GB_Amateur

4 minutes ago, BigSkyGuy said:

Last winter I had the opportunity to test 2,008 non-dug War Nickels that I borrowed from a coin dealer friend. Out of 2008, 3 were out of spec (0.15%), which he let me keep.

Great work!  Thanks for sharing.  Now we have examples of non-dug coins which are out-of-spec.  Excellent measurements.

11 hours ago, schoolofhardNox said:

I'm assuming you are digging in dirt. If that's the case then the consistency of our coinage is in question.

In question, sure.  But the fact is, common soil contains chemicals that attack much of our coinage.  Saltwater is particularly hard on 90% silver coins as you and many others here have shown.  That tends not to be the case with most inland soils.  Coins whose composition is dominated by copper is a different story, as you likely know.

The Warnick composition is so much different than any modern coin that I'm familiar with because of the 9% manganese.  I've said it before but I'll quantify.  Of the 94 elements found in/on the earth which are 'natural' (I.e. not human synthesized), 69 are considered metals with the remainder either semiconductors (silicon being the poster child) or non-conductors (all the gases plus some solids like sulfur and the odd-ball liquid -- at room temperature -- bromine).  Of those 69 metals only one (I emphasize one) has a worse conductivity in pure form than manganese.  It happens to be plutonium (element 94 so coincidentally the highest atomic number of the naturally occurring terrestrial elements).  I recall they had better uses for that substance during the war than alloys for coins!

38 minutes ago, JCR said:

Do you still have all your sample coins? Got a little spare time😉.

Well, I have them but they're in a bank safety deposit box....  (I took them out for the study but then returned them.)  I know I have all dates+MM's for the Warnicks but whether they were all represented in that 4 roll set used in the study, IDK.

Because I tend to discriminate by VDI when searching parks and schools that weren't frequented outside the last 100 or so years, my data from recovered-from-ground coins are not meaningful.  I would expect every one I've found to have a common USA nickel ID else I likely would have skipped over it.  But, yes the ones I've recovered have all been ~12-13 on the Equinox.  However, as just indicated, selection bias renders that not meaningful for this discussion.

1 minute ago, JCR said:

I only have 6, which is a very small sample...

The key disctinction for previous studies was whether the coin came from the ground (I.e. was found with a detector) or simply came from loose change or bank rolls.  I specifically chose the latter (160+) to try and distinguish between in-ground vs. not.  What's the history of the six you measured?

Either way, thanks for the data.  We can never have enough (reliable) data.

Although it's popular to say this happened at the mint, that claim ignores the fact that I measured over 160 Warnicks that had never been in the ground.  Not a single one read higher than 13-14 (alternating) on the Equinox 800.

So if the alloy is off the intended 9% manganese, 35% silver, 56% copper, the smoking gun points to changes from environmental action.

The fact that SoHN's recent samples in some cases read considerably higher than standard composition nickels and in other cases, measurably lower could mean there are multiple things going on, not just one simple explanation.  Mother Nature likes to do that sometimes to keep us from getting a big head, thinking we've got her figured out.

Here's the post that m/l started the discussion.  See also the posts that follow it:

3 hours ago, UT Dave said:

...along with the incomplete web page,...

Care to elaborate?  I just went there and snooped around.  I didn't notice anything I would call 'incomplete'.  (I could easily have missed it, though.)

12 hours ago, midalake said:

Any ideas on where to get this Shielded cable from???  OR, does anyone have a junk Equinox coil I can get the cable off of? 

Thanks

The Geotech Forum members here can probably answer that.  I did just cut into a Garrett Infinium coil I have laying around and was surprised its shielding wasn't particularly robust -- just a thin foil layer.  I'm more used to Gigahertz signals which require closely woven braid.  Maybe the kHz region is much more forgiving...?

I don't think oxides are conductive.

A big component of metal detector response to a specific target is skin depth.  Basically how deep the electromagnetic field penetrates.  Pretty sure this is why our modern USA clad coinage reads so high -- because the Ni-Cu layer has a (relatively speaking) high skin depth and is in a sense transparent to the dynamic EM fields.

The Warnick was a brilliant solution for the metallurgical engineers who designed it.  The dominant coin in coin-operated machines in the early 40's here in our country was the 'nickel'.  Apparently the machines had a way of detecting slugs and it was something akin to our modern detector.  (There may also have been ways of detecting the weight.)  When word came out that the nickel's comp was being changed for the war there was an outcry from the coin op industry asking that the replacement match not only the weight but also the EM properties.  Amazingly they were able (in a short time) to do that by adding manganese -- possibly the lowest conductor of all non-radioactive metallic elements -- chosen to moderate the higher conducting properties of the silver and copper.

My hypothesis has been that if the manganese can somehow be removed (chemically) while the coin is in the environment then the conductivity will increase to reflect the remaining copper and silver.

Can you use an abrasive (e.g. steel wool) to take off the surface crud from one AFTER you've measured its VDI and see how the VDI changes?  That should tell you if you're noticing a surface effect or if it's rather a global change.

Sorry to be putting all this work on you.  If I were out there near the NE coast I'd help.  😉

P.S. My hypothesis doesn't explain the 20 and 22 ID's of those two coins in your photo above so maybe multiple processes are present.  Or maybe my hypothesis is just full of, uh, corrosion....

2 minutes ago, schoolofhardNox said:

On the Manticore, I ran some numbers for you. I was inside, so sensitivity was at 13. I had discrimination, but it would not affect the readings as the signals were pure with no bleeding into the disc zone. I did not reset the machine, as I didn't want to lose my settings. So not a standardized test by any means. I tried both nickels, so the first number you see is the less corroded one and the second number is the more corroded one. AT Gen - 46/49, AT Fast- 46/49, AT LC - 47/50, AT HC - 48/50, AT Trash Reject - 46/49, Beach General - 46/49, Beach LC - 46/49, Beach Deep - 46/49, Beach Surf & Seawater - 45/48, Goldfield - 45/48. Numbers jumped sometimes with the low number at 45 and the high number at 50 (occasionally jumping to 53).

Wow, thanks for the quick response!  Do you realize you've just solved a mystery that has been floating around this site (and other detecting sites) for quite a few years?  I'm serious.

There have been multiple reports of Warnicks giving considerably higher VDI's than other nickels, even though no one has ever given evidence that Warnicks *not* coming from the ground read anything different than standard 25-75 Ni-Cu.  (I measured over 150 in my non-detected collection with the Eqx and all were either 13 or (occasionally) 13-14.

The Manticore's USA nickel VDI's peak around 26-27 so your recent two are way above that.  (And they are consistent with many of the earlier reports of coins which were found in the ground, but not in saltwater.)

The environment has seriously changed the conductivity and selective removal of manganese (9% of the Warnick and a very low conductor) is pretty much now the solid explanation.

11 minutes ago, stupot said:

Any information on  the brass tag would be welcome.

Someone here (e.g. @F350Platinum ) will likely figure it out.  I did a quick google images search under WWI dog tags but I don't think it's that.  Is there some printing around the hole, and if so can you decipher it?

I'm currently running with the most recent software (aka 'update').  I did some cross checking in my test garden, swapping between original and recent software update and didn't notice anything.  The only thing in the update I'm aware of that even interests me is the Stabilizer feature but I've yet to play around with it enough to determine it matters.  (Probably does under the right conditions....)  I've run it at values 0 and 4.  I tested settings 9 and 10 in the garden and those seriously cost depth for coins in my ground.  The 'stabilizer filter' with my tone settings sounds absolutely horrible.  It's going to take some strong convincing before I ever turn it on again.

FWIW I typically operate in either All Terrain General or (preferably) All Terrain High Conductors.  I run sensitivity 17 and recovery speed 4.  Those work well in my local sites (and test garden).

19 minutes ago, stupot said:

and especially the 1887 3 pence stuck in the clay in 'keep' condition.

Never heard that term but absolutely understand it -- what high quality for such a find!  I know you explained a couple items in the top photo but do you mind covering the remainder?  I'm not very familiar with coins from your area so can't tell just by looking at the photo.  Everything you show (except the bottom photo), coins or otherwise, has me salivating.

3 hours ago, Zincoln said:

Wow, an elusive 20c piece.  Those show up almost never.

I second that sentiment.

Even Monte, who lived and detected in silver country for ~6 decades, never found one.  Only about 11/4 million were ever minted with any date/mintmark.

Good to hear JW had a Sadie to loan you.  Very few people have a GPX-compatible X-Coil, in contrast to the Nugget Finder Sadie.  (Even I, who gets gold detecting maybe 3 or 4 days per year, has one.)  And as expected that little terrier found a goodie or two in a heavily detected area.

Dehydration is accompanied by all kinds of symptoms, affecting the brain as well as the rest of the body.  I'd bet that was the major contributor to your condition.  Glad nothing worse occurred as a result.  Even driving may not have been in your best interest....

A lot of people are way more excited about this Algoforce developing 'saga' than I but I still enjoy reading about it and you've been great at putting in the hours (quickly) to educate us, so thanks for that.

P.S.  Now that JW has seen the E1500 in action, is he ordering one pronto?

Nice find.  That's a survivor given the way the ground likes to eat 100% copper coins after two centuries nibbling away.

1 hour ago, UKD2User said:

My problem with the WM08 was with other people's phones (especially at the beach). The ML85's were always more resilient than the WM08 even though they used ostensibly the same protocols. I wonder if the WM08 antenna was a poor design/location.

Actually, the headphones that came with the Equinox (or at least what the manual says below) were ML80's so we both were off on the model number.  But the WM08 did not use the same protocols as the ML80's since it was Minelab proprietary wireless (and considerably faster) compared to the Bluetooth APTX/LL method for the headphones:

Pretty sure the Manticore uses the same standards/protocols for both the WM09 and the supplied-with-detector ML105 headphones, but from what others have said that is also proprietary, just not Minelabs "roll your own" from scratch as apparently was done with other detectors (including the Equinox WM08 channel).

7 hours ago, UKD2User said:

I found that the WM08 unit was quite susceptible to EMI - especially from nearby cellphones.  Is the WM09 the same/better ?

I don't carry my cellphone with me when detecting.  I've never noticed any particular EMI associated with the WM08 (or now, with just 5.5 hours experience, on the WM09).  The electronics (transmitter and receiver) use different standards between these two wireless modules so any quirks probably are not something that would necessarily carry over from the WM08 to the WM09.  Careful testing may be your only solution.  Note also that (AFAIK) the WM09 uses the same T/R system as the supplied ML105 headphones so any extra issues (or lack thereof) should be common to both.

24 minutes ago, Yooper said:

I'm curious to know what Bose ear buds you are using.

Soundsport IE ("Inner Ear").  I can't find a serial number anywhere and I think these were discontinued.  I've had them for 6+ years, probably bought new on Ebay for ~$40.

Here's a refurbished pair on Ebay right now:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/374590147816?chn=ps&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&amdata=enc%3A1KPdUrfKVTF-1QJw73eBWzA87&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-166974-028196-7&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=374590147816&targetid=2259467015443&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=1017003&poi=&campaignid=20823940207&mkgroupid=154561709685&rlsatarget=pla-2259467015443&abcId=9348262&merchantid=5308819468&gclid=CjwKCAiAiP2tBhBXEiwACslfni_6JhOctRO2IroQlT8ZW-RgzSUbcYnkqtDz3Ka4pMJ_jRPXqVekDBoCeXEQAvD_BwE

I got into one of those frantic "maybe they won't be easy to get; maybe ML will raise the price;..." moments and grabbed the first WM 09 wireless module I could find on the internet for the MAP(?) $139.  I took it out to one of my well-searched parks for a 3 hour test run with the Sun Ray Pro Golds.  First the photos (with Equinox WM08 as reference):

As the photos show, the WM09 and WM08 are quite similar -- same housing, just different guts.  The WM09 has four charging pads for the magnetic charging cable pins.  I now have five interchangeable charging cables (two detectors and three wireless modules since I have a backup WM08) so at least they've kept that 'standard'.

As is the case with the WM08, the 3.5 mm socket is recessed by ~5.5 mm which can be a problem if the jack being inserted is a right angle version.  I've installed a straight plug on my Sunray Pro Golds so as not to have this issue, but most right angle 3.5 mm plugs don't work as the pin can't get deep enough to properly seat.

As far as audio performance in the field is concerned, I don't notice any difference between the supplied ML105 headphones and the WM09+Pro Golds.  That is not the case (in my experience) with the ML80s vs. WM08+Pro Golds when running the Equinox.  The sound quality of the ML105 is much better than the ML80's, to my ear anyway.  I also notice no latency (time lag) with either the ML105 or WM09.  But I receive two advantages with the Pro Golds -- they block out ambient noise better and are warmer in cold weather.  Another likely advantage is the quality of the soft over-ear rings -- something Steve H. has talked about for years.  The Pro Golds use higher quality materials which matter in hot conditions.  Personally I tend to switch to earbuds in hot weather and just live with the background noise.  I haven't tried the WM09 with my Bose earbuds yet, but don't expect any problems.  🤞

Bottom line is for those (like me) who have a favorite set of aftermarket headphones and/or earbuds, the WM09 is a valuable addition.  If you're satisfied with other options (ML105s or the control unit's speaker) then no need to spend the $139.

1 hour ago, schoolofhardNox said:

...16 of which were silver...

Including two Walkers!  If I added up right you've had 41 silver coins in your last three hunts.  Didn't you say others beat you to this area?  If so, how did they miss so much, were they ignoring high conductors to concentrate on gold jewelry?  And is there a chance Mother Nature puts an end to this before you get everything within your detector+coil's capability?

I know you earn what you find, swinging that battle sword for many hours each time out, but it still seems like you've been on time travel back to the 70's/80's.

On 1/24/2024 at 9:15 PM, Ridge Runner said:

Here’s something that is great to have when you have lots of coins to look at. This I got off of Amazon...

On 1/25/2024 at 10:21 PM, kac said:

Got a similar model just for that.

Could you guys either post links (if you're logged into Amazon, upper right click on "Returns and Orders", then easy to put in keyword for its search) or at least a model name(s) and number(s)?  I'm a sucker for those kinds of eyesight enhancers...

In what sensitivity setting are you operating for these tests?

2 hours ago, strick said:

send directly to minelab now there is a thred on the forum about the recent switch

strick