A
Anonymous
Guest
Bill, your post anticipated the philosophical content of this post, so I have edited it to be a response to both of you.
There's no reason why the electrical parameters of the searchcoil couldn't be specified right up front, to be the same as those of the searchcoil of an existing manufacturer, unless the design were so innovative that no existing standard searchcoil would suffice. Basing it on a standard searchcoil would make a wider variety of searchcoils available, and the present manufacturer's product could be used as a reference design to guage the effectiveness of the new electrical design.
Which manufacturer's coil? A first consideration would be suitability of its electrical characteristics. I believe someone mentioned in another post the availability of connectors.
There is a broader question that ought to also be addressed: what are the effects of linking a manufacturer to a process they do not control? Some manufacturers would resent this, and so everyone (including that manufacturer) would be deprived of the benefits of such a linkage. Therefore it is to everyone's advantage that the manufacturer so linked is one which grasps the benefits of being linked to such an uncontrolled process.
Benefit #1: The loop compatibility inherent in this, makes the "public design" immediately accessible to the in-house engineers to see what they can spin off of it. There is no presumption that they would disclose everything they would be doing with it: they would be contribute just enough to the uncontrolled process to remain effective collaborators.
Benefit #2: The whole process will produce personal links between collaborators which will facilitate exchange of information which needs to remain out of public view-- links which otherwise won't exist.
Benefit #3: The opportunity for divvying up major portions of the process to collaborators who have special expertise or resources, will make everything go more quickly and minimize duplication of resources. For example, one company could focus on regulatory issues whereas another could focus on software.
Benefit #4: The potential for a product which is basically an "industry-certified" design, which could then become a method of branding the product esp. for introduction into new markets.
None of the above implies a merger between companies, publication of all information, etc. It is necessary for the fractal nature of business (and everything which is analogous to business, for instance biological speciation) that boundaries exist. The whole semi-public collaboration effort would normally be just one part of the overall operation; which, however, would have ripple effects through the rest of the company.
OK, now a peek past the surface to the philosophical-psychological underpinnings of this approach.
It is human nature to want to remain in control, and that is the primary psychological barrier to this whole scheme. In order to see the potential benefits, even the ones I have already put into plain view above, a person will first have to ask, "Is it possible that it would be OK to be part of something uncontrollable?" If their internal personal answer is negative, it will be possible to explain everything to them in detail and they will have no idea what you're talking about.
Admitting to loss of control is a difficult thing. But once one looks reality square in the face and realizes that one was never, is not now, and never will be in control, conscious and deliberate loss of control becomes a powerful tool for dealing with reality.
It is arguably the most powerful tool available to humanity, because those who strive to do wrong are unable to forfeit control, and therefore unable to use the tool. This is different from (for instance) atomic power, which can be used equally for good or evil.
If you can use this tool in the metal detector industry, you can use it anywhere.
The power of conscious and deliberate loss of control is the underlying philosophical principle for the existence of this forum. Eric did the unthinkable and began releasing technical information into public view. When you realize that this forum is, in the final analysis, a kind of advertisement, when you look beneath its surface you discover that it testifies to the good character of the person who founded it in a way that can't be gainsaid.
...... So, in my opinion, the choice of manufacturer has implications that go way beyond electrical suitability.
A manufacturer who understood what this was about, would post here, tip their hand with at least a card or two face up, and ask that their loop be considered as a standard, at least to get the ball rolling.
--Dave Johnson
There's no reason why the electrical parameters of the searchcoil couldn't be specified right up front, to be the same as those of the searchcoil of an existing manufacturer, unless the design were so innovative that no existing standard searchcoil would suffice. Basing it on a standard searchcoil would make a wider variety of searchcoils available, and the present manufacturer's product could be used as a reference design to guage the effectiveness of the new electrical design.
Which manufacturer's coil? A first consideration would be suitability of its electrical characteristics. I believe someone mentioned in another post the availability of connectors.
There is a broader question that ought to also be addressed: what are the effects of linking a manufacturer to a process they do not control? Some manufacturers would resent this, and so everyone (including that manufacturer) would be deprived of the benefits of such a linkage. Therefore it is to everyone's advantage that the manufacturer so linked is one which grasps the benefits of being linked to such an uncontrolled process.
Benefit #1: The loop compatibility inherent in this, makes the "public design" immediately accessible to the in-house engineers to see what they can spin off of it. There is no presumption that they would disclose everything they would be doing with it: they would be contribute just enough to the uncontrolled process to remain effective collaborators.
Benefit #2: The whole process will produce personal links between collaborators which will facilitate exchange of information which needs to remain out of public view-- links which otherwise won't exist.
Benefit #3: The opportunity for divvying up major portions of the process to collaborators who have special expertise or resources, will make everything go more quickly and minimize duplication of resources. For example, one company could focus on regulatory issues whereas another could focus on software.
Benefit #4: The potential for a product which is basically an "industry-certified" design, which could then become a method of branding the product esp. for introduction into new markets.
None of the above implies a merger between companies, publication of all information, etc. It is necessary for the fractal nature of business (and everything which is analogous to business, for instance biological speciation) that boundaries exist. The whole semi-public collaboration effort would normally be just one part of the overall operation; which, however, would have ripple effects through the rest of the company.
OK, now a peek past the surface to the philosophical-psychological underpinnings of this approach.
It is human nature to want to remain in control, and that is the primary psychological barrier to this whole scheme. In order to see the potential benefits, even the ones I have already put into plain view above, a person will first have to ask, "Is it possible that it would be OK to be part of something uncontrollable?" If their internal personal answer is negative, it will be possible to explain everything to them in detail and they will have no idea what you're talking about.
Admitting to loss of control is a difficult thing. But once one looks reality square in the face and realizes that one was never, is not now, and never will be in control, conscious and deliberate loss of control becomes a powerful tool for dealing with reality.
It is arguably the most powerful tool available to humanity, because those who strive to do wrong are unable to forfeit control, and therefore unable to use the tool. This is different from (for instance) atomic power, which can be used equally for good or evil.
If you can use this tool in the metal detector industry, you can use it anywhere.
The power of conscious and deliberate loss of control is the underlying philosophical principle for the existence of this forum. Eric did the unthinkable and began releasing technical information into public view. When you realize that this forum is, in the final analysis, a kind of advertisement, when you look beneath its surface you discover that it testifies to the good character of the person who founded it in a way that can't be gainsaid.
...... So, in my opinion, the choice of manufacturer has implications that go way beyond electrical suitability.
A manufacturer who understood what this was about, would post here, tip their hand with at least a card or two face up, and ask that their loop be considered as a standard, at least to get the ball rolling.
--Dave Johnson