Menu
What's new
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

THE ULTIMATE METAL DETECTOR?

A

Anonymous

Guest
ORIGINALLY designed in 1991. uses all the BEST ideas off this forum (not bad for 11 years ago).
Full details available on request, and subject to NDA being signed. Patents Pending on at least 5 parts of the design.
Target development cost to date,
 
One question: If this ultimate metal detector "uses all the BEST ideas off this forum", what then is there left to patent? The relevant prior art is in the public domain, by definition, and thus cannot be patented.
 
A whole lot more than is on this forum too.
The COPYRIGHT on the SYSTEM as a WHOLE.
Let's see you try to patent a cog! BUT, you could patent a machine using lots of cogs to do something new and innovative.
Why when someone proposes something radical and new, do we see others all too willing to shoot them down in flames, by criticising?
YES, I could get mad with those who post ideas on this forum that I had long ago, but I'm not so narrow minded, I merely applaud their ingenuity, and worry lest they beat me to it!
Now I'm not going to get into a slanging match, but I hope I have answered your question.
 
Nope, the question is still there. Eric Foster was selling a discriminating PI detector in the early 1980's. This was the PPD1. Mr. Foster also showed the world how to take an extra receiver signal sample much later than the first sample. The extra sample was used to cancel electrical noise and the signal from the earths magnetic field. HE DID THIS IN THE 1960'S !!!
Whites patented the method later on. Their patent looks like a 100% copy of Mr fosters published scientific papers which were published many years before the Whites patent was even filed.
The Minelab SD series detectors operate on almost precisely the same method as Fosters Goldscan. With all this, do we hear Mr. Foster complaining? No we do not. Mr. Foster answered one of my e-mails once by telling me that he had seen articles written as early as World War One which explained the basic theory of PI type detectors.
The above surely reflects just how good Mr. Foster is. He has shared his technology with all of us in the Detector classroom without the requirement for any personal reward.
You must realize just how out of character it is to have someone turn up claiming that they have invented everything that the rest of us have posted! Remember, Eric Foster's name is synonymous with the PI detector, David Johnson is a world famous detector designer who has designed for Fisher, Whites and Tesoro as well as others. There are also many others who contribute to the site who's names are world famous.
I personally consider you to be arrogant when you boldly claim that you have invented all of the published technology that the contributors of this site have freely shared. Add to this your attempts to use this site to actually generate money and I for one am appalled. Dave Emery. * * *
 
???
I did not claim to have invented everything on this forum, and YOU have misread what I posted!
What I said was that most of what was on this forum today, had been applied to a machine I designed back in 1991, and only now were people starting to come to the same conclusions.
See what I mean Eric, about being flamed by people who try to read to much into a posting?
So as far as my claim goes, I claim to be the first person to put ALL the good points into one machine, capable of doing anything required of it.
Anyways, seeing as we may well have a backer, we'll see shall we?
In the mean time Dave (and I do respect you abilities) before you've ACTUALLY tried and tested something, don't criticise those who think differently, or who are out on the fringes. BRUCE CANDY was one of those people once!
 
See what I mean Eric?
Thanks for the clarification on this matter.
BTW, I got the patent(s)!!!
Numbers? well that's for me to know and you guys to find out..HAPPY HUNTING!!
 
Dave Emery, you've answered your OWN question.
How could White's patent something that was public knowledge if Mr. Foster had published it years before?
CASE CLOSED! SEE MY OTHER POSTING.
 
Sean, you have just shown those readers who understand patents that you are blissfully ignorant regarding them. Whites had their patent issued because nobody else had made the same claims in a prior patent and the examiner failed to find any reference to the same work. This happens all the time when you are dealing with patents. Eric Foster published his work as a scientific paper. I am sure that Eric will provide you with the details of this paper if you wish to read it.
I understand patents very well. See US patent numbers 6,079,007, 6,237,075, and 6,188,716. These are the latest patents which were issued to me in the last 12 months or so. I have also been awarded a European patent but the number is yet to issue.
Don't get me wrong, hey if you made a detector that good my hat is off to you. You are however missing the point. This is a classroom. It is where people come to learn and exchange ideas. Eric Foster has freely given his help which is based on his considerable knowledge to others without regard for any kind of financial reward. Compare his attitude to the rest of the metal detecting industry and the difference is very clear. Remember that Mr. foster runs a metal detector company.
Most people who are involved with the classroom freely share their ideas. This way we all learn from each other. What I am sure is upsetting to many of the readers is to see the classroom used as a business tool. Your pursuits in this area would be far better served if you comunicated with people by e-mail. You may have noticed that the e-mail address is printed above each message.
Good luck with your venture, Dave. * * *
 
I hope he takes this to heed. A lot of people like yourself, contribute a lot of very good information on this forum. It is very much appreciated by all.
Eric has mentioned to me more than once that he felt the free exchange of information would improve the breed, sorter speaking. We would all benefit from it in the long run. That
 
Dave,
I apologise for the somewhat terse reply, ans I acknowlwdgethat there are a LOT ofVERY clever peole out there on this forum. Indeed, most have been involved in detector design for a VERY long time.
I respect Mr. Fosters abilities VERY MUCH.
What I should have pointed out, is that way back in 1990, I proposed a machine involving most, ifnot all of the techniques being theorised upon on this website today.
I feel I have created a machine which is truly universal in it's operation, combining both a P.I. and TR machine in the same package. there are many more modes of operation, and this machine is the first TRULY 100% upgradeable machine. How this is achieved I cannot divulge, but I'm sure it won't take you long to figure out how it's done.
I have spent over 15 years refining this machine, and applying military radar techniques to a metal detector.
What I was (rather ineptly) trying to point out was that James Dyson did not claim to have invented the vacuum cleaner, not did he invent the particulate separation cyclone, which had been in use in sawmills for some 60 years.
What James Dyson DID was to apply existing technology in a NEW and NOVELway, and thus, under the prerequisite for a patent,was accordinlgy granted one. This is what I have done.
Maybe I'm being over optimistic in my claims, but I'd like to think not givern the amount of time and money spent on research & development.
One thing I will say, without giving too much away, is that alot ofpeople are extolling the virtues of the FFT, so was I until I found a way that actually worked.
An FFT only gives you the signal energy, and frequency information.It is VERY inadequate at giving phase, which is what weare REALLY after. A muchbetter system must be used, and this is what I have laid claim to.
Many thanks for your wishes of luck with the"project", and i apologise unreservedly for the use of the forum for commercial purposes.
I had NO intention of offending anyone by doing this, and in fact I honestly didn't think of that. I hoped someone might see the posting and offer to help me realise this design. As it turns out, it did.
I have viewed your patents, and although NOW obvious, are very clever and novel in the way they approach and solve the problem.
I'm not trying to be funny, but if you look at a company called QUANTEL (Video FX), they use something very similar in their hardware dissolve function effect, where they effectively feedback data which becomes the address pointer to the next pixel of video info.
Just a thought, could you not use RAM instead, and NOT reset the data at power up? You could then XOR certain bits then re-write the result to the RAM. Finally, proceed as you have done in your existing design, this should not only give you far more randomess, but also as much longer repeat sequence? let me know what you think of this idea. I'll let you have if free!
 
Most labs have a spectrum analyzer which operates by the principle of the Fourier transform. Using that as their tool for research leads (for better or for worse) to understanding in that particular way. This may tend to get people stuck in that paradigm and make it difficult for them to see the wide range of other possibilities which may represent more efficient ways of knowing.
I am presently working to clean up some of the rough edges on a metal detector application which has as its underlying concept the Lagrangian coordinate system.
--Dave J.
 
Sean,
There is nothing new with using a ROM's output as the next address. Prior to Micocomputers such circuits were very common. They were refered to as state machines. The patent examiner mentioned various patents on state machines before stating that there was no prior art which taught one being used as a code generator. Dave. * * *
There are two patents covering the code generator. The first one mentions the use of a RAM in place of a ROM and the second one goes on to expalin how a master station can command address changes via a data link such as provided by radio communication.
The mix of a PI and a TR is suprisingly a rather old idea. Eric Foster sold a detector called the PPD1 back about 20 years ago. You may have read some of the posts about it a while back. I still believe that this method is the most likely to be successful to provide a good iron discrimination.
There are other methods. Most of these rely on the hysteresis of the iron to provide a signal which indicated iron. The problem with these methods to date is the fact that it is very difficult to pick up the hysteresis effects at the depths that a PI can detect.
 
Hi Dave,
Did you read my posting about the bipolar pulsing.
This was related to the hysteresis of iron, or "magnetic fluidity" as someone put it.
I was claiming to have invented a combined machine (PLUS a whole lot more). I had NO previous knowledge of the PPD1, or indeed that this had been tried before. I just find it gratifying to note that I'm coming up with the same ideas as Mr. Foster, indepentently, and as long ago as 12 years.
Most of my observations are based on a LOT of research, and applying lateral thinking. I don't see this as copying other people, merely combining the best points in a "what if" scenario. So far I've been getting some VERY promising results.
As regards the code generator, this was done by RACAL in the '70's. A command buried in the data subchannel, changed the sequency of the hopping algorithm on a regular basis, thus ensuring that the pseudo random sequence could not be defined and thus tracked.
However, it is still possible to track and DF such radios, I know, I derived a method of doing it, but that's for another forum and is classified information anyhow.
One idea I had (Ok maybe someone else had it first, I did without prior knowledge) was to make the coil of a PI "ring" and use the returned phase info to try to provide discrimination. However in reality, this is method raises problems of it's own.
Getting back to state machines, I am well aware of what these are. I would politely point out that again you have just admitted that your use is not new. Therefore it MUST be based on prior art, and as ALL inventions contain a modicum of prior art, then I can't see how any patents could be granted on this basis.
I think it enough to say that I FEEL I have an invention which fits all the criterion required, based on the fact that no one else has applied ALL the principles involved to my methodology. I therefor claim to have invented a highly advanced metal location device. Citing axamples of prior art as should be done, and giving all previous inventors the full credit (where due) for their talents.
I fail to see how you can say a patent would not be granted for the novel and original application, citing such prior art, and no amount of attempts to denounce what I feel I have accomplished will deter me form bringing this machine to market.
What this all boils down to is that I have a talent given to me by God. I have faith in that talent, becauseI have faith in God. If you see that as arrogant then I make no apologies for it.
 
Dave,
Erm, hmm,I'm a little bit confused on this, as I've never heard of this system.
I've done some research and, correct me if I'm wrong, which I probably am, but is this a system based on dp/dt of RATE of change of phase angles?
If so, I work in the comms industry at the moment, on systems using GMSK and QPSK. are you proposing something similar, and then trying to resolve how much the target distorts the expected return signal (phase wise)?
I had an idea that using a phase modulated TX signal for a detector, kind of like the bias of a tape dack, might have some useful side effects.
FM'ing the TX signal and calling it multifrequency except that the demodulated RX signal would contain purely Target signal. A discriminator (FM demod) with a slew rate limited output could be used to provide the ground signal.
Any thoughts on these ideas?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top