Should the manufacturers stop making new detectors?

[ELDORADO.VE]

Hi Reg,

On a scale of 1 to 10, how would this coil come out? 375 uH, 0.5A coil current, sample at 5 uS with a gain of 23, Sample at 7 uS with a gain of 100.

Eldorado.ve

Hi Dutch John,

You are right, George Payne did design the first consumer VLf, but he has has a lot more firsts under his belt. For those of you fairly new to detecting, George designed the first motion discriminator, the first target ID detector, the first with audio ID, the first with notch, the first with surface blanking and a few more I can't think of right now.

He also patented a pulse type machine in 1978 that ground balanced and had a form of iron discrimination. Unfortunately, at that time, the unit required a lot of heavy batteries so the design never really got off the ground.

Now, what some people know is he is now designing a new coin huting machine patterned after his famous Mark 1. What George mentioned was in all the years he designed machines he was always constrained by someone and never allowed to design the ideal detector. What he hopes to do with his new design is to incorporate all the features he has ever wanted to put into a detector in this new detector.

Unfortunately, once again, it will be aimed at the coin hunting market. So, I don't expect it to be the greatest on nuggets. However, some of the tricks he mentioned some time back just might make it work well there also.

Ok, changing the subject to the possibility of the ML adding 4 more inches in depth, this is going to take some doing. The reason I say this is because of the physics involved. There are maybe 3 ways to increase depth, and they are, 1. to increase the power into the coil and 2. reduce the noise levels so ne can better hear each and every target signal. The third is shorten the sampling time such that the return signal is the greatest.

Now, when I say increasing the power, I mean this is going to take some serious increases. One basic estimate about increasing the depth is a person has to double the power to add another inch. To add the next inch will require the new power requirements are doubled again. So to add just a few inches using this technique is going to require one huge battery.

The second technique is reducing the noise base. Since most of the noise generated internally occurs in the preamp, then some dramatic new designs are going to be required, since ML is already using one of the lowest noise amps out there.

The third possibility is shortening the time for sampling. This will allow the signal to be obtain when it is much greater, amplitude wise. Now the down side is to do this will require some innovative techniques to eliminate the existing time lags. Speaking from experience, this is no easy feat. It gets worse if higher power is applied since this will generate a greater pulse that has to be dissipated. So, it is sort of a catch 22.

The use of innovative coil designs may help, but Allan Westersten has one design tied up with a patent that switches a special winding in the receive coil. This is one of the more unique designs I have seen. Even with it, the minimum delay time is still longer than ideal.

So, it is not that easy to increase the depth much more than what it is now. So, I guess it a wait and see game right now to see just what improvements are involved.

Reg

[Allen in MT]

And to think I just went out and bought a new 06 dodge 1 ton to get about the gold fields and now dodge has released the new 07 1 ton same engine, a few mods on the interior, gets me here and there.

I think I will keep the ol gp3000 for now as I know there is a gpx 5000f in the works

Whats the old saying about you can't please everybody all the time.

enjoy and HAGD

Allen in MT

[montana]

I love the new releases from Minelab and look forward to using my new detector this weekend. It appears there are a lot of new bells and whistles to play with. To me this is part of the fun of getting to know a new machine,learning how to make it perform to its maximum potential. From the looks of it , there are lots of adjustments for gain and sensitivity, dealing with hot ground and hotrocks, phase switching etc. . It will probably work just fine in the factory preset mode for those who don't like to mess with custom programs. For those who do like a programable detector this is Minelabs first try at it with a P.I.. My feelings on this facet are that some of the best coin hunters out there run custom programs on their detectors and the more options the better . All modern coin machines are programable . Why not PIs? I think that those who really learn the new machine will do very well with it. There is no reason whatsoever for someone to bash a new detector but it happens every time one comes out. Hats off to Minelab for heading in another direction , no matter how it turns out. For those who are skeptical , just sit back and watch the forums and see what developes. There is plenty of time to make a decision on upgrading. These forums are the best way there is to come to an informed decision . The hype will be weeded out quickly and the real facts will come out as it always seems to do. Have fun out there no matter what you are using . There's no reason for anyone to get emotional about a new product, but then again we do like our toys.----Bob

[Reg]

Hi Reg,

On a scale of 1 to 10, how would this coil come out? 375 uH, 0.5A coil current, sample at 5 uS with a gain of 23, Sample at 7 uS with a gain of 100.

Eldorado.ve

Hi Eldorado,

Being able to sample at 5 usec is a 10 in my book, especially with 1/2 amp current and a 375 uh coil.

If the numbers are correct over on the Prospecting In OZ forum and I believe they are, the ML samples at best at about 13 usec on the GP's and later on the SD's. They make up for short sampling with a very high gain, which explains much of the noise problems people experience.

The 5 usec sampling time should provide a much stronger signal to all gold, but will make detecting the really small stuff much easier. Much of the "invisible" gold John B mentions has a signal that is gone by 10 to 12 usec, which explains why it can't be detected by most PI's. If the signal is gone by 10 usec then even sampling at 10 usec, which is a feat in itself won't allow the detection of some of the strange gold.

Now, most people don't worry about the small stuff, but some time back I read where a guy in OZ tested the time constant of several large nuggets and I was surprised that one of them had a TC of 35 usec. Now, this is a really short time for a several oz nugget. It would explain why there was difficulty finding that nugget at depth.

Now, there have been a couple of posts over there that were really interesting that discuss the sampling times of the different ML's which explains why the 3500 does a little better than the SD's on finding the small stuff. The difference is only about 2 to 3 usec but that is sufficient to allow the detection of much smaller stuff.

Now, your sampling at either 5 usec or 7 usec does allow even better signals from smaller gold that will be invisible to the 3500's.

Keep up the good work in advancing your design.

Reg

[Lamar]

Dear Reg;

What do you suppose could attribute that large nugget having a 35usec TC? Do you figure the answer could lie in the nuggets' composition?

Your friend;

LAMAR

[ELDORADO.VE]

Lamar,

it might have to do with the cristal structure of the nugget. Check out this site with cristal gold nuggets. http://www.rarities-xls.com/Spec1thru12.htm

Eldorado.ve

Dear Reg;

What do you suppose could attribute that large nugget having a 35usec TC? Do you figure the answer could lie in the nuggets' composition?

Your friend;

LAMAR

[Lamar]

Dear group;

The more I think about this topic "Should the manufacturers stop making new detectors?" the more I am starting to think that perhaps Minelab SHOULD stop building new model detectors and instead concentrate all of their efforts and resources on upgrading their existing product line from time to time. This actually makes great business sense, if you stop and think about it for a while. Instead of having to spend countless dollars and hours on R & D all they really need to do is incorporate incremental changes in the exsting product line. They can time these changes to coincide with peak market saturation periods too. Then all they will need to do is to make a few cosmetic changes, alter a few of the perphial components so they can't be used with previous models, slap a new sticker on the sides and send out a bunch flyers with outlandish claims about improved depth and sensitivity, put an exhorbinately high price tag on it and sit back and watch the money start rolling in. Ooops, wait a second. It seems that they are already doing this. Never mind folks.

Your friend;

LAMAR

[au4greg]

I believe in the concept of perfection, or continuing to make better.

Regarding Minelab's 4000: It is a bit frustrating for the Professional Dealer or even a Mail Order Giant like Kellyco ('stuck' with about a dozen in stock, currently not advertising the 4000) to suddenly hear about the New Minelab 4000 while holding on to 3500 inventory. Same frustration regarding the recent release of the SE.

As stated above, Minelab and the other Majors will continue to work on improving their models. My guess is that as soon as the Minelab 4000 Design and Mission Statement was finished, that Bruce Candy and the Techs are working on the next generation.

Of course, six months ago, you've done all the homework and make an investment to get the BEST PI out there deciding on the 3500. You put away your hard earned income and just before the summer's end, purchase your 3500 and within a week or two, hear remours of the 4000 ready to be released. You want the best and now your Model is no longer King of the Hill. This does cause frustration.

When we buy a new model car at least we have an idea of when they are going to be released, what the differences are and then consider the 2006 and reduced prices to 2007 hard to get....

How Long was the GP-Extreme in existance before its end?

The GP-3000 ??

The GP-3500 ???

How long will the 4000 exist before a 4500, or maybe they'll skip to the 5000

From a recent nugget hunting trip I ran into Robert with his SD2100 the Grandfather Detector. Robert found the largest nuggets that day, about the size of a flattened match head.

Digger Bob found several small nuggets in the grain size category.

Will the 4000 mean a difference? Well the Transmit Power/Battery has been improved, we will just have to wait and see. The true test would be to take the 4000 to a Heavily Hit place like Rye Patch and see if the detector will 'Hear' anything deeper than all the other VLFs and PI Detectors.

Last time I was up there, was during the Jim Williams first memorial. I must have searched for 8 hours and not one metal target was located. So, in my opinion its pretty well cleaned out at least down to the level of what today's crop of current technology is capable of detecting assuming that the end user knows what he's doing.

[Reg]

Hi Lamar,

I am not sure just what would cause the short delay, but the possibilities do include the nugget having a crystaline structure. Such a nugget could be quite large and still generate a weak response and a short time constant, if the gold structure is broken into fine grains or strands. Also, one thing that Eric Foster mentioned quite some time ago is the detection range of nuggets changes with the composition or combination with other metals such as silver. It seems the the addition of silver can seriously affect the detection depth. So, if the nugget just happened to have a lot of silver, then that could have had an effect.

Without seeing a pic of the actual nugget and more info, all would be a guess. But guesses are fun at times.

If you have ever seen some of the "invisible" gold that John B has, you would initially think it could easily be detected, but even sizes that are a gram or larger can appear invisible to a PI. Now, when you look at the pieces under a loupe, you can see the minute crystaline structure involved. After looking very closely, I can see why this gold would cause problems. However, at first glance, one would think it would be easy to detect it.

Many years ago, I saw some of the gold that came off Pennsylvania mountain in Colorado. That was some of the strangest gold I had ever seen. It almost looked granular, much like sugar in a sugar cube. This gold was strange enough, that I wondered just how it would be detected. Unfortunately, I never did get any to try. The nuggets looked like they should just fall apart if dropped. Strange.

Reg