• Forum server maintanace Friday night.(around 7PM Centeral time)
    Website will be off line for a short while.

    You may need to log out, log back in after we're back online.

New Guy from So-Tex - Hi Everyone!

Sun-Boy

New Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
8
So a big hello to everyone. I'm really new to all this, and have yet to do any detecting, I'm more into designing detectors than using them. I'm hoping to get feedback from the users here to help me refine my designs, I think I can develop some really useful and fun machines. I'm currently working on my first analog prototype, to be followed by a microprocessor controlled one. I'm integrating some features that I think are missing in most if not all the current designs, and am looking forward to hearing all your feedback, what you like, what you don't, what you can do without, etc. Don't know how often I'll be here, but I'll try to add to the conversation in a positive way when I am. Thanks folks, -SS
 
... I'm more into designing detectors than using them.....


I hate to be a kill-joy, but here goes :

1) Gone are the days of ability-to-improve home-kit stuff. Ya know, the 1970s where there was tool-bench ability to tinker and improve the current-crop . In those days, sure, anyone could find disgust with whatever-was-currently being sold, and improve on it.

In today's world, it's to the point where .... to get another fraction of an inch depth out of a coil, involves a millionth of an inch coil-winding tightness. These are things that are now beyond the ability of tinkerers to do on their workplace bench. It involves robotic assembly lines (like trying to build a smart phone in your garage, .... it simply can't be done)

2) Since this is essentially an electronics/computer related field, then ... go figure .... there's been no shortage of "brilliant minds" that have tackled the pros/cons of the needed elements related to this (eg.: depth, ground conditions, TID matters, etc...). Might you "one-up" them ? SURE ! But don't you think they faced the same hurdles you are thinking of ? And threw the same hoped-for solutions at them ?

3) The rest of the formula is well-beyond simple work-bench/computer solutions. It's the "laws of physics". There's a point at which you can not gain more information from the target in the ground. It has nothing to do with computing power anymore. It has everything to do with : You can't pump more signal into the ground, and extract info back. D/t physical substances that impede, namely : Ground. And no added amount of computing power changes that.
 
Hi Tom, I appreciate the response, don't worry you didn't rain on my parade :), and you make good points, to answer some:

1) I agree about the "good ole days", I've seen some YouTube videos where guys tear down detectors and they look like they haven't changed since the 70's, even the build quality with a rats nest of wires is sad to see. So if you don't adapt, you're not going to survive. I've been in the R@D world for a while, so this will be a fun challenge.

2) Yep I've worked with some of those great minds, and I'm going to ping some of them to help with the software when I get to the embedded system. But there is some signal conditioning happening in the front end of my machines that I haven't seen in current detectors. It's all on the bench right now, perfect testing conditions, will it fail in the field, we'll see, it'll be fun if nothing else.

3) And it also matters on what you're getting back from the target, and how you process it. I can't go into the architecture I'm using for obvious reasons, it's basically using current circuits in new ways. There are a few features that will be unique to my detectors, I'm not looking to improve the depth as much as improve the discrimination of the machines, but the depth should be comparable to current machines.

Fun stuff, I may post pictures as I progress, we'll see.
-Steve
 
... the software ... ..

...and how you process it. ..

We have reached the laws of physics. That's why you'll notice great leaps in md'ing technology in the ages of the mid 1950s (when hardly a detector existed that could find a coin-sized object) to the mid 1960s. And then light-years leap from the mid 1960s to the mid 1970s. And then more light years leap from the mid 1970s to the mid 1980s. Back then, if you had a detector that was a mere 5 yrs. old, you had a dinosaur .

But notice that TODAY, there are plenty of 20 yr. old machines that keep up with the current crop. And notice in that SAME 20 yr. period, that computers (like our smart-phones, etc...) have gotten smaller and smaller, faster and faster. But md'ing has stalled.

The reason is NOT that the engineers are "asleep at the wheel". Because , unlike smartphones and 'puters, it's not longer a matter of faster and smaller (software and processing, as you say). Because, as I say, we've hit the point of diminishing returns, where you eventually bump into the laws of physics.

But if you're dead-set that you can buck this notion, then do us all a favor and invent this : A detector that can differentiate aluminum from alloyed gold jewelry. Ok ? NOT just conductivity scale (since aluminum and alloyed gold share the same TIDs), but instead, something that measures actual composition.

If you do that, the world will beat a path to your door :)
 
agree with Tom and others - we have been stopped by the laws of physics as far as getting deeper. But some engineers like Bruce Candy and his crew have been focusing on signal processing and trying to make things quieter so we can hear deeper targets and smaller targets.

One thing that has hurt the Nox 800 is that it is very good at finding very small targets. Unfortunately unless you are hunting small gold nuggets the 800 finds lots of small stuff that just gets in the way and causes you to dig more targets you really are not interested in if you are not hunting small gold nuggets.

My other hobby is short wave. The trend there is very similar with short wave receivers. The signal processing is focused on finding the signal (ie weak station) among the noise, ei background noise, interference from EMI and other nearby transmitters bleeding over onto your channel.

I just recently added to my shortwave an audio digital signal processor that uses sets of filters (much like our metal detector notch filters in what they do) to get rid of signals I am not interested in and background noise, emi, etc.

Both hobbies have evolved into digital signal processors to help reveal the secrets below the ground and in the atmosphere. Both hobbies have reached their physics limits and are now trying to tease out good info with microprocessors.
 
A detector that can differentiate aluminum from alloyed gold jewelry. Ok ? NOT just conductivity scale (since aluminum and alloyed gold share the same TIDs), but instead, something that measures actual composition.

If you do that, the world will beat a path to your door :)

:hmmm: .......maybe a detector with added ground sonar capability that would show the shape of the object (like a ring) on the LCD display screen ?

Note: If someone uses my idea I claim 30% of all profits from the development of said idea ! :lol:
 
:hmmm: .......maybe a detector with added ground sonar capability that would show the shape of the object (like a ring) on the LCD display screen ?

Note: If someone uses my idea I claim 30% of all profits from the development of said idea ! :lol:

I can only imagine what a pain that would be. For starters, "shape-showing technology" already exists. The trouble is, that the pixel size, at absolute smallest, is an inch or more across. And therefore EVEN THINGS YOU THINK might have a distinct shape (like a horse-shoe), are nothing more than a "messy blotch of pixels".

And the same problem will exist, even if the pixel size were brought down to 1/100 of an inch : Everything will be a messy blotch of pixels. And the moment you add even the slightest tilt to an object, you can kiss shape-showing goodbye. And remember : A pulltab and a ring both have "ring-shapes". And a screw cab is the perfect size and shape of a quarter or gold coin, blah blah. So not only has that too hit the "laws of physics", but even if they got the pixels sizes way smaller, I'm afraid it would be faster to simply dig the object up and look at it, rather than walk around all day looking at grainy questionable images :(
 
I can only imagine what a pain that would be. For starters, "shape-showing technology" already exists. The trouble is, that the pixel size, at absolute smallest, is an inch or more across. And therefore EVEN THINGS YOU THINK might have a distinct shape (like a horse-shoe), are nothing more than a "messy blotch of pixels".

And the same problem will exist, even if the pixel size were brought down to 1/100 of an inch : Everything will be a messy blotch of pixels. And the moment you add even the slightest tilt to an object, you can kiss shape-showing goodbye. And remember : A pulltab and a ring both have "ring-shapes". And a screw cab is the perfect size and shape of a quarter or gold coin, blah blah. So not only has that too hit the "laws of physics", but even if they got the pixels sizes way smaller, I'm afraid it would be faster to simply dig the object up and look at it, rather than walk around all day looking at grainy questionable images :(

Okay, maybe ground penetrating radar with a 32 inch display screen :laughing:
 
...this is feedback I've been needing...

The idea of painting a screen is actually one of the features that will be going into the digital unit, I have an idea on how to implement it - I won't say it's simple, but it doesn't get overly exotic. The detector I'm working on right now is all analog, it's what I'm used to, and the signal transmit and front end receiver sections will be used in both the analog and digital detectors. The all analog machine is going to be fun to build, plus this is my hobby, so it's doubly fun. And I really do think with a good quiet signal and a little dsp along with the right approach/architecture it should be able to distinguish between all metals. I know this sounds a little nutty, but I'm not pushing the laws of physics, I'm just going in a different direction than everyone else is, and I really think it's doable. We'll see :).
 
... it should be able to distinguish between all metals. ....


When you say "distinguish between metals", do you mean to tell conductivity ? If so, that's the current method. And that's not truly distinguishing between metals. Because unfortunately, various metals share the same TIDs. And the size of the object plays into it. So for example, an entire soda can may read at quarter (a high conductor), yet the tab alone would read mid to low conductor. Even though the composition has remained the same in both cases. Ie.: Aluminum.

So what are you referring to ? The only way to tell a similar sized gold item and a similar sized aluminum item apart (assuming they both have the same TID signature) involves methods which would require you to wear a lead suit, and get government clearances for the bombardment of the object with rays, blah blah.

So what do you have in mind ? If anyone tries to tell you they can tell aluminum apart from gold, with sounds, tones, TID's, etc...., there's a simple cure for that : Simply take them out to the nearest inner city blighted park, and turn them loose. See how much gold they find, and while leaving any percentage of aluminum behind. You will soon hear the sound of crickets :laughing:
 
....what do you have in mind?...

No I'm not using the conductivity in the way the modern detectors are using it, I've gone in a different direction with the detection method, which I can't go into detail about. Thanks for the input on the aluminum can example, that's good data to have.
 
.... which I can't go into detail about. ....

Like a great conspiracy theory narrative. Which is usually how these things end. Many such threads have arisen, about supposed "technology in the works". But then 5 or 10 or 20 yrs. later, ..... no one's ever heard a peep again .

But the mere fact of a supposed "better mousetrap in the works" keeps md'rs giddy anticipation alive. Like the supposed morphing of the best of pulse (incredible depth, and ability to cut through any soils) with discrimination (which tends to wain in nasty soils, and peaks out at 10" or so on depth). Ie.: The best of both worlds. So 20 page threads evolve on the supposed development . Yet , years later, .... it's shelved and no one's ever invented the better mouse-trap :roll:

Let's hope this "lesson of history" doesn't apply to you !
 
Back
Top Bottom