FISHER AQUAMANTA

[LE.JAG]

Hi,

I am back

some news from the next Fisher Aquamanta

for those who have not followed the story
Alexandre who has developed manta technology
MANTA METAL DETECTORS | PULSE INDUCTION HIGH SENSITIVITY
was bought back and hired by the Fisher First Texas group

are on the program
at first the Fisher Aquamanta
a pulse with extraordinary sensitivity to gold
calibrate to 7us // 16 volts
and able to cut iron under certain conditions

he can take an alliance 18k of 1/3 gr under iron nails
and above all he is able to cross the volcanic sand to take the gold

a video that dates a little / but shows the possibility of the machine
which has evolved a lot since


in French

it will be followed by a special Terramanta nugget

then / two others using Bipolar technology
which consists of alternating positive and negative pulses

easy to say on paper / but nobody had ever succeeded before Alexandre ...
the positive pulse magnetizes the ground and lightning the target
the negative pulse demagnetizes the ground = and removes the effect of ground !!!

and much more is planned later

I test the latest Aquamanta Fisher electronic map
and I've never had anything so deep and sensitive about gold

not : the box on the video and the photos
just there / to test the cards
the final product will have a modern / lightweight design and well balance...

pre-series launch / if all goes well /
in the next three months


better than all my pulsepowers
and I owned 9 ....

some finds on my last tides

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[dewcon4414]

Now ........ you have confused me. So .... is the one coming out like the one you are using....... or is it an upgrade? I mean....... who would want to buy the first one if the second is going to be better? I assume its got a GOOD manual for all those knobs lol? Looking forward to giving it a go on a nice quiet beach...... but if the Nox AM is an indicator .... looks like theres a lot of bobbie pins.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Rick K]

Bobbie pins shouldn’t pose much of a problem for the AQ.

Whatever prototype version LE JAG has is unlikely to be exactly the same as the production machine. Extensive testing of the prototypes by various folks under different conditions will likely leas to “tweaks” before final production specs are locked in.

 

[dewcon4414]

It may not be cheap for a PI, but im told it works VERY WELL through out the entire gold range....... Time to start talking to your Fisher dealer.

 

[bklein]

Anybody that wants to chase a Ring 2 ft deep on a Pacific Ocean Shore in the water is welcome to it. nothing quite like getting hit with three to four foot waves that are constantly refilling your hole as you try to dig it.

Yeah we dont need a better detector, we need a sandvac.

 

[bigscoop]

Here's where I'm having issues with all of this new machine hype:
When there is "zero consistency" in gold jewelry items then how can any machine perform with any consistency relevant to that pursuit? Obviously, it can't.
Now toss in all of the other variables that effect consistency, everything from signal strength to surrounding matrix, depth, etc., etc., and it becomes even more obvious that all manner of target consistency is completely lost. So, why then, do folks still get all hyped up over these new machines that can't possibly offer any measure of true advantage in the pursuit of gold jewelry items?

 

[cudamark]

If it will be virtually unaffected by salt/mineralization, goes deeper than other machines on a particular size target, and can disc out iron, I would say that it will have an advantage over other machines. Whether it can i.D. a specific target or not is fairly unimportant at the beach. It's more a matter of actual detection of a probable good target that other machines can't see.

 

[bigscoop]

So digging a galvanized nail or pull tab at 20" inches is an advantage? We're already doing that.

 

[Rick K]

The pull tab and the gold ring are indistinguishable to the detector - that’s true. They are not indistinguishable to the beach however. Their density to surface area ratios are completely different and they “move” quite differently in the sand. A gold ring and a pull tab dropped in the tidal zone at the same time will not likely be buried to the same depth after a few weeks.

The depth of the manta is good for two things - punching down to the hard pack where heavy objects settle and giving better signals on small jewelry at shallower depths than any current machine is capable of.

As far as nails go, Manta users will easily identify them and pass on them - undug - while being confident that the nail isn’t masking some piece of jewelry, because if it were, the clear tone of a non-ferrous target would be heard.

Take another look at the video. See how the nails are “cut” but when the ring is placed beneath them, the ring still gives it’s proper tone.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G8sdp4RG73g

 

[cudamark]

So digging a galvanized nail or pull tab at 20" inches is an advantage? We're already doing that.

Being able to tell that it is a nail, would be. At that depth, it's rare to find a tab around here. Deep targets are usually either good, or iron. Non-ferrous targets that can be seen even deeper would be a benefit too in my book. Our beaches can get sanded in where targets are too deep to be seen with current machines. There are places I KNOW have good old targets, but, with all the extra sand over them, they're out of detection range with anything I've used. Sure, I can wait until a big storm uncovers them, and all the other detectorists hit the same area, but, I'd rather beat them to the punch.

 

[bigscoop]

Well, only time will tell, I suppose. Just remember, we tweak machines to detect known items in a test garden, but when we go to the beach our targets are unknown and "inconsistent" and that test garden is never constant. Have you conducted these same exact test on various gold objects with varying alloy compositions and gold amounts? Might prove interesting, for sure.

 

[Irishgoldhound]

If it’s cheaper than the new TDI Beach Hunter when it comes out, I may look at getting one. Right now I really want the new TDI for a deep seeker but I can wait to see the new Fisher first.

 

[OBN]

Come on Fisher, your costing me gold! Got two more today with the
Excalibur but I know I would have doubled that if I had that Manta...

 

[bigscoop]

Come on Fisher, your costing me gold! Got two more today with the
Excalibur but I know I would have doubled that if I had that Manta...

View attachment 1639648

Sweetness! lol

 

[Rick K]

It’s really coming - not nearly as soon as we would like, but coming it is indeed.

A simple but powerful machine with a laser like focus on one thing - gold in salt water.

Will it do other stuff? Even the developers don’t really know (or in fact care). Do this thing better than any previous device - that’s the goal.

Later hopefully, from the same team, other “razors” will appear to slay other clearly focused “jobs to be done”, but this one = just for you.

 

[bigscoop]

“A simple but powerful machine with a laser like focus on one thing - gold in salt water.
Will it do other stuff? Even the developers don’t really know (or in fact care).”


Rick, not trying to give you a hard time but you probably shouldn't have stated the above. First, it's already been decided/agreed that due to the various shapes, alloy contents, etc., that gold (in salt water) can register nearly anywhere on the VDI/Audible scale. Second, developers should care, and know, about the real world limits of their creations.


Designing a machine around an 18k gold ring in a controlled environment is one thing, but we don't hunt just 18k gold rings in controlled environments. Stating that the “laser focus is on just one thing” presents a huge problem as we already know, as noted above, that there exist zero consistencies in the gold jewelry items being pursued and without said consistencies there can be no “laser focus.”


It was stated earlier that items such as pull tabs aren't common at depths, but after having hunted the sandy beaches of the east coast nearly everyday for five years and countless freshwater lakes all over the Midwest, including the Great Lakes, for more then 30 years, I can tell you that these items are very common at 15,16,18,20 inches. As is also true with dimes, plated nails, bottle caps, pennies, tarp snaps, small fishing weights, etc., etc., etc.


Developers should know, and care, how their machine is going to respond to all of these other items, especially if they are attempting to produce “laser focus on gold jewelry items in saltwater.” In truth, they can't even begin to pursue their “laser focus goal” until they do. To do otherwise is just to produce another machine that is going to require the deep digging of everything other then iron. We already have that capability.


It just seems to me that with the above statement/quote, and others in this thread, that the developers are laying claims that can't possibly be accurate simply due to the nature of the various gold items being pursued and their own admissions that their parameters are extremely broad and still largely unexplored. This is why I suggested that they perform all of those same test in the promotional video with a much broader range of targets and environments (real world stuff). Developers should know how their machine is going to react to these other items and factors before they can lay claim of, “laser focus.” Because until they do there can be no laser focus. “Period!”


Now having said all the above, I like the concept, but perhaps premature promotion?

 

[cudamark]

I would presume that is why Le Jag and others are using the prototypes out in the field......to give Fisher some feedback on how they work and what they find. If not, I would be happy to fill that need!

 

[Rick K]

LE JAG is part of the development team - he has been the chief field tester since early in the Manta program.

When pre-production test units are built, they will no doubt be tested by “3rd parties” chosen by the folks at Fisher responsible for running the test program. Those folks will carry out a pre-defined test protocol and report their results on an on-going basis to Fisher. At the conclusion of the testing the test units are typically returned to the factory and I suspect destroyed. The testers operate under a non-disclosure agreement. These typically require permanent non-disclosure of details of the testing and results.

When production hardware is ready for release, so-called “marketing test” units are often sent to folks who are referred to as “content creators”. This testing usually expects that the results will be largely favorable and is publicly available in the form of the “content” which these folks create.

 

[sws33]

Has anybody got a clue as to what this thing is going to cost? Even a guess?

 

[Rick K]

Existing water machines like the CZ21 and Excalibur prices might be a guide here. Until the final build version is done and Fisher knows what their cost is, I doubt that even they know what it will be priced at.

 

[dewcon4414]

Well it seems NASA Tom has a target cost for his new machine around $1600.... and he appears to be a part of both machines. So i expect the Manta to be within that window as well. BS,... ive not dug a lot of light weight targets at 20"..... i always blink at that depth, because not a lot of machines can see those targets that deep so i dont even know whats down there. But what i do know is ..... everything VLFs dont find .. and ALL those targets will be seen by a PI so ya best have some way of disc them. If not...... here we got an even deeper PI ... and i dig enough trash ..... and a reason i dont own a PI anymore.