VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:25:58 03/11/02 Mon
Author: Steve Herschbach
Subject: Re: Back to the drawing board for my tastes!
In reply to: Al-GA 's message, "Back to the drawing board for my tastes!" on 18:52:01 03/11/02 Mon

Hi Al,

It sure is nice to run into someone else that does not mind talking about the Gold Strike. The silence has been deafening.

I have found the detector hard to warm to, but am somewhat worried that my previous nugget detector experience has biased me.

The first two Gold Strikes I ran had serious depth issues. Fisher told me they fixed the problem, and the third one I tried did much better. But as I've noted, that was in a test bed, and so I am unsure as to how it will tranlate under real world conditions.

It may be the machine has to be backed off on sensitivity and the so-called threshold decreased to the point that it's theoretical gains are lost under actual field conditions.

What kind of nugget sizes are you talking for larger gold at depth? I was hitting a 1/4 ounce nugget at 9" in black sand infested soil. About 2" more than the Gold Bug 2 under the same conditons, and about the same as the Gold Bug and Lobo.

Anyway, I'm trying to keep an open mind on the machine. I guess I've been hoping that actual field performance would prove something I've been missing. We have exceptionally low mineralization around Anchorage and few hot rocks, so the machine may work at it's best around here.

Like you, however, I'll probably just keep using what I've got. Under the low mineral conditions I've mentioned the Gold Bug 2 really shines.

Steve Herschbach

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.