Who Makes The X-coils? Who Sells Them?

[Guest AussieDigs]

Jonathan,

you stated previously that these X coils being hand wound has the potential to be inconsistent which wouldnt suit Minelabs quality requirements. (Let me know if i have that wrong). Yet the 10k plus GPZ’s are showing a concerning level of performance inconsistency of a concerning number of units.

Im not having a dig at you, you are only relaying the likes of Minelabs policies.

Al.

[Jin]

14 hours ago, Jonathan Porter said:

My last 22x21 Coil was really problematic especially in General Difficult, if I presented a coil like this to Minelab saying it was OK imagine what this would do to the X coils credibility?

Would you say the coil is still usable though JP? Or it displayed no benefit over using the gpz19 

I was just re watching your treasure talk video (below) and it quite clearly shows that General/Difficult is the go to setting in your ground when using a larger coil 

Im a little concerned if your 22x21 displayed problems in general/difficult as im getting that coil. 

As the Russian manufacturer is only building two 22"x 21" coils (as far as im aware of) i doubt much improvement has come about since making your one 

 

 

The quote below mentions salt as being a problem once a coil become to large. Was this one of the problems you encountered with the 22x21? Possibly saturation also?

Quote

There's a key issue to think about when using larger coils which is mainly why you don't see Minelab going much above 19" and I notice no one has mentioned it here in all the dialogue. 

SALT

JP

 Hopefully not to many questions JP and you are in a position to answer some of them if you have time.

Edit: No need for a reply to this post JP,  I found you have answered most of these questions in previous posts. 

[egixe4]

Hi Jonathan ,

Re your statement below

"I see comments about justifications for side slipping Minelabs IP, anyone looking at the GPZ very quickly knows the chip in the coil connector is there to protect Minelabs IP, modifying or circumventing that chip is in essence interfering with that prevention, yes it can be done but ethically it is wrong"

 

I don’t see anywhere in Minelab’s documentation supplied with the GPZ

that mentions any installed security device that hobbles/disables the use of 3^rd party coils.

There is mention that only Minelab coils can be used on the GPZ.

I guess its now buyer beware, and any potential customer should now be asking the question, does this machine have any such security devices fitted and what do these devices do, to limit my rights as an end user.

As far as I’m concerned, if the device has not been disclosed or even mentioned then it’s tough luck Minelab.

 

[madtuna]

yep and I saw the chip in the coil plug and very quickly knew I had no  freaking idea what it did or was there for.

So is anyone who ever modded or used a modded machine unethical?

[Jonathan Porter]

4 hours ago, madtuna said:

yep and I saw the chip in the coil plug and very quickly knew I had no  freaking idea what it did or was there for.

So is anyone who ever modded or used a modded machine unethical?

I’m not asking or telling anyone how they should behave, I can only say how I feel and behave on the subject. The only reason I keep mentioning it is because of all the, what I consider, poor justifications and excuses being mentioned here on the forum. Conscience votes are just that, life is about continual choices being made around what you are personally comfortable with according to you own personal code, I’ve stated mine.

The fact that so far Minelab have done nothing about it suggests they are not too worried, but you can never tell with big corporates, which is why I put so much effort into trying to legitimately access the adapter. Yes the coils aren’t perfect but in a lot of areas they are OK and they DO offer more choice in the form of bigger and smaller sizes and less weight.

JP

[Jonathan Porter]

21 hours ago, jasong said:

.............However, if the DOD design itself was patented and no other manufacturer was allowed to use it at all then that seemed like a seperate issue from the chip discussion. That's why I was curious about wether it was a concern with the chip or the DOD design.

The GPZ is the first detector of its kind in the world, as such ZVT is unique to Minelab which means it is their IP, as such a preventative device in the coil connector strongly suggests they are trying to prevent others from making coils, whether this is for counterfeit prevention or locking out aftermarket manufacturers because of the complexity of the electronics I cannot say. I am unsure if the DOD design coil is patented.

JP

[Jonathan Porter]

21 hours ago, AussieDigs said:

Jonathan,

you stated previously that these X coils being hand wound has the potential to be inconsistent which wouldnt suit Minelabs quality requirements. (Let me know if i have that wrong). Yet the 10k plus GPZ’s are showing a concerning level of performance inconsistency of a concerning number of units.

Im not having a dig at you, you are only relaying the likes of Minelabs policies.

Al.

The GPZ units are actually very consistent from one to the other, there have been some issues though especially around coils and screens. The main issue I see in our shop is noisy coils especially from the first release units. The X coils are hand wound so there will be inconsistencies, there has to be, but as has been evidenced here on the forum the complaints seem few and far between from those happy to talk about it.

JP

[jasong]

Alright, thanks for the reply there.

If the DOD is not patented then I personally don't see where IP is being violated here from a legal standpoint. I'm certainly not a lawyer though.

What has happened is users themselves are bypassing security features to use a feature of the product they paid for and own (much like we do with cell phones, which is legal and not unethical). This is pretty much a given in any kind of hardware modding, modding being a normal part of the enthusiast culture for virtually every product that can be turned into a hobby.

I mentioned in a previous post that here in the US we may soon have legislation specifically addressing the right to do just this outside the realm of hobby and into commercial equipment, in the case of farmers VS John Deere who implements similar chipped security methods to prevent upgrading, repairs, and modifications by the owners. Some states have already sided with the farmers, some haven't. So, when federal rulings occur we may soon have an actual legal basis to decide what we have rights to do, here in the US anyways.

Either way, I don't think the argument is IP protection here. I don't see a case where the chip prevents IP theft itself and I haven't seen a case made so far for that either. The chip seems to exist only prevent 3rd party manufacturers from making coils without first obtaining licensing (and thus fees) from Minelab. So, what seems to be at stake here is not IP theft but loss of business revenue from licensing. And in that case, I don't see the relevance to customers at all since we already paid for the product and Minelab made the decision not produce or license the accessory product which we are wanting to buy. Otherwise we'd be buying coils from Minelab and it wouldn't be a problem, so it's a problem of their own making and not reasonable to put the onus of ethics onto the customer.

If there was an ethical argument to make here I would say it would be a company selling a very expensive product with promise for future expansion, but then not holding true to the promise while simultaneously preventing an aftermarket to satisfy that missing demand too. Without that, this X Coils subject wouldn't even exist. But that's a different post that has already been covered ad infinitum.

On that note, being what appears primarly to me a matter of economics and not IP theft - again I will mention a reasonable solution at this time that addresses all party's concerns: Release a firmware patch which disables the security chip authentication and which customers could pay Minelab for so they could generate income from X Coils. The only reason I could conceivably guess why this wouldn't be considered is if another 3rd party has already licensed security chip access and paid for it in order to develop their own GPZ coils.

I'm not saying all this to be flippant or argumentative, I realize my typing method may sometimes sound like that. I'm just saying that from a legal standpoint that is my best interpretation of this matter with the information we as the public have at hand.

[Jonathan Porter]

I would say the main reason/justification for the chip is to prevent counterfeiters, without the chip the detector does not work, as such that is a security measure designed I would say to protect their IP. Cutting off the plug end is a way to circumvent that security feature to avoid the detector from shutting down. This is mostly conjecture on my part but would seem logical considering what counterfeiting has cost Minelab in the last 10 years.

Minelab have invested huge amounts of money into the development of GPZ, we the end user get to access that for a fee. If the business model for Minelab does not pay off that’s their risk, if the market does things that interfere with their ability to make money from their investment they will either stop development of new products or just design this type of issue out of the end product, either way there will be change if it affects their bottom line. This is just my opinion only.

JP

[jasong]

Note to engineering/manufacturing staff: next time design a coil with the chip inside the coil, not the plug. Potted in epoxy with a killswitch that destroys the chip if removed. 

Anyways, yeah I get what your saying and I agree. But semantically and legally, IP = intellectual property. If there is no patent, there is no property,  and thus no ethical quandries.