GPX Carbon Rods?

[schoolofhardNox]

Steve, Thanks for the information. I did have one idea on the Equinox shafts you are designing. I think I read that one version will have a screw on counter balance weight on the end of the machine. Did you ever consider the counterweight should not be screwed on, but have a cam lock to be able to slide it on the shaft to change the balance point to accommodate all weights of coils. It would be nice to be able to adjust that weight to suit your detecting situations if needed. Maybe that won't work, but I figured I'd throw it out there.

[Alluminati]

7 hours ago, schoolofhardNox said:

Steve, Thanks for the information. I did have one idea on the Equinox shafts you are designing. I think I read that one version will have a screw on counter balance weight on the end of the machine. Did you ever consider the counterweight should not be screwed on, but have a cam lock to be able to slide it on the shaft to change the balance point to accommodate all weights of coils. It would be nice to be able to adjust that weight to suit your detecting situations if needed. Maybe that won't work, but I figured I'd throw it out there.

I agree, a clamp on version might be easier.

I was thinking of making myself a hollow pod to clamp onto the end of the shaft that I could fill with sand or scrap lead that I find.

My season is pretty much over  until spring, so I can't really try much testing unless I go to a pool lol.

I'm open to collecting data on the amount of weight and how far away from your elbow it is.

Pardon me for stepping on toes, but SOHN hit on a thought I've been mulling over in the background.

[steveg]

Gents --

THANK YOU for the thoughts.  It is a very good idea in concept -- as having a telescopic counterweight system WOULD INDEED allow adjustment in the balance point simply by sliding the weight in and out (moving it nearer or farther from the "fulcrum").

However, I opted for screw-in, versus telescopic, for two reasons...

1.  If I went telescopic, one of my concerns was that the tube containing the weight would have to be smaller in diameter than the upper shaft to permit the telescopy -- i.e. I would need the tube to be of the diameter of the lower rod.  And that smaller-diameter tube would accommodate less lead, per inch, and thus would mean that longer lengths of counterweights would be needed to achieve the same "balance."  And I know many folks would like to keep those extensions as short as possible.

2.  More significantly, though, is this -- the amount of distance available to "telescope" the counterweights into the butt-end of the upper shaft is EXTREMELY LIMITED, due to the through-bolt that holds the arm cuff.  This is especially problematic for someone who uses the "most rearward" arm cuff hole -- in which case you'd only have about  1 3/8" of telescopic capability, as limited by that through bolt.

So, while in the absence of the arm-cuff through bolt, the "cam lock/telescopic counterweight" idea is superior in theory, these were the limitations that led me to opt for the "screw-in" idea.

The ONLY way I know of, to use the telescopic idea, would be to make the shaft longer at the butt end -- i.e. -- lengthen the part that extends beyond the arm cuff holes, and then put the cam lock out there at the butt end of the now-longer shaft.  Then, the counterweight would have more "shaft" to telescope into.  The problem there is, shipping boxes I have been able to procure are limited to 37" in length...so I really can only add about an inch additional to the butt end...which would only increase telescopic capability (if using the rear-most cuff hole to about 2 3/8")...

Thoughts?

Steve

[steveg]

Gentlemen...

I am still pondering this idea (of "telescopic" counterweights) a bit more; as I said, I ruled it out initially, due to the lack of telescopic distance available, AND to the fact that the counterweights would have to be longer, due to the smaller-diameter tubes.  

I calculated how much longer of a tube would be needed to achieve the same amount of weight; I can get roughly 8 oz. of lead pellets in a roughly 5" tube that is the diameter of the upper shaft.  I calculated that it would take about a 6 1/4" long tube, the diameter of the lower shaft, to get that same 8 oz. of lead pellets inside.  Hmm.  Not TOO terribly much longer.

I know this is taking this thread WAY off topic, but -- let's say there was only that 1 1/2" or so of telescopic ability -- i.e. not that much.  Would it still be a better idea, in your minds, to attach/detach a slightly longer tube, via a clamping cam lock, versus unscrewing tubes via threaded connectors?

Just curious...

Steve

[schoolofhardNox]

1 minute ago, steveg said:

Gentlemen...

I am still pondering this idea (of "telescopic" counterweights) a bit more; as I said, I ruled it out initially, due to the lack of telescopic distance available, AND to the fact that the counterweights would have to be longer, due to the smaller-diameter tubes.  

I calculated how much longer of a tube would be needed to achieve the same amount of weight; I can get roughly 8 oz. of lead pellets in a roughly 5" tube that is the diameter of the upper shaft.  I calculated that it would take about a 6 1/4" long tube, the diameter of the lower shaft, to get that same 8 oz. of lead pellets inside.  Hmm.  Not TOO terribly much longer.

I know this is taking this thread WAY off topic, but -- let's say there was only that 1 1/2" or so of telescopic ability -- i.e. not that much.  Would it still be a better idea, in your minds, to attach/detach a slightly longer tube, via a clamping cam lock, versus unscrewing tubes via threaded connectors?

Just curious...

Steve

I see what you are getting at with your design. Skimming through a lot of post doesn't let me digest them all very well  I originally envisioned your counter balance to look like a small tube with a small ball on the end of it. Now I realize that is a tube filled with weight (no ball on the end). So I can see why the extension length may be an issue. For some reason I just thought of how some digging trowels  have that 1-2" ball on the end.

[Alluminati]

I figure as long as I can make mine smaller then a Excalibur pod I'm golden.

[steveg]

SOHN -- got it!  Thank you for your reply!  Yes, it would be lead-filled tubes, no "ball" of any sort on the end.

I will not derail your post any further!  ?

Thanks!

Steve

[Goldseeker5000]

Hey Steve do you have any ajustable rods for the Gold Monster?

[steveg]

I am sorry, Goldseeker, I do not.  I do not own a Gold Seeker, and so without having one to take measurements with, I'm not able to design a shaft for it.

I apologize!

Steve

[Lunk]

14 hours ago, Goldseeker5000 said:

Hey Steve do you have any ajustable rods for the Gold Monster?

GS5k, check this out if you haven’t already: