Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

THE ELUSVE 1us TC TARGET

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • moodz
    replied
    Originally posted by Tinkerer View Post

    Hi Jeff,
    I have just revisited the AMX Thead: https://www.geotech1.com/forums/foru...concept-design where we got lost in squabbling.
    One year has passed and the project has been stagnant.
    I have worked a little on the RX :https://www.geotech1.com/forums/foru...387#post419387 For the testing of the frontend I used my own well tested TX board that is a bit more complex for the timing because it is synchronous. (Mooz's TX uses the internal diodes of the Mosfets). The use of the Nucleo STM 32F446 is definitely not ideal. This seems to be where we are.
    I think the consensus for the micro processor was a STM 32?? I will have to take a closer look at the thread to see if an actual microprocessor has been decided on.

    I should have answers to your questions soon.
    Slight correction the circuit is not a H bridge but more correctly a switch buffered H bridge as there are only two switching elements connected to the coil ( unlike 4 in a "conventional" H bridge )

    Also the two high voltage Mosfets should be used with a parallel shottky diode to minimise body diode losses like so below ... I dont use the body diode.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	SW.jpg
Views:	235
Size:	67.1 KB
ID:	422543

    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Detectorist#1
    replied
    Hi Carl,

    My idea is that designs of Surf Pi, HH and Barracuda have to rest for very new detectorists, but more complex designs have to be well balanced between these designs and too complex designs. Yes, I know, this is not simple task!

    Leave a comment:


  • Detectorist#1
    replied
    Hi Carl,

    Yes, you are right - this forum have to be useful for very new hobbyists and for serious designers!

    Leave a comment:


  • Carl-NC
    replied
    There are a lot of simpler projects posted on Geotech for those who want simpler, but we also explore new concepts that might be a bit more complex. Different strokes...

    Leave a comment:


  • Detectorist#1
    replied
    Hi Carl,
    I'm not against top designs, but I'm not sure that many hobby detectorists will repeat this relatively complex solution.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carl-NC
    replied
    Originally posted by Detectorist#1 View Post
    Do you really think that TX end stage with 10 MOS FETs is appropriate for hobby manufacturing of PI MD?
    Take a look at some Minelab patents and you will TX designs with even more FETs. Tinkerer's circuit looks intimidating because he used big devices where small devices could have been used, most could be SOT23. The AMX transmitter is a similar design, there are two big FETs, the rest are SOT23s. The layout includes 5 package options for the 2 big FETs (in this photo I'm using TO220s) which makes the layout much larger than needed. In the end, this TX design can be small and cheap, depending on the choice of the 2 big FETs.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	image.png
Views:	258
Size:	468.8 KB
ID:	422515​

    Leave a comment:


  • Tinkerer
    replied
    Originally posted by Detectorist#1 View Post
    Hi Tinkerer,
    Maybe some of active writers in this forum are former engineers in military area - in this area no limits for cost and complexity - but hobby area is different!
    Detectorist#, thank you for your feedback.

    Leave a comment:


  • Detectorist#1
    replied
    Hi Tinkerer,
    Maybe some of active writers in this forum are former engineers in military area - in this area no limits for cost and complexity - but hobby area is different!

    Leave a comment:


  • Detectorist#1
    replied
    Hi Tinkerer,

    My concerns are for all mentioned. The cost, assembly difficult and not at the end - the timing - osc is not present in mass hobby detectorist!

    Leave a comment:


  • Tinkerer
    replied
    Originally posted by Detectorist#1 View Post
    Hi Tinkerer,

    Do you really think that TX end stage with 10 MOS FETs is appropriate for hobby manufacturing of PI MD?
    Detectorist#, thank you for the feedback.
    I think it is 8 Mosfets or did I post a wrong schematic? Right, I just checked, it is a different schematic with 2 additional Mosfets. I will look for the right one.
    2 high voltage Mosfets about US$ 10 each
    6 Cheap low voltage Mosfets.

    I would appreciate if you would tell me in more detail what your concerns are. Cost? Assembly? Timing?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tinkerer
    replied
    Originally posted by PICON View Post
    Hi Tinkerer,

    What do you need this code to do for starters?
    1. TX ‘H’ bridge drive signals. What cycle timing do you require and what FET drivers and FETs are you using so we can work out how much “dead time” is required.
    2. Internal 12bit ADC sampling sync to TX timing. What sample rate do you require?
    3. How do you want to monitor the digital signal processing?
    4. ??

    Jeff
    ​
    Hi Jeff,
    I have just revisited the AMX Thead: https://www.geotech1.com/forums/foru...concept-design where we got lost in squabbling.
    One year has passed and the project has been stagnant.
    I have worked a little on the RX :https://www.geotech1.com/forums/foru...387#post419387 For the testing of the frontend I used my own well tested TX board that is a bit more complex for the timing because it is synchronous. (Mooz's TX uses the internal diodes of the Mosfets). The use of the Nucleo STM 32F446 is definitely not ideal. This seems to be where we are.
    I think the consensus for the micro processor was a STM 32?? I will have to take a closer look at the thread to see if an actual microprocessor has been decided on.

    I should have answers to your questions soon.

    Leave a comment:


  • Detectorist#1
    replied
    Hi Tinkerer,

    Do you really think that TX end stage with 10 MOS FETs is appropriate for hobby manufacturing of PI MD?

    Leave a comment:


  • moodz
    replied
    Originally posted by Altra View Post

    I been using the 5mm and 10mm squares cut from a aluminum beer can. But aluminum thickness and grade will vary from can to can. I had an idea for standardize targets. We could make them using a pcb. Draw up board with multiple geometries and sizes. These could then be cut into separate targets and glued to wands. This would create a standard gerber file that everyone could use. Assuming say 1 oz. copper, people around the world could test and compare results
    Excellent idea ... I am at the point where I need a set of standardised targets based on time constant not on detection distance .....

    Leave a comment:


  • Tinkerer
    replied
    Originally posted by pito View Post
    Please explain, because I do not understand what you want. = example showing how coils are connected to PCB, here is missing shielding .

    Click image for larger version Name:	image.png Views:	0 Size:	34.4 KB ID:	422481

    and how it is done
    Click image for larger version Name:	image.png Views:	0 Size:	1.00 MB ID:	422482Click image for larger version Name:	image.png Views:	0 Size:	1,003.2 KB ID:	422483​​​
    For the coil, look at: https://www.geotech1.com/forums/foru...625#post419625
    For the preamp schematic and test results look at: https://www.geotech1.com/forums/foru...387#post419387
    To be able to detect a target with a TC of 1us (one microsecond time constant), with a PI detector, we need to take a very early first sample. A TC of 1us means that after 5us the eddy currents are gone. With a delay of 3us we should have a chance to still detect the 1us target. (filedata/fetch?id=418898&d=1704960623)


    For the TX schematic and TX board
    Click image for larger version

Name:	TX board.png
Views:	359
Size:	371.1 KB
ID:	422499 Click image for larger version

Name:	TX and Nucleo.png
Views:	292
Size:	1.37 MB
ID:	422500

    Leave a comment:


  • pito
    replied
    Please explain, because I do not understand what you want. = example showing how coils are connected to PCB, here is missing shielding .

    Click image for larger version  Name:	image.png Views:	0 Size:	34.4 KB ID:	422481

    and how it is done
    Click image for larger version  Name:	image.png Views:	0 Size:	1.00 MB ID:	422482Click image for larger version  Name:	image.png Views:	0 Size:	1,003.2 KB ID:	422483​​​
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X