Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I noticed early on that in discussions about the conductivity of gold, that gold is considered a low conductor.

This is confusing to me. My understanding was that gold is a high conductor, whereas only 2 other metals are higher conductors. Silver being the highest conductor, and copper being the next highest, allowed by gold. Iron is way down on the list.

Can anyone please explain this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know where your coming from here, I guess whilst gold is not as good a conductor as say copper or silver, plug a cheap USB charger cable in that does not have gold plated contacts and has been around awhile and it becomes obvious that gold is in fact with age and attack from the elements a much better surface to conduct electricity then either copper or silver, anodise Aluminium and you find the surface does not conduct electricity.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, RiverRat said:

I noticed early on that in discussions about the conductivity of gold, that gold is considered a low conductor.

This is confusing to me. My understanding was that gold is a high conductor, whereas only 2 other metals are higher conductors. Silver being the highest conductor, and copper being the next highest, allowed by gold. Iron is way down on the list.

Can anyone please explain this?

Your understanding is correct, Gold is a very good conductor, and only copper and silver are better.

No other explanation is necessary.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the term inductive conductivity in non-ferrous metals, you must first take into account that its value varies greatly depending on the size, shape .. also very strongly from the thickness of the metal! /very important/
 
The best example of round objects, for example, is the large difference in conductivity between a large silver half-dollar coin and a very small silver hammered coin ... both coins are silver, but the difference in conductivity is huge.

It is similar with objects made of gold- .. where, in addition, the purity of gold also plays a binding role ... and it is generally known that some gold alloys- .. have a significantly lower conductivity than pure gold ..

A flat or irregular shape (nugget, open circle, or defective or, for example, a crack in a coin or other object) can further reduce the conductivity of a given metal.

  Finally ...- a good test for the conductivity of metal is to compare well large, for example 1.5-2cm large / same thickness / coins ... made of different metals -Nickel, Gold, Silver, Aluminum and Bronze where you can quickly determine the relative conductivity of individual metals ..

silver coins according to conductivity ...the last rough chopped coin is made of iron alloyIMG_20210208_135916 (2).jpg

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only pure gold that's a good conductor. When it's alloyed, the conductivity drops quite significantly. Even 22 carat ( .917 fine ) has a conductivity that is one-fifth that of pure gold. And lower carat alloys often have nickel in the mix, which is particularly bad for conductivity.[ copper-nickel alloys are used to make electrical resistance wire, for heaters, kettles, electronics resistors]

Here's a table of different metals and their conductivities:
http://eddy-current.com/conductivity-of-metals-sorted-by-resistivity/

Finding good data on gold alloys is hard, no-one is usually bothered about the electrical characteristics of jewellery, unsurprisingly.

22 carat gold is very close to pure tin on this scale, about 15% IACS.

 

Over on Tom Dankowski's forum, I posted about my attempt to make 'dummy' US 0.900 fine gold coins from tin. I used a 'lead-free' electronics solder, which are usually almost pure tin. The results were pretty close, but without any real coins to compare with, my project stalled.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Norvic said:

Yeah, I know where your coming from here, I guess whilst gold is not as good a conductor as say copper or silver, plug a cheap USB charger cable in that does not have gold plated contacts and has been around awhile and it becomes obvious that gold is in fact with age and attack from the elements a much better surface to conduct electricity then either copper or silver, anodise Aluminium and you find the surface does not conduct electricity.  

Yes.  Simply put, pure gold is used to plate small, electrical current carrying contacts because it resists corrosion which can cause a huge increase in resistivity when the cross-sectional area of the conductor is small.  The problem is that pure gold is very ductile and even small amounts of other metals are commonly alloyed with it to give it strength while retaining its visual appearance such as in jewelry.  Natural gold often has natural impurities as well.  As others have mentioned, conductivity drops off rapidly when is less than 100 percent pure.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are (at least) two sources of confusion.  One is the fact that alloys have different electrical conductivity than their elemental components.  (Others have addressed that above.)  Often the conductivity is lower than any of the compoents.  Here's a post that shows the conductivity of binary alloys (gold-silver and gold-copper).  As you see this has been discussed before.  (Some silver and copper alloys are much better at keeping conductivity close to their pure forms.  Take USA coins with 90-95% of their main components being one of these, for example.)

The second problem is that the term 'conductivity' in metal detecting is different than as used in physics/engineering/metallurgy.  In metal deteting, the digital target ID (which is directly a function of the phase shift of the returned wave compared to the initial coil-transmitted wave) depends upon more than just the intrinsic conductivity of the metal.  Size and shape (see ElNino77's post above) plus orientation also enter into the picture.  Consider a horizontally oriented flat steel washer.  The hole (shape) causes stronger eddy currents than the lack of a hole; a bigger washer (size) will give a stronger signal than a small one.  As a result, steel washers can give high dTID's, even into the coin zone.

Bottom line is that (alloyed) gold items as found with a detector (see Steve H.'s post) typically come in around the middle or even low part of the dTID scale.  That's why gold gets the reputation among metal detectorists of being a poor conductor.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

When this topic comes up I usually toss in this test I did with the White's DFX and some gold nuggets. It shows how the size of the nugget has less effect than the purity and shape/porosity of the gold. The numbers are all over the place, but in general, the purer and more solid the gold, the higher the number.

Some Gold Nugget Target ID Numbers

In general, Alaska gold is lower purity than California and Australian gold, resulting in lower target id numbers. Note that a very large gold nugget will give similar readings as a 12 oz aluminum can!

gold-nugget-vdi-numbers-herschbach-dfx.jpg
Some old nugget target id numbers

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Similar Content

    • By Steve Herschbach
      This is actually connected to detecting if you bear with me. It especially explains my audio tuning style. I dedicate this post to my wife, who knows me better than I know myself, but who for some reason has put up with me now for over 30 years.
      Anyone that follows me for a long time on the forums may note that I appear to be a different person at times. I can be incredibly patient, but sometimes very short. People who know me more wonder how I have the time to do the things I do sometimes. I always seem to have many diverse balls in the air at once. And then there is me demanding peace and quiet on the forum. That’s me managing my inputs.
      This is not an official diagnoses, but I do have many of the symptoms that point to adult ADHD, with Bipolar I / Unipolar Mania as a weak possibility, as there is overlap, and debate over that overlap. ADHD fits best as my symptoms are induced by my environment, and I lack a depressive state. I think it is more complex than that in my case, but it's enough to go with for the purposes of this post. I’ll say right now don’t let any of this be a bummer. It has caused me difficulties in life, but like many similar people, I would never want this to be taken away. I understand myself now, and with that knowledge I manage my life much better. I did have to give up drinking, as I was self medicating. Retirement helped a lot, as the key for me seems to be to manage my inputs. Too many inputs leads to a scatterbrained condition where I bounce off the walls and won’t shut up.  Different levels of mania can kick in, and I drive my wife crazy. It’s funny for a few hours. Days or weeks not so much. However, it can be a gift. I am at my most creative when my brain is firing off like crazy, but it’s a bit scary, kind of like the wheels are coming off the cart. The easiest way to spot it is I just won’t shut up. Many of my extremely long in depth posts come from here. Unfortunately sleeplessness and irritability are part of it, as I’m hypersensitive and overreactive, literally like a motor firing off randomly, and out of sequence. It’s seductive but a bit dangerous. I’m coming down off one of these right now, but was happy as I predicted it this time, and was waiting for it. Finally got the triggers figured out.  Anyone still reading this, I use CBT/REBT to manage things, and it is a lifesaver if applied steadily. I think this post is symptomatic actually… too much sharing!  So yeah, still winding down. I’ve been posting and deleting said posts erratically, and I’m a bit on edge.
      There is the other part though, and just today I suddenly realized, duh, it’s my detecting superpower. That is my ability to hyperfocus. If things do not interest me, it’s almost impossible for me to do them. Painful actually. But if I’m interested, I can dive very deep, and for a very long time. Too many inputs makes me scatterbrained. Literally. So heaven is one input, something I can focus on to the exclusion of everything else. I love complex singular goals. I loved coding before it was a thing as it is all consuming and pure logic. Or tell me to build a 50 node computer network. I’m addicted to “flow”, where time disappears, and I am fully in the task, so things that stretch my abilities are best, as I have to fully engage. I’ve done some pretty amazing stuff in retrospect, but it’s because those things became obsessions for up to seven years. It’s cycled enough times now I see it. It lets me hide from the world.
      Detecting provides a repetitive motion, and a singular audio input that I can lock into for amazing lengths of time. I always max the audio. If I’m using tones it will be full tones. If nugget detecting I run extremely hot and noisy. I have lots of people say they can’t run detectors like that, but I am just the opposite. I can’t stand a quiet detector. I like hearing everything, and I always ride the edge to purposefully create full audio feedback of not only targets, but the ground. My brain locks on and all that noise you all hear is for me the detector talking to me. There is a pattern to the noise, I learn the pattern, and then breaks in the pattern stop me. I often get what I call “imaginary targets” where I do not know what stopped me. I might go a couple paces even before I stop, and go back. I run the volume very low as it is not the signal intensity I am listening to, but the entire flow of the sound. People are trying to tune the audio for their mind. I’m adjusting my mind to the audio.
      I can listen to this for 12 hours a day, for 30 days in a row, and never be bored, but engaged for every moment. Steve’s Insanely Hot Settings are textbook Steve style for any machine I run. If the machine is silent, I can’t focus as well. I’ll start thinking about something. Flow is particularly useful for wandering around, as I seem to tap into the whole of my 50 years of prospecting experience when I’m in that state. It’s what makes me go right instead of left. When it all comes together it can get a little spooky almost. That’s one part that gets lost when I grid. I’m replacing that instinct with a brute force method. I want to go back to patch hunting, as it favors this particular state, and is the type of detecting I enjoy most.
      I prefer to hunt alone, because I do not like to waste time moving. A perfect hunt for me is two weeks of 12 hour days, by myself, in one spot. Nobody to distract me, no suggestions we move here or go there. Just drop into low and slow take the place apart methodically hour after hour, day after day. A day is over before it starts as long as I can get into the flow, and it’s a state I enter easily if the subject engages me.
      This all came to mind when I was telling somebody I like running detectors more than finding things. I almost never park detect unless I am detector testing. I dig everything, and again am fully engaged in the audio, analyzing targets. Hmm, what’s that? Sounds like a bottle cap. Cool, it’s a bottle cap. What’s that? Sounds like a pull tab. Awesome, pulltab. I just don’t care, I’m enjoying it. I’m learning the detector, and I enjoy that as an activity in itself. I want to learn it’s language. Oooooo… sounds like a silver dime. Dopamine hit! ADHD has roots in dopamine deficiency, so I’m basically a dopamine addict. I’m literally addicted to the process of detecting.
      I had the opportunity to watch a lot of people detect for gold at Ganes Creek and Moore Creek in Alaska. What I observed was most people want to find gold with a metal detector, but they find detecting itself boring. They are doomed. They can’t stay engaged, and are literally missing targets because their head is anywhere but in that audio. They wander around in a daze, going through the motions, because they were told they have to do these things to find gold. The coil will often be way off the ground. These folks basically can’t find gold with a metal detector, unless the nugget bangs out hard. They tend to find lots of trash, but no gold.
      I can usually pick the good detectorists out. They tend to move slower. The coil control is spot on all the time. They are not just swinging, they are actively engaged with the coil as an extension of their body. The audio is a true extension of their ears. The focus is visible.
      I’ve never really hunted with Lunk enough to know this, but I always knew his secret. He hunts alone for long hours, and I’d bet bottom dollar on extreme patience and focus. Not the settings. We use opposite settings to get similar results. I am pretty darn sure that the reason why so few detectorists are producing the bulk of the finds is their ability to focus is not normal. Normal people are bored by detecting itself as an activity, and without constant “good” finds, get bored easily, and quit. We don’t get bored by detecting, and I’m an extreme example. It’s therapy and meditation rolled into one.
      I’m at that point in life where I don’t care much what people think about me, but understand why most people want to conceal such things. But I am genuinely curious. How many of you prefer to hunt alone? Are introverted, or have other personality quirks that are strengths when it comes to detecting? I do suspect the ability to hyperfocus, or achieve flow for long periods, is a key to all this, but due to the nature of the subject it gets reported as “he is really good at detecting”. I’ve told people for ages I have no secret settings. My settings are probably not what most people should use, because they are not for a normal mind.
      If I am right, there may be a reason why some of us are really good at this stuff, while others never are able to “get into it.” No matter how hard you try, if detecting does not genuinely engage you at some level, I do not know how you can ever get to the next level. It really is just going though the motions, and there is far more to detecting than having the same settings, and going though the motions. You have to be engaged, and you have to have lots of patience. When I am on top of my game, I have near infinite reserves of those two things I can draw on.
      How about you?
      https://www.additudemag.com/adhd-symptoms-hyperfocus-attention/
       
    • By Tnsharpshooter
      See NASA-Tom’s comments
      https://www.dankowskidetectors.com/discussions/read.php?2,181189
    • By Tnsharpshooter
      Don’t know any other better subforum to place this.
      When manufacturers design make sure platform can allow at least 2 software versions or at the very least allow what I call both newer version update (whole) and a older subset (portion of older version) to be used.  
      Why?
      Makes testing easier if and when a newer version is designed and requires pre release testing in the field for validation.   Would allow users after version release to use different versions and gain first hand feedback of the benefits or lack thereof of different versions or version subset(s).  Case in point.  Notice Minelab left old iron bias to be user selected when they released newer version with iron bias F2 option.  
      So in a nutshell this allows the detector versions ( or version subset) to be compared to the themselves in the field by the user.
      Xp should have done this too.  They should have designed Deus imo where at least  2 complete version allowed to be uploaded to unit.
      Notice the later released Ace Apex.  Garrett should have allowed on it too.  
      Don’t know what added production cost this would cause.  Hopefully not much.
       
    • By Northeast
      This was mentioned by geof_junk in another thread and had a little Google.  
       
      Found this  https://www.phys.k-state.edu/reu2011/nnorvell/Metal_Detector_Research.html
      I don’t really understand the technical side of metal detectors.  Does this have any application to current day detectors?  Will it help cancel out ground noise more?  Will the current crossing/not crossing the ‘bridge’ tell you something about what is under one of the receive coils.  
       
      Although I don’t understand it, I am amazed and a little in awe of those that do  👍
    • By GB_Amateur
      This is a topic relevant to every(?) form of detecting -- ground coverage.  I'll list several questions concerns I've had but any replies of course aren't limited to these, nor do they need to address  any of them.  Just tossing out some ideas to prompt further discussion.
      1) What methods and efforts do you apply to ensure full ground coverage in the cases where that is one of your goals?
      2) Is your sweep a straight line path or an arc?
      3) How long is your sweep?
      4) How much do you overlap consecutive sweeps in the direction you walk?
      5) How much do you overlap side-to-side swings when following parallel paths (e.g. when walking two side-by-side swaths in the same direction how much does the left end of one path overlap the right end of the next path or vice-versa)?
      6) Have you ever measured your coverage?  How well do detectors with GPS (e.g. Minelab GPZ-7000 and Minelab CTX-3030) monitor ground coverage to this detail?  Have you used other devices to measure ground coverage.  E.g. I can imagine a drone with camera could provide useful data.  Are there smartphones app that would help quantify coverage?
       
    • By nebulanoodle
      Just dreaming...
      What'dya think? Minelab technology going on the next moon mission?
      X6 must be space-worthy.
×
×
  • Create New...