Fisher Impulse AQ detector update

About a month ago Costco lines were nuts. Some people getting in line at 4:30 am , when they open at 10. I waited in line for 2 hours , all geared up. Many were not. Lines are better now , but are limiting the number of people going into a store.

This is really going to change society. The fact is , I don't trust anybody. When this is over , who is going to want to go to a restaurant ? A movie theater ? A ballgame ? Not me. If I make it through this , I anticipate all these people who stood at the beach looking at me oddly , to now want to pick up a detector. Realizing maybe I'm not so dumb after all. It will be Detect-aggeadon ! Ugh...

KOB said:

About a month ago Costco lines were nuts. Some people getting in line at 4:30 am , when they open at 10. I waited in line for 2 hours , all geared up. Many were not. Lines are better now , but are limiting the number of people going into a store.

This is really going to change society. The fact is , I don't trust anybody. When this is over , who is going to want to go to a restaurant ? A movie theater ? A ballgame ? Not me. If I make it through this , I anticipate all these people who stood at the beach looking at me oddly , to now want to pick up a detector. Realizing maybe I'm not so dumb after all. It will be Detect-aggeadon ! Ugh...

Click to expand...

.

Did i miss read one of JAGs recent up dates in that the first 100 machines may NOT have headphones...... and that prices could be lower later on?

Are we looking at innovative disc? Its a higher tone..... it could just as easily be the same tone in disc. The innovation is see is a NOTCH being used something i dont think PIs have done. Not really disc as most of us VLFs know it. PIs have had tones for ferr and non-ferr before ..... hi/lo. The 7uS has yet to be proven it will work especially out deeper where it goes from correlated sand to a darker heavy sediment hard pan which requires more sensitivity adjustments currently. Soooo...... would not the Garrett or TDI be as workable with a NOTCH? Depth...... that cant be talked about until we get it in hand. Most machines run a little quieter in a notch pattern as well. We will have to see how it does in AM with that low uS. Whats the cost again........ twice the price of the TDI? Im still hoping its MUCH deeper than the Nox...... otherwise not many of the multi use guys will go for it....... so yes it will be a niche machine. Did i also read their goal is to produce or sell 30 a month? That seems like a low goal for the amount invested when they want to be to sell it world wide. Maybe be bad timing with everything going on too.

Dew, LE.JAG can not write English. He writes in French and runs it through Google translate. This can cause some folks to have a problem following the details of what he writes

All AQ’s have headphones.

The price has not been set

The tone in all metal is a high tone, in multitone ferrous and high conductors have a low tone. There is no notch

No one that I know of has ever suggested that extremely short pulse delays like 7uS can be used in the presence of large volumes of seawater. This is the reason that detectors intended for diving have very long pause delays.

As far as depth comparison with the Nox - or any multifreaker - the difference will be the greatest where salt water and high mineralization are both present. In pure white sand, the difference will be less than in west coast black sand.

In addition, the AQ is designed SPECIFICALLY to detect gold jewelry and its performance advantage is most apparent on these targets. One of the prototypes I tested got more air test depth on a nickel than on a silver dollar.

Ummmm call me dumb.... but isn’t that a Preset notch when it produces a PATTERN within a non-ferr field? Soooo it just finds gold? We both know better.... on a VLF it would be like looking for targets from say a digit of 2 to 23. Those targets non ferr targets aren’t all gold. So... define what you call a notch? So am I to understand it won’t run in 7uS in the salt water..... it could have to run higher? I understand how uS adjustments are for diving. But those adjustments are as much for target size as salt content out there.

Great to know about those phones. Thanks for the info so I don’t have to have something ready.

dewcon said:

.... Soooo it just finds gold? We both know better.... on a VLF it would be like looking for targets from say a digit of 2 to 23. Those targets non ferr targets aren’t all gold. So... define what you call a notch? ...

Click to expand...

Bingo dewcon ! Depending on where that notch is, you could loose larger men's gold rings. Because it's no secret that some larger/fatter/heavier men's gold rings can read at .... for example.... the corroded zinc to zinc range. I've gotten many men's fat rings that read well above round tab.

Granted, that might only be 15 or 20% of rings-in-the-wild. But .... just sayin'....

It was sort of the same gambling scenario on the TDI : The moment you went to choose highs vs lows, there was a notch point involved. If I were on the beach, and wanting to "pass pennies/dimes/quarters" (in my quest to up my odds at gold), I would set that notch point to be at about corroded zinc and downward. If the notch point were square (or round) tabs and downward, then yes, you'd risk missing some gold rings.

OK, Dew -

First - I never said that it only finds gold - you imagined that.

Second - a notch Is generally understood to be a portion of the detection range from low to high conductors which is “switched off” so that no audio response is produced. Lots of VLF detectors have some form of this capability - usually with the ability to specify the “notch width”.

No PI, including the AQ has a “notch” which does that. What Ground Balancing PI’s have (non GB ones don’t) is a balance point, where the short persisting signals are separated from the long persisting ones. You can say “low conductors vs. high conductors”, but it isn’t only conductivity that plays a part.

If you want to call the balance point a “Notch” you are free to do so, but you will be confusing all those detectorists who have used a VLF/IB detector which provides the ability to switch off the audio response for a part of the conductivity spectrum - a TOTALLY different thing.

The AQ, like all ground balancing detectors, has a balance point. At this setting the signals which appear only in the early signal sample are separated from those which persist into the late signal sample. Now, if you want to talk about the balance point, then you can start talking about “holes”, because at the balance point some signals are reduced to zero because of the action of the comparison of the early signal sample with the (amplified) later signal sample. The GB control increases or decreases the amount of amplification.

The AQ is able to reduce this “hole” to an unprecedented degree - nothing or as good as nothing. All targets will give a high signal in all metal. In multitone all targets will give a signal - either high or low - but no detected targets will give no signal - no targets will be “notched out”. This is very different than the TDI or other ground balancing PI’s. Tons of discussions about this were had when the TDI came out about detecting “invisible nuggets”.

OK how does the AQ do this? I can’t tell you for two reasons - first, I have only the faintest grasp of the underlying physics. Second, even if I did, Alexandre Tartar would put out a hit on me if I disclosed it.

It is a unique characteristic of the AQ’s design.

And yes Tom, in multitone, depending on the setting of the ATS and the Rejection control, very massive jewelry and 24kt gold jewelry will give a low tone - the same as iron. That is not the action of a “notch” but of a balance point.

Well this is one unique machine then if it doesnt shut off tones to the phones for iron and those higher conductors in disc and ONLY.... sees targets in that range. I say that because most detectors now see EVERYTHING under the coil..... we just dont hear it. Am i wrong? Maybe so or maybe i just need hands on or havent understood what you are saying.......hey im old im allowed. That said i always appreciate your replies. Good info.... that hopefully will help starting out. By the way....... no machine, but hey how about that manual??? With this down time ...... it sure would be nice to be thumbing thru that so im not starting out dirt dumb.

lytle78 said:

.... That is not the action of a “notch” but of a balance point.

Click to expand...

Rick, thank you very much for chiming in (and I mean that sincerely). Your input on the issue is very fair and balanced and food-for-thought.

But as for your quote above, I think this is a matter of semantics : Whether someone calls it a "notch" or a "balance point", the practical-point is the same : We're talking about the cut-off point of TID/conductivity, where the user elects to call the accept vs reject criteria (if his intent is to pass pesky coins, and hone-in-on-lower conductors). Whether someone calls that a "notch" or a "balance point", is semantics.

Is that fair to say ?

My vote: Transition point, not notch.

The reason I called it a notch .... is simply because detectors see it all but only respond with the tones to the phones based on selection..... call it a pattern notch a transition point... I chose notch. Much like ML choose skid plate over coil cover. But I got the feeling I’m being told it doesn’t see everything under the coil like other detectors.... that would be interesting. Hey we had to start Monday with a good debate

In the all metal mode, all targets which return a signal which persists longer than the minimum pulse delay are “heard” and all of these return a high tone. In the multitone mode, targets whose signals have decayed to undetectability by the time the second sample is taken - are assigned a high tone and those whose signals are still present in the second sample are assigned a low tone.

The mute mode functions the same, but the targets which would be assigned a low tone are muted instead.

The AQ ignores sea water the same way as all other PI’s suitable for hunting in salt do. The signal from the salt in the water or saturated sand is gone before the first sample is taken. If the sample is taken before that point, the salt signal would cause audio noise and perhaps make the machine unusable.

Now, existing non-gb salt water detectors have fixed and relatively high pulse delays. Reducing the minimum pulse delay on any PI detector in salt will eventually cause the detector to pick up the salt and become noisy or unusable. The exact minimum usable pulse delay for any given detector will depend entirely on lots of different factors in the circuitry, components chosen and coil construction.

This is the reason why folks who have used PI’s with variable pulse delay in salt have asserted that no delay shorter than - let’s say 10mS - is usable in salt water. The AQ minimum pulse delay is 7mS. This will NOT be usable in large volumes of salt water (immersed beyond a certain depth. Careful use of coil control, ATS setting and sensitivity setting are required to reach the “corners” of the performance envelope when it comes to very short pulse delays. Carl Moreland reported successful use of 7mS in running salt water at an Oregon beach. I used a prototype in running salt water in black sand striped beaches in San Diego and found it “moaned” somewhat at 7mS and resolved at higher pulse delays.

Would this have any merit to this thread???
Years back I recall reading a thread if I recall right was Geotech I tried to find the thread but my computer is to old and it will not let me view that site.
The thread was about someone that took a Infinium and hooked it up to an oscilloscope
and after passing targets under the coil to see what they looked like they could tell what went under the coil by looking at the oscilloscope. maby someone can find this thread to see how far off my memory is. This info could be put into a computer to disc targets out.??????

Now we are finally hearing some truth, get this thing in the Gulf of Mexico on a day with wave action and it will need to be tuned down the same as any pulse, sounds like it works just like the tdi, there is a gb point and below that point is low tone and above is high tone, except it has the possibility to mute the low tone. Depending on where you set the gb point will determine what objects are low or high to an extent. Sounds like a tdi, no surprise there.

I dig it - your description of how it resembles the TDI in its general function is sound - but you missed a big variable, so here goes.

Alexandre has tested the AQ extensively against all existing PI detectors and has stated that the AQ will operate at 7mS in the same environment where the TDI has problems at 10mS.

How can that be? Easy - they are not the same machines. The AQ benefits from 10 years of development STARTING from where Eric Foster left off on the Goldquest series (the TDI is a Foster Goldquest with minor modifications.

The laws of physics don’t dictate how few microseconds of delay will function in a certain environment in ALL detectors. That would be like saying that because a Toyota Corolla an only go 30mph on a certain bad road that a Toyota Land Cruiser is likewise only ale to go 30mph.

I don’t expect you to take my word on this — I take Alexandre’s because I know and trust him even though I have had no opportunity to verify this in salt water with and AQ and a TDI, because I know he has done so.

Once this plague runs its course, the AQ will reach market. Then folks the likes of OBN will use it and tell us all his verdict on things like this. Till then I will continue to work to deepen my understanding of PI’s and the AQ and might occasionally post something about it.

The AQ is not the introduction of breakthrough technology - like the GPZ was. It is the product of the steady and effective refinement of established principles for the design of a ground balancing PI detector using two channels with sequenced sampling times. Operation principle - old hat - actual performance totally new - based on continuous improvement an several key innovations in how the signals are processed

I am not going to clutter this thread with the early draft of a paper I am working on for the AQ, but I may post a link to it offline if I can figure out how to do that.

Jim, the answer to your question is theoretically yes.

With advanced digital signal processing the decay curve of individual targets could be isolated and it might be possible to categorize these to the degree that a judgement as to the nature of the target could be made.

Also, schemes for sampling the eddy current in the targets while the transmit current is on have been suggested - it would result in something in ways similar to the GPZ (which is not a PI). This technique would probably require an induction balanced coil.

I was not implying they were the same machine or that they worked exactly the same. Although just because Alexander has tested it in HIS conditions does not mean that it will not fall behind the tdi in other conditions, because as you say physics. I was just pointing out exactly what you stated, it was developed and based on the TDI or whatever you may like to call it. No hate for this machine but no love either, there really is not much to base an opinion on at this point, just seems to be a bunch of sales hype to me. I would like to see the physics at work before I decide to ditch one machine for another very similar one.

I agree with everything you wrote BRB, except for one thing. There is no sales hype coming from Fisher. They are quiet as the grave. The only folks who have posted here are not selling anything at this point.

My posts, and I am confident LE.JAGS are intended to share the excitement and interest we have in what the AQ will bring to the party. Alexandre has posted various places to explain issues raised regarding the AQ’s design and performance.

It exists. It is real. It does what Alexandre has claimed and I have seen it done by me in San Diego. It isn’t ready for market and with COVID19 stalking us, it won’t be till we can get back to work and back to the beach.

I definitely dig it!

Rick, in all due respect. If it is not hype coming from Fisher it is coming from those with a monetary interest in the success of the detector. I understand that you would like to be one of the sole providers of this machine. Again I am not dissing the machine, perhaps it will be all it is told to be but I have seen enough sunrises to realize that you can’t always believe what you are told. My skepticism is warranted, especially when it comes to telling people they will be able to run at 7us in salt, there are so many variables and if there is any current or wave action it all goes out the window most times. I for one would at least like to see a video of the machine doing the things stated. The videos are always the same, wet sand hunt and not too deep targets. If it is so very special it should be easy to prove. Also I am aware that this is not the first time this machine has been attempted to be brought to market, the first time was well... not so successful. I suppose if I had friends in the right places and they sent me a new prototype to test I would be wary about saying anything that negatively effected my pals either. Then again I’m The guy that just doesn’t take sides like that, if you have a junk product, I will call it as it is and likewise if it deserves a kudos it gets it.