Guest GoldProspectinginOz Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 You make me laugh, every time ANY of you guy's debate Robby_H you get your butt kicked!Again how would you know? Many that would disagree with you!You have to retreat back to poz and lick your wounds.Allan Westerstens??? Isn't he the one who still hasn't learnt that more current into the coil is not the way to goIn mineralised ground? OK tell us all why?Heck, no wonder Robby couldn't be bothered lobbing over poz, likely waiting til Al gets more understanding of how Pi's should work.Again how can you make this statement.Where is your evidence that Allan has little understanding of Pi's.BTW, I do know the answer why it upsets the math!But I ain't gonna tell you Clearly you do not know and are just evading the question and the phrase " I know but aint gonna tell you" is a classic puppet patent parrot tactic!!!!!!You will be pleased to know that I am being educated on the workings of the Minelab detectors by a brilliant teacher Not by the puppet patent parrot I hope! And i bet you cannot tell us why in your words why "Eric fosters GB method nulls out deep targets". Put up or shut I say!cheers.doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inhere Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 "Allan Westerstens??? Isn't he the one who still hasn't learnt that more current into the coil is not the way to goIn mineralised ground?"OK tell us all why?I could easily explain it to you Doug BUT I'm asking the questions here!YOU tell us IF you agree with that way of doing things and WHY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoldProspectinginOz Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 "Allan Westerstens??? Isn't he the one who still hasn't learnt that more current into the coil is not the way to goIn mineralised ground?"OK tell us all why?I could easily explain it to you Doug BUT I'm asking the questions here!YOU tell us IF you agree with that way of doing things and WHY. As always you are a waste of time. You can't even answer some simple questions! (your "tutor" must be unavailable LOL!) As I said put up or shut up! You clearly have no clue about what you are talking about!By the way Pooles patents are on metal detectors and Gb methods in the FD and TD, so what does gold detecting (the correct term is metal detecting) have to do with his patents? There are also some folk on Gpoz that could run rings around your “tutor” electronically and electromagnetically! Here is a post from just one bbsailor who gives a ringing endorsement to a proposed QED multi timing method,"This approach has not been tried before but has some potential to refine the QED into a remarkable machine that integrates common user hunting behavior into the technology design."http://goldprospecting.invisionplus.net/?m...amp;#entry15734Other than the great Geotech forum and perhaps Eric Fosters forum Gpoz has without doubt the the best collection of electronically and electromagnetically credible, innovative and very clever detector designers.A number of these folk are also contributing to the QED.Cheers,doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZNuggetBob Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Doug The only thing its proven is, its a lab RAT, AzNuggetBob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GARY SMITH Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Doug, since you "always" want proof to what any one says. Where is your proof to this statement ""This approach has not been tried before but has some potential to refine the QED into a remarkable machine that integrates common user hunting behavior into the technology design."" Put up or shut up as you would say!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoldProspectinginOz Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Doug, since you "always" want proof to what any one says. Where is your proof to this statement ""This approach has not been tried before but has some potential to refine the QED into a remarkable machine that integrates common user hunting behavior into the technology design."" Put up or shut up as you would say!! It is NOT my quote! It is from a very respected person, skilled in the art who has given his learned opinion. Maybe you ask him how he arrived at this conclusion?cheers,doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apw5746 Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 It is NOT my quote! It is from a very respected person, skilled in the art who has given his learned opinion. Maybe you ask him how he arrived at this conclusion?cheers,dougWhat's his name? Have him post his opinions and conclusions. Potential isn't the same as real is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZNuggetBob Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Doug Any sane developer/designer/engineer would have you flogged for even discussing a new detector to the public before its release. AzNuggetBob Unless their looking to secure money for development, research or that vacation to the Bahamas.You are the puppet Doug! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard farris Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Doug I don't understand all the workings of any detector. Lets stop all the debating by experts and bench testing results which I don't understand anyhow. All you have to do is send Montana Bob, Chris, or Rob a prototype to test and report the results. You may also sent one to Lucky Lunde and Shep to test in CA, and to Reno or Lunk to try in NV. If they say that your machine will work as well as the 2100 to the 4500 ML and costs less than a grand I will buy one to use as a backup detector to my 4000. I just want to hear what some of the expert detectorists report. I trust these fellows judgement and honesty. Just send them a detector to try out. Simple ain't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbond Posted September 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Wow, this thread sure has taken a life of it's own since I started it... I've created a monster... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apw5746 Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Wow, this thread sure has taken a life of it's own since I started it... I've created a monster... No, you didn't create a monster! What you said in your original post is true. Just go on EBay and see how much people are asking for 4500's. It's not ridiculous, it's supply versus demand; people part with their money every day , very sad. But......with the price of gold way up, this is a modern day "gold rush". Ain't life crazy and strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoldProspectinginOz Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 Doug I don't understand all the workings of any detector. Lets stop all the debating by experts and bench testing results which I don't understand anyhow. All you have to do is send Montana Bob, Chris, or Rob a prototype to test and report the results. You may also sent one to Lucky Lunde and Shep to test in CA, and to Reno or Lunk to try in NV. If they say that your machine will work as well as the 2100 to the 4500 ML and costs less than a grand I will buy one to use as a backup detector to my 4000. I just want to hear what some of the expert detectorists report. I trust these fellows judgement and honesty. Just send them a detector to try out. Simple ain't it? With respect I would not trust ANYONE that has a past or present assocation with ML to give a fair and unbiased report .Also the detectors could end up in Las vegas or Basket range to be “ futher tested”!cheers. doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nero_design Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 With respect I would not trust ANYONE that has a past or present assocation with ML to give a fair and unbiased report .Also the detectors could end up in Las vegas or Basket range to be “ futher testedâ€!cheers. dougAnd under that guise, I would not take advice from you Doug, because you are peddling an upcoming detector of your own. As for fair and unbiased, I've never met a person with as few scruples as yourself when it comes to pushing an agenda, Douggie. Why are you arguing on this forum? Oh yes, so that you can establish yourself as an authoritative figure in an attempt to hijack new members to your own forum. Love your syle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoldProspectinginOz Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 And under that guise, I would not take advice from you Doug, because you are peddling an upcoming detector of your own. As for fair and unbiased, I've never met a person with as few scruples as yourself when it comes to pushing an agenda, Douggie. Why are you arguing on this forum? Oh yes, so that you can establish yourself as an authoritative figure in an attempt to hijack new members to your own forum. Love your syle!Not happy about being exposed for what you are on my forum are you!!No more than show pony are you!!!So much of what you write is just plain wrong. eg your rubbish about fields from DD coils somehow penetrating some layers of wash better that the field from a mono!!! LOL! and of course it was not even your idea!!!And what about this classic where you said that Hillend was the second richest Goldfield in Australia after Kalgoorlie!!!!! LOL wrong again!!!Do you want me to go on?You my friend are one whose ambition exceeds his ability! You are legend, in your own mind!!LOL!have nice nice day and dream on!!doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nero_design Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 Not happy about being exposed for what you are on my forum are you!!No more than show pony are you!!!So much of what you write is just plain wrong. eg your rubbish about fields from DD coils somehow penetrating some layers of wash better that the field from a mono!!! LOL! and of course it was not even your idea!!!And what about this classic where you said that Hillend was the second richest Goldfield in Australia after Kalgoorlie!!!!! LOL wrong again!!!Do you want me to go on?You my friend are one whose ambition exceeds his ability! You are legend, in your own mind!!LOL!have nice nice day and dream on!!dougShow Pony? LOL! I don't brag here or elsewhere... that's your special skill. I don't try and sell myself as anything other than who I really am. I answered all your petty and pointless questions on another website and still you were not placated. And my theory of DD coils holds up quite nicely... I came to this conclusion because it fit the evidence by Jim Foster - which was done when the GP3000 was king. I applied the evidence of coil type to the current coil preferences used currently by prospectors with the GPX... and it FITS! You yourself claim it's all bunk so why should I continue to argue with a peanut? That was all a long time ago... but the point I just raised about you trying to justify a $10,000 price tag for your upcoming QED detector is recent, current and valid.I really like your attempt to attack others when trying to deflect a well aimed point of issue. Now, about that $10,000 pricetag? Who's a greedy little peanut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoldProspectinginOz Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 Show Pony? LOL! I don't brag here or elsewhere... that's your special skill. I don't try and sell myself as anything other than who I really am. I answered all your petty and pointless questions on another website and still you were not placated. And my theory of DD coils holds up quite nicely... I came to this conclusion because it fit the evidence by Jim Foster - which was done when the GP3000 was king. I applied the evidence of coil type to the current coil preferences used currently by prospectors with the GPX... and it FITS! You yourself claim it's all bunk so why should I continue to argue with a peanut? That was all a long time ago... but the point I just raised about you trying to justify a $10,000 price tag for your upcoming QED detector is recent, current and valid.I really like your attempt to attack others when trying to deflect a well aimed point of issue. Now, about that $10,000 pricetag? Who's a greedy little peanut?Both you and Jim foster are wrong about your coil conclusions.Its total EM nonsense as JP and many other have pointed out to you!!!Pleae point out where I or BW have said anything about the QED and a $10,000 price tag,publish the link or the post! ie put up or shut up!have a nice day,doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbond Posted September 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 And under that guise, I would not take advice from you Doug, because you are peddling an upcoming detector of your own. As for fair and unbiased, I've never met a person with as few scruples as yourself when it comes to pushing an agenda, Douggie. Why are you arguing on this forum? Oh yes, so that you can establish yourself as an authoritative figure in an attempt to hijack new members to your own forum. Love your syle!MODERATOR: As the person who started this post with the original message (and long ago forgotten topic), can I graciously request that it be locked for further comments ASAP please?My point wasn't to have a Urinary Olympics event (pi**ing match). You all need to stop banging your wee wee's against your headboards and get along... Sheeesh, you'd think one of you walked into the room swinging a Garret or something... OY VAY (in my best Jewish Princess voice).CheersJennifer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robby_H Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 I see you are at it again Doug!"Inhere , perhaps you can tell all the folk here about Pi Gb systems eg Give us your insights into the Poole and Eric Foster methods compared to those used by ML". Why would anyone comment on this when you don't understand the obvious differences and probably never will? "The MPI, and the USA Goldsweeper are definitely going to market and sooner rather than later".The original Goldsweeper page... http://www.dienco.com/Prototype completed in 6/10/2000 and due to be released 6 months after the FAQ was written? So nine years. Do you reckon we will see it in ten? Do you believe it will arrive at Xmas and which Xmas? Remember the PD was coming soon several years ago?The three you mention aren't cutting edge technology until proven. There are a stack of patents for metal detectors and these range from downright dumb to brilliant but you are patrolling the net saying an inventor's claims are valid simply because he is a member of your forum and says naughty things about Minelab. We would all like to be able to discriminate but the detector must first hear the target to do so!! When we use a good ground cancelling detector we listen for the faint signal from a nugget at depth but we wouldn't be able to hear this signal if the ground wasn't cancelled so I think we would all agree that efficient ground/target separation must come before discrimination. One of the "cutting edge" detectors you mentioned takes two samples during the pulse off period. One to first "hear" a potential target in order to trigger the discriminator circuit and another to supposedly calculate the target's time constant (lol) but it doesn't say how it separates the feeble "trigger" signal from a nugget at depth from our overwhelming ground signal during the off period. The only thing we are interested in here is if it offers something better than Minelab's method to cancel the ground but the patent doesn't disclose a magic bullet or anything to address our ground problems at all!! Your mate Alluvium even said GB is everything in our Oz ground and he is correct!!! There is some mention that I have fallen into a trap but as long as you and Buggsy spread the myth that ground cancelling isn’t rocket science and these naïve guys believe you then Minelab have nothing to fear.The inventor has made statements that aren't quite correct.He says conductive ground is unlikely to vary during one sweep but a damp mineralised salt lake will often give several target like responses per sweep and for obvious reasons.The "viscous" signal definitely doesn't behave as he says either and a sample of ground from Beggery won't help him much. The mutual inductance signal is still contaminated at the end of the pulse.The method he suggests to compare detector field strengths is the real killer!!! He said, "To avoid being humiliated by a Vapour Detector, the yet unnamed succesor to the GPX-4500 must beam sufficient power beyond 50" to light an LED".The statement in itself is self-humiliating!!! Draw the equivalent circuit. What do you see, what actually lights the led and what can influence the result? It is very obvious that the poorest performing pi could easily light the led at the greatest distance!!!! If you can’t see this then take a few minutes to knock up his test coil and circuit and you will see just how truly absurd this is. And you expect me to have a debate with this guy? Would it be any different to the PD episode?There are more but he is the guy making the large premature claims and besides, he will be sending one over to Oz for testing "sooner than later". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZNuggetBob Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 Welcome to the debate Jenn. I like reading what Robby H has to say. AzNuggetBob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robby_H Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 And Doug, You appear to be hung up on the term "universally cancel". This refers to being able to null the signal from a particular substance at one setting regardless of the quantity, shape or orientation, it doesn't mean being able to cancel multiple ground types simultaneously, eg, Poole gives an example where he cancels the response from a steel block but the method obviously doesn't universally cancel all steel objects and his method doesn't universally cancel wet sea side sand or sea water. It would need to be adjusted if the volume of the sand or water surrounding the coil changes. Get It?To the QED, you say you can run 5 timings sequentially (you obviously mean 5 different pulse lengths and associated timings) with a coil travel of 100mm but a Minelab pi detector runs two different pulse lengths and transmits a train of 4-5 pulses and makes an analysis in less than 1mm!! If Minelab were silly enough to transmit the train of pulse lengths Bugwhiskers proposes then they could do so in 1.3mm or 1.3 milliseconds versus your 100mm. Why would you transmit 5 different pulse lengths anyway?? Some kind of weird science or just something to impress the gullible? It was only suggested on your forum the other day and it is now headline news! Perhaps it needs more thought? Why make these big claims, especially when you haven't perfected one timing yet? You say you have but this was when using unusually low gains. Perhaps you should try it again when using the higher gains you are now using on the bench or when using sufficient gains to beat a ML pi on hot variable ground? This will also test your claim that you can sample earlier than Minelab when using a relatively long pulse on hot ground. It is also silly to claim your SMR is efficient when the QED video shows a real problem that will raise its head if you have to raise the gains more to compete with ML. Your current air depth tests mean nothing so please don't mention them.How would the average Joe know how to devise his own timings? Do you know anyone who has ever fitted "better" timings to a Minelab pi detector? Plenty have tried but none have beaten the factory timings without a noticeable downside and yet you seem to be saying your Minelab thumping GB or ground/target separation can be improved by the average user? BTW, one of the guys on your forum who performs mods on his own 2000 said, "The other thing that I have noted time and time again is the depth loss on bigger nuggets 1gram and up when running the higher frequencies". I have pointed out the reasons for this depth loss before, ie, this mod dramatically lowers the peak coil current. So don't you think you should pull Woody up when he says his high frequency mod blows a 4500 away?It gets even worse if you have read the Sept edition of GG&T. Woody says, "Ohm's law states that 6 volts flowing into a coil with a resistance of 0.5 ohms will create a current draw of 12 amps peak"!!!!!!!Peak coil current is dependant on other factors so how the heck can he use Ohm's law to calculate it??? And you say, "Other than the great Geotech forum and perhaps Eric Fosters forum Gpoz has without doubt the best collection of electronically and electromagnetically credible, innovative and very clever detector designers". lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbond Posted September 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 Welcome to the debate Jenn. AzNuggetBobYou spelled it wrong Bob... you left off the beginning... "Welcome to the masturdebate Jenn" I'm going to go buy that Garrett Scorpion Gold Stinger that I saw in the local paper for $200.00 just to give you all something to make fun of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZNuggetBob Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 Jenn you need to get your panties out of a wad. AzNuggetBob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoldProspectinginOz Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 Welcome to the debate Jenn. I like reading what Robby H has to say. AzNuggetBob All the designers of these new detectors are on one forum.They are all willing and able to answer your questions or be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny by skeptics or critics. They are not going to post on this forum so the question is who on this forum has the courage to step out of their comfort zone and come and take them on? I challenge any of you to do so and that includes RH who has wimped out of a debate with Allan on the forum.So RH has not only been shown to be wrong (as pointed out by Allen with the GS (how embarrassing)but simply has no credibility!I am certainly not going to continue to post here when the folk best able to answer all the questions on these new detectors are on Gpoz.All the best to you all,doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbond Posted September 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 Welcome to the debate Jenn. I like reading what Robby H has to say. AzNuggetBobThat's all good it just looked like it was turning a bit personal between Nero and Doug there and I didn't want my original question to turn into a name calling thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robby_H Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 All the designers of these new detectors are on one forum.They are all willing and able to answer your questions or be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny by skeptics or critics. They are not going to post on this forum so the question is who on this forum has the courage to step out of their comfort zone and come and take them on? I challenge any of you to do so and that includes RH who has wimped out of a debate with Allan on the forum.So RH has not only been shown to be wrong (as pointed out by Allen with the GS (how embarrassing)but simply has no credibility!I am certainly not going to continue to post here when the folk best able to answer all the questions on these new detectors are on Gpoz.All the best to you all,dougDoug, does he or does he not have a Minelab thumping method to cancel the ground? A simple yes or no will suffice. "I am certainly not going to continue to post here when the folk best able to answer all the questions on these new detectors are on Gpoz". Oh if only this was true!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts