Jump to content

Recommended Posts

schoolofhardNox --

I KNOW you were not trying to diss anyone, and you didn't!  🙂

I was responding to your post as much from "surprise," as anything.  I had never heard of a carbon-fiber detector rod/shaft "snapping," or breaking, and while it does not surprise me that it COULD happen, under extreme circumstances, I was surprised that you knew of numerous instances...

In your first two pictures, with the crack running along the length of the shaft, that one makes ZERO sense to me.  Carbon-fiber tubes are made by wrapping sheets of woven carbon fiber, with glue/epoxy on them, around a metal rod that acts as a "form."  Multiple layers of this woven carbon fiber are wrapped, as I understand it, and then allowed to cure/harden.  Point being, the "weave" of the carbon fiber, in those multiple layers, should absolutely preclude such a straight-line "split" as is shown in that first picture -- to the degree that it makes me question whether that is actually a carbon-fiber tube at all...

The second two pictures show more of what I would expect a broken carbon-fiber tube to look like -- i.e. the rough/uneven edge of the break.  HOWEVER, in that second picture, that tube looks EXTREMELY thin...hard to tell in the picture, but it looks like it might even only be a millimeter or so...and so I'm not entirely surprised that one broke.  A normal "standard" wall thickness for a carbon-fiber tube is 2mm; the ones I use on my CTX 3030 lower rods, for instance, are actually 2.6 mm thick...which brings me to your next picture.  I've never seen a CTX rod break; even the factory Minelab rods are fairly stout/high-quality.  I understand that there could be significant forces applied to the rod, when hunting with a big coil in heavy surf (LOTS of drag/leverage applied to the rod, focused at that "connection point.")  Still, that's a surprising break to me; I wonder if sand was involved, such that over time, sand "wore down" the tube, right there at that connection point -- progressively introducing a small/focused "weak point" in the tube and thus facilitating that break.

IN ANY CASE, thanks for sharing the pictures.  I can see why you'd be a bit spooked by those experiences.  I can tell you that on my end, I have never had a customer with a tube breakage failure, and can't imagine that I will.  I'll never say "never," but I think it would be an unusual/rare circumstance.  

Like I said, I'm more than happy to send you some sample pieces -- I have lots, that I've cut off the end of my tubes when building rods, and you could have a look for yourself (IF, that is, you think you ever might want to purchase a rod/shaft from me for your CTX or EQX, and feel that it could be helpful toward easing any concerns you might have).

Otherwise, thanks for the interaction!  I appreciate it!

Steve

www.stevesdetectorrods.com

www.facebook.com/stevesdetectorrods

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :laugh: 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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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 steveg
      Hi all!
      I just wanted to let everyone know that I have finally been able to kick into shaft production mode, after the last of the long-awaited parts shipment arrived last Wednesday.  Shaft building has been underway since, and I'm happy to say that I've managed to start shipping a first handful of shafts to customers on the wait list.  
      Everyone who has contacted me in the past, and had their name added to the wait list requesting a shaft from the "first batch," has been contacted; each of these customers' shafts are compete -- and are now in the midst of a few days worth of epoxy-cure time.  I expect all customers on the wait list, who requested a shaft from the first batch and have been contacted within the past week, will have their shafts ready to ship by Wendesday or Thursday.
      MEANWHILE, I have more than enough parts to build a couple of dozen shafts beyond those allocated to customers currently on my wait list.  So, if you are interested in purchasing a shaft, please contact me, or be on the lookout for a "for sale" ad in the classified forum later this week.
      Finally, I have typed up a couple of detailed documents as well -- one providing lots of information on the counterweights (including assistance/advice on how to choose the "right" length/weight for your personal needs), and then a second document discussing the "spring button hole" option that is being offered, for those who feel they may wish to still utilize the spring button in the lower shaft.  
      Please contact me if you would like to receive either or both of these two documents, or if you have any other questions regarding the new, complete carbon-fiber shafts now available for your Minelab Equinox! 
      THANKS!
      Steve
      www.stevesdetectorrods.com (see the "what's new" section for complete shaft information)
      www.facebook.com/stevesdetectorrods
    • By Steve Herschbach
      One of these days I am anticipating getting the V4 update for the XP Deus and along with that the new 4.7" x 9.5" DD coil. This should be a great coil not only for better "see through" capability is thick trash but a very good prospecting coil. The V4 update is supposed to include the ability to use 15, 30, and 45 kHz but only with new coils designed to operate at those frequencies. The 4.7" x 9.5" coil is the first of the coils designed to work at the higher frequencies. The Deus running at 40 kHz with this new coil should be a formidable gold prospecting device for trashy locations in particular.
      I did not want to have to swap my 11" coil around with the new coil and XP rod assemblies are a bit pricey. The full rod assembly is $264 and just the lower rod is $57.00
      I had heard about the Golden Mask Universal Rod Assembly for sale at on eBay for about US$120 plus US$30 shipping from Bulgaria so ordered one on May 31 and it arrived today just over two weeks later. There was no issue buying the item and the seller answered questions promptly. That seller is gone now so here is a link to the manufacturer website.
      The bottom line is the rod is much higher quality than I imagined it would be. The tubes are carbon fiber. The armrest assembly looks like cheap plastic in the photos but is powder coated metal. The rod locking rings have rubber grip surfaces and are some of the best I have ever felt. The unit collapses to 21" and expands to 55" with a weight of 1 lb 1.8 oz without the included armrest strap compared to XP rod assembly at 1 lb 0.4 oz also without arm strap. Slightly more weight but also more compact when collapsed. The end is 5/8" diameter and same bolt as the XP. The rod is just a tiny bit loose in the XP coil ears but will work. It is a hair tight on White's coils but also will work. It would be loose on most other brand coils and bolt too small. However, many lower rods will swap out with the lower rod on this unit so should be easy to mate up with most anything.
      I am very pleased with this purchase.

    • By steveg
      Hi all.
      Now that I have the prototype shafts built, I've been able to work some more on the counterweight design, and I have moved very close to finalizing the design. 
      I have discovered through this extensive testing/design that the amount of weight needed to achieve proper counterbalance is a bit more than I was originally thinking, after the preliminary, "rough" proof-of-concept testing.  I would like to present the findings, and get some opinions -- from anyone who has been potentially interested in the counterbalance system -- as to whether these changes are acceptable, or if this would change your desire to possibly purchase the counterweights.
      1.  The weight needed to counterbalance the 12" x 15" coil, (based on an "average" lower rod extension length), is roughly 28 oz.  This is a fairly substantial amount of weight -- BUT -- I must note that when the weight is applied, the machine swings BEAUTIFULLY.  It FEELS lighter, even though the "absolute weight" -- i.e. according to measurement as provided by a scale -- is obviously greater.  With my forearm in the arm in the arm cuff, swinging the machine normally, I was literally able to hold the handle of the machine with only my thumb and index finger -- and swing the machine effortlessly!  The sensation is that the machine FLOATS across the ground!  (For the 11" coil, the amount of counterweight needed is of course slightly less -- roughly 25 oz.)
      2.  To include this amount of weight in the tube extensions, and yet not have the extensions excessively long, I must use larger-diameter carbon-fiber tube than I planned -- I've decided on 31mm outside diameter tubes.  I had intended to use the same diameter of tubing as used on the upper shaft (22.15mm outside diameter), but the extension length required was far too long.  
      3.  Using the 31mm outside diameter tube for the counterweights, I calculate that length of the tube extending beyond the end of the shaft will be 7 1/2" for the 12" x 15" coil, and 6 1/2" for the 11" coil.  
      4.  There would be no changes to the shaft design needed; anyone wanting the counterweight system in the future would still purchase a shaft with the same threaded female fitting installed in the butt end of the shaft, and the same threaded end cap that screws into the butt end.  The only changes would be to the counterweights themselves (as comparted to what I had originally planned) -- i.e. larger diameter carbon-fiber tubing, and thus a larger end cap for the ends of the counterweights themselves.
      SO, my questions are, with the counterweight lengths needed now a pretty-well "known quantity" -- i.e. 6 1/2" and 7 1/2" long (11" coil and 12" x 15" coil, respectively), and the weights to achieve balance being also a pretty-well "known quantity" -- i.e. 25 oz. and 28 oz., respectively, would those interested in the weights find these specs acceptable?  Please offer your comments.
      Preliminary/rough pricing info would be as follows.  One counterweight, $22.50 plus shipping ($30 total).  If an EQX user only wanted to order one weight, I would suggest the 6 1/2" long, 25 oz. weight, designed for the 11" coil; this amount of counterweight still achieves a degree of balance that feels GREAT with the 12" x 15" coil.  I am of the opinion that no counterweight is needed, for the 6" coil.  Two counterweights, one for the 11" coil and one for the 12" x 15" coil, $42.50 plus shipping ($50 total).  
      Thoughts?
      Steve
    • By steveg
      Hi all!
      I've been talking about this for so long, that I figure some of you may have wondered if it was ever actually going to happen, BUT...
      I am happy to announce that parts for one of the two prototype Equinox complete shafts arrived today, and I finished assembly.  I am VERY pleased with the quality of the parts -- especially the clamping cam lock, which was a large portion of the focus for the design.  I have done a small amount of testing/evaluation, and I am happy to say at this point that the strength/security of the clamp is impressive, and meets the design intent.  Overall, I see nothing about the shaft that needs to be changed/tweaked at this point.  I plan to build the second prototype when parts arrive for it on Tuesday, and then will do more testing and evaluation of both shafts.  Soon thereafter, I expect to place a "first order" for parts, so that I can begin offering them for sale.
      Here are a few pictures...
      Thanks!

      Steve
       







    • By Steve Herschbach
      Subject came up elsewhere so I thought I would run a little poll. The poll only gives you two choices but if you want to post about what you think your number one most comfortable detector model has ever been that would be great. It could be a lousy detector in every other way, all I am looking for it what detectors feel best on your arm when held for long hours. There are no right or wrong answers - this is a personal preference thing, determined in large part by hand and forearm size.
      The "S" rod grip is where the grip is just part of the rod itself, not a separate element. The Post grip is a separate post attached to the rod. Lots of people call this a pistol grip, but that really is more about the shape of the grip. I have seen good pistol grips in an S rod design. There are also Post grips on S rods so it is not the S that makes for the S rod grip but the fact it is integrated into the S. The photos here make it more obvious. There is a difference simply between curved shafts and straight shafts but that is actually a separate subject so I will make a separate poll on it.

    • By Tom Slick
      Decided to mod the 800 rod by switching out the straight middle rod to the White's S rod. I know a lot of folks like a straight rod but by switching it out, it eliminates the detector's handgrip from wanting to twist at the end of each swing. In a side by side comparison, both myself and a buddy with an 800 both like the feel of the modified version. The mod requires the middle rod from a White's DFX, or MXT. The rod needs to be drilled on the upper top end for the spring plunger and again adjustment holes need to be drilled on the bottom for length adjustment. The Lower rod from a Makro Racer or Kruzer is used as the lower rod from the Nox is larger in diameter. The top of the S rod also needs to be shimmed about .040" in diameter to fit snug into the Nox upper rod. Now it swings about as close to an F75 as you can get.

×