QED

[WM6]

Now we are going to have to wait for the QED PRO!!! I figure should be ready in a few weeks!

There are a rumour, that QED-Pro will be out at the same time with new ML GPX(6000?) and for 1/7 price of the last.

I figure, from those points we can count "a few weeks" ....

[PATCHES JUNIOR]

Now we are going to have to wait for the QED PRO!!! I figure should be ready in a few weeks!

[PATCHES JUNIOR]

DOUG, read post #254 in this thread.
Clark (PJ) would approve this message as I would

[Aziz]

Aziz:

you may have luck with a variety of DSP methods. I'm not sure what your TX/RX setup looks like. The signals in this case appear sparse.


A method based on FH-SS would be to measure the spectrum and simply move the Tx signal to spectrum that currently appears to have good SNR properties.


A method based on DS-SS would be to use the long spreading sequence, which then reduces the importance of specific tones. a delay-line based "noise reference" for an adaptive filter would be a classic application.


Another method can be based on OFDM -- basically send patterns of varying complexity on each subband and try to receive them. Channels with poor SNR will fail to receive complex patterns and can be weighted appropriately when deciding if a target is present.


Keep in mind the limitations of each of these methods, particularly OFDM's Peak-Average Power Ratio issues.

I'm not sure if any of these are patented for metal detectors. They aren't new ideas. They are less applicable if the noise overdrives the ADC though.

Hi permute,

thanks for your contribution. The frequency spectrum picture of the shown harmonics in the earlier post doesn't contain any TX or target response. It's just showing the plain RX signal coming from a well shielded RX coil connected to a very low noise amplifier (gain: x100).

Indeed, there are several ways to skin a cat. But all the FH-SS, DS-SS and OFDM methods won't help you in the art of metal detecting.

Using standard DSP methods isn't even worth to mention it as this part is the most trivial part of the whole system.

Cheers,
Aziz

[permute]

Aziz:

you may have luck with a variety of DSP methods. I'm not sure what your TX/RX setup looks like. The signals in this case appear sparse.


A method based on FH-SS would be to measure the spectrum and simply move the Tx signal to spectrum that currently appears to have good SNR properties.


A method based on DS-SS would be to use the long spreading sequence, which then reduces the importance of specific tones. a delay-line based "noise reference" for an adaptive filter would be a classic application.


Another method can be based on OFDM -- basically send patterns of varying complexity on each subband and try to receive them. Channels with poor SNR will fail to receive complex patterns and can be weighted appropriately when deciding if a target is present.


Keep in mind the limitations of each of these methods, particularly OFDM's Peak-Average Power Ratio issues.

I'm not sure if any of these are patented for metal detectors. They aren't new ideas. They are less applicable if the noise overdrives the ADC though.

[Aziz]

PJ,

I am impressed with what I have seen of AZIZ's work, so I am not going to criticize what he says he can do. He just might be able to do what he says.

Having worked on real designs myself, I know the pitfalls, the delays and the inability or lack of desire to fully follow through. Sometimes a really good idea sits for a very long time before it is finally developed. At least it does with me.

I think my best statement as to why these things happen, again to me, is I am human. I suspect others suffer from the same affliction.

I know I will never have the best possible design or perfection, but if I contribute something that is a good foundation, a real world change that is positive will eventually happen. More importantly, it usually needs a different pair of eyes to see the obvious and overcome what is missing or needed.

My recommendation to you PJ and others for that matter, is to develop your own design, rather than worry about or criticize another person's project. This way you can develop what you want. Anyone can complain or poke fun regardless of how it is done. It doesn't take a high IQ to do that. In fact, quite often it displays just the opposite. The true pride comes in building something and not from tearing something down.

Now this is for everyone, developing your own design really display's a person's abilities even if it isn't perfect or the best to begin with. No one should expect perfection to begin with. Unless you have designed and produced a much better product, you or anyone else has no room to ridicule someone who has built something you haven't. At least they displayed they can do what you haven't been able to do.

So, for everyone out there, rather than criticize, poke fun, or just complain, go ahead and build a better mousetrap, or detector for that matter. Show us what you got, rather than what you can say.

I personally admire those like Bugwhiskers that are willing to put the time and energy into a project. I would just like to see him take the next step. Personally, I feel it would be the best in the long run.

I also expect that AZIZ will build his project when he is ready.

Reg

Thanks for your valuable comments Reg.

"My recommendation to you PJ and others for that matter, is to develop your own design, rather than worry about or criticize another person's project."

I do fully agree with you.

Cheers,
Aziz

[Aziz]

Is this your idea, or your mentors?

PJ, I don't have any mentors. I'm an independent guy.

Regardless of any speculations, I would like to see a Whites "TDI Pro 2". And the next version of the "World's best metal detecting technology" from the market leader (ml) too. And the UD (ultimate detector) as well.
QED and all other detectors too.

Cheers,
Aziz

[Aziz]

Here is a question I hope you will answer Aziz. How many times have Doug said the QED is going to be released soon? I will expect the truth. You have access to the "inner circle" forums that just a few of Dougs forum members have. What is the talk on the QED hold up on problems?

Sorry PJ, but all the QED related questions must be directed to Bugwhiskers.

Cheers,
Aziz

[Aziz]

Reg, you are going to have the wrath of "AZIZ" on ya soon. As everyone here has been told many many times he has the worlds best ground balance hidden in his fantastic brain. Also Aziz has the worlds best coil design. He just needs time to build it. It is too nice outside to do it this year. The only reason he has this fantasy with a problem with harmonics in the QED is that Doug is against any one who talks against the QED. Someday Aziz will figure out that Doug is not the best role model to follow.

PJ,

you sceptics! (BTW, I like sceptics! )

Would I really claim that, if I wouldn't have the technology already? Or are such claims only reserved to the market leader (ml) or it's main developer?

You and your smart mates have to find it out, whether I'm kidding or claiming the thruth.
But I'm not going to tell you or give you any evidence. (Commercially very sensitive case and patent trolls lurking everywhere... )

BTW, I can really afford to make big (and unbelievable) claims.

Cheers,
Aziz

[Aziz]

... hmm almost certainly the line scan raster from a "tube" TV .... the horizontal line raster is a sawtooth so that accounts for the harmonics at every integer multiple ( 1,2,3... etc) whereas a square or triangle only every odd multiple ( 1, 3 ... etc )

Thanks moodz,

this clarifies the source of EMI. I was surprised about the strength of the EMI and it is indeed very strong. It happens mostly in evening during a typical TV watch time. So it must be a TV.

I just wanted to show you all, that the (external EMI) harmonics really exists and PJ is right about the existence of the harmonics(c)(r)(tm). This little demonstration has been fitted into this topic. But it doesn't show anything QED related of course. Every detector (no exceptions) has to cope with this kind of EMI too.

Unfortunately, this kind of EMI is difficult to cancel to a wide-band detector as it is completely in the frequency range of interest. So the anti-interference coil configuration would be the way to go here.

Cheers,
Aziz

[moodz]

Aziz ...are you in an apartment block anywhere near "tube" type TVs ... I reckon it looks like you are getting horizontal line scan from TV ( LOL ) ....I think in the UK the TV detector vans used similiar method as you had to have a licence for a TV set ( double LOL ) PAL BG in Germany = 15625 Hz + Harmonics thereof ( Triple LOL )

The deflector coils in some TVs make good field radiators ( harmonics of LOL )

The 4.43361875 MHz frequency of the colour carrier is a result of 283.75 colour clock cycles per line plus a 25 Hz offset to avoid interferences. Since the line frequency (number of lines per second) is 15625 Hz (625 lines x 50 Hz / 2), the colour carrier frequency calculates as follows: 4.43361875 MHz = 283.75 * 15625 Hz + 25 Hz.


moodz

... hmm almost certainly the line scan raster from a "tube" TV .... the horizontal line raster is a sawtooth so that accounts for the harmonics at every integer multiple ( 1,2,3... etc) whereas a square or triangle only every odd multiple ( 1, 3 ... etc )

[moodz]

Hi all,

I hate harmonics(c)(r)(tm) now!!!! I'm no longer friend of harmonics(c)(r)(tm).
Something from the neighborhood is disturbing my rocket science R&D.
I could localise it roughly.

PJ!!! Where are you?

*LOL*, this ain't a joke now. This is real life. Harmonics(c)(r)(tm) do exist really.

Aziz

PS: This is what the RX coil picks up with the ultra low noise LT1028 op-amp.

Aziz ...are you in an apartment block anywhere near "tube" type TVs ... I reckon it looks like you are getting horizontal line scan from TV ( LOL ) ....I think in the UK the TV detector vans used similiar method as you had to have a licence for a TV set ( double LOL ) PAL BG in Germany = 15625 Hz + Harmonics thereof ( Triple LOL )

The deflector coils in some TVs make good field radiators ( harmonics of LOL )

The 4.43361875 MHz frequency of the colour carrier is a result of 283.75 colour clock cycles per line plus a 25 Hz offset to avoid interferences. Since the line frequency (number of lines per second) is 15625 Hz (625 lines x 50 Hz / 2), the colour carrier frequency calculates as follows: 4.43361875 MHz = 283.75 * 15625 Hz + 25 Hz.


moodz

[Reg]

PJ,

I am impressed with what I have seen of AZIZ's work, so I am not going to criticize what he says he can do. He just might be able to do what he says.

Having worked on real designs myself, I know the pitfalls, the delays and the inability or lack of desire to fully follow through. Sometimes a really good idea sits for a very long time before it is finally developed. At least it does with me.

I think my best statement as to why these things happen, again to me, is I am human. I suspect others suffer from the same affliction.

I know I will never have the best possible design or perfection, but if I contribute something that is a good foundation, a real world change that is positive will eventually happen. More importantly, it usually needs a different pair of eyes to see the obvious and overcome what is missing or needed.

My recommendation to you PJ and others for that matter, is to develop your own design, rather than worry about or criticize another person's project. This way you can develop what you want. Anyone can complain or poke fun regardless of how it is done. It doesn't take a high IQ to do that. In fact, quite often it displays just the opposite. The true pride comes in building something and not from tearing something down.

Now this is for everyone, developing your own design really display's a person's abilities even if it isn't perfect or the best to begin with. No one should expect perfection to begin with. Unless you have designed and produced a much better product, you or anyone else has no room to ridicule someone who has built something you haven't. At least they displayed they can do what you haven't been able to do.

So, for everyone out there, rather than criticize, poke fun, or just complain, go ahead and build a better mousetrap, or detector for that matter. Show us what you got, rather than what you can say.

I personally admire those like Bugwhiskers that are willing to put the time and energy into a project. I would just like to see him take the next step. Personally, I feel it would be the best in the long run.

I also expect that AZIZ will build his project when he is ready.

Reg

[PATCHES JUNIOR]

Can we expect a "TDI Pro 2" soon? The QED should give the TDI team some more fresh ideas.

Aziz

Is this your idea, or your mentors?

[PATCHES JUNIOR]

Reg, you are going to have the wrath of "AZIZ" on ya soon. As everyone here has been told many many times he has the worlds best ground balance hidden in his fantastic brain. Also Aziz has the worlds best coil design. He just needs time to build it. It is too nice outside to do it this year. The only reason he has this fantasy with a problem with harmonics in the QED is that Doug is against any one who talks against the QED. Someday Aziz will figure out that Doug is not the best role model to follow.

I would ask Aziz what is wrong with the QED that it is still being developed. The music box does not work right? The voices are not the right sex as to what settings you have set? Why after several years they still have not got it done. Must be a problem with the design.

And the thought that any updates in the QED is just a matter of updated the software. Thats crazy! You mean to say any future development in the QED is going to be just a updated software programming? Right! No detector company has ever said that before, and I really think no one will but Bugs.

Here is a question I hope you will answer Aziz. How many times have Doug said the QED is going to be released soon? I will expect the truth. You have access to the "inner circle" forums that just a few of Dougs forum members have. What is the talk on the QED hold up on problems?