Equinox Depth-Part 2

[Cos]

The responses in my "Equinox Depth" post went a little off the mark. So I've decided to re-post with some exact text from the White's V3i manual relative to simultaneous multi-frequency. And once again, I wonder aloud if the below text will be what we will see in the new Equinox Detectors. Here are the quotes from the V3i manual--

"Currently, all multi-frequency hobby detectors run their multiple frequencies simultaneously as opposed to sequentially; they are all characterized by having multiple processing channels in the receive circuitry. Once we get beyond the marketing hype, the real question is: What does multi-frequency do for depth and discrimination? The truth is, any time a detector is simultaneously transmitting more than one frequency, the transmit energy must be divided amongst the frequencies. Therefore, a single frequency detector can usually squeeze out slightly more depth than a multi-frequency design at that certain frequency. But this is an advantage only at one frequency, which tends to favor only a narrow range of
targets."

Any thoughts on the possible accuracy of the above quotes relative to the new Equinox??

 

[Architex]

"The truth is, any time a detector is simultaneously transmitting more than one frequency, the transmit energy must be divided amongst the frequencies."

No matter the progress in electronics, I don't see how that could be gotten around. To do so would be a little like perpetual motion (which is impossible). But maybe it cycles each one fast enough that it SEEMS like simultaneous.

At any rate the unknown answer to all questions about the Eq is the same - We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[sgoss66]

Cos --

I think this opens up a huge "can of worms," that is not as easily answered as what you want it to be. But, I'll "go there," though with the caveat that it will be long-winded.

Now, I'm not electronics engineer; but having said that, I'm not totally sure I agree with the statement you quoted from White's. There are a lot of reasons why, a lot of assumptions made, etc. BUT -- let's forget that for now, and just assume it is an accurate, correct statement.

As such, what we would then need to know is, is the Equinox "simultaneous," or "sequential." If it is "simultaneous," and IF (again, for the sake of argument) we assume Whites' statement is true, then the Equinox would be running reduced transmit power when in Multi-IQ, vs. when running in single freq. mode. BUT -- on the other hand, if it's "sequential" multifrequency, then it may be using FULL transmit power for each frequency, and simply "combining the results" of the received signals AFTERWARD, in the SOFTWARE. So, no "depth loss" expected, in single, vs. multi, right?

Now, I know what the next statement will be -- "but Minelab already told us the Equinox is simultaneous multi...so thus it MUST be "weaker" when in Multi, than when in single-freq."

Well, not necessarily. We have to be very careful at this point, in my opinion, to define our terms VERY carefully, in order to continue the discussion. What I'm saying is this -- I don't think ANY of us know exactly how Multi-IQ works, or, for that matter, much of ANYTHING that is actually going on "under the hood" of the Equinox. But, what we do know are these three things:

1.) SOME machines are capable of transmitting only one, single, fixed frequency.

2.) Some machines are capable of transmitting MORE THAN ONE single frequency, but it requires either a user-inputted "switch" of some sort, or a coil change, or something.

3.) SOME machines are capable of transmitting MORE THAN ONE single frequency "at the same time."

Right? So, what do we generically call these three different types of machines? Well, clearly, category one has been referred to as a "single frequency" detector. But what about category 2 and 3? Both could be called "multi-frequency," in one way...but there needs to be a way to differentiate between, say, a Deus, which can only run one frequency AT A TIME, until the user changes something (a setting, a coil, whatever), and a CTX 3030, which runs more than one frequency "automatically" or "at the same time." And so, the detecting community has used words like "selectable multi-frequency" to describe the Deus, and "simultaneous multi-frequency" to describe the CTX. BUT, these are sort of "generic" words, words that may or may not be entirely true from a SCIENTIFIC definition perspective. What do I mean by that?

Well, let's say the Equinox in Multi-IQ mode is transmitting 5 frequencies (who knows if it is, but let's assume). Now, if the unit transmits 5 kHz, and then receives, and then transmits 10 kHz, and then receives, and then transmits 15kHz, and then receives, etc., and it does this a thousand times a second, that would "technically" be considered "sequential," right? But, for all intents and purposes, from the "categorizing of metal detectors" perspective, it's REALLY "simultaneous," right? It's happening many hundreds of times per second, with no "input" required from the user. I think we'd probably all agree that while what I described would most accurately be called a "sequential transmission of multiple frequencies, very rapidly," it could basically be generically referred to as "simultaneous multi-frequency" -- because either way, it is a QUITE different type of machine than a "selectable" unit, like the Deus.

SO -- Minelab says the Equinox's Multi-IQ is "simultaneous multi-frequency," just as it says FBS and BBS are "simultaneous multi-frequency." But do they mean that as a way to "clearly categorize" the machines into an appropriate "class of machines" (single, vs. selectable multi, vs. simultaneous multi), OR are they referring to the actual, technical, scientific process being used "under the hood," from control box to transmit coil to receive coil and back to the control box? WHO KNOWS, but we'd NEED to know that, to answer your question.

See what I mean about "can of worms?" This gets pretty convoluted, pretty quickly.

BOTTOM LINE...I would not be surprised at all if there are going to be certain soils, or certain targets, or certain scenarios, where you might get "more" depth from single-freq. operation with the Equinox, versus in Multi-IQ mode. BUT, I would be VERY surprised if Multi-IQ is "noticeably crippled," depth-wise, given all that I've seen, heard, read, etc., as compared to single-freq. mode.

One last point...what is meant by "depth," anyway? If I can run machine "A" in disc. mode, and can "hit" a 12" quarter, but the "hit" gives the exact same ID 12" deep nail, then is it really a "12 inch" machine? Some would say yes, but some would say "no." If machine "A" can only ID the quarter as non-ferrous to 6" deep, then many would say it's really only a 6" machine FOR THEIR PARTICULAR PURPOSES/HUNTING OBJECTIVES. If machine "B" can hit that same quarter to only 11", but gives solid, accurate "quarter" tone and "quarter" ID at that 11" mark, many would say machine "B" is "deeper" than machine "A," of course.

And this isn't just a useless argument. The Equinox's Multi-IQ has been advertised as having it's main technological improvement to be ACCURATE ID AT GREATER DEPTH, as compared to single-frequency. So, EVEN IF the Equinox's single-frequency mode might hit a quarter to 12" deep (but mis-ID's it as iron), while Multi-IQ mode only hits it to 11", BUT WITH PROPER ID -- then, which mode is "deeper?"

Steve

 

[sgoss66]

"The truth is, any time a detector is simultaneously transmitting more than one frequency, the transmit energy must be divided amongst the frequencies."

No matter the progress in electronics, I don't see how that could be gotten around. To do so would be a little like perpetual motion (which is impossible).

I don't know, Architex, if this is something that should be assumed, entirely. I mean, on one hand, YES -- it would be true that if you are transmitting "x" power, and you are sending two simultaneous transmit signals, then you are obviously "splitting" the transmit power between the two transmit signals.

BUT -- let's assume for the sake of argument that detector "x" can run either 3 different frequencies INDIVIDUALLY, or all 3 SIMULTANEOUSLY. Why MUST that then mean that running detector "x" in "multi" mode ABSOLUTELY means it's running at less power than when in "single" mode? For that to be true, it would be assuming that the transmit voltage generated by the machine MUST be the same voltage used in "single" mode, as well as in "multi" mode. What would stop a manufacturer (after deciding that transmit voltage "x" is optimal for each of the three single frequencies), from building the unit such that it will generate voltage "x" when the machine is set to "single freq." mode, but will generate voltage "3x" when the machine is set to "multi freq." mode. This would allow that optimal "voltage x" to be utilized by each of the three transmit channels (after voltage "3x" was split/sent to each transmit channel). Sure, you'd presumably drain the battery three times more quickly, but it would mean equal "transmit power" achieved in either SINGLE freq, or MULTI freq.

That's part of why I disagree with Whites' statement in the original post; their statement that "a single frequency detector can usually squeeze out slightly more depth than a multi-frequency design at that certain frequency" ASSUMES that transmit voltage "X" in single freq. mode becomes transmit voltage "1/3X" when switching into 3 simultaneous frequency mode. WHAT IF INPUT VOLTAGE IS INCREASED TO 3X, whenever the machine is switched to 3-freq multi mode?

Steve

 

[Architex]

Like I said.

 

[Architex]

That in effect would mean that single freq would be at one-third power. Nobody would do that.

 

[Wayfarer]

This is the exact question I asked yesterday over at DP. I didn’t really get an answer except for being assured that multi in the equinox was as deep or deeper than is single freq. that the multi was the “secret sauce.” I really wanted to focus on this very question, simultaneous vs fast sequential, but then the thread veered way off course as usual (it wasn’t my thread, I admit). So I’m really glad you re-asked the question, and posted the quote from the V3i manual. I have used the V3i extensively and can attest to the fact that it is not just a tad but a lot deeper in single frequency mode, like on the order of a good inch or two at least. So this question pertaining to the Equinox is very intriguing. If it's true that the Equinox is as deep in multi as in single, and that it is as deep as any flagship single frequency detector at least when it comes to target ID accuracy, then you’d have to conclude that the Equinox operates in a fast sequential multi frequency operation, not true simultaneous multi frequency like with the V3i.

 

[sgoss66]

That in effect would mean that single freq would be at one-third power. Nobody would do that.

Why not? What you are saying (no one would do that) ASSUMES that more transmit power is by definition "better." I have always understood it that there's an "optimal" transmit power, for each design, such that going "hotter" only increases difficulty with ground mineral, etc. In other words, diminishing returns, when trying to run higher transmit power -- such that "more" is not necessarily "better." So, if a manufacturer decides that voltage "X" is the absolute optimal, for that given detector design (more would be "worse," and less would be "worse,") then it would make total sense to me that they'd want that optimal "voltage X" to be the transmit voltage in single freq. mode, AND to EACH of the single freqs. in multi freq. mode...

Steve

 

[sgoss66]

This is the exact question I asked yesterday over at DP. I didn’t really get an answer except for Being assured that multi in the equinox was as deep or deeper than is single freq. that the multi was the “secret sauce.” I really wanted to focus on this very question, simultaneous vs fast sequential, but then the thread veered way off course as usual (it wasn’t my thread, I admit). So I’m really glad you re-asked the question, and posted the quote from the V3i manual. I have used the V3i extensively and can attest to the fact that it is not just a tad but a lot deeper in single frequency more, like on the order of a good inch or two at least. So this question pertaining to the Equinox is very intriguing. If Steve H is right that the Equinox is as deep in multi as in single, and that it is as deep as any flagship single frequency detector at least when it comes to target ID accuracy, then you’d have to conclude that the Equinox operates in a fast sequential multi frequency operation, not true simultaneous multi frequency like with the V3i.

I'd agree with your conclusion at the end, there, Wayfarer, UNLESS it is true simultaneous, BUT the initially generated transmit voltage is HIGHER in multi, than in single, such that when divided amongst all the multi frequencies utilized in multi, it ends up being the same voltage THROUGH EACH CHANNEL as through the single transmit channel used in single freq. mode.

This is PROBABLY not the case, though, as this would be quite noticeable, I'd think, in terms of battery drain being MUCH greater in multi, vs. single. (Though, maybe that's why Minelab states only a relatively meager 8 hours of battery life -- because they ASSUME most will run the much more energy-intensive "multi mode."

Steve

 

[Greg (E.Tn)]

n/t

 

[Wayfarer]

This is the exact question I asked yesterday over at DP. I didn’t really get an answer except for Being assured that multi in the equinox was as deep or deeper than is single freq. that the multi was the “secret sauce.” I really wanted to focus on this very question, simultaneous vs fast sequential, but then the thread veered way off course as usual (it wasn’t my thread, I admit). So I’m really glad you re-asked the question, and posted the quote from the V3i manual. I have used the V3i extensively and can attest to the fact that it is not just a tad but a lot deeper in single frequency more, like on the order of a good inch or two at least. So this question pertaining to the Equinox is very intriguing. If Steve H is right that the Equinox is as deep in multi as in single, and that it is as deep as any flagship single frequency detector at least when it comes to target ID accuracy, then you’d have to conclude that the Equinox operates in a fast sequential multi frequency operation, not true simultaneous multi frequency like with the V3i.

I'd agree with your conclusion at the end, there, Wayfarer, UNLESS it is true simultaneous, BUT the initially generated transmit voltage is HIGHER in multi, than in single, such that when divided amongst all the multi frequencies utilized in multi, it ends up being the same voltage THROUGH EACH CHANNEL as through the single transmit channel used in single freq. mode.

This is PROBABLY not the case, though, as this would be quite noticeable, I'd think, in terms of battery drain being MUCH greater in multi, vs. single. (Though, maybe that's why Minelab states only a relatively meager 8 hours of battery life -- because they ASSUME most will run the much more energy-intensive "multi mode."

Steve

Steve, we're talking RF energy with a VLF detector, so therefore it's not really voltage but rather wattage, which is voltage and amperage. But I get your point, that by increasing power output, they could counteract the loss of power in each frequency when operated in multi. But with 5 individual single frequencies that multi uses, they'd have to increase power output by 5 times to equalize the power output in multi as compared to each individual single frequency, something that is highly unlikely or even realistically possible without resulting in a run time of just an hour or two. The more elegant engineering solution would be to use fast sequential multi and then "recombine" them with some fancy powerful processing. I bet when the Equinox ships and somebody opens one up, we will find it has one helluva hoss of a processor inside. And that is the main ingredient in the "secret sauce."

 

[Wayfarer]

I would think the multi-frequency transmit would assist more in target identifcation and detection, rather than sheer depth

Yes, it does. But with the V3i, for instance, it gets such significantly increased depth in single frequency that even the Target ID depth is increased in single vs multi. But you're right, Target ID at depth is really the most important thing.

When I get my Equinox, one of the first tests I'm going to run is hitting my test garden where I have dimes buried in increasing depths, and see if multi is as deep or deeper than the single freqs, especially 5 and 10 kHz.

 

[sgoss66]

Hey, Wayfarer, don't tell my dad (electrical engineer) about my mis-usage of voltage vs. wattage in this context!

Yes, I figure that with that much more energy draw, it's probably unlikely that that's how things are working in the Equinox. You are probably much more likely with "fast sequential" being the way it's working...and then some heavy-duty processing crunching numbers/info...

Steve

This is the exact question I asked yesterday over at DP. I didn’t really get an answer except for Being assured that multi in the equinox was as deep or deeper than is single freq. that the multi was the “secret sauce.” I really wanted to focus on this very question, simultaneous vs fast sequential, but then the thread veered way off course as usual (it wasn’t my thread, I admit). So I’m really glad you re-asked the question, and posted the quote from the V3i manual. I have used the V3i extensively and can attest to the fact that it is not just a tad but a lot deeper in single frequency more, like on the order of a good inch or two at least. So this question pertaining to the Equinox is very intriguing. If Steve H is right that the Equinox is as deep in multi as in single, and that it is as deep as any flagship single frequency detector at least when it comes to target ID accuracy, then you’d have to conclude that the Equinox operates in a fast sequential multi frequency operation, not true simultaneous multi frequency like with the V3i.

I'd agree with your conclusion at the end, there, Wayfarer, UNLESS it is true simultaneous, BUT the initially generated transmit voltage is HIGHER in multi, than in single, such that when divided amongst all the multi frequencies utilized in multi, it ends up being the same voltage THROUGH EACH CHANNEL as through the single transmit channel used in single freq. mode.

This is PROBABLY not the case, though, as this would be quite noticeable, I'd think, in terms of battery drain being MUCH greater in multi, vs. single. (Though, maybe that's why Minelab states only a relatively meager 8 hours of battery life -- because they ASSUME most will run the much more energy-intensive "multi mode."

Steve

Steve, we're talking RF energy with a VLF detector, so therefore it's not really voltage but rather wattage, which is voltage and amperage. But I get your point, that by increasing power output, they could counteract the loss of power in each frequency when operated in multi. But with 5 individual single frequencies that multi uses, they'd have to increase power output by 5 times to equalize the power output in multi as compared to each individual single frequency, something that is highly unlikely or even realistically possible without resulting in a run time of just an hour or two. The more elegant engineering solution would be to use fast sequential multi and then "recombine" them with some fancy powerful processing. I bet when the Equinox ships and somebody opens one up, we will find it has one helluva hoss of a processor inside. And that is the main ingredient in the "secret sauce."

 

[Wayfarer]

Hey, Wayfarer, don't tell my dad (electrical engineer) about my mis-usage of voltage vs. wattage in this context!

Yes, I figure that with that much more energy draw, it's probably unlikely that that's how things are working in the Equinox. You are probably much more likely with "fast sequential" being the way it's working...and then some heavy-duty processing crunching numbers/info...

Steve

[/quote]

Ha ha! Well that's about the extent of my own electrical engineering knowledge, and that's only because my other hobby is ham radio.

I thought I could hold off getting too excited about the Equinox, but I'm about to reach orbital velocity with my anticipation now that a release date is out and it only a few weeks away. I know you are like me and VERY interested in what's "under the hood" and how that will translate into real-world performance, especially when it comes to deep Target ID on those old deep coins. My CTX and MXT were the best in this regard, and I'm just hoping, fingers and toes crossed, that the Equinox can eek out even a half inch more depth with accurate Target ID.

 

[rob.ream258]

"The truth is, any time a detector is simultaneously transmitting more than one frequency, the transmit energy must be divided amongst the frequencies."

No matter the progress in electronics, I don't see how that could be gotten around. But maybe it cycles each one fast enough that it SEEMS like simultaneous.

In electronics it's called multiplexing - many signals out of phase from each other at the same strength on the same wire. It's complex but it works very well. As for energy divided - yes - just equally. Battery technology has come along way in the past 5-10 years.

 

[Architex]

Could be.

 

[Jason in Enid]

We have heard in the past from detector EEs about design and capability. We all want more usable depth from our detectors but they have said its a logarithmic function. For every increase in depth it requires many times more power. They can make deeper machines but the batteries would only last minutes. With this in mind, its why we are basically at the max depths we can get, AND this is why companies like ML are putting their researching into refining the target signal interpretation. A few EEs who have studied the FBS outputs have all said they use a sequential freq transmission (which is why they behave like a mixture of PI and VLF). So why would we expect the next ML to go backwards in technology?

I think the Equinox is using the same base multi-freq technology as FBS but with changes to the freqs used (and changing based on mode selected) along with new signal interpretation to give us more accurate information. I also disagree with Whites concept that " all multi-frequency hobby detectors run their multiple frequencies simultaneously as opposed to sequentially " simply because it has been shown to be false, therefore all their other statements ring false as well.

 

[TomNH]

A few things on power & misc.
Morse code is the MOST efficient means of coms. Why ? Very low power, very narrow bandwidth, simple
& easy to manipulate & "pull out" what you want.
World wide coverage possible in the palm of your hand without satillites etc.

Look at NTSC TV now. Bandwidth is 6 Mhz. Most of the very high power is spread out over most of
the 6Mhz. Only the audio being FM is constant power. Range 75-150 miles. Not efficient.

Now HDTV. Boost the power even more & greatly reduced the range.

How does ML produce its freqs ? If harmonics ( mentioned in the FBS patent ) each higher freq will have less power.
Normally you do everything you can to eliminate harmonics.

Hetrodyning. Mix two freqs together & get four out. You get freq A, freq B , the sum of A&B and the difference of A & B.
Almost all radios tune this way.

BTW the ML patents are on line. I have read a few but my mind dont work like it used to ! They are not obvious what
they are for, you gotta "decode" them. For example you wont find listed "how FBS works".............

73
Tom
LFOD !

 

[Charles (Upstate NY)]

FBS transmits at full power, always, a sequential sequence of high low high low high low pulses its not simultaneous its sequential. Is it perceived by humans as simultaneous? Yes, when you transmit thousands of these sequential pulses a second and sample the receive signal hundreds of times a second for all intensive purposes humans perceive this as simultaneous hence the marketing. Then there are the harmonic frequencies. If you transmit a single frequency square wave, you also transmit an infinite number of harmonics of that frequency. So technically from a marketing perspective can you say simultaneous multi frequency? Technically yes.

Equinox obviously is bringing new technology to the game vs FBS. Maybe its transmitting 3 or 4 or 5 primary frequencies at full power vs FBS 2 primary frequencies. Here's why that's important. A 2nd order harmonic is LESS powerful than the primary frequency transmitted at full strength. A 3rd order harmonic is LESS powerful than a 2nd, a 4th less powerful than a 3rd and so on. So if the Equinox is now transmitting say 5 primary frequencies at full power, the other harmonic frequencies may also be more powerful vs FBS. A harmonic that may be a 4th or 5th order harmonic on a FBS machine may now be a more powerful 2nd or 3rd order harmonic on the Equinox.

Or Equinox may be a completely different technology vs an extension of FBS who knows.

 

[Jason in Enid]

FBS transmits at full power, always, a sequential sequence of high low high low high low pulses its not simultaneous its sequential. Is it perceived by humans as simultaneous? Yes, when you transmit thousands of these sequential pulses a second and sample the receive signal hundreds of times a second for all intensive purposes humans perceive this as simultaneous hence the marketing. Then there are the harmonic frequencies. If you transmit a single frequency square wave, you also transmit an infinite number of harmonics of that frequency. So technically from a marketing perspective can you say simultaneous multi frequency? Technically yes.

Equinox obviously is bringing new technology to the game vs FBS. Maybe its transmitting 3 or 4 or 5 primary frequencies at full power vs FBS 2 primary frequencies. Here's why that's important. A 2nd order harmonic is LESS powerful than the primary frequency transmitted at full strength. A 3rd order harmonic is LESS powerful than a 2nd, a 4th less powerful than a 3rd and so on. So if the Equinox is now transmitting say 5 primary frequencies at full power, the other harmonic frequencies may also be more powerful vs FBS. A harmonic that may be a 4th or 5th order harmonic on a FBS machine may now be a more powerful 2nd or 3rd order harmonic on the Equinox.

Or Equinox may be a completely different technology vs an extension of FBS who knows.

A few things on power & misc.
Morse code is the MOST efficient means of coms. Why ? Very low power, very narrow bandwidth, simple
& easy to manipulate & "pull out" what you want.
World wide coverage possible in the palm of your hand without satillites etc.

Look at NTSC TV now. Bandwidth is 6 Mhz. Most of the very high power is spread out over most of
the 6Mhz. Only the audio being FM is constant power. Range 75-150 miles. Not efficient.

Now HDTV. Boost the power even more & greatly reduced the range.

How does ML produce its freqs ? If harmonics ( mentioned in the FBS patent ) each higher freq will have less power.
Normally you do everything you can to eliminate harmonics.

Hetrodyning. Mix two freqs together & get four out. You get freq A, freq B , the sum of A&B and the difference of A & B.
Almost all radios tune this way.

BTW the ML patents are on line. I have read a few but my mind dont work like it used to ! They are not obvious what
they are for, you gotta "decode" them. For example you wont find listed "how FBS works".............

73
Tom
LFOD !

Great thoughts, and well stated!