Login

Who is Online

We have 270 guests and no members online

Hits

Forum Statistics

  • Total Users: 822
  • Latest Member: barrensuperhero
  • Total Posts: 1197
  • Total Topics: 263
  • Total Sections: 2
  • Total Categories: 8
  • Today Open: 0
  • Yesterday Open: 0
  • Today Answer: 0
  • Yesterday Answer: 0

Testing the Modded GP's

More
11 years 10 months ago #2064 by Brian
Replied by Brian on topic Testing the Modded GP's
Ismael when you say on salt the 2000 definitely outperformed the GP's for noise was there any gain settings engaged with either of the 2000s when tested over the salt?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 10 months ago #2065 by kris
Replied by kris on topic Testing the Modded GP's
You would have more front than myers you hypocrite a/hole coming here after all you have said about people who mode. detectors Ismael included, why don`t you get off your fat know it all arse and get out in the field it may do you some good, but I doubt it.

Regards

kris

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 10 months ago #2066 by Ismael
Replied by Ismael on topic Testing the Modded GP's
Kris, please refrain from these sorts of outbursts on this site also Inhere although you were replying to the first assault I would prefer not to have these responses on this site. If you want to do this continue on GPOZ or Finders where this is deemed acceptable. I expect you Kris to delete your last post please or edit it out. Due to my beliefs of Public internet protocol I will not do this even though I am tempted to but I don't want to appear like other admins or give them a reason to say I edit or delete posts.

The members of this site do not appreciate this sort of posting and it is not warranted. So far this site has had none of this over the last 5 years so I do not want it to start now.

Too much of this behaviour has ruined other good sites and does no one any good. May make you feel better for a couple of minutes but that's all.

So come on you two shake hands and forget it,please.:( If it continues I will have no choice to take further action. This will be decided by a vote from the members as to what to do.

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:
Regards Ismael

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 10 months ago #2067 by Ismael
Replied by Ismael on topic Testing the Modded GP's
Hi Brian, both 2000s had gain increases one with my GPM mod and the other with an internal fixed GPM mod done by another person. The GP was definitely noisier over the salt. I could not really use any coil larger than the 10" Elliptical mono and even a salt coil in salt mode was noisy.

Inhere I haven't seen the comparison but will take a look if you put the link here. I do have a smooth mode mod for the GP's but I have only tried one version on it with a 3000 and that loses a little sensitivity, although I played with the threshold and seemed to get it back. I will be testing a smooth mode mod to the 3500 when I go out next to see if that improves it.

As a simple explanation, when you put the GPs into salt mode on highly mineralised ground we get a very smooth detector unfortunately we loose a heap of sensitivity and depth, around 20-40%. With this smooth mode the noise factor is reduced to the same extent as salt but we only lose a little sensitivity around 5-10% and as I said if I increase the threshold slightly I get back to almost normal, the target response is a little broader. This was with the 3000. Now someone has tried a variant of this on a 3500 which he says on his tests actually increased the sensitivity but the detector remained quiet. I have yet to verify this personally as it was just experimental when suggested. I will try over the next week or so to do a test on both a 3000 and my 3500 to see if this is true or not. My source told me that he could run mono coils on ground with this mod where he was unable to before so we can only hope that this is true.

I personally do not like the 4000, although I must admit to only seeing and using one. It was less stable on noisy ground than my 3500 which I fixed for the guy but still I wouldn't go out and buy one. I would not say the same with the 4500 and I would buy one if I could afford and justify it. Even so I wouldn't trade in my 3500. I know on ground where we can both run the same coil the 4500 would lose. I know that sounds a little boastful but I have tried it and proved it with 2 different 4500 and both were good machines. But I love the smoothness of the 4500 and do envy that!

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:
Regards Ismael

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 10 months ago #2068 by Ismael
Replied by Ismael on topic Testing the Modded GP's
Oh on the gain with the 4500 that you said. The 4500 does get noisier but I suspect because the gain change is enough to upset the digital processing of the signals. I think ML will fix that on the next version, but the gain is not as stated I found very little increase on my tests with the gain turned up to even 15! Maybe 5-10% maximum.

I heard a story the other day, saw a post also and again tonight someone told me another variant where they reckon a 4500 found a 17oz piece at 6 feet! WHAT UTTER RUBBISH, even my old 2000 which so far I have never had a detector test beat for depth which was in excess of 5 feet on a beer can with a 18" mono coil would probably maybe??? but definitely not a stock standard 4500. When playing with gain increases etc with the 3000 we have almost reached the 5 feet mark but the detector suffered a lot on small stuff etc. Apart from all this technical stuff, who has ever dug a 2 meter hole for a target and how? This would mean that most of us could stand in the hole and not look out!

Depth is all relative. I am not saying the above is impossible but highly unlikely. I know PI detectors are capable of going deep, in fact deeper than we can hear through the headphones but 17oz is not a real big nugget and unless the ground was totally non mineralised I wouldn't expect it.

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:
Regards Ismael

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 10 months ago #2069 by Inhere
Replied by Inhere on topic Testing the Modded GP's
Sorry Ismael, that is the reason I haven't ever posted over here.

I would like to respond, when I get more time, to let both Kris and yourself know where I stand on mod's and why I joined this site

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 10 months ago #2070 by gef12
Replied by gef12 on topic Testing the Modded GP's
Hi Ismael and others ye i think 6 feet would be a little hard to believe... Can you just imagine digging that in some decent hard ground. :woohoo:
geoff

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 10 months ago #2071 by Brian
Replied by Brian on topic Testing the Modded GP's
Thanks Ismael for your reply so I assume you are saying the 2000's were capable of running with gain turned up on the salt which is impressive if salt is as noisy as mineralised ground which is supposed to negate gain being used.

I was sent these results of a 4500 - gain at 8 with an 18” mono on a drink can. Enhance = 48” Normal = 54”

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 10 months ago #2072 by Mechanic
Replied by Mechanic on topic Testing the Modded GP's
Hi Ismael.

Would I be correct in assuming that salt lakes are of a consistent ground type, so once the detector is balanced it would not need to be rebalanced. If so this would explain why the gain can be successfully turned up with no ill effect.

Cheers

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 10 months ago #2073 by Ismael
Replied by Ismael on topic Testing the Modded GP's
Hi Mechanic, not really, I could balance my 3500 better on the salt than a 2000 but as soon as I moved the coil sideways she went berserk. Straight into overload and near overload. The 2000 however still moaned but not to that extent. I had exactly the same problem years back when I bought a 2200 on Lake Carey, I just couldn't run it but my 2000 was fine. Salt lakes can be constant and changing the same as ground but of course it is miles different. When on ground that had some salt content (contamination) I found that surprisingly in most cases where you could see the thick white of salt the detector ran fine it was more of the ground that had no visible signs of salt but was almost wet looking were the problems. I found targets in the wet looking ground but it was not wet as it looked and quite dry. So I really don't know why salt interferes as it does. Must be a combination of moisture, mineralisation and salt content especially on the lakes.

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:
Regards Ismael

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.576 seconds