I’ve dug several silver earrings. Thinking the not “touching” theory is not necessarily valid, could it be the conductive side of the theory thats more accurate? Will be watching this thread….establish audio response
Target detection, or ability to disrupt an EMF sufficiently to produce an audio response, is based on a number of factors. One would be the detector circuitry involved, another would be the operating frequency used, another would be the discrimination level used, and we can't forget the sweep speed used and search coil size and type.
Some detectors, mainly low-end models, do not do as well as better quality detectors simply based upon the circuitry used. Often because the operator has no control to help them out.
Then, if using a decent quality metal detector, and search coil, and control settings, including a favorable target orientation, we also need to remember the target is out of sight. The target can be more detectable based upon its orientation to the search coil. Also its size and shape, and the amount of conductivity and the more mass or surface
exposed the better. Earrings, chains, any metal object that has a circular or connectable point that is open and not making contact, will usually be less detectable than it would be if that circular or odd shape contact is made because that can generally enhance the EMF response.The target has more effect on the EMF making it more detectable. Also if the target object happens to have a larger size portion that is also oriented in a favorable position to the search coil can have a positive or more detectable effect.
Thus it is a combination of both size, and shape, and orientation to the coil. There is nothing perfect for us to rely on. No perfect detector, no perfect target size, shape, and position, and often we are not operating in perfect ground conditions, either.
So many factors that make metal detecting 'fun'.
Monte