CZ3D au21x Mod Demo of Discing Gold Out of Foil

Hey guys here’s a demo of Toms au21x mod.

This video demonstrates that it’s actually possible to discriminate between aluminum foil and gold.

This is the first video I’ve ever posted and did it all on my iPhone so it’s not gonna be anything like Calabash motion picture quality, however I think it gets the point across.

Aaron

[www.youtube.com]

TARSACCI - “Digging deeper, BEHIND the competition!”
[forums.tarsaccisales.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2019 09:40AM by Aaron.

Very interesting as heard about this mod for years but never saw it in action.
Pretty cool.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2019 05:18PM by Harold,ILL..

Very interesting, thanks for posting.

Interesting, why have not you tried with aluminum foils folded into balls?
As well as with pulltab?
What would she be the reaction?

Why is this modification is so little known? It can be very interesting for many hunters.

Finally, I searched and found some discussions on this modified cz by NASA Tom.

But no conversation is talking about aluminum and gold, only tuning and 1 inch gain ...

OP, for a person who will hunt beaches infested with aluminum and without having to go in the water, do you think that this cz modified is the best?

Français Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting, why have not you tried with aluminum
> foils folded into balls?
> As well as with pulltab?
> What would she be the reaction?
>
> Why is this modification is so little known? It ca
> n be very interesting for many hunters.

Francais -Aluminum balled up still is going to read aluminum. As I had mentioned, this machine only discs out foil, not pull-tabs. Trust me, I know and have used it in the dirt and tried to find some kind of advantage as far as discing out pulls or telling the difference between gold.
No dice.
I’m surprised more people aren’t aware of it either. Tom developed it for FISHER many years ago, they obviously didn’t use it, that’s all I know Sir.
Yes, as I mentioned on the video the au21x has more gain in that mode however this is a 2011 model and not a Los Banos 1021 model.
If you have a beach with a lot of foil, yes I’d say it would be great.

TARSACCI - “Digging deeper, BEHIND the competition!”
[forums.tarsaccisales.com]

This is not "telling aluminum apart from gold". All you have done, with the alternate settings, is to effectively play with the spread of TID categories.

It's hard to see on the CZ scale. Since the CZ scale has large groupings of only 6 or 7 general groupings. But, if for example, that could be broadened out to a 100 pt. scale (like the explorer, etc....) you would find that perhaps the foil might have read "5", and the gold items slightly higher (7 to 9-ish). Yet are all broadly grouped into "foil". All you have simply done is broadened the spread of TIDs, such that a 7 or 9 is now thrown into nickel category. So too would larger wads of aluminum be thrown up into nickel category too.

Trust me: There's still going to be gold that reads in the foil range, after your mod. And there's still going to be tons of aluminum junk and larger foil wads that read right @ nickel or tab.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2019 04:34PM by Tom_in_CA.

Nasty aluminum “adventitious castings” - AL cans thrown into a fire - result - blobs of every size and shape - reading from low non ferrous up through high conductor.

Nothing can reliably separate this stuff from gold jewelry. Rings maybe, plain bands, their uniform shape might give clues if swept from different directions.

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold

[youtu.be]

TARSACCI - “Digging deeper, BEHIND the competition!”
[forums.tarsaccisales.com]

I use a translator, so I do not understand the nuances of your conversation.

I also think of 18k gold jewelry that will give an aluminum foil sound with your modified detector.
Chains of course, some earring with stones, and probably even rings according to their arrangement in the ground or if they are broken etc ..,

Your video could make you believe otherwise, I think it is incomplete.

Basically with an equinox I could get that, by adjusting the trays, the accept reject ...
Or simply by not digging the 0,1,2,3 which corresponds to your aluminum sheets.
However I can assure you that I have found enough 18k gold jewelry in this range to neglect it.

When pulltab I can recognize 95%, nevertheless when there are hundreds everywhere, there comes a time when the brain, the ear and the mind get tired ..
Of course I forbid the notch, a ring could have this index but with a different sound quality.

Finally, this hacked Fisher offers nothing new under the sun.

However I am not closed and I would like a lot to try one with this modification and make the observation by myself, only where I live it will be difficult to get one.

I read a bit of discussion on foil and the MDT. Do you think any of this tech for the AU was incorporated into the MDT?

Dew: Partially.

Tom & Rick: Be careful what you assume. Yes...…. there is indeed some 'Notching' taking place.

Français Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I use a translator, so I do not understand the nua
> nces of your conversation.
>
> I also think of 18k gold jewelry that will give an
> aluminum foil sound with your modified detector.
> Chains of course, some earring with stones, and pr
> obably even rings according to their arrangement i
> n the ground or if they are broken etc ..,
>
> Your video could make you believe otherwise, I thi
> nk it is incomplete.
>
> Basically with an equinox I could get that, by adj
> usting the trays, the accept reject ...
> Or simply by not digging the 0,1,2,3 which corresp
> onds to your aluminum sheets.
> However I can assure you that I have found enough
> 18k gold jewelry in this range to neglect it.
>
> When pulltab I can recognize 95%, nevertheless whe
> n there are hundreds everywhere, there comes a tim
> e when the brain, the ear and the mind get tired .
> .
> Of course I forbid the notch, a ring could have th
> is index but with a different sound quality.
>
> Finally, this hacked Fisher offers nothing new und
> er the sun.
>
> However I am not closed and I would like a lot to
> try one with this modification and make the observ
> ation by myself, only where I live it will be diff
> icult to get one.

If you can program your Equinox to replicate the same EXACT test that I have demonstrated, then it is incumbent upon YOU to PROVE it.

After all, I too have a Equinox, and I would LOVE for it to be able to do this.

And again, this demo AS I EXPLAINED,,,does not involve pull-tabs.

I’m not sure if this something you are not getting because as you’ve even admitted, things are getting lost in translation.

If the au21x has “nothing new under the sun” to offer, then again, show me another machine that can replicate my demonstration.

TARSACCI - “Digging deeper, BEHIND the competition!”
[forums.tarsaccisales.com]

lytle78 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nasty aluminum “adventitious castings” - AL cans t
> hrown into a fire - result - blobs of every size a
> nd shape - reading from low non ferrous up through
> high conductor.
>
> Nothing can reliably separate this stuff from gold
> jewelry. ....


lytle78, When you include molten aluminum globules (can's thrown onto beach bonfires and campfires), now you are DEFINITELY outside the realm of notching (mere TID's). Because, yes, those bothersome aluminum molten globules read all over the place AND can seen pretty durned consistent (ie.: "lock on") just like a uniform perfect band.

However .... humorously ... the crowd that thinks they can tell aluminum apart from gold, will say this: They will admit that the TIDs (target signatures, graphs, 2d screens, etc...) will be identical . HOWEVER, they will try to say that "gold sounds different". Eg.: smoother, mellower, softer, or .... something like that.

Here's the fastest way you put an end to such idle talk : Merely invite those advocates out to the nearest junky urban blighted park. Invite them to show you how much gold they can dig, while leaving aluminum in the ground. You will immediately hear the sound of crickets. They will never accept such a test. Even if you grant them just a 1 in 10, or 1 in 20 odds. Instead, it becomes nothing more than random odds.

The only reason it's easy to fall for the trick of thinking "gold sounds different", is merely the psychological trick of selective memory bias. Whenever we've just dug a gold ring, we think "that one sounded different". But that's failing to take into account that .... so too, when we stop to dig all the aluminum, we're thinking the same thing: "This sounds different". But we promptly forget our premonitions after it turns out to be junk. We only selectively remember the premonition when it turns out to be a goodie. And think "Aha ! I'm psychic! "

Aaron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> If you can program your Equinox to replicate the s
> ame EXACT test that I have demonstrated, then it i
> s incumbent upon YOU to PROVE it.
>


Any equinox user can create disc. programs to do exactly as you have done with your CZ.

All they need to do is start with a TID/disc. program #A that broadly lumps all the targets into "foil" range. That's not hard.

Then make a program #B that further expands those "foil" TID #'s, such that an accepted range (nickel and higher) now occupies some of those slots. Presto: Some of the targets will no longer read in the foil range.

Thus again: The only thing you're doing is playing with the notching and categorizing of assigned slots. It's not truly telling "aluminum apart from gold".

BTW : There's absolutely nothing wrong with "notching". It can be a valuable tool for places with recurring types of aluminum junk. Eg.: places with oodles of small foil like in-your-test video. And ... yes ... you will buck-the-odds and pass smaller foil. That's great. But it's not the same as "telling aluminum apart from gold". There is still aluminum that will fall in that nickel and tab range. And there is still gold that will fall in that foil range.

The do it, post the video.

TARSACCI - “Digging deeper, BEHIND the competition!”
[forums.tarsaccisales.com]

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Tom & Rick: Be careful what you assume. Yes...…. t
> here is indeed some 'Notching' taking place.


For purposes of this particular thread: That is all that's taking place : Notching. Which isn't a bad thing. But it's not to be confused with "telling aluminum apart from gold".

It's merely having an alternate set of classification coordinates for where-particular-items fall , on the TID scale. That same thing can be accomplished on a variety of TID machines over the last 30-ish years, as you know. It used to be called "ring enhancement" programs, if you recall to the early days of TID (early to mid 1980s).

I distinctly recall an early Teknetics being demonstrated to our club. In about 1984-ish. The audience was spell-bound when the dealer demonstrated that foil, tabs, and gold rings ALL SOUNDED DIFFERENT ! Several guys in the room rushed out to buy a Teknetics. Convinced they could dig gold rings till their arms fell off, while leaving aluminum in the ground. Hey, it's hard to argue with a table demonstration that shows JUST THAT.

Imagine those guy's surprise, when they go out into junky parks, and discover that a heck of a lot of aluminum reads in those gold ranges. Or they test the various gold rings in their collection, to discover that they're coming in @ the TID #'s they're supposed to be rejecting. Doh ! It was a rude awakening.

So too can the same "trick" (albeit unintentional on Aaron's part) be done @ a video even today : A video that ... upon first blush, appears to show that someone can tell aluminum apart from gold. But alas, it's only showing select individual targets. Doesn't show the full story that .... so too does each junk item ID different from each other. And so too does each gold item ID different from each other.

Aaron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The do it, post the video.


Aaron, I don't own an Equinox . But if I created a video showing that the Explorer can do your trick, would that suffice ?

I would create "program A", which would show a variety of objects all fall in "foil" category. Then I would create a "program B" that shows that the gold items (in my pre-selected assortment) now read into a nickel or tab category that I've created, for those #'s/tones to fall into.

If I do this successfully, are you willing to come on board with an admission as such ?

You’ve cut pasted this from the original tread you’ve posted on, AND you accused me of making a claim of trickery.

Ok fine.

I took the time and trouble to PROVE my point and that the au21x does work!

The burden of proof is now on you Sir.

If you can get the EQUINOX to replicate the same test, PLEASE do it.

Aaron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> If you can get the EQUINOX to replicate the same t
> est, PLEASE do it.


We "jinxed" each other on the timing of the posts Read my reply in the post above.

And when I say "trickery": Please don't mis-interpret that. No one here is accusing you of deliberate "tricks". I know you firmly sincerely believe that you have shown an ability to "tell aluminum apart from gold".

All we are saying is: That you too are being fooled by this . No one that's shown you this demonstration means ill-will, tricks, etc... Each person up-the-ladder is quite sincere. After all, it's pretty hard to argue with the table demonstration. Right ?


Thus perhaps "tricks" is a harsh word. It implies you meant ill-will or deception. I know you are quite sincere. So that was not my intent. We are just trying to say that you are being fooled/lulled by the technique of notching.

Tom, you realize, by calling this a “trick”, your not only insulting myself but also the person who developed this mod?

And on his own forum?

So if show you that I can replicate the same thing on an explorer, will that suffice to show you , that you are merely performing a function of notching ? Ie.: Re-assigning categories to various TID #s . Which is not ID'ing them as gold or aluminum. But instead showing only distinctions between *certain* foil objects and *certain* gold rings. All of which can be "thrown out the window" the moment you go into the nearest blighted junky field of targets.

Aaron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom, you realize, by calling this a “trick”, your
> not only insulting myself but also the person who
> developed this mod?
>

Aaron, again we jinxed each other. Read the above post for clarification of the word "trick". Meaning : It's a "trick" that can fool anyone. Not an ill-will or purposeful deception on your part, or the mod-makers part. It's the trick of notching, which .... to someone not fully aware of what's going on, can *seem* like "telling aluminum apart from gold".

Tom- I’m under the impression that you and some others feel that I only used “certain” rings for this demonstration.

That’s not the case...

To be clear....you can use a whole bag of thin gold rings, as long as they read foil in the salt mode, they’re almost always going to sound off in the high tone sound & VDI, in ENHANCED mode.

Again, I’m not claiming the mod is perfect, it has its limitations & flaws.

What I am claiming is, it is VERY unique and VERY useful for those working dry sand beaches.

Aaron

TARSACCI - “Digging deeper, BEHIND the competition!”
[forums.tarsaccisales.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2019 09:25PM by Aaron.

I wonder how it would work in mild dirt type ground?

I tested it in a park right off Cocoa Beach, I’m thinking that’s about as mild as you can get and as I recall the Enhanced (au21x) mode didn’t work. It was many years ago though.

Again, it has its limitations....

TARSACCI - “Digging deeper, BEHIND the competition!”
[forums.tarsaccisales.com]

Aaron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom- I’m under the impression that you and some ot
> hers feel that I only used “certain” rings for thi
> s demonstration.
>
> That’s not the case...
>

Hello Aaron .

a) If I took that exact same assortment of targets you had in your video (the same exact foil pieces, the same exact gold items), and

b) took another detector with a very expanded TID scale. Like a CTX, or an Explorer, or even the old school Spectrums and XLTs .... that

c) I could also show a distinct difference where all those foil items would have a category on the screen, and all the gold items would have a DIFFERENT category on the screen. And then I could toy with the "titles" attributed to each category, such that the rejected items fall into "foil", while the gold items fall in a different category (nickel or tab, etc...)

As you know: Category titles like "foil" and "nickel" and "tab" are just names for a certain select group of TID's. You know that a gold ring can fall into foil, or nickel, or tab, right ? Thus to merely attach a label like "foil" or "nickel", is simply to be attaching a grammar name to a selected TID range. That's all that a person is doing.

Thus for the test to be done with another TID machine like a CTX, for example, all I have to do is re-calibrate my TID's to lump certain targets into a category that I'll call "foil", and other targets into nickel category. It hasn't changed their TID one-bit. Nor is it telling aluminum apart from gold. It's merely titling your bucket-group of targets with a different word.

You would say, yourself: That there's going to be a gold item that can be made to read "foil", in your test. And there's going to be foil items (especially after your mod) that's going to read in the nickel range. Guaranteed, after viewing your video, I can already tell that there's going to be larger foil wads that .... likewise ... read into nickel. All you have done is simply re-calibrated where you've chosen your TID's to be labeled at. ANY comprehensive TID machine can be made to do the same thing. Eg.: pass the smallest whispiest of foil.

I can wave 100 foil objects, and 100 gold objects, in front of an expanded TID scale, and find minute differences between each foil object, and each gold object. And at the end of the day, I could find a TID disc. setting program that gives a very high percentage of positive hits on the gold, while giving a low percent of hits on the foil. Granted. But that only works for those 200 targets. The moment you step out the door to a blighted junky area, you soon find out that you are not telling aluminum apart from gold.

And I say again: To the extent that ... yes ... you can eliminate *most* foil, that's merely a form of notching or ring-enhancement. Nothing wrong with that. But it's not the same as telling aluminum apart from gold. All you are doing is knocking out whispy foil (were only the super dantiest of gold things would read). People have been doing that since the day that TID was introduced in 1982 to '83-ish. And sure, you can attach "labels" on to the categories that you're electing to pass, that make it appear there's a difference between gold and foil. But when you get into junky environments: You will indeed miss gold, and you will indeed dig junk.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2019 10:47PM by Tom_in_CA.

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aaron Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Tom- I’m under the impression that you and some
> ot
> > hers feel that I only used “certain” rings for t
> hi
> > s demonstration.
> >
> > That’s not the case...
> >
>
> Hello Aaron .
>
> a) If I took that exact same assortment of target
> s you had in your video (the same exact foil piece
> s, the same exact gold items), and
>
> b) took another detector with a very expanded TID
> scale. Like a CTX, or an Explorer, or even the o
> ld school Spectrums and XLTs .... that
>
> c) I could also show a distinct difference where
> all those foil items would have a category on the
> screen, and all the gold items would have a DIFFER
> ENT category on the screen. And then I could to
> y with the "titles" attributed to each category, s
> uch that the rejected items fall into "foil", whil
> e the gold items fall in a different category (nic
> kel or tab, etc...)
>
> As you know: Category titles like "foil" and "ni
> ckel" and "tab" are just names for a certain selec
> t group of TID's. You know that a gold ring can f
> all into foil, or nickel, or tab, right ? Thus t
> o merely attach a label like "foil" or "nickel", i
> s simply to be attaching a grammar name to a selec
> ted TID range. That's all that a person is doing.
>
> Thus for the test to be done with another TID mach
> ine like a CTX, for example, all I have to do is r
> e-calibrate my TID's to lump certain targets into
> a category that I'll call "foil", and other target
> s into nickel category. It hasn't changed their T
> ID one-bit. Nor is it telling aluminum apart from
> gold. It's merely titling your bucket-group of ta
> rgets with a different word.
>
> You would say, yourself: That there's going to be
> a gold item that can be made to read "foil", in yo
> ur test. And there's going to be foil items (espe
> cially after your mod) that's going to read in the
> nickel range. Guaranteed, after viewing your vide
> o, I can already tell that there's going to be lar
> ger foil wads that .... likewise ... read into nic
> kel. All you have done is simply re-calibrated w
> here you've chosen your TID's to be labeled at.
> ANY comprehensive TID machine can be made to do th
> e same thing. Eg.: pass the smallest whispiest of
> foil.
>
> I can wave 100 foil objects, and 100 gold objects,
> in front of an expanded TID scale, and find minute
> differences between each foil object, and each gol
> d object. And at the end of the day, I could fin
> d a TID disc. setting program that gives a very hi
> gh percentage of positive hits on the gold, while
> giving a low percent of hits on the foil. Grante
> d. But that only works for those 200 targets. T
> he moment you step out the door to a blighted junk
> y area, you soon find out that you are not telling
> aluminum apart from gold.
>
> And I say again: To the extent that ... yes ... y
> ou can eliminate *most* foil, that's merely a form
> of notching or ring-enhancement. Nothing wrong wi
> th that. But it's not the same as telling aluminu
> m apart from gold. All you are doing is knocking
> out whispy foil (were only the super dantiest of g
> old things would read). People have been doing t
> hat since the day that TID was introduced in 1982
> to '83-ish. And sure, you can attach "labels" o
> n to the categories that you're electing to pass,
> that make it appear there's a difference between g
> old and foil. But when you get into junky enviro
> nments: You will indeed miss gold, and you will i
> ndeed dig junk.


Tom you might try thinking outside the box on this one. Consider who built this mod, it's not in the same section of KCO adverts as LRL's and considering that Nasa Tom Dankowski has a passion for beach hunting for gold (micro jewelry), I'd be willing to bet that you cannot replicate the au21x mod with a notching program, because I'd bet that Tom D's invention goes far beyond notching.

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>.... I'd be willing t
> o bet that you cannot replicate the au21x mod with
> a notching program, because I'd bet that Tom D's i
> nvention goes far beyond notching.


Cobra and Aaron, are you saying I can not replicate the video results on another machine ? I bet I most certainly can assemble a handful of foil and gold targets like in the video. All the tested targets will fall into a range that I'll call "foil". That first series of air test results will be my "program A" of my settings. Then with a "program B", I can successfully show that the gold items now get tossed into a category that I'll call "nickel and tabs". Do you doubt that I can do this, with nothing more than operator user settings ?

And we'll call the transformation that allows me to choose between "program A" and "program B", to be a "mod". Ok ? If I show you that I can do this, then : Who will be the one who didn't "think outside the box" ?

And again: Nothing at all wrong with "enhancing" the titles of targets (TID names) . To favor gold over aluminum. But again: It's not the same as "telling aluminum apart from gold". It is an age-old trick of ring-enhancement and notching. Nothing at all wrong with that. But it's not "telling aluminum apart from gold". There is no analyzing of the target compositionally/chemically to discern gold vs aluminum.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2019 10:50AM by Tom_in_CA.

And I have another beef-to-grind and bone-to-pick , for whenever such conversations of "telling aluminum apart from gold" come up on md'ing forum discussions :

There was a certain couple of dealers here in CA, that were trying to tell people that certain Tesoro 2-filters could tell the difference between gold and aluminum . JUST BY SOUND. Eg.: gold "sounds" different. And they'd show this to customers and/or on video , by waving sample gold & aluminum items. And telling the viewer that ...... if they listened REAL close .... they could tell a difference in the sound. Eg.: softer, or mellower, or rounder, blah blah blah. And if you re-wound the tape, you might be inclined to ... yes ..... tell a difference.

And the proponent would be very careful to say "it's not a perfect system" and "there will be items that fool you" . Don't you see how that's the perfect convenient "out" ?? I challenged the proponent and asked "what might be the odds of this factor of getting 'fooled' " ? Eg.: 1 in 10 ? 1 in 20 ? etc.... Obviously , most of us would GLADLY get fooled by 1 in 20, if the 21st were .... on average , going to be gold. Right ? Ok, how about 1 in 30 ? 1 in 40 ? etc..... At what point does it become random eventual odds ??

The proponent would not entertain an estimate !! In the end, I suggested that he was doing nothing more than random chance odds . In other words, every time it's a junk item, he's got the perfect "out" to rely on, that "..it's not a perfect system". But eventually (the 10,000th target) it turns out to be gold, he can proclaim "I knew it !". And if you try to identify it as eventual random odds, his fall-back continues to be : Well it's not a perfect system.

All the while telling his customers that they can tell aluminum apart from gold "if they listen hard enough". Yet truth-be-told, you can't find a single person in the entire state of CA, that's going out and achieving this zen-like status of "having learned those sounds and tones". All we have is persons playing the odds with notching, TID's, and eventual dumb luck. Yet, supposedly, .... gold has a *different* sound.

So too do I have a bit of a problem with this "out" on the OP's video & post. I am the first to acknowledge a "lack of perfection" is quite appropriate. No one is asking for perfection. All of us would be happy with 1 in 10 or 1 in 30, etc..... to get the gold. Right ? But at what point does the "out" become nothing more than a convenient fall-back for a system that is nothing more than notching, TID's, and eventual random odds ?