Steve Herschbach

Fisher CZX Metal Detector "Ground Breaking Technology"

31 posts in this topic

Sure, digging square nails, boot tacks and wire can be annoying, especially on a hot day when the mosquitos wont leave you alone.  But, I have on many occasions found a nugget in the same hole as iron trash.  Some detectorist in my group dig every target even though they know the target is probably iron, but by doing this many ounces of gold and a few specimen pieces have been found that was otherwise hidden by iron.  What we need is a gold magnet on the end of our picks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dig it all theory does point to the fact that if you dig everything you can find lots of gold. I would not disagree, but I have also dug pounds of gold while running a good discriminating VLF, digging nuggets while other guys are digging nails.

It is not that we need 100% one method or 100% the other method. We need both tools available and at our disposal to use as we see fit for the given time and place. Me having a better discrimination option does not prevent me from digging everything if I have the time and patience for it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2016 at 9:38 AM, Sourdough Scott said:

Waiting Fisher, 2016 is nearly over. 

Those rumors are over a year old. I'm beginning to think that rumors are all that they were!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If developing kick-a** new technology metal detectors was easy, then we would have them from many manufacturers every few years.

to develop a new platform from scratch, even without a new technology, costs a lot of enginerring and developmnet dollars. If I had to guess, I would estimate that it would take about 7-10 man-years of so called "non recurring engineering" or "NRE".  That can easily cost $1 - $2 million.  A big chunk of change for a company whose annual gross revenue might only be in the tens of millions.

You have to have some idea that is really exciting in terms of future sales to get management backing for a project like that.  The fact is that sometimes small teams in small companies (and all of the metal detector companies are small companies) run into roadblocks - or sometimes opportunities that can easly add a year to the project.

2016 for a new Fisher?  Well, there's always next year. Dave Johnson, Carl Moreland and the rest of the team are still on the payroll and I suspect that they aren't just designing new pink cammo schemes for kids detectors.

we'll see.

 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minelab GPZ19 coil running late. XP DEUS V4 update and accessories running late. New Garrett ATX coils running late. CZX running late - just like everything else. Most detectorists are optimists and I guess the same can be said for metal detector engineers.

Just go metal detecting enough and time will fly!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the easy stuff has been done - the hard stuff is all that's left!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been lurking here for quite some time. Great site with allot of information. Not many can match it.

Has there been in new news on these two detectors ?  I'm interested in both for salt water beach and relic hunting here on the Central Coast Section (Monterey Bay Area) of California.

Thanks for any info.

El

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Elbert, and welcome to the forum. No new information that I am aware of beyond the fact that 2016 is slipping by with no sign of an introduction. Delays happen for many reasons in the detector industry to the point where I think they can just be expected. Personally I like rumors and speculation but ultimately I just believe them when I see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been doing some thinking on the new Fisher CZX, they say 9-1 frequency ratio, well why not build it at least say 71 khz high frequency with a low of 7.88khz frequency, so it mimics the Gold Bug 2 for tiny gold detection with its high freq, or even better do 80khz high and 8.88 khz low freq if its possible to do in the electronics. We all know the success of the GB2 over other vlf detectors due to this high khz.

Deus seems to be coming out with a high freq coil of 80 khz elliptical soon which I think is a great idea. However their detector is single freq, so the CZX should possibly  be able to walk all over the Deus for deeper gold as well as grain size  gold at the surface, between the two freqs working at the same time and the new form of ground balance they speak of.

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 Condor
      I know this topic has appeared off and on over the years, but I'd like to better understanding on the theory and principle of using one over the other, ie. depth, and target id and what compromises do I induce.  The reason I ask is the new V4 for XP Deus has the ability to set a minus discrimination.  It kills the ability to use the "horseshoe" screen for ferrous target ID, but VID numbers are tolerable.  What theoretically happens if I set a negative discrimination, but use Notch to handle ordinary ferrous trash? 
    • By Rege-PA
      As a rule do the lower vlf frequencies punch deeper than the higher ones, say 4.8 verses 14khz?
      But what is the trade off? Are some frequencies better for silver coins? How does iron enter into this?
      Need to understand how this all fits together!
      Thanks for any and all answers.
       
    • By DSMITH
      Can someone please explain the differences in a PI machine and a VLF machine in layman's terms or point me in a direction on the site if it has already been posted up some where 
      just trying to learn
    • By Steve Herschbach
      When I posted the video showing the Makro Gold Racer recovery speed using two nails and a gold ring, it caused me to reflect on the various internet nail tests. Nearly all employ modern round nails, when these items rarely present issues.
      The common VDI (visual discrimination scale) puts ferrous items at the low end of the scale, and items with progressively increasing conductivity higher on the scale. The problem is the size of items also matters. Small gold is low on the scale, and the larger the gold, the higher it reads on the scale. A silver quarter reads higher than a silver dime, etc.
      All manner of ferrous trash including medium and smaller nails fall where they should when using discrimination and are easily tuned out. The problem is large iron and steel items, and ferrous but non-magnetic materials like stainless steel. Steel plates, large bolts, broken large square nails, axe heads, hammer heads, broken pry bar and pick tips, etc. all tend to read as high conductive targets. Usually it is just the sheer size pushing it higher up the scale.
      Detectors also love things with holes, which makes for a perfect target by enabling and enhancing near perfect eddy currents, making items appear larger than they really are. Steel washers and nuts are a big problem in this regard, often reading as non-ferrous targets.
      Oddball shapes cause problems, particularly in flat sheet steel. Old rusted cans often separate into irregular shaped flat pieces, and roofing tin (plated steel) and other sheet steel items are my number one nemesis around old camp sites. Bottle caps present a similar issue in modern areas. These items produce complex "sparky" eddy currents with both ferrous and non-ferrous indications. Many thin flat steel items produce remarkably good gold nugget type signals in old camp areas.
      Two general tips. Concentric coils often handle ferrous trash better than DD coils. A DD coil is often the culprit when dealing with bottle caps where a concentric coil often makes them easy to identify. Another thing is to use full tones. Many ferrous items are producing both ferrous and non-ferrous tones. Blocking ferrous tones allows only the non-ferrous tone to be heard, giving a clear "dig me" signal. This was the real bane of single tone machines with a simple disc knob to eliminate ferrous objects. You still heard the non-ferrous portion of the signal. Multi tones allows you to hear the dual ferrous/non-ferrous reports from these troublesome items, helping eliminate most of them.
      Certain detectors can also show multiple target responses on screen at once, like the White's models featuring the SignaGraph (XLT, DFX, etc.) and CTX with target trace. These displays show target "smearing" that stands out differently from the clean VDI responses produced by most good items. A machine with a simple VDI numeric readout can only show you one number at a time and the only indication you might get is "dancing" numbers that refuse to lock on. Usually though the predominate response overrides and fakes you out. This is where a good high end visual display capable of putting all VDI response on screen simultaneously can really help out.
      I have been collecting these odd iron and steel items to practice with and to help me evaluate which machines might do best in ferrous trash. The main thing I wanted to note here is contrived internet videos with common round nails often present a misleading picture. Many machines do very well on nails yet fail miserably on flat steel.


    • By Tnsharpshooter
      Is Minelab the only one that uses electronic noise cancel feature??
      Do they have patents associate with this feature?
      Would like to see other manufacturers use some thing similar on their detectors.
      Or a manufacturer should provide actual visual indication of emi levels depending on frequency used to include offsetting.
      Not have the user have to use their ears to decide or even try comparing on buried targets.
      Should not be trial and error.
      And maybe even a system were the operator is warned,,say if emi changes and the current selected frequency is possibly not operating at optimum.
      I do realize with a coil being swept over the ground, this could be difficult to do.
    • By Steve Herschbach
      I am going through one of those periods where I load up a bit on new detectors and let it all sort out. Darwin's Survival Of The Fittest Detectors! This winter a number will not survive and will be looking for new home. This is the only way I have found that works for me. Detectors that serve a good purpose for me get used, others end up sitting. If they sit long enough, they are no longer needed.
      I have my nugget detecting fairly well sorted out. The GPZ 7000 gets used 90% of the time. I might pull out a VLF for a really trashy place, or for where the gold is smaller than the GPZ can hit (really small!). I do keep a Garrett ATX around to handle salt ground or oddball hot rocks the GPZ has trouble with but those situations have proven quite rare so far.
      So the GPZ is an obvious keeper. The ATX does double duty as my favorite water hunting machine so there is another.
      In the land of VLF however it is more complicated. I have this idea that a good selectable frequency detector might really do the trick in replacing two or more other models. The key there however is what I am going to go ahead and call "frequency spread" for lack of a better term.
      What do I mean by frequency spread? Simply put, the number of kHz between the lowest and highest frequency the detector can operate at. The lowest frequency is basically the "large item" frequency that more easily handles bad ground, and the high frequency is the "small item" frequency that tends to have more issues with mineralized ground or hot rocks.
      The high frequency option is critical for a person like me who nugget hunts. To really be able to replace machines like the 45 kHz Minelab Gold Monster 1000, 48 kHz White's GMT, 56 kHz Makro Gold Racer, or 71 kHz Fisher Gold Bug 2, the highest frequency option of the detector needs to be 30 kHz or higher or as close to that as is possible. Low frequencies in the single digits are great for coin hunting or very large gold nuggets in bad ground. Frequencies in the teens are a great compromise.
      Some examples:
      Nokta Impact 5 kHz, 14 kHz, and 20 kHz (15 kHz lowest to highest)
      XP DEUS Low Frequency Coil 4 kHz, 8 kHz, 12 kHz, and 18 kHz (14 kHz lowest to highest)
      Rutus Alter 4.4 kHz to 18 kHz in 0.2 kHz steps (13.6 kHz lowest to highest)
      White's V3i 2.5 kHz, 7.5 kHz, 22.5 kHz (20 kHz lowest to highest - bonus - runs in multifrequency mode)
      I am still waiting on the XP DEUS High Frequency Elliptical Coil 14 kHz, 30 kHz, and 81 kHz (67 khz lowest to highest). The XP HF 9" round running at 14 kHz, 30 khz, and 59 khz (45 kHz lowest to highest) is currently available.
      In theory the White's V3i is a real winner here but I have just never really taken to the V3i as a prospecting detector. I have to be honest and say that so far the Impact floats my boat more in that regard due to its more traditional approach to a detector interface, all metal modes, and ground balancing. The problem with all of them though is they just don't reach high enough to be used both as coin and jewelry machines and yet still be capable of retiring the high frequency nugget detectors. And that is why I am still patiently waiting for that XP Deus V4 high frequency elliptical coil. At 81 kHz (or 59 kHz in 9" round version) the Deus HF coils on paper at least could in theory make the high frequency nugget detectors redundant. I have to admit I still have doubts however. So far dedicated specifically tuned single frequency detectors have always won the day. For a lot of people however, a selectable frequency machine might prove to be "good enough".
      The downside with the Deus is that to get the deeper seeking lower frequency large coil option you have to wrap up quite a bit of money into two coils. The 9.5" elliptical is just not going to reach real deep due to its small size. I have the 11" round low frequency coil which can run as low as 4 kHz, so together the two coils make a pretty formidable package. The other machines however can run both much smaller and much larger coils, and at considerably less cost than what DEUS coils cost due to each one being a self contained metal detector. It may be that the XP HF 9" round running at 14 kHz, 30 khz, and 59 khz (45 kHz lowest to highest) is the better compromise option for most people than the 5.5" x 9.5" elliptical.
      The Impact does suit me as far as the way it functions and I like the excellent inexpensive coil selection. It is a shame it weighs twice as much as the DEUS, but that may actually be a benefit when it comes to balancing large coils. Overall at the moment I am really liking the Impact - I just wish the frequency had topped out higher. I really wanted more like 5 - 15 - 30 kHz. Going from 14 kHz to 20 kHz is not quite providing the extra "pop" on tiny gold I would like to see.