Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,837
- 10,360
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
Question about 2-box units, and size/type targets they'll get
Question for anyone who has had experience with 2-box units:
I know that those type detectors won't "see" an object any smaller than about a soda-can sized object, right? I mean, realistically anyhow. I know that if you held a silver dollar *just right* and flat-faced, in a staged test, you might be a peep. But realistically, in the actual field usage, it takes something at least baby-food sized jar (aka crushed can or whatever), or bigger.
Ok, so I've been commissioned to look for the following item: a fellow buried 12 gold coins, approx silver dollar sized (so like $20 gold pieces). He buried them 5 yrs. ago, and now can't remember exactly where he buried them. He recalls the following factors:
a) he put them from 1 to 1.5 ft. deep.
b) he had them in individual sleeves (like cardboard separators), and they are all on edge (like in "roll" fashion). And the entire package buried in a plastic holder/package.
c) So the resulting plastic container packaging would be approx can or fist sized containment. HOWEVER, since the coins aren't touching each other (he said they had cardboard or domino sized spacing between each coin), that therefore, the resulting mass is not "contiguous".
So my question is: We all know that objects touching each other, have a different reaction that objects separated from each other (ie.: not physically touching). Then ...... does this still count as a "can sized" signal? I realize we've all dug coin spills that ...... while the coins might not be physically "touching", yet given enough coins, that .... yes ... they create a bigger "signal", overall. I suppose I could experiment and make a mock roll of 12 silver dollars (or whatever) each with a spacer between them, as opposed to touching, and then just see which scenario creates the bigger/deeper signal, eh? But if someone here has input, let me know!
And yes: a signal that size (can sized) is attainable by a regular coin machine like the explorer. However, the problem we're running into, is this part of his property was landscaped at some time subsequent to his burying the coins. And as such, they used large quantities of iron shishkabob type iron skewers, bent in a horse-shoe shape, to hold down landscape fabric stuff. So iron abounds in the area. I know that if the conductive target beneath them is "big enough", it will simply over-power this masking effect. But so far, we have not succeeded with just using a regular machine. I only hear the iron.
So to experiment, I took my cell-phone (which is a hard cover clam-shell conductive type cell-phone) and put one of those shishkabob U-shaped skewer tent peg things over the top of it. If the iron is laid right on the phone, I still pick up the conductive beep no problem
However, if I add a dirt clod (say, 4" width) between the phone and the iron (to mimick depth/separation), THEN the conductive target (the phone), no longer is able to "come through" the iron sound. Thus knowing that the gold here (can sized target) is deeper than the iron, I fear that the masking is not enabling us to find the coins.
Our next step is to take some manpower, and simply shovel off an entire zone, with shovels and wheelbarrels. The search area is about the size of a bedroom in square footage. So this won't take too terribly long. But at the same time, I'm wondering if a 2-box machine might not also help (and eliminate the need to shovel/scale off an entire area) to begin with. So let me know if you think the item I've described is big enough, knowing the coins aren't touching, to even register on a 2-box unit.
thanx!
Question for anyone who has had experience with 2-box units:
I know that those type detectors won't "see" an object any smaller than about a soda-can sized object, right? I mean, realistically anyhow. I know that if you held a silver dollar *just right* and flat-faced, in a staged test, you might be a peep. But realistically, in the actual field usage, it takes something at least baby-food sized jar (aka crushed can or whatever), or bigger.
Ok, so I've been commissioned to look for the following item: a fellow buried 12 gold coins, approx silver dollar sized (so like $20 gold pieces). He buried them 5 yrs. ago, and now can't remember exactly where he buried them. He recalls the following factors:
a) he put them from 1 to 1.5 ft. deep.
b) he had them in individual sleeves (like cardboard separators), and they are all on edge (like in "roll" fashion). And the entire package buried in a plastic holder/package.
c) So the resulting plastic container packaging would be approx can or fist sized containment. HOWEVER, since the coins aren't touching each other (he said they had cardboard or domino sized spacing between each coin), that therefore, the resulting mass is not "contiguous".
So my question is: We all know that objects touching each other, have a different reaction that objects separated from each other (ie.: not physically touching). Then ...... does this still count as a "can sized" signal? I realize we've all dug coin spills that ...... while the coins might not be physically "touching", yet given enough coins, that .... yes ... they create a bigger "signal", overall. I suppose I could experiment and make a mock roll of 12 silver dollars (or whatever) each with a spacer between them, as opposed to touching, and then just see which scenario creates the bigger/deeper signal, eh? But if someone here has input, let me know!
And yes: a signal that size (can sized) is attainable by a regular coin machine like the explorer. However, the problem we're running into, is this part of his property was landscaped at some time subsequent to his burying the coins. And as such, they used large quantities of iron shishkabob type iron skewers, bent in a horse-shoe shape, to hold down landscape fabric stuff. So iron abounds in the area. I know that if the conductive target beneath them is "big enough", it will simply over-power this masking effect. But so far, we have not succeeded with just using a regular machine. I only hear the iron.
So to experiment, I took my cell-phone (which is a hard cover clam-shell conductive type cell-phone) and put one of those shishkabob U-shaped skewer tent peg things over the top of it. If the iron is laid right on the phone, I still pick up the conductive beep no problem
However, if I add a dirt clod (say, 4" width) between the phone and the iron (to mimick depth/separation), THEN the conductive target (the phone), no longer is able to "come through" the iron sound. Thus knowing that the gold here (can sized target) is deeper than the iron, I fear that the masking is not enabling us to find the coins.Our next step is to take some manpower, and simply shovel off an entire zone, with shovels and wheelbarrels. The search area is about the size of a bedroom in square footage. So this won't take too terribly long. But at the same time, I'm wondering if a 2-box machine might not also help (and eliminate the need to shovel/scale off an entire area) to begin with. So let me know if you think the item I've described is big enough, knowing the coins aren't touching, to even register on a 2-box unit.
thanx!
