Wireless Transmitter For Impulse

[ALEXANDRE TARTAR]

4 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

I don’t see how these micro BT transceivers are even practical for use on Impulse given the special connector for the audio output.  The connector alone must weigh more than than twice the Trond module and that is not even accounting for the weight of the patch cable that you would have to custom fabricate yourself.  Besides the module can’t really can’t be exposed to moisture.  For something like this, it would have been preferable for the transmitter to be built into the detector (a la Equinox, Vanquish, Simplex, or Apex).

A bluetooth module is not that easy to integrate because the detector is so sensitive and stable, that a bluetooth module on the card brings additional noise quite easily. 

Sometimes you have to make the right choices increased sensitivity or wireless headphone.
I preferred keep the maximum sensitivity on this model.

[Badger-NH]

12 minutes ago, ALEXANDRE TARTAR said:

A bluetooth module is not that easy to integrate because the detector is so sensitive and stable, that a bluetooth module on the card brings additional noise quite easily. 

Sometimes you have to make the right choices increased sensitivity or wireless headphone.
I preferred keep the maximum sensitivity on this model.

 

That's unfortunate that the AQ is affected by Bluetooth transmissions. I was hoping to go wireless.

I rarely use wired headphones anymore.

 

[Chase Goldman]

11 minutes ago, ALEXANDRE TARTAR said:

A bluetooth module is not that easy to integrate because the detector is so sensitive and stable, that a bluetooth module on the card brings additional noise quite easily.

Alexandre - Would having a third party external transceiver in close proximity to the headphone port be an EMI concern or is it sufficiently isolated and distant from the control electronics to be a non issue?  If that is not an issue, could a transmitter be placed internal to the aft power/audio module, isolated from the control electronics, and fed analog audio directly to provide that wireless feature in a future iteration of the design (a simple switch could reroute the audio between the transmitter and the headphone port)?  Another advantage of that placement would be that it would be less likely to be submerged during wading detecting because it would be at the highest point on the detector as opposed to the control panel thus maintaining line of site transmission.

If a 3rd party transmitter “dongle” setup is not subject to causing interference, would like to see anyone’s practical implementation.  I’m just not visualizing a practical implementation/approach for that setup even if you take the EMI issue out of the equation.

[ALEXANDRE TARTAR]

16 minutes ago, Badger-NH said:

That's unfortunate that the AQ is affected by Bluetooth transmissions. I was hoping to go wireless.

I rarely use wired headphones anymore.

The impulse AQ is not performed by bluetooth if you use an external module.

It is affected by bluetooth only if the engineering puts and a module in the enclosure

All detectors are affected by bluetooth if the module is in the enclosure, only many detectors are not sensitive enough to see it.

[ALEXANDRE TARTAR]

18 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

Alexandre - Would having a third party external transceiver in close proximity to the headphone port be an EMI concern or is it sufficiently isolated and distant from the control electronics to be a non issue?  If that is not an issue, could a transmitter be placed internal to the aft power/audio module, isolated from the control electronics, and fed analog audio directly to provide that wireless feature in a future iteration of the design (a simple switch could reroute the audio between the transmitter and the headphone port)?  Another advantage of that placement would be that it would be less likely to be submerged during wading detecting because it would be at the highest point on the detector as opposed to the control panel thus maintaining line of site transmission.

If a 3rd party transmitter “dongle” setup is not subject to causing interference, would like to see anyone’s practical implementation.  I’m just not visualizing a practical implementation/approach for that setup even if you take the EMI issue out of the equation.

For a dongle no problems...

[Badger-NH]

38 minutes ago, ALEXANDRE TARTAR said:

The impulse AQ is not performed by bluetooth if you use an external module.

It is affected by bluetooth only if the engineering puts and a module in the enclosure

All detectors are affected by bluetooth if the module is in the enclosure, only many detectors are not sensitive enough to see it.

I see now.  Thanks, that's good news.

 

[Steve Herschbach]

11 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

I don’t see how these micro BT transceivers are even practical for use on Impulse given the special connector for the audio output.  The connector alone must weigh more than than twice the Trond module and that is not even accounting for the weight of the patch cable that you would have to custom fabricate yourself.  Besides the module can’t really can’t be exposed to moisture.  For something like this, it would have been preferable for the transmitter to be built into the detector (a la Equinox, Vanquish, Simplex, or Apex).

Well, for starters I can do a ton of wading where the detector is in two feet or less water, and control box high and dry. Plus there is all that beach out of the water. And for me nugget detecting and coin detecting. I’m not worried about a $29 module getting exposed to damp air. A ziplock baggie is should fix that, and if the module eventually dies there will be new ones for half the price by then. No, a patch cable won’t weigh 100 pounds and will be a trivial project. 

[Rivers rat]

Hello i did put my Trond wireless module on the tinniest zip bag i could fine on my G5c it aint pretty but it work

 

Pics later 

 

RR

[Badger-NH]

It's funny how many people seem to automatically think that everyone will be using the AQ for water hunting.

Nobody water hunts the beaches north of Cape Cod.  That's because our large tides leave so much wet sand that the water beyond that is too insignificant to bother with.  Even that is accessible without getting wet on the monthly negative tides.

We have no need for detectors to be waterproof at our beaches.

[Rivers rat]

I think all metal detector should be waterproof by now.......anyway here are the pic of my G5c with Trond bluetooth module