Why are there very few metal detector company using this technology and or why is it not affordable "multi frequency". Pretty much minelab and Fisher and whites are the only ones, and the cz21 is fishers only current model with this. And there all exspensive....Why are they so expensive ? Why doesnt Garrett have a few machines along with tesoro ? Is the technology really that hard to design. What do you guys think ? Thanks
Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
Multi freqency
- Thread starter JJdigs
- Start date
Southwind
Well-known member
My guess is general purpose vs special purpose vs multi-purpose. Having just one frequency falls in the range of either general purpose (6 kHz - 10 kHz) or special purpose (50 kHz prospecting) or multi-purpose where you can use the same detector in multiple types of hunting and still be better than any general purpose or as act as any special purpose detector. This feature should be more expensive.
No idea why the other manufactures don't give a multi-frequency option?
No idea why the other manufactures don't give a multi-frequency option?
Dave_E
Troll
I'm not positive but I think multi-frequency machines, in general, are "slower" than single frequency machines in the same price tier.
Trends seem to be moving toward machines that have better reactivity speeds and depth, except for beach/water machines where the multi-frequency devices seem to shine.
Trends seem to be moving toward machines that have better reactivity speeds and depth, except for beach/water machines where the multi-frequency devices seem to shine.
I don't buy it....cz technology been out almost 20 years ! Kinda like AC and power windows in cars,most cars have it now. From the multi freq machines I have used they have all had better ID at depth.....as a relic/coin hunter that's very important. I guess I don't understand how or why detector technology takes so long for prices to come down.....video games ,cellphones mp3 players radios,walkie talkie and so on like tech moves very fast. Yea so I would love $450 dual/multi freq machine, hold off on all the bells and whistles and just make a solid performer ! Truly I have no idea on the work or engineering that's involved producing a new machine. Maybe the metal detector market is just to small of a world wide biz and the company's hold back there tech so they can make sure they have future models to produce.....seems like the past 20 years and the next twenty years the tech may not really change that much....And I'm OK with that ! I just want more multi freq machine options at a better price.....lol OK Im done
I believe the biggest barrier to multi-frequecy Detectors is the current technologies are patented by Minelab, White's and Fisher (First Texas). Minelab is very protective of their intellectual property. They even patented in the US updating of metal detector software via the end-user.
The Minelab BBS patent has expired but the FBS patent is still valid and these two designs overlap so it would be difficult to manufacture a BBS detector without infringing on the active FBS related patents.
White's licensed a multi-frequecy metal detector patent from Minelab for the DFX and the Beach Hunter ID. The 3 frequency V3i is a newer White's patent and is not based on Minelab technology.
I'm unsure of the patent applicability on the Fisher multi-frequecy design. But the grapevine is saying they are working on an updated multi-frequecy detector that is an improvment over their CZ series and should be available within 12 - 18 months if not sooner.
The next big thing on the detecting horizon is a ground balancing pulse induction detector with full discrimination capability. The newish Minelab GPZ 7000 is a step in that direction.
White's has patented a design that is both a VLF induction balance and a pulse induction detector. Whether it's in development or not is anybody's guess with exception of White's innere circle.
The Minelab BBS patent has expired but the FBS patent is still valid and these two designs overlap so it would be difficult to manufacture a BBS detector without infringing on the active FBS related patents.
White's licensed a multi-frequecy metal detector patent from Minelab for the DFX and the Beach Hunter ID. The 3 frequency V3i is a newer White's patent and is not based on Minelab technology.
I'm unsure of the patent applicability on the Fisher multi-frequecy design. But the grapevine is saying they are working on an updated multi-frequecy detector that is an improvment over their CZ series and should be available within 12 - 18 months if not sooner.
The next big thing on the detecting horizon is a ground balancing pulse induction detector with full discrimination capability. The newish Minelab GPZ 7000 is a step in that direction.
White's has patented a design that is both a VLF induction balance and a pulse induction detector. Whether it's in development or not is anybody's guess with exception of White's innere circle.
metalpopper
New member
ArizFlash said:
*********************************************************************************
Good evening ARIZ.....Your post caught my attention......(See the sections of quote, highlighted from your post.)
I wonder if you notice my earlier offerings in response to a similar enquiry for discriminating on detectors which utilised PULSE INDUCTION transmissions?
I was lampooned by our respected Dave J.(designer) and his friends for my opinions on the subject.
Now you offer similar assertions......Minelab.....Whites....etc
(See my post Re: The Discriminating ( Inductionto iron) Pulse Induction. Fantasy? )
That was several months ago, in this forum............Initial thread by Ringzapper.. Nov. 01 2014......my post (MetalPopper), in thread...May 05 2015
P.s. Can you give the patent number for the Whites VLF/PI that you refer to?....I'd be interested to examine its proposals.....Matt
Matt,
Also referred as 'half-sine' technology...
It's here;
http://www.google.com/patents/US20110316541
(It was also published earlier under a different number that eludes me now.)
enjoy,
mike
Also referred as 'half-sine' technology...
It's here;
http://www.google.com/patents/US20110316541
(It was also published earlier under a different number that eludes me now.)
enjoy,
mike
Carl-NC
Active member
Trojdor, the half-sine patent has nothing to do with the V3. White's has never produced a detector based on the half-sine patent, and they don't have any patents on the V3 multifrequency method, which is the same method as the DFX.
Matt, you previously didn't offer opinions, rather firm assertions that happened to be wrong.
Matt, you previously didn't offer opinions, rather firm assertions that happened to be wrong.
Carl,
I know that!
I never said anything about the V3! Are you confusing my post with ArizFlash?
Matt asked for the VLF/PI Hybrid patent number (read last line of his post) and I gave it to him.
I also never asserted that White's made anything using said patent? I wish they had.
Perhaps you are confusing his post with mine?
(If it help you feel any better, I disagreed with him at the time, as well.)
I was hoping he'd actually read it as it clearly explains the difference between VLF and PI operation...particularly the part where PI analysis is done during 'power off' portion of cycle.
(And VLF analysis is performed during the 'power on' portion of the cycle.)
Please re-read last line of his post, and then my response.
mike
I know that!
I never said anything about the V3! Are you confusing my post with ArizFlash?
Matt asked for the VLF/PI Hybrid patent number (read last line of his post) and I gave it to him.
I also never asserted that White's made anything using said patent? I wish they had.
Perhaps you are confusing his post with mine?
(If it help you feel any better, I disagreed with him at the time, as well.)
I was hoping he'd actually read it as it clearly explains the difference between VLF and PI operation...particularly the part where PI analysis is done during 'power off' portion of cycle.
(And VLF analysis is performed during the 'power on' portion of the cycle.)
Please re-read last line of his post, and then my response.
mike
metalpopper
New member
Hi Carl!
and welcome to the thread, ,,,,,,and for your opinion and assertions....!
(It's must be a genetic fault we share.)
Trojdor may yet prove you wrong in your assertions, regarding 'sine-wave' etc., comments.
I can see where Trojdor is coming from, 'information-wise'.
There are plenty of others out there, who express similar understanding.
Personally, there is a vague recollection of a more senior Whites engineer/designer, than yourself, who was quoting the fact of Whites 'examining' the truncated sine-wave technologies.
That said;
I have no wish to even attempt to contradict you now, but rather prefer to leave your posted genuine beliefs/opinions, for others to debate.
Instead, may I invite you to direct your undoubted technical prowess to assist in helping those who seek help via this forum......regardless of whether others think we're right or wrong, and instead let them chose what best serves their needs.
Matt
and welcome to the thread, ,,,,,,and for your opinion and assertions....!
(It's must be a genetic fault we share.)
Trojdor may yet prove you wrong in your assertions, regarding 'sine-wave' etc., comments.
I can see where Trojdor is coming from, 'information-wise'.
There are plenty of others out there, who express similar understanding.
Personally, there is a vague recollection of a more senior Whites engineer/designer, than yourself, who was quoting the fact of Whites 'examining' the truncated sine-wave technologies.
That said;
I have no wish to even attempt to contradict you now, but rather prefer to leave your posted genuine beliefs/opinions, for others to debate.
Instead, may I invite you to direct your undoubted technical prowess to assist in helping those who seek help via this forum......regardless of whether others think we're right or wrong, and instead let them chose what best serves their needs.
Matt
metalpopper said:
Actually Matt, I agree with Carl and Dave 100% on this.
He may have just (hopefully) mistaken me for another poster.
Just so there's no misunderstanding, I believe all Carl's assertions to be true, and trivial to prove;
1.The half-sine patent has nothing to do with the V3. (True...it's not even remotely close)
2. White's has never produced a detector based on the half-sine patent. (True...I sure wish the h3ll they would.)
3. They don't have any patents on the V3 multi-frequency method, which is the same method as the DFX. (True.)
mike
Carl
I was under the assumption that patent US 6911823 B2 by Mark Rowan was the basis for the Vision, V3, and V3i along with the DFX design.
https://www.google.com/patents/US6911823?dq=metal+detector+patents&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix24-ituTLAhWMEpQKHQJAAWA4HhDoAQg4MAQ
As well as the patent for the display, patent US 8729902 B1 by the Kelly's and several others including you.
https://www.google.com/patents/US8729902?dq=metal+detector+patents&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix24-ituTLAhWMEpQKHQJAAWA4HhDoAQgqMAI
I was under the assumption that patent US 6911823 B2 by Mark Rowan was the basis for the Vision, V3, and V3i along with the DFX design.
https://www.google.com/patents/US6911823?dq=metal+detector+patents&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix24-ituTLAhWMEpQKHQJAAWA4HhDoAQg4MAQ
As well as the patent for the display, patent US 8729902 B1 by the Kelly's and several others including you.
https://www.google.com/patents/US8729902?dq=metal+detector+patents&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix24-ituTLAhWMEpQKHQJAAWA4HhDoAQgqMAI
metalpopper
New member
trojdor said:metalpopper said:
Actually Matt, I agree with Carl and Dave 100% on this.
He may have just (hopefully) mistaken me for another poster.
:::::::::::::::::::;::::
Sorry guys, my error....I meant to refer to Aziz's post....in particular, the suggestion
Regarding the multi-frequ. Truncated sine-wave patent, and the inference of Whites.
The patent number Trojdor gave, shows Earl and Whites hold it.
Sorry for confused post...xxxxx to Carl..any spare room in foggy lamd?...Matt
mike
Carl-NC
Active member
To my knowledge, Mark’s patent never made it to working hardware. It was supposed to be part of the V3, but got axed because the product was already late.
The “Display” patent covers some of the ways of displaying results (kinda like the old SignaGraph patent), but nothing to do with the way multifrequency was actually implemented in the detector.
The “Display” patent covers some of the ways of displaying results (kinda like the old SignaGraph patent), but nothing to do with the way multifrequency was actually implemented in the detector.