VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:28:37 03/12/02 Tue
Author: Steve Herschbach
Subject: Re: Could have been the reason & a report on high mineralization
In reply to: Al-GA 's message, "Could have been the reason & a report on high mineralization" on 06:27:17 03/12/02 Tue

Hi Al,

I ran two early prototype units, and both had max depth problems. Fisher did say they had located the problem, and the third machine I tested did much better. Now, I'm not talking blow the competition away, but it was more what I expected to see from a 30 kHz machine.

When it comes to max depth on VLF units I think we are approaching some practical limits with the technology as currently implemented. So I did not expect the Gold Strike to live up to the hype. But I did expect it to seriously compete with the Lobo, XT18000, and GMT for max depth.

The two initial units came up far short. But the third I tried was right in there. I'll try a couple more production units and verify this result in the next couple days.

Your report is encouraging to me. I was afraid that the selling point of the machine, silent operation, would fail in mineralized ground.

So maybe we have a machine that is close to a Gold Bug 2 for small gold, in there with the best for max depth on larger gold, and easy to operate for a beginner. The machine still is not my cup of tea, but I do see how it may be the perfect machine for some people.

For what it is worth, I did some extensive depth tests on that 1/4 oz. nugget in a carefully constructed test tub. Black sand mixed with bagged gravel until it balanced at 9 on the standard Gold Bug GB control. Very negative.

So what machine was best? The Gold Bug, Lobo, XT18000 in 20 kHz mode and Gold Strike all hit the nugget with a good signal at a bit over 9 inches. The GMT seemed to have a slight edge under this particular set of conditions with a decent signal at 10 inches, which surprised me due to it's higher frequency.

But I'm not saying the GMT was any better or "best". My gut feeling is all those units are neck and neck for performance on 1/4 ounce nuggets, and the difference will be decided by the particular ground conditions and skill of the operator. The GMT seems to have had a slight edge under this particular set of contrived conditions, but I do not think people should read too much into that.

I think it's fairer to say that under this set of admittedly contrived conditions all the units (except Gold Bug 2) were able to find an elongated 1/4 ounce gold nugget at 9-10 inches. When looked at in that light it's really a horse race.

The only machine that exhibited enough difference in performance to under this set of conditions to draw a real conclusion was my favorite detector, the Gold Bug 2. It would only hit the nugget at 7 inches. The high black sand content and the GB2 high frequency combined for very poor depth by comparison.

I've known intellectually the the GB2 would suffer, but it still was a bit of a surprise to see the difference so graphically illustrated.

The GB2 is still my favorite detector. Why? Well, I also tested a 1 grain nugget in the same soil, with all the detectors outfitted with their smallest coils. Some detectors, like the GMT and XT18000 did well, but were held back in that they have no small coils readily available. The Gold Bug and Lobo hit the nugget at 1 inch with their small coils. But the Gold Bug 2 won the day with it's small coil, at 1.5 inches. Looks more impressive if I say 50% more depth! I do need to retest the Gold Strike with it's small coil, as I did not have one at the time.

So the lesson, of course, is that performance can be a two-edged sword. I like my GB2 because I work with lots of sub-grain gold in moderate soils. But GB2 fans like myself should not be lulled by this top-notch small gold performance into believing the machine is great for everything. I got my SD2200D as my answer to the far end of that equation. It's great on big nuggets in terrible ground, but sucks on small gold compared to my Gold Bug 2.

Well, I've wandered impressively far of the subject. But I did have a point to make, and that is that the Gold Strike may have been designed as a potential replacement for both the Gold Bug and Gold Bug 2. Few manufacturers make two nugget detectors. We know the Gold Bug is gone, and Fisher may have been gunning the the Gold Bug 2 also.

I think they may have come close in combining the performance strengths of both machines. I think they were hoping we would all declare the Gold Bug 2 obsolete after using the Gold Strike. Then they could drop the Gold Bug two and cave into the bean counters desire to quit making that separate box and rod setup.

But at this point they would be nuts to quit the Gold Bug 2. I would not trade mine straight across for a Gold Strike even knowing it is likely outperformed for max depth in bad soil by the Gold Strike. At least not yet. But I'm cheating by having several other detectors to fill that gap!

Like you, I would prefer the Lobo over the Gold Strike, as it is lighter, easier to operate (for me, anyway!), costs less, and is a great coin detector to boot. For 1000 bucks Fisher should have thrown in a full range discriminator.

But once again, that's just us guys that have used other detectors talking!

Steve Herschbach

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.