Cache Test

[Unregistered]

I completely agree, and somewhere I had already mentioned points 2 & 3. So I have more coins (1.36kg vs 1kg), they are all-silver (higher conductivity), and they have no corrosion... yet nothing can detect them.

- Carl

Hi Carl. Have you tested the Arado 120B on the cashe test yet?
Please let me know if you did what is the verdict.
All best.
Georgi

[Unregistered]

Cache Test

120b is a little challenged on the depth side....better would be the Ultra Depth thats similar but with double the depth (though I've only seen perhaps 50% more). Trouble is they are really all metal machines with the I.D. meter offering ferrous I.D. at a very shallow depth compared to say the Nexus so would they fit Gary's original brief of having to have discrimination ?

[Unregistered]

120b is a little challenged on the depth side....better would be the Ultra Depth thats similar but with double the depth (though I've only seen perhaps 50% more). Trouble is they are really all metal machines with the I.D. meter offering ferrous I.D. at a very shallow depth compared to say the Nexus so would they fit Gary's original brief of having to have discrimination ?

Which one is the Ultra Depth? Can you send some information about it please?

[Unregistered]

Saxon Ultra Depth

The Ultra Depth is manufactured by Essex Metal Detectors
http://www.saxons.uk.com

I think they made the original Arados but might be wrong. The machine has been around for many years now. I thought it was originally advertised as having twice the depth of the 120b. I see the add says 50% more depth which is what I achieved.
Not a machine for very high mineralisation or the wet sand and not motion which means a little more effort has to be put in.

[sony]

Yup! Test this!


And they say that Bounty Hunter is "toy".....YUP!

[sony]

Maybe some ideas?


"1. The coins you show on the picture are in very good condition and very likely will be in
good electrical contact.In a hoard burrien for long time (centuries) in the ground all
og the coins are covered by thin layer of oxide which isolates them from one another.
For this reason they can not be picked up as one big piece of metal...."
Yes,on the first view your statement is very logic.....but not true! I can put any bet on
fact that long time burried coins are much easilly detected than "fresh" ones..
It has nothing to do with "good electrical contact" at all. By the time mass of coins in the
ground develop some sort of "echo" or some kind of field (some claimed ionic field-although
i can not prove that to myself yet), and radius of that field or "echo" is growing more and
more as time goes by....In a 1000 years (for example) that field would overcome twice or even
more than physical size of coin....So you can very easy detect that mass by detecting upper
boundary of the developed field...What kind field is that? I do not know,only i am sure that
it need a lot of time to develop,also not to suffer any major disturbance in its nearby...
More time passes - less difference between types of metal !? Very odd claim but true!
On roman sites its been noted many times that proper detector could not distinguish which
type of metal is detected, no matter of very good disc. it has...Many times excell machines
like top Minelab or Fisher models simply confused old roman arrow (Fe) with old roman coin(Ag).
......!!!!???? But level of detection remains good on both(loud and clear).
Present coins,Carl trying to detect are mostly "fresh",clean, new...It will take months, more
likely years they to develop at least some field around. So no profit from that kind of testing
much....But there must be way how to make those coins became "old", maybe perfuse them with
some diluted acid...maybe peroxide....who knows? Point should be how to make artifical field
mimic of natural one. All test with chemistry should perform on the spot, in the hole filled
with coins.After that fast cover with the rest of soil and let it stay for a while - month or
two....than perform tests again. Another note, coins should be mixed by types, a few of brass,
a few nickels, a few Au...Ag..Al...Cu.... Testing machines only on Ag coins should not give
real picture of its abillities...
I can not simply beleive that none of Carl's detectors can detect mass of coins on that depth!?
Something must be wrong in that soil!? But....
It will need not only one "spot"-hole with coins, but a few of them with all combinations and
mixtures of coins and at various depths, enough to establish at least some opinon and conclusion
on that subject...
good luck with that!

P.S.
Posted picture present 2570 Au roman coins founded in Trier....once....

[Unregistered]

Here is a photo of the first round of detectors I tried. All failed. I had high hopes for that 24" coil on the 6000/pro.

White's 6000/di Pro with 15" coil
White's 6000/di Pro with 24" Magnum "cache" coil
Fisher Gemini 3
Discovery TF900
Minelab 2200/d with 18" mono coil
Garrett GTI2500 with Bloodhound attachment
Teknetics T2

Awe come on, Carl,.....You forgot your LRL!!! (Just kidding)
Really, though, I am sure you could call up Dell and borrow one!!!
They work really great when you know where the cache is!!
Dan.

[Lost in NC]

i use a soverign GT i run in disc mode with disc and notch set at zero. i can detect ferrous targets fairly deep lets somtimes say 10 inches depending on size. alwlays reads as a good target large iron does with the bbs from my experiance. i wonder if these coins were buried in a jar with a metal lid facing up or a mason jar with a lid or just the wire bail if over several years the result would be different . you know give the halo time to build up or maybe saturate the ground with some water see if it changes the dynamic of the test. if this test is as good as these detectors get then maybe the big companies may want to rethink the claims they make. i can (obvioulsy) find septic tanks with my two box even makes my 10 inch coil a little agitated. so i think time and moisture play a major part in caches beign found with a detector. just my opinion

[Carl-NC]

Got out the other day with the Arado 120B... nada.

I'm starting to bench test the detectors as well. I replicated the cache with another 220 silver quarters, wrapped up tight in a plastic bag. Also have a single 20-ounce solid silver bar.

The Arado gives a repeatable signal on the silver bar at 11" (13" on the meter) and the cache at about 13". A single quarter is 7.5".

I tested the Teknetics T2 and in disc mode it hits a quarter at 10", the bar at 14", and the cache at 15". In A/M mode it hits the cache at 22", which means it is just missing the buried cache.

- Carl

[Unregistered]

JC1

This really is interesting.

That much silver.

Oh well, and to think of all the buried

cache chasing that has been done with

these things.

[Unregistered]

JC1

So how do the PI s do?

Please don't tell me they won't find

it either.

[Unregistered]

"1. The coins you show on the picture are in very good condition and very likely will be in
good electrical contact.In a hoard burrien for long time (centuries) in the ground all
og the coins are covered by thin layer of oxide which isolates them from one another.
For this reason they can not be picked up as one big piece of metal...."
Yes,on the first view your statement is very logic.....but not true! I can put any bet on
fact that long time burried coins are much easilly detected than "fresh" ones..
It has nothing to do with "good electrical contact" at all. By the time mass of coins in the
ground develop some sort of "echo" or some kind of field (some claimed ionic field-although
i can not prove that to myself yet), and radius of that field or "echo" is growing more and
more as time goes by....In a 1000 years (for example) that field would overcome twice or even
more than physical size of coin....So you can very easy detect that mass by detecting upper
boundary of the developed field...What kind field is that? I do not know,only i am sure that
it need a lot of time to develop,also not to suffer any major disturbance in its nearby...
More time passes - less difference between types of metal !? Very odd claim but true!
On roman sites its been noted many times that proper detector could not distinguish which
type of metal is detected, no matter of very good disc. it has...Many times excell machines
like top Minelab or Fisher models simply confused old roman arrow (Fe) with old roman coin(Ag).
......!!!!???? But level of detection remains good on both(loud and clear).
Present coins,Carl trying to detect are mostly "fresh",clean, new...It will take months, more
likely years they to develop at least some field around. So no profit from that kind of testing
much....But there must be way how to make those coins became "old", maybe perfuse them with
some diluted acid...maybe peroxide....who knows? Point should be how to make artifical field
mimic of natural one. All test with chemistry should perform on the spot, in the hole filled
with coins.After that fast cover with the rest of soil and let it stay for a while - month or
two....than perform tests again. Another note, coins should be mixed by types, a few of brass,
a few nickels, a few Au...Ag..Al...Cu.... Testing machines only on Ag coins should not give
real picture of its abillities...
I can not simply beleive that none of Carl's detectors can detect mass of coins on that depth!?
Something must be wrong in that soil!? But....
It will need not only one "spot"-hole with coins, but a few of them with all combinations and
mixtures of coins and at various depths, enough to establish at least some opinon and conclusion
on that subject...
good luck with that!

P.S.
Posted picture present 2570 Au roman coins founded in Trier....once....

Nice try, but no science behind this.
If you get some very old coins from a freshly found hoard try to measure the electrical resistance without scratching the patina.
Then try this theory again.
Also metal detectors are not capable to "see" large (thick) metal objects, but only the largest Eddy current circuit a metal object can create.

[Unregistered]

Got out the other day with the Arado 120B... nada.

I'm starting to bench test the detectors as well. I replicated the cache with another 220 silver quarters, wrapped up tight in a plastic bag. Also have a single 20-ounce solid silver bar.

The Arado gives a repeatable signal on the silver bar at 11" (13" on the meter) and the cache at about 13". A single quarter is 7.5".

I tested the Teknetics T2 and in disc mode it hits a quarter at 10", the bar at 14", and the cache at 15". In A/M mode it hits the cache at 22", which means it is just missing the buried cache.

- Carl

So if the Arado 120B can get the cache only at 13" in air then the Saxon X1 Ultra Depth will get them at 19.5" or perhaps 20" also in air (providing it realy got 50% more than the Arado as some say about it)
It seem that the mighty Saxon is not that powerful then.

[wyndham]

A thought on the test. Test in a canvas bag because this is as close to not having a barrier. Since the "tupperware" is a polycarbonate, could it work as a shield or insulator at this depth.
The other question is about the PI eddy current, does the current dissiapate into the mass or take longer than the rx can be set to?
Just a left field thought, Wyndham

[Unregistered]

A thought on the test. Test in a canvas bag because this is as close to not having a barrier. Since the "tupperware" is a polycarbonate, could it work as a shield or insulator at this depth.
The other question is about the PI eddy current, does the current dissiapate into the mass or take longer than the rx can be set to?
Just a left field thought, Wyndham

Polycarbonate materials do not have electrical conductivity capabilities, magnetic or paramagnetic.
Therefore they can not act as shield.