doesn't detect silver

[cwrovers]

I'm new to metal detectors. Just got a used Pioneer 101 Bounty Hunter. I was testing it and found that it doesn't detect silver unless there's a bunch of it, like a heavy chain, and only up close. A small amount like a women's ring won't set it off.



Any suggestions?

cw

[Swartzie]

If the ring is real small and/or thin it may not signal up high like a silver coin would. I have several pieces of Indian trade silver that are small and thin, but none of them ever signaled above nickle. The size and density of a target will affect how a detector sees it. If your detector signals a silver coin as silver then I would not be concerned about it.

-Swartzie

[Sandman]

I'm new to metal detectors. Just got a used Pioneer 101 Bounty Hunter. I was testing it and found that it doesn't detect silver unless there's a bunch of it, like a heavy chain, and only up close. A small amount like a women's ring won't set it off.



Any suggestions?

cw

Sorry to say that your detector is not up to par with the entry level detectors from the major manufacturers. A detector only "sees" the surface area of the object. Not the mass or thickness. A ring that has a split in its surface will not produce a good tone nor will small chains give a response.

[Carl-NC]

Yes I too agree with Franklin..A good detector doesn't considers the mass or thickness of the object..It identify the object immediately looking on the surface area.

Not at all! Thickness often plays a BIGGER role in detection than does the type of metal. Here's an experiment... cut a single 1x1" square of aluminum foil and see how far you can detect it, plus what it IDs at. Now, take a 4x4" square and fold it until it's 1x1" in size but 16 layers thick. Repeat.

The difference you will see is due to an effect called "skin depth." Small thin targets are difficult to detect, thicker targets are easier. This is more true for detectors that run at lower frequencies. Swartzie is right, if it detects silver coins then it's working, and the jewelry you're using is just difficult to detect.

- Carl

[mts]

Yes, Carl that is true for objects that are within the range of a metal detector. We were talking about the maximum depth of a target to be detected and for this only the surface area matters. What you are referring to is the halo effect of a metal detector with it's edy waves. They surround a surface target and pick it up deeper because it is picking up the edy waves coming back from the sides as well as the surface. But when you reach the maximum depth of a target the mass has nothing at all to do with the detection range.

I'm sure that Carl will come back and shoot down most of what you said. Maximum depth is not just affected by surface area or mass. It also has a lot to do with how well your detector can process the response it receives. I can take two different detectors that put out the exact same signal (frequency, wave form, power, etc.) and one could be at "maximum depth" after only 1" when trying to detect a large coin. The next detector could be able to detect that coin 10" away. But to say that for one detector only surface area matters while for the other only mass matters seems a bit misguided to me. If both detectors are receiving the same exact response but simply differ in the way they process that response, how can you say that only surface area matters for the first detector but something else matters more for the second?

[Carl-NC]

We were talking about the maximum depth of a target to be detected and for this only the surface area matters.

Simply not true. A 1" square of foil will have a greater maximum depth if it is 16 layers thick than if it is 1 layer thick. Identical surface area, but the thicker target wins. Same is true for silver, copper, and gold.