Minelab MPS patent could be invalid

[unregistered_user]

Here's another idea:

What about a half duplex near field magnetic transmitter with a variable width coded mono pulse train, allowing ringing to subside before the next pulse into an over/under damped magnetic loop with nyqist limit time or frequency sampling one or two coils then using subtraction of the returns to remove clutter. Should be a piece of cake with todays gear.

[unregistered_user]

I guess in theory it's possible to configure an IB coil so it is "balanced" in the presence of ground and unbalanced (alarm) when a target comes along.

regards
bugwhiskers

No

Use the force Young Jedi.

[Woody.au]

Is that the opamp with the diode in the feedback loop?

[bugwhiskers]

Certain combinations of samples can cause the output polarity to change and upset the following circuitry (ie audio osc, VCA, integrating ADC etc), the absolute value amplifier is there to prevent this.

regards
bugwhiskers

[bugwhiskers]

I guess in theory it's possible to configure an IB coil so it is "balanced" in the presence of ground and unbalanced (alarm) when a target comes along.

regards
bugwhiskers

[unregistered_user]

OK a small hint there are 2 time domains in a PI MD.

One contains information the other doesn't and is therefore redundant to the purpose of the PI device as an MD.

The other time domain during the recieve period or sample window, lets call it the information time domain, remains common to both the IB and PI and the rules of the universe still apply equally to both (If the TX is a DC referenced arbitrary waveform on both systems .....choose your reference sheesh)

The PI could, there is nothing to stop it act as an IB machine if you widen the sample window to include the whole waveform then it would be a full duplex "IB" machine the terms IB and PI are pseudo terms and have no meaning in information theory a signal is a signal and how you get it is up to you and your maker.

Thus it can be shown etc etc etc.

[unregistered_user]

I will take a punt that both scenario's work well with removing ground effects?

I haven't done that test but yes if I had Pooles other claim mocked up a similar result would occur.


Pooles Claim 1 and the concurrent exact alledgedly same Claim by the other party which I must read and confirm properly BTW, from theory is perfectly obvious to an undergrad.

A patent lawyer I imagine would be non plussed, however the devil is in the detail.

No this is more to due with the way the 2nd parties claim is justified to separate the domains f and t, which may explain why Roby seems to be absent from class today and why the wool was pulled over the PTO eyes.

Someone has to guess.
It is exceedingly simple and the answer is on some shematics on this site.

unrealated:
Is anyone aware of patent covering a "sample time parameter adjusted gain preamp / damping resistor" arrangement as per the alleged SD2000 shematics? Because that's a good idea, obvious but good.

[bugwhiskers]

My guess is that Poole's single TX pulse, late sample from early sample works equally as well.

regards
bugwhiskers

[Woody.au]

I will take a punt that both scenario's work well with removing ground effects?

[unregistered_user]

You have well good on you !.......but your not the only one.

OK well put it in an algorithm and smoke it.

The penny is going to drop big time on all the pseudo science behind the support story on the invention in question.

I've just done some tests can anyone guess what they were?

sorry no hints.

[unregisterd]

Good work? Phhht just a walk in the park.

Now class has anyone worked out why the Poole SD2000 uses full wave rectification further down the amp chain.

Because I have.

You have well good on you !.......but your not the only one.

[unregistered_user]

I will work out some sophisticated methods, which could make the processing algorithm just-in-time possible (no hard wired algorithm). In which the end user has the total control and the responsibility not to infringe patent pending methods. Furthermore, the end user would have the ability to find more sophisticated methods, which could be shared worldwide.

Well since that is standard industry practice anyway it may invite unwanted scrutiny if you state that as modus operandi.

It's probably better to say something along these lines.

"On a stormy summer afternoon in 1981 I was in the dentists when a nice young Chinese female dentist with beautiful hands was pulling a tooth and it made me cast my mind back to the day a grizzled old prospector dumped a metal detector on my desk with the comment "It's picking up gold signals from Papua New Guinea" He then said "Now you are a bright guy what can you do?" I immediately knew what the problem was, the fandangler was under damped, so from first priciples I drew a picture on the white board ...then the dentist charged me too much money... the rest is history really...<looks at finger nails>"

Of course there is nothing at all to stop you from looking at expired patents THAT is a source for algorithms you ignore at your cost.
Serial Patenters do that too I imagine, if the muse leaves them.

[unregistered_user]

Good work? Phhht just a walk in the park.

Now class has anyone worked out why the Poole SD2000 uses full wave rectification further down the amp chain.

Because I have.

[Aziz]

Hi unregistered_user,

please, keep the good work. That is, what called my interest and how to avoid being caught from so called patent trolls (no, I am not referring to M/L or other MD manufacturers).

I will work out some sophisticated methods, which could make the processing algorithm just-in-time possible (no hard wired algorithm). In which the end user has the total control and the responsibility not to infringe patent pending methods. Furthermore, the end user would have the ability to find more sophisticated methods, which could be shared worldwide.

Aziz

[Woody.au]

My Forte is mainly 1.8 Ghz to 47 Ghz this metal detecting stuff is so base band and below.. Nah I do a lot of low frequency stuff but need to learn a lot more about dirt. (Mineralization)