Multi-Frequency

[Paul99]

First off, I'm not a person of marketing gibberish background, and you are right, such empty pile of near to meaningful phrases put into so many words is most certainly beyond me.

As for diddle-doodle power hogs, yes, they need a lot of marketing push. In a way I sympathise with people entrusted with task of selling meaningless stuff.

Sorry Davor, but the reference posted by Golfnut is not marketing material.

Multitone technologies make some sense on difficult ground, yet there is no mention of true benefits in the above mentioned pamphlet. Only various "possibilities" that are most obviously lost in diddle-doodle human interface.

A passage I referred to is absolutely meaningless in any technical sense. It may serve some marketing purpose, which obviously did not work on me, but otherwise there is nothing inside that will ever explain any facet of this technology. I'm not religiously tied to any metal detecting company, and so far I'm incapable of sucking to something like that.

I've seen videos of those monstrosities in action though.

The reference by Golfnut is from a semi technical paper for those who are interested. It is not from marketing material written by any marketing department.

All I can say is sit back and let the technology pass you by. I see you have not attempted to explain anything of the extract above. A clue for you.......

The first thing you should notice (check Golfnut's scope screen capture) is that this is not VLF and in no way can it be confused with VLF. It is Pulse Induction or be it unconventional Pulse Induction.

Harmonics???? If you agree that conventional PI is broadband, ie, transmits a wide range of frequencies, then it is obvious that square or rectangular continuous wave also has a wide range of frequencies. So comparing it to VLF is just wrong. It isn't VLF, it is unconventional PI.

I will leave it up to you to make up your own mind about this technology from here on in. If you don't believe anything I've said then I hope you are around in a year or two to see where it leads.

[Davor]

I'm speechless

[Paul99]

I'm speechless

What you definitely are is not very deep. It is evident you have nothing to offer as far as an explanation of continuous rectangular or square wave is concerned and it's application to metal detecting.....or have you already gone through perfecting the technology and gone back to the absolute basics to keep it simple?

You should curtail your grandstanding until you actually have something to offer.

[Paul99]

My hunting buddy will have his new CTX 3030 tomorrow. We are very excited about this baby. I had the Etrac last year and it did better than any machine I've ever had in our bad ground areas. The V3i is also a good performer at these locations. I'll keep all posted on how well the CTX does.

Markg, I for one an very interested to hear your opinion, and the opinion of your mate, of the CTX3030. Give it to us warts and all. There are a few blokes in Oz who have had a variety of machines in the CTX3030 class, and after a bit of experience with the 3030 they say it is the pick of the bunch in it's catagory. Let us all know what you think.

[Paul99]

ML products are way too much expensive.

Yes Aziz, everybody says that and I myself tend to agree. I would be happy to pay less for a Minelab. But......you have to ask yourself why 99.9% of full time prospectors in Australia use a Minelab GPX series detector. You can argue the cost all you want, but why don't you see if you can discredit the designs of Candy and Minelab with science for a change.

I've heard, that ML is using a dedicated part of the high detector price to stifle the (potential) competitors. And to feed their lawyers & attorneys.

So what???.......It appears ML do allocate money to stifle the efforts of those who think they are going to produce and market a detector that is designed to infringe Minelab's IP. You tell me why they shouldn't stop, or don't have the right to stop, such activity? And don't go on with the usual waffle that the QED wasn't designed to infringe ML IP.

If you are buying a ML mafioso product, so you are supporting the monopoly (mafia).

I for one would look at the competitors: White's, Garret, Fisher, Teknetics, Blisstool, Tesoro, Bounty Hunter, DeTech, ...
Aziz

Aziz, I have owned a few different brands of detector and have used a few more different brands and models. I have determined myself what is most effective for me and I buy accordingly. I have to ask you two questions Aziz.....

Q1) Have you ever even used any model of Minelab detector?

Q2) Which of the brands you suggest you would buy..."White's, Garret, Fisher, Teknetics, Blisstool, Tesoro, Bounty Hunter, DeTech, ..." have you actually owned or even used? Be honest now!!

even my laptop project is far better than a CTX3030!!! And it has the WBGB(c)(r)(tm) implemented as well.

Aziz, looking at a picture of the CTX3030 and then saying your laptop project is far better just doesn't cut it. You really should USE the CTX3030 before making such statements. Further, my suggestion was to use science to support Davor and assist him to justify his denigration of Minelab, not to produce a fantasy that rivals "Alice in Wonderland".

It is very obvious that you are incapable of using facts and science to discredit Candy and Minelab.

Anyway.
Did you find out how I do the ulti-ultimate ultra-fast majik coil damping???

Aziz

Aziz, can I let you into a secret??? I will anyway... You need to put your ideas into an actual working detector and then actually test them in the field. You need to follow structured and detailed testing protocols to identify under what conditions you see improvement and under what conditions you go backwards.

For a start, you have to prove that faster damping provides a real world benefit over slightly slower damping when it comes to the acquisition and extraction of target information. The problem you blokes have is that you hit upon something and believe it will be relevant and then think you have found something or achieved something that no one else is aware of.....or you delude yourselves into believing a design functionality will be of significant benefit when it isn't. You need to PROVE concepts, fantasising and waffling on is not enough. There is a real world out there somewhere that does not work on wishful thinking and vaporware.

[Paul99]

When looking back, you actually never contributed to any topic in any capacity other than delivering your piece of not so educated mind. There was no discussion here until you gone bezerk on a silly non-technical pamphlet.

I'm not certain whether you are ufox or some other troll, but of your kind I'm most certain: a troll.

I'm off for a weekend, so keep your insults ready for Monday.

Hey Davor, you are the one who made the insulting statements. How come you don't like being asked to justify them.

Davor, I seem to remember you being one of the blokes here on this forum who got a chuckle out of a statement made here that Minelab's "FBS technology with simultaneous frequencies ranging from 1.5kHz - 100kHz" was a joke as the machines only used a couple of frequencies. Over the weekend do you think you can justify, using science of course, why a continuous rectangular waveform will only contain a couple of frequencies when the theory says a square wave is constructed from an infinite number of sine waves of all sorts of frequencies?

Don't let me down now Davor. From the attitude you present here I know you should be able to do it, and I am sure there are a couple of supporters here who will give you assistance.

[moodz]

Hey Davor, you are the one who made the insulting statements. How come you don't like being asked to justify them.

Davor, I seem to remember you being one of the blokes here on this forum who got a chuckle out of a statement made here that Minelab's "FBS technology with simultaneous frequencies ranging from 1.5kHz - 100kHz" was a joke as the machines only used a couple of frequencies. Over the weekend do you think you can justify, using science of course, why a continuous rectangular waveform will only contain a couple of frequencies when the theory says a square wave is constructed from an infinite number of sine waves of all sorts of frequencies?

Don't let me down now Davor. From the attitude you present here I know you should be able to do it, and I am sure there are a couple of supporters here who will give you assistance.

....since this thread is about multifrequency ... my reply is not off topic .... a square wave is not composed of an infinite number of frequencies as this would imply by inference that it would need to have infinite power or zero rise and fall times ( ie infinity multiplied by anything no matter how small = infinity )..... hmm actually if it contained an infinite number of frequencies it would have to contain all frequencies since there is not an infinite subset in infinity ... anyway I digress ...

If you examined the square wave you would find that as you looked closer and closer you would eventually see a rise time and an absolute power value so the statement that it is composed of an infinite series of sine waves is incorrect.

Also read the premise of the argument ... there is a difference between "use" and "contains".

[Paul99]

a square wave is not composed of an infinite number of frequencies

Good one Moodz!!!!

[Carl-NC]

OK, I think there's been enough personal comments made. Davor is correct that BBS/FBS is surrounded by a lot of "marketing gibberish," including in official technical papers, but it is also correct that the method works well.

An "ideal" square wave is composed of an infinite number of frequencies. A real square wave is not. And while the transmit voltage is a square wave, the transmit current is a triangle wave. Which (ideally) also has an infinite number of frequencies.

It is absolutely true that BBS (and probably FBS) demodulates only 2 frequencies. You can open up a Sovereign and probe the signals to see exactly what they are doing.

[moodz]

OK, I think there's been enough personal comments made. Davor is correct that BBS/FBS is surrounded by a lot of "marketing gibberish," including in official technical papers, but it is also correct that the method works well.

An "ideal" square wave is composed of an infinite number of frequencies. A real square wave is not. And while the transmit voltage is a square wave, the transmit current is a triangle wave. Which (ideally) also has an infinite number of frequencies.

It is absolutely true that BBS (and probably FBS) demodulates only 2 frequencies. You can open up a Sovereign and probe the signals to see exactly what they are doing.

...err thats the point ...we are talking about real waveforms not ideal ones ...ergo they are not composed of an infinite number of whatevers.

[Dave J.]

Pure unadulterated marketing gibberish. Long version of "it works against all odds"

For anyone who may have lost track, Davor was referring to Mr. C's writeup quoted in post #7 by golfnut.

What Mr. C (as in I suppose "Bruce Candy") was quoted as saying was from an engineering perspective neither gibberish nor inaccurate, even if it does happen to have been written to support the Minelab marketing effort. I do the same for FTP-Fisher, and I suppose that Carl does the same for White's. It's not like nobody here understands this stuff.

Davor, you got rather badly hammered in this thread and for very good reason. For your sake as well as the sake of those on this forum who endure your posts, I hope that this time the pounding hurt bad enough to make you think. If you're clueless as to what your next thought should be, here's a virtual Chinese Fortune Cookie for you to open:

<open>

"Better to learn from people who are smarter than you are, than from those who know less."

--Dave J.

[deemon]

You can open up a Sovereign and probe the signals to see exactly what they are doing.

By the way , we don't even need to open the device We can connect a little coil to a sinusoid wave generator , place the coil near the search coil and begin to sweep the frequency slowly from 1 khz up to 100 khz . If device reacts somehow when the frequency crosses each harmonic component of the transmitted frequency - it means that this device processes this frequency , anyhow

[golfnut]

I have a small amount of additional for the exp2. Using a small pick up coil to visualise the mag field from the Tx coil on a scope..
(pick up coil resonates at over 200kHz so ring is not from pick up coil) You see additional decaying signals after Tx step edge.
This displayed voltage mimics the current in the Tx coil, and its resultant mag field.

S

[deemon]

I have a small amount of additional for the exp2. Using a small pick up coil to visualise the mag field from the Tx coil on a scope..
(pick up coil resonates at over 200kHz so ring is not from pick up coil) You see additional decaying signals after Tx step edge.
This displayed voltage mimics the current in the Tx coil, and its resultant mag field.

These additional decaying signals looks like "ringing" of your probe coil with the parasitic capacitance plus input capacitance of the oscilloscope The best way to avoid this is to shunt this coil with resistor , about 1 Kohm .

[Qiaozhi]

Paul99 - it is becoming clear to me that you are a reincarnation of Urban Fox, who was banned previously (along with Doug) by Carl. Continue like this and you'll be heading for the banned list once again.

Aziz - You've been warned before. Clean up your act or you will also be taking a sabbatical.

We are very lenient here, and don't want to waste our time deleting abusive posts, so please take this is a your LAST WARNING.