Jump to content

Recommended Posts

(Long article.  If you think you'll get bored of the background info and stop in the middle, skip to the Testing section to see what a metal detector has to say.)

Introduction

Detectorists occasionally come across ceramic tableware/dinnerware at sites.  For example, I found some in a ~1880's Colorado ghost town.  A friend of mine found a piece (which I was able to identify and date to the 1890's) near a high altitude Colorado miner's cabin associated with a small silver mine.  Western USA explorers/settlers/miners may seem backwards and uncivilized (and that is true in some cases) but often they longed for the finer things of the lives they left behind.  Ceramic dinnerware was both utilitarian and aesthetic.  Coin&relic detectorists around the world use pottery and other ceramic pieces, often found on the surface, to indicate good places to detect.

In a previous life 😁 (actually 1998-2015) I was a avid (make that obsessed) collector of dinnerware by a particular USA manufacturer, accumulating a collection of 2000 pieces by scouring antique malls/shops but also occasionally other sources like rummage sales and Ebay.  Not surprisingly I did a lot of research on the subject during my collecting years.  Here are some results relevant to metal detecting.

Au_Pt_edge-lines.thumb.JPG.d2e3c90b28af42cc1485c904b87fce09.JPG

Plausibility

In this first photo are two 6" diameter plates, both with filigree decoration and an edge line.  The lower decoration is gold and the upper one is platinum (often mistakenly but understandably called 'silver').  The upper piece was manufacture in 1937 and the lower (gold) one in 1952.  Each sold (usually as part of a set) for considerably less than $1 -- let's use $0.20 as a reasonable amount.  Can we possibly reconcile these two 'facts' -- precious metals on inexpensive items?

It is known that gold can be worked into very thin sheets.  According to Wikipedia, typical gold gilding is 100 nm thick.  ('nm' is the abbreviation for nanometer.  There are a billion nm in a meter.)  Scientists in the laboratory have done ~200 times better -- less than 0.5 nm which is actually about 2 gold atoms in thickness!  Coatings on precision mirrors (e.g. astronomical instruments) are also about 100 nm in thickness -- same as fine gilding -- and that is thick enough to reflect in the high 90% decade at infrared wavelengths.

About 15 years ago I took a tour of the Homer Laughlin China factory in Newell, West Virginia -- located in the very tip of that spike in West Virginia's NW part, along the Ohio River across from East Liverpool, Ohio and about 45 miles WNW of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  They actually took us to the factory floor and one of the things they showed us was a technician/artist painting the gold edge line on a piece.  The claim was that it was pure gold (24 kt) but my research indicates it was more likely 22 kt.

I calculated the approximate amount of gold on the edge line of the lower plate in the picture above and at today's price ($58.54/g) it comes out to about $0.06 worth.  However, when that piece was made, gold was $35/oz (a factor of ~1/60 compared to today) so that material cost would have been more like $0.001 (at tenth of one cent) for a 6" plate.  That certainly seems plausible, even if the thickness was several times that 100 nm assumption.

Testing

I used the Minelab Equinox 800 with 11" coil, Park 1 mode, gain of 24 in 10 kHz, 15, kHz, and 20 kHz modes (MultiFrequency too noisy with EMI) to see if the following soup bowl would give a signal.

Orleans_rim-soup.thumb.JPG.ac016feb7fac14c5e9fba8e9f3915220.JPG

This is a rather extreme example in terms of the amount of platinum for an inexpensive piece of dinnerware to contain.  The platinum band is 1/2 inch wide (1.27 cm) and the total calculated mass is about 0.011 g (assuming 100 nm thickness of pure platinum, so adjust accordingly).  At today's price of $36.49 g those assumptions translate to $0.40 worth of platinum in this dish (I don't know the platinum spot price when it was manufactured in 1932).

The digital Equinox's TID waffled between 1 and 2 and the signal strength was maximized when the coil was centered over the dish, with the coil about 1 inch above the platinum band, resulting in 3 arrows out of 5 ("depth meter" reading).  Sweeping over the entire dish also gave a weak hit when the edge of the coil crossed the edge of the band.  I also tested a similar sized dish which had just an edge line and filligree decoration similar to those shown in the first photo.  There was no noticeable response by the detector on that one.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dang good work and write up Chuck.  Your math is quite above standard as well as your collection...provided the math is correct.  But I'm not hear to put doubt on that.

I could easily see the thicker band of gilding earning a response from the NOX, especially in Gold 1 Mode, ALL METAL, Tracking OFF.  Your testing in all lower frequencies and getting a response was interesting, but I do like the #1 and #2 readings as I find many nuggets at the #1.

I don't think you have enough there on your 2000 pieces to make it worth scaping at this time.  I also wonder (as your post asked) if certain ceramic does have some metals or lean in the glasses of the shine.  Here is why I say this.

Valens Legacy (Caleb) emailed me and asked if marbles had metal in them because he dug up some with this Equinox.  I thought it was random luck, as I too have found a few marbles in the same hole as I dig a metal target.  Well he did some testing and sure enough, the marbles do respond.  So he educated me and we both think there must be some lead in the glass.

Anyway, I hope someone else gets to take the Holiday dishes out of the China Cabinet and see if their NOX can detect them. 

Interesting read either way.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gerry in Idaho said:

Your math is quite above standard as well as your collection...provided the math is correct.

Well, in order to know if my math is correct someone (besides me, since I already have) needs to go to the trouble of redoing it.  :biggrin:  Interestingly the first time through it I made a mistake.  "Measure twice; cut once."  (Err, maybe that's not what this means....)

14 hours ago, Gerry in Idaho said:

Well he did some testing and sure enough, the marbles do respond.  So he educated me and we both think there must be some lead in the glass.

Hmmm.  Lead glass isn't free lead but rather its oxide compound.  However, as many prospectors know there are some compounds that are actually conductive (although not many).  Coincidentally I just read an ICMJ article by Chris Ralph where he talks about the mineral Cuprite giving a strong response to a detector, and that is a copper oxide (Cu2O).  (But, minerals we find aren't always as pure as the pristine specimens pictured in rock handbooks and on Wikipedia.  So I don't know if it's the copper oxide or some kind of contaminant.  Someone here probably does, though.) 

Somewhere around home we have a (heavy!) leaded crystal pitcher, which we can't use because supposedly the lead can leach out and contaminate the liquid in it.  If I can find it I'll swing a detector over it.  That should answer one question, but not necessarily Valen's.  If 'yes' it will keep your hyphothesis alive for at least another day.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I performed some followup investigation instigated by what I considered a serendipitous finding -- the geometrical response to the ring-pattern of the dish.  Here are a couple more photos and then I'll explain:

dish_and_ring2.thumb.JPG.e79826bb98c7a6ad27b2b01d7b7c92bd.JPG

dish_ring_and_bag.thumb.JPG.f8c6d4b52a0809ec3358b6575a8a9057.JPG

 

The first photo shows both the dish with platinum decoration and a piece of aluminum of similar size & shape to that dish's inner metallic ring.  The aluminum is 1/16 in (1.6 mm) thick, 5.95" OD, 5.17" ID, and weighs 18.4 g.  I weighed a 12 oz aluminum soft drink can (with pulltab still attached 😁) at 13.5 g. so this aluminum ring is about 1 1/3 times as heavy.  (More comparisons, but with detector, later.)

The seond photo shows the aluminum ring placed inside the dish and oculting most of the internal platinum decoration.  (I mentioned in the previous post that the platinum ring's width was right at 0.5 inch = 12.7 mm.  Compare that to the ~0.4" width of the alunium band.)  Also shown is a 3" x 6" food container bag.  I couldn't get a resistance reading on any surface (apparently coated with a non-conductor) but I think it contains a very thin layer of evaporated aluminum.  This one is from a cookie tin -- inner liner to seal out moisture.  Most park and school detectorists have found similar items as they are in fairly common use, including some potato chip bags, etc.  This one as tested has between 2 and 4 layers -- both sides of the bag (that's 2) and for about 1/3 of it there was an additional folded over seam so add another 2.

Here are some air test comparisons made with the Minelab Equinox 800 and 11" coil, Park 1, gain=24, 10 kHz operating frequency:

Platinum ring in dish:  TID of 1-2, max detection height (centered on ring) approximately 6 inches.

Aluminum(?) coated food bag, detector swung across in the short dimension direction:  TID of 1-2 and max detectable height ~6 in.

Aluminum ring:  TID of ~37, max detection height (centered) approximately 20 inches.

Aluminum soft drink can (placed on side and then flattened):  TID of 23-24 and max detection distance ~20 inches.

I also tested the alunimum ring and soft drink can in Gold 1 mode @40 kHz , gain=24.  TID's were ~33 and ~23 respectively and I was able to get the coil another 4 inches away (compared to Park 1) for both targets.

Summary of detection tests:  the platinum decorated dish and the aluminum(?) coated food bag gave similar TID's and similar max detection distances.  The aluminum ring and the aluminum drink can showed similar max detection distances (when detector was set up in the same manner) but the ring gave a much higher digital TID reading than the can, in both Park 1 @10 kHz and Gold 1 @40 kHz.

Thought experiment: 

1) start with a coin (e.g. USA 25 cent) and perform an air test from a fixed distance (let's say 6").

2) cut the coin in 3 equal pieces and place them on a virtual (12 hour) clock face whose diameter is the size of the detector's coil (11" in my case) with the coins around the edge at 12 o'clock, 4 o'clock, and 8 o'clock.  With coil 6" above this plane swing your detector from various directions.

(Note: either ignore the fact that the shape of the pieces changes from step to step or if you insist, melt them and recast in disks.)

3) cut each of the 3 coin pieces in half (so now 6 equal pieces) and place them similarly at 12, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 o'clock.  Repeat the detecting tests as in step #2.

4) cut the 6 pieces in half (resulting in a total of 12) and place at each hour location around the rim of the virtual clock.  Again investigate with the detector from many directions, coil being 6" above the target plane.

5) and higher steps, continue dividing up the pieces and placing uniformly distanced around that 11" diameter circle.

Will the detector's signal strength change as you go from step to step?  Where will the max signal strength occur for each configuration?  (Think of the aluminum ring in the real air tests above as made up of many small, equally uniformly distributed individual pieces.  Recall my calculation in the earlier post that the total mass/weight of the platinum in the dish was 0.011 grams which is 1/6 of a grain, and I detected it, admittedly in air, from 6 inches away.  I definitely made an assumption about the thickness of the platinum layer, but also recall the manufacturer had to keep that low in order to make a profit!)

Is all this just an academic exercise or is what we learn applicable to detecting?  Have you ever located a signal, dug to find nothing there, but subsequently discover that there were two targets (one on each side of the signal location) separated by the coil diameter?  Whose to say you'll never get three targets located (approximately) around a circle about the diameter of your coil?  And why stop with three?  (Note that the diameter of the circle that the targets fall on can be different than the coil diameter and still lead to similar results.)

Step 1 of the thought experiment is what we typically think of when we detect -- that is, an isolated target.  The higher steps (without the strict uniformity) are what often occurs in trashy sites, and from my experience those are the places that (still) have desirable targets.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Gerry in Idaho said:

I could easily see the thicker band of gilding earning a response from the NOX, especially in Gold 1 Mode, ALL METAL, Tracking OFF.

What about a GPZ?  I really thought someone would respond/post that this actually happened when searching for gold around old miner's cabins, but then realized very few gold detectorists (especially with high powered PI's and ZVT's) do that.  Thick trash around the cabin isn't worth the hassle when there are open fields, mine tailings, etc. all about with much less trash to mask or masquerade as a nugget.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

GB_Amateur..you have done a very nice test which shows that even a very thin but sufficiently large and wide layer of metal can be very well detectable by a metal detector. which has generally excellent inductive properties ..👍:smile:

.... It would be interesting if you tried to use equinox at different frequencies ... where it would show what detection force and range a certain 1F frequency has on Equinox ..

As for the test on lead glass - "bohemia crystal" ... so in general, about 23_25% lead was used in the production of such glass .. and I have enough of this type of glass at home .. so I can do some specific tests ..

  • Like 2
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 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...