Minelab MPS patent could be invalid

[PITA]

PITA???

You appear more mentally retar...er, challenged then most of these guy's.

I don't even have to open the box!

When your auto tune takes 29 seconds to complete, instead of the normal 1 minute. the thing HAS been overclocked.

Mentally retar? ha ha pmsl, no just a pain in the @rse. Yours in particular.

Go back to 4umer where you belong. This site is for the technically experienced, not the technically challenged like yourself. The reason why you don't have to open the box is... you don't know how to use a screwdriver. Now run back to 4umer and start a thread "I am a dunderhead" and stop being a nuisance here.

Regards PITA

[Unregistered]

I'm not attacking you Woody, just telling the simple facts.
While you lie your butt off! ha ha.

I've never protested you putting up foolish video on youtube Woodie, i'm rather amused by how easy some people are taken in.

If anyone believes the foolishness you put up, I suggest they take their detector out into the field and discover for themselves, how many nuggets are floating around in the air. ha ha

[Aziz]

Thanks, I'm fine. Just waiting for my scope yet. Bloody boring time at the moment. So, you're guys amusing me very well.

I think, you shouldn't attack each other and come with real facts. That would be very interesting.

Aziz

[Woody.au]

Oh well, my hand was forced yet again.

Whats the standards requirement insulation distance for 280 volts DC?

Well it must be a couple microns here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE7NCY-svFk

[PITA]

Its OK like that cause thats the way ML wanted it to be! When It arks out, it means that the GPX5000 is just around the corner! Perhaps another thread would be good for modder bashing.

Aziz, have some popcorn for me!

Regards P.I.T.A.

[Unregistered]

Since when is the same NOVEL claim not the same NOVEL claim?

Particularly when a high power "noise transmitter" is in fact what a PI is, nothing more nothing less and in fact is a better term anyway since it stops people claiming novelty on some nefariuos coding scheme since essentially it covers ALL pulse transmitters at ALL frequencies/ codes etc etc etc and thus using Pooles patent.

You have much to learn grasshopper!!!

Well, I'm going away for a while, my sides are hurting!
It's been a bit like a Woody youtube video, I love ignorance but you can only take so much. ha ha.

While I'm gone, Keep PITA away from any 240v stuff.
He's funny!!! ha ha.

[Unregistered]

Oh well, my hand was forced yet again.

Whats the standards requirement insulation distance for 280 volts DC?

Well it must be a couple microns here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE7NCY-svFk

OOPS, it is 180 volts DC, $hit if it was 280 V the smoke would already be leaking out.

[Unregistered]

You have much to learn grasshopper!!!

Well, I'm going away for a while, my sides are hurting!
It's been a bit like a Woody youtube video, I love ignorance but you can only take so much. ha ha.

While I'm gone, Keep PITA away from any 240v stuff.
He's funny!!! ha ha.

Have a nice trip.
Don't let the door knob catch you on the way out.



The ********* PI with "ground balance" er sorry Dual Period Pulse transmitter aka High power noise transmitter with dual freq/period sampler/mixers/switches/synchronous demodulators followed by low pass filters aka lock in amp and adjustable subtraction GB circuit /comparator with anti phase local oscillator aka "sample clocking" (with adjustable pulse width if you like, its obvious and in the PD) so ground signals of any sort ferrite or otherwise are substantially cancelled is quite safe now that you have put that to bed.

[Carl-NC]

Please take personal attacks & heckling elsewhere. If you don't like Woody's mods, there is a simple solution: don't use them.

On patents, in my 21 years with chip companies I saw questionable and even laughable patents all the time. I don't think there is any need to personally denigrate Bruce over questionable claims in his patents; he has produced some clever designs, and they have certainly been a force in the market.

In other words: while on Geotech please stick to technical discussions and leave personal attacks to forums that revel in personal attacks.

- Carl

[robby_h]

To unregistered Doug aka Electronovice on this forum,
One of the main advantages of pi is that we don’t have to deal with ground X.
If we sample during a period of transmission using a balanced coil then this is not pulse induction, as we know it.
Poole’s invention does not address mineralised ground, ie, the typical ironstone soils in our goldfields!!
Re Poole’s ferrite response, Look at Eric’s drawings in post #120 here…
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...t=15402&page=5
You are looking at the reactive coil signal during the on time for the ferrite rod and very little, or no signal in the off time. Do you believe the response shown for ferrite during the on and off period is what we would expect from our ground mineralisation? I hope not!! You are looking at the response for pure ferrite only, which is common in the soils of the USA and many parts of Europe but not Australia. Our ferrite is anything but pure.

Poole describes a method to cancel wet sea side sand using two frequencies. We can also GB this same sand by relacing the single turn pot in the TR discriminator section of a conventional single frequency vlf with a ten turn pot. We can then use the TR discriminator’s mix of X and R to cancel wet sea side sand but this mix of X and R won’t cancel our mineralised ground. Poole’s invention does the same and doesn’t address our ironstone soils.



Poole’s PI patent was released only a few months before his IB patent.
He also reveals in his PI patent a method to cancel wet seaside sand but it doesn’t universally cancel wet seaside sand and the ocean floor, as BC points out. The idea would also have problems with coil orientation and large coils. Poole also claims it can in fact cancel any unwanted object and says it can detect a coin laying on a large steel plate but this obviously doesn’t mean it will universally cancel steel or all steel objects. He doesn’t in any way suggest a method that would universally cancel mineralised ground, and the fact that he says the ground is primarily resistive when mineralised ground is primarily reactive shows he is applying this to conducting soils only.
One of the biggest problems an EE faces is cancelling this conducting material when it is randomly mixed with mineralised soil, such as in our damp salt lake beds. This problem hasn’t been solved yet in any pi design and Poole doesn’t address this problem in either patent.

BTW, you say on your forum (referring to me) “What an idiot he is when he has the gaul to say that if any Tx pulses are allowed to flat top ( ie coil Tx dv/dt is 0) that “wildly varying Tx pulses will have the same ground signal” this is just basic EM stuff!”
If this basic EM stuff then tell the readers when you first became aware of this and where you discovered this information, the date it was published and the author?? You appear to be saying you knew what would be needed to obtain a different result when using different pulse lengths before Bruce Candy?? and that this was well known in metal detector art before AU199047963 was published?

And it’s not relevant if you did or did not say “that Poole's method in the time domain would be used with flat top pulses”. It is only relevant if Poole indicated if he knew what would be needed to obtain a different result when using different pulse lengths. Did he?
The solution to this debate is simple really. If you don’t believe me then build a detector based purely on Poole’s patent and then tell us if it can universally cancel mineralised ground. Lol.

[Unregistered]

So what are Pooles lock in amps doing during the pulse off time at the two different frequncies with and without targets and what is the claim vis a vis the two frequencies?

[Unregistered]

And just for the record there is no mention of "Induction Balance" OR "Pulse Induction" the claim works in either case for both "X" and "R" (at the same time in fact) your milage might differ on frequency.

It's prior art the claim stands and is in the public domain.

Eureka! No one ever suggested it before.

[Unregistered]

"....and that this was well known in metal detector art before..... "

Poole wouldn't be the first inventor to not realize he already had a patent that clearly stated the obvious or couldn't get it to work properly.

It doesn't have to "well known" it just has to be published either as a patent or in the public domain.

No one else can make the same claim.

I suggest you read Pooles patent and claims again you seem to have missed something pay attention to X and R.

[Unregistered]

Candy's method is merely the logical extension/adaptation of poole into the time domain!

[Unregistered]

Candy is skating on thin ice! His next patent attempt will come under heavy scrutiny!