northwest updates
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Friday October 20 2017 05:27:09 AEDT AM
Home Help Login Register
News: Welcome to the Australianelectronicgoldprospectingforum founded in July 2010, an add free totally independent forum with over 70 boards and paid for and managed by the Admin.Total forum Topics:8,797 Total forum Posts:42,096  Members:690 Total page views:9,008,584 Admin and  forum and domain name owner :marjen at optusnet.com.au. Guests can only see a limited number of boards at present and cannot see any links. Guest cannot post and never will be permitted too!Registration of new members must be approved by admin.Anyone known to have any past or present association with Codan/ML or acting on their behalf as a proxy or intermediary  will not have their registration approved. All  original Photos and posts and  original materials displayed on this site are COPYRIGHTED and remain the property of the poster and the  Austalian electronicgoldprospectingforum.com. All messages on this forum express the personal views of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily being in accord with those of the forum owner and neither the owner of this forum and its domain name nor SMF or the forum software developers or the forum host shall be held responsible for the content of any message. Admin reserves the right to remove any offensive or objectionable posts. No defamatory material or politics/religion or issues of race will be permitted.

Some software and hardware updates now available for the QED.More  QED firmware updates (inc Auto GB  option) just announced here. New  QED hardware updates/options and pictures will be posted  first here  as they become available.

Another satisfied QED user! QED user report for 9 days detecting! User loves it, found it easy to use,found gold with it and he prefers it to his 5000! Also a report on a QED used at the beach for coin shooting.QED users reporting in with their multi ounce gold finds with the QED!
From  another QED user today:"Been out and about today testing and comparing against other machines etc in ground that has been horrible in the past.Bround balancing Ive found very simple and easy.'m using the Nokia booster but need a little more sound/threshold.Otherwise no complaints from me, very impressed."
and :"My QED with the 8” commander on it, out performed my SDC Got bits that don't register on my scales SDC has since been sold"
"My QED is terrific. Lightweight, very sensitive and screams at me when it hits any target. The Detect shaft and the 11" ultra sensing coil is a top quality fitout. I attached an external speaker which added under 200gms of weight in total and still remains very well balanced so i never feel fatigued after many hours of swinging."

Stinky  Pete :http://www.detech-metaldetectorsaustralia.com.au/ is the  Australian distributor for the QED.
This is the only forum where you can talk directly with the designer/ manufacturer of the QED and  also some very experienced QED users.
Jrbeatty and Reg Wilson  and  Yellowfin  (or Doug here for that matter!)have NO vested  or pecuniary interests(or secret deals or cash for comment or any other undisclosed benefits )in the QED other than using it to find gold which it is doing very successfully! The ONLY people deriving  an income from the QED(other than finding good gold) are the approved retailer and Bugwhiskers! The ONLY investor in the QED is Bugwhiskers!
I have never met Jrbeatty or Reg Wilson at Howards house or ANY other location!

australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Pi metal detector by Bugwhiskers  |  QED Detector ,latest updates  |  Topic: updates 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] Go Down Print
Author Topic: updates  (Read 10494 times)
kazza
Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #200 on: Saturday September 17 2016 07:10:47 AEST AM »

Bugwhiskers, I assume your “question” is a political rhetorical question.

I happen to have a popular single frequency (freq domain) detector that I know intrinsically cancels SMF via sync demodulation according to its associated patent, and, a popular single frequency (freq domain) detector that I know intrinsically does not cancel SMF via sync demodulation according to its schematic on Geotech.

But I have zero interest in politics. Cheers.
Logged
bugwhiskers
invited members
Senior Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1840



« Reply #201 on: Saturday September 17 2016 08:30:15 AEST AM »

Kazza, I fully understand why you do not want to answer the simple question in simple terms.
Logged

All posts are my opinion and are stated without prejudice and in the public and consumers interest.
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 15652



« Reply #202 on: Saturday September 17 2016 09:15:24 AEST AM »

  
I happen to have a popular single frequency (freq domain) detector that I know intrinsically cancels SMF via sync demodulation according to its associated patent, and, a popular single frequency (freq domain) detector that I know intrinsically does not cancel SMF via sync demodulation according to its schematic on Geotech.

Which detectors are you referring too? I am also sure that many members here would be interested in a more layman orientated  explanation of  your previous post.(Reply 198)
doug smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin The QED contains NO patented or protected IP!!! No fake users on this site! This forum does not depend on  guest posting liars to survive!1/2 wit powerless to login and post! LO
WM6
invited members
Senior Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1850



« Reply #203 on: Sunday September 18 2016 01:36:37 AEST AM »

  
Bugwhiskers,

Actually, as has been pointed out on this forum by another member, and shown on Geotech, Eric’s detectors do not use different widths of samples to either GB or cancel static fields.

Also, as shown in numerous scientific papers kindly provided by Doug, all soils magnetic components have both VRM and a non-VRM component, where non-VRM means a “log-uniform” reactive magnetic permeability from soil ferrites (note reactive, not resistive), and this is shown as a graph with the independent variable on the x-axis being a logarithm of frequency, versus a dependent variable being magnetic permeability on a linear scale y-axis. The non-VRM log-uniform distribution is basically that of an ideal ferrite and has a zero slope. A log-uniform reactive distribution magnetic permeability should give no Rx signal during a PI Rx period (no decay, literally zero).

“Doug’s” papers also explain that the VRM component soil signal causes the decay seen during the Rx period in PI, and is from log-uniform Resistive permeability (note log-uniform “resistive,” not “reactive”). The papers also show that a log-uniform resistive soil has an associated log-linear reactive component. A log-uniform resistive permeability, or, saying the same thing in a different way, log-linear reactive, is the standard literature model for the soil VRM Rx signal and gives "Eric's" 1/t decay rate of change of Rx magnetic field for an ideal Tx magnetic step.


Hope this helps.


Helps a lot.

Even ML patents could not be more "sophisticated". Thanks.

I see why NASA change from detecting to space science, the latter is more easy to understand.
Logged

Global capital is ruining your life?
You have right to self-defence!
kazza
Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #204 on: Sunday September 18 2016 14:05:50 AEST PM »

With pleasure Doug.

Could you please verify that this forum is meant to be a technical forum as implied by your subsections of “patents,” “electronics,” “geophysics,” “Structural Geology, plate tectonics,”… etc?
If so, I assume therefore technical posts should be welcome and not denigrated because they are not “politically-correctly” over-simplified to the point of being inaccurate? (Like global warming deniers require.)

2nd attempt to explain VRM. This is the simplest I can manage, take it or leave it:

Soils are full of tiny magnetic particles. A very small percentage of these are small perfect magnetic ferrite crystals close to small range in size about 30nm (like a cube with a length of a few hundred atoms), and that are “pure” magnets (“saturated”); behave like super-strong minuscule magnets called SPM = super-paramagnetism, but, these particles in this size range can suddenly spontaneously randomly flip their field direction because of random thermal vibrations within the crystal. These are the particles that cause VRM, and all the other magnetic particles do not.

When a PI metal detector applies a magnetic field to these particles during the transmit period, a small percentage of the VRM particles are gradually coaxed into aligning with the transmit field because it biases the random thermal flipping. The smaller crystals align more quickly, but the bigger ones take longer. The percentage that align depends on the strength of the transmit field. But when the transmit field is turned off, the crystals that had been coaxed to align with the transmit field, then randomly in time flip back to net neutral soil fields, with the smaller ones decaying to neutral faster than the larger ones. The small particles having faster “time constant” decays and the bigger particles having longer time constant decays.

In the frequency domain, one can measure the response of VRM soils versus transmit frequency.
If the Tx frequency is low, then (a small percentage) of both the smaller particles and also the bigger particles have time to randomly be coaxed to align with the transmit sine field, but at higher frequencies only the smaller particles can flip in time. The stronger the field, the higher the percentage that align.

How does this show up on a plot? Well because at low frequencies more VRM particles (bigger + smaller) align than at higher transmit frequencies (only smaller particles), this means that the measured magnetic permeability is higher at low frequencies than high frequencies. And because over millions of years nature has produced a very near uniformly random distribution of these magnetic particles sizes in soils, the distribution of time constants of the VRM particles is likewise uniformly random. So a graph of the magnetic permeability versus log frequency gives the blue curve in figure 2 of
   
This shows the decreasing magnetic permeability of VRM soils and is called a log-linear because it is a sloped straight line (the “linear” bit) versus the log of frequency (the “log” bit). This blue curve is responding directly to the immediate transmit field, and is called the “in-phase” component or “reactive” component. So the standard VRM soil model has a “log-linear” reactive magnetic permeability.

Now look at the red curve. This is from the VRM particles having a delayed response because of their TCs, and is called the “quadrature” or “resistive” component. Resistive here means “loss of energy.” This is because the magnetic energy of the VRM particles is being randomly “destroyed” and appearing as heating the particles. The red curve has zero slope; the same “uniform” value for all frequencies, and this is called a “log-uniform” distribution. So the standard model of VRM soils has a “log-uniform” resistive component. Only the resistive component, the “delayed signal,” appears as a PI receive decaying VRM signal; the resistive component is what matters for PI Rx, not the reactive.

In an ideal PI, where the transmit field is just a single sudden magnetic switching off (after an infinite time of applying the field), called a “magnetic step,” all the particles of all TCs decay simultaneously after turn off. For the standard soil model with a log-uniform resistive permeability, the aggregate of all the TCs signals decaying together gives a logarithmic decaying signal, which, when measured in an ideal receive coil, gives the famous 1/t signal.


Last issue (no idea what the hell this "issue" is about), demod in the frequency domain that cancels DC/LF signals. US7432715. Multiplies Rx by sine/cos of synced Tx signal to give reactive and resistive and cancels any DC/low frequency because average of Rx*sin(wt) or Rx*cos(wt) = 0 unless Rx is also sin(wt) or cos(wt). And here is a sync demod that does not intrinsically balance DC/LF: US4303879
Logged
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 15652



« Reply #205 on: Sunday September 18 2016 17:15:19 AEST PM »

"--I happen to have a popular single frequency (freq domain) detector that I know intrinsically cancels SMF via sync demodulation according to its associated patent"
Which is the popular single frequency detector that you happen to have?
doug smile
Logged

All posts on this forum are the personal views of the author and should  not necessarily be  interpreted as those of Admin The QED contains NO patented or protected IP!!! No fake users on this site! This forum does not depend on  guest posting liars to survive!1/2 wit powerless to login and post! LO
NickF
regular members
Newbie
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #206 on: Sunday September 18 2016 21:31:40 AEST PM »

  
All those "air" theory worth absolutely nothing, if you get in air tests 5cm for 0.08gr nugget, which is not detectable using same detector in real mineralized soil (as per ATX example).
WM6, I think you are wrong about this one. If we air test two detectors and one can find a target at 5 cm and the other one can find the same target at 10 cm, this tells me immediately that if the target was in soil at 7 cm, the first detector has no chance of finding the target, while the second detector "may" find it. Air testing can be very useful.
If I made a detector and I want to compare it against another ones. on known targets (a coin, a beer cap, etc), if I know detection distances of other detectors, I can find out if my detector is comparable as sensitivity with other ones or if I need to tweak my design.

Nick
Logged
WM6
invited members
Senior Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1850



« Reply #207 on: Monday September 19 2016 04:12:19 AEST AM »

Hi Nick

Theoretically could be so, as you wrote, but in practice we face with another story.

Testing in soil (especially in highly mineralized soil) detector should to perform ground balance to detect something. Not so in air tests. This could change  a lot in comparison to our air tests.

I mentioned ATX, cause it was mentioned in test report and why I tested this detector too. It is not able to detect 0,1gram nugget in highly mineralized soil at all. So, of what use is air test in which ATX is able to detect same nugget at 7cm of distance (depth is wrong term in air tests)?

Or example from VLF world. Cheap Tesoro Compadre was able to detect 1euro coin in air at 21cm and in soil at 13cm. "Screwed" Turkish Atlantis Imperator 2 was able to detect same coin at exceptional fantastic 43cm in air, but in same testing substrate barely at 11cm. It was simply useless out in real soil and in real searching. On other side, beginner detector Compadre, not great in air tests, was absolutely stable and useful everywhere. So what use of air tests to know real performance of given detector?

Of course air tests are useful for quick check in building phases, if our detector is working and if modification in circuit through development give us some improvement or not. But to know real detecting performance, detectors should be tested in real soil and not in air.

Logged

Global capital is ruining your life?
You have right to self-defence!
kazza
Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #208 on: Monday September 19 2016 07:08:47 AEST AM »

An entry level Xterra. (I personally do not like it much; competitive Garretts preferably IMO.)


Still mystified why this issue is so important???
Logged
pedro
regular members
Newbie
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #209 on: Tuesday September 20 2016 21:05:56 AEST PM »

 I think what WM6 is saying, is that no matter how well a detector performs in an air test does not necessarally mean said detector will be any good in the field.
IMHO
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] Go Up Print 
australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Pi metal detector by Bugwhiskers  |  QED Detector ,latest updates  |  Topic: updates « previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder

BisdakworldClassic design by JV PACO-IN
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!