Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

QED

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bugs,

    On your schematic I can see the way that you have implemented selectable gain control of the 1st stage. Have you encountered any problems with either a large reduction in slew rate, phase distortion or lag, any other undesirable traits in the feedback response of the front end amplifier?

    I make mention of this as i tested a similar design some years ago and found problems with the feedback path. Do you have any scope shots of the input and output to compare?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Woody.au View Post
      Bugs,

      On your schematic I can see the way that you have implemented selectable gain control of the 1st stage. Have you encountered any problems with either a large reduction in slew rate, phase distortion or lag, any other undesirable traits in the feedback response of the front end amplifier?

      I make mention of this as i tested a similar design some years ago and found problems with the feedback path. Do you have any scope shots of the input and output to compare?
      I agree Woody, but the problem will be rebuked by a certain group. The problem is enhanced when close to another section (which I refuse to identify) causes the feed back to generate harmonics. I hope they figure it out.

      HINT!!! mixers (DI)

      Comment


      • Doug, you say this.....

        The fact that Carl gives credence too and allows to go unchallenged the opinions of a pathological QED liar like PJ does not say much for his forum or his principles!
        Your more than welcome I am sure to "prove" what I think is wrong. After all is not a guy entitled to his own opinion any more? Is that not what your purple buddie says in every post...

        So you are welcome to prove me wrong in my personal thoughts, but keep it civil with no name calling like you do on your forum please! So do not be saying "unchallenged" please, your turn my friend.

        Comment


        • Patches, please don't drag stuff from other forums here to respond. If you want to respond to a post on Doug's forum, please do it there.

          And, I'll ask you the same thing I ask them... Do you feel an overwhelming need to respond to every criticism?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by PATCHES JUNIOR View Post
            I agree Woody, but the problem will be rebuked by a certain group. The problem is enhanced when close to another section (which I refuse to identify) causes the feed back to generate harmonics. I hope they figure it out.

            HINT!!! mixers (DI)
            .... I spotted it, its next to the flux capacitor .... ( easy to spot ... Based on your detailed and highly specific analysis of the problem )

            Comment


            • Originally posted by moodz View Post
              .... I spotted it, its next to the flux capacitor .... ( easy to spot ... Based on your detailed and highly specific analysis of the problem )
              moodz, read Woodys post and then read mine. I gave a hint about the DI. In case you do not know that is the differential integrator. I bet they are conflicting with each other by being to close or trace bleed over. Hope that clears it up for you my friend.

              Comment


              • Nope, it's the "flux compensator".
                BTW, the germans don't say "flux capacitor". They have changed it into "flux compensator".
                How to avoid harm ionics?

                Aziz

                Comment


                • Can we expect a "TDI Pro 2" soon? The QED should give the TDI team some more fresh ideas.

                  Aziz

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Aziz View Post
                    Can we expect a "TDI Pro 2" soon? The QED should give the TDI team some more fresh ideas.

                    Aziz

                    Who knows Doug. Folks are stealing ideas all the time. Best patent yours before you lose it!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PATCHES JUNIOR View Post
                      moodz, read Woodys post and then read mine. I gave a hint about the DI. In case you do not know that is the differential integrator. I bet they are conflicting with each other by being to close or trace bleed over. Hope that clears it up for you my friend.
                      Thanks ... for that info Patches ..... I thought you were pulling our leg on that one .... but it is a reasonable issue to point out.

                      moodz.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by PATCHES JUNIOR View Post
                        Best patent yours before you lose it!
                        That isn't going to happen yet.
                        It seems, that my idea is more safe in my brain.
                        Even safe from the patent trolls.
                        Aziz

                        PS:
                        Long live the harmonics(c)(r)(tm)!

                        Comment


                        • Harmonics(c)(r)(tm) found!!!

                          Hi all,

                          I hate harmonics(c)(r)(tm) now!!!! I'm no longer friend of harmonics(c)(r)(tm).
                          Something from the neighborhood is disturbing my rocket science R&D.
                          I could localise it roughly.

                          PJ!!! Where are you?

                          *LOL*, this ain't a joke now. This is real life. Harmonics(c)(r)(tm) do exist really.

                          Aziz

                          PS: This is what the RX coil picks up with the ultra low noise LT1028 op-amp.
                          Attached Files

                          Comment


                          • Wow, 11 pages of little or nothing but *****ing and whining, coupled with excuses and accusations.

                            The fact is manufacturers have detectors out being field tested all the time. The difference is they don't make any claims or brag about such detectors because they know even though a key group may be field testing the units, there will be bugs, glitches, or something odd come up even once the detector is released. The field testers usually have the detectors for a few months, not years. They are used to find better ways or find bugs but this shouldn't be a career. If it was, we would still be riding around on horse and buggies.

                            Bugwhiskers, there is no perfect design and if you continue to try for one, the QED will become one of the many PUDs Carl mentioned.

                            Quite some time ago, I recommended you release the initial version of this detector and then sort out the new bugs that will present themselves. I still stand by that recommendation. You will also be surprised at the good ideas that you will get once the public is trying to help. Keeping up the claims with little or no actual facts presented will not help your case at all. Worse yet, the detector will never be perfect so if that is what you are trying for, it will never become a reality.

                            As Carl says, it is best keep the trap shut until you are ready and there will be far less flack once the detector is released. Regardless of how long you wait and work on it, there will be things show up that will never show up the way you are going about this.

                            You will be picked on when you do release it regardless of when you do because no detector is bulletproof and no detector will be. The more you make this a war between you and any other detector, the bigger the mess will be. There will be things that are not known now become big issues. The constant bickering and degrading other detectors will only intensify the attacks you are going to experience.

                            Doug, I agree with Carl, badmouthing ML or any detector does little good. Lowering yourself to the bottom feeding standards found another forum only makes you no better than them. So, when you try to condemn those others, you really are condemning yourself.

                            The sad part of all of this Doug is your forum does present a lot of good and valuable information even about the ML, but it is about impossible to find buried in the BS.

                            Your forum has pointed out quirks in different models that probably wouldn't have been brought forward without the forum. However, in my opinion, the forum should only do that without all the rhetoric that goes with the discovery. If more energy were to be focused on the bugs or quirks, but do so constructively, a lot more people would have a higher respect for your forum.

                            You could make your forum stand out by simply making the bugs of any detector known so owners would know what to watch for, and yes, all today's detectors have bugs as will all future models. The key is to know those bugs exist and know how to get around them, if possible, and point all this out objectively. In other words, recognize and write about them intelligently, rather than spending so much time criticizing them. If the bug is bad or obvious enough, someone will carry the torch to light the fire under the factory. Those that don't want to recognize the bug only hurt themselves and others they try to convince.

                            The only people who may have the right to criticize a flaw in anything are those who can actually build a better mousetrap or whatever is the issue. The wise person will not do that even if they have to ability to built what is necessary. They know they do not have all the answers to everything and it is far better to get those who can help, do so.

                            Everyone seems to forget what everyone is talking about is not your only child but a simple instrument we call a metal detector. Personally, I feel trying to claim that your detector can beat up a different detector is both foolish and childish. What does it prove?

                            Bugwhiskers, I do wish you the best with your project and hope you succeed. However I am like Carl and feel the longer you wait, the less likely we will ever see anything.

                            Doug, I hope you put more effort into pointing out limits, bugs or whatever one wants to call them, but be concise and as complete as possible without all the extra degrading opinions and bs. People will more respect for you.

                            Personally, I am like most people who could care less what others say, especially if I know it is just an opinion. It is only when it is based upon verifiable facts that I become interested.

                            Doug, instead of being a bottom feeder like so many others, rise above them. It takes a better man to do this. Don't be so obsessed about what someone else says. If he is wrong, the world will figure it out without you trying to point it out and making an issue of it all the time. You would be surprised how ignoring something is harder on those trying to pick a fight. When they get your goat and you start to rant, they win, regardless of what you say.

                            AZIZ, I assure you the TDI has plenty of new ideas that are being reviewed and tested and have more to come without taking ideas from the QED. White's has its share of really sharp engineers, all of which can come up with their own ideas.

                            Reg

                            Comment


                            • Reg, you are going to have the wrath of "AZIZ" on ya soon. As everyone here has been told many many times he has the worlds best ground balance hidden in his fantastic brain. Also Aziz has the worlds best coil design. He just needs time to build it. It is too nice outside to do it this year. The only reason he has this fantasy with a problem with harmonics in the QED is that Doug is against any one who talks against the QED. Someday Aziz will figure out that Doug is not the best role model to follow.

                              I would ask Aziz what is wrong with the QED that it is still being developed. The music box does not work right? The voices are not the right sex as to what settings you have set? Why after several years they still have not got it done. Must be a problem with the design.

                              And the thought that any updates in the QED is just a matter of updated the software. Thats crazy! You mean to say any future development in the QED is going to be just a updated software programming? Right! No detector company has ever said that before, and I really think no one will but Bugs.

                              Here is a question I hope you will answer Aziz. How many times have Doug said the QED is going to be released soon? I will expect the truth. You have access to the "inner circle" forums that just a few of Dougs forum members have. What is the talk on the QED hold up on problems?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Aziz View Post
                                Can we expect a "TDI Pro 2" soon? The QED should give the TDI team some more fresh ideas.

                                Aziz
                                Is this your idea, or your mentors?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X