steveg

Thanks Bob! Steelheader, I'm not sure; I was of the impression that for most who have my shaft, they run it with the remote on it, and then may run the WS6 on their stock shaft...to have two complete rigs. I wasn't sure if folks were using the WS6 with my shaft, or not (and so I told Ryan there my be no need to make a version of his WS6 mount that is compatible with my shafts). Is this something that you (and others) would find useful? Thanks, Steve

Thanks, everyone, for the kind words! And thank you VERY much, Bob, for the review. Great stuff, and I'm glad Ryan was able to incorporate some changes that you suggested. He's really good about adjusting based on user input. Thanks for your time, and the detailed report, as always..> Steve

Flatsix, got it! Thanks! Steve

Thank you very much! Glad you are pleased! Flatsix, I haven't heard back from you; if you are still interested, please let me know... Steve

Flatsix, you are welcome! Thank you for the kind words. I appreciate your willingness to help. Please send me an email (steve@stevesdetectorrods.com), with your contact info/address, and I'll get it passed along to the guy who makes them, and he'll get in touch with you, to get one sent your way. Thank you! Steve

Hi all! I wanted to see if there were any folks using the XP shaft, with WS-6 "puck," who might be interested in field testing a new design from RCDigs. It's a mounting system for the WS-6, that is designed to bypass the XP mount system, just like the RCDigs mount for the Deus remote does -- i.e. by eliminating the XP mount system entirely. The idea is, of course, that by eliminating the XP mount system (which of course is prone to accidental dislodges of the puck when the puck is bumped), it eliminates any concern of losing the puck due to an accidental dislodge of the puck from the XP mount. Solving this "accidental dislodging" issue is of course the focus of the RCDigs mounting system, and the guy who produces the RCDigs mounts for the Deus remote, has gotten a number of requests for an "RCDigs-style" mounting system for the WS-6, as well. SO -- the design is now in "prototype" stage, and ready for testing. So, if anyone has interested in checking one of these out, and providing feedback, I'll get you set up to test one. There are three more testers needed, so if there are three folks interested, that would be great. Thanks! Steve

DSMITH -- thank you for the very thorough review, it's very much appreciated. You bring very good thoughts to the table, and Ryan and I will discuss your thoughts. THANK YOU! Steve

Thank you! Steve

@DSMITH -- Send me an email, if you are interested, at steve@stevesdetectorrods.com. Ryan has a working prototype of the adapter I mentioned; I wanted to see if you'd be interested in field-testing it... Thanks! Steve

You probably would not sense much difference (as you confirmed), as -- from a "balance" perspective, adding weight to the shaft at the "fulcrum" area (handle) does not affect the balance much, and so for that small of a weight difference, it should be fairly imperceptible. Steve

With Chase's assistance, I might add... 🙂 Steve

Hey all. I know this is the Deus 2 forum, but this relates to the discussion going on in the RCDigs mount thread, and specifically, to DSMITH's questions. I have spoken with the guy who makes the RCDigs mounts, about an idea that I had that would make the mount directly compatible with either a Deus 1 or an ORX remote. My idea is to make an "adapter," that fits the inside of the mount, but fits the outside of the Deus/ORX remote, so that you'd simply slide the adapter into the mount, and then slide the remote into the adapter. This might be a relatively low-cost, simple way to make the mount (designed specifically to fit the D2 remote) compatible with the D1/ORX. The issues are these: 1. I'm not sure if the shape of the Deus 1 and ORX remotes are identical, or just "similar." If anyone has an answer to this, please let me know. I THINK they are identical, but not positive on that... 2. Neither of us has a D1 or ORX remote at our disposal, to use as a template for developing such an "adapter." So, if by chance anyone has a defective one, that is no longer under warranty or whatever, and thus is just collecting dust, I'd be interested in it. Again, I'd just need one for enough time to use it as a template, so it doesn't make much sense to purchase a properly functioning one, just for "design" purposes. But, a non-functioning one, that could thus be had for a much lower price, would be worth purchasing... Thoughts? Steve

Chase, THANK YOU for sharing your thoughts on the the shaft with Digs mount attached. I'm glad to hear it worked well for you, and that you are pleased with the combo! Much appreciated -- and you even got "rewarded" with a nice hunk of .925! DSMITH -- I'm responding to your PMs... Thank you! Steve

DSMITH -- that's a good question, regarding the ORX. I am not sure if the ORX control box would fit properly into the RCDigs mount, or not. My shaft is compatible with the ORX (including my mount, I'm near certain), but not sure about the ORX, and I don't think the guy who makes them has an ORX remote available to him, to check it out. If you would like me to send you one for you to check it out, let me know. We can work something out in that regard... Thanks! Steve

THANKS, GRB! I am glad you are pleased! Looks great, Jed. Thank you! Steve

There was a post on here, years ago, about war nickels. I was a part of that, and had some examined using XRF. Bottom line, the are EXTREMELY variable, in terms of ID. Some ID near, or just a hair above, a standard nickle. Others read at various places through the pull tab range, and others up as high as IHP/zinc pennies. As JCR noted, it likely has to do with the alloy content (as XRF showed), and it's also probably the different alloys that affect, at least in part, the type of crud/oxidation that forms on the different coins. Steve

Thanks guys! A standard-length lower rod for the 700/900, in black, currently runs $59 plus shipping... Thanks! Steve

SInclair, In looking into this fairly extensively, recently (with F350), it appears that, from a chemistry perspective, the pairing of brass and stainless is not the "worst case scenario," in terms of excessive galvanic corrosion issues. Different combinations of metals result in different degrees corrosion potential -- some pairings worse than others -- and it has to do with chemistry, and the periodic table, and "how far apart" the metals are from a periodic table perspective...as it relates to "outer shell electrons," and ions, and a bunch of stuff I haven't thought too much about since college. But, point being, stainless and brass apparently aren't as bad, in that regard, as some others are. That validates your observations. Thanks! Stege

Chase, Wow, I'm surprised by that change. I have always had great experiences dealing with "Detector Center" in PA. But, I do appreciate the information. Now I know... Thanks, Steve

fishn... Minelab will let you know for sure, but unless something has changed, the repair shop was in Pennsylvania. That said, it's also possible that they may have you ship to Illinois for machines or accessories that can't be repaired (i.e. items that are simply replaced), while machines that are actually worked on/repaired are still sent to PA. Bottom line -- I'm not sure on the current state of affairs; I only know that at least for quite awhile in the recent past, Minelab's official "repair center" was in Pennsylvania. Steve

Thanks, my friend! Steve

Thanks Colonel! Steve

Dan, Thanks for your thoughts, now that you've had a chance to use it! I'm really glad to hear you are pleased! Thanks, Dan! Steve P.S. One note -- your anti-seize idea is a great one, for any current or older mount. That said, what small potential for galvanic corrosion (between the two dissimilar metals) that you are mitigating with anti-seize, will be eliminated shortly, with our changeover to marine-grade stainless steel for BOTH the screw AND the threaded insert.

Yes, please do let us know what you find out, after Minelab receives the machine and checks it out. Thanks! Steve

NO, VDI increasing in other modes is not correct, either. You might see a digit or two difference at most, but a nickel going from 27 to 39? No, something is definitely wrong... Steve