Tweet
Somewhere on the net i found this:
"...Recovery speed refers to the time it takes a detector to recover from identifying a ferrous object and signal the presence of a non ferrous target...."
This is something we can agree on.
All of us do understand what "Recovery speed" is.
But what defines Recovery Speed at given design? What factors?
Working frequency?
"...You will note that all detectors have a frequency rating. This will fall into one of three categories: Low frequency (1-6kHz), medium frequency (7-15kHz) and high frequency (16-19kHz). In simple terms the low frequency models are regarded as being the deeper seeking machines that handle iron and mineralisation well but are not the best in terms of recovery speed . In contrast, the higher frequency machines have faster recovery speeds and are particularly good with smaller and thinner targets. Most introductory metal detectors fall into the middle frequency bracket...."
This quote implies that most deciding factor is working frequency!
Is it?
I do recall some models with low working frequencies and yet very descent Recovery Speed and on other side some models with high working frequencies and not so good Recovery Speed. Intentionally i will avoid to mention exact models.
Point is that working frequency is not most deciding factor for good Recovery Speed.
What makes fast Recovery Speed at given metal detector design?
For example we can take some of existing projects from this forum and analyze circuitries.
For example we can take TGSL, Classic, Magnum, Musketeer etc..etc..
What are the parts that may define/affect Recovery Speed at those designs?
Just a starting hint: Musketeer's working frequency is 5kHz, TGSL's is 14,6kHz, Classic's is 6.5kHz.
Yet Musketeer is having much faster (better) recovery speed than TGSL and Classic together!
How come?
What have to be modified and improved at TGSL, Classic... to improve their Recovery Speed?
...
I think such questions are more interesting and relevant here for majority of members than anything else.
With this, "Basics" characterized, title of thread i would like to provoke series of similar articles which will describe main features of one conventional design.
I am sure such articles will be more beneficial and educative for majority of us than just plain posting of various schematics, more or less complicated and more or less interesting.
Also i suggest Administrators to dedicate separate part of forum to these "Basics" threads in which various "Basics" fundamental principles will be explained and well elaborated.
Using some simple and straightforward design, schematic, we can "walk" from component to component, from stage to stage and elaborate all the aspects of their roles there.
Can it be done different than is done?
Can it be improved?
What would be advantages and disadvantages if we do it like this... like that... etc...
If my suggestion is accepted, than i also suggest Classic schematic to be a working example.
Because is tough to find more straightforward design than it is (and it has poor Recovery Speed anyway, so why not improving it also).
"...Recovery speed refers to the time it takes a detector to recover from identifying a ferrous object and signal the presence of a non ferrous target...."
This is something we can agree on.
All of us do understand what "Recovery speed" is.
But what defines Recovery Speed at given design? What factors?
Working frequency?
"...You will note that all detectors have a frequency rating. This will fall into one of three categories: Low frequency (1-6kHz), medium frequency (7-15kHz) and high frequency (16-19kHz). In simple terms the low frequency models are regarded as being the deeper seeking machines that handle iron and mineralisation well but are not the best in terms of recovery speed . In contrast, the higher frequency machines have faster recovery speeds and are particularly good with smaller and thinner targets. Most introductory metal detectors fall into the middle frequency bracket...."
This quote implies that most deciding factor is working frequency!
Is it?
I do recall some models with low working frequencies and yet very descent Recovery Speed and on other side some models with high working frequencies and not so good Recovery Speed. Intentionally i will avoid to mention exact models.
Point is that working frequency is not most deciding factor for good Recovery Speed.
What makes fast Recovery Speed at given metal detector design?
For example we can take some of existing projects from this forum and analyze circuitries.
For example we can take TGSL, Classic, Magnum, Musketeer etc..etc..
What are the parts that may define/affect Recovery Speed at those designs?
Just a starting hint: Musketeer's working frequency is 5kHz, TGSL's is 14,6kHz, Classic's is 6.5kHz.
Yet Musketeer is having much faster (better) recovery speed than TGSL and Classic together!
How come?
What have to be modified and improved at TGSL, Classic... to improve their Recovery Speed?
...
I think such questions are more interesting and relevant here for majority of members than anything else.
With this, "Basics" characterized, title of thread i would like to provoke series of similar articles which will describe main features of one conventional design.
I am sure such articles will be more beneficial and educative for majority of us than just plain posting of various schematics, more or less complicated and more or less interesting.
Also i suggest Administrators to dedicate separate part of forum to these "Basics" threads in which various "Basics" fundamental principles will be explained and well elaborated.
Using some simple and straightforward design, schematic, we can "walk" from component to component, from stage to stage and elaborate all the aspects of their roles there.
Can it be done different than is done?
Can it be improved?
What would be advantages and disadvantages if we do it like this... like that... etc...
If my suggestion is accepted, than i also suggest Classic schematic to be a working example.
Because is tough to find more straightforward design than it is (and it has poor Recovery Speed anyway, so why not improving it also).
Comment