Jump to content
PPP

Detectors Which Challenges AQ In Raw Depth

Recommended Posts

There are so many variables ..... person, machine and conditions when it comes to depth.   My hopes is we get a deeper machine in the water........AND it can actually ID and disc. at near the same depth.  Some one want to do some real testing....... bury that gold ring in the salt water about waist deep....... lets see what ya get.   

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Denny said:

I doubt if ATX will detect deeper than the AQ even with a mono coil.

Because we have have so much real world performance data on the AQ vs. the ATX...

You may eventually be proven right, but right now we know practically nothing about real world performance of AQ with in the hands of an average detectorist vs. any established PI with the exception of a few posted edited videos.  Better than we had before Rick got his production unit, but still scant real world performance data, nevertheless.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2020 at 5:24 PM, Joe Beechnut OBN said:

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.

I think the same.Have seen all of his videos and he seems to be a very nice guy with honest testing everything.I thing as well that he is a very good candidate to test an AQ!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2020 at 5:08 PM, PPP said:

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

On the ATX the coil was the 12” one......also to add to my post, the depths the ring was found at were;

1. 18” for the TDIBH

2. 17” for the Deepstar 3

3. 16” for the SD2100

4. 15” for the ATX........and still quite noisy in the salty sand.

The TDIBH isn’t running any more power / current to the coil than the Deepstar or SD but the very smooth threshold on the Whites allows the faintest signals to be heard. This test was done by another person burying the ring at 18” in an area of 10m x 10m as well as having another area of the same size with nothing buried in it (both zones were then raked flat). Operators were told there was a ring in one of the set areas but not in the other (unknown to the operators which zone had the ring). 5 minutes was allocated to each area. The ATX left both areas looking like it had been carpet bombed.

 Tony 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those two , three films out there showing AQ in action only in wet sand. I am a water hunter and its beome a little bit hesitating if AQ can be used like my other machins in the water? I'm not seeking a diving machine cause i dont dive only wading in shallow water.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony I’m curious.... if the ring was buried at a specific depth did you keep moving to get the depth of each?    I ask that because if a target is buried say at 10” just raising the coil doesn’t  necessarily equal depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We reduced the buried target depth at 1” increments.....it sure took some time to do !

Started out at 18” buried depth and then worked our way down to 15” where the ATX found the target.

 Tony 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious myself Tony ATX vs TDIBH. Are we talking ground balance on or off on the TDI? If it was ground balance off, was the ATX set up properly for ground balance neutral? Having run both there should be no digging false targets with the ATX... something was off with the tuning. If anything a quieter, smoother threshold is obtainable with an ATX.

Garrett Atx Vs Minelab GPX 5000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Steve,

TDI was GB off.

The guy running the ATX was quite experienced, mainly prospecting but knew how to set it up for beach work. The ATX needed the Sensitivity turned down in order to get a  smooth threshold. We agreed that all detectors had to have sensitivity set at whatever level provided a smooth threshold and didn’t false in the general target area. Initially the ATX was set with sensitivity too high which lead to multiple false signals. Once the ATX was adjusted then the threshold was smooth and all falsing stopped.......but the signal depth was about 3” below the TDI which ran smoothly at max Gain and 10us pulse delay. 
Tony

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Tony. I think in a beach setting the TDI gets the edge due to the ability to turn off the ground balance. You can minimize the GB on the ATX but not actually shut it off, so the filter is always in place. Once you engage the ground balance of the TDI the differences largely disappear. Anyway, that all jives with my experiences, so thanks for confirming. I’ve generally considered the TDI to be better for beach detecting but prefer the ATX for gold prospecting due to the dual channel processing, which helps eliminate the huge depth hole that exists on the TDI on approximately 1/4 ounce gold targets when the ground balance is engaged. You will lose over 50% of your depth or entirely lose targets that fall near or in the hole the TDI creates with ground balance engaged. This does happen on a range of gold rings for people who are using the TDI on beaches with ground balance engaged. Pick the right rings and I can create an ATX versus TDI test that would embarrass the TDI. All machines have a weak spot, and that GB hole is the TDI Achilles heel. GB off eliminates the problem. The ATX is using dual channel processing which is more akin to what Minelab uses in their gold prospecting detectors to address the issue.

  • Like 3

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...