|
|
#76
03-17-2006, 03:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Same FET electrostatic field detector
Hi J Player,
the circuit you referenced is the one I built and it works fine for electrostatic fields but is lousy for a strict ion detector as one cannot tell the difference between ions and electrostatic field with it. What is needed is a true ion detector. Now, your mods with the charged antenna might do the trick; however, I doubt it. The FEt can't distinguish. So this may point to the IVCONC circuit having the same problem since the opamp he is using has a high impedance FET frontend. So maybe we haven't gotten anywhere. Hello IVCONIC, What you say on this? Do you have any evidence that your circuit also detects electrostatic fields? I suppose its possible that the antenna will shield out the ES fields and also seperate/filter the ions so only ions get to the center probe antenna. If that is the case I'd go for the J_Player circuit mod. I KNOW that 3819 FET is extremely sensitive. It will detect a flea scratching his ear from 10 feet (haha). Goldfinder 
|
|
#77
03-17-2006, 04:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi Goldfinder, thanks for the input.
I am not certain of this, But I think that in air, you will find find ions where you find an electostatic field, and vica versa. Even though the two are different, I think they always exist together in air. If I am right, then I would expect to sense ions and electrostatic fields in the same place and the same concentration. But I may be wrong. Ivconic says he can easily detect ions from any ion source, and I believe he said he can detect electrostatic fields too. It would seem that with insulated gate mos input, and a positive charged dish around the antenna, either circuit would pick up the signal just as well. The only difference I see is the higher degree of amplification in Ivconic's circuit. This is why I speculate that your circuit may be just as suitable as Ivconic's. I also feel that adding an audio circuit is an enhancement that will tell more about the signal in terms of audio frequencies that may be present. And I wonder if looking at the signal with an oscilloscope would tell information about the source of the ions or electrostatic field. Ivconic may have some answers.
|
|
#78
03-17-2006, 04:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi goldfinder,
After reading about the 400mv charge in most plants, I came to the same conclusion as what you found in your field test. As far as a special field around buried gold, there is a lot of evidence from conventional detectorists to support this. Many detectorists talk about a "halo" around old coins and gold they find. They say they get a really strong signal on their metal detector, as if the coin is much bigger than what they actually dig up. But after digging up the coin, it then gives a normal signal, even if they bury it again. The explanation I heard is these coins develop oxides and other salts around them after they are in the ground for a long time. Apparently it takes a lot longer for gold because it more inert than silver, copper and other metals used in coins and jewelry. But even gold does form a very thin film of oxides and other salts after it has been in the ground long enough (most gold has a certain amount of copper or silver alloyed that will also corrode slightly at the surface and leach into the soil over time). The inference is that as the metal piece corroded, oxides and salts were leached into the soil immediately adjacent to the metal piece, helping to create an electrolyte, and possibly a battery that reacted with other metals or minerals in the nearby ground. By digging up the metal piece, it was removed from it's long-developing battery environment. Replacing it in the ground will then give the same signal as any other new coin that will not develop a halo until it has time to oxidize at the surface. At least this is how some detectorists explain it. If LRL detectorists are able to sense static fields, then I would think the voltage of plants as well as other objects above the ground heavily interfere with any field caused by a buried coin. Also, I cannot imagine any line of ions transporting from a buried object into the air and directly to a LRL sensor. It seems to me that all experiments with free ions in air show that the ions will move where the wind blows them, or toward a nearby oppositely charged object. Ions in the free air cannot be expected to move any more strongly than statically charged styrofoam beads would move in the air. It also seems ludicrous that there would be a stream of gold ions escaping into the air from a gold object buried under the ground. If LRL detectors are actually able to locate buried treasure, I would look for other principles to explain how they work besides that the "stream of ions" theory. So far I have not heard any coherent explanation from a LRL proponent. The best theories I have heard are centered around sensing existing electromagnic waves from man-made sources as well as natural sources (radio, power transmission, sunspots, earth's magnetic field, etc). The more credible theory is that a person who is dowsing or using a LRL is able to sense variations in these existing fields, and with enough practice, can learn to ignore stray anomolies caused by trees, etc, and focus on buried targets. (This theory does not address para-psychology and metaphysical methods). While there is no known human organ that has been demonstrated to sense these weak anomolies in EM fields, nobody has proven it can't be done by some sensitive people. The only proof I have seen is the apparent success of some dowsers in finding water. I have actually collected a good amount of information about some feasable principles for how dowsing and LRLs work, but they are maybe to involved to put in a post here. Good luck finding treasure with what ever means work for you.
|
|
#79
03-17-2006, 05:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi Lake,
That's an interesting graph of basalt that develops a voltage. It shows a voltage between about 43 mv and 55 mv that seems to have a daily cycle as well as a cycle that varies over a month. I doubt this voltage is similar to the 400 mv-500 mv measured in plants, because plants are chemical factories that manufacture complex hydrocarbons from water and minerals in the ground, while the rock does not. But from the chart, it is evident that the voltage measured in the rock does vary dependent on geophysical events (daly cycle and possibly lunar cycle or other influences). After seeing the test made on these rocks, I wonder if some of these same influences will cause the voltage in plants to fluctuate. It seems very likely to me. IF so, then this is something that I would think interferes with dowsing and LRL operation. Possibly it is another thing that LRL users need to learn about to help refine their searching.
|
|
#80
03-20-2006, 03:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
J_Player ion/ES detector
I built a breadboard test circuit of J_Player ion/ES detector. It works fine except for the audio/headphone. I got nothing on the headphones despite seeing a signal on my Oscope and DVM.
My antenna is a simple rod sticking up from the plugin board. So testing for ions is a waste of time. It does detect electrostatic fields quite well. I had on an acrylic sweater and at about 18 inches the detector was picking up my sweater moving back and forth about 1/4 of an inch due to my breathing. The response was about 300 millivolts. I will have to mount the circuit in a good metal box and make an antenna for the ion detection test. I presume that the ions will give some kind of quick pulse response. If that works and I can characterize the signal then I'll consider outoutting the signal into a microcontroller and doing a little DSP on it. If my hunch is halfway correct I should be able to distinguish between ES fields and ion pops. Goldfinder
|
|
#81
03-21-2006, 02:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
IONs and ES Fields
Yes, ions and electrostatic fields coexist. You can have one without the other as anyone with some physics or electronics background would know.
The problem is to be able to distinguish. From analyzing the various commercial detectors they do this in several ways. Some of these suck air into a charged chamber and detect when an where in the chamber the ions are attraced. + ions are attracted to the negative plate of the chamber and vice verse. I looked to me like one of the Mineorotried to do versions did this. In a simplified view, with the proper technique, it is possible to identify ions since the lighter ions will be attracted to the chamber walls before the heavier ones. Ion identification and ion seperation is thus possible. However, these types of detectors are mostly costly laboratory analysis instruments and unsuited for out in the field usage. AND no one has come forward to PROVE that buried gold even emits its ions. If this technique works for long buried gold then I suspect the detectors are simply picking up the expanded ionic fied effects in the ground due to ground saturation with corrosion effects from the buried metals. Now as to ions travelling 4 or 5 feet above the surface of the earth for long distances we only have Mineoro to claim this. There is a well known phenomena in physics that ions are deflected in a magnetic field. The older tube TV sets, the tube monitors of your computer you are sitting in front reading this as well as oscilloscopes all deflecting the electrons (charged particles) and directing them to certain places on the screen. So possibly charged ions coming up from the ground are deflected and guided by the earth's magnetic field which "flows" from south to north. This might account for the claim by Mineoro that detection with their instrument is to scan east/west with the detector looking south (for ions coming north). All this speculation is just that. Lets build some detectors and see if we can find some buried caches with them. Of course, no one in their right mind would admit they have found anything so possibly we will never resolve this whole thing. Fun thread anyway! Goldfinder
|
|
#82
03-21-2006, 11:36 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In fact all your research would benefit from their information. Sorry, I don't mean or intend to discourage you people at all. In fact I always wanted to investigate everything I could not fully understand in my life, but Damasio and Alonso spent more than 30 years of their lives to get to the point where Mineoro is now. The discoveries they made are developed into the detectors sold by Mineoro. Yet they are always improving their methods. How long do you expect would take to 'reinvent the wheel'? Besides, the time people are spending to figure out how it works, the users are in the field recovering what the detectors were made for. Best to all. Fun thread anyway! Goldfinder[/QUOTE]
|
|
#83
03-22-2006, 02:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
A question for hung:
When goldfinder says "AND no one has come forward to PROVE that buried gold even emits its ions", You say: Quote:
Is your only proof centered around unfounded allegations that ions cause you to find gold by using the LRL machines? Or do you have some actual proof that ions are involved in the process? Is the Mineoro propaganda your only source of knowledge about gold ions being resonsible for how it all works? Do you have any proof that ions are responsible rather than electromagnetic waves? Or rather than isotope emissions? Or rather than static forces of magnetism or electricity? Please tell us what you actually know, not what Mineoro propaganda says.
|
|
#84
03-22-2006, 04:02 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi goldfinder,
I agree that electrostatic fields can exist without ions, but it seems to me that in free air, there would be an electrostatic field gradient caused by an anomoly in the concentration of ions, and vica versa, even if in small amounts. Maybe I am wrong. However, If you wanted to measure only ions, then I would suggest that your ion detector is placed inside a metal enclosure that is shielded from any external static fields, and use a small fan to draw samples through the sensor. I would think you could use the same sensor as you originally built, or the differential FET design that Ivconic designed. But the dish should be replaced by a metal tube with the antenna running down the center of the axis. It is important to have the fan draw air from the exhaust end of the detector tube because the motor brushes generate ozone which would be a source of stray ion noise if sent into the tube. This method will not distinguish what ion molecules you are sensing, only the current generated by the ions sensed. In fact, you will not know if you are sensing ionized molecules or free electrons. I still feel that the best data to be seen from the detector is found by putting an oscilloscope probe on the amplifier output to see the time based fluctuations. This could give valuable information that is not available with a meter or speaker. (I wonder if the reason the audio section I suggested was unresponsive could be because the fluctuations in detected signal were below the audio range -- or above it). Anyway, it should be easy to replace the dish with a metal tube, and place the whole assembly inside a metal box. The fan and motor could be omitted if there is a breeze to carry samples through the tube. Remember, we are looking for an anomoly in the concentration of ions in the free air that can lead us to a buried treasure. My personal feeling is you won't find a concentration of any kind of ions above a buried target. I think any unusual concentration of ions you sense will be attributable to an ion source that is recognizable (ie: crt tube, ionic air purifier, motor brushes, etc.) But I don't really know this, and we won't know until we see the results of your experiments.
|
|
#85
03-22-2006, 06:00 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Are we wasting our time?
According to Dell Winders, there are certain frequencies which are used to sense different elements when using LRLs. When he tallks about frequencies, he is referring to the advantages of connecting a low power oscillator to the hand probes (modified rods that look like dowsing rods) held in his hands. This battery operated device is worn on the belt, and the frequency is adjusted by a potentiometer somewhere between 100 hz and 1000 hz to aid in detecting the element you are searching for.
 While Dell has offered no coherent explanation as to how this works, He did say that there are various frequencies that work for gold, silver and other elements. The only other comment Dell makes about this device is that it is a "molecular frequency discriminator" (MFD). He never says it will help to find gold or other treasures, only that it is a molecular frequency discriminator. I made numerous attempts to have him explain how it works, and his replies were inconsistent, and tell us very little about what principles an LRL works on: Quote:
As near as I can tell, Dell Winders doesn't know what physical principles are involved in the workings of a LRL. It appears he knows they work from his personal success in using them, and he believes some kind of "field" is involved. My opinion is he has very little konwledge about the developed sciences which measure signals and fields at the surface of the earth. I speculate that based on his experiences with LRLs, any theories he developed are more subjective rather than factual concerning the geophysical attributes involved. This is to say, that if there is a magnetic field anomoly where the LRL device is reacting, then I have never seen any evidence that anyone did a survey with a magnetometer to confirm that the magnetic anomoly actually exists. Without such a confirmation, then it is anybody's guess whether the LRL is responding to a magnetic field, static field, radio waves, gamma emissions or a host of other anomalies that could exist at the location of the response. It is precicely for this reason that the LRL proponents have come under so much criticism. They have no science to prove that they are sensing anything, and the theories of how LRLs work change with each user. As long as this condition exists, we can expect to get very bad information about LRL theory from these non-scientists. It will be nice if some day one of the modern LRL proponents produces some honest testing to show exactly what these devices are measuring. It would be nice to see proof from ion detectors, magnetometers, EM frequency detectors, and other calibrated instruments that are known to give accurate readings. Then we wouldn't need to waste our time looking into technologies that can't possibly work, while concentrating on methods that have the most promise.
|
|
#87
03-23-2006, 02:43 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
- Carl
|
|
#88
03-23-2006, 02:51 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
- Carl
|
|
#89
03-23-2006, 02:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Now, take a look an issue of "Gold Prospecting" magazine... look up the ad for the (Electroscope) Gravitator... what is that device advertised to do? - Carl
|
|
#90
03-23-2006, 08:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
halo
Hi All
A ground battery with gold and other metals or minerals it can make an electric field and this is a real fact. The chemical reaction requires a lot of time if the 2 electrodes are very distant...
|
|
#91
03-23-2006, 12:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Is good info?:
http://www.trifield.com/SurfaceDCVoltmeter.htm#Sensor The above is from main page: http://www.trifield.com/
|
|
#92
03-24-2006, 05:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
An electrostatic field... Errr, Exceeewse meeeeee... a static electric field....?
Now lets get straight about an electrostatic field: I am talking about a volume of space that contains an electric charge that is different than the surrounding 3-dimensional space. You can call it an electrostatic field, or static electric or whatever you want. But I am referring to a volume of space that has an electic charge different than its surroundings. I am also talking about a charge that does not change noticably over a period of perhaps a minute or longer. Thus, it does not have a measurable frequency component. Having said that, we are focusing on static electric charges, not electromagnetic waves.
In the earth's atmosphere at ground level, we find an atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen plus some other gasses in lesser amounts. Static electric fields are usually accompanied by oxygen ions, or ozone. There are other things that can cause static electric fields in the air, including ions of other gasses, electrons, and voltages created by electronic devices. But wherever you find a static electric field, you will also find ionized gas particles in the volume of the field. No matter how slight, they are there and can be measured. The only exception is in a perfect vacum, where there are no molecules of any kind. Ruling out a perfect vacum on the surface of the earth where LRL detectorists are seeking treasures, we could agree that the only ions to be expected floating in the air are ions of oxygen or hydrogen, or nitrogen, and maybe a few ions of other air constituents. Anybody who says there are gold ions hovering in a cloud above buried gold will soon become a laughing stock after a survey with an ion detector is made. Nuff said
|
|
#93
03-24-2006, 05:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
PS. If I am wrong about the cloud of gold ions hovering in the air... then we could get rich with Ivconic's $50 ion detector. we could collect the hovering gold ions from the cloud to plate the antenna. Who knows.... maybe we collect several ounces of gold ions reconstituted into matallic gold in less than a day... Think so?
|
|
#94
03-24-2006, 06:37 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Gold oxides? Dang.. was I ever wrong.
I checked it out sum more... and guess what.. Carl is right. Gold does not form oxides. Well, sorta right.. gold oxide does exist. You can make it in an atmosphere of 15,000 psi or higher pretty easy. But not so easy on the average surface of the earth. So I guess I am wrong (hate when that happens).
The gold compounds you can expect to find under the ground are naturally occuring tellurides and chlorides, with chlorides most likely to be present in the soil nearby a metallic gold target. You may also expect to find salts of the other alloying metals in the gold target such as copper, silver, lead and others. These metals form salts in the surrounding ground, and can leach out of the gold host to make a gold nugget more pure at its surface. These salts in the vicinity of the target could also be responsible for the reported "halo" effect by some detectorists. Here are some more interesting facts about gold: 1. It is estimated that all the gold in the world, so far refined, could be placed in a single cube 60 ft. on a side. 2. The most common gold compounds are auric chloride and chlorauric acid, the latter being used in photography for toning the silver image. 3. 1 oz. of gold can be beaten out to 300 square feet. 4. Gold has 18 isotopes; 198Au, with a half-life of 2.7 days, is used for treating cancer and other diseases. Disodium aurothiomalate is administered intramuscularly as a treatment for arthritis. 5. A mixture of one part nitric acid with three of hydrochloric acid is called aqua regia (because it dissolves gold, the King of Metals). Question: How important is gold compared to your youngest umarried daughter?
|
|
#96
03-24-2006, 07:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
True, gold does not generate ions.
But aren't gold ions formed in some small amount as a result of a chemical reaction in damp soil? Isn't there a form of oxidation on the surface of metallic gold surrounded by chlorine salts in solution? From what I read, a very small amount of gold on the surface of a buried metallic gold object will react with neighboring chlorine salts (sodium chloride, magnesium chloride, etc) to form gold chloride in acidic soil. This can happen anywhere gold is under the surface of the ground with moisture from ocean water, or even fresh water if chlorides exist in the soil where the gold is. But before the gold can oxidize to the form of gold chloride, a gold atom must first lose one or more elecrons (become ionized) to become soluable in the damp ground. Once in solution, it is free to combine with a chloride ion or stay in solution until the soil dries, where it invariably combines as dry gold chloride salt. This trace of surface corrosion on gold happens to such a minute degree that it is not detectableble by visual inspection even after the gold object is buried for centuries. As long as the soil is damp, I would suspect there is a small trace of gold ions with millions more copper ions and chlorine ions, and ions from other minerals in the soil around the buried metal alloy. However, I can imagine no way these ions would escape into the air and become airborne gold ions. We are talking about negible traces of gold ions, and I would expect measurable concentrations of other alloying metal ions from the target, such as copper. The presence of chloride ions in a soil sample can be easily identified by putting the soil sample in a cup of distilled water. Then add a drop of 1% silver nitrate solution. If a white cloud forms where the drop falls, this indicates silver ions from the nitrate changing to white silver chloride salt. While this does not prove there are gold ions in the sample, it does prove the soil around the buried gold contains chloride ions. If the soil sample was damp when it was dug up, these ions were in the ground around the buried gold. If the soil was dry, then the chlorine ions were combined as salts in the soil. This is basic chemistry that gives some degree of credibility to the "halo theory". It also would support theories of "ground batteries" caused by buried metals. I still wonder how anyone can determine the presence of miniscule amounts of gold ions buried in a sea of millions times more ions of the other local minerals, by sampling in the air some distance away. Detecting these trace amounts of gold ions requires nothing short of atomic absorption/emission methods, or gamma spectroscopy. It would seem to me that the only "halo" easily found by a detectorist would be a halo of copper chloride or other easily corroded metal from a target like salts of tin or iron rust. I would like to see some proof that this halo really exists besides hearsay. It would be intresting to see a detector give a large target signal over a coin, then after a coin is dug up, to re-bury it and take another look at the detector reading.
|
|
#98
03-25-2006, 12:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
....
 First I am very sorry cose left this thread for a longer time. I had/have some objective problems and have to manage them first.Second reason is that network connections are very bad these days here, at my place.... So i missed your posts and chance to take active part in it.... "Hello IVCONIC, What you say on this? Do you have any evidence that your circuit also detects electrostatic fields? I suppose its possible that the antenna will shield out the ES fields and also seperate/filter the ions so only ions get to the center probe antenna. If that is the case I'd go for the J_Player circuit mod. I KNOW that 3819 FET is extremely sensitive. It will detect a flea scratching his ear from 10 feet (haha). Goldfinder" BF245 too....I've tested it many times.About es field....well it is much more complicated than it looks at the first sight. Can you define ES in relation with ions? I can't.It will take an osciloscope monitoring to notice some minor es influence on the ion detection. Dish is rejecting oposite polarity but es...I do not have evidence. "I think the term "electrostatic field" is a misnomer. We have electric fields, and magnetic fields. Either one may be static or dynamic. So we can have a "static electric field" or a "dynamic electric field." Also, I don't think you can have an ion without an electric field, though you can have an electric field without an ion. When ions are in (relative) motion, the E-field is no longer static." Carl Of course! I agree. I am using es term just as bad habit although it is mismatch. When dealing with ions we have "very" dynamic field... "Now, take a look an issue of "Gold Prospecting" magazine... look up the ad for the (Electroscope) Gravitator... what is that device advertised to do? Nor does buried gold generate ions..." One thing for sure - left you without money! "Gold, silver, copper, bronze and another good conductive item buried for long time has around it electrical field. FrancoItaly is correct in his theory of battery." Esteban That is the catch! I noticed that phenomena many times but, is it electrical field or ionic field or something else, i do not really know! I doubt it is ionic field at all. Besides, i tried my ion detector on gold and silver and ... nothing! I have test field with burried items(for testing detecting equipment).Some of those items are burried for longer than a few years there, so i guess it has to "evolute" some "field" by that time. And truth is that there is a better detection on "older" items in the ground, but,thanks to "what"...i do not know. JPlayer is on the right track! COnnecting detector to osciloscope is giving you a various results and very rich monitoring of receiving signal.My problem is that my o.scope is some Philips 30 years old and heavy, with a big box, so it is almost impossible to use it outdor on the field.I can only experiment in the lab.But still i noticed much more than a simple "clicking" from spkr. when using o.scope. ........................... I have a portable ECG device with a cathode screen, batt. operated, with 5 inputs..... I was thinking somehow to use it instead of o.scope....!!!(it is a sort of very slow scope) Any suggestions or mods !? regards!
|
|
#99
03-25-2006, 02:41 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi Ivconic,
If you have radio transmitter experience, maybe another idea is to send the output signal from the detector to a a small radio transmitter then recieve the signal in the lab where the oscilloscope is. You could then have a friend sample the targets while you watch the signals on the scope. I doubt there is any ion field to detect around the targets, but my hunch is you will find a disturbance in the patterns of existing EM waves above the target. I think that when you remove a target, you will find the EM wave patern will be restored to more similar like the surrounding EM wave patterns. The waves I am talking about are mostly low frequency radio waves, maybe down to several hundred hertz, but maybe high frequency too. This is just a hunch, but I think a buried target or underground stream will cause a disturbance of some existing frequencies of EM waves. I would expect you find the easiest to detect EM disturbances following along the the edges of the stream like a vertical curtain. These are probably small variations in signal, but may be bigger than I think. Scientists using isotope detectors found that he normal background radiation from deep in the earth becomes very weak over a body of underground water, then becomes stronger than normal at the edges of the the water. This happens to be similar to reading that dowsers say they find. But ruling out increased airborne ions or static fields, this leaves us dynamic fields, which are EM waves, or possibly other dynamic fields related to gravity or little-observed geopyhsics. I don't know what the full mechanism is, but I suspect that there will be a disturbance in the normal pattern of EM waves due to the buried object, similar to how above ground objects can create disturbances in radio waves. The scientists who use isotope detectors are not looking at EM waves, but the precautions they take seem like the same precautions that a radio engineer would take into consideration when measuring the characteristics of transmitted waves. Some hints from the scientists with their isotope detectors: 1. The best readings can be found before 10:00am and after 2:00 pm. The X-rays of the sun fluctuate causing false readings between 10:00am and 2:00pm. 2. It is good to compare your measurements taken the same time the next day. This can confirm the reading and rule out a possible spurious interference. Never repeat the reading at a different time of day. 3. Magnetic storms can cause large fluctuations in the background readings. It is good not to take measurements at these times. Wait till there is no heavy sun storm activity. If you wanted to measure weak EM waves, you probably know many methods. Your ion detector could probably be used as a sensitive detector if the antenna was replaced with a coil. Luckily, the FETs are fairly high frequency, and can amplify any range you might want to look at, with easy bandpass tuning with a coil and old style radio variable capacitor for lower frequencies.
|
|
#100
03-25-2006, 06:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi to all.
Quote:
and this time it can affect on gold and forms a halo or another energetic thing huummm? I don't know exactly. As Esteban before had stated these by e-mailing to me;"...In places where the terrain is more conductive, salty terrain is possible to find fresh gold. This fresh gold only is detectable very short distance,3 or 4 meters...From the vehicle, in salty terrain the PDC 205 sensitivity is incredible...The only terrain I found a single coin from 40 m from the detector was in salty soils, in the salty terrain of Chaco, and in the proximity of the target, you cannot enter..." But one thing to think is DELL experience by mineoro. he stated: "...I used a 1 ounce Gold Kruger and, lying on the surface of the ground to tune the Mineoro, and specifically to determine if the target SOF was strong enough to be within the Mineoro's operating limitations. When the SOF was strong, the Mineoro, detected the unburied Gold from a distance of 12-15 feet. When SOF conditions were weak, the Mineoro would not detect the "field" of the un-buried Gold..." It has no accordance with long time buried objects theory. Then what's the mineoro detection Basis?! May be can conclude around a buried object even a nonmagnetizable metal will form a kind of field different from electromagnetic fields, probably the earth magnetic field can be efficacious. Please Pardon my impudence I speculated it can give a thought.
|
 |
|
|
Are we wasting our time?
Linear Mode
