Product Definition

[Carl-NC]

One of the major problems with detecting gold is that detectable gold comes in sizes from sub-grain to the Hand of Faith. It is difficult, maybe impossible, to make a detector that can simultaneously detect the entire range and do so with near state-of-the-art depth. In trying to sell the TDI into these markets the first question was always: "Does it go as deep as Minelab?" Well, no, it's about 85-90% but, hey, it's a lot cheaper! They didn't care, it had to go as deep as a Minelab.

So a question is, does the detector need to cover all the nuggets all the time? Do these prospectors tend to work some areas for large nuggets, and other areas for small nuggets? Or re-work the same ground (say) with a Minelab in different modes?

[Teleno]

So a question is, does the detector need to cover all the nuggets all the time? Do these prospectors tend to work some areas for large nuggets, and other areas for small nuggets? Or re-work the same ground (say) with a Minelab in different modes?

Take a look at the threads in this forum under the heading " What Other Visitors Have Said".
Users of Minelab write about their techniques and experiences with the 7000, 5000. The re-work option I believe is the one mentioned the most.

[Willy Bayot]

One of the major problems with detecting gold is that detectable gold comes in sizes from sub-grain to the Hand of Faith. It is difficult, maybe impossible, to make a detector that can simultaneously detect the entire range and do so with near state-of-the-art depth. In trying to sell the TDI into these markets the first question was always: "Does it go as deep as Minelab?" Well, no, it's about 85-90% but, hey, it's a lot cheaper! They didn't care, it had to go as deep as a Minelab.

So a question is, does the detector need to cover all the nuggets all the time? Do these prospectors tend to work some areas for large nuggets, and other areas for small nuggets? Or re-work the same ground (say) with a Minelab in different modes?

The 're-work' method could imply that a system with true multiple pulse rates would not really be required, at least initially.
Maybe, two systems, each with different coil diameters with corresponding PRR (Pulse Repetition Rate) would be enough to do the job.in two consecutive phases

[Tinkerer]

One of the major problems with detecting gold is that detectable gold comes in sizes from sub-grain to the Hand of Faith. It is difficult, maybe impossible, to make a detector that can simultaneously detect the entire range and do so with near state-of-the-art depth. In trying to sell the TDI into these markets the first question was always: "Does it go as deep as Minelab?" Well, no, it's about 85-90% but, hey, it's a lot cheaper! They didn't care, it had to go as deep as a Minelab.

So a question is, does the detector need to cover all the nuggets all the time? Do these prospectors tend to work some areas for large nuggets, and other areas for small nuggets? Or re-work the same ground (say) with a Minelab in different modes?

I will try to write a description of the use of detectors in the Guyana shield region.
In the meantime:
I have heard the prospectors saying that Minelab detectors are the best. That was at the time of the 4500.
How deep does the 4500 go with what diameter coil and what size nugget?
Sensitive like a Goldbug 2: The prospectors are searching for patches where there is little overburden covering the gold rich placer. Any gold is good for that. Why not just panning to look for gold color? In the dry season there is no water.

[Idefix]

I have created a new AMX project and started a Product Definition thread. Relevant posts from this thread have been copied over. Please continue the conversation there and focus (for now) on defining the problem to be solved. Here is how I intend to manage the project:

1. Definition -- define the problem to be solved.
2. Concept -- this is where we explore different ways to solve the problem (PI, CCPI, MF, etc); Lots of ideas have already been mentioned in this thread, so I will create a new thread for this and copy over those posts.
3. Architecture -- all the major elements of the design are defined, including performance requirements. This is where you figure out what is required of the micro.
4. Design -- detailed design of all circuitry
5. PCB(s)
6. Firmware
7. Prototype

This may seem overly structured but I don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past. Please don't jump ahead and try to solve problems that have not yet been reached. But do anticipate and be ready.

I will lock this thread for now to encourage everyone to move the conversation to the project thread.

8 Mechanics ??? Here, another designer who forgets mechanics ... Yet 3D printing will be largely necessary, it seems to me.

"Relevant posts from this thread have been copied over." Why no all the posts. or will it be in the thread number 2 ?

[Carl-NC]

I only copied posts relevant to the product definition. The next thread will be #2 above. I did not forget mechanics, I just don't intend to solve that problem. I am personally not proficient with 3D printing tools. However, it is completely appropriate to discuss and plan for the mechanics, where that impacts the rest of the design. But in reality, you can probably take any solution we come up with and successfully put it in 20 different mechanical designs. So I would rather focus on the guts.

[Teleno]

Why not just panning to look for gold color? In the dry season there is no water.

https://youtu.be/02vz-486kv0

[Mdtoday]

I'm late on the scene with this thread but thought I would ask the question.
Is this an experimental project, as in not actually going to be sold?
The reason I ask is that if it were to be produced and sold, then part of the project timeline should probably include patent research.
Its the elephant in the room for me and I would hate to see anyone take whatever the design ends up being and trying to market it without first researching possible infringements.
Personally, I loath the patent zoo but none the less it is a part of most product development.
I have been bitten by it and its no fun so my advice is for anyone who might want to take even parts of the design, do your homework first.

Now, if the project is a group effort purely for experimental use, then no problems with patents.
I think it is a great idea and will give members an insight into how a product is developed.
Carl has outlined required steps nicely

I wish the project every success.

Cheers

[Carl-NC]

The project is experimental for now, but could end up produced in some manner. But even US patent law only allows for evaluating the patent, so we still need to be careful. I'm fairly familiar with metal detector patents and will double-check before we commit to anything.

[Tinkerer]

https://youtu.be/02vz-486kv0

good video

[moodz]

I'm late on the scene with this thread but thought I would ask the question.
Is this an experimental project, as in not actually going to be sold?
The reason I ask is that if it were to be produced and sold, then part of the project timeline should probably include patent research.
Its the elephant in the room for me and I would hate to see anyone take whatever the design ends up being and trying to market it without first researching possible infringements.
Personally, I loath the patent zoo but none the less it is a part of most product development.
I have been bitten by it and its no fun so my advice is for anyone who might want to take even parts of the design, do your homework first.

Now, if the project is a group effort purely for experimental use, then no problems with patents.
I think it is a great idea and will give members an insight into how a product is developed.
Carl has outlined required steps nicely

I wish the project every success.

Cheers

This is definitely an issue and in especially in jurisdictions like the US where the legal yardstick is “first to patent” and this is irrespective of prior “public domain” public publication or sale or demonstration of an invention without taking out patent coverage. This has resulted in infringement action against companies and individuals for products that they have been making for years but did not have a patent .. mostly by patent trolls. Is it Texas ?? Where the courts are amenable to litigation mostly by these trolls.

However one remedy is … if you think you have a genuinely inventive idea is to take out a utility patent at minimal cost ..ie do it all yourself … then make it publicly licensed however you can still restrict anyone making money out of it if you want and then this can short circuit any future challenges.

you could fill a whole forum with the detail …

moodz

[Mdtoday]

Thanks for the clarification Carl.
Good point on the US patent law and evaluation
It would be great to see a Geotech “team” design achieve success.

moodz, yes, one could go that route for sure. I guess it comes down to how skilled one is and the old “time versus money” thing if one has to defend a patent. Once had a product with no patent but on the market selling well for 12 years, then got hit with a patent infringement notice. Luckily kept all engineering documentation and prototypes and also able to disprove the so called infringement but still out of pocket and stressed as sales went south and legal costs went north through the whole ordeal. It could have been much worse.

My main thought was to any forum member(s) who might jump ahead of the curve and get themselves into deep water trying to make money.
I think be in it for the enjoyment and set expectations to reality and the project will have a very good chance of success.
But that’s just my thoughts.



Cheers

[Dean Sarelius]

Well I think it is clear that most of us here are just hobbyists seeking to build a versatile metal detector so no issue as far as patent infringement goes.
I for one have no desire to produce anything commercially all I would like to do is build a PI that can be used in the Ozzie outback to find gold.
Having read the forums I agree with Tinkerer in that most of the design challenges have already been met except for the best configuration for the TX and RX coils.
I think a lot of thought should be placed on the design of the coils as to what would be the best setup to move forward with..?

[Carl-NC]

This is definitely an issue and in especially in jurisdictions like the US where the legal yardstick is “first to patent” and this is irrespective of prior “public domain” public publication or sale or demonstration of an invention without taking out patent coverage. This has resulted in infringement action against companies and individuals for products that they have been making for years but did not have a patent .. mostly by patent trolls. Is it Texas ?? Where the courts are amenable to litigation mostly by these trolls.

US first-to-patent law is aligned with the rest of the world. Prior art matters but it must be public and documented. If a patent covers an invention that was already in production and sold publicly then that is prior art and would invalidate the patent. But if someone had invented it previously -- even documented, built, and tested it -- but never publicly disclosed it, they're out of luck.

I would not get too hung up on patents at this stage.

[Tinkerer]

Well I think it is clear that most of us here are just hobbyists seeking to build a versatile metal detector so no issue as far as patent infringement goes.
I for one have no desire to produce anything commercially all I would like to do is build a PI that can be used in the Ozzie outback to find gold.
Having read the forums I agree with Tinkerer in that most of the design challenges have already been met except for the best configuration for the TX and RX coils.
I think a lot of thought should be placed on the design of the coils as to what would be the best setup to move forward with..?

I think it is time to start a AMX coil thread.