A "holy Grail" In Jewelry Hunting Has Been Achieved!

[Digalicious]

1 hour ago, strick said:

 

I am able to call out can slaw most of the time...am I fooling myself by sayin that? maybe and maybe not due to the odds that finding can slaw are greater then good targets in most situations... But a small piece of can slaw can TID the same as a gold ring...which is why I dig most non ferrous targets when hunting...

strick 

Hi Strick.

When you say you can call out larger can slaw most of the time, are you suggesting that is due to TT or the intensity / loudness of the audio, the ID, the pinpoint size? 

 

[Kostas 13]

To be perfectly precise, multi-scan geophysical devices can render a buried structure in 3D with relative accuracy, but by no means can render the small objects of our hobby. I mention two examples of an ancient settlement using a cesium magnetometer and a wooden boat with the georadar method.

[Steve Herschbach]

21 minutes ago, Digalicious said:

Or running in pinpoint mode?

Either way though, that method would be fine for distinguishing between coin sized objects and objects such as nails / large pieces of metal, but all the coin sized objects would look the same. Correct?

Yes, and it’s not fast. You have to scan every square inch and analyze what you are seeing, which will be a lot messier than cherry picked promotional photos. A nail on end will look like a coin. A coin on edge might look like a hairpin or small nail. I doubt there is enough resolution to see a hole in a pull tab or washer. If you can’t hear the hole, you won’t see the hole. It’s just mapping the audio to a screen.

The downfall will be efficiency. You’ll never get anywhere or cover any ground in a trashy park type scenario. The Invenio is far better suited for archeology oriented site survey type scenarios.

[Digalicious]

Well, it looks like the Invenio isn't going to be the answer for jewelry hunters.

I guess one could always go into a park, dig up an area to 12" deep, lay down a metal plate, put the dirt back in, then use an x-ray machine. Repeat as necessary. Problem solved!

[strick]

7 hours ago, Digalicious said:

Hi Strick.

When you say you can call out larger can slaw most of the time, are you suggesting that is due to TT or the intensity / loudness of the audio, the ID, the pinpoint size? 

 

TT size and irregularity plus the audio which helps indicate the size of the target...this is only for larger pieces of can slaw...the smaller ones that read into the teens are harder to distinguish. I only use the PP for smaller deeper targets. Most of the can slaw I dig is not super deep like the coins are. 

strick 

[Digalicious]

3 hours ago, strick said:

TT size and irregularity plus the audio which helps indicate the size of the target...this is only for larger pieces of can slaw...the smaller ones that read into the teens are harder to distinguish. I only use the PP for smaller deeper targets. Most of the can slaw I dig is not super deep like the coins are. 

strick 

Thank you for the explanation.

Aluminum (be it caps, pull tabs, foil, or slaw), always has, and always will be, the bane of my jewelry hunter existence. I know I'm not alone on that 😉. That bane is not only due to the massive amount and variety of aluminum in the ground, but also the fact that it usually gives perfect tones, and rock solid single IDs. About the only type of aluminum that can be avoided when jewelry hunting is large can slaw that isn't too deep. Reason being, it will produce a booming tone, and also produce a long tone in pinpoint mode. Too bad that slaw scenario is rare compared to all the other aluminum trash.

So, getting back to slaw or any aluminum for that matter. I see three general  identification scenarios:


1) The aluminum trash gives a single ID. TT would show a perfect circle. 

2) The aluminum trash has two adjacent ID's (let's say 20 and 21). TT shows an oval.

3) The aluminum trash has separated ID's (let's say 20, 29, and 32. TT shows 3 separated circles.

Now the problem is, gold jewelry comes in so many different shapes, sizes, karats, and alloys, that it produces the same identification results as all the various aluminum trash. As such, I fail to see how TT would provide any advantage to a jewelry hunter.

 

 

[strick]

15 hours ago, Digalicious said:

So, getting back to slaw or any aluminum for that matter. I see three general  identification scenarios:


1) The aluminum trash gives a single ID. TT would show a perfect circle. 

2) The aluminum trash has two adjacent ID's (let's say 20 and 21). TT shows an oval.

3) The aluminum trash has separated ID's (let's say 20, 29, and 32. TT shows 3 separated circles.

Now the problem is, gold jewelry comes in so many different shapes, sizes, karats, and alloys, that it produces the same identification results as all the various aluminum trash. As such, I fail to see how TT would provide any advantage to a jewelry hunter.

 

 

Identification of any target with the M-Core is through the digging process as it has been with any metal detector that I have ever used. For instance a quarter may read a 95 on a VLF detector. I in my collection of finds I have a gold nugget that also reads and sounds like a quarter on most the VLF's I've used. I mentioned TT size and irregularity in my post above as the M Core does not just produce perfectly round and oval shapes as you eluded to in your 3 scenarios. You would have to use the machine and dig many hundreds of targets and see for yourself. That being said I disagree with your jury verdict that the TT is not a useful addition when performing analysis of targets..I'm not going to go into any more details as I have many better things to do then debate with people I don't know about things they may or may not know on the internet..no offense intended 🙂

strick 

[Digalicious]

No offence taken Strick.

It's your prerogative not to elaborate, but to be clear, my assertion was in direct regard to the ability or inability of TT to distinguish between gold jewelry and various aluminum trash, not targets in general, or ferrous targets for that matter. With that said, if someone has valid arguments against my points in my previous post, I most certainly would love to hear them.

Regarding the nonferrous axis of TT:

For the nonferrous targets, I'm not seeing anything other than dots or a combination of dots, which depending on the ID / IDs, may end up looking like an oval, or an elongated oval. 

 

[Steve Herschbach]

We get it Dig, you think visual displays are useless for jewelry hunters. Personally, I fail to see how having more information in any form is a bad thing, but to each his own. If you don’t like visual displays, don’t use them. But no reason that I can see to try and convince everyone they are useless. That is not a lot different from people trying to prove they are the holy grail. The truth is in the middle, as is normally the case. It’s just a tool being offered and it’s a bit early to say that no jewelry hunter under any circumstances anywhere in the world can’t have a use for the thing. One thing for sure is that if a person is convinced of something in advance and does not even try, the result is preordained.

[abenson]

I haven't read this whole thread but I can tell you that TT can tell irregular shaped targets from round targets. I've called it many times while I've been hunting with the Manticore. Can slaw is especially evident on TT. Doesn't work on deep targets but it does work on targets down to about 5".