Steve Herschbach

Fisher CZX Metal Detector "Ground Breaking Technology"

31 posts in this topic

The following information is from an apparent leak from a First Texas distributor meeting? The link is posted at http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/555-new-fisher-pulse-induction-multi-frequency-detectors/?p=10571 as part of the thread about upcoming Fisher products that have been circulating for a couple years. These leaks seem to jive with previous statements by Tom Mallory of First Texas.

The main one of interest to the people on this forum would be a new CZX model aimed at gold prospecting. Here is the text from the posted screen shot:

CZX - Fisher and Teknetics

  • This machine is ground breaking technology
  • Turn on and go
  • 2 frequency - 9:1 ratio
  • No need to ground balance or adjust the detector to the environment
  • It automatically senses the ground and makes changes accordingly.
  • First detector birthed from this platform is a gold unit priced around $1000, but deeper than current VLF, this detector will also see through red dirt, and highly mineralized soil.
  • From this platform other machines will develop. We intend to develop the CZX and MOSCA platforms to offer more machines in the $1000 to $2000 range than have ever been available.
  • Target release 2016
  • We have senior engineer Dave Johnson on this project

The "Mosca" platform referred to is further described and apparently is aimed more at being a general purpose non-prospecting detector (coins, jewelry, relics). Again, here is the text from the posted screen shot:

"Mosca" Fisher and Teknetics

  • Waterproof up to 10' (3 meters)
  • Wireless headphones - Waterproof loop and connectors for headphones
  • 2 frequency - 7:1 ratio
  • Hobby/Treasure Market - Great for Saltwater, Relic, Coin
  • Auto Ground Tracking
  • Single Pod Design
  • LCD Pad, control buttons, 2 AA batteries
  • Arm Pad in rear
  • Retail target - $1200 - $2000
  • Target release 2016
  • We have dedicated engineers on this project

OK, so a gold unit around $1000 that goes deeper than current VLF designs. I also have high hopes that knowing the proclivities of the engineer, Dave Johnson, that it will be relatively light and ergonomic. Dave also prefers simple and the design statements reflect that.

We seriously need something that brings gold detector weights and prices back to earth and so hopefully this will be it. I have stated over and over again I would be very happy with ATX equivalent performance in a less expensive lightweight package. Garrett so far seems disinclined to make that unit but they have a year at least before it may be a moot point. The CZX would have to obsolete the White's TDI as it is aimed squarely at or below the same price point and unless it beats TDI performance would be dead on arrival.

We will not have long to wait - 2016 is coming fast!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Dave Johnson's response to inquiries about this "rumor" http://www.findmall.com/read.php?18,2207202,2207330#msg-2207330

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I particularly like this quote from Carl Moreland (Geotech) at http://www.dankowskidetectors.com/discussions/read.php?2,69178,84619#msg-84619

"At PriorJob I did a lot of exciting work in TD methods, and it was difficult to walk away from all that. I did a pretty good job of wrapping it up in patents, so now I'm trying to figure out how to circumvent my own work and get back to exciting results. It ain't easy, and everyday dept management duties severely eat into my development work."

PriorJob would have been Carl's stint at White's Electronics. Carl now works at First Texas (Bounty Hunter, Fisher, Teknetics). The only significant patents I am aware of from White's in that time frame is the constant current and half sine patents discussed at http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/400-new-whites-patent-constant-current-metal-detector

TD refers to Time Domain as opposed to working with traditional VLF detectors that operate in the Frequency Domain.

The White's constant current patent bears a close similarity to the ZVT technology employed in the new Minelab GPZ 7000 and Carl's comment lends credence to the idea that White's is indeed up to some exciting things that may see the light of day in the coming year or two. Is it any coincidence that First Texas is also stepping up their game on advancing the technology? I think not!

I personally believe we are in the midst of experiencing the next big leap in metal detector technology taking place from several different angles. The end results are a new ability to ignore ground effects leading to much greater depths of detection, and ultimately discrimination methods that will vastly improve on those available currently in highly mineralized soils.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the intrigue and espionage of a good soap opera just to get us detectors. Not to worry Google might get in on the act and slice em all. :rolleyes:  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, they say 2016 and that is right around the corner.

CZX - Fisher and Teknetics

  • This machine is ground breaking technology
  • Turn on and go
  • 2 frequency - 9:1 ratio
  • No need to ground balance or adjust the detector to the environment
  • It automatically senses the ground and makes changes accordingly.
  • First detector birthed from this platform is a gold unit priced around $1000, but deeper than current VLF, this detector will also see through red dirt, and highly mineralized soil.
  • From this platform other machines will develop. We intend to develop the CZX and MOSCA platforms to offer more machines in the $1000 to $2000 range than have ever been available.
  • Target release 2016
  • We have senior engineer Dave Johnson on this project

This machine would take the Africa market by storm by being turn on and go. The relic hunters in Virginia and elsewhere should like it. If weight and balance are right, I am going to love it as I have been pounding the table for a machine like this for years. I would like to see something with at least Minelab SD type performance in a light weight affordable package but at $1000 it simply needs to beat the TDI. The biggest question I have is how small a nugget can it detect? At $1000 this machine would be the natural next step up for any prospector using a VLF who has not made the plunge into PI.

The old CZ is dual frequency running at 15 kHz and 5 kHz, a 3:1 ratio. Staying at 5 for the low end a 9:1 ratio figures at 45 kHz and 5 kHz. Until recently a machine with no ground balance adjustment would have raised eyebrows, but the SDC 2300 has laid that concern to rest. Dave Johnson always likes power combined with simplicity and good ergonomics, and that bodes well for this detector.

The "Mosca" model looks to be aiming mid-way between the Garrett AT Pro and Minelab CTX 3030 with a multi-frequency all terrain model. The AT Pro has been wildly successful and it only makes sense to emulate that success.

Anyway, this is the one I want to see in 2016. I guess I had better get my lightweight ATX project completed before this makes it obsolete. Now I know how detector companies feel about project delays!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumor # 143

 

 Candy was overheard saying, Johnson is the only engineer that could challenge ML's dominance....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to argue with that though there are a lot of bright young guys out there now we have not heard of. I think a factor of key importance to consumers in all this is the rapidly increasing competition developing on prices. My gut feeling is we have seen a high water mark reached with the GPZ 7000 in more ways than one. Witness the recent moves Minelab has made with various low price packages on GPX detectors. With gold prices declining and likely to break under US$1000 in the coming year the prospecting detector market is getting saturated. Everyone that needs one has one and fewer new people getting into it now, especially as it gets hard for even the pros to find much gold. The overseas markets have wised up to the fact you don't have to spend a fortune to find gold. I think going forward bang for the buck and ergonomics are going to rule the market. Minelab in particular is going to face serious pressure on detector prices going forward - in my opinion.

 

On the other hand - how much would a person pay for a GPZ with reliably accurate iron discrimination?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand - how much would a person pay for a GPZ with reliably accurate iron discrimination?

 

How accurate? 40% accurate?

 

 I would be willing to pay about the same as for the 7000 IF after the innards where designed by the geniuses, the rest of it was designed by prospectors. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So with all this new hype about new detectors.....here I go again and wait.....at least its around the corner. My trusty ole 45 will do me fine until than. :)

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 Steve Herschbach
      Here is a subject you will rarely see. What makes for a good looking metal detector? There are many I have swung over the years that were downright embarrassing. Maybe that is why I try to make sure I detect when nobody can see me! These days though there are some good looking detectors out there, kind of like the sports cars of the genre. My favorite - the F75 Special Edition, also called the Limited Edition. Fisher can't make up its mind.

    • By Steve Herschbach
      I do what I can to foster competition that develops alternatives to the all too common single frequency VLF detector. There are plenty of options out there, but in my opinion they all weigh too much or cost too much. Usually both.   I envision people out there with a popular VLF prospecting machine like the Gold Bug Pro, GMT, AT Gold, X-Terra 705, etc. These machines all sell for around $700 and weigh 2.5 - 3.9 lbs. They would like to add a ground balancing PI (GBPI) to what they have. I think that for "normal people" with normal budgets a machine under $2K and under four pounds just makes sense. It would be more than twice what they spent for their VLF, and in this day and age there is no reason why a decent PI should weigh over 4 lbs.   To clarify what I am talking about here, I should say that for many people a $700 single frequency detector is a great place to start and in many cases is all a person ever needs. However, there are places where extreme ground mineralization and mineralized rocks (hot rocks) severely impede the performance and use of single frequency detectors. Alternative technology to deal with these conditions has been developed, by far the most familiar being the Minelab ground balancing PI (GBPI) detectors. These differ from common PI detectors by having the ability to ground balance. Other brands have offered the Garrett Infinium and ATX and the White's TDI models.   These detectors are used not just for prospecting but also by relic hunters, beach detectorists, and others who face challenges regarding ground mineralization and single frequency detectors.   Frankly, in my opinion GBPI technology is largely maxed out. The main room for improvement comes now in better ergonomics at lower prices. This challenge therefore limits detectors to those that weigh under 4 pounds with battery included, and which sell brand new with warranty after discounts for under US$2000. Detectors need not be ground balancing PI models, but must offer similar ability to ignore mineralized ground and hot rocks that trouble single frequency detectors. I am going to rate detectors as to their relative performance using what I call the "Minelab Rating Scale. Details here.
      1. Minelab SD 2000 - crude first version, very poor on small gold, excellent on large deep gold
      2. Minelab SD 2100 - vastly refined version of SD 2000
      3. Minelab SD 2200 (all versions) - adds crude iron disc, ground tracking
      4. Minelab GP Extreme - adds greatly improved sensitivity to small gold, overall performance boost.
      5. Minelab GP 3000 - Refined GP Extreme
      6.  Minelab GP 3500 - Greatly refined GP 3000, last and best of analog models
      7. Minelab GPX 4000 - First digital interface, rock solid threshold
      8. Minelab GPX 4500 - Refined GPX 4000, solid performer
      9. Minelab GPX 4800 - Released at same time as GPX 5000 as watered down version
      10. Minelab GPX 5000 - Culmination of the series, current pinnacle of GBPI prospecting machine technology.
      All Minelab models leverage an existing base of over 100 coil options from tiny to huge.
      I am a very practical person when it comes to prospecting. I know all the existing models and options by all brands very well, perhaps better than almost anyone. This is the way I look at it is this. If I personally were to spend a lot of money to go to Australia for one month, and needed a GBPI detector, considering machines past and present, what would I take and in what order of choice? Put aside concerns of age, warranty, etc. just assume functioning detectors.
      Here is the issue in a nutshell. On the Minelab scale of one to ten as listed above, I would be generous in rating the White's TDI SL as a 2. Same with the Garrett Infinium which I will mention in passing as it is no longer being made. If I was going to spend a month of my time and a lot of money going on a prospecting trip to Australia, I would choose a TDI in any version over the SD 2000. I might go with a TDI Pro over a SD 2100 but I would have to think real hard about that, and when push comes to shove I would go SD 2100 were it not for the realities of age I said to ignore. A newer TDI Pro might be a better bet than a very old SD 2100 from a reliability standpoint, but again, this would be a tough choice. The TDI SL not really. In my opinion I would be shooting myself in the foot to go on this hypothetical trip with a TDI SL instead of a SD 2100.
      You see the problem now?
      The Garrett ATX fares better. I would rate it a 3, roughly analogous to the SD 2200 variants. Still an agonizing choice really and the ATX being new versus SD 2200 being old might again be the tipping point, but from a pure prospecting options perspective the case can be made that the SD 2200 might be the better way to go. The problem for this challenge is the ATX weighs over 4 lbs and sells for over $2000
      That's it folks. That is reality. The best of the best that the competition can offer can only go solidly up against models Minelab has not made in years. I am not saying that to be mean or as some kind of Minelab toadie, that is my pure unvarnished opinion as a guy who is pretty well versed on the subject.
      Let's bring it all home. This person with the $700 machine really, really wants that under 4 lb, under $2K GBPI machine, but if they do their homework they discover that truthfully, they would be better off shopping for a used Minelab than what the competition offers new. With the TDI SL rated as a 2 the ATX in a much lighter box at under $2K is a solid win as a 3. A well designed ATX with standard dry land coils would look very enticing as compared to the GP series Minelab's and with a stronger battery system might rate 4 to 6 on my comparative scale. But Garrett refuses to budge!
      White's can certainly do something, anything to improve the TDI SL. A battery that lasts all day would be a good start. In the end they are limited by the basic single channel design of the machine. The SD 2000 dual channel design was literally the answer to and the improvement on the single channel technology used in the TDI, the basics of which predate the SD 2000. Still, White's currently owns the under 4 lb under $2K GBPI category so they have the first out of the starting gate advantage. Anything they do would at the very least just show they have not given up.
      The Minelab MPS patent that formed the basis of the SD series has expired. Not sure about DVT, which formed the basis of the GP series. Where is the competition? What the heck is going on here? Much gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair is going on here, that's what!!!
      That is my challenge to the manufacturers. Under 4 lbs, under $2K, on the 1-10 scale I am offering, what is the best you can do?
      The TDI SL as a 2? Really? Yes, really, that is currently the best of the best in the brand new ground balancing PI, full warranty, under 4 lb, under $2k category. You can pick up a 3.5 lb TDI SL right now brand new for $1089. The White's TDI SL takes the crown.
      Hopefully we will see more competition in this wide open category soon. I have been beating this drum for years to no avail, but I do have reason to believe we are finally going to see more alternatives soon. I hope.

    • By tboykin
      How many of you are "beepers" vs. "peepers"?
    • By FeO2digger
      On subject of coils and systems... I was out working some areas for relics with a couple others and one guy was killing it with an very vintage 70s Garrett Master Hunter BFO unit with a large home made looking square coil of pvc looking material. After looking into I found that BFO is Beat Frequency Oscillator and was popular before T/R VLF format machines. BFO was not good for small coin shooting and nugget hunting and lacked ability for quality discrimination from what I read but excelled in depth ability, especially on large ferrous cache targets as well as finding mineral deposits like drifts of black sands or veins of ore.
      So are there currently any units that still use a BFO mode or format? I can find vintage BFO type units available very reasonably priced, is there any information out there on how to bring them up to current on a battery system and build large coils suitable for this type of cache detecting?
       
       
    • By Steve Herschbach
      Detector coils are not antenna. They are part of a highly tuned inductive coupling system.

    • By Steve Herschbach
      Everyone needs to watch this video.
      We talk all the time how lower frequencies ignore ground better and penetrate deeper on larger targets, but how high frequencies are better at getting small targets to respond. This video does a superb job of illustrating how high frequencies do a better job at "lighting up" a small gold target. The key is we are using one detector and coil with all the settings just the same - the only thing that changes is the frequency. This eliminates other extraneous factors that usually play into comparisons of this sort.

      What this video does not show is how higher frequencies not only "light up" the target but also mineralized ground, creating difficulty with penetrating deeply in that ground. One of the great lessons in metal detecting is that there is no free lunch, and very often improving one thing comes at a cost somewhere else.
      You can skip right to "the good part" at 2:45