steveg

I think I MIGHT have a guess as why Dimitar has not seemed to be real "hot" on, or "enthusiastic" about a smaller coil. And note, I MAY be wrong, and would love to hear the thoughts of others. First, the focus with the design intent of the MDT 8000 is in handling "bad dirt," to achieve more depth. And with that being the focus, a small coil is antithetical to the idea of "more depth." But more importantly, the MDT stands of course for "Mixed-Domain Technology," which means, it's not a "VLF" unit, like we are all used to using. In VLF world, the idea of using a smaller coil footprint to be able to "hunt better in trash" is something that we are all used to. But I wonder if this concept may not apply as much, from a physics perspective, with a hybrid/time-domain unit. I MAY be wrong, as I have never owned a pulse unit, but do users of PI detectors frequently push for "smaller" coils? From the uneducated, rather ignorant glances over in the "PI direction" that I occasionally take, what I usually see is the push for LARGER coils. That's in line with the objectives of a PI unit. And so, when one realizes that part of the design of the MDT 8000 includes time domain/pulse-induction type functionality, then perhaps this is part of why it's a bit counter-intuitive to Dimitar to enthusiastically move in that direction. And I note, this is NOT anything that Dimitar has said to me. I have never broached this subject with him. I just wonder if this isn't part of it. Time-domain units, as I have understood (and MAY be wrong) don't deal with trash so much by trying to do so with a smaller "coil footprint," they do so by allowing you to choose different pulse delays, which make some types of metal more visible to the machine, and others more invisible. And that is a different paradigm, as compared to VLF. So, I wonder if a smaller coil to deal with trash, is applying the wrong paradigm to this particular technology to some degree? Steve

Hi, all! I just wanted to let everyone who may be interested know that I've now branched out a bit; in addition to my shaft-building, Steve's Detector Rods is now an official Tarsacci dealer. I purchased an MDT 8000 about 6 months ago, after meeting Dimitar at a detecting event, and spending a good bit of time speaking with him there, and later by phone. After he engaged me in a one-on-one demonstration of the unit, and the technology that powers it, it became obvious pretty quickly that the MDT 8000 breaks some "new ground," especially in terms of dealing with mineralized dirt. And sure enough, and after using the unit for awhile, I can confirm that the way it performs in my irony-red Oklahoma clay dirt is nothing short of impressive. With 12" coil attached, and after extensive testing both in my test garden, and in a "real-world" site that I'm uniquely and intimately familiar with, I can confidently confirm that I get an inch to inch-and-a-half of additional depth, as compared to any of the other units I've used/tested -- INCLUDING multiple iterations of Minelab FBS units, and the Multi-IQ platform found in the Equinox. While I'm still learning the unit, I feel that what it has proven capable of has earned it a permanent place in my detector line-up, and as such, I feel that I'm able to throw my support behind the machine in terms of willingness to become a dealer. Again, though not yet an "expert" user by any stretch, I feel I know enough about it that I'm now in a place where I can assist any customer who is interested in a possible purchase, as well as help out with post-sale questions or advice on set-up or operation. My website is not yet up-to-date to reflect my partnership with Tarsacci, but I'm happy to offer any information needed, along with pricing on the various packages, to anyone who may be interested. Last but not least, I build aftermarket shafts for the MDT 8000, and I'm even working with Dimitar (the company owner/design engineer) to be able to offer a possible "package deal," where the unit could be sent with one of my custom two-piece lower shafts, as opposed to the factory shaft. Now, I will honestly say that the MDT 8000's stock carbon-fiber shaft is as high-quality of a shaft as I've ever seen on a machine. However, one thing that is not offered by Tarsacci is a "tall-man" lower rod. And so, for those needing a bit of extra length, I can offer that, via my two-piece lower shaft setup -- in the same carbon-fiber pattern and appearance as the stock shaft. In addition, my shaft is substantially smaller in diameter than the stock shaft, which is an advantage for folks using their unit in the water -- as the thinner diameter substantially reduces "hydrodynamic drag," thus requiring less effort when swinging the shaft underwater. Anyway, I just wanted to let everyone know that I'm now an official dealer, and would be glad to talk all things "Tarsacci" with anyone who may be interested. Just send me an email, to "steve@stevesdetectorrods.com," and I'll be glad to assist. Thanks! Steve www.stevesdetectorrods.com www.facebook.com/stevesdetectorrods email: steve@stevesdetectorrods.com Thanks! Steve

We have had two yellow labs now, one still with us. As puppies, they are TERRORISTS! Cute terrorists, but terrorists nonetheless. Everything you own -- including your body -- will be chewed relentlessly! 😉 If you can tough it out for the first year, they make a most outstanding pet...aside from the ridiculously copious amounts of hair that they shed constantly... And I think Minelab is a great name for her!!! LOL! Steve

Chase -- Thanks for the info on the 4500 and 4800. I do NOT think it is "just" yours. The person who sent me the 5000 shaft -- schoolofhardNox -- told me of the very same issue. He told me that the shafts MUST be large enough in diameter so that you can get the screws tight enough, but NOT so tight that you crack the plastic handle, trying to over-tighten the screws. I took careful measurements of the shaft he sent me, so that will take care of THAT issue, but yes -- there's the "friction" thing. HOWEVER, I use that same Minelab handle (albeit the "without the button" model) when I build my Excalibur shafts, and no customers have mentioned any issues with "slip" of the handle. While plastic is not the BEST material in terms of generating friction, the cam locks I use function on the same principle -- friction between plastic and carbon-fiber tube -- to secure the shaft sections in place, and it does so very nicely. NOW -- I realize that you can adjust the cam lock to basically whatever tension you desire, and you don't have to fear breakage, like you do trying to tighten that handle via the fasteners. BUT -- I am thinking you will be able to achieve the necessary tension to keep it in place, based on my experience with using the handles on my Excal (and Sovereign) shafts. IF NOT, here are a couple of solutions to that... 1. I can purchase carbon-fiber tubes produced with a "textured" surface -- like what is found on my (and some other brands') sand scoop handles. This would increase friction even further; this would be my approach if get any feedback that folks can't achieve the necessary friction to keep that handle locked in place. 2. There are aftermarket handles available that apparently resolve this issue... JPs Aluminum Minelab GPX Handle | Fort Bedford Metal Detectors That link was shared with me by schoolofhardNox also, and I believe it's what he has switched over to, on his shafts... Meanwhile, here are a couple of "hacks" that come to mind for folks currently having this issue with their stock shafts... Perhaps that black "textured spray paint" sold by Krylon (and probably others) could help; one could tape off all but the area where the handle resides, and then apply that to the "handle" location of the shaft; the textured surface under the handle would likely allow for improved friction... OR, one could drill a hole THROUGH the handle and THROUGH the shaft, and secure it with a bolt and wing nut (nylon, or stainless). Anyway, THANKS for the information and feedback, Chase. Very much appreciated. I hope to have the GPX uppers ready soon (after I get the prototype finished, and sent to schoolofhardNox for testing). Steve www.stevesdetectorrods.com www.facebook.com/stevesdetectorrods email: steve@stevesdetectorrods.com

Hey all -- just an update. Thanks to Detector Prospector member "schoolofhardNox," who sent me a GPX 5000 shaft, I'm now looking to produce a COMPLETE GPX 5000 shaft -- upper AND lower. I am prototyping one for him, and assuming it passes his testing, I'll be ordering the appropriate tubes to begin offering this. For those of you more familiar with GPX machines than I am, I assume the same upper shaft would fit the 4500/4800? I know the lowers are the same... Thanks! Steve

Yeah, Dan, that DEFINITELY doesn't look like it was an "easy" hunt, LOL, but you were nicely rewarded! Congrats! Steve

Dan, LOL! It definitely looks like some type of hand-carved ring...very interesting! Steve

Dan, EXCELLENT hunt! What's the ring-like item on the far right? Steve

Steve -- Certainly! Gold Monster shaft -- fully extended, approx. 58"; fully collapsed, approx. 36". Those measurements apply to the standard two-piece shaft; custom three-piece "travel shaft" designs are also available, for a more compact footprint when packing. 100% 3K Carbon Fiber, injection molded clamp-type cam lock, and injection-molded lower rod "clevis/head." Steve

Wow -- what an incredible display of finds, capping off an outstanding year of detecting, Dan! CONGRATS!!! Steve

Hey all! I just wanted to let everyone know that I now offer complete, carbon-fiber shafts (which can also be counterweighted if you desire) for the Gold Monster 1000. I'll attach a picture of a completed one, assembled with the unit, below. Additionally, I also have begun offering lower rods for the GPX 4500/4800/5000, and now the 6000 (and of course lower rods for the CTX 3030, and complete shafts for the Equinox). Finally, I also offer custom shafts for the Excalibur series, also with a couple of pictures, below. Thanks all!

kac -- either way, I'm glad to help if I can. mh9162013 -- same for you -- glad to help you out if you decide you'd like to try one! Thanks! Steved

kac, I've never built a shaft for a Tesoro machine, but I'd be willing to give it a go if you need me to. What I would need to know is the diameter of the Tesoro lower rod, and a very accurate measurement of the width of the lower rod (the "clevis" or "head" that fits between the coil ears) WITH washers installed... Steve

kac -- yep, the plan is to offer these for some other units, where the control box attaches to the shaft; the first one I'll be producing it for is the Garrett AT and ACE series (but will have those field-tested as well, prior to production). I'm not sure if I'll include a rubber grip, or not. It's actually pretty comfortable without, and may just allow those who wish to use a "wrap," to do so; others may not want to as I feel it fits your hand nicely, as is. Not sure yet... Stee

CPT -- OH MY! What a great story! And here I thought you'd just be testing a shaft today; instead, you did something much more important! Terrific recovery; I am sure they were thrilled that you "fixed" their situation! Outstanding! As far as the testing goes, a YouTube channel isn't my concern; if you have enough experience on the Equinox to know how it "feels" to you, and if you are one of the "vocal minority" (LOL) who feel that the Equinox on an S-shaft will feel/swing better for you than the straight shaft, then I'm interested in your feedback... THANKS for taking the time to do it! Steve

Kurt -- I played with such a design a couple of years ago. I prototyped it, but just wasn't pleased. The bottom line is that I found the shaft to be too "thin," diameter-wise, for such a "cable inside-the-shaft" design to be effective. Not only is the cable connector relatively large relative to the inside diameter of the lower rod, but -- the size/width of openings needed in the shaft in order to allow the cable connectors to enter and exit the shaft, result in too much of a "weak spot," in my opinion, at the location of the openings. I even used engineering-grade plastic (Delrin) fittings at the locations of the cable openings, so as to make the openings in the plastic, and not the carbon tube itself, but the opening had to be so large, that the plastic -- despite its rigidity -- would "flex" a bit, given how large the opening was, thus reducing the structural rigidity of the fitting. The other issue, and it's not a minor one, is that the Equinox coil cable is not of the coiled/retractable type. On the old Minelab Explorers, and then the E-Trac, and then the CTX -- all of which are "cable inside the shaft" models, they all utilize the coiled/retractable style of coil cable. SO -- when you extend or shorten the lower rod length, the cable also shortens or extends. However, with a "straight" cable, like on the Equinox, the cable tends to get "bunched up" inside, when you tried to install, and then shorten, the lower rod on my prototype -- i.e. the lower rod is prevented from sliding easily, especially when collapsing it for stowing/travel. The other issue with a non-retractable coil cable, is that routing the cable straight up through the shaft results in several feet of extra "coil cable" after the cable exits the shaft near the control box. This requires you to make many, many wraps of the coil cable around the shaft to take up the "slack" (sort of like some do on their Excaliburs). Anyway, the bottom line is that you need a much "stouter" shaft, at larger diameter, to effectively include openings to allow the cable to insert and exit, and to fit more easily inside. And then, you really need one of those "coiled" coil cables, to do it effectively... Steve

Wow, Chuck. What a sad tale. So sorry to hear about your friend. Awful. Yes, let's hope 2022 is a better year, and that you "click" with your Equinox; it's a good machine that I think you will be pleased with in time... Steve

Gw -- that would certainly be a unique shaft configuration!

Gw -- so, you say it can be "anywhere," but with anywhere meaning as long as it is on the bottom of the shaft, not the top. So, I would then ask "what about seeing the screen," but my guess is that you would say you don't use/need a screen, and hunt exclusively by ear? And my guess is that you have "hip-mounted" or "chest-mounted" machines in the past? Steve

Gw -- meaning like an old White's unit, with control box under the shaft?

Gw -- so how does that differ from a perfectly balanced straight shaft? When balanced properly, you can literally grip the machine's handle with your thumb and index finger, and with NO exertion of your wrist whatsoever, the machine sits in natural "detecting position..." Steve

Gwcracker -- is this something we have discussed in the past? I'm trying to picture a handle parallel to the ground... Steve

Gwcracker -- warm? 🙂

Hey all! So, I have a prototype S-shaft ready to go, for an Equinox. With this shaft (similar to the way an F75 is set up), you would still attach the control box/handle assembly to the shaft -- just "behind" the "S-handle." In other words, with this shaft, you would not use the S-handle as your "handle." For the version of this shaft that I'll be making for Garrett units, you WOULD use the "S-handle," but not with the Equinox. In any case, the prototype is not set up for counterweight attachment, BUT, it certainly could be. And since the S-shaft configuration likely will not "solve" the balance issues (but may perhaps help some), I do expect that for anyone who uses a straight shaft with counterweighting, they will probably want to use the S-shaft with at least SOME counterweight (albeit perhaps less) as well. In any case though, I thought that for initial testing, a non-counterweighted S-shaft would be the better way to go. I have a couple of folks who have expressed interest in testing the shaft; my plan is to send out for testing, and then ask that person to send it along to either another person who wishes to test it, or back to me. Anyone who tests it, likes it, and would like to purchase one, would receive a discount off the regular price. Here is a picture of the finished prototype... Steve

mh -- now THAT is funny, LOL! 🙂 Once the testing is complete, and I think I have it in a format that will serve folks well, I'll be glad to get you taken care of! LOL! Steve