Jump to content

New Minelab Manticore


Sheppo

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Johnnysalami1957 said:

Aurait pu le nommer Equinox 1000. Ou 1500 selon son prix. 

So it would rather be Equinox 2000 given the price.

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


15 minutes ago, Geotech said:

FBS2 is VLF with time-domain sampling & processing. There is no PI going on.

Carl,

Would it be possible for you to help me understand a bit more.  My simplistic, non electrical-engineering-trained mind thinks in terms of VLF being "frequency domain" and PI being "time domain."  And I THINK that is correct, right?  And I have a very basic understand of the "trasmit, wait while hysteresis occurs, and then receive" idea of how PI units function...

BUT -- what I have a hard time understanding is if FBS2 utilizes "time-domain sampling and processing," why is that not considered at least "PI-like?"

I would really like to understand this better...

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, la torche said:

So it would rather be Equinox 2000 given the price.

Or Equinox1999 ...  😃

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

1 hour ago, Geotech said:

FBS2 is VLF with time-domain sampling & processing. There is no PI going on.

Do you mean they are doing something like using an inverse Fourier Transform to construct a new time domain waveform out of a number of multiple additive VLF frequencies broadcasted by the coil, and then sample for the target response after the new FFT "pulse" is decaying? But still also sampling in the frequency domain too with the multiple VLF frequencies individually?

Or are you talking about something more basic here? I get confused between the way physics/mathematics terminology is used sometimes in the detector world in ways that don't mean what I would interpret them to mean outside the detector realm.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jasong said:

Do you mean they are doing something like using an inverse Fourier Transform to construct a new time domain waveform out of a number of multiple additive VLF frequencies broadcasted by the coil, and then sample for the target response after the new FFT "pulse" is decaying? But still also sampling in the frequency domain too with the multiple VLF frequencies individually?

Or are you talking about something more basic here? I get confused between the way physics/mathematics terminology is used sometimes in the detector world in ways that don't mean what I would interpret them to mean outside the detector realm.

 

Read what I just posted before you did Jason. Carl means it literally - there is no PI going on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, steveg said:

Would it be possible for you to help me understand a bit more.  My simplistic, non electrical-engineering-trained mind thinks in terms of VLF being "frequency domain" and PI being "time domain."  And I THINK that is correct, right?  And I have a very basic understand of the "trasmit, wait while hysteresis occurs, and then receive" idea of how PI units function...

BUT -- what I have a hard time understanding is if FBS2 utilizes "time-domain sampling and processing," why is that not considered at least "PI-like?"

It's a fairly complicated topic that really requires a whole book chapter and a lot of diagrams to explain*. In the old days all VLF designs were frequency domain (or, more accurately, phase domain) and all PI designs were time domain. But BBS/FBS/FBS2 (all really the same basic tech) created sequentially-transmitted frequencies where freq-domain processing doesn't work because the dead time between frequencies would screw up the channel filters. So ML used time-domain processing which, honestly, looks somewhat similar to normal freq-domain sampling. But it's done on ramped-exponential decays instead of sinusoids. From the time-domain sampling you can still get the equivalent of a target phase.

PI is also time-domain (and always will be) and also samples a decaying exponential but it does so during a TX "quiet time" where the TX signal is not changing. With FBS the TX signal is always changing, just like VLF. And with PI, you can never extract a target phase.

26 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Whether a detector is Induction Balance or Pulse Induction is a function of the electronics and how the current is flowing, continuously, or intermittently. It has nothing to do with processing.

This was a good differentiator until the GPZ came along. In traditional PI the TX current is turned completely off during the RX sampling. In the GPZ it is not, but it is also not changing (the TX current is a bipolar square wave) so the result is exactly the same: there is no changing TX field during RX sampling. So now my definition of PI is a system that receives during a TX dead time, whether current is zero or a DC value. Put another way, during sampling there is no reactive signal.

*Inside the Metal Detector, 3rd ed, Ch 2; pub. 2023 (I hope)

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Geotech said:

This was a good differentiator until the GPZ came along. In traditional PI the TX current is turned completely off during the RX sampling. In the GPZ it is not, but it is also not changing (the TX current is a bipolar square wave) so the result is exactly the same: there is no changing TX field during RX sampling. So now my definition of PI is a system that receives during a TX dead time, whether current is zero or a DC value. Put another way, during sampling there is no reactive signal.

*Inside the Metal Detector, 3rd ed, Ch 2; pub. 2023 (I hope)

OK, so with appropriate footnote of GPZ being different (but kind of the same), I still think for your average Joe, continuous versus intermittent is easiest to digest. :smile:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much everything about this detector screams to me the focus is on deep silver, the one area where it was generally said that CTX has an edge on the Nox. I do think this is intended to fill the empty slot left by the departure of the E-TRAC, but it may also very well replace the CTX for a lot of people. If it hits silver as well, and has better waterproof integrity, in a lighter, less expensive package, why not? Kind of begs the question then of what would be good enough to replace the CTX at $2500? Maybe the direction of the market no longer supports such high priced coin detectors, and Minelab has seen that writing on the wall.

  • Like 8
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...