Tweet
deffrence between lorenz and felezjoo as what mr hameed say Saturday June 13, 2009 - 11:01 pm Report this post
Hamid
General manager
General manager
Date: Sunday 19 March, 91 - 2:43 am
Posts: 11031
Reply with quote
Re: LORENZ DEEP MAX Z1
I think if one looks at the case with a scientific and technical view of the logic of pulse metallurgists, it is clear that the technical knowledge that has been taken in a metallic pulse metallurgy is a general over-estimation beyond the Lorenz limit! In fact, the metal detectors that Lorenz Company has been using since many years ago, and I've spent a long time figuring out the function of this type of device as well as devices. Before designing, I also read the various manuals and films of these devices carefully so I could extract technical tips from them. Meanwhile, MetalGroup was designed as a general project for at least 2 years and more than 20 official updates were made, which gradually included many of the suggestions and comments of the explorers who were possible. I do not think it's a routine that others have traveled in the design of a metal detector, both companies and individuals! In addition, we focus on the considerations that are important to exploration by the explorers of the diffusion, not the points that are considered most of the cornerstone in most corporate devices. So, I'll mention a lot of things in the meta tags. You will be judged by yourself.
1. Frequency: The metal detector has the ability to adjust the frequency from 35 to 999 Hz in Hz per Hz, in addition to the possibility of tuner on the frequency with less interference possible, change the frequency of low, moderate or higher metal detector behavior! There is no such thing in Lorenz, and according to the material mentioned on page 19 of the Lorenz Z1, the pulse frequency is between 1000 and 2000 Hz. I think that all those who have worked with pulsed metal detectors are of the opinion that this frequency is not suitable for exploration at high depths of soil, and that lower frequencies are significantly more responsive and higher.
2. Pulse Width: This setting is important in determining the power of the pulses sent by the pulse system, and in different places it can be obtained with a better result in terms of strength or stability by appropriate adjustment. But not only Lorens, but also there is no digital pulse system in the market, and the metal detector easily delivers this feature to the operator.
3. Daily: Although there is a dilemma in both systems, the one at Lawrence, which is 1 to 4 and, conversely, logically inverse to the true real-life concept of pulsed systems, is not at all a rigorous adjustment. So, if you look at the LORENZE Z1 LOGO TABLES table, you can see about 15% lower by just changing from 4 to 3 (one difference!)! This is not something that is desirable in my opinion. When we can design a dilemma much more accurately, why should we lose by just a fifteen-percent increase in the range and keep it stable with this drop? Not only is the dial but all settings are more precise. Of course, not everyone liked or bored, it's possible to change the settings in a few degrees and in a quill like Lorenz, but if anyone wants to do this with Lorenz, you can not do that.
4. Cavity Detection: No Lorence and not Minnesota can detect the cavity. But the metal detector can easily detect and announce the cavity easily and at least half its metal detection range.
5. Miter Sense: The existence of a meter to measure the intensity and extent of the senses for a metal detector is, in my view, a great blessing! Because both the Sense and Center Sense and the Center of Sense and the probability of error are quantified and clearly illustrated, and only with little experience, it is easy to speculate on the number of Meiter Sense about the depth of the target. Such a simple but important feature in the metal detector can not be seen in Lorenz and Minnesota devices, and their sensor diagrams are not at all as large as a numeric meter.
6- Winning: Considering that both systems use similar pulse techniques, the winning devices are the same. But if we consider the frequency and pulse width and the more precise settings in the metal detector, it is obvious that under different conditions, the metal detector can be significantly higher. In some cases, some of the poor sentiment that was done with the metal detector, and friends were just telling friends that the GPX or Lorenz device did not hit the target with that loop!
7. Separation: In the area of separation, which is the most important distinction between metallurgy professional machines, the metal detector has a lot to do with Lorenz. A differentiation system that is similar and does not have a specific comparison. But the important thing is that removing iron in a metal detector with mono loops and large frames, but in Laurence, only with a double loop that has a maximum size of 45 centimeters, can be used and clearly does not require a large, high-resolution separation. In addition, the iron separation system in the metal detector also has a iron binder indicating how far the target is in the iron or non-iron region. There is absolutely no such pulse in any kind of pulse metallization, and only in some types of VLF. In addition, the difference in board in the metal detector is almost 1.5 times the difference in latitude, which is a big difference. In the end, I have to say, for the detection of iron in any market device, such as Lorenz and Minnesota, or your VLF types at depths of more than 1. You do not have a 5-meter chance, while a metal frame with a frame of 2 meters and for large targets can be divided up to a depth of about 6 meters! All of this is due to the fact that separation, while allowing for a wide variation in frequency and pulse widths, is unsurpassed in its kind, and in the end I can claim that absolutely no pulsed metal detector was found in the world, so that its resolution, in terms of accuracy, And what is comparable to metal scales. Of course, from the point of view of the board, I think the difference between the total number of metal detectors in the world is that the metal separation will definitely be the first to stand unless one can prove the opposite! I have a perfect claim in this particular case, because I know better than anyone about how much time and effort I spent, and even some of the things I did not think were revealed and tested. Something that has certainly been published in scientific articles and patents is not there until this moment. All of this is due to the fact that separation, while allowing for a wide variation in frequency and pulse widths, is unsurpassed in its kind, and in the end I can claim that absolutely no pulsed metal detector was found in the world, so that its resolution, in terms of accuracy, And what is comparable to metal scales. Of course, from the point of view of the board, I think the difference between the total number of metal detectors in the world is that the metal separation will definitely be the first to stand unless one can prove the opposite! I have a perfect claim in this particular case, because I know better than anyone about how much time and effort I spent, and even some of the things I did not think were revealed and tested. Something that has certainly been published in scientific articles and patents is not there until this moment. All of this is due to the fact that separation, while allowing for a wide variation in frequency and pulse widths, is unsurpassed in its kind, and in the end I can claim that absolutely no pulsed metal detector was found in the world, so that its resolution, in terms of accuracy, And what is comparable to metal scales. Of course, from the point of view of the board, I think the difference between the total number of metal detectors in the world is that the metal separation will definitely be the first to stand unless one can prove the opposite! I have a perfect claim in this particular case, because I know better than anyone about how much time and effort I spent, and even some of the things I did not think were revealed and tested. Something that has certainly been published in scientific articles and patents is not there until this moment.
8. Stability and sensitivity to non-metals or pottery: In the context of stability If ground-sensitive, all these devices are similar to mono loops and non-motion sensors! Just look at Lorens test videos with a 1 meter frame or GPX devices with a mono loop. Here's what I'm saying these devices ultimately are focused on finding a snap, because many of their major benefits come with a double-loop, which obviously does not mean the big and deep goals. So a comparison is to be done with a mono loop, like a frame of 1 or 2 yards. So conditions are quite similar. No servant I can claim beyond Lorenz and they will not! Because the logic of the metal detector is the electrical conductivity of the target, for example, if a particular piece of pottery with a metal detector is sensed, with any metalization with the same amount of power or sensitivity, the senses again.
9. Image Scanning: Lorenz has the option of a type of image scan, which is necessary to spend on the purchase of the Lorenz Data Logger module. I do not think at least for metallurgists that such a thing is worth exploring in more than 1% of the cases, even though Lorenzo's friends often point out. But in MetalJoire without spending more money and manually transferring information to the computer software, there are three kinds of image scans, as I described the method in the subject of the metalwork operator. So I think because the image scan is very low, it's possible to do it manually, and it can be an advantage, with three image models without spending extra on the metal scanner.
10-Audio system: The sound system and the variety of metal tones I have in common I think is at least superior to Lorenz and the type of sound is more pronounced.
11. Password system: Most valid devices such as Lorenz and Minnesota can not encrypt the device. Although this may not be an important technical issue, it should be noted that, based on repeated requests from a number of consumer friends, this is what I have seen, and this shows that at least in our country it is important for many operators that the device has a password and Only be used by the owner of the machine!
These were the things that seemed to me and, given the volume of technical work over the course of 2 years, I'm not sure if something went wrong. Of course, I do not deny that there are some peculiarities or issues of appearance or the quality of building a corporate device by well-known companies that have years of experience and many models of equipment. However, I've been single-handed, and in 2 years I've been using a metal screwdriver, and I've used a lot of things on their devices. But there are some important positive differences that I do not think can be denied.
At the same time, I agree with my opinion that everyone should be respected. But I think if the debate is to be respected, it should be much more respected by the life and efforts of a fellow countryman who has made such a project public and made public! Otherwise, buying a device from Lorenz, which may cost you ten times the cost of production, and you do not have to buy billions of dollars out of the country, is not something to be proud of. Especially with the same 30 million money if everyone's capital is the same, for example, he can buy a car, or rent a business and start a business, and like that, it's definitely better and more secure than investing in work. I never would advise a slave as a career goal to anyone, even though I have the best of the world. Because issues and important details in exploration work are far beyond the discussion of the device
Hamid
General manager
General manager
Date: Sunday 19 March, 91 - 2:43 am
Posts: 11031
Reply with quote
Re: LORENZ DEEP MAX Z1
I think if one looks at the case with a scientific and technical view of the logic of pulse metallurgists, it is clear that the technical knowledge that has been taken in a metallic pulse metallurgy is a general over-estimation beyond the Lorenz limit! In fact, the metal detectors that Lorenz Company has been using since many years ago, and I've spent a long time figuring out the function of this type of device as well as devices. Before designing, I also read the various manuals and films of these devices carefully so I could extract technical tips from them. Meanwhile, MetalGroup was designed as a general project for at least 2 years and more than 20 official updates were made, which gradually included many of the suggestions and comments of the explorers who were possible. I do not think it's a routine that others have traveled in the design of a metal detector, both companies and individuals! In addition, we focus on the considerations that are important to exploration by the explorers of the diffusion, not the points that are considered most of the cornerstone in most corporate devices. So, I'll mention a lot of things in the meta tags. You will be judged by yourself.
1. Frequency: The metal detector has the ability to adjust the frequency from 35 to 999 Hz in Hz per Hz, in addition to the possibility of tuner on the frequency with less interference possible, change the frequency of low, moderate or higher metal detector behavior! There is no such thing in Lorenz, and according to the material mentioned on page 19 of the Lorenz Z1, the pulse frequency is between 1000 and 2000 Hz. I think that all those who have worked with pulsed metal detectors are of the opinion that this frequency is not suitable for exploration at high depths of soil, and that lower frequencies are significantly more responsive and higher.
2. Pulse Width: This setting is important in determining the power of the pulses sent by the pulse system, and in different places it can be obtained with a better result in terms of strength or stability by appropriate adjustment. But not only Lorens, but also there is no digital pulse system in the market, and the metal detector easily delivers this feature to the operator.
3. Daily: Although there is a dilemma in both systems, the one at Lawrence, which is 1 to 4 and, conversely, logically inverse to the true real-life concept of pulsed systems, is not at all a rigorous adjustment. So, if you look at the LORENZE Z1 LOGO TABLES table, you can see about 15% lower by just changing from 4 to 3 (one difference!)! This is not something that is desirable in my opinion. When we can design a dilemma much more accurately, why should we lose by just a fifteen-percent increase in the range and keep it stable with this drop? Not only is the dial but all settings are more precise. Of course, not everyone liked or bored, it's possible to change the settings in a few degrees and in a quill like Lorenz, but if anyone wants to do this with Lorenz, you can not do that.
4. Cavity Detection: No Lorence and not Minnesota can detect the cavity. But the metal detector can easily detect and announce the cavity easily and at least half its metal detection range.
5. Miter Sense: The existence of a meter to measure the intensity and extent of the senses for a metal detector is, in my view, a great blessing! Because both the Sense and Center Sense and the Center of Sense and the probability of error are quantified and clearly illustrated, and only with little experience, it is easy to speculate on the number of Meiter Sense about the depth of the target. Such a simple but important feature in the metal detector can not be seen in Lorenz and Minnesota devices, and their sensor diagrams are not at all as large as a numeric meter.
6- Winning: Considering that both systems use similar pulse techniques, the winning devices are the same. But if we consider the frequency and pulse width and the more precise settings in the metal detector, it is obvious that under different conditions, the metal detector can be significantly higher. In some cases, some of the poor sentiment that was done with the metal detector, and friends were just telling friends that the GPX or Lorenz device did not hit the target with that loop!
7. Separation: In the area of separation, which is the most important distinction between metallurgy professional machines, the metal detector has a lot to do with Lorenz. A differentiation system that is similar and does not have a specific comparison. But the important thing is that removing iron in a metal detector with mono loops and large frames, but in Laurence, only with a double loop that has a maximum size of 45 centimeters, can be used and clearly does not require a large, high-resolution separation. In addition, the iron separation system in the metal detector also has a iron binder indicating how far the target is in the iron or non-iron region. There is absolutely no such pulse in any kind of pulse metallization, and only in some types of VLF. In addition, the difference in board in the metal detector is almost 1.5 times the difference in latitude, which is a big difference. In the end, I have to say, for the detection of iron in any market device, such as Lorenz and Minnesota, or your VLF types at depths of more than 1. You do not have a 5-meter chance, while a metal frame with a frame of 2 meters and for large targets can be divided up to a depth of about 6 meters! All of this is due to the fact that separation, while allowing for a wide variation in frequency and pulse widths, is unsurpassed in its kind, and in the end I can claim that absolutely no pulsed metal detector was found in the world, so that its resolution, in terms of accuracy, And what is comparable to metal scales. Of course, from the point of view of the board, I think the difference between the total number of metal detectors in the world is that the metal separation will definitely be the first to stand unless one can prove the opposite! I have a perfect claim in this particular case, because I know better than anyone about how much time and effort I spent, and even some of the things I did not think were revealed and tested. Something that has certainly been published in scientific articles and patents is not there until this moment. All of this is due to the fact that separation, while allowing for a wide variation in frequency and pulse widths, is unsurpassed in its kind, and in the end I can claim that absolutely no pulsed metal detector was found in the world, so that its resolution, in terms of accuracy, And what is comparable to metal scales. Of course, from the point of view of the board, I think the difference between the total number of metal detectors in the world is that the metal separation will definitely be the first to stand unless one can prove the opposite! I have a perfect claim in this particular case, because I know better than anyone about how much time and effort I spent, and even some of the things I did not think were revealed and tested. Something that has certainly been published in scientific articles and patents is not there until this moment. All of this is due to the fact that separation, while allowing for a wide variation in frequency and pulse widths, is unsurpassed in its kind, and in the end I can claim that absolutely no pulsed metal detector was found in the world, so that its resolution, in terms of accuracy, And what is comparable to metal scales. Of course, from the point of view of the board, I think the difference between the total number of metal detectors in the world is that the metal separation will definitely be the first to stand unless one can prove the opposite! I have a perfect claim in this particular case, because I know better than anyone about how much time and effort I spent, and even some of the things I did not think were revealed and tested. Something that has certainly been published in scientific articles and patents is not there until this moment.
8. Stability and sensitivity to non-metals or pottery: In the context of stability If ground-sensitive, all these devices are similar to mono loops and non-motion sensors! Just look at Lorens test videos with a 1 meter frame or GPX devices with a mono loop. Here's what I'm saying these devices ultimately are focused on finding a snap, because many of their major benefits come with a double-loop, which obviously does not mean the big and deep goals. So a comparison is to be done with a mono loop, like a frame of 1 or 2 yards. So conditions are quite similar. No servant I can claim beyond Lorenz and they will not! Because the logic of the metal detector is the electrical conductivity of the target, for example, if a particular piece of pottery with a metal detector is sensed, with any metalization with the same amount of power or sensitivity, the senses again.
9. Image Scanning: Lorenz has the option of a type of image scan, which is necessary to spend on the purchase of the Lorenz Data Logger module. I do not think at least for metallurgists that such a thing is worth exploring in more than 1% of the cases, even though Lorenzo's friends often point out. But in MetalJoire without spending more money and manually transferring information to the computer software, there are three kinds of image scans, as I described the method in the subject of the metalwork operator. So I think because the image scan is very low, it's possible to do it manually, and it can be an advantage, with three image models without spending extra on the metal scanner.
10-Audio system: The sound system and the variety of metal tones I have in common I think is at least superior to Lorenz and the type of sound is more pronounced.
11. Password system: Most valid devices such as Lorenz and Minnesota can not encrypt the device. Although this may not be an important technical issue, it should be noted that, based on repeated requests from a number of consumer friends, this is what I have seen, and this shows that at least in our country it is important for many operators that the device has a password and Only be used by the owner of the machine!
These were the things that seemed to me and, given the volume of technical work over the course of 2 years, I'm not sure if something went wrong. Of course, I do not deny that there are some peculiarities or issues of appearance or the quality of building a corporate device by well-known companies that have years of experience and many models of equipment. However, I've been single-handed, and in 2 years I've been using a metal screwdriver, and I've used a lot of things on their devices. But there are some important positive differences that I do not think can be denied.
At the same time, I agree with my opinion that everyone should be respected. But I think if the debate is to be respected, it should be much more respected by the life and efforts of a fellow countryman who has made such a project public and made public! Otherwise, buying a device from Lorenz, which may cost you ten times the cost of production, and you do not have to buy billions of dollars out of the country, is not something to be proud of. Especially with the same 30 million money if everyone's capital is the same, for example, he can buy a car, or rent a business and start a business, and like that, it's definitely better and more secure than investing in work. I never would advise a slave as a career goal to anyone, even though I have the best of the world. Because issues and important details in exploration work are far beyond the discussion of the device