|
|
#26
02-13-2011, 05:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
How ion measurement timing was made
Quote:
Very good questions! I answer both as a combination. I made the simple electrostatic detector using a jfet which is in many places on the internet. I also made the zahori circuit. I noticed with both that there was some kind of pulse so I hooked up the circuit to my oscope and could see the pulses. Walking on the carpet, running a high voltage spark generator, combing my hair (when I still had it longer), rubbing a glass rod on a cloth, etc., and for the most part the oscope pulses were within a fairly narrow range. Higher voltages seemed to be longer probably because there was more energy to dissipate so as I remember I discounted these as not as likely in nature. It seemed logical to me that when an ion decayed or combined with an opposite charge it would release a pulse of electromagnetic energy. And the oscope seemed to confirm. Then I designed a PIC program that would interface with the zahori circuit. When the PIC got an electrostatic indication from the ES circuitry, it timed the length of the pulse (PICs have some good timers) and if the pulse was within the timing window the PIC output a pulse. Basically, the PIC needs to keep reading the A2D port of the PIC and test for voltage ups to detect the pulse start and test for voltage downs to get the end of the pulse and measure time the between pulse up and pulse down. Timing is only as accurate as the PIC clock cycle time. Faster PIC clock like a crystal oscillator at 20 Mhz vs the internal PIC clock at 4 Mhz gets you to more accuracy. However, crystal oscillators also cost the circuit in battery power. I chose the 4 Mhz internal as it was accurate enough for the ion pulse width window. You can also create your own timing by counting the clock cycles taken by the PIC to do something. I did field tests and found some interesting things. One very interesting effect was that walking on rocks or sand created ionic activity that the detector would detect quite readily. So if you are walking and try to detect ions you are always going to detect ions. Another was that lots of trees and shrubs had big charges and rubbing against them cause ionic sparking. Interesting learning experience as a minimum! Goldfinder 
|
|
#27
02-13-2011, 09:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Hi goldfinder
There are two things at your last post that I don't understand completely. 1. You say that: ...One very interesting effect was that walking on rocks or sand created ionic activity that the detector would detect quite readily. So if you are walking and try to detect ions you are always going to detect ions... Well do you mean by this that you detect unwanted ions created by walking which actually is faulse indications? I am asking this because Esteban says that whith such LRLs is best when you also walk instead of only moving your hand left-right. As I understand this produces some tiny ac voltages required in order for the phenomenon to be detected. I hope I have been understandable. 2. And the second thing I don't understand is your last sentence where you say: ....Interesting learning experience as a minimum! ... What exactly do you mean when you say as a minimum? Apart from all this I believe that your idea would be best applied for TH whith Morgans antenna(mini zaxori) on it instead of the telescopic one that you used. Is this difficult for somebody to adapt in your PIC uc ion detector? Please let me know if you think different. Regards g-sani
|
|
#28
02-14-2011, 11:14 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
After hearing how you discovered the time interval to set your PIC filter to, I am beginning to wonder if this is the same kind of signal that is believed to come from long time buried gold. Let's start with the method you used to generate the pulses: You began with a static detector that could pick up electrostatic fields from a Jfet with very high amplification. And you noticed some narrow bandwidth pulses occasionally coming naturally, which could also be induced by creating static charges near the detector. Using classical electronic theory, we would recognise these pulses as very small static discharges, which may cause a change in the static voltage to drop maybe between a few hundred volts to a few thousand volts. I would think these are micro-sparks similar to the sparks you may notice snapping from your finger when you touch a door knob on a dry day after walking across a carpet. These pulses may be generated as a result of sparks or discharges that are not large enough to be seen or heard as a distinct spark like you can feel snapping at your skin. But if we were to go to a microscopic scale and observe these tiny sparks, we would see them as a miniature lightning storm with several arcs repeating in approximately the same air space where the first arc strikes, due to the more conductive air which has ionised during the spark. If I am correct, then each micro-spark will produce millions of ionised air molecules which I would think take at least several seconds to neutralise or dissipate in the non-ionised air. And the pulse would represent the detection of rapid change in the e field in front of the detector that is seen as dropping probably a few hundred volts in several closely spaced steps as each successive micro-spark happens in a cluster of sparks. When an equilibrium has been reached, the micro-sparks will stop until the static charge builds up again to start another cluster of micro-sparks. If I am correct that the narrow pulse is caused by a tiny cluster of sparks, then there is some ionisation of the air in the area of the spark, which I presume neutralises shortly after the spark is finished. The point is I am thinking you built a spark detector. It detects ions of air that were ionised during a static discharge, but the prime event your filter is detecting is the occurrence of a static discharge spark. If I am correct that you have built a static discharge pulse detector, then how does this relate to treasure hunting? Do ions from buried metal cause pulses similar to the pulses your detector captures? According to Mineoro theory, gold ions are supposed to be floating in a cloud that reaches from the ground to about 7.2 feet above the ground where treasure has been buried a long time. They claimed this cloud of gold ions is discharging, one gold atom at a time which produce pulses of femto and atto second duration. They further claimed these short duration pulses are sensed on their "sensitive electronics" (BC548 transistor). But a BC548 is a cheap general purpose transistor that cannot detect atto or femto second pulse widths - not from a single atom that loses an electron at some long range distance from the BC548 transistor. In fact a BC548 transistor cannot detect a femto or atto second pulse if you were able to inject it into the circuit that feeds the base of the transistor. In order to detect a pulse, the pulse must be of greater strength than is generated from a single atom gaining or losing an electron. A spark that causes millions of gas ions to ionise and results in a large measurable change in static voltage could be detectable, but not a single atom or a few hundred atoms changing their charge state by one electron. Anyone who has seen what components are inside the Mineoro locators knows they are not capable of detecting these short duration pulses. In fact these pulses are not detected by any LRL circuitry whether Mineoro or another brand, or home made. The reason is because circuitry to detect pulses of this duration exist only in scientific research facilities, as the cost for the apparatus to detect these pulses is beyond the reach of the average hobbyist or treasure hunter. But it would be pointless to even try to detect femto or atto second pulses from gold ions in the air, because it has been proven there are no gold ions hovering in a cloud over a buried gold treasure. And if it were possible, these ions could quickly blow away in the slightest wind, giving false treasure locations to any ion cloud detector. Also, if a metal ion cloud was able to hover in one location in the air, it would need to make a sizable spark, as happens during a static discharge to be detectable as a pulse. Single gold atoms changing their charge at random are not detectable from a remote pulse detector. So, if the Mineoro concept of gold ions is not correct, what do we know about gold ions that could be detectable? According to real scientists and companies that actually locate long-time buried gold and other minerals, gold ions will slowly form around buried gold as a result of bacteria that produce cyanide to corrode the gold surface. The aurocyanide or dicyanoaurate complex slowly migrates upward toward the surface over many years, where it has time to combine with sulphur complexes and organic acids in the soil. During this transit time there are many exchanges of electrons as the actual gold atom becomes dissociated with the complex and attaches to a different complex. Also, during this dissolution of gold, there is considerable other chemical activity, such as the formation of sodium hydroxide, for example, and the disappearance of some of the ground moisture. When the gold ions finally neutralise at the last 10-30 cm before reaching the surface of the ground they usually become attached to another gold atom in a lattice that makes up a micro gold particle, or perhaps becomes attached to a larger gold nugget or other gold object. But it has been confirmed the gold ions do not reach the surface or become airborne. The only airborne gold was found to be neutral gold particles which inhabit the air in about the same concentration as tiny gold particles in the ocean. Keep in mind, the ionic activity is happening below the ground in very weak concentrations (parts per trillion of soil material) which is barely detectable when soil samples are dug and sent to a laboratory that is equipped to titrate this weak of a solution. The good news is this weak solution of ions contains millions of gold ions which will develop into a tall column at least the diameter of the treasure and will continue upward until they neutralise within the last 10-30 cm of reaching the surface. So what do we know about buried gold ions that has been confirmed by researchers who actually measure them? A column of dissolved gold will form in the ground above a buried gold item if you wait long enough for the forces of nature to cause it to happen. The gold ions will not reach the surface or become airborne. This means you need to wait enough time for cyanide excreting bacteria to dissolve some of the gold surface. And you need to wait enough time for successive rain cycles to draw these dissolved gold ions and complexes up toward the surface through capillary action. -- (Usually over 50 years, but depends on the soil and climate). I suppose gold nuggets are some of the best candidates to form ionic activity -- they have been there for millions of years. Finally, what is detectable from these gold ions? Keep in mind, these ions are only located more than 10 cm beneath the surface of the earth, except in cases where the gold is buried shallower than the 10-30 cm. We could expect in the case of shallow buried gold that cyanide excreting bacteria could produce some gold ions at the surface of the gold. But the shallow gold ions would soon become neutralised when the complex they are attached to becomes a stable compound. We could look for some kind of electronic signal that develops as a result of gold ions forming or neutralising. But what kind of signal? A signal from the gold ions forming and collapsing? A signal from the cyanide complex reverting back to sodium cyanide? A signal from the sodium hydroxide dissipating and allowing water molecules to form? Gold ions forming and collapsing cannot be detected as a pulse because they form and collapse at random times which average out to be an electronic non-event, unlike a spark that is a detectable event. The same holds true for all the other chemical reactions related to the gold solution, and hundreds of other chemical reactions in the soil that are not related to gold. So what ionic activity can we detect from buried gold? Is it possible to create an artificial electronic disturbance to the ongoing gold ion process that will result in a measurable signal to a remote detector? Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#29
02-14-2011, 08:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I do think that what I have does measure Static Discharge which is another way of saying what I wrote. your last questions - if there is ionic activity above buried gold then there should be an electrostatic difference between the gold ion column and the surrounding area. Detecting this would be difficult as there are so many natural ion charge sources that are at the surface and I did see lots of this. That was why I ended up with the static discharge detection as I thought it might be more reliable. And other question - creating an artificial disturbance in the column of gold area - Not sure how to do that. I do know that walking on sand and rocks cause static discharge. Goldfinder
|
|
#30
02-14-2011, 08:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A column of ions = a column of electrostatic charge
JP,
This came to me on going out to water one of our big trees. The idea that the gold ions form a column of electrostatic charge offers a potential method of detection. There is an E-field vector along this column. So if we make a directional e-field detector it might be possible to detect this gold ion column along its depth. Depends n surrounding soil dampening the field to make it non-detectable. ?? And of course having a directional e-field vector detector. So what do you think of this idea? Goldfinder
|
|
#31
02-15-2011, 02:38 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The ionic activity in the ground occurs when the ground is damp or wet. This condition promotes the movement of the ions and allows the complexes to dissolve in the ground water or dampness of the soil. If you recall, dampness does not support static charges. in damp soil, we could expect any static charge that begins to build to quickly move in the conductive soil and become neutral charge. There is an exception... for completely dry sand. Hot, dry blow sand in a desert can be a good insulator if it is not mineralised, and could retain a static charge, as well as allow buried objects to retain some charge. But this is a relatively rare condition to be found except in a few locations where dry non-conductive sand is found. But most soil is damp and has some degree of mineralisation and lots of chemical reactions occurring at the same time. In these conditions, a static charge anomaly cannot build below the ground. So I expect any column of gold ions to have the same static charge as the surrounding soil. To clarify, the gold ions do have an unbalanced charge when looking only at the gold atom. But remember there is a cyanide complex molecule which has the counterbalancing charge associated with each gold atom, so the net charge is zero. It is possible for these dissolved gold ions to leave their cyanide complex molecule and find another to attach to, but this does not represent any net charge to the ion column. If for some reason a charge began to build, it would quickly dissipate in the conductive soil. We can see the nature of subterranean soil does not permit detecting a large static charge, but what can we detect? The concentration of ions is in the low parts per trillion, but the column can be sizable. Let us suppose there is a box full of coins that measures 12 inches square and 6 inches tall buried 4 feet deep. We have 1/2 cubic feet of treasures, but we have 4 cubic feet of ion column. Of course we cannot measure this weak ion solution from a distance, but lets look at some secondary geophysical forces that are known to exist that could show an anomaly... The ground is expected to be more conductive where an ion solution is located, so we expect a conductivity anomaly. If you recall, there is a voltage gradient in the atmosphere that measures about 100-200 volts per each meter of altitude, with the earth being negative, and the ionosphere being positive. The air in between is the dielectric (insulator) which does actually leak current a little. Scientists have found there is an average leakage current of 6000 amps worth of electrons moving from the earth to the ionosphere on the earth at any one time. This current should show an anomaly in the air above where the ground is more conductive. We would expect the leakage current to be more in these areas, and we would expect the voltage gradient in the air to be less above this column of ions. We also know that any telluric currents flowing will favour the area of the ion column, as it is more conductive than the surrounding soil. But how much of an anomaly will we have when the concentration of ions is only a few parts per trillion? Will any of these secondary effects be measurable? We can only know this by testing an area of long time buried treasure. We could check the ground resistivity to see if the ion column showed an anomaly in soil resistivity. We could also check for VLF ground absorption to see if the more conductive area of the ion column was absorbing more VLF. This would be checked in the same manner as a geologist conducts his VLF survey to find subterranean rock formations. We could also check to see if any "ground battery" anomaly existed in the area of the ion column. The ions in the electrolyte are exactly what defines a battery electrolyte. We may find there is a current flowing if we put stakes in the ground at the column and at some of the surrounding ground. We could check for the stable nuclide of gold with a scintillating gamma counter. Because the ion column is so much larger than the buried treasure, it represents a much larger volume of gold-bearing soil which is more likely to show a larger incidence of naturally occurring au(197) which can be measured using a scintillator in a survey of the area. In fact, this method has been used for more than 35 years to successfully locate large gold deposits as well as deposits of other buried minerals. These are only a few of the methods I can think of that may prove to be useful if they are developed to get a clear enough signal from the gold or the ionised ground so it can be detected above the noise that exists in the ground and the atmosphere. As far as artificial electronic stimulation, let's look at natural electronic stimulation first: Every time lightning strikes within a few hundred miles of a location, the lightning event can be detected using VLF or ELF receivers. A lightning storm usually sends electrons the opposite direction from where it usually leaks naturally from the ground to the ionosphere. So the lightning is replenishing the lost electrons that leak to the atmosphere. But when lightning strikes, we can expect some consequence to any ionic chemical activity in the ground. Perhaps a sudden jolt of lightning would cause a number of the ions to dissociate from their cyanide complex for some short duration, then return. Or perhaps a lightning event would cause a sudden increase in the gold corroding from the surface of the buried object. If enough ions were involved in this short duration jolt of activity, it could be a measurable event. We also know there are telluric currents flowing beneath the surface, which vary over a 24 hour cycle. These currents would have a direct effect on the ions that we can expect to promote ionic activity, and possibly become part of the electronic circuit that helps to corrode buried metals. How to measure these secondary effects remotely? I can't answer that. But I can say I expect the strongest of secondary effects to be difficult to measure because they are so weak that they will be competing with natural background noise. But more important, how to create artificial electronic disturbance... You could send an artificial lightning bolt to mimic what nature does, but I don't know this would accomplish any useful signals. You could also send some RF to the ground. VLF from a few KHz up to maybe 300 KHz would be able to penetrate the ground to the depths you would find most of the treasures you would dig as a hobbyist. Maybe the VLF could stimulate the ionic activity to make it become more prominent and easier to detect some kind of signal than when there is no VLF directed at the column of ions. We remember a number of LRL enthusiasts telling us the "phenomenon" associated with long time buried metals is temporarily destroyed by sweeping a metal detector over the ground where the metal is buried. And we know these metal detectors are operating in the VLF range which produces RF as well as a magnetic field. Is it possible that the hand-held pistol VLF coils are sending a much weaker dose of VLF to a larger area of ground in front of the coil than a regular metal detector scrubbing the ground? Could this weaker dose of VLF be increasing the ionic activity to the point that it can be measured above the noise floor? I presented these ideas only as a little food for thought, since I don't see any hope of finding a static charge beneath the ground surface. Maybe something I said will give you an idea that might result in an improved remote gold detector. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#32
02-15-2011, 08:36 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I have used such an LRL a few years back whith a friend. We were many times successfull discovering small treasures. I know some people won't believe it but who cares? Regards g-sani
|
|
#33
02-15-2011, 10:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi J_Player,
I think you are right, im my tests I have good results only if the signal trasmitted is very little, about 4 V peak to peak and the tr coil has less then 10 turns at about 100 Khz. It's also important a signal with many harmonics, a squared signal and not sinusoidal. I have abandoned the research with static E field that it's too influenced by "compass e sky" effects and "trees" effect. Best Regards
|
|
#34
02-16-2011, 06:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Here are some answers to your questions: Well do you mean by this that you detect unwanted ions created by walking which actually is faulse indications? Walking on rocks or sand will cause your weight to press on top of these rocks and sand. There are a number of rocks that show a piezoelectric effect, whereby the pressure you apply to the rock or sand particles could generate a large voltage, similar to a piezoelectric spark generator creates a voltage when it is tapped by a weight that is driven by a spring. You can imagine your footsteps carry much more power than a finger-operated spark igniter. I expect that as you walk across the rocks and sand, you would detect a number of static discharges from the rocks shifting under your shoes. You will probably find the best detection of rock sparks when you are walking on dry rocks or dry sand. ....Interesting learning experience as a minimum! ... What exactly do you mean when you say as a minimum? This means that the minimum benefit from experimenting with a static discharge detector is to learn things about static from rocks and sand. There are many other things to learn that have nothing to do with treasure hunting which go beyond this minimum. For example, if you set the pulse duration to catch some very narrow pulses, you will find that there is constant static discharge from the tires of cars that are travelling on the roads. You will also find many structures in nature that accumulate a static charge such as trees and other plants, but do not necessarily always cause static discharges. (Remember, many plants are wet inside and cannot build up a charge stronger than a few volts above the ground potential. Yet they have the effect of pushing the ground potential up to fill the volume of the tree, so it can be seen as a very large anomaly in the static charge of the air which is usually 100-200 volts higher for each meter altitude. In this case, the gradient simply starts at the edge of the tree instead of starting at the ground, The net effect is the same as if there was a mountain of dirt the size of the tree in front of your detector). And you will be able to detect distant lightning storms if your pulse interval is set correctly. These things and many more can be detected with a static charge detector and with a static discharge detector. And you will find the design of the antenna can greatly influence what you can detect. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#35
02-16-2011, 08:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I was wondering if Goldfinder experimented whith different antenna designs. I believe he did. Regards, g-sani
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
