Loza M gpr

Geophysical applications on environmental investigation, mineral prospecting, engineering, archaeology, forensics, hydrology...
Post Reply
bushido
Member
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:22 am

Loza M gpr

Post by bushido »

hello, i read about the Loza gpr and technology, the Loza gpr is the only gpr in the word that can operate in clays and in soils with high moisture. The gpr was tested in some researchs and gave accurate results. i want to know if there is anyone who has tested Loza M or Loza V and can confirm the efficiency of this gpr?

MrMister
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:40 am

Re: Loza M gpr

Post by MrMister »

It is not approved for use in US or Canada, and probably every EU country. Spark gap transmitter is too powerful and frequency uncontrolled to meet regulations. Jan Francke has a discussion about it on YouTube though.

bushido
Member
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:22 am

Re: Loza M gpr

Post by bushido »

Thanks for the information, i watched Jan Francke video about GPR on youtube and according to him, increasing Transmitter power would not give any better results, it's all about hype and marketing techniques.

MrMister
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:40 am

Re: Loza M gpr

Post by MrMister »

My Sensors & Software Ultra 100 saw 10-12 feet in wet clayey soils, as evidenced by average trace amplitude plots and known reflectors. Would be interesting to try a Loza in similar circumstances. Jan knows what he's talking about, but the Loza cross-sections look pretty convincing too.

bushido
Member
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:22 am

Re: Loza M gpr

Post by bushido »

there are some researchs published on research gate talking about surveys conducted with Loza V. They conclude that the results were impressive. it's confusing, Jan Francke said that the technology is not convincing and field surveys said that the radar is efficient and gave accurate results. who should i believe?

MrMister
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:40 am

Re: Loza M gpr

Post by MrMister »

I agree. But for me it's moot as I'll never be able to use it in the US anyway. If the Loza transmitter power is high enough to overcome signal loss in clay (which Jan denies) then I'll promptly get shut down and fined by the suits in white vans with directional antennas on top.

GPRUkraine
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:57 am
Website: http://www.gpr-tech.com
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/leonidkrynytskyi/
Facebook: gpr.investigation

Re: Loza M gpr

Post by GPRUkraine »

MrMister wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:30 am
I agree. But for me it's moot as I'll never be able to use it in the US anyway. If the Loza transmitter power is high enough to overcome signal loss in clay (which Jan denies) then I'll promptly get shut down and fined by the suits in white vans with directional antennas on top.
you need to believe practice and experience (positive and negative) because skeptics, especially such as Franke, will never say that GPR Loza can be a competitor to his technology. I have been working with Loza for many years, Loza-M (low price) is a marketing device designed for treasure hunters. Loza-V and Loza-N are more professional instruments for engineering geology and mineral exploration.
I love RADAR :prayer:

MrMister
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:40 am

Re: Loza M gpr

Post by MrMister »

Well, as I said @GPRUkraine, it's moot for my work in the USA as Loza will never get FCC certification with a spark gap transmitter.

GPRUkraine
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:57 am
Website: http://www.gpr-tech.com
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/leonidkrynytskyi/
Facebook: gpr.investigation

Re: Loza M gpr

Post by GPRUkraine »

MrMister wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 11:53 am
Well, as I said @GPRUkraine, it's moot for my work in the USA as Loza will never get FCC certification with a spark gap transmitter.
Company TerravisionExploration received FCC certificate back in the distant 2014. did they bring Loza-V to the USA, successfully tested in the laboratory and received a certificate, what can you say about that?
I love RADAR :prayer:

MrMister
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:40 am

Re: Loza M gpr

Post by MrMister »

I say that my company doesn't have the resources or time to obtain certification from the FCC for a piece of GPR equipment. If VNIISMI can obtain FCC certification such that it would be legal for me to purchase and use in the USA, then I'd very much be interested in Loza-N.

GPRUkraine
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:57 am
Website: http://www.gpr-tech.com
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/leonidkrynytskyi/
Facebook: gpr.investigation

Re: Loza M gpr

Post by GPRUkraine »

MrMister wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 2:41 pm
I say that my company doesn't have the resources or time to obtain certification from the FCC for a piece of GPR equipment. If VNIISMI can obtain FCC certification such that it would be legal for me to purchase and use in the USA, then I'd very much be interested in Loza-N.
I will convey your words to the leadership of VNIISMI.
I love RADAR :prayer:

sweafy
Member
Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:55 am

Re: Loza M gpr

Post by sweafy »

GPRUkraine wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 3:41 pm
MrMister wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 2:41 pm
I say that my company doesn't have the resources or time to obtain certification from the FCC for a piece of GPR equipment. If VNIISMI can obtain FCC certification such that it would be legal for me to purchase and use in the USA, then I'd very much be interested in Loza-N.
I will convey your words to the leadership of VNIISMI.
Can I replace the transmitter 5KV of loza m by 10KV?

gprguy
Member
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:57 pm

Re: Loza M gpr

Post by gprguy »

Wow - so much mis-information on this thread. NO, Loza will never be legal in Canada, the US or Europe. It is not a matter of getting certification (which did not happen for a 5 kV transmitter in 2014). Loza would have to change the laws of the USA, Canada, Europe and other countries in order to be legal. Good luck with that.

Increasing transmitter power DOES increase penetration, but it is an exponential equation. So, to double penetration, you need 32 times more voltage. Radars in low frequency ranges are about 400V, so you'd need at least (400 X 32) = 12 kV to double penetration. Yes, Loza has a 10 kV transmitter, and yes, it is absolutely trivial to build a 10 kV transmitter (both the Germans and Allies were doing it in WWII), but the nuance of GPR is in signal to noise. a 10 kV transmitter cannot pulse quickly, and you need to pulse quickly in order to stack (or you need to survey very slowly). A Loza system is not unique...we've built 15 kV transmitters for specific ice/glacier projects (and they indeed do work in some low-loss environments). Sensors and Software used to make a 5kV transmitter in the late 1990s.

The next problem is what the concept of doubling penetration means. In clay environments, where a normal radar will go to 4 m, a 10 kV Loza might go to 8 m. It will not suddenly get to 100 m. Sadly, that's not how physics works.

There are other issues, such as using such a low frequency component (they claim to achieve penetration by low pass filtering) that the velocity model is no longer propagative. We've long known about these effects, and there is a great paper by Peter Annan in the 1990s showing Loza-type data. Nothing new.

As for the published papers confirming Loza's claims, it may be prudent to note the author's affiliations. Until independent researchers publish data from such instruments, well ...

No, I am not promoting "my technology". My interest is preserving GPR's reputation in a market full of over-hype and users who simply don't understand physics. Over-selling any technology hurts everyone, and of any geophysics, GPR seems to attract the greatest salesmen :).

Jan Francke, PhD, PGeoph

GPRUkraine
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:57 am
Website: http://www.gpr-tech.com
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/leonidkrynytskyi/
Facebook: gpr.investigation

Re: Loza M gpr

Post by GPRUkraine »

gprguy wrote:
Tue Jun 01, 2021 1:43 pm
NO, Loza will never be legal in Canada, the US or Europe. It is not a matter of getting certification (which did not happen for a 5 kV transmitter in 2014). Loza would have to change the laws of the USA, Canada, Europe and other countries in order to be legal.
on which laws or regulations you refer (USA, Canada, EU)? without specific references, your statements sound somewhat unconvincing.
I love RADAR :prayer:

gprguy
Member
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:57 pm

Re: Loza M gpr

Post by gprguy »

Hi Leonard. Perhaps your question was lost in translation, but are you asking for evidence that UWB radars over a certain power and within certain frequency ranges are outside of legal limits in Canada, the US, Europe, etc?

The nice thing about laws and the Internet is that it takes seconds to find references. For example, using Google to search for "FCC Ground Penetrating Radar" yields all the documents needed. Same for Canada, Europe, China, Japan, etc.

In the US:
https://www.fcc.gov/document/revision-p ... wideband-9

In Canada:
https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.n ... 09347.html

In Europe:
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/30 ... 10201v.pdf

As has been explained to you by others in similar forums, we take laws very seriously in these jurisdictions if for no other reason than to ensure the survival of our industry. It was not many years ago that GPR was nearly banned in the US and Europe, and it was only due to strong and very expensive lobbying by the GPR industry that we were able to continue using GPR for civilian applications under these accepted limitations. It would thus seem foolish to then come along with an obviously illegal GPR unit and flaunt the rules (which is why Sensors and Software no longer makes their 5 kV transmitter).

It also should be noted that the often-touted certificate for Loza issues in Brno relates to its safety as an electronic device. It does not provide any certification that the device is within the relevant UWB Radar limitations in Europe. TerraVision most certainly did not receive a FCC clearance to operate Loza in the USA in 2014, unless it was for military or law enforcement applications (in which case they could indeed have received a temporary permit).

To recap:
1. Loza instruments (i.e. 5 KV and 10 kV Tx) is well outside of the legislated limitations for UWB Radars in the US and Europe as well as other countries.
2. There is nothing unique or novel about a 5 kV or 10 kV transmitter. Any RF engineer can make this and spark gap transmitters have existed since the 1920s. There is a good reason why no commercial company doesn't bother with this as a means to increase penetration
3. The radar range equation is well-established and clearly shows that simply increasing the peak voltage of a radar isn't going to dramatically increase range
4. Loza data (generally) shows the very low frequency component (what we call signal "wow" effects). These have been known since the first GPRs in the early 1970s and this component is discarded because it is not propagative. There may be some useful surface information which can be extracted, but any radar can be made to show the same results if the data are not properly processed.
5. Loza systems have been on the open market now for 15+ years and have been used in dozens of countries. If it truly was a breakthrough in technology and enabled 100s of metres of penetration in lossy ground, then surely there'd have been many papers written on the method by reputable academics outside of your company. Indeed, such a device may obviate many other geophysical methods. What generally happens in such scenarios where a truly breakthrough technology is released (e.g. iPhone) is that within years, other companies will release their own versions to the competitive market. Strangely, considering there is nothing novel about a 5 kV transmitter, RC-dipoles or staged input receivers, no one else outside of Russia/Ukraine has bothered making a similar concept.

GPRUkraine
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:57 am
Website: http://www.gpr-tech.com
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/leonidkrynytskyi/
Facebook: gpr.investigation

Re: Loza M gpr

Post by GPRUkraine »

gprguy wrote:
Wed Jun 02, 2021 10:27 am

The nice thing about laws and the Internet is that it takes seconds to find references. For example, using Google to search for "FCC Ground Penetrating Radar" yields all the documents needed. Same for Canada, Europe, China, Japan, etc.

In the US:
https://www.fcc.gov/document/revision-p ... wideband-9

In Canada:
https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.n ... 09347.html

In Europe:
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/30 ... 10201v.pdf
call me Leonid, pls
Thanks for the links to the regulations.
I'll tell you even more - Loza uses the simplest Wu-King dipole-resistive-loaded antenna. And it's not even the power of the transmitters, the penetrating ability or the regulatory laws (we are law-abiding inhabitants of the Earth) - many technologies have been known for many years and decades and are used until they are replaced by more breakthrough technologies. Where can I read the technical characteristics of your devices (Google is silent)? on your site only a general description of the technique! and two articles are devoted to Loza's anti-advertising, every year you talk more and more about how bad Loza is (since 2013). Black PR?
I sent our chat to Mr Morozov (PhD of Physical and Mathematical Sciences), who is one of the developers of the Loza GPR. And he will personally respond to some of your comments (I will post here). By the way, with the technical characteristics of the Loza, you can visit the website https://www.geo-radar.ru/eng/e_articles.php
I love RADAR :prayer:

gprguy
Member
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:57 pm

Re: Loza M gpr

Post by gprguy »

Apologies for the misspelling of your name, Leonid 😊. Thank you for the link to the Loza creator’s page. I’m relying on the English version, so there can be some errors in translation, but there are a series of statements which don’t make sense to me.

1. “The "Loza" GPR is equipped with transmitters whose peak power exceeds the power of transmitters of conventional GPRs by 10,000 – 100,000 times. Achieving such transmitter powers became possible after shifting from a transistor circuit to the pulse generation at high-voltage spark gaps. The "Loza" GPR is equipped with transmitters of 5, 10, 21 kV impulse voltage.”
If we refer to the documentation for the Mala RTA or a Sensors and Software 25 MHz system, we see that the output voltage is 400 V. Since everyone is using the same resistively-loaded dipole antennas (Wu-King), then a Loza 10 kV transmitter is only 25 times more powerful. How does going from 400 V to 10,000 V using the same antenna impedance not equal 25 times more peak power?

2. The "Loza" GPR is equipped with low-frequency resistively-loaded antennas (5-25 MHz) allowing them to fulfill the capabilities of super high-power transmitters to the full extent.
Actually, Loza uses a “fat-dipole” concept which does indeed increase the bandwidth of the signal. This is correct.

3. A hardware-software algorithm is used in the "Loza" GPR performing the function of the recorded signal digitization with a dynamic range of up to 120 dB.
Agreed – this is what we have seen from a Loza system as well. The only problem with this is that this figure is also the same value that is published and witnessed from almost every other low-frequency radar system.

4. To achieve large sounding depths, the maximum energy of the sounding signal is shifted in the "Loza" GPR to lower frequencies within the frequency band of the 1-50 MHz GPR receiver. The sounding signal attenuation is essentially dependent on frequency. The lower the frequency is, the less the signal attenuation under the same conditions is.
This is highly misleading, and your own graph, copied from Sensors and Software, proves this. The less attenuation at lower frequencies only occurs at frequencies so low that it is no longer GPR. Even then, with lower attenuation comes much lower propagation (it is actually no longer propagation at these frequencies) velocities, so your depth estimates are far off.

The big problem comes later in the webpage, where the performance of 126 dB is provided. We shall agree to that number as being accurate. However, the next statement made is that given is: “At attenuation of approx. 0.3–0.4 dB/m, we get a depth estimate of ~ 400 meters. The resulting estimate must be divided by 2, since the GPR sounding signal passes a double path: from the surface to the reflecting boundary and back. As a result, an estimate of the maximum sounding depth of a GPR with a peak voltage of 21 kV at 15-20 MHz will be ~ 200 meters.”
This is very misleading because only absolutely ideal materials will show an attenuation of only 0.3 – 0.4 dB/m? By that calculation, any radar will achieve 200 m because they are all around 120 dB performance. As we see from Davis & Annan, 1989 (and any other source), those low-loss environments are specific to perfect dry sand, ideal limestone, glaciers, etc. So, yes, Loza can achieve 200 m penetration in ideal conditions, but by stating that Loza has 120 dB, you are acknowledging that it also has the same performance as any other radar, which can also reach 200 m in absolutely perfect conditions at low frequencies.

Although entertaining, this discourse is of educational value to non-geophysicist users of GPR. GPR is and always has been, by far, the most over-sold geophysical method, often because it is the least understood method. There are companies who claim ludicrous penetration using “lased” radar energy to many kms through sea water, other which can pick out the caret size of individual diameters using GPR, etc. Exclusively, these proponents of such “radars” are successful in developing countries where geophysical skills are currently less available than in Europe/N America etc.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post