|
|
#51
02-02-2007, 04:37 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I would suggest that we are metering an emenating "field" rising from a target element to the surface of land, or water, and measurable above the earth in mass to at least 3,000 feet above the surface of the earth. So, it is emanating from the target element, but it is not produced by it. You talk in obscure riddles while saying .... nothing.
__________________
HH Rudy, MXT, HeadHunter Wader Do or do not. There is no try. Yoda 
|
|
#52
02-02-2007, 05:25 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
The answer is: It depends on what type of behavior or property you are measuring. If you are trying measure its electrical properties, like resitivity, yes, it would change given enough time, the presence of other chemicals, temperature and water. The gold could undergo a chemical reaction and form salts or other complexes and the resitivity would change. Could you detect this change via remote (from far away) means? Possible but doubtful. Simply, there is too much other material in the way which would mask this change. You certainly could do a chemical assay of samples in a lab, but it hardly qualifies as remote sensing. If you are trying to measure the "ionic" field remotely, the answer is no. For every electron that the gold ion has given up, there is a corresponding excess electron in the anion the gold cation is associated with. From a distance of several molecular diameters away, there is no measurable field. Quite simply, the "+" field of the gold ion is cancelled out by the "-" field of the associated cation forming the molecule. Could you stimulate the gold electromagnetically by pumping energy into the ground? Certainly, that is how MDs work. The question is, how deep? Here there are two issues: One is how much signal reaches back at you? The signal strength from the target propagates in all directions, not just in the direction of the detector. As such, the signal wavefront is spherical in nature and therefore the strength follows the inverse square law. One would be temtped to boost the amount of energy pumped into the ground to increased the strength of the received signal. The problem is that it is not just the gold that is reacting to the signal. All the minerals present react as well, so the "signal to noise" ratio is not improved. Kind of like driving through thick fog at night with the hi-beams on in the hope of seing better. Wether you use a VLF type technique to look at the target's resistance and permeability, or a PI, it is the same problem. You can tell that there are a lot of minerals present, but how to isolate the gold from it? Quote:
__________________
HH Rudy, MXT, HeadHunter Wader Do or do not. There is no try. Yoda
|
|
#53
02-02-2007, 08:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you Rudy, but what I was driving at was not only for LRLs, also for all kind of detectors that being produced for treasure hunting purpose: dowsing rods, LRLs, MDs, GPRs or even Polaroid cameras.
one of them is OKM products that claim are GPR and we just know are surface field sensors not real GPR. As I remember some guys here like me, Robert have used these detectors and believed they never work. I remember this from Robert about OKM future 2005 :" it just sucks" or other guy here that had buried a big iron barrel at 150 Cm depth, but got no signal. I know some other users in Europe( like England) have got no satisfying results and dislike these detectors. as another side other users in other part of world are very satisfied.(am not making story) what's the real factor for these differences? weather and soil conditions? or not, a simple answer; there is no precious object they expect or other answer in backstage? as Max mentioned it's impossible to detect 12 medium size gold coins at 3.4 m and there is no device be able to do this job. and me thought so. and I think what is being seen in Polaroid pictures or what mineoro guys claim about emanating field can be true, otherwise what can cause one small earring be detectable at 140 Cm? sometimes facts are another things in reverse side of we think, then we conclude should wash our eyes and watch from other side and angle. and reach to this point; maybe field experiences have supremacy to some scientific analysis (as Max mentioned too) I put here my compatriot comments in PDF file for open-minded people just for think and reach to appropriate location for assessments.
|
|
#54
02-02-2007, 09:43 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I appreciate your experimenting and your way of testing different devices. let's talk about: "Sure I found old buried metal (copper, bronze, silver and gold) with base open system, microvoltmeter." well, under particular conditions, some ionization could happen, as I've told some posts ago - also some spectral emission could appear but in any case the target must be in a hi energized state. Physics books call them (for ionizing) "ionization energy" and (for internal jumps of electrons in outer orbitals) "energy pumping" process , "energy pumping" is a term used in laser slang and the principle is the same of hot spectroscopy using spectrometers...or also in a neon tube or in a mercury vapour lamp...or whatever (there are a number of things out there using the same stuff) --> one has to feed-in energy to make energetic "jumps" of electrons happen So, if the detector don't send any radiation to the target (RX only) and is a simple microvoltmeter or electrometer, the supposed electric field present must originate from natural sources. Possible, but not really probable. So then, if an electric field was generated we have another problem, as Rudy, already explained: "Could you detect this change via remote (from far away) means? Possible but doubtful." "If you are trying to measure the "ionic" field remotely, the answer is no. For every electron that the gold ion has given up, there is a corresponding excess electron in the anion the gold cation is associated with. From a distance of several molecular diameters away, there is no measurable field. Quite simply, the "+" field of the gold ion is cancelled out by the "-" field of the associated cation forming the molecule." Well, could some ion migration happen ? The answer is yes. Free electrons can move but some kind of electric/magnetic force must be present here. The problem is that electrons here are not in a vacuum tube and they are sorrounded by ground, so the scenario is too complex to end up with a simple detection schema. BUT Why a ionizing radiation, say natural gamma-ray from some radioisotope underground would produce only gold or copper ionization, leaving any other thing sorrounding not ionized ??? Things don't work like this. If a radiation ionize gold atoms is hi-probable that many other stuff near gold are ionized too (or simply molecules break, like someone DNA). To simplify words (I'll try to) is the same as you experience ionization and electrostatic fields near your old TV tube after use and disconnected from mains... your hairs are actrated ??? if you put pieces of paper are they attracted ??? if you put say a small wood piece suspended by a spider web, is this attracted ??? if you put a leaf electrometer --> what do the leafs - actracted each other ??? or deflected.... if you put in front of the tube your detector it say that there would be gold inside your old TV tube ??? Would mean: everything that has a static charge interact with your ionized TV tube, and any static field present (not only on metals) can be detected this way. X-Ray emission is shielded but not enough to avoid this...gold detection. So what one have to do ??? Digging the old TV for gold ??? Unfortunately, that's not a good idea, I think. But can change your life, too.  Returning serious: "Round objects better!!! I conclude that the round objects "don't looses" the electric field easily regarding the form, the same effect you see in spheres, wich acquires charge and don't loose easily. This is in concordance with science." Regarding the form ??? Ah, you maybe mean that sharp rods due to the charge density gradient tend to behave different...simple words : charge is the same but more charges in a small surface area makes more "concentration" then major "interactions": like anti-lightening stuff. If it is so you are right. But the spere is in the ground here and no ionization is probable. Any discharge path is possible in ground - we have no insulated metallic spheres. I think the purpose of Mineoro's so-called "ion-chamber" , visible in Aleximex's posts pictures, is the like...a sort of spark gap with a sharp "injector" : but what it serves for ??? amplifing electrical noise ??? Mr. Hertz would disapprove this. Then "How I can demonstrate that the phenomenom is electric? Simple: if i shortcircuit the field, signal vanishes: " uhm If I understand what's in your post... if you have a conductor forming a short turn you have a coil and if in that coil some current flows, you have a magnetic dipole. Just why the signal have to vanish ??? What's the interaction between a (potential) mag dipole and the supposed "electric field around conductive items buried for long time" ??? Your operator shorts the turn, then what ??? If a static field was present before shorting it'll be present after. So, I think you detect not the supposed static field, but a magnetic interaction of the "coil" with external magnetic radiating field (e.g. a radio station). A small current flows in the coil , then the amplitude of the signal decrease in the "rear" : it actually works much like a shield versus your broadband amplifier antennas. I call it broadband amp becouse your microvoltmeter need hi-amplification (say 1000000) and (must) have a large passband. Also your antenna set seems omnidirectional. I want to say I appreciate you experiments in lr detection, but I think more physics is needed to end up with a working long range detection system. --- About Mineoro stuff i think: if Mineoro's units work (don't know) it is not by electrometers, infrared, radiations, ions. It'll becoming a restaurant menu list. Best regards, Max
|
|
#55
02-02-2007, 10:31 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
In fact for small objects, if a hole is partly digged, it's necessary to wait about 30 seconds for it to show up again. Body charges come into play here. Quote:
Quote:
--- Quote:
Regards.
|
|
#56
02-02-2007, 10:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
don't want you to upset. And for why...just for some physics? Maybe my ideas doesn't care for you but facts remains facts, anyway you swim around them. Why don't you or any other win the $50.000 prize Carl gently offers ? I just want to echange some informations. Nothing more. So, turning back to the real problem, I see on a czech web site this: eXp 5000 for only 14.999 Eur Do you think it works for the user? Because for the seller it works for sure. And also for the manifacturer (OKM). No dubt. Best regards, Max
|
|
#57
02-02-2007, 01:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi Michael,
"maybe field experiences have supremacy to some scientific analysis (as Max mentioned too)" I've just said that "...also that good metal detecting is a practice related task. In future we'll discover new facts about physics or other sciences. This don't mean that so-called-alternative science are all right or bad or nothing but commercial. But without scientific evidences one cannot say - so a faith act must be performed." It's different. Instead of what someone says, I think I'm open minded. Just I want that these eventual new discoveries become scientific facts before call them 'science'. No alternative science exist - only science. "Alternative" would mean: I can't prove that fact so belive - faith - it exist anyway with no scientific evidences. Best regards, Max
|
|
#58
02-02-2007, 03:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm explaining my experiences, sorry if my experiments is out your books. The problem is this: you pretend that this thinks must be in your books. If in the electronic courses (and physics books!) you don't find how to wind different kinds of coil and less how to build a metal detector (the books only refers types of detectors and functionment principles), of course is very far the possibility of long range detection. More: An only walkthrough metal detector schematic you can't find in this important site. Another thing: I'm speaking about an inherent electric field. The instant pulse ampliffier you need is more than 1,000,000 times. But if you study in old books you can find many things no present in "modern" books. (Also primitive induce high voltage PI detection since 1850.) Most of us here are reinventing the wheel and rediscovering the fire.
Other possibilitties are: detection via normal detector as long range (coil system), infrared, ultrasonic, radio, electric and radio prospecting: Special articles and bulletins on electrical prospecting - Electric waves to locate metals, Engineering and Minning Journal-Press, New York, June 13, 1925 - The search for covered orebodies, Technical Engineering News, Cambridge, Mass., January 1925 - Notes on Scientific Prospecting, Mountain States Mineral Age, Tabor Bldg., Denver, Colorado, February 1924 - Prospecting by radio, Engineering and Minning Journal-Press, New York, November 1924 - Geophysical Methods of Prospecting, Technical Paper 420, U.S. Bureau of Mines - Geophysical Prospecting: Some Electrical Methods, Technical Paper 434, U.S. Bureau of Mines - Geophysical Methods of Prospecting, by C. A. Heiland, Quarterly of the Colorado School of Mines, Vol. XXIV, Nº 1 Respect the challenge, I'm not playing in this style. We are speaking in different languages. 
|
|
#59
02-02-2007, 06:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I have already said that I respect your work, your experiments, your passion so I respect you. I'm sorry too that some stuff is not in my books and don't want to be offensive to anyone here but I'm trying to rationally apply to this topic of remote sensing - "ion" detectors in this thread. I've just used maybe too humor to relax the discussion a bit. I'm this way. "The problem is this: you pretend that this thinks must be in your books." I don't pretend nothing but understanding if that stuff out there works and how. Because it costs. Costs many thousand dollars and sells and claims is capable to find gold a kilometer underground. Is that not important ? If so, I can also stop writing here and do anything else. Costs nothing. To answer : Obviusly, no physics book can tell anyone how to make an md coil or a pulse induction circuit. This is not the point Esteban. Physics books teach physics, so principles: application is a completely different story. So maybe we can assume that this topic of constructing/experimenting with electronic circuits is covered in electronics books, magazines, articles or any other kind of pubblication out there regarding electronics not physics, including this forum. Maybe EE books don't explain how to make a pulse induction but all electronics is a too big universe for a kind of book. Maybe many of these lectures are required to make just a simple circuit to be tuned properly. I own a lot of these. Read all of them. And physics also. And more and more - but this is not the point again, Esteban. The point is: this stuff works ??? if so, how ??? With pseudo-ion- chambers ??? Nothing else. "How" would mean that someone have to explain, in a scientific way, "how". If you say "how metal detector works ?" there are explainations that make sense in physics terms. Also for resistivity meters, magnetometers, GPR, side-sonars etc etc So how ??? Mineoro, for instance, we see Aleximex posts and pictures and so ??? What's that stuff for ??? A PVC pipe is the magic sensor ??? I would understand, if it works, how. Someone can explain ? There will be some kind of physics , or not ? It's so hard to explain in a rational, educated, physical way ? I've tryed to follow your experiments explaination just to understand the big picture of what happeng e.g. shorting the turn etc in a scientific way. "Another thing: I'm speaking about an inherent electric field. The instant pulse ampliffier you need is more than 1,000,000 times. But if you study in old books you can find many things no present in "modern" books. (Also primitive induce high voltage PI detection since 1850.) Most of us here are reinventing the wheel and rediscovering the fire. " Don't know these but I'll take a look. Also at "Special articles and bulletins on electrical prospecting". I own also old books but...someone say there, not too far ago, that lead can mutate in gold. Others that say you can put asbestos in your mouth to seal teeth-holes. Yes. We are in 2007 now - and some physics (and medicine) are far ahead. Rediscovering the fire ? Why ? Would be an unuseful discovery. Someone else has the patent (prometeus). Maybe you mean discovering something hidden or misunderstud. If it so, good luck. Best regards, Max
|
|
#60
02-02-2007, 08:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Old burried gold
In past times there was not so much trouble from Dicky Spy’s. They just could not operate so easily as they do today. But they were about as can be seen by the streaks
On many old photographs. I did a lot of photography in the past and did not realize till many years later that it was the pesky Dicky Spy’s that were causing the streaks on otherwise good photographs. Now days I like to search for gold using the FG80 long range locator. But the large number of Dicky Spy’s in Europe are making these devices unusable. I have not had any signals at all for months. To be honest I have never had a signal. Unless something can be done about D/S I can see no future for long range locating in Europe.
|
|
#61
02-03-2007, 09:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I had lot of experience with old photographics paper too and had a number of "spots" and "shapes" on , but simply because of the process. I never found anything following a spot in a photo. Don't think anyone can do. It's the same on TV shows where someone say "hey! this is the gost of Mr. Nicola Tesla in this photo" - and the table bumps - and the like. I don't know if any kind of (new or non science recognized) energy could be radiate by an object - say a gold bar. For me, this kind of "reading" is like to guess numbers to win the yearly lottery, unless someone with a good, rational, scientific explaination gives it sense if any. I've read something about Kirlian's effect on some books. Also that it was lot of experiments in the soviet union on the topic. Where west-world ever dislike to treat Tesla stuff in scientific consideration but for only some few patents and magnetic units. There is a reason: some Tesla stuff is not scientific at all and will never work. Let's back to Kirlian. Here a kind of generator (tesla like) radiates rf waves in the air, using a continuos Hi-voltage spark, like a lightening, then the object (that can be also a human being), re-irradiate its own Kirlian pattern (so called "aura") outside and a camera can photograph the pattern. But then no one say that is an harmful and dangerous procedure, that everything radiate an "aura" outside, that no discrimination is possible, that patterns are not predictable, etc etc etc is like an UV photography of your face (those whatching BBC knows what I say). So, I think this kind of stuff it's a kind of magic if intended to find something (or someone). Like (at the moment) dowsing. Like LRL in general. Like remote-vision. Like other magic of crystals... I'm skeptic in LRL, Mineoro etc etc etc because they seems (for my understanding) poor electronics with no apparent sense but earning money from some enthusiast new-age fellow. If anyone can explain scientifically if any device work and how I'll change my point of view. I'm open minded. But, seems that no one untill now can explain nothing in a rational and scientifical way on these topics of "remote sensing". At least, Kirlian's effect is real though unuseful! Everyone can experiment with a bunch of cables, coils, mosfets, TS555 and a stupid (now useless also) polaroid. One can see the light ! "I have not had any signals at all for months. To be honest I have never had a signal. " If these are the results, I hope you don't bought this Mineoro-FG80 ! Best regards, Max
|
|
#62
02-03-2007, 06:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dobler's stuff
Hi all,
I've read about Dobler studies at http://www.rexresearch.com/dobler/dobler.htm for those interested in the topic I've matured a possible conclusion about. At first I had some dubts but then following the test procedures...uhm Let's explain. he said in his work (year 1934) called "Physical & Photographic Proof of Radiation from the Earth Solution to the Problem of Divining Rods " this: " (1) Photographic Proof of the Radiation of Underground Watercourses In order to prove the origin of the sensitive bands, the radiation of underground watercourse photographically, I performed the following test: On the drilled Rohrbach source that was already mentioned, I placed photographic plates 18 m deep in the earth, but could not determine any sort of general density after their development. Only at once place of the developed plates for all the exposures could some small dark points be seen. For a long time I could not explain the appearance of these points. It could not have been a defect in the plates because the points could be seen in different forms on the plates. Finally I found a solution to the puzzle. I had used a double cassette for the exposures, whose dividing wall consisted of an enameled aluminum plate. There, where the noticeable points were found, the lacquered electroplating of the aluminum was damaged through the insertion of the plates. The bare aluminum had affected the photographic plates when they were placed over the underground watercourse. Further test showed that the density did not occur when the same cassette was stored with the photographic plate in the darkroom; here the radiation of the underground watercourse was not suspended. ..." and so a lot of tests that seems indicate some kind of revealing due (he said) to rf generated by water micro-wirlpools and hits underground. Assuming the material there on rexresearch is authentic and also translation in english is well done, and that Dr. Dobler was intellectual honest --> something must have to produce the white strips in his photographic plates. But what ? the water (*) itself ? I think the response is, in this specific case (*), yes. The experiments were done with thin emulsion photographic plates and strip of metals, expecially aluminium. Aluminium was coated with a kind of enamel also. Only edges of aluminium strips were bare. It was putted on the plate and then plate and strip were covered with black paper so as to make them lightproof. Then placing a test plate near the water flow at different distancies and another reference plate, prepared in the same way, in a darkroom far from the water source. Well, a suitable testing method. Seems he gets some interesting plates there, with strange strips that impress the plates near the, both, underground flowing and above the surface water flow. Leaving 24hours or so a kind of reaction occourred, marking the white strips in correspondance of the bare edges of the aluminum strip. I think it was possible and that experiments can be preformed to confirms that this behaviour can be detected in similar conditions. How ? Scientifically ? Here is my hypothesis: 1. local water there in Heilbronn, Germany could be contamained by radon gas (Rn), the region there is famous for thermal activity and salts mines - Rn-gas is a strong gamma-rays emitter - and it's infrequent that Rn could be found in thermal water (it also happens in commercial mineral water) 2. Dr. Dobler maybe don't know that Rn was present underground or near the surface diffused by water were he did his experiments (Rn is really heavy gas) 3. Rn gamma-ray emission is strong and also "few" particles of gas can produce a photographic reaction (some dosimeters works like this) 4. some kind of interaction appears to make "density" anomaly at bare edges of the aluminum strip For point nr. 4 I think gamma rays ionized some aluminum atoms and charge diffusion appears in the aluminum (free electrons), so sharp bare edges act there as an electric lens, due to the higher charge density, to deflect some beta emission also present for same reasons (water flows contamained by small ammounts of radioactive elements) or by secondary radiations induced by gamma rays. This could explain why inner aluminum does not exibit concentration in white spots, and why instead these white spots and stripes are in correspondance of the edges of the aluminum strip. Radon was discovered in 1898 but its presence was unknown in natural water till 50's because it was considered only a rare radium ore subproduct at that time and in 30's. Does it could makes sense now ? It's better than say , in physics terms, "water wirlpools caused this..." (hey!). (*) means not the water itself only do this stuff...but some radon or other atoms-molecules-ions transported by the water flow. This, anyway, doesn't mean that natural radiations, where present, could be used to find anything underground as already known. Best regards, Max
|
|
#63
02-04-2007, 01:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is simple. Hung, Dell and all other believers should get a three-month visa and bring their LRLs here to Australia. If these gadgets work as well as they say then they will go home rich. There is an enormous amount of ground here that should have gold nuggets of 50 ounce upwards. Bucket dredges have worked large flat plains but the overhead sent them broke. These dredges often encountered extraordinary rich pockets of gold and were still doing this up until they shut down. If you could pinpoint these relatively shallow pockets then you would be rich as you wouldn't need to run the dredge on all of the unpayable ground in-between. We have an enormous area here that is covered in bulldust and rich deposits are only discovered if a large tree is uprooted in a storm, revealing the gold bearing ore in the roots. Some large mines in Victoria encounter masses of gold worth $300,000 when simply putting in an access drive. You could get rich alone by picking the ones they miss. The mine owners would pay you a fortune!
It's rather cruel that Australian advertising and retail law prohibits the sale of these devices here.  The "Hand Of Faith" nugget was only six inches deep and would have been a snap! Trees get blown over in our vast desert areas and the roots reveal vast rich gold deposits hidden by a 4' layer of dust. A plumber digs a ditch and finds a 150-ounce nugget. A farmer digs a new dam and detectors bring up numerous nuggets up to 118 ounces. A new road gets put in and detector operators get hundreds of ounces from what are often shallow scrapings. Wet claims in rich areas reveal extremely rich pockets of coarse gold in ground only 8' deep but the strip ratio makes it unprofitable. I can't understand why the owners of these units (and the inventor) aren't here instead of looking for a jar full of old coins?  Puzzled Rob.
|
|
#64
02-04-2007, 02:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Actually Robby, my products were permitted to advertise in Australia. One small mining company would send me photos of Gem stones they were recovering located with a Frequency Discriminator. Another customer visiting Australia sent me a photo of a 14 oz. gold nugget he found.
"What has been done, can be done" Dell
|
|
#65
02-04-2007, 05:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Robby,
you are right! If I'm would be an inventer/manufacturer of a device that really works and can find gold, I would not advertise it. I would not try to convince people to buy it. I would do out and dig for the treasure myself. Australia is known for gold nuggets and this would be the first place I go. Only if I know that I try to sell a "dream" I would advertise for it...and wait until I sell a unit to a dreamer. Chris
|
|
#66
02-04-2007, 10:29 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi Robby and Chris (and hi Dell too),
I agree with the idea that anyone out there having such a detector don't need at all to convince someone to buy one. "If I'm would be an inventer/manufacturer of a device that really works and can find gold, I would not advertise it. I would not try to convince people to buy it. I would do out and dig for the treasure myself. Australia is known for gold nuggets and this would be the first place I go." Yes. Absolutely. I totally agree. I think Australia is the best place on the Earth for a passioned THer.  Not hystorical/human made stuff, yeah, but a lot of minerals to play with... gold deposits, gems, etc a very good place for any geo-degree also and for those that loves nature and open spaces. Anyway, I think these devices don't work but can't say for sure. I think most of them are simply broadband amplifiers that actually detects nothing or anything, making them unuseful in treasure hunting (and in anything else). I'm interested in OKM claims at now. Read some documentation and their products seem something better than "gold-pistols". Anyway, they claim their products have GPR, but I don't know how a ground pen. radar can fit into a small and light detector like they say. I think there isn't any radar at all in OKMs, but like someone wrote only mag and other "anomaly" revealers plus a pulse induction md. I'm interested but really skeptic on "remote sensing" topic. OKM seems, for some aspects, to fall into remote sensing too. Too long unexplained detection range. Too unexplained discrimination of metals. I don't belive they can work like claimed. Are they selling dreams ? For sure, if I have to spend 14.999eur for a piece of electronics that finds only ratholes...well it could be a nightmare! Someone said they don't work like claimed so I think my wallet will remain closed for OKM, at least untill they really say what's inside the box - the truth I mean -. When these manifactures are pushed on technologies they say "own proprietary technology - can't talk about" or "dobler's waves" or "ulf detector" or anything but not simply explain what's inside the box. Aleximex shows us interesting stuff - PVC handmade "ion-chamber". I prefer a small detection range metal detector that works for sure instead of an unbelivable rathole or worm (yes also worms) detector. Best regards, Max
|
|
#67
02-04-2007, 06:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I can't understand why the owners of these units (and the inventor) aren't here instead of looking for a jar full of old coins?
Puzzled Rob. Ask the same question to Mr. Fisher, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Etc.: why they don't became rich searching for jar full of coins? Are they trying another systems? In 20 years, no great advances in classical MD they achieve, maybe in design, in target shower, in "hot" search head, in bla, bla, etc. You can reduce each day the noise in op amps, but the next 20 years you can't achieve significative advances in depth. Imagine this: today you buy a "new detector", "very modern", manufactured by famous brand, but you comprobe that your old detector of "X" brand is better that you new purchases. So, are the manufacturer to defraud you? Why the manufacturer don't search in another way? Most of the jar full of coins histories are folklore, in the real life you have a very but very little possibility for to find a real treasure. And the manufacturers provide us (the dreamers) the tools for to find it.
|
|
#68
02-04-2007, 06:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
What a pity. Those Skeptics who invoke Science, hypocritically rebuke Science in the name of Skepticism, and exhibit themselves as examples of,
"THE DOOR TO KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING IS NEVER OPEN TO A CLOSED, OR PREJUDICED MIND. Dell
|
|
#69
02-04-2007, 10:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 Have you been drinking? This doesn't even make sense. Quote:
Enough said. 
|
|
#70
02-05-2007, 04:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This reads like it came out of a fortune cookie. 
__________________
HH Rudy, MXT, HeadHunter Wader Do or do not. There is no try. Yoda
|
|
#71
02-05-2007, 04:31 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
- Carl
|
|
#72
02-05-2007, 05:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carl, about iron maybe you're right, but about other objects what do you tell?
Have you taken a look at the PDF file? no doubt OKM devices are field sensors (maybe magnetometer is better phrase), but how can feel gold(of course very ancient buried)? we tell those feel fields above ground, OK, then can conclude very old buried gold definitely has a specific field? how they detect gold so well? Can we tell they detect metals much better than non-magnetic metals or for precious metals a long tome should be passed over burial? specific field as their supersensor can discriminate it. What's justification for detection one small single earring at 140 Cm or 12 medium size gold coins inside a stone at 340 Cm? Carl, do you deliberately behave selectively and omit those parts you reluct of? I mentioned producer tells these detectors can detect at least 10 Cm x 10 Cm x 30 Cm dimensions full of metal not hollow, nevertheless you see there are founds so much smaller than supposed mass!!!! Still I haven't seen convincing answer.
|
|
#73
02-05-2007, 08:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
searching for jar full of coins?
Quote:
I agree on many points here. "Ask the same question to Mr. Fisher, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Etc.: why they don't became rich searching for jar full of coins?" Yes, true. But conventional metal detectors are not claimed to find gold or anything at greater depth. Best results are with pulse induction but a pi can't "really" discriminate between gold and other metals (but just make good guessing by multi-frequency and software). But these detectors actually detect metals, though at low depth and with limited discrimination. Manifacturers know their products limitations and also push on "false" advertising. why they don't became rich searching for jar full of coins? YES: this is the point. Because they don't sell a general purpose long range gold detector --> if they have one I think they liked to find gold and treasures directly not to sell anything to others. They know their machines can enrich (for sure) them only by selling to THs community. Is like with the "old West gold run" or "Klondicke -write right ?- gold run" --> many searchers never found any big ammount of gold, just only few grams, and who enrich were (for sure) who selled showels and pickaxes or any other "product" and "service" to the THs community there. "Are they trying another systems? In 20 years, no great advances in classical MD they achieve, maybe in design, in target shower, in "hot" search head, in bla, bla, etc. You can reduce each day the noise in op amps, but the next 20 years you can't achieve significative advances in depth." Yes, true. Op amp ar fairly less noisy vs old fashioned uA709 or similar. Achieving significative advances in depth is not linearly related to op-amp noise. We must consider sinal-to-noise ratio: if noise reduce one could think s/n improve and that's true, but unfortunately, with conventional mds, signal strenght reduces by non linear relation with distance from the target. So one must put enormous signals to reach some inches deeper targets, as you already know. Even mounting very low noise amplifiers. R/D is difficault when one have to do with exponential signal attenuation. Simply, this technology can't be pushed ahead with conventional newer electronics only. R/D costs a lot and I think they don't want to waste huge ammount of money where they already know that are huge limitations and they can continue selling actual mds. If someone doesn't break the wall with a new kind of promising technology they wouldn't play any role making new stuff. " Imagine this: today you buy a "new detector", "very modern", manufactured by famous brand, but you comprobe that your old detector of "X" brand is better that you new purchases. So, are the manufacturer to defraud you? Why the manufacturer don't search in another way?" Actually yes, if they claim impossible results with newer machines. But many of these just talk generically of improvements! So, generally speaking, they don't. Searching in another way ? I think they've tested a huge number of LRL and endly convinced that this technology doesn't work or doesn't suitable in their "brand" detectors. Their stuff MUST work - even at low depth - because they have a NAME/BRAND to defend. I think they prefer staying with what they already have and just follow the components evolution -e.g. microprocessors and dsp-. "Most of the jar full of coins histories are folklore, in the real life you have a very but very little possibility for to find a real treasure. And the manufacturers provide us (the dreamers) the tools for to find it." Yes, true. It's really low probable that one TH find a treasure like "a jar of coins". But I know many (10+) in UK find these (big) jars, with ancient silver and gold roman coins: I know that someone sell them (10000+) to the British Museum (London) based on what the Treasure Act law tell about. Discoveries near the Adrian's "Wall" are frequent. Many discoveries were with simple and old VLF mds. Anyone can confirm ? And yes, true, I think most of us are dreamers. Dreams cost nothing. Best regards, Max
|
|
#74
02-05-2007, 08:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Hi Michael, if your data are exact I think it was not an MD but something between a mag and an anomaly revealer. I wrote about possible anomalies in a previous post. " mentioned producer tells these detectors can detect at least 10 Cm x 10 Cm x 30 Cm dimensions full of metal not hollow, nevertheless you see there are founds so much smaller than supposed mass!!!!" It depends on many factors: e.g. for a pi detector is not different to "see" an iron thick foil (say 3mm) 10cm^2 or an iron block 10cm^2 (30mm long) exposed to induction, at say 1meter, signal is similar. What's matter is conductivity and shape/dimension seen by the coil in great depth. Pi work on eddy currents and if these can flow in a major issue is "exposed area of metal" to induction. The more the surface exposed, at same depth, the more the signal. One can experiment using a coin facing plate and border to the coil. Mass and distance is the same but signal received is less with 90 degree orientation, where is maximum with the coin facing the coil. Eddy currents are flowing in a path...so a facing coin expose more area then more possible paths, then they are stronger this way. Consider field lines parallel each other here. "What's justification for detection one small single earring at 140 Cm or 12 medium size gold coins inside a stone at 340 Cm?" But at your distances, something else be used. Don't know what. Don't know how. Best regards, Max
|
|
#75
02-05-2007, 10:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Salesmen @ Work
Quote:
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
