GROUND BALANCE ( without the ground :-) )

[dbanner]

Well the latex is a big fail.
I'll try to put all in pdf what this deepfake says.

[moodz]

.... now you know how I wrote two patents in two days LOL.

AI already "knows" about every published patent. If you are writing a new patent ... you only have to ask it the right questions and tell it what you want to claim.

It does the rest for you ... simply magic.

moodz

PS: not all AIs are suitable for this task.

[dbanner]

I like how it concludes by saying that your method is mathematically sound..

And you're right, it seems to have trained itself on all the relevant patents
.

[dbanner]

Mathematical Representation of Ground Balancing via Zero-Crossing Point

1. Ground and Target Signal Decomposition
The total received signal can be decomposed into:

where:
- = target signal (e.g., nugget, coin),
- = ground signal (mineralized soil response),
- = noise (thermal, EMI, etc.).

2. Ground Signal as a Function of Coil Height ("Pumping")
When the coil is "pumped" (height varied), the ground signal’s intensity changes. Let be the coil height at time . Then:



where:
- = ground’s magnetic susceptibility (viscous, ferric, etc.),
- = phase shift due to ground’s magnetic relaxation.


3. Zero-Crossing Point Hypothesis
You hypothesize that for all ground types, there exists a specific point (e.g., time , amplitude , or phase where:

This is the key invariant—regardless of ground mineralogy, the ground response crosses zero at this point.

4. Target Signal at the Zero-Crossing Point
At , the total signal reduces to:

If is negligible, then:

Thus, measuring only at cancels all ground signals while preserving the target signal.

---

5. Mathematical Implementation
Step 1: Identify the Zero-Crossing Point
- For a given ground, sweep the coil height and record .
- Solve for where .

Step 2: Solve for Ground Parameters
Assume the ground response follows a log-linear decay (common in viscous soils):
At , so:

This equation must hold for all ground types, meaning is independent of . Thus, the system must satisfy:

This implies that is a universal crossover point (e.g., a specific phase or time delay).

Step 3: Target Detection
At , the detector reads:

The target signal can be modeled as:

where = target conductivity, = coupling factor.

---

6. Sensitivity Trade-off (Why Sensitivity Drops)
Your explanation correctly notes that sensitivity decreases because:
- The ground signal is partially correlated with the target signal .
- For a target with a ground-like component (e.g., a flaky nugget in mineralized soil), its total signal is:

- Ground balancing removes , so the residual signal is only , reducing amplitude.

---

7. Magnetic vs. Conductivity Domain
- Magnetic domain: Ground signals arise from (permeability) and relaxation effects (viscous soils).
- Conductivity domain: Ground signals arise from (ionic currents).
Your method focuses on magnetic cancellation, meaning it works best for ferric/mineralized soils, not saline/conductive grounds.

---

8. Final Equations (Summary)
1. Total signal:

2. Ground cancellation at :

3. Target loss due to GB:


---

Conclusion
Your method is mathematically sound:
- Exploits a universal zero-crossing point to cancel arbitrary ground signals.
- Sacrifices sensitivity for perfect ground rejection.
- Works in the magnetic domain, not conductivity.

[dbanner]

Got the latex math to work except \implies or /implies doesn't seem to work here.

ok, I use \Rightarrow instead.

But this one:


\bigg doesn't work for delimiters

[moodz]

... you are getting there ... fairly impressive is the inference that these AIs can generate with very little input information.

The day is coming when it will be almost impossible to patent anything ( using your meat computer ) that these AIs will not be able to trump. ( not Donald )

The big question is will you recognise the answer when the AI presents it ??

[dbanner]

... you are getting there ... fairly impressive is the inference that these AIs can generate with very little input information.

The day is coming when it will be almost impossible to patent anything ( using your meat computer ) that these AIs will not be able to trump. ( not Donald )

The big question is will you recognise the answer when the AI presents it ??

Yes, I agree that the patent infrastructure will eventually collapse under the weight of AI assisted patent applications. It then becomes a dog race to secure the factors of production, namely, plant and equipment, including methods and techniques, raw materials such as rare earth minerals etc. and sources of cheap, plentiful energy. All this will have to be protected of course. That's why a powerful military and tariff threats seems like the way to go. There is simply no other way.

It is obvious that in the future only a handful of people on the planet will be able to recognize some of the answers, especially when it comes to the really big questions.
This requires insight, which is the sort of thing that sometimes comes to one in a dream.

[moodz]

... just to save you some time .. here is the graph.

There are 2 zeros ( one on the X axis and one on the Y axis ) ... and they are both at the same point which gives a beautiful symmetry if you know how to use it.



lets compare how various materials respond to magnetic fields ...



They all have symmetrical curves as per the first figure and theres a linear response in the Log Linear percentage ... so a GB point can be calculated on these factors. This is just maths ... "the method" is what is patented as you cant patent the maths.

The use of a "symmetrical" TX waveform ( sin square triangle .. whatever ) greatly simplifies the task. Makes you realise that mono pulse PI detectors have their work cut out to achieve a GB.

Some may now have tweaked that this is a magnetic permeability question. Since the u (mag perm ) can be determined without regard to conductivity ...the conductivity part ( target detection ) is not affected by the GB part .... the target loss in the GB condition is due to the loss of GB signal which you dont want ... not target signal.

[dbanner]

So your method proves out, then you'd better get on with the multi-freq method ASAP.

[moodz]

If your method proves out, then you'd better get on with the multi-freq ASAP.

Good tip ... but I already have ... what is a distorted sine wave ? Multifrequency of course.

Patent claims the sine wave and any combination of sinewaves ... which is shortspeak for any repetetive waveform.
( even a random waveform is covered by this ... since you cant prove a waveform is purely random .. you would have to wait to the end of time to prove ).

[moodz]

This might be more illustrative ....

1 . The detector needs to solve GB so that the magnetic permeability of ground produces no target signal.

2. The detector needs to detect targets by their conductivity AND / OR permeability as long as the permeability of the target is not the same as the ground which is Gbed out.

Everything has a permeability ... ground / metals / air / water etc etc BUT they are all symmetric to the origin on the graph and that is the key to the patent.