Minelab MPS patent could be invalid

[minelab_veteran]

Pull Your head in

Hi Carl, its nothing to do with invalidating them, (Unregistered user is looking into that particular avenue) There are things going on at the moment that offer a far more advanced way of doing what is in the M/L GB patent. If what is brewing turns out to be as good as I suspect then it could turn the P.I market on its head.

Woody/hard on/detector mods - whatever your name is.

Get your URL out of your signature until you are able to actually provide something that resembles customer service and a service that is truly good value for money.

You have no courtesy, you do not answer half the questions asked, and your overall customer service is pitiful.

Pull your head in mate, and stop charging thousands for something that takes you about 30 min to modify.

My advice, forget modding your minelab detector and/or spending thousands to do so, and sell your current model and upgrade to the latest/next best version which is easily doable in comparison to what hard on charges for next to no work performed all the while you lose any minelab (a reliable, accredited company) future help/service.

After upgrading, you still get your minelab warranty/willingness to service your detector, you don't have to put up with a know it all, responds with nothing and charges thousands F***wit and you get the newest technology available from a TRUSTED supplier, minelab.

Forget the backyard "mods", go with what's real and proven not just some backyard joe who thinks he can charge thousands for making a warranty/service agreement null and void.

Of course, that's just my 2 cents

[mario]

Woody/hard on/detector mods - whatever your name is.

Get your URL out of your signature until you are able to actually provide something that resembles customer service and a service that is truly good value for money.

You have no courtesy, you do not answer half the questions asked, and your overall customer service is pitiful.

Pull your head in mate, and stop charging thousands for something that takes you about 30 min to modify.

My advice, forget modding your minelab detector and/or spending thousands to do so, and sell your current model and upgrade to the latest/next best version which is easily doable in comparison to what hard on charges for next to no work performed all the while you lose any minelab (a reliable, accredited company) future help/service.

After upgrading, you still get your minelab warranty/willingness to service your detector, you don't have to put up with a know it all, responds with nothing and charges thousands F***wit and you get the newest technology available from a TRUSTED supplier, minelab.

Forget the backyard "mods", go with what's real and proven not just some backyard joe who thinks he can charge thousands for making a warranty/service agreement null and void.

Of course, that's just my 2 cents

Lets be nice now my friend.


His services may be a tad steep, but he's not forcing anyone to pay.

The way I see it, we have lawyers, politicians etc. other folk who are far more crafty in separating us from our hard earned money.

Knowledge is money in the hands of those willing to profit. It is common business sense where ever you may find a shortage of it.

[Carl-NC]

Looks like another drive-by shooting.

[Aziz]

What the fu$k is
a constant reactive voltage across a transmit coil?


Source: 2011200516 : Metal detector for salt soils
http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/o...nNo=2011200516

BTW, this patent applies to all soil types according to the claims!

Now, I have to find my reactive voltage across the transmit coil. Fu$k, where it is....

Aziz

[Aziz]

I have found it:

(electricity) In the phasor representation of alternating current, the voltage component that is perpendicular to the current.
source: http://www.answers.com/topic/reactive-voltage

Yippieeeeeeee!

Aziz

[Aziz]

BTW,

if you read carefully this topic once again, someone is giving very valuable hints to bust the MPS or whatsoever.
For a good ground balancing, no one really needs MPS, DVT, multiple TX pulse lenght ...

Aziz

[Qiaozhi]

I have found it:

(electricity) In the phasor representation of alternating current, the voltage component that is perpendicular to the current.
source: http://www.answers.com/topic/reactive-voltage

Yippieeeeeeee!

Aziz

Here's a more comprehensive explanation -> http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sou...HPIJcw&cad=rja

[Aziz]

Here's a more comprehensive explanation -> http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sou...HPIJcw&cad=rja

Thanks Q! Indeed, a much better explanation of it.

Aziz

[Bill512]

BTW,

if you read carefully this topic once again, someone is giving very valuable hints to bust the MPS or whatsoever.
For a good ground balancing, no one really needs MPS, DVT, multiple TX pulse lenght ...

Aziz

ok, this is your opinion after all .
Have you made a detector that has better ground balance than Minelab Pi machines?
or just theories???

[Aziz]

ok, this is your opinion after all .
Have you made a detector that has better ground balance than Minelab Pi machines?
or just theories???

Yes, I made it (it's a real working machine). But it needs more stress tests (extreme mineralization).

As I have mentioned, someone in this topic is giving very valuable hints for it. But still not enough to "see" the obvious solution.

All the buzz-words MPS, DVT, ... you can bust them all. No one need them really. No one need Mr. Candy's/ML's patent licence.

Aziz

[Bill512]

Yes, I made it (it's a real working machine). But it needs more stress tests (extreme mineralization).

As I have mentioned, someone in this topic is giving very valuable hints for it. But still not enough to "see" the obvious solution.

All the buzz-words MPS, DVT, ... you can bust them all. No one need them really. No one need Mr. Candy's/ML's patent licence.

Aziz

You made a detector with sensitivity at least at the same levels of Minelabs Pi and at the same time with better ground balancing?
I suppose that you have done some real tests, side by side , right?

[Aziz]

You made a detector with sensitivity at least at the same levels of Minelabs Pi and at the same time with better ground balancing?
I suppose that you have done some real tests, side by side , right?

Is it too much difficult to imagine, that there is a much better detector than the ML's?


This should be an encouragement to the metal detector developers. ML's methods aren't the best. The better solutions haven't been patented yet. But I'm not going to reveal it as I like the cat-and-mouse game with the ******* patent trolls.

Now guess, am I bluffing or is it real deal?

Aziz

[mario]

Is it too much difficult to imagine, that there is a much better detector than the ML's?


This should be an encouragement to the metal detector developers. ML's methods aren't the best. The better solutions haven't been patented yet. But I'm not going to reveal it as I like the cat-and-mouse game with the ******* patent trolls.

Now guess, am I bluffing or is it real deal?

Aziz

Any patent can be successfully challenged if it is preceded by prior public available knowledge. So the longer you wait without releasing the information, the more likely some else will steal your idea and patent it themselves.

Either get a patent, or make the knowledge publicly available for everybody before somebody else patents your hard work.

[Bill512]

Is it too much difficult to imagine, that there is a much better detector than the ML's?


This should be an encouragement to the metal detector developers. ML's methods aren't the best. The better solutions haven't been patented yet. But I'm not going to reveal it as I like the cat-and-mouse game with the ******* patent trolls.
Aziz

yes, it' is difficult to believe that a single hobbyist, has overcame the best known metal detecting technology.
It's not impossible but it's very very difficult indeed . The numbers ( possibilities) are against you.
So when you make extraordinary claims, is better to support up to a point, these claims.
I never asked from you a schematic or any critical details. I ask from you to tell us some test reports. This will be expose some critical non patented techniques?
I ask from you to tell us by which Minelab model have you made the comparison, soil type, targets types, etc.
I say that is relative difficult for someone hobbyist to invent and implement a ground balance method but is very very difficult for this hobbyist to invent and implement a technique, better than the best there is.
A video with a side by side comparison, it will be a good base support for your claims.
Or you afraid that, Minelab trolls using their supreme remote x-ray vision will see the schematics of your detector???

Now guess, am I bluffing or is it real deal?

Aziz

Sometimes you act like "some kind of God".
For the moment your super detector are a few bytes in a hard drive of a server computer .
Nothing more ...

[Aziz]

Hi Bill,

yes, I am going to publish a "light version" of the detector hardware. Maybe a very "light" free software version as well (2012?) - but I haven't decided it yet. I have to protect the novel parts against the patent trolls however (perhaps hiding the sensible code in ultra chaos code - that would keep them busy for years ).

When I find a much simpler and an alternate ground balance (GB) solution, that would be much easier of course. Preferably a not patentable version of a GB.

It will take some time due to limitted resources of course.

Sorry, that's all what I can say about the detector at the moment.


Cheers,
Aziz