Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Steve Herschbach

Fisher Impulse AQ Video - Zts® Zero Target Separation

Recommended Posts

Demonstration of how the new Fisher Impulse AQ handles non-ferrous items surrounded by or under ferrous trash. ZTS® "Zero Target Separation" 3/19/2019 Official Fisher video.

Fisher Impulse AQ Detector Data & User Reviews

fisher-impulse-aq-zero-target-separation-zts.jpg
Fisher Impulse AQ ZTS® "Zero Target Separation"

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm the ring was on top of the nails...like so what,, and why do people always use brand new nails when they do the nail board test? I have yet to find a brand new nail while out detecting lol

strick

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way it screams on gold I like it! Hope they will market a nugget detector to, I would love it when it would scream on a nugget in high mineralised ground! Just let that baby scream and I will be a happy man!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the original nail board test, Monte never put the target under the nails - the test showed how well a detector with discrimination can reveal a high conductor target (an Indian head penny) in proximity to nails and dependent on direction of coil sweep.  Monte used new nails so that the test could be performed by others under the same controlled conditions.

There are lots of tests with gold rings under nails also - here’s a long video which I have linked to before which shows various tests.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be to critical but nothing new, my White's TDI SL does the same thing.  In fact, I found the heaviest gold ring ever using the same technic while hunting carpet of nails.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen that video before which made me wonder why they showed the test with the ring on top. Interesting detector...it does resemble my TDI in a lot of ways. I'll be watching closely but  doubt I'll be getting one unless it is significantly better then the TDI. 

strick  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will add one thing.  If 1st Texas had released this machine 3 years ago it would have been more of a success, to little to late.  

Now I'm sure the reason White's made a waterproof version of the TDI stemmed from the Manta video and realizing that someone would snatch onto this machine.  Now that being said, if they, or someone can develop a PI machine that can do the nail trick with a silver coin, it will have a better chance of cornering the market.  By what I've been told by engineers over the years, making a true PI machine with iron discrimination and I mean a PI that can discriminate iron and still respond to silver coins would be close to impossible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are likely right about the coin Mark.

I suspect however, that you are likely wrong about the Impulse AQ being too late.  Here’s my thought on that.  If it turns out that the statements which LE.JAG and others have made about depth on targets large and small and the quiet operation over all kinds of beaches which they have described is really there, then it will show quickly in the experiences of early users.

If that sort of user experience doesn’t materialize, then it will be a problem.  If it does however, it will be a case of “I hope you get one before your hunting buddies do”!

Mind you - I am talking strictly about gold at the beach.

What can be done about PI’s inland in terms of making good on the promise which the TDI never quite delivered on - that’s a whole different kettle of fish.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rick Kempf said:

You are likely right about the coin Mark.

I suspect however, that you are likely wrong about the Impulse AQ being too late.  Here’s my thought on that.  If it turns out that the statements which LE.JAG and others have made about depth on targets large and small and the quiet operation over all kinds of beaches which they have described is really there, then it will show quickly in the experiences of early users.

If that sort of user experience doesn’t materialize, then it will be a problem.  If it does however, it will be a case of “I hope you get one before your hunting buddies do”!

Mind you - I am talking strictly about gold at the beach.

What can be done about PI’s inland in terms of making good on the promise which the TDI never quite delivered on - that’s a whole different kettle of fish.

Very valid points you have there.  The quicker pulse delay will be a game changer if...... like you say it delivers the quieter/deeper detection of beaches for lost gold.

  • Like 1

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 Rick Kempf
      The latest developments of the AQ pre-production platform continue to increase the utility of the ferrous discrimination capability of the machine. Steady refinement of the design have made the machine not only deeper overall but greatly narrowed the gap between sensitivity in all metal and sensitivity in the iron ID modes of mute and multi-tone. 

      I suspect that if no iron/steel trash existed at the beach, no serious beach hunter would use anything except a Pulse Induction machine - unless they were in dry sand, and maybe not then. The reason I say this is that the depth advantages of existing PI machines is well demonstrated since they can operate on most beaches without the penalty of using ground balance. Also, except for iron/steel, no other level of discrimination is useful since gold jewelry can appear almost anywhere in the ID range above iron. So of the iron wasn’t there - PI’s would likely dominate. 

      In the case of Phase shift discrimination systems like VLF IB detectors use, the strong iron signal dominates the audio output, either silencing the audio entirely in the case of a single tone VLF, by nulling like an FBS/BBS - or by giving a lower tone in a multi-tone Detector. Even in the case of the multitone VLF’s, hearing the non-ferrous target depends on the recovery speed of the processing hardware in the detector. 

      With the AQ’s PI time-based discrimination, The discrimination of iron is reported to the user either as silence (in the mute mode) or as a low tone (in the case of multi-tone). 

      In mute, not only do you not hear the iron, but you hear instead silence - unless there is a non-ferrous target, in that case you hear the target with no hint of the iron at all. In this mode, the AQ software simply makes the ferrous targets disappear - just disappear. 

      In the case of multitone, you hear a high tone for non-ferrous low and medium conductors and a high tone for ferrous targets - close or even superimposed, makes n difference you would hear both tones in any case. 

      This has several major advantages. 

      First, there is “zero recovery speed” - All targets produce an output signal if they return one - the ferrous is - by operator choice - either silenced or assigned a low tone. The low/medium conductors always return their characteristic high tone. This occurs 100% of the time - there is no “switching delay” from target to target based on processor speed limitations happening. 

      Separation distance between adjacent ferrous and non ferrous targets is ZERO. 

      By zero, I mean exactly that, even non-ferrous directly beneath ferrous gives a clear non-ferrous high tone and the iron simply “isn’t there” (in mute - in multi-tone it gives a low tone which you would hear along with the non ferrous high tone). 

      This means that “silent masking” that Tom wrote about long ago, where even a tiny bit if ferrous like a common staple can mask a deeper and larger valuable target, is largely eliminated. 

      Now this isn’t magic, it’s just that the iron is above the ground balance point (or at it) and you are hearing the signals below the GB point and the ones at or above the GB point are silenced (or give a low tone). 

      Is it perfect? - no. In discrim on the AQ some high conductor targets will be “above the GB point” and be treated as iron. If your idea of a good beach hunt is finding a bunch of dimes and quarters in dry sand, then stick with whatever light, cheap VLF you want, they can help you avoid all that aluminum and gold which would just slow you down - lol 

      All this is clearly demonstrated in the video I have linked to before. The machine in the video is the Manta prototype from 3-5 years ago. The system has gone through a lot of development since then, including the very latest gains in overall depth and depth in the iron ID modes which I reported in the first sentence in this post. 

      Will the AQ “obsolete” any other detectors? Depends on what you mean by obsolete. The gas turbine aircraft engine (the jet) quickly replaced the extremely complex, high maintenance multi cylinder reciprocating aircraft engines for heavy, fast and high aircraft, but lots of light aircraft are still piston powered. The piston engine is still undergoing development for some aircraft applications. 

      So I expect that IF the AQ in the hands of the early buyers lives up to its claimed capabilities, that serious beach gold hunters will adopt it quickly. When a new tool in the hands of early adopters proves to be superior at doing a specific job to the previous best tools for the job in question, those who are really serious about performance for economic or other reasons will adopt the new tool and stop using the old one. How many framing carpenters still use a hammer. Not many if the compressor/nail gun noise at any construction site is any guide. The framing hammer is not obsolete - it still works just fine - but for serious users the nail gun became “compelling”. 

      Time will tell how “compelling” the AQ will become for serious beach jewelry hunters.
       
    • By Steve Herschbach
      There is on-going field testing of the Fisher Impulse AQ in progress trying to improve the discrimination. This despite the machine getting ready to go to production at any moment.
      For those that do not know metal detector development never stops. It just gets to a point where it is good enough and you launch. Engineers can improve for eternity if you let them. This does raise a concern however. This machine is as far as I can tell using a new premise for what it does, and is obviously up against deadlines to get out the door. There is nothing here about internet update capability, and in fact it seems I recall somebody at FT saying there never would be such a feature on their machines. But given that nearly every serious platform released by FT sees software bugs and updates in the first year, including the recently released F-Pulse, the odds are this machine would benefit from an update once it gets into user hands and the inevitable bug is found. It really is a set up for having to mail machines back to be updated.
      I would like to be one of the first to jump on one of these but given the First Texas poor track record in this regard a lack of update facility does give me pause, especially in a detector that will likely be over $2000. I get a cheap detector having no update facility, but First Texas may end up regretting not putting the capability in this detector. Forget the unhappy customers - it costs the company money if it ends up having to physically reprocess every machine sold to perform some kind of software fix. In this day and age internet update capability is an expectation - every Nokta/Makro machine no matter the price has it, even the upcoming under $300 Simplex. I am a bit amazed that there is no mention of this capability on what appears to be the most expensive First Texas metal detector ever made. 
      Source thread at Dankowski Forum
      Fisher Impulse AQ Data & User Reviews

      Fisher Impulse AQ metal detector
    • By Steve Herschbach
      In a weird way I see this as good news. Apparently Fisher was ready to start producing the Impulse AQ. The reason I know that is there has been a publicly announced "production delay" over some sort of mechanical aspect of the detector. So I read that as meaning that as soon as this hardware bug gets addressed units will be rolling out the door. The only problem is we don't know how long it will take to fix the bug, but they must be on it 24/7 at this point. Management has to be cracking the whip hard by now to get it out the door. I have to assume we will see this before end of summer. Fingers crossed! 
      Source for the info at Dankowski Forum
      Fisher Impulse AQ Data & User Reviews

      Fisher Impulse AQ metal detector
    • By Steve Herschbach
      Explanation of new coil mounting system on the new Fisher Impulse AQ metal detector. ZPT® "Zero Pressure Technology" 3/19/2019 Official Fisher video.
      Fisher Impulse AQ Detector Data & User Reviews

      Fisher Impulse AQ ZPT® "Zero Pressure Technology"

      Fisher Impulse AQ ZPT® "Zero Pressure Technology" detail image
    • By Steve Herschbach
      Demonstration of the high speed responses for various objects waved under the coil of the new Fisher Impulse AQ metal detector. HRS® "Highly Reactive System" 3/19/2019 Official Fisher video.
      Fisher Impulse AQ Detector Data & User Reviews

      Fisher Impulse AQ HRS® "Highly Reactive System"
    • By Mark Gillespie
      They have taken the original youtube video of the Aqua Manta down.  I've had the youtube site ear marked since they first made the beach video and it is now gone.
      It was very interesting to see the machine work on the beach but no more.


×
×
  • Create New...