field test unit no 001 "model T"

[Paul99]

Robby, do you have such a problem with Moodz' efforts that you feel the need to incessantly badger him? I don't understand the obsession with some of you guys. I personally have some doubts about his approach but I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. If you don't like what he's doing say, "I don't like what your doing" and let it go, or take it elsewhere.

Carl, Moodz has been making outrageous claims about his detector design achievements. When a few issues with his design have been pointed out to him in the past he has been very willing to ridicule and denigrate the messenger and then carry on to make further outrageous claims. If you refer back to the claims he made for ideas he patented, you might now wonder why he ever let the patents lapse. Do you need a clue??

You have members here on this forum who have accepted Moodz's claims, and it would appear Sido, for one, was prepared to provide assembly services and perhaps financial assistance toward the production of Moodz's detector. So, how many other members believe the Moodz detector is ready, or very close to being ready, for production?

I would be interested to have members here give their understanding of the following statement made by Moodz in the last 12 hours with respect to the rights of individuals to query Moodz's claims.....

"Actually they have no rights at all ... At least me and Al are providing free entertainment writing about the development of new detectors ... If they eventuate that's a bonus."

So do you think it is OK to make outrageous claims about totally unproven works in progress as long as it is entertaining??

Maybe there is a different level of gullibility between those who accept Moodz's claims at face value and those who are prepared to ask the hard questions with the view of having him justify his claims.

[moodz]

Carl, Moodz has been making outrageous claims about his detector design achievements. When a few issues with his design have been pointed out to him in the past he has been very willing to ridicule and denigrate the messenger and then carry on to make further outrageous claims. If you refer back to the claims he made for ideas he patented, you might now wonder why he ever let the patents lapse. Do you need a clue??

You have members here on this forum who have accepted Moodz's claims, and it would appear Sido, for one, was prepared to provide assembly services and perhaps financial assistance toward the production of Moodz's detector. So, how many other members believe the Moodz detector is ready, or very close to being ready, for production?

I would be interested to have members here give their understanding of the following statement made by Moodz in the last 12 hours with respect to the rights of individuals to query Moodz's claims.....

"Actually they have no rights at all ... At least me and Al are providing free entertainment writing about the development of new detectors ... If they eventuate that's a bonus."

So do you think it is OK to make outrageous claims about totally unproven works in progress as long as it is entertaining??

Maybe there is a different level of gullibility between those who accept Moodz's claims at face value and those who are prepared to ask the hard questions with the view of having him justify his claims.

These two plonkers are playing tag team to discredit anyone developing independent pi detectors particularly australian developers. If they think that they are protecting a commercial entity they have practically guaranteed the idea will go offshore and killed off commercial opportunity here in Australia.

[Carl-NC]

Carl, Moodz has been making outrageous claims about his detector design achievements. When a few issues with his design have been pointed out to him in the past he has been very willing to ridicule and denigrate the messenger and then carry on to make further outrageous claims. If you refer back to the claims he made for ideas he patented, you might now wonder why he ever let the patents lapse. Do you need a clue??

You have members here on this forum who have accepted Moodz's claims, and it would appear Sido, for one, was prepared to provide assembly services and perhaps financial assistance toward the production of Moodz's detector. So, how many other members believe the Moodz detector is ready, or very close to being ready, for production?

I would be interested to have members here give their understanding of the following statement made by Moodz in the last 12 hours with respect to the rights of individuals to query Moodz's claims.....

"Actually they have no rights at all ... At least me and Al are providing free entertainment writing about the development of new detectors ... If they eventuate that's a bonus."

So do you think it is OK to make outrageous claims about totally unproven works in progress as long as it is entertaining??

Maybe there is a different level of gullibility between those who accept Moodz's claims at face value and those who are prepared to ask the hard questions with the view of having him justify his claims.

Paul, my general overarching reply to this is... SO WHAT? I don't care if Moodz, Bugs, Allan, and even Aziz make outrageous claims about their developments. Time will take care of those claims one way or the other, we don't need designated Claims Police to attack everything they say. Give it a rest.

[IBGold]

TOO TRUE I totaly agree with Carl you lot go back to your corporate sponsors.

Regards, Ian.

[Doug2]

I personally have some doubts about his approach but I'm perfectly willing to be wrong.

Carl what are your doubts about the approach and your reasons for those doubts?
Doug2

[robby_h]

Robby, do you have such a problem with Moodz' efforts that you feel the need to incessantly badger him? I don't understand the obsession with some of you guys. I personally have some doubts about his approach but I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. If you don't like what he's doing say, "I don't like what your doing" and let it go, or take it elsewhere.

Fair enough Carl, after all it's your forum and you're the boss.

I can understand why you encourage ideas even if you know they have no future. At least the proponent is having fun and he/she and other members might learn something.

My post count doesn't indicate it but I've followed Geotech (and the PI classroom) since the very early days and every so often someone notices how the spike's width, amplitude, coil current, coil energy etc changes when metal is placed near the coil. Some then abandon traditional PI and run with their new "discovery" only to find out it can't work. They then usually disappear.

Perhaps the forum needs a sticky written by someone reasonably well known in the industry laying out PI basics and the general rules and what happens if we break those rules. It would need to fully explain the main advantage PI has over VLF and why traditional PI avoids sampling until after the spike has effectively settled to zero, and why it avoids using other methods based on "discoveries" that are in fact very well known. This at least would allow people to see the real problems and perhaps try to figure out how they can be addressed. This would be far better than what we have now, ie, each person reinventing the wheel and then giving up when they encounter the same problems everyone else has. Keep this up and no one will ever make real discoveries.

And it would be far better to discuss these supposed "6 patents that use front end switches" instead of blindly believing that a simple, slow, inefficient, crude switch makes them obsolete. This silly attitude keeps the average member's understanding of PI science in a backwater. If the patents are the ones I think they are then they all address problems most people aren't even aware of.

[Doug2]

Fair enough Carl, after all it's your forum and you're the boss.

I can understand why you encourage ideas even if you know they have no future. At least the proponent is having fun and he/she and other members might learn something.

My post count doesn't indicate it but I've followed Geotech (and the PI classroom) since the very early days and every so often someone notices how the spike's width, amplitude, coil current, coil energy etc changes when metal is placed near the coil. Some then abandon traditional PI and run with their new "discovery" only to find out it can't work. They then usually disappear.

Perhaps the forum needs a sticky written by someone reasonably well known in the industry laying out PI basics and the general rules and what happens if we break those rules. It would need to fully explain the main advantage PI has over VLF and why traditional PI avoids sampling until after the spike has effectively settled to zero, and why it avoids using other methods based on "discoveries" that are in fact very well known. This at least would allow people to see the real problems and perhaps try to figure out how they can be addressed. This would be far better than what we have now, ie, each person reinventing the wheel and then giving up when they encounter the same problems everyone else has. Keep this up and no one will ever make real discoveries.

And it would be far better to discuss these supposed "6 patents that use front end switches" instead of blindly believing that a simple, slow, inefficient, crude switch makes them obsolete. This silly attitude keeps the average member's understanding of PI science in a backwater. If the patents are the ones I think they are then they all address problems most people aren't even aware of.

Are you saying that the Moodz approach is unsound in the theory or practice? If so why?

[moodz]

Are you saying that the Moodz approach is unsound in the theory or practice? If so why?

Doug stop looking for absolutes .. There is a world of difference between doubt and certainty. Nothing is black and white ... Except collingwood.

[moodz]

Basic engineering Robby optimal power transfer from a source only occurs where z source = z load .. A damping resistor is not the correct load for a dynamic source such as a discharging coil during discharge.

[PATCHES JUNIOR]

Are you saying that the Moodz approach is unsound in the theory or practice? If so why?

Welcome to Geotech Doug2. Always good to have new members here. Tell us a bit about you and how you found this website. Again I say welcome.

[deemon]

Some then abandon traditional PI and run with their new "discovery" only to find out it can't work. They then usually disappear.

Not every time , man . Sometimes this new stuff really works ...

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...nduction/page3

[deemon]

And what about this topic - this idea does have a mistake in its principle , it's a pity
We cannot discard this 6-th power law , anyhow ...

[Paul99]

And what about this topic - this idea does have a mistake in its principle , it's a pity
We cannot discard this 6-th power law , anyhow ...

Deemon, why don't you post here the post you posted to AEGPF earlier.

This one...
http://australianelectronicgoldprosp...1528/#msg31528

[Paul99]

Deemon, why don't you post here the post you posted to AEGPF earlier.

This one...
http://australianelectronicgoldprosp...1528/#msg31528

Deemon, your brilliant post should definitely be posted here on Geotech for all members. You are one of the few people who understands PI basics, and members would learn a lot by reading your post.

[deemon]

Of course , I can copy it here ... the only problem is this fantastic captcha on AEGPF forum

HOWEVER ... there is a complicating factor .... if a target is a distance X from the coil the eddy currents stimulated in the target during period A and B will be reduced by a factor of 1/XxXxX or one over X cubed. Call this the transmit path loss. During period C the same rule applies there will be a further path loss of 1/XxXxX as the standard PI detector tries to detect a target eddy current during period C. In other words the TX loss multiplied by the RX loss is 1/XxXxXxXxXxX or one over X to sixth power. All of this because the standard detector measures the target "return" signal during period C. This maths has been simplified the real maths still demonstrates the advantage.

The moodz detector does not measure the target return during period C ... there is very little decay curve to sample in period C because the active damping control loop of the moodz detector minimises this "error" voltage. The moodz detector effectively estimates the energy stored in the target ( ie the eddy current ) during transmit by subtracting the energy returned during flyback ( period B ) from the energy transmitted ( period A ) ie instead of measuring C we measure B - A This is just like alegbra :-) ..... except here is the killer ...... by measuring B - A instead of C the path loss to the target is only 1 / XxXxX for the moodz detector instead of 1 / XxXxXxXxXxX for your standard PI detectors. Thusly the moodz detector is 3 orders of magnitude more sensitive than your BrandX detector.

It's a pity , Moods , but you have a mistake here ... You see , all this "energy exchange" between the coil and the target occurs via the same magnetic field , being reduced with the distance by the same 6-th power law . So we cannot "cheat" the nature and get some additional gain . What we really have from the target is two kinds of the signal - one signal is a "momentary" target reaction ( also called "X-component" ) , and a "delayed reaction" ( also called "R-component") . Classic PI detector does receive only R component and ignores X , and this is why it has all its properties - good ground tolerance and absence of ferro-discrimination . But when you begin to measure the signal during your A and B periods - you will capture this X-component too .... and of course , this signal cannot be 1000 times stronger than that you had measured before in your PI - if it would , than every IB detector ( that utilizes X signal by its principle ) will kill every PI machine 1000 times too - but we don't see it , anyhow . And it doesn't depend on the coil damping method , because the main process ( eddy current start and decay ) occures in the target , very loosely coupled to the coil .

But what you will get if you do this ( completely ignore this eddy current signal in a C period ) ? Of course , you will get a detector that in some situations can be more sensitive than a classic PI machine .... but this difference cannot be high , and another problem - you'll loose the "ground tolerance" ( ground balance ) of your device , because the best sensitivity it will have only to a ferrite target - that gives the most strong X-signal . Another kind of targets that this circuit would feel well is a superconductor target , being the "ideal opponent" to a ferrite ... but we cannot meet it in a real situation , of course . So , if we want to make a perfect wideband detector , we must use all signal energy that the target does return , converting our device to the kind of "optimal receiver".... of course , it's too long to explain now , but once I wrote it on the page 3 of this Geotech topic - http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...nduction/page3 - I explained there the main difference in signal processing between IB and PI machines , and also explained how to use all their advantages simultaneously ...