How hard would it be to make a detector for mercury in soil?

[Randy Seden]

The application of course would be for taking readings in a area that is known for placer gold and theoritically the area with the highest mercury should contain the highest gold (kinda like a magnetometer does for black sand deposits).

Randy Seden

[simeon webber]

Re: How hard would it be to make a detector for mercury in soil?

mercury dosnt naturaly occur other than the salt being in the presance of a reduction agent

it does however occur

but only in very small droplets from boxite deposits
and it isnt avalible as more than a salt that needs to be reduced to form mercury in a not so complex system mostly practiced in itali
{ a noble metal indeed} but not so noble...}

as a salt
detecting salt is all

all detector knowlage is sketchy
becouse people die and the knowlage {web} gets lost in the passing


but i think harmonics have lots too do with emf depleation {and the ratio of depletion of emf is exponential to freq} so a salt has a very low few vvlf 1 1.2khz freq or lower

the quieter a crystal the better its own field of paramagnetic resonance flux fields.... so the bette rit grows

as for salts mercury is tough becouse its just the salt
hopefully as i begin to complete a working {lets face it } much better actual analyzer then single coil numbers } we will all ....ALL begin to get a sensor type view of whats below... or less sensored than before making salf detection quite easy

as for the metal its self yes it is quite easy to detect given known technique
pulse induction definatly works as the resistivity is low

as for the unusual properties of mercury
perhaps a better tuning of multicoil will be able to tell it appart and mine for a bubble that has formed

so the answer is yes

mercury HG atomic weight 80
mass 200.590000 density 13.60
oxidation status +1 o +2 o
-32 -18 -2 shells

so its a big bing to probe its matrix. .... so needs a bigger thump to excite it and make it bong back

so i guess a deaper freq also

gold is good at 700 khz and 77 khz so i guess .77 mins of ark is gold so work it out

[simeon webber]

Re: How hard would it be to make a detector for mercury in soil?

imagine a circle
0 - 1
0 - 2
0 - 3
0 - 4
ratio {or from a known point of oragin in freq.... of ratio s... of

then this is 0 - 1 mhz detector frequency range
we know it works we know it descrimanates

but like a single gold ring
this is the clue
without the wedding band it realy means nothing without the know what is the string {still slippy} as with emf.... and back emf {resultant magneto depletion process} and ratio by time devisions thereafter and reflex of dopler reflex ratios mathematics...


so ....{without crashing planes or stoping commercial trafic {against all rules in my book!!!!!!}
.77 Hz and 7.77Hz and 77.777Hz are good for gold detection {not nessasary the actual atomic bond resonance but an essance of it that gives a re resonace of gold etc... so simply plot think and tune in

a good way is read harmonic 288 or harmonic series {very imformative buy bruce crathy software}... many possability of thought more than just his view { and he knows it { for every seed is a chicken every aligator there is skum first,,,}

so i guess the detector is skum and the metal is the chicken


you cant draw here but i promise i will draw a resonace chart as i beleve
and i happily take views of others into account without predudace to my own views about this topic

{but all circles start at zero {not as a bubble round the actual freq so take this into account when deciding bubble {types of metal detector by bubble } subharmonics
of range}

happy hunting and dont beleve the carrot on a string from most company and realy the goverment protection metal detecting deserves as a sport of descovery......

[simeon webber]

Re: How hard would it be to make a detector for mercury in soil?

think of a string on a guitar certain size in " and ' mins and sec of arc.... with respect too the actual time on the surface of earth not the center {also in mins and sec of arc....}

most often the circles are
360
0 180
90 so
degrees
try

.5
0 .75
1

mhz

then relate


then take into account on given charting

mins and sec instead of deg

then you have all three mins sec and degrees {the ambient heat of the element int he ground by phase differerace from a zero degree piece burried in the gnd same depth} by charting the ratios between each and zero

{the oragin}o HZ or the balance 900000.000009 max interpolation of a 4 bit fpu with parity ...... {true maths no zero to clutter}
you then have
the position on the grid relative in grid terms to its atomic weight
derivative from above = position
relative weight....... this exists in carbon strains and is very easy to detect using electron microscopy and a gass massspectromitry technique

so i guess as those people arent good at finding metal in the ground
we definatly have the upper hand but the lower level of detection by a uniform technique to actualy referance and identify the element we houck out the ground.....


the gravitation field it genorates relative to the core mass of earth {a known constant and taken as a factor in all calculations now...} in given relative constant to mass depletion in the form of irradiated energy as textural heat and latent itteratonian deplation



within its weigthed!!!!! relative to 1

matix constraint ratio !!!!!
per metal by freq

{how much it weights is how much it hums... at each pwm
charted by many coils of different ratios...... of 1-33.6 sec of arc 1 sec = 1 degree = 1 mile at sea level or 1 nautical mile = 33lbs per sq inch or 1 atmos = 1 foot mercury

we need to know the tables for meters please europe

this is all hidden from over 30 years in uk.....

and i speak for the US and most others let us know true 1 meter by 0 deg absolute of a measure of metal....

i know but in rf terms i still live in inches and feet ....

i leave it to the maths guys to plot some scales bassed on what i prattled.....

basicaly


so real its all 1

1 mhz and the circles you draw with in...

but starting at 1,000,000 per sec and working down to 1...

becouse there is no zero of anything or zero of zero anything or zero of zero of anything

becouse zero as any form of inclussion is already canceled there fore is realy just negative to any equassion below the value of 1.....

[simeon webber]

Re: How hard would it be to make a detector for mercury in soil?

HERE IS A PROTEUS DESIGN
SOMEONE CAN DRAW THE RESONANCE CIRCLES.... .. PER DB RATIOS... ETC PER ETC.. THEY WANT



Click Here

[FJ]

Re: How hard would it be to make a detector for mercury in soil?

So...after all that rambling, I still don't know the answer to the question. Is it just me???
Fred

[simeon webber]

Re: How hard would it be to make a detector for mercury in soil?

ALSO LINK HERE
DB RELATIVITY TO SIGNAL AT 1 {SIGNAL AT 1 IN COLOUR 1 - 1 IS PERFECT... IN 1000KC STEPS TO 1 MHZ 10 X 1000 KCS

[simeon webber]

SORRY LINK IS HERE

LOOK TO ALL PARTS OF ANSWER TO IS MERCURY DETECTABLE

SHORT ANSWER IS VERY.... LIKE ALL METALS



Click Here

[simeon webber]

Re: How hard would it be to make a detector for mercury in soil?

sorry i am just on a mission

yes it will be easy to detect the salt .... by simply using a low freq
more research needs done on this field with pi

if you leave the fariday a different amount round a coil in an ib or off resonance detector the answer is yes

mineral salts become easier to detect
but becouse of the everything rule and paramangentic resonace the salts grom at low freq hence as settled like quiet atoms in 4 or 8 or any form of bond {depending on the salts} so vlf yes

but with pi yes,,,, again prob a narrow band will respond to salts ... of freq ranges {when they are xtals}
however salts in solution you need to add a balanced fariday shield affair adding the image of gnd in antiphase.... to this shield

[simeon webber]

Re: How hard would it be to make a detector for mercury in soil?

the simple answer is get a file of mercury and use a pi detector
to see if you get a result
the try a known zone for its salt and corilate your work

too many findings go uncharted
leading too a bad map of precissions gained in this field
the metal isnt a problem the oar may be....

[Eric Foster]

Re: How hard would it be to make a detector for mercury in soil?

Hi Randy,

I'll try the simple answer. Mercury has a conductivity of 1.8, compared to copper at 100 and lead at 8.4. You would need a fairly large glob of it to get a signal on a PI. If the mercury is disseminated as fine droplets in the ground, then you would get no signal, even though the overall ground conductivity may be enhanced a bit. Mercuric oxide, or any mercury salts in the ground would have even less effect.

High frequency induction balance detectors, such as the Goldbug 2 can detect materials with far less conductivity than any current PI's, so you may stand a better chance with one of these.

I expect there is a simple way of chemically sampling the ground for mercury.

Eric.

[Eric Foster]

Re: How hard would it be to make a detector for mercury in soil?

The TNet LRL Forum would enjoy these posts. They need something new to chew over.

Eric.

[Esteban Cabrera Grinok]

IF THE MERCURY IS LIQUID... HERE THE MOST SIMPLE DETECTOR