QED

[Carl-NC]

Bugs,

If you took all the time you spend wasting on forum nonsense and applied it to your QED project, I betcha it would be finished. Personally, I don't understand your approach, it doesn't serve you well at all, but I didn't understand it when Dave Emery did the same thing. Sadly, I suspect the outcomes will be the same.

Doug,

I have no need to explain my actions, and if I did, I would not care at all to traipse over to your forum to do so. If you want to talk to me about anything, you can do so here.

PJ,

Not sure where this quote came from: There is no way that my detector was picking up the signal from the target but rather the modulation of Alluvium's TX field as he swung over the target; The signal from a target is, in fact, a modulation/distortion of the TX signal. And, yes, it is something that a nearby detector could possibly pick up and cause a similar audio response.

UF,

Agreed, a superior detector design will sell itself.

- Carl

[bugwhiskers]

I almost forgot the latest breakthrough technology with the QED!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNg91...layer_embedded

Your original claim was that "four layer boards cause harmonics".
Would you care to elaborate on the statement and also explain why it has now morphed into the QED having "problems with harmonics"?
Can you point out the "problems with harmonics" in the video link you posted?
Please feel free to post the other QED video links and also the link to the fully certified QED patent.

[bugwhiskers]

And, to continually bag and slag a detector manufacturer over quite a few years when they have got one of the best, if not the best, detector for the prospecting community also has a stink about it. In my mind, the actions of you and associates come across as a deliberate attempt to damage the business of Minelab.

When you actually have something out there and available to all, then you might be given some credibility.

If, when released if ever, your product is so good then it will take market share from Minelab without any bagging and slagging. You start selling a detecting product, and continue to bag and slag as you have done in past years, and Minelab will have a legal avenue open to them to take you to task. You are lucky that Minelab has evidently seen you and associates in the same light as many others in the detecting community see you....a bit of a joke.

UrbanFox,

There is a very big difference between defamation and discussing patents and their merits, consumer laws and marketing methods.
Perhaps now would be a good time for you to divulge any commercial connections and your reason for bringing the ongoing anti-competitive campaign to yet another venue.

[PATCHES JUNIOR]

I almost forgot the latest breakthrough technology with the QED!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNg91...layer_embedded

[bugwhiskers]

UrbanFox, please read Carls rule. No product bashing. To be fair it must include up coming products as shown in videos as a fully working detector and not a spice model or theory.
Crane, how is the guessing going?

[UrbanFox]

To continually bag and slag a detector when you have never had one in your hands has an anti-competitive stink about it.

And, to continually bag and slag a detector manufacturer over quite a few years when they have got one of the best, if not the best, detector for the prospecting community also has a stink about it. In my mind, the actions of you and associates come across as a deliberate attempt to damage the business of Minelab.

When you actually have something out there and available to all, then you might be given some credibility.

If, when released if ever, your product is so good then it will take market share from Minelab without any bagging and slagging. You start selling a detecting product, and continue to bag and slag as you have done in past years, and Minelab will have a legal avenue open to them to take you to task. You are lucky that Minelab has evidently seen you and associates in the same light as many others in the detecting community see you....a bit of a joke.

[bugwhiskers]

The synchronous mains rejection claim is clear and concise. A first year student of Electronics would understand how it works, no fancy math required. It's user adjustable to accomodate the prevailing mains frequency (eg 50 or 60 Hz or even a GenSet) and the setting remembered at switch off, quite probably never requiring re-adjustment.

The QED doesn't "pick up" radio stations.

As to the detector responding to another detector picking up a target signal. A certain requirement is necessary. If you can guess what that is then you will have your answer.

My best advice is to save up your pennies and buy a kit when they are available.
To continually bag and slag a detector when you have never had one in your hands has an anti-competitive stink about it.

[dougAEGPF]

So you are saying the QED ignores power line induced and other EMI but is susceptible to audio signals from other nearby detectors?
Perhaps Bugwhiskers should get another spokesman? One that makes sense!

If what you say is correct then is the following claim false or at least misleading?

4. A metal detector as in claims 1 to 3 utilising a cycle time that is user adjustable to a precise
multiple of the prevailing line frequency (mains) causing the averaged sum of the group of
samples taken during a period of the line frequency to effectively cancel mains interference.

Why is it user adjustable and how can it be adjusted to a precise multiple of the prevailing line frequency if the frequency is continuously cycling through 50Hz and back again? It might be okay if this takes hours to complete each cycle but it occurs every few minutes. Please explain.

You have made many premature claims in the past that have never amounted to anything so why should we believe you now?

I don't care to answer your questions because it would disclose commercially sensitive and privileged information.My sincere apologies for upsetting some folk here.
all the best,
dougAEGPF

[Carl-NC]

I don't know why in the world I should allow this nonsense, but I will. Some rules:

• BE CIVIL; this above all else.
• If you are asked a question, avoiding the question by responding with another question is poor etiquette. Either answer the damned question, or respond with:

1. "I don't know the answer to that question."
2. "I don't care to answer that question."

• If you're not prepared to thoroughly discuss a topic, feature, invention, whatever then don't even bring it up.
• No product bashing; if you don't like Minelab, then don't use Minelab.

[crane]

Who said that the method described in the patent is the only one that the QED uses to fight any power line induced or other EMI? Sorry to tell that the methods used in the QED do work and at gains to be very competitive!
dougAEGPF

So you are saying the QED ignores power line induced and other EMI but is susceptible to audio signals from other nearby detectors?
Perhaps Bugwhiskers should get another spokesman? One that makes sense!

If what you say is correct then is the following claim false or at least misleading?

4. A metal detector as in claims 1 to 3 utilising a cycle time that is user adjustable to a precise
multiple of the prevailing line frequency (mains) causing the averaged sum of the group of
samples taken during a period of the line frequency to effectively cancel mains interference.

Why is it user adjustable and how can it be adjusted to a precise multiple of the prevailing line frequency if the frequency is continuously cycling through 50Hz and back again? It might be okay if this takes hours to complete each cycle but it occurs every few minutes. Please explain.

You have made many premature claims in the past that have never amounted to anything so why should we believe you now?

[dougAEGPF]

So the true Doug shines through. You are just using this topic as another Minelab bashing exercise instead of addressing the fact that the QED responds to another detectors audio signal, something that simply can't possibly occur with any other detector. Are you trying to convince us that this is okay?

You once denied that SWER lines cause interference and you launched the worst attack on the GS5 I've ever seen. You now have the hide to use SWER lines and the GS5/TDI in an attempt to prove a point.

It is incredibly easy to measure the variation in mains frequency and this relatively large variation can't possibly be cancelled just by simply using the method described in the patent. Might appear to work at low gains but not at the high gains needed to be competitive.

Who said that the method described in the patent is the only one that the QED uses to fight any power line induced or other EMI? Sorry to tell that the methods used in the QED do work and at gains to be very competitive!
dougAEGPF

[crane]

Ok why don't you do some tests comparing the TDI and ML with large mono coils near and under HV AC power lines,near SWER powerlines ,near some micro wave towers, when some commercial airliners are flying overhead, near airports and other near miscellaneous sources of EMI and come back and tell us which detector is least effected! Perhaps then you can tell us why some very experienced operators of ML detectors here in OZ who like to use very big mono's are often forced to detect at night because the EMI during the day is often intolerable! dougAEGPF

So the true Doug shines through. You are just using this topic as another Minelab bashing exercise instead of addressing the fact that the QED responds to another detectors audio signal, something that simply can't possibly occur with any other detector. Are you trying to convince us that this is okay?

You once denied that SWER lines cause interference and you launched the worst attack on the GS5 I've ever seen. You now have the hide to use SWER lines and the GS5/TDI in an attempt to prove a point.

It is incredibly easy to measure the variation in mains frequency and this relatively large variation can't possibly be cancelled just by simply using the method described in the patent. Might appear to work at low gains but not at the high gains needed to be competitive.

[UrbanFox]

Commercially sensitive info!But a good try!
dougAEGPF

In other words, that optimization to specifically exclude 50Hz has some hairs on it when in the wrong environment! Are you ever going to make a potential user of this machine aware of it's limitations?

[UrbanFox]

Ok why don't you do some tests comparing the TDI and ML with large mono coils

Has been done. i found the depth difference was very noticeable, and favoured the ML. Are you forgetting your testing of your GS5, which is basically a TDI? let's see you take a TDI to a patch worked over by ML machines and find your fortune!

You still haven't answered my question re mains induced EMI and other than 50Hz!

[dougAEGPF]

Doug, you still haven't answered the question....While the QED might have reasonable rejection of mains EMI when the source is synchronised to 50Hz, what happens around a genset or any power source that is not synchronised to 50Hz?

Commercially sensitive info!But a good try!
dougAEGPF