field test unit no 001 "model T"

[Paul99]

You are so fixated on x and r and this is what blinds you. ( similar to your theories on diodes and square waves lol ) ..... Your a guy who makes hot air balloons telling the guy with the jet engine that it won't work.

That is amusing coming from a bloke who has admitted on AEGPoof that you might get something actually working sometime in the future.

[moodz]

You are so fixated on x and r and this is what blinds you. ( similar to your theories on diodes and square waves lol ) ..... Your a guy who makes hot air balloons telling the guy with the jet engine that it won't work.

[Paul99]

Do you have the complete schematics and all the firmware of the Moodz detector to draw these conclusions?

Give it a rest Doug. Your last Great White Hope has already been sat on his behind because of your help.

[Doug2]

So now we have "sweep discrim"????????

"I am doing discrimination using a monocoil and not one of the known methods".

That's the problem Moodz, your cro pics and everything you say suggests that you are using well known methods that have been discarded by others. Most detector designers refer to the X and R components or X and viscosity when discussing the ground but anyone following your posts would assume you are fixated on X and are either unaware of viscosity or you think they are the same. Your description of your channels tends to confirm this.

The ideas you have proposed in this thread are already well known and have obvious flaws so there is no point in discussing it further until you prove the thing actually works and isn't just another way to skin the same old cat.

Do you have the complete schematics and all the firmware of the Moodz detector to draw these conclusions?

[robby_h]

Full depth disc in mineralised ground using any of the known methods is impossible.

I am doing discrimination using a monocoil and not one of the known methods. ( eg dd coil ... Though my det also works fine with dd ). The monocoil with discrim gives best depth. There are three "channels" ... Target sense ... Polarity discrim and sweep discrim ... Processing all three provides separation of ferrous / non ferrous / conductive clays & charcoal . There is a fourth " channel" which deals with ground.

So now we have "sweep discrim"????????

"I am doing discrimination using a monocoil and not one of the known methods".

That's the problem Moodz, your cro pics and everything you say suggests that you are using well known methods that have been discarded by others. Most detector designers refer to the X and R components or X and viscosity when discussing the ground but anyone following your posts would assume you are fixated on X and are either unaware of viscosity or you think they are the same. Your description of your channels tends to confirm this.

The ideas you have proposed in this thread are already well known and have obvious flaws so there is no point in discussing it further until you prove the thing actually works and isn't just another way to skin the same old cat.

BTW, mono coil discrimination isn't new!

[hdphilip]

sounds like a job for the pic32MZ....

[moodz]

Full depth discrimination at full detection depth depends on what we class as a signal. It could be a definite strong "dig me" signal or just a murmur caused by conductive or/and non-conductive minerals or a charcoal deposit etc in which case it is impossible to obtain anything resembling full depth disc for an object at depth because the ground above the mineral or target determines the result. In another case a detector might analyse the signal and beep when it satisfies a set of conditions in which case full depth disc is often poor compared to the normal all metal detection mode and only suitable for coins etc.

The patent Doug refers to does state how the "samples" are processed and it is also obvious that demodulation occurs in the normal way so "adapted and arranged" is sufficient in this case. If "arranged" upsets Doug then perhaps he could ignore it and pretend it just says "adapted"?

Full depth disc in mineralised ground using any of the known methods is impossible.

I am doing discrimination using a monocoil and not one of the known methods. ( eg dd coil ... Though my det also works fine with dd ). The monocoil with discrim gives best depth. There are three "channels" ... Target sense ... Polarity discrim and sweep discrim ... Processing all three provides separation of ferrous / non ferrous / conductive clays & charcoal . There is a fourth " channel" which deals with ground.

[Aziz]

Hey Robby_H,

you're going to lose your credibility if you can't solve the ultra-trivial riddel.
How should someone else take you serious if you give your 2 boobs worth on other peoples idea?
I don't think, that you have enough MQ. BTW, same applies to Mr. Candy! *LOL*
"Adapting and arranging"(tm) is soooooooooooooo trivial(tm).

BTW, "trivial" is my one of the beloved words I have heard from my math teacher, when I was a student!
Trivial, trivial, trivial, .. trivial, trivial persuade (oops, I like the game too) *LOL*
^sif

[Aziz]

Hey Robby_H,

did you solve the very trivial riddle?
Notice, that the riddle is ultra-trivial than a PI.

^sif

[robby_h]

Rh you really should concentrate on learning to read English with emphasis on conjunctions and pronouns.

"Full depth detection AND discrimination". .....plonker.

Full depth discrimination at full detection depth depends on what we class as a signal. It could be a definite strong "dig me" signal or just a murmur caused by conductive or/and non-conductive minerals or a charcoal deposit etc in which case it is impossible to obtain anything resembling full depth disc for an object at depth because the ground above the mineral or target determines the result. In another case a detector might analyse the signal and beep when it satisfies a set of conditions in which case full depth disc is often poor compared to the normal all metal detection mode and only suitable for coins etc. Full depth disc in mineralised ground using any of the known methods is impossible.

The patent Doug refers to does state how the "samples" are processed and it is also obvious that demodulation occurs in the normal way so "adapted and arranged" is sufficient in this case. If "arranged" upsets Doug then perhaps he could ignore it and pretend it just says "adapted"?

[Aziz]

Hi out there,

I have a thermo-nuclear ML beater, which is based on “adapted and arranged” technology.
I'm much more experience with “adapted and arranged” method than Candy.
Now I'm going to “adapt and arrange” the thermo-nuclear melt-down red button.
^sif

[moodz]

.....you'll get banned by the admins if keep this up. P99 & rh this means u.

[Doug2]

And you should concentrate on not trying to defend the indefensible Doug. How about "discrimination to full detection depth" rather than the scrambled English you are trying to defend and justify.

I think my explanation is quite clear!!!!!!

[Paul99]

Rh you really should concentrate on learning to read English with emphasis on conjunctions and pronouns.

"Full depth detection AND discrimination". .....plonker.

And you should concentrate on not trying to defend the indefensible Doug. How about "discrimination to full detection depth" rather than the scrambled English you are trying to defend and justify.

[Doug2]

“adapted and arranged” in this case refers to a means to demodulate the high, medium and low frequency components of the received ground signal. Most people skilled in the art would know how to do this, so "adapted and arranged" is sufficient in this case and doesn't bog the explanation down with unnecessary text. The fact that you don't understand something as simple as this is no surprise to anyone and shows why your opinions should be ignored.

Many patents use the term "adapted" but it seems your mind gets confused when "adapted" is combined with "arranged". Weird eh?

Your turn now Doug, tell us what you think "full depth detection" means.

Sorry i don't agree with you!
adapted how? arranged how? Still vague! Those skilled in the art should know precisely how the demodulation is done and the how frequency components are combined or utilized!
With "full depth detection" I believe that Moodz is claiming ( or should have said) his discrimination depth is the same as his non discriminating depth.