field test unit no 001 "model T"

[Davor]

What happened that you suddenly are in a so sharing mood? I think this picture reveals a lot.

[WM6]

Magic. Can you show us for comparison how "gold response" perform?

[moodz]

What happened that you suddenly are in a so sharing mood? I think this picture reveals a lot.

Well I cant just keep saying that it works ... but I can tell you this .... whoever owns this IP .... owns the future of PI design as it appears to bypass ALL previous art. ( might even surpass WBGB ... sorry Aziz .. Ok ... might equal WBGB ).

[moodz]

Magic. Can you show us for comparison how "gold response" perform?

Sure ... for long range tests I always use 1 Kg standards. I will PM address for you to mail the 1 Kg nugget. Better mail me more than 1 as they sometimes go missing in the post for some reason.

[WM6]

Sure ... for long range tests I always use 1 Kg standards. I will PM address for you to mail the 1 Kg nugget. Better mail me more than 1 as they sometimes go missing in the post for some reason.

More safe solution: you send me "Moodz PI model T" and I will test it on genuine Australian gold nugget.

[moodz]

More safe solution: you send me "Moodz PI model T" and I will test it on genuine Australian gold nugget.

...are you telling me you didn't get the sample unit I already sent?

[WM6]

...are you telling me you didn't get the sample unit I already sent?

No, probably you sent it over Alaska, there are terribly slow delivery?

[UrbanFox]

Below is the input signal to the audio modulator ...ie the output from the amps etc etc .....

OK

two identical test targets are moved across the 18 inch monocoil at 40 cm ( note the time base ... about 1 second target time ) .... iron and copper ... for comparison.

Moodz, IMO there is not a significant difference between the iron and copper signals you are displaying above. The large negative swing you have previously displayed in post 360 for non ferrous is not evident in this latest waveform presented????

[moodz]

OK



Moodz, IMO there is not a significant difference between the iron and copper signals you are displaying above. The large negative swing you have previously displayed in post 360 for non ferrous is not evident in this latest waveform presented????

...the correct term should be IMHO ... and yours is truly humble in this case .... because you are comparing apples with oranges. Post 360 is much earlier in the signal chain ...just after the damping magic happens .... post 555 is the audio tone envelope modulation waveform ... just after 140db of processing gain and filtering ... but prior to audio tone modulation ... look at the time bases ... 2 microseconds vs 200 milliseconds or so.
The descrim function is still in the signal chain ... the "super pro" experimental model extracts this channel separately ... post555 only shows the target channel for the "pro" experimental model and combines discrim and target in one channel for cost reasons.

[Midas]

Hi Moodz,

I think to truly demonstrate descrimination you should show a variety different shaped targets made of different metals and show that there is something in common with all the targets of the one metal type. I'm assuming that with this test you used two targets of indentical dimensions but differing metal types, which obviously respond differently. But that doesn't neccessarily mean you can determine the metal type or even group of metal types when you don't know the shape and size of the target.

Midas

[moodz]

Hi Moodz,

I think to truly demonstrate descrimination you should show a variety different shaped targets made of different metals and show that there is something in common with all the targets of the one metal type. I'm assuming that with this test you used two targets of indentical dimensions but differing metal types, which obviously respond differently. But that doesn't neccessarily mean you can determine the metal type or even group of metal types when you don't know the shape and size of the target.

Midas

Very true ... this version only has the one "channel" and the focus is on ground balance and sensitivity. At this stage I am not that worried about discrim ... but when I am digging deep holes I will be ... LOL. The signal processing version will have a second discrim channel. I have made this version to demonstrate superior sensitivity ( goal is > 10% depth ) and ground balance utilising a relatively simple design and lower cost utilising new PI techniques. Dont forget I am using a monocoil which is probably the most difficult to achieve any level of discrim. I wont be posting lots of target tests as they just take too long to do properly .... I am aiming to prove the performance in the field not the bench ... I have got cabin fever from being in the lab for too long.

[Aziz]

Well I cant just keep saying that it works ... but I can tell you this .... whoever owns this IP .... owns the future of PI design as it appears to bypass ALL previous art. ( might even surpass WBGB ... sorry Aziz .. Ok ... might equal WBGB ).

YAWBGB (yet another WBGB)
TRWBGB (the real WBGB)
TOWBGB (the only WBGB)
WBWBGB (World's best WBGB)
*LOL*
Be prepared to get your own:
WBGB song, cups, vids, art pictures, love letters, etc...
All the Ufoxes, Bushfoxes, PJ's, Rafferty's and all other agents will follow you.
Greedlab will take you to the court.

Notice, Ufox is already curious.
Aziz

[UrbanFox]

Notice, Ufox is already curious.
Aziz

Aziz, I have seen the waveforms Moodz has presented in earlier posts and which he says are damped.

I see those waveforms as not being damped adequately for certain purposes. The increased amplitude seen with a semi damped ringing waveform is nothing new, and those who have experience with PI design have been aware of this fact for years.

The problem previously seen with this underdamped waveform arises with the influence of certain ground upon the RX signal. This ground influence can be simulated by waving a soft ferrite rod in front of the coil.

Of course I am curious. I am surprised that someone on Geotech with experience with PI has not already raised this point.

[dougAEGPF]

[QUOTE=UrbanFox;159957]Aziz, I have seen the waveforms Moodz has presented in earlier posts and which he says are damped. The problem previously seen with this underdamped waveform arises with the influence of certain ground upon the RX signal.

What is this "certain ground" ie What are its EM characteristics and why is it a problem with underdamped waveforms?

dougAEGP

[moodz]

Aziz, I have seen the waveforms Moodz has presented in earlier posts and which he says are damped.

I see those waveforms as not being damped adequately for certain purposes. The increased amplitude seen with a semi damped ringing waveform is nothing new, and those who have experience with PI design have been aware of this fact for years.

The problem previously seen with this underdamped waveform arises with the influence of certain ground upon the RX signal. This ground influence can be simulated by waving a soft ferrite rod in front of the coil.

Of course I am curious. I am surprised that someone on Geotech with experience with PI has not already raised this point.

Urbs ... Urbs ... lets be clear here ....

1. This is not a conventional PI design ... so you cannot analyse it from a conventional perspective.
2. Ferrite rods have no impact. In fact if this was a ferrite detector .. I have failed.