Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
fredmason

Is The Gold Version Of The Fisher Impulse Wireless?

Recommended Posts

I may have missed this issue..you know I am not very smart.

will the prospecting, nugget finding version be wireless?

 I could not, would not buy another detector that doesn’t have a module.

thanks

fred
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to tell you Fred that “I’m not very smart” self talk bothers me. You are not dumb so stop that nonsense. :smile:

The gold prospecting version of the Impulse is really barely more than a rumor. People in the know say testing is underway so we know it’s pretty much real, but even detectors undergoing testing often never come to market, so it is not 100%. We assume it will share the general look and feel of the Impulse AQ, but that is just an assumption. Personally I think making any detector without wireless these days is not forward thinking. Even the Impulse AQ would have benefitted since the majority of users will probably be beach walkers and shallow wading types. The fact is the Impulse AQ is not wireless and Fisher has not made a wireless detector yet so it’s a fairly low bet I’d say for the prospecting model. Maybe Alexandre can reveal more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Steve that if Fisher is not thinking about building this capability in natively, they risk looking like they are behind in industry feature trends for detectorist convenience.

That being said, it is a relatively simple matter to retrofit an affordable (<$60US) low lag wireless system using relatively inexpensive APTX LL bluetooth components to practically any detector with a headphone jack.  A lot less expensive proposition compared to proprietary wireless after market solutions offered by ML (ProSonic at $280), Garrett (Lynx at ~$130), and even Quest (at ~$100 - $160).

That is the setup I use for my GPX 4800.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, Steve...I will henceforth and forever not say that again...even if that is how all these tecno-geeks make me feel.

Thanks, Steve...I know it doesn't exist yet...but, if it ever does.....

Thanks, Chase

I know the proprietary models are expensive but I like stock equipment. I have had no problems with the three units with modules; and I don't mine paying if it is what I want.

fred

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred,  I get it.  It is easier to just use the manufacturers turnkey proprietary wireless solutions, because you know they will "just work" out of the box. 

But my motivation to go BT is not just about cost, it is also about universal compatibility.  BT is one of two compatible wireless solutions for Equinox (and Vanquish) so sticking with that universal industry standard allows me to use my BT APTX LL headphones with my Equinox as well as with my GPX or any other detector I choose, ML or otherwise.  It means I don't have to deal with ML's infuriating model dependent proprietary solutions (the Equinox WM08 module is not compatible with the ML Pro Sonic or the CTX WM10 which is also not compatible with the ML Pro Sonic).  Kudos to ML for providing wireless capability, boo on their non-interchangeble, non-compatible proprietary hardware across product lines. 

I am all for universal wireless standards instead of proprietary solutions.  Don't need all the different brand specific wireless modules and headphones for Nokta, Minelab, XP cluttering up the gear bag.  So not a fan of the dedicated proprietary solutions that frankly don't work any better than BT APTX LL except on a spec sheet (17 ms for the WM08 vs. 30 ms delay for BT APTX LL is imperceptible to most humans if we are being honest with ourselves).  I know that the detector manufacturers are motivated to re-invent the wheel not because their wheel works any better than BT, but because they can make some $ off the end user by keeping them in theirvbrand soecific walled technology garden (much like Apple does to my disdain). 

I know, pretty cynical, but detector manufacturers should stick to designing detectors and adopt existing universal industry standards for wireless audio, integrated GPS, watertight connectors, smartphone integration etc.  ML made a step in the right direction by integrating BT into the Equinox and Vanquish, so just they shoukd just stop with the proprietary wireless audio claptrap. 

Sorry for the rant...:rolleyes:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts:
As it's well known that wireless systems work poorly through water, particularly those at 2.4 GHz , the 'water absorption' frequency, it's perhaps no surprise the AQ is corded 'phone only.
However it is more viable on a land-based machine, where having a waterproof machine is a good thing, but a submersible one is not so essential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PimentoUK said:

My thoughts:
As it's well known that wireless systems work poorly through water, particularly those at 2.4 GHz , the 'water absorption' frequency, it's perhaps no surprise the AQ is corded 'phone only.
However it is more viable on a land-based machine, where having a waterproof machine is a good thing, but a submersible one is not so essential.

I disagree, all my gold prospecting is done in rivers, if it is not submersible it is no use to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Not so essential" was meant to infer that the majority of potential customers wouldn't be wanting it to operate completely submerged.
I am unsure what the 'Terra' is supposed to be, I'm wary of making assumptions as to what niches it's targeting. I would suggest 'bad dirt' would be a PI strong point, so the lucrative nugget-hunting market would be an obvious direction to develop the AQ.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RM - River hunting call nuggets with a Detector Dash I call that a niche within the niche. I’m not sure what wireless headphones bring to the party but of course a waterproof Detector would be valuable

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally i am not in favor of wireless
digital sound processing
to tendency / to crush the subtlety of tonality

watch the Deus, one of the best vlf in the world
the sound, on a ring or a gold coin is really bad
this is largely due to the 100% digital signal processing ...

But, I recognize that for hunting nuggets
it's different / there is little pollution
and you dig all the sounds ..
i think there will definitely be
sooner or later wireless option

  • Like 2

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • 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...