What's new

Do Long Time Buried Objects Detect Deeper?

Michigan Badger

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
6,797
Reaction score
152
Golden Thread
0
Location
Northern, Michigan
Detector(s) used
willow stick
Primary Interest:
Other
I tested my DeLeon in the coin garden when it was new and I was totally disappointed.

However, after using it for some 50 hours I'm constantly saying to myself "How did it reach this?"

Now that I'm doing foundations and ghost towns I'm working over deep grass and digging deeper than ever. I'm finding bullets (30-06, 30-30, etc.) at depths of 7 to 10 inches. Have you ever seen how small a 30-06 bullet is when flattened?

My experience in field has shown me that long time buried objects detect much deeper than air or even coin garden tests. And I believe this is so no matter what brand VLF machine you use.

From what I've seen so far this summer, when it comes to coin garden testing, you can figure at least 50% more depth for long time buried silver and at least double for copper. With very old iron you can figure triple or more the depth of fresh buried pieces.

Last year I used the Minelab Excalibur 1000. I could only detect a freshly buried copper penny at about 5 3/4 inches. Later I dug an old wheat cent (ca. 1920's) at 9 inches with a loud signal (landfill area). The coin was badly corroded.

Well, what do you say?
 
Upvote 0
SWR said:
Perhaps you can provide some data for this theory, so that we can all be on the same sheet. Heck, even a picture or two would be of some interest. Its never to late to learn something new. ;)

I can steer you toward some good resources in your local university library, but for the Internet, you might start with:
http://www.primidi.com/2006/02/13.html
If you can get hold of Nature magazine, look for the article "Initial corrosion observed on the atomic scale", Vol. 439, No. 7077, pp. 707-710 (9 Feb 2006). Most journal articles have a list of references, some of which go back quite a ways. You can probably find direct ones on the theory and experimental behavior of gold alloy corrosion.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6951259&dopt=Abstract
This one provides just the abstract but you can get the whole article if you can track down the journal,
Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research. 1982 April 90(2):168-71.

For a good introduction, this article looks good, but you might not find it on-line:

Harris, Harold H. "Is It Real Gold?" Journal of Chemical Education, 1999 76: 198.

I have some back issues of this journal but I don't have this particular one.

I do also know offhand that copper, silver, and nickel are the most likely alloy components to leach out of gold. Palladium not so much. The trick in gold alloys is to use a combination of metals in just the right proportion that they have optimal resistance to leaching; however, they can never be 100% impervious. There is a journal called Corrosion Science worth checking out if your local university has it.

Here's a page showing selective corrosion of copper out of a gold-copper alloy:
http://www2.mpie-duesseldorf.mpg.de/go-web/goweb_neu/englisch/main-files/vum44.html

I don't know about your area, but in the northeast the soils can be very acidic because of acid rain and also an abundance of oak leaves and also pyrite. Our soil has tannic, gallic, and sulfurous acids (to name a few), as well as small amounts of sulfuric, nitrous, and possibly nitric.

If I find anything out about that "14K" ring I'll be sure to post it on the forum. It could be an interesting experiment. I hate to sacrifice it if it turned out to be real, but I might just leave it in nitric and see what happens.

Happy hunting!
 
U-238 said:
SWR said:
Perhaps you can provide some data for this theory, so that we can all be on the same sheet. Heck, even a picture or two would be of some interest. Its never to late to learn something new. ;)

I can steer you toward some good resources in your local university library, but for the Internet, you might start with:
http://www.primidi.com/2006/02/13.html
If you can get hold of Nature magazine, look for the article "Initial corrosion observed on the atomic scale", Vol. 439, No. 7077, pp. 707-710 (9 Feb 2006). Most journal articles have a list of references, some of which go back quite a ways. You can probably find direct ones on the theory and experimental behavior of gold alloy corrosion.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6951259&dopt=Abstract
This one provides just the abstract but you can get the whole article if you can track down the journal,
Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research. 1982 April 90(2):168-71.

For a good introduction, this article looks good, but you might not find it on-line:

Harris, Harold H. "Is It Real Gold?" Journal of Chemical Education, 1999 76: 198.

I have some back issues of this journal but I don't have this particular one.

I do also know offhand that copper, silver, and nickel are the most likely alloy components to leach out of gold. Palladium not so much. The trick in gold alloys is to use a combination of metals in just the right proportion that they have optimal resistance to leaching; however, they can never be 100% impervious. There is a journal called Corrosion Science worth checking out if your local university has it.

Here's a page showing selective corrosion of copper out of a gold-copper alloy:
http://www2.mpie-duesseldorf.mpg.de/go-web/goweb_neu/englisch/main-files/vum44.html

I don't know about your area, but in the northeast the soils can be very acidic because of acid rain and also an abundance of oak leaves and also pyrite. Our soil has tannic, gallic, and sulfurous acids (to name a few), as well as small amounts of sulfuric, nitrous, and possibly nitric.

If I find anything out about that "14K" ring I'll be sure to post it on the forum. It could be an interesting experiment. I hate to sacrifice it if it turned out to be real, but I might just leave it in nitric and see what happens.

Happy hunting!


:o lol! what are you.........a scientist!! :D.............he did ask for proof! lol :D
 
hollowpointred said:
:o lol! what are you.........a scientist!! :D.............he did ask for proof! lol :D

:) I'm a chemist, so I can provide you with lots of boring theory and tedious experiments. I don't think it's boring though. Working with nasty, fuming liquids seems to be ingrained in me. ;D
 
U-238 said:
hollowpointred said:
:o lol! what are you.........a scientist!! :D.............he did ask for proof! lol :D

:) I'm a chemist, so I can provide you with lots of boring theory and tedious experiments. I don't think it's boring though. Working with nasty, fuming liquids seems to be ingrained in me. ;D


a chemist could come in handy around here! especially when it comes to inexperienced people wanting to do acid tests on jewelry! ( it happens once in a while!) ............not to get off track but maybe you have a little insight on how to clean that green corrosion from copper coins?
 
hollowpointred said:
a chemist could come in handy around here! especially when it comes to inexperienced people wanting to do acid tests on jewelry! ( it happens once in a while!) ............not to get off track but maybe you have a little insight on how to clean that green corrosion from copper coins?

I would do acid tests on jewelry under a microscope using a capillary tube or other small instrument, on an inconspicuous spot. I am not sure I'd recommend it to others, though, for fear they'd do it wrong.

Cleaning copper... I'm working on some articles about that for my website. Will let you know when I have them finished.
 
SWR said:
Thanks for some rather interesting reading, but I failed to find any references to where buried jewelry may (or may not) corrode, breakdown, emit ions or even tarnish. Maybe a chemist can induce the fore mention in a controlled laboratory environment, but it ain’t gonna happen out here in the real world (or underwater).

Here is a simple little test you can try. Recover oh, about 10 or 15 gold rings from various parts of the country, including freshwater and saltwater. Take them back to the ole lab, and toss em under the microscope. See anything missing? See any noticeable pitting or irregularities? Nope…didn’t think so.

Talk about deja vu

SWR, there's a problem with your argument. Bulk corrosion is something you can see, but ions are invisible. If you check those 14K rings under an SEM you will see where the non-aurous metal has corroded out. You will not see this with the unaided eye or even a light microscope. As far as conductivity halos, however, this can be enough to have a noticeable effect.

Please don't take this as an insult, but I'm not going to spend any more time debating this unless you've studied the science of it. Those articles and references I gave provide plenty of evidence for exactly what you're disputing. Gold alloys containing copper, nickel, or silver will leach out these metals in acidic or highly ion-rich soils. These metal ions, in turn, enhance the conductive region around an object. This is simple electrochemistry. Period. End of story.

If, on the other hand, you're trying to say gold rings aren't going to come up visibly corroded with big cakes of crud on them, then you're entirely right. Your experience doesn't lie. I'm not trying to take away from that, because that isn't what I'm talking about. In fact, I'll even add this: when the ions do leach out of the gold alloys, it won't do much good when they're in an aqueous environment where the water is on the move; such ion halo as effuses from the object will be washed away and will probably not give a meaningful enhancement of signal. If, on the other hand, the object is buried in soil (other than a river bottom)... that would make a difference.

Sorry if I seem a bit curt on this subject, but I think what a lot of non-scientists are always looking for is to have Albert Einstein or some other famous person give celebrity backing to this or that theory (even if he's talking outside his field of expertise, it doesn't matter to most people, as long as he has the name recognition). That isn't how real science works, but unfortunately it's how most people think science works. It is the justification for a lot of silly ideas.
 
I've found 10K class rings in the ocean, that are encrusted. break away the crust and they are indeed slightly pitted. Encrusted silver coins are wafer thin. Found some 10K and 14k rings that had a black corrosion on them that you could scrape off with a fingernail. They were GOLD, alright. But, the alloy metals had leeched out.
 
SWR said:
Added later: Metal detectors don’t really detect ions now, do they?

Actually, they do. Your ground balance and salt-water balance are made for specifically that reason. Salt water is an aqueous solution of sodium ions and chloride ions. Not very metallic, but they conduct. Metal itself conducts because of its peculiar type of bonding, called metal bonding. This is actually similar to ions, because the electrons are free-flowing between the metal atoms. Ions clustered around a metal object enhance this conductive region. Magnets, magnetic fields, ion, electric fields, and metals have more in common with each other than one might think. As soon as you move a conductive object in electromagnetic field of a given frequency, it will have a measurable effect. As a fun experiment, if you turn your detector up high enough in the sensitivity, it can detect a moving human hand. No rings or buttons, either. I've done it with my Tesoro.

I've pointed you towards plenty of proof of the theory. In fact, I could show you a whole library full. I'm not making empty "claims". Jim, I'm not trying to knock you or your experience. I'm not looking for a flame war. Like you said, it's all good. In fact, if you want to devise some scientific tests to do "in the field" I can give you some pointers on doing a real, repeatable test that even nitpickers like me will give a thumbs up. The one on Gary's metal detecting site UK, for example, is a good start, but he's missing some key methodologies, such as leaving the same cache buried for 5, 10, and 25 years to enhance the ion halo, for example. A study of soil acidity, porosity, and so forth would also be a big help. The factors that control the size and geometry of a metal object's ion halo are fairly complex, but suffice it to say: yes, gold alloys containing Ag, Cu, or Ni will certainly leach these metals out as ions.

Happy Hunting,
Chris
 
midas777gold said:
I've found 10K class rings in the ocean, that are encrusted. break away the crust and they are indeed slightly pitted. Encrusted silver coins are wafer thin. Found some 10K and 14k rings that had a black corrosion on them that you could scrape off with a fingernail. They were GOLD, alright. But, the alloy metals had leeched out.

Exactly. Unless the gold is alloyed with palladium or other Pt-group metal, you're going to get corrosion. When the non-aurous metal content gets high enough, it reaches a point where seawater can really do a number on it, and you'll start to see visible corrosion without the aid of a microscope. In the extreme, what if you had a "gold" ring that was 1K gold and the rest copper? Obviously it would be in pretty bad shape, eventually disintegrating... and you'd have gold atoms floating around in the ocean eventually, because they'd have no more copper to hold onto.

Some people don't want to believe me, but you know what? No problem. We're all kindred spirits on here: we're all metal detectorists or treasure hunters, and for that reason we all need to stick together. I'm not trying to make anyone upset, I just want to enjoy the hobby and maybe help people out if I can. This isn't a board where I want to get into flame wars. I see every metal detectorist as a potential friend (except the few that don't fill their holes >:( )
 
I believe that a lot has to do with your psychic ability and how you're able to tune into the whereabouts of the gold or silver in any given search area. It's not dumb luck how some detectorists get goody after goodie and some get nothing. You have say a five acre site (> 200,000 sq. ft.) searching with a 10 inch searchcoil. It would take days to cover the area. How is it that one guy can spend two hours and come up with silver coins and a gold ring or two. While another person hunting the same area at the same time finds only a buck in clad? It must be the "ions" emitted from the good targets are being received by the detectorist that finds the GOOD stuff thereby subconciously telling him where to swing the searchcoil.

A lot of you are laughing by now. But, I've never been on a hunt where I've been skunked. I always manage to pull at least some gold or silver from each hunt site.
 
midas777gold said:
I believe that a lot has to do with your psychic ability and how you're able to tune into the whereabouts of the gold or silver in any given search area. It's not dumb luck how some detectorists get goody after goodie and some get nothing. You have say a five acre site (> 200,000 sq. ft.) searching with a 10 inch searchcoil. It would take days to cover the area. How is it that one guy can spend two hours and come up with silver coins and a gold ring or two. While another person hunting the same area at the same time finds only a buck in clad? It must be the "ions" emitted from the good targets are being received by the detectorist that finds the GOOD stuff thereby subconciously telling him where to swing the searchcoil.

That goes outside known science, but y'know, some people do seem to have that kind of knack. I'm really good at finding bottlecaps and nails. :-\

I can't dismiss what you're saying, because how is it that psychics can find murder victims the way they do? (Psychic Detectives is a good show :) )

I also know a couple people that seem to have that kind of luck when they go out rockhounding or fossil hunting. They can literally bumble their way around and they always find something good. ::)
 
Tnet Member Rusted Iron, where are you? You're the only one who has ever Successfully shut SWR down. :'( :D

:thumbsup:


This was a Great Read.




BUMP!
 
Mbadger, read LuckyLarry's reply to my post "Breaking free of the cz". This will set you straight I hope.
 
Many people do not understand how when using dug up or transferred soil (and/or wood chips) it can really affect the operation (and failure/success) and metal detector responses.

Here is why:

Wood chips almost always have a negative charge. The same is true with sawdust. But soil is a wild and crazy mix of many, many elements at times, clear up to many varied and electronically (AKA positive/negative charged) apposing compounds. Chemistry 401, not 101. This study of soils and their compounds is a subject for those with a Masters in Chemistry, Soil Science, or Agriculture, N-O-T a Masters in Metal Detector usage.

View the soil like this:

A bunch of little fish with tails on one end (negative), and heads on the other end (positively charged). When grouped together in the current they usually all head the same direction in order to avoid all the dangers of any apposing or hazardous currents. They do it for safety. And they do it naturally too.

Similar reactions occur with the electrons in all the soil; Positively or negatively charged raindrops affect the soil matrix. So do introduced other compounds such as rotting (high acid, hence high positive) vegetable matter. Positive because when losing their excessive electrons they have an excess of POSITIVELY charged ions. Added compounds from introduced other minerals create an unbalance too. But after awhile, many, many years, they eventually find that the leader of the pack is a true Republican and eventually they begin to follow him or her (the POSITIVE ones) and they (the electrons) all eventually head in the same direction, just like in a bar magnet. It then becomes a Happy Day for all the little fishes.

When some joker digs them all up and disturbs their order and their place in with the rest of their good fellows - while they all had order and were enjoying good times - they AND their other Constituents in the remaining soil get all turned around and confused, no longer having a place in the pack. There is mayhem and disorder beyond compare, just like in social or political groups where everybody is given a name tag that does not belong to them. These little electron fish are now swimming around randomly with no direction like a bunch of 3 year old children dumped in the deep forest and lost, and they REALLY get messed up when someone introduces a current or charge or magnetic field in them alongside of it all. These little children's or little electron's or little fish's electrical conductivity becomes pish-poor at best. There is no longer any linearity, no direction. And without magnetically and electrically charged positive/negative heading direction they cannot conduct electricity very well at all, and in fact defeat their purpose as regards to metal detecting.

This is the children's 3rd grade explanation of why "test gardens" and "test beds" and disturbed soils plantings are worse than worthless. In fact they are self-defeating and disproportionately valuable. If in doubt, try the same test I've done several times myself. Go get some soil that you found a coin in at 6" and then bring that same soil home and test it there in a plastic pot. That's the real truth to discover.

Never buy before you try. That's the best philosophy for just about anything.

And the "halo effect" only applies to iron with some very negligible and almost immeasurable affect showing with copper after decades, and brass and bronze several HUNDREDS of years later - unless some high acid or high sodium elements are introduced into the soil in the meanwhile. All the above is why objects buried a very long time are found deeper than freshly buried ones. It's because their electrons have had time to align themselves a bit, maybe even a lot.

Note: The only reasons that a Tesoro metal detector should sound off when waving your hand in front of it are for example,

1 If you just dusted yourself with iron filings or some other metalic dust.
2 If your detector has a poorly shielded cable
3 If you happened to have recently eaten a large load of arsenic
4 If you have a faulty capacitance circuit bleeding off to ground somewhere at the metal electronics housing box.
5 In case those from "the other side" are trying to reach earth.

*There are other reasons too, but a detector in good operating condition should NEVER read one's hand.

Note: Currently there are exactly Z-E-R-O instruments made that can detect the ionic properties of any electronic bleed-off from a coin-sized object made of copper, brass, lead, aluminum, bronze, silver, etc. To say there are is no more than a speculation or a wish or supposition. However, there ARE instrument made which can detect the amount of FE extra electrons leaching out into the surrounding soil and those are called electro-magnetometers, some of which I have used while working for the Department of Defense when we were developing the Mark 48 nuclear/electronics torpedo systems. They are d-m expensive too.

A couple of more things (electronics engineering, of course):

Tesoro detectors use a "Tank Circuit", meaning that the circuitry utilizes a quickly discharging (collapsing) transformer or transformer circuit in front of an even faster decaying and discharging (collapsing) capacitor or capacitance circuit. This is why they recover so fast and why it is even MORE difficult for a well-operating one to give a "reading" on one's hand.

And, GROUND BALANCE CONTROLS DO NOT READ OR BALANCE "IONIC READINGS". Nor do they the same with electron readings either. In fact, they balance the difference between positive and negative voltage readings (amounts), and nothing more. In fact, they and discrimination controls are the same thing, one crude, the other fine-adjustment.

This really is all fun, but Stellar Physics is even more fun. :)

Time for some good coffee and some even better chocolate chip cookies.

Hope this helped

LuckyLarry
 
gleaner1 said:
Mbadger, read LuckyLarry's reply to my post "Breaking free of the cz". This will set you straight I hope.

Set me straight? ha! Nobody can do that! ;D

Man! this thread was started back in 06! :o Youse guys sure like the oldies.

I've gone back and forth on this since the early 60's. Yes, even back then it was a major issue.

Fresh buried and long time buried...may the force be with you!

However I do really like the "little fish with tails on one end" analogy ;D :thumbsup:

I do know that fresh buried coins usually detect poorly. I have however see exceptions to that rule. I tested my Nautilus IIb a few times and it stiinks at fresh buried but the time I tested my Tesoro Tejon it did extremely well.

But this could be due to different soils. I never did test them side-by-side. Maybe some soils are so mild that digging doesn't affect it too much?

I really need to do more side-by-side testing. That would try Lucky's explanation. It would be interesting. Personally I hope he's right.

Badger
 
Boy this is a lot like why does the detector pick up small links of a chain instead of the chain. We know minerals, moisture and salt affect depth. Detectors also use size to determine targets which means if the halo does come into play it would obviously see it deeper. As far a pitting or break down of silver on the beach.... you get the same affect in a tumbler that doesnt mean its breaking down. I think i get that same affect where the detector isnt reading properly when i get too much air between my coil and ground. Surely it has something to do with machines inability to induce the target. Great post guy.

Dew
 
Well yes Badger, it DOES depend on what is in the soil.

More easily said though .. the weaker the mineralization, the less the effect. That's why sawdust or wood chips will get closer to same depth while using conglomerate (normal) soils will not.

Salt types are a bit more tricky. In fact, my cz-70 went way into the black when bringing back our salt beach soil here (because it has WAY too much discrimination built into it for some uses) while my Compass R&C actually showed more depth while testing in the sand or a clay pot, the only detector that could manage that. Using air or pure water in the pot would be even more perfect - since there is usually almost no metalic or chemical traceable dust in it. Note* Pure H2o has only hydrogen and oxygen in it so it is not capable enough to conduct any negligible electricity (potential difference of electron over-mass or over-numbers). Most water is not pure and that's why it can conduct electricity very well, and the impurity helps to kill people who are dumb enough to get wet and then mess with 60 cycles (120 AC).

60 cycles is near the same speed as our heartbeat and that's why it kills us easier than 440, for example. It's also the same cycles/voltage that Doctors use to stop (and restart) our hearts.

As I have said nearly countless times, "less mineralized soil found in the SE, much of GB, and the S and the E areas of the USA will be much less affected than with the soil here straight out of HE double L (here) - W of the Rockies. My post was mostly written to exemplify the mechanics/physics of it all, but not much more. Getting too technical and too involved requires scrolls and I'm done with that in my life unless somebody pays me for it.

Time for some decent coffee or something else tasty.

LL
 
SWR said:
Michigan Badger said:
Man! this thread was started back in 06! :o Youse guys sure like the oldies.

Not really. A member brought this thread back to life who has a personal vendetta against SWR. I do not know why the “moderator” allows such personal attacks, anyways.

Oh well, :'( here I thought this was brought back to the light of day because it is so awesome.

MB
 
Michigan Badger, sorry if I sounded off-key about LuckyLarry's reply to my post Wet vs Dry. No offense intended to either you or LL. These are obviously hot topics about the 'black magic" of our hobby.

The questions posted provide important valuable feedback thru the forum, like the recent feedback about depth in wet vs dry soil on my recent post. The subject drifted away from a relatively unimportant (if not trivial) question of "detection depth in wet or dry", and moved toward something very important, like "digging in wet soil does less damage to the turf".

New detectorists might not know the effects of getting the goodies in a "dry-time" lawn. If there is not enough rain, the dug hole soon turns a very obvious brown spot. This is common in lawns in late summer in NY. You will see some bad looking turf if the holes dont "come back" because of dryness. If there isn't enough moisture in a "sensitive" area, like local park lawns, I wont hunt there. Its an important aspect everyone should think about. I know guys who dig with a knife to lessen turf damage all year round.

To answer the main "long time buried question", you have to stipulate what the target metal is and whether or not the soil is dry. And you have to take into account the ground mineral conditions, and machine type, and machine settings, etc. This issue should be polled.

Generally, my feeling is brass/copper alloys respond deeper, as experienced with IH's and old deep Lincolns. But only in wet soils. Just my gut feeling though, no proof. Silver and gold items stir the pot even more.
 
hollowpointred, I can't resist telling you how NOT to take the corrosion off coins. The first really good coin that I found was a 1809 large cent. My buddy sounded on it with my old Garrett. We were totally noobies. He says "come over here, I got a good signal!".

I take my cz over the hole and pinpointed it and pulled it out. It was about 5" deep. We didnt know what it was, but we could see 1809 on it. The coin was so strange to us. We didn't know jack diddly poo about old coins or anything about the hobby. Anyway, we took it over to my dad's sandblaster and cleaned it up real good. That's after I bought the red book and found out what it really was. Much wiser now.


It "was" an 1809 large cent, good condition.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom