Archaeology Resistivity Meter

Interesting ideas so far.  I meant to chime in earlier, but things have been pretty busy for me lately (building a deck and entertaining my Grandchildren again).

Several years ago, I was asked to sit in with some friends of my sister that work at a geotech company.  They were looking to build impedance measurement devices for soil surveys.  I came across this amazing looking chip from Analog Devices that looked like a great way to measure impedance (including a complex component).

Here is a snippet from the specification:

The AD5934 is a high precision impedance converter system solution that combines an on-board frequency generator with a 12-bit, 250 kSPS, analog-to-digital converter (ADC). The frequency generator allows an external complex impedance to be excited with a known frequency. The response signal from the impedance is sampled by the on-board ADC and a discrete Fourier transform (DFT) is processed by an on-board DSP engine. The DFT algorithm returns a real (R) and imaginary (I) data-word at each output frequency.Once calibrated, the magnitude of the impedance and relative phase of the impedance at each frequency point along the sweep is easily calculated using the following two equations:Magnitude = 22IR+Phase = tan−1(I/R) A similar device, available from Analog Devices, Inc., is the AD5933, which is a 2.7 V to 5.5 V, 1 MSPS, 12-bit impedance converter, with an internal temperature sensor, available in a  16-lead SSOP.

This might be of some help in your planning.

Good luck and let me know if you need any help on this project.

Hi Gene,

It's a super-interesting chip, I was keen to use it a few years ago for plant soil purposes, and for hydroponics - to try to see if the soil or liquid has nutrients. The idea being to have a signature of known good soil or water by sweeping through the spectrum. I never got to try it though sadly, the project moved on to something else.

It was felt that it could have had a lot of merit because then you could publish the signature, so others could try to replicate a yield (it wasn't going to be for farmers, more for home use), and to not waste nutrient. But, I have no idea in practice if the result would have been usable, or too inconsistent/variable.

I wish I'd done some work on it at the time, since it could have been useful for other purposes too.

The proposed design so far is one half of the impedance measuring system, but with digital processing. In theory it could be converted to an impedance measuring system with no additional hardware change, just a software upgrade, since the frequency will be know, and there will be some sync pulse from the FPGA, we just need to internally multiply with a 90 degree out of phase signal from that sync pulse too.

michaelkellett

michaelkellett  wrote:

 

You posted your

phoenixcomm   wrote:

 

shabaz    ok no matter what you do you will need 2 CPUs.

• one controlling the probes, etc most likely a PI, I would also have the GPS module there as well, and a CAN Module for talking to the control panel.
• the control panel could be an Arduino mega, 4x20 LED I2C display, a keyboard, and maybe some switches.

Please refer to my Bolg Adventures In CANaerospace (the hardware is the same as CANbus).

All you would do is take msgs off the CAN bus and put them on the display. You can also transmit messages the same way. easy peasy.

while I was writing mine so I didn't see it.

 

If by controlling the probes you mean generating the signals and mesuring them I'm not quite sure how a Pi would do that.

 

MK

MiK ~~ I assumed you inserting the probes into the ground, as you would do with a Meger.

which would mean the PI using GPS would tell you when to stop and lower the probes?  after taking the reading, you would then have to raise them. rinse and repeat,  over and over.

~~Cris

one more comment if you use standard CAN yes there are 8-byte payloads, BUT there is a way to send "extended" frames which can have a variable payload.

please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN_bus  as It is easy to send longer data payload then 8 -bytes. Please note the yellow DLC field which controls the length of the red data field,

In CAN FD, the frame/message ID has been increased to 29-bits compared to only 11-bits in the classic CAN. The message payload size has been increased to 64 bytes of data in each CAN-frame / message, compared to only 8-bytes in the classic CAN frame. CAN FD can handle CAN frames/messages with 11-bit ID as well. A frame is a message transmitted as a sequence of binary bit-pattern. In CAN FD, the data rate (i.e. number of bits transmitted per second) is increased to be 5 times faster than the classic CAN. CAN FD protocol specification includes some other enhancements as well, such as better detection of errors in the received CAN message and the executing software flexibility to dynamically select (from a list) and switch to faster or slower data rate transfer, as and when required. Some sensors on the CAN BUS operates at slower data rate and others at faster data rate. CAN BUS is a shared pair of wires onto which electronic sensors, controller units and ECUs are connected. CAN Bus is used for exchanging information between operational units periodically or on demand. The electrical condition and configuration of the CAN Bus, i.e. the total number of units connected, the length of the CAN Bus wires and other electromagnetic factors determines the fastest data transfer rate possible on that CAN Bus. This because when units are connected to a CAN Bus (e.g,  Sensors, Controllers, or ECUs), it changes the electrical condition of the CAN Bus somewhat. The change may result in limiting the CAN FD protocol from achieving the maximum theoretical data transfer rate.

I did mention the possibility of CAN FD in my note, I don't think that it is supported by the STM32L4R5xxx processors.

CAN FD doesn't improve throughput by as much as you might hope, (very few systems actually manage the maximum possible data rate).

There is still the problem that CAN is a short packet based system and you end up with a complicated multi packet protocol to

send longer than packet size messages, and no standard PCs have CAN interfaces.

All these issues can be got over, but I still can't see what advantage would be gained from using CAN.

The primary reason the instrument needs interfaces is to connect with computers that run Windows or Linux, they all have USB,

none of them have CAN without add ons.

MK

michaelkellett there is no multi-packet protocol. when a message is received  It looks at the ID to see if is for him he sucks the message (the whole thing) you look at the DLC  fields value if its 8 just take the next 8-bytes,  or for longer values do whatever the DLC requires. There are a bunch of semi makers, TI is one of them and they send samples

~~Cris

It's quite true that if you use CAN in a simple point to point system you could use it as you suggest.

It isn't usually used like that in automotive or aerospace applications but there is certainly no reason why you shouldn't.

MK

Just jumping in having read through the discussion. This is an exciting project!

A few thoughts, apologies for a long post and to those who are experienced archaeological geophysicists.

There is much discussion of implementation, but it doesn’t feel like some of those advancing a particular line of attack necessarily understand the task, so there’s a danger of trying to decide whether an M4 or an M5 screw should be used before knowing what is to be fastened to what and what loads will be.

The essence of any geophysical survey of this type is a set of readings with exact knowledge of where each set of readings is taken. Most GPS is not suitable for this. Grids are achieved with lines which guide the operator where to place the probe frame. The smallest interval commonly used along the line is every 0.5m. Unless using RTK or synchronised PPK with event interpolation, GPS positions can be perhaps 20 or 30 cm out. Taking an extreme case, if successive epochs were 25cm out at either extreme along the line of advance, instead of readings showing true distance along of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 metres they could be recorded as 0.75, 0.75, 1.75, 1.75. Furthermore, as you walk along using a probe frame, you tend to swing it, drop the probes into the ground, walk forward and by the time it has taken the reading you are at least up to the frame. The idea is to keep a walking gait, not stop&start every half or one metre. What this means is that the frame is not always vertical. To get a good skyview, the GPS antenna would have to be mounted on a pole so the lever arm could be up to two metres. Some of the newest survey kit can correct for that, but it is building more complexity in which is un-necessary and the pole will make the probe frame even more unwieldy.

Having said all of the above, what could conceivably be of use is storing an approximate GPS position for say the start and end of each line of readings. This is not to provide co-ordinates for the points, but is to assist when collating individual grids, especially if the post-processing is done a little while later. Instead of searching for field notes to try and work out, say, was grid one at the E or W end of the baseline, even a crude GPS position accurate to a couple of metres would be sufficiently diagnostic; and if start and end of each line was logged, even if some were occluded, there should still be sufficient redundancy. Those GPS positions would not though provide co-ordinates for any of the readings. A GPS embedded in the controller could achieve this type of function (but would need extra in the UI to ensure if cold-started that it had acquired almanac and PDOP was sufficiently low).

Full processing is unlikely to be achievable in real time – there are potentially a whole series of steps which have to be run through, some of which need to take account of multiple grids. Furthermore, the average operator needs to keep their eyes where they are going (most of the time at least). Conceivably you could have a quick peek at the end of a grid – but mid-grid isn’t the time to look at results.

What is possibly useful is a checkerboard type display if the operator gets confused over which way to go; that could be also very valuable when obstacles are encountered to make sure sufficient dummy readings are entered (and no more). Otherwise, a count of points and lines and/or countdown, and an audible end-of-grid are all that is really needed.

With a well-designed probe frame and a well-designed UI, the display could rotate at the end of each line so as to prompt the user to optimally traverse (not as so important as with some magnetometers, but ideally the probe frame orientation should remain constant irrespective of whether heading ‘up’ or ‘down’ a line to avoid introducing striping effects). ‘Soft keys’ (membrane buttons, not a touch screen) placed symmetrically either side of the screen with legends that move with the display could mean the full UI remains identical whichever side of the frame the operator was on.

I recall one comment about the fixed probe position – it needs to remain fixed for the duration of a grid, but when surveying any worthwhile area it can be moved a considerable number of times in a day. When the fixed probes are moved, the absolute readings on the next line will inevitably be different – but the post-processing software should deal with that. Also, I think I recall someone mentioning storing readings in one byte – need more precision plus gain/range, so will need at least several bytes.

There has been discussion above on how to connect boxes, but from the perspective of a unit to be actually used in the field, I can see lots of disadvantages and no advantages in a multi-box solution. One box, two connectors in normal use – one to the probes on the frame, one to the fixed pair of probes. Those connectors need to be mud, damp etc. proof and the Bulgin ‘Bucanneer’ type used on some commercial kit work well.  If download via serial or USB etc. then need a protected connector for that, and one to charge batteries if to be charged in situ (sufficient battery or robustly field-swapped like on, say survey GPS would be good). The box needs to be easily dismountable so when the frame is chucked in the back of a van or pick-up the box can be taken inside.

One aspect which I didn’t spot so far in the thread (apologies if I missed it) is that if a suitable probe frame is used, a ‘clever’ instrument could mux the probes and, at one point, take readings with different spacings/combinations or configurations (Wenner, Schlumberger, double-dipole etc.). For that, would need provision for say four on-frame probe connections so make it a four-way connector. Futhermore, would suggest possibly having ability either on that connector (or a dedicated one) to power and control a bigger mux to allow inversion arrays to be used – that could/should legitimately be a second box.

I can easily see three use cases: the primary users will be the vast majority who will be traversing grids; second would be using an external mux to drive an inversion array – only used occasionally by a few users but a valuable add-on option. The third use case is one which, whilst exciting, I would suggest shouldn't be allowed to distract from the core instrument. The third case is a wheeled instrument (propelled by human or towed by ATV etc.) – that needs different triggering, odometry, postion logging, navigation etc. – would suggest that is kept until a core instrument that can achieve good, reliable results in the field is proven.

Finally for now, for those who aren’t familiar with archaeological geophysics, could I suggest three works:

‘Seeing beneath the soil: prospecting methods in archaeology’ by Tony Clark

‘Revealing the buried past: geophysics for archaeologists’ by Chris Gaffney and John Gater

‘Looking into the earth: an introduction to geological geophysics’ by Alan Mussett and Aftab Khan

and in regard to this specific technique:

‘Earth resistance for archaeologists’ by Armin Schmidt

Dave

Thanks Dave - good stuff !

I do electronics and didn't start thinkingabout measuring Earth Resistance until Ken started this thread.

I think the direction of travel is broadly in accord with your suggestions.

I think it's likely we'll use the camera style batteries  - the biggest ones on offer at Amazon claim 65 Whrs so would cope with any suggested features.

Totally agree about tough connectors.

I'm interested that you think a multiplexer might be worthwile from the start - not that hard to do (at 4 ways).

Single box - for sure.

We'll have at least 1 Mbyte of on board memory - so good for at least 8192 readings (at a very generous128 bytes per reading)

We need to think carefully about the ergonomics, I like the idea of using the box either way up - I'd seen the Frobisher box descibed as being left or right handed.

If we have  a graphics display it can work either way up without too much trouble.

I'd spotted Schmidt's book but balked at the price !

I found a useful paper he co-wrote

eac_guidelines_2_final.pdf,

EAC Guidelines for the use of Geophysics in

Archaeology: Questions to Ask and Points to Consider.

Item Type Report

Authors Schmidt, Armin R.; Linford, P.; Linford, N.; David, A.; Gaffney,

Christopher F.; Sarris, A.; Fassbinder, J.

MK

Thanks Michael.

Firstly, the Frobisher I understand does offer ‘left-handed’ and ‘right-handed’ operation – but doesn’t rotate the display, it just has two sets of five buttons (probably wired in parallel I guess) so it doesn’t really deliver what I described above. From the Frobisher TAR-3 manual “The two sets of buttons have the same functions and are for left or right-handed use”.

In various posts earlier there is mention of variable oscillators etc. etc. and adverse comment on square wave excitation. I think there may be some misconceptions. The measurements are performed in DC, and it is measuring resistance, not impedance. Whilst technically it is a square wave, a better way to view it is DC with periodically-reversing polarity. If pure DC is used, any electrolyte in the soil (which is a necessary precursor for sufficient current to flow and a potential to be measured) can become polarised around the electrodes. Measurements are made within the steady portion of each DC excursion, be it +ve or –ve going. There’s no need for variable frequency oscillators or synchronous filter or digital or analogue synthesis etc. I’m not actually convinced you even need a D-to-A other than as an easy way to generate controllable square-wave with mild variation in frequency (say 40 – 137 Hz) and voltage up to, say, +/- 60v. These frequencies are really within just bit-flipping scope. Voltage doesn’t change on-the-fly necessarily so very simple requirements.

The switching frequency can be changed on some kit, but a good default is 137Hz as mentioned earlier, as it doesn’t beat (for long at least) with 50 or 60 Hz mains. There are times though where you may want to pick a lower frequency if there’s no mains interference in the ground (more on that below).

Sequence of operation at each point is:

• Operator drops probe frame onto the ground and probes penetrate ground
• Readings are being taken continuously, but until steady, they are discarded. This means recording auto-starts when good contact is made, irrespective of how long since frame lifted from previous point, and without need to press a trigger as in EPE project.
• Readings taken and averaged, when sufficiently consistent, reading is accepted, stored and ‘beep’ sounded to tell operator OK to move to next point.

Within each measurement, there is a hold-off or delay from the leading edge of the ‘square wave’ to allow settling, before starting to take readings. In some isolated conditions, the readings don’t settle within the width of the DC pulse (say a bit over 3ms for 137Hz), so some rigs offer the option to – in electrically quiet areas – select say 40 Hz to give up to 12ms for the signal to settle.

Dave

Hi Dave,

The proposed design meets these requirements, the principle of the design is identical to the EPE article (i.e. the block diagram at the top of this post in Ken's discussion), however the proposed design does the majority of it digitally. The waveform can be a square wave, or any waveform, and the end result will come out the same - just more accurate with a sine-wave since there's less to filter. But, if desired, the waveform can be set to a square wave, with no hardware changes, because the FPGA bitfile is encoded with the waveform (Edit: could even be software configurable in theory). By having this arbitrary capability, there's re-use for other projects/purposes too - for instance, scenarios where a deliberate bias may be wanted (i.e. AC riding on DC) - no problem for this new proposed design just by changing the waveform. (I'm not saying anyone would ever do that, but the possibility exists to do it in code.) So, there's nothing to stop it being put into a mode where you cannot tell the difference in the output waveform from this design, or the EPE design, nor anything stopping the algorithm being identical to the EPE one. The archaeology requirements have to drive the design otherwise it would be useless, so your user requirements are critical.

Similarly, although some of the comments discuss impedance, this is purely a software configuration issue. The hardware can measure and output a value that should match any other meter, but optionally it can be set to measure impedance too. Likewise, at zero cost, the frequency can be changed to one of many values, so 40 Hz square wave is no issue. The impedance could be handy for soil or liquid measurements for home agriculture, but can be totally turned off so that the output from the device via serial will be compatible with Snuffler, and provide the same values that the EPE meter would, since the block diagram and circuit is available for that. As you say, the system will repeatedly take measurements and store when stable.

The proposed design does everything the EPE design does, but hopefully better and with more relevant features, with these requirements that are coming in from you, Ken, Paul and hopefully others.

Dear All,

I have been following this thread and have some concerns about some of the comments.

To give an illustrative example.:-

If you want to design a chair most designs would look similar four legs, padded seat etc. The height would be one of the recommended "preferred" heights and it would have to meet legal requirements for strength and flammability. Given this information, most of us would sketch out similar designs. If one of our designs looked like the "Barcelona Chair" (designed by Mies van der Rohe and Lilly Reich) we should expect legal letters for design theft within a few months of putting them on sale.

I worked for a company that received such a letter and we were outraged that someone would lay claim to our work. After hours of work with our legal advisor we were shocked to discover how difficult it was to prove ownership of our work. Even having an RS catalogue (when they sent print editions out) was enough to suggest that we had the competitors information prior to our design and could have knowingly, or unknowingly, copied it. For the past three years I have been working on what BREXIT and trading on what World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms would mean for us. Its not so much 'WTO' as 'WTF' some of the examples are beyond belief.

For example:-

An American company designed and manufactured Multi meters and imported them into the USA. The meters were impounded by US Customs because a second US Company had convinced them that the colour of the faceplate was synonymous with their product. They had to pay to have them destroyed. The cost of a few weeks storage would have been more than the cost of the shipment and legal costs would have exceeded that within hours.

Many companies are now becoming aware of the value (or at least the cost) of their Intellectual Property (IP) and are willing to protect it. Phrases like "Product X does it this way", "I have downloaded their product information", "They have wired this way" or "We should not do it the way they did" are enough to cast doubt on the originality of your design. I am not even sure that the original magazine articles are not protected by copyright etc.

The Rolling Stones' legal team have written to D. Trump to "Demand" that he stops using their music - he must have bought a CD (or vinyl) but how he can use it is still controlled by the copyright owner.

In short, and probably too late, make sure you can prove the work that you "Open Source" is ALL your own work.

Paul D

Dear All,

I have been following this thread and have some concerns about some of the comments.

To give an illustrative example.:-

If you want to design a chair most designs would look similar four legs, padded seat etc. The height would be one of the recommended "preferred" heights and it would have to meet legal requirements for strength and flammability. Given this information, most of us would sketch out similar designs. If one of our designs looked like the "Barcelona Chair" (designed by Mies van der Rohe and Lilly Reich) we should expect legal letters for design theft within a few months of putting them on sale.

I worked for a company that received such a letter and we were outraged that someone would lay claim to our work. After hours of work with our legal advisor we were shocked to discover how difficult it was to prove ownership of our work. Even having an RS catalogue (when they sent print editions out) was enough to suggest that we had the competitors information prior to our design and could have knowingly, or unknowingly, copied it. For the past three years I have been working on what BREXIT and trading on what World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms would mean for us. Its not so much 'WTO' as 'WTF' some of the examples are beyond belief.

For example:-

An American company designed and manufactured Multi meters and imported them into the USA. The meters were impounded by US Customs because a second US Company had convinced them that the colour of the faceplate was synonymous with their product. They had to pay to have them destroyed. The cost of a few weeks storage would have been more than the cost of the shipment and legal costs would have exceeded that within hours.

Many companies are now becoming aware of the value (or at least the cost) of their Intellectual Property (IP) and are willing to protect it. Phrases like "Product X does it this way", "I have downloaded their product information", "They have wired this way" or "We should not do it the way they did" are enough to cast doubt on the originality of your design. I am not even sure that the original magazine articles are not protected by copyright etc.

The Rolling Stones' legal team have written to D. Trump to "Demand" that he stops using their music - he must have bought a CD (or vinyl) but how he can use it is still controlled by the copyright owner.

In short, and probably too late, make sure you can prove the work that you "Open Source" is ALL your own work.

Paul D

Interesting comments Paul,

Since this is open source with no commercial plans I'm not (very) bothered.

I have instinctively avoided linking or posting extracts of manuals etc and based on your comments I shall definitely avoid doing so.

If any one wants to sue me on the basis that it might enhance my professional reputation at their expense - bring it on

(or maybe they'll sue me for mentioning them in the same post as my own ideas )

More seriously, I feel that it's a positive good to society to seed the world with as much open source IP as possible so that

it becomes harder for companies and IP predators to make the kind of crazy claims they do.

So here's my stake in the ground:

What I claim is a thing for measuring stuff that uses an ADC, a DAC and a processor which might measure the stuff using a software phase sensitive detector or might not.

Thanks.

MK

You are confusing Apple and Microsoft et.al. with small companies and individuals who have invested their time and money (and their house or children's school fund) to produce stuff.

Even Apple and Microsoft et.al. deserve some protection - or who would decide who gets protection and who doesn't?

Even if you "Give" it away you could still get a legal letter - Farnell/Element14 would disappear it to the distance and let you worry about it.

You can "Open Source" your work but not the work of others.

Paul D

Re Mike and Paul’s comments:

Agree that there is a danger in attempting to clone or even reverse-engineer another design, especially if the actual task and domain are imperfectly understood.

I would absolutely advocate not trying to ‘improve’ the EPE designs as, irrespective of copyright issues, they were constrained by components and techniques available at that time.

What is needed is to understand the needs, possibly then some form of gap and opportunity analysis, and then design an exciting instrument that is usable, which potentially could be constructed by amateurs.

Dave

paul_d_arch  wrote:

 

 

For example:-

An American company designed and manufactured Multi meters and imported them into the USA. The meters were impounded by US Customs because a second US Company had convinced them that the colour of the faceplate was synonymous with their product. They had to pay to have them destroyed. The cost of a few weeks storage would have been more than the cost of the shipment and legal costs would have ex...

 

 

Fluke has trade marked the grey-and-yellow look and feel for handheld instruments in the USA.

Either adafruit or sparkfun (I forgot which of the 2) imported meters from China that were designed to closely mimick Fluke's look&feel.

Thats should not be a Ooops. Importing goods that violate a standing trade mark is not allowed since long time.

I the symposium I was at didn't say that the look and feel was a registered trademark (or more likely, I didn't remember).

It's a minefield. I always say respect the rights of others as you hope they would respect yours. The pain always occurs later and the delay always magnifies the expense.

I've consider it to be "bad manners" to copy the work of others. How do you know you are copying the best, or even good stuff?

The companies referred to don't seem big enough to aggressively protect their work (unlike Apple et. al.) but that doesn't seem to be a reason to rip off their ideas/products when you can do it yourself  - if you are willing to do the work

Paul D   

Yes, the old joke is - "if you want to go there, you shouldn't have started from here"

The physics hasn't changed but the technology we have has.

Paul D

Here is the TM: Trademark Status & Document Retrieval

The mark consists of the colors dark gray and yellow as applied to the goods.

For: Electronic test and measuring instruments and devices, and portable electronic test tools, namely, digital multimeters

There's also a drawing that shows the location of the two colours on a handheld device.

It was sparkfun. They communicated very openly about the situation: https://www.sparkfun.com/news/1430

Jan,

Thanks for the link. My original post was a third-hand retelling of this. It was a long day and I should have been paying closer attention. My notes from the day are at the office and I've been working from home for several months so any inaccuracies in the post are mine.

BUT - choosing a yellow is easy to do, who would think twice. Grey is a good choice it looks better after being touched with dirty and oily fingers. Or was it a deliberate choice to mimic the trademark owners product.  Who can say? That's the why I suggested not focusing on other companies' products.

Paul D

Hi Paul,

I can't reply more substantially for a couple of days (tied up with work), but in brief:

None of us have ever seen any commercial gear, nor have an idea of the method of operation, beyond knowing the external interfaces (i.e. that there are four or so probes, and a connection to software).

The EPE design isn't being ripped off. Many of us here have professional org memberships, some have legal qualifications too, and we all have morals regardless. There's no interest in ripping off or incrementally tweaking someone's design - the new design is open source and being done in part for the technical challenge to get more accurate measurements in a more modern way, and make the instrument easier to use too - engineers like a challenge.

The new design is documented in paper sketches, all dated, within the comments here. You can see by comparing it to the one existing documented design, the EPE design, that it is completely different. The EPE design is a single-purpose analogue design, a bit like an analogue clock. The new design is a computer that happens to have similar external connections (probes and a computer interface). That's why it is so easy to say "sure, 40 Hz is ok" - the design doesn't care, because almost anything can be implemented in software on a computer. If 40 Hz is patented, you could choose a completely different waveform and frequency. The property of impedance cannot be patented.

The new design is actually an impedance meter. Whether commercial ones implement impedance internally I have no idea (for the reason mentioned earlier - we have no access or information on the workings of commercial designs, and don't want it either). The computer interface can expose just resistance measurements, but internally it is calculating impedance.

There was the question "why not do it simpler and use a square wave like the EPE design" and partially the answer is that yes you can if you program the internal computer to do so. It is flexible. But the intent is to use sine waves. The end computed result will be the same (it has to be, to be compatible with existing software), but done differently. The new implementation calculates impedance, then derives resistance and then throws away the impedance measurement if it is not needed. The block diagram (in paper sketches) is there, and I'm curious what parts of it could be considered ripping off any existing design.

Furthermore, by doing it differently, I'd hope it would encourage people to try new techniques. With some software modification a radar-like impedance sweep can be done. Does it have any practical purpose for archaeology? I don't know, but now the capability will exist to try it.

One more thing - there's nothing illegal (or even immoral) in making something compatible to an external interface. The EU had a directive to cover this. Commercially other manufacturers may not be happy about it, but that's not a concern for me at all. In a similar vein, any engineer who examines the EPE design will rapidly see that the new design is different - not a single component has been copied to design this new, more general-purpose measurement device. I can comment more in a couple of days if needed.

Dear Shabaz,

I never suggested that you would copy the EPE design or open up a commercial unit to have a look - why would you?

If there were an patents involved they would be by Kelvin,  Schlumberger, and the laws of nature and long since out of date.

The problem is - as you have said - is you have no experience of using this equipment in a wet field and those who have (may not have any electronics experience)  are telling you about the commercial equipment they are using - its HMI and file formats etc. These things may be covered by IP laws. It seems that the colour of the case can be(!?).

In a previous post you said that you searched for images on the internet for your diagrams - I'm sure (for brevity) you missed out the "royalty free, copyright free " part of your search in the post. Many years ago the company I worked for was pursued by a Image Library for a large payment after using copies of their images. It cost us a packet. We had used images of "Moody" oil refineries supplied by our web designers. They claimed that the images were "place holders" and we should have dealt with the paperwork, payments, or obtained the required rights ourselves.  

I suggested using QGIS in a previous post because it is open source and you could import any file format you wanted.

PS  According to the UK Government's  website "The UK has left the EU". For the past three years I have been dealing with problems caused by our withdrawal.

Phrases in this thread like "Unit X does it this way" can be very harmful to your claim of it being ALL your own work. As there are more than one person involved we are all potentially jointly and severally  for any claim made for IP infringement against any one member of this thread.

My experience with the image library suggests that there is no defence against inattention to these details.

Paul D