New Frankenproject -

[dougAEGPF]

Firstly, I've heard from a very reliable source that the QED was performing quite well in the field. If it did not, then I doubt it would have gotten the "attention" it got, regardless of any patent issues.
- Carl

Carl I totally agree with you! The “attention” that the QED has received I personally believe has nothing to do with alleged patent issues which I believe are only a smoke screen to justify the “attention”!
dougAEGPF

[Midas]

Ok Pete no worries, personally I'm sure you've got good intentions, and you've clearly put in fair bit of work, but you can understand how we interpreted the following sentence the way we did:

"Now remember, I'm simply "prettifying" Howard's circuit as published; it is an "exact replica" (just like a $5 Rolex, although I wouldn't accept less than 8 bucks). It contains a number of excellent and quite deliberate mistakes, so that anyone trying to build the device from these plans with little or no knowledge of electronics or metal detecting is pretty much guaranteed to get a "surprise" upon power up."

First you refer to your circuit as 'it', by saying 'it is an 'exact replica''. Then the very next sentence starts with 'it' and you refer to the deliberate mistakes. A pretty clear chain of logic.

Anyway moving on just to be perfectly clear to everyone the circuit now is as good as you can make it, you've fixed all the mistakes your aware of, correct?

Assuming you have made corrections it is perhaps a good idea to give us a list just case it's actually a mistake to consider it a mistake. Also we've been talking about it for so long it would just be nice to know some specifics. The whole deliberate mistakes in patents thing seems like an unusual and probably not very effective tactic to me. If a patent contained errors I'd be more inclined to treat them as genuine oversights.

Midas

[ODM]

If there are some recordings or documents of tests for this particular detector, those would make for interesting reading. I guess videos and test reports would be okay to release, if their creators give permission? Tests of a device would AFAIK be free of any/all legal bruhaha involved with the device.

And as far as schematic/layout errors go - sometimes they are unintentional and sometimes made for the purposes of learning, with proper warnings of course. There are plenty of examples of the latter in Horowitz & Hill's "Art of electronics", where they illustrate common first-timer design flaws or faulty deduction. Some are even from formerly respected application notes!

[Pete the Builder]

The post that makes everything crystal clear!

Just a quickie, because I apparently didn't explain myself clearly enough. Mea culpa!

This is getting to be a drag. I've said twice, in plain English, that I didn't, and wouldn't, introduce any deliberate errors.

I'd appreciate it if anyone who's still confused could read all of the posts I, and BugWhisperer, made concerning errors, and not just parts of them. That's not fair to me, and it's obviously confusing to you.

I have not, nor have I said I would, introduce deliberate errors into the schematic. I haven't. Period.

BW, on the other hand, has introduced deliberate errors, and he said that also in plain English. The fact that he said it on another forum is beside the point. I'm not getting into politics here. I'm too old for that ****.

If anyone who's still confused could read all of the original post that seems to be so confusing, you'll see that I made a JOKE, after which I explained myself very, very clearly (I thought). To quote:

"BTW, I could've been a real ******* and swapped some pin numbers, but I couldn't bring myself to do that. Or could I? (Sigh. I didn't.)"

So I said, quite clearly, twice, that I didn't introduce errors. I've now spent enough time repeating myself. OK? OK.

Now. In his posts, BW quite clearly indicated that he has introduced a number (he didn't say how many) of deliberate "mistakes" so that casual builders would not be able to benefit from what was, for him, an extremely controversial design.

He didn't say that Pete the Builder would introduce any more mistakes. Neither did I. I made a hilariously funny joke about it, which some people (I'm looking at you, Carl, and you, Midas!) have either ignored or taken the wrong way. I've apologised for any confusion, and I feel like I've explained that part of it to death. OK? OK. Next...

I posted my schematic as, and I quote, "an exact replica" of BW's original schematic. That means I included his "mistakes". That means that my originally posted schematic won't work, just as BW's schematic won't work. That's what "exact replica" means to me.

Finally, I asked forum members to help me find the mistakes and get the design up and running. Some forum members have taken that onboard, and have pointed out a couple of my own accidental errors, which I corrected (well, those that I could at the time). For anyone confused about what was accidental and what was not should compare both schematics. Those members without access to the original schematic (which I didn't post due to patent concerns, which Carl has very kindly explained won't affect this site), could have asked me for a copy (as I offered) or obtained it through Doug's forum. It's not rocket science. Again, at the time I thought there would be awful repercussions if I posted BW's schematic. When I learned that it wouldn't be a bad thing, I'd already posted the replica, which I understood wouldn't have caused so many problems (if at all). I'm really sorry if that was confusing. It sure was for me!

Having got that off my manly and hairless chest, I'll try to address the other concerns...

I will be posting a corrected (as far as I can detect) schematic sometime today. I was doing other things today, but it's obvious to me now that I should've done that originally, and I sincerely apologise for that. I made an incorrect assumption, and I was wrong to assume. It certainly made an *** out of me, didn't it?

So I hope that clears things up, forever and ever. Ramen.

Now, let's get on with the fun and (I reckon) important work of helping interested people get this design off the patent and into real life, and let's see if we can make it as good as it's supposed to be.

That means, if you see an "obvious" mistake on the schematic I'll post later (I have to go to the real estate office in a few minutes, and I can't access the schematic as it's on my server and locked by Altium), PLEASE do point it out to me. And if you can help us dumb ****s by explaining what was wrong and how to fix it, everyone will benefit, and you'll be a hero! I'll send the cape in the mail. Promise.

Thanks everyone for putting up with this silly issue. I'm glad it's completely resolved now, and no-one thinks I'm a prick and delight in making mistakes so other people get hurt. I don't. Full stop.

I'll post the schematic shortly. Stay tuned, as I've found a couple of other mistakes (mine, not BW's )

Have a great Sunday guys! The sun is shining here in Melbourne, the rabbits are rabbiting, the birds are singing as they **** on our cars, and all is right with the world.
-PtB

P.S. For anyone interested, have a look at C14 and C31 in the schematic. Now have a look at the power rails they're connected to. What do you think will happen? To be honest, those were the only two mistakes I could find...

[mickstv]

Just to help you out Pete, Here is a picture with five problem spots circled. If you have the QED schematic you'll be able to quickly see the errors in your version. I hope this helps you.


I should piont out these are not the only errors.

[Carl-NC]

I have not, nor have I said I would, introduce deliberate errors into the schematic. I haven't. Period.

BW, on the other hand, has introduced deliberate errors, and he said that also in plain English. The fact that he said it on another forum is beside the point. I'm not getting into politics here. I'm too old for that ****.

Sorry, it wasn't clear. Now it is clear. And then some. Don't know what was said on another forum, ergo the confusion.

Movin' along...

[KahlesMilcon]

To all,
To start with Pete the Builder , thank you for preparing a drawing minimizing open components and loose lables.

I would like to make a suggestion to all:
We stick with Pete's drawing and go through it an have a original copy with all of BW mistakes as is for a rerence sheet.
This means that we have to go through and compare Pete's drawing to BW's drawing and make corrections via sending notes with the problems refferencing the part #/Component lable so it will be easy for Pete to correct.
When we get to the point where we have a Copy converted drawing we then go through the components to confirm correct hookup of the component to assure that nothing "blows up or will burn up.
All corrections should be refferenced from the component part #, not with a generic description like the opamp on the audio. If you would like you can refference it that way but refference the actual part # that you are talking about.

This will take a little time to do but with many eyes on this it can be quite easy.

If there is a dissagrement on layout and part # it must be resolved before going further as to not screw up the final drawing that everone wants to utilize.

I know everyone here is thinking that what I have just refferenced is basic for a project like this .
From what I have been reading on many different forums this is a cause of many problems that could have been avoided.

I am a civil engineer and have to work on many different projects and this is the only way to keep things flowing without major rework.

I know that many of you out there aer EE's or should be EE's and you all know this so I am preaching.

One other thing , I do not know if it is posible but if we make corrections to a part or trace ect, it should be in a consistant color to be able to follow all corrections, in effect "red Line As-builts"


This is just a thought.

One other point I think we should do is establish a starting Drawing from Pete from this date forward.

All of what I said is dependent upon if Pete is willing to do this.

I know I am willing to do what I can on comparrison of drawings, etc.



Ken

Pe

[IBGold]

Pete it is our warped sense of humor they do not understand keep up the good work.

Regards, Ian.

[Pete the Builder]

Heads up : QED 1.0002

Thanks for your patience, everyone. Here's the full schematic (without Mick's fixes) as promised. If you can't read the PDF, let me know, I'm happy to send you a copy of the schematic in image form, or as either an Altium binary schematic (*.SchDoc), an ASCII schematic (*.sch) file readable in Protel 2.x, an OrCad SDT schematic (*.sch) or as an Autocad *.dwg file. (I don't know much about the last two formats, I've never used OrCad, and last time I used Autocad it was in the days of the space shuttle image being magically 3D!!)

The four problems found so far were : C1 and C14 were reversed (double bang!) thanks to BW, and C1 and C3 are now 33nF (my fault, I mis-typed the prefix). The footprints have been updated.

Please have a look and see if there's anything else missed so far. All your input is very much appreciated!

Cheers,
PtB

QED January 13 Schematic Ver. 1.0002

QED Schematic 1.0002 Jan_2013.pdf

[Pete the Builder]

Keep up the good work Pete. I will provide a port of the unipi code so everyone can play with the timings.

Thanks Paul, that's very much appreciated!

-PtB

[Pete the Builder]

Just to help you out Pete, Here is a picture with five problem spots circled. If you have the QED schematic you'll be able to quickly see the errors in your version. I hope this helps you.


I should piont out these are not the only errors.

Thanks so much, Mick, that's a great help... if I could view it!

Sorry, but the image link here seems to be broke, and the link goes to http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/errorsct.png/, but all I get is a big black blank screen. Interestingly (for you and me), this also breaks my Chrome browser - if I switch to another tab after following the link, that tab also stays blank! The pixel pixies must've been twiddling their knobs (so to speak). Fascinating.)

Check out the new schematic, and let us know if you've got the same errors, or new ones. I guess I missed at least one extra...

Good think I left so many zeroes after the Revision number decimal point! I think we might be using them all!
-PtB

[Pete the Builder]

Sorry, it wasn't clear. Now it is clear. And then some. Don't know what was said on another forum, ergo the confusion.

Movin' along...

No problem at all, Carl. I seem to have assumed a few things too many (like the thing about BW's comment). Between that and the language/culture/humour thing, I really put my foot in it! All in one post! That's gotta be a record?

I do appreciate your patience. You're the last person I want to p off here!

I'm very happy to move on. And trip up over something new...

Cheers.
Pete

[Pete the Builder]

Pete it is our warped sense of humor they do not understand keep up the good work.

Regards, Ian.

Thank you mate. Glad to know you're lurking around here..

I haven't read your last email yet. It's on my todo list, I swear!
-Pete

[Carl-NC]

Mick et al, if you post images please post them as attachments and not links to off-site sources. Those off-site sources disappear eventually (quickly for image-hosting sources) leaving a thread with lots of missing images. Also works smoother, for folks like PTB.

[Pete the Builder]

Question and suggestion about moving to the appropriate forum(s).

OK, last time you have to look at my ugly icon mug for a while. (I'll have to change it to something smaller, or else learn how to multi-quote my replies!)

I'm getting a bit confused with all the projects I've got my fingers in right now.

WOuld anyone mind if we moved the discussions away from this thread and into the appropriate forums?

I'll create some new threads in each forum so that the confusing multiple issues can get some attention, rather than continually appending to a single discussion.

I'm thinking that the QED forum could have a new "2013 Hardware" thread to begin with, for discussing this schematic and potentially the PCBs... and possibly also a "software" thread once anyone's able to get a board made to the point where software is an issue.

I'm working on the QED PCB layout in the background - i.e. whenever I can sit up! - but it's a real doozie and I want to offer everyone at least a "potentially" really stable and reliable (as far as it can be) working PCB design to start with (unless anybody beats me to it!)).

I'd think the other projects - UPIM, etc - would also benefit from a fresh start. We don't lose anything by it, and we gain a lot by making the forum more like a forum - where people can post individual questions or problems as separate posts, rather than just appending to horribly long threads. If no-one objects, I guess that could be a good next step.

Thoughts? Problems? Solutions? Money?
-Pete