Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Taking a look at GROUND BALANCE on the bench

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

  • Carl-NC
    replied
    Originally posted by mikebg View Post
    BBS means that this is WIDEBAND technology - RX processes broad band of frequencies. "Wide" is synonyme of term "broad", but I prefer "wide" because is used in other term "bandwidth").
    BBS uses narrow-band demods and processes 2 frequencies, not a "broad band of frequencies" as Minelab marketeers would like us to believe.

    In the context of my current project, which is a hybrid VLF + PI, it's very easy for me to think about, and even simulate, this circuit in the TD. So I got to thinking about what it would look like in the FD and, holy smokes, it would be a huge spectral mess. I think if I had used FD I would still be in theory-land, instead of field testing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qiaozhi
    replied
    Originally posted by mikebg View Post
    George, thanks in advance for the file.
    I have not received a reply yet from the website. Let's see what happens.

    Originally posted by mikebg View Post
    (Note that recently I do not use the word "incompetent" because Qiaozhi not like it :-)


    Originally posted by mikebg View Post
    The most simple (competent :-) method attributable to FD is to make Fourier transform and to display "color" coefficients of target (read PD3200 manual).
    Perhaps we're getting somewhere now.
    It appears you are not actually against time domain simulation, but are in fact suggesting that we should take the time domain results and run them through an FFT. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "color coefficients" of target. If you're suggesting this will lead to some method of ferrous/non-ferrous discrimination which can be used with a PI, then I fear this is highly unlikely.

    Leave a comment:


  • mikebg
    replied
    Originally posted by Qiaozhi View Post
    .... question to Mike: "Is this really about frequency domain thinking, frequency domain simulation, or a combination of both?
    George, thanks in advance for the file.

    The answer is: Frequency domain is much more than thinking! The tool is so powerful that it should be used for all steps in design process, starting with copying of advanced designs, circumventing patent claims. measuring target and soil properties, visual analysis, algorithm for signal processing, method for signal displaying. SPICE can't show what should be done, but FD can.

    Please pardon Carl, that I quote your post # 74 as a wrong method of thinking because you not think in Frequency domain.

    Originally posted by Carl-NC View Post
    ....Actually, BBS is closer to time-domain. It transmits 2 frequencies sequentially and processes them much like a PI. I suspect BBS and Fisher Impulse look a lot alike.
    It is not true that "BBS is closer to time-domain". The BBS is in time domain because all in our world happens in TD. Your oscilloscope also operates in TD. Connect it to a CW (narrow band) metal detector and it will show that VLF also operates in TD. BBS means that this is WIDEBAND technology - RX processes broad band of frequencies. "Wide" is synonyme of term "broad", but I prefer "wide" because is used in other term "bandwidth").

    According FD, the most complicated method is to "transmit 2 frequencies sequentially and to process them". (Note that recently I do not use the word "incompetent" because Qiaozhi not like it :-) The most simple (competent :-) method attributable to FD is to make Fourier transform and to display "color" coefficients of target (read PD3200 manual).

    I know that you need examples how is used and and exercises how to use Frequency domain. Let we make them in thread for WIDEBAND technology.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ferric Toes
    replied
    Originally posted by PiTec View Post
    Hi Aziz,


    So this is a ‘normal’ behavior, and the statement that there should be a straight line slope in the log/log plot is only valid for times greater than at least 10µs?
    Note that the measurements begin at approx. 5µs after the end of the 2µs flyback pulse.


    I will try that as soon as I managed to convert the hematite, but it will probably be not much different to the other curves. There are some small differences within the first 100µs as already mentioned. I also noticed this when I compare the ‘raw’ soil from my area with the same soil, but concentrated with a magnet.



    I ordered 2kg of hematite and magnetite from Kremer, but the 48800 with 10µm – this is still way larger than the 90nm hematite. As expected, the magnetite shows almost no viscosity effect, but has a very large magnetic permeability. I thought it might be useful to mix it with the hematite to see if and how the high permeability affects the amplitude and/or the shape of the viscosity signal response.

    Thomas
    Hi Thomas,

    In my equipment I always take the start of the delay period from the fall of the gate drive to the mosfet, so our starting points for measurement are not too different. I now have a faster system where the start of the curve is 5uS after the start of the mosfet switch off. No sign of any non-linearity. So the question is - why are your results different? Interestingly, some of the decay plots in the demining literature are similar to yours. Let's ask Aziz where he thinks the non-linearity arises.

    I have a bag of pigment for pottery glazing that contains magnetite. Can't remember what the particle size was, but it was not much good for giving a viscous signal. I'll see if I still have the measurement details.

    Eric.

    Leave a comment:


  • PiTec
    replied
    Hi Aziz,

    Originally posted by Aziz View Post
    the first few µs of the decay curve (0-10 µs) are very enlighting and showing the non-linear behaviour.
    So this is a ‘normal’ behavior, and the statement that there should be a straight line slope in the log/log plot is only valid for times greater than at least 10µs?
    Note that the measurements begin at approx. 5µs after the end of the 2µs flyback pulse.

    Originally posted by Aziz View Post
    I would like to see the "reactivated" hematite as well, if you can convert it to maghemite with my "alchemy" process.
    I will try that as soon as I managed to convert the hematite, but it will probably be not much different to the other curves. There are some small differences within the first 100µs as already mentioned. I also noticed this when I compared the ‘raw’ soil from my area with the same soil, but concentrated with a magnet.

    Originally posted by Aziz View Post
    What about magnetite? I think Kremer Pigmente has it too:
    http://kremerpigments.com/shopus/ind...&product=48804
    To get the super paramagnetic feature, well, one have to reduce the grain size to 10nm - 50 nm (or so).
    I ordered 2kg of hematite and magnetite from Kremer, but the 48800 with 10µm – this is still way larger than the 90nm hematite. As expected, the magnetite shows almost no viscosity effect, but has a very large magnetic permeability. I thought it might be useful to mix it with the hematite to see if and how the high permeability affects the amplitude and/or the shape of the viscosity signal response.

    Thomas
    Last edited by PiTec; 02-27-2013, 01:24 PM. Reason: Typo

    Leave a comment:


  • Aziz
    replied
    BETONKÖPFE
    (*LOL*) I like it.

    Mike is trying to say, that you should also enter the majik frequency domain tools.
    He is right in saying this. The whole analysis and process gets very elegant.
    You can't do it in the time domain.

    Aziz,
    a Betonkopf too

    Leave a comment:


  • Qiaozhi
    replied
    Originally posted by Carl-NC View Post
    Obviously you can't use FD sims for most PI hardware, so I wonder if Mike is referring more to "frequency domain thinking" rather than "frequency domain simulation."
    Well ... I did consider that ... however, Mike also said this: "I'm waiting to see how you dear ConcreteHeads, using an oscilloscope and experimenting in time domain without Fourier transform will solve these problems. The only benefit of SPICE analysis in Time domain is that it shows how you waste time tumbling in the mist of convolution. Frequency domain lifts the mist."
    Which certainly implies "SPICE frequency domain simulation".

    On the other hand, I notice there is an implication that time domain simulation is initially required, followed by a Fourier Transformation.

    So ... question to Mike: "Is this really about frequency domain thinking, frequency domain simulation, or a combination of both?

    Leave a comment:


  • Qiaozhi
    replied
    Originally posted by mikebg View Post
    It costs $2 only, but to by it, I need to open a bank account, which is worth going to cost me a pretty money. I can't open bank account because I live in the poorest country in the European Union. Let someone please buy this file.
    OK - I'm in the process of getting a copy.
    I'll let you know what happens.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aziz
    replied
    Originally posted by PiTec View Post
    Hi Eric,



    Below are the same decay curves with log/lin and log/log axes. Y= amplitude from 10 to 1000mV, X= time from 0 to 200µs. The problems I mentioned earlier are still visible:
    • The curves for hematite and MV soil are not exactly the same (also easy to see in the lin/lin plot, there the red and blue curves are slightly different during the first 100µs). So my question was, how similar should they be? Also, they do not appear as a straight line slope in my plots. Maybe the TX fields I used were too strong and there is a distortion by saturation effects?
    • First order (one TC) targets like the gold ring have a straight line slope in the log/lin plot, but as soon as there are more TCs involved (like the silver ring), the delay can become very similar to the viscosity decays.

    If anyone wants to take a look at the data, here is the Excel file: [ATTACH]23608[/ATTACH]

    Thomas

    [ATTACH]23609[/ATTACH]
    Thanks Thomas,

    the first few µs of the decay curve (0-10 µs) are very enlighting and showing the non-linear behaviour.
    I would like to see the "reactivated" hematite as well, if you can convert it to maghemite with my "alchemy" process.
    What about magnetite? I think Kremer Pigmente has it too:

    To get the super paramagnetic feature, well, one have to reduce the grain size to 10nm - 50 nm (or so).

    Cheers,
    Aziz

    Leave a comment:


  • UrbanFox
    replied
    Originally posted by mikebg View Post
    I need to open a bank account
    Hi Mikebg,

    See how you go setting up a PayPal account as the site for the Scientific American article accepts Paypal.

    Leave a comment:


  • mikebg
    replied
    To Carl, Qiaozhi and all.
    I need a file containing important information for history of metal detectors:

    General tech discussions on all types of metal detectors: VLF, 2-box, BFO, off-resonance, PLL, etc. Questions, ideas, and anything else that moves you.


    It costs $2 only, but to by it, I need to open a bank account, which is worth going to cost me a pretty money. I can't open bank account because I live in the poorest country in the European Union. Let someone please buy this file.

    As to the problems discussed here, I prepare answers for all questions, but I need time to do this thoroughly and so simple, that even I can understand it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carl-NC
    replied
    Originally posted by Qiaozhi View Post
    However, I have stated [twice already] that you cannot use frequency domain [small-signal] analysis for PI detector design, as the models are linearised around the operating point prior to the start of the simulation. PI circuits are inherently large-signal, and a frequency domain simulation will give incorrect results.
    Obviously you can't use FD sims for most PI hardware, so I wonder if Mike is referring more to "frequency domain thinking" rather than "frequency domain simulation."

    Leave a comment:


  • Carl-NC
    replied
    Originally posted by mikebg View Post
    The "worlds best" BBS, FBS and FBS2 technologies of MINELAB are not new ideas and new ways.
    The page you’re looking for can’t be found. Use our navigation or search to get back on track and find the Minelab information you were seeking.

    They use Frequency domain, the old tool born about 200 years ago.
    Actually, BBS is closer to time-domain. It transmits 2 frequencies sequentially and processes them much like a PI. I suspect BBS and Fisher Impulse look a lot alike.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qiaozhi
    replied
    Originally posted by ODM View Post
    The first assumption shouldn't be that the people investing a long while of genuine research into something have their facts wrong. Best regards!
    This is a very good point, and something many people seem to forget.

    Originally posted by mikebg View Post
    George, the Frequency domain is not new idea and new way of doing things. It is old powerful tool for analysis, design and measurement. Only it is used for design of radio equipment because the Time domain is not suitable. It is not suitable even for design of narrow band metal detectors.
    At no time did I state that the frequency domain was a new idea. However, I have stated [twice already] that you cannot use frequency domain [small-signal] analysis for PI detector design, as the models are linearised around the operating point prior to the start of the simulation. PI circuits are inherently large-signal, and a frequency domain simulation will give incorrect results.

    Originally posted by mikebg View Post
    The "worlds best" BBS, FBS and FBS2 technologies of MINELAB are not new ideas and new ways.
    This is true, but they are also not pulse induction detectors. BBS, FBS and FBS2 are VLF designs that transmit a series of square waves instead of the usual sine wave.

    Leave a comment:


  • KahlesMilcon
    replied
    Sorry for the Post.

    Originally posted by Carl-NC View Post
    KM, the soil in NC (I lived there 21 yrs) doesn't come anywhere close to Oz. Even the reddest NC dirt doesn't have much viscosity effects. Oz detectorists sometimes refer to their soil as "corrugated iron." If you can get a hold of a sample, you'll appreciate NC conditions more.
    I thought I had proofed the post , I guess I did not.

    I should have said " is not" as strong ....

    I was in now way trying to say that NC soil was any where near as problematic as AZ soils, I was only trying to say that the hot rocks that we have are if nothing else interesting and will when hit with a MD will blow your eardums out .



    Thanks for the correction.


    Ken

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X