What do you think about this 'point of view'? RE: The HammerHead

[GT Blocker]

Howdy all,

I know it's been quiet a bit lately, but I have a few questions. I'll get to them in a moment. This point of view was posted on a site in response to my thoughts on home made metal detectors:

"But, the average prospector is pissing in the wind if he thinks they can build any detector close to what is in production. Been there done that. I have an electronics engineering background. The Hammerhead PI that he mentions does ok in non mineralized ground for coins, etc. (Geotech Forum run by Carl Moreland) However, It doesn't as yet have a ground balance capable of handling the horrific ground of the gold fields unless G.T.B. has added one lately. So unless you have a lot of electronics knowledge and lots of time to waste, you are better off buying a detector and spend the time learning it and swinging it." - Anonymous

I take NO offense to the statement. I just believe the the poster is wrong. Many of us are working on improving the ground balance and sensitivity, and many of us have done quite well pushing forward from where we started. Can a HammerHead go head to head with a Minelab $5k machine? Well, NO, duh!

The effort that we have all put into 'tweaking' this little machine leads me to these three questions:


1- Can we 'compete' with any of the commercial dectectors out there?

2- And, if we can, on what level?

3- Finally, since the HH is a learning platform, and intended as such, - one's imagination, skill, and determimation are the only limits. So do the first two questions really matter?

My answers-
1- I personally feel that my current incarnation of the HH could hold it's mud against a Minelab SD2100 (perhaps a bit of hubris, but I'ld love to give it a go).
2- And while she certainly wouldn't do well in AU vs the SD2100, Arizona's soil (while a bit 'hot') is nothing like that 'Down Under'.
3- You are either up for the challenge of building and 'tweaking' your own machine (for your needs) and/or the learning experience or you are not.

Any thought's all?

GTB

[mickstv]

So GTB, does your version of HH include some form of GB tech ?

[Carl-NC]

The HH has no GB, so it cannot compete with any SD where GB is needed. The HH is more akin to the Surf PI and can easily compete on that level. For gold hunting, most people want GB and 8-10us sampling, which isn't difficult but not directly from the HH design. So I generally agree with the poster. Several other projects are underway so decent GB PI project is not far off.

- Carl

[GT Blocker]

So GTB, does your version of HH include some form of GB tech ?

Hey there, Mick,

No. In a word. I am testing a second integration stage with a PIC chip for timings, atm (aka-HH3 style). All I have played with sucessfully thus far are noise and timings in situ.

I have heard very little lately about GB in the HH (I went back through the posts). With the shielded co-planer coil and housing, I'm pretty happy with it so far. Does it take the place of true GB? No, of course not. We have a ways to go on that one for a GB HH.


Carl,

"The HH has no GB, so it cannot compete with any SD where GB is needed."

So true...I mis-spoke, and I appologize. My HH is far removed from the original and I have spoken out of class (or from the lack there of).

GTB

[Midas]

"But, the average prospector is pissing in the wind if he thinks they can build any detector close to what is in production. Been there done that. I have an electronics engineering background. The Hammerhead PI that he mentions does ok in non mineralized ground for coins, etc. (Geotech Forum run by Carl Moreland) However, It doesn't as yet have a ground balance capable of handling the horrific ground of the gold fields unless G.T.B. has added one lately. So unless you have a lot of electronics knowledge and lots of time to waste, you are better off buying a detector and spend the time learning it and swinging it." - Anonymous

I think its a pretty true statement. A handful of people here might be getting close to something competitive, maybe even better. But its certainly not easy and 'the average prospector' would indeed most probably be metaphorically urinating in the direction of the localized hire pressure system.
Still its not impossible and nothing is a waste of time if you enjoy it. Or put another, more nihilistic way, everything is ultimately a waste of time so you may as well enjoy yourself.

Midas

[GT Blocker]

I think its a pretty true statement. A handful of people here might be getting close to something competitive, maybe even better. But its certainly not easy and 'the average prospector' would indeed most probably be metaphorically urinating in the direction of the localized hire pressure system.
Still its not impossible and nothing is a waste of time if you enjoy it. Or put another, more nihilistic way, everything is ultimately a waste of time so you may as well enjoy yourself.

Midas

True enough. I yield.

[GT Blocker]

Before I go quietly into the night....

This is what started all of this, chime in if you will..........

http://www.bedrockdreams.com/2013/04...tors.html#more

I'm obviously in over my head. Sorry about that. Sucks to be me. So set the record straight, if you will.

GTB

[6666]

Several other projects are underway so decent GB PI project is not far off.

Carl are there anymore clues to those projects please ?

[Carl-NC]

Carl are there anymore clues to those projects please ?

Dunno where everyone is at on them, probably like mine, mostly done and no time to finish.

[6666]

Thanks Carl.

[satdaveuk]

Ground Balance Barracuda

Thanks for bringing the subject up Gt Blocker
The comments about pissing in the wind and the fact he or she she has been there and done it, is after all a opinion , That comment alone should give us a enough driving force to show we are better engineers and to move forward.
Pretty confident in my way of thinking that we already have some good Pulse induction projects here to work with that could be developed and modified to incorporate ground balance.
My thoughts are.. can we all maybe concentrate on developing the well proven and easy to understand Barracuda which we all know performs exceptionally well .
I personally would like to see the Barracuda used as a standard platform for future developments both Analog and Digital
Have now built a Barracuda with just front and rear panels and everything exposed for this very purpose which is on a workshop bench of its own so when time permits can easily revert to it between doing my repairs etc.
Very confident with a positive attitude that if we give the Barracuda a good working ground balance together with a build of precision components and coil build we will be rubbing shoulders with the likes of Mine lab owners.

My Question to you all is... In your opinions, is it Doable?, If so lets not talk about it, lets get started, First of all can you kind people give me some leads and directions to work with because I for one want to focus and move on with it, I am not as advanced technical wise with metal detector designs as allot of you on here, being a TV engineer by trade but my practical skills are second to none and once I feel the hunger for something like ground balance been integrated into the Barracuda , It needs to be accomplished.

Here is the working circuit diagram and parts list together with one of my builds to save you looking for it
Regards

[grungymike]

I'm reminded of a Goldscan for sale on Ebay I stumbled on a couple of weeks ago. Those are "homemade", and if I'd had the $2000 asking price, I would have jumped on it.

While companies Whites, Garrett, and Minelab spend a lot of money on R&D, they also have to survive in a competitive market, which means compromising on production methods, resulting in machines that while good, are not fine tuned to the use at hand. I equate this to buying a race car, as opposed to learning how to build your own. Furthermore, once a machine has been hand built, the builder has the skills to repair and maintain that machine, and build 2nd generation machines attempting improved performance.

You're right about the average prospector not being up to this task, but the bunch that communicates on this site ain't exactly average...

[sido]

Dunno where everyone is at on them, probably like mine, mostly done and no time to finish.

Yes Carl, probably finished but don't want to publish

Sid

[grungymike]

HH1 ground balance or elimination?

Regarding ground balance on the HH1 circuit- reading Reg Sniff's articles on PI design I got the impression that at least some PI's use an adjustable 2nd later sample not as a "ground balance" per se, like what I guess is required on a VLF unit, but as a ground subtractive value that removes some or most of that component from the signal. Is this the case or, WTF? Also, would this scheme hold true for a DD or concentric coil on the HH circuit?

[mickstv]

Regarding ground balance on the HH1 circuit- reading Reg Sniff's articles on PI design I got the impression that at least some PI's use an adjustable 2nd later sample not as a "ground balance" per se, like what I guess is required on a VLF unit, but as a ground subtractive value that removes some or most of that component from the signal. Is this the case or, WTF? Also, would this scheme hold true for a DD or concentric coil on the HH circuit?

The second sample (HH1) is used to remove the Earths magnetic field. To cancel ground mineralization the detector would need 3 or 4 samples.