Gold Detecting and Prospecting Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  Kon61gold on Sat Feb 26, 2011 2:31 pm

In recent years there has been a big swing to the new detectors likethe 5000 and the 4500 which are far more sensitive and better balanced. When you link them to a mono coil particulary a small one, you can't beat them particularly for small nuggets. This has been proven especially in the west and in Victoria.

But is this at the expense of the larger nuggests we used to find with the SD2000 series? Are we concentrating too much with what the dealers are telling us rather than going back to making full use of the machines? Is Enhance any good for DD coils and what is the best setting for depth and finding large nuggets?

Maybe by using these new machines in their basic settings with DD coils we may get better results. Should we think outside the square they have given us - food for thought?

Jeff
Kon61gold
Kon61gold
Management

Number of posts : 3662
Age : 58
Registration date : 2008-10-16

https://golddetecting.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  Guest on Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:22 pm

HI Jeff,
Well I guess at almost 50 dollars a gm the littlies are worth looking for and they are much more plentifull than very large nuggs, particularly in WA. I have not been into a gold field for a while now but when I do I tend to concentrate on very quiet mellow signals that could be a deep biggie. Any short sharp tones that are clear I will have a look at. Nuggets like the Hand Of Faith are good examples of how quiet a big nugget can be to a VLFand even to a good PI. That nugg was standing on edge and did not present much of a signal and many such nuggs can disguise themselves as small shallow targets that a person might ignore in their search for the desired soft broard mellow tone of the dream nugget So I guess you have to decide what you are looking for and set the machine accordingly. I have not used a 4500 or 5000 but I am sure they will go deep on big stuff if you set them right.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty re focus on small gold

Post  evan2010 on Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:16 pm

Gday Jeff, I reckon thats a Great question you have asked there. I too have been thinking of giving a Large DD coil a run in Normal timings on my 4500 over some ground I detected lastyear (just in case) . Having said that I believe that for general detecting or patchfinding, the Mono's extra sensitivity and the overall quietness enhance can give, will probably see more nuggets of various sizes ending up in your pocket IMO. Cheers Evan
evan2010
evan2010
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 298
Age : 43
Registration date : 2010-05-09

Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  kon61 on Sat Feb 26, 2011 6:25 pm



G'day gents.

Its obvious to me that Geffs post,is one post open for good debate. Although Id have to agree with Evan on this one.
Your right about one thing though Jeff,to many a prospector are fixated on finding small gold at shallow depths,and i find nothing wrong with that.If people are content with finding color just for the sake of saying i found gold,that's also fine with me.I myself know that for every rare multi ounce slug found,a thousand little slugs subside well within reach of the right detector/coil/settings combination.One things for certain though,one must think big to find big and equip themselves with the appropriate gear to do so.As long as EMI or ground mineralization is tolerable,on the larger mono coils,they'll certainly surpass the smaller ones when searching for that faint,deep,big gold signal. In this game where so many variables are concerned,thinking outside the square as you put it,is a must,and not an option.

Cheers kon61.
kon61
kon61
Management

Number of posts : 4995
Registration date : 2010-02-19

Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  Guest on Sun Feb 27, 2011 6:21 am


Gday

Although people did well with the sd2000 on medium to large nuggets it was not long before users realised that they were not getting the quantity of smaller pieces that they were used to getting with the popular vlf detectors, so then people started with the frequency mods adding a couple of higher frequencies to enable them to get the smaller pieces as well, the 18" dustbin lid was the coil that came with the sd2000 and the other main coils used were the 11" dd, 11" mono,and 8" mono.

Later machines seemed to evolve so that they were more capable at finding small bits at medium depths but under the right conditions bigger pieces would also be found, but I believe that the evolution and changes to the frequencies of these detectors is partially responsible for the fact that there are less big pieces now found, that factor coupled with the other fact that most known areas have been hammered and the big or easy pieces picked up.

Its become an accepted fact that there are more smaller pieces of gold still to be found than big pieces, with most pieces now being sub gram in size and a ten grammer being a whopper, but I believe also that there are many more large nuggets still to be had and possibly pieces that would rival some of the clunkers found to date, I am of the opininion that in order to increase your chances of snagging one of these you simply have to "think out of the square" as earlier suggested, and evolve your detecting style to one of becoming a specialist in hunting big deep gold, some old habits would have to be broken as it is with patch hunting you can spend many many hours covering the ground for nothing, so you do end up getting the urge to go back to known productive areas and putting on a smaller coil so that you can get your gold fix, and pick up some fuel money etc.

I cant see any reason why this cant be achieved with the later model detectors, and as suggested large dd coils may be the answer, now if only we could get some large "lightweight" dd coils that would be something, I had heard on the grapevine that nuggetfinder were working on some of these, but I suppose with the popularity of the big mono's that has been where the money was so I nothing more was done with them, also with the later detectors the use of settings other than enhance may achieve greater depth in some ground types so experimentation with these factors may be the way to go there, or to simply perservere with an unmodded sd2000 for this type of work.

cheers

stayyerAU




Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  kevlorraine2 on Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:50 pm

i think you have said it right JEFF in the main people target the smaller nugs to keep their ego intact, and minelab knowing this has catered for them in recent models and new modes, like fine gold, with the 5000.

i tested my new 5000 recently with 17x11" NF mono, got a good signal a few inches down, switched from enhance (the find mode) to fine gold (noisier but higher signal), to smooth (quieter but not as loud), to extra (slightly noisier again but the strongest signal). it was a shotgun pellet about three inches down.

enhance remained the mode of choice, as it was the quietest, in this very hot, buried red slate hot rock soil.
smooth may have found it, but with less depth capacity to enhance, why use it?
the new fine gold would of hear it ok, but with it being noisier, would i have stopped for it?
extra definately heard it ok, but it was the noisiest of the four and would have drived me crazy.

from that experiement, i have concluded, i will not be useing fine gold, until i know the false signals of that soil well, and am trying to clean up the minnoe/embrios.

PS. cant comment on DD coil benefits, as i stopped useing them with the extreme, they were too heavy for me.

i will continue with enhance/mono/larger coils/ in deep with signal INVERTED (as i have done for the last two years with the 4500)

hope i can report back, that that system still workes best with the 5000

(last years get was 300grams in 309 pieces.(largest was 29gms) one leftover plot pulled the average down by giving up 119 bits for 33gms most found in extra once i knew the soil) ... kev


Last edited by kevlorraine2 on Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:54 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : additional information)

kevlorraine2
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 502
Registration date : 2008-10-23

Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  Guest on Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:50 pm

Actually, I don't think ego has anything to do with it, we take what is on offer. Ego would have us putting the little ones back!

Yes we all want to unearth that big nugget and sure there are some big ones left, but on some public fossicking areas (especially here in the Eastern states) we are left picking up the crumbs and therefore choose a coil to suit. More times than not, those crumbs save you from going home goldless.

Also, in very shallow ground where bedrock is three or four pick whacks away and grass wont allow you to maneuver a larger coil, a smaller coil will do the job admirably. When ground conditions suit, go for the bigger coil.

New detectorist also often start with the standard 11" or smaller. If they started off trying to master an 18"or bigger, many would probably give up in frustration. Smaller steps before learning to run. Learn the machine, standard coil then move up to the bigger coils.

As for the small gold?? Beck's will pay me the exact same amount for 5oz of sub grammers as the will for 10 half oz pieces

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  kevlorraine2 on Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:24 am

cant disagree with anything you say there MADTUNA

i will however stick to "fishin for the big ones" that means - riggin up with bigger equipment.- going to the
"reef" where the bigger ones are known to hang out. sometimes, coming home via the fish and chip shop because i dont get a "scale" and saving my embarrasement at home by plonking at least something on the table to keep the better half happy. (my ego).

amazing how gold detecting and fishing have a lot in common, hope you been snagging plenty lately, big or small ... kev

kevlorraine2
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 502
Registration date : 2008-10-23

Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  Guest on Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:50 am

the big one is everyones dream but i just get what i can as long as it's gold. the biggedt one i have found since i have started is 1.6 grams and as they say there's 1000 small ones to 1 big one. if i know there's small gold i'll hunt it down just to have one or so bits just to cover the day for petrol then after that it's just exrar in the pocket. i'm going an 18" soon so i can hunt for deeper and hope the bigger gold.
cheers
stoppsy

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  kon61 on Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:31 am



Stoppsy, your very right in what you say,as for Tuna,hes always been one step ahead in common sense.Concentrate on pulling in your so called bread and butter stuff,cause Iv seen one too many a prospector go hungry chasing the so called "BIG" one,which might never come.As for the whoppers,they have a habit of turning up where you least expect them to be,regardless of what your using to find them.

Cheers kon61.

kon61
kon61
Management

Number of posts : 4995
Registration date : 2010-02-19

Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  alchemist on Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:34 am

How,
Good thoughts Jeff. I don't think we a missing much if we are paying attention and not day-dreaming while we swing. It's real easy to just cruise along mentally and listen for the stronger peaky signals which often tend to be small shallow bits, but it's a whole lot harder to concentrate and listen for the weak broken and broad signals that may indicate a ground mineralisation change or a deeper piece and sometimes a decent bit presenting its narrow side to the field.

I did a little depth comparison a couple of years ago and was very surprised at how well Enhance did as the bits got larger. The test pieces I used were small, as this is what I was finding at one particular patch, but the 2.9 gram "flattie" would present a field surface area similar to a much larger piece.

Link = Coiltek small piece test

Cheers.

Ego ???

P.S. I must add that this was done in fairly benign ground, and had the mineralisation been really bad, there would've been more of an equalisation between the timings, with a marked increase in Enhances responses. Thus this is representative of air depths, although it was actually conducted in volcanic kaolin.


Last edited by alchemist on Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:41 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Post Script)
alchemist
alchemist
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 514
Age : 61
Registration date : 2009-01-06

Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty RE:Are we focusing to much on small nuggets?

Post  TWO BOB on Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:58 am

Hi Jeff
As I am finding plenty of buttons & bullets at 8" or much deeper with nuggets up to 15gr now and then with my 16" mono on hammed ground. I think this is becaurse most people are using 11" or smaller coils that don't see the deeper targets.
This also applys to the diggings where the small coils are recommended by most.
Cheers
"TWO BOB"
TWO BOB
TWO BOB
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 275
Registration date : 2009-02-03

Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  Guest on Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:09 am

The "good old days" are gone. Period.

A chap from Qld who was VERY successful with the earlier Minelabs came down to Vic last year.
He detected for 3 weeks with a GPX4500 and found...nothing.

I don't believe any of us goes out thinking "I'm not looking for big ones...just the sub-gram stuff".
If any of us do think that way he/she should get a new hobby.
Does anyone go fishing thinking " I just want the undersize ones" Not bloody likely.

Whatever the size of your gold. YOU STILL HAVE TO WALK OVER IT!.

I don't care what size my nuggets are. They are all worth the same spot gold price.
If I find a big bit it's a fantastic bonus. I'm happy just to be able to do it.

Robert

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  llanbric on Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:37 am

Goldnomad wrote:

"I'm happy just to be able to do it."

Sums the game up very well Robert.


llanbric
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 392
Registration date : 2008-11-17

Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  Guest on Mon Feb 28, 2011 12:38 pm

Hi all,
I read with intrest Jeffs post and the replies on this topic.
Am fairly new to "gold prospecting", but have done plenty of the relic stuff.
My question is regarding the frequency difference between the sd2000 and the new modern gp/gpx. Are the newer modern detectors able to match/duplicate the same frequences as what the sd range uses.
As for coils, ie the bigger the coil the better the depth, surely that new nugget finder 30x7in would detect gold in China from here Very Happy .
Yes, DD coils being heavier, but a hipstick or bungie would solve that problem. Actually found a guy in oz selling hipsticks on ebay at a good price. Not sure how good they are though.

http://shop.ebay.com.au/i.html?_nkw=minelab+hip+stick&_sacat=0&_odkw=minelab+hipstick&_osacat=0&_trksid=p3286.c0.m270.l1313

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re Focus on small gold

Post  Guest on Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:31 pm

Jeff good thread
I definately agree with one and all, there are so many variables to be considered e.g. settings ,size of coil used ,ground conditions(type of terrain- mineralisation- how much grass etc.) ,type of coil (mono-DD). If you know the area you can normally set yourself up. If it is new ground well I would say take pot luck by going large medium or small and settings to suit, some times I ever poke another coil in the back of my belt if I am checking out a large area. As we have found generally it's horses for courses and a lot of luck to what you find, personly if it is yellow and heavy I'll have it
Cheers Dave. cheers cheers

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  Narrawa on Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:49 pm

Hi all, i spent this weekend helping out with a few new guys to the world of prospecting. Teaching them the subtle differences to targets at depth vs the detector vs coils. One learning curve for them was putting detectors from the 4000 to the 5000 over a known target that i left deep in the ground some time back, for the purpose of showing others down the track. ( bit of rusty steel )

All machines sounded off over the target which was in the vicinity of 20-25" deep. Originally found with the 4500 & 11" ML mono.
One exercise was to see if all detectors could respond to it using the coils they had on. They all responded on the target, from the 4000 using the ML 11" DD, THE 4500 using a 14x9NF mono, a 5000 using the ML 11" mono and a 5000 using the 15x12 commander mono. Some signaled much better then others as you would expect. But the main aim was to show the new guys the sound it produced with the array of coils and detectors used. As was pointed out to them the loud signals takes no effort to dig, but them not knowing what a deep signal sounded like would have continued on if not shown, as some had no idea and even said they had walked away from similar sounding things.


Settings ranged and was not the prime focus as to the exercise, all detectors sounded off with the same kind of dig me signal. Main focus was to educate those to the different sounds they can expect to encounter and what to make of them. At one stage i almost felt like digging it up again because it sounded so damn good. Laughing

So to the question by Jeff in relation to... Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Possibly, but could it be because many don't know what a real deep target sounds like. Many think deep =12" and many think the response from the detector should be heard like that of a BB at 1" deep.

To the old hat its not new news, to the guy who thought he new, its something to check up on, to the new guy its priceless.

Good topic.

Narrawa
Narrawa
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 1885
Age : 52
Registration date : 2008-10-22

http://australiangoldfields.freeforums.org/

Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  Guest on Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:03 pm

hey Narrawa, good report on the detectors. when i was first starting out i never knowen what a deep signel was until i done the day out with coiltek in maryborough as they have a test ground. all the times i could off been walking overthese signels not knowing what it was. this could be the problem.
cheers
stoppsy

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  Kon61gold on Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:45 pm

One of the reasons I put up this topic is that I have been taught like most others to run in Enhance and use smaller coils. Also on the forum, we have been advised to run in Normal rather than Deep on the 4500 as this would give us the best of both worlds, shallow and deep.

However how do we compare the depth of a 2100 and a 4500? Obviously if we put it in Deep and use Normal settings rather than specialized such as Enhance or smooth, wouldn't we get a better result and better depth?

Jeff
Kon61gold
Kon61gold
Management

Number of posts : 3662
Age : 58
Registration date : 2008-10-16

https://golddetecting.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty RE:Are we focusing to much on small nuggets?

Post  TWO BOB on Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:38 pm

Hi Jeff
I find with the 4500 set on deep & enhance . That finds deep targets & also smaller shallow targets. The deep seems to make signals clear much like when deep was used on the 2200.
"TWO BOB"
TWO BOB
TWO BOB
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 275
Registration date : 2009-02-03

Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  whylee on Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:41 pm

Im new here and new to prospecting and detecting. This is a very interesting subject, I can not really comment on it because im still in the learning stages. But im looking forward to trying different coils as soon as I am comftorable with the standard coils I have.

whylee
New Poster
New Poster

Number of posts : 19
Registration date : 2011-02-26

Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  Guest on Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:09 pm

welcom whylee, you will love this hobby it's great. what set up do you have?... anyway i'm going to try my detector in deep with the 14" N/F for a good part off the day next time i'm out, just as long as my arm holds up. i'll see how i go.
cheers
stoppsy

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  nero_design on Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:38 pm

Jefgold wrote:In recent years there has been a big swing to the new detectors likethe 5000 and the 4500 which are far more sensitive and better balanced. When you link them to a mono coil particulary a small one, you can't beat them particularly for small nuggets. This has been proven especially in the west and in Victoria.

But is this at the expense of the larger nuggests we used to find with the SD2000 series? Are we concentrating too much with what the dealers are telling us rather than going back to making full use of the machines? Is Enhance any good for DD coils and what is the best setting for depth and finding large nuggets?

Maybe by using these new machines in their basic settings with DD coils we may get better results. Should we think outside the square they have given us - food for thought?

Jeff

Yes, many people are out spending too much time with all the wrong settings (and often the wrong coils) whilst seeking out deeper targets. And to answer your open-ended question regarding Double-D coils, I heartily agree that they are often the perfect coil for the job. You can walk into any well stocked detecting store today and look at all the monoloop coils there on the shelves yet there's just a handful of DD coils in that selection. You can count them on one hand in most instances. Everyone buying a new GPX detector is running the standard monoloop on it OR they buy a larger monoloop to better their chances of larger, deeper targets. As for dealers being the cause of such migration, I'd say that many dealers probably do steer people towards the larger monoloops ...and so do many well-intentioned detecting partners - all of whom are under the belief (be it true or false) that monoloops are the way to go. I don't believe that Monos should be the first choice of coil for a new detectorist and I certainly believe that if you are after larger nuggets at greater depth, then a DD gives you more clarity and stability when it comes to smoother operation on highly mineralized ground. If you like going after smaller nuggets, then use any coil under 15" and you ought to clean up well with the very sensitive monos out there at the moment. But for those looking for larger, deeper nuggets of considerable size, I'd be more inclined to consider using a LARGE DD coil in many instances (though not all), myself unless the ground is quiet and more benign. Obviously if working a patch you would spend quite a bit of time with more than one type and size of coil. I gave up scratching for little nuggets a while ago and now generaly use larger coils to seek out larger nuggets at depth. I depends where I am detecting though. I do use monoloops but certainly not all the time. And the very same argument applied to the GPX-4500 can also be applied to the newer GPX-5000: Since these new machines run quietly on monos, everyone is running monos on the new machines. The disadvantage here is that they rarely set their detectors to deeper settings because they are reproducing the settings they see other people using... which of course are designed to maximize their gold haul overall rather than project deeper for the larger, deeper bits that might have been missed before by others.

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? 130535314
My wife using an 18" Monoloop on the GPX-5000. This ground almost had me swapping to a DD coil. The only reason we didn't was because the area had been previously detected and we only had a standard 11" DD on hand. I felt that the benefit for us was therefore with the coil we had that offered the greatest depth. As it was, the targets were not all that deep.


I suggested last year (or perhaps the year before?) that the lack of DD use on the GPX-4500 was probably the main contributing factor for fewer large nuggets being reported in recent years. Clearly, nobody told the Sudanese this because they were tearing up monstrous nuggets just as fast as they could find them last year. I also noted that J.Foster's belief in DD coils (something a number of people online disagreed with) back in the days of the GP series made plenty of sense when it came to detecting through multiple layers of mineral deposits into old wash to recover a signal from below the wash from a larger nugget. I know not everyone cares for this opinion but allow it to pass this time without argument for the sake of my response to Jeff's question. The monoloops were at a disadvantage when used on older machines because they ran mono coils noisily. Similarly, new detectors like the GPX series can now run those same type of 'noisy' monoloops very quietly these days. So smaller gold is still found with the advantage with monos. They also go deeper than comparatively sized DD coils. But they are indeed noisier than DD coils - which are quieter and more stable in mineralized soils than monos. Therefore DD coils have the potential to return a signal through highly mineralized soil that might be missed with any other coil. The quieter you can run your machine, the better the chances of hearing a fainter (deeper) target against the threshold and against any interference. One of the first times I used a GPX saw me swapping my monoloop for the standard Double-D due to the mineralization where I was. The difference was incredible in that spot.

Since gold nuggets are most commonly found in the more highly mineralized soils, then it makes sense to me that DD coils (being quieter on mineralized soils) - especially larger ones - would be the best to use for the deepest, faintest, larger targets. Whilst this would be considered by some to be simply hearsay because I was not there to witness the original conversation, I was told last week that Minelab's 'chief scientist' once advised an acquaintance of mine that the 15x12" Minelab DD coils was (at the time) the best coil to use. Please note that this was before the GPX was released. He seemed to feel that anything larger was likely to be a problem for the detectorist. Of course, Minelab make a larger coil (the two 18" coils from the Commander series) so obviously they serve a purpose and can benefit the more serious detectorist who needs a deeper seeking coil. No doubt the more recent GPX series can handle these larger coils better than the earlier machines.

Using the wrong coil and detector settings on the wrong depth of ground might also be a contributing factor. Not many detectorists take the time to see just how deep the soil is they are detecting on or they can't read the ground. If the soils is too deep and of the wrong composition to hold larger gold closer to the surface, then the detectorists may not be able to get close enough to the bedrock to pick up on the signal from any targets resting there. Interference and large coils on highly mineralized ground is a recipe for more noise and less audible target responses. With VERY few exceptions, almost all the big nuggets that came up in the last few years in Australia seem to have been won with Double-D coils. When J. Foster wrote his article for GG&T magazine, he noted that every large nugget on record that had been found in Australia that year was located with a DD coil. By comparison, many of the coils being used today are 18" or larger and they're almost always large monoloops.

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Large
One of the new Coiltek 22" Monoloop Goldstalker coils (with my hand for scale) - designed for use on the GPX series detectors. Not exactly a little coil.


Someone asked a similar question on a US based site to which I submitted the following reply (this is a trimmed excerpt from that reply):

"....I think the DD coil is often overlooked entirely by too many people and perhaps for all the wrong reasons. I believe the Monoloops are certainly more sensitive to very small nuggets but most of the little ones being found by locals where I detect are small enough that I'd rather pan for them in the creek at that size. The DD coil is stable and quiet in really mineralized ground. Much more so than the monoloops. .....

.... It's true that the DD coil has less depth (due to the send-receive wires being half the diameter of the coil) so for my needs it's better to obtain a slightly larger DD coil like the 15x12 or larger unless working on shallow soil or for small specimens. I think that because the DD coils are quieter and less prone to mineral related ground noise and external interference, then they have the ability to offer an edge over the monoloop coils in many circumstances and conditions. If you are using a quiet setup with a DD coil, then you have a much better chance of hearing the target over a setup that is noisy. I'd personally prefer to use a VERY large DD coil over a medium sized monoloop myself when looking for larger gold at depth. However, I would probably not bother so much on shallow ground with a DD coil when there's a range of decent monoloop coils on the market today that would pick up on all the smaller gold better than a DD closer to the bedrock....

I am hoping the main coil makers will get around to producing some new DD coils for the newest GPX machines. They had some models that were being tested last year in the US but I believe there may have been issues which prevented them from reaching market. Many of the most spectacular nuggets I've seen come out of the ground in the last few years came from DD coils on older machines and even DD coils on newer GPX detectors. I have no doubt the monos can pull up a lot of gold but there's been some spectacular nuggets found with those DD coils. I'm actually a little amused to see how little coverage there is on the subject online. I'd personally like to get a larger-than-18" coil in the Double-D configuration. Having sampled the soil in 3/4s of my state, I find much of it to be just too noisy with the Monoloop to feel confident that I'm not leaving gold behind. Especially larger, deeper gold. I'd like a brand new DD coil designed especially to run on the GPX-4500 and the GPX-5000.
"

However how do we compare the depth of a 2100 and a 4500?

Some say they go so similar depths. However the more recent detectors are not only more sensitive, but they are also more capable of filtering out noise from the ground, enabling the user to hear much more that was otherwise garbled or masked. That's one of the very best reasons to consider a modern detector over an older model. If you're serious about finding gold that others have missed compared to seeking out gold that you might 'accidentally' find.

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Original

If we look at the comparisons shown on the original Minelab SD2100 brochure (not sure how many people have seen this in recent years!), it's clear that there's a 15% to 30% stated depth increase on the more recent model compared to the SD2000. However, is this a difference showing actual depth or is it simply the ability of the newer SD2100 to receive and hear signals that were otherwise masked by other factors on the earlier model? I don't know. Perhaps someone who knows the answer can contribute here.
nero_design
nero_design
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 2065
Registration date : 2008-11-18

Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  Guest on Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:42 am

Hi Nero,

What can I say other than WOW. What a fantastic write up. Thanks for spending the time to share what seems to be such valuable information.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  whylee on Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:26 am

stoppsy wrote:welcom whylee, you will love this hobby it's great. what set up do you have?... anyway i'm going to try my detector in deep with the 14" N/F for a good part off the day next time i'm out, just as long as my arm holds up. i'll see how i go.
cheers
stoppsy

Thank You for the welcome, I have a Garrett Infinium with the standard DD coil and a 8"mono, also a Minelab GPX 5000 that so far im only running the standard 11" mono and DD coils. I also bought the wife a Whites GMT because I needed a detector that does nor require headphones for her.

whylee
New Poster
New Poster

Number of posts : 19
Registration date : 2011-02-26

Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  Guest on Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:32 am


Gday


It seems that the more sensitive the detector is the more complex the electronics have to be to get it to run smoothly, with the older pi detectors like the sd2000 being very basic and I believe they were running only two frequencies,(correct me if I am wrong) these were low frequencies and as we know the lower the frequency the more depth, the higher the frequency the more sensitive it is to small targets.

When they were modded to include two higher frequencies you could switch from one to another, but you would remain on that frequency only, the later detectors started using multiple frequencies where while detecting the machine runs through a series of frequencies from high to low etc, (someone else might be able to explain this better) but I dont know without doing further research as to what is the lowest frequency they operate at, judging by the fact that they are far superior on small gold than earlier machines were I would assume that they possibly dont go as low as the old ones did.

Anyway having said that if you were concentrating on big deep gold then you would want to be using a machine that runs on lower frequencies for the purpose of more depth, or operate your machine in a more basic way like using normal settings rather than enhanced settings, if you were running a basic early model machine like the sd2000 then you would be running in a basic setting that would only really react to big or deep targets and not see most other in between sized targets, the only problem with this theory is that you also get reaction from deep ground noises as well so you end up digging lots of deep holes chasing noises, and there would be a lot of ground between large nuggets as well so you would soon get bored with this method I think.

Using a later model detector means that essentially you could have the best of both worlds and you are entertained by getting bits and pieces of all sizes and at all depths and if you do happen accross a larger deep piece you have a reasonable chance of hearing it as well, I suppose it would all come down to whether or not you had the patience to perservere with the rigors of running an older machine and digging lots of deep holes for nothing.

cheers

stayyerAU












Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  Jonathan Porter on Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:08 am

Good grief, like always Marco your posts are very polished and well laid out, BUT the content is repetitive and way off the mark not to mention very misleading to those of us less experienced. Sorry to seem overly critical but if I don't correct some of your misinformed rhetoric then who will? I've made my rebuttal to your comments in Blue in the quote below to try and keep the content in context. I know my remarks will open up another can or forum worms but please everyone put on your thinking caps when reading this stuff.

JP

nero_design wrote:
Yes, many people are out spending too much time with all the wrong settings (and often the wrong coils) whilst seeking out deeper targets. And to answer your open-ended question regarding Double-D coils, I heartily agree that they are often the perfect coil for the job. You can walk into any well stocked detecting store today and look at all the monoloop coils there on the shelves yet there's just a handful of DD coils in that selection (There's a perfectly good explanation for that, Monoloop coils have more performance even when the Smooth class of timings are used). You can count them on one hand in most instances. Everyone buying a new GPX detector is running the standard monoloop on it OR they buy a larger monoloop to better their chances of larger, deeper targets. (This comment kind of answers your own question don't you think?). As for dealers being the cause of such migration, I'd say that many dealers probably do steer people towards the larger monoloops ...and so do many well-intentioned detecting partners - all of whom are under the belief (be it true or false) that monoloops are the way to go. (Its true Marco, you should get with the program, the dealers are pushing what's unique about the detector). I don't believe that Monos should be the first choice of coil for a new detectorist and I certainly believe that if you are after larger nuggets at greater depth, then a DD gives you more clarity and stability when it comes to smoother operation on highly mineralized ground. (Not true, the instant you put on a DD coil you suffer from a depth reduction on all target sizes straight away (except for those very close to the coil) ). If you like going after smaller nuggets, then use any coil under 15" and you ought to clean up well with the very sensitive monos out there at the moment. (DD coils are very good at this too if used correctly). But for those looking for larger, deeper nuggets of considerable size, I'd be more inclined to consider using a LARGE DD coil in many instances (though not all), myself unless the ground is quiet and more benign. (The only advantage in using a DD coil is the ability to also use discrimination and the Normal timings in hottish soils which can offer full depth of the coil if the conditions allow). Obviously if working a patch you would spend quite a bit of time with more than one type and size of coil. I gave up scratching for little nuggets a while ago and now generaly use larger coils to seek out larger nuggets at depth. I depends where I am detecting though. I do use monoloops but certainly not all the time. And the very same argument applied to the GPX-4500 can also be applied to the newer GPX-5000: Since these new machines run quietly on monos, everyone is running monos on the new machines. (Obviously) The disadvantage here is that they rarely set their detectors to deeper settings because they are reproducing the settings they see other people using... which of course are designed to maximize their gold haul overall rather than project deeper for the larger, deeper bits that might have been missed before by others. (This might be a good opportunity for you to let us know what those "Deeper settings" are?)

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? 130535314
My wife using an 18" Monoloop on the GPX-5000. This ground almost had me swapping to a DD coil. The only reason we didn't was because the area had been previously detected and we only had a standard 11" DD on hand. I felt that the benefit for us was therefore with the coil we had that offered the greatest depth. As it was, the targets were not all that deep.


I suggested last year (or perhaps the year before?) that the lack of DD use on the GPX-4500 was probably the main contributing factor for fewer large nuggets being reported in recent years. Clearly, nobody told the Sudanese this because they were tearing up monstrous nuggets just as fast as they could find them last year.(All with Monoloop coils, that should tell you something Marco). I also noted that J.Foster's belief in DD coils (something a number of people online disagreed with (That would be me)) back in the days of the GP series made plenty of sense when it came to detecting through multiple layers of mineral deposits into old wash to recover a signal from below the wash from a larger nugget. (I consider this information to be incorrect) I know not everyone cares for this opinion but allow it to pass this time without argument for the sake of my response to Jeff's question. (Oops I was supposed to allow that to pass, sorry can't do that because it's rubbish even when offered hypothetically) The monoloops were at a disadvantage when used on older machines because they ran mono coils noisily. (That would be because of the timings being used and the ground being detected in) Similarly, new detectors like the GPX series can now run those same type of 'noisy' monoloops very quietly these days. (Thats because of the timings, your contradicting yourself Marco; readers see a pattern here?) So smaller gold is still found with the advantage with monos. They also go deeper than comparatively sized DD coils. But they are indeed noisier than DD coils - which are quieter and more stable in mineralized soils than monos. (Crikey your getting me all confused with this line of logic) Therefore DD coils have the potential to return a signal through highly mineralized soil that might be missed with any other coil. (Only if the timings allow for it, dependent on target, ground and other factors, but then look at all the gold the DD coils missed) The quieter you can run your machine, the better the chances of hearing a fainter (deeper) target against the threshold and against any interference. (Thats the whole point of the Smooth Class of timings.) One of the first times I used a GPX saw me swapping my monoloop for the standard Double-D due to the mineralization where I was. The difference was incredible in that spot. (Sounds like it was either Conductive ground or you did not have your detector set up properly.)

Since gold nuggets are most commonly found in the more highly mineralized soils, then it makes sense to me that DD coils (being quieter on mineralized soils) - especially larger ones - would be the best to use for the deepest, faintest, larger targets. (Quieter than what? A Mono in Normal timings? or a Mono in Enhance for example?) Whilst this would be considered by some to be simply hearsay because I was not there to witness the original conversation, I was told last week that Minelab's 'chief scientist' once advised an acquaintance of mine that the 15x12" Minelab DD coils was (at the time) the best coil to use. (Gossip I would say, but nothing wrong with a bit of name dropping, a friend of a friend of a friend of mine said.....) Please note that this was before the GPX was released. (Thanks for the clarification, would hate to see people mislead) He seemed to feel that anything larger was likely to be a problem for the detectorist. (larger equals heavier perhaps) Of course, Minelab make a larger coil (the two 18" coils from the Commander series) so obviously they serve a purpose and can benefit the more serious detectorist who needs a deeper seeking coil. No doubt the more recent GPX series can handle these larger coils better than the earlier machines.

Using the wrong coil and detector settings on the wrong depth of ground might also be a contributing factor. Not many detectorists take the time to see just how deep the soil is they are detecting on or they can't read the ground. If the soils is too deep and of the wrong composition to hold larger gold closer to the surface, (generally gold is found on or near bedrock ) then the detectorists may not be able to get close enough to the bedrock to pick up on the signal from any targets resting there. (Use a larger coil or move to shallower ground ) Interference and large coils on highly mineralized ground is a recipe for more noise and less audible target responses. (True to a certain extent, but interference is found around quiet ground too, more noise no matter where you're detecting is detrimental) With VERY few exceptions, almost all the big nuggets that came up in the last few years in Australia seem to have been won with Double-D coils.(Nonsense) When J. Foster wrote his article for GG&T magazine, he noted that every large nugget on record that had been found in Australia that year was located with a DD coil. (How could Jim possibly know that, around that time I personally found numerous large nuggets (up to 80+ ounces) at depth in mineralised soils with Monoloop coils and have always done so on decent sized gold my whole detecting career) By comparison, many of the coils being used today are 18" or larger and they're almost always large monoloops. (Huh I thought you said earlier on small coils are mainly used these days?)
Everyone buying a new GPX detector is running the standard monoloop on it

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Large
One of the new Coiltek 22" Monoloop Goldstalker coils (with my hand for scale) - designed for use on the GPX series detectors. Not exactly a little coil.


Someone asked a similar question on a US based site to which I submitted the following reply (this is a trimmed excerpt from that reply):

"....I think the DD coil is often overlooked entirely by too many people and perhaps for all the wrong reasons. I believe the Monoloops are certainly more sensitive to very small nuggets but most of the little ones being found by locals where I detect are small enough that I'd rather pan for them in the creek at that size. (problem is the bulk of these little nuggets are laying scattered around on the slopes where panning is not an option and in a lot of cases easily found and a lot of fun to boot). The DD coil is stable and quiet in really mineralized ground. Much more so than the monoloops. ..... (and it also has a major depth reduction on all target sizes, hence the Smooth Class of timings for Monoloop coil use)

.... It's true that the DD coil has less depth (due to the send-receive wires being half the diameter of the coil) (they also have more windings on the receive so are more sensitive to shallow surface targets compared to a similar sized Monoloop in conventional timings) so for my needs it's better to obtain a slightly larger DD coil like the 15x12 or larger unless working on shallow soil or for small specimens. I think that because the DD coils are quieter and less prone to mineral related ground noise and external interference, then they have the ability to offer an edge over the monoloop coils in many circumstances and conditions. (Nonsense) If you are using a quiet setup with a DD coil, then you have a much better chance of hearing the target over a setup that is noisy. (Obviously) I'd personally prefer to use a VERY large DD coil over a medium sized monoloop myself when looking for larger gold at depth. However, I would probably not bother so much on shallow ground with a DD coil when there's a range of decent monoloop coils on the market today that would pick up on all the smaller gold better than a DD closer to the bedrock.... (Shallow ground in the majority of Australian Gold Fields and what I saw when I was in the US are generally heavily mineralised, this ground type is very conducive to Monoloop coils and Smooth type timings.)

I am hoping the main coil makers will get around to producing some new DD coils for the newest GPX machines. They had some models that were being tested last year in the US but I believe there may have been issues which prevented them from reaching market (is this gossip again, or fact?). Many of the most spectacular nuggets I've seen come out of the ground in the last few years came from DD coils on older machines and even DD coils on newer GPX detectors. I have no doubt the monos can pull up a lot of gold but there's been some spectacular nuggets found with those DD coils. (please show us some examples) I'm actually a little amused to see how little coverage there is on the subject online. I'd personally like to get a larger-than-18" coil in the Double-D configuration. Having sampled the soil in 3/4s of my state, I find much of it to be just too noisy with the Monoloop to feel confident that I'm not leaving gold behind. Especially larger, deeper gold. I'd like a brand new DD coil designed especially to run on the GPX-4500 and the GPX-5000.
" (There are four of them from Minelab alone, 12" ellip Commander DD, 11" round Commander DD, 15 x 12" Commander DD and lastly the 18" round Commander DD.)

However how do we compare the depth of a 2100 and a 4500?

Some say they go so similar depths. However the more recent detectors are not only more sensitive, but they are also more capable of filtering out noise from the ground, enabling the user to hear much more that was otherwise garbled or masked. (But Marco the very thing that makes the GPX series so incredible is what your expose seems to be trying to avoid, not the filters as you describe but the timings or as Phil Beck remarked in my interview with him on Minelabs website, the Receive Waitings!!Minelab Web Site) That's one of the very best reasons to consider a modern detector over an older model. If you're serious about finding gold that others have missed compared to seeking out gold that you might 'accidentally' find. (What's the point if you are only going to use a DD coil in Normal type timings? You may as well use a GP 3500!)

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Original

If we look at the comparisons shown on the original Minelab SD2100 brochure (not sure how many people have seen this in recent years!), it's clear that there's a 15% to 30% stated depth increase on the more recent model compared to the SD2000. However, is this a difference showing actual depth or is it simply the ability of the newer SD2100 to receive and hear signals that were otherwise masked by other factors on the earlier model? I don't know. Perhaps someone who knows the answer can contribute here.

_________________
"A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way."
MARK TWAIN


(The depth claims were on targets that were missed or ignored or barely heard on the SD2000, so in some cases there was a 15% to 30% improvement on targets. Depth is always a difficult thing to make assertions about because there are so many factors involved that can impact on the outcome, the SD2100 produced a lot of gold missed by the SD2000, some of it was considerable in size and some was in the gram category. If the GP 3500 missed a piece of gold either with a Monoloop or DD coil in hot ground but a GPX 5000 came along and scored that target at 14 inches does that suggest a massive depth increase over the 3500? In more conducive circumstances the 3500 would have romped the target in but the same can be said for a VLF detector, so putting a percentage point figure on depth is very difficult to do.)




Last edited by Jonathan Porter on Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Jonathan Porter
Jonathan Porter
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 795
Age : 53
Registration date : 2008-11-25

http://www.theoutbackprospector.com.au

Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  Guest on Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:37 am

Can I just say that I have used mono's almost exclusivley on every detector from a 2100 to a 4500. I have found heaps of gold from sub grammers to multi ounce pieces and sometimes at surprising depths in hot ground, particularily with the older models.
The few times I have put a DD on I have noticed the considerable drop in both depth and sensitivity when locating targets.
Speaking with some full timers in central vic I know they choose a mono over a DD always because it brings the signals through so much louder and clearer.
In the older models the mono's were certainly noisier but that was just part of the game and something you got used to if you wanted better depth and sensitivity. You might have ringing ears after a session but you also had the peace of mind that if you had been vigilant digging and checking all signals that you had covered the ground as thoroughly as possible with the best equipment available.
Chris.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  Jonathan Porter on Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:07 am

nero_design wrote:JP, your failure to comprehend the purpose of this thread does not surprise me. And since I know that you know better (considering the numerous errors concerning your corrections), let me remind you again that there are many, many people out there who find much of your contributed information to be ego-driven nonsense. I'm not so much concerned about what other people think about me. Never have been. But for your own sad sake, please think (yet again) before you post online corrections. You could have done so several ways other than the method you chose. And the method you used makes you like like a jerk. Again, only you can fix that.

Marco it was the only way to get the point across on the myriad of errors you made, most of which were just sales pitch driven stereotypical nonsense. Get your facts straight and you will never have a problem with me I can assure you, the last thing I felt like doing this morning was proof reading a bunch of rubbishy drivel, hidden within what at first seemed like a reasonable but long winded post.

To be fair to this thread and to keep on subject, here's my take on the reasons why the smaller gold is taking up so much of our time.

Minelab have made a detector that makes it incredibly simple to go out and find numerous little nuggets in a short time frame, this is all due to the new timings allowing the use of Monoloop coils in highly mineralised environments. As mentioned in my Blue quotations to Marco above, the bulk of highly mineralised ground is reasonably shallow, due to this shallowness the larger gold has already been removed as their signature is much louder than the background ground signal, however there are oodles of little nuggets still left in these areas which then brings on the use of smaller mono coils to take advantage of their sensitivity.

As I demonstrated quite clearly in the GPX Factor DVD on a 100 plus gram nugget, the new timings in combination with large Monoloop coils do punch in deep on larger gold (that particular nugget was down over 2 1/2 feet in highly mineralised soils) and had been missed by DD coils on various machines for years and years, since 1996 in fact. If more people were using larger coils and focusing on deeper noisy ground I'm sure there would be more large nuggets coming to light, the facts are though, at the moment the smaller gold is fulfilling a lot of needs making detecting with a GPX detector a lot of fun, a strong gold price just makes it that much more pleasurable.

JP

The settings I use for larger deeper gold with a Mono coil with my GPX 5000 in mineralised ground, and believe it or not most of the time chasing smaller gold with smaller coils (occasionally I will use the Boost audio if the gold is small and plentiful).

Front end cap.

Search Mode: General
Soil/Timings: Enhance or Special (Fine Gold punches in just as deep as Enhance on large gold)
Coil/RX 5000, Mono or sometimes DD 4500, DD more often than Mono unless interference is about
Ground Balance Fixed

Main Menu

Backlight OFF
Battery Test charged each night
Volume limit 10 for speaker 12 for headphones
GB Type GEN
Special Fine Gold
Manual Tune quite position usually between 80 and 140

Search Mode

General
Motion Slow
RX Gain 5000, 11 to 14 4500, 8 to 12 (max)
Audio Always Deep (biggest secret for larger gold at depth even with a smaller coil)
Audio Tone 63
Stabilizer 8 to 10 (8 most of the time)
Signal 19
Target Volume 8 for booster speaker use, 12 for speaker only FP for headphones
Response Normal
Tracking Medium
Iron Reject OFF




Last edited by Jonathan Porter on Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:28 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Adding settings information)
Jonathan Porter
Jonathan Porter
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 795
Age : 53
Registration date : 2008-11-25

http://www.theoutbackprospector.com.au

Back to top Go down

Are we focusing too much on small nuggets? Empty Re: Are we focusing too much on small nuggets?

Post  nero_design on Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:08 am


That makes plenty of sense when you consider how much quieter the latest machines are with monoloop coils today. And, like you Chris, I also experience much the same in loss of depth and sensitivity when using a DD coil. All the full time prospectors who make a living nugget hunting will tend to prefer a large monoloop coil for this reason. I'm certainly not advocating the use of DD coils over monoloops. But I do enjoy using larger DD for deeper, larger targets. For everything else, the monos are ideal unless conditions don't allow for their use.
nero_design
nero_design
Contributor Plus
Contributor Plus

Number of posts : 2065
Registration date : 2008-11-18

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum