QED

[ivconic]

See what i ment, Carl?! See?!

[Aziz]

Indeed. Trouble with the most of the creative people is that they have somewhat romantic view of the whole process of making things hit the market. The patent thing (point #6) is the most important one to grasp. It is sink or swim, and in case you invest into patent instead of investing into physical product - it is sink.

Point #6 is as Carl stated nothing really worth.
Can anyone own the (natural) physics law?

The ultimate detector technology should have the natural limits of the physical law. This is the point, where nobody in the f$kin universe can do it better.

Sorry, but nobody can own the f$kin (natural) physical laws to monopolize the market.
I'll prevent it!!!!!!
Aziz

[Davor]

Indeed. Trouble with the most of the creative people is that they have somewhat romantic view of the whole process of making things hit the market. The patent thing (point #6) is the most important one to grasp. It is sink or swim, and in case you invest into patent instead of investing into physical product - it is sink.

[ivconic]

Of course the QED is real! There's no question that it exists, and I would assume it even performs decently. The only question is, WHEN?

Quite some time ago I was asked to describe the independent development efforts being made with gold detectors. My employers had gotten wind of a couple of "killer designs" and naturally wanted to know if they were real. I labeled my report "Promised Ultimate Detectors," or PUDs for short. (Ironically, sometime after my report another PUD came along, advertised as the "Ultimate Detector." Is that funny or what?)

The problem with PUDs isn't with the U or the D, it's with the P. History shows, over & over, that they never happen. They get massively hyped, then fade away. My analysis as to why this keeps happening is:

1. Grossly underestimating the complete picture. An impressive result on the lab bench doesn't equate to impressive results in Australian dirt. Or any dirt. Once you've got good results on the bench, you're 5% of way there.

2. Ego gets in the way. Wanting to prove yourself before the proof is ready to serve is the part that really damages the effort. Bold performance claims naturally produce skepticism with folks who want to see the evidence. When the evidence doesn't happen, skepticism turns to disdain. And as this process stretches out over years, disdain becomes outright ridicule. The designer then spends an inordinate amount of time responding to the doubts and ridicule. This problem is massively amplified if the hype is coupled with contempt for the competition.

3. Wanting complete control. This is a combination of 1 & 2. The development of a new metal detector is not a one-man job, especially if it's your first one. Think you want to also manufacture the detector? This is a purt-near-guaranteed failing proposition. The turf is littered with dead metal detector companies.

Despite the fact that I work for a major manufacturer of beepers, I'm personally a proponent for independent efforts. Heck, that's why this web site exists! I'd love to see a Titan, Pulse Devil, QED, Goldsweeper, or Ultimate Detector released. But in every case so far, the developers have taken horribly wrong paths. Here are a few suggestions for a better path:

1. KEEP YER TRAP SHUT. Unless the project is a public effort, as many are here on Geotech. While premature public hyping doesn't necessarily break a project, it does incredible damage to the reputations of the design and the designer when things don't work out, as is the case 95% of the time.

2. Get help. Competent help. Preferably by someone who's been there done that. You can't do it all alone.

3. A day in the field is worth a month in the lab. Get it off the bench ASAP, you will quickly see whether that great idea is worth a crap.

4. Focus on the things that matter the most. Performance is #1. A talking detector is #1000. When you have the level of performance that will definitely sell, STOP THE DESIGN PROCESS and move on to making it producible. You'll get to implement that Next Great Idea in Version 2.

5. Forget about building detectors. Ain't gonna happen, at least on a scale that will pay the rent. Find someone else to do that. Again, someone who knows how. Also lets you move on to Version 2, which is more fun than potting coils all day.

6. Forget about patents. Unless you get the Partner Production Company (#5) to deal with them. That $5,000 patent ain't worth squat unless you've got the $100,000 to back it up.

7. Respect the competition. Like it or not, they are already successful, have lots of satisfied users, and are making lots of money. Focus on beating them with a better product, not with public displays of contempt. And never ever ever criticize a user of a competitor's product. That's one lost sale, or more.

Splendid!
Lot of truths together in one short post!
Well said indeed!
But i am afraid that only few people will really understand and obey these smart words here!
(the rest of Geotech forums is obvious proof for that)
Cheers!

[Aziz]

Now now, be easy on Aziz. He is trying hard to be humble.

That is surely beyond your scope PJ! You are the harmonics(C)(R)(TM) expert only.

Aziz

[PATCHES JUNIOR]

Is "massive harmonics" anything like "Massive Dynamics" of Fringe fame?

Now now, be easy on Aziz. He is trying hard to be humble.

[Aziz]

Is "massive harmonics" anything like "Massive Dynamics" of Fringe fame?

WTF is "massive dynamics"?

The only "dynamics" I understand is the fact of systems with (inherent) "memory" (storing energy in it). These systems can only be solved/described with differential equations (energy storage systems).

Is the coil an energy storage element? Yes.
Is the magnetic field/electric field polarisation an energy storage system? Yes.
Is the target an energy storage element (an inductive energy storage/magnetic polarisation storage element)? Yes.

Indeed, it must be a "massive dynamics" there.
Long live the d/dt math.

Aziz

[bklein]

Is "massive harmonics" anything like "Massive Dynamics" of Fringe fame?

[Aziz]

What you waiting on Aziz? You claim to have the best detector ever made on a computer program already. With your computer sound card and ground balance and coil design along with your scope you should be making big money by now!

Almost forgot your computer program that shoots out a scope capture picture. Lets go and shake the world!

PJ,

you know, I have massive harmonics(C)(TM)(R) problems to solve yet. I even don't have a four layer PCB. It's getting even worse: I use bread-boards.

Mate, I need your technical advice & help urgently.
Aziz,
the CEO of "MadLabs Inc."

[PATCHES JUNIOR]

Oh man!, I would like to read:
How to knock-out a market leader (ml) with simple & cheap solutions.

Aziz

What you waiting on Aziz? You claim to have the best detector ever made on a computer program already. With your computer sound card and ground balance and coil design along with your scope you should be making big money by now!

Almost forgot your computer program that shoots out a scope capture picture. Lets go and shake the world!

[Aziz]

Oh man!, I would like to read:
How to knock-out a market leader (ml) with simple & cheap solutions.

Aziz

[PATCHES JUNIOR]

Gosh darn it Carl. And here I was going to start building a gold detector and brag about it for a few years before I started building it!

But your post makes perfect sense to me. None of the major players brag about their next machine for years during the R&D of it. I can't think of anyone who would do such a thing!

[Carl-NC]

Of course the QED is real! There's no question that it exists, and I would assume it even performs decently. The only question is, WHEN?

Quite some time ago I was asked to describe the independent development efforts being made with gold detectors. My employers had gotten wind of a couple of "killer designs" and naturally wanted to know if they were real. I labeled my report "Promised Ultimate Detectors," or PUDs for short. (Ironically, sometime after my report another PUD came along, advertised as the "Ultimate Detector." Is that funny or what?)

The problem with PUDs isn't with the U or the D, it's with the P. History shows, over & over, that they never happen. They get massively hyped, then fade away. My analysis as to why this keeps happening is:

1. Grossly underestimating the complete picture. An impressive result on the lab bench doesn't equate to impressive results in Australian dirt. Or any dirt. Once you've got good results on the bench, you're 5% of way there.

2. Ego gets in the way. Wanting to prove yourself before the proof is ready to serve is the part that really damages the effort. Bold performance claims naturally produce skepticism with folks who want to see the evidence. When the evidence doesn't happen, skepticism turns to disdain. And as this process stretches out over years, disdain becomes outright ridicule. The designer then spends an inordinate amount of time responding to the doubts and ridicule. This problem is massively amplified if the hype is coupled with contempt for the competition.

3. Wanting complete control. This is a combination of 1 & 2. The development of a new metal detector is not a one-man job, especially if it's your first one. Think you want to also manufacture the detector? This is a purt-near-guaranteed failing proposition. The turf is littered with dead metal detector companies.

Despite the fact that I work for a major manufacturer of beepers, I'm personally a proponent for independent efforts. Heck, that's why this web site exists! I'd love to see a Titan, Pulse Devil, QED, Goldsweeper, or Ultimate Detector released. But in every case so far, the developers have taken horribly wrong paths. Here are a few suggestions for a better path:

1. KEEP YER TRAP SHUT. Unless the project is a public effort, as many are here on Geotech. While premature public hyping doesn't necessarily break a project, it does incredible damage to the reputations of the design and the designer when things don't work out, as is the case 95% of the time.

2. Get help. Competent help. Preferably by someone who's been there done that. You can't do it all alone.

3. A day in the field is worth a month in the lab. Get it off the bench ASAP, you will quickly see whether that great idea is worth a crap.

4. Focus on the things that matter the most. Performance is #1. A talking detector is #1000. When you have the level of performance that will definitely sell, STOP THE DESIGN PROCESS and move on to making it producible. You'll get to implement that Next Great Idea in Version 2.

5. Forget about building detectors. Ain't gonna happen, at least on a scale that will pay the rent. Find someone else to do that. Again, someone who knows how. Also lets you move on to Version 2, which is more fun than potting coils all day.

6. Forget about patents. Unless you get the Partner Production Company (#5) to deal with them. That $5,000 patent ain't worth squat unless you've got the $100,000 to back it up.

7. Respect the competition. Like it or not, they are already successful, have lots of satisfied users, and are making lots of money. Focus on beating them with a better product, not with public displays of contempt. And never ever ever criticize a user of a competitor's product. That's one lost sale, or more.

[Davor]

Is there any condensed information on QED, what it is and what it does? I tried at the Australian forum, but it is a tad bit too confused for me.

[mario]

Bugs, I can't tell if you're serious or not, perhaps the was a roll of the eyes as you typed that. Based on what you guys have posted over the years regarding both the QED and Minelab, are you really, honestly surprised at the responses you get?

As I said before, your involvement with certain people doesn't serve you well at all. It has already cost you a potential collaborator. Go silent, finish the durn thing, then brag all you want when it's on the shelf with a price tag stuck on it.

Hi guys,

the QED is real.

I'm not involved in the project, but do know several members who are. And they have had impressive results.