Menu
What's new
Find's Treasure Forums

Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!

You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.

Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.

Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.

Click here to register!

Need Support Help?

Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you

Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.

New Fisher CZ Unit

Mass equates to signal intensity and intensity is defined by too many variables. Metal detectors like round objects better than others because the eddy currents flow better in round objects, and go deeper (skin effect) which allows a more intense response, and some detectors let you hear this roundness better than others, just as bfodness stated. So a wedding band or a coin or a bottle cap will sound good, more intense, while a cross or open earring will not. Metal detectors also like big targets. For the most part, intensity is a depth gauge and then only good on calibrated targets.
Click to expand...

Yep...makes perfect sense, regarding the eddy currents and the "roundness," and the skin effect. However, the density idea (using it somehow to discriminate between the more-dense gold and silver, and the less-dense aluminum) is probably not do-able. Just wanted to throw it out there.

Steve
 
That would be a costly pinpoint and a normal AM mode as we have in todays VLF s of the right kind will go deeper then the disc channel anyway.

And the AM mode has more subtle nuances then the pulses I have tried and own. The nuances in my pulsedetectors are so limited that I do believe that a display would have shown them better then i can hear em....if we had such a feature.

Pulse is the future though if we want to go deeper, the only thing we need is better disc and more features like in VLF detectors.
 
" 3 tones each with its own volume control."

i have asked for this also!! there are many occasions when i would use this selectable/adjustable volume control. i would also like to see the audioboost that is available on czs.

dave j., thanks for creating the g2!!!!! i love that detector and will be buying a new one as soon as possible since mine was stolen back in august.
 
for me its simple seeing through the trash to the goodies only 5 to 10 % of collectible targets are with the trash the rest are under it and its a lot of work digging all the trash to the good targets and while the best machines can find good targets near or close to trash its pretty rare to see through a piece of can slaw to a silver coin underneath it 1st the trash must come out?

sure i have found coins with iron in the hole but very very rare with modern trash in the hole, i don't know why not a electronics whizz or how to solve the problem if i did i would probably have a high paying job?

so all the screens and sounds are great but how do we see through modern trash to a silver coin for instance? discrimination doesn't seem to work so well as it discriminates out the trash and the coin?

even the multi freq machines don't see through modern trash iron sometimes modern trash not so good.

anyway just my thoughts on this how to do it ? dig the trash 1st that's the only way i know, and am sure its been a question asked sense day dot.

maybe not such a good idea making a machine that can do this anyway all the goodies would be gone fast and well we would be all out of a hobby and tech people out of a job?

BP
 
I'm envisioning a continuous line of "white noise" scrolling across the screen in sync with the audio. With peaks and troughs representing the ferrous and conductive signatures. Make it switchable on/off so that it could be invoked when analyzing co-locate targets. Might prove to be a good aid for us audio guys adding to the "between the ears" factor.

No icons for me!
 
Does anyone know if the rumor is true that Fisher bought the Minelab BBS patent?
I think there was a lawsuit years ago by Minelab and wonder if there is a connection.

Judging by the price of the new Minelab CTX (which I have on order), if Fisher prices the new CZ right, say 1200ish, and IF the performance is there, good iron performance, VID system, etc. then Fisher can really make some noise with this machine, as Minelab created a void between the Explorers/E-Trac and CTX imo that is ripe for the taking.

Albert
 
I will be ALL OVER a new CZ if this is the case.

I've wondered the same thing you have for years now. If the new cz incorporates the BBS technology...does better in iron...and ID's well...I'm all in!
 
Kiss Keep it simple, love the 0 --- 100 VID, don't like icons or notch., prefer DD coils, lite weight. Like my GB Pro, wish it were water proof, it would make a great fresh water hunter for gold
 
Well, Garrett introduced the AT PRO; and Minelab the CTX .
So, would make me lean to the belief that a shallow water version might be out for them as well.
Seems like this stuff goes in cycles over the years, and one must at least keep up or if not beat the
competition as well as gain market share of their own innovation.
Have not heard any rumors on White's yet.
Who knows? So, I guess we will all have to wait.
 
i really hope Fisher hits it out of the park...I'm on the fence for a CTX after using a CZ20/21 for a number of years.
 
I was thinking of buying one of the new detectors
being talked about but I think I'll wait and see what Fisher has up their sleeve before forking out that kind of cash.N/T
 
Im in the same boat, going to hold off buying till the new fisher is out. Ive never owned a fisher, but reading the fisher forums where Dave J comes on line and chats, comments, an actually listens to what people have to say impresses the heck out of me, so I recon its worth waiting for.
 
When ?
Is there a new fisher on thevway?
Will it be a new cz 22 ?
Or a light multi frec digital waterproof
I hope fisher. Will give some details soon
 
I know this is an old thread but I just stumbled onto it. I read a lot, don't post much, and hardly ever get to use the F5 I just had to have back around Christmas.

I work for one of the REALLY big evil oil companies and am way too involved in the inspection of casing and tubing, aka pipe, that we use to drill and produce oil and gas. Some of the wishes I see from y'all are starting to sound very close to some of the technologies used to do our inspections, but on a much smaller scale .

One big difference of course, is that the guy swinging a detector is trying to locate metal through several inches of soil, and the unit tries to identify the type of metal based in the results received back from the coil. In pipe inspection, multiple transducers (like the coil of the MD) are used in direct contact with the metal to detect anomalies (defects) in the metal itself. The transducers take continuous readings along and across the axis of the pipe body, often from multiple angles, as the pipe moves through the unit. The results are interpreted by the processor and are then plotted, displayed and recorded. The exact location and type of surface and internal defects are recorded and we use the data to scream at the pipe manufacturers. Both ultrasonic and electromagnetic inspections are performed based on the accuracy required. The multiple transducers actually perform the same function as swinging the detector back and forth.

Of course this technology doesn't come cheap, but it is something we have to do. The wells our group drill cost, on an average basis around $300,000,000 EACH. Yep, I used the correct number of zeroes. We cannot afford to have even 1 inch of defective material going down hole. Remember BP 2 years ago? I work in THAT environment, but not for BP.

A lot of this technology has been around for years, but with the computing power available today, it is the interpretation of those signals that is making all of the difference. Just wondering how much, if at all, the different manufacturers are able to leverage these technologies in detector design. And could these technologies be employed economically into detector production.

Didn't mean to ramble.
 
Back in 1980 I worked for Acoustic Emission Technology in Sacramento, so I actually know what that stuff is. I worked in product design, not in the research lab. Some of the stuff they had going on in the research lab was pretty darn sophisticated. I left AET to go to work for Fisher. I think AET was bought out by one of the bigger established acoustic emission companies, I'd recognize the name but don't remember it off the top of my head.

Eddy current based inspection methods have also been around a long time. I run across it in the context of patents.

--Dave J.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top