Open Metal Detector Project Charter

[WM6]

It would be nice to have the hobby pay for itself.

[chudster]

Hi all....Ive been lurking for a while but this is my first post here.

I think even early stage discussions you need to be cautious as unique and novel concepts discussed or mentioned in public can still be taken and run with by can established company without any further discussion or permision requests from them and patented as their own. I believe this has happened already in my case where I was discussing a combination of technologies within a detecting machine back in 2010 and then last weekend spotted a machine with 3 publicised features I had discussed in a thread. After reviewing a patent based on the machine I see a fourth distinct and unique feature discussed in the thread was included in the patent.
The thread in question was on Finders forum and if you wanted to have a look at that and draw your own conclusion, the thread you are looking for is 'Hmmm...is it novel' (Only a few threads below the most recent). That forum is one that was and still is frequented by either the manufacturer itself or their representatives in Australia. To me, the coincedences are too many to be incorporated within one machine in the time frame after that post. Personally I have no doubt of what has happened and even if it was one employee that read the post and decided to pass it off as his own that the matter should be rectified in good faith now that it is known (but wont hold my breath).

My suggestion is this. Sort out the whos who of your group, then go private discussing 'ANY' aspect of any new developments relating to any proposed new machine or components realted at all to any new machine. WHile going public may offer some notable reference, it will still have to go to court to reach a suitable outcome.

Good luck with it.

Goldnugget,

Thank you very much for bringing this to our attentions.

Folks, there is a lot of supposition that Minelab patents things that are obvious, patents things that are already invented or known, and patents things especially that are posted on the forums. My jury is out. I don't know if they do or don't.

Clearly its all very confusing especially for a hobbiest who is just trying to make a better detector. It seems that at least one person taken to court because they did not understand this.

I think its valid then, so that we learn not to infringe to throw our minds to answering the question of the validity of a patent. As this one was brought to our attention, lets look at it in detail as a test case.

I have posted a new thread so that we can look very closely at this as a learning case for folks how to analyse a patent so that they don't infringe and especially if they want to do more than just the experimental type of activities that patent acts allow.

It is http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...766#post158766

I hope you will follow the thread with interest.

Chudster

[Jerry]

With all the talk about patent rights, etc, I thought this article to interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/te...anted=all&_r=0

Jerry

[sido]

Arrrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhggghhhhhhhhh

Hows the NK7 going???

Sid

[WM6]

Regarding "open" detector project.

No one remember Carl Moreland and his HH any-more?
A couple of years ago he was not Whites employee yet.
He developed and share his Hammerhead (excellent learning and working PI platform) with all of us here, absolutely for free.
Yes, he sell Hammerhead PCBs to us (thanks-god), but I am sure he was in lost with those PCBs ($10 for profi PCB inclusive shipping from USA to worldwide).
Maybe his reward was, that he, on basis of his work on Geotech, become employee of Whites at the end.

I think, that what Carl done with Geotech and Hammerhead, is real spirit of this forum and need to be spirit of this forum in future.
And not business debates about how to hide something from other members and then sell him something back for money.
First we all take all real knowledge about MD from Geotech and then should we hide some possible improvement ideas in reward?
There is nothing wrong to make close group business from MD, but I think that this better suit to private sphere and not to open technical forum like Geotech.

I wish for some excellent scientist here, as our colleague Davor, to go Carl steps.
To prove first his exceptional knowledge in something working in MD domain here and then share project with all of us (to possible sell PIC with code is ok from my point of view).
Then I wish his work here to be spotted from real MD business player, like Whites, Fisher, XP, Tesoro ..., and wish to him to be invited in one of these collectives.
If I were a staff manager in one of those MD companies, I would carefully monitor the work of experts like Davor here.

Best wishes to all of your dream, and never forget what we all got here on Geotech.

[oadamo]

just do it anonymously then everyone can contribute, no one will be able to get sued for patent infringement. the information will be out there for anyone that wants it.
adam

[Jerry]

Regarding "open" detector project.

No one remember Carl Moreland and his HH any-more?
A couple of years ago he was not Whites employee yet.
He developed and share his Hammerhead (excellent learning and working PI platform) with all of us here, absolutely for free.
Yes, he sell Hammerhead PCBs to us (thanks-god), but I am sure he was in lost with those PCBs ($10 for profi PCB inclusive shipping from USA to worldwide).
Maybe his reward was, that he, on basis of his work on Geotech, become employee of Whites at the end.

I think, that what Carl done with Geotech and Hammerhead, is real spirit of this forum and need to be spirit of this forum in future.
And not business debates about how to hide something from other members and then sell him something back for money.
First we all take all real knowledge about MD from Geotech and then should we hide some possible improvement ideas in reward?
There is nothing wrong to make close group business from MD, but I think that this better suit to private sphere and not to open technical forum like Geotech.

I wish for some excellent scientist here, as our colleague Davor, to go Carl steps.
To prove first his exceptional knowledge in something working in MD domain here and then share project with all of us (to possible sell PIC with code is ok from my point of view).
Then I wish his work here to be spotted from real MD business player, like Whites, Fisher, XP, Tesoro ..., and wish to him to be invited in one of these collectives.
If I were a staff manager in one of those MD companies, I would carefully monitor the work of experts like Davor here.

Best wishes to all of your dream, and never forget what we all got here on Geotech.

I agree and in particular with the last sentence.

Jerry

[chudster]

Dear All,

I have had consultation on a conference call with folks from three continents. It was decided that prior to any other agreement (if any), a code of conduct was needed. This is not to suggest that there is any deficiency on the forum rules. The forum is open to everyone as it should be. Especially though because people may wish to be anonymous and may have undeclared linkages to industry, we need to set a standard of principles and behaviours that we can follow as a stepping stone to successful projects in common. Those principles are taken from the many posts in this thread and feedback to me.

It is my job to draft this and I'll aim to have it available for public comment within the next fortnight. When finalised it will be available to sign up to and we will look at the next step.

In the meantime if there is more to say, please post away!

Chudster

[Davor]

I may have something to add. I think I mentioned before that my focus is mainly in VLF, while most of the developers are still smitten by PI and its superlative claims. IMHO PI as we know it came to the very end of development with very little to invent, and only Tinkerer's approach may have some quantum leap potential. I think VLF right now has a potential to eat any nowadays PI, provided it is equipped with better front end and R component ground balance, and also provide superior discrimination too. VLF is stuck in ye olde paradigms that are incredibly easy to overcome. Maybe the best hint of what is possible is Aziz' PC metal detector idea as posted in the balanced VLF Tx topic.
I'll continue my pursuit of a better VLF with FKK coils, powerful Tx, and improved ground cancellation.

[Tec]

Just sine waves in the ground

I have only experience with PI. But I like VLF for its IRON DISCRIMINATION. however I am scared of analog circuits and oscillators.
The way I see it, PI is multi-frequency. VLF is single (usually). What is the difference between a PI with balanced TX and RX coil and a VLF ?
Isn't the PI in this case just a multi-frequency VLF ?
What if I switch the PI in a certain way, so instead of making an exponentially discharging pulse, it makes a single frequency sine wave. What would the target see differently.. Aren't both technologies just a bunch of frequencies, or a single frequency shoved into the ground.
We measure a phase shift and an amplitude change. What else is there ?

I have lost my point, but I would really like a simple VLF circuit, that does most things digitally, can you recommend one ?

[Davor]

So far the VLFs tend to be a wee bit more complex than PIs with comparable depth. There are ways of supplying demodulated VLF signal to a device called "VDI" which is in its nature a micro. You might try some of the VLFs with VDI then.

[chudster]

IMHO PI as we know it came to the very end of development with very little to invent

"The advancement of the arts, from year to year, taxes our credulity and seems to presage the arrival of that period when human improvement must end." Patent Office Commissioner, Henry Ellsworth's 1843 report to Congress.

US Patents in 1843: 2,901

2901

US Patents in 2012: 8,087,094

8087094

I would bet PI (and all detection types) still has a way to go.

Chudster

[Davor]

Sure, but some paradigm shifts are needed for that. Scratching the surface by trying this or that transistor would not change or improve the way a circuit works. It is done and tested. But Tinkerer's approach is very promising.

[chudster]

Dear All,

I have had consultation on a conference call with folks from three continents. It was decided that prior to any other agreement (if any), a code of conduct was needed. This is not to suggest that there is any deficiency on the forum rules. The forum is open to everyone as it should be. Especially though because people may wish to be anonymous and may have undeclared linkages to industry, we need to set a standard of principles and behaviours that we can follow as a stepping stone to successful projects in common. Those principles are taken from the many posts in this thread and feedback to me.

It is my job to draft this and I'll aim to have it available for public comment within the next fortnight. When finalised it will be available to sign up to and we will look at the next step.

In the meantime if there is more to say, please post away!

Chudster

After consultation with forum peers, I am pleased to present the code of conduct for forum comment. I hope there is nothing too contentious. Assuming that it is all OK I propose to make this active after a week.

Note this is a step in the process. The next step will be to begin discussion on the actual open project(s).

Chudster

[WM6]

According this code, "industry" can stole ideas from hobbyist, but hobbyist cannot stole ideas from those "industry".

Great, wish you full success. Hope that there is not screenwriter Minnie Labs behind this screenplay.