This should encourage those trying to make a discriminating Pi

[The Modern Day Prospector]

Don't expect a response from George. His tactic is to open his bowels and take a dump with pro ML spin and propaganda/bag and slag any potential competition then run.

Bugs everyone on flounders or whatever forum is only giving you a hard time, because we all want to see the QED, PD and UD but so far all these units are a no show, and with the propaganda, everybody on all forums are spinning the ML free publicity everytime a post is put up Gold Detector this Gold Detector that, I just did it then ML would be laughing all the way to the bank
 
 
 

[bugwhiskers]

Don't expect a response from George. His tactic is to open his bowels and take a dump with pro ML spin and propaganda/bag and slag any potential competition then run.

Your wrong Bugwhiskers!  Since you and Doug are against a detector being called a "Gold detector" in any way, shape or form.  You or Doug head up a letter to all the folks who make gold detectors.  Like "Gold Bug" "Gold Stinger"  "Gold Master"  and I am sure you know many more.  And I will gladly sign any form you draw up!  I will also pass it around my neighbor gold fields and have the local prospectors take a look at it and sign it also.

  So lets get the ball rolling instead of crying about it everyday!  Ya ready to take some action, or are ya just going to cry about it?    LETS GO!!!!!!

Two wrongs don't make a right George.
Are you trying to say that "the worlds best metal detecting technology" company has to stoop to stretching the truth to sell it's products?
Are you saying they have to do it to compete with other companies using similar misleading and deceptive conduct?
All of Candy's patents use the word "Metal Detector". It's the marketing department that turns them into Gold Detectors.
It's time we had some "Truth in advertising" in the detector industry/hobby.

[WM6]

So in reality this forum is helping Minelab sales with Gold Detector all you blokes have got into the act you just don't realise it, free publicity for ML  The more Doug rubbishes ML and Gold Detector the more free advertising you are giving them

This is true. Following those advertising I almost decided to buy one used SD2200D. Not yet but almost. Am I crazy?

[Doug]

So in reality this forum is helping Minelab sales with Gold Detector all you blokes have got into the act you just don't realise it, free publicity for ML  The more Doug rubbishes ML and Gold Detector the more free advertising you are giving them

This is true. Following those advertising I almost decided to buy one used SD2200D. Not yet but almost. Am I crazy?

I have been told that sales of the 5000 are now very slow so this forums "free publicity" does not appear to be helping ML!!!
I would also suggest that ML would love nothing better than for my 2 forums to just disappear!
doug

[The Modern Day Prospector]

So in reality this forum is helping Minelab sales with Gold Detector all you blokes have got into the act you just don't realise it, free publicity for ML  The more Doug rubbishes ML and Gold Detector the more free advertising you are giving them

This is true. Following those advertising I almost decided to buy one used SD2200D. Not yet but almost. Am I crazy?

I have been told that sales of the 5000 are now very slow so this forums "free publicity" does not appear to be helping ML!!!
I would also suggest that ML would love nothing better than for my 2 forums to just disappear!
doug

I don't believe ML want you gone, with all the publicity you get from the finders forum which in turn gets you record page views, and everyone gets to see Gold Tax, Gold Detector and different views on the 5000, I believe it would be a pretty good thing for them to see all this free advertising. And with the no new detector QED, PD and UD in the foreseeable it would be full steam ahead for them to bring out the next model and get the forums to jump on it.

[bugwhiskers]

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/there-is-no-such-thing-as-bad-publicity.html

[Doug]

So in reality this forum is helping Minelab sales with Gold Detector all you blokes have got into the act you just don't realise it, free publicity for ML  The more Doug rubbishes ML and Gold Detector the more free advertising you are giving them

This is true. Following those advertising I almost decided to buy one used SD2200D. Not yet but almost. Am I crazy?

I have been told that sales of the 5000 are now very slow so this forums "free publicity" does not appear to be helping ML!!!
I would also suggest that ML would love nothing better than for my 2 forums to just disappear!
doug

I don't believe ML want you gone, with all the publicity you get from the finders forum which in turn gets you record page views, and everyone gets to see Gold Tax, Gold Detector and different views on the 5000, I believe it would be a pretty good thing for them to see all this free advertising. And with the no new detector QED, PD and UD in the foreseeable it would be full steam ahead for them to bring out the next model and get the forums to jump on it.

If what you say is true why then did ML try and intimidate me with a lawsuite when I posted pictures of an unprotected GP extreme circuit board (10 years old!!!) on my old forum?
ML wanted me to sign some documents which I allege would have muzzled me and the forum!!!!
If this forum helps ML sales then why are the sales of the 5000 from what i have been told so slow?
I predict that over next 12 months we will see a ML dealer rationalization  ie quite a few ML dealers will go and  perhaps we may even see ML sell direct with no middle man?
doug

[Doug]

Ok guys,

I'll tell you my priority list on this issue:
(higher priority first)

1. Better ground balance.

2. More reliable operation (less EMI, easy operation).

3. More detection depth.

4. Cheap
(Where are my chinese friends?)
...
100. Better discrimination
(No, I'm not going to discriminate my target signals.)

I stick to it. Take it or leave it.
 
Aziz

Hi Aziz,

In a previous post you say that you already have the best GB system.  Why don't you make a prototype and then add some discrimination.  The Poll shows that discrimination is considered
important.

I see the matter of detecting nuggets as an exercise in statistics:  If the trash/nugget ratio is
100, you need to dig 100 pieces of trash to find a nugget.

If the discrimination is 90% accurate, you you'll only dig 10% of 1000 targets, i.e. 100 targets.

Since the discrimination is 90% accurate, 9 of those you have dug are nuggets.

Or, looking at it another way,  with 90% discrimination, you'll spend only 1/9 of the time to
find one nugget.

Thus, even imperfect discrimination gives you an advantage.  Doesn't this make sense to you?

Vapor_Man

Hi Mr. Vapor_Man,

sure, it makes a lot of sense to use the statistics. 90% accuracy will be the best, which would outperform all the current discriminating detectors.

Well, I get the discrimination information for "free", after applying the fully automatic GB method (DSP software algorithm). And the discrimination works at max. depth as well. But again, the discrimination can not be made 100% safe. In case of having doubt, you have to dig the target out anyway.

Consider the following fact:
An iron trash produces different amount of reactive response R(X) and resistive response R(R).

Let's make a simple formula for the response signal R (without ground response):
R = R(X) + R(R)

This response is dependend on the size, orientation, geometrics, distance, ground conditions, ect. of the target.

In a heavy mineralized ground (like in the gold fields) we have the situation:
Ground produces R(X) and R(R), Gold nugget procudes R(R).
We have again the simplified situation:
R = R(X) + R(R)

Even if you detect a significant change of R(X) in the gold fields to discriminate a trash, you don't know whether it comes from the iron trash, magnetic mineral (hot rock) or from changing ground itself.

Nevertheless, the improvement of the discrimination is possible and this should encourage all the developers. But a successful discrimination implies, that you should solve the GB issues first.
 
Cheers,
Aziz

The potential problem or limitation I see with any discriminating PI is where X ground>>X target  where X ground/X target is 10/1 or even 100/1.Its not going to be easy to resolve an X target signal component where this may only be 1 part in 100 of ground X+ target X?
doug

[Huego]

I predict that over next 12 months we will see a ML dealer rationalization  ie quite a few ML dealers will go and  perhaps we may even see ML sell direct with no middle man?

Doug

Without distributors & when real competition emerges, ML could maintain high margins AND give better deals to prospectors ie by lowering their PI retail prices.    That way they can be more competitive to maintain their market dominance. Then again, why would they do that?  They could hold onto their high retail prices (to please the shareholders) which would increase the profit margin even further!  

Its not going to be easy to resolve an X target signal component where this may only be 1 part in 100 of ground X+ target X? (Doug)

Isn’t that why Allan was looking for (and even making) the worst (hot) ground himself for balancing, using & developing his discriminator? He has used some the worst hot rocks he could find + those sent to him from Oz.
I will await Allan's response (in due course) to what his discriminating technology & the GS can do.  

All “gold detectors” are “metal detectors”  … but not all metal detectors can (SELECTIVELY) find gold. I CAN"T EVEN NAME ONE, CAN ANYONE!!?? Most find metal mines, tin & aluminium cans, cannonballs, picks, nails, bullets, coins, wire, brass shells, hot rocks,  etc ….. all sorts of things! So "Metal detector" is accurate, "gold detector" is biased & misleading but effective for marketing (sales) if you want to sell, but not inform the buyer of the whole truth. Why would they do that?  

Those detectors with better or high levels of discrimination can be seen as having higher selectivity (by rejecting iron-based targets & rocks) are more worthy of the title 'Gold Detector."

Huego  

edited for typos & clarity as We Move Closer to the Truth (Tony Joe White) 

[The Modern Day Prospector]

Huego all advertising is misleading, thats what has to be done to make believers out of the masses, just open GGT first 2 pages (experience the advantage of superior gold detection) And if you browse over the forums it is now Gold Detectors, I used it to my advantage and I am not the only one, just look at the current crop of ebay Gold Detector ads, it's not metal detector anymore thats old news it's now Gold Detector, Gold Detector more of a catchy name I reckon but only if your in to that sort of thing

[bugwhiskers]

The QED is a metal detector.
I don't think any potential customers would like the idea of not being able to see a 1930 penny if they were lucky enough to swing the coil over one.

[The Modern Day Prospector]

Yes Bugs I totally agree with you, the correct term is Metal Detector, but just imagine the QED, PD and UD are all available in the not to distant future and a bloke walks into a shop and there on the shelves are all 4 top performing metal detectors, for arguments sake ML and UD drop there price to be competitive with the QED and PD just say $2800 to $3200. Now the bloke wants a good performing Gold Detector, he has read all the spin and hype put out by the manufacturers and the UD and ML claim Gold Detector and the QED and PD claim metal detector but will find gold, and out in testing both the QED and PD proved this, but which way will this bloke go if there is only a $200 to $400 price difference. Remember this bloke has read all the spin and hype and believes it, and with the Gold Detector and superior gold detection slogans imprinted into his sub concious he will either buy the ML or UD. So to be commercially viable in todays market the QED will have to become a Gold Detector, I know you hate the thought of this but it's the truth.


Cheers Brian.


And to be more accurate UD would be Ultimate gold detection

[bugwhiskers]

Yes Bugs I totally agree with you, the correct term is Metal Detector, but just imagine the QED, PD and UD are all available in the not to distant future and a bloke walks into a shop and there on the shelves are all 4 top performing metal detectors, for arguments sake ML and UD drop there price to be competitive with the QED and PD just say $2800 to $3200. Now the bloke wants a good performing Gold Detector, he has read all the spin and hype put out by the manufacturers and the UD and ML claim Gold Detector and the QED and PD claim metal detector but will find gold, and out in testing both the QED and PD proved this, but which way will this bloke go if there is only a $200 to $400 price difference. Remember this bloke has read all the spin and hype and believes it, and with the Gold Detector and superior gold detection slogans imprinted into his sub concious he will either buy the ML or UD. So to be commercially viable in todays market the QED will have to become a Gold Detector, I know you hate the thought of this but it's the truth.


Cheers Brian.


And to be more accurate UD would be Ultimate gold detection

The best restaurants are booked out months ahead and they never advertise.
In OZ we call it  the bush telegraph.

[Aziz]

Ok guys,

I'll tell you my priority list on this issue:
(higher priority first)

1. Better ground balance.

2. More reliable operation (less EMI, easy operation).

3. More detection depth.

4. Cheap
(Where are my chinese friends?)
...
100. Better discrimination
(No, I'm not going to discriminate my target signals.)

I stick to it. Take it or leave it.
 
Aziz

Hi Aziz,

In a previous post you say that you already have the best GB system.  Why don't you make a prototype and then add some discrimination.  The Poll shows that discrimination is considered
important.

I see the matter of detecting nuggets as an exercise in statistics:  If the trash/nugget ratio is
100, you need to dig 100 pieces of trash to find a nugget.

If the discrimination is 90% accurate, you you'll only dig 10% of 1000 targets, i.e. 100 targets.

Since the discrimination is 90% accurate, 9 of those you have dug are nuggets.

Or, looking at it another way,  with 90% discrimination, you'll spend only 1/9 of the time to
find one nugget.

Thus, even imperfect discrimination gives you an advantage.  Doesn't this make sense to you?

Vapor_Man

Hi Mr. Vapor_Man,

sure, it makes a lot of sense to use the statistics. 90% accuracy will be the best, which would outperform all the current discriminating detectors.

Well, I get the discrimination information for "free", after applying the fully automatic GB method (DSP software algorithm). And the discrimination works at max. depth as well. But again, the discrimination can not be made 100% safe. In case of having doubt, you have to dig the target out anyway.

Consider the following fact:
An iron trash produces different amount of reactive response R(X) and resistive response R(R).

Let's make a simple formula for the response signal R (without ground response):
R = R(X) + R(R)

This response is dependend on the size, orientation, geometrics, distance, ground conditions, ect. of the target.

In a heavy mineralized ground (like in the gold fields) we have the situation:
Ground produces R(X) and R(R), Gold nugget procudes R(R).
We have again the simplified situation:
R = R(X) + R(R)

Even if you detect a significant change of R(X) in the gold fields to discriminate a trash, you don't know whether it comes from the iron trash, magnetic mineral (hot rock) or from changing ground itself.

Nevertheless, the improvement of the discrimination is possible and this should encourage all the developers. But a successful discrimination implies, that you should solve the GB issues first.
 
Cheers,
Aziz

The potential problem or limitation I see with any discriminating PI is where X ground>>X target  where X ground/X target is 10/1 or even 100/1.Its not going to be easy to resolve an X target signal component where this may only be 1 part in 100 of ground X+ target X?
doug

Send me some Oz hotrocks and I can tell you more.
Aziz

[Huego]

Huego all advertising is misleading, thats what has to be done to make believers out of the masses, just open GGT first 2 pages (experience the advantage of superior gold detection) And if you browse over the forums it is now Gold Detectors, I used it to my advantage and I am not the only one, just look at the current crop of ebay Gold Detector ads, it's not metal detector anymore thats old news it's now Gold Detector, Gold Detector more of a catchy name I reckon but only if your in to that sort of thing

Yes, much advertising is misleading. That's why it is unethical, improper and (growingly) recognised as ILLEGAL by the ACCC, to use misleading terms to deceive or misguide buyers. In time, such deceptive advertising will be stamped out (corrected). Its so endemic it will take time. Yes, buyers almsot expect it! With natural / unregulated (eg herbal) medicines there are strict enforceable laws about what claims can be made in labelling and advertising. Increasingly I hope (expect) to see TRUTH dominate over LIES or DECEPTION in advertsing, even by the most creative marketting people. They will probably get away with AMBIGUITY. 

Sadly some buyers want to be wooed by lies because these match dreams or an image they have in their mind of themselves as successful prospectors using the "Superior Advantage of a *#@*"!

             GS ...... the ULTIMATE DISCRIMINATOR   .......... sounds good eh?

Huego
 

[Huego]

............. Now the bloke wants a good performing Gold Detector, he has read all the spin and hype put out by the manufacturers  ........... So to be commercially viable in todays market the QED will have to become a Gold Detector, I know you hate the thought of this but it's the truth.

Cheers Brian.

 And to be more accurate UD would be Ultimate gold detection

Isn't a "good performing" metal detector also a good gold (or coin, or brass shell, or lead bullet) detector? As Bugs said some non gold historic metallic objects found may be worth more than gold!    
Without discrimination, these may all sound like gold.  

Do you mean to compete on the same terms the "QED will have to be called a Gold detector"? If so, that may be correct but its all up to ethics of the manufacturer / owner to decide what guidelines / brief they give marketing advertisers to use. As Bugs said,  some of the best, lowest cost & effective advertising, is by "word-of-mouth".  

Not all publicity (eg "ultimate gold detector") is good publicity either ........  again, word-of-mouth is effective.

Huego

[Doug]

Ok guys,

I'll tell you my priority list on this issue:
(higher priority first)

1. Better ground balance.

2. More reliable operation (less EMI, easy operation).

3. More detection depth.

4. Cheap
(Where are my chinese friends?)
...
100. Better discrimination
(No, I'm not going to discriminate my target signals.)

I stick to it. Take it or leave it.
 
Aziz

Hi Aziz,

In a previous post you say that you already have the best GB system.  Why don't you make a prototype and then add some discrimination.  The Poll shows that discrimination is considered
important.

I see the matter of detecting nuggets as an exercise in statistics:  If the trash/nugget ratio is
100, you need to dig 100 pieces of trash to find a nugget.

If the discrimination is 90% accurate, you you'll only dig 10% of 1000 targets, i.e. 100 targets.

Since the discrimination is 90% accurate, 9 of those you have dug are nuggets.

Or, looking at it another way,  with 90% discrimination, you'll spend only 1/9 of the time to
find one nugget.

Thus, even imperfect discrimination gives you an advantage.  Doesn't this make sense to you?

Vapor_Man

Hi Mr. Vapor_Man,

sure, it makes a lot of sense to use the statistics. 90% accuracy will be the best, which would outperform all the current discriminating detectors.

Well, I get the discrimination information for "free", after applying the fully automatic GB method (DSP software algorithm). And the discrimination works at max. depth as well. But again, the discrimination can not be made 100% safe. In case of having doubt, you have to dig the target out anyway.

Consider the following fact:
An iron trash produces different amount of reactive response R(X) and resistive response R(R).

Let's make a simple formula for the response signal R (without ground response):
R = R(X) + R(R)

This response is dependend on the size, orientation, geometrics, distance, ground conditions, ect. of the target.

In a heavy mineralized ground (like in the gold fields) we have the situation:
Ground produces R(X) and R(R), Gold nugget procudes R(R).
We have again the simplified situation:
R = R(X) + R(R)

Even if you detect a significant change of R(X) in the gold fields to discriminate a trash, you don't know whether it comes from the iron trash, magnetic mineral (hot rock) or from changing ground itself.

Nevertheless, the improvement of the discrimination is possible and this should encourage all the developers. But a successful discrimination implies, that you should solve the GB issues first.
 
Cheers,
Aziz

The potential problem or limitation I see with any discriminating PI is where X ground>>X target  where X ground/X target is 10/1 or even 100/1.Its not going to be easy to resolve an X target signal component where this may only be 1 part in 100 of ground X+ target X?
doug

Send me some Oz hotrocks and I can tell you more.
Aziz

In my opinion high X hot rocks are not as much of a problem as the target volume ground X!
doug

[Doug]

 Keep the votes coming!More votes means the result becomes more significant and meaningful.The forum has 253 members so lets try and get at least 20% of members voting!
doug

[WM6]

Keep the votes coming!More votes means the result becomes more significant and meaningful.The forum has 253 members so lets try and get at least 20% of members voting!
doug

19 voters and 46 votes. (?)

I am allowed to vote only for one of choices and then the poll was closed for me.

How all those mathematic are possible?

[Aziz]

Ok guys,

I'll tell you my priority list on this issue:
(higher priority first)

1. Better ground balance.

2. More reliable operation (less EMI, easy operation).

3. More detection depth.

4. Cheap
(Where are my chinese friends?)
...
100. Better discrimination
(No, I'm not going to discriminate my target signals.)

I stick to it. Take it or leave it.
 
Aziz

Hi Aziz,

In a previous post you say that you already have the best GB system.  Why don't you make a prototype and then add some discrimination.  The Poll shows that discrimination is considered
important.

I see the matter of detecting nuggets as an exercise in statistics:  If the trash/nugget ratio is
100, you need to dig 100 pieces of trash to find a nugget.

If the discrimination is 90% accurate, you you'll only dig 10% of 1000 targets, i.e. 100 targets.

Since the discrimination is 90% accurate, 9 of those you have dug are nuggets.

Or, looking at it another way,  with 90% discrimination, you'll spend only 1/9 of the time to
find one nugget.

Thus, even imperfect discrimination gives you an advantage.  Doesn't this make sense to you?

Vapor_Man

Hi Mr. Vapor_Man,

sure, it makes a lot of sense to use the statistics. 90% accuracy will be the best, which would outperform all the current discriminating detectors.

Well, I get the discrimination information for "free", after applying the fully automatic GB method (DSP software algorithm). And the discrimination works at max. depth as well. But again, the discrimination can not be made 100% safe. In case of having doubt, you have to dig the target out anyway.

Consider the following fact:
An iron trash produces different amount of reactive response R(X) and resistive response R(R).

Let's make a simple formula for the response signal R (without ground response):
R = R(X) + R(R)

This response is dependend on the size, orientation, geometrics, distance, ground conditions, ect. of the target.

In a heavy mineralized ground (like in the gold fields) we have the situation:
Ground produces R(X) and R(R), Gold nugget procudes R(R).
We have again the simplified situation:
R = R(X) + R(R)

Even if you detect a significant change of R(X) in the gold fields to discriminate a trash, you don't know whether it comes from the iron trash, magnetic mineral (hot rock) or from changing ground itself.

Nevertheless, the improvement of the discrimination is possible and this should encourage all the developers. But a successful discrimination implies, that you should solve the GB issues first.
 
Cheers,
Aziz

The potential problem or limitation I see with any discriminating PI is where X ground>>X target  where X ground/X target is 10/1 or even 100/1.Its not going to be easy to resolve an X target signal component where this may only be 1 part in 100 of ground X+ target X?
doug

Send me some Oz hotrocks and I can tell you more.
Aziz

In my opinion high X hot rocks are not as much of a problem as the target volume ground X!
doug

In this case, I might need more Oz hotrocks.
(Hot ground = crushed and pulverized hotrocks.)

Who wants to know, what's the real deal?
Just send me Oz hotrocks and I can tell you more.

Aziz