Mineralization has me talking to myself

[rustedwoodsman]

Every time I head up into the campgrounds of the central Washington cascades, I tell myself "you can't find it if it isn't there", and every time I head home I ask myself "what am I doing wrong"?

I think it's there! Last year I found a mercury laying on the surface, and another about 2 inches deep in loose sand. In over 25 trips to the area, that's all I found, and no clad over 3 inches deep. A couple of weeks ago I was in the same area as the mercs, and I had only found 6 pennies in a few hours work. I walked over to the river so the dog could get a drink, looked down, and saw a round green object. It was a 1920 wheatie. As I was picking it up I saw another, this one was a 1919 (I think, it's a little crusty). In a half dozen trips this year, I still haven't dug anything over 3 inches. Since I spend so much time hunting in the cascades, I really want to figure these sites out.

My default program (10"DD) accepts all VDIs and assigns a zero tone for -95 to -8. I run mixed mode around the "outsides" of the present fire pits, but it gets too noisy as you get close to the pits, so I switch to discrimination. Rx is 10, Disc is 90, AM is 75, Filt is 7.5 high band and an RD of 65. I'm running correlate with a span of 35 and a wrap of -94.

Some yesterday samples: my default program and the ground tracking probe = VDI 0f -95, strength 35.+ to 36. When I ground balanced and measured again it actually increased to 37.5 - 38.5. As I dropped the Rx, the strength went down. At an Rx of 4 I hit a strength of 14.2 to 14.4. I restored my program to see what Disc would do. Dropping from 90 (36+) down to 30 took me to 31; not much of an improvement. Restored to my original settings and tested AM. No real change here either. Strength went from 35.+ at 75 to 33.5 at 35. (As you probably guessed, moving a few inches with the coil could cause small changes in the reading. I wasn't worried about absolutes, just relative changes.) Switching filters didn't move things either. Strength moved around between 35 and 31. In the end, if I were working off of the ground probe only, I would probably have changed my Rx to 5 or 6 (the general rule of "reduce strength to around 20%), and left everything else the same. But I also thought I'd try burying a coin to see what happens.

With a quarter off to the side of a 6 inch hole, I GBed my default program. I'd say 2 out of three hits were pretty good positives VDIs between 60 and 90, a few were good low 80 hits. The quarter pinpointed well with a 2.5 dominant at a depth of 5.75 inches. To bring this long story to an end, 5HZ produced little change, and I thought they weren't as clear or consistent. I lost the target at 10 and 12.5 HZ. I kept the 7.5 high band and lowered the Rx to 6; GBed - and lost the target. By this time I was anxious to get hunting, and frustrated with my results. I restored to my default setting (which saw the buried quarter the best), changed my RD to 80, and started hunting - slowly. I found 42 pieces of clad and 42 pounds of aluminum trash - none of it over 3 inches. And once again I went home wondering?????

Isn't stability the ultimate test? If I'm stable at 40% mineralization, am I really loosing anything by not reducing the mineralization to 20% or less?

As a PS: I actually ran smoother than "normal" yesterday. I never tried mixed mode. Stayed in discrimination and accept all VDIs for the entire day. I would have tried a best data version - maybe next time; same with the 4x6 coil. But "by the book", the 10"DD and correlate should have been the best??? Also, I never even looked at the sensitivity probe, is it something I could/should use in this situation? Am I confusing sensitivity probe noise with ground probe strength?


Any suggestions or comments would be appreciated. I don't know what else I can try. Thanks, Dave

 

[cypearl]

I think you are not doing anything wrong. Depth is what all of us we are looking for. Filter 7.5high it's very good choice when you are going a bit slow. Now you said you were excepting anything that means all iron as well but you dug only aluminum trash as I have seen from your post. So with this you have the detector destructing you from what want to find. The next thing is you are having discrimination to 90 and that is making you dig surface targets. The other if you want more depth you need to have a bigger loop. Recovery delay plays a part as well for weaker targets. No detector what ever brand will tell you if you just heard a low tone and walked further away, hey, you should investigate a bit more the last low tone target passed.

 

[Rob (IL)]

First a few questions to help me.
Why are the coins you find so shallow or on the surface? Why should coins be found deep in this location? If I am not mistaken you could find the 6

 

[rustedwoodsman]

Howdy Cypearl,

Thank you for the response. I do dig a few old rusty pieces of iron, just not very many - at least in this area. I do get my share of bottle caps, especially the old rusty ones. I'd also have to confess that I pass up almost all of the pull tab hits (30 and 40 VDI with 22.5 being the strongest hitter). There's just too much of this stuff around to dig it all. I'm not sure I understand why the higher discrimination (90) would cause me to favor surface targets? I thought it would be a positive factor in terms of depth, but I didn't realize that I could be be hurting myself in a trashy environment by running high. I'll have to do some reading on that one. The bigger coil is a "want it", but it will have to wait until the wallet says "can have it". I think my lack of experience leaves a lot of depth still to be found in the 10" coil. I'm still in the small steps group - a lot to learn about the equipment in hand. I think I'd dig more of those low tone hits if they had some depth to them, and I saw something positive or possible in the hit, but that just hasn't been happening. I think it's fair to say that I need to do some more reading on the pros and cons of a high sensitivity (disc and am) setting, and slowing down and digging a few more "bad" targets won't be a bad thing either. Thank you for your input.
Dave

 

[Rob (IL)]

The rusty bottle caps will read like quarters but quarters will have the 2.5 frequency dominate and caps will read 22.5 or 7.5.

The only way the Disc at 90 could hurt is in trash picking up all the tiny bits it can be really noisy or busy. A bigger coil would be of no help in the trasy enviorment you discribe. A smaller coil would see between the trash better, and would see less of the mineralization.

Try a smaller coil with a shorter RD, maybe Disc at 85, and best data to start. Mixed mode will drive you nuts with all the trash. Also I would accept the iron from say -50 to zero so you know it is there. Then move slow. Bits of iron will mask deeper targets.

 

[rustedwoodsman]

Howdy Rob,

Your first three questions kind of sum up my dilemma. The two wheaties from this year were not visible last year when I was in the same place. I'm assuming they washed out of the bank, rather than down stream, but I could be wrong. In either case, I didn't detect them last year when I was there. Some places are really rocky with little soil, and that's where the few older coins have shown up. Other places have deeper soil, but I'm not finding anything in those areas. The area has been popular with campers, miners, hunters and fisherman for many years, and some of the camp sites and cabins show up on maps from the 1950s. Maybe it's the pessimist in me, but I just feel like I should be doing a lot better than I am.

My next test run will be using best data and the 4x6 coil. I'll see if I can come away feeling differently. Like I said in a post last year, the globs of melted foil and aluminum really ring out on the 2.5 frequency, so I end up digging a lot of them. Old camp fire sites show everywhere, and often when you dig, another one shows up. Masking is a real possibility, so maybe I'll do better with the 4x6, at least around the fire pit areas.

I don't know why, but like I said, I tend to pass on using the sensitivity probe (one step ahead of my learning curve). I'll see what kind of noise readings I get on my next trip.

I still have a lot of work to do. I was going to put off asking my questions, but the post already seemed long, so I thought I'd better get started. I'll do some more reading, try some different settings, and see if I can get some different results.

Thanks for your input Rob,
Dave

 

[Rob (IL)]

Saturday I hunted a farm yard with my brother and we were getting targets in excess of 12". I dug a small roofing nail at 12". Between us my brother found ONE 1937 wheat penny. One coin???? That was the only coin. I wasn't the V3i's fault. He was using another brand deep seeker. If they are there or beyond reach you won't find them.

 

[JamesBondaka]

Every time I head up into the campgrounds of the central Washington cascades, I tell myself "you can't find it if it isn't there", and every time I head home I ask myself "what am I doing wrong"?(quote)

I too understand the dilemma of trying to get lots of depth. Its the darn soil, rocks, clay, minerals etc and toss in some iron and you have a major headache as far a deep detecting goes. I would maybe pretty much stick to the factory settings but if you find out something works better for you ....great! One location might be very good as far as depth goes and another....not so good.

I was in Florida recently and could bounce a signal off a penny at 14 inches....I doubt ANY detector.... could do that on a consistent basis in Oregon.

Give it some time and things will probably get better for you.

 

[rustedwoodsman]

Howdy again,

Sorry it has taken so long to follow up on the information that everyone provided. Ten days of rain has been the main culprit, but yesterday I made it back to the campgrounds for a few hours.

James, thank you for the response, and a very late congratulations on your spectacular finds. I found an 1892 Barber at the fairgrounds the other day (1 inch deep sitting on a rock), and it felt great. I can only imagine the excitement that you must have experienced.

Rob, I took some readings with the sensitivity probe in a few different locations yesterday, and things were pretty consistent in all locations. Mineralization was running 35 to 40 on the ground probe, and the signal percent was running 24 to 29 on the sensitivity probe. (Same default settings as above) I also ran best data for most of the day, but I didn't really notice anything different. I found 16 pennies, 6 dimes, 3 quarters and a silver ear ring; all were under 3 inches. I may have dug a little less trash yesterday, but that may be because I'm trying to be more "observant" of what I'm doing. After your comment on the bottle caps, I said "I know that, so why am I still digging bottle caps?" It turns out that I was digging VDIs in the 70 to 79 range when the dominant frequency was 7.5. I was thinking pennies, but getting the caps. I think all of my 70 VDI pennies should be 2.5 dominant frequency. Yesterday they were. I guess the moral of this story is I'll keep at it as I've been doing, and see if I can't find something. No major changes needed?

On the other hand, I wasn't especially excited about what I found out about the 4x6 coil yesterday. I ran the same mineralization & noise tests on the 4x6 that I was running on the 10DD. I used the same default program and settings. To summarize the samples, the mineralization often decreased to the low 30% range, but the noise rose to the high 40s. At my first site, I couldn't balance very well with the 4x6, and the noise was so bad that I went to RX15 and tested the coil to make sure something hadn't happened to it. I had to keep cranking the Rx down in order to use the coil - which I did. As expected, there was great separation, but I had zero confidence in my depth. Everything I read about reducing the effects of mineralization lists among the options - smaller coil. I don't quite understand this one! Separation aside in trashy areas, why would I give up depth, coverage and then even more depth on the Rx because of the noise, when with the 10DD I can run stable with the higher mineralization readings? If the mineralization isn't causing excessive noise (even at 40%), but the 4x6 is causing excessive noise that has to be corrected, why use the 4x6? Is this "normal" 4x6 behavior? (It is a V rated DD 4x6.) Overall, my confidence is down, but with the 4x6 it's hit rock bottom. This one really caught me by surprise.

Dave

 

[Rob (IL)]

Mineralization was running 35 to 40 (very high) on the ground probe, and the signal percent was running 24 to 29 (this is fine) on the sensitivity probe.

I wasn't especially excited about what I found out about the 4x6 coil yesterday. I ran the same mineralization & noise tests on the 4x6 that I was running on the 10DD, the mineralization often decreased to the low 30% range, ( a small coil sees less ground) but the noise rose to the high 40s. (Are you talking about noise% ?) At my first site, I couldn't balance very well with the 4x6, and the noise (noise or noise%) was so bad that I went to RX15 and tested the coil to make sure something hadn't happened to it. I had to keep cranking the Rx down in order to use the coil - which I did. What was changing as RX was reduced)? As expected, there was great separation, but I had zero confidence in my depth. Everything I read about reducing the effects of mineralization lists among the options - smaller coil. I don't quite understand this one! Separation aside in trashy areas, why would I give up depth, coverage and then even more depth on the Rx because of the noise, when with the 10DD I can run stable with the higher mineralization readings? (But targets are masked) If the mineralization isn't causing excessive noise (even at 40%), but the 4x6 is causing excessive noise that has to be corrected, why use the 4x6? Is this "normal" 4x6 behavior? (It is a V rated DD 4x6.) Overall, my confidence is down, but with the 4x6 it's hit rock bottom. This one really caught me by surprise.

The 4x6 is not used for depth, it is used for separation. Noise% and audio noise are two different things. You stated in the original post that you could get a reading on a freshly buried 6" target. So it sounds like there may be no 6" targets. Does anyone or any other machine find deeper coins?

You can't find a target that is below a piece of trash. A piece of trash as small as a rusty staple can mask a coin. I'm not sure depth is the problem it may be masking, but I'm not there.

 

[rustedwoodsman]

Thanks for helping me with this Rob,

I do realize that the smaller coils are designed for separation, not depth, but they are recommend to help with mineralization, and I don't see where they do that - at least in my situation. Also, I've never run into anyone else detecting in the area, so I don't know if it's just me.

All of my numbers regarding noise refer to the Signal % on the sensitivity probe. But it's also true that the actual noise being generated both in the air and on the ground were sending a pretty clear message that my sensitivity was set too high for the 4x6 coil. Most of the time I couldn't achieve a good ground balance without at least reducing Rx.

As an example of the average ground, with the 10DD I get mineralization of 38% and signal % of 26. With the 4x6 I get mineralization of 30% on the ground probe and signal % of 48 on the sensitivity probe. My best ground yesterday produced a reading of 23% mineralization and 18% signal loss with the 10DD, and readings of 14% mineral and 39% signal with the 4x6. At the worst case (a gravel bar), the 10DD went 56% mineral and 38% signal, the 4x6 hit 51% mineral and 65% signal. When I reduce Rx from 10 to 5 with the 4x6, I can usually cut the signal % in half. I was mostly running the 4x6 at around Rx=5, Ds=85 and Am=65. At those settings the mineralization and signal were probably both in the mid to upper 20s (percents) on the probes.

As for the bad ground, I keep forgetting to mention that there are old iron claims scattered across the valley. None were ever worked because of cost (quality and access), but they do show on the old maps.

I understand masking in terms of one target on top of another, and I understand masking in terms of ground noise covering up a target response. However, there is an analogy that I read on one of the forums about driving in the fog with your high beams on and I'm not sure how to recognize that in this application. I've been there and done that, it's a good analogy, but I'm not sure how to recognize that it's happening - other than if it refers to noise (which I would hear). Is it possible to be running with a smooth stable thresh hold, accepting all VDIs (NOT getting a false sense of security because you're rejecting most VDIs), have the Ds sensitivity set high (say 90) and be masking something because you're running too hot? If it is possible to do that, then how do I recognize that I'm in the fog? (Obviously I'm in a fog just sitting here - but that doesn't count.) If it can be done, then it would seem that the detector numbers (the two probes) are more important than what I'm actually hearing, and I find it hard to believe that that could be true? To me, running stable means I'm good to go - or maybe even crank things up a bit - it doesn't mean lower the sensitivity, something could be wrong. I think this last statement is really what I'm trying to figure out. I know I can very easily pick settings that aren't maximizing what the detector could be doing in the given area, but as long as the settings I pick are running smooth, I'm not shooting myself in the foot? If I can't find a deeper target to test my settings on, then I guess burying a coin is the next best thing for selecting my settings? I do agree with what you're saying Rob, if I can find a newly buried coin at 6 inches, I should be able to find one that has been in the ground for a while! So maybe they aren't there.

I've been fly fishing long enough to know that if my confidence is down, I usually don't do too well. I guess this detecting works the same way, bring your confidence and concentration, or stay at home? I think I'll go detecting this afternoon. Thanks again Rob.

Dave

 

[Rob (IL)]

Running the V3i is no different then setting up any other detector. You run it as hot as you can with it being stable and not noisy. It's just that with other detectors you have to live with it as it is because there are no adjustments to allow adjusting. With those detectors people don't know they are not optimized, so they don't worry.

At this point I can't be of much help because I don't know there is a problem. I'm basing this assumption on the fact that you buried and detected the 6" coin. Your ground readings are just plain ridiculous, and there is ground that no VLF detector will operate in to optimum performance. Again I'm sure your detctor is fine.

You never mentioned how the V operates under normal soil conditions. Also, I would call Whites at the factory and explain the performance of the 4x6. it might not be as it should. I had a 6x10 that ran in the 40% and the replacement runs 18%

At this point, without being there, I don't know what else to tell you.

The Red Dirt of Culpepper VA. is some of the worst. Here is how one setup worked.

I took the V3i to some of the hottest red dirt in the United States.....Culpeper, VA. This was for Civil War relics.
In your Audio menu put it in All Metal Mode and then increase your All Metal sensitivity. Now you basically run it like any other machine...run it as hot as you can without it falsing. The next big setting change is run SINGLE FREQUENCY. In my particular case I found the 7.5 kHz to work best. Run Manual GB and update it when the detector starts getting false signals. I found by putting the recovery delay at 40 that it made the recovery time much like a F75...REAL fast. And it gave distinct and fast double blips on nails. I actually dug my deepest relics ever with the V3i in red soil...dug Minie balls breaking into the 15" mark with the stock D2 coil and above settings.

 

[JamesBondaka]

You can't find a target that is below a piece of trash. A piece of trash as small as a rusty staple can mask a coin..

I would assume you meant a large trash item right on top of a good target?


Rusted>Thanks....It was very much something that I will never forget....I am constantly looking for another one now. Congrats on the 1892! Lets see a pic.

When you start making changes to get better results on one thing....you sacrifice a bit on something else. It is not a easy proposition to get "perfect" results.



I would send your detector/coils to Whites and/or travel to another area that you know is favorable soil conditions and detect there....you will then get your answer for sure.

 

[Rob (IL)]

I would assume you meant a large trash item right on top of a good target?

I meant what I said, when I said a piece of trash as small as a rusted staple can mask a target.

http://www.dankowskidetectors.com/behindthemask.htm

 

[JamesBondaka]

You can't find a target that is below a piece of trash.

I was referring to this statement as Ive found lots of good things below a trashy target.

I do agree with you about a small item CAN mask a good target.

 

[rustedwoodsman]

Howdy again,

I just wanted to answer a few of the questions that have been asked.

Larry, I did zero before every sample on the ground probe. I'm answering your question here because I didn't want to hijack Widebody's post about his mineralization issues.

Rob, I also think that my detector and 10DD are fine. When I first got the detector I ran some air tests and wrote down the results. I can still hit those results, or at least close to them. I think the detector varies by an inch or two depending on the position of the moon. I also wrote to White's today an asked about the numbers I'm getting on the 4x6. I'll let you know what they say, just as a reference for other 4x6 owners, (I'm a little surprised no other 4x6 owners have commented that they do, or do not, have similar problems. I'd guess it's because most experienced users never go back to the probes?)

As far as how does the detector work in better ground? Honestly, about the same. The detector is fine, so it's me or the sites. If it's the sites, then I think the campgrounds have the best possibility for success, and that's why I'm trying to figure them out. If it's me??????? I'll keep trying. Rob, what would it take to get you to take your RV vacation to Washington next year? Thanks guys.

Dave

 

[Rob (IL)]

It would take a small fortune in fuel.

 

[JamesBondaka]

It would take a small fortune in fuel.

Come on over and I will buy lunch!

 

[widebody]

[size=large]JBaka, i'm hurt. ya didn't offer to buy me lunch and i had the same problem. i was even going to return you pennies.

HH [/size]

 

[JamesBondaka]

Since your so close you have a standing invitation for lunch.....anytime!