One never hears of a success story featuring the older machines.. dundiggin

G'day dundiggin

"Mainstay of some detectorists" considering what they found in terms of gold nuggets when used by experienced VLF operators at the time, wouldn't surprise me at all dundiggin, but more so in the likes of keeping them for sentimental reasons more than anything else. Most full time operators kept updating their detectors with their gold finds, keeping up with the times/technology.
The jump from VLF to the Pulse Induction SD 2000, was not merely due to experiencing the so called "leap forward" as you might put it, but more so the 100+ % increase in depth performance, on gold sitting at depth, in mineralized soil.
In quiet ground or ground very low in mineralization, some top of the line VLFs, pretty much kept up or held their own ground, when compared in depth performance, over the same size slug of gold the PI could hear, but it was in mineralized or highly mineralized ground where a VLFs depth was found to be highly lacking & the more mineralized the less depth one would expect to achieve, over that same bit of gold as what the PI could.
Today even the GPZ 7000 & or coupled to the latest aftermarket coils (X-Coils) one won't see a jump in depth increase of 100% on/over undisturbed in-ground gold targets, over that of the GPX 5000 as that seen between the Introduction of Pulse Induction, compared to using VLF.
The depth increments we've seen over the last 10/15 years, have been in the likes of between 10/20% but not in the 100%+ Increments, as that of the jump between VLF to pulse Induction
On the multi-ounce size slugs of gold, I personally would say that the SD 2000/2100 would be more than on par with the GPX 5000, where large multi-ounce slugs of gold are concerned, especially when gold is found siting in areas of high mineralization.
Where the 5000 outshines the SD 2000/2100 is more on the gram/sub-gram gold, but when one talks multi-ounce slugs in mineralized soil, yep, the SD/2000/2100 can more than compete/hold its own against the GPX series detectors. Besides, when one thinks about it, when forced to run a GPX in "Enhance" soil timings, due to the mineralized soil conditions, a GPX 5000 is no better than an SD 2000/2100 using the same in size DD coils, over the same sections of mineralized ground, when chasing the bigger multi-ounce slugs at depth. So I wouldn't exactly call them relics, nor are they the mainstay of today, but have had more of their fair share of gold finds during their time. (gold finds that just can't be repeated today)
Look up some of the gold finds by prospectors using the SD 2000/2100, in some of the "Gold Gem & Treasure" magazines of the past, when pulse was first introduced & you'll see more than one success story.
BTW, a lot of the gold finds found by experienced prospector detectorists who first got their hands on an SD 2000 when first introduced & after seeing what these new PI detectors were capable of, preferred to stay "low, out of sight, out of mind" so to speak & can anyone blame them?
Myself & a couple of other mates were lucky enough to meet with some of these people up north, only to be shown 50/60 ounces of gold by one experienced prospector, using a VLF, during his 5 month stint in WA, just when the SD 2000 was being introduced. One can only Imagine what he would have found the following years using an SD 2000/2100, over the same localities/sections of ground, he had previously found gold in.
It was hard enough seeing some of their finds, not alone believing in what they said they had found, throughout their years detecting.
   
Cheers Kon.

Hi kon, I always enjoy your posts which show your understanding and experience in the field of gold detecting.. I say this due to my being encumbered with things that did not allow me time and free rein to venture out in the field.. This situation perhaps makes me eager to know more about the history and practicalities of detecting and the variables of detectors regarding their use on different grounds..To read your posts is better than going to a library and reading books about the subject.. Many thanks for sharing your knowledge... kind regards,, dundiggin.