A
Anonymous
Guest
Would the Beachscan work for Nugget hunting ? Has anyone used it for this type of hunting ?
Thanks
Dennis
Thanks
Dennis
Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hi Dennis,
Yes, the Beachscan can be used for nugget hunting, but the Goldquest would be a better choice.
The Beachscan has a fixed autotune (SAT) speed and the sensitivity is not as good on real small gold as the Goldquest, but overall, it isn't a bad detector for this application.
One has to remember, the Beachscan doesn't have a form of ground balance so there will be more ground response than one will encounter with a VLF. This is one reason for the adjustable autotune modification found on the GQ. An adjustable autotune does help in this regard. It doesn't eliminate the problem, but it does reduce it.
One major advantage of the Beachscan or the Goldquest is the fact, a PI doesn't respond to magnetite hotrocks or black sand. This a major advantage when hunting areas such as active creek beds where the water is running or runs on a regular basis. In such areas I have found the Beachscan to be extremely quiet and very sensitive. Such areas will produce very little ground response.
However, dry areas such as found in desert type hunting, one will encounter various degrees of ground response making it a little more difficult to use.
In the desert areas, I have found that in the bottoms of drywashes where there is a large concentration of black sand, the Beachscan can be very quiet. However, in areas of the other extreme where the ground is a red clay, I have encountered a fairly significant ground response that requires one to maintain a level coil height to minimize the problem. This is where the autotune feature really helps. Of course, the ground can vary between the two extremes, so the level of ground signal will vary accordingly.
I hope this helps.
Reg
Yes, the Beachscan can be used for nugget hunting, but the Goldquest would be a better choice.
The Beachscan has a fixed autotune (SAT) speed and the sensitivity is not as good on real small gold as the Goldquest, but overall, it isn't a bad detector for this application.
One has to remember, the Beachscan doesn't have a form of ground balance so there will be more ground response than one will encounter with a VLF. This is one reason for the adjustable autotune modification found on the GQ. An adjustable autotune does help in this regard. It doesn't eliminate the problem, but it does reduce it.
One major advantage of the Beachscan or the Goldquest is the fact, a PI doesn't respond to magnetite hotrocks or black sand. This a major advantage when hunting areas such as active creek beds where the water is running or runs on a regular basis. In such areas I have found the Beachscan to be extremely quiet and very sensitive. Such areas will produce very little ground response.
However, dry areas such as found in desert type hunting, one will encounter various degrees of ground response making it a little more difficult to use.
In the desert areas, I have found that in the bottoms of drywashes where there is a large concentration of black sand, the Beachscan can be very quiet. However, in areas of the other extreme where the ground is a red clay, I have encountered a fairly significant ground response that requires one to maintain a level coil height to minimize the problem. This is where the autotune feature really helps. Of course, the ground can vary between the two extremes, so the level of ground signal will vary accordingly.
I hope this helps.
Reg
A
Anonymous
Guest
Reg , I do have the SAT Mod . Would I run it as slow as possible .
A
Anonymous
Guest
[No message]
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hi Dennis,
There has been a good debate over this very topic of what is the best autotune speed. To be honest, it is a tough question to answer. The reason lies in the interaction between the ground and the buried object.
An air test will clearly show a small depth loss as the autotune speed is increased. However, the issue is more comlex than that.
In low mineralized areas where the ground produces little if any signal, then yes, a very slow autotune will generally produce the best results.
However, as the ground mineralization increases, then the autotune speed becomes more critical. This problem is further compounded by the actual physical layout of the ground, meaning is the ground rough or uneven, very flat or level, or something in between.
Ground signals generally are slower responses, while a buried object's response is a much more abrupt signal change. It is this distinction that allows a VLF discriminator to work. In other words, the filters in a VLF discriminating circuit are much like the autotune except they are very fast in comparison to the speed of the autotune.
Now, when the ground signal is strong, it can drive the audio threshold quiet far enough that any small change that might be heard normally, will be lost. By advancing the autotune speed, the audio level change caused by the ground can be minimized, thus making it more likely to hear a target.
I have conducted a whole lot of tests trying to find the ideal autotune speed and have determined, there is no one "best" setting. In other words, it all depends on the ground conditions. I normally run my autotune at about mid position but will deviate from that setting depending upon just how strong the ground signals are. Generally, I will try to run will less autotune speed when possible, but I am not afraid of increasing it even to near maximum in the worst case conditions. Normally, the depth loss due to a faster autotune creates less of a problem than a strongly varying ground signal.
About the best answer I can give is really a recommendation, and that is to try burying different objects down to the maximum level of detection and try different autotune speeds. This should be especially done in area where you plan on nugget hunting, so you can get a feel of what works best for you. I think you will find some areas will allow the use of a slower autotune, but others will require a faster setting to obtain the best results, which, of course, is the reason for the autotune feature in the first place.
Reg
There has been a good debate over this very topic of what is the best autotune speed. To be honest, it is a tough question to answer. The reason lies in the interaction between the ground and the buried object.
An air test will clearly show a small depth loss as the autotune speed is increased. However, the issue is more comlex than that.
In low mineralized areas where the ground produces little if any signal, then yes, a very slow autotune will generally produce the best results.
However, as the ground mineralization increases, then the autotune speed becomes more critical. This problem is further compounded by the actual physical layout of the ground, meaning is the ground rough or uneven, very flat or level, or something in between.
Ground signals generally are slower responses, while a buried object's response is a much more abrupt signal change. It is this distinction that allows a VLF discriminator to work. In other words, the filters in a VLF discriminating circuit are much like the autotune except they are very fast in comparison to the speed of the autotune.
Now, when the ground signal is strong, it can drive the audio threshold quiet far enough that any small change that might be heard normally, will be lost. By advancing the autotune speed, the audio level change caused by the ground can be minimized, thus making it more likely to hear a target.
I have conducted a whole lot of tests trying to find the ideal autotune speed and have determined, there is no one "best" setting. In other words, it all depends on the ground conditions. I normally run my autotune at about mid position but will deviate from that setting depending upon just how strong the ground signals are. Generally, I will try to run will less autotune speed when possible, but I am not afraid of increasing it even to near maximum in the worst case conditions. Normally, the depth loss due to a faster autotune creates less of a problem than a strongly varying ground signal.
About the best answer I can give is really a recommendation, and that is to try burying different objects down to the maximum level of detection and try different autotune speeds. This should be especially done in area where you plan on nugget hunting, so you can get a feel of what works best for you. I think you will find some areas will allow the use of a slower autotune, but others will require a faster setting to obtain the best results, which, of course, is the reason for the autotune feature in the first place.
Reg
A
Anonymous
Guest
You are an end user with experience and possess excellent technical knowledge, it is always a pleasure to read your posts as I always learn several new things..
Thank You,
Frank Hamill
Thank You,
Frank Hamill
A
Anonymous
Guest
[No message]
A
Anonymous
Guest
Reg
Is the lack of a ground cancelling on these two machines due to them not being intended to be used on hot ground or because it would drive the price up too high. I do not have any idea how hard it is to include ground cancelling in a PI.
Thank You
Is the lack of a ground cancelling on these two machines due to them not being intended to be used on hot ground or because it would drive the price up too high. I do not have any idea how hard it is to include ground cancelling in a PI.
Thank You
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hi Bill,
Both Mr. Bill and Eric can better answer your question, but because I was probably the first to actively try the Beachscan here in the US to see if it would make a decent prospecting detector, I will offer my two cents worth.
The Beachscan as I understand, was primarily designed for hunting gold jewelery on saltwater beaches and not for nugget hunting. As such, ground balance isn't a necessity since mineralization isn't a problem generally on such beaches.
I should qualify the previous statement by saying there are different types of mineralization. Saltwater beaches may have a lot of black sand which can have a very serious negative side effect on a VLF but produce little or no signal on a PI. However, the conditions where gold is found, the mineralization is of a different nature and normally can affect a PI.
One other important fact, all experimenting I have done indicates that a form of ground balance has its own negative side effects. Due to the nature of PI's, ground balance will have a tendency to introduce more noise which is a down side by itself. The second issue is ground balance requires a technique of subtraction of signals, which can reduce the sensitiivty to some gold objects.
So, in my opinion, adding ground balance to a detector can reduce the sensitivity, at least on some objects. Techniques can be used to minimize this problem, but it will still exist to some extent. This is not just an assumption on my part since I have built a ground balance (GB) circuit and compared the depth capabilities and signal intensity with or without the GB.
As such, again in my opinion, adding a form of ground balance to a PI designed to normally be used on a saltwater beach would definitely add to the expense and most likely would not produce much of an improvement, if any.
The Goldquest is a form of a hybrid that can be used for both beach hunting and nugget hunting. It does not have all the features of the more expensive PI's designed for nugget hunting, but does have compensation built in to reduce the ground problems associated with gold producing areas.
This compensation isn't perfect, but it is an improvement over the original design. As such, a beachhunter can use his PI for nugget hunting much easier than previous models.
There will be places where nuggets are found that the GQ will work very well and display few if any ground problems. However, there will be other places where the ground will be a greater challenge.
Reg
Both Mr. Bill and Eric can better answer your question, but because I was probably the first to actively try the Beachscan here in the US to see if it would make a decent prospecting detector, I will offer my two cents worth.
The Beachscan as I understand, was primarily designed for hunting gold jewelery on saltwater beaches and not for nugget hunting. As such, ground balance isn't a necessity since mineralization isn't a problem generally on such beaches.
I should qualify the previous statement by saying there are different types of mineralization. Saltwater beaches may have a lot of black sand which can have a very serious negative side effect on a VLF but produce little or no signal on a PI. However, the conditions where gold is found, the mineralization is of a different nature and normally can affect a PI.
One other important fact, all experimenting I have done indicates that a form of ground balance has its own negative side effects. Due to the nature of PI's, ground balance will have a tendency to introduce more noise which is a down side by itself. The second issue is ground balance requires a technique of subtraction of signals, which can reduce the sensitiivty to some gold objects.
So, in my opinion, adding ground balance to a detector can reduce the sensitivity, at least on some objects. Techniques can be used to minimize this problem, but it will still exist to some extent. This is not just an assumption on my part since I have built a ground balance (GB) circuit and compared the depth capabilities and signal intensity with or without the GB.
As such, again in my opinion, adding a form of ground balance to a PI designed to normally be used on a saltwater beach would definitely add to the expense and most likely would not produce much of an improvement, if any.
The Goldquest is a form of a hybrid that can be used for both beach hunting and nugget hunting. It does not have all the features of the more expensive PI's designed for nugget hunting, but does have compensation built in to reduce the ground problems associated with gold producing areas.
This compensation isn't perfect, but it is an improvement over the original design. As such, a beachhunter can use his PI for nugget hunting much easier than previous models.
There will be places where nuggets are found that the GQ will work very well and display few if any ground problems. However, there will be other places where the ground will be a greater challenge.
Reg
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hi Dennis,
It is difficult to compare the MXT and the Beachscan since they are so different. I would suspect the MXT would be better for the real small shallow stuff out on the desert.
However, in areas such as the bottoms of active drywashes where there is a high concentration of black sand,a lot of magnetite rocks, and the normal rocks look washed or water worn, the Beachscan should do much better. It is amazing just how quiet a PI can be or how noisy a VLF can be under such conditions.
I know of one place where the bedrock is shallow but it is one big hotrock and the dirt over the bedrock is heavily ladened with black sand. I have hunted it with several different VLF's and had the same problem. I just couldn't get the coil close to the ground without the detector screaming. Here, the PI should excel. I hope to hunt it in a few days with a PI.
At the other extreme, I have hunted ground that was extremely quiet where many small nuggets have been found. At this location, I would expect the VLF to excel simply because they are more sensitive to very small gold.
Now, given the fact that conditions can exist anywhere between the two extremes, it is difficult to say just which would be the best detector. That is why I own both types of detectors and I am not bashful about using either type.
Reg
It is difficult to compare the MXT and the Beachscan since they are so different. I would suspect the MXT would be better for the real small shallow stuff out on the desert.
However, in areas such as the bottoms of active drywashes where there is a high concentration of black sand,a lot of magnetite rocks, and the normal rocks look washed or water worn, the Beachscan should do much better. It is amazing just how quiet a PI can be or how noisy a VLF can be under such conditions.
I know of one place where the bedrock is shallow but it is one big hotrock and the dirt over the bedrock is heavily ladened with black sand. I have hunted it with several different VLF's and had the same problem. I just couldn't get the coil close to the ground without the detector screaming. Here, the PI should excel. I hope to hunt it in a few days with a PI.
At the other extreme, I have hunted ground that was extremely quiet where many small nuggets have been found. At this location, I would expect the VLF to excel simply because they are more sensitive to very small gold.
Now, given the fact that conditions can exist anywhere between the two extremes, it is difficult to say just which would be the best detector. That is why I own both types of detectors and I am not bashful about using either type.
Reg
A
Anonymous
Guest
Bill
Reg. really has it correct. The Beachscan as it was when I started importing it, was intended to be a PI for beach hunting jewelry.
Somewhere along the line of detecting, Reg. and I got in contact. He was playing with a Cscope CS6 PI, A Foster design, and we corresponded about it. Reg. sent me some hot rocks to test with the different PI detectors I had. The testing led us to the Beachscan being able to handle the hot rocks with very minimum interference from them, a lot better than the other units. From that point on with Reg
Reg. really has it correct. The Beachscan as it was when I started importing it, was intended to be a PI for beach hunting jewelry.
Somewhere along the line of detecting, Reg. and I got in contact. He was playing with a Cscope CS6 PI, A Foster design, and we corresponded about it. Reg. sent me some hot rocks to test with the different PI detectors I had. The testing led us to the Beachscan being able to handle the hot rocks with very minimum interference from them, a lot better than the other units. From that point on with Reg
A
Anonymous
Guest
[No message]
A
Anonymous
Guest
I'll get back to you after I try my luck on a few streams this spring . Thank you again and Good Hunting .
Dennis
Dennis