Jump to content
Steve Herschbach

Fisher Impulse AQ Discrimination Explanation

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, ALEXANDRE TARTAR said:

Now, I focus on the development of gold nuggets metal detectors, I test my models with 2 different evolving technonologies.

Thank you, if your AQ is anything to go by your Nugget version will be something special. I look forward to hearing about it's development and I'm very pleased you've joined the forum to keep us all informed.

Fisher Impulse AU Data & Specifications

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ALEXANDRE TARTAR said:

Now, I focus on the development of gold nuggets metal detectors, I test my models with 2 different evolving technonologies.

In all cases the outcome will be for this year.

Very exciting, Alexandre!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2019 at 1:02 PM, ALEXANDRE TARTAR said:

Iron is detected in all-metal mode by its characteristic double beep (provided the sound is at the limit of detection). This double beep is also present in Tone mode.

After reading the above I was under the impression that iron and steel could be rejected by the user once they had become familiar with it's tonal clues.  Elsewhere LE.JAG had posted a photo of an outing showing all of the recovered targets.  I have cropped and resized that photo which has created the graininess.  My concern are the number of rusty steel crown caps to the right in the photo.  Beaches I detect are heavily littered with these and multitudinous digging 15-20 inches is not going to help efficiency or my back.

crowncaps.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go to the original post in this thread I explain why expecting to not dig any ferrous with this type system is unrealistic. Even VLF detectors struggle with many bottle caps. Bottle caps are a mixed target and some literally have a non-ferrous liner or coating. PI detectors do not discriminate based on ferrous/non-ferrous but on different time constants or signal decay rates. Like any discrimination system increasing target rejection can affect target signal strength and therefore depth. There is some kind of ferrous target at every possible resultant time constant and all you can do is maximize gold ring returns while minimizing ferrous returns. This must all be done while also attempting to retain maximum depth so it is a judgement call where trade-offs will be made at the discretion of the operator. Some people will choose all metal for maximum performance but dig more trash. Some will choose to minimize trash with some resultant loss in performance and loss of some good targets. Most will be somewhere in the middle depending on location and settings. It’s a choice each person will make for themselves.

I think getting expectations too high will be damaging and one reason I started this thread was to be sure people are realistic about pulse induction discrimination at this stage of development. There is no way I am going to be disappointed as I simply want better than what I have had in the past and I am sure Alexandre is going to deliver. The results however will be very dependent on the exact beach location and the particular mix of ferrous targets. I expect at some locations hardly any ferrous will be recovered. I also expect some places with an unlucky set of circumstances will still see you digging plenty of trash to get the gold. Operator patience in learning the detector will of course matter a lot and those who have hunted more by ear than by numbers will be ahead in the game.

I think the more experienced pulse users with realistic expectations are going to love the Impulse AQ. I also think there will be some who get it thinking it is a VLF type discriminator and they will end up disappointed and blame the detector. Anyone having any doubts in this regard should simply wait it out and not be first in line to buy one.

I also think the best results will come from high mineral locations where VLF detectors struggle the most, favoring west coast and volcanic island hunters. Hunters in Florida pure white sand where VLF detectors work as well as is possible will see less benefit compared to something like a CTX 3030 with a 17" coil. PI detectors do best compared to VLF detectors where the ground conditions are the worst

Again, I do not have nor have I ever had an Impulse so this is my best explanation of what I think is realistic based on my having been involved in this type of detector for about as long as they have been around. When I was a dealer I believed in undersell and over-deliver and never regretted it. I do not have a horse in this race at all. But the fact is I very much would like Fisher to do well with this machine and continue to offer competition while advancing the technology. That will only happen if people are properly educated about what to expect so as to not have any unpleasant surprises.

fisher-impulse-aq-pi-metal-detector-beach-gold-rings-waterproof.jpg
Fisher Impulse AQ metal detector

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with Steve on the above. Anyone going from a VLF to the Impulse may be in for a bit of a surprise. Even though the Impulse sounds like it will offer new advancements in both depth and discrimination, it's still a PI. It will most likely require 100's if not 1000's of hours to fully understand it's potential.

You're still going to dig lead weights, bottle caps, pull tabs, etc. And a greater depths. But as you put in the time with the Impulse you may be able to avoid certain types of trash just like other PI's based on target response and other audio clues.

We know the Impulse is going to see the biggest gains on mineralized beaches where VLF's struggle. But on mild beaches the VLF with target ID might still be the go to detector.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LowTide said:

After reading the above I was under the impression that iron and steel could be rejected by the user once they had become familiar with it's tonal clues.  Elsewhere LE.JAG had posted a photo of an outing showing all of the recovered targets.  I have cropped and resized that photo which has created the graininess.  My concern are the number of rusty steel crown caps to the right in the photo.  Beaches I detect are heavily littered with these and multitudinous digging 15-20 inches is not going to help efficiency or my back.

crowncaps.jpg

This image is from
of a test report carried out on volcanic sand

 

z1.jpg.a8db352d098f9a1adbd235f1f33b2aa7.jpg

do not confuse the volcanic sand
with the other white or black sands
It's not the same thing at all

on the volcanic sand setting
you lose the multi tone
it automatically switches off (mute mode)

then you set the rejection of iron
by the rejection knob

you have the choice
push the rejection = you will lose big gold rings
and lose deep (we're talking about volcanic sand)

cut only the volcanic sand and dig out

the tester of this report who knows well / his beach
prefer to cut only volcanic sand
and dig everything
I would've done the same thing

on its beaches / never prospect
the report (in gold) is going to be huge
the test hunter plans to make more than 500gr per month
when he has the right beach conditions
here, the test was carried out at one season
or normally it does not chase ..... and you see the result
!!!!!!!!!!
saw this first test over 6 days

I think , It's possible..

z2.JPG.21474dc78340466b9f701b0cce180033.JPG

 

z3.JPG.db9e49148ffebcbf7df06a8dac61b0f7.JPG

but in this case, you have to dig a lot
and clean everything
again, once / the volcanic beaches
are virgin // they have never been prospected
no detector works on this sand
tried vlf / multi frequency / TR
or other pi

so I think on this type of sand
there is interest in making a little effort

but it is not compulsory
you can push the rejection all the way
you will still find gold (but you will have less ...)

you can also use volcanic sand mode
on normal white or black sand
the iron cut will be even stronger
than in Ton & Mute modes
you will still find gold (but you will have less ...)

It is a choice to make
the thing to remember is that AQ
can find gold / there or nobody can do it ...

it's up to you to find the right settings
according to the sand conditions
and depending on the efforts you are ready to make
to always find more gold

 

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posited the question and I feel the replies have been wonderful, Kudos to the time and detail in your replies.  I believe perspective buyers will have learned a great deal, especially in the reply from LE.JAG.

My question is based on experience of detecting black sand beaches filled with gobs of iron/steel trash.  Once in a great while a PI detector will be spotted in these locations, but you only see a person use them one time because the digging becomes intolerable. 

Based on some past postings my perception is that an Executive Summary of this detector would be:  A detector capable of detecting deep gold on black sand saltwater beaches while ignoring and seeing through/past iron/steel trash.  This perception was created by the level of exuberance centered around this capability.

Thank you one and all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two basic mindsets at work in metal detecting. There are some that prefer to maximize returns per dig by using discrimination and who are willing to give up depth to have good discrimination. Then there is the power crowd who tends to go for power first with discrimination being a secondary concern, more a bonus than anything.

Nearly all park detectorists fall into the discrimination camp. Nearly all serious gold prospectors fall into the high power camp. Beach and relic hunters swing both ways. However, the trend I have seen is that as shallower finds play out and good valuable finds remain at depth, people turn to power over discrimination. A fine example are the Culpepper relic hunters. That is tough ground that really impedes VLF performance. They cleaned things out with VLF, but then nearly everyone switched to pulse induction as the shallow VLF finds depleted out.

Beach detecting is no different. Nobody is going to dig a ton of junk for pennies. But when a beach gets to where a VLF no longer is making many good gold finds you have only two options. Go somewhere else, or break out the big guns. That means pulse induction.

The real question then simply becomes which PI unit to use. I have always favored PI detectors for gold prospecting and beach detecting. VLF detectors have always been more like playthings in my world; it's the PI detectors that put pounds of gold in my pockets.... and yes, I dug many more pounds of junk to get there! :smile:

This is pretty much a rule of detecting. People will do what is easiest. If a VLF means you make good finds while digging less junk that is what people will do. But there comes a time when the VLFs no longer produce, unless you are willing to chase recent drops. At that point some people will go the next step and use PI detectors. And even then there is an eventual end. I have seen many nugget locations go though this cycle. VLF first, leave most of the trash. Then in come the PI detectors. The mindset changes. As long as you can find junk gold still can be found! Ever hear of target masking? So people continue to attack the location, digging everything. And a day comes when you can't even find trash anymore. The location goes quiet as a mouse. Then people start moving rocks and scraping the surface to get the coil closer to the gold!

It's actually inevitable and it will happen on any beach where gold can be found. It is only a matter of time.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, it is very well said, very good analysis.
This analysis has always been one of my philosophy for the AQ conception.

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what will we do then after the passage of several AQ ?

let's not forget that the beaches are recharged every summer, unfortunately people wear less gold than before...

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Similar Content

    • By PPP
      HI guys!
      It feels very good that this nice forum is at high speed with all discussions about the AQ with all different subjects about the AQ.We are now in the middle of january and still nothing from the Fisher.No reports from any tester, no videos, no manual, nada...it feels kind of depressing without knowing any informations at all.I know that LE.JAG and Alexander can't say anything about these informations even though the know for sure.Is there any thought or any guesses about these questions? 
    • By BigSkyGuy
      Many of you have expressed a desire to know how well the Impulse AQ will function for land use. One option is to wait until the unit is released. I know, no fun! The other option is to analyze the information we do have on the unit and on PIs in general, combined with information from the scientific literature and various forum posts. I have done such an analysis which is a bit long, but I will summarize the findings followed by how I arrived at the conclusions. The places where I believe the unit will be effective include the following:
      Black sand beaches (mainly coarse unweathered magnetite)
      Soils containing mildly weathered granite and other felsic igneous rocks (I know this appears to conflict with Alexandre’s post, but I will elaborate below)
      Unweathered or mildly weathered basic igneous rocks (basalt, gabbro, etc.)
      Places where I think the AQ will struggle include:
      Weathered basalt and soils derived from basalt
      Some fine-grained volcanic rocks such as rhyolite.
      The basis of my groupings above is the published magnetic susceptibilities (MS) for various minerals and rock types and on the concept of frequency dependent MS which is a very important consideration for PI detectors.
      MS is a measure of the magnetization of a material in response to an applied magnetic field. Frequency dependence is when the measured MS varies when different frequencies are used for the induced field. Minerals with high MS are responsible for the “mineralization” when speaking of metal detector performance. Three minerals are responsible for most “mineralization”; magnetite (Fe3O4), titanomagnetite, and maghemite (ꝩ-Fe2O3). The MS for these minerals are orders of magnitude higher than for other iron minerals such as hematite (α-Fe2O3), goethite, biotite, pyroxenes, etc. The relative proportions of these minerals within different rock types determines the MS of the rock. Ranges for different rock types are shown in the table below.
      Rock Type
      Magnetic Susceptibility Range (10-6 SI)1
      Andesite
      170,000
      Basalt
      250-180,000
      Diabase
      1,000-160,000
      Diorite
      630-130,000
      Gabbro
      1,000-90,000
      Granite
      0-50,000
      Peridotite
      96,000-200,000
      Porphyry
      250-210,000
      Pyroxenite
      130,000
      Rhyolite
      250-38,000
      Igneous rocks
      2,700-270,000
      Average felsic igneous rocks
      38-82,000
      Average basic igneous rocks
      550-120,000
      Quartzite
      4,400
      Gneiss
      0-25,000
      Limestone
      2-25,000
      Sandstone
      0-20,900
      Shale
      63-18,600
      1.       Compilation from Hunt et al. (1995)
       
      Minerals with high MS are responsible for the poor performance of VLF metal detectors. Hematite within soils is typically red, but given the relatively low MS, is not particularly problematic to metal detectors. So, red soil is not always bad!
      The MS of soil is a function of the parent rock from which it was formed (see table) and the degree of weathering of the iron minerals present. Soils formed from basic igneous or volcanic rocks such as basalt generally have higher MS than soils formed from felsic rocks (rhyolite, granite, etc.), but it depends on the specific rock. For example, some granites have low MS because they are dominated by ilmenite (S-type granite) as opposed to magnetite (I-type granite). Ilmenite has low MS. Geologists use MS to map different types of granite. Da Costa et al. (1999) found that the basic volcanic rocks from southern brazil produced soils containing maghemite (high MS) and hematite while the intermediate to felsic volcanic rocks produced soils containing goethite (low MS). However, there are examples of basic rocks having low MS and felsic rocks with high MS, it all depends on the mineralogy, the grain size, the degree of weathering, subsequent geochemical reactions during and after soil formation, and other factors.
      Typically, the smaller the grain size, the higher the MS. Therefore, a volcanic rhyolite which has a much smaller grain size than its intrusive equivalent granite, will have a higher MS even for an identical magnetite content. Smaller magnetite particles also weather faster than coarser grains. Magnetite can weather to maghemite on exposed outcrops. Maghemite is an earthy mineral that forms very small grains. The small grains produce a superparamagnetic domain which results in frequency-dependent MS which causes problems for even PI metal detectors, especially PIs which do not have the ability to ground balance (such as the Sand Shark and Impulse AQ). Magnetite can also form very small grains, and if small enough can also be superparamagnetic. However, magnetite tends to be coarse-grained while maghemite tends to be very fine-grained.
      Maghemite tends to form from magnetite and other minerals in tropical climates or where tropical climates once existed. The “bad ground” in Australia is due to the presence of maghemite, which is a brown to brick red mineral. Maghemite is less common in the US but is present. Magnetic anomalies found at the National Laboratory at Oak Ridge TN were found to be natural deposits of iron-bearing colluvium (sediment which has accumulated at the base of a mountain range) which has oxidized to maghemite (Rivers et al., 2004). Maghemite and hematite can be created from goethite (α-FeOOH) in response to the heat generated by forest fires and slash and burn agriculture (Koch et al., 2006). Therefore, poor detecting conditions can be created in such areas.
      The bad ground at Culpepper VA is probably due to maghemite, but I have seen no information to confirm this. Geologic maps of Culpepper Co. do show the presence of basic bedrock, such as basalt and dolerite.
      The granite that Alexandre mentioned as giving the Impulse AQ problems may be an I-type granite (magnetite rich) in which the magnetite has partially weathered to maghemite.
      The reasons for why I think the Impule AQ will or will not work in various soils/rock types is summarized below.
      Soil/Rock Type
      AQ Works?
      Reason
      Black sand layers on beach
      yes
      Black sand is derived from physical weathering of igneous and metamorphic rocks in upland areas and consists mainly of relatively unweathered magnetite.
      Soils derived from felsic igneous rocks
      probably
      Felsic igneous rocks with high MS, tend to be coarse grained and even when dominated by magnetite (I-type) do not typically produce maghemite unless highly weathered.
      Soils derived from basic igneous rocks
      Probably not
      Soils derived from basic igneous rocks tend to be dominated by maghemite.
      Basic igneous hot rocks
      maybe
      Basic igneous rocks such as gabbro can be a problem if weathered or partially weathered to maghemite.
      Felsic igneous hot rocks
      probably
      Unless highly weathered, felsic rocks are dominated by magnetite which the AQ should be able to handle
      Volcanic hot rocks or black sand beaches (i.e. Hawaii)
      maybe
      If fresh, the main source of MS is magnetite. If weathered or partially weathered to maghemite, the AQ may have problems. If very fine grained even unwethered volcanic rocks may present a problem.
       
      References
      Da Costa, A.C.S, Bigham, JM, Rhoton, FE, and SJ Traina. 1999. Quantification and Characterization of Maghemite in Soils Derived from Volcanic Rocks in Southern Brazil. Clays and Clay Minerals, v. 47, no. 4, p. 466-73.
      Hunt, CP, Moskowitz, BM, and SK Banerjee. 1995. Magnetic Properties of Rocks and Minerals. In Rock Physics & Phase Relations: A Handbook of Physical Constants, Volume 3.
      Koch, C.B, Borggaard, OK, and A. Gafur. 2005. Formation of iron oxides in soils developed under natural fires and slash-and-burn based agriculture in a monsoonal climate (Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh). Hyperfine Interact 166, 579–584.
      Rivers, JM, Nyquist, JE, Terry, D.O., and W. E. Doll. 2004. Investigation into the Origin of Magnetic Soils on the Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee. Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol. 68 No. 5 p. 1772-1779.
    • By dewcon4414
      I think it will also be interesting to see what an aftermarket company might do with the 7uS coils.   Will we see more if this machine catches on?   Better yet will we see 7uS become the standard?   OR... is that a non-issue toward depth and sensitivity?  
    • By JEKOS123
      Hello Guys,
      I'm new on this forum and like Alexandre Tartar, I live in north of France.
      I was a young prospector in the 90's and asked my father (electronic engineer with good knowledge in magnetic field theory) to build a PI to hunt the beaches. So we have made, in a few months, an home-made PI metal detector 25 years ago, based on the technology of the old White's Surfmaster PI (mono coil). I remember the use of FETs (Field Effects Transistors to make 200 volts pulses). It worked, but unfortunately, my father was afraid by a so powerful magnetic fields and has continued his research on VLF detectors, until today !
      After this short presentation, here's my question :
      Is the Impulse AQ a bipolar detector ?
      Le Jag has explained us on the french forum "detecteur.net"  this technology developped by Alexandre :
      Positive and Negative pulse are alternatively sent.
      The positive one light the gold ring but magnetize the soil.
      The negative one demagnetize the soil.
      What about it ?
    • By PPP
      I think the Garrett ATX challenges the AQ most and maybe TDIBH come close after ATX only in raw depth.I have myself an ATX and hunt my beach with it. Max sensitivity givs me around 15 inches for a normal coin size object.My Garrett sea hunter is absolutly no match and even my Equinox has no chance.The fair comparisson is ATX (PI , almost same coil size,waterproof ) I think the AQ has only one tone for both high and low conductive targets and one for iron.The ATX has one tone for high and one tone for low conductive targets but you have no tone for iron which makes one to digg all.
×
×
  • Create New...