Jump to content

steveg

Full Member
  • Posts

    1,200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Forums

Detector Prospector Home

Detector Database

Downloads

Everything posted by steveg

  1. Hi, all... Just wanted to mention that I expect to have the first batch of lower rods ready in about 10 days, and will post them on the "for sale" forum here, when they are ready. Price for Detector Prospector forum members will be $58 plus shipping... If you have any questions, please let me know; I expect the rods, and some information, to be available at my website (www.stevesdetectorrods.com) at about the same time the rods go up for sale. Thanks! Steve
  2. Yes, WELCOME, and Yes, NICE COINS! Very good job there; looks like you are getting in sync with the 600 very nicely! Congrats! Steve
  3. VERY impressive! Beautiful find! CONGRATS to your dad!! Steve
  4. You may want to make the part of the yoke that you insert into the rod about .4mm smaller in diameter than the inside diameter of the rod, presuming you will be using epoxy to bond them. Proper epoxy gap for various epoxies averages about .2mm...and a .2mm gap would not feel "hard to push in." That's too tight, for an epoxy gap... Nice job -- nice tube, and nice printing of the yoke and the washers... Steve
  5. Dew -- I totally agree. I sure do wish there was a "gain" setting on the Equinox -- one that worked identically to that on FBS machines. It's essentially a "volume gain" adjustment, for those unfamiliar -- i.e. it increases or decreases the amount of "modulation" of volume (deeper targets sounding quieter than shallow ones, as a reduce the gain). Steve
  6. I have no idea yet, on any increased propensity for the EQX to want to give "coin" indications on deep rusty nails after the update, BUT -- I have heard reports of possibly a bit of increase in sensitivity. If this is true, a corresponding uptick in affinity for rusty nails would make some sense, but I wonder if a bump or two upwards in iron bias might help to tame that a bit, if it is indeed an issue? Steve
  7. Mark, and Rick -- Wow, you guys are the only two so far, that are talking about "something" in the audio, post-update...or, at least, the only two that I've seen mention it in a post so far. And I totally agree. I've only used it 1 1/2 hours so far with the update, but I immediately noticed a slightly different nuance to the "personality" of the machine, and it revolves around the audio. As you said, Mark, I "can't quite nail it down," but there definitely seems to be something more, I don't know, refined? Enhanced? Accurate? Descriptive? I don't know...I can't find the right word for it. The audio just seems to communicate more "intelligently" its "information" to the user now, as compared to pre-update. Very hard to describe, but definitely it's there... I need more time on the machine, to try and figure out if I can find a couple of proper adjectives to describe this "difference," but I would agree with you both that it is definitely there...and is a positive. Steve
  8. Pseudo -- LOL! I am really not sure where the "shaft wobble" that some talk about actually originates within the rod system, as I have two Equinoxes and neither of them wobble at all. From what I've been told, it might be the lower cam lock -- the one on the middle rod that secures the lower rod to the middle rod. But, whatever the case, I am thinking that I will, as a "standard," make these lower rods just a bit longer than normal. Of course, I can build them to whatever length someone might want, up to about 31" or 32", but I think maybe my "default" length might be 26" or 27" (instead of the stock length that is around 24" I believe). I don't THINK that a slightly longer lower rod would make the Equinox, when collapsed, any more difficult to travel with, but on the other hand, I think having an extra 2" or 3" in length inside the middle rod might also help at least a little bit, with possible "wobble." It might not SOLVE the issue, if someone has a wobbly Minelab rod system, but it might be a more secure setup which might keep "wobble" from developing for those who aren't having the wobble issues in the first place. Steve
  9. Hi all; As some of you may know, I've been producing lower rods for the CTX 3030 for about 8 months now, selling them through the forums and my website (www.stevesdetectorrods.com) to a number of satisfied customers. Along the way, I've had several inquiries regarding whether I could build Equinox rods. My answer was always "no," as a major stumbling block was that piece that fits onto the "coil end" of the rod, i.e. the piece to which the coil attaches -- the "yoke," or "clevis," as I call it. Well, with requests for me to build Equinox lower rods so frequent that eventually I couldn't ignore it any longer, I set my mind on working on a design for that clevis/yoke piece. Once I came up with a working design idea, I submitted engineering drawings of my design to the machining/fabrication company that supplies my CTX rod parts, and asked if they could build me a prototype. Meanwhile, I ordered a carbon-fiber tube from my tube supplier, in the precise diameter to fit inside the Minelab Equinox middle rod, and also some washers specific to my yoke/clevis design. The tube and washers arrived recently, and just today, the yoke/clevis was delivered. I'm pleased to say that it turned out perfectly! All the dimensions are correct/exacting, and I "test fit" the parts with success -- please see the pictures below. The only parts I'm still waiting on are the push-button "spring clip" for the upper end of the rod, and a specialized drill bit for drilling the hole for the spring clip. Those will be here soon -- and at that point my "proof-of-concept" prototype rod will be ready for me to use! MEANWHILE, given the successful prototype, I am ordering parts tomorrow to make a first batch of 20 Equinox lower rods. As I said above, these rods are designed to fit seamlessly into the Minelab EQX middle rod -- exactly as the Minelab stock lower rod does. I plan to build them the same length as the Minelab lower rod as "standard practice," but can also build them to whatever length desired. I expect to have the first batch of rods available for sale in roughly 4 weeks. Tentatively, I expect pricing to be roughly $60 plus shipping -- but will know for sure once I place that first "bulk" order of carbon fiber tubes and yoke/clevis pieces. If you have any interest one of these lower rods, please let me know, and I'll be sure to have one available for you. THANKS! Steve
  10. Great find! Just SUPERB! Won't be finding anything like that here in the States, that's for sure! Steve
  11. Phrunt -- Here's one thing that might help a bit... I can say that using pinpoint mode helps quite a bit, at least for me. Listening closely to the "length" of the pinpoint signal really helps me out with sizing. It's ironic; in my opinion you often don't NEED to go to pinpoint mode on the EQX for the specific purpose pinpointing; it is (to me) easy to "pinpoint" targets without using pinpoint mode, as I find the EQX to be so "accurate" so as to render pinpoint mode unnecessary on many targets. BUT -- USING pinpoint mode offers some other "clues" that I find very helpful, and thus -- I DO use pinpoint mode on many, many targets. One thing that helps for me, is the modulation of the audio is better in pinpoint mode; thus, it helps me get more information about depth of the target. And then, there's the sizing advantage I mentioned; for me, pinpoint definitely is another tool to help with "sizing" the target -- which helps to allow me not to dig certain large targets that I'm not interested in. Steve
  12. Totally agree with Steve and Chase. While I'm not much of a beach hunter, if I were in your shoes, and strictly a beach hunter, I'd be saving that money for the 12x15. Now, if you plan to hunt some trashy dirt sites, that's a WHOLE other story... Steve
  13. Just FWIW -- I had been using the U.K. "Searcher" cover on my 800, but now that I also own a 600, I needed another cover, and this time I bought one of Deano's covers (I have been using Deano's covers on my CTX for awhile now). Honestly, I like both EQ covers (Deano's, and the Searcher cover), but might give the nod to Deano's for a few very small reasons. 1. The Searcher cover's fabric covers a bit of the top of the EQ screen; it's hard to see things along the top of the screen (please see flakmagnet's picture above). The Deano cover's clear vinyl/plastic encompasses the ENTIRE front of the cover, so you can see the entire EQ screen clearly. Minor issue, but probably the main reason I give the nod to Deano's cover. 2. The Searcher cover has a elastic portion on the back that covers the charging port. You have to pull the cover partially off the control box to charge the machine. Deano's cover has an opening in the back to allow the charging port and the headphone jack to be accessible without having to mess at all with the cover. A very minor thing, but worth noting. 3. The Searcher cover leaves a very small portion of the control box "exposed," right where the handle attaches (again, see flakmagnet's picture, above). Deano's cover covers this portion of the control box better. A very, very minor thing, but again, probably worth noting. 4. Deano's cover is made in the USA, which, among other benefits (IMO), it ships faster. Again -- both covers are very good, and I am happy with both. One other note -- I live in Oklahoma, and summers are very hot here. I have had no issues with the cover on, in terms of the control box "overheating." Steve
  14. Tim -- Good to see you back, and ready to do some hunting! Steve
  15. Elf, Just got back from a Canadian fishing trip, and returned to pleasant weather and good, soft ground! Sounds like it's time for some detecting! Steve
  16. Hello all! Based on requests from several folks who are curious, I went ahead and did some air testing with my new Minelab 6” coil, attached to my Equinox 800. I wanted to give some idea of the relative capabilities of this coil as compared to the 11” coil. While all the normal caveats of air testing apply – such as air-test results in no way mirror in-ground results, etc. etc. etc., I do think there is at least a little bit of value when doing side-by-side air testing of two different coils for comparison purposes. Anyway, how much value exists in such a test is up to each individual to decide; I simply wanted to provide the data. I also did a Youtube video, which I will post a link to as soon as it is done uploading. In the video, I did NOT record the testing of all the coins; I ran only the silver Roosevelt dime in the video to show you, audibly, what quality of signal I listened for in order to call it a “hit.” In other words, how repeatable of a signal I listened for before I assigned a depth value to that particular coin, with that particular coil. The rest of the video is just some discussion of a few points regarding the coil, and the testing. Anyway, here is the data… Minelab Equinox 800 11” and 6” coils, air-test comparison, done indoors Park 1 Mode Sensitivity 18 Noise Cancel Channel 7 All-metal mode (horseshoe button engaged) Ground Balance 0 Recovery Speed 4 (on the 800, equivalent to 2 on the 600) Iron Bias 2 (on the 800, equivalent to 1 on the 600) Here are the results: After this “apples to apples” comparison, where I tested both coils using identical settings, I then re-tested a couple of coins (specifically the silver dime and the silver quarter) on the 6” coil, but this time bumping sensitivity to 22. I found that I was able to run sensitivity about 3 points higher, as the 6” coil is (as expected) less affected by EMI. Since “18” is a rather conservative sensitivity for a 6” coil, (but that is as high as I could go with the 11” in my indoor testing, and since I wanted to keep it “apples to apples”), I wanted to see how much depth gain I would get on the 6” coil if I bumped sensitivity up some. Here are those results: In summary, you can see that the 6” coil (at 18 sensitivity) loses roughly 1 ¾” depth on each coin, in an air test, as compared to the 11” coil. You can also see that by bumping the sensitivity on the 6” coil up from 18 to 22, you “gain back” most of the loss of air-test depth, getting to within ½” to ¾” of depths achieved by the 11” coil, set at 18 sensitivity. SO…while you DO lose depth with the 6” coil, as expected, you may – in a real-world scenario – be able to gain most of that depth back, due to being able to run it at a higher sensitivity setting. Overall, I am thus far impressed with the coil, and can’t wait to use it “in the field,” where I can begin to get a feel for its REAL value – its ability to separate, in trashy sites. Steve
×
×
  • Create New...