steveg

Guys, Thanks for these thoughts, they are much appreciated. Dew -- interesting thoughts on two-piece rods with threaded connectors. The ones I have made in the past use stainless-steel connectors, not aluminum, and they seem to "stay tight" pretty well. But even so, it's good to hear your feedback, as I try to think through the possibility of offering a "collapsible" or "travel" shaft for the EQX. It sounds like such a design -- using threaded connectors -- would not be optimal in your experience? afreakofnature -- I hear you, on the desire for a telescoping travel rod. A fully telescopic system would be great, but there are some non-trivial challenges, that would make it hard to implement a design using a "second" clamping cam lock for the middle and upper sections of a travel rod (versus the "lower cam lock, upper threaded connector" type of design, that I have suggested here). The two biggest challenges are: 1. Minelab's design of both the Equinox handle, and the arm cuff, essentially preclude simple implementation of a shaft design featuring a middle tube "telescoping" into the upper. The reason is, both the arm cuff and the handle require "protrusions" into the upper shaft (a "through bolt" in the case of the arm cuff, and a "nipple" in the case of the handle) that would prevent the ability for a smaller tube to "slide inside" the upper. So, to achieve telescopy with the middle and upper rods, one would have to "cut off" or "sand off" that "nipple" on the bottom of the handle, and -- possibly -- create a re-designed arm cuff that does not attach via a "through bolt" (unless the middle rod was able to be kept short enough such that the arm-cuff through bolt would be far enough toward the end of the upper shaft so as not to be a hindrance). 2. If this first challenge were overcome, the other issue is that such a shaft would of course require 3 different tube sizes -- ultimately forcing the O.D. of the tube used for the lower rod to be a relatively small 17.75mm O.D. Not only is a 17.75mm tube getting pretty small, in terms of outside diameter, but the other concern is that with a 19.75mm O.D. middle rod connecting to that 17.75mm O.D. lower rod, a new cam lock would have to be designed; likewise, a new design would also be required for the "clevis/head" piece at the lower end of the lower rod, where the coil attaches (again, due to the smaller lower rod size). And therefore, since these "travel" rods would probably be in somewhat limited demand, as compared to the regular "two-piece" complete shaft, the costs of designing/producing another cam lock and another clevis, and possibly a new arm cuff, would be tough to recover, without a rather significant increase in the cost of the shaft. For these reasons, my brain envisioned that the way to avoid these issues entirely would be to implement the screw-type connector for the upper shaft. But -- as someone not intimately familiar with the difficulties of dealing with sand, perhaps the threaded connector is not the best option, as the two of you are suggesting. Hmm... Steve

afreakofnature -- I don't see any reason why I can't do that. Please allow me to check with my supplier, who makes the stainless-steel couplings for the tubes I use for my CTX rods, and see if they can make one for the Equinox-sized tubes. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be able to. Using one of those couplings, it would just be a matter of making the upper shaft a "two-piece" shaft, with that stainless coupling being the "break point." THANKS for your interest; I should have the parts for the 2 prototype rods within a week, and I'll see what I can figure out with respect to the travel shaft, and the associated coupling. Steve

Hi all! I just wanted to mention that there is another possible solution, though I'm not sure if it would work the way everyone would prefer, or not. The issue I have found with the idea of a "middle" shaft telescoping into the "upper" shaft, is that the Equinox includes two "protrusions" into the upper shaft, that are problematic (with respect to the desire for a telescopic middle/upper rod) One of these "protrusions is the arm cuff bolt, but the other, more difficult one, due to location, is the little "nipple" on the bottom of the handle assembly that protrudes into the inside of the upper rod. Presumably, in the mods shown in this thread, that "nipple" was cut or sanded off, so as to allow the "middle" rod to "telescope" into the upper? With the complete shaft system I'm working on, which will be ready soon, I had not been considering the idea of a "travel-rod-type" three-piece option, as it was my assumption that anyone wanting a "travel rod" would simply use the stock shaft (with that shaft already being able to be collapsed in a relatively compact manner). HOWEVER, this thread suggests that there are folks who want something other than the Minelab shaft as a "travel shaft." So, from that perspective, one option I could offer for a "custom" design would be a slightly shorter lower rod, which would telescope into the "upper" via a clamping cam lock (the same cam lock that will be included in the "standard" shaft setup I will offer). HOWEVER, I could then also "split" the upper shaft into two roughly equal, relatively short lengths, via use of a stainless-steel threaded connector (similar to what I do with my CTX 3030 travel shafts -- see the attached picture). I could locate this connector at a position within the upper shaft just "below" the handle assembly, similar in position to where the current "upper" twist lock is located on the stock Minelab shaft. Built in this way, this would result in a compact, collapsible shaft system that would include a lower rod that telescopes into the "lower" section of the "upper" rod, and then -- by unscrewing via the connector -- two separate, relatively short sections of upper rod. While the stainless connector would add a bit of weight, that weight would reside very close to the handle of the machine, thus not upsetting the "balance" of the machine in any way. Anyway, this is another possible way of fulfilling an apparent desire amongst at least some Equinox users to have a fully collapsible, compact carbon-fiber shaft system. If this is something anyone would be interested in, please contact me with your thoughts. Thanks! Steve

PseudoShooter -- Thanks for the kind words! That's always the goal -- happy customers! ? Steve

flakmagnet -- As soon as the parts come for the prototypes, I'll get the assembled -- and then take plenty of pictures and post them (and will provide more info at that time, as well). THANKS for your interest! Steve

Hi all; Just wanted to give a heads-up that while lower rod sales continue at a brisk pace, I'm also nearing completion on the design of the complete carbon-fiber shaft system (that I've hinted about before). I will have two prototypes (using two similar, but slightly different clamping cam-lock systems) built in about 2 weeks (parts are in production now), and then, after some final testing, I'll be ready to ramp up to production mode. I think these will be really nice shafts; my main focus over the past couple of months has been the cam lock system -- specifically the strength/security/stability of the cam lock. The goals are two-fold -- 1.) to eliminate ALL wobble issues experienced by some users with the factory shaft, and 2.) to HOPEFULLY eliminate the spring button/button hole design. While I will continue to offer my lower shafts WITH the spring button (so that my lower rods will remain compatible with Minelab's middle shaft), my expectation is that the clamping cam locks on my shaft will meet the design spec for strength/stability -- which would mean NO BUTTON HOLES REQUIRED in the shaft. The intent of the design has been with an eye toward the final result being somewhat akin to the CTX 3030 type of shaft -- i.e. a secure cam lock, permitting "universal" adjustment lengths for the lower rod. Anyway, I expect to have these shafts ready soon; shortly thereafter, I expect to have a rather unique counter-balancing system available as an optional add-on accessary, to achieve perfect balance for the machine (through the availability of several different weights, each one appropriate for each of the different coils, and for different lower rod adjustment lengths). Finally, a custom arm cuff may also be an optional add-on accessory in the not-too-distant future. I'll offer more information later -- and I also have a more detailed post up on my Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/stevesdetectorrods if anyone wants more information. Thanks! Steve

soks -- I agree. Here in central Oklahoma, that red clay stains ALL the water around here! Steve

Thanks for the kind words, Bryan! You are REALLY making some GREAT finds over the past few days with the 15"... I can't wait until I receive mine! Steve

Looks like your buddy the "nox nut" is doing great with his new machine. Sad story, that his car AND his machine were stolen, but kudos to the dealer that hooked him up with a discount! Steve

Chase, LOL! Your thought is spot-on, and clearly the most logical idea for this particular patch of grass (employment of the 6" coil)! The answer as to why I did not run the 6"? I literally made the decision as to which spot I was going to detect while in the car driving -- and had the 11" coil installed on my machine at the time (my bad!) I usually run the 11", and so it was what I had, by default. I originally intended to visit another spot that evening, but quickly made a "change of plans," en route. However, I agree that I did not utilize the optimal coil for the job. Still, it did allow that interesting opportunity to compare software versions... And I fully agree with the remainder of your post. Extremely accurate and valid thoughts, IMO -- in terms of how sites are never "hunted out" entirely... I'll look forward to your side-by-side reports of the two different firmware versions, as you are optimally set up to answer some of my subjective/qualitative questions, in a much more objective/quantitative manner, with that set-up. Steve

Sinclair, As a scientist, I totally agree -- my question was full of variables and subjective feelings. As much as we'd like otherwise, it's very difficult to set up valid scientific experiments that fully replicate what we experience "in the ground." WAY too many variables. And I agree with you that the "angle of approach" to a coin -- the angle of the coin in the ground combined with the angular direction that the coil encounters that coin -- makes a huge difference. I'm not surprised that coins are missed, due to the all the variables. What I was surprised about is how "easy" it was to isolate and "lock on" to the coins I mentioned, within the surrounding iron. I am pretty sure that I didn't "miss" those coins before; it's more likely that I "heard" the target last time, but when interrogating the chirps I heard amongst the iron, I did not hear anything to "convince" me it was something more than just high-tone chirps generated by the nails. In other words, the presence of the coin never became "clear" to me the first time. This time, though, there was little doubt. That's the subtle little difference I'm referring to. None of the coins I dug, could I have imagined me "passing on" previously, if they sounded as "good" as they did the other night. Could I have simply "missed" those targets last time -- never passed the coil over them? It's possible, though doubtful that I entirely missed ALL of them. It's a very small patch of grass. Could ground conditions have been different? Sure. Could EMI have been less this time? Sure. Lots of variables, you are correct. But I simply wondered if anyone else felt -- subjectively -- that their ability to "unmask" coins in iron has been improved, after the new software build. To me, there CAN be some value in "subjective" observations. Many must be taken with a "grain of salt," but I'm still interested to hear thoughts... Steve

Cabin Fever and Jackpine -- Thank you both for the thoughts. This confirms my experience the other night (sorry I missed your comments from the other day, Jackpine). Cabin Fever, you said this... "These signals were all tricky but once the signal was isolated, I had high confidence that I was digging a coin." That's about a perfect description of what I was experiencing. They were tough/tricky signals, at first, when they were initially heard, but once I'd stop and try and isolate what I was hearing, rotating around the target, I was able to find an angle or angles where I could isolate a good, solid, "pure" coin signal that left little doubt. Very interesting to hear that both of you noted something similar to what I thought I was experiencing; I'm not sure what they changed that would account for this, but it seems I'm not the only one to perhaps notice something... Steve

Hi all! I have a site where -- for some reason -- I dig a TON of moderate-depth wheat cents, but very little silver. It's a small strip of grass, next to where a pool used to be located, on a former country club site. ANYWAY, I went through there many times with my old Explorer, and pretty well "cleaned it out," as far as the Explorer's capability goes. The coins are intermingled with quite a bit of iron/nails, and so many are masked by the iron. But given that caveat, there was not much else there, once I "finished," that the Explorer was able to "clue me in on," in terms of there being any coins left. Well, when I got the Equinox, I thought it would be a great "test site." I went through that small strip of grass with the 11" coil, as a "test," to see how well the Equinox's improved ability to work in iron (compared to my Explorer) would actually show itself "in the field." Well, it did not disappoint. I believe I turned up about a dozen wheats and a Rosie, all from a this small grassy area that I'd hit MULTIPLE times with the Explorer and various coils, and all of the coins under, or very near, iron. I had nails in just about every hole -- which explains why the Explorer missed these coins. Having said that, I did have to "work" each one of those targets with the Equinox pretty carefully, listening very closely to hear the chirps of high-tone mixed in with the iron tones, and then to try and figure out which of those high tones were just "falses," and which ones were hints of a coin. Still, though, like I said, the Equinox enabled me to pull roughly a dozen coins out of a small area that -- after many trips with the Explorer -- would have suggested a conclusion that the site was about "played out." NOT SO, though, for the Equinox! This was a great testimonial to the ability of the EQX, from my perspective. I had not hunted the site again, since. So, fast forward to few nights ago. I headed back to this same spot, still with the 11" coil, but this time with the updated software version. In a very short hunt, over this same, small grassy area, I recovered three more wheats, and several '60s Memorial pennies, all of which were "missed" when I hunted it with the Equinox before. While it's not surprising that I "missed" several coins the last time, as it was only one hunt with the EQX, what WAS surprising is that several of the ones I dug this time were OBVIOUS -- yes, they were still within iron, but I was able to get the machine to really "lock on" to the high tone, from several angles, that left almost NO DOUBT that there was a coin down there, in the nails. The targets were so "easy" to pick out from the iron, that I'm surprised I missed them last time. Now -- I'm not sure if the fact that it was "easier" to hear these particular coins in the nails (coins that literally stood out to my ears like a "sore thumb" amongst the iron tones), was simply due to several more months of experience on the machine since the last time I hunted this site, OR whether that new software build is allowing the machine to "unmask" in iron even better than it did before. Any thoughts from anyone? Has anyone else perhaps noticed the new software build offering better ability to "unmask?" (Or, was what I experienced more likely to be simply additional experience on the machine?) It was a pretty stark, obvious observation, and the several months that have elapsed between these two hunts (with two different versions of software) offer a unique scenario to "analyze..." Was it "more experience," or was it assistance offered by the new software? Steve

HOLY SMOKES! What a hunt! What an incredible site you must be on! I see coins of several different eras, there, so it must be a site that has seen activity for a couple of centuries, as well! OUTSTANDING!!!! Steve

Interesting, thanks buick! Steve

57buick -- Where have you seen carbon-fiber cam locks? Steve

Superb day, and SUPERB that you are sharing it with your son! Great digs, great hunt! Steve

Great news, Steve, I'll look forward to it! And I can tell you are excited -- I'm really happy for you to have made such a find (can't wait to see it!) Steve

Excellent news, Bryan! Steve, I totally missed that "hint" from you about a "world-class find" with your 12x15, until just now. I haven't heard any more about it; have you posted about it yet, and I missed that, too? Steve

Scratch your head all you want, Dew, but that high K gold looks GREAT, to me! LOL! NICE finds! Steve

A quick update for those who are interested and have waited patiently -- I can gladly affirm that the long-awaited parts shipment did indeed arrive this morning! Assembly will begin this evening... Thanks! Steve

Thecleaner -- THANKS for your interest! I'll add you to the "pre-order" list. A few more days, and I expect to have some rods ready to ship... ? Steve

Aurum, THANKS for the kind words, and your interest! Your first question, about "weight difference" requires a bit of "detail" to answer -- because my "standard" lower rod will be a bit longer than Minelab's stock EQX rod. Minelab's lower rod measures 24 3/16" long; my "standard" rod is going to be 26" long, and so there's a little bit of an "apples to oranges" comparison there, in terms of weight. (I do want to note, though, that I can build these rods to whatever custom length someone might want, so if a 24 3/16" rod was desired, that's an option that is available). But anyway, with that small caveat in there, let me give you some numbers... My factory EQX lower rod from Minelab (without the washers -- just the rod) weighs 94g (3.4 oz.) (at 24 3/16" long). If you wish to compare "apples to apples," one of my rods at Minelab's 24 3/16" length standard would weigh approximately 72.7g (2.61 oz.). (This is about 21 grams less, or roughly 3/4 of an ounce less, than Minelab's stock rod; said another way -- it will weigh roughly 25% less than Minelab's EQX rod). From there, each inch in length that is added will add roughly 2g to the weight. So, at my "standard" rod length (26"), the weight would be 3.6g (.14 oz.) heavier than a 24 3/16" rod -- weighing in at roughly 76.3g (2.75 oz) (still about 24% lighter than Minelab's stock EQX rod). That's probably more detail than you wanted! But hopefully, that answers your "weight" question. Now, as far as potential that the rod will slip or turn inside the cam lock? My answer would be "no," whether wet OR dry, for two reasons: Reason one, is that the rubber "boot" inside the cam lock, that "grips" the rod, provides very good grip on the outer epoxy coating of a carbon-fiber tube, as well. The CTX 3030, for instance, has small rubber "boots" inside its cam lock, and it grips the CTX 3030 carbon-fiber tube very well, without slippage or turning. Friction between rubber, and a carbon-fiber tube's outer gloss/epoxy layer, is very high. Reason two, is that even without the cam lock tightened at all, the Minelab EQX rods resist turning or twisting owing to their use of the "spring button clip" on their lower rods. My lower rods will also include the "spring button clip," exactly like the Minelab EQX stock rods. So, bottom line, I have zero expectation that my rods would be any more likely to twist, or slip, than the Minelab rods. Hopefully, that helps you out a bit. If you have any other questions, please let me know, and thanks for your interest! Thanks! Steve

Hi all! Just wanted to update that I received the carbon-fiber tubes this past Wednesday, and tracking information shows the remainder of the parts en-route, and scheduled for delivery this coming Monday. Therefore, I expect to begin assembly of rods by Tuesday, Oct. 16! When the tubes arrived Wednesday, I was able to complete assembly of the "prototype" rod, and it is now attached to my 6" coil! (See pictures below). If you are interested in one or more of these rods, please reply to this thread, or send me a PM, and I'll add you to the pre-order list; I expect to make a "for sale" post in the classified forum by the end of next week; initial, special pricing for forum members will be $58 plus shipping. Also please note that design continues on the "complete shaft system," and is nearing completion. I hope to have a prototype assembled soon, and then will have them available for sale as well. Of course, the complete shaft system will utilize this lower rod, attached to a one-piece upper shaft. More details later! Thanks everyone for your interest and support! Steve

Has anyone heard a confirmed U.S. price, yet? Steve