Iron vs aluminum

Which one of these trash targets is champion of masking the good targets?

I can sort through Iron more effectively but it seems to have a bigger masking shadow. Aluminum is more annoying though because I will still usually dig it & it is never interesting.

Chris

My guess would be aluminum. You can sometimes get a one way hit on a non ferrous target next to iron. Pull tabs and small foil will almost always mask non ferrous targets. The frequency used also plays a small part in this as well.

my guess is that it would be mostly site specific .. with that, the places where Aluminum is the culprit, I usually dig it because it hits so similar to something that could be a good target ... where as many times iron is discriminated out and you wouldn't hear what you are missing...and if you don't discriminate it out and you do hear it, you just keep going assuming it is just a iron report

Iron.....of same mass & size..... (apples-to-apples)....... is more debilitating vs non-ferrous trash.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., in 'masking' a good target.

(((Tarsacci is somewhat starting to change this condition/phenomenon....a little bit))).

It's definitely site-specific.
Here in the U.K, our parks are usually created on what was previously agricultural land, so there's plenty of iron there from the start, before the modern-day deposition of loads of aluminium foil, ringpulls, cans, canslaw, bottle-tops. ( and steel cans/canslaw, steel bottle-tops ). Not to mention the low-value nickel-plated steel coins, that read as steel-plated steel to a detector.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Iron.....of same mass & size..... (apples-to-apple
> s)....... is more debilitating vs non-ferrous tras
> h.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., in 'masking' a good target.
>
> (((Tarsacci is somewhat starting to change this co
> ndition/phenomenon....a little bit))).

Tom I assume you saw the test Calabash did with the aluminum foil over a coin and the D2 was able to detect it. I assume if it had been a sheet of similarly sized and thickness iron or steel, the coin would be a no go.

Hi Brian,

No...... I did not. Some of calabash's posts (or reposts by TNSS)....... require you to sign-up & sign-in........... of which I have not done.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Brian,
>
> No...... I did not. Some of calabash's posts (or reposts by TNSS)....... require you to sign-up & sign-in........... of which I have not done.

Tom I believe this link should be accessible without having to sign-in/up: [youtu.be]

I'd certainly be curious to hear your take on the test.

Ok. Just watched the video. (((No....... I had not seen this particular one before))). Several things: calabash has a very steady hand. You can tell (by the video).....that there is a very narrow band of detection of the Barber Quarter. calabash demonstrates this very clearly/precisely. He even states: edge of the coil.
There is an:
- exacting coil height,
- exacting "clipping" of the TIP of the coil
- exacting coil sweep speed
tiny window of acceptability/detection.

Notice when the coil is (initially) swept over the top (center) of the foil..... in normal sweep fashion. , . , . , . the silver Quarter is not detected. Then when calabash pulls the coil away from the foil........and only the TIP of the coil is in close proximity of the foil........then (and only then)....can the composite mass (and subsequent conductivity) ....break through the squelch. This behavior is exactly VLF behavior......(SMF.... or otherwise). Per physics principality. You can take nearly any old style analog VLF detector and do the same. For example..... take an old 1265X/1266X platform.......and JUST BARELY disc out the aluminum foil. Then..... place the Quarter underneath the foil......,,,,,,,,........and the detector will probably break through the foil disc (squelch)......and 'beep' on the higher conductive composite mass.

Calabash's video of this demonstration is much appreciated.

Brian..... to (more specifically) answer your original question: In this (above) example.......the Tarsacci functions quite differently..... insofar as to specifically time-domain out the foil........which is not a function of VLF.