Tweet
Originally posted by geoscash1
View Post
Wouldn't this fall into the same line of thinking with the project PI5 in the book ITMD?
Instead of using the industry standard "sampling and integrating the decay" design, why not use the approach that is mentioned in the
book, use the decay to control a pulse width modulation circuit so the "presence of metal changes or alters the decay
of the coil flyback". Wouldn't that get you into the ballpark with a base idea to get what your after?
I have often wondered (this is an abstract way of thinking I know) why everyone is so stuck on "detecting the object" first, why hasn't the idea
been to first "Un-detect" the soil condition first then find the object within it? It seems to me, the easy part is detecting the metal or object were all looking for
but why not remove all ground effect first then the objects hidden with in it could be distinguished fairly easily in the after circuitry, so to speak.???
I have always been the type of "the glass is half empty", so fill it type of thinker, why not reverse the thought here and get rid of the real problem first then
work on distinguishing what that problem hides, the objects we all search for with in it.. I don't know, maybe this has already been hashed, tried, pursued and
just left as is and is exactly why everyone's focus is on the second portion, the metal objects within the problem.
Some of this stuff can sure make your head spin thinking on it.....
Instead of using the industry standard "sampling and integrating the decay" design, why not use the approach that is mentioned in the
book, use the decay to control a pulse width modulation circuit so the "presence of metal changes or alters the decay
of the coil flyback". Wouldn't that get you into the ballpark with a base idea to get what your after?
I have often wondered (this is an abstract way of thinking I know) why everyone is so stuck on "detecting the object" first, why hasn't the idea
been to first "Un-detect" the soil condition first then find the object within it? It seems to me, the easy part is detecting the metal or object were all looking for
but why not remove all ground effect first then the objects hidden with in it could be distinguished fairly easily in the after circuitry, so to speak.???
I have always been the type of "the glass is half empty", so fill it type of thinker, why not reverse the thought here and get rid of the real problem first then
work on distinguishing what that problem hides, the objects we all search for with in it.. I don't know, maybe this has already been hashed, tried, pursued and
just left as is and is exactly why everyone's focus is on the second portion, the metal objects within the problem.
Some of this stuff can sure make your head spin thinking on it.....
PI technology is still very basic. There is so much more information we can gather about the buried targets.
A single sample only gives us a signal amplitude. This signal amplitude is the sum of many factors.
Some of these factors are:
- target size
- target distance
- target shape
- target conductivity
- target magnetic permeability, viscosity, remanesence and susceptibility
- the characteristics of the surrounding matrix, which are even more complex than the targets within.
And all of this happens within the magnetic field of the coil, which is within the magnetic field of the Earth.
If we strive to know how significant each of these factors is, we must separate and analyse each factor on it's own.
The PI5 project is a step in this direction as it uses the target TC to separate the targets into categories.
Comment