Jump to content
PPP

Detectors Which Challenges AQ In Raw Depth

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ATX was my favorite Garrett ever. I finally sold it though and am boycotting Garrett over their refusal to make a Garrett LTX. I've had money burning a hole in my pocket for years to get a dry land ATX that weighs less and uses regular coils. But since Garrett refuses I'll take a 4.5 lb Fisher Impulse instead of another 7 lb ATX. If the Impulse has exactly the same performance as my old ATX and simply weighs 4.5 lbs instead of 7 lbs I'll be a happy detectorist. And if extra coils come out for the Impulse that cost less than $500 like ATX coils I will be happier yet. I have never been so frustrated with a company over a detector as I am with Garrett and the ATX. A truly fine PI circuit hobbled by the housing. If they had put it in a proper dry land housing with regular coils they could have put a real fire under Minelab in the gold prospecting market. The window for opportunity is now closing though, and the opportunity will soon be lost for Garrett. So sad. :mellow:

Anyway, that's my low bar. At least equal the ATX for performance, and weigh less, and I will be very satisified. If the Impulse AQ can't do that then Fisher will have wasted a lot of time and money.

garrett-ltx-lightweight-atx-modification-infinium-10-coil.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point we really don’t have anything to confirm how deep this detector might be.   It’s not out yet... things change.   Comparisons will be better made once more people get their hand on it and see how it does in their conditions

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dewcon4414 said:

At this point we really don’t have anything to confirm how deep this detector might be.   It’s not out yet... things change.   Comparisons will be better made once more people get their hand on it and see how it does in their conditions

Yep, and also may take even longer for some tricks to surface to see how well it really can perform. I'm not the best detectorist out there by any means, so it usually takes me a year to find some of the better settings. For those who detect regularly, they may find some settings that even the designers didn't imagine. It's been a long time since, for me, a machine may come out and be as good or better than my GPX in certain conditions. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve tested the ATX against my TDIBH.........There is a definite depth advantage with the White’s. Here is a list of depth champions that I have personally compiled over many years. This is on a buried gold ring that I use as my reference.

#1.  White’s TDIBH with 14.7v battery (12” coil)

#2.  Deepstar 3 (11” coil)

#3. Minelab SD2100 (11” coil)

#4.  Garrett ATX (large coil)

Where will the Impulse AQ fit in.........maybe it will be the new #1 ?

I certainly hope so 👍

Tony

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tony said:

I’ve tested the ATX against my TDIBH.........There is a definite depth advantage with the White’s. Here is a list of depth champions that I have personally compiled over many years. This is on a buried gold ring that I use as my reference.

#1.  White’s TDIBH with 14.7v battery (12” coil)

#2.  Deepstar 3 (11” coil)

#3. Minelab SD2100 (11” coil)

#4.  Garrett ATX (large coil)

Where will the Impulse AQ fit in.........maybe it will be the new #1 ?

I certainly hope so 👍

Tony

Its hard to believe that TDIBH beat the ATX in depth.Do you mean by ATX large coil 12inch coil or the big deepseeker? i have both and used both in wet sand and in saltwater.The big deepseeker(20x15 i think) is constantly overload in the water and you have to push the reset button all the time to calm it down.I have seen a lot of TDIBH videos, but didnt see deep targets recovered with it.Unfortunatly there isnt any comparisson video regarding TDIBH vs ATX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t doubt it myself. He is using a battery boosted version of the TDIBH which puts it closer to Pulsescan specs.

 

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been nice if Carter Pennington got one of the first "AQ's", he does do some interesting tests. And he hunts in the water with most, not just the wet sand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, PPP said:

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.

The ATX with stock double D coil will not detect deeper than the AQ.  AQ uses a mono coil.  So does the TDI.   A mono coil on the ATX will probably get you same depth as TDI. I doubt if ATX will detect deeper than the AQ even with a mono coil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Denny said:

The ATX with stock double D coil will not detect deeper than the AQ.  AQ uses a mono coil.  So does the TDI.   A mono coil on the ATX will probably get you same depth as TDI. I doubt if ATX will detect deeper than the AQ even with a mono coil.

I want to see a head to head comparrison between ATX and TDIBH. There is no video out there.Can anyone make a video about this?? ATX mono coil VS TDIBH

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 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
      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 fredmason
      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
       
×
×
  • Create New...