2.5 GHz Quad or Duo Core Processor in our metal detector, would that help?

[gedfire]

Just want to know from those who are technically inclined or the engineers on this forum: Can one reenginneer a detector to have a duo or quad core processor ? Would that do wonders for the ETARC DFX etc? Would like to know.Of course the price might be really hih after.Just a thought!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[dank]

why are you saying detectors need a faster processor? to beeb faster?

 

[MD Dog]

Then you'd have to swing it in like .0348576 Nano seconds.

 

[dank]

wow thats a fast sweep! talk about a work out!

 

[mikeofaustin]

I'm a tech-nerd.... and you have a valid question. Thinking about it, I think the bottle neck would be the coil itself. Example, if you have a large coil on the bottom of your 'stick', it takes a finite amount of time for electrons to run through that coil and register a value. A changing of fields around that coil would surely change the charactoristics of that coil, but it would still take a long time for the electrons to run around that coil winding, and then back up to the processor for a 'sample'. I could be wrong, but this is probably most definatley the bottleneck.

I'm wondering, but if I were to do something like that, I would develop multiple smaller coils, perhaps a dozen smaller coils (for quicker sampling) and sample each one... then they would no longer be looking for a 'field change', but instead, a 'walking' coil change. It would probably have an accelerometer in it to determine the swing rate, angle, etc., to add into it's calculations... and it would sample each coil much faster, and then compare the samples from each coil as the 'anomoly' walked across the coils to determine a 'hit'. You would also have to account for infractions from opposing coils....perhaps a 'daisy chained' or 'individual sample' at _MHz, and have each coils charactoristics mapped in ram as this quick processor did it's thing.

But, I'm already thwarting my own idea, because I just realized, that with depth, you need a large coil, as the detection depth is a factor of the width of the coil (i.e. bigfoot). So, My guess is, that they have already determined the processor speed based upon the coil size. ...a dozen smaller coils would give a much smaller depth....

Let me think on that for a bit....

You hear that Whites? I'm available for consulting.

copyright(c) 2009 mikeofaustin

 

[ecmjamsit]

I was thinking of alot of small coils in a paved array. With high speed processing you should be able to actually see the shape of the object beneath the surface. I have a background in electronic warfare,radar jamming,stealth technology etc. Microprocessor based metal detectors should be able to provide variations in frequency, scan rate and other variables that are currently only slightly variable in todays detectors. Imagine being able to see the objects shape before you dig! It's just a thought...

 

[Sorroque]

I built my own computer from scratch. If you can plug in a lamp, you can build a computer.
I think Dual Core is for what is called "backtasking", meaning while you run one program you can run a second without interfering with your main task. Now if you have electonic imaging, suggested in reply before me, then yes. I think backtasking would be useful with dual core. AMD made thier FX cpu's to handle "fx", graphics, very well in a single core at 2.6 Ghz. . Works for me. FX 55.

 

[Functional]

I know this post is kind of dated, but thought I'd throw in a comment anyway.

I was thinking of alot of small coils in a paved array.

I'd thought about something similar, using several smaller receiver coils surrounded by a single transmitter coil, using a Gameboy as the computer for processing, graphical display, GPS and data logger.

With high speed processing you should be able to actually see the shape of the object beneath the surface. I have a background in electronic warfare,radar jamming,stealth technology etc. Microprocessor based metal detectors should be able to provide variations in frequency, scan rate and other variables that are currently only slightly variable in todays detectors. Imagine being able to see the objects shape before you dig! It's just a thought...

Thoughts are what make advances in technology.

I don't know if a person would really need that much processing power. I recently got my hands on a circa 2003 Dell Axim X5 pocket computer that runs at 300mhz and thought it would make a nice little "attachment" for my old Compass Magnum 420 detector, if only I knew enough electronics to interface them. It has bluetooth built in, so maybe it could wirelessly communicate with a sensor on the coil? It also has optional GPS, WiFi, along with being able to plug in an SD card, or USB cable. (Its a long way from the Gameboy idea, even if it is still a little dated.) They sell these things cheap on eBay, so it would be an affordable upgrade to add one to an older detector if only an interface and software were available. Thats my thinking on the matter anyway.

Since nobody has commented on this, I think I'll elaborate under a new topic name.

F.

 

[mts]

Putting a 2.5GHz or Duo Core processor in a metal detector probably isn't even possible unless your current metal detector already uses a stock computer motherboard. The odds of this are next to nil. Most metal detectors are considered to be "embedded systems" which means that they don't use off the shelf computer parts. They typically use microcontrollers which are essentially single chip computers. So there is no such thing as swapping in a better processor because you'd have to re-engineer the whole thing. As for speed, you don't need to boost the speed of your metal detector. It is engineered for best performance already. Certain design constraints have already been met with the existing system and messing with it will likely result in poorer performance. At the very least you'd have to rewrite significant pieces of the firmware if you change a part.

 

[gedfire]

I built my own computer from scratch. If you can plug in a lamp, you can build a computer.
I think Dual Core is for what is called "backtasking", meaning while you run one program you can run a second without interfering with your main task. Now if you have electonic imaging, suggested in reply before me, then yes. I think backtasking would be useful with dual core. AMD made thier FX cpu's to handle "fx", graphics, very well in a single core at 2.6 Ghz. . Works for me. FX 55.

That is exactly what I was aiming at.I had an Etrac.From other forums I saw where it had a slower sweep and recovery speed compared to single or dual frequency detectors.Also with so many frequencies I was thinking that a much faster processor might be needed to allow for a faster swing speed.

And yes in the future, that amount of power could assist with 3d images on your screen.In fact I see the machine called gold king (see it at Kellyco) does give a realtime image.Now to have it even better on all of it on a stick .

My next question is: What advancements could be made to coils as they are today? Would one like a parabola (or dish shape) work better?

 

[mgtmadness]

A coil with a little chamber in it too take soil samples and to adjust the ground balance from the soil samples. Another chamber or just a box that takes sample of valuables, coins, rings, etc, and that can upload that data into the processor to determine the best chance of the sample in the soil that closely relates to the valuable sample programmed.

 

[mikeofaustin]

Again, the bottle neck is the coil itself. With a large coil, it doesnt' take a lot of computing power to sample the existing coil for data. So with that, you'd really have to redesign the sampling technique to be able to utilize the processing power.

Electrons pass through copper wire at a known rate. With a coil of known size, you measure inductance and process that in the CPU. A coil is very big and very slow becuase of the electrons passing through this coil... you simply cannot speed up electrons through a copper coil.

what I was getting at earlier, was that if a coil is much smaller, it would be much faster... but it wouldn't be as deap. So, if there was a way to utilize much smaller coils, but at the same time, getting very deap... then were talking... but the principle itself is limiting. Smaller coils are shallow. its' the 'virtual' surface area of the coil that makes the hunt.

So, were screwed with that idea. ..// not possible.

 

[Montauk3]

This is starting to sound like a Star Trek episode to me.

 

[sniffer]

as far as the etrac being slow, i'd check the video's at MLOtv.com
they're testing them at a swing speed that is a whole lot faster than I swing

 

[gedfire]

Thank for all the answers.Wow!

 

[B1u3Dr4g0n1]

Just strap a car battery to your arm with your MD and wire it in and I bet you gain 20 inches or at least you think you are while your walking in circles from your arm dragging the ground....lol....

 

[gedfire]

Re:A Super Metal Detector with clear REALTIME IMAGING

Interesting to see what you all think.Although a lot of scientific theories were expressed and a few trying members trying out for Americas Funniest Treasure Hunters Auditions, I still think that the time has come when I can have a detector that simply shows me what is in the ground.I own four detectors.Two pulse and 2 VLFs and now I am thinking that with all the present imaging technology why can't I we have a detector that simply shows what is in the ground? Is it so hard to make or engineer? Let me make this clear. I envisage a metal detector that gives 2d or 3d images of metals in the ground, even if it looks like the images on the screen of the baggage scanners at the airports or an MRI, or CT or Doppler radar etc.This is the basis of my question on faster processors.


I think it is simply knowing how to use the appropriate EM waves or even sounds coupled with a light weight coil in combination with a parabolic antenna.A suitable processor and visualisation software can then be used to compose a 2d or 3d image.Again I am thinking along the lines of the resolution of the airport scanner screens.No screens maybe necessary as light headsets using argument ed reality may help with ease of use.


I am speculating that such a detector would be capable of accurately analysing every signal received from the ground then filtering and reconstructing the image using special software in realtime.Now when beach combing it would be good to really see that "airport scanner" image of a pulltab or the good stuff like a ring or other jewelry.Just like at the airport,distinct shapes and objects can be seen even if they are juxtaposed with other items.I think that any company who creates such a detector will definitely have solved one of TH biggest challenges.

Again I am speculating that maybe present detectors could be somehow hacked or enhanced to get the return signal properly analysed and visualised thus probably creating a 3D image from the sound ,kinda like the bat does.......


Now for the skeptics and the pessimists remember the days of calculators occupying a full room... and the psp processor been superior to what was used on the space flights in the sixties...

So I invite more engineers or enthusiasts to revisit the concept and stop speaking like stuff like this is in the realm of the impossible.

 

[Daedalus]

Your power consumption would be one of the main factors in using one. It would take quite a lot of power to drive that chip. You would have to have an electric cord and a long one to power that thing.

 

[mts]

Re:A Super Metal Detector with clear REALTIME IMAGING

Now for the skeptics and the pessimists remember the days of calculators occupying a full room... and the psp processor been superior to what was used on the space flights in the sixties...

There is a big difference between basic advancements in manufacturing vs. wishing that the properties of physics would magically change.

Why not "wish" that your current TV could see into the future simply by using a faster processor? After all, calculators used to occupy a full room...

Note that I'm NOT saying that we will never have detectors that can do realtime imaging. But to believe that it is a simple matter of updating a processor is a bit naive to say the least. And airport scanners are able to work because the majority of the area around the person is air and thus invisible. If you took that weary traveller and embedded them in soil the airport scanner wouldn't work worth a darn.

There are companies out there that claim to have realtime imaging scanners already. Look in any treasure magazine and you'll find plenty of examples. But none of these devices truly "show you what is in the ground". They show you basic densities. Unfortunately, the densities of targets and plain old rocks are very similar. I personally wouldn't spend my money on such a gadget. But who knows... maybe someday they will work out all of the kinks and provide exactly what you are looking for. I guarantee you though that it will take much more than simply putting in a quad processor. It will require a whole new advancement in physics.

 

[ReidMan]

Battery would weigh a least 2 pounds and last an hour or 2 at best.

There are GPR units that use a laptop.