ML patent Application

[Ferric Toes]

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

Patent applied for what? You know you should not listen to rumours, especially in the metal detector business.

[UrbanFox]

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.
Eric.

Interesting! I wonder who else understands this?

You know you should not listen to rumours, especially in the metal detector business.

Yes, I know that, but is the answer yes or no?

[dougAEGPF]

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.

So Eric you had a Gb method to null the conductive and viscosity ground signal and the earth field in 1968 long before Candy ever thought of the idea?
Did you use these methods in the Goldscans that were sold by Ken Roberts in Dunolly long before the SD2000 came out in 1995?
Did the Goldscans sold by Ken Roberts use integrators (ML:“an averaging means”) rather than sample and hold?
dougAEGPF

[UrbanFox]

So Eric you had a Gb method to null the conductive and viscosity ground signal and the earth field in 1968 long before Candy ever thought of the idea?
Did you use these methods in the Goldscans that were sold by Ken Roberts in Dunolly long before the SD2000 came out in 1995?
Did the Goldscans sold by Ken Roberts use integrators (ML:“an averaging means”) rather than sample and hold?
dougAEGPF

Hell Doug, you are trying to say the Wright Bros invented the Space Shuttle!

[Davor]

Not that the Wright Bros are relevant for the discussion on a silly ML patent on poor welding practice. Luckily you are not in a space travel business, or otherwise your engineers would have still be disassembling a space shuttle intensively scratching their heads in a process, on some ridiculous IP "discovery" excuse, like they still do with bugwhiskers' rig. They can't be that stupid. Or can they?

[UrbanFox]

Not that the Wright Bros are relevant for the discussion on a silly ML patent on poor welding practice. Luckily you are not in a space travel business, or otherwise your engineers would have still be disassembling a space shuttle intensively scratching their heads in a process, on some ridiculous IP "discovery" excuse, like they still do with bugwhiskers' rig. They can't be that stupid. Or can they?

Davor, have you experimented with ferrite beads to null the effect of solder joints or solder dags within the coil?? I take it you understand the implication of excess metal within a coil? Do you understand what effect certain mineralised ground has upon a coil containing excess metal? .... with respect to creating false or ghost signals??

Have you considered the ferrite bead method could be expanded to null the effect of a PCB and components mounted within a coil?

The Sovereign has electronics within the coil. Consider there could be an application for ferrite in the coil for when the sovereign is over some types of mineralised ground.

You are very critical for someone who doesn't like constructive criticism. Can you justify your criticism? I don't see any merit in praising each other incestuously and continually, and I would rather not waste my time going around in circles if knowledge is out there.

[Aziz]

It seems, that ML is going to detect the hyper ultra flysh1te nuggets. The 0.0001 g "monster slugs"... *LOL*, HEHEHE
Or do they create monster solder joints when soldering? *LOL*, HEHEHE

The patent application can be knocked out (bypassed) easily. Congratulations to ML in burning a lot of money. The next ML detector model would require a price increase of at least $1000.

Aziz

[UrbanFox]

It seems, that ML is going to detect the hyper ultra flysh1te nuggets. The 0.0001 g "monster slugs"... *LOL*, HEHEHE
Or do they create monster solder joints when soldering? *LOL*, HEHEHE

The patent application can be knocked out (bypassed) easily. Congratulations to ML in burning a lot of money. The next ML detector model would require a price increase of at least $1000.

Aziz

Aziz, people like you with your attitude are responsible for Minelab being where they are with bugger all competition. Look through this forum for the last 10 years and it has been a revolving door of individuals like yourself who have developed nothing of consequence. You would do better to attempt to understand patents instead of continually criticising a company applying for patents.

You have been very vocal with your criticisms, however, you have not demonstrated any capability that would give your criticism any level of validity. You say "The patent application can be knocked out (bypassed) easily." Lets see some action instead of the continual waffle. Knock out this patent you are criticising!! Stop the grandstanding BS and show your mettle. I am sure Luuk and Authere will give you their support!

[UrbanFox]

It seems, that ML is going to detect the hyper ultra flysh1te nuggets.

Aziz

It seems, that you have a lot to learn about gold nugget time constants and detector/coil sensitivity, Aziz. You have been listening to Doug too much.

[mickstv]

=UrbanFox;169049 learn about gold nugget time constants and detector/coil sensitivity

UF, could you expand on this, with some info/details please.

[Aziz]

UFox,

don't upset me. I'm a very dangerous guy to ML and their patent trools.
(The thermo nuclear profit melt-down red push button is engaged ...)


ML and their patent trolls have by far crossed the rubicon with their evil patent trolling.
Shame on those greedy people.
Aziz

[UrbanFox]

UF, could you expand on this, with some info/details please.

Aziz in his haste to dump on Minelab will have you believe that Minelab's "fine gold" timing is only suitable for so-called "fly-****e" specks of gold but this timing will also detect larger porous nuggets that the previous models won't detect, such as one nugget I recently sold that fetched almost $400. If this isn't worthwhile technology then what is? And it's very important to note that "Fine gold" ignores most typical hot rocks that normally respond when sampling early.

[UrbanFox]

UFox,

don't upset me. I'm a very dangerous guy to ML and their patent trools.
(The thermo nuclear profit melt-down red push button is engaged ...)


ML and their patent trolls have by far crossed the rubicon with their evil patent trolling.
Shame on those greedy people.
Aziz

Aziz, if you have already done something...well..I don't think it's been noticed. Could you make whatever it is you are doing more obvious next time!!

[mickstv]

Aziz in his haste to dump on Minelab will have you believe that Minelab's "fine gold" timing is only suitable for so-called "fly-****e" specks of gold but this timing will also detect larger porous nuggets that the previous models won't detect, such as one nugget I recently sold that fetched almost $400. If this isn't worthwhile technology then what is? And it's very important to note that "Fine gold" ignores most typical hot rocks that normally respond when sampling early.

Thanks for the reply.

I was always under the impression that hot rock's tended to take a long time to decay i.e. more time than the original TX pulse width ?

[UrbanFox]

I was always under the impression that hot rock's tended to take a long time to decay i.e. more time than the original TX pulse width ?

Something for the forum gurus!

The decay time of the ground and a hot rock can be the same, but the hot rock gives a signal when the ground is nulled. Why?

The answer is in one of the Minelab patents that a few here like to dump on.

Aziz, do you know the answer??