Jump to content
Steve Herschbach

Fisher Impulse AQ (formerly Aqua Manta) Pulse Induction Metal Detector

Recommended Posts

If this is true

10. Price. It will cost approximately 2100-2500 US dollars. New technologies cost money, yes, but they also bring an advantage over all other metal detectors.

I won't bite, my TDI is more than sufficient at the moment.

Water proof is good but my Equinox will do for water hunting.

TDI for super bad ground

Equinox everything else

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty interested in a nugget version of this AQ,  initial tests show this AQ is near on par with depth of a gpx with a 15" coil. Due to the 7 usec timing it would make a killer small nugget machine once setup with AUTO GROUND BALANCING for the desert. I want something like this to keep tuned just for small nugget hunting, its so lightweight compared to a minelab big gold machine I could see owning one maybe if it pans out.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went out to my storage unit (we downsized last year - all the junk is in storage) and got out my crystal ball.  After dusting it off and giving it a dose of Barkeepers Friend, I rubbed it vigorously.

Misty figures appeared before my eyes - I saw someone seeking gold nuggets in Africa.  He looked like he was using a Teknetics T2, but as I looked closer - it was something else - it was a PI detector....but what kind?.  At that point the cat jumped off the couch and landed in my lap.  the crystal ball is on its way back to the manufacturer for recalibration.

Beach hunters are not a mass market, European relic hunters and “artisanal miners” are potential mass markets. Neither of these markets are currently served by a light, ergonomic PI detector offering the immunity from bad ground that GB PI’s offer.

Whose detector will I see when I get my device back from Madam Sara’s CB (Crystal Ball) shop?

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since you brought it up Rick I will chime in. I was not wanting to rain on your parade. ?

You are right, a beach PI is not going to move the needle at First Texas. It’s obvious that after years of work CZX went nowhere, and so FT was stuck in a “we need to find something quick” position. Thankfully for them this came along. But unless it can be leveraged into some sort of dry land detecting model it certainly at this point does not fill that desire by many for a new machine to replace the F75 as the flagship.

Still, for me personally I am ecstatic to see this. I have been beating on Minelab and Garrett for YEARS to just take either the SDC or ATX and put them into something other than an off the shelf expensive military housing. They have the circuits, but producing a PI like what we are seeing here.... they just won’t do it. At least they would not. Perhaps if FT succeeds in getting this off the ground with a dry land version in the wings we will see action on other fronts also.

I love competition! ?

I guess one thing is settled. Fisher posting this info to their Facebook page makes Impulse AQ the probable official name.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Still, for me personally I am ecstatic to see this. I have been beating on Minelab and Garrett for YEARS to just take either the SDC or ATX and put them into something other than an off the shelf expensive military housing. They have the circuits, but producing a PI like what we are seeing here.... they just won’t do it. At least they would not. Perhaps if FT succeeds in getting this off the ground with a dry land version in the wings we will see action on other fronts also.

Steve,

What if Garrett and Minelab were spurred to the action you note? Suppose they came in at all about the same price, which would you want the most? This is of course comparing two known and a not yet detector, but the Fisher looks to be a well engineered manual model that allows user control of most of the parameters of operation as they want.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the Impulse AQ does not have the capability to handle extreme ground / hot rocks I would be happier with a Garrett ATX in a good ergonomic package. I only ever sold my ATX as sort of a protest move. It is a well behaved and versatile circuit. But they either make what I want or screw it. I’m done lending any degree of support to ergonomic nightmares.

SDC is a bit limited so if I had my wish from Minelab it would be a subset of the GPX circuit. Imagine a GPX 5000 in a package similar to the AQ.

I honestly am content with the Equinox for beach detecting so my interest lies in supporting what this could become as a inland unit. I just don’t get to the beaches enough really to sink a couple grand into a dedicated beach machine. But I will support any company making the moves I like and I like the direction here. I may therefore get one to, as I explained before, to try on milder inland situations. It is mostly a timing thing for me. Too late in the fall and I may as well wait through the winter to see what happens next.

Everyone but me wants more power. There is enough power for me out there already. It simply exists in packaging that I am now waging war on going forward. There is enough heat on now from various companies that we are finally getting real competition. As consumers we are in a good position to start DEMANDING proper ergonomic machines. The old “detecting is a niche market so we can’t afford it” excuse has long since gone by the wayside.

With FT finally making the first move in some ways it is actually Garrett’s and Minelab’s game to lose.

The hardcore beach hunters are going to love Impulse AQ, no doubt about it. If I lived nearer to saltwater it is a no brainer for me.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Everyone but me wants more power. There is enough power for me out there already. It simply exists in packaging that I am now waging war on going forward. There is enough heat on now from various companies that we are finally getting real competition. As consumers we are in a good position to start DEMANDING proper ergonomic machines. The old “detecting is a niche market so we can’t afford it” excuse has long since gone by the wayside.

This is precisely the concept I am sorting out this year, opting to spend more time and energy on unmasking than raw depth. I like how you look at things Steve, and your generosity in sharing your knowledge. Thanks

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Everyone but me wants more power. There is enough power for me out there already. It simply exists in packaging that I am now waging war on going forward. There is enough heat on now from various companies that we are finally getting real competition. As consumers we are in a good position to start DEMANDING proper ergonomic machines. The old “detecting is a niche market so we can’t afford it” excuse has long since gone by the wayside. 

My days of swinging a 3 pounds or more detector are over!  With modern materials, etc. there is very little need to continue to produce heavy, chunky machines IMO.  I would rather spend the day swinging a light, well balanced, stable machine.  I don't care how deep a new machine will go if I can't swing it all day without being strapped to the machine! ?

I believe that I will find more with a good quality light machine that I can swing for 8 hours vs. a supercharged monster that I can only swing for 1 hour.  Not everyone is 25 years old and built like the Hulk. LOL

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SLGuin said:

Steve,

What if Garrett and Minelab were spurred to the action you note?

 

Garrett’s response to these new machine rumors appears to have been sending the “HooverBoys” a few ATXs.  They have been releasing youTube vids the last 2-3 weeks with nothing but ATX relic hunting.  If they are pushing those machines it’s doubtful anything new is in the pipeline 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Since the Impulse AQ does not have the capability to handle extreme ground / hot rocks I would be happier with a Garrett ATX in a good ergonomic package.

This has been circling in mind. Is it because it does not ground balance, or is there more to it? The ground is generally milder where I live, it is more discrete sites that make VLF work poorly. Trying to figure out the puzzle of this, and a decent strategy. Things like EMI, bad ground, extreme nails, nearby airports, and unknown factors make some sites challenging even in general geographic areas thought to be mild. 

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 Dances With Doves
      how is the mineral content in lake tahoe. Is it bad?I   heard that the land on that lake is highest price in country.Canandaiugua lake by me is  second so I hear.Canandaigua is where Susan b Anthony had her trial. I found a steamer tag 1865-1889 from a ship by that name that I think burnt.
       
       
    • By Steve Herschbach
      With thanks to PPP, here is the new official Fisher Impulse AQ Facebook page:
      https://www.facebook.com/FisherLabs-Impulse-AQ-Metal-detector-101853481468095/

      And phrunt found this:
      https://fisher-impulse.com/
      Registrant:
      Organization: FIRST TEXAS PRODUCT Presumably we will see the first full announcement information on the Facebook page since that is how things seem to be done these days. Interesting there has been no mention of the main Fisher company Facebook page.
    • By Steve Herschbach
      With the exception of the battery cable sticking out the back I really like the look of this detector. And after swinging a 7 lb Garrett ATX this 4.2 lbs of well balanced detector is going to seem like a dream on my arm. I ditched both my ATX and my 7.2 lb Minelab GPZ 7000 a couple years ago in a fit of passive-aggressive protest over those heavy beasts, and swore not to buy another pulse machine until somebody made something more in line with the ergonomics I desired. The Impulse AQ tips the scales at a little over 4 lbs, but that is largely because of the 12" round coil. A smaller coil is a distinct possibility, as is the ability to belt mount the battery. That's the benefit of that funny looking battery cable arrangement - external batteries. In any case, good enough for me and a huge improvement of what I'm used to. The price remains to be seen, but it has a good chance at coming in under $2000, making the new Fisher Impulse AQ one of the best contenders so far in my Under 4 lb, Under $2K Challenge
      Fisher Impulse AQ Data & Reviews

      Fisher Impulse AQ discriminating pulse induction metal detector
    • By Bill (S. CA)
      Hey Rick, heard anything more from El Paso as to their return to work?
      Bill
      Fisher Impulse AQ Data & Reviews

       
    • 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

    • 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.

×
×
  • Create New...