NOKTA IMPACT -- PROTOTYPING REALITY

"No...... the Impact will not be wearing a depth-gauge on the faceplate. " aaarrrrggghhhh!!!!

Sounds like the f75 can do everything the impact can without the confusion of mass modes and frequencies. Well at least in Florida dirt. Great detailed/amazing info Tom.

One more thing that you guys are intuitively picking up on:

* Some of you guys might get "personalized" upgrades for your exacting 'niche' conditions from Alper ....... for you to test and report........,,,,,,,, to see if its worthy/value-added, before it gets approved/released to the general public en masse.

Tom

Yours and Keith's reports that the blendy/bleedy audio has been improved for more intelligibility is a good thing, this is an area that should not be ignored for future updates. Perhaps a function that allows the user to adjust reactivity or iron handling via ground adjust enabling.

Tom

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In a democracy, it is difficult to win fellow citizens over to your own side, or to build public support to remedy injustices that remain all too real when you fundamentally misunderstand how they see the world.

Quote

Some of you guys might get "personalized" upgrades for your exacting 'niche' conditions from Alper ....... for you to test and report

I would like Di4 to let me adjust the audio tone. Don't know why that feature is not available. Come on Alper send me an update file with that option......;o)

Keep the ideas coming. And the more rationalization/justification you can provide for your idea(s)........ will help validate credence.

Welgund Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Excellent read Tom, thanks! For relic hunting do
> you think it could stand up to the Nokta Relic at
> 19khz?
same thing i wanted to know

Yes...... and surpass it.

But....... I need to add a 'qualifier': I can/have only verified this in lower mineralization dirt.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2017 10:54AM by NASA-Tom.

I just uploaded V1.08 into the Impact. Testing to commence.

Tom,

That's a lot of pressure on your shoulders.
I know how it feels.

Des D

Quote
Tom D
I just uploaded V1.08 into the Impact. Testing to commence.

I noticed some of the ID numbers changed with the update. I did not have time to check them all yet though. On the Gen program a dime used to hit at 82 non normalized after the 1.08 update it now hits at a 77 and the normalized ID is now 84.

Tom's deep program in my area yesterday with a sensitivity of 89-93 was getting hit my EMI and I couldn't hunt. So I went back to D3 with a sens of 89 disc of 3 tone break of 21 and a freq of 5 and 14 and it was a different machine. I used the deep ID and was on the middle setting. The battery lasted me about 6 hours and still have full bars on it.

LowBoy

TAKE A LITTLE TIME KICKBACK AND WATCH SOME OF MY DETECTING VIDEO'S BELOW ON YouTube

[www.youtube.com]

If you don’t dig it, then how are you going to know what you’re missing!
How can you have your pudding if you don’t eat your meat!

Good read...... It's been a pleasure testing this machine and sure will please many



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2017 10:19PM by Ziggy.

A tad more TOTAL HONESTY data to share:

Thursday, February 9, 2017 5:35 PM

Hi Alper, Dilek & Mali,

* I have hunted several more times with the Impact since last communicating to you. I have no 'new' data to report; yet, simply a reiteration/reinforcement of all things learned/discovered.

* As of recent...... I have ceased 'field-testing' the Impact. Now...... I am simply 'going detecting' with the Impact. I (now) want to focus on 'enjoyment factor'....... by being a 'general hunter'. It is indeed very difficult for me to just: "simply hunt"............... as I am always scientifically analyzing/logging/documenting and dissecting data; yet, the unit is very enjoyable to use in a general capacity.

* I still find myself using my thumb to 'push down' on the faceplate....... so as to apply downward pressure on the coil...to get it to the ground. This may be a personal preference...... as other detectorists may simply want the coil to 'float' above/over the ground.

* My long-term nominal average for these 2100mAh rechargeable batteries is 10.5 hours run-time. This is quite acceptable.

* I have had zero plastic component and/or hardware issues with either Impact unit. I feel the unit is of nominal ruggedness.

* I still can not report to you..... (not enough "resolute" data)...... about if this 2nd Impact unit is slightly less EMI prone.

* I continuously have concern about all of the electromechanical switching/latching relays in the arm-cup; yet, I have never encountered any problems. Upon every power-up.... the Impact has presented exacting/repeatable consistency. I feel reliability/durability/longevity fully exists.

Friday, February 10, 2017 5:44 AM

Hi Dilek,

You are welcome. I shall await the update(s)..... and will report accordingly. I do have strong belief that the Impact will be well-received by the detecting community. The methodology of the "Launch" of the platform is quite important. I do feel 'comfortable' that all precautionary steps and bases (for this platform) have been covered. We are not launching it too soon...or too late.

* IMPORTANT: One of the reasons I'm glad to have 2 Impact units. If....... say........ several months from now, Alper (or end-user) has conceptual notions/ideas that he wants to 'real-world' test...... I can retain one of the Impact's as "Original Public Release, Final Launch Product"....... and use the 2nd Impact unit to upload and test any concepts/ideas/notions/repairs the we (collectively) can come up with.

Sunday, February 19, 2017 5:44 AM

Hi Dilek,

I was in the test-garden (for 4 hours with V1.07) when you sent this V1.08 update. . . . . and did not get this update/e-mail until I came out of the test-garden. I have now since installed V1.08 and have the following to report:

* After performing a full Factory Default...... I now have GEN & GEN(D) Threshold on '55'. I would have preferred a Threshold factory setting of '45'; yet, I do not have heavily mineralized dirt..... which may change/alter my Threshold preference.

* A trip to the ocean beach... and wet salt auto Ground balance with two cycles of coil pumping.....will result in a Ground Balance setting of 00.00. Multiple Ground Balances produced the exact/repeated same resultant.... every time.

* I'm still encountering the same pinpoint depth minimum reading of 5cm. Unit will not read anything less than 5cm.

* FD/SA Left/Right button respectively. Correct/No problems.

* Pulling trigger and pressing Left button is not invoking ID NORMALIZATION. I have pressed Left Select button......and even tried Left (-) negative button....... to see if either would invoke ID NORMALIZATION. Also..... there is no VID screen reading/indication of whether ID NORMALIZATION is "on" or "off". I have no way of telling if I'm ID NORMALIZED or not. I performed a Factory Default once........ to see if this would correct the issue. No change.

----------------------------------------

***Totally different subject that is not affiliated/associated with V1.08: I still keep coming up with "inconclusive" for finding/seeing/witnessing any additional EMI mitigation between V1.04 versus additional hardware & software
added V1.05.

Sincerely,

Tom

Monday, February 20, 2017 5:20 PM

Hi Alper,

* Ok......... I have now invoked 'normalization' and tested it. It works per design. I have also invoked 'standard'.....and tested it (again) also. BEFORE I fill out the data sheet and give ID's on common U.S. coins....... I have even
stronger justified engineering and user-intelligibility intent to see "normalization" to be the 20-Khz higher numbers/readings (instead of the 14-Khz numbers/ID's). Because:
1) Every target has a greatly expanded ID range. . . . . from iron, to low conductors, to medium conductors, to high conductors.
2) This would also alleviate the infamous ""Everything ID's as a '82' "". (Which...... personally..... I do not have much of a problem with).
3) Better ID's than other products on the open-market.

The REASON (justification/rationalization) must be explained to other testers...... so as to generate 'proper understanding'. Otherwise....... they will reject the concept/idea.

* I have zero problems with the lowest pinpoint depth being 5cm..... as the pinpoint VCO audio is 'all-telling' anyway.

* Here is (approximately 3) months of aggregate/cumulative/collected data.......... (finally!): Exclusively due to higher Tone-Break usage...... you risk the following: Whilst in DEEP mode ((5-Khz & 14-Khz posed nearly the exact same resultant/ratio)) running Sens as high as conditions allow....... and having Tone-Break on '21' which (just barely) rids small nails....... searching for high conductors.,.,.,.,.,., presents the deepest/best high-conductor 'old coins' hunting ability that the Impact can achieve. (((And at the cost of hearing all of the non-Fe targets.....which may not be desirable.))) Simply raising Tone-Break to '51' (which 'should' easily allow all high-conductor coins to be detected) ....... causes 17% loss of high-conductor finds. These 17% high-conductor targets will audibly ID below '51' and also produce a low-tone.
If you pass over the 'missed' target again...... it may now ID as a high-tone....as the ID """may now""" ID above 51. . . . . . where the Tone-Break is set. Also...... the "LENGTH OF THE AUDIO" will ALSO be shortened/clipped with higher Tone-Break settings. (This is normal..... and is to be expected; yet, increases the risk of missing high-conductors). I have been monitoring (measuring/calculating/documenting) this phenomenon for quite some time. (((((This also explains 'why' you can hunt an old beat-to-death area again...... and still have 'some' success....... up to 17%.)))))

Sincerely,

Tom

Welgund Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know but by the reading he was saying at 20 khz
> it's was lacking from how I gathered it. Seemed t
> o be that 6khz was the sweet spot on it and he was
> asking to improve the 14 and 20khz.


I know Tom's notes made for a long (albeit very interesting and enlightening) read, but yes in the beginning he appeared to have 20Khz as a bit handicapped, but as the software updates progressed and Tom tweaked settings, it looked like 20Khz was his overall preferred detecting frequency, but frequency selections were also site and target specific.

I extrapolated all the bits that Tom (and Keith and Wayne) posted regarding what was working best. As I see it from Tom's post, as of the latest software update:

5-Khz and DEEP is the deepest mode, also excels in areas contaminated with tin
14Khz is the best all around detecting frequency.
20-Khz in carpets of nails

Yes I agree with his findings but his dirt is different also

LowBoy

TAKE A LITTLE TIME KICKBACK AND WATCH SOME OF MY DETECTING VIDEO'S BELOW ON YouTube

[www.youtube.com]

If you don’t dig it, then how are you going to know what you’re missing!
How can you have your pudding if you don’t eat your meat!

The testers were in a variety of dirt across the country East and West, North to South....inert Fla soil to 4 0r 5 bars in Georgia soil....Seems like this was done on purpose, and well done I might add, Thanks guys!

My hats off to all the testers and to the Makro-Nokta Company for designing a machine on detectorist suggestions...Thats just Awesome. Great time for release on my end...INCOME TAX RETURN..WOOHOO

Red Racer~cz6~Vista Gold~ Pro Pointer

For those of whom acquire a Impact......... you will genuinely have 36 detectors in your hand. You will know exactly what I am inferring ...... once you select each frequency...in each mode. You will have 36 'chances' to succeed......in whatever condition/environment that you happenstance upon. No hiding anything......... there are 36 learning-curves involved. Don't think it's a bad thing. . . . . but........ rather.......... a ton of 'opportunities'.

N/T

Keith

“I don't care that they stole my idea . . I care that they don't have any of their own”
-Nikola Tesla



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2017 03:01AM by Keith Southern.

I wonder if the previous reports on the battery drain were caused by the internal wireless module constantly seeking a head-set to sync to. If that is the case, than a simple on off option for that module will save a ton of battery life.

Seems I'm not alone in pointing the finger at the wireless transmitter.
The power taken by such a device is hard to estimate, it could be anything from 20 mW to 800 mW, it's all down to the electronics, the actual radio signal power is nothing, less than 1 mW. The only comparable radio setup I have is the Turtle Beach X32 'phones, for which the transmitter takes 80 mA at 5 Volts (= 400mW). By comparison, my F75 takes 50 mA at 6 Volts (= 300 mW), so pairing up those two would drop the F75's battery life from 40 hours to 15 hours, as an example. But this isn't a neatly-engineered solution. You wouldn't feed the headphone audio signal into an analogue-to-digital converter, then transmit that digitally. You would simply shove digital data straight from the detectors microprocessor into the 2.4GHz radio transmitter chip.
I can't see any fundamental reason why the Impact should have much more power consumption than, say, a Racer, it's still a single frequency machine, so doesn't have the inefficient circuitry of multi-frequers, (BBS/ V3i /CZ-).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2017 06:47PM by Pimento.

How much impact do the wireless headphones make on the Racer 2? The battery life on the R2 (with wired headphones) for me is around 25 hours on a set of alkalines, less on rechargeables.




Pimento Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems I'm not alone in pointing the finger at the
> wireless transmitter.
> The power taken by such a device is hard to estima
> te, it could be anything from 20 mW to 800 mW, it'
> s all down to the electronics, the actual radio si
> gnal power is nothing, less than 1 mW. The only co
> mparable radio setup I have is the Turtle Beach X3
> 2 'phones, for which the transmitter takes 80 mA a
> t 5 Volts, = 400mW. By comparison, my F75 takes 50
> mA at 6 Volts, so pairing up those two would drop
> the F75's battery life from 40 hours to 15 hours,
> as an example.
> I can't see any fundamental reason why the Impact
> should have more power consumption, it's still a s
> ingle frequency machine, so doesn't have the ineff
> icient circuitry of multi-frequers.

If I remember right, the V3i also drains batteries faster with one of the 3 frequencies selected, but I can't remember which one. The Impact has similar frequencies offered. I think the V3i was 3khz, 7.5khz, and 22.5khz, while the Impact is 5, 14, and 20. The biggest difference there is the 7.5 vs the 14. I'm wanting to say it is the lower 3 frequency that caused the battery drain on the V3i...maybe the same on the Impact on 5 khz since that is what Tom seemed to be testing the most.

"if I remember right, the V3i also drains batteries faster with one of the 3 frequencies selected, but I can't remember which one"

Actually, it drains faster when all three frequencies are used at the same time.

You can only use one frequency at a time on the Impact. And....... yes,,,,,,,, 5-Khz is the largest drain (over the other two freq's).

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes...... and surpass it.
>
> But....... I need to add a 'qualifier': I can/have
> only verified this in lower mineralization dirt.
my dirt is good, cant wait to get one if i can

Because of YOU!........ You guys are getting your request. I have just uploaded software version V1.09 into the Impact. . . . . which now allows the ability to see 'which' software version is implemented in the Impact.

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because of YOU!........ You guys are getting your
> request. I have just uploaded software version V1.
> 09 into the Impact. . . . . which now allows the a
> bility to see 'which' software version is implemen
> ted in the Impact.


Sounds like a good idea to avoid confusion in the future when different
versions might be loaded on different Impacts.

Any other changes in V1.09?

The only change is you can see what version you have but in the future I'm sure maybe by summer we could see another update...

LowBoy

TAKE A LITTLE TIME KICKBACK AND WATCH SOME OF MY DETECTING VIDEO'S BELOW ON YouTube

[www.youtube.com]

If you don’t dig it, then how are you going to know what you’re missing!
How can you have your pudding if you don’t eat your meat!