New Frankenproject -

[mickstv]

Nice job Pete!

---
Everybody asking for a software code, PM the "World's best madman"(tm)(c)(r).


Cheers,
Aziz


PS: Pete!
C1, C3: 33 nF instead of 33 pF!!!
Check the schematics once again please.

Hi Aziz, from one of his earlier posts he's making these mistakes on purpose. You'll find more wrong with it, than just the caps, have a close look at the first amp stage and the 2pol LPF stage.

[Midas]

Now remember, I'm simply "prettifying" Howard's circuit as published; it is an "exact replica" (just like a $5 Rolex, although I wouldn't accept less than 8 bucks). It contains a number of excellent and quite deliberate mistakes, so that anyone trying to build the device from these plans with little or no knowledge of electronics or metal detecting is pretty much guaranteed to get a "surprise" upon power up. Perhaps more than one... Forum members knowledgeable about electronics should get a couple of laughs! BTW, I could've been a real ******* and swapped some pin numbers, but I couldn't bring myself to do that. Or could I? (Sigh. I didn't.)

Yeah I think this statement here needs a little explaining. Quite apart from disagreeing with the ethos that those less skilled in electronics should suffer expensive and demoralizing circuit failures, how do you expect anyone to proof your work?? Its impossilbe to tell deliberate 'obvious' mistakes from genuine ones!

[Carl-NC]

Agreed, I don't see the point of intentional errors.

[Pete the Builder]

Hi Aziz, from one of his earlier posts he's making these mistakes on purpose. You'll find more wrong with it, than just the caps, have a close look at the first amp stage and the 2pol LPF stage.

Sorry to disagree with you, Mick, but the mistakes aren't on purpose. If you read my post, you'll see I explicitly state that I made no deliberate mistakes (just a bunch of dumb ones that I didn't catch). Any mistakes were introduced by BW to throw off people who don't know their electronics from making the device, assuming that someone, somewhere, would post the firmware - which has happened. So any additional mistakes are accidental. I absolutely do not agree with putting booby traps in devices, that takes a streak I don't have in me.

I'm posting the circuit here partly so I can also get some help catching any errors I've inadvertently made. I thought it would be educational and interesting and fun. I'm starting to reconsider that.
-PtB

[KahlesMilcon]

Pete,
It was not a mistake to do exactly as you did. It makes everyone and I mean everyone review the circuit, If you are a old hat at electronics then you (might , will probably , or have ) found the errors.
As I am not old hat I will have to start from the beginning and work through the circuit. That is good for me as it will force me to LEARN something new.
It will force me to ask questions and scratch my head in wonder and slow down for theeducation that I preceve that I might gain.

For instance , I am having to look up why Caps are requires and then incert into the circuit.

Yes I could ask someone the reason , but that will not truly give me and reinforce any knowlege that I gain. I have noticed when I look up some of the components I gane quite a bit of trival information tha t seems to pop up all the time that I did not have before.


Thanks for posting what you did , I will pursue and check your circuit as to Bug's and then ask for help if necessary.



Ken

[Pete the Builder]

Yeah I think this statement here needs a little explaining. Quite apart from disagreeing with the ethos that those less skilled in electronics should suffer expensive and demoralizing circuit failures, how do you expect anyone to proof your work?? Its impossilbe to tell deliberate 'obvious' mistakes from genuine ones!

I thought I made it fairly clear that there are NO deliberate errors on my part. I guess my style of humour and use of smiley icons is confusing to some people, so I will "explain" without trying to be funny or using icons.

As I've repeatedly stated, I thought would be either or both interesting and educational (and/or fun) to post this circuit. Partly this is because I thought people who would be most interested in this circuit would have the original, more unconventional schematic to compare with, or could obtain it. I made the erroneous assumption that people without the original might ask for it. At that stage I was still unclear about posting my take on the original, let alone the original!

I also thought anyone with an interest could benefit from my (obviously) limited skills and interest in the matter, and partly because I - and other amateurs and experts interested in this hobby - would benefit from having more eyes seeing obvious mistakes I've missed (and I've found a couple more, which I'm fixing at the moment). Aziz' comments are exactly my point - that's my mistake (not a deliberate trap!), so mea maxima culpa. So are the points about the pole filter, which I have no hope in hell of detecting (let alone fixing, without learning from my mistakes. QED. Pardon the pun!).

I'm so grateful that someone has pointed those errors out, and I'm getting around to thanking those people and asking if there are other problems I can't find due to my limited knowledge, which I'm trying to improve by learning from others with more skill and experience.

I've now made over 80 (extremely long, for which I apologise profusely) posts here. So I'm shocked that anyone having read any of those posts could honestly think (let alone imply) that an idiot like me would deliberately introduce mistakes into a design specifically to cripple hobbyists or newcomers to this type of electronics design. I have never, could never, and will never introduce tricks, honeypots, or booby-traps into any of my, or anyone else's designs. I may make some honest errors in transcribing a detailed and somewhat unconventional schematic, and for that I've already admitted my mistakes and attempted to fix them and provide the updated schematic. There are other errors, as Aziz (and others) have pointed out, some of which are my fault, and which I'll fix, but others (like the pole filter thingamabob) are beyond my technical expertise to identify, let alone fix!

That's why I originally asked for help fixing any errors, mine or BW's. I don't believe that a groundbreaking design like this one (and as someone else has pointed out, at least some -but not all - of the groundbreaking design is in software) should be left as a crippled and useless idea. I thought it would be an idea worth exploring, as other ideas have been explored and improved here.

It was not, and is not, my intention to introduce errors into an already error-prone document, and publish it like a honeypot so I could sit back and laugh as the devices burned out and they asked frantic questions here. That's not my oevre. That's not how I roll.

I hope this clears up the matter of errors. If anyone can spot any errors in the design, they were introduced as part of the patent protection by BW. That's because the patent process is badly broken, not because he didn't want people to be able to look at his design and learn. (I think. Maybe Howard delights in making people hate him and waste their time and money. But I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt, until I know better.)

[Pete the Builder]

Pete, I don't know why your bothering to post flawed versions of the QED schematic. We all know it's a brick unless the software is supplied. Also even if someone was able to write new code for it, it may never work as well as the original due to differences in sampling etc.

Mick, any MCU-based device is a brick without software. So I disagree with your thinking on that...

Now, I'm not an expert assembly-language coder on the MCU used, but while this design might actually BE like rocket surgery (for once!), I'm pretty sure if I can't figure out how to start it up, other people can. It's not a black art - there are limits imposed by the hardware constraint of BW's design, and that's where attention needs to be focused. That's the point, I guess, and it makes me think this should be a new thread. Carl?

In any case, it's no worse than what many of the properly qualified specialists here were set for homework at university. You know, "We'll leave this as an exercise to be handed in in three months' time." (followed by groans).

Think of it this way. It's not just the software in this design. The hardware is designed to implement what the software tells it to do. Now, if we don't get it right, but it still works, then that's a win, and Minelabs can't come after us with their torch-wielding lawyers. If we do get it right, then we've just proved that it's doable, and we've confirmed and experimented with what's in the patent - and Minelabs still can't come after us. Then, possibly the design can be improved, or extended, or modified (writing individual segment registers for an LCD glass isn't what I'd make my MCU do, when there are far cheaper and more flexible I2C LCD displays out there that will do more, for less, and less MCU horsepower, which can then be harnessed for more digital work.

Does that make sense?

[Pete the Builder]

Nice job Pete!

---
Everybody asking for a software code, PM the "World's best madman"(tm)(c)(r).


Cheers,
Aziz


PS: Pete!
C1, C3: 33 nF instead of 33 pF!!!
Check the schematics once again please.

Thank you, my strange friend. I thought it was a bit strange at the time, but I was on a roll, and wanted to finish off that part of the circuit. I'm sure there are more to find.

Think of them as "easter eggs". Though I'm not sure what the prize will be... Maybe a commented C version of BW's code?

Thanks, mate. Those will be fixed in the next iteration.

Cheers,
PtB

[Pete the Builder]

Question about BW's design.

I wanted to ask this question, as it seems that there's at least some thinking that the QED design isn't worthwhile looking at...

Please take this in the friendly (happy) spirit it's intended.

So, what's put on a patent is bull****, as we all agree. But why leave it in that state, especially in this case? Why not take the design, explore what's new and unusual, and expand on that? I can definitely learn something from just looking at the schematic. For example, it's a very nice, quiet little power supply. Very well thought out, and very, very unlikely to affect the sensitive electronics. Not only that, but it's about as efficient as a buck/inverter arrangement can be made with modern ICs, at least without resorting to arcane switchers.

So, I thought that was the point of the exercise - learning from an outstanding design, having some fun, maybe improving it and making it available for other folks, like me, less capable of understanding all the technical stuff. If I was wrong, I'd appreciate anyone explaining the difference, because I'm a bit confused, technically and ethically.

I'm also concerned that there's some sort of stigma attached to this design; as if being Howard's work it's automatically not worth discussing or learning from. I do hope that sentiment isn't being felt by anyone commenting or thinking of commenting. So if anyone's thinking that, go find another thread. You won't find anything of use here. This is an electronics forum, first and foremost. Take your ****ing politics and shove them up your arse where they belong.

PtB

P.S. Sorry for the huge flutter of posts. I wanted to address everything raised individually, instead of a TLDR post. Shrug.

[moodz]

Keep up the good work Pete. I will provide a port of the unipi code so everyone can play with the timings.

[mickstv]

I wanted to ask this question, as it seems that there's at least some thinking that the QED design isn't worthwhile looking at...

Please take this in the friendly (happy) spirit it's intended.

So, what's put on a patent is bull****, as we all agree. But why leave it in that state, especially in this case? Why not take the design, explore what's new and unusual, and expand on that? I can definitely learn something from just looking at the schematic. For example, it's a very nice, quiet little power supply. Very well thought out, and very, very unlikely to affect the sensitive electronics. Not only that, but it's about as efficient as a buck/inverter arrangement can be made with modern ICs, at least without resorting to arcane switchers.

So, I thought that was the point of the exercise - learning from an outstanding design, having some fun, maybe improving it and making it available for other folks, like me, less capable of understanding all the technical stuff. If I was wrong, I'd appreciate anyone explaining the difference, because I'm a bit confused, technically and ethically.

I'm also concerned that there's some sort of stigma attached to this design; as if being Howard's work it's automatically not worth discussing or learning from. I do hope that sentiment isn't being felt by anyone commenting or thinking of commenting. So if anyone's thinking that, go find another thread. You won't find anything of use here. This is an electronics forum, first and foremost. Take your ****ing politics and shove them up your arse where they belong.

PtB

P.S. Sorry for the huge flutter of posts. I wanted to address everything raised individually, instead of a TLDR post. Shrug.

Pete, you'll find only a couple of Users/Trolls have an issue with Bug's and I think you'll know who those individuals are. I personally don't have any problem with Bug's and his work, I think he's very smart.

[Carl-NC]

Firstly, I've heard from a very reliable source that the QED was performing quite well in the field. If it did not, then I doubt it would have gotten the "attention" it got, regardless of any patent issues.

Secondly, I might not understand your intent. If it is to explore the QED design and make it work/work better, then I don't understand putting in intentional hardware errors. Make it right, and move ahead. The errors offer no "legal" advantage.

- Carl

[Thomas]

Thanks Pete, a lot of work went into what you did and I find your redo much easier to follow then the original. Much appreciated.

[hdphilip]

good job Pete!

I'm still working on the original component libraries for my version, i might have to get a pcb fab'ed, The ADG1419 pretty small for my process.

I have a pretty good idea for the software

Philip

[Aziz]

Hey guys notice, that the software code can also be adapted and arranged.. *LOL*
Aziz