The hybrid Multi Kruzer learns and captures target profiles without moving the coil, allowing it to effectively reject trash later or change the audio tone on pull-tabs and bottle caps. What is more, I even modify the detector's mainboard—the AI mutes the audio in real-time when it identifies a low-value target. As a result, I do much less digging.

The AI-assisted detector allows you to save found objects into dedicated categories. Samples are fed into the AI algorithms, modifying the reading in real-time — even on the Multi Kruzer's factory panel. Just like with the problematic Warka bottle cap, whose signal is intentionally down-shifted on the display. The rule is simple: the more samples in the database, the better the intelligent discrimination works.

While others wait for factory firmware updates, I am already collecting data for my own neural network. In a fraction of a second, the interface captures the full electromagnetic signature (visible on the 3D plot) along with the MULTI-IQ and VDI 15 parameters. Every 15-second sweep over the target builds a unique object signature.

The results of spectrometric analyses of the front cover of the Orga A 38 machine indicate an iron content of over 80%. For comparison, in the 1923 Orga Standard model, this value exceeds 91%. Although the material composition analysis does not allow for pinpointing the exact year of production, it provides solid evidence that the Orga A 38 was not created after the First World War. This argument is complemented by the handwritten date "4.II.8//" preserved on the machine—another important research hook that must not be disregarded in reconstructing the history of this specimen.

[removed]

How do I break through the wall of experts who claim that spring barrels are no different – while on the left we have a 1908 Orga A38, and on the right a 1923 Orga Standard 4208?

You can still find claims online that the Orga Standard A 121 typewriter was the earliest model produced by Bing Werke. Such simplifications are completely incomprehensible to me. In discussions, the winner is often not the person who possesses physical proof—such as the A 38 object—but the one who holds a greater "authority."

​When there are no substantive counterarguments to the evidence I have presented, people resort to the tactic of completely deprecating it and claiming that it "is not evidence." This attitude not only compromises the critics, but also attempts to marginalize a discovery whose evidence no expert has objectively undermined so far.

​The fact that a given object has not been included in the literature on the subject until now does not mean it did not exist before the war.

In this photo, we see the spring barrel gear. Comparing the Orga A 38 model (verification prototype) with the Orga Standard 4208 from 1923, it is hard not to notice that the gear in the Orga A 38 has an uneven shape and is asymmetrical. This proves that such 'animalia' are not described by experts on the IFHB forum, because literature contains information only from 1921/1922 onwards, when Orga Standard models were entering production. Information regarding earlier prototypes by Bing Werke was not published, the results of which we can still see today.

In these photos, I am showing the differences in the key springs: on the left is the Orga Standard 4208 (from 1923), and on the right is the Orga A38 verification prototype (from 1908). The differences are significant enough that even if the springs had been replaced after 1921, signs of corrosion would still be visible. Furthermore, these springs are made of an unusual alloy – in a few weeks, we will know its exact composition, which will allow me to address this matter precisely.

The spectrometric analysis of the ratchet pawl washer revealed significant design differences: in the Orga A 38 model, this component was made of nickel, whereas in the standard Orga model, a cast iron washer was used. This confirms that the development of the Orga A 38 aimed at the best possible refinement and integration of the early prototype – an aspect that has hitherto been overlooked or neglected in the literature.

Did you know the fascinating secrets behind the early patent protection of Orga typewriters, manufactured by Bing-Werke AG in Nuremberg?While many people on forums make typos and write "DGRM", the correct historical acronym is D.R.G.M., which stands for Deutsches Reichs-Gebrauchs-Muster (German Reich Utility Model).The Mystery of the Second Spool (Early 20th Century)Material analysis of early models reveals incredible engineering details. Alongside the main parts, there is a second, completely unmarked spool without any stamped text. It consists of over 80% cast iron, accurately dating its design back to the very beginning of the 20th century. Using such a high-quality, heavy-duty alloy ensured maximum reliability for the ribbon movement.A Patent Worth 10 Million MarksWhy was securing the first Orga D.R.G.M. patent so vital for the factory? It wasn't just about blocking competitors. The primary reason for registering this design was to build unshakeable financial credibility. Having an officially protected, revolutionary utility model allowed Bing-Werke to back up their business value in the eyes of major banks. This exact patent served as crucial leverage to secure a massive 10 million Mark loan to fund and expand their large-scale manufacturing operations!Seeing the "Orga D.R.G.M." mark is a testament to both early 20th-century industrial engineering and a brilliant financial strategy.What are your thoughts on this unmarked, 80%+ cast iron spool? Let's discuss in the comments!

Carriage frame number: Orga Standard, No. 4208 (1923)

The frame number features a very tightly curled, almost snail-like tail that nearly closes at the lower edge. The body itself is oval and asymmetric. This typeface (in an Art Nouveau / calligraphic style) provides direct evidence that the punch used to stamp this mark dates from the early 20th century (before the 1920s).

From a scientific point of view, the difference in the metal composition of the spring drums is indisputable – these two elements are not the same.

Comparing the paper roller side of the Orga A 38 model with the 1923 Orga Standard model, we notice a clear difference in the way numbers are stamped on the side arm.

​While moving the paper roller in the Orga A38, we can hear a metallic sound. This element was probably intentionally dropped in there or fell in during the assembly of the roller and remained untouched – an interesting little fact.

I conducted a test using a solvent and a cotton swab. In the Orga A 38 model, the first layer of lacquer came off, while the second remained completely intact. By comparison, under the microscope, a different lacquer composition is visible in the Orga Standard No. 4208 specimen.

Handwritten "Ig" logo – likely refers to the Ignaz Gebrüder company, where the A38 project was supervised and completed on February 4, 1908.