Jump to content

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Hibby said:

2 questions:

 

is shortwave light the the same as black light?

 

is conglomerate the same as 'pudding rock'?

Hi Hibby... we'll ignore your second question because it has been suitably addressed above. Shortwave light is not the same thing as black light at all.

Light below the wavelength of violet light is described as ultraviolet light. Keep in mind as you read this explanation that ultraviolet (UV) light is invisible to the human eye. Longwave UV peaks at about 360 nanometers, while shortwave UV peaks at about 254 nanometers. Midwave UV light is generally considered to peak at about 312 nanometers. 

"Blacklights" are an inexpensive way for beginners to get started in the hobby as they do produce longwave UV light that will work fine for minerals that happen to fluoresce brightly when exposed to such light. While equipped with a visible light filter, these inexpensive filters are not nearly as effective as the visible light filters incorporated into shortwave, midwave, and longwave UV lamps suitable for observing fluorescent minerals. Hence the visible light inherent to using blacklights can and does frequently overwhelm the longwave UV light effects on fluorescent minerals.

Next basic thing to understand is that most minerals do not fluoresce brightly under longwave UV light. In order to see all the bright colors that make fluorescent minerals so attractive, as a minimum you will require a shortwave UV lamp. As a general rule of thumb, these are considerably more expensive than longwave UV lamps, and also should be used with protective eyewear.  A good battery-powered shortwave UV field lamp is priced comparably with entry level VLF metal detectors. Midwave lamps are usually purchased only by advanced hobbyists, and are at least as expensive as shortwave UV lamps. There are a number of minerals that respond better to midwave UV light than to either shortwave or longwave UV light. Hope this helps to clarify things a bit…

Jim.
 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim - thanks for such a thorough answer. You even answered questions I hadn't answered yet (but was going to).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Q - Do all ammonite fluoresce? I have a giant museum quality specimen and I am curious if it would glow like that.

IMG_2151.JPG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hibby said:

Another Q - Do all ammonite fluoresce? I have a giant museum quality specimen and I am curious if it would glow like that.

IMG_2151.JPG

Hi Hibby… I can’t speak to this topic from direct experience, but I did take a moment (while viewing the Pittsburgh Penguins hockey game) to look on the Internet for an answer to your question. I was curious to learn more too.

According to The Fossil Forum, ammonite fluorescence will vary with the type of mineral replacement that has formed the fossil. That makes perfect sense, hence some ammonites will simply not fluoresce, some will fluoresce only under short wave UV light, and some only under longwave UV light.

Of course it goes without saying that the light intensity makes a difference as to how well potentially fluorescent minerals respond to UV light. Hope that helps...

Jim.
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One interesting thing to note about mineral replacement in some ammonites I have seen (and petrified wood too), if the conditions are right, the replacement mineral is cryptocrystaline quartz with opalescence.  Essentially you get a similar effect to fluorescence, but without the need for any wavelength of uv light.  It is like an enourmous fossil that is also an opal.  It wouldn't surprise me if the uv effect adds to the brilliance, though I know nothing about that.

Nice specimen Hibby.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Jim Hemmingway said:

Hi Hibby... we'll ignore your second question because it has been suitably addressed above. Shortwave light is not the same thing as black light at all.

Light below the wavelength of violet light is described as ultraviolet light. Keep in mind as you read this explanation that ultraviolet (UV) light is invisible to the human eye. Longwave UV peaks at about 360 nanometers, while shortwave UV peaks at about 254 nanometers. Midwave UV light is generally considered to peak at about 312 nanometers. 

"Blacklights" are an inexpensive way for beginners to get started in the hobby as they do produce longwave UV light that will work fine for minerals that happen to fluoresce brightly when exposed to such light. While equipped with a visible light filter, these inexpensive filters are not nearly as effective as the visible light filters incorporated into shortwave, midwave, and longwave UV lamps suitable for observing fluorescent minerals. Hence the visible light inherent to using blacklights can and does frequently overwhelm the longwave UV light effects on fluorescent minerals.

Next basic thing to understand is that most minerals do not fluoresce brightly under longwave UV light. In order to see all the bright colors that make fluorescent minerals so attractive, as a minimum you will require a shortwave UV lamp. As a general rule of thumb, these are considerably more expensive than longwave UV lamps, and also should be used with protective eyewear.  A good battery-powered shortwave UV field lamp is priced comparably with entry level VLF metal detectors. Midwave lamps are usually purchased only by advanced hobbyists, and are at least as expensive as shortwave UV lamps. There are a number of minerals that respond better to midwave UV light than to either shortwave or longwave UV light. Hope this helps to clarify things a bit…

Jim.
 

 

Thanks for your help Jim. Yes, my 60 watt short wave cost me $750 several years ago

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hibby, look like nice Madagascar fossils,  good chance that the light materials on your fossils will fluoresce if they are polished. If they have been sprayed with clear they will not. I don’t know what the host rock is but looks man made 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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 Gerry in Idaho
      How rare is this? One of my customers has been finding native Michigan copper nuggets with his Minelab Equinox 800 and said I could share this amazing discovery. Kind of makes my nuggets look like dinks. What do you think something like this is worth?
    • By Mac
      All of these are among finds I have kept from the past. They have been in a storage unit. I am fascinated with geology but have trouble ID'g rocks and don't like to smash em. This is a lot of pics ... maybe too many?! Thanks in advance for all who take a moment to share their expertise. Much regards! 
       
       

      ^ is this part of a thunderegg?

      ^ the shell of the rock above (part of a thunderegg?)

      ^ could this be a thunderegg or just jasper?

      ^ a pyrite next to my thumb, is the middle rock a chalcopyrite?

      ^ shell of the rock pictured below

      ^ assume this is a banded agate?

      ^ could it be a geode? 

      ^ not a great pic -- this coloration is actually light to deep purple/ violet

      ^ heavy, as if a cannonball, damn near perfectly round

      ^ also heavy nearly round rocks

      ^ sunstone? found in a creek north of the Arctic Circle

      ^ can't even guess ... looks like a vein within a vein, what could that material be?

      ^ nature couldn't create such an indent, could it? 

      ^ same stone as above ... is this a relic of sorts? 

      ^ same stone as above

      ^ could this have been a spear head? 

      ^ might this be a corondum? 

      ^ same rock as above; what are those inclusions -- jasper? can't be rubies.. 

      ^ same as above

      ^ what happens when your 3 year old daughter finds your rocks! 
    • By Jim Hemmingway
      Benchtesting Rocks & Minerals with an F75 Metal Detector
      Introduction
      From the earliest time when we were aware of our surroundings, most of us looked for pretty rocks. We wondered what interesting or valuable minerals might possibly comprise them. Now as adult hobbyists, I doubt if any of us hasn’t benchtested an interesting rock from curiosity, and wondered what actually produced the signal. 
      Although a sensitive benchtest usually has little in common with how marginally conductive rocks and minerals respond to metal detectors in the field due to ground effects, we can learn and become familiar with how rocks and minerals in our respective areas respond to metal detectors in a benchtest. A sensitive metal detector’s electromagnetic field penetrates rocks, usually generating either a positive or a negative signal in response to whatever material is in the rock. We can sometimes determine whether such signals should be investigated further, or whether worthless iron minerals produced them. 
      I’d generally describe my benchtest results as worthwhile and informative, but that notwithstanding, I look forward to doing a benchtest because I think it is an intriguing study on its own merit. That said, how do you conduct a benchtest? I’ll describe my methods and hopefully we’ll see what you think about it.

      Benchtest Requirements and Techniques
      Benchtesting ideally requires a visually displayed, fully calibrated, manually adjustable ground balance that covers the entire (soil) mineral range from salt to ferrite. As a minimum, the detector should feature a threshold-based true motion all-metal mode, and preferably an additional true non-motion all-metal mode for significantly improved sensitivity to borderline samples. Visual displays in either of the true all-metal modes are essential for target ID, Fe3O4 magnetic susceptibility and GB readouts. 
      I prefer a small (concentric) coil to promote detector stability and improve sensitivity to the rock sample, to ensure uniform sample exposure to the coil, and to minimize EMI (electromagnetic interference) especially if benchtesting at home. Elevate the sensitivity control as high as possible while maintaining reasonable detector stability such that you can clearly hear changes to the threshold.
      To check for a target ID, move the sample back and forth across the coil at a distance that produces the best signal but does not overload the coil. To determine ground balance and Fe3O4 readouts, advance the sample toward the coil, back and forth to within an inch or two (depending on sample size and signal strength) of the coil’s electrical sweetspot. Ensure your hand does not come within detection range of the coil to avoid creating false signals. If you extend your fingers to hold the sample, this is not an issue when testing larger samples. If necessary use a plastic or wood food holder that can firmly grasp small samples.

      Benchtests should be conducted utilizing a minimum of two widely diverse GB control adjustments. Initially I prefer the same GB control adjustment that is typically required to keep my detector ground-balanced to the substrates in my prospecting areas. It’s a personal preference that works for me. That particular GB control point (F75 / GB86) is more likely to improve any rock or mineral sample’s signal strength compared to using a more reduced (more conductive) GB compensation point.
      The next step is to use a dramatically reduced GB control adjustment (F75 / GB45) as suggested by Fisher Research Engineering. This setting ensures that (obviously weathered) oxidized samples do not generate a positive signal from any type of non-conductive iron mineral inclusions, particularly maghemite mineralization that may be present within such rocks. It follows that this second benchtest will, if anything, slightly subtract from the sample signal strength, particularly with low grade and otherwise marginally conductive samples, compared to the first step of the benchtest at GB86. 
      As a general rule, I do not recommend the F75 / GB45 compensation point for benchtesting (non-oxidized) mafic samples that are dominated by constituents such as common magnetite or other black minerals that normally support highly (non-conductive) elevated GB readouts. Such samples can produce strong negative threshold responses at the reduced GB compensation point. It will be difficult or impossible for the signal from a marginally conductive substance to successfully compete with those negative threshold signals. For non-oxidized samples Fisher Research Engineering suggests using F75 / GB65 rather than the F75 / GB45 compensation point, since obvious iron mineral oxidation should visually be absent from such samples.
      With the above discussion in mind, extremely fine-grained, unweathered magnetite that occurs in pyroclastic material (for example volcanic ash) can drop into the GB45 range, but it is extremely rare. Unweathered volcanics do frequently drop into the GB70's due to submicron magnetite, but the recommended F75 / GB65 compensation point will eliminate those positive signals. 

      The arsenopyrite sample depicted above is a good example of a commonplace mineral that we encounter in the silverfields of northeastern Ontario. Generally field examples could be described as marginally conductive and many are low-grade. A good many react with only a mild positive signal, and sometimes not at all to a benchtest depending on which GB compensation point is used. 
      The high-grade, solidly structured sample above produces a strong positive signal in either zero discrimination or true motion all-metal mode with the ground balance control adjusted to the GB compensation point required for our moderately high mineralized soils. As noted, that’s approximately F75 / GB86, although in the field, of course, it varies somewhat depending on location and coil type / size employed. 
      The response is not as strong as a similar size and shape metalliferous sample would produce, but it does generate a surprisingly strong benchtest signal that would be readily detectable in the field. Even with the GB control dramatically reduced to more conductive values (F75 / GB45), to ensure that any positive signals produced by non-conductive iron mineral inclusions should now only produce a negative threshold signal, it is no surprise that this (non-oxidized) specimen continues to generate a strong signal. 

      For those readers unfamiliar with detector responses to such minerals, the same general response scenario described above with arsenopyrite applies to other marginally conductive minerals such as galena, pyrrhotite and to a lesser extent even iron pyrites. Ordinary iron pyrites is generally innocuous, but maghemitized pyrite, pyrrhotite, and the copper sulfide ores, particularly bornite and chalcocite, can be a real nuisance in the field due to magnetic susceptibility, magnetic viscosity, and / or electrical conductivity, just depending on what minerals are involved. 
      Such variable responses from arsenopyrite and many other mineral and metalliferous examples clearly infer that signal strength and potential target ID depends on a sample’s physical and chemical characteristics, including the quantity of material within a given rock. These factors include structure, size, shape, purity (overall grade), and magnetic susceptible strength of iron mineral inclusions. Moreover, the VLF detector’s sensitivity, the GB compensation points employed, the coil type and size, and the sample profile presented to the coil further influence benchtest target signal strength and / or potential target ID readouts. 
      Incidentally, neither of my PI units will respond to the arsenopyrite sample depicted above, even with a TDI Pro equipped with a small round 5” mono coil, the GB control turned off, and a 10 usec pulse delay to deliver its most sensitive detection capability. That result is typical of most, but certainly not all sulfides and arsenides that occur in my areas. Higher grade and solidly structured pyrrhotite, an unwelcome nuisance iron sulfide, and collectible niccolite, a nickel arsenide, are commonplace mineral occurrences here that do respond strongly to PI units, although their respective VLF target ID ranges are quite different. 
      As a related but slight diversion, the photo below depicts a handsome example of the widely occurring mineral sphalerite. It forms in both sedimentary beds, and in low temperature ore veins. It is interesting to collectors because it possesses a dodecahedral cleavage which means that it breaks smoothly in twelve directions, and it is usually triboluminescent, meaning that it gives off a flash of light when struck sharply. Like many desirable minerals lurking in prospecting country, unfortunately sphalerite doesn’t react to metal detectors. 

      A Final Word
      The foregoing is intended to illustrate that sensitive metal detectors can be utilized as a supplementary tool to assist with evaluating rocks and minerals. There is no question that the benchtest has serious limitations, particularly if trying to distinguish positive signals produced by some types of iron mineral inclusions from weak conductive signals. 
      That notwithstanding, a positive signal that persists below the F75 / GB45 compensation point cannot be confused with iron mineral negative threshold signals produced at that same compensation point. Therefore a positive signal merits further investigation. Such signals are almost certain to be generated by a marginally conductive mineral or a metalliferous substance. 
      On the more interpretive side of a benchtest, we need to point out that weak positive signals from lower-grade samples of minerals such as arsenopyrite, galena, pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, and doubtless a few others, may disappear well before the GB control is reduced to the F75 / GB45 compensation point. We learn early that benchtests are frequently equivocal and require interpretation based on any further evidence that might support the benchtest result. Look for iron oxidation in addition to structural or other physical evidence as described above that could explain why a sample reacts as it does to a metal detector.
      Jim.
       
    • By phoenix
      I bought another Michigan copper nugget the other day.      I love this kind of stuff.      This one goes 235 grams.  7½ ounces feels really nice in your hand



    • By Steve Herschbach
      Good article and photos....
      https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/02/12/how-one-african-mine-produced-nearly-1-000-carat-diamond-stunner/319678002/
    • By Gerry in Idaho
      Know your Rocks.
      This highly desired collectors piece was found by one of my customers with a Fisher Gold Bug-2.
      If you did not know what to look for you'd probably toss the rock aside thinking "just another iron stone hot rock".  When you see a good variety of colors and minerals, its time to slow down.
      Here is a 1 of a kind tree shape gold specimen or Dagger.
      Thanks to my customers for sharing your photos of Success with me.



×