Minelab's Multi-IQ vs AKA's Multi-frequency

Interesting. Thank you.

Geotech,
Thanks for yr graphs! I do able to notice 2 frequencies: 1 goes after another. As I see, 2 freqs do not exist at the same time. Freqs are changed rapidly but they are not simultanious... Simultenious means 28... 2 freqs active at once

2 guys producing boiling water,
I do respect different opinions, but I avoid dealing with such impudent and unpolite persons as you

Tyberos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is a Russian psyop.

LOL

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In a democracy, it is difficult to win fellow citizens over to your own side, or to build public support to remedy injustices that remain all too real when you fundamentally misunderstand how they see the world.

Dear "friends"
Good bye

SuchMuch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Geotech,
> Thanks for yr graphs! I do able to notice 2 freque
> ncies: 1 goes after another. As I see, 2 freqs do
> not exist at the same time. Freqs are changed rapi
> dly but they are not simultanious... Simultenious
> means 28... 2 freqs active at once
>
> 2 guys producing boiling water,
> I do respect different opinions, but I avoid deali
> ng with such impudent and unpolite persons as you


Who's the latest insult directed at?

Seagulls - they fly in - make a lot of noise - poop on everything - then fly away.

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold

Anyone, for a now electronics novice, do those two waves show pulsing of signals? (Meaning there are periods of lull - maybe for processing the data?)
But, those signals are pulsed simultaneously, not during the others lull period, so to speak?

Thanks in advance,
Albert

Geotech Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's the drive voltage and resulting TX current
> waveform, in a nice clean drawing:
>
>

lytle78 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seagulls - they fly in - make a lot of noise - poo
> p on everything - then fly away.

Carl shot that warbird out of the sky with a single shot out of his BB gun.
Hate to think what he’d do when he comes in All Guns Blazing.

Made my week that did!

HH
Johnb

SuchMuch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Geotech,
> Thanks for yr graphs! I do able to notice 2 freque
> ncies: 1 goes after another. As I see, 2 freqs do
> not exist at the same time. Freqs are changed rapi
> dly but they are not simultanious... Simultenious
> means 28... 2 freqs active at once
>
> 2 guys producing boiling water,
> I do respect different opinions, but I avoid deali
> ng with such impudent and unpolite persons as you

Much of this conversation has been a bit ridiculous, BUT YES thank you Geotech for posting the o-scope image.

Has minelab actually stated that they use all 28 frequencies at once? My understanding has always been that when you run noise cancel, it picks the frequencies based on the cleanest (least EMI) frequencies, not that it uses all of them at the same time.

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SuchMuch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Geotech,
> > Thanks for yr graphs! I do able to notice 2 freq
> ue
> > ncies: 1 goes after another. As I see, 2 freqs d
> o
> > not exist at the same time. Freqs are changed ra
> pi
> > dly but they are not simultanious... Simulteniou
> s
> > means 28... 2 freqs active at once
> >
> > 2 guys producing boiling water,
> > I do respect different opinions, but I avoid dea
> li
> > ng with such impudent and unpolite persons as yo
> u
>
> Much of this conversation has been a bit ridiculou
> s, BUT YES thank you Geotech for posting the o-sco
> pe image.
>
> Has minelab actually stated that they use all 28 f
> requencies at once? My understanding has always b
> een that when you run noise cancel, it picks the f
> requencies based on the cleanest (least EMI) frequ
> encies, not that it uses all of them at the same t
> ime.

My understanding is the same; running noise cancel selects two frequencies. I don't know where I saw that, but I've understood it like this for years.

Tyberos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cal_cobra Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > SuchMuch Wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -----
> > > Geotech,
> > > Thanks for yr graphs! I do able to notice 2 fr
> eq
> > ue
> > > ncies: 1 goes after another. As I see, 2 freqs
> d
> > o
> > > not exist at the same time. Freqs are changed
> ra
> > pi
> > > dly but they are not simultanious... Simulteni
> ou
> > s
> > > means 28... 2 freqs active at once
> > >
> > > 2 guys producing boiling water,
> > > I do respect different opinions, but I avoid d
> ea
> > li
> > > ng with such impudent and unpolite persons as
> yo
> > u
> >
> > Much of this conversation has been a bit ridicul
> ou
> > s, BUT YES thank you Geotech for posting the o-s
> co
> > pe image.
> >
> > Has minelab actually stated that they use all 28
> f
> > requencies at once? My understanding has always
> b
> > een that when you run noise cancel, it picks the
> f
> > requencies based on the cleanest (least EMI) fre
> qu
> > encies, not that it uses all of them at the same
> t
> > ime.
>
> My understanding is the same; running noise cancel
> selects two frequencies. I don't know where I saw
> that, but I've understood it like this for years.

https://www.minelab.com/knowledge-base/key-technologies

Have a look at FBS yourselves and thank you Carl for showing us that Minelabs marketing team are full of BS, if we cant believe you what chance have others got, trying to educate the flock.

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Has minelab actually stated that they use all 28 frequencies at once?

That's the really funny part... no they didn't. But no one seemed to notice that little omission.

> My understanding has always been that when you run noise cancel, it picks the frequencies
> based on the cleanest (least EMI) frequencies, not that it uses all of them at the same time.

It is just a frequency offset, same as the offset control for a single frequency detector. For example:

3.050k + 24.40k
3.075k + 24.60k
3.100k + 24.80k
3.125k + 25.00k
3.150k + 25.20k

I don't know offhand the exact frequencies, but always a 1:8 ratio.

Geotech Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cal_cobra Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Has minelab actually stated that they use all 28
> frequencies at once?
>
> That's the really funny part... no they didn't. Bu
> t no one seemed to notice that little omission.
>
> >

That is exactly was I was talking about. SM and RM see only those facts that are convenient for them, omitting the rest of the story.

Geotech Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Cal_cobra Wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -----
> > > Has minelab actually stated that they use all
> 28
> > frequencies at once?
> >
> > That's the really funny part... no they didn't.
> But no one seemed to notice that little omission.
> >
> > >
>
> That is exactly was I was talking about. SM and RM
> see only those facts that are convenient for them,
> omitting the rest of the story.

Trust me, I noticed. When I reviewed the link that Ringmoney provided about FBS/FBS2, I noticed that although they show a nice image showing the coil can produce 28 frequencies:



They do NOT specifically state that it actually uses all 28 frequencies at once. I've never thought that it did to begin with, for one thing it would likely be an EMI nightmare to utilize all frequencies at once.

> Geotech Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>It is just a frequency offset, same as the offset control for a single frequency detector. For example:
>
>3.050k + 24.40k
>3.075k + 24.60k
>3.100k + 24.80k
>3.125k + 25.00k
>3.150k + 25.20k
>
>I don't know offhand the exact frequencies, but always a 1:8 ratio.

Glad to know it's a main frequency shift/offset, not an actual channel change. That said, it's still a great technology to have. Nasa Tom has indicated in several of his tests (on various detectors) that silent EMI is a killer, and simply doing a frequency shift/offset can improve TID and depth as well. If the detector can do this automatically and accurately, that's a great feature. I suspect that this is heavily leveraged in the upcoming Equinox, and that's a good thing IMHO.

Also let's be honest here people (and this is not directed at you Carl), whether you like Minelab or not, they produce some good engineering technology. There's a reason the Explorer and Etracs have such a HUGE following, with the finds to back them up, if the technology was a sham, Minelab would not be where it is today. If someone can build a better mousetrap, I'm all for it, and if Minelab decides not to pull their secret recipe out of the vault for public consumption, they have that right, although it certainly does make life interesting for their marketing group watching everyone guess how their technology works.

Carl thanks for sharing your knowledge, and keeping this thread "real"

Here's the deal - I don't give a damn how many frequencies come out of the coil. My E-Trac runs CIRCLES around other machines at the beach and it goes deeper and is more accurate than almost every other machine I've seen. It could produce half a signal for all I care, as long as it continues to perform the way it does. All this talk about deception and marketing gimmicks neglects the fact that these machines STOMP the competition.

Geotech,

Thank you for the lesson.

Rich

------------------------------------------------------------------

Just one more good target before I go.

So, after doing a noise cancel an Etrac decides which freq will be best for emi, but the user doesn't know the frequency selected, and it may not be best for the soil or target type your aiming for!?!?

Lots of these speculations caused by the luck of understanding the math which is behind the process. All frequency components of a periodic sequence exist all the time and do not change their magnitude during the period. For example, combine two sinusoids of equal magnitude of, let's say, 10 and 11 kHz. You will immediately notice that there will be sections of the period where they practically cancel each other and double the magnitude in other places. It does not mean that those sinusoids stopped existing in these places where they cancel out. Take a filter that removes one of those components and you will see that it will completely reconstruct the other one. Same happens here, just with a much larger set of harmonics.

Quote:"So, after doing a noise cancel .... the user doesn't know the frequency selected, and it may not be best for the soil or target type your aiming for!?!?"
The 'noise cancel' only shifts frequencies by [edited] +/- 10% maximum, you'll be hard-pressed to tell any difference in performance over such a small range.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2017 11:47AM by Pimento.

Pimento, so is it running 2 freq and the noise cancel just shifts these slightly for emi ?
Carl says above that he thinks the noise cancel picks the frequencies, but doesn't know off hand what they are, could it for example pick 3khz and 5khz, or will it always be a high and low freq?

Pimento Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quote:"So, after doing a noise cancel
> .... the user doesn't know the frequency selected,
> and it may not be best for the soil or target type
> your aiming for!?!?"
> The 'noise cancel' only shifts frequencies by +/-
> 7% maximum, you'll be hard-pressed to tell any dif
> ference in performance over such a small range.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2017 11:12AM by ghound.

GHound.. I guess you missed this thread, which contains some useful (and some not so useful) info.
[www.dankowskidetectors.com]
The total frequency range available is close to +/-10%, I've edited my earlier post. The low frequency varies from 2820 Hz to 3450 Hz, the high freq being always a factor of 8 times higher.

Thanks Pimento, i love science class, though 90% of that link went clean over my head!
But this part you wrote held the answer i was asking,

'This entire thread confirms there's just 2 frequencies, 25KHz and 3.125KHz. They are transmitted sequentially with their own demodulator, alternating every 320 microsecs (1 cycle of 3.125KHz)Pimento Wrote:'


-------------------------------------------------------
> GHound.. I guess you missed this thread, which con
> tains some useful (and some not so useful) info.
> [www.dankowskidetectors.com]
> The total frequency range available is close to +/
> -10%, I've edited my earlier post. The low frequen
> cy varies from 2820 Hz to 3450 Hz, the high freq b
> eing always a factor of 8 times higher.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2017 01:42PM by ghound.

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also let's be honest here people (and this is not directed at you Carl), whether you like Minelab or
> not, they produce some good engineering technology. There's a reason the Explorer and Etracs have
> such a HUGE following, with the finds to back them up, if the technology was a sham, Minelab would
> not be where it is today.

I agree, and I'm not saying their technology is a sham. Just that their explanation of the technology is a sham.

Minelab has some really good engineers who have produced some really good designs. Why their Marketing Dept feels the need to lie about it when the truth would be just as interesting is beyond me. It's certainly not to hide any secrets, as the truth is quite easy for anyone to figure out.

Geotech Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cal_cobra Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Also let's be honest here people (and this is no
> t directed at you Carl), whether you like Minelab
> or
> > not, they produce some good engineering technolo
> gy. There's a reason the Explorer and Etracs have
> > such a HUGE following, with the finds to back th
> em up, if the technology was a sham, Minelab would
> > not be where it is today.
>
> I agree, and I'm not saying their technology is a
> sham. Just that their explanation of the technolog
> y is a sham.
>
> Minelab has some really good engineers who have pr
> oduced some really good designs. Why their Marketi
> ng Dept feels the need to lie about it when the tr
> uth would be just as interesting is beyond me. It'
> s certainly not to hide any secrets, as the truth
> is quite easy for anyone to figure out.

really appreciate the 'truth' Geotech, hopefully you can do the same for the Equinox once it's released, ie does it use similar tech using 2 freqs, etc....
inquiring minds and all that. It's intriquing that the etrac and then ctx were so damn good! I really made some good finds (actually my best) with both of those over ground
that had been detected for literally decades....as such I know the Nox will be good, but a thought is that they will do something to slightly stunt it so as
to allow room for a 'higher end' version for quite a few $ more....seems they could make this model perform at least as well as the etrac/ctx 'if they wanted to'.....
My first detector was a CZ-5 (5/15 multi as I recall) and I did very poorly with it, etrac just blew it out of the water, literally night and day between the capabilities
of those 2, IMHO.....

Geotech Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cal_cobra Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Also let's be honest here people (and this is no
> t directed at you Carl), whether you like Minelab
> or
> > not, they produce some good engineering technolo
> gy. There's a reason the Explorer and Etracs have
> > such a HUGE following, with the finds to back th
> em up, if the technology was a sham, Minelab would
> > not be where it is today.
>
> I agree, and I'm not saying their technology is a
> sham. Just that their explanation of the technolog
> y is a sham.
>
> Minelab has some really good engineers who have pr
> oduced some really good designs. Why their Marketi
> ng Dept feels the need to lie about it when the tr
> uth would be just as interesting is beyond me. It'
> s certainly not to hide any secrets, as the truth
> is quite easy for anyone to figure out.


100% agreed.

Working for large tech companies most of my adult life, I can tell you that marketing and engineering are frequently at odds..... take data sheets for example, there's the marketing #'s and reality, yet data sheets are (typically) produced by the marketing dept, from real data from engineering, that may or may not be accurately reflected on the final data sheet

canslawhero Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Geotech Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Cal_cobra Wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -----
> > > Also let's be honest here people (and this is
> no
> > t directed at you Carl), whether you like Minela
> b
> > or
> > > not, they produce some good engineering techno
> lo
> > gy. There's a reason the Explorer and Etracs ha
> ve
> > > such a HUGE following, with the finds to back
> th
> > em up, if the technology was a sham, Minelab wou
> ld
> > > not be where it is today.
> >
> > I agree, and I'm not saying their technology is
> a
> > sham. Just that their explanation of the technol
> og
> > y is a sham.
> >
> > Minelab has some really good engineers who have
> pr
> > oduced some really good designs. Why their Marke
> ti
> > ng Dept feels the need to lie about it when the
> tr
> > uth would be just as interesting is beyond me. I
> t'
> > s certainly not to hide any secrets, as the trut
> h
> > is quite easy for anyone to figure out.
>
> really appreciate the 'truth' Geotech, hopefully y
> ou can do the same for the Equinox once it's relea
> sed, ie does it use similar tech using 2 freqs, et
> c....
> inquiring minds and all that. It's intriquing that
> the etrac and then ctx were so damn good! I really
> made some good finds (actually my best) with both
> of those over ground
> that had been detected for literally decades....as
> such I know the Nox will be good, but a thought is
> that they will do something to slightly stunt it s
> o as
> to allow room for a 'higher end' version for quite
> a few $ more....seems they could make this model p
> erform at least as well as the etrac/ctx 'if they
> wanted to'.....
> My first detector was a CZ-5 (5/15 multi as I reca
> ll) and I did very poorly with it, etrac just blew
> it out of the water, literally night and day betwe
> en the capabilities
> of those 2, IMHO.....

Hard to compare an analog first generation dual frequency machine, with what a fourth generation digital multi-frequency machine?

Whew! Glad that is over. Thought people were going to the mattresses soon.

<stops backing out of room, smiling and nodding.
Hi guys, I'm usually a cherry-picker
of info specific to my endeavours.
Just wanted to thank whoever it was that posted minelab's spiel of their new machine (I dare not mention it) regarding its performance in beach settings (or not) being not quite a good as fbs, BBS?.. I hadn't seen that info before.
Also thnx for the info on multi-frequency not necessarily meaning all freqs transmitting at once.
Useful info. I'm mainly salt beach wading up to shoulders, using Cz21, pi, Excalibur.
Cheers.

Happy using any type, as long as it beeps when over anything metallic.