Latest Minelab Patent - 11th Feb 2016

[kt315]

angry patent birds

[ivconic]

Since you don't know what PI and "VLF" are, I suggest that YOU buy a copy and read it. Not only do I have my own copy and have read it, the office of the other author Carl Moreland is a 15 second walk from my own. And he knows what PI and "VLF are. If you'd like to know what Minelab regards as PI and "not PI", well, read their patents. So far you are arguing complete nonsense with people who indisputably know their stuff-- and with the patent examiners who approved the patents.

How can you take all this so seriously!?
Oh man.. the other day i stumbled on the field and broke a rib... that's why i can't laugh right now!
But luckily i am having smiles available!!!



P.S.
You just started a spitting war with our famous "expert" on pulse induction technology here!
I suggest to administrators to be ready for incoming avalanche!

[kt315]

Since you don't know what PI and "VLF" are, I suggest that YOU buy a copy and read it. Not only do I have my own copy and have read it, the office of the other author Carl Moreland is a 15 second walk from my own. And he knows what PI and "VLF are. If you'd like to know what Minelab regards as PI and "not PI", well, read their patents. So far you are arguing complete nonsense with people who indisputably know their stuff-- and with the patent examiners who approved the patents.

ok, i do it. http://www.slideshare.net/seriousdet...st-manual-scan

A BBS detector transmits a complex multi—period sequence of pulses which yields a host of information, about the object and the ground which is not available in any otherdetector.

PULSES -! Dave, agree that BBS is pulse induction in its nature ))))) but yup, you was the pioneer who patented half bridge transmitter like a "PI".

[Dave J.]

you've been here recently, Dave, but i see you have a potencial. you can order nice book ITMD for learning right now
http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Metal-D...DDMSEQ5SG7TWCJ

Since you don't know what PI and "VLF" are, I suggest that YOU buy a copy and read it. Not only do I have my own copy and have read it, the office of the other author Carl Moreland is a 15 second walk from my own. And he knows what PI and "VLF are. If you'd like to know what Minelab regards as PI and "not PI", well, read their patents. So far you are arguing complete nonsense with people who indisputably know their stuff-- and with the patent examiners who approved the patents.

[Teleno]

Let's look at the prior art.
Eric Foster etc cancels log-uniform VRM whereas Minelab cancels saline + log-uniform VRM or log-uniform + log-linear VRM simultaneously, ie, with one setting of the GB.

Excuse me but the concept of "saline" is mentioned casually and only ONCE in the patent:

[0050]....The discrimination method offered by the present invention is insensitive to both resistive and reactive signal components from the soil, which may] also include a component due to a substantially uniform conducting half-space (such as a saline] soil)."

You can write "my invention does this" or whatever your fantasy decides, however, in order to patent it you must DISCLOSE how it's done. This paragraph provides no disclosure, therefore it's a mere DESIDERATA (expression of a wish) with no technical substance to it.

You could GB the ground (log-uniform VRM) with any of Eric's or well known methods but the output of this channel is effectively filtered DC and can't be processed further.

Methods of GB that leave the TC untouched are known long ago, see paragraph 6.5 on page 50 of the following publication:

UXO TARGET DETECTION AND DISCRIMINATION WITH ELECTROMAGNETIC DIFFERENTIAL ILLUMINATION

Therefore the sequence is an obvous combination.

[ivconic]

@ kt315: a sincere Thank you!


........But you'll never know for what.

Dave Johnson

But i know!
You owe him a money now!


See? See how is productive to debate with layman people!
...
People people....
You can debate here for months about not so important and relevant things... i don't understand you at all.
For a change why not debating here a bit more on relevant things?
Whatever the technology is, whatever the name it carry, mother of all questions is; do we, the end users, have any benefits from it?
BBS (reminds me mostly on "Bold Bull Sh.t"), or VRLFS, or SSmSBs... $%"$#BSS or whatever the abbreviation may be; do i as end user have any benefit from it?
Does it brings me up better performances in real life? Does it brings me up more valuable finds on real terrains?
What is use from all that tech crap if i gain almost the same or (in most cases) worse results on real field.. than with some "obsolete" and simple device?
So called "Bulgarian" metal detectors, all simple, all poor IB/s, mostly based on Flind's idea; all beat the crap out on real terrains. How come?
Simple uneducated end user will rather buy such device than some $xx.000 "BBS...FSV....FSB... MSKMRLJMFM.... high tech ultra turbo diesel d2 space atlantis" metal detector!
...
Debating about differences between "PI" and "IB" technology lately is road to nowhere... simply because those two technologies are merging and sublimating through new ideas.
Modern ee's are taking all the good sides from both and trying to merge into one and fresh new concept.
Minelab obviously went further in that area than others.
But until we get clear disclosure by someone from the "inside" of ML... we can only assume about their intentions, ideas and results they achieved.
That's for the results in testing labs. As for the results on the real fields; i am not impressed at all.
...
Let's vote; who is on Dave's side and who is against ?
Does Dave really understand what is the real meaning of "PI" ?

[crane]

The BBS system transmits continuously with no periods during which reactive voltage is zero. Therefore it is not a pulse induction transmitter: it does not and cannot support a pulse induction type receiving system. The BBS system has this in common with the Fisher CZ and White's DFX systems, and it is what none of the aforementioned "VLF" (whether frequency or time domain) systems have in common with any pulse induction system including the GPZ.

BBS and FBS might not be PI but the received signal is processed in the time domain, same as PI (see US5537041 and Bruce Candy's white paper).
It addresses the historical component of the ground signal, same as PI.
This signal decays same as PI and the saline soil signal decays over the same period as PI.
BBS and FBS have a period where X can be extracted relatively free of the target signal, same as PI (during TX).
It also addresses the instantaneous component of the ground magnetic signal or X component or reactive signal, which as you say isn't a problem with most low to medium gain Pi but does cause problems for PI on magnetic soil at the high gains used by ML. There is much more but BBS/FBS is obviously much closer to PI than it is to VLF.

[6666]

I still like the Codfisher story

[kt315]

Good grief, kt315, you've been here ten years and still don't know what pulse induction is? You've already seen the Impulse voltage and current waveforms posted in this thread. If you want to know the circuit, use the search window, you've already been told the schematic is on this website. http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...0572#post80572 See? And here's the patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US4868504 The patent even explains how the thing works, who'd have ever expected that?

you've been here recently, Dave, but i see you have a potencial. you can order nice book ITMD for learning right now

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Metal-Detector-George-Overton/dp/0985834218/ref=pd_rhf_ee_p_img_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=1CMM3XDDMSEQ5SG7TWCJ

[kt315]

Good grief, kt315, you've been here ten years and still don't know what pulse induction is? You've already seen the Impulse voltage and current waveforms posted in this thread. If you want to know the circuit, use the search window, you've already been told the schematic is on this website. http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...0572#post80572 See? And here's the patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US4868504 The patent even explains how the thing works, who'd have ever expected that?

Dave, you ONLY operated by term PI but driver is half bridge. great advertizing, Dave! use red color just cause that is Coca-Cola. RED AND WHITE its so liking by teenagers!
use "PI" where there is no PI. patent PI in all your patents even if there is only VLF.
then ALL BBS's ARE SURE PI, IN YOUR LOGIC.

[Dave J.]

@ kt315: a sincere Thank you!


........But you'll never know for what.

Dave Johnson

[Dave J.]

Well we have been here before in the GPZ7000 thread.

BBS/FBS and the GPZ process information in the time domain, same as PI.
BBS and FBS extracts X and three different bands of time constants, this is obviously different to VLF which processes info in the frequency domain.
BBS and FBS have a period where X can be extracted relatively free of the target signal, there is no such period in VLF.
The method of target excitation is similar to PI and quite noticeably different to VLF.

The BBS system transmits continuously with no periods during which reactive voltage is zero. Therefore it is not a pulse induction transmitter: it does not and cannot support a pulse induction type receiving system. The BBS system has this in common with the Fisher CZ and White's DFX systems, and it is what none of the aforementioned "VLF" (whether frequency or time domain) systems have in common with any pulse induction system including the GPZ.

[Dave J.]

Good grief, kt315, you've been here ten years and still don't know what pulse induction is? You've already seen the Impulse voltage and current waveforms posted in this thread. If you want to know the circuit, use the search window, you've already been told the schematic is on this website. http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...0572#post80572 See? And here's the patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US4868504 The patent even explains how the thing works, who'd have ever expected that?

[kt315]

Physics work the same for both.
No. Actually you decided some time ago that my side is different from yours, but that's beside the point.
Ever heard of tri-state logic? It is achieved with the same half bridge you often mention, but with slightly different drive. Impulse uses it. There is no voltage source connected to the coil while receiving.
CZ transmits a pure square wave, plain and simple. A rail voltage is constantly there, either + or -, but always there. When polarity changes, the current forces itself through the coil back to the battery, and that's the reason it is efficient. But the real mojo is in Rx. It processes signal in frequency domain. It might as well process it in time domain, or combined. You have a lemon, and a few ways to squeeze it.

i ask again you - is there THE DELTA PULSE on coil of Fisher Impulse or NOT? DO NOT PLEASE REFER TIME DOMAIN AND
RECEIVER METHOD be cause no relation to PI.

PI - PULSE INDUCTION - PULSE INDUCTION

[crane]

Obviousness is a given because of these factors:

1. GB and discrimination are known features of metal detectors and their combination already exists in the prior art. Therefore such a combination, per se, is prima facie not inventive. You can't appeal to the combination alone to claim inventiveness.

2. As a consequence of (1), an unexpected, surprising synergistic effect should be present in the combination in order for it to be considered inventive. The effect must not predictable by the person skilled in the art when combining the known techniques disclosed in the patent. However, no such effect is present because GB and discrimination are completed separately and sequentially with no mutual interaction and doing exactly what the skilled person expects them to do, nothing more.

Contrary to what you pretend, there's no transformation of GB signals to TC spectrum. GB is treated first by a known method and completed, then TC by another known method starts. There's no interaction. This sequence is the normal procedure in previous combinations of GB + discrimination, therefore the combination is obvious.

Obviously the examiner didn't have the time to find the relevant prior art and do a meaningful substantial examination. The quality of the US patent office is as good non existent, they just rubber-stamp whatever is submitted to them.

Let's look at the prior art.
Eric Foster etc cancels log-uniform VRM whereas Minelab cancels saline + log-uniform VRM or log-uniform + log-linear VRM simultaneously, ie, with one setting of the GB.
Take the latter where Minelab cancel the ground and a hot rock simultaneously. Try to form a logic flow chart that will accomplish this without referring to ML's patents. You could GB the ground (log-uniform VRM) with any of Eric's or well known methods but the output of this channel is effectively filtered DC and can't be processed further. You could form a second GB channel for the rock but you end up with a lot of noise and no gb if you mix them. You could switch when you encounter the rock but the real world is different because the ground also has a log-linear component and you would just end up with a lot of noise.

Now take various methods of TC discrimination. The TDI TC disc works but only if the ground is mild enough to not require ground balancing, ie, the GB control is then used to set the pivot point where it would result in horrendous ground noise if the ground is mineralised so it's obvious that Whites couldn't or didn't try to figure out how to disc and GB at the same time.

You say "GB is treated first by a known method and completed, then TC by another known method starts. There's no interaction. This sequence is the normal procedure in previous combinations of GB + discrimination, therefore the combination is obvious".

Well if the output of the GB channel is effectively DC with no TC information then I suggest that the combination is definitely not obvious!!!