Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Saw this somewhere, a quote from Dave Johnson, currently Chief Designer at First Texas. Here's the quote.

_____________________________

We’re not a company who stands still. Over the last several years we have introduced a whole series of new products on several new hardware platforms, and have constantly advanced the science of target signal processing. In the future we plan to introduce new processes which, although they may “feel” like a member of the T2 process family, will operate on different principles and will produce results of a kind which are not attained by any metal detector presently available. -Dave Johnson

Dave is dead serious.

When he says "...will operate on different principles and will produce results of a kind which are not attained by any metal detector presently available" - i believe that he is saying that it is NOT a traditional Induction Balance or Pulse Induction plaatform, but something else.

Can he do it? We don't know. But before we assume that this new platform will be the answer to everyones wish list, here's another quote from Dave - from March of this year.

__________________

"The good news is that I'm designing the perfect detector. The bad news is that almost nobody will like it."

Now that's a quote to ponder. Hopefully it's Dave's way of saying that it will not be a detector which the average detector enthusiast will like, perhaps because it will be tightly focused on a particular "job to be done"? If that's the case, hopefully the job it is focused on doing is the job this forum is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Not all breakthroughs are the result of totally original work which can be patented.

Patents are a form of "rent seeking" where you are able to keep competitors from using a specific patented invention without paying you royalties (or keep them from using anything like it if your lawyers are sharp enough and your pockets are deep enough).

Dave J. tells an interesting story of when Minelab's lawyers contacted Tesoro over patent infringement in respect of the Lobo Super Trac ground tracking technology. Here it is - it is part of a post he put up on Treasure Net, paying tribute to Jack Gifford of Tesoro who passed away early this year.

_________________

"My favorite "Jack story" was shortly before we were about to release the Lobo ST. He got a call from Minelab, their lawyer told him that we better scrap the project because after all, they had the patent on "ground tracking" and would have to sue us. Jack told the _____ (was that four letters?) that we didn't infringe their patent. The ____ told Jack, "Our engineer says there's only way it can be done, and that's what we've got patented." Jack told the ____ that we'd call back shortly. [bTW, I don't believe that Bruce Candy actually told the cuss that, it was a bluff.] ...... So Jack and I pow-wowed for about half an hour pooling what we knew about ground tracking. And then he called back. "We know six different ways that don't infringe the Minelab patent. If you want to know which of those six ways we did it, as soon as it's released just buy yourself one and knock yourself out." That was the end of that. "

_______________________________

Moral of the story is that there is very often more than one way to a particular result, and some of the most successful and hard to copy products rely on trade secrets rather than patents. The road from a patent or other "invention" to a product is often very long. I believe that Dave's quote from 2009 was on the level. I also believe that his quote from 2015 is serious. Does that mean we will see something totally new from FT next year or the year after? I don't know, but I'm not going to bet against it.

Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly do not discount Dave and now with Carl Moreland on board I tend to have faith in what might happen with First Texas eventually. It is no secret that they have been working on multi frequency and pulse induction machines for years and that something should hit the market in the not too distant future. http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/555-new-fisher-pulse-induction-multi-frequency-detectors/

I do worry the bean counters call the shots at First Texas more than the engineers however. I believe they would rather back $300 detectors than invest large sums into expensive high end machines that they view as niche products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Dave J should have put one of the other six ways of ground tracking on the Lobo st. Because the one he chose wasnt worth a half a can of cold baked beans.

 

Not all breakthroughs are the result of totally original work which can be patented.

Patents are a form of "rent seeking" where you are able to keep competitors from using a specific patented invention without paying you royalties (or keep them from using anything like it if your lawyers are sharp enough and your pockets are deep enough).

Dave J. tells an interesting story of when Minelab's lawyers contacted Tesoro over patent infringement in respect of the Lobo Super Trac ground tracking technology. Here it is - it is part of a post he put up on Treasure Net, paying tribute to Jack Gifford of Tesoro who passed away early this year.
_________________

"My favorite "Jack story" was shortly before we were about to release the Lobo ST. He got a call from Minelab, their lawyer told him that we better scrap the project because after all, they had the patent on "ground tracking" and would have to sue us. Jack told the _____ (was that four letters?) that we didn't infringe their patent. The ____ told Jack, "Our engineer says there's only way it can be done, and that's what we've got patented." Jack told the ____ that we'd call back shortly. [bTW, I don't believe that Bruce Candy actually told the cuss that, it was a bluff.] ...... So Jack and I pow-wowed for about half an hour pooling what we knew about ground tracking. And then he called back. "We know six different ways that don't infringe the Minelab patent. If you want to know which of those six ways we did it, as soon as it's released just buy yourself one and knock yourself out." That was the end of that. "
_______________________________

Moral of the story is that there is very often more than one way to a particular result, and some of the most successful and hard to copy products rely on trade secrets rather than patents. The road from a patent or other "invention" to a product is often very long. I believe that Dave's quote from 2009 was on the level. I also believe that his quote from 2015 is serious. Does that mean we will see something totally new from FT next year or the year after? I don't know, but I'm not going to bet against it.

Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those responsible for the terrific GroundGrab on the Fisher, F/T, Mxt/Gmt should be commended, most excellent!

But those that designed the Ground Tracking, especially on the Whites units, ought to hand their certificates back in.

As for First Texas actually ever designing something revolutionary, ain't gonna happen .... it's May 2015 and the units are all still like the Country music songs from 2000 onwards, it's all the same bloody song and the same detector.

(As opposed to good old Country and Western music... now They new how to change it up a notch)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the Lobo Super Trac auto Tracking, I think dave Johnson might agree with you to some extent, Argyle. Since the mid 90’s when he did the LST, he designed the automatic ground tracking for the GMT/MXT for Whites.

Now, 20 years after the LST, his designs at First Texas don't have automatic ground tracking, relying on "ground grab" where the detector only resets to the current ground reading when you command it to. Here is what he has written about it.

_____________________\\

Manual ground balancing capability is important for many users: however some people just can’t get the knack of it and require a machine that offers computer-assisted ground balancing, either “grab” or “tracking”. Tracking may sound like a good feature, but it’s like driving an automatic transmission car on a narrow winding mountain road— constantly changing and unpredictable. With “grab” there is no tracking and you can get a repeatable signal when checking out a target. We changed the market perception of tracking when we introduced the Teknetics T2—customers asked “where’s the tracking?”, we said “you don’t need it”, they replied “by golly you’re right!” and that was the end of it. We may offer tracking in the future, but for now none of our products has it.

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...