New Whites PI

[Reg]

Hello Rexb,

I am glad you wrote what you did because it pointed out something I needed to correct.

I need to correct what I wrote about the noise issue in England and here. I said the SD didn't do interference well like the other ML's, when I meant to say other ML PI's. I can't speak for the rest of their line. I have used several of their VLF's but that was some time ago and they didn't have problems with noise that I remember.

My personal experience with the SD and trying to use it in town was it was very noisy to say the least. Sometimes it was just a low warble but other times the noise was terrible.

As for the GP series I can only go by the complaints I heard from the operators I hunted with or around. I can't count the times I have been hunting with GP users that complained about the noise and I could hear nothing on mine.

I am sure what I wrote will cause feathers to fly, but that was not the reason for the statement. I was trying to explain why Eric found his PI more sensitive in England and when it was tested here, that wasn't the case. I know the issue of believing the sensitivity difference caused Eric to try to use a GP 3500 I think, also, to compare the sensitivities.

The the fact is, the ML is much more susceptible to noise than the GS 5. The GS 5 can be used in town, but not right next to a TV or a computer. I was never able to do that with the ML's I used. I can test my detectors within 50 ft of both a TV and the computer and not have a problem with excessive noise.

I do hear a slight threshold hash increase when I am around 15 to 20 feet or so from them but generally it only affects the weakest of signals. Now, if I get much closer, then I do experience some serious problems.

Reg

[Ridge Runner]

Reg

Thanks for the insight on the subject matter that's flying around at this time. Sometimes it's hard to compare one detector to another so you go on the word of another. I had talk to Mr. Bill on the GS5 but due to negative talk I didn't buy.I look at Garrett's new PI but never got to try it out so another pass up.I'd had use Whites nugget detector early models but not to happy with it and sold it. I feel that Whites and Garrett should have the most money to spend on the new technology needed to come up with equal detector to Minelab.

What I want out of a nugget detector is when I look out in front of me I see this acre of ground I'm going to hunt being 43,560 sq. ft. I want to know when I finish that anyone will have a hard time finding anything behind me.You can call me lazy but I don't want to have to pick up another detector are more and do the same thing all over again.

I think I'll just sit back and let the fur fly and when this is all over I'll walk up to take the one detector that is best for me but before that I'll make every dealer show me why I should spend my money on his brand.

This is why I say buy from a dealer where you find gold and if he has no gold to show pass him by.

Chuck Anders

[rexb]

Reg,

So, to clarify, I guess Mr. Foster was doing his comparison between the two detectors in what could be termed countryside at least in England, but where the test took place there was still interferance as bad as a moderately populated area in the U.S.? The "oh my" was my initial surprise at the thought that he might have done the side-by-side test in a populated area. I think everyone is in general agreeance that Minelab PI's are nearly impossible to run within city limits.

Thanks,

RCB

[Reg]

Hi Chuck,

Boy, I wish you the best in finding that special detector you want. I have never seen or heard of such a detector. Now, as and example, last year I hunted on the 24K club claims and picked up a nice little nugget the second day I was there that had been left behind for more than a couple of weeks since the area had been pushed. By the foot prints around it, a lot of people missed that nugget. Just what detectors went over the nugget is unknown but the vast majority used were ML's.

BTW I was using a low powered PI that has been called a "wimp" of a detector by at least one person. Actually, the detector does very well considering I can run on AA batteries for a long time. Now, I will be the first to admit it doesn't match the ML's for depth, but it is no wimp either.

After I found the nugget I had a guy come by with a relatively new 3500 and mentioned he had hunted around where I found the nugget. He also said he had been hunting the area for 3 weeks and hadn't found a thing yet. Did he pass over it and not hear it? I don't know. What I do know is he asked to test his detector over that small piece of gold and he couldn't detect any better than I could and maybe not as well. We didn't take exact measurements. As for the nugget itself, it wasn't that big. I don't remember the exact size, but my guess is it was about 6 to 7 grains in size. It was a pretty piece of gold, but certainly wasn't big enough to use as a down payment on a new vehicle. At least, not yet. We will see how high gold goes in the future.

Now, the point is, a detector using brute force or considered to be the "best" doesn't assure some other smaller or "inferior" unit won't come along and and find nuggets that were missed. If you listen or read all the posts about all the nuggets found with the new GPX that were missed by the previous model(s), you would think the previous one(s) was (were) junk. How could it miss so many unless it wasn't inferior?

The truth of the matter is, no detector is perfect and can miss nuggets, even the new GPX. In fact, several tests have been done in OZ and to some people's surprise, they found the new model could miss a 1 oz nugget well within the range of the detector, if operating in one particular mode. Is this a flaw? Nope, not in my book. Does it occur here as well in OZ? I am betting it does. The reason is, it is a characteristic that is quite easy to create in the detection pattern using the techniques presently used for ground balance. This "hole" characteristic can cause certain nuggets to have, what appears as reduced sensitivity and in extreme cases, to not be detected at all. Normally, this "hole" is quite narrow which means the problem will only exist over a very limited size of nuggets. Also, the better the ground balance, the more likely the certain range nugget will be ignored.

Now, just for the record, my PI has this "hole" characteristic, as does the GS 5, the earlier ML's, and the earlier Foster units that were the first to have the ground balance feature. I have no doubt that at full ground balance, the "hole' characteristic will be present on the new Whites.

If you think about it, this "hole" thing has to happen. Certain gold will have a decay characteristic that closely matches the ground signal at the time of sampling. So, if you adjust to ignore the ground, you will also adjust to ignore that certain size gold.

Getting back to new model changes, when the next generation of ML's comes out, we will hear how much better it does than the present model. We will wonder just much gold was left behind by the previous model, just like what we hear today.

This will happen not only on the ML's but most brands. Newer is always so much better. If you don't believe that, just ask a dealer.

Reg

[Reg]

Hi Rexb,

England is less than half the size of Arizona yet it has or had over 50 million people in 2004. Now, Arizona had a little over 6 million in 2006. Based upon these numbers, I would say the general area where the detector was initially tested is just a little more congested. Wouldn't you agree?

Out here in the west, we can still find places where we can stop and look all directions for miles and miles and not see even a house, let alone a city. My guess is the only way they can look any direction and not see a house or civilization in England is by trying to look in a dense fog or dense forest.

I highly doubt Eric could find a place free of man made noise within a reasonable distance in any direction. About the only way to address this problem is to try to build a "noise free" room that is completely shielded. That is why Eric needed the feedback from the field to address the issues.

Reg

[rexb]

Thanks Reg,

That's what I suspected, just thought it should be made a bit more clear. I suppose anything short of a plane ride to another location would not yield satisfactory test results. I'm not too familiar with the area so I thought it best to enquire further; I wasn't sure if it might be better in the the English countryside or not - or Wales or perhaps Ireland.

Rex

Hi Rexb,

England is less than half the size of Arizona yet it has or had over 50 million people in 2004. Now, Arizona had a little over 6 million in 2006. Based upon these numbers, I would say the general area where the detector was initially tested is just a little more congested. Wouldn't you agree?

Out here in the west, we can still find places where we can stop and look all directions for miles and miles and not see even a house, let alone a city. My guess is the only way they can look any direction and not see a house or civilization in England is by trying to look in a dense fog or dense forest.

I highly doubt Eric could find a place free of man made noise within a reasonable distance in any direction. About the only way to address this problem is to try to build a "noise free" room that is completely shielded. That is why Eric needed the feedback from the field to address the issues.

Reg

[Reg]

Hi Rexb,

Actually, Eric took a little ride to test the GS 5. The destination was Australia where he conducted several tests on the ground conditions and other factors so he would have a better idea of what he had to deal with. Now, making such a trip helps tremendously but doesn't make everything as clear as one might think.

The reason is because of unknown reactions that occur when an action is taken. The old adage of 'for every action there is a.... reaction' (modified just a little but generally accurate) normally holds true. Make an improvement in one aspect and then search for the negative side effects. The bad part of this concept is sometimes the down side doesn't show up for a while.

One of the reasons I am sort of sympathetic to Eric's cause is I have sort of followed a parallel path with my own designs. So, I know the difficulties involved. I fully understand that many of aspects of a design seem to hit a brick wall and further changes seem almost impossible. Then there is some breakthrough and a small step forward occurs up to a new brick wall. Generally, when this happens, the advances are usually small and are time consuming. What is really difficult is deviating from something that works well. That has to happen once the brick wall becomes solid to the point there are no more advances.

One can read all the text books they want, but the true advances occur by simply doing and seeing what happens.

To illustrate what I mean, some time back John Blennert basically issued a challenge. That challenge was for someone to design a PI that would detect his "invisible" nuggets. These were nuggets found in the Greaterville area by John. He used his Goldmaster to find them. Later he tried to detect these nuggets with a PI and "nada, nothing, nil". No matter how hard one tried, they couldn't get any PI to detect them. Recent testing of some of the invisible nuggets even even with the GPX resulted in not being able to detect them.

Interested in the challenge, I asked John if I could buy a couple of nuggets for testing. John was nice enough to send me a couple free for testing. Many people who have heard or read this little story already know, it took a while but I got the job done as did Eric. We could detect the "invisible" nuggets with a PI.

What most people do not know is some of the negative side effects that occurred and how they had to be dealt with. One important issue was to detect these nuggets, the minimum delay before sampling had to be shortened. This required some unique changes even to coils as well as to the electronics.

Now, this shortened delay created one major negative problem that had to be dealt with. The standard gain of the preamp didn't allow for the reduction of the delay and amplify all signals equally. Looking at the test equipment didn't show any problems, but things just didn't work right. Fortunately, Eric used a rather unique technique to test the preamp and in the process, found the amplification of very short signals was severely hampered or reduced compared to longer signals. This meant the response to small gold was not at the same sensitivity as that of larger gold. This difference upset the special canceling amplifier that eliminates a lot of noise as well as signals that occur as the result of the earth's magnetic field.

Ultimately, additional modifications had to be made to the preamp to minimize this problem. So, as usual, for the particular action, there was a reaction. As usual, the reaction required another action. So, this cycle seems to go on forever.

I mentioned this long winded story involving the detection of "invisible" nuggets to try to emphasize all is not easy when making any type of change. I also felt people need to realize that any obvious modifications of any detector will almost always result in a negative side effect in some aspect. It could become quickly obvious, or it could take a long time to show up, but it will. In many cases the change needed to correct one problem may not be easy or it may cause another strange reaction.

As I mentioned on a previous post, people in OZ testing the new GPX noticed a "hole" when using certain settings and that hole caused a 1 oz nugget to be ignored. The initial reaction by the owners of the GPX was one of major concern. For me, it came as no surprise. I expected something to show up. I just didn't know what or when. I personally wrote I felt this shouldn't be looked at as a major flaw but as a characteristic. Also, I mentioned something to the effect that such characteristics will happen as the result of other changes and a person shouldn't get upset but rather should try to find and document them to know what must be done to fully search an area.

Again, I expect such characteristics to occur on any PI using the present design for ground balance. In my opinion people shouldn't get upset if they find one of these characteristics. Instead, they should try to find the best way to get around the problem. Generally, there is a way.

What is extremely difficult to do is to get people to actually accept these things happen and it is not a flaw. Unfortunately, people take things personally and adopt their detector much like adopting a child. Most people do not deal well with someone telling them their kids have flaws.

Reg

[Steve Herschbach]

Hi Reg,

"What is extremely difficult to do is to get people to actually accept these things happen and it is not a flaw. Unfortunately, people take things personally and adopt their detector much like adopting a child. Most people do not deal well with someone telling them their kids have flaws."

After reading the back and forth on this thread I think your last statement is a true gem! Some of these discussions get pretty heated. You'd swear detectors are one of the biggies, like sex, religion, or politics. I guess it says something about us that we take something so serious when 99.9% of the populace thinks people who use detectors are kind of goofy.

I have had a great opportunity the last few years to observe people detecting at Moore Creek and previous to that at Ganes Creek. I know for a fact that just having the "best" detector is way down the list of factors that spell success in nugget detecting. Good detectorists can manage to find gold nuggets with almost any detector. Having a less than optimum machine will give them an extra impediment to overcome, but they will still manage to get the gold.

Conversely, I'm simply amazed at how hard it is for novices to find gold nuggets. Just having a GPX-4000 or whatever you think is best in no way insures success. At Ganes or Moore 10% of the people find 90% of the gold, and in many cases it is the same people doing it year after year. The 90% of the people that find only 10% of the gold are having a heck of a time finding anything, and even the little they do find often comes from just pure "beginners luck".

By and large people need to worry a lot less about detectors and a lot more about developing good detecting skills. It is truly a skill, much like learning to play a musical instrument. It takes a great deal of practice to get good at it, and constant practice to stay good at it. More than anything I think a person simply has to enjoy detecting in and of itself. If a person thinks swinging a detector for ten hours and finding nothing but trash is a waste of time, then they will most likely never be good at metal detecting.

Steve Herschbach

[Reg]

Hi Steve,

Your statement; "By and large people need to worry a lot less about detectors and a lot more about developing good detecting skills. It is truly a skill, much like learning to play a musical instrument. It takes a great deal of practice to get good at it, and constant practice to stay good at it. More than anything I think a person simply has to enjoy detecting in and of itself. If a person thinks swinging a detector for ten hours and finding nothing but trash is a waste of time, then they will most likely never be good at metal detecting." is also a real gem.

Someone good with a detector knows when his detector is "talking to him". Other people are happy as long as their detector is yelling their way. There is a big difference.

I am a firm believer that like learning to play an instrument well, one should "learn to play their detector". People should know as much as possible, try to find the flaws, and know how to take advantage of the plus features.

I will give a couple of examples of what I mean. On my PI, I know I have to run right at the just barely audible level of threshold for maximum depth capability. If I turn the threshold down, I lose depth and if I turn it up, the signal easily gets lost in the noise, to once again, I lose depth. On a buried 1 gram nugget a slight difference in threshold can make the difference of over an inch in depth capability.

I also know that on my PI I have a "hole" in the detection pattern, meaning there is a narrow band of nuggets that will be missed if I set the ground balance control past a certain point. I also know things change when I advance the same control farther to the point that most basalt is ignored. The "hole" becomes much more distinct, but the over all ground noise response is smoothed out a lot. If I want to close the "hole" so I don't miss gold, I simply reduce the ground balance again. Generally, this results in reasonably smooth operation with just the minimal amount of ground signal. However, some basalt will now generate a much more distinct signal.

Then there are the little things like I know iron objects will normally cause a wider response that is often larger than the coil if the iron is on or near the surface and is any size at all. Meanwhile, most gold and non ferrous objects will have a narrower response.

Small iron shavings from a dozer blade will usually have a very sharp almost raspy response on my detector and no real depth to the signal. So, raising the coil a little will quickly let me know. ,A small piece of gold generate a signal that will be much more mellow.

I also know the importance of minimizing noise. On my PI, I have a manual adjustment to change the pulse rate. I know that if I allow even a very slight amount of additional noise, I can easily lose an inch to two inches in depth on various size objects.

I know that if I allow two problems to occur I compound the problem. So, if I leave a noisy and loud threshold, I can expect to see some serious depth loss. How much, well I have seen an object only be detected up to 2/3 of what would be the maximum distance.

I know that poor coil sweep methods or at the wrong speeds, can also have a negative impact.

The bottom line is the best of the best detectors can be set up at the less than desired settings which ultimately result in a target not being heard. Now, add in the inexperience of not being able to distinguish the slight rise in threshold caused by a very deep target and more gold is lost.

All of the above has nothing to do with simply learning how to read the ground or knowing where to hunt. Have a dozen inexperienced hunters individually search a side of a hill that has a very slight but noticeable path and most of the hunters, if not all, will end up on the path.

Reg

[wyndham]

As a kid in the coastal area of S. Carolina, my father taught me how to dig clams. There is an identifying keyhole shape that the clam has for a breathing/food intake system. Once you understand how to ID the keyhole you find clams.

Most of us who have never found gold have found trash so the positive feedback on trash helps us find more.....TRASH I can pan and get gold but so far nothing with my md but some BB's last time out. Also I could be in the wrong area since only flour gold is mostly what can be found.

Other story, some new recruits are put in a room about 20'x20'with a string hanging down in the middle of the room.

A red line is on the floor 4 ft inside the room and the instructor gives each in turn a 3ft pole with a hook on the end and ask each to snag the line with the hook.

Each in turn come up to the red line and lean as they might cannot reach the line til one recruit walks over the line and easily snags the line. There was no "Stop at the Red line instruction given(old story I know)

We all limit ourselves based on inaccurate or mispercieved information in our lives.

Now where was that lost gold mine again. Wyndham

[Reg]

Hi Wyndham,

Your trash story works out here also. I have spent days clearing out trash figuring I was finally getting to the end only to find more junk. I have never kept track of the ratio of trash to gold. If I did, I might quit having so much fun.

Your story hits home also. We limit ourselves for several reasons. In many cases fear is the factor. The what if's and the unknowns scare people. What if I turn the wrong knob and get it out of adjustment, how do I get it back? What if I mess with the controls and break something? What if I turn the knob the wrong way and it won't detect anything? The list goes on.

My last trip to Rich Hill, I loaned a detector to a woman who had never used a PI before. I explained a couple of the key controls and said you can't hurt it so don't be afraid of playing with it. I told her the detector could take about anything, except getting run over by a vehicle or used as a prybar to move boulders, so don't worry about breaking anything by simply using it.

Some time later I approached her and she was using her detector again. I asked her if she got frustrated with the detector because it was quite sensitive and I had left an experimental coil on the detector which made it even more sensitive. Well, she was in a state of panic because when she got close to some other people with PI's and raised the coil way off the ground or tilted the coil, she would start getting false signals. Since it wasn't doing that when she started, she thought somehow she had broke something.

On my PI, I can raise the coil high up in the air or tilt it any way I like and normally do not get much noise, if any. However, when working in very close proximity to several other PI's, that may not be the case. I can get cross talk much easier when I raise or tilt the coil, but I can also generally minimize it by a quick adjustment of my pulse rate. My problem was I forgot to tell her how to do that that since I really had not had a problem with cross talk most of the day. Well, she had worked her way into the middle of a bunch of ML's so now she was experiencing this unknown noise no matter which direction she went. What made it worse is I left the detector with her for quite a while and she was panicking for some time.

Next time I loan one out, I will challenge them to make it fail but do so by turning the knobs by hand. All I ask is they stop turning the same direction when the knob stops. Also, no fair adjusting the detector by running over it with a vehicle or by giving a control just a little extra adjustment with pliers or a hammer.

Now, one thing about the detector I loaned her that I also failed to mention was, when in doubt, place all knobs in the 12 o'clock position, except the threshold, That will need a little adjustment on either side. Normally, that will do the trick if a control had gotten way out of adjustment.

Detector manufacturers have gotten much better at noting a good starting point with each control, but, in some cases, could do a little better.

In my case, I set my detector up so all controls could be set the same and the detector worked fine. That made it easier for my dad to use.

Reg

[kris]

Hello Guys,

I'm loyal to one brand for one reason, "The Minelab detectors kick ass!" However, I'm always open to see what other detectors can do. Just haven't seen anything that will really impress me over the last 5 years. You hear about all these great detectors that are in the works, like the "Titan Project." What the heck happened to that deal? Ken Roberts promised us all a year ago we would see something ...

When a customer calls, the first thing I tell them is to get on all the Internet gold forums and see what people are using successfully to find nuggets. This is where you will find your answer. The customers always call back and say, seems like these Minelab detectors are the ones to consider.

Not knocking Garrett, but when it first came out their were several Garrett dealers telling people on the Internet forums that the Infinium was better than the SD's and was probably going to beat out the GP series. No one really knew, but I was very sceptical. A couple of friends went out and purchased the Infiniums strickly for gold nugget hunting and for the "so-called" great discriminator it had. Well, these guys used the Infiniums for about an hour and were back using their SD's. I sat and watched them dig a "so-called good target" with the reverse discrimation. After about an hour and two feet deep, it was a tin can!!

Just curious what happens to these dealers ... they seem to be very quiet anymore.

Reg - Yes, we need to try to equal the detectors out by using like sized coils. The GPX-4000 has much more control, so I'm able to tweak controls I couldn't on the GP3500.

Take care,

Rob Allison

Yeer and you are a minelab agent!!LOL

so you don`t want people buying other brands

kris

[Reg]

Hi Kris,

Rob is one of the best gold hunters I have ever known. He has learned and uses about every trick possible to determine if there is a target there or not. I strongly urge people to watch him for a while. I am not advocating you hunt just like him, but you will notice he is not afraid of trying different things. He is a perfect example of what happens or what can happen if you really take time to fully understand how to use your detector.

Now, with that said, you also need to evaluate what he says also. As an example, in the statement you quoted, he said this;

"A couple of friends went out and purchased the Infiniums strickly for gold nugget hunting and for the "so-called" great discriminator it had. Well, these guys used the Infiniums for about an hour and were back using their SD's. I sat and watched them dig a "so-called good target" with the reverse discrimination. After about an hour and two feet deep, it was a tin can!! "

This is about what happened, so it is truthful. It also indicates just how much effort was put into trying the Infinium. It was used for about an hour and since they dug a tin can, the discrimination didn't work. There "was some testing of small gold as well, that wasn't posted.

On the other side of the coin, he said the can was two feet deep. This would indicate the Infinum has decent depth. If a detector can detect a can that deep it can detect gold at a very reasonable depth also.

Personally, I have never met anyone who can fully evaluate a detector in an hour, two hours, or even two weeks and know just what all that a detector can do. I have met a lot of people who think they can.

Now, lets take another of his statements and truly evaluate it. Here is that statement;

I'm loyal to one brand for one reason, "The Minelab detectors kick ass!"

Ok, lets look at a couple of things he recently mentioned in another thread. This is the thread about the ounce of nuggets. In that thread, Rob said this;

"Glenn mentioned he went back into this wash with the GP3000 several years ago, but was unable to find a nugget."

"All three of us hunted for about four hours. Glenn and I both found (8) apiece and Dennis found (4). However, Dennis dug up the best nugget weighing in at 7.3 Dwts (or 1/3 ounce)."

Glenn had previously hunted the wash with a Goldstrike.

On a different thread about not nearly and ounce, Rob said this;

"Leaverite and I decided to head out early this morning for some more nuggethunting. We decided to explore around the new area we found. After about 3-4 hours we found a total of (12) gold nuggets. The total weight for all twelve was just under 1/4 ounce."

"All the nuggets were found with the Minelab GPX-4000's and Coiltek Joey Mono Searchcoils."

Ok, lets evaluate the above statements but before I do, I need to mention I have hunted with Glenn and he is a very good hunter. So, if he is good and he hunted the area first with a Goldstrike and then with a GP 3000, and didn't find any more gold with the PI, does this mean the 3000 is no better than the Goldstrike? If that is true, does this mean a VLF is as good as a PI? Does it mean the 3000 isn't anywhere near as good as the 4000?

As for the second statement where Rob and Leaverite hunted a new area and found 12 nuggets with the 4000's. Does this indicate they wouldn't have been found with any other ML or other detector?

Now, am I picking on Rob? Yep, I sure am, especially after the posting by Chuck and his comparison of the GP Extreme and the new 4000 where he said;

"I had a couple of small 'pickers' that my GP Extreme produced a strong signal on with the stock 11' D/D coil and decided to see how the new GPX 4000 responded with the same coil.

No matter what settings I tried, no signal, my friend had similar results with his new machine. His would produce a very weak response, but only if he made direct contact.

However it was not a strong enough signal that either one of us would have dug. "

Now, does this mean the Extreme is better than the 4000?

I pointed these specific items out to show how easily a person can make a detector look bad, look good, or worse yet, confuse those looking for answers.

The fact is, all the ML's are good at finding gold and an owner of the 3000, the 3500, the Extreme, or even the SD's should't panic. At least, that is my opinion on the subject. Will the 4000 do better than what they are using now? Most likely it will over the long run, but one shouldn't expect it will be better in every aspect, so if they run into an isolated incident they shouldn't worry that their new pride and joy isn't better overall.

Overall, I suspect that Chuck will do better with the 4000 if it really is quieter and operates smoother than previous models.

Now, some time back, I tested my "wimp" of a PI against the 4000 on what are called the invisible nuggets. My "wimp" would detect them every time. The 4000 was totally silent no matter what mode was tried. Does this make my detector better than the 4000? Of course not, but it does point out that even the best can be beat under the right circumstances.

The bottom line is, I believe Steve Herschbach said it best when he said;

"I know for a fact that just having the "best" detector is way down the list of factors that spell success in nugget detecting. Good detectorists can manage to find gold nuggets with almost any detector."

I also know that Rob is truly dedicated to the ML and believes what he says and he feels the new GPX is the best.

I also know the two above statements seem to conflict. Well, in my opinion, they do not. What they tell me is there may be a better detector out there, but one shouldn't panic and feel they need to have it or they will not find gold. If money is no object, then one might consider buying the best and make it part of their arsenal. On the other hand, if one has to watch his expenses, then he shouldn't be afraid at looking at all the alternatives and select the detector that he feels might fit his need. Then, if a person takes time to fully learn what they are using, their success rate will increase even if they are not using the "best". At least, that is my opinion.

Reg

[Reg]

Hi All,

Well, this thread has taken on a life of its own with over 5000 views. That sort of indicates there is an interest in a White’s PI. Now, many of the posts in this thread have deviated from the main theme of the Whites PI, so I will try to get back on track on this one.

I am sure by now, many of you have heard that the Whites unit will have a foundation based upon the Eric Foster design called the GS 5. Many of you know where you might find information about the GS 5, but I am sure there area a few that do not, so here is a link to the GS 5 information pages. I would like to point out I have no idea of what Whites unit will be like or what controls they may have on their unit, so they may all of the ones found on the GS 5 or they may only have a few. That is up to them.

http://www.surfscanner.com/Surfscan3/Goldscan1.html

Once a person looks at the controls, they may want to read the operating instructions located at this link;

http://www.surfscanner.com/Surfscan3/InstructionsGS5.html

Let’s assume for a moment Whites has most of the controls found on the GS 5 and you have read most of the information from the two GS 5 sites noted on this post. It is my guess that if you have never used a PI and never have read much about them, then a fair amount of what you have read is about as clear as mud. This is especially true if you have been using a VLF detector. If you are unfamiliar with the PI, you might want to read an article I wrote quite some time back on how PI’s work. I wrote the articles very quickly and some things could be done better, but the main idea of what makes a PI tick is there. Here is a link to the articles.

http://www.nuggetshooter.com/articles/articles1.html

Once on the link, just look for the part 1 and part two of “Understanding the PI detector”.

Keep in mind this information was written by me in 2003, so there are a few things that could be changed, but, overall, the basics in the article are still relevant. The information is copyrighted, but I have no problem people copying it. I wrote the information so people would have a better understanding of PI’s since I couldn’t find that much myself.

I hope these links help a few who might be reading this thread.

Reg

[nuggethunting]

Hello Reg and Others,

By any means I'm not trying to put down any metal detector out there, just stating the best for "me" is the Minelab GPX-4000 at this time. Reg, when you have been using something successfully for 10+ years, it's tough to make a change. I'm very in tune with the Minelab PI's, and have used them all for at least a couple of years starting with the Minelab SD2000. My ears and mind are programmed to understand what the Minelab PI's are telling me.

Thanks for the comments you stated about me. I have a true passion for this hobby, and love every moment I'm able to be out there hunting the ellusive metal. I'm hoping we can get together again this year and do some more testing and nugget hunting.

I'm very intersted in hearing more about the White's PI. As much as I love the Australian metal detectors, I would love to support my own country, the USA.

Kris - It wouldn't matter if I sold another Minelab, this is just a side business for me. If I had to rely on selling detectors, I would be eating canned beans! I used to be a multi-line metal detector dealer, but sold Minelab ten fold over other manufactures.

Take care,

Rob Allison

[Reg]

Hi Rob,

Nobody is trying to convince you to change. On the contrary, you have been very good for ML and your ML's have been good to you. ML's are good detectors, but you are an excellent hunter that has matured over the years. Remember, I have known you most of that time and I have watched the transition.

Now, you brought up a couple of key points that are quite critical when trying any new detector and again, this information isn't aimed at you, but others who might be interested in trying a new unit. First, you mentioned you are "in tune" with the ML's and "My ears and mind are programmed to understand what the Minelab PI's are telling me."

What you say is totally correct and that is what most people normally do if they learn their detector well. It is a big part of the reason for a high success rate.

Unfortunately, when trying any new detector, we have a tendency to try to operate the new detector the same way we operate our previous one and usually that doesn't work or doesn't work well. So, we usually get frustrated thinking the new detector should adapt to "our way" of operations instead of adapting to the new detector.

Every metal detector model has its own personality and method it likes best. Deviate from that and the success rate will go down every time over the long run. Adapt to the detector and the success rate will increase. This will be the case with the new Whites PI when it is available.

Now, if a VLF operator makes the transition to the Whites PI, they will be confused somewhat at the onset by some of the controls since there is nothing like them on a VLF. If a ML owner tries the new unit, they will probably get frustrated also because the audio will not be the same and, again, the controls are not quite the same. It does take a while to adapt.

I have a friend who has the SD 2200 and the GS 5. He uses both, but he has indicated the more he uses the Gs 5, the more he likes it. It has taken quite a while to get to this point though because of the differences.

One of the strange items that will cause both confusion and concern is the difference in air test sensitivity between the ground balance and non-ground balance modes. There is a difference because of the techniques used for ground balancing and there is no way of getting around what happens. The easy solution would be to eliminate the mode of no ground balance and then no one would notice the difference. Unfortunately, that would also reduce the potential of the detector also. There are places where one can use the detector with the ground balance (GB) off and not experience any ground signal at all. Yes, some do exist in gold producing areas.

Also, if an area has a major problem with noise to the point even the Whites or GS 5 is effected, then one can simply use a noise canceling coil. If this is done, one can turn off the GB and almost make up the difference in depth capabilities that normally occurs when using such a coil.

I have heard different opinions on the sensitivity loss on a ML when such a coil is used, so maybe someone will jump in and be more specific, rather than me try to guess. Now, on one of my PI's which is quite similar to the GS 5, I experience about a 10% max depth loss on nuggets up to 1/4 oz and this is using a rather unique noise canceling/ground canceling coil I built some time back. So, I can hunt in some of the noisiest environments easily by using such a coil, but as I mentioned, I do experience some depth loss.

As I mentioned before, I have no input or communications with Whites on their PI, so I don't have any influence. However, I would still like to recommend they use the same connectors as those used on the ML's so people can easily use ML compatible coils. this will make even the ground canceling/noise canceling coils available at the onset. An adapter could always be built, but that is one more item that can fail.

Reg

[Reg]

Hi All,

I see that this thread still has a lot of interest by the large number of additional viewings, so I thought I would bring it back to the top and try something a little different.

One guy asked me how come I may know so much about the new Whites because I have indicated what I suspect one might see in the future. I also mentioned my position was based upon my knowledge of the GS 5 and not the Whites unit. I also told him that I have not had any discussions with Whites.

So, rather than confuse things much more by me talking much about the GS 5, I thought maybe we could try something else, such as ask what people might want to see in the new Whites PI? Since we have had a few people post that have some knowledge of the new detector, we can assume this thread is being followed by someone at Whites or someone associated such that they could pass information to them.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am sure they have a good idea of what they expect of their new detector already, but it doesn't hurt so toss a few things forward. They may not go anywhere but it could be fun just talking about it.

So, let me toss a question out to those interested. Now, based upon my unit, which is a low powered PI, my detector is really quite light. So, the first question is would people be willing to give up a small amount of depth for a lighter detector? Who knows, if the PI is a hit, it just might result in another that might be lighter if the original isn't light enough.

There can be an advantage to a lower powered unit in the fact, it is easier to obtain shorter delays which then results in better depth on the smaller gold. So, things like the "invisible" nuggets could be detected. Generally, not much depth is lost on gold less than 1/4 oz or so.

Ok, what would you want to see in the new PI? Lets be practical now. By this I mean, it would be nice to have TID, but that isn't going to happen any time soon, so we can scratch that one.

Now, lets assume two coil sizes are available, which size would one want and why?

Once again, if I answer any questions about the unit in general, it will be based upon my knowledge of the GS 5 and not anything that Whites is making.

So, lets have some fun and keep the interest up. Who knows, we may hit 10,000 views if we stay active.

Reg

[mikehemp]

Any truth to a rumor I heard today.....Minelabs patent on their PI technology will expire soon so we could very well see other brands coming out with GP comperable machines?

[Reg]

Hi Mike,

The original patent for ML's PI was granted in 1996. To be honest I do not know just when it will expire, but, I expect it will be a while yet. Personally, I don't care. Multiple sampling ideas have been in public domain for a very long time and used by others for a long time.

Also, the concept in ML's patent isn't, in my opinion, the reason they have good depth. In fact, I can't even verify some of their claims as being valid.

Unlike other PI owners, ML owners swear they hear signals from planes, fences, and other strange sources that are not head on other PI's. Now, I am relatively sure such noises do have some of the sources that have been indicated. To acquire signals from such sources requires the receiver gain be pushed to the absolute max.

So, crank up the gain, push the current to the limit over a finite time, add a few filters and and you can have a deeper seeking but noisier detector with increased depth capability. At least, that is my opinion based upon my latest experimentation. Then it will be a matter of simply refining various circuits, to try to reduce the noise while maintaining the depth advantage. Much of this simply follows ideal engineering techniques.

The key to all of this is more of conquering the noise than anything else. Right now, most people, including me, are using conventional analog circuits to accomplish their design. I suspect the noise problem may take more sophisticated software techniques before it is all said an done.

That is not to say that more can't be done in the analog arena, meaning more can still be done with the present designs that doesn't require a microprocessor to do. In fact, I have a couple of ideas I really need to try.

So, lets see what happens in the near future.

Personally, I would rather produce a reliable iron ID feature than worry about any depth differences I have between my PI and a ML.

Now, on one of the other forums there was some discussion as to the typical depth at which most nuggets are found. Surprisingly, most were not found at tremendous depths. If we take into account that most gold found is generally small, that makes sense. So, if a detector matches the depth of the ML on the most typical gold found, and is quieter and lighter, why get too excited? At least, that has been my opinion as to why I enjoy my PI.

Now, if the new Whites does that also, then their detector should be a decent unit.

Reg

[grubstake]

Hi! Reg, # 1 for me would be a waterproof coil. Up here most of the best hunting, is done Sept. thru May. right after a good rain, or heavy dew. Some in stream beds. So waterproof coils are very important. #2. would be lite weight. #3. would be long lasting batteries, with the ability to charge in the field via auto, or maybe even solar. We dig alot of trash, I dig everything infact, Iron discriminate, is not so importat to me, but some folks it is.Ground stablity is very important, up here our ground can change radically in just a few feet. depth would be good, nuggets up here can range from just lying on top or down to over two ft. . A waterproof case would also be great. I do think that coils on the market now, should be able to be used. If it has a screen like most of the white's do, I would like to see Icon's not #'s and be backlite. I wish minelabwould have backlite the screen on the 4000, it would make it a lot easyer to see. I have bad eye's, wear bi-focals, but don't when detecting, to easy to fall. So I have a hard time seeing the screen on the 4000. Back lite would have been better.Anyway thats my dream for a new machine type or design. GrubstakeIt would be good if it had all that in a design like the tesorro mico's.

[Reg]

Hi Grubstake,

Two of your requests, light weight and long lasting batteries are almost impossible to do and still make a full power PI. If lowering the coil current would allow for a much lighter design and longer lasting batteries, would you still be interested? How about something like a medium powered unit? This can be done by shortening the pulse some and lowering the coil current just a little.

As for a waterproof coil, lets hope that is the case and Whites does build a waterproof coil. Now, if we assume Whites doesn't change the connector, then it would be able to use ML compatible coils like the GS 5 can. Unfortunately, I doubt a Whites coil will be able to be used on a ML, just as I suspect the GS 5 coils can't be used on ML's. I suspect that Whites will design their coils specifically to match their electronics and that is most likely different from the ML's. I know the GS 5 design is different. By this I mean that a GS 5 can use a ML coil but the ML can't use the GS 5 coil.

Fortunately, the GS 5 design is much more flexible and more tolerant of coil design. It is easy to build a coil that will work on a GS 5, but that isn't the case for the ML. So, if Whites uses the GS 5 for its design, then it will be easier to adapt coils to it.

Reg

[grubstake]

Reg, I really like the 4000, and at the present time, I think its tops. but a meduim range Pi would be nice. i'm no expert when it comes to electronic, but with all the digital micro electronic's on the market, seems like things could be reduced down pretty small now days. I like the whites pi surf, I've wned a couple since they first came out. I even tried nugget hunting with one, up here it was kind of unstable, but would hit on big gold pretty good. and the batteries would l;ast quite awhile. Since they already have that coil and its waterproof, maybe thats the one they will use.Right now its all guess work, it will be interesting to see what the finished detector will look and how it will perform. I'm very opened minded about it. And it only can make things get better for those of us that detect. Grubstake

[cougar jim]

I would be glad to give up some depth for a lighter machine. I just don't care about digging 2 ft+

holes. I had rather be covering more ground than digging trash all day.

Jim

[Digger Bob]

I think Reno Chris pretty well covered all the points as to what a "perfect" machine should do. In some cases though, with current technology, not all can be done without sacrificing something else.

But, let me ask you all this question:

If, given a choice, you could have one or the other, but not both, which would you rather have?

A machine that is stable and quiet under all circumstances. No interference from the worst ground, airplanes, microwaves, high power lines, bumping on rocks, or anything else (except other detectors close by). And you get this with a mono loop. But you would loose about 25% depth to accomplish this. Oh yes, it is compatible with any Minelab loop.

Or a machine that gets comparable depth to Minelab, is lighter and sturdy with good battery life, but more susceptable to interference. But it has an iron ID that is accurate and reliable to full depth, and compatible with all loops.

If you could tell a manufacturer to make a machine with either of these features which would you choose? Remembering that a recent poll indicated that most gold is being found between 6 & 8 inches.

Digger Bob

[grubstake]

I would go with#2 Iron disscrim. and long battery life+minelab coils.Grubstake