Glenn in CO

3 hours ago, Tom_in_CA said:

Or did you mean "successful" as in deep old silver ?  If so, I know of no one in CA who is "successful with the TDI" for that.  If you know who this fellow is, I would love to meet and compare over flagged signals with him.

I couldn't think of his name of the top of my head, so I did a little research and his name is Greg Moscini. He operated Trans Bay Metal Detectors, I believe in the San Francisco bay area and not sure if he is still in business.

Greg published the following in the White's TDI Manual:

47 minutes ago, Tom_in_CA said:

There was a fellow here at the beach swinging a TDI on an eroded beach zone, that was RIDDLED with iron.  And ... granted, he no doubt got deep.  And ... granted, he could no doubt get tinsel thin chains.   And .... granted, he could no doubt cut nasty black sand.  Yet at the end of each day, we had 3x or 4x his goodie-count.   By the end of that erosion episode, we spotted him sporting a conventional machine.  But I suppose the push-back would be to say he was doing it wrong, or needed more practice, right ?

Never advocated or recommend using a TDI in a iron riddle site or area.

If I remember correctly there was a White’s dealer in the Bay Area using a TDI and was very successful in parks.

I guess if we happen to meet sometime in the future you will be wondering!

1 hour ago, Tom_in_CA said:

Sure.  Yes.  And so the claim goes on to exist as just that :  A claim.  😕  It Might be true, it might not.  Because the claimant says just what you're saying:  "I've got nothing to prove".   🙄

 

But the moment any "claim" goes to be shown as meritorious (in actual field tests by known aces in-those-fields), then:  The world rushes to avail themselves of the new and proven mousetraps.  They can not argue with side-by-side flagged testing results.   It's no longer "just a claim" now.

 

And such has been the case of all the leaps of tech. in md'ing that we've seen in our mutual decades .   When the older school folk see their #sses get kicked, then :  News spreads like wildfire .  And everyone else rushes to avail themselves of the better mousetraps.   

 

But if there is never any such tests going on, then alas:  These steps never come to fruition 😞

 

And when I read your above quote, I couldn't help but wonder "where have I heard that come-back-line before ?".   🤔  Then I remembered :  It was with dowsing:  The same fall-back line occurs from the dowser-faithful:   When the dowser is challenged to "show me" and "let's test it" and "let's compare", then:   His fall-back lines are identical.

 

That's not to say that the claimant's claims aren't true and meritorious !  It's just that:  You have to wonder why they aren't "chomping at the bit" to show the silly-old-schoolers that it can indeed be done.   I understand that you're busy, you're hours away, you don't care, etc.... I get it .  But it's odd that, if this is true, that *someone*, *somewhere* (even if not you), isn't simply introducing this new and better mousetrap to the world.  Instead, it's exactly the opposite :  Those that have tried to insist it can work to outpace standard machines in all relic and park-turf scenarios, generally disappear and are never heard from again, the moment a nail-ridden or trash-ridden location presents itself. 

 

Perhaps these persons simply didn't "practice long enough" or "didn't have their settings done correctly" or "didn't have the right machine", etc.....   Ok, sure .  But then :   you gotta wonder.

Tom,

I would like to respond to your post with my experience of using the TDI. I got one of the first production run of the TDI’s. My main intention in using the detector was for nugget hunting. Unfortunately the type of gold in the area we hunt the TDI was useless as well as other PI’s. So the TDI basically sat in the closet fo years. Basically using nothing but a VLF type detectors over the years the TDI wasn’t an easy detector to use and understand. This issue of using and understanding was more my fault as it was easier to use a VLF detector and enjoy detecting without second guessing what the detector was telling me.

I finally retired and decided to spend more time and learn how to use the TDI. I met with Reg Sniff a few times in local parks and listen and watch how was using the TDI. For some reason I didn’t click with TDI right way and it became a very slow and sometimes difficult learning process. But I was determine to learn how to use the detector and have the success that Reg Sniff had.

I have detected with friends and club members where I hear a potential deep target with the TDI and then have them see if they can get a response. This is what I base my comments on the depth capabilities of the TDI over a VLF detector. Again this based on conditions in local parks in my area, they my not work in other areas.

I’m glad I committed to learning on how to use the TDI and continue to learn the more I use it. My reward is finding older coins each time I use it.

1 hour ago, GB_Amateur said:

Good stuff, Glenn.  Thanks!  I seem to recall (now that you've posted this) that you've previously reported using a TDI for coin hunting.

I assume yours is the original Pulse Scan TDI (big box) similar to the one Steve wrote his coin detecting article for.  And then you had it modified (presumably to make it better 😁).  What mods were done and how did that improve your unit?

I can see you (and others, including Steve) have emphasized that you use the TDI in difficult ground.  My sites here in Southern Indiana are intermediate in mineralization so not as bad as what you've encountered in Colorado.  I know Jeff McClendon has said that in greater Denver alone there is a huge range of mineralization depending upon location.

Hi GB,

The modification to my TDI was reducing the delay below 10us. Reg was hoping this modification would help in detecting smaller gold. Particularly the wire gold, unfortunately the modification did not help on this type of gold. 

My question would be in mineralization such as yours, would a TDI or PI achieve more depth than a VLF because of less mineralization?

46 minutes ago, Tom_in_CA said:

Glenn,

 

It's no secret that the TDI can be made to ID nails (down to a certain depth anyhow), and also discern high vs low conductors.  HOWEVER :  The moment anyone goes to avail himself of these settings-tricks, is the moment that his depth is now reduced to that of normal standard machines.   Right ?

 Tom in my area the answer is no. I and my friend who uses a TDI Pro get a clear audio response where someone using a Equinox or CTX3030 get a iffy or no response.

54 minutes ago, Tom_in_CA said:

I came away with the conclusion that the moment I set the TDI to work like a normal discriminating machine (cherry picking for deep silver) is the moment that I might as well use a standard machine.   Not to mention the fact that the TDI is a SQUIRRELLY son of a gun.  Very annoying fishy audio.  

My TDI is very stable in Ground Balance mode, Ground Balance mode off is very annoying.

59 minutes ago, Tom_in_CA said:

 

So do tell:  In your opinion, do you think that you can spank the user of a normal standard machine, with your TDI, in regular park-turf hunting ?  If the objective is deeper older coins (and not simply strip-mining clad, blah blah) ?

Yep and a lot of my detecting friends that got spanked!

My TDI was modified as well as my friend’s TDI Pro was modified by Reg Sniff.

Hello GB,

My main detector for parks is the TDI. I will list the settings I use and why I use them. With these settings I only listen for the deeper targets ( 5”or deeper) and the TDI will respond to deeper targets with a not as strong audio response. The surface targets or near surface will give a very strong audio response and the deeper targets will give a weaker response. Using this technique you can ignore many trash targets and concentrate on deeper targets. These settings completely ignore bottle caps, pull tabs and foil no matter what depth they may be at. Nails and wire will give a good response, but keep in mind I’m only listening for the deeper target so I’m digging less trash targets. People using the Equinox in are area can achieve some targets at the depths we are getting, but the are listening for deep target response with a scratchy audio. Our soil is highly mineralized and VLF detectors are limited on depth. I was fortunate to live close by Reg Sniff and he was able to give me advice on what settings to use. It will take awhile to become proficient with the TDI, but after a lot of hours you will have a better understanding of it.

Settings:

Sensitivity- Set at Max.

Delay- 10

Ground Balance- Just below the 5 mark.

Threshold- Light

High Conductor Setting

Frequency- Set at 12:00 o’clock.

I’m using the 12” Dual Field coil, but you definitely need a pin pointer as their is no meter or way of telling depth other than by sound.

I would not use the TDI in a ghost town setting that has a abundance of nails or any other areas that have a abundance of nails, but any other common trash items even with a large coil is not an issue. But you have to go slow and be patience and listen for the deeper targets.

9 hours ago, mn90403 said:

Well done and displayed.  Specimens to nuggets and enhanced value in the process.  Have you had offers?

Hi Mitchel,

These specimens and some others I finished cleaning I have not tried to sell yet. My favorites are the wire gold specimens, but I was surprised when I had other gold specimens appraised by Collector's Edge, a high end mineral dealer in Golden, Colorado, that the leaf gold specimens are more valuable than the wire gold specimens. The wire gold specimens have so much character and I enjoy what each specimen reveals during the cleaning process.

7 hours ago, rvpopeye said:

A+B had an interesting texture. "Golden Hummingbird  Nest" ?

Actually A, B, and C are consider " bird nests" or crystalline wire gold specimens. Specimen D is consider a crystalline leaf gold specimen. Amazing what mother nature is capable of creating! Hopefully everyone clicks on the photos and use the magnifying tool.

PART SEVEN:

This is the final step of the cleaning process on these gold specimens. After soaking the gold specimens in Muriatic acid a few days I then place them in a solution of baking soda and water. There is an aggressive reaction for a short period of time to the gold specimens causing more of the host rock to be removed. Then I rinse each gold specimen in water. I then have four containers in which two have Muriatic acid, one with baking soda and one with water. I then take each gold specimen and place it in the first container of Muriatic acid, then in the second container of Muriatic acid, then in the solution of baking soda and the rinse each specimen again in water. I repeat this process several times. The reason I place each gold specimen two times in the Muriatic acid is because the Muriatic acid becomes weakened when I rinse the gold specimens in water. I then soak the gold specimens in a solution of baking soda for a couple days and the rinse them in water. The final step is to apply steam to each gold specimen for additional cleaning.

During the entire cleaning process there is some loss of gold from some of the gold specimens and it is a judgement call on how far one should continue the cleaning process. That judgement call can be great or it can be disastrous.

Pictured below is the loss of gold from the cleaning process:

I will post pictures in another thread of the gold specimens before and after the were cleaned.

PART SIX:

Here are the results of another round of soaking in the Whink solution and using baking soda and steam cleaner.

Specimen A still has a lot of the host rock to remove, Specimen B has some host rock embedded in between the wires of gold, Specimen C has a tiny amount which the photograph does not show and Specimen D needs no further cleaning.

At this point going forward using the Whink solution is not going to have the results I like to achieve. Next step I will use Muriatic acid with another round of baking soda and steam cleaner.

I will post photographs of the final results of the last cleaning.

You and flagman were on a great spot! Very nice collection of bottles and jugs. Thanks! for sharing.👍

1 hour ago, GB_Amateur said:

Here's one that sold on Ebay for $44.  (I would have taken the Merc instead.  Shows what I know.)  Other sites say possibly from the 1930's.  One thing I've noticed about dating things on the internet (especially on Ebay) -- someone gives a date of origin without evidence and others glom onto it like it's fact.  Tokens seem to get resurrected, too.  I have some that I think are from the 1940's and others (same depiction) that are probably '80s or '90s.

This is probably brass.  If you have Wheaties you've found in that same location, compare the patina.  If they typically are this nice after recovery, that's evidence this has been in the ground a similar amount of time (> 40 years).  Most of my Wheaties come with a green scale so I expect my old brass tokens to have a similar property.  (Your low humidity out West seems to be nicer to copper alloy coins than our damp Eastern USA.)

Unusual find, IMO, and a good chance it's Great Depression Era.

BTW, the Eureka Club in greater Denver has a token category in their monthly meetings.  A veteran there may be a good source of info as to whether or not anyone has ever entered one of these.  (A "no" is another good sign it's quite old.  A "lots of them" just the opposite.)

Thanks for the links and information. I think your right about the Great Depression Era time period.

2 hours ago, schoolofhardNox said:

If I were you, I'd cash in on that  😄 Ask for silver, gold and military relics 😉 Never seen one like that before. Looks rather new from the patina. maybe a game piece?

It was found about 10 inches in the ground and came out crusty. I used the Andre pencils to clean the crud off. Still trying to figure out if it was some type of giveaway or what.

PART FIVE:

The gold specimens have been soaking in the Whink solution for around two weeks. To speed up the process I will be using baking soda and the steam cleaner. You will use a large amount of baking soda. I usually buy it at Wal-Mart, the last bag I bought was a 12 lb. bag and cost around $9.00.

The baking soda is used to neutralize the acid and helps remove the host rock. The gold specimens that are being cleaned have shale as a host rock with limonite and other small amount of minerals that might be included. Shale and limonite is porous and soaking the gold specimens in the Whink solution for a period of time allows some of it to be absorb. There is no precise amount of baking soda I use for this next step. I normally fill about a half inch in a bottom of a container and mix it with water. I then take a gold specimen and drop it in the baking soda and then there will be a intense reaction which causes the shale, limonite and other minerals to break away from the gold. Depending on how much of the Whink solution was absorbed you will have a reaction with the baking soda for a little to a longer period of time. I usually change out the baking soda mixed water two to three times until there is no visible reaction with the gold specimen.

The next step is using a steam cleaner and applying steam to the gold specimen. The steam cleaner generates about 212 degrees of steam and around 45 lbs of pressure. Using the steam cleaner removes some of the host rock and other minerals that has been weakened by the Whink solution. The results can differ from one gold specimen to another. If the result is not what you wanting to achieve, then the next step is another round soaking in Whink or acid of your choice and then repeat the process with the baking soda and steam cleaner. Also carefully using dental picks to help remove the host rock and other minerals can be used, but use them with extreme caution.

Using Whink, baking soda and steam cleaner on these gold specimens especially the wire gold specimens I can achieve good results with minimal loss of gold and structure to gold specimen. Here are the before (specimens that were soaking in Whink) and after (using baking soda and steam cleaner) pictures:

Gold specimens after soaking in Whink solution.

Gold specimens after using baking soda and steam cleaner.

Area that is circled is the loss of gold from the cleaning process so far. Specimen D needs no further cleaning.

Part six I will show the results of another round of soaking in the Whink solution and using the baking soda and steam cleaner.

PART FOUR:

This picture was on the previous post which shows the gold specimens reaction to Whink for the first time:

The following pictures show the reaction to Whink after a week of soaking:

As you can see there is some reaction to the gold specimens using Whink during that time period, more reaction on some than others. The following picture are the gold specimens taken out of the Whink solution and placed in gold pan for a closer view. Specimen B did not stay intact as I hoped, but that's the way it goes sometime and it shows great progress on the larger piece and smaller piece is almost cleaned. Specimen A doesn't show a lot of progress at this time. Specimen D does show some progress and Specimen C is almost ready for the next stage. All of the gold specimens are placed back into a fresh batch of Whink solution for another soaking.

During the time period in which the gold specimens were soaking there will be some loss of gold to some of the specimens, especially the wire gold specimens. The following shows some of that loss:

Part Five I will discuss the next stage of the cleaning process and where I will use a little more aggressive cleaning technique and achieve better results.

5 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Glen, your link doesn't go anywhere. It is a "round robin" and only goes to another link.

Thanks I think I fixed it.

31 minutes ago, jasong said:

Technically a strong base should dissolve quartz just like a specific acid like HF. Not saying anyone should try this, but scientifically speaking there is no reason why lye (sodium hydroxide) or maybe even potash heated up to a liquid wouldn't dissolve quartz too since they will rapidly dissolve glass when heated. There may be a chance it'd react with the silver/copper in the gold alloy though?

Maybe a good reason no one ever talks about speci prep with bases, or maybe not. Glenn, you or anyone else ever tried this?

Hey jasong,

Fortunately most of the type of gold specimens I find are in shale or shale with limonite. Some other small quantities of minerals get mixed in specimen and can complicate the cleaning process.

You have a interesting concept of using a strong base. I'm no geologist or chemist and would have to run by someone with the knowledge of the chemicals being used on specific mineral specimens. I know using the weaker acids and heating them improves the cleaning process.

Hopefully someone else will chime in.

2 hours ago, Gerry in Idaho said:

Glad you know what you are doing.  I was already quite impressed with specimen B before the cleaning, but am excited to see how much better it looks afterwards.

Unfortunately using the weaker acids it sometimes can take a long period of time to achieve good results. I've had good results in a couple days to several months. Hopefully the specimens I selected won't be in the several months category.

PART THREE:

Whink will be the acid I use to treat all the gold specimens.

• Specimen A - This specimen will probably the most difficult to treat because of the sphalerite or manganese that appears to be present.
• Specimen B - This specimen I hope to have the host rock remain attached to the gold specimen. The host rock has some fractures so it might possibly fall apart. I placed the specimen upside down in the acid to minimize the exposure to the host rock. You can see the host rock is already reacting to the acid, turning from a clear to light grey color.
• Specimen C - This specimen should clean easily because of the limonite present.
• Specimen D - This specimen should also clean easily because of the calcite or quartz that is present.

As you can see from the picture there is very little reaction to the acid on specimens A,C, and D. Specimen B the acid is working very well.

Part Four you will see the results after a few days and the next steps that are considered on how each specimen will be treated.

1 hour ago, Gerry in Idaho said:

As I have mentioned in times past, I enjoy chasing different types of gold and have learned that in many instances the power of a PI is not the tool of choice.

Now with this new GPX-6000 coming out and Minelabs claim to better sensitivity and depth to small gold, I'm hoping it opens up some more gold for my old hunt sites.

Yes the SDC-2300 and GPZ-7000 could do better than my GPX-5000, TDI, and ATX, but none of them have the Sensitivity as my GM-1000 and EQ-800.

I've got a good feeling about this new 6000.

Oh  would you crush it or keep it?

Gerry,

Have you done a specific gravity test to see how much gold the specimen might have? If it has a large amount of gold vs. quartz, I would treat it with acid and see what the results would be. Treating with acid you could decide whether if it has potential for nice specimen, if doesn't have potential then crush it.

PART TWO:

Some of the chemicals I used for cleaning and prepping gold and mineral specimens are as follow:

• Whink
• Oxalic Acid
• Muriatic Acid
• Iron Out
• Baking Soda

The above chemicals are readily available at hardware stores, lumber stores, Amazon, Walmart, etc. I have access to stronger acids such as hydrofluoric acid in high concentration form but I advise anyone who would like to use this type of acid that it is extremely dangerous and only someone with experience and safety equipment can proceed with caution when using it. Whink has a small concentration of hydrofluoric acid and is safe when used as directed.

Gloves, neoprene apron are needed when handling the above chemicals and face protection, rubber boots if you are not the careful type. Safety should be your number one priority as reaction from the chemicals during the cleaning process can affect your health both short and long term. I always prepare and clean outside, a closed environment is not recommended. Know what type chemical you are using and how it reacts to water, heat and to other chemicals.

Consider creating a work area outside. I have a fish cleaning table mounted on a wooden fence and have water available at the work station. It doesn't have to be fancy, just functional.

The equipment I use for prepping and cleaning gold:

• Assortment of plastic containers ( do not use glass with Whink as it will etch the glass)
• Assortment of gold pans
• Textile Gun
• Steam Cleaner
• Ultrasonic Cleaner
• Dental pics, tweezers, screens, gold sniffer bottle and funnel.

Other equipment that I use when working with certain types of gold or minerals is a crock pot and a bubbler from a aquarium air pump. Crock pot to keep acids warm (remember what acids can have a adverse affect when heated) and a bubbler to keep acids aerated.

Part Three I will discuss what acid I will use and the reaction it has on the gold specimens.