New Whites PI

[Ridge Runner]

This will make a 150 post and over 10022 viewing it on Whites maybe gold detector.After all of this I have yet seen anything out of white's.I talk to one dealer if they had him testing the gold detector and he's big in nugget hunting but his reply was no.

Is anybody on this forum has their hands on one? I'd like to know if all of this posting is for not.It's for sure it has been a hot topic for a long time.

Now the question is will it make 20000 before we see this new detector are maybe never.

Chuck Anders

[grubstake]

Chuck, I can tell you for sure it is real, I have not seen the detector, but I do know things got postponed, because Jimmy S had heart problems a day or two ago. I hope he heals up and get back to his old self again, my prays go with him. Grubstake

[Steve Herschbach]

Hi Chuck,

If you go back through the thread you will see that Jimmy Sierra has confirmed White's is working on a new PI unit and Greg Moscini says he has been testing one. So I do not think I'm stepping on any toes in confirming also that White's is working on such a unit and has been for some time.

It is somewhat unfortunate the news is out, however. Pre-release speculation is often damaging to units, especially when people begin to feel like you do - that something they are waiting for is never going to show up. Speculation about what such a machine is intended for and how it will perform can also get unfounded rumors going.

For instance, I posted about what I personally am wishing for in a new PI unit. But just because I'm wanting something does not mean that is what White's will deliver. They have wider considerations than a nut like me residing in Alaska.

White's is usually very careful regarding new releases, and you almost never hear about a White's unit before official release. After watching how things have gone for machines that get announced too early I do think it is better in general if we simply did not know about such things until they become a reality. The fact is all companies are always working on new units. Another fact is that many never see the light of day. Lots of bright ideas get tested that are later deemed not so bright after all, but you have to keep experimenting. Bringing a new unit to market is fraught with difficulties and delays as anyone following the Dave Emery Pulse Devil saga can surely understand.

So it is that you see Greg mentioning a July announcement, and none was forthcoming.

I've got a bit of a vested interest in this unit as I've been after White's for what seems like an eternity to produce a ground balancing PI detector. My personal unfounded opinion is that current VLF/IB technology seems about tapped out, and new units seem more and more like the same old performance repackaged. PI units seem to have lots of room for future development, especially regarding discrimination. In that regard they remind me of the first ground balancing VLF units that came out. Tons of depth, but you sure did have to dig lots of junk.

I've been using PI units for all sorts of detecting, and once you get hooked on the sheer depth, especially in mineralized ground, all I can say is that VLF units seem wimpy by comparison. Yeah, you do have to dig more junk. And yes, in many cases VLF units really are the better choice, especially in low mineral ground. The worse the ground gets, the better ground balancing PI units do compared to standard machines. It is not that they have inherently greater depth, as any air testing can confirm. It is that VLF units are far more adversely impacted by mineralization and so lose much more depth by comparison. This ability to ignore to a much greater degree the effects of ground mineralization means you can also run much larger coils on a PI unit. These larger coil sizes alone give PI units a depth advantage over a VLF unit. Large coils on a VLF will often get less depth, not more, due to overload from the ground.

The Garrett Infinium was not too bad a stab at trying to produce such a machine, but it has two huge flaws. First, if you do not want to use it underwater, you are paying for and carrying extra weight for no good reason. I wish there had been a dry land version using the 5" x 10" DD coil as stock instead of the heavy epoxy filled dive coil that comes standard on the unit. Second, and the reason I finally sold mine, the unit is far to susceptible to electrical interference.

So I'm curious as all heck to see what White's delivers. Truth be told what I really want is something different. I don't care specifically what the machine does as long as it is a departure from what I'm used to. Something that is not like what everyone else makes. Something that is radically different than the last 5 models to precede it. Not just another new unit that is like the last but tweaked a bit. That is not a bad thing per se, but I guess I'm just getting bored!

The key thing, however, is to disregard everything that I or anyone else says about the unit as being more than "unofficial" information or speculation. I encourage anyone interested in this unit to A. wait for official factory information and B. wait for non-dealers you trust to get out and use the machines and say what they think. Yeah, I'm a dealer, so I'm suspect!

I intend to have one of these units as soon as I can, and I'll surely post my thoughts. But I'll be honest and tell you that I'm so hyped up over this unit that I'll likely go babbling on like some kid with a new toy. My personal set of criteria for the new unit is probably not the same as a lot of folks here anyway as nugget detecting is just one type of many detecting activities I enjoy. People that only hunt gold nuggets look at machines one way, and guys like me tend to see them in another light. Truth be told I am extremely happy with my GPX-4000 and so I'm not looking for a unit to replace it anyway. Like I said, I want something different.

And with that said I'm just going to sit back and wait for something official to be annouced one of these days.

Steve Herschbach

[montana]

Steve. You're right. Whites should have kept it under wraps until it was in production. Delays only cause skeptecism even if the delays were caused by an effort to make it right before release. We've seen what can happen when a detector is released before the bugs are worked out. And you are certainly right about trying to design a gold detector that is submersible when 95% of nugget detecting is done out of the water. Poorly thought out for sure. At best, that feature would only target 10% of the market share of an already small market.----Bob

[Ridge Runner]

Grubstake & Steve H.

I'm one believer in White's detectors being that's all I've used for coin hunting from 1966 on.I've had only one of the early gold machine of White's.

I think you are right Steve it is best that nothing in known about a new detector until it comes out.I plan on buying one when they do come out and maybe it's best it don't hit the market until all bug's are out.In White's behalf I believe they have always done that.

I'm sorry to hear that Jimmy Sierra having some trouble at this time and I pray he gets well soon!

I Thank both of you for your input, being I'm like a kid in a candy store I want it now if not yesterday.Me and the Lord only know's how much that I've spent on metal detectors. My coin machine's have paid for them self over and over again but the other I can't say that because I can't hunt as much as I would like in gold country.

Chuck Anders

[Digger Bob]

I guess I'd better jump in here again to clear some things up.

First, Jimmy just returned from 10 stress filled days at the factory. Many things were discussed, even fought over, and at his age, it just exhausted him to the point that his health was affected. He'll be fine I think, just needs to rest.

Second, we had planned an extensive test of the machine this weekend, but due to Jimmy and several other things that came up at the last minute, we've had to postpone it. Instead, I will do some more testing in my area. There are only 3 prototypes and a handfull of people who have tested it, let alone seen it. We have tried to keep it under wraps for all the reasons people have already stated, but things always leak out. So, don't take anything you might read on the internet as gospel. We are still working through some issues.

Thirdly, we had hoped to have it out earlier this summer but, as always, different problems surfaced. For some types of hunting, these were minor and not enough to delay it. But for others, like Jimmy and myself, the prospecting angle is the most important feature and the conditions encountered out there in the field are the most trying. We insisted and pushed not to release it prematuraly until it was as good as we could make it at the time. Many people have contributed to this effort. It is not just Whites engineers working on it. So, when it finally does come to market, we will have exhausted all the resources we could find. It won't please everyone, nor will it replace the GPs or VLFs, but it will fill a badly needed niche and will appeal to many people.

So, please be patient. We are trying our best to make this the best we can under the circumstances of time and technology.

Digger Bob

[Steve Herschbach]

Hi montana,

I do actually sell quite a few Infiniums and the fact is they mostly go to the beach and water market these days. The unit is getting good buzz on the water forums. It always seemed to me Garrett designed the unit for water use and then after the fact decided to sell it as a prospecting unit. We often talk about how form follows function. In the case of the Infinium it was the other way around. Since it is built like an underwater unit and looks like an underwater unit it has ended up selling mainly as an underwater unit.

White's never intended for news of the unit to get out. I'm not sure where it came from but it got leaked on several forums. Jimmy finally felt the need to confirm the unit so as to be able to shut down at least a few of the crazier rumors.

I guess I'm like Chuck. My first detector was a White's and I've owned a bunch of them since my first in 1972. People always get in debates over what is "best" but what I can say is every White's I have ever used was a dependable, good performing unit. No matter what the actual form and function of the units up being I'm confident it will be a quality unit if it has the White's name on the side. If making that happens leads to delays, so be it.

I spoil myself rotten and buy whatever it is I want in detectors. The bottom line is all I ever seem to use these days are Minelab and White's detectors. I'm not saying the other guys don't make good units. It is just that they are not making anything I need these days.

Steve Herschbach

[Reg]

Hi Chuck and all,

First, I probably should apologize to Whites and others for keeping this thread alive. For me it has been fun trying to add a little knowledge, much of which can be used by all PI users, but mainly aimed at the future White's PI.

Now, having said that, I also need to try to explain to those reading this thread why it can take so long to get from point A to point B in finalizing a design on a PI such as the new Whites. Keep in mind when you read this that this is my opinion based upon several years of studying and modifying Eric Foster's PI's and not on anything coming from Whites or those involved with the new unit.

As most people who have been trying to follow the new Whites PI know, the basic design comes from Eric Foster's GS 5. So, my discussion will be more about that unit and how it has progressed and what one might expect and why it can take so long.

First, when the GS 5 first came out, it wasn't perfect. It certainly wasn't bad either, but did have a couple of issues regarding the charging of the batteries and the ability to use third party coils. Fortunately, those issues were quickly resolved. It was also determined some additional sensitivity was needed and that issue has been tackled also.

Now, fast forward to today and mods are still being done by Eric and myself to the GS 5. This isn't a planned obsolescence, but based on new discoveries of some new and exciting techniques that really do advance how the detector works. I am sure that Whites is doing the same thing as they progress, but I do not have any direct knowledge of this since they do keep their information within their design team.

The GS 5 today is really an extremely versatile detector once a person realizes and learns its potential. I recently bought one to help a couple of people out and during the time I had that detector I made a couple of mods to it. As it turns out, one person needed to sell one and the other wanted it but couldn't buy it at the time. So, I bought it and then sold it. During the time I had it in my possession I became more impressed with it to the point I will probably buy it back. In the meantime, I have been modifying a different GS 5 for another guy and those design changes have really opened my eyes to further advances.

Now, if Whites makes no changes to the PI and use the GS 5 foundation that was in place at the time they purchased the rights to it, it will still be an excellent PI. The key will be learning how to use this detector properly and then take advantage of features it has.

Steve Herschbach has mentioned the Infinium several times because it does have some ID features somewhat similar to the GS 5. However, there is no comparison overall of the two detectors. In my opinion, the GS 5 is superior.

Now, I am interested in seeing Whites bring out their detector shortly also. In fact, I was really hoping one would be available shortly. Unfortunately, it sounds like the detector is going to take a little longer.

I can certainly understand why it can take longer. Let me give you an example of why I say this. As I mentioned earlier, I am modifying a GS 5 for a guy and just made a few key changes that really enhance the detector. So, I was wanting to try it out but the closest gold hunting is a 3 hour drive one way. Anyway, I didn't have a coil with a cord long enough I could use in the field so I quickly built up a nice small elliptical coil (about a 10" by 5" size) the night before I left for use in the testing in the mountains. My earlier testing was done using some other coils I had and using an adapter to connect them.

Well, that turned out to be a big mistake. My key changes designed to assist in determining iron didn't seem to work at all or poorly at best. Other changes designed to speed things up and enhance signals and sensitivity as well as reduce noise all worked excellent, but the Iron ID feature sucked. So, the general testing was mixed.

It wasn't until I got back and thought about what was happening did I realize the iron ID feature failed because of the coil design. Had I built up a nice round coil or even a much wider elliptical coil, the ID feature would have worked much better.

The point I am trying to get across is this, it is impossible to foresee all the glitches one will run into. Now, I haven't got a clue if Whites is building or planning on building an elliptical coil for their PI, but if they do, they could run into the same ID problem. As it turns out, I suspect there is a minimum coil width required for the ID feature to work properly. Right now, I don't know what that size is. I do know it is wider than the one I tried and now, I know an 8" round coil will work fine since I built one when I got back and tried it. Now, one of the reasons I mentioned this is because it could become a stumbling block for Whites if they have decided to build an elliptical coil.

Now, one other point this example sort of shows is what may work on the bench might not work that well in the field where it counts, so extensive testing really needs to be done before a final design is approved. I suspect that is where Whites is at the moment.

Something as basic or simple as what I found with the elliptical coil can set a project back for some time if one doesn't recognize the problem right away.

Like everyone else, I hope people have patience. I can certainly understand why it takes so long since even my personal PI's are still in the design stages after several years. It really isn't as easy as one might think to find the best overall design.

Reg

[Steve Herschbach]

Hi Reg,

Well, first off, I never did that testing yet I promised you. Got too busy last weekend but hopefully soon.

And second, I'm really counting on the White's unit being better than the Infinium. In fact I'm betting my money on it. I bought four Infiniums in 2005 for our gold mine to supply to people who do not have their own detectors. It was because they are simple to tune and what with our rain, mud, brush, etc. more the kind of unit I'd loan someone than a Minelab. And frankly, I could afford them!

But I backhauled them out of the mine a few weeks ago and have been selling them off. I'm hoping the White's unit will replace them next summer. If not, it will probably be SD2100v2 units. All depends what happens between now and spring.

For what it is worth those Infiniums found over four pounds of gold. But I guess it's cheating when half of that is in one 25 oz chunk!

Steve Herschbach

[Guest Mike C...]

This sure sounds alot like the Finders--TITAN Project--that simply never became my 2 centavos worth-Mike C...

[montana]

The most encouraging thing about the Whites P.I. project is the fact they have true prospectors like Digger Bob helping with testing and feedback. If it won't satisfy them, it won't fly. Using it in a variety of places will help ensure that the bugs are worked out. If it won't perform at least as well as an SD 2100 which is in the $1600.00 range then it will have to be much cheaper. ----Bob

Reg. I'll start a hotrock collection.----Bob

[nuggethunting]

Hello Mike C. and All,

What ever happened to the Titan Project? Ken Roberts promised us all that it would come out and I believe that was at least a year ago if not longer.

Reg - I actually have several hotrocks (ironstones and other unidentified rocks) that sound off on the GPX-4000. There are some rocks that will not balance out with even a GPX-4000, regardless what others might tell you. There isn't any handheld, hobby type metal detector that I'm aware of that will balance everything out.

Take care,

Rob Allison

[Steve Herschbach]

Hi,

Rob is right. The GPX-4000 helped a lot at Moore Creek but there are still hot rocks we dig up that it won't handle. Usually basalt with enough magnetite in it to be picked up with a magnet.

I want to go back to something that got started at the beginning of this thread. The whole idea of multi-purpose versus specific use. Chris chimed in with something I have considered as gospel for as long as I have detected - that a machine for a specific use will always be better than a multipurpose detector.

I think the case can be made that this need no longer be true. All detectors used to be hardwired from specific electronic components, and so you had to make distinct choices in how to design the unit and those choices were literally set in stone.

But now were are seeing digital units with operating systems in software. We are moving more and more towards machines that really can do it all very well. Maybe not all perfectly, but we are getting closer.

The MXT was the first machine I laid hands on that really came close to fulfilling this dream. It is popular for coins, relics, jewelry, and such. And it has also proven to be a real gold getter. You do not hear about as many gold finds with a GMT these days as with the MXT, and yet the GMT is the dedicated gold unit.

In theory the GMT is superior, and it can be shown that it easily hits smaller gold than the MXT. But many would make the case that the lower operating frequency of the MXT allows for smoother operation in mineralized soils. Moreover, the extra settings and discrimination setting on the MXT allow it to better handle oddball situations. The MXT has been a real winner at Ganes Creek, Alaska due to a superior ability to discriminate various items, a real plus in the junk laden tailing piles at Ganes.

One thing about the GMT that I've found troubling at Moore Creek is the inability to shut off audio iron readings. You can set the unit to beep on everything, or grunt on iron targets. At Moore Creek, our iron hot rocks beep on every swing. You turn on the disc, and now the unit grunts and grunts and grunts. If you get over gold, it eventually beeps, but all the noise is very tiring and ruins the quietness of middle of nowhere Alaska. The MXT can be set to silently reject the same hot rocks, resulting in a far more enjoyable detecting experience.

So there is a case where a multipurpose machine has been proven to rival a dedicated unit. And you get all that extra versatility!

I think most of the old specific versus multipurpose thinking comes from VLF machines. The real thing we are talking about here is adjustability. Certain uses demand certain controls. So many coin detectors lack a control nugget hunting machines must have - an adjustable ground balance. Also, most VLF units have had to be preset at a certain frequency, with lower frequencies like 8 kHz favoring coin hunting and higher frequencies like 50 kHz favoring gold hunting. The compromise has been to pick something in the middle, as in the 15 kHz MXT.

But there have been many attempts at units that can have multiple frequency settings. The old Compass AU2000 was an early attempt at what I think would be ideal - you could switch between 13.77 kHz and 52 kHz. But the machine was very unstable unfortunately. The Minelab Eureka can be set for 6.4 or 20 or 60 kHz. There are other examples.

One issue I have noted, like on the Eureka, is that the 20 kHz seems to be the "native" frequency, and the 60 kHz frequency in particular does not seem to be as hot as it should be compared to the Fisher Gold Bug 2 or White's GMT. One reason might be the voltage to the coil, which is very high on the two Dave Johnson units but perhaps (I'm not sure) not as high on the Eureka. Another theory I have had, however, is that VLF coils specifically wound for a certain frequency may have an edge over a general frequency coil. I'm not saying this is true, so much as asking the question.

Which would explain why on the Minelab X-Terra 70 the unique approach of changing the operating frequency by changing the coil was chosen. I can only assume this afforded an advantage over the Eureka "flip a switch" approach. Whatever the case may be, the X-Terra 70 is a sleeper unit in the prospecting world with more and more Aussies posting gold finds with the 70. I have one myself and I think the Prospecting mode on the unit rivals that of any VLF machine. And yet it is a general purpose unit.

I've not been a fan of the new Fisher F75 due to the quality control issues, but for a general purpose unit it also has an extremely powerful all metal mode. Understandably so since it is another Dave Johnson design.

I see no reason why with careful engineering you cannot have a truly superb multi-use VLF unit. Add a 60 kHz mode to the DFX and add the ability to get the response up to that of the MXT in 15 kHz and GMT in 60 kHz and you'd be there.

People often ask about multi-frequency units like the Explorer. In theory it runs at up to 100 kHz plus a bunch of lower frequencies. Should do it all, right? But like the DFX it was designed as a coin machine and it shoes in lackluster gold response compared to actual nugget units. The DFX may have more promise in that regard as you can run multiple frequencies or pick a single frequency.

Some claim the Explorer is as much PI unit as VLF. I'm not going there, but PI units do broadcast across a huge number of frequencies and so are the ultimate multi-frequency units. Since they are time based units what they can do is based more on pulse width and pulse delay than frequency.

So lets talk PI units. It seems to me PI units inherently are more friendly to the multipurpose concept than VLF units. The key again is adjustability. Anyone who is following the Dave Emery Pulse Devil project will see that he has allowed for almost every conceivable adjustment to the PI circuit. This ultimate adjustability allows you to make the machine anything you want by simply changing the parameters.

Minelab has done this by offering switches. Older SD and GP units had almost no adjustment. Newer units had more switches that were presets for various timing and audio changes. The new GPX-4000, by moving towards digital, is continuing the trend by offering even more internal adjustments. I do not think anyone here would argue that by doing this, Minelab has offered more and more ability to deal with oddball circumstances. But since the machine is gold specific, the adjustments are all very much aimed at prospecting needs.

That need not be the case. Eric Foster long has provided the ability to vary the pulse width and pulse delay directly, instead of by way of presets, as Minelab has chosen to do. The Dave Emery approach results in a PI machine that in theory should really do it all, and do it well.

The downside? Complexity. The DFX is a good example of a complex unit that baffles some people. Too many controls offers as many chances to screw a machine up as make it better if the person doing the adjusting does not understand what they are doing. White's approach, and Dave's also, is to offer preset programs to get people going, and they can adjust away as they get more knowledgeable. Much as Minelab is doing with the GPX-4000. Three preset modes for the beginner, tweakable by the pro.

So the bottom line? I'm just not buying the idea anymore that a machine must be specific use to be good. It is a mistake to try and make a diving/prospecting unit as the physical need for a waterproof case is at direct odds with what a prospector wants - a lightweight unit. Diving units are different in that regard, plus the need for a reduced control set when working underwater.

But other than that, I see no reason why with the current state of the art I cannot have my cake and eat it too. Especially when it comes to PI units. The main thing holding us back at this point is that A. Lots of people actually really only want simple detectors and B. It is in the manufacturers best interests to offer more models, not less.

I say this as a guy that has sold lots of stuff over the years, and the fact is manufacturers cannot resist trying to take over your shelf space. More and more units with less and less differences between them. I used to sell Husqvarna chainsaws, and watched them go from a tight product line to so many machines we finally gave up trying to stock them all. Three or four models, all virtually the same, with just a different knob or switch. The end result is the only difference between units becomes color. We are not there yet with detectors, but I can see it coming. "You want that XYZ detector in red, blue, or black, sir"?

We are seeing more of this in the detector world. More and more units, and usually only one control difference between units. All in a desire to occupy shelf space and occupy every price point.

So I guess the question is whether the manufacturers really want to build a true do it all unit? I'd say we are doing OK so far. Machines like the MXT and X-Terra 70 are getting very close.

I already have a very specific gold nugget machine that I do think is the "best". The GPX-4000. I was close to getting a Goldscan 5 because I wanted a more general purpose unit. Then Dave kept going on and on about the Pulse Devil coming out any minute. And then the new White's unit appeared on the horizon. Some may be hoping for something that will soundly trounce the GPX-4000 for way less money. That is basically what Dave has been promising. I'll believe it when I see it. Frankly, I don't care as I have a GPX-4000. What I want is more adjustability so I can have a PI unit I can use in town to hunt sand lots and freshwater beaches without dealing with electronic interference. That I can haul to Hawaii to hunt the beach with. I've been planning on doing that with my GPX-4000 but it takes up so much luggage space, and frankly I'm scared to get it very near a salt spray environment. And yes, something I can go hunt nuggets with. Hopefully something that I can adjust to miss tiny steel (and smaller nuggets) to look for those larger chunks without digging so much tiny surface trash.

Jeez, I sound like a kid - I want, I want, I want!!! Unfortunately what you want and what you get are two different things in life.

I'd ask here what people want but I can predict the answer. A better prospecting unit. Ask the question on the beach forum and they will want a better beach machine. The relic guys want a better relic unit. But please do chime in if you have any thoughts on multi-purpose versus specific use. Do you think with modern electronics that multipurpose need be a bad thing?

Steve Herschbach

[fredm]

That was a very impressive post and I agree with the concepts you present..I am very interested to see if Dave Emery will actually be able to cough-up a nearly perfect, do-all detector for a bargin price. I will even forgo the bargin price IF the PD is what he claims...He is now talking about three different units to suit coin/relic hunters, nugget hunters and do-it all hunters.

However, I will have to see it to believe it.

With current metal detectors I think all the bases are pretty well covered with two detectors; a minelab PI and a good multi-purpose vlf.

Fred

[Reno Chris]

There are plenty of places out there with trash too heavy for a minelab PI, and hotrocks and mineralization too much for a good discriminating VLF. There is certainly gold to be had in such locations, and there is an open niche there.

I am hoping that either the Whites PI or the PD will ultimatly fill that void.

Chris

[Steve Herschbach]

Hi Chris,

I tell you what - at current gold prices, if I could get a PI unit that did even a reasonably good job at identifying iron I'd have to consider taking the whole summer off and go detecting. The first guy to hit certain places with a machine like that will make some real money!

Steve Herschbach

[nuggethunting]

Hello Steve and others,

I would also have to agree, if there was a detector available that had great iron ID, there are places that would yield pounds of gold to the first ones.

Many thought the Garrett Infinium was the ticket to this before it was released. I know several guys that purchased them just to hunt some very trashy gullies, discriminate out all the iron rubbish and ultimately pick up all the big nuggets! Sure sounds good, but it never amounted to that.

I would be willing to sacrifice out half the depth to have a very accurate discriminator near the surface. I know handfuls of placer locations that are riddled with iron rubbish and have gold nuggets (various sizes) mixed among the rubbish.

Anxiously waiting ....

Rob Allison

[Reno Chris]

I would be willing to sacrifice out half the depth to have a very accurate discriminator near the surface.

Hopefully maybe you'll only have to sacrafice 10 to 20 % power loss.

If I could get a detector like that I know I could put it to good use in CA -

I'd still keep my minelab for max power and depth where the trash isnt extreme, but there is a niche out there for a detector that can withstand both mineralization and still provide good iron discrimination.

Chris

[Reg]

Hi Steve,

The problem with trying to build a PI that discriminates or identifies iron or ferrous objects is a lot more difficult than one realizes. A big part of the problem is there are so many different iron compositions, let alone shapes and sizes. All of these features makes the ferrous object appear differently.

Change the chemistry of the ferrous composition and you change how it reacts.

When we think about it, it isn't much different that what happens with gold nuggets. A solid lump will react much differently than a very porous rough piece of gold. Wire gold will act differently than both of the previously mentioned as will some of the unique specialized nuggets.

Now, getting back to the problem of trying to reliably determine ferrous objects, about the best we can easily do is to do with a conventional PI using a mono coil is to try to determine the more common problematic types such as tin cans or more solid items such as pipe, bolts, etc.

Yes, tin cans react totally differently than a piece of pipe or a bolt. Rusty deteriorated tin cans react differently than an old solid can. So, the problem is far more complex than one realizes.

Now, having said that, Eric Foster's GS 5 does a good job of providing an ID to a lot of the more solid ferrous objects such as pipe, bolts, thicker washers, etc. It will miss on much of the tin can type junk simply because of the different characteristics of the metals.

To make matters worse, coil design including shape can have an impact on the abilities of the GS 5. I found this out the hard way after building a nice small elliptical coil about the same time I made some distinct changes to the circuitry. It took a little bit to figure out the coil was the problem why the GS 5 didn't iron ID as well as it used to do. Now, I even suspect coil size can have a distinct effect on the iron ID features if the sizes change dramatically.

Having said all of that, one can use the iron ID feature on the GS 5 to give a good indication on the larger heavier iron but one will have to use a different technique for the can type stuff.

Can this be done? Yes, I think so and will be testing a tin can ID feature in AZ shortly. Initial controlled testing indicates it works quite well. However, because of the wide variety of ferrous objects, and deteriorations of tin cans, I fully expect it to fail some of the time. So, what I will be looking at is just how accurate it is overall.

Reg

Hi Montana,

I noticed when we last met you really liked the 8" coil so I decided to try one. Not having one readily available, I had to build one to try on my units.

Well, I have to say I am impressed with how well this small coil works. I expected to see some distinct losses in depth but overall I appears to do as well on the more common gold size I usually find as what I have found using larger coils.

This smaller coil really does better than I expected on the small gold also. So, the only limitation I see is not being able to cover as much ground on any pass. On the plus side, it does get into tighter places and closer to the ground in many areas than I can do with a larger coil. So, the coil clearly has advantages also.

Reg

[Reno Chris]

Hi Reg:

Hey I want to say first that I certainly appreciate the efforts of both independent folks like Dave Emery and yourself, as well as the efforts of company folks like the engineers at Whites, and there is no question that getting a PI to descriminate is a difficult project. Certainly if it were easy, hey probably it already would have been done!

That said, (and I think the other guys will agree with me here) the stuff we need to discriminate out for users in general to deem a PI discrimination system as "successful" is the smaller iron targets, like boot tacks, short pieces of bailing wire, little bits of sheet metal around a 1/4 inch square, staples and other small rusty fragments. My guess is that discriminating these smaller fragments is a lot more difficult. However, it is these little pieces which are the millions of targets that litter goldfields and make them undetectable with the current Minelab PIs. Whole cans, larger bolts, horseshoes and pipe segments are out there, but far fewer in number, and even if we could readily identify them, if we cant discriminate out the boot tacks and other smaller fragments, then the system is not going to be able to do what needs to be done to pull the gold out of trashy areas.

The other thing a PI discrimination needs to do is not mis read gold-quartz specimens. This is the point where current minelab GP discrimination systems fail miserably - good sized gold-quartz specimens are often identified as ferrous.

I am OK with the idea of discrimination using a DD type coil. The blade shaped response zone of a DD provides a big advantage in picking among trash - When Using my MXT and picking through trashy areas in parks I almost always use a DD coil as it is so much better at separating the good stuff from the junk.

These are my opinions and of course some of the other guys may have their own thoughts, but I think a lot of them will have similar views. Again, Reg I thank you and the other folks working on this for your efforts, and I am sure that some day the problem will be overcome, but like you say, its a difficult thing to do.

Chris

[wyndham]

Steve, since you have the hot rocks, graphite and magnetics in Alaska, how does the GS5 work in those extreme condition as say a % of how a ML 4000 does in that same ground. i figure you may have either first hand experience or have seen/heard from folks there take on these 2 machines.

Reg, I posted on Eric's board about an experiment I read about concerning colloidial iron. This is a solution of iron chloride(4ml) added to 250 ml of boiling water. this create colloidial iron, which is now different from regular iron. In the experiment, a magnetic field passed by the C.iron solution changed color in direct ratio to the strength of the magnetic field. There was no field strength given.

What I see this tool helping with on a test bench might be to see if a target's induced field might be different because of the metal inducing the field.It may give a differencein the color response from the different metals. It may not be any difference and that too is useful information.

I know this is a bit left field but fron the little I have learned, there doesn't seem to be a lot of information about the way the induction field works other than if the target is solid, porous,wire or ring.

I'm just throwing out a possible idea to test for those like you Reg that have the ability to tweak the designs.

Very interesting thread though, Wyndham

[JW.]

Reg, a good example of just how tough it is to identify iron in its various shapes and compositions is my ExplorerII vlf turf machine.

Silver and clad only hit in a few spots but iron hits all over the place, top left, top right and bottom right, has various tones as well, from the high bicycle bell of silver to the low grumble similar to foil...

The T2 had a tough time with bottle caps when the first version was released and it's designer is no slouch!

As Bruce candy said regarding the GPX and GP discriminators in the GPXFactor dvd, gold machines are tuned to never eliminate gold, not to eliminate everything but gold.

It would also be beneficial to be able to discriminate with a mono coil...

Still enjoying this thread!

HH

JW

[Steve Herschbach]

Hi wyndham

I've never used a Goldscan so cannot say. Fred may chime in as he used an early Goldscan at Moore Creek a couple years ago. It would not tell us what the new units do as the Goldscan has seen improvements in the last couple years and the White's unit is undergoing even more tweaking. But it would certainly shed light on what to expect as a minimum.

I did almost buy a Goldscan and studied everything I could find about it. There are quite a few things I liked about it.

First, I'm a real believer that no one detector gets all the gold, at least not yet. Use a GPX all you want, and you can go over the same spot with a Gold Bug 2 and get tiny bits the GPX missed, or even larger specimens with finely dispersed gold. There are without a doubt other "holes" in the GPX design that would cause certain types of gold to be missed.

So what I wanted in the Goldscan primarily was a machine that was possibly going to pick up nuggets the GPX missed. The Goldscan will have "holes" of its own, but it is unlikely the holes will 100% overlap those in the GPX.

In particular, I like the idea of being able to vary the pulse width and pulse delay directly. This may very well let a person set the unit up to miss small surface trash (and small gold) to try and find large, deep nuggets. When I say this I mean multi-ounce, relatively solid pieces of gold. Reg could enlighten us more as to the possibilities here. So Reg, how about setting the Goldscan up to where it won't detect tiny surface trash. What size nuggets can still be detected?

The Goldscan is much more immune to electrical interference than a Minelab, and there have been results in Australia hunting where power lines cross gold fields. Rare application, but real nonetheless, as I've seen comments about this being an issue in the Lower 48.

Finally, there are the physical aspects. The Goldscan is more water resistant and can be chest or hip mounted. At my mine at Moore Creek it can be pouring rain and you are often crewling through thick brush. So I'd like a unit like the Goldcan for those places and conditions where I'm concerned my $4000 unit might get screwed up. In was literally looking at a fastwater crossing recently and chickened out not because I was afraid of getting wet, but that I was afraid of falling down and dunking my Minelab. So there are times I'd trade off some performance so as to keep my GPX safe.

The final kicker is the Minelab coils all work with the Goldscan and so my coil investment gets utilized. If nothing else I'd have a backup unit should my Minelab quit for any reason. Hopefully White's retains this very critical feature. Not many if any GPX owners are going to ditch their GPX units for some other machine but they sure might get a second unit if it could back their Minelab up if need be. Right now I have an SD2200v2 box as a backup for my GPX. That was a lot of money to invest for a backup but not near as expensive as being in the middle of nowhere Alaska and having my main unit die without a backup plan.

So it is not all just about pure performance. Although I'd be first in line for a unit that was built like a Gold Bug 2, outperformed a GPX, and sold for $999. Come on Dave Emery, where are you?

Steve Herschbach

Steve, since you have the hot rocks, graphite and magnetics in Alaska, how does the GS5 work in those extreme condition as say a % of how a ML 4000 does in that same ground. i figure you may have either first hand experience or have seen/heard from folks there take on these 2 machines.

[Sabra Jim]

Hi All,

First, I'm doing my once yearly post to let Rob and Montana know that I will be in Congress sometime late evening on the 10th of this month and will be attending all the festivities on the 11th and 12th before the scrapes open the morninig of the 13th and have my fingers crossed that Reg will be able to make it also...

I really have enjoyed the discussions concerning the new Whites PI, but what has really turned me on, was Rob's statement: "I would be willing to sacrifice out one half the depth to have an accurate discriminator near surface"... That is exactly why I bought my unit, knowing that perfect discrimination is a long way off for both ferrous and non ferrous underground targets, but I had great faith in both Reg's and Eric's ability to improve on the unit during my weeks and months of usuage, which they have done...

Because of Reg's dedication (he works 5 midnights a week at his regular job) and many hours of his time spent testing and modifying my GS5, the unit has become a valuable tool in my prospecting... After almost 2 years of use and digging 100's of targets to test the different tones received, I feel I am getting pretty close to about 80% of true ID on ferrous targets that I can hear well.

Just as my Goldmaster VLF's iron ID feature never let me down. I sometimes had to dig down a ways to get a stronger target reading for iron ID accuracy, the same holds true on my GS5.. So, "at depth" really means a decent signal heard, not something that strains your ears to hear it...

Now, there is a side benefit that seems to have developed with extensive usuage, along with the mods that Reg has installed: Many of the non-ferrous objects don't sound like gold nuggets and maybe it's due to their shape. I'm not sure, but have any of you dug deep holes chasing an aluminum pop or beer can? That doesn't happen using my GS5, because the sound of the different types of metal cans are really strange and distinct just like nails are also.. It will take quite some time and many targets dug to use a PI with ID features that a new operator will become comfortable with at this time, but hopefully the learning curve on future units will be shorter.. They might even miss a nugget or two while hacking thru the trash, etc, but at this time it's kind of a moot point until something better comes along...

Anyway, that's my little report.. I use the GS5 for shallow ground and of course trashy areas where gold has been or should be found and my reliable Minelab and large coils for deeper ground.

Best of two worlds in this day and age to my way of thinking..

Jim French

[Steve Herschbach]

Hi Jim,

Great info - thanks!

Hey JW, if Bruce Candy said "gold machines are tuned to never eliminate gold, not to eliminate everything but gold" then he really screwed up with the SD/GP units.

I do not mind a unit calling an iron object gold all that much as compared to a machine calling a piece of gold iron. And the SD/GP units call gold iron a lot. It is not that the units improperly identify iron that makes the disc on them so useless, it is that I've seen so many pieces of gold called iron.

If my GPX was right 100% of the time on gold and only 50% of the time on iron the disc feature would actually be useful. But I've seen enough gold called iron now that the disc on my GPX-4000 stays at zero.

Dan Judd spent some time with an X-Terra 70 at Moore Creek checking peoples dig piles. He found several nuggets that people had dug up and walked away from. The nuggets tend to read good and then turn to an iron reading when you get closer. I've tested nuggets and found this to be true. Now I should clarify that at Moore creek most of these would be more properly called specimens and are about half gold and half rock, and that no doubt is a factor.

Lesson of course is that if you've already dug it up, use you eyes, not the disc!

So Reg, here is my easier challenge. The goal as far as I am concerned is to have an machine that comes as close as possible to always calling gold correctly. And then calling as much iron as possible iron. As long as I am sure I'm not going to leave nuggets in the ground, and reduction at all of iron dug is a plus. Any iron id system that calls significant numbers of nugget iron is totally useless, at least for me!

Steve Herschbach