Pulse Devil - The inside scoop

[Charles (Upstate NY)]

Paul has for the most part suggested that Dave may "play on peoples hopes and dreams" for financial gain. Well, I can't blame him for being on guard because lets be honest it wouldn't be the first time something like that happened in this industry.

That said folks listen up, I know Dave and that is just not in his character. He is one of the more pro-consumer oriented people I know. His driving ambition really is to deliver to the detetorist a machine that out performs other machines on the market and at a fair and honest value price wise.

On the design itself I know quite a bit about the inner workings of the Pulse Devil. Probably more than most as Dave and I have had many long conversations regarding this. I know his approach to discrimination and how it differs from the way other designers have approached it. I know the machines anticipated strengths and limitations in a wide variety of different types of detecting and site conditions. I know a bunch of other design specifics I can't go into but I can tell you this, its pretty cool stuff.

Is it a magic wand? No thats pie in the sky wishful thinking. No single detector will be the best at every type of detecting in every site condition and Dave will tell you that. But its my sense that the Pulse Devil may very well rank #1 across a wide span.

Many of you know me on Geotech. You know I swing an Explorer and I'm pretty good with the machine too in some of the worst site conditions one can hunt. If Dave wanted to dump a sub-par machine on the market for quick financial gain I'd be the last guy he'd ask to test it yet I'll be doing just that here pretty soon.

Will I give up my Explorer? Hell no! Will the Pulse Devil be my first choice for a number of types of detecting and site conditions? I think it might. We'll just have to field test it and see. Stay tuned!

[Paul]

That's a fine post IMO Charles. I don't want to be harsh on Dave or Eric, but it's the interest of the many that concerns me.

I asked Dave if he would admit a simple fact that a gold nugget near an appreciable amount of magnetic material such as magnetite could appear just like a piece of raw iron. So far he has not replied. Carl admits this truth. I have stated that it is possible to acutely discriminate against raw iron, but IMO this requires very high frequencies, which I seriously doubt the FCC would approve.

Raw Iron has two properties. 1. Magnetic. 2. Electrically conductive. Even within iron these two properties are separate. We have free electrons, which are free to flow. Then we have electrons within the atom that generate the magnetic field property. Most of the magnetic field property is caused by the intrinsic electron spin. Did anyone get that? The free electrons that flow due to eddy currents are considered separate from the intrinsic electron spins within the atom.

Here's an analogy. Consider two unique frequencies-- 3 MHz and 17 MHz. Now lets consider two different machines. The first machine generates both of these frequencies on one single antenna. The other machine generates 3 MHz on one antenna and 17 MHz on another antenna. Now stand back and you'll see that both machines appear the same. Sure, one machine contains both frequencies in one antenna whereas the other machine contains both frequencies on two separate antennas. Yet, the end result is the same. As far as PI's are concerned, it does not matter if the electrical properties are separated by a few millimeters than the magnetic properties. The end result is the same. A piece of gold near magnetic material can appear like a piece of iron.

So there could be two options. 1. The machine could say there's iron, but there is no iron. Rather there is gold. 2. The machine could say there's iron, but there is both iron and gold.

Don't you think people should at least know that fact before they start discriminating against iron? At minimum, I would expect such claims to be included with some field data. Do an unbiased test. Find 1000 targets. How many targets was iron? How many targets was gold? How many times did the Pulse Devil say the target was iron, but there was also gold. Remember, to be accurate, you need to did around to make sure there is no gold. Sure, you might dig down and find a piece of iron. Remove that iron from the site and then scan again to see if there's something else. That is a good and unbiased test.

That being said, I feel the right to voice my own opinion. I truly believe it could be the larger nuggets that will get discriminated against. Unless Dave has a $100,000 nugget or perhaps some lead and performs various tests by placing such metal in various locations near various types of magnetic materials at various separation distances, then I would never use such a discriminator. It's that really big nugget that I am mostly interested in anyways. For me, depth while discriminating against hot-rocks is far more important.

Paul

[willy]

Hey Charles, do you have any input on the small gold sensitivity of the Pulse Devil? By small, I'm talking about less than 1 grain. I've got an HF VLF for the subgrainers (bedrocking/sniping) and it would be nice to be able to relegate it to backup status or as a loaner if a buddy wants to visit my claims. It would also be nice to have more flexibility re. detecting than my present PI affords. ...Willy.

[Charles (Upstate NY)]

>Don't you think people should at least know that fact before they start >discriminating against iron? At minimum, I would expect such claims to be >included with some field data. Do an unbiased test. Find 1000 targets. How >many targets was iron? How many targets was gold? How many times did >the Pulse Devil say the target was iron, but there was also gold.

You say dig 1000 targets to make a determination, I say why dig 900 nails to prove something that is already a well known fact? Its old news, we already know a good target can ID as iron. I see this all the time with my Explorer. I have seen it on the DFX. Depth, mineralization, moisture content, coil size, nearby iron, all can be factors that result in a good target ID'ing as iron AND that is when hunting in all metal mode.

>That being said, I feel the right to voice my own opinion. I truly believe it >could be the larger nuggets that will get discriminated against.

I find this statement confusing. You have gone past theory, you have actually formed an opinion which you believe. I'm struggling to understand how you could possibly do that when you lack two fundamental things that would be required to do so. First a competent understanding of how Dave approached discrimination in the Pulse Devil design wise and second and more importantly, field data.

Listen, first form a theory. Then go into the field and gather field data that supports the theory and acount for results that don't fit. Then you might be able to form an opinion. I give opinions completely lacking in field data zero weight.

[ElectroNovice]

"Listen, first form a theory. Then go into the field and gather field data that supports the theory and acount for results that don't fit. Then you might be able to form an opinion. I give opinions completely lacking in field data zero weight."

Spot on charles! I think Paul is really a closet masochist and exhibitionist! He likes hurting himself with his posts on this forum , he does not need anyone else to do it for him! And as we see he is always caught with his pants down on this forum! LOL LOL I live in hope that one day he will contribute something usefull to this forum rather than what I suspect is his real purpose and that is to get some gullibles to invest in his Pi project merely on the basis of anecdotal and speculative theories and the vain hope that he can build a Pi platform that will go 2-4 times deeper over highly mineralized soil than a ML GP. Take note Bruce Candy!

Anyway Charles thanks for your two posts I for one look forward to hearing more about the Pulse Devil.Dave is to commended for the 6 years of effort to build the platform and I wish him great success as I do Eric Foster with the GS5. Sadly both have apparently been driven away from this forum by Paul.
ElectroNovice

[Paul]

You say dig 1000 targets to make a determination, I say why dig 900 nails to prove something that is already a well known fact? Its old news, we already know a good target can ID as iron. I see this all the time with my Explorer. I have seen it on the DFX. Depth, mineralization, moisture content, coil size, nearby iron, all can be factors that result in a good target ID'ing as iron AND that is when hunting in all metal mode.

The really good detectorists do not use discrimination.


Paul

[Charles (Upstate NY)]

The really good detectorists do not use discrimination.


Paul

Sure they do, I use it quite frequently.

[Paul]

Sure they do, I use it quite frequently.

I have already stated many times on this site that it is a relative statement. By my definition a really good detectorist is 20+ solid years experience and was at one point in time a full-timer for at least one year. I know of many full-timers. So far all such people refuse to use discrimination.

Paul

[Charles (Upstate NY)]

I have already stated many times on this site that it is a relative statement. By my definition a really good detectorist is 20+ solid years experience and was at one point in time a full-timer for at least one year. I know of many full-timers. So far all such people refuse to use discrimination.

Paul

Pardon me but thats not only BS its an ignorant approach to detecting at least when it comes to beaches, parks, 1700's cellar holes, farm fields, etc. Do you mean to say you so called "good detectorists" don't use tone ID? I find that laughable.

[Charles (Upstate NY)]

PS: I'm still waiting to see your field data Paul??? Do you in fact have any data with any machine to support your opinions or is this just a lot of hot air you are expelling?

[Charles (Upstate NY)]

Hey Charles, do you have any input on the small gold sensitivity of the Pulse Devil? By small, I'm talking about less than 1 grain. I've got an HF VLF for the subgrainers (bedrocking/sniping) and it would be nice to be able to relegate it to backup status or as a loaner if a buddy wants to visit my claims. It would also be nice to have more flexibility re. detecting than my present PI affords. ...Willy.

Will reach out to Dave directly with that question. Dave and I talked about this briefly but I don't want to misquote him.

[Paul]

Pardon me but thats not only BS its an ignorant approach to detecting at least when it comes to beaches, parks, 1700's cellar holes, farm fields, etc. Do you mean to say you so called "good detectorists" don't use tone ID? I find that laughable.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Additionally, good detectorists use Minelab PI's.

Paul

[Charles (Upstate NY)]

Paul you have something wrong with you, seek help, ask them to adjust your meds or whatever you need to do because you are acting quite strange.

[Paul]

Paul you have something wrong with you, seek help, ask them to adjust your meds or whatever you need to do because you are acting quite strange.

Let me know when you can carry on a civilized conversation.


Paul

[Charles (Upstate NY)]

Paul come on now, you seem to be trying your best to insult and argue with as many people on this forum as you can. Don't you find that just a little bit odd?

Hey maybe you have toxic iron poisoning from digging one too many rusty nails? Here's an old detectorist remedy, take two discrimination notches and call me in the morning.