Jump to content

Interview With The Tarsacci Inventor Dimitar Gargov


Recommended Posts


17 hours ago, Aaron said:

I understand Chase, however you also need to understand the Tarsacci. It cannot be compared to a VLF, because it is not a VLF. It also does not run like a VLF. Nor is it a pulse induction. However it has a lot of the characteristics of the two. Actually, the Tarsacci should compared to the higher dollar detectors like the GPX, CTX and ATX. However, we understand the bottom line $$$$, and that’s what we all look at first.
Those of us who have been running one for the past year and who have taken the time to learn and run one can testify to that. It’s not like any or machine you’ve ran before, though those who have P.I. experience catch on quicker. Also because of its technology it should not be compared to a machine half its price, simply due to the fact machines half its price cannot do what the Tarsacci can do.

Appreciate your interest!

I have to interject. VLF is a misnomer. It simply means Very Low Frequency. It almost always is used now however to apply to most Induction Balance metal detectors. We only have two basic technologies in use. Induction Balance (IB), and Pulse Induction (PI). Induction Balance continuously transmits and receives simultaneously. There must be a transmit coil (TX), and a receive coil (RX) that are in electronic balance. They induce a current into the target. Induction Balance.

Pulse Induction alternately transmits and receives. A PI can even use a single coil that alternates between the transmit and receive modes. This is not possible with an induction balance metal detector. Each transmit phase is referred to as a pulse. A current is induced into the target. Pulse Induction.

Induction Balance detectors normally employ frequency domain processing to collect phase information about a target, which is where the discrimination information comes from. Pulse Induction detectors employ time domain processing to measure the decay of the current induced in the target.

A detector cannot be a pulse induction detector and an induction detector. It must be one or the other. There is no such thing and never will be a hybrid of the two. There detector either continuously transmits or it does not. Period.

Pulse Induction detectors cannot determine phase and so cannot employ frequency domain processing. However, Induction Balance detectors can employ time domain processing. Minelab has done so starting with the BBS series multifrequency units. One might refer to these as hybrids. Induction balance detectors employing time domain processing.

The MDT 8000 is not a pulse induction and cannot be compared directly to the GPX or ATX or other pulse induction metal detectors. That is a different class of detector. The MDT 8000 is an Induction Balance selectable single frequency detector employing time domain processing. It therefore compares more directly to the CTX 3030 and other Minelab multifrequency induction balance models that also employ time domain processing.

So if VLF is a loose term referring to induction balance metal detectors, the MDT 8000 is indeed a what people commonly mean when they say VLF metal detector. It is not a pulse induction metal detector.

Tarscacci MDT 8000 Patent Application

None of that takes away from or diminishes what Dimitar is doing. It is unique and has the patent application above pending. I just hate when terms get tossed around in a confusing fashion. It is like how the manufacturers have screwed up what all metal mode means by labeling full accept discrimination modes as all metal. Or Nok/Mak calling selectable frequency multifrequency.

Throw out all the marketing and just pay attention to what machines do and how they perform in the real world. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, I can’t wait till you get that Tarsacci, and even more so after you get around 30-40hrs on it.......you’ll see the “light”.😊👍

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

I just hate when terms get tossed around in a confusing fashion. It is like how the manufacturers have screwed up what all metal mode means by labeling full accept discrimination modes as all metal. Or Nok/Mak calling selectable frequency multifrequency.

Throw out all the marketing and just pay attention to what machines do and how they perform in the real world. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

Count me in on that statement, twice or even more.  If you (plural) have noticed I've started to use 'IB/VLF' instead of either 'IB' or 'VLF', which I guess is already a concession but hopefully it at least gets the reader thinking.  Unfortunately linguistics/languages have suffered from this malady for multiple millenia now and it's not going away.  In fact, with the free use of the internet (e.g. social media) and simultaneously the lowering of respect/value for education it is probably accelerating.  But I remind myself there are a lot bigger problems in the world right now.  This just adds to them in a small, but wrong way.

I recall 30 years ago when I was working with a person from Great Britain.  He seemed quite bothered by the sloppy use of the English language.  I was somewhat surprised at the magnitude of his concern so I asked him to elaborate.  His reply was (paraphrased) that as languages diverge in a seemingly random fashion, the ability to communicate ideas crisply is threatened.  It made a lot of sense then, and it still does today.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

I have been tempted but it is just hard to justify the cost delta against other capable single frequncy (multi selectrable) vlf detectors in the market place today.  Even if I concede it has superior salt/mineralized ground performance vs. other Multi F detectors, is that really worth the $600 - $800 premium.  Compared to Deus, probably a no brainer, but there is no way I would buy a Deus at its retail price today nor any other VLF north of $1000 today.

To spend that much money  I would want a machine for high dollar items(gold jewelry).If you hunted wet sand all the time  I would like one.If you have extra money then it is no big deal to purchace it.If you had to choose between it and the new  pulse coming out for salt work I wonder  what the good hunters would  choose if they can only get one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

A detector cannot be a pulse induction detector and an induction detector. It must be one or the other. There is no such thing and never will be a hybrid of the two. There detector either continuously transmits or it does not. Period.

It used to be that simple, but not any more. I have personally designed & built a detector that does both. At the same time. I assume it still exists, somewhere in the engineering attic at White's. But otherwise your post is very valid.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, maybe I am just being a purist. I want things to fit in tidy boxes. If the transmitting completely stops, how can the detector be considered a "continuous wave" detector? Conversely, if some part of the device never stops transmitting, how can it be a true PI? To me the gap in transmission is the defining factor in a pulse versus anything else. So if we remove that constraint... well all I can say is things are going to get really mushy, and the marketing boys are going to bury us in nonsense.

If a detector had a pulse component and a constant component running in tandem I guess you could call it a hybrid, but with one component still transmitting continuously it seems to me that makes the entire thing, the totality, continuous wave. I am wanting to put pure PI off in a box by itself and everything else in the other box. But I can see how that is not reality... just my preference.

So if you could narrow that just a hair somehow with a better way in your opinion to define this stuff, I am all ears Carl.

Thankfully I always fall back on my default "all that matters is the real world performance, not the label" position! :smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of good info.

I've tried to understand the technology and the best answer I get is what if there's another way to designs a detector..Not VLF not P.I. but another way?But this way offers Pulse mineral punch ability and VLF disc ability.

And I'm no electronics expert by any means.yet and I don't know .Can you pulse a transmit signal and receive continuous?HYBRID?Seems feasible.

Read the patent closely.I'm a novice on reading technical jargon.BUT things stick out.

Also and I mean this with all sincerity as the interview comes along in release stages I  myself  ask Dimitar  stuff that may answer questions in a round about way. ?

The Tarsacci  can handle mineral well and punch it Clean.BUT I feel the salt balance is also part of this.its another dimension in handling soil that's not simply ground phase taken care of everything that at  times becomes overkill ..It  seems to clean up signals that phase shifting causes to be muffled or even muted.

Keith

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to if the transmit side pulses, it is a pulse, regardless of what the receive end is doing. But honestly it’s just word games, defining terms, and those definitions change all the time in the real world. Obviously you can design new ways of doing things, and then we try to come up with words to define them. It is one of our traits as humans - assigning labels. It does become important in communications though that we define terms, otherwise they get tossed around and confuse rather than enlighten. All I know is the marketers are going to turn this hybrid stuff into a meaningless muddled mess in the next few years. Ultra Maximum Mixed Mode Multifrequency Time Domain Technology With Super Phase Processing!

Whatever. I think our skill set is different Keith. Give me a detector and I just turn it on and listen to it. They talk to me. Move this knob, they get happy, or they protest. They all have a language and you just have to learn it and listen. As you say, I can feel what they detector is trying to do, what it is saying to me.

I do think though that having some basic grasp of how these things work matters from an operational perspective. It explains why certain things happen in the field, and what might be done to address those things. If people really understood what a Gain control does, for instance, they would be less likely to insist it always be on max. But many people think of a Gain control as a depth control, and refuse to “turn down the depth”, when in fact turning the Gain down could increase the useable depth. That is why so many people seek canned settings... they really do not have a clue what the controls are actually doing.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Steve ive decided the transmission method of the machine whatever it may be is not as important as the Salinity balance.whatever that really is? and how it works.

That is the true DNA of the unit.and yes your detailed report on salinity balance once you use it you will see it causes P.I. timing type effects.very reminescent traits will be noticed.

Your very astute in your deciphering.!!!

Keith

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...