ML patent Application

[moodz]

...a good ultrasonic welded wire splice can have stronger bonding than solder and less magnetic signature.
For example ...

http://www.techsonicultrasonic.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10&Itemid=7

and I do believe the patent mentions ferrite over solder ...soooooo ... If you don't use solder for the bond then you are not infringing.

[Davor]

In my searching for an unshielded solution I learned that coax is perhaps not the best solution around, but for coils with unbalanced connection, and a shield connected to the common connection, only a coax makes sense.
If coil is used in a balanced mode, it would mean that a shield is connected to a centre tap, or non-existent. Otherwise you'll pick more static.

We could continue about the balanced coils options, but that misses the point because most of the nowadays detectors are using unbalanced connections. Litz triple braid would be a logical choice for balanced coil with centre tap, and a twisted pair for a coil without a tap, only trouble is that you don't have a detector to plug it in.

BTW, what about the aluminium foil shielding? In light of modulation by susceptible rocks it seem as an extremely bad idea. Household foil has ~16um thickness, while foil in tetra pack cartons is at ~6um. It makes graphite with all it's quirks the only sensible solution.

[ODM]

Joints between a multiple independent strand cable could be done, but that would be labour intensive and sounds like a third world job to do affordably Do some detectors with the frontend, or all electronics, closer to the search head (Ebinger?) route the actual coil wires without joints into the detector electronics, as twisted pair? The shield, if necessary, would be another factor. All coax cables I know of have a woven and/or foil outer conductor, which makes for eddy currents. A section of coax is not as bad as a piece of copper tube in tests but still noticeable compared to the center conductor alone (which would be easy to fix). Litz techniques for coax cables, or just twisted pairs and high CM rejection?

[Ferric Toes]

One of the issues that has not been addressed and that creates noise in the detector is the mass of metal in the coil connectors, remove the plug and socket and go direct connect.

Or use a coaxial, or triaxial connector.

Somewhere recently I addressed the issue of eddy currents in a metal coil shell, but it is different to metal in a coil as it is not modulated by susceptible rocks. Bad connection between the two metal halves and the threaded collar can cause noise though.

Eric.

[Woody.au]

One of the issues that has not been addressed and that creates noise in the detector is the mass of metal in the coil connectors, remove the plug and socket and go direct connect.

[Carl-NC]

I want to appolgize to the forum and its members for starting this thread.

I found the patent interesting in concept. Weather you agree with the legality
or premise of any patent. You have to know where we have been, to know
where you are going. Keep reinventing the Wheel.

To Carl, Eric and Davor who I have great respect. Sorry crap was flung in your
directions.

Nope, it's a great topic to discuss. What at first seemed like a superfluous patent may have basis, and learning is Good. The sniping had nothing to do with this particular thread, it was a personality issue which just happened to trigger my peak detector on this thread. I repeatedly asked them to take the fight elsewhere, and both refused. Both get to move on, somewhere else.

[Ferric Toes]

I want to appolgize to the forum and its members for starting this thread.

I found the patent interesting in concept. Weather you agree with the legality
or premise of any patent. You have to know where we have been, to know
where you are going. Keep reinventing the Wheel.

To Carl, Eric and Davor who I have great respect. Sorry crap was flung in your
directions.

I agree with Jerry. Threads like this are very useful as it informs us all as to what is going on in the metal detector patent world, and we can analyze it from all different angles and engineering backgrounds. I doubt, in fact, that I would have looked at this patent otherwise. Initially, I thought it was a bit ludicrous, but on further examination realise there is a serious side to it that we as researchers, designers, and manufacturers, should be aware of. The more heads we get to look at patents seriously, the better we will be able to see what we can and "can't" do. We can also post and discuss what we as individuals see as Prior Art, because much, apparently, gets missed by patent examiners.

Eric.

[Ferric Toes]

Eric,

Some sections of track are not owned by the train company that is pulling/pushing the cars., These type of train track sections get paid per car crossing. Each car has 4 wheels per side there fore every 4 wheels is a car. Sounds like the owner of the track section was confirming the car payment reimbursment system.

Do not ask how I know , It is just some trivia that I picked up from a small railroad company that owns a 50 mile section of track here in N.C.

Very good, but not the application I had. This was for a railway in Brazil where the freight trains are very long and sometimes the couplings are prone to failure. A train may start with 100 wagons but by the end of the journey one, two, or more may be missing. Wheel detectors placed every few miles would give warning if the train left a section with less wheels (wagons) than it entered with.

Eric.

[Jerry]

I want to appolgize to the forum and its members for starting this thread.

I found the patent interesting in concept. Weather you agree with the legality
or premise of any patent. You have to know where we have been, to know
where you are going. Keep reinventing the Wheel.

To Carl, Eric and Davor who I have great respect. Sorry crap was flung in your
directions.

No need to apologize for bringing a new thread to the forum. You had no control on where others choose to take it. Found it interesting reading even though I did not have any information to add.

Jerry

[Altra]

I want to appolgize to the forum and its members for starting this thread.

I found the patent interesting in concept. Weather you agree with the legality
or premise of any patent. You have to know where we have been, to know
where you are going. Keep reinventing the Wheel.

To Carl, Eric and Davor who I have great respect. Sorry crap was flung in your
directions.

[Carl-NC]

I consider myself incredibly patient and lenient, but even I have limits, and some people just don't know when to stop. Our two primary antagonists are now on vacation.

[WM6]

Minelab applies for solder joint with ferrite bead shield patent. Also reiterates the benefits of Litz wire coils. Good reading for coil experimenters, weather you agree or not with the system.

Probably better as a trade secret than a patent.

Good readings in other means too.

Worth to read very carefully all patents claims and its mutual implications.

Seems ML is trying to patent, not only pure existence of solder joint and pcboards in coil but metal detecting itself too.



Apart from that, they trying to patent widely used practice too:

http://www.kobakant.at/DIY/?cat=24

[Aziz]

And what are your achievements on this forum, Davor?

I can tell you that:
He is one of the key players here. Providing a lot of interesting ideas and solutions.

Ok, just one example for you:
The cross-balanced transmitter discussions led to three important inventions:
1. A high power VLF transmitter with the option to wideband frequency response
2. TEM V2.0 transmitter
3. Class-E TEM transmitter

2.+3. are one of the very very clever inventions (Am I smart or genius? Hell no!, it was merely a lucky finding. )

We praise Davor! Long live Davor! Absolutely free of greed and willing to share everything.
He is a very generous and integer gentleman.

But there are more contributions from him, I haven't mentioned yet.

Aziz

[Ferric Toes]

There are always going to be hypothetical situations, but how often do they occur in the real world? I have placed a 1gm nugget under a lump of Oz ironstone and where the nugget is easily detected at a certain range. Remove the ironstone and the nugget can no longer be detected at the same range. They reason being that the highly susceptible ironstone distorts and concentrates the field from the coil so that the nugget has more induced signal. Also the return signal will be enhanced too. Does this happen frequently enough to matter?

Eric.

[Davor]

OK, so it confirms that every day is just right to learn something new. There are a few if-thens in the example you are giving, so the key factor is still having a huge blob of solder somewhere in a middle of the coil, passing over a particularly distinct chunk of ferrite in the ground... OK, I got it.