some cosiderations

[Max]

When you dug up the worms did you recheck to see whether the signal was still there?

Hi,
yes I've rechecked the hole... yes there was still some signal but then digged again and found other worms masked by soil, but few, then signal disappeared from hole.
Just worms were the cause of signal ? I think so... but don't know why...
and I also "opened" few of them... just found some ink like liquid inside maybe mixed with some soil...

So I gived up with them and the whole place for a while... then searched again with GS4 and same thing happened. Cause there are too many falsing due to that things I endly decided don't go there anymore for metal detecting... also though I found a number of things there like bullet shells, but nothing for real good.

Strange things happen there.

Bast regards,
Max

[Max]

Interesting research, Seden. According to some of these studies, the leached metal content of the soil can reach well over 1% metal.

At the southwest pacific coast in USA, people are warned not to eat muscles taken from the ocean tide pools because they concentrate heavy metals thought to originate from local effluent and chemicals that run off from storm drains. This makes me wonder: How much lead and other metals can earthworms concentrate that have been leaching into the soil at a military base? Are earthworms able to concentrate enough lead, cadmium, zinc and other metals to read on a metal detector?

In order to detect these metals that a worm might ingest, they usually need to be in the form of a solid chunk of metal. Finely ground grains and powders become very difficult to detect with metal detectors. Let us be generous and presume these worms were able to ingest enough metal to make up 15% of their body weight. If a ball of worms weighed 100 grams, then this would be 15 grams metal. If this metal is in colloidal form that can chelate into small deposits in the worm's body, and if these deposits are making good contact along the length of the worm's body, maybe there is an argument they "grew a thin metal wire inside them". Maybe a more likely argument is they swallowed some lead shotgun pellets and other metal grains that remained in their bodies in enough quantities to give a reading on a metal detector. In the worst case, Max found a ball of worms that swallowed 15 grams of gold flakes which they were not able to digest, and remained in their bodies. Then, being unable to determine why the worms gave a reading, he threw them out.

Best wishes,
J_P

Hi,
well I really don't know if signal was due to metals... can't say anything sure about. Maybe I have to collect them and send to some lab... I don't know.
What I'm sure is that I've that readings at few cm depth and just with hi-sensitive machines like GS4 (but also a VLF), and with lot of them in a kind of hollow underground. Also soil there is somehow strange... seems really dark humus type and there are lot of these worms.

I think that an environment control agency would find lot of contamination in that soil.

I think that, like happens in bricks or pottery, when you search in that place with a sensitive md you get signal cause maybe there are concentrations of iron oxides in worms, somehow maybe mag dipoles oriented...
Just my hipotesys.

Best regards,
Max

[J_Player]

More gold ions ....

We recently read about microbes moving gold and other metals through the soil, and also ionizing and precipitating solid gold in places where it did not exist before. In addition to those microbe processes, there are also some other chemical methods that allow gold and other metals to move through the soil in the form of ions. According to many studies made by oil and mineral exploration companies, metals in the ground will ionize, and the ions will move upward to the surface where they become bound with the surface constituents. Only after losing their ion status, these metal compounds continue with further migration laterally along the ground.

What they are saying is trace amounts of ions form as buried metals and ores dissolve into the surrounding soil. From there, they move to the surface leaving a trail of ions and an area of ionized metal at the surface soil that marks the location of buried metal. Because these ions quickly neutralize at the surface, they do not move away from the source of the metal as an ion. Thus these are called "mobile metal ions" until they neutralize and cease to be ions at the surface.

In essence, the presence of metal ions in the surface soil is an accurate pin pointer for metal and ores beneath the surface.
Today there are a number of companies for hire to take measurements of metal ions at the surface to tell you what minerals are below. This technique is used to identify the presence of petroleum and other minerals including gold, copper, zinc, iron and others. Some reports show magnetic anomalies and halos as well as ionic anomalies in the soil measured above mineral deposits. A number of gold mining operations use this method to locate the gold below the soil.

Check here to read more about these mobile metal ions rising to the surface to mark the location of buried metal or ore:

http://www.geoconvention.org/2007abstracts/037S0126.pdf

http://www.mmigeochem.com/Mobilizing...ril%202001.pdf

http://www.mmigeochem.com/frwelcome.htm

http://www.innovation.wa.gov.au/Innovation/portal_skin%3BEnhanced/Innovation%20Directory/g/geochemistry_research_centre/mobile_metal_ion

http://geea.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/3/201

http://www.diggerresources.com/hdrg.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_Jan_7/ai_n8682755

Google for measure "mobile metal ions" to read a lot more mining companies using this method: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...22&btnG=Search


Of course these ions do not form and rise to the surface overnight. This can take many years, depending on the soil composition. So what do you think? Does this sound like another explanation of how "long time buried" is not the same as fresh?

[FrancoItaly]

Hi All
I think that it's the scientific demonstration that long range gold detection it's possible...

[Seden]

Electronic Geochemical detector

FrancoItaly,

This is true far as doing a chemical analysis or XRF method,the challenge is to find a way to do it electronically. Some sort of way to detect down to the ion level in soil,hmm.
Sounds like an unsolved opportunity and it has to have discrimination too.

Alonso,are you lurking out there,help us out man!

Randy

[Dell Winders]

I'm happy to see a thread with rational, open minded, logical thinking among some of you instead of the usual display of opinionated arrogance, egotism, ignorance, and mockery encouraged by Carl,s self serving agenda that has driven knowledgeable, field experienced people away from this forum who tried to share their knowledge and experience with you.

An example of his closed minded arrogance leading the blind.

By studying Earth Science, you are now learning what I have already learned through years of field experience and you are partially on the right track.

Always keep in mind, What has already been done, can be done, whether you choose to learn and understand the process, or not. The facts still remain.

Good luck! Dell

[Qiaozhi]

Hi All
I think that it's the scientific demonstration that long range gold detection it's possible...

J_Player was just speculating whether the worms could actually digest enough metal to make them "visible" to a metal detector. So quite how you've managed to conclude that this scientifically demonstrates the plausibility of long range gold detection is beyond me.
It is this type of pseudoscientific non-thinking that makes a mockery of this LRL nonsense.
Not that it needs any help.

[J_Player]

J_Player was just speculating whether the worms could actually digest enough metal to make them "visible" to a metal detector. So quite how you've managed to conclude that this scientifically demonstrates the plausibility of long range gold detection is beyond me.

Hi Qiaozhi,

Maybe you missed something. If you look at my post above, you will find that there are companies who use chemical analysis to locate areas of the ground containing metal ions leached from metal or ores deep below. This technique is used by a number of gold mining and oil exploration companies. What Franco is referencing is the fact they found surface soil containing metal ions that can be used to pinpoint a target deep below in the ground.

Unless all these companies are lying about what they found, we can expect to find a trail of metal ions rising vertically in the soil above a long-time buried metal object or ore. These ions have a very short lifetime once they reach the surface, so by locating soil with metal ions at the surface, you have a convenient pin-pointer for a buried target.

The problems in locating these targets from long distance are:
1. Build an instrument that can detect extremely small amounts of metal ions in the soil of a field that may be contaminated with many other signals to interfere with the sensing instrument. (Interfering signals include all kinds of electrical noise from the atmosphere, man-made and natural, as well as tiny current flows and fields in the ground).
2. After constructing this instrument to locate the metal ions in the soil at distance, find a method to get the instrument to identify what metal ions you have located in the soil.
3. An optional feature of a working LRL would be to find a method to determine the depth of the buried target. There may be some reasonable method to accomplish this, because according to the reports, there is a trail of ions from the buried object to the surface of the soil that rises pretty much vertically. Perhaps there are physical properties of this ion-impregnated soil column that can be measured to determine its height.

My question to you is:
After reading the reports, do you think there are metal ions in the surface soil like they say? And, do you know of some reasons why it would not be possible to develop an electronic instrument to locate this weak concentration of metal ions at long range (over 20 feet)?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Max]

Hi Qiaozhi,

Maybe you missed something. If you look at my post above, you will find that there are companies who use chemical analysis to locate areas of the ground containing metal ions leached from metal or ores deep below. This technique is used by a number of gold mining and oil exploration companies. What Franco is referencing is the fact they found surface soil containing metal ions that can be used to pinpoint a target deep below in the ground.

Unless all these companies are lying about what they found, we can expect to find a trail of metal ions rising vertically in the soil above a long-time buried metal object or ore. These ions have a very short lifetime once they reach the surface, so by locating soil with metal ions at the surface, you have a convenient pin-pointer for a buried target.

The problems in locating these targets from long distance are:
1. Build an instrument that can detect extremely small amounts of metal ions in the soil of a field that may be contaminated with many other signals to interfere with the sensing instrument. (Interfering signals include all kinds of electrical noise from the atmosphere, man-made and natural, as well as tiny current flows and fields in the ground).
2. After constructing this instrument to locate the metal ions in the soil at distance, find a method to get the instrument to identify what metal ions you have located in the soil.
3. An optional feature of a working LRL would be to find a method to determine the depth of the buried target. There may be some reasonable method to accomplish this, because according to the reports, there is a trail of ions from the buried object to the surface of the soil that rises pretty much vertically. Perhaps there are physical properties of this ion-impregnated soil column that can be measured to determine its height.

My question to you is:
After reading the reports, do you think there are metal ions in the surface soil like they say? And, do you know of some reasons why it would not be possible to develop an electronic instrument to locate this weak concentration of metal ions at long range (over 20 feet)?

Best wishes,
J_P

Hi,
"
After reading the reports, do you think there are metal ions in the surface soil like they say? And, do you know of some reasons why it would not be possible to develop an electronic instrument to locate this weak concentration of metal ions at long range (over 20 feet)?
"

1. think is possible that metal ions are on surface soil...why not. Matrix-metal interactions could generate ionic-pairs, really small amounts. Also bacteria or other "simple" lifeform that stay in the matrix... I agree on that point.

2. electronic lrl ??? I think is possible e.g. put a sharp tip in the soil, for some cm depth... and getting some data due to some accurate sensor... like some airborn-ion-sniffers do...

I saw one time an object like this in a scientific reportage on Mars (or Venus?) exploring by some kind of robot (soviet union space program) that used 2 different methods to analize elements in planet soil:
- using a sharp tip tool, inserting it in soil... then some kind of reactions take place to give electrical signals to onboard computer
- using a kind of pipe... (very interesting!)

second method was different, pipe have at top a pulse laser... (something like 1Mw burst, really powerful)...
work like this:
- robot put pipe on the soil exercing a big pressure
- when end of pipe was inserted in soil a laser burst was triggered
- laser pulse energize and "vaporize" some superficial soil particles, thus generating (also) airborn-ions
- then internal analyzer ("ion sniffer") trap ions and count them
- then data was sent to onboard computer for transmission to Earth

So , I think that big problem... as always stated here is that you need to test soil directly (like oil companies do) or use an airborn-ion generator (of some kind) to get ions from soil... to get LRL work, cause there isn't any real , natural ,good and predictable self-generation of airborn ions. This is the hard problem.

You have only two way :
- or a "passive" device that analize soil directly (like lab would do but electronically... seems hard to do, require some kind of chemical binding... specific compounds...)
- or an "active" device that make airborn ions from matrix to be sniffed by sensor (electronically too and easier, but with the use of an airborn ion generator)

Seems possible both way... but require lot of technology!

Best regards,
Max

[Qiaozhi]

My question to you is:
After reading the reports, do you think there are metal ions in the surface soil like they say? And, do you know of some reasons why it would not be possible to develop an electronic instrument to locate this weak concentration of metal ions at long range (over 20 feet)?

Best wishes,
J_P

For metal ions to be detectable from a long distance away they would need to be airborne. If there are metal ions in the surface soil it is highly unlikely that these would be gold ions. However, if we suspend belief for a moment and speculate that these gold ions might be present in the soil, then their concentraion would be so infinitesimally small that only a lab analysis would reveal their presence. Certainly standing a mile away (or even a few inches for that matter) with a box of suspect electronics, and a detector tube made from plumbing fitments originating the local hardware store, is IMHO ludicrous in the extreme.

[J_Player]

Real science or Pseudocience?

If there are metal ions in the surface soil it is highly unlikely that these would be gold ions.

I just finished reading over 50 reports on mining exploration where they claim they have been finding gold ions at the surface soil above buried gold ores. According to Dr. Mark Fedikow, exploration geochemist and mineral deposits geologist, approximately 1000 sample sites have been analyzed using the mobile metal ion process (MMI) to locate gold and other mineral deposits since 1993 in over 30 countries. Dr. fedikow says the MMI technique of chemical and electronic analysis results in distinctive anomalies directly over mineralized zones. The MMI sampling has been successful for finding metal ions in the surface soil from Cu, Pb, Zn Cd, Ni, Co, Pd, Au, Ag, Cr, Nb, and Mg. A Western Australian government research team discovered that metal ions move upward in a vertical column in 1990, and the resulting technology to locate these mineral deposits came from a private Australian company, MMI Technology, who measures ions in the parts per billion and sub-parts per billion range in surface soil.

See the MMI Technology website here: http://www.mmigeochem.com/frwelcome.htm

See nearly 300,000 web pages showing gold ions being found in surface soil with MMI techniques here: http://www.google.com/search?q=mmi+g...&start=10&sa=N


In addition to the MMI technology, There are over a million reports on microbes that convert gold to ions, and other microbes that convert gold ions to gold metal in the soil. These include much larger concentrations of gold ions, enough to precipitate gold nuggets.

See these reports showing how microbes convert gold to ions, and other microbes that convert gold ions to gold metal in the soil:

Microbes manufacture gold nuggets: http://www.geotimes.org/sept06/NN_Microbes.html

Electron micrographs of microbes moving gold associated with Au(III) reduction:

http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/67/7/3275.pdf

Microbes convert dissolved gold into solid metallic gold:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...0_goldbug.html

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1032376.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0802103513.htm

Report says scientists have ascertained the microbe’s process converts approximately 1% of exposed gold per year.
http://sandersresearch.com/index.php...1&Ite mid=102

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev32_3/amazing.htm

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20...15_283189.html

You will find over a million reports on microbes that eat and ionize gold and other metals if you google for "gold microbe": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...be&btnG=Search


I can understand your comments that it would be extremely difficult to use electronic methods to locate ions in the soil at long distances, but I wonder about your comments concerning gold ions in the soil:

We have heard your comment suggesting we must suspend our belief to speculate these gold ions exist in the soil. Does this mean we should not believe any of these 1 million + reports where scientists show us their measurements and electron micrographs of microbes with gold ions in the soil? Should we believe the pictures below are not really metallic gold formed from microbes precipitating metallic gold from gold ions in the soil?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

MMI Technology, who measures ions in the parts per billion and sub-parts per billion range in surface soil.

My point was that any gold ions that may be present in the soil would be in miniscule quantities . This is confirmed by your quote. I would bet that even MMI Technology are not detecting these ions outside the lab.
The sort of gold ions you are describing are most likely the soluble form of gold encountered in mining, whereas the Mineoro videos specifically show instances where single coins are being recovered. So how many gold ions do you think exist in the soil above a single coin? Since the coin is not made from soluble gold, I would expect the answer to be a very round number.
Whether gold ions are lurking under the soil in a few parts per billion or not, does not prove that LRLs are a viable method for gold detection.

[Seden]

Yes and No Qiaozhi

Qiaozhi,

True the ions are difficult to detect but any metallic gold can become soluble if the surrounding soil has the right combination of natural chemicals (oxides or acids).

Now all's we have to do is find someone on this forum who is more clever than all the PHD's involved in Spectography.


Randy

[J_Player]

The sort of gold ions you are describing are most likely the soluble form of gold encountered in mining

Errr... Qiaozhi,

I understand your point about that gold ions may exist in miniscule quantities. This is exactly what the researchers have discovered. My question is about your reference to "soluble form of gold".

What sort of "soluble form of gold" are you referring to? There are over a million web pages that reference metallic gold that leaches into the soil as gold ions. This metallic gold they document is usually alloyed with small amounts of silver and copper and other trace minerals, and is the same gold as you find in nuggets, and similar to jewelry alloys. I really don't see a large difference between an 18k gold ring that was buried 200 years ago and a gold nugget that has been in the soil for a million years. At least not if they are in the same soil with similar soil chemistry working on them.

According to these reports on microbes converting metallic gold to gold ions, and reports of other microbes converting gold ions to metallic gold, the only soluble form of gold in the process appears when microbes secrete cyanide and other organic acids and sulfur complexes that can bind the gold ions which were originally brought into solution by microbes. These researchers have declared that microbes and local chemicals reagents in the soil are responsible for ionizing and dissolving metallic gold, and ultimately causing gold ions to appear at the surface soil. They do not make reference to soluble primary gold deposits, they refer to metallic gold alloyed with small amounts of other metals.

Please explain your alternate "most likely the soluble form of gold encountered in mining" that is responsible for finding trace amounts of gold ions in the surface soil. When you say this is the most likely form, does this alternate "soluble form of gold" exist in sufficient amounts to comprise a large percentage of the ions that are being measured by the MMI process to locate buried metallic gold deposits?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

IMHO I think this thread is veering way off course. Just stop for a moment and think about gold ions. This is simply an atom of gold with one or electrons missing (positively charged) or one or more electrons added (negatively charged). Gold is a highly dense material and therefore relatively heavy. How many gold ions do you think are actually floating around in the atmosphere just waiting to be sucked into a Mineoro detector? I would hazard a guess that it's a very very small number. Now let's assume that a gold coin that fell from someone's pocket 50 year's ago is now happily languishing just below the top soil. Do you honestly believe, that if you were to recover this coin, it would show the slightest oxidation relative to the day it was lost? Of course not. So what mechanism could possibly be used to detect this coin from say 50m away? It is simply ludicrous to think that an LRL based on the Mineoro principles would detect anything apart from random electromagnetic noise. Adding to this the concept of target discrimination from such a distance is pure fantasy.

The links that were posted as evidence of gold ions being released from longtime buried gold, in fact have very little specific references to gold. Only MMI Geochemistry are claiming to have a technique for locating gold by analysing a sample of the surface soil. Of course the technique is highly secret and not patented. Apparently the mobile ions gravitate to the surface where they are loosely attached to soil particles. So (according to the MMI theory) the ions are trapped in the surface soil. Which hardly supports the Mineoro concept that these heavy ions leave the surface and float off into the atmosphere. In fact they quote "For example a Cu, Pb, Zn base metal deposit will emit (release) Cu, Pb and Zn ions.". Hmmmm.... no gold then??