ML patent Application

[WM6]

This is the other reason for using litz wire not just reducing capacitance, but less reflective surface area.

Yes, but litz wire need to be soldered too - so problem with solder joint remain (if even exist in considering reality).

[Altra]

The way I read it. They are not using the ferrite to null the coil countering any additional metal such as solder joints or pcbs.

They are claiming that non ferrous metals in a moving coil react with the ferrous ground matrix causing modulations in the reciever. By adding a ferrite bead to a solder joint or a thin sheet of ferrite between a pcb and ground it will shield this reaction.

This is the other reason for using litz wire not just reducing capacitance, but less reflective surface area.

I might be totally wrong though

[Carl-NC]

Have you considered the ferrite bead method could be expanded to null the effect of a PCB and components mounted within a coil?

People have been doing this for years. Heck, I've been doing it for years. Which is why I'm a bit surprised that ML applied for a patent on the technique.

[WM6]

Yes but why would anyone use "Fine Gold" (FG) timings (which obviously requires a relatively small coil) to look for solid, longer TC nuggets (which obviously requires a relatively large coil) in presumably deep ground..... and note that FG will also detect large nuggets with a small coil in shallow ground, so what is your point?

Most seasoned prospectors will pick a larger coil (obviously not suitable for small gold!!) and do the ground again in other timings if they suspect the ground varies in depth. FG works extremely well on relatively large specimens and porous nuggets up to an ounce or so. Why knock it?

So you suggest, that with latest GPX model we need to go at least twice over given terrain: once with smaller coil in FT and then with bigger coil in normal timing, to not to miss good target?

[crane]

The problem is that fine gold (and the other smooth timings) can lose a huge amount of depth on some more solid, longer TC nuggets compared to “normal timings”!
dougAEGPF

Yes but why would anyone use "Fine Gold" (FG) timings (which obviously requires a relatively small coil) to look for solid, longer TC nuggets (which obviously requires a relatively large coil) in presumably deep ground..... and note that FG will also detect large nuggets with a small coil in shallow ground, so what is your point?

Most seasoned prospectors will pick a larger coil (obviously not suitable for small gold!!) and do the ground again in other timings if they suspect the ground varies in depth. FG works extremely well on relatively large specimens and porous nuggets up to an ounce or so. Why knock it?

[Davor]

Davor, have you experimented with ferrite beads ...

Yes, in fact I have. I'm familiar with what ferrite does to the coil balance. Same goes with foil chips introduced to it. They can both improve the balance as well as make it worse, but in any case the nett effect is cyclostationary, hence of no consequence in such small sizes if the coil balance is maintained. There are some nonlinearities related to ferrite use, so I'd be very careful NOT to introduce it in quantities you suggest as beneficial for shielding the electronics within a coil, which is also a bad idea.
Iron parts producing Barkhausen noise are just about the only kind of material I can foresee to benefit from such shielding, but there is even simpler solution to that "problem": just don't use any iron parts in your coil. Have you tried electronic parts pins with a magnet?

No other material is able to produce any kind of uncorrelated noise, aside from the ferrite itself.

In every account this patent is useless to me.

[dougAEGPF]

Aziz in his haste to dump on Minelab will have you believe that Minelab's "fine gold" timing is only suitable for so-called "fly-****e" specks of gold but this timing will also detect larger porous nuggets that the previous models won't detect, such as one nugget I recently sold that fetched almost $400. If this isn't worthwhile technology then what is? And it's very important to note that "Fine gold" ignores most typical hot rocks that normally respond when sampling early.

The problem is that fine gold (and the other smooth timings) can lose a huge amount of depth on some more solid, longer TC nuggets compared to “normal timings”!
dougAEGPF

[Aziz]

...
Aziz, do you know the answer??

I know even how to beat Mr. patent-troll.

Aziz

[UrbanFox]

I was always under the impression that hot rock's tended to take a long time to decay i.e. more time than the original TX pulse width ?

Something for the forum gurus!

The decay time of the ground and a hot rock can be the same, but the hot rock gives a signal when the ground is nulled. Why?

The answer is in one of the Minelab patents that a few here like to dump on.

Aziz, do you know the answer??

[mickstv]

Aziz in his haste to dump on Minelab will have you believe that Minelab's "fine gold" timing is only suitable for so-called "fly-****e" specks of gold but this timing will also detect larger porous nuggets that the previous models won't detect, such as one nugget I recently sold that fetched almost $400. If this isn't worthwhile technology then what is? And it's very important to note that "Fine gold" ignores most typical hot rocks that normally respond when sampling early.

Thanks for the reply.

I was always under the impression that hot rock's tended to take a long time to decay i.e. more time than the original TX pulse width ?

[UrbanFox]

UFox,

don't upset me. I'm a very dangerous guy to ML and their patent trools.
(The thermo nuclear profit melt-down red push button is engaged ...)


ML and their patent trolls have by far crossed the rubicon with their evil patent trolling.
Shame on those greedy people.
Aziz

Aziz, if you have already done something...well..I don't think it's been noticed. Could you make whatever it is you are doing more obvious next time!!

[UrbanFox]

UF, could you expand on this, with some info/details please.

Aziz in his haste to dump on Minelab will have you believe that Minelab's "fine gold" timing is only suitable for so-called "fly-****e" specks of gold but this timing will also detect larger porous nuggets that the previous models won't detect, such as one nugget I recently sold that fetched almost $400. If this isn't worthwhile technology then what is? And it's very important to note that "Fine gold" ignores most typical hot rocks that normally respond when sampling early.

[Aziz]

UFox,

don't upset me. I'm a very dangerous guy to ML and their patent trools.
(The thermo nuclear profit melt-down red push button is engaged ...)


ML and their patent trolls have by far crossed the rubicon with their evil patent trolling.
Shame on those greedy people.
Aziz

[mickstv]

=UrbanFox;169049 learn about gold nugget time constants and detector/coil sensitivity

UF, could you expand on this, with some info/details please.

[UrbanFox]

It seems, that ML is going to detect the hyper ultra flysh1te nuggets.

Aziz

It seems, that you have a lot to learn about gold nugget time constants and detector/coil sensitivity, Aziz. You have been listening to Doug too much.