Minelab MPS patent could be invalid

[Unregistered]

Candy's method is merely the logical extension/adaptation of poole into the time domain!

Pulse is the time domain already

[Unregistered]

Candy is skating on thin ice! His next patent attempt will come under heavy scrutiny!

I doubt it, patent wordings are mostly smoke and mirrors.

[Unregistered]

The boyz over on GoldProspectingOz are planning on doing a block diagram of the XN2YYYY "Ground Balance" cicuit without the math.

I predict to their great surprise that once they do do the math vis a vis 2 Frequencies SINE OMEGA TIME1 etc etc and target responce vs time the "Poole delta" will be |Gound(X+R) -Target(X+R)|....... but Poole already said that in plain English in his No.1 Claim.

The signal generator could have been an HP211B referenced to zero for all we know.

[robby_h]

You talk about logical extensions!!! Pi dates back to very early days when they pulsed the coils with vibrators!! The stationary coils in the factories at that time had problems caused by moving machinery parts and even trucks moving outside the building. These modulated the Earth’s field, so even back then they subtracted a late sample from an early sample to remove an unwanted signal. You are effectively saying that this destroys Candy’s patents???? Lol!

I don’t know why I bother, especially after seeing your recent response to Tinkerer on your forum where you said, “You have posed a question that I don't have the answer for”. ??????????? You can’t explain the difference between a cast iron cannon ball and our ground????? You can’t explain why a rusted object behaves differently to a non-rusted object??

And, “With iron/non iron discrimination there is more hope due to the unique properties of iron like hysteresis”. This would require kWs for an object at depth!! Where do you get these ideas?? From naive patents?


And, “but in general I believe the R component would be the most dominant in most goldfield soils”. This is insanely naïve and incorrect and it gets worse when you then show a diagram taken from Ott’s patent, where he samples the decaying spike. You can achieve the same result by sampling during the pulse on period and if you combine Ott’s method with PI then you will get yourself in a hell of a mess.
You preach all of this technically incorrect stuff on your forum and you are over here using your very poor understanding of IB and PI basics to destroy a patent??

I put it to you again, build a detector based purely on Poole’s patent and information readily known at that time and tell us if it universally cancels our ground. Note well! You obviously can’t use any novel findings disclosed by others after Poole’s patents were published!!!!!

You still haven’t answered my question here, “If this is basic EM stuff then tell the readers when you first became aware of this and where you discovered this (very basic) information, the date it was published and the author?? You appear to be saying you knew what would be needed to obtain a different result when using different pulse lengths before Bruce Candy?? and that this was well known in metal detector art before AU199047963 was published?”

If you can’t at least display a basic understanding of PI and IB basics then I’m finished here. You can rave on as long as you like or until Carl puts a stop to it.

[bugwhiskers]

Hi Robby_H,

If Candy's MPS method "Universally" cancels the ground then why is a filter incorporated to remove slow changing ground after ground balancing ?

You had a cheap shot at me some time back for trying the front end blanking FET's. You accused me of "pinching" ML's idea. Take the time to look at the Corbyn circuit and tell me what you see preceeding the pre-amp.

On another occasion you claimed my GB method wouldn't work and later you went on to say that if it did it was only because I had cloned the SD2000 (talk about an each way bet !). When asked on 3 occasions to tell me what parts of the SD2000 I had cloned you refused to answer and skulked away.

The SD2000 was aptly described by Candy as being two detectors in one. Channel 1 and Channel 2 form the two detectors and far from using the two different TX pulse lengths to differentiate the ground the late sample in each channel removes the gross ground signal with the remaining fine correction signal coming from the GB channel.

The majority of people frequenting forums such as this do so to educate themselves. I have yet to see you make any worthwhile contribution. Singing the praises of another certainly doesn't qualify.

regards
bugwhiskers

[Unregistered]

You talk about logical extensions!!! Pi dates back to very early days when they pulsed the coils with vibrators!! The stationary coils in the factories at that time had problems caused by moving machinery parts and even trucks moving outside the building. These modulated the Earth’s field, so even back then they subtracted a late sample from an early sample to remove an unwanted signal. You are effectively saying that this destroys Candy’s patents???? Lol!

Early / late samples are a complete red herring as are other ground balancing techniques mentioned earlier by you WE ARE TALKING ABOUT the NOVEL use of 2 FREQUENCIES or PULSES and the response to those stimulie DUE TO 2 DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES AND SUBTRACTING "A GROUND SIGNAL".

I don’t know why I bother, especially after seeing your recent response to Tinkerer on your forum where you said, “You have posed a question that I don't have the answer for”. ??????????? You can’t explain the difference between a cast iron cannon ball and our ground????? You can’t explain why a rusted object behaves differently to a non-rusted object??

And precisely what does that have to do with Poole's No.1 claim?

And, “With iron/non iron discrimination there is more hope due to the unique properties of iron like hysteresis”. This would require kWs for an object at depth!! Where do you get these ideas?? From naive patents?

And precisely what does that have to do with Poole's No.1 claim?

And, “but in general I believe the R component would be the most dominant in most goldfield soils”. This is insanely naïve and incorrect and it gets worse when you then show a diagram taken from Ott’s patent, where he samples the decaying spike. You can achieve the same result by sampling during the pulse on period and if you combine Ott’s method with PI then you will get yourself in a hell of a mess.

And precisely what does that have to do with Poole's No.1 claim?

You preach all of this technically incorrect stuff on your forum and you are over here using your very poor understanding of IB and PI basics to destroy a patent??

And precisely what does that have to do with Poole's No.1 claim which I have to remind you once again is device independent.

I put it to you again, build a detector based purely on Poole’s patent and information readily known at that time and tell us if it universally cancels our ground.

Readily known at the time is another red herring and yes it will universally cancel ground if as he suggests in the guts you use a pulse I suggest a monopulse (with cowbells...sorry couldn't resist)

Note well! You obviously can’t use any novel findings disclosed by others after Poole’s patents were published!!!!!

Of course. Is a Pulse transmitter a Novel claim? Because the Novel claim in question is actually using the different responses vis a vis 2 Frequencies and comparing them ...which has to be novel and was when Poole was awarded the patent.

You still haven’t answered my question here, “If this is basic EM stuff then tell the readers when you first became aware of this and where you discovered this (very basic) information, the date it was published and the author?? You appear to be saying you knew what would be needed to obtain a different result when using different pulse lengths before Bruce Candy?? and that this was well known in metal detector art before AU199047963 was published?”

If 2 frequency "magic" was already in another patent which has now expired then no, obviously.

If you can’t at least display a basic understanding of PI and IB basics then I’m finished here. You can rave on as long as you like or until Carl puts a stop to it.

Again another red herring read Pooles Claim no.1

[Unregistered]

Where is the evidence that Robby_h knows what he is talking about!

[Unregistered]

Where is the evidence that Robby_h knows what he is talking about!

Don't get me wrong Robby_h does know what he is talking about regarding the history of IB and PI what he doesn't understand is that Poole covered both techniques in his patent and I would say to date all uses of the technique claim 1. Don't forget a monocyle transmitter is a "noise" transmitter and strangely is another description for a "Pulse Induction" transmitter. What he also clearly fails to understand is the decoding process which performs equally well with carrier waves and pulse transmissions.

[Unregistered]

The SD2000 was aptly described by Candy as being two detectors in one. Channel 1 and Channel 2 form the two detectors and far from using the two different TX pulse lengths to differentiate the ground the late sample in each channel removes the gross ground signal with the remaining fine correction signal coming from the GB channel.

If that technique has not already been patented it is now clearly in the public domain although I would suggest that 2 frequencies do come into play.

[bugwhiskers]

If that technique has not already been patented it is now clearly in the public domain although I would suggest that 2 frequencies do come into play.

The schematics and timings for the SD2000 are on this site. The late sample taken in the GB channel is so far removed from being influenced by the short pulses of channel 2 it's only use is to remove Earth Field.

regards
bugwhiskers

[NYPA]

The plot thickens like Jello in the freezer. My own personal investigations have led me to believe that Mr Snow was hoodwinked into the granting of the latter patent. The name Mr Snow turns up on the most dubious of patents! I also digress, to a casual obsever RH is going into bat for a third party. The patents are stating the same intentions, one has had the relevant terms changed and littered with nonsensical mathematics.

[Unregistered]

The plot thickens like Jello in the freezer. My own personal investigations have led me to believe that Mr Snow was hoodwinked into the granting of the latter patent. The name Mr Snow turns up on the most dubious of patents! I also digress, to a casual obsever RH is going into bat for a third party. The patents are stating the same intentions, one has had the relevant terms changed and littered with nonsensical mathematics.

They are "shotgun" patents aimed to squash competition.

[bugwhiskers]

Has anyone considered the possibility that what's in the patents isn't what's in the detectors. If the Intellectual Property was totally secured by relevant patents then why were numbers scratched off chips and then the whole circuit board covered in paint.

Perhaps the method and math worked great on paper but was not realisable in the real world. All purely conjecture but worthy of consideration.

regards
bugwhiskers

[moodz]

Has anyone considered the possibility that what's in the patents isn't what's in the detectors. If the Intellectual Property was totally secured by relevant patents then why were numbers scratched off chips and then the whole circuit board covered in paint.

Perhaps the method and math worked great on paper but was not realisable in the real world. All purely conjecture but worthy of consideration.

regards
bugwhiskers

I am of the opinion that ML merely try to obscure the circuit so that clones / reverse engineered device are harder to make by any technically competent person ie non commercial. Any company with any sort of capability could reverse engineer the ML fairly easily ... but it would not be worth it as ML have protective patents. Though I "know" that at least one Indian company has reverse engineered their mine detector model.

Regards,

moodz.

[Woody.au]

Minelab detector work differently to the Patents they hold. The early ones are glorified GoldScan designs with stacks of Gain and a low noise design approach.