Find's Treasure Forums

Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!

You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.

Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.

Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.

Click here to register!



Need Support Help?

Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you

Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.

I need your input on this experiment.

Oak

New member
I did this experiment about a year ago.
I check the ground with my MXT to find a spot with no iron or metal in the ground.
I dug a small hole and put a silver dime in the wall of the hole at four inches deep. I then covered up the hole.
I got my Garrett GTP 1350 and swung it over the coin. It would not detect it. I tried various setting, but no luck. That was with the standard coil. I also tried with sniper coil and could not locate it.
Next I use my MXT with the standard coil and would not find it.
I tried all modes with no discrimation. I also tried the shooter and 6x10 DD eclipse coil and could not locate the coin.
Next I tried the ACE 250 and it hit on it loud and clear.
Then I tried with the Coinstrike and it also hit good on it.
My question is why did the ACE 250 and Coinstrike hit on it and not the other two detectors? I would appreciate you input.
I would like to add that all detectors have hit on a dime at 6
 
I've heard about this before. There is some sort of phenomenon that goes on in relation to the field out put of the coil and how an open hole effects it. It's common to many detectors. It's just a quirk in how an electrical field is affected by the open space above the coin in the bottom of the hole. I'm not fully clear on what is going on, just that is a fairly normal reaction for certain detectors, regardless of brand, not to be able to hear a target in this situation.
Mick Evans.
 
Mike,
Oak said he dug a small hole and inserted the dime into the sidewall of the hole. This would have been in undisturbed soil. He then covered up the small hole.

I can't understand why the Garrett and the MXT would not get it at only 4 inches? Must have something to do with the soil mineralization and a fresh hole being dug next to where the coin was placed ?
 
You are right Jerry, I did insert the silver mercury dime into the sidewall of the hole. You are probably right about fresh dug hole and mineralization.
It sure is interesting that the ACE 250 would detect and not the other Garrett or MXT. I sure would like to know the technical reason. It makes you wonder if there aren't other conditions that might happen where one machine can pick it up and the other can't. Maybe I just got a super dubber ACE. :laugh:
 
coins and objects have a way of connecting to the soil. This is even if it was insertedinto the side of the hole. The fastest way to get this done it to do what you did. But before filling the hole make a saltwater brine and pour it in there. Then fill it. Come back a year later and you should be good to go. Without the brine it would take many years for the coins to become seasoned.
 
It's called "Metallurgical Phenomenon" a basic law of electronic physics that even the Garrett engineers can't describe but it exists. It has to do with destroying the ground matrix when you dig a coin up then replace it and attempt to detect it again. People are always doing this then blaming their detector as being defective.

Bill.
 
Uncle Willy said:
It's called "Metallurgical Phenomenon" a basic law of electronic physics that even the Garrett engineers can't describe but it exists. It has to do with destroying the ground matrix when you dig a coin up then replace it and attempt to detect it again. People are always doing this then blaming their detector as being defective.

Bill.


then why did the ace 250 hit it and the others didn't?
 
It's probably just the way that different detectors put out, receive, then process signals. The Aces circuitry is simpler than some of the other detectors. Perhaps it's the fact that the signal isn't jumping through as many hoops on the Ace, that allows it to process the signal. I don't really know. I'm just throwing up some possible reasons that the Ace picked it up. It's a bit of a quirk, and I wouldn't be too worried about it.
Sorry I can't give you a better explanation than that.
Mick Evans.
 
4 inch silver dime that has been in the ground for many years.....will surely be found with any unit...Freshly buried one is another ballgame...

Try to do your tests in the field where it really counts not in the air or freshly buried for accurate results...
 
Thanks for your input Dan. I understand about a coin being freshly buried and one that has been in the ground for years.
I am just a curious person and was trying to figure out why one detector located it and the others didn't. So does that mean that a newly lost coin or jewerly lost in loss sand would not be found by some detectors?

Oak
 
Thanks Mick. You might be right. I was thinking it might be associated how the ACE processed the info.
I am not lossing any sleep over it, but was just curious. I know... curiousity killed the cat :laugh:
 
There are other issues too - everyone's soil conditions are different and one type of soil may favor one detector over another. A particular detector might not be set up correctly for the conditions or for the user preferences (such as swing speed) someone could be near a source of EMI that influences their results. There are just so many factors that can influence a particular type of detector's test results that these types of test don't generate much in the way of reliable data.

In fact the European Community was interested in testing commercial metal detectors for humanitarian demining purposes and they wrote about 20 pages about how hard it was to test different metal detectors even at the same site. They ended up build this special test rig to insure that the swing speed, angle to target, etc was the same and then build a farady cage around the test rig to insure the EMI was exactly the same. Interestingly their results were that a CScope R1 did the best job at detecting different types of anti-personal mines though they didn't test a lot of us model, I remember a GTI-2500 was on their list as well as an Explorer but I don't recall what other machine were tested, This was about 2004 or 2005 and so a lot of newer models were not out then. It might still be on the internet somewhere if you are interested in reading about all the issues they thought was significant when testing detectors on a level playing field.
 
Here is a link to their testing procedures but it does not contain the results of the testing .....



http://www.itep.ws/pdf/CWA_metal_detectors.pdf
 
Oak,

I think your testing is valid and holds water so to speak. Not all coins or items we look for have been in the ground for a long time so it IS good to know which detector (if you have more than one) WILL get the job done for you.

Consider this, there are home demolition sites where the coins and items are fluffed up out of long time burial so these are essentially new buried items if you happen upon the site as the place is being bulldozed.

Its like another specific club in your golf bag that is used when needed.

There is a chance you may have proven to yourself which unit you may grab for use on such a site to maximize your tecting efforts.

I think you done good!

Later
Tony
 
Yeah I field tested the C-Scope R1 before it came out some years back. In fact I think it's on the Lost Treasure web site.. Quite a machine as I recall.

Bill.
 
Top