Bugwhiskers,

thanks for the warning.

Many years ago, Eric Foster coined the name and mentioned "THE PIVOT" on a public forum.
Ever since I have understood THE PIVOT, I have been talking about it and tried to explain it on many of my posts on several forums. Unfortunately I am not good at explaining things.

The Ott picture shows it, but ML's picture is clearer and easier to understand.
Does Candy actually patent the function of the pivot? No, he does not mention the word. He patents something that is part of the basic PI technology.

Can he do that?

Well didn't he patent the use of Litz wire?

There used to be a time when the marketing people were adding a long list of Pat.Pending etc. to the name of their products. Old and obsolete marketing strategy.

How does modern marketing strategy go?

Tinkerer

Hi Tinkerer,

By the "pivot point" do you mean the transition between the changing of the output tone from say rising pitch to falling pitch. If so, this occurs each side of the detection "hole" that must occur in any subtractive GB method when the target mimics the decay characteristics of the ground.

As to the Litz wire patent. It turns out that they weren't actually patenting the use of Litz but rather just used the term "preferably using Litz wire". When the patent finally lapsed there was no problem announcing that everybody got it wrong.

A common patent phrase of late is "adapted and arranged".
Perhaps somebody would like to have a bit of fun and patent the adaption and arrangement of Helium and a large power source to create Nuclear Fusion.

regards
bugwhiskers

Have a look.

This patent is LAPSED!
http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2009903576#

 

It's interesting times ahead with a number of metal detecting patents expiring across the board and not just ML.

on another lighter note...violin story actually, now did'nt someone famous once say on an Aust forum (and not long ago) that any detector to rival the best in the world
would be using said best in the world's IP not exact replica of words but who cares, it was implied so that's good enough isn't it?
Strange thing to for famous person to say given priory available when same party's idol produced his offerings and patents to the world and then implied by many to be an absolute hero..well he is but why spoil a good story......
By the way, if you can't understand my dribble, then my appologies, I've just been reading a couple of DRIBBLING PATENTS!

Aziz, I could not open the link you sent but will check it out again later..hope its not another dribble fest from the best!   

cheers

muntari

Hi Bugwhiskers,

no I do not mean the tone. The tone is an arbitrary means of interface to the operator of the detector. In this instance you and me probably mean the same thing, but anyway, let me try to explain the PIVOT once more.

We take the no target decay curve as a baseline. On the OTT picture we can see how the target decay curve cuts across the no target decay curve.
The target signal voltage, at some point in time is less than the base line, then cuts across and is now more than the base line.

Eric Foster named the point where the signal cuts across the base line, THE PIVOT, saying it is like a seesaw.

The OTT picture shows a short time span. In reality, all signals cross the base line at some point in time.

You are absolutely right about the "detecting hole". When using the base line as reference, there is no signal at the crossing points. Plural crossing points 
On the bright side, the TC of non magnetic targets can be deduced by the time of when THE PIVOT occurs. I have been talking about that for years and even tried to show it with dozens of pictures.

The problem with viscous magnetic responses, is that they have a different decay curve and if not identified, they can be mistaken for non magnetic targets.

Tinkerer

Hi WM6

The curves shown in the pic are grossly exaggerated to make the differences clearer.
What is immediately obvious however is the best time to discriminate is very early before all the curves merge.
After seeing the difference between Steel and very rusty Steel I came to the conclusion that trying to discriminate is a waste of time. Unless 100% accuracy at the threshold of detection is achieved, prospectors will still dig every target.

regards
bugwhiskers

No need to be paranoid either.
Large companies, with several design engineers on their staff, have usually more new ideas at hand then they want to develop. Time is money, so they need to concentrate on specific goals and timelines.

It is much too costly to investigate any ref herring floating around in the forum pools.

Marketing strategies and policies to deal with possible competitors are not decided by engineers, but by management.
Management often does understand little about technology. 

Some aggressive companies try scare tactics towards any possible competitor, again these are rather obsolete strategies that do not increase the chances of survival in our times.

Management only gets interested, when the sales drop because of a competitor. Up to that point competitors do not exist.

Tinkerer

Yep, no GB adjustment control necessary for the tested samples I have taken so far.
The list of tested samples is not complete and can change things.

I know the ultimate answer, until I have covered all possible ground conditions.
Aziz

Not so far.
The design is optimized for anti-fly-$hit nuggets in highly and varying mineralized ground.
 ::38::

There won't be detectors available for sale.
But one can hire me for beer and 50:50 rate on findings.