Ground Balance Theory

[Qiaozhi]

Eric, three men in this thread think that know the best algorithm for ground balance:
- a software ingeneer (Aziz),
- a professional (you) and
- a hobbyst (me).
My algorithm can not be patented because I showed it in this forum and in Doug's forum. However the fun is that the method is not mine. Search the WEB for "convolution" and "deconvolution", read textbooks and papers and you will see that the method has no alternative - all other methods are simplifications and speific cases of deconvolution..
Aziz started to explain his method in Doug's forum. The method of Aziz is suitable for a specific type soil, but Oz soils are very different in properties.
Remains someby to show something better than deconvolution. This is impossible.

Until you can clearly demonstrate the practical results of this theory, your frequency domain ideas will only continue to exist as vapour-ware. Aziz claims to have the World's Best Ground Balance (WBGB), but we all know that this is just hot air designed to provoke. These ideas and claims have been going on now for several years with no working product to demonstrate that they function as advertised.

On the other hand, Eric has proved himself countless times in both a theoretical and practical sense. So, in conclusion, if either you or Aziz actually have anything that goes beyond a sheet of paper or a SPICE simulation, I suggest you start a separate thread, and leave this one to Eric ... who I believe knows what he's talking about. Like many others here, I would prefer if this thread was not constantly highjacked by those wanting to promote their own agenda.

[Aziz]

Eric, three men in this thread think that know the best algorithm for ground balance:
- a software ingeneer (Aziz),
- a professional (you) and
- a hobbyst (me).
My algorithm can not be patented because I showed it in this forum and in Doug's forum. However the fun is that the method is not mine. Search the WEB for "convolution" and "deconvolution", read textbooks and papers and you will see that the method has no alternative - all other methods are simplifications and speific cases of deconvolution..
Aziz started to explain his method in Doug's forum. The method of Aziz is suitable for a specific type soil, but Oz soils are very different in properties.
Remains somebody to show something better than deconvolution. This is impossible.

Sorry mikebg,

I haven't revealed the WBGB(c)(r)(tm)(super-duper)(hyper)(ulti-ultimate ) yet. I have just made some simple GB examples to explain the matter in a simplified form and to give the right math tool recipe to the interested members (unfortunately, the membership of the AEGP-forum is required). We have to walk a long way yet.

BTW, the latest recipe works a treat if carefully implemented.

Aziz,
the soft engineer

[Aziz]

Until you can clearly demonstrate the practical results of this theory, your frequency domain ideas will only continue to exist as vapour-ware. Aziz claims to have the World's Best Ground Balance (WBGB), but we all know that this is just hot air designed to provoke. These ideas and claims have been going on now for several years with no working product to demonstrate that they function as advertised.

On the other hand, Eric has proved himself countless times in both a theoretical and practical sense. So, in conclusion, if either you or Aziz actually have anything that goes beyond a sheet of paper or a SPICE simulation, I suggest you start a separate thread, and leave this one to Eric ... who I believe knows what he's talking about. Like many others here, I would prefer if this thread was not constantly highjacked by those wanting to promote their own agenda.

George,

I'm not interested in making series of commercial detectors and making money. As you know, I'm interested in the technology only.
Hey, I might give the technology for free - who knows? Perhaps just to pi$$ on & $crew the evil market leader.

As a data mining "expert" (due to my former experience in this field), one even don't have to know the physical laws and facts to implement the WBGB. You guys need a look at the data mining concepts.

Aziz

[mikebg]

Until you can clearly demonstrate the practical results of this theory, your frequency domain ideas will only continue to exist as vapour-ware. Aziz claims to have the World's Best Ground Balance (WBGB), but we all know that this is just hot air designed to provoke. These ideas and claims have been going on now for several years with no working product to demonstrate that they function as advertised.

On the other hand, Eric has proved himself countless times in both a theoretical and practical sense. So, in conclusion, if either you or Aziz actually have anything that goes beyond a sheet of paper or a SPICE simulation, I suggest you start a separate thread, and leave this one to Eric ... who I believe knows what he's talking about. Like many others here, I would prefer if this thread was not constantly highjacked by those wanting to promote their own agenda.

George, this is my last post in this thread because I have a profound respect for you as an excellent admin of a world forum. However please search the WEB for more information on signal processing, convolution and deconvolution to see that I'm right.

I like Australians. Even an Australian actor is my avatar. I like also Australian soil because it contains gold. The Oz dirt is not so bad; bad is the algorithm for signal processing used in conventional metal detectors.
Here is an illustration what makes the ground convolution with phase information in a CW metal detector. It distorts the response of target. The ground can make so large phase shift of TGT signal that it can enter even in 2nd or 3rd quadrant relative to phase of TX current. This is impossible at air test where the phase response is in the 1st or 4th quadrant only.

NOTE: The term "convolution" means a complicated integrating math operation in time domain, but this is simple multiplication of spectrums in frequency domain (summation of phases). Search the WEB for details.

The drawback of conventional VLF metal detectors arise because they use AIR signal or even the voltage across TX coil as phase reference for synchronous demodulation. The method makes correct target identification:
1.At air test because the phase shifts in matrix are zero,
2. At good soils because the phase shifts in matrix are relatively small, and
3. At bad ground, but very shallow target or when the target is on the surface. Participants of this thread make discussion for the last case because nobody speaks for ground convolution.

At deep target in bad ground, the phase information for target appears very distorted in TGT signal.
The elimination of GND signal is easy - we must use the GND signal for phase reference and synchronous demodulator can not see it. For this purpose was created the search head with DOoD loop configuration.
However for deconvolution of TGT signal we should use the suitable software.

[Ferric Toes]

Australian ironstone is weird stuff

Just going over something that I have noticed before as being different from the usual magnetically viscous soil. A piece of ironstone from Victoria reads 462 on the viscosity meter (VM). This is just picked out of a box where I keep my samples in the workshop, so it has no special magnetic history. If I then sit it on a neodymian boron magnet for a few seconds, then its reading goes up to 549 on the VM. Left in the VM the reading gradually reduces so that within 1/2 hour it is back near its starting value. It I then sit the rock on an industrial tool demagnetiser and then transfer it to the VM the reading is high again at 559, which again if left, gradually reduces. All other viscous samples do not show this odd behaviour. i.e if magnetised there is no difference, and the same for demagnetisation. I guess it must be the influence of larger grain sizes that are stable single domain or multidomain, whereas all the other soil samples are unstable SD (superparamagnetic) only. Certainly the Oz rock retains remanent magnetism while the others don't. However it is strange that the magnetised reading and the demagnetised readings are similar, but for both it eventually decays back to an in-between value after a period of time. No only does Australia have unique flora and fauna but it looks like the ironstone rich ground is unique too, at least in the State of Victoria.

Eric.

[Prospector_Al]

Hi Eric,

I have two specimens that were labelled "Australian Banded Iron". I presume that's the same stuff you're talking about.

I don't have the equipment to measure viscosity, but I notice that the amplitude of the return signal varies greatly with an external invariant field imposed on the sample. I pulverized part of one sample and verified that the observed behaviour is not of a macroscopic nature--the powdered specimen exhibits the same behaviour.


Therefore, if we have soil that's nothing but an eroded version of this material, we can except the same phenomenon to show up--except more pronouncedly, owing to the greater volume illuminated by the coil.

That's the reason I asked you if you had noticed any difference between unipolar and bi-phasic coil pulses as far as ground penetration is concerned. The long relaxation time of you sample implies that coercivity is involved and that, in turn, implies a wide hysteresis loop that consumes energy.

Perhaps the amount of energy lost is insignificant, but I'm still curious...

Allan

[Davor]

I have a fresh crop of hot rocks of my own! I visited a beach and after a literal pocket full of pull tabs I encountered a neat pile of red rocks that the sea neatly organised at one place. Some are more lively than the others, some resemble meteorites with holes and stuff, and some have specks as cheetah. Despite being in the sea only one of them have some growth, so apparently sea organisms avoid these. I don't expect much viscosity though.

[Ferric Toes]

I have a fresh crop of hot rocks of my own! I visited a beach and after a literal pocket full of pull tabs I encountered a neat pile of red rocks that the sea neatly organised at one place. Some are more lively than the others, some resemble meteorites with holes and stuff, and some have specks as cheetah. Despite being in the sea only one of them have some growth, so apparently sea organisms avoid these. I don't expect much viscosity though.

If you are finding pocketfuls of pull tabs then you are in the wrong place. The sea is very good at organising things according to their density. Light things in one place, heavy things in another. What's buried deep in the sand one month will cycle up to the surface in the following months. Somewhere on your beach is an area littered with gold rings. Keep searching.

Eric.

[Davor]

I kinda hoped for such pile, but missed it. Even the pull tabs were everywhere. But these rocks were a picture to behold, a neat pile and completely different from the rest.
Last year I encountered a red streak in a huge boulder, also on a beach, that was much more active than these. I'll have to extend ground balance of my toy soon as sea water is still more of a problem than these rocks. They are easily cancelled with my current ground balance setup.
I'll make a picture of this fresh crop. Now I have samples to try with my up coming PI machine. I also have some Roman bricks and medieval ceramics - none of these are a problem for my current (VLF) ground balance.

[Sergey_P]

The ground can make so large phase shift of TGT signal that it can enter even in 2nd or 3rd quadrant relative to phase of TX current. This is impossible at air test where the phase response is in the 1st or 4th quadrant only

Theoretical basis for the creation perpetuum mobile (the total energy - more spent) ?

[mikebg]

Theoretical basis for the creation perpetuum mobile (the total energy - more spent) ?

There is another misleading phenomenon in Frequency domain - the response appears 90 deg before excitation. This happens at self-inductance or if we have as target a ferrite core. Note that the ferrite increases the magnetic field. I know several ideas for perpetuum mobiles using ferrite cores, but unfortunately we live in Time domain where this is impossible.

[Tepco]

MPA

Nice, now we can get out of over-unity theory (including water powered cars, MEG generators and all), time and frequency domain theory (so far we realized active and reactive components are different) and eventually say something about ground balance theory, as name of this thread suggest. For example, how different detectors are built, using what GB approach, say comparing GoldScan method, multiperiod, multiplse etc methods, different ways of subtraction. Or eventually how to develop MPA system (Minelab Patent Avoidance), as good or better than original? Some ideas?

[deemon]

Or eventually how to develop MPA system (Minelab Patent Avoidance), as good or better than original? Some ideas?

As for me , I don't afraid any kind of patent violation - because I use "current reverse" technology that cannot be patented by Minelab or any other company . Nobody can patent the thing that was already published

[Prospector_Al]

As for me , I don't afraid any kind of patent violation - because I use "current reverse" technology that cannot be patented by Minelab or any other company . Nobody can patent the thing that was already published

Hi deemon,

Where was the "current reverse technology" published. Was it in a patent application or in a scientific journal? If it was only on a Forum, that isn't much help. Examiners don't read forum posts, so as far as they are concerned, the ideas aren't published and a patent may be granted if the technical merits are adequate.

All the best,

Allan

[deemon]

Hi deemon,

Where was the "current reverse technology" published. Was it in a patent application or in a scientific journal? If it was only on a Forum, that isn't much help. Examiners don't read forum posts, so as far as they are concerned, the ideas aren't published and a patent may be granted if the technical merits are adequate.

All the best,

Allan

It was published here on the forum , and that's enough . By the way , I told with one smart old man who knows patent laws ( he made a several inventions in the past ) , and he explained me that only the fact of publication does matter , even in a newspaper . After this I had read something about this stuff in the Internet and found the same thing - if somebody published the invention in every kind of mass media , this invention cannot be patented . The only exclusion , as I understand , can be made only for the author himself - he can patent it within half of the year from the publication date ( as I remember correctly ) . And another tip - if somebody will somehow get the patent on the invention that was published before , he can own it , but cannot use it - if he will go to law with this patent , the defendant can present this publication , and that's all - the claim must be rejected .