Can we Stir the Pot? Minelab GPZ 7000 still KING of Detectors in the US

[nuggethunting]

Hey Guys,

    I figured we can stir the pot just a little while we wait out the release of the Minelab GPX 6000, right?  

That being said, Minelab still claims the GPZ 7000 can get "up to 40% more depth" over previous GPX detectors.  We can all question, does the GPX 6000 still fit in this category, as Minelab stated GPX detectors.  The upcoming Minelab GPX 6000 is still a GPX series detector, but primarily using GeoSense Technology.  I don't see where GeoSense really talks about any more depth ability over the previous GPX 5000, but it does mention about better ground response/clarity, maybe allowing you to hear something in higher mineralized ground over previous GPX series.  

I don't claim to be an expert electronic prospector, but my specialty is in detecting for gold nuggets with the best detectors available.  We call all talk about how much gold we found, years of experience, regions we hunted and such ..... 

The bottom line is I still feel the Minelab GPZ 7000 is the KING of detectors when it comes to depth.  Many Australian, African and US prospecting friends still feel the same.  I personally have found many large gold nuggets and specimens at max depth where I doubt any detector with a similar sized searchcoil would have found.  I also know that probably 1% or less of those large gold nuggets/specimens are out there still and the ones at max depth range of the current detector technology.  

Does this justify the purchase of a Minelab GPZ 7000 over the upcoming GPX 6000, or should GPZ 7000 owners dump their units now?  These are questions I personally can't advise anyone on, but it's something to consider when you make a purchase of a metal detector in the thousands of dollar range.  

What I can leave you with is my personal experience over the last 25 years chasing gold nuggets .... If you are in areas where there has been historically large gold nuggets, overburden to bedrock/paylayer/caliche/false bedrock that can be several feet and deeper in depth, you might seriously consider either holding your current GPZ 7000 or consider a purchase of one at some point.  

I personally will not be parting with my trusty GPZ 7000, we have a 5+ year personal relationship.  We have been through tough times, bad weather, I even yelled at her and dropped her a few times!  Like Steve mentioned before, you could actually fall in love with your detector. 

Wishing you all much success with whatever detector(s) you swing. 

P.S.  Below is a recent GPZ 7000 find, max depth, just a break in the threshold (yes the GPZ 7000 has one). Nearly a pound in weight (uncleaned in picture) 

Rob 

[way2cool]

Nice little one you found. 😉  How deep was this one?

 

[one4gold]

Great read Rob!! I don't plan breaking up with mine anytime soon either!! Great looking gold!! 

[oldies1955]

Dang! Thats a heck of a find! I wont be upgrading to a 7000 from my 5000. Like it too much and don't want to carry a 10 lb. detector around
Tom H. 

 

[FlakMagnet]

I'm sure you mean 7.3 pounds - the actual weight. No sense in pumping the weight up by over 40%.

It's heavy Tom, but not that heavy. best...

[nuggethunting]

Hey Guys,

   I didn't get tape measure out, but it was well over 3 foot deep on bedrock.   

I agree, I'm holding my GPZ 7000 for now.  I'm sure the new Minelab GPX 6000 will be great, light, super sensitive and have a huge demand here in the US.  I will be getting one, but I'm sure I will be using the GPZ 7000 equal as much, especially in areas where I believe there could be gold at max depth.  

Tom - No question it's heavy.  After a long day of swinging, the GPX 5000 or 6000 sure sounds good.  

Rob

 

[way2cool]

If the 6000 is as good as advertised I would expect a drop in price for both the 7000 and 5000.  

 

[DOC]

So let me add something I wrote a couple of days ago addressing this same issue.  I think a lot of people, still do not understand the technology of the GPZ7000 vs. Pulse Induction.  I'm sure newcomers don't and probably a lot of the old-timers don't because they have not had to go through the training we dealers who are Minelab Certified Gold Machine trainers have.

GPZ7000 or GPX6000?
By Doc of Doc’s Detecting
© 2021 G.M. “Doc” Lousignont, Ph.D.

I have used both the GPZ7000 and the GPX6000. I have been a Minelab dealer in the U.S. for 29 years. I will try to help you make an informed decision. First I have to try to explain the technologies involved.

The 7000 is the top dog, hands down. Remember you are not comparing apples to apples. The GPZ7000 is a totally different technology. It IS NOT a pulse induction. The GPX6000 IS a pulse induction with many automated functions.

Ideally having both would be nice. However, if I had to choose it would be the GPZ7000.

Many people do not realize how unique the technology of the 7000 is. Every time a new detector comes out we are bombarded with some new LINGO. This one has "Irradiated Gold Fart Smelling Sensors" that one has a "Wood Fired Pizza Oven" blah blah blah.

The GPZ7000 is truly a different technology.

VLF machines are always on and detect eddy currents on metal in the ground.

Pulse induction pulses energy into the ground then turns off and measures how fast that energy goes away. That is called the decay rate. The detector keeps a running average of that decay rate. When there is a piece of metal in the ground it holds onto that energy and it changes the "decay rate" When the detector sees a significant change in the decay rate it emits a target sound.

What do we know about pulses? Well the longer we leave a pulse on, the deeper it goes. I'm not a technician so I am just trying to explain this the best a lay person can with my limited understanding. But varying the Pulse length or rate, and strength helps you find different sizes and depths of gold. That is all the "Soil Timings" settings on the GPX5000 are. You are changing the pulses, the duration and strength, sent into the ground.

What if you could take the energy of the PULSE but leave that energy on all the time; like you do with a VLF machine? We know longer pulses go deeper, but what if you never turned that energy off? Think how deep that would go? 40% deeper than any other machine! That's what the GPZ7000 does, it is not a pulse induction machine.  The energy is on all the time achieving maximum depth.

But remember, if you leave the energy on all the time, how do you measure decay rate? In order to measure decay rate, you need a timing element. You need a starting event and an ending event, between those two markers is when you measure the rate of decay. With a pulse induction the starting event is when the pulse turns off, and the ending event is when it turns back on. Between those two points the rate of decay is measured.

But how do you create a starting and ending event with a machine if the energy is always on, like the GPZ7000? There is no pulse turning on and off.  That is the genius of the GPZ7000. The brainiacs at Minelab came up with a different way to create a time frame, being they could not use a pulse to measure decay rate. Instead, they use as their starting and ending time frame, switching the magnetic field back and forth. From North to South from South to North. This gave them the time frame needed to measure the rate of decay.  This way they can leave the energy on the entire time to achieve depths never before thought attainable.  Now the starting point and ending point of a new decay rate cycle is when the magnetic field is switched from North to South, and back again.

Let's talk about another other unique property; the strength of the power sent into the ground. If you have been at this a while you might remember the old SD machines were not very good at finding little gold. That was because the pulse was one strength and it over-saturated the ground with energy.  The detector could not discern the difference in decay rate of heavy mineralization compared to heavy mineralization with a little speck of gold.

So along came the next generation of machines. The GP's. GP Extreme, 3000 and 3500. And they were able to find smaller bits than ever before. WHY? Because of DUAL VOLTAGE technology. Minelab techs discovered that if they alternated each pulse with different voltage strengths, they did not oversaturate the ground and suddenly the machine could see those smaller nuggets. First pulse full strength, next pulse 1/2 strength next full strength and so on.

Next comes the GPX machines. 4000, 4500, 4800, 5000. So Minelab says, what if we also give the user the ability to select different timings of the pulse with preset power. So a longer pulse at full power is going to find deeper larger gold. While a quick pulse with low power will find smaller gold. The problem with soil timings is you have to decide what you want to try to find before you find it.

Now think about the GPX6000. That machine is pulse induction, however, Minelab has automated all of those functions sending different kinds of pulses of different strengths almost simultaneously. Remember those pulses are probably measured in milliseconds, so they can send thousands of different kinds of pulses at different strengths in quick succession. (I can almost guess the techs at Minelab, after dealing with the success of the Multi-IQ technology used in the Equinox, were sitting around and thinking, how could we do something similar in a Gold Machine?) So with the GPX6000 they have just automated the process and you no longer have to pick a soil timing, they are just shooting all those soil timings and different powers almost simultaneously. (At least that is my theory)

Back to the GPZ7000. So the power is on all the time giving maximum depth. We know full power saturates the ground and you can not see small gold. However, the GPZ7000 is deadly on small gold even at depth. So what are they doing? They have to vary the strength of that energy. Now this is speculation on my part. They are already switching the magnetic field from North to South and back again. Think about this. Put a paper clip on a table and bring the north end of a magnet towards the paper clip very slowly until it is just trembling and ready to jump off the table onto the magnet, that is maximum power. Now keeping that magnet at the same distance start to slowly rotate that magnet so the south pole of the magnet is over the paperclip. As you slowly start to rotate, you will notice that the paperclip lays down and does not seem to want to jump onto the magnet until you get close to the full 180 degree rotation when it is fully exposed to the South pole. Then it starts to tremble again.

What has happened? Well the south and the north poles of a magnet are the most powerful. As soon as you start to rotate that magnet, you are going through a very smooth transition of power. Most power at the north pole, now you start rotating and the power becomes less and less and less until the magnet has completed 90 degrees of its 180 degree rotation and is perfectly parallel to the table, with the north pole to the left and the south pole to the right. That is a neutral point with the North and South poles exerting a balanced low attraction for the paper clip. Now as you continue to rotate the magnet out of the parallel position so the south pole is over the magnet you slowly get a smooth transition of an increase in power until you reach full power at the 180 degree rotation point.

So what you have is a full transition of power from the full power to less less less, then neutral position, then increase increase increase to full power then the cycle repeats as the magnetic field is switched over and over again.

This, I think, is the explanation for the amazing depth of the GPZ7000 and its ability to find such a wide range of sizes of gold at depths unseen before now. A magnetic field that is always on allowing for maximum depths, and an infinite transition of strengths of that magnetic field as it goes through the process of switching the magnetic poles. Less strength finding the smaller gold deep and more strength finding larger gold.

Like I said, I am not a technician, and there is probably a more scientifically accurate explanation of precisely what is happening, but this is how I understand the process in as plain a language as I can try to explain it.

If you want the best pulse induction machine that is unbelievably lite and one of the most automated pulse induction machines that will outperform current pulse induction machines, and money is a consideration the GPX6000 is the machine.

However, if you are looking for depth, performance, totally different technology that will probably not be topped for years to come, you have no problem with the additional weight. High performance. The GPZ7000 is your baby.

Keep in mind, the GPZ7000 is a bulkier heavy machine. If you can only detect 5 hours with the GPZ7000 machine, but you are able to swing the GPX6000 all day long. Then the GPX6000 is a better choice. You are not going to find as much gold if you spend less time swinging.

Do not think the GPX6000 is a replacement for the GPZ7000, it is not.  It is certainly a wonderful alternative if you want something lightweight that will give you maximum performance, and ease of use, superior depth on small gold over previous pulse induction machines. In terms of ease of use, I could spend two hours explaining the GPX5000 to a new owner and they would still be confused.  It takes me 10 minutes to explain a GPX6000 to someone and they will totally understand how to operate it.

I have a prediction that the next GPZ7000 machine will be basically the same. HOWEVER, everyone will want one because, Minelab will incorporate the features of the GPX6000 in terms of the form factor.

It will be very lite, it will be very small and it will be very automated, but the technology will be very much the same as the current GPZ7000, because that technology is going to be very hard to top. The thing Minelab will do to appeal to the consumer is to give them a smaller lighter footprint with more automation.

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by DOC

[DOC]

On 5/17/2021 at 7:04 AM, way2cool said:

If the 6000 is as good as advertised I would expect a drop in price for both the 7000 and 5000.  

 

The 5000 is already priced extremely low, and the 7000 is in a different class, you will not see a price drop there.

Minelab have given the consumer 3 Pulse Induction machines now, the SDC2300 at $3299, the GPX5000 at $3,999, and the GPX6000 at $6000.  So hopefully someone wanting a Pulse Induction Minelab can find a price point they are happy with.

The GPZ is not a Pulse Induction machine. (I'll call it a Magnetic Field Shift Induction machine)

To think the GPX6000 is in anyway connected to the 7000 is a huge mistake and misunderstanding of where the GPX6000 falls in terms of capabilities compared to the GPZ7000.

This would be like saying that Volvo has come out with a new model car, and that should certainly drive the cost of Lear Jets down.  You can not compare a GPX6000 to a GPZ7000.  There is a huge technology difference between an "X" class Pulse Induction machine and "Z" class technology.

Doc

[way2cool]

On 5/22/2021 at 12:01 PM, DOC said:

This would be like saying that Volvo has come out with a new model car, and that should certainly drive the cost of Lear Jets down.  You can not compare a GPX6000 to a GPZ7000.  There is a huge technology difference between an "X" class Pulse Induction machine and "Z" class technology.

I never compared the two Minelab did.

 

[Ridge Runner]

It’s a lot of factors one has to take into consideration before shelling out the money for any detector.

 First is the weight and dollar amount. The weight comes into play because of age and a handicap that come with some of us . The dollar like everything else comes into play plus with me it’s called justifying. My trouble is the 1000 mile drive to get my foot in gold country.

 Due to weight and always the dollar that automatically puts the 7000 out.

 Here comes along the 6000 with less weight and cost but here again I got to justify my spending. One day I’ve got to get that behind me! My wife told me in the past that I’ve got the money but she won’t tell me where.

 Right now I’m down to my Nox 800 and other VLF detectors. What I’ve spent on them I could have bought that 6000 with ease .

 You would think a guy at 80 years wouldn’t be walking around with a few grapes short of a fruit salad like I am .

 Really all I want at this time in my life is get that 10X5 coil for my Nox that Rob has on back order for me.

When it comes all will be right in the world 🌎 again .

 Chuck 

 

[DOC]

9 hours ago, way2cool said:

I never compared the two Minelab did

Way 2 Cool, I wasn't directing that comment at you specifically.  I meant in general you can not compare these two machines. 

It's akin to comparing a VLF to a Pulse Induction.  I mean you can compare them, but they are different technologies.

Doc

[way2cool]

15 hours ago, DOC said:

Way 2 Cool, I wasn't directing that comment at you specifically.  I meant in general you can not compare these two machines. 

It's akin to comparing a VLF to a Pulse Induction.  I mean you can compare them, but they are different technologies.

Doc

I really don't care if that comment was directed at me or not.  I'm not going to get mad over the internet.    My point is Minelab compared the PI's to the ZVT with that performance chart that they released showing the 7000,6000,5000,SDC, and the Gold Monster.      You dealers will have a hard time keeping the 6000 in stock. JMO.

 

[nuggethunting]

Hey Way2Cool,

   I missed this post originally.  This is my take, from all the years of using metal detectors and being a dealer.  I don't think we will see a price drop on the GPZ 7000's as it's a different animal all together and is sell well.  I could see at some point after the GPX 6000 is going strong that the GPX 5000 could drop down in price.  The GPX 5000 dropped from $5795 to $4000 several years ago.  Could we potentially see the GPX 5000 going down to a price range like the GPX 4500, I think it's possible, but not for $2699.  I could see something like low to mid 3000 range.  

In my opinion, from what I have heard from close friends in different regions, the GPZ 7000 still has the depth ability, but the GPX 6000 is doing really well on smaller gold like the chart above shows.

Just my thoughts,

Rob

[Steve Herschbach]

.

Edited June 12, 2021 by Steve Herschbach

[nuggethunting]

Hey Steve,

   I have always valued your opinion and experience.  I think for the most part, we are on the same page.  The only difference we have, is you have personally used the Minelab GPX 6000 for some time and I'm basing most of my information from my experience on the GPZ 7000 and second hand info from personal friends that do own the GPX 6000's in different regions (outside the US).  Majority of these guys still hold firm, the GPZ 7000 is more powerful when it comes to nuggets at depth.  

I'm very cautious when talking with potentially new customers to discuss all these points, such as price, weight, versatility, depth and such.  I also tell all my customers before making a huge purchase, potentially a GPX 6000 or GPZ 7000, or any other detector(s), do some research before making a quick decision.  

I just wish we had a couple hundred to be sold to customers here in the US and get a lot more testers and field reports back on it.  

Wishing you much success with the GPX 6000 this season.

Rob

[Steve Herschbach]

🙂

Edited June 12, 2021 by Steve Herschbach

[FlakMagnet]

deleted

 

Edited July 1, 2021 by FlakMagnet

[DOC]

You can't look at stars by themselves to get an accurate picture of the success of a detector in terms of gold recovery.

STATISTICALLY Speaking the GPZ7000 is the clear winner.

This is a 5 star scale.  So 5 is 100% 4 is 80%, 3 is 60%, 2 is 40% and 1 star is 20%

The size of nuggets are stated as .05g, .10g, 1g, 10g and 100g.

Let's assume there are 10 of each size nugget.

So the GPX6000 get 5 stars on .05g size nuggets, we can assume this means it is going to find 100% of the (10) .05g nuggets  For a total of .5 grams.  A half of a gram.

While the GPZ7000 will only find 1 STAR or 20% of those (10) .05g nuggets for a total of only .1g.  That's 1 tenth of a gram.

So you do that for all sizes of nuggets and the grand take would be:

GPX6000 finds 38 of 50 nuggets with a total weight of 8091.50 grams

GPZ7000 finds 36 of 50 nuggets with a total weight of 10,110.90 grams

That's a difference of 65 ounces more that the GPZ7000 would find, or approx $123,000 if gold is $1,900 an ounce.

Now of course the argument can be made that there are more smaller nuggets than there are larger nuggets but in this example we leveled the playing field saying there were only 10 nuggets of each size to be found, and based the percentage of recovery on the 5 star system presented.

The GPX6000 will find 8 of those 100gram nuggets, while the GPZ7000 will find all 10 or 2 more.  That's 200 grams more.  That's a difference of $12,258.

My conclusion is buy a GPZ7000, then take that additional $12,258 and buy two GPX6000's.

Seriously the GPX6000 is a fantastic machine and for the size gold we have here in the United States we are going to have a blast with the GPX6000.  It's fun to find gold at any size and this thing does it deeper on small gold than any machine I have ever seen.  Being it is so light weight and easy to use is just another check in the plus column. 

The GPX6000 would be what happens if a mad scientist took genetic materials from a GPX5000 and SDC2300 and a Gold Monster, then did gene splicing and added steroids and meth to the DNA. 

Have fun out there.  Post pictures!

Doc

[afreakofnature]

That is an interesting perspective of interpreting the star charts but what the star charts do not incorporate is depth.  I mean if all these sizes were at 2” depth then i am sure they all would get five stars on the 100g nugget that deep.  What the chart should say is something like .05g at 3”, 1g at 12” or 100g at 3’, etc.  Hence why we need some good controlled field experiments that no one seems to want to attempt yet.

Edited July 4, 2021 by afreakofnature

[DOC]

3 hours ago, afreakofnature said:

That is an interesting perspective of interpreting the star charts but what the star charts do not incorporate is depth.  I mean if all these sizes were at 2” depth then i am sure they all would get five stars on the 100g nugget that deep.  What the chart should say is something like .05g at 3”, 1g at 12” or 100g at 3’, etc.  Hence why we need some good controlled field experiments that no one seems to want to attempt yet.

Of course the star system takes depth into account.  How do you think they get the variation of the stars?  There has to be a variable and that variable is depth and that accounts for the variations in the star rating.

They are talking about a fixed weight.   There has to be some variable in order to come up with the different star ratings.  So the GPX6 gets a 5 star on a .05 gram nugget and the GPZ gets only a 1 star?  What's the difference?

For example:

You take 10 .05gram nuggets first one at 1 inch second one at 2 inches third at 3 and so on, down to the tenth nugget at 10 inches.  The GPZ can find the first nugget at 1 inch and the 2nd nugget at 2 inches and it can not hear the other 8 nuggets.  Therefore it found 20% of the nuggets earning it 1 STAR.

The GPX6 heard all of the nuggets all the way down to 10 inches, (as an example) therefore it got 100% or 5 stars.

Likewise, the GPX6 craps out after finding 80% of the 100 gram nuggets hence it gets 4 stars and does not find the last 2 nuggets at depth that the GPZ7000 does the GPZ7000 finds all of the nuggets at depth and gets a 5 star rating.

Don't mess with me I have a Ph.D. in Psychology, statistics are my life.  🤣

Doc

[afreakofnature]

Ok, I like that assessment.  But what would be nice to see is the starting depths then for each weight and the intervals used then to achieve said stars like how you mentioned above.  
 

I have an MS in Geology, interpretations are my life 🤣.

[DOC]

1 hour ago, afreakofnature said:

Ok, I like that assessment.  But what would be nice to see is the starting depths then for each weight and the intervals used then to achieve said stars like how you mentioned above.  
 

I have an MS in Geology, interpretations are my life 🤣.

LOL Touche! 😆

Minelab does extensive depth testing.  Did you ever remember seeing the picture of that trench they dug when they were doing depth testing on the GPZ7000?  They dug a trench with a back hoe.

They had someone in the trench.  They used one wall of the trench and the person in the trench would shove different size nuggets into the wall of the trench.  The other person was top side with the GPZ7000 swinging it to see if they could hear the target.  This is how they collect their data and arrive at these rankings and conclusions.

Doc

 

[afreakofnature]

48 minutes ago, DOC said:

LOL Touche! 😆

Minelab does extensive depth testing.  Did you ever remember seeing the picture of that trench they dug when they were doing depth testing on the GPZ7000?  They dug a trench with a back hoe.

They had someone in the trench.  They used one wall of the trench and the person in the trench would shove different size nuggets into the wall of the trench.  The other person was top side with the GPZ7000 swinging it to see if they could hear the target.  This is how they collect their data and arrive at these rankings and conclusions.

Doc

 

🤣🤣

Actually no i have never seen that Minelab picture or even read about those tests.  That is what I have been asking about for months on another forum too with zero response other than testing has been done, its proprietary, and that tests and results don’t need to be available to the public for repeatability or validity.  Do you happen to have a video, paper or article on those experiments, or even links to those? If so that would be fantastic and would love to read/watch that!

[fishing8046]

Here is a similar test but using a modified GPX 4500

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIwP5fYLk24&ab_channel=WoodyDetectorMods