Jump to content

New Algorithm Reduces Noise


Recommended Posts

Is this the future of detecting?  I think so.

Take a set of data points and process them (just as we do with our brains) and voila!  It doesn't have to be magic when you have good science to make it repeatable.  

Watch out missed nuggets!

Currently, a type of software based on a machine-learning algorithm called deep learning has been shown to be effective at removing the blurriness or noise in images. These algorithms can be visualized as consisting of many interconnected layers or processing steps that take in a low-resolution input image and generate a high-resolution output image.

 

 

https://scienceblog.com/520757/smart-algorithm-cleans-up-images-by-searching-for-clues-buried-in-noise/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogrssfeed+(ScienceBlog.com) 

  • Like 7
  • Oh my! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


i agree, high energy light beam quality and beyond, with greater pixel definition(s) and enhanced visuals. the more clues science can give us the better

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! Imagine what kind of cost you'll be looking at to have a processor that intelligent in a detector!!! 

Worth it.

Amazing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Data points can be in any form.  They can be sound, light, magnetic, etc.  If you already have a sensitive collector of data this algorithm will make it see better.

Now you have to bring these ideas into market perspective.  When would Minelab obsolete all of its detectors in favor of a technology this powerful?  Not any time soon and by that time many of our nugget patches will be nearly barren but that makes it easier to find a few targets rather than a few targets in a lot of trash.  Everyone can imagine ... 

Steve is right.  It takes innovation a while to be incorporated.  Many of us here grew up watching the 'Space Race' and were told that we would benefit from all the money spent.  We have.

Chet has probably seen much more than the rest of us and he can't tell ... even after he has been retired.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a type of a neural net AI. They can be extremely versatile. My roomate back in college was doing his PhD thesis on them. They can be open source and put onto a chip and set to learn and solve an almost infinite number of problems. Sometimes the most efficient solutions they come up with make no sense to humans we almost certainly wouldn't come up with them ourselves in that way.

To understand just how versatile they are, recently a different type which was named AlphaZero was introduced to chess. Starting from nothing but the basic rules of the game, it did nothing except played games against itself and within 24 hours it was strong enough to beat the best human chess player in the world. In 3 days it figured out new ways to play the game and beat the strongest computer chess program humans had written in all the decades we've had computers. Now there is talk about pointing this very same AI to the basic rules of physics and biology to see what it comes up with.

These AI's can easily be put on a chip that are affordable (like $20), especially smaller and more specific ones. Though the really powerful ones still run on supercomputers.

I've been trying say for well over a decade now that there are tons of places that detectors could improve with modern techology and a company that simply is willing to pursue stuff that is at this point, "old news" in the tech world. That's ignoring completely relatively novel stuff like AI which alone could be a new frontier.

It's hard to really put it in perspective how far behind the tech curve detector companies are compared to really any other segment. They are dinosaurs. Even some of the Minelab stuff.

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

The bottleneck may be the amount of processing power needed.  Steve H. mentions the speed at which that can be minitiarized and made cost effective (calculator analogy) but it does depend upon demand.  Dedicated processors (as opposed to general purpose supercomputers as was used for the Google AlphaZero work Jason mentions) will help for the simplification/miniturization, but can that be simply borrowed from another more in-demand application?

CCD cameras are another example of progress.  They used to be mega-expensive for modest (in today's world) 1 megapixel packages.  Now every cellphone has many thousands of times better resolution and it comes effectively for free(?) as part of the deal.  But again, the demand for digital cameras (the intermediate evolutionary step) was high.  Metal detectors?  Not so much.  That's why it will need to piggy-back off of an in-demand application.  But for sure the potential is there.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphaZero has an open source equivalent called LeelaZero. Leela can run off a laptop computer ok. 

A Raspberry PI 4 at $55 is a full computer, with negligible weight gain, in which you can run an AI plus interface sensors (like a metal detector coil). It has a 64 bit quad core CPU, wireless, USB 3, etc. 

Shows just how cheap powerful electronics can be built today. There are competitors and various other peripheral devices built by essentially garage based, hobby companies for about the same price. A startup detector company could compete if they had good, highly skilled engineers and scientists, and thought outside the box.

AI aside, just looking at the world of stuff you can do with the massive amount of cheap computing power avaiable to even hobbyists today - Minelab appears to be the only company looking at software solutions, based on their patents I've read so far. So again, the rest of the pack will find themselves left in the dust with nothing but a patent wall to contend with when they finally wake up to modern technology in another 10 or 15 years. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jasong,

This is the stuff I thought might be on the chips in the Equinox and it could be on the 6000 if they wanted it but then what would they do for the next generation detectors?

Maybe Geo Sense is a marketing name for an algorithm!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the physical detecting principle would have to be changed or enhanced somewhat for this to really change the treasure hunting game.  I don’t think magnetic induction principles alone can achieve huge gains at this point even with AI applied.  A combination of induction balance or PI for conductive metal detection combined with compact/low power/high resolution Ground Penetrating Radar would be killer for deep, larger cross-section targets.  Magnetic induction would still be needed and would probably dominate for detection of small targets and tiny natural gold.  

Also use of AI and Augmented Reality combined with ultra precise ground mapping would also be a useful tool.  Imagine donning a pair of Augmented Reality glasses that could enable you to see where your coil has actually been to ensure complete ground coverage at a site, visual target logging (to ID target density/concentration).  I mean how many targets are not recovered simply because you didn’t get the coil over the target and not due to an inherent limitation of the machine.  The ultimate objective would be finally giving you the “X Ray” vision ability to actually peer into the ground and “see” buried targets in situ and in real time and without a semi-trailer of electronics needed to achieve that goal.

  • Like 3
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
  • Similar Content

    • By Gerry in Idaho
      I thought I was pretty damn good, but this technology has me beat.
      https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/mining-gap-companies-push-find-raw-materials-electric-vehicle-boom-rcna5077
      Might be time to invest?
    • By mcjtom
      Metal detectors often seem to have a 'Depth Gauge'.  How is it calculated? Is it the strength (or inverse of it) of the amplitude of the return signal?  So, for instance, everything else being equal, the 'deep' target would mean either a stronger target at greater depth or a weaker shallow target?
    • By GB_Amateur
      While we're all abuzz with the announcement and advertised feature and performance characteristics of the XP Deus II, I'm wondering about tests that distinguish between detectors' target separation abilities.  'Word on the street' is that in trashy iron sites, the original Deus is still the best available.  Presumably those reports are based upon in-field testing, which of course is the real proof.  But the downside is, (AFAIK) these are qualitative observations, not quantitative.  Subjectivity involved?  Unfortunately, yes.
      We do have Monte's Nail Board Test for a special case -- iron nails near a single coin, all in the same plane and typically all on the surface of the ground.  Add depth combined with some mineralization (burying the MNB) and you've included another real world dimension.  But in the field, multiple nearby targets are seldom in the same plane.
      So you hopefully see the purpose of this post.  Has anyone seen/tried other methods to better simulate actual in-field conditions to differentiate between competing detectors to best be able to handle trashy sites?
    • By Rick N. MI
      I mostly hunt in lakes and the bottoms are mostly all sand. A test on a sandy beach with the Equinox 800 and Xp Orx, both hit hard on a 14k 3.7 gram gold ring buried at 14". For mild ground I don't see a need for multi frequency. I do like the multiple frequencies on the Orx.
      Is there an advantage to multi frequency in mild ground?
    • By Steve Herschbach
      We have the Deus 2 just announced, Nokta/Makro Multi on the way, possibly the next generation Equinox from Minelab, and maybe even another Garrett multifrequency model to follow Apex, all coming in 2022. I guess we should even toss First Texas in there, as they just officially discontinued the CZ-3D, with the possibility something new will replace it soon. If this does not mean we are moving past single frequency, I don’t know what does. Or are we? There will no doubt always be a place for a finely tuned single frequency detector. However, if you consider Deus as selectable frequency, and Equinox as selectable/multi, then very many of us have already moved past a simple single frequency detector as our primary detectors.
      This is the thread to speculate on what is coming, where we are, and where we are headed. 2022 is shaping up as the year SMF (simultaneous multifrequency) finally takes off for real. In some detectors, it’s just companies chasing the latest marketing catchword. Multifrequency is only as good as the way it is implemented, otherwise we’d all have been swinging White’s DFX ages ago. It’s not enough to make a SMF detector, it also has to have genuine performance advantages. About the only given is that any multifrequency machine will outperform a single frequency on a saltwater beach. The rest, however, is very much up in the air.
      For some detailed explanation of the technology, and a history of past selectable and simultaneous multifrequency detectors, see my write up on Selectable Frequency And Multiple Frequency
      Where it all started, Fisher CZ-6 and Minelab Sovereign, both released in 1991. I think Fisher wins claim to being first, since Minelab takes a swipe at them in their Sovereign introduction. Notice how the misdirection on transmitted versus received and processed started on day one. 

      Fisher CZ-6 Quicksilver. The technology: Dual frequency Fourier Domain Signal Analysis. Patented state-of-the-art analog/digital electronics transmit two VLF signals (one 5 kHz, one at 15 kHz) deep into mineralized soil. The receiver circuitry had two ground compensated target signals to analyze, compare and identify. The result? Deeper targets, more accurate target identification. Wet sand is no problem for the CZ-6, it compensates for salt and ground mineralization simultaneously! Source Fisher CZ-6 Datasheet
       
       

      "The Sovereign" is the first of the latest generation of metal detectors from Minelab featuring Minelab's new technology called Broad Band Spectrum or BBS for short. This revolutionary new technology which is unique to Minelab has already been awarded patents in the USA, Canada and Australia and has several pending. Unlike other metal detectors which operate at just one frequency, or even the "newest" two frequency machines, "The Sovereign" actually transmits over a wide spectrum of frequencies. The resulting signal that is received from a target buried in the ground is processed by a microprocessor that removes interference caused by ground mineralization which limits the depth at which targets can be found, and often results in inaccurate target identification. The remaining signal can then be analysed to determine the actual composition of targets even if they are deeply buried, or if the ground is mineralized or salt water is present. Thus it is the only detector that can simultaneously reject both salt and mineralization while at the same time accurately discriminating the target, making it ideal for black sand beaches and many desert areas. In many areas that are highly mineralized and have been heavily searched in the past, "The Sovereign" will prove that many of the valuable targets are still there waiting for a Treasure Hunter with the proper detector to locate them. Source Minelab Sovereign Instruction Manual
    • By mh9162013
      I love coinshooting, and I'm often in my local parks or private permissions searching for clad and silver coins. But I noticed that when digging up shallow clad coins (3 inches or less), my AT Max with the stock coil would say the coin is 6 inches down. Sometimes, a surface coin would read at being 4 inches deep. I didn't think this was that big of a deal, b/c I could always pull out my F-Pulse and see if the assumed coin target was truly shallow or not. Also, the incorrect depth reading wasn't keeping me from digging a desired target.
      Tonight, I read:
       and
      http://www.fisherlab.com/hobby/davejohnson/SearchcoilfieldshapeApril2012.pdf
      Both of these mentioned anomolies or issues with DD coils and shallow targets. Is what I'm experiencing with my shallow coins and AT Max one of these anomolies? Or is there something else going on?
×
×
  • Create New...