EMI

I raised the point on another forum. Really a question. We have tracking for ground minerals and soil conditions. We have auto sensitivity going back to FBS units. Will we see the day when the noise cancel feature is replaced or enhanced to a constant monitoring and adjusting of EMI?

I hope not. I would much rather set the amount chatter to my liking than let the detector decide for me.

The key should be for MfG's to do more research as how to eliminate EMI. I am very impressed with the Tarsacci's ability to handle EMI. But I only had one spot to compare it. Also I don't know if the Tarsacci is a platform based solution or actual engineering was done for EMI.

The best detectors I have used in heavy EMI were any of my Minelab FBS technology machines, my DFX does really well in EMI as well. Not sure why.

goodmore...... right up my alley. This has been a major (concerted effort) of mine.......for about the past 21 months.
In one regard........ I could care less about merely 'mitigating' EMI. . . . . rather ....... completely eliminating it. (Via engineering controls).

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> goodmore...... right up my alley. This has been a
> major (concerted effort) of mine.......for about t
> he past 21 months.
> In one regard........ I could care less about mere
> ly 'mitigating' EMI. . . . . rather ....... comple
> tely eliminating it. (Via engineering controls).


Now THAT'S what I'm talking about!!!!

I have 3 MAJOR campaigns ......that I am feverishly working on .....right now. One is indeed: EMI.

Well Tom depth seems to he at a stand still as far as technology advancement. More gain seems to be headlights in the fog. Work needs to be done on the reception end as well as transmission of the signal.

midalake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope not. I would much rather set the amount cha
> tter to my liking than let the detector decide for
> me.
>
>

I agree. I would worry that, if the detector is doing-the-deciding, that it might err on the side of safety. Thus "muffling" performance. Same for something like auto-tune feature for sensitivity: It always dumbs DOWN, not UP. So I prefer to keep the controls in my hands.

A constant monitoring of EMI and adjusting channels automatically in the background can only be a positive. I really can't see anything negative about the removal of EMI. In fact I see potential for more gain instead of having to back it down. And to be honest some EMI is not noticeable to the ears. You don't know what signals you are not hearing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2021 01:16AM by goodmore.

goodmore......that is correct. Any reduction of EMI........whether it is performed automatically (behind the scenes)....... or manually by the user/operator........is still a performance gain.
"Auto-Sensitivity" can be dangerous.......as most of us have discovered.
Auto Ground Tracking really works; yet, with the detriment of 'tuning-out' small and/or weak signals.

Tom , do you feel eliminating EMI via engineering controls can be accomplished in the near future?

If so , that would be a real game changer!

Near future........ possibly not.
Problem is......... we're on the 'inside'......... looking 'out'.