Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Related Reference of interest? Well, I'm not, and I don't mind commenting on it, either.

April 23, 2019 07:55PM avatar
That write-up is now over twenty years old. I'll present my personal opinion, based on over a half-century of very avid metal detecting; based on a number of tests done in controlled environments to prove or disprove my opinions on the subject; and also based on several communications with detector design engineers who are also detectorists and have interests in these types of subjects, both in written form and in personal verbal discussions. My opinion? Coins, rings, tokens, other jewelry items, buckles, buttons and all manner of lost or discarded objects DO NOT SINK.

Let's look at some of the statements in that article:

"My test target was a woman's simple gold band of medium thickness. I had about 35 inches of thin dental floss tied to the ring so I would not lose it. I dropped the ring on the wet sand (holding on to the floss), set my shovel down, placed the headphones on my head and set the controls of the detector. Now, I was ready to dig a measured depth hole in the sand to bury the ring. When I looked down at the ring, it was gone! As I held the floss with only a slight amount of slack, I watched the ring sink slowly to a depth of 23 inches before it stopped sinking."... So he has a woman's gold ring, but how do you describe 'simple' or the 'medium thickness' of a gold band? Scientific testing would better define such descriptions, and it might be of more help if a ring 'size' was stated. He 'dropped' the ring from what height? Let's guess at waist-level.

And he had 'about' 35 inches of dental floss' tied to the ring. Was it exactly 35 inches or 'about' 35 inches which could be shorter or longer. And it wasn't just any dental floss, oh no. It was 'thin' dental floss, not to be confused with 'thick' or 'medium' dental floss.

"When I looked down at the ring, it was gone!" Well, no duh! He stated he was on 'wet sand' and if you drop or toss a small object, especially an open-center ring-shaped object on to any loose material such as a dusty dirt road, black sand at a volleyball court, mud, dry beach sand or wet beach sand, there is an excellent likelihood that the object will end up either only partially visible or completely out-of-sight. Why" It wasn't from 'sinking' but the force of a projectile impacting a soft and loose medium that causes displacement. Very simple, very common sense, and not really a scientific study is needed to confirm that.

"... I watched the ring sink slowly to a depth of 23 inches before it stopped sinking." Really? It was already out-of-site once dropped to displace the surface sand material, so if it is not visible, how could he 'watch it sink?' And while we didn't have an exact description of the size, thickness or other description of the sample woman's ring, or only an 'about' measurement of the so-described 'thin' dental floss, he stated an exact 23" depth of an out-of-sight ring. Interesting.


And he continued to describe his perceived event with this:

"The ring was sinking at a rate visible to the naked eye. Here is why; Due to the force of gravity, objects will sink in whatever medium they are in. This will continue until the level of density of the medium is the same as the object's density. OR!---Until the object comes in contact with another object in which its sink rate then becomes the same as the obstructing object's sink rate. The semi-liquid state of the sand on the beach is a much less dense medium in comparison to the ring, hence the sink-rate. At 23 inches deep, the ring came to rest. Why? The answer is "hardpan"! The ring hit a crushed shell/gravel layer at 23 inches within a time period of approximately 3 minutes. This is not an unusual circumstance by any means."... Again, his naked eye was seeing a visible sink rate?

Now, he didn't state anything about the specific make-up of the ground surface other than to say it was 'wet sand' at a beach, nor did he accurately describe 'displacement' as the reason a dropped ring would be out-of-sight on the sandy beach. But he does now state "the force of gravity" as a contributing reason objects will sink in "whatever medium they are in".

He does NOW include a comment about a "semi-liquid state of the sand on the beach" as a description of where on a beach he might have been for his test. He didn't say, however, if it was just a wet or wet-packed sand, or if he was in the surf which could have also included wave action which definitely churns things up and leads to 'displacement' and not a 'sink rate.'

And this claimed 'sink rate' took a woman's gold ring to '23 inches within a time period of 3 minutes'?eye rolling smiley As I stated a short while ago we need to watch our use of foul and unwelcome language on the forums so I'll just let you imagine the thoughts I had even when I initially read that article a couple of decades ago. I was drafted fifty years ago May 14th and a description I had cross my mind was maybe close to something an Army Drill Sargent might have said to describe that claim.eye popping smiley


Later he did make the following statements:

"A light aluminum pull-tab or a piece of foil has about the same density as its supporting medium (the wet sand) so it may never sink or can be found at any random churned depth. " ... The key point he mentioned here is that an object in a loose sand mix at the beach can be at any random 'churned' depth, and that churning is what causes 'displacement' and has nothing to do with a supposed 'sink rate.'

... and ...

"It is a known fact that violent storms will bring in large volumes of offshore sand and some good items; however, this is not the time to hunt. The high-density items will be out of detectable range. When sand is removed because of riptides or storms this increases the chance of hardpan exposure. It does not happen often but when it does, you will have some of the best detecting times of your life!"... Now we add 'violent storms' that will naturally move some high-density, as well as low-density or ANY-density objects out of detectable range, and again he didn't relate the cause to the real reason, and that is 'displacement.'

It can also churn some of those same objects up closer to the surface, but most often, in beach zones that get that type of stormy wave action, it will cause riptides, as he stated, that will remove ('displace') the lighter-weight shallower sand and get you closer to lost targets.

... and ...

Incidentally, depth has nearly no relevancy to the age of an item at the beach. A brand new penny can sink several feet deep in just a few hours.... Why go beach hunting? If gold rings and other precious jewelry can 'sink' an inch short of 2 feet in 3 minutes, and common modern Zinc Pennies can reposition their selves to several feet in a matter of just a few hours, why waste our time?


Then he concluded with a somewhat troublesome comment with this:

We're not finished yet! Weeks go by and somehow I damaged my detector, a fault of my own. Fisher repairs the detector and increases the sensitivity. Consequently, they also increase the stability of the unit to which I must say that I have never owned a detector with this much stability. ... Naturally, the first question is how or what damage did he do to his detector? For someone with specific descriptions it would be interesting to know.

But the troubling comment is that a Fisher CZ6a, which was manufactured by the oldest manufacturer of hobby-based metal detectors and was in the upper-end of their line, could put out a production unit that needed to have the Sensitivity increased and also the Stability (at an increased Sensitivity level) which gave Tom a unit with more 'stability' than he had ever owned.

So, how many of those degraded performing CZ's were out there in everyone else's hands? Don't tell me that Tom D. got the only wimpy-performing CZ!

Just a simple read-through of the article way back when, or this publication of it, alerted me to each of the questionable points. It's no different than reading a treasure tale, or an Owner's Manual, we have to ask ourselves questions as we go, and not only do I not believe in a 'sink rate' but many savvy individuals feel the same. The key word to use is not 'sink' but 'displacement' and the actions that cause displacement to occur. Then there are other factors such as deposition of vegetation, fill material being added, or trampling activity that can displace or build-up material to make coins and other targets deeper. And let's not forget wind, rain or other erosion type factors than can expose lost objects as well.

Variables. So many logical as well as unexpected variables can have an effect on this great sport and our 'success rate' ... a true measurement unlike the mythical 'sink rate.'

Monte

"Your EYES ... the only 100% accurate form of Discrimination!"

Stinkwater Wells Trading Post
Metal Detector Evaluations and Product Reviews
monte@ahrps.org ... or ... monte@stinkwaterwells.com
503-481-8147
Fisher: 1, Nokta-Makro: 3, Teknetics: 1, Tesoro: 2, White's: 2, XP: 1
Killer B's 'Hornet' and White's 'Pro Star'
Note: Detectors are listed alphabetically by Brand. Models are chosen based on search site conditions.
*** All working well today to make memories for tomorrow. ***
Subject Author Views Posted

Important Topic by George: Deep coin shooting with a concentric coil???

glabelle 277 April 16, 2019 06:50AM

Related Reference if you're interested -

UtahRich 149 April 22, 2019 11:47PM

Related Reference of interest? Well, I'm not, and I don't mind commenting on it, either.

Monte 140 April 23, 2019 07:55PM

Coils and Coins -

UtahRich 103 April 23, 2019 08:46PM

Re: Related Reference if you're interested -

glabelle 124 April 23, 2019 07:11AM

Coil Sizes and Depth on Coins -

UtahRich 114 April 23, 2019 08:40PM

Re: Coil Sizes and Depth on Coins -

glabelle 94 April 23, 2019 09:37PM

Coil Sizes and Depth on Coins -

UtahRich 86 April 23, 2019 09:44PM

Re: Related Reference if you're interested -

OregonGregg 105 April 23, 2019 05:45AM

Re: Related Reference if you're interested -

UtahRich 94 April 23, 2019 08:54PM

Pardon me George and others, but this is a great topic.

Monte 178 April 19, 2019 10:35AM

George, this is a great topic. Question for Harold,ILL

UtahRich 161 April 19, 2019 05:45PM

Comments for Rich (Utah) from Monte.

Monte 148 April 20, 2019 08:40AM

What is DEEP ? - Some Detecting Options

UtahRich 140 April 20, 2019 07:43PM

Re: What is DEEP ? - Some Detecting Options reply Rich Attachments

Kickindirt 125 April 20, 2019 09:12PM

Re: What is DEEP ? - Some Detecting Options

OregonGregg 124 April 20, 2019 08:06PM

Re: What is DEEP ? - Some Detecting Options

UtahRich 104 April 20, 2019 09:22PM

Re: What is DEEP ? - Some Detecting Options Attachments

OregonGregg 119 April 20, 2019 09:35PM

Re: Pardon me George and others, but this is a great topic.

glabelle 125 April 19, 2019 04:43PM

George, I'll respond to your 5-points.

Monte 141 April 20, 2019 05:42AM

In a nutshell . . . . .

UtahRich 98 April 19, 2019 07:48PM

Re: In a nutshell . . . . .

glabelle 123 April 19, 2019 08:42PM

Preferences -

UtahRich 96 April 19, 2019 11:48PM

A few last comments on coils and absolute depth Attachments

glabelle 136 April 20, 2019 09:24AM

George, a simple reason I described the 'cone.'

Monte 122 April 20, 2019 03:59PM

Adjacency - And why is that still there thinking

UtahRich 110 April 20, 2019 06:13PM

Re: Adjacency - And why is that still there thinking Great Post Richthumbs up

Druid 95 April 21, 2019 09:49AM

Re: A few last comments on coils and absolute depth

jmaryt 97 April 20, 2019 10:28AM

Re: Deep coin shooting with a concentric coil???

Kickindirt 150 April 16, 2019 06:46PM

Re: Deep coin shooting with a concentric coil???

glabelle 126 April 16, 2019 09:57PM

Balancing to ignore the ground?

Monte 128 April 20, 2019 09:22AM

Re: Balancing to ignore the ground?

glabelle 132 April 20, 2019 09:34AM

Re: Deep coin shooting with a concentric coil???

Kickindirt 122 April 17, 2019 11:05AM

Just a thought or two regarding coil size selection.

Monte 120 April 20, 2019 09:59AM

Re: Deep coin shooting with a concentric coil???

glabelle 137 April 17, 2019 04:13PM

What should I use to look for deep silver dimes?

UtahRich 159 April 16, 2019 10:20PM

Re: What should I use to look for deep silver dimes?

glabelle 130 April 17, 2019 09:21AM

Re: What should I use to look for deep silver dimes?

Harold,ILL. 146 April 17, 2019 08:06AM

Re: What should I use to look for deep silver dimes?

jmaryt 134 April 17, 2019 10:44AM

Re: What should I use to look for deep silver dimes?

UtahRich 150 April 17, 2019 04:12PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 31
Record Number of Users: 13 on January 18, 2018
Record Number of Guests: 302 on March 10, 2018