A
Anonymous
Guest
Hi All,
A recent post on a prospecting forum has generated some interesting posts including one about "pipsqueek" detectors using AA batteries. The issue was, a PI running on AA batteries can't compete with one using a much larger battery.
Rather than discuss it there, I thought I would bring it over here since it is a PI question as much as anything.
Now, my response to the above statement and competing PI's:
HUH?
Well, for the record, a typical semi can't compete with a Nascar truck either. Yes, the logic is the same. Brute doesn't always mean better. If you think it does, just try to take a semi to the local dragstrip and compete against any of the spunky street cars or trucks that run there on a daily basis. I wouldn't bet on the semi on a quarter mile run. Pick the conditions and Brute doesn't look so good.
Ok, getting back to PI's, again just for the record, I can, with my pipsqueek PI, detect nuggets the "brutes" can't detect. (I do need to point out that I have shortened my delay to be able to detect these nuggets better.) I can detect under power lines that give many of the brutes problems. I can hunt in areas where my PI is very quiet and others are complaining about all the interference. I can hunt in many areas and experience little or no ground response. With a DD coil, I can hunt many of the more mineralized areas also.
What about the other side of the coin? Yes, there are conditions where the brute PI's will outperform mine. Under certain ground conditions, the Brute will be a much smoother operating machine. Is it perfect? Nope, but it can be quieter than a PI without ground balance (GB) because of the ground signals. Add a much bigger coil and the Brute PI will most likely go deeper simply because of the increased flux in the coil. To, there are places and times where the Brute will simply work better.
Ok, now for the power question, itself. Just how important is brute power? Well, I recently built Carl Moreland's Hammerhead (HH) PI and set this one up so I could increase the current significantly. The main limitation was the coil resistance, which, which I do have fairly low at less than 4 ohms. For batteries, I used some special 4/3A's rated at 3800 mah. Total battery voltage was 12V. So, battery power was no problem on the HH. Simply stated, the batteries used would power most of the "brute PIs" with ease. In fact, I would have to lower the voltage for proper operation on most of the Brute PI's. The HH could pulse approximately 5 to 6 times the current my GQ clone is pulsing.
My GQ clone (the pipsqueek) is powered by typical AA's, again 12 Volts. The clone and the HH are now designed to use the same coils, so a coil difference was not a problem. I also increased the gain and made several changes on the HH so it was very close to the my GQ clone in performance (no easy task). Since the HH is a very good basic design, then the idea that the overall design is poor on the HH, isn't correct, so it isn't a factor.
Now, one would think that testing for depth on something as basic as a nickel the HH would clearly show a superior depth advantage simply because of the shear "power " into the same test coil, a 11" DD design. Well, it didn't happen. On the nickel, it was a toss up. Personally, because the GQ is so much quieter, it was easier to hear the signal from the nickel.
Overall, my GQ clone either outperformed or at worse matched the competitor on targets ranging from a 1 grain nugget to a little less than a 1/4 oz nugget. Now, tossing in the fact the GQ clone is so much lighter, I considered the GQ clone to be the clear winner overall.
Why would the GQ clone display such great results? Partly because GQ is quieter do to the overall design and because of using less power. Also, it is partly because of a shorter delay I was able to obtain on the GQ. Now, shortening the delay does two things. It allows my PI to detect objects that others can't see and it provides a much stronger signal with which to work. In other words, sampling sooner increases the receive signal as effectively as does adding more power. In some cases, the advantage may be greater do to secondary effects.
Now, for the record, I have conducted tests against one of the Brutes and have gotten the same results. My GQ clone beat the Brute in some tests and matched it in others under certain ground conditions. Again, the testing was done with similar type and size coils. Change to the right conditions and I am sure the Brute would win.
My point is, what Eric stated on the prospecting forum is correct. Shear power isn't the only factor to consider. Coil design, sampling delay time, and even pulse repition rate are just a few things that can have a large influence on the results. Sometimes pulsing with large currents create bigger problems also. So, overall design because very important.
As for ground balance, any type of GB will result in a subraction of most signals, including the ground signal. This simply reduces the signal available for target detection. Another side effect is increasing the gain of the subtractive signal introduces increased noise which detracts from the net signal also. So, while GB does "quiet" the ground, it does cause problems. I know, I have built a form of GB into my GQ clone.
Since Eric's GQ doesn't have ground balance, and is designed primarily for beach hunting, one shouldn't expect the GQ to match or beat the Brute under the more hostile ground conditons normally found where gold nugget hunting is done. Simply stated, the Brute will most likely win in such areas.
A DD coil will help quite a bit in many areas, but will not cure a severe ground problem, so one shouldn't think the GQ is the perfect alternative. It is lighter, easier to use, and now with the new second filter, will work better, but it still isn't the absolutely perfect machine for nugget hunting.
Reg
A recent post on a prospecting forum has generated some interesting posts including one about "pipsqueek" detectors using AA batteries. The issue was, a PI running on AA batteries can't compete with one using a much larger battery.
Rather than discuss it there, I thought I would bring it over here since it is a PI question as much as anything.
Now, my response to the above statement and competing PI's:
HUH?
Well, for the record, a typical semi can't compete with a Nascar truck either. Yes, the logic is the same. Brute doesn't always mean better. If you think it does, just try to take a semi to the local dragstrip and compete against any of the spunky street cars or trucks that run there on a daily basis. I wouldn't bet on the semi on a quarter mile run. Pick the conditions and Brute doesn't look so good.
Ok, getting back to PI's, again just for the record, I can, with my pipsqueek PI, detect nuggets the "brutes" can't detect. (I do need to point out that I have shortened my delay to be able to detect these nuggets better.) I can detect under power lines that give many of the brutes problems. I can hunt in areas where my PI is very quiet and others are complaining about all the interference. I can hunt in many areas and experience little or no ground response. With a DD coil, I can hunt many of the more mineralized areas also.
What about the other side of the coin? Yes, there are conditions where the brute PI's will outperform mine. Under certain ground conditions, the Brute will be a much smoother operating machine. Is it perfect? Nope, but it can be quieter than a PI without ground balance (GB) because of the ground signals. Add a much bigger coil and the Brute PI will most likely go deeper simply because of the increased flux in the coil. To, there are places and times where the Brute will simply work better.
Ok, now for the power question, itself. Just how important is brute power? Well, I recently built Carl Moreland's Hammerhead (HH) PI and set this one up so I could increase the current significantly. The main limitation was the coil resistance, which, which I do have fairly low at less than 4 ohms. For batteries, I used some special 4/3A's rated at 3800 mah. Total battery voltage was 12V. So, battery power was no problem on the HH. Simply stated, the batteries used would power most of the "brute PIs" with ease. In fact, I would have to lower the voltage for proper operation on most of the Brute PI's. The HH could pulse approximately 5 to 6 times the current my GQ clone is pulsing.
My GQ clone (the pipsqueek) is powered by typical AA's, again 12 Volts. The clone and the HH are now designed to use the same coils, so a coil difference was not a problem. I also increased the gain and made several changes on the HH so it was very close to the my GQ clone in performance (no easy task). Since the HH is a very good basic design, then the idea that the overall design is poor on the HH, isn't correct, so it isn't a factor.
Now, one would think that testing for depth on something as basic as a nickel the HH would clearly show a superior depth advantage simply because of the shear "power " into the same test coil, a 11" DD design. Well, it didn't happen. On the nickel, it was a toss up. Personally, because the GQ is so much quieter, it was easier to hear the signal from the nickel.
Overall, my GQ clone either outperformed or at worse matched the competitor on targets ranging from a 1 grain nugget to a little less than a 1/4 oz nugget. Now, tossing in the fact the GQ clone is so much lighter, I considered the GQ clone to be the clear winner overall.
Why would the GQ clone display such great results? Partly because GQ is quieter do to the overall design and because of using less power. Also, it is partly because of a shorter delay I was able to obtain on the GQ. Now, shortening the delay does two things. It allows my PI to detect objects that others can't see and it provides a much stronger signal with which to work. In other words, sampling sooner increases the receive signal as effectively as does adding more power. In some cases, the advantage may be greater do to secondary effects.
Now, for the record, I have conducted tests against one of the Brutes and have gotten the same results. My GQ clone beat the Brute in some tests and matched it in others under certain ground conditions. Again, the testing was done with similar type and size coils. Change to the right conditions and I am sure the Brute would win.
My point is, what Eric stated on the prospecting forum is correct. Shear power isn't the only factor to consider. Coil design, sampling delay time, and even pulse repition rate are just a few things that can have a large influence on the results. Sometimes pulsing with large currents create bigger problems also. So, overall design because very important.
As for ground balance, any type of GB will result in a subraction of most signals, including the ground signal. This simply reduces the signal available for target detection. Another side effect is increasing the gain of the subtractive signal introduces increased noise which detracts from the net signal also. So, while GB does "quiet" the ground, it does cause problems. I know, I have built a form of GB into my GQ clone.
Since Eric's GQ doesn't have ground balance, and is designed primarily for beach hunting, one shouldn't expect the GQ to match or beat the Brute under the more hostile ground conditons normally found where gold nugget hunting is done. Simply stated, the Brute will most likely win in such areas.
A DD coil will help quite a bit in many areas, but will not cure a severe ground problem, so one shouldn't think the GQ is the perfect alternative. It is lighter, easier to use, and now with the new second filter, will work better, but it still isn't the absolutely perfect machine for nugget hunting.
Reg
"> <img src="/metal/html/smile.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt="