A
Anonymous
Guest
Hi all,
On his own forum Eric recently mooted a potential new PI ground balancing system but it didn't elicit any comments (Eric might like to republish the full post?) In essence after the back EMF has died down you fire a short repulsion pulse to exactly cancel the return signal from magnetised ground. The magnitude of the pulse being varied by the ground balance control. Presumably if you want to detect small nuggets the secondary pulse action has to be accomplished in the normal delay time of say 15 us. This appears to be technically practical.
A few queries:
1. How can this system cope with conductive (ie largely salt affected) as distinct from reactive mineralisation?)
2. Compared with an SD wouldn't this system have a reduced dynamic range ie some nugget responses concealed within the mineralistion signal have now been irretrievably cancelled?
3. Is the Professor Kim San Yo paper the theoretical basis of your "magnetic lens" theory ie the "magnetostriction" brings the nuggets "slightly closer" to the coil?
Here I can only reiterate on years of empirical observation. Compared with an air test goldfields mineralisation causes a greater or lesser reduction of depth not the opposite. Possibly most mineralisation whether it be anomolous horizontal hot pockets or differential vertical stratification or a combination there of, causes an ASSYMETRY of field flux which reduces the receive signal?
Just some thoughts in the pursuit of knowledge keep up the good work Eric.
Yours Jim S
On his own forum Eric recently mooted a potential new PI ground balancing system but it didn't elicit any comments (Eric might like to republish the full post?) In essence after the back EMF has died down you fire a short repulsion pulse to exactly cancel the return signal from magnetised ground. The magnitude of the pulse being varied by the ground balance control. Presumably if you want to detect small nuggets the secondary pulse action has to be accomplished in the normal delay time of say 15 us. This appears to be technically practical.
A few queries:
1. How can this system cope with conductive (ie largely salt affected) as distinct from reactive mineralisation?)
2. Compared with an SD wouldn't this system have a reduced dynamic range ie some nugget responses concealed within the mineralistion signal have now been irretrievably cancelled?
3. Is the Professor Kim San Yo paper the theoretical basis of your "magnetic lens" theory ie the "magnetostriction" brings the nuggets "slightly closer" to the coil?
Here I can only reiterate on years of empirical observation. Compared with an air test goldfields mineralisation causes a greater or lesser reduction of depth not the opposite. Possibly most mineralisation whether it be anomolous horizontal hot pockets or differential vertical stratification or a combination there of, causes an ASSYMETRY of field flux which reduces the receive signal?
Just some thoughts in the pursuit of knowledge keep up the good work Eric.
Yours Jim S