Here's the new Minelab Equinox

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm actually a bit surprised that the EQX is running a low end off the shelf general purpose 32BIT Cortex M3 CPU.

Cortex processors pack a lot of punch. They are all I use now, and I can't imagine any hobby metal detector design needing more horsepower than I can get from one. I used an M0+ in the pinpointer (and that was overkill), and currently using an M4 for a walk-thru design (also overkill). I'm using an M7 for a skunkworks design just cause I want to, likely will back off to an M3/M4 at the end.

go-rebels Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> New detectors are more susceptible to EMI because their power consumption is lower. Older analog units are relatively
> power hungry and, by definition, less EMI susceptible.

I'd like to know whose definition determined this. It's not even wrong.

vfp7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ps: Serious data processing requires a performance of more than 30 MFlops ...
> IMHO

Another one...

go-rebels Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I understand that the coils have a pre-amp, an accelerometer, and a microcontroller to identify the coil and provide ‘security’
> to prevent use of aftermarket coils.

Yep, that's correct. Same as the X-Terras, though I think they lacked the accelerometer. Signals to and fro are analog. All processing done upstairs.

Sod-buster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is this use of an accelerometer in the coil.
> Is this patented?
>
> Are any other manufacturers doing???

I wrote a patent for White's covering the use of accelerometers in metal detectors, US9207315. I had designed the same system as in the CTX but it never made it into a product and I assume it died when I left.

US9207315 info.

[www.google.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2018 05:23PM by Sod-buster.

Looks like Dr Tones at the beach.

[m.youtube.com]

I was expecting more bikinis. Lol



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2018 07:15PM by Sod-buster.

Sod-buster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks like Dr Tones at the beach.
>
> [m.youtube.com]

watched a bit only about all could watch

Interesting, ML launched the CTX in May 2012, yet White’s patent filing date was June 2011.

Did ML buy the patent rights?

go-rebels Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting, ML launched the CTX in May 2012, yet White’s patent filing date was June 2011.
>
> Did ML buy the patent rights?

I doubt it.

go-rebels Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It’s not just damage; it’s the creation of spuriou
> s signals. From my link:
>
> I doubt many detectors are permanently damaged by
> EMI, no matter where they hunt. New detectors are
> more susceptible to EMI because their power consum
> ption is lower. Older analog units are relatively
> power hungry and, by definition, less EMI suscepti
> ble.

I don't believe your link supports your supposition that "New detectors are more susceptible to EMI because....".

You're lumping all EMI into one category.
There's internal/generated EMI...that 'creation of spurious signals from the circuit itself' which is particularly a problem in things like switching power supply circuits.
And then there's external/environmental EMI...the kind we detectorists don't like...from cars ignitions, transformers, trains, phones etc.

Internal/generated EMI is almost always LESS in lower power consumption circuits.
External EMI (as we experience it) has little or nothing to do with digital processing/logic circuits/chips (or their associated power consumption), and more to do with the analog receiver (coil) circuits.

The detectors operating freq 'window' and RX gain/sensitivity are what primarily determine the effects of the external EMI we've all come to 'love'.
(Although in all fairness, you can indeed push the external EMI noise floor down a little by pumping up the TX power. Still not related to digital circuit power consumption, though.)

So if you're in an area where the external EMI intrudes into your receiver's signal space through the coil, it doesn't matter what your overall power consumption is.
You're going to have to reduce RX gain, and/or use some downstream DSP to mitigate it.

Now if you want to make the argument that "Some newer detectors are more susceptible to EMI because they run higher RX gains than older detectors", then I'm absolutely all on board.

mike



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2018 07:37AM by Mike in CO.

I think I am catching on here, thanks to Mike, Pimento and Geotech.
The reason for the smart coil.

Noise.

Keeping the components (distance) away from the other electronics should make for an odds on cleaner process (in the coil).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2018 09:29PM by Sod-buster.

Sod-buster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think I am catching on here, thanks to Mike, Pimento and Geotech.
> The reason for the smart coil.
>
> Noise.

Well, not really. Putting the preamp in the coil helps with noise a little bit, in that the analog signal running up the cable has more amplitude. In the X-Terras, a processor was put in the coil to identify the coil to the detector, so the detector could run at the right frequency and adjust depth readings. As a bonus, it gave ML a monopoly on X-Terra coils. If an accelerometer is used it needs to be in the coil, and again needs a processor for comms. Except for the preamp, none of this has anything to do with noise, it's just where the parts need to go. In general, the more circuitry you put in the coil the more susceptible it is to potential ground noise. Circuits contain metal, and extraneous metal in a coil creates secondary eddies that interact with ground mineralization. It's subtle and probably requires really bad ground to be noticeable, so I wouldn't consider it to be much of a big deal.

Poor Brandon can't catch a break on this Equinox thing. People already commenting about it being the detectors fault he didn't find much and that it wasn't much footage of wet sand, etc.

I really feel sorry for the people like him and Steve H. that were part of this detector testing and such. They are literally the pinatas of the forums and social media, in a no win situation. No matter what they do or say, people will take swipes at them.

If they post a bunch of stuff showing the detector finding all kind of goodies, people will say that it is fake and that the finds are salted to promote the detector. Or they will say that it is the site, and any other detector could have found the same stuff. Or my favorite...can't trust or believe them because they are on the "inside".

Then if they show a realistic hunt with trash being found, they will say the detector sucks because they didn't find anything good.

It's a no win situation.

On one hand I totally agree that it's a no win situation when posting these videos. On the other hand all the Equinox videos I've seen so far have been lame, like no effort was put into them at all to show what the machine can do.

One thing I'm hoping is that if Minelab was smart, they would have planned all along to release the Equinox one week before the published release date. That would make a lot of people very happy which is the way to do it if they want good customer relations. If they wait til the actual date to release them, people will just say it's about time already. If the machines are released a week or two later than the date, there will be a lot of crabby complainers. They'll get over it once they get the detector in their hands but the frustration with the company will remain in the back of their minds for a few people.

.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2018 11:06PM by Badger in NH.

Daniel Tn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Poor Brandon can't catch a break on this Equinox t
> hing. People already commenting about it being th
> e detectors fault he didn't find much and that it
> wasn't much footage of wet sand, etc.
>
> I really feel sorry for the people like him and St
> eve H. that were part of this detector testing and
> such. They are literally the pinatas of the forum
> s and social media, in a no win situation. No mat
> ter what they do or say, people will take swipes a
> t them.
>
> If they post a bunch of stuff showing the detector
> finding all kind of goodies, people will say that
> it is fake and that the finds are salted to promot
> e the detector. Or they will say that it is the s
> ite, and any other detector could have found the s
> ame stuff. Or my favorite...can't trust or believ
> e them because they are on the "inside".
>
> Then if they show a realistic hunt with trash bein
> g found, they will say the detector sucks because
> they didn't find anything good.
>
> It's a no win situation.

Been there/done that with the Nokta Impact (as you well know Daniel)

And I don’t envy him/those guys in the least!

Not fun and not worth it in my opinion. I was happy to have had the opportunity to field test a great machine for a forward thinking company that has come a long way in a short time with the machines they’ve brought to market in just a few short years but the bashing and complaining and statements that you’re a liar in making a claim about the machine or things you find/found and all the other crap that goes with it is more than I’m willing to deal with as you know me = I don’t hold back/won’t deal with the BS!

Too much work for very little reward and then to have to deal with all the xxxholes too!? No thanks

Yeah , poor little guys , forced to sign those contracts by those mean old guys at Minelab and do this testing. They're big boys who knew what they were doing when they signed up.Quite frankly they bring the criticism on themselves with their sloppy testing and presentations that do nothing but introduce more variables into every expose/blog instead of using some forethought to remove those variables. They destroy their credibility from the get go when they deny "considerations" from Minelab.

Why do you think Tom's evaluations are so prized? He controls the variables and eliminates the natural tendency to challenge the results. In addition , his tests allow for retesting when variables are introduced , which are checked under the same conditions as the original to verify authenticity. A result that cannot be duplicated is not a valid result.

These are simply anecdotal accounts of their experiences with the Nox , not valid tests.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2018 11:26PM by shoveler.

Well,
I see this differently than Shoveler.

I think it is safe to say there is some courtesy being extended toward the other detector manufacturers here.
I mean think about it.
There has been more said as far as Minelab and the testers when it comes to comparison comments, meaning there has been some things stated as far as how Equinox compares to fbs units.

Sure the testers could have done test and compared to other manufacturers units.
And posted and done videos.

But the testers are operating under agreements, maybe even could be considered orders.

And do the testers in fact have production units?

Think about this.
Could a unit be tinkered with and be improved in one area and be diminished in other area(s)?

If so, then any comparison data to another unit could be affected, even could be null and voided.

As far as a tester and their reputation goes.

I think they the testers have an idea of what is at stake.
And I don't think Minelab picks nutjobs, or folks not up to the challenge to do the testing.

There is no written guidance anywhere how a manufacturer goes about testing and broadcasting results to the general pubic.

Is there a right or wrong way?

Minelab is no rookie in metal detector land, rest assured.

Btw, I am not posting this to cuddle up with Minelab or anyone else.

If folks will notice I have been critical of some aspects of Minelab's past releases.

I am watching the process Minelab has chosen.
Too early to render judgement.
With more time and the Equinox models released, I may offer my overall opinion.

I do think now (Didn't use to think) Minelab is paying attention and is reading metal detecting forum feedback.

Anyone here buying a new auto in the next few weeks?
What's the average price of a new one what --,,$20,000-$30,000.
What has the manufacturer told you or any testers for that matter as far as the auto you have in mind goes??



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2018 12:05AM by Sod-buster.

Plain and simple, to much time between the initial Equinox coming out announcement and actual delivery date....whatever that turns out to be. To much time to be thinking about what this detector might be all about and thinking tends to get a lot of us in trouble. HH jim tn

Quote
Badger in NH
One thing I'm hoping is that if Minelab was smart, they would have planned all along to release the Equinox one week before the published release date.

It’s interesting to compare how other industries launch new products. Apple gives us a sale date and a few functional details but little else. There are no pictures... no videos. Car companies give up nothing before a new car appears as the first big car show. What other consumer electronics... TVs, audio systems, smart hubs... leak out information in the manner Minelab does?

Then again, consumer metal detectors aren’t a billion dollar industry...

Quote
Geotech
Well, not really. Putting the preamp in the coil helps with noise a little bit, in that the analog signal running up the cable has more amplitude... In general, the more circuitry you put in the coil the more susceptible it is to potential ground noise. Circuits contain metal, and extraneous metal in a coil creates secondary eddies that interact with ground mineralization. It's subtle and probably requires really bad ground to be noticeable, so I wouldn't consider it to be much of a big deal.

So why put a preamp circuit in the coil? Either you pick up noise (eddies) in the added circuitry added to the coil or you pick up noise within the low voltage signal going up the coil wire. I don’t believe we know which one is the optimum solution given the overall circuit design.

Like most evolution in electronics these days, we tend to want to move digital data rather than analog signals, and prefer to design higher voltage / lower current (lower power) circuits. All these trends minimize weight too. Another example: newer higher-end "luxury" cars are transitioning from 12V electrical systems to 48V systems saving >20lb in the weight of the wiring harness alone.

Quote

Geotech Wrote:

Well, not really. Putting the preamp in the coil helps with noise a little bit, in that the analog signal running up the cable has more amplitude... In general, the more circuitry you put in the coil the more susceptible it is to potential ground noise. Circuits contain metal, and extraneous metal in a coil creates secondary eddies that interact with ground mineralization. It's subtle and probably requires really bad ground to be noticeable, so I wouldn't consider it to be much of a big deal.

Geotech/Carl

do you see or think there's a place for "fiber optics" at some point in running the info from the coil to the control unit/head where it can be converted to sound & visual ID to eliminate EMI altogether or much more so than current systems??

Or if it could be done = it would already be in use??

I mean to me = if we can use it (a fiber optic cable) connecting our TV's from cable box to TV for sound and eliminate analog wiring/sound via the old cable then why not the same in a metal detecor?

It’s coming. The key here the development of cheap, tiny silicon chips capable of encoding and decoding laser signals sent via fiber optics. Today, when data arrives at a gate via a fiber optic connection it has to be moved from a separate photonic device to an electronic circuit. We need new systems where everything works in silicon. Prototype systems built today can carry data at a rate of 50 gigabits per second, enough to transfer a full-length HD movie in less than a second.

And because there’s no metal, there’s no EMI.

go-rebels Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It’s coming. The key here the development of chea
> p, tiny silicon chips capable of encoding and deco
> ding laser signals sent via fiber optics. Today,
> when data arrives at a gate via a fiber optic conn
> ection it has to be moved from a separate photonic
> device to an electronic circuit. We need new syste
> ms where everything works in silicon. Prototype s
> ystems built today can carry data at a rate of 50
> gigabits per second, enough to transfer a full-len
> gth HD movie in less than a second.
>
> And because there’s no metal, there’s no EMI.


Man, can you imagine detecting infield with no EMI whatsoever (or very little compared to what we have now)!?

I bet we'd see depths never seen before from our machines and hear things that normally wouldn't be heard WHILE not hearing other things that ARE normally heard!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2018 02:15AM by MichiganRelicHunter.

go-rebels Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
>
> And because there’s no metal, there’s no EMI.

Or is it because signal passes using light instead of current.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2018 02:37AM by Sod-buster.

Geotech Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cal_cobra Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm actually a bit surprised that the EQX is run
> ning a low end off the shelf general purpose 32BIT
> Cortex M3 CPU.
>
> Cortex processors pack a lot of punch. They are al
> l I use now, and I can't imagine any hobby metal d
> etector design needing more horsepower than I can
> get from one. I used an M0+ in the pinpointer (and
> that was overkill), and currently using an M4 for
> a walk-thru design (also overkill). I'm using an M
> 7 for a skunkworks design just cause I want to, li
> kely will back off to an M3/M4 at the end.
>

Hi Carl,

I'm pretty familiar with Cortex processors. Their used extensively in Android OS and Win10 streaming HDTV boxes, make for dirt cheap Linux servers, video games, etc. However, most of the ones I've used are higher end, with dual and quad core, and often 64bit CPUs. I know simply converting an analog signal to a digital signal with some signal filtering on it isn't CPU intensive, however, does not more processing power allow for more comprehensive signal analysis, or other features (3D GPR like screen painting?)?

Carl I guess what I'm hearing is that the CPU isn't the bottleneck on detector advancements.

go-rebels Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why put a preamp circuit in the coil? Either you pick up noise (eddies) in the added circuitry added to the coil or you pick up noise within the
> low voltage signal going up the coil wire.

Probably in almost all cases the preamp in the coil is a net benefit.

> Like most evolution in electronics these days, we tend to want to move digital data rather than analog signals, and prefer to design higher voltage /
> lower current (lower power) circuits. All these trends minimize weight too. Another example: newer higher-end "luxury" cars are transitioning from
> 12V electrical systems to 48V systems saving >20lb in the weight of the wiring harness alone.

High voltage/low current works for power transmission, that why power transmission is done at over 100kV. It doesn't work in electronics, where a shrinking silicon junction results in lower & lower breakdown voltages. I once designed circuits to run on +/- 15V, now I use 5V and 3V. Processors are clearly headed to 1.8V, then 0.9V.

MichiganRelicHunter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Geotech/Carl
>
> do you see or think there's a place for "fiber optics" at some point in running the info from the coil to the control unit/head where it can be
> converted to sound & visual ID to eliminate EMI altogether or much more so than current systems??

You could easily do this, but it would cost more, be less durable, and wouldn't help anything. 99% of EMI comes from external fields picked up by the coil, not from anything created by the detector itself. And even if you have 0 EMI, there is still ground noise.

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm pretty familiar with Cortex processors. Their used extensively in Android OS and Win10 streaming HDTV boxes, make for dirt cheap Linux servers,
> video games, etc. However, most of the ones I've used are higher end, with dual and quad core, and often 64bit CPUs. I know simply converting an
> analog signal to a digital signal with some signal filtering on it isn't CPU intensive, however, does not more processing power allow for more comprehensive
> signal analysis, or other features (3D GPR like screen painting?)?
>
> Carl I guess what I'm hearing is that the CPU isn't the bottleneck on detector advancements.

I'd say correct, the CPU ain't the bottleneck. Probably it's engineering bandwidth, where metal detectors are being designed by a half-dozen people here, a half-dozen people there. Unlike an Android phone, which has maybe 100 people writing the OS software, plus more people designing hardware, writing apps, etc. With such thin resources there's only so much we can do, and only so fast we can do it.

Probably Better/Easier/Cheaper to convert it to Bit data digital signal from coil to control box. which I'm sure Deus does and the Xterra and probably most of the FBS units..Digital data link

And yes no matter how much you clean up the signal from coil to the box the coil is still picking up the EMI..

Keith

“I don't care that they stole my idea . . I care that they don't have any of their own”
-Nikola Tesla

Alright,
This discussion leads me to another question.

Noise cancel

Like what is used on fbs/fbs2 units, Garrett ATX, Minelab GPX, maybe more.

As far as the noise cancel process, is the process just sensing and trying to mitigate emi sense by the coil ( routed through coil ) or does the process sense emi being felt through the coil and emi penetrating through other avenues?

This digital shield technology has peaked my interest too.

Like, why did the DST units loose some depth vs original units?
Was this just a by product/consequence of the tech.
Or was some thing neutered intentionally signal wise so the DST (is able ) to make the detector run even quieter on average vs original units?
I believe NASA Tom stated here there was no such thing as DST =off, just reduced somewhat. And of course full on.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2018 04:49AM by Sod-buster.

Quote

MichiganRelicHunter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

do you see or think there's a place for "fiber optics" at some point in running the info from the coil to the control unit/head where it can be converted to sound & visual ID to eliminate EMI altogether or much more so than current systems??

Geotech Wrote:

You could easily do this, but it would cost more, be less durable, and wouldn't help anything. 99% of EMI comes from external fields picked up by the coil, not from anything created by the detector itself. And even if you have 0 EMI, there is still ground noise.

Quote

Keith Southern Wrote:

Probably Better/Easier/Cheaper to convert it to Bit data digital signal from coil to control box. which I'm sure Deus does and the Xterra and probably most of the FBS units..Digital data link

And yes no matter how much you clean up the signal from coil to the box the coil is still picking up the EMI..

Keith

Well, there goes my theory on fiber optics eliminating emi to the point that it wouldn't be of interference (or at least be drastically reduced) = dummy me

All noise cancel does is find the quietest channel....No magic...Just scans through available freqs and chooses the one with less EMI..You can do same manually if you like.

Digital shield is just that..It trys to remove audio that it thinks is NOISE OR CHATTER caused by EMI...Its ran through a Digital Cleaner/scrubber processor...That's why you see slightly less spark and or depth some of the Fuzzy slightly weak sounding signals can get lost as they mimic NOISE .Digital Squelch if you will but alot more intricate..

Even modern( last 20 years) CB radios have such a feature (DSP) it cleans up all that NOISE in the background..and by doing so you loose some of the DX ability..But it runs really quiet..

Digital extracts what it thinks is legitimate signal and removes what it thinks is artificial or atmospheric..

Keith

“I don't care that they stole my idea . . I care that they don't have any of their own”
-Nikola Tesla

Keith Southern Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All noise cancel does is find the quietest channel
> ....No magic...Just scans through available freqs
> and chooses the one with less EMI..You can do same
> manually if you like.
>
> Digital shield is just that..It trys to remove aud
> io that it thinks is NOISE OR CHATTER caused by EM
> I...Its ran through a Digital Cleaner/scrubber pro
> cessor...That's why you see slightly less spark an
> d or depth some of the Fuzzy slightly weak soundin
> g signals can get lost as they mimic NOISE .Digita
> l Squelch if you will but alot more intricate..
>
> Even modern( last 20 years) CB radios have such a
> feature (DSP) it cleans up all that NOISE in the b
> ackground..and by doing so you loose some of the D
> X ability..But it runs really quiet..
>
> Digital extracts what it thinks is legitimate sign
> al and removes what it thinks is artificial or atm
> ospheric..
>
> Keith


I know the aim of noise cancel.
Not my question.
My question was really just how far downstream is the noise cancel sampling?
There are other ways emi can enter a metal detector (system) besides through the coil.
Original F75 units prove this I think. My pinpointer sure would stir up my unit when held near control head on or off.

Imagine a tempest booth, split in half.
Where the coil was in one half the control head in the other.
Wonder if we took some other different detectors into the half where control head resides and turned on,,would noise cancel possibly sense a detector running in the half of the tempest booth where the control head resides?