field test unit no 001 "model T"

[Carl-NC]

We are going nowhere with such arguments.
I'm 100% trusting in my simulations & calculations.

Yeah, it's a silly notion to build and test a concept, which is why many folks don't take you seriously.

[Aziz]

MUHAHAHAHAH...

You are all making a big cardinal error.
You wouldn't believe my test results. We need more independent testers to verify the results.
Or was it Monsieur Pierre reviewing all the claims in the world?


Take it or leave it. It's simple.
Aziz

[Paul99]

You wouldn't believe my test results.

No, I wouldn't.

We need more independent testers to verify the results.
Aziz

Or, you could validate your modelling by building a coil or two and taking a few real world measurements.

[Aziz]

No, I wouldn't.

Or, you could validate your modelling by building a coil or two and taking a few real world measurements.

UFox, I have done my part. Don't you think so?

It is up to the real smart guys out there reviewing the insane principles revealed recently.
Why insane?
Because it is against the normal thinking of the people.
Aziz

[Paul99]

UFox, I have done my part. Don't you think so?

It is up to the real smart guys out there reviewing the insane principles revealed recently.
Aziz

Aziz, Kazza says he has built a coil and goes on to say the spiral external winding diameter is approximately the same as that of a Minelab 18” with the inside diameter 301mm, 22 turns. Same inductance within 1%.
He says he measured the depth in air very carefully (he says many averages of the peak audio) for a target that gives a reasonably strong signal at 68cm and another ditto at 28cm and says he got...

28cm: 30% larger for spiral coil than mono coil; 2.3dB louder audio.

68cm: 15% larger for spiral coil than mono coil; 1.2dB louder audio, or assuming inverse 6th law, 2.3% more depth.

But he says he could not in all honestly hear any audio difference when he passed both coils over a just audible target at 68cm in mineralised soil. He says both coils gave the same impression of the target loudness.

Kazza goes on to say that the spiral coil he made does have an unacceptable problem (besides the extra weight): He says that in reality, more nuggets are to be found that are small and at shallow depths, compared to large nuggets at depth, even when using an 18” coil (and says that applies to the overall weight of gold found too, and says those smaller nugget finds sure add up). He goes on to say that unfortunately this coil performs poorly on this smaller size down to depths of several cm (and he thinks this might be because the field is quite a bit weaker just below the windings). He says he personally relies on these small size nuggets to get his “bread and butter gold fix” as well as when he's looking for new patches.

Now Aziz, you replied to Kazza thanking him for his effort, and went on to state that his results were a "wonderful proof of the concept".

Aziz, you need to take off your rose coloured glasses and read Kazza's negative comments again. How did his comments prove your concept when his comments regarding use of the coil in the field are negative?

[Aziz]

Please UFox and your trolling mates,

do me a great favour and do not use the new coil principles. Ok?
My friends & I will appreciate this.

As I said: Take it or leave it!. This applies to everyone.

^sif

[Paul99]

Please UFox and your trolling mates,

do me a great favour and do not use the new coil principles. Ok?
My friends & I will appreciate this.

As I said: Take it or leave it!. This applies to everyone.

^sif

You don't have to worry yourself over myself and mates using your "new coil principles", ^sif.

But could you please explain for me ^sif, how Kazza's comments prove your coil concepts result in a better coil when his comments, regarding use in the field of a coil using your concepts, were negative?

[Aziz]

Hey UFox,

that would be beyond your scope. Definitely. You are not that bright. Sorry, but this is a fact.
I'm not wasting my precious time for you and the forum trolls.

Who is your "coil meister"?
Please ask your "coil meister" Robby_H.
BTW, why is he so quiet lately?
^

[Doug2]

Please UFox and your trolling mates,

do me a great favour and do not use the new coil principles. Ok?
My friends & I will appreciate this.

As I said: Take it or leave it!. This applies to everyone.

^sif

Aziz your coil work is greatly appreciated by many folk including me.Your latest coil field strength pictures on my forum are very interesting and informative and are obviously the result of a lot of hard work! Ignore the knockers and keep up the good work!!

[PATCHES JUNIOR]

Aziz. Great computer pictures of coils. I love the bright colors also. You need to help builders with your experience. Go here and help these guys right here on this forum.
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...an-self-builds

And there are other threads in coil design that could surly use your expertise.

[Paul99]

Aziz. Great computer pictures of coils. I love the bright colors also. You need to help builders with your experience. Go here and help these guys right here on this forum.
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...an-self-builds

And there are other threads in coil design that could surly use your expertise.

^sif doesn't actually want to get involved with a thread where they are actually making coils, as the blokes would expect ^sif's coils to actually work... and for them to work may require voodoo.

[Qiaozhi]

Please do not re-start the bickering and abusive personal comments. We have just received [yet another] complaint about this behaviour on Geotech.
Honestly, it's like trying to run a kindergarten. Please act like civilised human beings. You've made your point(s) on many ocassions, and we all get the message.

Now give it a rest.

Aziz - unless you actually build the coil to confirm your simulation results, please don't mention the subject any more.

[Aziz]

Magnetic Field Strength Pictures..

Hi all,

this is a collection of cross-sectional magnetic field strength pictures of a few selected coil models analysed recently.
But don't download it, if you aren't taking me serious!
Bundle-vs-SpiderCoil-MF-pack01.zip
Bundle-vs-SpiderCoil-MF-pack02.zip

Aziz

[Kev]

One of the simulations was for Moodz coil, we need his input as to how it performed against the simulated data.
Where is he?
Cleaning out the Golden Triangle with his new coil and pulsing machine perhaps?

[Aziz]

One of the simulations was for Moodz coil, we need his input as to how it performed against the simulated data.
Where is he?
Cleaning out the Golden Triangle with his new coil and pulsing machine perhaps?

Hi Kev,

I didn't know the exact coil wire thickness and the accurate dimensions of the coil. I have estimated the parameters in my coil simulation. We can see, that it isn't really required to use a basket/spider weave coil technique.

The performance depends on how many extra turns count you can make to a coil compared to an equivalent stock coil.

The result of this analysis may answer the interesting question, why some coil brands perform better even they have same dimension, Litz-wire, L, R and Q. It must have to do with the compactness (thickness) of the coil bundle. There must be at least an extra winding turn in the better coils.

I like the sceptics ignoring the hard facts... They will never use this magnificient new finding and clean out the ground... More gold for us.. *LOL*

Cheers,
Aziz