Brian

"HOHOHO. I am not avoiding anything. The results I got are posted on OUR forum. We have "red inked" the spammers and those that only wish to be a disruptive influence posting negative garbege. You know the sort I believe. You expect me to take notice of a link, when you in a post above would not. Your link is from an Unregistered user, one who does NOT have the fortitude to put his name to it, and you expect me to put faith in it. HOHOHO." Well Mr Sandy it was me, BRIAN, that posted the 2nd message on the GeoTech forum as you have requested above in your HOHOHO message. I post on your forum under a nickname as some do. I do not have your above mentioned FORTITUDE to put my name to it and wish to remain anonymous through my nickname, although I feel you do at least respect a person's privacy, I think. Goodbye Brian.

Yes Doug I am waiting for his explaination also. Brian.

Hmmmmm...... interesting results, to say the least, that has now been posted on the ProspectinginOz forum down under in Australia. Maybe my 3000 is not behind the rest as I have been led to believe. Regards, Brian

Rob, My 3000 now going by what you have reported here will be way behind in depth compared to the 4000. Previous reports between the 3500 and 3000 here show the 3500 was ahead of the 3000 in depth so adding those inches onto the extra depth of the 4000 over the 3500 I had better not head anywhere near ground down over by the 4000. I will be looking forward to what the guy( Doug) down in Australia has to post on his site regarding depth differences between the 3000,3500 and 4000. So far in his test results the 4000 is behind the 3000 and 3500 but is yet to post results with settings I hope that are similar to yours to see what the Aussies have found compared to yours. The tests in Australia are in undisturbed ground and not reburied as you have done. Anyway will wait to see the comparison from down under! Thanks for your results. Brian.