The Legend video showing inconsistent target ID's

I made this to show how the ID of the target changes when using different frequencies as opposed to single frequency. This may be normal operation but I think in the programming they can make all the targets ID the same across all the programs and frequencies.

[www.youtube.com]

If I recall correctly the Nokta Impact also has TID's specific to each frequency, but it also has a "normalization" option as well so it should be an easy thing for Nokta Makro to implement in a firmware upgrade.

Yes. I think it would be no problem for the engineers.

I like the big lead hitting in the same zone as the zinc penny. That's how it does on all my other detectors.

That certainly does seem to be problematic.

Chris

wjs, What Software version are you running in this test. The update to 1.05 is suppose to have updated "parameters" to Multi 1. I'm not sure if this addresses the lead bullet hitting so low. My first tests today concur with your observations, lead hitting low. Conversely, a Silver "War" Nickle hits 10 points higher than a regular Jefferson. Both multis seem to favor the higher end of kHz .Perhaps the weighting can be adjusted. Multi 2 & 40 kHz also seem to false on flat cast iron where as Multi 1, 4&10 are very quiet with solid low tone. Hopefully the next update with the adjustable IB will address these issues. I'm going to stay with the 1.04 software until then. I look at it as growing pains. I'm glad NM is being so responsive to field observations.

Chris



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2022 02:16AM by JCR.

JCR --

Just wanted to make an offhand comment about your "war nickel" observation.

A few years back, I was involved in an online discussion about war nickel VDIs, as rumors existed that different ones would register at different -- sometimes drastically different -- VDIs. So, I did some research on this, and found numerous examples of folks digging war nickels that range from "nickel" ID, all the way up through "Indian Head/Zinc/low wheat cent" IDs. In other words, ranging from 13 to about 21 in Equinox testing of various examples of "war" nickels. I acquired a few specimens that confirmed this VDI range, in my own testing.

Many of us pondered/speculated as to why this might be, and I finally had a few specimens (the ones representing different locations within this VDI range) tested at The University of Oklahoma, using XRF technology (x-ray fluorescence). What I discovered, was that the different coins had VERY different compositions of various metals, per XRF analysis! It seems that the "recipe" used during the few years that these nickels were produced, varied over the course of time.

While my understand is that Congress initially authorized a "war nickel" composed of 50% copper and 50% silver, there was reportedly authority given to the mint to "vary the proportions, or add other metals, in the public interest." And this, they apparently did. While reports are that a "final" composition was arrived at, of 56% copper, 35% silver, and 9% manganese (after attempting to find a weight/composition that would still work in vending machines), my research and testing showed variance in metals composition not ONLY early on, in 1943, but also in subsequent years. And so, I determined that whatever "official" information exists about war nickel composition, it ought to be taken entirely with a "grain of salt."

As this pertains to detectorists, I would simply suggest not taking any one "war nickel," and whatever VDI it shows on a given machine, and draw any hard-and-fast conclusions about how any other "war nickel" might ID on the same machine. Though it is somewhat common for similar coins to ID slightly differently from specimen to specimen (for example, many early wheat cents ID nearer to zinc pennies, whereas later-year wheat cents usually ID closer to typical copper penny ID), the war nickels are particularly variable with respect to where, from specimen to specimen, they may read on a given machine.

I didn't mean to take the conversation off into the weeds, but wanted to point this out, as it may be pertinent/important to the ongoing discussion.

Steve

Steve, Thanks for the very useful info. I will add a note to my coin book. I will also re check with some other "War" nickels. I also will re test nickels/pull tabs/ small lead in Field Mode. NM states Park Mode is optimized to hunt in AL trash and the spread I'm seeing, where Nickels are @26 and pulltabs are @33 is very effective for this. Hopefully Field Mode puts small lead up higher than Park for hunting Relic sites.
I don't mind TIDs being not "normalized" if I understand each Mode's/Frequency's behavior. I can set up my Tone Breaks/Notches accordingly. TID is secondary info to me. I look at the spread & dig by Tone.

Chris

steveg........validated/correct. Hence "why" I never use a War Nickel as a 'bench' /// 'standardized test-platform'. Only regular/common Nickels are used as a standardized base-reference.

Yes. Early wheat Cents ID as 'Zinc Penny'....... even though they are 95% copper. ((( This is due to the varying ratios of tin....vs....zinc in these early wheat Cents. )))
Indian Head Cents usually ID just slightly below a modern Zinc Cent. (On the EQX..... a Zinc Cent that is NOT corroded..... ID's: 21. A Indian Head Cent will ID as a 19 or 20). (((Fatty's ---White Cents--- 1857-1864..... ID in the 15 & 16 ID-range))).

steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JCR --
>
> Just wanted to make an offhand comment about your
> "war nickel" observation.
>

Wow steveg, you don't mess around, do you. Interesting.
Doesn't surprise me to know that our govt isn't exacting and they shoot from hip, . . judging from the run of things these days. . Oy Vey