some cosiderations

[Esteban]

Max, this is not all the circuitry. Only is the third part.

[Esteban]

A differential front end preamp might do a better job of cancelling the first order and some of the second order noise. Each input of the differential amp would be fed from a different (but identical) antenna element and the two antennas are held perpendicular to each other.


Rudy:

The unique source of noise I cancelled in other project (10 years ago) was for reject 50 Hz noises (60 Hz in USA) of electric lines, two active filters based on TL074.

Also I try lateral unbalanced antennas, but perpendicular. Center antenna is sensor, largest. Each lateral antenna is connected to 0 V via different value resistors. Also works.

[Max]

I'm the cure !

[Nihil Roma Maius]

Cure your non-conclude detectors!

By the way: Medice, cura te ipsum!

Best regards

Nihil Roma Maius

[Nihil Roma Maius]

Esteban:

This Max loose clarity in mind. He is not prepared for to discuss seriously.

Is well if he have experience in electronic LRL. But NO. Also ANY idea about it.

Margarita ante porcos.

Best Regards

Nihil Roma Maius

[Nihil Roma Maius]

This is only what it looks like to me when I see you continue to waste your energy try to get his schematic.


J_P Truth!!!

I some part of Max' post I read something about "stressed".

Max: Is not normal to post 30 times in a day, expending energy. Go and work, and finish all your non-conclude open projects, or part of these.

Res, non verba.

Best regards

Nihil Roma Maius

[J_Player]

***** VOTE NOW *****
LET DEMOCRACY WORK FOR YOU!

1. is halo real or fake idea? Halo is REAL/FAKE
2. Is halo good for metal detectors? Good/bad for metal detector
3. Is halo good for long range locators? Good/bad for LRL

Post your votes below so we can use democracy to decide if halo works!


So far, this is the vote count:
3 votes Halo is real.
0 votes Halo is fake.

3 votes Halo is good for metal detector.
0 votes Halo is bad for metal detector.

2 votes Halo is good for LRL.
0 votes Halo is bad for LRL.

1 vote Halo is good for electronic LRL.
1 vote don't know if halo is good for LRL.

Make sure your voice is heard! Final ballots will be counted in less than 8 hours.

The results of this democratic vote will be used to determine whether halo works or not. Democracy is the final proof. If you don't like the final halo law, then don't complain unless you voted! Post your vote before the ballot closes!

Best wishes,
J_P

[Rudy]

Thanks Esteban.

[Seden]

Detecting polarization

Good denezins of the world,I was looking up patents by one of my heroes-Anthony Barringer and came across his latest discovery. If you'll lookup patent #7,002,349-goto column 4,sentences 20-25 and then goto column 7 sentences 57-60 and finally column 8 sentences 23-31. The author mentions being able to detect polarized formations,be it oil or minerals,so Estebans claim to detecting a voltage gradient is observed here (or somewhat related). Also check out the introduction of section 2 sentences 13-28 whereby he explains the benefit of using .1hz-3hz over the usual AFMAG freqs. and how this system is used for the detection of induced polarization.
So let's see here,what icons could I sarcastically add,hmm . There,that ought to do it.

Randy

P.S. It would be wise to read the whole thing and look at the figures.

[J_Player]

It should be further noted that all of the above expressions of electric signals 40 increase rapidly in amplitude at frequencies of 1 Hz and lower due to corresponding increases in amplitude of the telluric currents. The subject airborne exploration system 10 can clearly detect these effects of high contrast when using the water sensors 18 for detecting electric fields in a frequency bandwidth of 40 Hz down to 0.01 Hz....

Hmmmm.... Interesting...

[Seden]

E Field water sensor

Ah I see you were looking at his most recent patent 7,221,164 and yeah that's pretty cutting edge allright. Who would of thought of using water as an E field sensor?

The previous patent I mentioned gives all the engineering details that are left out in the one you quoted plus the frequency graphs. And the distances above earth plus being able to see down 20,000 feet or greater definately puts it in the class of an LRL big time.

We of course recognize the fact that the E field is vertically polarized and so limits the distance for someone on the ground the possibility of that kind of range away from the target but still being able to get the depth no problem.
But how far can the vertically polarized E field be detected on the ground? What is the formula to calculate this?

Randy

[J_Player]

It would depend on the configuration and orientation of your antenna as well as the sensing electronics.

[Max]

Esteban:

This Max loose clarity in mind. He is not prepared for to discuss seriously.

Is well if he have experience in electronic LRL. But NO. Also ANY idea about it.

Margarita ante porcos.

Best Regards

Nihil Roma Maius

Hi,
I've built one... of these I posted (the first) that has a kind of translation of article by Quiaozhi, results:

-detect power lines, all kind of noise
-in my test garden cannot detect any of my targets (even buried for 7years)
- outside (forests etc) it can be tuned to be almost silent... but then detected a big power line at 200meters... randomic beeps... even far storms !

Totally unuseful. Waste of time.

Margarita ante porcos !

Best regards,
Max

[J_Player]

Are you sure the devices you built had a low pass filter and were optimized to look at low frequencies below 1 HZ? What were the resonant frequencies of the noise you found?

Best wishes,
J_Player

[J_Player]

***** NEW HALO LAW IS PASSED! *****

Through duly processed principles of democracy, the halo law is hereby enacted as a result of popular vote of the voting members of the remote sensing forum. The voters have determined in a free election that:

1. Halo is real.
2. Halo is good for metal detectors.
3. Halo is good for LRLs.

Democracy proves what is true and what is not!
From this point forward, you may invoke the halo law any time somebody tells you there is no halo, and you will be correct. If you don't agree with the new halo law, then maybe you should have voted!


The final results of the halo voting were:

3 votes Halo is real.
0 votes Halo is fake.

3 votes Halo is good for metal detector.
0 votes Halo is bad for metal detector.

2 votes Halo is good for LRL.
0 votes Halo is bad for LRL.

Be sure to update your records about halo is real and is good for detectors and LRLs.

Best wishes,
J_P