ML patent Application

[Aziz]

When you see the results of testing FG and enhance on some solid gold nuggets up to 30ozs you would know why!!!!
dougAEGPF

This is a structural (architectural) problem of the PI technology and the GB scheme of it.
Unfortunately. The GB scheme is particularly lossy for the large time constant targets.

There must be a lot of monster slugs in the hot ground just waiting for their unearthing.

Aziz

[UrbanFox]

When you see the results of testing FG and enhance on some solid gold nuggets up to 30ozs you would know why!!!!
dougAEGPF

If you don't believe there is a use for FG then don't use it. When you have experienced prospectors (not armchair prospectors like yourself, Doug) singing the praises of these Minelab timings then it is obvious there is value in them.

For quotes from actual prospectors who use Minelab machines with Fine Gold timings see....

http://www.finders.com.au/forum/view...ghlight=#80065
____________________________________
Who uses "Fine Gold" timing and how often?
Most of the areas we detect in are fairly warm due to hotrocks and patches of burnt clay in the ground, and are usually "Enhance" type country. Some of these areas can be done in Normal but are difficult at best. I prefer mono coils and stopped using DD coils a very long time ago. I guess I just got used to the feedback much like the guys that stick with the SD machines do.

The advent of the GPX series and "specialised" timings made detecting these areas so much easier with the elimination of all, or almost all of the ground signal, and used correctly these timings have opened up a lot of areas once again.
____________________________________
No other pi detector can sample as early as "fine gold" and obtain the same depth while also cancelling both the ground and hot rocks. Some naive arm chair prospectors who specialise in making misleading statements tell us this timing is only good for detecting flypoo but it also detects some much larger specimens and crystalline gold that can be ignored or give a very poor response in Enhance and Normal timings. This can go unnoticed if you don't go over the same ground using different timings.

One thing I'm sure of is that it will never be noticed by anyone carrying out tests in the uniform ground at a test site using beer cans or al blocks or the large solid nuggets borrowed from real prospectors. "
___________________________________________
To the dis-believers that say the 5000 only finds fly poo in fine gold, I say bull !
In the last 3 months my 5000 has found nuggets of ( cleaned weight ) 6 grams, 8.6 grams and 14.6 grams, all in fine gold mode.
Typical claims from the arm chair experts that don't own a 5000, let alone have even used one.
___________________________________________

[dougAEGPF]

No other pi detector can sample as early as "fine gold" and obtain the same depth while also cancelling both the ground and hot rocks.

Wrong! The QED and Moodz's detector can sample as early(or even earlier) and cancel the ground and hot rocks and without the huge depth loss on some long TC nuggets that happens with FG!!!!!
dougAEGPF

[UrbanFox]

Wrong! The QED and Moodz's detector can sample as early(or even earlier) and cancel the ground and hot rocks and without the huge depth loss on some long TC nuggets that happens with FG!!!!!
dougAEGPF

Would you like to show me where I can purchase either of the detectors you mention??

Vapourware doesn't count, otherwise your forum would be full of world beaters!!

[dougAEGPF]

“Unfortunately as far as I am concerned if you cannot use a detectors full potential power to detect in normal mode and are forced to stay in that push/pull choke called Enhance so that the detector can remain stable over the hot ground conditions,you will be losing gold at depth. People here probably think that I might be talking through my rear end,but not the experienced blokes I'v detected with. “

and
“My findings are the same, Ive gone over my patches with a 18in and a 14in DD and picked up gold that could NOT be heard with a mono of any size or any setting combo that I tried “
and read this one on the same thread!

“Some can and will handle more than others just to gain that extra advantage of sensitivity as well as depth.I just cannot justify any metal detector that cannot be used to its full potential output power such as that of the GPX series,because it becomes to noisy with a mono coil,for was that not the reason the GPX series were designed to do(work with mono coils over hot ground)?”

“There are many out there who believe that the monos coupled to a 5000 rule the roost,90% of the times where ground allows maybe,but if that were the case,I wouldn't be picking up larger bits of gold at depth with DDs behind them”
http://golddetecting.4umer.net/t1334...-detector-info
dougAEGPF

[UrbanFox]

“Unfortunately as far as I am concerned if you cannot use a detectors full potential power to detect in normal mode and are forced to stay in that push/pull choke called Enhance so that the detector can remain stable over the hot ground conditions,you will be losing gold at depth. People here probably think that I might be talking through my rear end,but not the experienced blokes I'v detected with. “

and
“My findings are the same, Ive gone over my patches with a 18in and a 14in DD and picked up gold that could NOT be heard with a mono of any size or any setting combo that I tried “
and read this one on the same thread!

“Some can and will handle more than others just to gain that extra advantage of sensitivity as well as depth.I just cannot justify any metal detector that cannot be used to its full potential output power such as that of the GPX series,because it becomes to noisy with a mono coil,for was that not the reason the GPX series were designed to do(work with mono coils over hot ground)?”

“There are many out there who believe that the monos coupled to a 5000 rule the roost,90% of the times where ground allows maybe,but if that were the case,I wouldn't be picking up larger bits of gold at depth with DDs behind them”
http://golddetecting.4umer.net/t1334...-detector-info
dougAEGPF

So what, Doug? All you are reporting on are the methods of use required when using the most appropriate metal detecting tool currently available for detecting gold in the variable mineralisation experienced in Oz. If you or other users don't like Minelab hardware then you both have the option to use other brands of equipment. Minelab is the preferred hardware because, all things considered, Minelab delivers the goods in mineralised Oz ground.

[dougAEGPF]

So what, Doug? All you are reporting on are the methods of use required when using the most appropriate metal detecting tool currently available for detecting gold in the variable mineralisation experienced in Oz. If you or other users don't like Minelab hardware then you both have the option to use other brands of equipment. Minelab is the preferred hardware because, all things considered, Minelab delivers the goods in mineralised Oz ground.

The TDI (Oz version) also delivers the goods in mineralised Oz ground and can also give an indication of the TC of the detected object something ML can't do with a mono coil! and it costs less than 1/2 the price of a 5000! The TDI also has better EMI immunity!
dougAEGPF

[UrbanFox]

The TDI (Oz version) also delivers the goods in mineralised Oz ground and can also give an indication of the TC of the detected object something ML can't do with a mono coil! and it costs less than 1/2 the price of a 5000! The TDI also has better EMI immunity!
dougAEGPF

Yes Doug, but as you stated yourself.......from your defunct forum.... GoldProspectingInOz ....

"If the TDI is to ever to try and match any ML for depth and sensitivity then in my opinion it needs a lot of R@D (eg the current limiting in it for low impedance coils and the GB method which results in a huge loss of depth, compared to no GB)
doug "

[UrbanFox]

dougAEGPF

Hi Doug, another little snippet from you on your previous forum.......

"I am not comparing my gs5b or the TDI with a $5000 dollar detector because to be truthful its not competitive in depth/densitivity/ground handling ability of even earlier model second hand ML detectors
doug "

[crane]

Yes, in fact I have. I'm familiar with what ferrite does to the coil balance. Same goes with foil chips introduced to it. They can both improve the balance as well as make it worse, but in any case the nett effect is cyclostationary, hence of no consequence in such small sizes if the coil balance is maintained. There are some nonlinearities related to ferrite use, so I'd be very careful NOT to introduce it in quantities you suggest as beneficial for shielding the electronics within a coil, which is also a bad idea.
Iron parts producing Barkhausen noise are just about the only kind of material I can foresee to benefit from such shielding, but there is even simpler solution to that "problem": just don't use any iron parts in your coil. Have you tried electronic parts pins with a magnet?

No other material is able to produce any kind of uncorrelated noise, aside from the ferrite itself.

In every account this patent is useless to me.

The type of ferrite obviously matters, especially with CW designs, but it obviously doesn't alter the balance on a mono coil!!

The patent mainly applies to pi designs that sample early where excess metal in the coil housing will respond as if moving relative to the coil when the coil passes over certain rocks and ground. You can test a few short length of soldered wires by passing them over a properly made coil. If the PI responds then a coil with similar joins will have you digging false signals in highly mineralised ground.

I think Carl is talking about using ferrite to rebalance a coil? Not the same thing.

[crane]

When you see the results of testing FG and enhance on some solid gold nuggets up to 30ozs you would know why!!!!
dougAEGPF

dougAEGPF,
Are you serious?
I do use a GPX5000 and I don't knock "Fine Gold" timings, you on the other hand don't use a GPX5000 but you do knock FG? Where do you get this stuff?

We already detect an area more than once with both small and large coils to make sure we don't miss much. We can still get more, such as flat nuggets on edge, by working at right angles to our chain lines and we would need to use every coil ever made to get it all.

As to using "Sharp", it can't be used on hot ground and is mainly used for checking a weak target so why mention it? And a DD in nomal timings will still respond to hot rocks!

These timings should only be used on the ground they were designed for, not the homogenous ground at a test site!

[dougAEGPF]

But is the 5000 twice as good as the TDI (based on price)? No way!!!!Heck the 5000 can't even be set up with a mono coil to reject conductive objects based on their time constants! The TDI is also more ergonomic and does not require a Phd to learn to operate effectively! The TDI run in all metal mode ( both high and low conductors) also does not have the disastrous loss of depth that occurs on some longer Tc nuggets in FG,SS or enhance!!!! Is the 5000 5 times as good (based on price) as the water proof Infinium? I doubt it! If the QED had been allowed to proceed then consumers would had a detector comparable (or even exceeding in some areas) the performance of 5000 at about 1/5th the price! No wonder ML did not want it to see the light of day!!!!!!
dougAEGPF

[dougAEGPF]

[QUOTE=crane;169138]dougAEGPF,
Are you serious?
I do use a GPX5000 and I don't knock "Fine Gold" timings, you on the other hand don't use a GPX5000 but you do knock FG? Where do you get this stuff?


From extensive testing on dozens of nuggets up to 30ozs!!!!!!!!!Eg a solid 39 gram nugget NOT detected at 14" with a 18" NF mono in FG,SS or enhance!
dougAEGPF

[mickstv]

not the homogenous ground at a test site!

I wouldn't class a test site as being homogenous. Either targets are placed into location which means the ground is over turned and no-longer uniform in structure or composition, or the site already had known targets which at some stage would have been dug to prove they are nugget's and once again the ground is no-longer uniform in structure or composition.

[UrbanFox]

But is the 5000 twice as good as the TDI (based on price)? No way!!!!Heck the 5000 can't even be set up with a mono coil to reject conductive objects based on their time constants! The TDI is also more ergonomic and does not require a Phd to learn to operate effectively! The TDI run in all metal mode ( both high and low conductors) also does not have the disastrous loss of depth that occurs on some longer Tc nuggets in FG,SS or enhance!!!! Is the 5000 5 times as good (based on price) as the water proof Infinium? I doubt it! If the QED had been allowed to proceed then consumers would had a detector comparable (or even exceeding in some areas) the performance of 5000 at about 1/5th the price! No wonder ML did not want it to see the light of day!!!!!!
dougAEGPF

Doug, you use what you want to use in the way of a detector. I would like to bring to the readers attention statements made by DougAEGPF as Doug on his previous forum.... GoldProspectingInOz......

Who has ever seen anyone here in OZ gold detecting with an infinium?Again the amount of gold found by it in Oz would I suggest would be miniscule as would it sales in the detector market.
Doug

Yes, I think that is a reasonable representation, Doug!

Now Doug, I found this next quote from you on your old GoldProspectingInOz forum quite interesting.....

Come out here and I am sure that we will be only to happy to demonstrate how the TDI,Gs5B.Infinium etc just cannot detect many, many nuggets (including some shallow one's) that any ML can. Its a fact of life easily demonstrable at the test site or in the field.
Doug

So, really Doug, who were you addressing in that forum post conversation, and who are you trying to deceive now??