Jump to content

Fisher Impulse AQ Discrimination Explanation


Recommended Posts

Steve , back on your diagram page 6 ( the modified version of a Minelab Equinox chart for the AQ), there is something which is not clear to me with this chart :

In summary , this shows shows the PI detection scale like this, from left to right :

1. Small ferrous /     2. AQ detecting range /   3. Iron nails , screws  /  4. large ferrous

I do not understand why there is an "iron gap" between 1.small ferrous  and  3. iron nails, screws.

Why no ferrous in this 2. AQ detection range?

There should be some ferrous of intermediate sizes between 1.small ferrous and 3.iron nails,. And no void as it is indicated in the chart. And at end I think that the AQ will accept some ferrous , just my opinion … 

thanks for your answer , Alain

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Hi Alain,

I went ahead and deleted the post and the chart. I put several disclaimers in the post that the chart was for conceptual purposes and was not intended to create an absolutely detailed, accurate, and definitive target response chart. I was assuming some degree of interpretation/interpolation by the viewer. Part of the problem is it is being taken out of the context of everything I have posted on the subject in the last ten days. I explained previously in this thread ahead of the chart that ferrous covers the entire range so I obviously agree with your conclusion since I have explained that exact thing so people would know it to be the case. I included both ends of the ferrous range in the chart and did actually include a portion of the bottle cap range that you must have missed. Long story short since the chart is being taken as definitive instead of conceptual despite the disclaimers, leaving it up is misleading or confusing people, and so deleting it it is probably for the best. I halfway knew when I posted it this was going to happen.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

I went ahead and deleted the post and the chart.

too late that my screen saver on my PC and the screen is huuuuuuuge :fisher:

 

RR

  • Haha 1
  • Oh my! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Steve but I think that your initial idea is good , such a detailed chart is very interesting because it is very simple to understand so I think that fisher labs should provide one in the AQ user manual , so that people know exactly what the AQ can do ( or not do ) . This will avoid a lot of misunderstandings and frustations . Also from what I read here the AQ is a new generation machine that works differently from the previous ones and everything must be very well explained. 

BTW unfortunately for me , it looks like the AQ is not adapted for moderated mineralization ground prospecting  ( I am a coin shooter, inland  ) , so I will have to wait the future Fisher RELIC machine , I hope it will come soon because the VLF machines do not evolve any more in terms of depth performance since several years and I need some extra depth    :-) ... 

Thanks for everything , Alain

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Alain about a chart, and I have a good start on one, but without actually having a detector it's only educated guesswork on my part based on what Alexandre and LE.JAG have posted so far. The one I posted was just a quick and dirty illustration. Hopefully they or Fisher will do something official before release, otherwise you can be sure people will eventually construct some at a later date.

I was hoping for one detector that would do both land and sea, something I liked about my ATX. To be honest I think Fisher will have a hard time making a detector more powerful than a GPX 4500 or GPX 5000 let alone a GPZ 7000, and few people who already own those are willing to give up any power, even if the detector is lighter and costs less. Minelab means gold prospecting to a lot of people so Fisher has a tough road ahead there, and they have let Minelab have lots of advance notice what to expect.... I doubt the engineers down under are asleep at the wheel. The AQ model however has only a couple detectors, the Garrett ATX and Beachhunter TDI, that are truly equivalent product. For me at least, having none of the three at the moment, the choice is pretty clear. I am fed up with 7 lb detectors that have $500 coils, and the Impulse, using the TDI as a starting point, simply has to be better, or Fisher has wasted a lot of time and money. I sent Dave Johnson a TDI (big box version) years ago and Carl worked at White's so they know what they need to beat to succeed.

fisher-impulse-aq-vs-garrett-atx-vs-whites-tdi.jpg
Fisher Impulse AQ vs Garrett ATX vs White's TDI Beachhunter

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion has been great, but just like the Equinox original threads, when you run out of new information, it gets a little repetitive. I'm hoping it will not be the same long wait that Minelab had. After reading everything about the machine, I am torn on, if it can do better than my GPX? If there are not enough deep rings available, than I would probably run it so it can pick up the widest range of targets (hopefully as high as silver too). I understand that I will be digging large and small iron, and also I understand that I will never get that small thin gold, (like chains and stamped charms) because of the locked salt setting. But I'm starting to worry that I will be digging a ton of deep pull tabs and very little gold. The deepest decent sized gold ring (14K) I have found with the GPX was around 12-14". A small woman's 10K ring was a wobbly reading at around 12" Can it do better than that, is what I am wondering now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...