Oxymoron Pix of Invisible Nuggets

[John B.]

Hi All

I got this PM from my friend Reg Snif !!

Hi John,

Do you still have pictures of the "invisible" nuggets and if you do, can you post a couple of pics on the nugget hunting forum?

Thanks,

Reg Sniff

Ok Reg I hope this works ??

Here's a picture of an invisible 23.37 oz nugget !! Oddly my minelab and goldmaster won't make a fart on it !! I specked this one !! Here you go !! Happy Huntin John B.

PS This nugget is for sale at spot +10% !!

[John B.]

Hi Reg and All

The nugget in this pix is a little over 3 dwt and is pretty much all gold with some manganeeze staining I think it's on loan at the Az Mine and Mineral Museum in Phoenix. This nugget I could not hear with my sd2100 or gp3000 with an assortment of coils. My goldmaster clearly hears it at around 9 inches. Since it's a real fragile ball of wire gold I wasn't willing to bury it for depth tests so this was off the surface. The Minelabs we rubbed this nugget on the hot spots of the coil edges and not a fart !! I was Just at the Gholsons Rich Hill Wing Ding and brought a bunch of specimens for Reno Chris to take a look at. All have some good visable gold with some pretty good mass to them. All were found with my goldmasters on mine dumps and can easily be heard at 6 to 8 inches with it and one sounds like a can at about a foot. The one that sounded like a can at a foot on the goldmaster probably has a 1/2 ounce or better in it. AZ4AU Mike K. with his minelab GP4000 and 8 inch coil could hear it at a whopping 1 inch and the other specimens not a fart !! My conclusion is that if the known load is very course , pourous or highly disceminated in the load the pulse induction machines are virtually worthless and the VLFs are far superior in detecting the gold !! Happy Huntin John B. http://www.treasure-hunting-info.com/GoldMaster/audsw.htm

[kamikaze]

That's a pretty nugget...not much character though and looks lighter than it weighs out...

[Reg]

Hi John,

Thanks for posting the pics. You are right, the first set are clearly of invisible nuggets. The next is a real beauty.

Some time back you posted a nice pic on the nuggetshooter forum of several "invisible" nuggets showing various sizes. When I looked for that pic on the nuggetshooter forum, I couldn't find it. It is the one that shows several different size of nuggets including the ones you sent to me. I was just wondering if you still have that pic and could post it here also.

I sure would appreciate it. That pic was far superior to one just showing the two smaller nuggets I have on loan. Many people are still skeptical about "invisible" nuggets and the fact they do exist. By "invisible" it is meant they are not detectable by typical PI's used for nugget hunting today. I am still having fun with the two you sent me. They appear large enough that any PI could detect them but that certainly isn't the case.

Thanks again,

Reg

[Ridge Runner]

This sounds about the same size that Colorado Bob found on April Fools Day and looks it.

Chuck Anders

[Dakota Slim]

This sounds about the same size that Colorado Bob found on April Fools Day and looks it.

Chuck Anders

Believe me, you DO NOT want to get hit in the head by one of these nuggets.

[iggy]

Like to see the true weight after you do the specific gravity test. Then we will know for sure how pure it really is.

Iggy

[John B.]

Hi Reg and All

Reg I have hundreds of unmarked floppys with gold and space rocks on em . The picture and nuggets your refering too I found them while hunting with Rob . He couldn't hear any or all of them packed tight in a baggie . I think the total weight was 3.2 dwt in four or five pieces !! I'll look around for the floppy but no guarentees .

Iggy the gold in the rocks is 85 fine with about 14% silver and traces of lead, zinc and copper which was the standard for this particular mine. Most of the gold was leaf clusters ,sponge and wire masses, when acid etched most of the gold remaines in a main mass with some crumbs falling off. There is virtually no quartz in this load or associated with this load . It's in a limonite as per the mine reports ( chaulky shiterite) which fizzes like a fizzy when pool acid (Hydrocloric) is put on it and leaves nuggets and sludge. I have many samples left in there original host rock for keep sake and I don't intend to etch them . Unless a large dollar wager were made then all keepsakes are off and I'll go get more !!

Happy Huntin John B.

[Ridge Runner]

John B.

I can't see for all the smoke maybe thats why I can't see some of the nuggets posted.Is this anything like High Speed Muffler Bearings?

Chuck Anders

[AZNuggetBob]

You can only see them on HD-TV, The secret is in the mirrors. AzNuggetBob

John B., Only spot plus 10% on such a rare nugget, your giving it away at that price. All you need to find more is a foolproof plan with a airtight alibi. AzNuggetBob

[Allen in MT]

Hey John B

That one in the right hand picture sure looks like the one I found and then lost and couldn't find again. Tell me what area you found it in that way I can let you if that is the area I lost it

Allen in MT

[Reg]

Hi All,

I have attached a pic of the "invisible" nuggets I use for testing. Sorry for the lousy pic.

Hey Sourdough,

These are the "invisible" nuggets I use for testing. Most PI's can't detect them at all. I had to do some serious modification before I could get any type of signal and even then, the signal isn't that great. For those technically involved with PI's, one has to sample at less than 10 usec before these nuggets generate a signal.

Reg

Reg

[Reg]

Here is another pic that is a little better.

Reg

[Ridge Runner]

AzNuggetBob

I was thinking I had all my ducks in a row and now you tell me I've got to have HD-TV. I may have to start up my own forum for the old and slow. This advance technology is making my head hurt.

The detector that you have to use to hunt these type nuggets is it also invisible?

Now this just a guess about the mirror and I believe this is for looking at yourself so you can see what stupid looks like.

This is Chuck not in the know Anders!

[AZNuggetBob]

You can only see them on HD-TV, The secret is in the mirrors. AzNuggetBob

John B., Only spot plus 10% on such a rare nugget, your giving it away at that price. All you need to find more is a foolproof plan with a airtight alibi. AzNuggetBob

It was a joke Chuck and it wasn't addressed to you? How many oxymorons can you count in the statement I made to John B. ? AzNuggetBob

[sourdough]

Reg, I have a test nugget I got from a detector dealer years ago when I bought one of my detectors, question is I can get a real good repsonse from my VFL but have a hard time getting one from either my GP 3500 or my GPX 4000, could it be one of those invisible nuggets or just the plastic it is incased in. It's in-between two pieces of plastic like a credit card. I don't know what the weight of it is but I'd guess about .2 or .3 Grams.

[Reg]

Hi Sourdough,

The two "invisible" nuggets I have are actually quite heavy when one thinks of nuggets that might not be detected by a PI. One nugget weighs about 10.9 grains (approx .7gram) and the other comes in at about 11.8 grains (approx .765 gram). Normally, nuggets this size are easily detected by a PI designed for nugget hunting. Together, they weigh in at a little less than 1.5 grams and together they are still are invisible as far as Minelab PI's. or most other PI's for that matter, are concerned.

On these particular nuggets, the signal is almost gone at 10 usec so any PI that samples later will simply not detect them.

Now, when more typical nuggets get somewhere below 3 to 4 grains or so, they are much more likely to be ignored by a PI. There are different factors that will determine whether a nugget will be detected or not. The surface structure, the chemistry, the physical shape and overall texture of the nugget all have an influence. So, it is possible that a one grain nugget will cause a distinct signal but a 3 grain nugget might be ignored just because of one or more of the factors involved.

In the case of your test nugget, I suspect it is more likely to be one of the more typical types but has one or more feature causing the difficulty. It is really difficult to tell by the picture. If I had to guess, I would suspect the nugget has a little more silver which could cause problems. Also, the shape or surface is quite irregular which could cause problems. If the surface were smoother I would guess it would generate a louder signal.

Reg

[sourdough]

Hi Reg, I have found two small and I mean small nuggets with my 3500 and 14" elip. mono. they were about 1/2" deep. One weighed .1 grams and the other came in at .19 grams, so I know I can find the little one's, I was just wondering why I had a hard time with this one. The one in the picture is around the size of a piece of rice cut in half length-wise.

Thanks again.

sourdough

[AZNuggetBob]

Hi Reg, I found a nugget in Nevada a few years ago with a Minelab 2000 that gave a very weak signal for its size? I had a friend do an assay on it and he told me it had a large amount of antimony. Do you think maybe the antimony is putting up a smoke screen to the metal detector? Masking the gold? AzNuggetBob

[Ridge Runner]

AzNuggetBob

I know its a joke and that why I put all the bull in my remarks. It don't hurt to make people laugh even if they are laughing at me.

Now if you really want to help tell how to post a picture of the pick I made and to make it smaller in size to post. I can't use it until I've had the unveiling on this forum.

The only other pick I made was sold to Bill Clinton to dig him a deeper hole than he was already in.

Thanks!

Chuck Anders

[AZNuggetBob]

I think maybe bush's hole is deeper As far as the photo you may need to reduce the size with your picture program in your computer. It could also be the format your picture is in. example: JPEG, Bitmap, Tiff, etc. I'm not sure? AzNuggetBob

Hi Chuck Ill help you with the picture problem if I can?? I would like to see your new pick,but I think we should move back to the pick making post so were not stepping all over this one with a different subject. AzNuggetBob

[Reg]

Hi AZnuggetBob,

I would hate to say that antimony was the specific cause for the nugget you found to have a weak response. About the only testing of gold alloyed with other metals I now about was done by Eric Foster. In his tests, he found that different alloying ratios of silver could cause significant losses in the ability of the metal to be detected.

So, it is quite possible that the antimony caused problems, but that is simply a guess.

As I said, there are several different factors that can cause what could be called an abnormal response from a piece of gold. Coarse spongy gold will generally not generate nearly as strong of a response as a similar size solid piece. A very rough surface can cause similar problems as can various ratios of other metals. Wire gold or certain specimens can generate a very weak response for their size. Again, much of what happens has to do with the actual structure of the gold itself.

Now all of these conditions are separate from those caused by the different techniques for ground balancing or noise reduction. Different designs can cause much larger nuggets to seem to cause reduced signals up to and including no response well within what a person would consider the normal detection range.

So, there are several factors that can come into play. The key is not so much as to trying to figure out why is it is to knowing it can happen and what are the best alternatives to minimize the situation.

In the case of the "invisible" nuggets found in Greaterville, if most of the gold found in a specific area are the "invisible" type, then the VLF is clearly the best detector to use. Unfortunately, most people do not like to go back to the problems encountered with a VLF, so we suffer along as best we can. On the bright side, the "invisible" type nuggets are clearly the minority also in most other places.

One real plus of a PI is the fact that almost everything will generate a false signal, rather than mask a nugget. On a VLF, it is very easy to cause a nugget to be missed because it can't be heard. That generally is not the case with a PI.

Reg

[AZNuggetBob]

Hi AZnuggetBob,

I would hate to say that antimony was the specific cause for the nugget you found to have a weak response. About the only testing of gold alloyed with other metals I now about was done by Eric Foster. In his tests, he found that different alloying ratios of silver could cause significant losses in the ability of the metal to be detected.

So, it is quite possible that the antimony caused problems, but that is simply a guess.

As I said, there are several different factors that can cause what could be called an abnormal response from a piece of gold. Coarse spongy gold will generally not generate nearly as strong of a response as a similar size solid piece. A very rough surface can cause similar problems as can various ratios of other metals. Wire gold or certain specimens can generate a very weak response for their size. Again, much of what happens has to do with the actual structure of the gold itself.

Now all of these conditions are separate from those caused by the different techniques for ground balancing or noise reduction. Different designs can cause much larger nuggets to seem to cause reduced signals up to and including no response well within what a person would consider the normal detection range.

So, there are several factors that can come into play. The key is not so much as to trying to figure out why is it is to knowing it can happen and what are the best alternatives to minimize the situation.

In the case of the "invisible" nuggets found in Greaterville, if most of the gold found in a specific area are the "invisible" type, then the VLF is clearly the best detector to use. Unfortunately, most people do not like to go back to the problems encountered with a VLF, so we suffer along as best we can. On the bright side, the "invisible" type nuggets are clearly the minority also in most other places.

One real plus of a PI is the fact that almost everything will generate a false signal, rather than mask a nugget. On a VLF, it is very easy to cause a nugget to be missed because it can't be heard. That generally is not the case with a PI.

Reg

Hi Reg I think I understand what your saying, Are you saying that there will at least be a negative responce? As apposed to no responce at all? Im really trying to figure this out. Also do you have a picture of the invisable 1oz. nugget or know were I can get a look at it, that was used in the Minelab 4000 tests in Austraila? Thanks AzNuggetBob

[John B.]

Hi All

Reg are either of those nuggets the Greaterville nugget I sent you ?? Reg I doubt the alloyed composition of the nuggets make much difference as to invisibilty since most alluvial gold nuggets will have variable purity within the nugget with their exterior bieng the purist gold !! AZ4AU Mike showed me something, take about a 1 inch piece of the sloted end of a stainless steel hose clamp !! The PIs can hear it but it's really shocking they can only hear it at a couple inches . A VLF will hear that target at 10 or 12 inches . I think it's the same principle as stelth in our fighter plans as to what radar sees and cannot get a return on !! I think it's more the surface features and porousity as to how the PIs respond . As a matter of fact if I took a torch to those nuggets you'ld hear em real good with your PIs !! As far as antomony I haven't paid it in years !! Happy Huntin John B.

[AZNuggetBob]

Good point John. At this point I would have to agree with both you and Reg, because the only common I've been able to find in all this controversy is that all the invisible nuggets that I've seen have been little porous or wirery compacted masses. No solid return signal for the detector regardless of weight. Well someone will get it figured out, I think I'll go huntin, AzNuggetBob