g2

terrific field test on the g2 tom!..truly remarkable performance in iron!
in your view,,what would do you believe to be the depth advantage
of the f-75 (l.t.d) over the g2 on COINS say, in "light to medium" mineralized soil
which is heavily iron laden? also,depth differences between the 11" dd,and the 5" dd coils under the same mineralized conditions!.just wondering if you ,or any one would know!
thanks!

(h.h.!)
j.t.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2011 12:47AM by jmaryt.

j.t. --

I can't completely answer your question, but I have an F70 -- very similar in depth to the F75 in standard (non-boost) mode. I just got a Gold Bug Pro, a G2 in Fisher clothing.

In the past, I could air test a quarter to 14" indoors on the F70, at a setting that was "do-able," given the EMI present.

Today, in a different part of the house, with more severe EMI, I had to run colder, and of course got less depth with the F70, as you will see below. Anyway, here is a quick head-to-head test. I set up both machines to where I could hear the EMI, but it wasn't overwhelming, ground balance at the factory default setting...

F70, 10" elliptical concentric coil, autotune all metal mode, speed dE (default), sens. 60, thresh. 0, max distance to barely hear a clad quarter, 11", my gold wedding band, 13 1/2"
F70, 10" elliptical concentric coil, disc mode, disc. 0, speed dE, sens. 75, thresh. 0, max distance to barely hear a clad quarter, 11", my gold wedding band, 13"

Gold Bug Pro, 11" DD coil, all metal mode, sens. 75, thresh. 0, max depth to barely hear a clad quarter, 11", my gold wedding band, 13 1/2"
Gold Bug Pro, 11" DD coil, disc mode, disc 40, sens. 90, max depth to barely hear a clad quarter, 9 3/4", my gold wedding band, 11 1/2"

For what it's worth, those are the numbers I just got...

Steve

If you have the time.....how's about a air test disc/gain ratio test on that Gold Bug......like I did on the T2.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2011 04:25AM by TerraDigger.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> j.t. --
>
> I can't completely answer your question, but I
> have an F70 -- very similar in depth to the F75 in
> standard (non-boost) mode. I just got a Gold Bug
> Pro, a G2 in Fisher clothing.
>
> In the past, I could air test a quarter to 14"
> indoors on the F70, at a setting that was
> "do-able," given the EMI present.
>
> Today, in a different part of the house, with more
> severe EMI, I had to run colder, and of course got
> less depth with the F70, as you will see below.
> Anyway, here is a quick head-to-head test. I set
> up both machines to where I could hear the EMI,
> but it wasn't overwhelming, ground balance at the
> factory default setting...
>
> F70, 10" elliptical concentric coil, autotune all
> metal mode, speed dE (default), sens. 60, thresh.
> 0, max distance to barely hear a clad quarter,
> 11", my gold wedding band, 13 1/2"
> F70, 10" elliptical concentric coil, disc mode,
> disc. 0, speed dE, sens. 75, thresh. 0, max
> distance to barely hear a clad quarter, 11", my
> gold wedding band, 13"
>
> Gold Bug Pro, 11" DD coil, all metal mode, sens.
> 75, thresh. 0, max depth to barely hear a clad
> quarter, 11", my gold wedding band, 13 1/2"
> Gold Bug Pro, 11" DD coil, disc mode, disc 40,
> sens. 90, max depth to barely hear a clad quarter,
> 9 3/4", my gold wedding band, 11 1/2"
>
> For what it's worth, those are the numbers I just
> got...
>
> Steve


i "probably " should" NOT have asked this question,because
the "only" way to know for sure,is to "hunt" with both of them and find stuff "in" the ground!
over 30 years of hunting has taught me that.the "only" OTHER option is for people to report
honest depth figures "in" the ground using BOTH of these detectors over time!.. appreciate the replies!

(h.h.!)
j.t.

j.t. -- I hear you; since I have two similar machines to what you asked about, and have ground conditions (red clay) that you describe being interested in (light to medium mineralized soil), I'll let you know once I find enough coins in iron trash, to feel that I can give an appraisal.

My hopes with the air tests were that maybe you could get some "relative" depth info between the two platforms; however I mis-read your post, I think. You asked about "depth advantage" of the F75 over the G2, "in light to medium mineralized soil heavily iron laden." I thought you meant by "iron laden" that the soil's mineralization itself was primarily iron. I think though, by "heavily iron laden" that you meant "iron trash" laden. In that specific situation, then the info I gave you was next to useless. Air test results are obviously irrelevant when trying to ascertain how a machine will perform, depth-wise, in heavy iron TRASH. After reading Mr. D's G2 stuff in the "rcpt ack" thread, and reading your question, I now see what you were specifically asking, and so I didn't help you out any.

TerraDigger -- it is on my list to do ALL KINDS of tests. I'm in the process of laying out a 32-coin test garden (clad and silver, all different depths); I have acquired six Colorado gold nuggets ranging in weight from roughly 1/4 oz. (I'm guessing) down to probably one-tenth of a gram or so, and I plan to do both air testing and in-ground testing on those; I will also do more extensive, outdoor air testing on all types of coins and jewelry -- all this with both machines. Finally, while doing so, I'll look back through your disc/gain stuff and do something similar. I plan to post all these results, for both machines. I may send you a PM, Terra, at some point here, if I have any questions about your methodology so as to repeat the conditions as nearly as possible (though EMI differences will make it somewhat apples-to-oranges).

Sorry I couldn't help, j.t.

There are TOO many variables ...when the ground is added into the equation.....preventing a definitive/finite answer. BUT, in "generalization" figures, the F75 (should) perform approximately 1" (or slightly more) deeper on coins....in nail infested sites. It's hard to give this 'generalization'......as too many variables ...can alter these numbers...........but it is a bias 'start'.

Mr. D --

Reading what you wrote in the "rcpt ack" thread, and what you just wrote above, would seem to me (if I am interpreting correctly) that there are very few instances, if any, where you feel the G2 would perform better (in mild soil), than the F75. Maybe equal to it, in some scenarios, but rarely exceeding? Even for gold prospecting, I know Steve Herschbach will sometimes, in some set of situations, apparently utilize an F75 -- suggesting to me that even in many gold prospecting scenarios, the G2/Gold Bug Pro may not clearly out-perform the F75. I know some (Lawrenzo for example) like it better for some soil types/conditions, but I'm surprised that, as far as I can interpret your thoughts, there are few situations where you would think it might be a better tool. Is the price point of this machine the only big advantage of these units over the F75, from your perspective (and possibly the "fatigue" factor)?

Steve

Price point and fatigue factor is correct. The boost process sampling rate really makes the F75 LTD/SE worth the extra expense.

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> j.t. -- I hear you; since I have two similar
> machines to what you asked about, and have ground
> conditions (red clay) that you describe being
> interested in (light to medium mineralized soil),
> I'll let you know once I find enough coins in iron
> trash, to feel that I can give an appraisal.
>
> My hopes with the air tests were that maybe you
> could get some "relative" depth info between the
> two platforms; however I mis-read your post, I
> think. You asked about "depth advantage" of the
> F75 over the G2, "in light to medium mineralized
> soil heavily iron laden." I thought you meant by



> "iron laden" that the soil's mineralization itself
> was primarily iron. I think though, by "heavily
> iron laden" that you meant "iron trash" laden. In
> that specific situation, then the info I gave you
> was next to useless. Air test results are
> obviously irrelevant when trying to ascertain how
> a machine will perform, depth-wise, in heavy iron
> TRASH. After reading Mr. D's G2 stuff in the
> "rcpt ack" thread, and reading your question, I
> now see what you were specifically asking, and so
> I didn't help you out any.
>
> TerraDigger -- it is on my list to do ALL KINDS of
> tests. I'm in the process of laying out a 32-coin
> test garden (clad and silver, all different
> depths); I have acquired six Colorado gold nuggets
> ranging in weight from roughly 1/4 oz. (I'm
> guessing) down to probably one-tenth of a gram or
> so, and I plan to do both air testing and
> in-ground testing on those; I will also do more
> extensive, outdoor air testing on all types of
> coins and jewelry -- all this with both machines.
> Finally, while doing so, I'll look back through
> your disc/gain stuff and do something similar. I
> plan to post all these results, for both machines.
> I may send you a PM, Terra, at some point here,
> if I have any questions about your methodology so
> as to repeat the conditions as nearly as possible
> (though EMI differences will make it somewhat
> apples-to-oranges).
>
> Sorry I couldn't help, j.t.


i thank you for the effort,however,as we both are aware,air tests are virtually meaningless
because you eliminate the "minerals" which are always present in the soil,rendering the "air
results 'suspect!"..i am positive,someone,or many perhaps, WILL eventually report the differences "in the ground"
between the two detectors under the "same" mineralized conditions!.again!..thanks for the reply!

(h.h.!)
j.t.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are TOO many variables ...when the ground is
> added into the equation.....preventing a
> definitive/finite answer. BUT, in "generalization"
> figures, the F75 (should) perform approximately 1"
> (or slightly more) deeper on coins....in nail
> infested sites. It's hard to give this
> 'generalization'......as too many variables ...can
> alter these numbers...........but it is a bias
> 'start'.


thanks!..tom!..a generalization" is all one could hope for,UNLESS one personally
uses both over time in" exactly" the same soil conditions...eventually it is hoped that
someone,OR many, will be able to "accurately" report this information.