Fisher CZ-5

[daytondigger]

I've owned my Fisher for a number of years now and have enjoyed it immensely. In the past I used Whites, tesoros and many others and have had varying degrees of success with them. One day I was using a then top of the line Tesoro, which I dearly loved, and my hunting partner was using a CZ-5. While he was in the house getting ready to leave, I picked up his CZ-5 and air tested a quarter, I then compared it to my Tesoro and was shocked at the difference. The Fisher was obviously a far deeper detector than mine. That was over five years ago and for someone who used to upgrade every year, I have kept the same machine and have no plans to switch. I would like to add the new pinpointer I've heard about, other than that, you'd have a tough time selling me on a new detector.

 

[Sandman]

You can never compare air tests one detector against another. An excellent example is the Minelabs arainst other VLF's. A target in the ground will always be found deeper by the Minlab or at least identified correctly to save digging a deep piece of trash.

The Fisher CZ5 is a two frequency detector, and Tesoro one. There are many variables involved too. So long as you have confidence in your detector, enjoy.

But don't ya just wonder what your missing??

Sandman

 

[stoney56]

I've always had a fondness for Fisher's but they really do like those subsurface rusty nails. (well at least mine does, )

 

[daytondigger]

The air test was just the first step, I know I dug a square tab at about 12 inches on the beach in Florida. I've also detected many so-called hunted out sites and found many missed deep targets. Not to mention following over ground my partners have hunted and get what they missed. The only negative I can give you is the "rusty nail syndrome". I've dug my fair share of them in the past, but now I turn the discrimination down to iron and don't dig "most" of the low tones. I'd really have to be shown some proof that Minelab or any other unit is superior, but I prefer to buy from an American company anyways. Twenty five years of using one brand and model after the other, and then no desire to change.

 

[Mike T]

ask any scientist, a detector cannot detect deeper in the ground than in an air test. It can detect less but not greater distance. I had a Physics professor who MD tell me its impossible to get a signal at a greater distance in the ground than in the air. Mike T

 

[warsawdaddy]

Baloney! But then,'technically correct' if there is no halo involved by being in the ground.The halo will respond the same as a larger target and can be picked-up at a deeper depth.Someone who knows what I'm trying to say step in here and explain it better.Thanks.

 

[hollowpointred]

Baloney! But then,'technically correct' if there is no halo involved by being in the ground.The halo will respond the same as a larger target and can be picked-up at a deeper depth.Someone who knows what I'm trying to say step in here and explain it better.Thanks.

that is correct warsaw. its called the halo effect and it works like you said. a buried metallic target, over time will leach a small amount of the targets composition into the surrounding soil causing a sort of a halo. this halo can be read by your detector as part of the actual object, effectively enlarging it, and making it easier to detect at greater depths.

 

[Dixie Digger]

you said it correct Warsaw! if the item has been in the ground long enough to begin to collect mineralization it will have a larger halo effect and to the detector appear to be a larger target than when it 1st was put in the ground.i have owned 30+ detectors over 30+ years from the old Bounty hunter 150d /Whites 49'r/Whites 5500d/Whites 6000DI pro/Fisher 1280x (3) of them Garrett Sea hunter/ Garrett ace/ Fisher 1220/Fisher 1225/Fisher 1235/Fisher 1236x2 /Tesoro Tiger Shark to the Excalibur 1000.i now own 2 CZ5's and wouldn't take all the other's iv had combined for my CZ5's! but thats just my opinion.there are other people that would say the same for there machine.bottom line if you find one you like ,trust it and enjoy!

 

[Mike T]

say you have a recently buried quarter at the maximum distance you can detect, for the sake of argument lets say 10" at this 10" you can just pick up a signal, now over here you have an exact same quarter buried 100 years ago at 10" it has matrix or corrosion or halo or what ever else you wish to call it.
Now what do we get? a louder signal? it is possible since some of the metals have broken off the mass and spread out creating a larger target easier to identify, but the some total of its mass is still the same which means if you could move the quarter deeper the quantity would still be the same and it would be still beyond its ability to detect a target relaying a signal of the same total amount of metal as the first quarter.
I'm a passionate person too but can we keep this discussion on a civilized note. Mike T

 

[warsawdaddy]

What if the 100 yr old quarter is buried at 11 or 12"? Do you think you would not get a hit?

 

[hollowpointred]

say you have a recently buried quarter at the maximum distance you can detect, for the sake of argument lets say 10" at this 10" you can just pick up a signal, now over here you have an exact same quarter buried 100 years ago at 10" it has matrix or corrosion or halo or what ever else you wish to call it.
Now what do we get? a louder signal? it is possible since some of the metals have broken off the mass and spread out creating a larger target easier to identify, but the some total of its mass is still the same which means if you could move the quarter deeper the quantity would still be the same and it would be still beyond its ability to detect a target relaying a signal of the same total amount of metal as the first quarter.
I'm a passionate person too but can we keep this discussion on a civilized note. Mike T

i agree mike, lets keep this civil. try an expieriment.bury a penny in a test garden just deep enough so that you cant get a signal. now let it sit for a few months and check it again. all of a sudden your machine will pick that penny up. try, it it works. another test you can try is to air test a quarter on your machine. pass it under the coil just until the beep is recognizable as a good diggable target. now turn the quarter on edge, and see if the machine will still pick it up. the quarters mass has not changed, but the surface area of the quarter visable to your detector has. when held on edge the machine will not register the quarter as a hit like it did when it was held flat.

 

[Mike T]

Thats exactly what I said, about a fresh quarter and a corroded one decomposing quarter giving a larger target, the fresh one is a smaller target where the older one has spread out with a bigger face. but the detector is putting out a constant amount of power signal, by moving the coin back doesn't increase the power of the detector.

 

[Mike T]

This is a subject that has alot of opinions and I came across this page,its interesting
www.garysdetecting.co.uk/hoard_test.htm

 

[daytondigger]

Dixie Digger is a wise one . Every one has mentioned the halo effect on older buried targets. I've noticed that after recovering an older find, I often times get a signal over the same spot that eventually seems to fade or was just a one time blip. And yet , even going to all metal and searching, there's no more indication that anything else is in the hole. Is this possibly from the halo? Good luck to everyone this weekend.

 

[oldman]

You can speed up the halo effect by simply when you place the quater, coin in the ground, mix some water and salt and pour it in the hole before placing the dirt back in over the buried quarter coin. This in a mater of a couple days will age the quarter like it has been buried hundreds of years. Bill

 

[EasyMoney]

Mike T is correct.

Just for the record:

George Payne the KING of metal detector engineering (and Jack Gifford too) says that the halo effect ONLY APPLIES to iron or steel objects, and that it is electronically and physically nearly IMPOSSIBLE for other metals to have this effect. He also tells why. Look up his engineering notes and read about it. George should know, he is the "godfather" of all modern detectors and their circuitry.

If you go to the Tesoro site you will find the same info., where Jack talks about coils.

I don't know Sandman, George (and Jack Gifford too, the Tesoro chief engineer) also says that an air test is the best indicators of how well a detector will find something in the ground regardless of the ground conditions, and he tells why too. It is about gain and the depth of the electromagnet field.

Covalent bonding VS ionic bonding, and the fact that precious and semi-precious metals have a more stable bonding of their electrons and do not give them up very easily to combine with other elements in the soil is why they give up little halo if any at all..

Iron is a highly unstable metalic substance and therefore it gives up (boils off) it's electrons much easier and quicker with many more metalic elements than do other metals. This is why iron rusts and silver and gold do not, and copper and brass corrode very little. Incidentally, when iron rusts, it is doing little less than when building a fire. Fire is nothing more than a much faster rate of oxidation while rust is a much slower one. They are both oxidations.

Just thought Id pass this info along..

EasyMoney

 

[U.K. Brian]

Very true. No halo with pure gold and worse, silver and copper can develop a patina as they become at one with the surrounding soil and this can reduce detection depths.
Poor quality metals can react with acids in the soil and in my view this generates a small current that can slightly increase detection depth if the soil is damp enough. This seems to be the principle the Compass Depth Doubler worked on.
When the soil dries out the process stops and the depth of detection drops.
So we should all be detecting damp soil....except iron does produce a halo and that will increase target masking of good targets and upset the machines ground balance.
I think Eric Foster posted that iron 'halo' does not affect pulse machines. If this is so then the next generation pulse discriminators could be the way to go as long as the discrimination abilities don't depend on the I.B. principle as used in previous pulse discriminators like the Pulse Analyst and the P.P.D.1.

 

[EasyMoney]

Yes Brian..

Erik was also refering to the "eddy currents" that are produced when a signal passes alongside and wraps around a target, and a "ghost" or "eddy" or "little path" of current is produced on the other side of the target. A PI reads eddy currents only, not signal-to-receiver or transmit-to-receiver signal as VLF's and TR's put out. BFO's only radiate magnetic fields. An eddy current results because there is bleed-off and reduction of the main signal, much as when a current inside a wire always allows a miniscule bit of the signal (current) to escape outside the "insulation" of the wires. All electrical wiring omits at least some trace or eddy current and it is quite easily attested to by reading the magnetic emissions along the wiring while in use. To prove that, hold a compass next to the wiring when in use. The electrical current causes the boiling off of the electrons that are or have become magnetically charged.

And as you say, with gold there is basically no halo, and with semi-precious metals the effect can even cause a reduction on detector depth, especially if there is too great of a mass of the copper oxide leaching into the soil. This leaching causes the auto-track to often work too hard trying to overcome it's mass and therefore a resulting reduction in sensitivity. However, this is not the norm, and luckily this happens not all that often. Iron ores and oxides leach out and combine very well and easily with other metalic elements in the soil and do casuse a halo effect. Copper, brass, lead, etc do not, they create an entirely different compound than does iron. The iron oxides make the detector think that it is supposed to cancel more iron and hence the concentrated mass (the target) reads better and deeper. It always goes back to the matrix theory. Always.