EL NINO77 Posted January 28, 2021 Share Posted January 28, 2021 The detector works more or less than a measuring device ... the signal from the coil goes to the electronics of the detector where it is processed through various stages of filters ... .. Here are 2 simple examples: 1 .Example .... - "detection of coins and jewelery" - you are only interested in non-ferrous signals .... If you use too open discrimination in such detection ... .or from the mineralization of the terrain ... it can strongly influence the correct final calculation of the target signal ID .... this means that it also affects the stability of detection .... If you use a reasonable closure around the iron / non-ferrous border ... very often there is a significant improvement in the ID ... I mostly use such a setting for detectors with Mix mode..a so I know that I will not pass any signal ..- even though I know that my discrimination is set reasonably high .. 2. The example is quite well known - it is a reduction of the signal or volume of iron, which is called "Iron Volume", which has a significant effect on the separation properties of the detector ... sometimes and extremely positive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB_Amateur Posted January 28, 2021 Share Posted January 28, 2021 12 minutes ago, EL NINO77 said: 1 .Example .... - "detection of coins and jewelery" - you are only interested in non-ferrous signals .... If you use too open discrimination in such detection ... .or from the mineralization of the terrain ... it can strongly influence the correct final calculation of the target signal ID .... this means that it also affects the stability of detection .... If you use a reasonable closure around the iron / non-ferrous border ... very often there is a significant improvement in the ID ... Is this true when operating in simultaneous multifrequency or just in single frequency (or selectable frequency)? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EL NINO77 Posted January 28, 2021 Share Posted January 28, 2021 It depends on the detector model, but try it on your detectors and let me know if you can make any improvements. I could mention a few types of detectors, but this is not part of this article .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lunn Posted January 29, 2021 Share Posted January 29, 2021 The goal is obviously optimizing S/N. The signal is usually improved by more power and different frequencies to “light up” the gold. Noise reduction is achieved through building “quiet” electronics so no noise is introduced into the system and managing the background noise. Minelab has been granted a patent for “modeling the ground”. The patent covers all possible mathematical algorithms including several examples given in the patent. This is a clever way of prohibiting competitors from integrating the ground signals into a map of the ground and subtracting out this noise to improve S/N. Minelab will dominate noise reduction through software. Minelab has clearly left the competition in the tailings pile. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB_Amateur Posted January 29, 2021 Share Posted January 29, 2021 17 hours ago, Randy Lunn said: Minelab has been granted a patent for “modeling the ground”. The patent covers all possible mathematical algorithms including several examples given in the patent. I don't know much about patents but it seems this is an extremely broad exclusivity right. Is it the 'modeling the ground' part that limits this to a tight swath of innovation phase space? Even that sounds broad but I'm hoping the full text of the patent would clarify. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiverRat Posted January 30, 2021 Share Posted January 30, 2021 On 1/27/2021 at 3:46 PM, Steve Herschbach said: You know, when I was a teenager you could buy a pocket calculator that added, subtracted, multiplied, and divided with a couple other little functions for $500. I told my friend and partner Dudley that someday they would give them away free. He of course scoffed but in later days now he brings it up a lot that I was right. Never underestimate how quickly and how fast technology can advance giving us more power at lower prices. The expensive high tech toys of today are no different. Exactly Steve. In the mid 80's when I went to school for electronics, a TI scientific calculator wrt for $150. Now you can get an app for your phone that costs just a few bucks. The question to me is how much do you want to pay for the latest and greatest? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mn90403 Posted August 7, 2022 Author Share Posted August 7, 2022 People will pay for results. Detectors keep evolving. If you can find 'virgin' or less detected ground, you don't need the latest and greatest. If you are going back over ground that has been detected several times (let's say by a Gold Bug Pro), then you are going to need something that goes deeper than that detector or something that finds smaller gold. You can also consider the use of a multi-frequency which would be an enhancement over the older technology. With computers on chips the amount of computing horsepower is great. Signal processing and enhancement improve just as space telescopes have improved. After the pandemic the problem may not be the programs but obtaining the hardware to make these intelligent ideas happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F350Platinum Posted August 7, 2022 Share Posted August 7, 2022 In my past days as a photographer I remember what is arguably still one of the most ingenious cameras ever made - the Nikon F4s. They sold it from 1988 to about 1993. It was manual, automatic, and so well built you could use it to defend yourself if someone tried to take it away from you. It was compatible with every lens the company made for their SLRs and many afterward. Its most interesting feature was the ability to record what was captured by the metering system and compare it to an internal database of "good" photo data, I believe about 100,000 models. I think just about every camera made since adopts this sort of algorithm or method of automatically deciding what settings are "best" for a given scene, weather, and the infinite amount of variations that light or lack of it can produce. It was relatively affordable, and I think for a kings' ransom one could get a digital back for it even now to eliminate film processing. It had manual knobs to allow "fudge" factoring if the user decided to take control. I can imagine that metal detectors could benefit albeit "incrementally" from following this sort of logic. Some may do this already. Combine this with a powerful ground radar capability as Chase mentioned with a "fish finder" like display? I'm not sure sonar is capable of deep ground penetration. It would also need a strong capability to reject external noise. Like the F4s, it would probably be heavy, but only for a while. ? My point is that it's been done with light, why not detectors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kostas 13 Posted August 8, 2022 Share Posted August 8, 2022 using gpr for several years the data we receive contains noise which is eliminated as much as possible only when processing the data in special programs, it would be good if the filters used by the special programs are automatically activated and the noise is automatically removed as we receive real time data... Perhaps in a similar way a metal detector could clean out the noise and read the signals of metal targets more clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now