Lead And Gold

[auminesweeper]

I have often wondered about the difference in these to metals because we often use lead to test machines or coils and it seems that the Two are quite far apart, It works out that lead is 41% lighter than Gold when compared to A 1 cubic foot Block of Gold to a cubic foot of lead, So if a person uses a 0.05 gram piece of lead to test the depth of a coil it would  be 41% larger than an equal size in weight in Gold . Giving you a false example of real world testing

This topic has come up before on other forums where people have just compared the two signals saying that lead hits louder but that is not the case because after doing the maths the reason it is louder is because it is that much bigger as in 1.6992 times heavier because one cubic cm of lead weighs 11.37 grams and one cubic cm of Gold weighs 19.32,

So when you find an 0.03 gram piece of Gold and you want to simulate finding such a small piece then the piece of lead you need should weigh 0.0176 grams and an 0.05 gm of Gold is equal in size to 0.0294 gram piece of Lead or rounded off at (0.03 grams).

Adding to this a cube of Gold that measure 14" square would weigh about One Ton

 

Cubic foot of 24c pure Gold=1204 lbs/cf >
(1) Cubic foot of Rolled Lead= 711 lbs/cf
A difference of 493 pounds in a 12 inch x 12 inch x 12 inch cube.

Anyway this is just something to bare in mind when a person is trying to test out machines and coils when you do not have access to tiny nuggets.

John

 

 

[RickUK]

John,that is far too technical for me,as we dont in theory detect nugget here in the UK the main gold items that i am after as most folks are either gold jewellery of in my case Celtic gold staters,so rather than work out the mathematics or try and use some alternative that 'could' possibly skew the readings i would fuse the real thing on a new detector or tweaking new settings on a old detector..

I always use a 1/4 and full celtic stater and a few bits of old jewellery that the wife has given me to use and of course many other items like hammered silver coins,we all do it in various ways,but i guess the end results are similar,if you are planning on going to Aussie land or Arizona on say a holiday then the lead/gold test would be a wise move.

The same that if you only shoot for gold nuggets then folks would not tend to use a Viccy Penny or a Eddy hammered coin for setting up a GPX,that is the type of thing that i am getting at.

I dig way too much scrap lead as it is,have had bucket loads over the years,it pays for petrol in the car but bloody heavy to carry around in your finds pouch all day

[auminesweeper]

Well I already know the TDI will see a cut half at 12 inches +/- and if they are celtic bronze/copper coins then you can add a bit more to that and seeing as Celtic Gold Staters contain a lot of copper then you can maybe add an inch possibly 2 inches, But it will see them a bit further than the cut halfs Ok

See I didn't leave you out of it, I wouldn't forget my Mate, I am not that mean,

john

[DDancer]

So your making a statement for mass verses volumetric size between lead and gold?  Personally I go with volumetric size if your going to test between the two objects.  Surface area has more to do with an item being detected more so than mass does.  Two objects of the same volume with similar conductivity will give similar results.  A larger less dense object with similar mass of a smaller denser object will read before the smaller target due to less volume to interact with the detector.  My thought.

[auminesweeper]

4 minutes ago, DDancer said:

So your making a statement for mass verses volumetric size between lead and gold?  Personally I go with volumetric size if your going to test between the two objects.  Surface area has more to do with an item being detected more so than mass does.  Two objects of the same volume with similar conductivity will give similar results.  A larger less dense object with similar mass of a smaller denser object will read before the smaller target due to less volume to interact with the detector.  My thought.

What I am saying is because detectors respond to physical mass, Because if I had a 0.3 gm Gold nugget and a piece of lead that was the same physical size then they would both respond similar but if I had an 0.3gm Gold Nugget and a 0.3gm Lead nugget the signal would be stronger on the 0.3 Lead nugget because it is Physically bigger, Yes ??

john

[DDancer]

Yes however that's why I used the term volumetric, or total size.  Sorry volumetric is my 5 dollar word for the day ;)  Volume, size, and mass, density, are two different things and that is what I was reading in your thought.  I, personally, have to keep them seperate because a thousand pounds of feathers has the same mass, density as a thousand pounds of peanuts but alot more volume, size.

Detectors respond to total size fairly equally for items of similar composition. Your point of .3 lead to .3 gold in terms of size/volume is well taken. Mass, density or weight are not factored when the point is size/volume of the target.  Overall your statements good but I guess I'm getting into the semantics to much.  Sorry.

[auminesweeper]

4 minutes ago, DDancer said:

Yes however that's why I used the term volumetric, or total size.  Sorry volumetric is my 5 dollar word for the day ;)  Volume, size, and mass, density, are two different things and that is what I was reading in your thought.  I, personally, have to keep them seperate because a thousand pounds of feathers has the same mass, density as a thousand pounds of peanuts but alot more volume, size.

Detectors respond to total size fairly equally for items of similar composition. Your point of .3 lead to .3 gold in terms of size/volume is well taken. Mass, density or weight are not factored when the point is size/volume of the target.  Overall your statements good but I guess I'm getting into the semantics to much.  Sorry.

No need to be sorry mate,

I was doing some testing today and I used some tiny bits of lead and one bit was so tiny and one of my machines could not see it so I squashed it flat and BANG there it was, thinner than a piece of paper but loud as all heck, So I then made some more bits around 0.012 grams without squashing them and my machine was seeing them at about an inch and a half so then I got to thinking about people saying about using lead as a substitute for testing a coils nugget hunting ability  and then the Cogs got going so I did a search on lead and Gold and I saw the weights of the 2 compared to their size and one thing led to another and this is where I ended up at.

I had read on other forum that people were saying that lead sounds louder than gold when they posted the weights So then I got to thinking and worked out why,  Because that test piece that is lead weighing 0.012 grams or 0.2 grains, If it was Gold and equal in Size would weigh 0.022 grams which it was seeing and about an inch and a half, which is not bad for a VLF.

Remembering that there are 480 grains to an Ounce and it is seeing 0.2 grains.

john

[Steve Herschbach]

Lead or aluminum make good gold substitutes, but I have never heard anyone suggest that it would be by equivalent weight. Obviously a piece of gold and a piece of aluminum of the same weight would be different sizes. The idea would be to forget weight and simply use similar size objects. Even then only for rough comparison

I can assure you when testing nuggets no two are exactly alike anyway. Two nuggets of exactly the same weight can have dramatically different results based on purity and shape.

[auminesweeper]

No Steve neither have I, It was because some one posted that lead was louder and the fact that I always weigh the test bits that I use and then I realized that I had Adjust the weights because by going on weight alone I was ending up with bits that were physically bigger so I found that I had to Divide one or multiply the other by 1.6992 to make the result more accurate,

and that figure comes from one cubic cm of Gold weighing 19.32grams and divide it by the weight of one cubic cm of lead  being 11.37grams which equals 1.69920, and that figure relates to the size or weight of only these two metals in relation to each other, For testing purposes only.

John  

[Norvic]

Crikey, this thread is a tear jerker, I read any more I`ll have to send ya`s some of the real stuff. Only joking!!!!!!!