Ground Balance Theory

[Ferric Toes]

I see the rot is setting in again. Can't we keep personal conflict out of even this thread?

For your information UF Example 1 is not as I do GB, and I am not going to discuss the details further.

Eric.

[moodz]

Hi Aziz, here is your chance to become famous. Name just one natural law that BC has tried to patent. Just one, OK

I say you cannot name one instance. You listen to your mate DougAEGPF too much.

...well patent claims 33 to 37 inclusive of patent http://www.google.com/patents/US5576624.pdf are mathematical relationships related to "natural law" behaviour and not claimable as distinct claims though they may be used in a patent description to support explaining the function of an embodiment.
Dont get me started on claim 10 which is specifically claiming noise reduction through synchronous demodulation. ... Like what does all the prior art use SD for ? ...

[ZED]

Give me your email address Doug and i will forward you a copy.


Zed

[Qiaozhi]

What version of the Adobe Reader do you have? The problem must be at my end...

Allan

Adobe Reader X, Version 10.1.6 on Windows XP
Adobe Reader, Version 9.5.4 on Windows 7
Document Viewer, Version 3.2.1 on Lubuntu Linux

No problems.

[dougAEGPF]

You will find App No AU199047963, Pat. 633536 discloses the method in Example 3.

Re "How many people know", I ask how many people read the patents, and then ask how many people understand the method?

Au1990047963 is not available for viewing in Auspat so how do you know what is in it and I cannot find 633536?

dougAEGPF

[UrbanFox]

Well Urbanfox in example 2 the third sample is shorter than sample 2 and so the samples will cancel static fields when an equal amount of gain is applied to them,the m/lab patent that you refer to has a third sample thats longer than the second sample in which case the samples wont cancel static fields when the same amount of gain is applied to them,in order for the m/lab samples to cancel static fields m/lab need to use scaling on their samples,the example that i have given no scaling is required and so in my view my example does not constitute m/lab IP.
And yes the second example does cancel out less target signal and manages ground variability better.
The third example was not intended to demonstrate a precise example of anyones sampling routine but rather to bring to light an alternate method of achieving GB,further more the third example is the one that performs the poorest when it comes to managing ground variability.

Now i have a question for you !

How many people know that the third example is m/lab IP considering none of m/labs patents actually show this method of taking measurements ? Your post 63 would suggest to me that your an employee of m/lab.


Zed

You will find App No AU199047963, Pat. 633536 discloses the method in Example 3.

Re "How many people know", I ask how many people read the patents, and then ask how many people understand the method?

[ZED]

Well Urbanfox in example 2 the third sample is shorter than sample 2 and so the samples will cancel static fields when an equal amount of gain is applied to them,the m/lab patent that you refer to has a third sample thats longer than the second sample in which case the samples wont cancel static fields when the same amount of gain is applied to them,in order for the m/lab samples to cancel static fields m/lab need to use scaling on their samples,the example that i have given no scaling is required and so in my view my example does not constitute m/lab IP.
And yes the second example does cancel out less target signal and manages ground variability better.
The third example was not intended to demonstrate a precise example of anyones sampling routine but rather to bring to light an alternate method of achieving GB,further more the third example is the one that performs the poorest when it comes to managing ground variability.

Now i have a question for you !

How many people know that the third example is m/lab IP considering none of m/labs patents actually show this method of taking measurements ? Your post 63 would suggest to me that your an employee of m/lab.


Zed

[UrbanFox]

Tell us Ufox,

why is Mr. patent troll from the market leader patenting natural laws?

Aziz

Hi Aziz, here is your chance to become famous. Name just one natural law that BC has tried to patent. Just one, OK

I say you cannot name one instance. You listen to your mate DougAEGPF too much.

[Aziz]

Well, Zed, can I have a crack at this??

Example 1 is Pool's method as used by Foster, Bosnar, etc. Advantages ?....Disadvantages...sample 2 must be amplified.

Example 2 is Minelab's IP. Advantages...Doesn't require amplification to obtain GB, and doesn't subtract as much of the target signal.

Example 3 is a very poor variation of Minelab's IP. Has a slight auto GB effect.

Bugwhiskers attempted to patent example 3 in his original patent, and one would therefore have to wonder if he understood what he was doing.

Tell us Ufox,

why is Mr. patent troll from the market leader patenting natural laws?

Aziz

[UrbanFox]

Good question Doug but dont ask me to reveal a solution on a public forum,it aint gonna happen.

I have included a JPG showing 3 types of sampling routines for ground balancing,each have there advantages and disadvantages.
Now which one manages ground variability the best ?
Zed

Well, Zed, can I have a crack at this??

Example 1 is Pool's method as used by Foster, Bosnar, etc. Advantages ?....Disadvantages...sample 2 must be amplified.

Example 2 is Minelab's IP. Advantages...Doesn't require amplification to obtain GB, and doesn't subtract as much of the target signal.

Example 3 is a very poor variation of Minelab's IP. Has a slight auto GB effect.

Bugwhiskers attempted to patent example 3 in his original patent, and one would therefore have to wonder if he understood what he was doing.

[ZED]

Good question Doug but dont ask me to reveal a solution on a public forum,it aint gonna happen.

I have included a JPG showing 3 types of sampling routines for ground balancing,each have there advantages and disadvantages.
Now which one manages ground variability the best ?


Zed

[Aziz]

..Aziz uses similar solution, but he keeps this as a secret because he did not want GREEDLAB Pty Ltd to patent the method of deconvolution and CHINELAB Unlimited to use the method. However the solution was published, which makes patent pendings useless and CHINELAB Ultd will use the method.

Where do you have that confidence Mike?
According to a lot of sceptic people, the WBGB doesn't even exist.


Aziz

[dougAEGPF]

Ground types with high mineralization are relatively easy to discriminate out as long as its time constant remains constant...but ! this is generally
not the case,with high mineralization you usually get high variability resulting in bigger and faster shifts in the grounds time constant and this is where
most GB systems come to grief.

Zed

Zed how can the above effect you describe be reduced? Taking extra GB samples for example? Using an integrating ADC over the full pulse length to average out all noise(including ground noise)?
dougAEGPF

[Prospector_Al]

I could view both files without any problems.

What version of the Adobe Reader do you have? The problem must be at my end...

Allan

[ZED]

A definition of ground balance in a P.I. can be viewed as a discrimination function based on time constants because all your doing is discriminating out the
ground response and you do this by discriminating out signals with a certain time constant.
Ground balance systems or GB systems for short can encompass a broad range of time constants or a narrow range of time constants and "unfortunately" any
targets of interest that have the same time constant as the GB system will also be discriminated out as well.
Ground types with high mineralization are relatively easy to discriminate out as long as its time constant remains constant...but ! this is generally
not the case,with high mineralization you usually get high variability resulting in bigger and faster shifts in the grounds time constant and this is where
most GB systems come to grief.


Zed