Jump to content

Why Won't My Detector Find A Bottle Full Of Small Nuggets? Or A Gold Chain?


Recommended Posts

This subject comes up so often it is time to get it into its own thread so I can just link to it in the future.

It is best to think of metal detectors made for prospecting as "nugget detectors" as that is the truth of the matter. Nuggets have some size to them.

Metal detectors are electromagnetic devices, and as such can detect items that are conductive and non-magnetic, like gold, or non-conductive but magnetic, like magnetite. Or both, like metallic iron.

When dealing with gold you are dealing only with conductivity. The more conductive the mass, the easier it is to detect. In general what this means is bigger is better. Any detector has a limit to how small an item it can detect.

Here is the kicker. Multiple undetectable targets do not add up to create a detectable target. I do not know how many times I've seen or been told of people throwing a vial of small gold on the ground and running a detector over it and declaring the detector will not find gold because it does not pick up the vial of gold. Or people thinking the detector has a problem.

Let us say that on a scale of 0 - 10 zero represents an undetectable piece of gold, and 10 one that really beeps. 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 still equals zero. So lots of tiny gold is just as undetectable as a single piece of tiny gold. You need a single conductive mass.

Fine gold usually has a coating, and putting a bunch of fine gold in a vial still results in little or no signal. If the gold is super clean and packed tightly you will get a weak signal. Melt it all together, and now it goes beep.

Another way to look at it is take some fine gold and pour it in a pile. Get a multimeter and test your little pile of gold for conductivity. It is hard to get much current if any through a loose pile of gold.

So bottom line is you might have 5 ounces of fine gold right under your feet, and you will walk right over it with your metal detector. Rich gold ore where the gold is finely dispersed in the rock will be hard to detect or undetectable. Wiry or spongy masses of gold are hard to detect.

Jewelry hunters run into this when trying to detect lost necklaces. A fine chain is very hard to detect as each link is undetectable and the connection between the links is poor enough the signals does not add up to much. Often all you can detect is the clasp. Rings even display this issue if the weld breaks. A complete ring really gives a great signal. Break the ring, it will be very hard to detect.

Now once an item is detectable, it does add up. 10 + 10 = 20 so two large nuggets in the same spot are easier to detect than each by itself. If each link in the gold chain can be detected, then it will add up into a more detectable target. A fun trick with target id detectors is to tape 5 nickels together and run them under the coil. They will read as 25 cents!

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great response!

I like how you described how nuggets bedding down in the same spot will produce a stronger signal.

Last summer, I hit two spots with the Gold Bug Pro where I got a very broad signal in packed dirt, shallow on bedrock. I had never experienced this before, and I didn't know what to make of it. I almost thought it was some kind of ground mineralization effect or something, but as I'd been finding nuggets consistently in that area, I dug all of the dirt anyway.

In the process of scraping and gathering, I uncovered a crevice that ran about ten inches deep, cleaned it out as well, and threw everything in the gold pan. The signal in the ground was gone, but now there was a strong signal in the pan!

I panned down the dirt a bit and quickly saw the flash of gold. I spread the dirt out with the water and it was full of small nuggets, any of which, individually, the detector easily saw. There was also a 4 gram nugget keeping them company that I eyeballed as I cleaned out the crevice. As all of those nuggets had bedded down in that pocket/crevice together, that was what produced the broad signal in the dirt, but when they were concentrated in the smaller area of the pan, the signal was stronger.

Thanks, as you may have solved a bit of a mystery for me. 

That was a fun day, and unbelievably, I repeated it a couple of weeks later on another section of bedrock! I doubt it will ever happen again as it's never happened before. I mean, I've hit concentrations of small nuggets before, but they rang individually as I swept the coil over them because they were more spread out in their patch's area. They did not give out the broad signal I received on the nuggets that were much closer together. 

All the best,

Lanny

  • 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 jasong
      https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2021016649A1/en?assignee=minelab&scholar&oq=minelab&sort=new
      This is the most out of this world Minelab detector patent I've ever read. There is so much here, some very sci-fi like, I don't even know where to start. My takeaway is they seem to be positioning themselves for a drone based detector eventually (main details in this patent could be easily transferred to a drone based platform - IMU, GPS, magnetometer, heads up display, FPV, remote control, robotic/vehicle mount, etc) . That is 100% a guess. But in the meantime, there is some interesting, novel items in the pipeline that we might actually see on a machine in closer future?
      No clue if this is a coin machine or gold machine or if it's something they are actually working on right now or just trying to get control patents on such things for the future which may or may not arrive. One thing is for certain, Minelab is BUSY in the engineering department. A few of the highlights:
      Heads up display over glasses/head mounted display (aka augmented reality). Settings, target visualization, shading of detected/not detected areas (I asked for this specifically 5 or 6 years ago here, awesome to see it in a patent now). Plus a camera showing the coil (why would you need that if not operating remotely as from a drone?) The detector has a camera, IMU (accelerometer) and magnetometer to determine position with accuracy. The IMU tracks the position of the coil in real time in relation to both the ground and the target, and combined with the camera video feed will provide a "visual" of the target in the ground through the glasses/head display, as in form of a heat map which increases accuracy with each pass of a coil over the target. A GPS tracks the machine position to properly map the IMU/coil visual target data on the ground and let's a user see the mapping as they detect. This data is recorded for future historical use and can be shared.  Centimeter accuracy with the visual target heat mapping. Potential operators/users include entities other than humans such as "robots" and "an AI (artificial intelligence) using a metal detector" and this line: "The metal detector may be handheld, mounted on a robotic arm of a vehicle or a robot."  Wireless connectivity to computers and phones, transfer of files containing settings configurations from instructors or expert users Remote control of the metal detector through apps on laptops or phones Ability to upload maps, including detecting data, historic human activity, buildings, or other items that seem to indicate custom mapping capability Internet connectivity, potential control through the internet (again, why if not for a drone type device?) "Teamspeak" to other detecting members in the area wirelessly Visual/spatial discrimination Accurate depth measurement Synthesized audio mode, eliminating noise completely and allowing the detector to "recreate" a synthetic audio stream based on data from prior swings Delayed audio processing (enhanced audio) mode or real time audio mode, ability to seperate multiple close targets, reason for this I venture a guess why below ---> This patent actually seems to be describing a completely new method of RX in a detector. Which is actually similar in some ways to the wacky idea I had years ago of reducing EMI/ground noise by emulating a radio telescope array. But in this case they appear to be describing a fairly ingenuous method of doing something similar with only one coil by monitoring RX of the same target at different points in the swing (with the IMU tracking these points) and combining all those RX signals. In this way (and this is my guess, the patent doesn't explain this), you can form a sort of comparator, gradiometer, or interferometer to seperate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. If that's what they are doing, then I find it to be brilliant. If not, then I just gave them one hell of an idea to patent for the future. 
      That probably sounds like jibberish to non-engineers. But I want people to understand the brilliance in simple terms. Consider this: EMI is random. At any given point in your swing you'll get noise here, but not there. So if you compare two points in the same swing, you will hear noise one point but not the other point because the "zap" already ended. But you might hear a good target at both points in the swing since it's not random like EMI, it's always there in the ground. So, you can effectively eliminate EMI by comparing what signal is not there at two very close points in the swing, and keep the target since it's always there.
      Similarly, with ground, the ground changes as the alluvium changes since soil is inhomogeneous. But a target is still the target. So, a similar method can be applied to the ground.
      In theory, you could use ideas like this to essentially get rid of the Difficult type timings and keep your gains boosted high, and deal with EMI/ground in this way instead which does not require reducing sensitivity. A totally new, novel approach to RX in a metal detector. The audio processing is very slightly delayed because they are using that time to compare measurements at a few different coil positions before letting the audio processor signal that there is a target present. That's my guess. If that isn't what they are doing, then someone else should patent that and thank me for it later when Minelab buys it. Either way, they have something totally new in the RX department here. And the future of detecting looks bright and interesting to me still.
    • By WhiteRabbit
      Hello, now here’s an opener that might just get me banned on my first post!
      Bear with me, my intentions are pure :)
      Does anyone know if it would be possible to jam an MD signal? The reason I ask is to combat the evident problem we have in the UK with “nighthawks”, illegal detectorists.
      Over here, any landowner can grant permission for detecting on their land (with caveats, known historic sites are protected by law). What often happens is that such a permission is granted and a detectorist innocently sets about his / her business. Someone less scrupulous spots this person and assumes there may be something important there, so shows up at night with a couple of friends and the landowner awakens to a field / lawn full of holes, then bans metal detecting.
      Historic sites are also looted.
      Just an off the wall question, how tricky would it be to build a device to block this on a piece of land? Anyone any ideas?
    • By ColonelDan
      99% of my detecting is done on central Florida beaches. Since it’s impossible to establish a well stocked test garden at a public beach, I sorta brought the beach home with me and developed my own private beach garden!
       
      I cut slots in two large empty chlorine tablet buckets at various depths as shown from 2 -16 inches. I then filled one with New Smyrna Beach sand and the other with soil...for the few times I land hunt around here.

       
      I embedded numerous examples of ferrous and non ferrous targets into paint stirring sticks. I also have several blank sticks I use for gold and silver jewelry as well as artifacts that I don’t want permanently attached to a stick.

       
      I then insert the target(s) in the slots, each at its desired depth, and start scanning.
       

      This allows me to rapidly change the targets, depth and relative position of each.  I can now test for sensitivity at depth as well as separation of ferrous and non-ferrous targets in a variety of scenarios using actual beach sand where I do my detecting.
       
      If I want to test in wet salt sand, I just soak the bucket sand with authentic sea water that I also brought home from New Smyrna Beach...and the Atlantic Ocean never even missed it.  😉
       
      Works for me.....
    • By Steve Herschbach
      I always have my ears perked up for something new in metal detectors and metal detecting technology. I’m not educated enough to really get deep into the technical side of it, but I have a general layman's knowledge of the subject.

      A couple years ago Carl Moreland, the Engineering Manager for White's Electronics, was interviewed on a radio show. I tripped over a reference to the interview on another forum and checked it out. It is very long, and near the end Carl dropped a bombshell. At least I thought so, but it went unnoticed and uncommented on in the metal detecting online world. I thought about posting it on a forum back then but decided to wait and see what developed. Here is the applicable portion of the interview:

      Relic Roundup Radio Show, January 17, 2012, Interview with Carl Moreland, Engineering Manager, White’s Electronics
      http://en.1000mikes.com/app/archiveEntry.xhtml?archiveEntryId=260469

      Transcript beginning at 50:57 mark:

      Carl Moreland - “I can mention one technology that we’re working on because the patent has already been published… or the application, not the patent hasn't gone through yet. We’re working on something called half sine technology, which has actually been around since the 1960’s in geophysical prospecting applications. This is where instead of transmitting a sinusoidal signal you actually just transmit half of the sine and you can do that at extremely high voltages and high ? rates and so on. It’s technically not pulse induction but it’s not VLF either and it is a time domain method. And with that we can get really good depth and we can even get target id information and do discrimination and so forth.”

      Can you see why I perked up at that? I am still amazed it did not get any notice at the time. Nothing happened for a long time. Then I got this PM from Rick Kempf recently:

      Sent 29 January 2014 - 09:04 AM

      Was looking for info on my new SD 2100 this AM when I sort of fell down a rabbit hole of old forum posts and emerged reading Whites new patent. About the first thing I noticed was that you were cited in "prior art".

      Here's what they cited: http://www.voy.com/76600/7/475.html

      The patent is here: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110316541

      Is this something you knew about? Just wondering.

      Rick Kempf

      I told Rick, yeah, heard about that. It was the patent finally being granted from the application Carl mentions in the interview. It was fun getting a mention in a patent though I think it was just the examiner studying up on the subject and finding my old post helpful in simplifying the subject.

      For a long time the Holy Grail in metal detecting has been something that combines the target identification of an Induction Balance (IB or more commonly known as VLF) detector with depth of a Pulse Induction (PI) detector. There have been many promises and false starts over the years, and that was one reason I kept the radio interview mention quiet the last couple years. Frankly, I had half forgot about it until Rick brought the patent being granted to my attention. Notice the title:

      Hybrid Induction Balance/Pulse Induction Metal Detector

      A new hybrid metal detector combines induction balance and pulse induction technologies. Target signals are generated from a transmitted wave that has both induction balance and pulse current inducing characteristics and uses pertinent sampling of the receive data. Combining the two data sources provides eddy current target identification while excluding ground permeability and remanence obscuration.

      Is it time to sing Hallelujah? Well, there is a big gap in between getting a patent and bringing a detector to market. Many patents get filed and you never even see something directly related to the patent. Maybe it looked good on paper but does not pan out well in reality for numerous reasons. So just because White's was granted this patent does not mean something is around the corner. However, they have been working on it for over two years already obviously. And it has been some time since White's put something new out. I do not count remakes of the MXT etc as new. So I think there is reason to be hopeful we may see something one of these days.

      John Earle is one of the unsung heros in the industry. He had a hand in many of the best products at Compass Electronics before moving over to White's after Compass went under. To this day I have never used a VLF that goes any deeper than my old Compass Gold Scanner Pro. John was one of the brains involved in that, as well as the White's Goldmaster 3, regarded by many as being the pinnacle of the analog development of that model line. I was fortunate to have met John at the factory some years ago. He is listed as the inventor on the new patent. Half sine technology is also mentioned in an earlier patent filed by White's, again with John listed as inventor at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7649356.pdf

      Looks like serious stuff brewing. Bruce Candy of Minelab makes mention of half sine technology in a patent application at http://patents.com/us-20130154649.html which makes me wonder about the new "Super Gold Detector" he is working on. But it is this most recent patent by White's that seems to put the finest point on it. Maybe the Holy Grail of detecting is soon to be a reality. The fact it is White's certainly gives me more hope than what we have seen in the past.
      Edit May 2015 - see also White's patent for Constant Current Metal Detector
    • By kac
      Found this patent that Whites filed and got a patent on in 2014 on a hybrid IB/PI machine.
      https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110316541A1/en
      Curious if anyone heard anything about this. Maybe Garrett will take it on?
    • By NV-OR-ID-CAL-AU
      I know we have had some great advancements in VLF metal detector's over the recent past, but I am hoping that we can keep some of the older design features that seemed to work well. 
      My favorite new technological features being offered in VLF's are Multi-IQ and single frequencies options, fully programmable settings, waterproof, noise cancel, USB chargers, li-ion batteries, Bluetooth headphones, prospecting & coin/relic options, and lightweight. Really a great job by the inventors of these detectors.
      IMHO I hope we do not lose some of the past designs that worked well, such as the ergonomics of the balanced s rod that would separate in three places for backpacking, the hip mountable brain box, the detectors that would not fall over when put on a little bit of an uneven surface, the 6.5 inch elliptical concentric or double DD coils for great access in rocky areas, the 1/4 inch headphone jack, the spare interchangeable battery pack that takes regular batteries to serve as a back-up for the li-ion battery pack, and higher frequencies options.
      I would like to see what else had worked well with other detector user, seems like we are always buying aftermarket parts to retain some of these older features where possible. 
×
×
  • Create New...