ML patent Application

[UrbanFox]

It seems, that ML is going to detect the hyper ultra flysh1te nuggets. The 0.0001 g "monster slugs"... *LOL*, HEHEHE
Or do they create monster solder joints when soldering? *LOL*, HEHEHE

The patent application can be knocked out (bypassed) easily. Congratulations to ML in burning a lot of money. The next ML detector model would require a price increase of at least $1000.

Aziz

Aziz, people like you with your attitude are responsible for Minelab being where they are with bugger all competition. Look through this forum for the last 10 years and it has been a revolving door of individuals like yourself who have developed nothing of consequence. You would do better to attempt to understand patents instead of continually criticising a company applying for patents.

You have been very vocal with your criticisms, however, you have not demonstrated any capability that would give your criticism any level of validity. You say "The patent application can be knocked out (bypassed) easily." Lets see some action instead of the continual waffle. Knock out this patent you are criticising!! Stop the grandstanding BS and show your mettle. I am sure Luuk and Authere will give you their support!

[Aziz]

It seems, that ML is going to detect the hyper ultra flysh1te nuggets. The 0.0001 g "monster slugs"... *LOL*, HEHEHE
Or do they create monster solder joints when soldering? *LOL*, HEHEHE

The patent application can be knocked out (bypassed) easily. Congratulations to ML in burning a lot of money. The next ML detector model would require a price increase of at least $1000.

Aziz

[UrbanFox]

Not that the Wright Bros are relevant for the discussion on a silly ML patent on poor welding practice. Luckily you are not in a space travel business, or otherwise your engineers would have still be disassembling a space shuttle intensively scratching their heads in a process, on some ridiculous IP "discovery" excuse, like they still do with bugwhiskers' rig. They can't be that stupid. Or can they?

Davor, have you experimented with ferrite beads to null the effect of solder joints or solder dags within the coil?? I take it you understand the implication of excess metal within a coil? Do you understand what effect certain mineralised ground has upon a coil containing excess metal? .... with respect to creating false or ghost signals??

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

The Sovereign has electronics within the coil. Consider there could be an application for ferrite in the coil for when the sovereign is over some types of mineralised ground.

You are very critical for someone who doesn't like constructive criticism. Can you justify your criticism? I don't see any merit in praising each other incestuously and continually, and I would rather not waste my time going around in circles if knowledge is out there.

[Davor]

Not that the Wright Bros are relevant for the discussion on a silly ML patent on poor welding practice. Luckily you are not in a space travel business, or otherwise your engineers would have still be disassembling a space shuttle intensively scratching their heads in a process, on some ridiculous IP "discovery" excuse, like they still do with bugwhiskers' rig. They can't be that stupid. Or can they?

[UrbanFox]

So Eric you had a Gb method to null the conductive and viscosity ground signal and the earth field in 1968 long before Candy ever thought of the idea?
Did you use these methods in the Goldscans that were sold by Ken Roberts in Dunolly long before the SD2000 came out in 1995?
Did the Goldscans sold by Ken Roberts use integrators (ML:“an averaging means”) rather than sample and hold?
dougAEGPF

Hell Doug, you are trying to say the Wright Bros invented the Space Shuttle!

[dougAEGPF]

Yup; I'm still here;still relatively sane in most peoples eyes; never had any real grief from patents; had a couple of suggestions of infringement in the past but when I produced the relevant "prior art" documents it all went quiet. Have a bit of a laugh at some patents though, particularly the one for shielding a soldered joint with a ferrite sleeve. Must be a tax avoidance ploy for those with money to burn. I have shielded a whole coil with ferrite and put it in a metal box. Worth a patent? I don't think so.

The Poole patent of 1980 does not deal with the subtracting out of viscosity relaxation. It simply describes it as a method of subtracting fast eddy currents due to ground conductivity. All the text, diagrams, and claims are clear on this. Poole slipped up because he wasn't aware that the signals the Plessey detectors got from the ground were from quite a different mechanism. I know the work Plessey were doing at that time because a trio of their engineers used to attend our annual seminars at the Oxford Lab. On one occasion one of them tried to hide a small tape recorder under his desk. All OK till it developed a audio feedback squeal, then all knew what he was up to. I used a subtraction method in 1968 for identifying target responses from viscous ground (adjusting delay on second sample), plus, increasing delay (sample 1) to eliminate conductive response of ground - had it existed. Patents? The Lab Director said it was never financially worth it; just let's go ahead and make the damn things. As well as being Lab Director, he also owned ELSEC, an Oxford engineering company who put the first portable PI's on the market in 1969.

Eric.

So Eric you had a Gb method to null the conductive and viscosity ground signal and the earth field in 1968 long before Candy ever thought of the idea?
Did you use these methods in the Goldscans that were sold by Ken Roberts in Dunolly long before the SD2000 came out in 1995?
Did the Goldscans sold by Ken Roberts use integrators (ML:“an averaging means”) rather than sample and hold?
dougAEGPF

[UrbanFox]

The Poole patent of 1980 does not deal with the subtracting out of viscosity relaxation. It simply describes it as a method of subtracting fast eddy currents due to ground conductivity. All the text, diagrams, and claims are clear on this.
Eric.

Interesting! I wonder who else understands this?

You know you should not listen to rumours, especially in the metal detector business.

Yes, I know that, but is the answer yes or no?

[Ferric Toes]

Eric, is there any truth in the rumour that you are currently destroying the patent virginality that Davor believes you have?......patent applied for?

Patent applied for what? You know you should not listen to rumours, especially in the metal detector business.

[UrbanFox]

Eric.

Eric, is there any truth in the rumour that you are currently destroying the patent virginality that Davor believes you have?......patent applied for?

[Ferric Toes]

True, but Eric did not care to be dragged about the patent offices and never filed a patent. From the perspective of recent events, and the lives of the most creative people of the last century, including Tesla and Armstrong, patents are the only way to part an inventor from his invention, time, money, and sanity, even life, and I admire Eric for his choice.

Yup; I'm still here;still relatively sane in most peoples eyes; never had any real grief from patents; had a couple of suggestions of infringement in the past but when I produced the relevant "prior art" documents it all went quiet. Have a bit of a laugh at some patents though, particularly the one for shielding a soldered joint with a ferrite sleeve. Must be a tax avoidance ploy for those with money to burn. I have shielded a whole coil with ferrite and put it in a metal box. Worth a patent? I don't think so.

The Poole patent of 1980 does not deal with the subtracting out of viscosity relaxation. It simply describes it as a method of subtracting fast eddy currents due to ground conductivity. All the text, diagrams, and claims are clear on this. Poole slipped up because he wasn't aware that the signals the Plessey detectors got from the ground were from quite a different mechanism. I know the work Plessey were doing at that time because a trio of their engineers used to attend our annual seminars at the Oxford Lab. On one occasion one of them tried to hide a small tape recorder under his desk. All OK till it developed a audio feedback squeal, then all knew what he was up to. I used a subtraction method in 1968 for identifying target responses from viscous ground (adjusting delay on second sample), plus, increasing delay (sample 1) to eliminate conductive response of ground - had it existed. Patents? The Lab Director said it was never financially worth it; just let's go ahead and make the damn things. As well as being Lab Director, he also owned ELSEC, an Oxford engineering company who put the first portable PI's on the market in 1969.

Eric.

[Davor]

Dave, you just can't be a troll by any account. Your posts are constructive and relevant, and we know your accomplishments. Also thank you for sharing. There are no similarities between you and, say, UF. I just can't imagine how come you got offended, and I'm sorry for that. I truly am.

[KahlesMilcon]

As for the ferrite patent, after a little bit of reading on the net I think ML is using misdirection within the patent: I see some interesting things presented by ML. While I am not an EE, what I have gleaned is they are saying they are using it for suppressing eddy currents of the solder joint. This in itself might be a real issue -to be debated. I think what they are really using it for is a filter to get rid of EMI,or at least to reduce the EMI spectrum from the coil as the coil does act as an antenna. From what I have gathered this will also increase the SN as well as increase Q of the coil. It also appears as though the Bead will also increase some signals in certain areas as well. They just do not want every one to know that. They chose the solder joint as a misdirection for this application. There are other things that it does but at this time I do not understand. Therefore any one can use a ferrite bead to do this before the solder joint and accomplish the same result. On another thought you do not have to worry about the raw joint if you use a little pc card to attach the coil wiring. As for the use of an acceleratometer in the coil, while it would be more accurate to place in the head you can place it on the shaft or in-font of the box as it were and accomplish the same thing. You can also place one on top of the coil for that matter to get around the patent. I have a lot more reading to do on the use of ferrite beads as well as the use of sm bypasses. This is just food for thought and I expect you out there who are well versed in this to delve into your memory and reapply what you know pertaining to this subject and present it within the forum for all to understand. Sometimes prior art in interrelated fields can be useful in establishing open forum information and will then be established as prior art and applied within this environment. The biggest difference between the people of this forum and "any company" is the funds to do the R&D on items that could be applied to the metal detector industry.

[Dave J.]

Haven't read the patent app, but have skimmed the thread. I suppose that what is reported in this thread about the patent (from a technical perspective) is basically correct.

I regard the invention as both clever, and relevant to the path Minelab is pursuing. Pretending that ain't the case sort of misses the point.

Legal issues like whether the patent if issued would stand up in court, I have no opinion about.

All that having been said, I agree with those who have posted saying that they regard improved soldering as a better solution to the problem the invention is supposed to fix.

-- another "corporate troll"

PS to Davor: this has been fun, you may want to rethink the "corporate troll" thing.

[Davor]

True, but Eric did not care to be dragged about the patent offices and never filed a patent. From the perspective of recent events, and the lives of the most creative people of the last century, including Tesla and Armstrong, patents are the only way to part an inventor from his invention, time, money, and sanity, even life, and I admire Eric for his choice.

[dougAEGPF]

Phew, that was deep. I thought I knew the meaning of a word expired.

I'm not under any pressure to finish my detector any sooner than I'm feeling comfortable to. It is my hobby, the thing I do for fun. You know, the stuff you enjoy? Oh, I see the blank stare in your eye. I know, corporate trolls don't have fun. Like never. You wouldn't understand that.

BTW, I've seen some silly timing schemes in that expired patent that obviously did not impress NATO as they picked a better detector for their UXO purposes. Competition sucks. Real competition double sucks.

Poole's method also uses receive signal weighting something for which ML got a patent for 30 or so years later! What Pooles method lacks is a method for canceling static fields. Apply Eric fosters method from 1967!!!! for canceling static fields and you have a GB system that would cover most of the methods used today. Old is new!!!!!
dougAEGPF