Competition!

[ivconic]

I have a very good idea how to revive the activity on the forum and how to wake up all the members who are in a deep sleep (obviously).
Carl has to make some key decisions here.
And here's an idea.
Carl to dedicate a special part of the forum and call it: competition!
To give a time limit to all participants. From... to...
Competition to design either VLF I/B or PI detectors with the smallest possible minimum of components!
But provided that such a detector still retains all basic functionality.
So; as few components per number as possible.
The least possible.
And that it works and makes sense.
This can further be divided into categories: completely all analog, completely all digital, mixed of both technologies.
Valorization will be done so that the use of the processor will carry the lowest number of points.
Because 99% of components can be replaced with a processor, and that's not the point.
The point is inventiveness.
And the most points should be given to a completely analog solution with a minimum number of components.
Another reason for this is because not all participants have the knowledge to use the processor and may not even have the conditions.
And yet, among such people there are people with ingenious ideas who can implement everything in the analog domain.
So far we have tried to do the opposite. For the design to be as complex as possible, as "profane" and as difficult for others to understand.
There was no inventive breakthrough, and I followed it for years.
As an "old school" I know that the analog domain is much "wider" and that true genius can be expressed more easily and better in that.
Ok, that's the idea.
It's yours to make up your own mind.
And let Carl organize it properly afterwards.
In the end; he will sponsor the main prizes!
For example: first prize; detector, second prize; ITMD book..etc

[ivconic]

This is a very good idea, if you stop and think about it.
For many reasons.
First, given that these will be designs with as few components as possible; the vast majority of members will be able to reproduce it easily and check how it works.
And after that publicly give their opinion about it and ratings.
Second, real inventiveness and ingenuity are really required in such conditions.
So maybe we'll get a collection of very ingenious solutions here.
If a sufficient number of solutions to this task are collected; a book called: "Geotech collection of cookies" may be published later.

[ivconic]

And I have an additional idea!
Carl as an influential person at FT can propose that the winning design be produced by FT in a limited series with their quality workmanship and logo.
5% of the profit from the sale of those products can end up going to the designer.
This forum is a guarantee for such an agreement.

[ivconic]

Since I am the proposer of this idea; I will give an illustrative example.

[ivconic]

Phew!
The situation is much more serious than I feared!

[profesor]

I appreciate your efforts,ivconic.
I disagree with you on one thing.
detector with the fewest elements.
I think it doesn't matter what element is used.
All forums are full of simple detector schemes.
A professional detector will motivate everyone.

[GeoMax]

Hi Ivconic,

Your competition is a good idea. I agree with Profesor that the Internet is full of very simple metal detectors. So there is no real point to ask people to design more. It would be better to have more info on the specifications what the detector should have. Then people are more interested.

[Carl-NC]

A competition forum is a good idea. I agree, a "simple-fewest-parts" design isn't much fun, and Thomas Scarborough has a monopoly in that area. But other designs ─ whether complex or not, whether cutting-edge or not ─ might be interesting. Even subcircuits could be included. A competition for a tone-ID add-on for a Tesoro Bandido, or an all-analog ground tracking circuit (that would be hard).

A problem I see is that these things don't usually hold people's interest for long. The AMX project is a good example; most people just wanted to talk about which ADC & micro to use, no one was much invested in putting any real effort into the design or doing evaluation. As soon as I stopped working on it, the whole thing died. And no one but you (Ivica) has even asked about it.

I think that 95% of the people who visit here are looking for something quick: a design that will detect King Tuts gold 50m deep; a fix for a defective circuit; a free schematic, etc. The other 5% are people involved in projects and designs, and have their own things to work on. I'm glad to give it a try, but I don't expect much out of it.

[moodz]

... here's my entry with the optional "range extender and back saver" attachment.

needs no battery.
you can swing all day !

Easily resolves iron and ferrites from gold and other non ferrous objects.






Seriously though Carl is right !

I would think that a division of labour might be worth a try ... form a "virtual enterprise" to produce new designs.

Idea people ( ideas for detectors and features )
Engineering people ( doability and proof on paper )
Backroom people ( construct proof of concept )
Document people ( writeups / schematic design /parts spec / how it works descriptions etc )
Maker people ( PCB / housing / coil making etc )
Tester people ( test prototypes / give feedback and reports )
End user people ( customer use and satisfaction )

Feedback paths between different groups ... decisions made by voting concensus and tiebreaker decision maker appointed.


moodz

as a footnote ...

From 1851 to 1896 the Victorian Mines Department reported that a total of 61,034,682 oz (1,898,391 kg) of gold was mined in Victoria. Gold was first discovered in Australia on 15 February 1823, by assistant surveyor James McBrien, at Fish River, between Rydal and Bathurst (in New South Wales).
This gold was all found just by LOOKING. ( not even a magnet )

[moodz]

here is the circuit diagram of my detector.

[DirtDog]

Carl,

I believe you are correct, most individuals likely find this forum when looking for the holy grail of metal detector knowledge, then realize it's not all that simple, and eventually move on. The core participants are a dedicated bunch, but as you said, spend most of their time chasing down details for their own projects.

I'm a long time viewer of the forum because of my interest in understanding the basics of detectors. I found your site years ago after reading your many helpful posts and writings on the White's V3i, which to this day is my favorite detector, even if it lags in some aspects compared to the latest and greatest available today.

I purchased and read your book, Inside The Metal Detector, a couple of years ago (excellent book, easy to read/understand) and fully planned to dive into projects.....but things don't always go as planned. Anyhow, I love reading the posts and comments of the many brilliant people who frequent this forum, even if I've not been an active participant. Uh...even if some of it is a bit over my head.

The point here is to thank you for all the time and effort you put into the forum, I'm sure I'm not the only lurker who feels the same way.

[ivconic]

Finally some responses... and I thought I was in the twilight zone!


Thanks for the constructive comments and opinions, I really appreciate it!
Yes, you are actually right when you place remarks about "as few components as possible".
We already have such schematics everywhere.
I was just wondering how it would be possible to make a functional detector with as few components as possible... and to make sense and make a difference,
and if it wasn't just the usual meaningless schematic.
My example with the NE555 is not the best illustration of what I actually wanted.
The idea should be fully functional, have good GEB and DISC (in case of VLF I/B) and if PI; to have at least adjustable sample delay, if not GEB too.
But... let it still be an attempt with as few components as possible. A bit trivial and meaningless ... now that I read what I wrote!
Who adds unnecessary components anyway? (Although it's not that there aren't such cases! lol)
Ok, maybe I didn't word the requests the best. But the desire is to start some interesting activity.
Carl... AMX is still a very interesting thing for me.
I have a small pcb with an IR driver and I already bought a dozen IRF840... but I stopped and did nothing further.
Because in the meantime I saw that my version with IR would not do what I wanted.
The problem with AMX, as well as with some other interesting projects, is the inability to get all the proposed components, as well as the inability to work with SMD components in very small packages.
And not only my problem, but the problem of most amateur hobbyists is also the lack of knowledge of programming on better platforms.
I specifically stopped at the Atmega328P, I did a little work with ESP and STM and that's all.
I feel comfortable only with the Atmega328P, but it is a very "thin" mcu for the given tasks.
Why am I writing all this? Because my problems are also the problems of the majority.
I belong to that 95% of people. Who would like to achieve something... but have neither the conditions nor enough knowledge.
Perhaps all this is just a good guideline for the idea of this topic?
A competition for a project that will be designed only with easily available cheap components, without too much fancy programming and powerful processors.
I know, that's not motivating enough for those 5% of people.
On the other hand, we already have "My AGD analog detector work" on the forum, which was started by Auto-Mation-Assist.
Which, by all accounts, is a very interesting and very good project. But there is always a catch 22...
Some components are used there that are unavailable to many. Plus, the project is very complex and has no support in additional information such as video demonstrations of how it works.
I would not be the first to embark on such works; until I'm sure it will work the way I like it.
A well recorded detailed video of the usual tests of that detector would help a lot in such a decision to embark on such work.
Alas... Auto-Mation-Assist is ready for anything... but nothing like this!
So here are my thoughts out loud.
From everything written, it can be concluded what would be most appropriate for the conditions and criteria surrounding the competition.

[ivconic]

I also have some additional observations and thoughts.
As a demonstrative example, I will take two well-known detectors.
Delta Pulse and Pulse Star 2 (analog version).
I've done probably over 80 Delta Pulses and about a dozen PS2s so far.
There is a huge difference in the quality of work and behavior between the two detectors.
Although the schematics are equally complex (or simple, as one likes) and there is nothing "special" that would distinguish one from the other; yet the differences are very noticeable.
I was wondering why that is?
And I think a few details make the difference.
The DP is exclusively composed of an opamp and a timer with a pair of monostables... PS2 is based on multiple analog logic circuits and basically the main clock is generated with the help of crystal and division.
It is clear what the difference is. Stability and accuracy.
Another, very important thing that sets the two apart is the fullness and dynamics of the audio stage. VERY IMPORTANT THING!
I already elaborated on it on another topic. Sound, or audio stage; is a very important stage in the detector!
It makes the feeling of working with the detector completely different, a completely different dimension of feeling.
Now that I've got my hands on the PS2 build; I don't think about making DP ever again.
The PS2 isn't perfect though, it's an old design and a lot could be improved and added. I'm already developing some ideas around it. But that's on a long stick.
To cut a long story short; The PS2 approach obviously gives better quality. Let that be one of the guidelines for ideas as well.
It is neither the first nor the only project with excessive use of logic circuits and precise divisions that I have seen so far and that makes a very noticeable difference in the quality of work.
...
And let me add; yes, Carl: it would be great if the competition was divided and not only ready-made detectors, but only stages as such enter the story.
I already mentioned the audio stage. Another interesting thing is the auto zero circuit.
Which will correct "dropouts" and instabilities in non-motion detectors. Universal, which can be added to any non motion.
And of course (meaningful and really functional) GEB at PI. The Holy Grail of tasks for many existing small PI projects.
A lot of people have built so far HH, Surmaster, Barracuda, DP... a GEB "plugin" would make many happy!
There... those are some of the observations. There is a lot to work on.
There are those who will say: "Why all that? Isn't it easier to take a powerful mcu and cram everything into code?"
Yes it is. But that's not the point of this hobby. We already have a flood of those same mediocre solutions on the market.
Tons of detectors on the market that look like each other and all work basically the same.
I am not so poor that I cannot buy myself a detector. I already have a Deus from 2012. And a few others.
It is not my intention or desire to "spoil" something for nothing from the forum.
The whole point is in the hobby. That's why we're here. Analog electronics have not said their last.
In the sea of mediocre detectors with which the market is flooded; there is nothing motivating.

[moodz]

Some of us seem to be stuck in the eternal triangle of 1. CHEAP/SIMPLE 2. EASY TO BUILD 3. WORKS OPTIMALLY.

This triangle has been around since the invention of the rock. Achieving all three is not possible.

Despite Entropy ... things do not become more simple they become more complex with time.
So rewrite the rules as

1. MORE EXPENSIVE 2. HARDER TO BUILD 3. WORKS BETTER THAN THE LAST MODEL.

Then you might achieve a solution. You dont get out if you dont put in.

moodz

[ivconic]

Some of us seem to be stuck in the eternal triangle of 1. CHEAP/SIMPLE 2. EASY TO BUILD 3. WORKS OPTIMALLY.

This triangle has been around since the invention of the rock. Achieving all three is not possible.

Despite Entropy ... things do not become more simple they become more complex with time.
So rewrite the rules as

1. MORE EXPENSIVE 2. HARDER TO BUILD 3. WORKS BETTER THAN THE LAST MODEL.

Then you might achieve a solution. You dont get out if you dont put in.

moodz

Is that the point of the hobby?
Is that the solution for most?
Aren't there already armies of professionals in major companies working on it?
Aren't there already such attempts on the forum?
Carl described the fate of such attempts very well.
And we already have "successful" results on the market in mass quantities.