Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Found this patent that Whites filed and got a patent on in 2014 on a hybrid IB/PI machine.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110316541A1/en

Curious if anyone heard anything about this. Maybe Garrett will take it on?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My thought on that is the discrimination side of the unit would only be as good as how deep the IB can go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People have been swinging hybrids since Minelab combined frequency domain with time domain processing to create BBS multifrequency. Then FBS, now Multi-IQ. And Tarsacci MDT, another machine combining time domain and frequency domain processing. To a certain degree it’s all semantics and definitions more than reality. Marketing muddles things further, and more these days I just pay attention to what they do, and not which squirrel is running the treadmill inside.

Whites had working prototypes of this tech, but like most things it gets to this point where “if we can fix this one little but significant problem” but when you fix that, it breaks this, and engineer whack a mole ensues. That’s probably where this is at, as they never could get it to market. Hopefully Garrett can make something of it, as it’s one of whites Crown Jewels they were holding. There is no doubt in my mind that the future belongs to sophisticated mixed processing machines, with single frequency now the realm of the rebox and relabel crowd.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

correct, yet single frequency is where it all starts and eventually ends with mixed processing detectors. the one frequency will always be part of the equation, without that base line there would not be progress. it takes several and different single frequencies to experiment and evolve. i prefer true multi frequency yet it will be the one frequency that in a way will tune the detector for maxmium performance

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been never ending talk, for years, about supposed machines that will have the best of pulse-world , while at the same time, TID/Disc. ability like standard coin-machines.    So that you can effortlessly go into jet-black wet-salt sand, getting fabled depth, ... AND be able to pass nails and bobby pins *all at the same time*.   Who can argue with that, eh ?  It's no secret that some beach pulse machines can get a dime to a foot deep, so it's merely a matter of adding the ability to disc. out iron, and presto, you have the perfect machine.  Right ?

 

But alas, any efforts to do this is always as kac says:   Any such disc. (ability to pass nails, or discern TID's) is only good for the top half of the depth (down to 4 or 5" tops ?).  Beyond that, everything sounds the same.  So if you want the fabled depth, you kiss discrimination goodbye.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2021 at 3:18 PM, kac said:

Found this patent that Whites filed and got a patent on in 2014 on a hybrid IB/PI machine.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110316541A1/en

Curious if anyone heard anything about this. Maybe Garrett will take it on?

This was something I worked on at White's, here is a patent I filed on a more practical version of the technology:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US9285496B1

I had it fully built and working with manual ground balance. It was deeper & quieter than a TDI. I was working on autotrack and discrimination and had both crudely functioning, and that's when I left White's. I saw no big technical hurdles left to overcome. Over the years I stayed in touch with people at White's but no one (to my knowledge) ever tried to pick up where I left off. Don't know why. I'd love to finish it but I don't own the patent.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Geotech said:

Over the years I stayed in touch with people at White's but no one (to my knowledge) ever tried to pick up where I left off. Don't know why.

That would be crazy.... and that would be in line with why White’s is no more. Thanks for the tidbits Carl. Hopefully Garrett has a better idea of what to do with White’s tech than White’s themselves did.

Carl may remember a conversation he and I had years ago. Carl and company were instrumental in bringing the V3i to market. I made a pitch to Carl that while V3i was revolutionary, it missed the mark in one way. My thought was V3i, but stripped into the lightest detector possible, with only the controls actually required for day to day operation. The absolute fact is Whites had an Equinox type design way before Minelab, but stood pat on big box instead of going to the next very obvious step of miniaturizing it. Obvious to me at least, and others listened when White’s did not. And it took Nokta/Makro to make my high frequency MXT. At least the waterproof TDI finally made it Carl, but too little, too late.

They were so close though it seems to pulling off a turnaround. The 24K and TDI Beachhunter were both moves in the right direction, and 24K, the last real machine from Whites, is best of class. Maybe without the pandemic, but that was the final blow. It’s too bad, because Whites really was advancing the tech in serious ways more than the other U.S. manufacturers. V3i is a box full of stunning first ideas, none of which reached full fruition at White’s. Seems to be the way of American manufacturers with second generation owners though. Something gets lost in translation from founder, to next in line.

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Geotech said:

I had it fully built and working with manual ground balance. It was deeper & quieter than a TDI. I was working on autotrack and discrimination and had both crudely functioning, and that's when I left White's. I saw no big technical hurdles left to overcome. Over the years I stayed in touch with people at White's but no one (to my knowledge) ever tried to pick up where I left off. Don't know why. I'd love to finish it but I don't own the patent.

You may want to contact Garrett, maybe you can finish it off. Wouldn't hurt to talk to them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, kac said:

You may want to contact Garrett, maybe you can finish it off. Wouldn't hurt to talk to them.

Something tells me Garrett is aware. :smile:

  • Like 3
Link to post
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 GB_Amateur
      This is a topic relevant to every(?) form of detecting -- ground coverage.  I'll list several questions concerns I've had but any replies of course aren't limited to these, nor do they need to address  any of them.  Just tossing out some ideas to prompt further discussion.
      1) What methods and efforts do you apply to ensure full ground coverage in the cases where that is one of your goals?
      2) Is your sweep a straight line path or an arc?
      3) How long is your sweep?
      4) How much do you overlap consecutive sweeps in the direction you walk?
      5) How much do you overlap side-to-side swings when following parallel paths (e.g. when walking two side-by-side swaths in the same direction how much does the left end of one path overlap the right end of the next path or vice-versa)?
      6) Have you ever measured your coverage?  How well do detectors with GPS (e.g. Minelab GPZ-7000 and Minelab CTX-3030) monitor ground coverage to this detail?  Have you used other devices to measure ground coverage.  E.g. I can imagine a drone with camera could provide useful data.  Are there smartphones app that would help quantify coverage?
       
    • By nebulanoodle
      Just dreaming...
      What'dya think? Minelab technology going on the next moon mission?
      X6 must be space-worthy.
    • By AUgetter
      If this question has been addressed elsewhere, I apologize in advance and hope someone can give me a link for it.  I have noticed that other companies besides Minelab are coming out with PI detectors for less than $3K.  How do these detectors compare to the best Minelab detectors for Gold and also relic hunting?
    • By JCR
      On the Anfibio Multi (and I think Kruzer & others) there is a definite step in sensitivity between 39&40 Gain and again between 69&70 Gain. Is this a change in the Internal Threshold? In a way this would be the inverse of the way the F75 adjusts sensitivity according to Mike Hillis.  Regardless, it is a very good set up in difficult sites. Most NM users know about the difference in response speed between 89 & 90 Gain on 3DI. This is different. I had read about these steps in a forum post that quoted Alper of NM. I can't seem to find that post now that I want to re read it.
    • By jasong
      https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2021016649A1/en?assignee=minelab&scholar&oq=minelab&sort=new
      This is the most out of this world Minelab detector patent I've ever read. There is so much here, some very sci-fi like, I don't even know where to start. My takeaway is they seem to be positioning themselves for a drone based detector eventually (main details in this patent could be easily transferred to a drone based platform - IMU, GPS, magnetometer, heads up display, FPV, remote control, robotic/vehicle mount, etc) . That is 100% a guess. But in the meantime, there is some interesting, novel items in the pipeline that we might actually see on a machine in closer future?
      No clue if this is a coin machine or gold machine or if it's something they are actually working on right now or just trying to get control patents on such things for the future which may or may not arrive. One thing is for certain, Minelab is BUSY in the engineering department. A few of the highlights:
      Heads up display over glasses/head mounted display (aka augmented reality). Settings, target visualization, shading of detected/not detected areas (I asked for this specifically 5 or 6 years ago here, awesome to see it in a patent now). Plus a camera showing the coil (why would you need that if not operating remotely as from a drone?) The detector has a camera, IMU (accelerometer) and magnetometer to determine position with accuracy. The IMU tracks the position of the coil in real time in relation to both the ground and the target, and combined with the camera video feed will provide a "visual" of the target in the ground through the glasses/head display, as in form of a heat map which increases accuracy with each pass of a coil over the target. A GPS tracks the machine position to properly map the IMU/coil visual target data on the ground and let's a user see the mapping as they detect. This data is recorded for future historical use and can be shared.  Centimeter accuracy with the visual target heat mapping. Potential operators/users include entities other than humans such as "robots" and "an AI (artificial intelligence) using a metal detector" and this line: "The metal detector may be handheld, mounted on a robotic arm of a vehicle or a robot."  Wireless connectivity to computers and phones, transfer of files containing settings configurations from instructors or expert users Remote control of the metal detector through apps on laptops or phones Ability to upload maps, including detecting data, historic human activity, buildings, or other items that seem to indicate custom mapping capability Internet connectivity, potential control through the internet (again, why if not for a drone type device?) "Teamspeak" to other detecting members in the area wirelessly Visual/spatial discrimination Accurate depth measurement Synthesized audio mode, eliminating noise completely and allowing the detector to "recreate" a synthetic audio stream based on data from prior swings Delayed audio processing (enhanced audio) mode or real time audio mode, ability to seperate multiple close targets, reason for this I venture a guess why below ---> This patent actually seems to be describing a completely new method of RX in a detector. Which is actually similar in some ways to the wacky idea I had years ago of reducing EMI/ground noise by emulating a radio telescope array. But in this case they appear to be describing a fairly ingenuous method of doing something similar with only one coil by monitoring RX of the same target at different points in the swing (with the IMU tracking these points) and combining all those RX signals. In this way (and this is my guess, the patent doesn't explain this), you can form a sort of comparator, gradiometer, or interferometer to seperate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. If that's what they are doing, then I find it to be brilliant. If not, then I just gave them one hell of an idea to patent for the future. 
      That probably sounds like jibberish to non-engineers. But I want people to understand the brilliance in simple terms. Consider this: EMI is random. At any given point in your swing you'll get noise here, but not there. So if you compare two points in the same swing, you will hear noise one point but not the other point because the "zap" already ended. But you might hear a good target at both points in the swing since it's not random like EMI, it's always there in the ground. So, you can effectively eliminate EMI by comparing what signal is not there at two very close points in the swing, and keep the target since it's always there.
      Similarly, with ground, the ground changes as the alluvium changes since soil is inhomogeneous. But a target is still the target. So, a similar method can be applied to the ground.
      In theory, you could use ideas like this to essentially get rid of the Difficult type timings and keep your gains boosted high, and deal with EMI/ground in this way instead which does not require reducing sensitivity. A totally new, novel approach to RX in a metal detector. The audio processing is very slightly delayed because they are using that time to compare measurements at a few different coil positions before letting the audio processor signal that there is a target present. That's my guess. If that isn't what they are doing, then someone else should patent that and thank me for it later when Minelab buys it. Either way, they have something totally new in the RX department here. And the future of detecting looks bright and interesting to me still.
    • By WhiteRabbit
      Hello, now here’s an opener that might just get me banned on my first post!
      Bear with me, my intentions are pure :)
      Does anyone know if it would be possible to jam an MD signal? The reason I ask is to combat the evident problem we have in the UK with “nighthawks”, illegal detectorists.
      Over here, any landowner can grant permission for detecting on their land (with caveats, known historic sites are protected by law). What often happens is that such a permission is granted and a detectorist innocently sets about his / her business. Someone less scrupulous spots this person and assumes there may be something important there, so shows up at night with a couple of friends and the landowner awakens to a field / lawn full of holes, then bans metal detecting.
      Historic sites are also looted.
      Just an off the wall question, how tricky would it be to build a device to block this on a piece of land? Anyone any ideas?
×
×
  • Create New...