ML patent Application

[Mechanic]

Any metal on a coil(pi) that is able to support eddy currents into the sampling periods, although it is fixed to the coil(not moving relative to the coil windings), if a piece of ferrite(that is not normally detectable) is waved over this piece of metal, the ferrite will give a response. Try it and see. It is only relevant to solder joints in the coil itself as they may be exposed to ferrites in the soil.

Cheers Mick

[UrbanFox]

if a piece of ferrite(that is not normally detectable) is waved over this piece of metal, the ferrite will give a response. Try it and see. It is only relevant to solder joints in the coil itself as they may be exposed to ferrites in the soil.

Cheers Mick

Hell Mech. Don't give the game away! You will have blokes here finally understanding that Minelab patents do have relevance...(that is if they do have the intelligence)

[Davor]

Another ML patent.Will be very interesting to see what its about!
http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/o...nNo=2013201330
dougAEGPF

Is there any humane way of peeking into this? Perhaps only the Croatian patent database is less co-operative than this one. It so beautifully demonstrates how monumentally patents miss the whole point

[dougAEGPF]

Is there any humane way of peeking into this? Perhaps only the Croatian patent database is less co-operative than this one. It so beautifully demonstrates how monumentally patents miss the whole point

When its examined (i believe it will be) details may become publicly available.
dougAEGPF

[Davor]

that is if they do have the intelligence

... to avoid being bruted by the company sharks and a broken patent system that provides racket type protection even for the expired patent copied from the original Poole's design? Oh yes, lesson learned thank you very much.

[Davor]

When its examined (i believe it will be) details may become publicly available.
dougAEGPF

Thanks. I missed that detail.

[UrbanFox]

.. the expired patent copied from the original Poole's design? Oh yes, lesson learned thank you very much.

Gee Davor, lets see you achieve Minelab performance by using the methodology of Poole. Talk about a clown who it appears wouldn't know what a patent was let alone have the ability to understand one.

For someone who has stated that he would ensure his detector would be the best there is, it appears you sure do have a long way to go, Davor. If you cannot see the difference between Poole's methods and Minelab's then there is no hope for you.

[Davor]

Phew, that was deep. I thought I knew the meaning of a word expired.

I'm not under any pressure to finish my detector any sooner than I'm feeling comfortable to. It is my hobby, the thing I do for fun. You know, the stuff you enjoy? Oh, I see the blank stare in your eye. I know, corporate trolls don't have fun. Like never. You wouldn't understand that.

BTW, I've seen some silly timing schemes in that expired patent that obviously did not impress NATO as they picked a better detector for their UXO purposes. Competition sucks. Real competition double sucks.

[dougAEGPF]

Phew, that was deep. I thought I knew the meaning of a word expired.

I'm not under any pressure to finish my detector any sooner than I'm feeling comfortable to. It is my hobby, the thing I do for fun. You know, the stuff you enjoy? Oh, I see the blank stare in your eye. I know, corporate trolls don't have fun. Like never. You wouldn't understand that.

BTW, I've seen some silly timing schemes in that expired patent that obviously did not impress NATO as they picked a better detector for their UXO purposes. Competition sucks. Real competition double sucks.

Poole's method also uses receive signal weighting something for which ML got a patent for 30 or so years later! What Pooles method lacks is a method for canceling static fields. Apply Eric fosters method from 1967!!!! for canceling static fields and you have a GB system that would cover most of the methods used today. Old is new!!!!!
dougAEGPF

[Davor]

True, but Eric did not care to be dragged about the patent offices and never filed a patent. From the perspective of recent events, and the lives of the most creative people of the last century, including Tesla and Armstrong, patents are the only way to part an inventor from his invention, time, money, and sanity, even life, and I admire Eric for his choice.

[Dave J.]

Haven't read the patent app, but have skimmed the thread. I suppose that what is reported in this thread about the patent (from a technical perspective) is basically correct.

I regard the invention as both clever, and relevant to the path Minelab is pursuing. Pretending that ain't the case sort of misses the point.

Legal issues like whether the patent if issued would stand up in court, I have no opinion about.

All that having been said, I agree with those who have posted saying that they regard improved soldering as a better solution to the problem the invention is supposed to fix.

-- another "corporate troll"

PS to Davor: this has been fun, you may want to rethink the "corporate troll" thing.

[KahlesMilcon]

As for the ferrite patent, after a little bit of reading on the net I think ML is using misdirection within the patent: I see some interesting things presented by ML. While I am not an EE, what I have gleaned is they are saying they are using it for suppressing eddy currents of the solder joint. This in itself might be a real issue -to be debated. I think what they are really using it for is a filter to get rid of EMI,or at least to reduce the EMI spectrum from the coil as the coil does act as an antenna. From what I have gathered this will also increase the SN as well as increase Q of the coil. It also appears as though the Bead will also increase some signals in certain areas as well. They just do not want every one to know that. They chose the solder joint as a misdirection for this application. There are other things that it does but at this time I do not understand. Therefore any one can use a ferrite bead to do this before the solder joint and accomplish the same result. On another thought you do not have to worry about the raw joint if you use a little pc card to attach the coil wiring. As for the use of an acceleratometer in the coil, while it would be more accurate to place in the head you can place it on the shaft or in-font of the box as it were and accomplish the same thing. You can also place one on top of the coil for that matter to get around the patent. I have a lot more reading to do on the use of ferrite beads as well as the use of sm bypasses. This is just food for thought and I expect you out there who are well versed in this to delve into your memory and reapply what you know pertaining to this subject and present it within the forum for all to understand. Sometimes prior art in interrelated fields can be useful in establishing open forum information and will then be established as prior art and applied within this environment. The biggest difference between the people of this forum and "any company" is the funds to do the R&D on items that could be applied to the metal detector industry.

[Davor]

Dave, you just can't be a troll by any account. Your posts are constructive and relevant, and we know your accomplishments. Also thank you for sharing. There are no similarities between you and, say, UF. I just can't imagine how come you got offended, and I'm sorry for that. I truly am.

[Ferric Toes]

True, but Eric did not care to be dragged about the patent offices and never filed a patent. From the perspective of recent events, and the lives of the most creative people of the last century, including Tesla and Armstrong, patents are the only way to part an inventor from his invention, time, money, and sanity, even life, and I admire Eric for his choice.

Yup; I'm still here;still relatively sane in most peoples eyes; never had any real grief from patents; had a couple of suggestions of infringement in the past but when I produced the relevant "prior art" documents it all went quiet. Have a bit of a laugh at some patents though, particularly the one for shielding a soldered joint with a ferrite sleeve. Must be a tax avoidance ploy for those with money to burn. I have shielded a whole coil with ferrite and put it in a metal box. Worth a patent? I don't think so.

The Poole patent of 1980 does not deal with the subtracting out of viscosity relaxation. It simply describes it as a method of subtracting fast eddy currents due to ground conductivity. All the text, diagrams, and claims are clear on this. Poole slipped up because he wasn't aware that the signals the Plessey detectors got from the ground were from quite a different mechanism. I know the work Plessey were doing at that time because a trio of their engineers used to attend our annual seminars at the Oxford Lab. On one occasion one of them tried to hide a small tape recorder under his desk. All OK till it developed a audio feedback squeal, then all knew what he was up to. I used a subtraction method in 1968 for identifying target responses from viscous ground (adjusting delay on second sample), plus, increasing delay (sample 1) to eliminate conductive response of ground - had it existed. Patents? The Lab Director said it was never financially worth it; just let's go ahead and make the damn things. As well as being Lab Director, he also owned ELSEC, an Oxford engineering company who put the first portable PI's on the market in 1969.

Eric.

[UrbanFox]

Eric.

Eric, is there any truth in the rumour that you are currently destroying the patent virginality that Davor believes you have?......patent applied for?