Find's Treasure Forums

Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!

You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.

Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.

Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.

Click here to register!



Need Support Help?

Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you

Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.

CTX 3030 US Coin TID Chart

If you click on it, it will zoom in pretty well. But I will check to see if there is anyway to upload it to a file that can be copied and printed. Currently, I'm limited to the types of files mentioned when you upload a picture. HH Randy
 
Looks much differeent than the numbers of Etrac. I am use to etrac numbers and have been passing on most shallow 12-42's as they are most often pennies.
 
-- moved topic --
 
I recently tested some US gold coins. I ran them under the CTX and got a surprise. I had already tried the CTX with $2.50 Indian quarter eagles and gotten 12.21 on ferrous coin. I suspected all US gold coins would hit near this since they all have similar composition (or so I thought). To my surprise the $5.00 half eagles landed at 12.30, the $10.00 eagles hit at 12.37-38 and finally the $20.00 double eagles came in at 12.40-41! The testing was performed with at least 2 coins of each denomination for each of the last two series of coins.

Any ideas why the large differences?
 
The proper response for your question would require someone other than me to reply. But, I believe the main difference is, diameter and the thickness of the coins, even of like metal, cause a different response to be returned to the detector. This target response will be "placed", however the programming has been designed for that particular response.......
 
The magnetic field produced by a target is dependent on its electrical resistance and its electrical inductance. Both resistance and inductance are determined by the targets metallic content, size, "angle" of approach and shape. Your testing the gold coins is similar to the results found with many coins. For example, silver dimes and silver quarters have the same metallic composition. But the dime, being smaller than the quarter, provides a "smaller" CO number than the quarter.

In more detail....keep in mind that resistance and inductance are determined by the targets metallic content, size, "angle" of approach and shape. When an electromagnetic field is produced within the target (reacting to the transmitted signal), this electromagnetic field will produce two components based on the target's resistance and inductance. These are the reactive component (X signal) and the resistive component (R signal). While the reactive X signal mirrors the transmitted electromagnetic field, the resistive R signal is delayed due to the target's resistance and inductance. The properties and parameters of that signal delay are processed in the detector to establish the target's ID.
 
is there a way to for me to get a copy of this so i can print it out? i tried to highlight so i could copy and paste into Word or notepad so i could save it and print it but i couldn't do it.
thanks Digger man
 
Right click on the image and you can do a lot of things with it, Save, Print, Email...............
 
Digger said:
The magnetic field produced by a target is dependent on its electrical resistance and its electrical inductance. Both resistance and inductance are determined by the targets metallic content, size, "angle" of approach and shape. Your testing the gold coins is similar to the results found with many coins. For example, silver dimes and silver quarters have the same metallic composition. But the dime, being smaller than the quarter, provides a "smaller" CO number than the quarter.

In more detail....keep in mind that resistance and inductance are determined by the targets metallic content, size, "angle" of approach and shape. When an electromagnetic field is produced within the target (reacting to the transmitted signal), this electromagnetic field will produce two components based on the target's resistance and inductance. These are the reactive component (X signal) and the resistive component (R signal). While the reactive X signal mirrors the transmitted electromagnetic field, the resistive R signal is delayed due to the target's resistance and inductance. The properties and parameters of that signal delay are processed in the detector to establish the target's ID.

Thanks for detailed reply!! I appreciate your willingness to share your understanding!!

The real surprise for me was the vast difference in the conductivity numbers for the gold coins. The different sized silver coins are much closer.
 
Thanks.....
This will be a great resource...
Sonny
 
I'm brand new to metal detecting, and this chart is great, great, great. I don't know how many times I can say that. Thank you to those who put it together.

I do have a question though. I understand that some coins will read with a ferrous of 01 or 02 in high or low trash. For the half dollars, some of them have numbers set in parentheses. I'm missing the point of why those numbers are set apart in parentheses. What's the significance?
 
Glad you appreciate the coin chart. The coins with numbers in parenthesis indicate what you might find "in the field" if the coin is not flat or if there are adjacent targets. Generally speaking, the numbers will be those without parenthesis. But if you scanned the same coin under the coil a couple dozen times, it could give the additional numbers on occassion. I listed them this way because we all know how Murphy's law works in the field. HH Randy
 
Thanks for all the effort that was put into this chart...
Great reference..
Sonny
 
You're welcome Jim. But this chart post was made in June of 2012. Regardless, glad you found it, and hope it helps! HH Randy
 
Hello Digger!

I'm not able to see the chart clearly. It's almost beyond recognition. Is there a higher resolution link?

Thank you!

Jason
 
Top