|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
II Correlation enters the detected objects, the place of their discovery and the time of excavation
It is a thing which applies to all and for each prospection: we arrive the empty pockets and we set out again the full hands. In a given time it sometimes happens to us to find " myriade " of things such as coins, objects usual or not and waste.
It thus seems to us interesting, in the precise case of the outputs of detection, to know in advance what one is likely to find once on the spot. But how to measure it? For that we divided into two the most frequent places of search, namely the unspecified fields, the outputs in forest.
With each forwarding we count last time. Once the finished prospection, we raise the content of discovered of eight
categories (of the coin to unnamable waste).
Summary description of the various types of objects met:
Coin : the kind of object which you give when you buy your bread rod and that one hopes to find in great quantity.
Interesting objects : lucky finds worthy of interest such as the dice to sew, the buttons, the loops, the rings, the jewels,
the medals and other curiosities which make the joy of our contemporaries.
Lead waste : treacherous objects; very good echo raising hope then disappointment. Members of this family: balls, balls,
balls, run-outs, plates, discs.
Aluminum capsules : those which decorate the bottles of wines and quills of cola of which the found quantity is a
demonstration of the ecological conscience of the man.
Cartridges of hunting : considering the number, not yet biodegradable unfortunately.
Iron waste : of all forms, of all sizes and rusted over all (horseshoes, glares of shell, rings).
Copper waste : including/understanding all the formless objects of this metal like the ends of stems, the plates...
Unnamable waste : all lucky finds associated with a grimace with dislike. Two types compete in the monstrosity: on the
one hand broken indefinable fragments prickles and edges; in addition risen bluish oxide conglomerates.
FIELDS |
DRILLS |
|||
Average per hour |
% |
Average per hour |
% |
|
Coins |
2,8 |
14,7 |
4,6 |
30,3 |
Interesting objects |
2,1 |
11,2 |
1,4 |
9,6 |
Copper waste |
2,2 |
11,6 |
0,9 |
5,9 |
Lead waste |
1,2 |
6,4 |
3,7 |
24,8 |
Iron waste |
0,5 |
2,9 |
0 |
0 |
Cartridges of hunting |
2,8 |
14,8 |
2,6 |
17 |
Aluminum capsules |
1,3 |
6,7 |
1,3 |
8,7 |
Unnamable waste |
6 |
31,7 |
0,6 |
3,7 |
Total |
18,9 |
100 |
15,1 |
100 |
Comments of the significant results of the table:
This analysis is not valid in the little attended forests (too much large, touffues or too isolated from the villages as well as the forests of fir trees having too much humus).
Here, enumerated, characteristics revealed by this table:
- One finds 2 times more parts in forest than in the unspecified fields.
- Moreover, for each hole dug one has 2 times more chance to extract a part in forest than in the fields; percentage of part compared to the total number of objects found being 2 times superior.
- In fields 1 hole out of 7 corresponds to a part, in forests 1 hole out of 3.
- One has 4 times less lead waste in the fields than in the forests, of last containing balls of hunting.
- One has 10 times more unnamable waste in the fields than in the forests; the latter undoubtedly coming from the agricultural activity.
