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.

CZ depth...

A

Anonymous

Guest
From using different models from the CZ6 thru the CZ70 pro never found much difference in depth..I do feel over the years they have improved the iron nail thing.Keep in mind one may have a hot CZ and those that have older ones that feel they are not as deep a tuneup at Fisher may be in order..Hard to believe still many original CZ6 units still going strong after 13 years...Surely debateable but coil for coil hard to beat a CZ for depth no matter what unit you use. In addendum your local mineralization and operator expertise can certainly vary depths obtained.
 
The CZ are great all around detectors and very stable I just wish something very new would change the world of detecting and the state of the art would machine would be born with things we have dreamed of and hoped for. But It seems everyone claims depth and finding more of what is in the ground. I keep hoping for the next generation
 
I think maybe the mfg of detectors are probably wise enough to keep it always for something for the operator to do and learn not have such advanced technoloy that nothing needs to be done except swing a detector with no other requirements for better results.
As far as deeper or better target separation sure why not.
A brand new technology of some super sort I am not sure it would be a good thing for the hobby.
HH
Dan R.
 
Surely depth is over emphazised but in our area where coins fall deep need the depth to get ones the others can't reach as our area has many hunters..
Without question many facets to consider and one hopes some major manufactures will come up with some new bells and whistles to overcome some other obstacles to make us more proficient.
 
Dan, I agree with you about depth. Coins here in TN are deep, especially at old sites. also as far as detectors go .. now I might be mistaken but I think they are regulated by the fcc to 100 miliwatts output. Coil design has a lot to do with depth and I think Fisher has the market cornered on it. I think PI (pulse induction) is where some gains can be made but lets dont take all of the fun out of it.. HH
 
I've heard arguments about the CZ line being "old" technology. Geez, put that to bed already. There isn't any "new" technology that does it any better using the same signalling scheme.
 
Hey TennRon, my understanding was that this class of device is limited to either 400 or 600 mW, but few go over 120 mW.
My understanding is it's an operational barrier and a greater signal would reduce accuracy to zero as shallow targets would produce overload characteristics that preclude accurate id'ing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top