Enough with the single frequency vlf machines.

They may have the lawyers and money to sue and they absolutely SHOULD if in fact a valid patent they own is infringed. But you need facts to win, and more importantly if you are intent on designing, building and marketing an item it is prudent to research (very easy) any patents that pertain to your idea. In this case (multi-frequency), I've read the related patents ( Patent Database Search Results: minelab in US Patent Collection ) and it's very easy to design a multi-frequency machine while clearly avoiding any violation.

I am not a lawyer so these are just observations and opinion but innovation should not fear a patent, just respect it and don't copy it!
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!
Choose your weapon for the right battle. I'm a parc/recreation hunter. My weapons of choice are the Deus/Equinox/ Tesoro Lobo Super Traq
If there are a lot of bottle caps, i choose the Deus.
If it's a clean area or there are volleybal fields, places with wite sand, i choose the Equinox
If it's infested with pull tabs and bottle caps or there is a chance on gold, i choose the Lobo Super Traq.
This works for me.
 

Greenmeanie, for what it's worth, the Deus 5.20 upgrade has solved the salt water problem. I got the little underwater kit and had that thing out a few feet and it nailed some fairly deep targets. I don't know what they did, but it now works well on wet salt sand.
 

docweiser said:
They may have the lawyers and money to sue and they absolutely SHOULD if in fact a valid patent they own is infringed. But you need facts to win, and more importantly if you are intent on designing, building and marketing an item it is prudent to research (very easy) any patents that pertain to your idea. In this case (multi-frequency), I've read the related patents ( Patent Database Search Results: minelab in US Patent Collection ) and it's very easy to design a multi-frequency machine while clearly avoiding any violation.

I am not a lawyer so these are just observations and opinion but innovation should not fear a patent, just respect it and don't copy it!
Click to expand...

So far their lawyers have won.
 

I have been head to head with multi frequency machines, WAY MORE THAN ONCE and from what I've SEEN IN PERSON, IF they are any "better" than a standard VLF machine, I am not seeing it. Equal, yes, better, not necessarily. I think the user is the key factor with any machine. And sometimes just getting the loop over the target. I'm also thinking, from careful watching of folks swing their machines, taller folks miss more than shorter ones, like me, reason being they go in an open "Z" formation, while those who can't take a step as far away go in a more "closed zipper" formation. It can be overcome, however most of us don't have the patience! At least me!
 

Last edited:
smokeythecat said:
I have been head to head with multi frequency machines, WAY MORE THAN ONCE and from what I've SEEN IN PERSON, IF they are any "better" than a standard VLF machine, I am not seeing it. Equal, yes, better, not necessarily. I think the user is the key factor with any machine. And sometimes just getting the loop over the target. I'm also thinking, from careful watching of folks swing their machines, taller folks miss more than shorter ones, like me, reason being they go in an open "Z" formation, while those who can't take a step as far away go in a more "closed zipper" formation. It can be overcome, however most of us don't have the patience! At least me!
Click to expand...

In theory multi-frequency makes sense especially if your mind is stuck in classic metal detector technology. At least one variable is addressed but even that is questionable, depth, some frequencies seem to penetrate mother Earth deeper than others so practically speaking the searcher has a better chance of seeing something a single frequency user might miss, right?

I totally agree with you though, the searchers interpretation of the signals received and the "over target" positioning are the real players for now. I've talked to many ML users most notably relic hunters that prove this over and over. After some experience of "listening" and "digging" many of learned the "sounds" involved with successful hunting. This tells us that processing of the signals is much more important than just frequencies. In the ML examples the human brain is doing the processing which in a way is a failure by the ML lead designer even though the idea in his thoughts produced a powerful machine, the human brain is what makes the difference. This was actually the basis of ML lawsuit against White, processing.

The real machine has not been built yet, I will be taking a serious stab at it over the next year or so as I move into retirement and have more time but have already started on the paperwork for patents which are a lot easier to do than most think but I have another thread started about this already.

Another proof of processing over frequency was had when I was only 16. Built my first BFO (Beat Frequency Oscillator) machine with a homemade coil and Faraday shield. It used a small am radio as the receiver. I used it a lot in Big Bear Lake, CA as mom and I did some weekend prospecting. I was very used to the variable squealing and static and false positives. One day though thew little machine that couldn't made a noise far unlike ever before and I knew it was something, overwhelmed with excitement (other than a blonde, but close) I started digging at the base of a hundred foot Redwood tree and found my first meteorite, a good 15 LB chunk. Think mom still has it in the basement of her home, it far outlasted the blonde!

Processing is the key! Tell me what that sound means in material, density and depth and that's a machine.
 

Maybe you should look at professional market to realise VLF has been obsolete tch for quite some time now. Ofcourse we are going to contine to buy and use the VLFs in the future, but not due to technical reasones. After all it's pointless to discuss the issue; if you find a machine that fits to your specific requirements just use it, regardles of tech used, beeing PI, VLF, GPR or BFO.
 

Carl-NC said:
Huh???
Click to expand...

Civil Action No. 16-1594 -> https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170629g18 The patent includes three independent claims (claims 1, 10, and 16).

1. A metal detector adapted to general a transmit search signal and to receive a search signal, and to analyze such received search signal....
10. a. filers to be applied to a receive search signal; b. an amplitude range of conductance component of a receive search signal;c. an amplitude range of an inductive component of a receive search signal; and d. an information set indicating the values of one or more user modifiable settings of the detector.
16. 16. A set of two metal detectors of a type which includes the facility to select values of operating parameters and to store such values as data

While the crux of the claimed offense was/is the storage/transmission of data, it is the data being analyzed/compared that makes the machine. Analyze, filters(data), changing the detectors operations based on said comparisons are all processing.
 

Well first, that lawsuit was against XP, not White's. That's what got me confused.

But second, the lawsuit was entirely for wireless transmission of parameters. The "process/analyze" terminology is just common descriptive language used in writing the patent claims. In the same way Claim 1 also includes "generate a transmit signal," but the lawsuit wasn't at all about how XP generates a transmit signal.
 

Ah, yes, I've been reading so many court docs and patents I mistyped or rather had a brain freeze on the name.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Makro Racer 2 2.4 Ghz Wireless Headphones ?

⬅️ Previous Thread

Makro racer

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Steve's Detector Rods

Latest Discussions

Back
Top