steveg

In which case, a small hole can be drilled in the mount, and the wire could be routed through the hole in the mount (and the connector/clip then reattached). That is the IDEAL solution, but one that I feared some would not want to do (remove the connector/clip).

Doc, At some point, I plan to offer the Deus shafts in colors. For now, I'm doing black only, and working to sell enough of them to recoup my initial investment in the project, as it was substantial. Thus, that has prevented me from the ability to invest in building up an inventory of tubes in different colors. Gradually, though, as I recoup the initial investment, I plan to eventually add colored shafts as an option. If you are set on a camo one, I may be able to get you taken care of with a "custom" build, using tubes already in stock; send me an email if you like, at steve@stevesdetectorrods.com, and we can discuss... Thanks! Steve

Carolina, The locking mechanism would prevent a hole in the top of the mount, yes, but one could be place a hole in the top/side of the mount, achieving the same effect. But, again, it would have to be the bare wire, and not the wire WITH the connector/clip installed on the end of it, to be able to be routed through the hole. As for the handle, I wasn't wanting to change it TOO much, from what people are used to, though I did make it a bit "taller." Overall, one goal I had during design was to try have the shaft feel "familiar," in many respects, to Deus users, and just change the things that were "flawed" (from my perspective). That's a part of why I didn't change the handle shape too much. I did change the location of the remote/mount on the handle (it is much more "recessed" into the handle, or in other words, "forward" (in a "coilward" direction); this not only makes the buttons on the face of the remote MUCH more accessible, but it also should minimize the tendency for the remote to "rub" on someone's hand the way it does when mounted to the stock shaft. And then, to account for situations when the remote IS bumped, the locking mechanism was added to the remote to minimize chances of the it being "bumped loose." The handle itself, though, was not mentioned by many as being a "negative." And since how a handle "feels" is a very personal thing, given preferences, various hand sizes, etc., I felt like any change I would make to the shape/style of the handle would please some, and displease others. So, again, I thought leaving it as close in shape to the stock handle as possible, was the best bet. I had forgotten that you were the one who mentioned my cam locks to Alexandre (thank you, by the way). The shafts are selling well thus far, thank you. I'm concerned that when the "special introductory pricing" period is over, they may sell more slowly; these are very expensive shafts to produce, and thus require a price point higher than I'd otherwise want. Part of the reason for that is that compared to the Equinox straight shaft, for instance, this shaft requires the inclusion of two additional (expensive) parts that the Equinox shaft does not -- the carbon-fiber arm cuff, and the carbon-fiber S-handle These two parts alone raise the cost of production substantially, which makes it difficult for me to offer them at price that is as affordable as I would otherwise like... Thanks for the kind words! Steve

Carolina, THANKS for the info on the coiled cable. VERY good info...interesting. As for the mount, that's a great tutorial, for the XP stock mount. Mine is different, injection-molded as one piece, and so taking the mount apart like that is not an option. That's why the only way to do it, would be if the plastic connector/clip were removed. Then, the "bare wire" cold easily be routed through a small hole drilled in the mount... Thanks for the info! Steve

Carolina, 1. How did you coil that cable? THAT is really what is needed, to do a GOOD "inside the shaft" wire run... 2. You are right; a hole in the mount is the best option. HOWEVER, after much work/effort, I could not locate a hole on the RC mount that would allow the wire -- WITH that plastic connector -- to exit through the hole. The lack of flexibility of the connector, the size of it, etc., simply thwarted any attempt I made to find a place that I could include a hole on the mount (with respect to the way that the mount is designed, internally). HOWEVER -- it would be EASY to locate a hole on the mount, if all that was needed was to pass the thin wire ITSELF through (i.e. without connector). SO -- if anyone wishes to modify their antenna wire (remove the plastic connector/clip, at least temporarily), then routing the antenna wire through the mount itself becomes trivial/easy to do. And YES -- just as you noted, for the reasons you noted (shaft collapsibility), that is absolutely the preferred solution (but which, again, the connector/clip prevented me from achieving). Steve

Chris, Sorry for the delayed reply; all day detecting trip yesterday, so a bit behind and trying to catch up! I haven't put them on the "Products" portion of the website yet, as I'm trying to get all of the customers who are on my wait list outfitted, first. I have so many orders to fill, that I'm trying not to overwhelm myself with ADDITIONAL customers yet, LOL! When they DO go on the website, they will be at a higher price than the special "introductory" price I'm selling them to wait-list customers for. So, if you think you may want one, I'll add you to the wait list. As for availability, parts are in production right now, for me to begin building the second batch of shafts, but it appears that there may be a couple weeks' delay for me to receive these parts. So, it looks like it may be the first week in February before the parts are shipped, and then mid February before I am building/shipping shafts... Meanwhile, if you are wanting some detailed info on the shaft itself, I DO have a couple of my most recent "blog" posts up on the website; you'll find those posts under the "What's New" tab (www.stevesdetectorrods.com/blog/index.php). Thanks! Steve

Nice job, Gordiedan, and I it was interesting to see the trace, and then the target after you dug it. Steve

Interesting that you say that. I ALWAYS use Park 1, but recently, at some sites where the iron falsing was driving me absolutely crazy, I've switched over to Park 2, and it seems to REALLY settle down the falses...I was quite surprised... Is this what you mean by "better in iron?" Anyone else find Park 2 less "falsy?" Steve

Tom -- You can (if I am not mistaken; it's been so long since I've played with the tone settings) adjust your "iron volume." Mine is low, relative to conductive tones, but I THINK you can run that up as high as you want. As for copper vs. zinc pennies, it's not that difficult at all to tell the two apart, tonally, in turf-type settings. I have no issue at all (I also run 50 tones). But, on a salt-water beach, where you would encounter any and all stages of corrosion, all bets are off, I'd think. In general, there's a roughly 4 VDI numerical difference between a zincoln, and a copper memorial, so in 50 tones, that's quite a separation of tones. Again though, the beach may change all of that for the worse... And yes, hitting the horseshoe button every time you turn on the machine will change the machine from discriminating iron (and thus iron giving you a threshold null like on your Ex.2) to allowing you to hear all iron (iron tone). Look at your "speedometer" dial, as you press the horseshoe button, and you'll see that the negative VDI numbers go from "no black tick mark" above them (discriminated out), to having the black tick mark above them (NOT discriminated). Steve

Got it. Makes sense now. Steve

midalake -- why do you "have to pass them" on the EQX or D2? Because of the way they ID, obviously, but I'm not sure of the details of how they ID, that forces you to "pass on" them. Do they ID as solidly ferrous or something? Steve

Chase, I hear you, on your slightly cynical humor in the first half of your post. I get it. I WILL say that I understand the "multi-generational leaps" thing that is being referred to, and I get why it's been said, but I also get why that statement might be misconstrued by some to think that this means that the machine is going to give you a an on-screen, photograph-quality picture of each target in the ground, AND dig it for you! LOL! But, in defense of the statement, I think there are some very significant engineering achievements built into the unit, in SPECIFIC aspects (EMI handling being one of them) that are indeed major engineering breakthroughs. Let me illustrate with an analogy. Consider a vehicle. When we moved from carburetors to fuel-injection systems, that was a HUGE engineering leap, in terms of internal-combustion engine development/advancement. HUGE. An engineering marvel, some would say. It revolutionized 100- (or more) year-old technology. BUT -- to your average car owner, did they see it quite that way? Yesterday, I could drive my car with carburetor to the grocery store with no issue. Today, I can drive my NEW car with fuel injectors to the grocery store, with no issues. So what's the big deal? NOW -- would ANY of us, today, opt for a vehicle that utilizes a carburetor, instead of fuel injection? I don't think so; most would agree that fuel injection is a far superior way to achieve proper gas/air mixture, get it to the cylinder, and thus improve internal-combustion engine performance. So -- YES, I feel it was an engineering marvel. BUT -- I also can imagine why some, at the time of its introduction, would have said "What's the big deal? I've been misled by false claims!" What an engineer sees as a "huge leap" in technological achievement may not always translate into something that a CUSTOMER feels is a "huge leap," but instead just a small, incremental improvement. I know you are (were) an engineer, so I know I'm preaching to the choir a bit, but... ANYWAY, how much these "breakthroughs" engineered into the MC translate into actual, improved performance for us, remain to be seen IMO. BUT, with that said, I am 100% convinced that EMI mitigation is a big part of this discussion, and that the "long-press" trick that NASA-Tom described, when doing a noise cancel, is a key to unlocking this particular "engineering marvel," so as to coax maximum performance from the unit. I could elaborate on this...and will if anyone wants to read a way-too-detailed and way-too-lengthy post, but I'm being cognizant of the tl;dr problem! NOW -- switching gears; as far as ferrous limits, I totally agree with you. There are two issues at hand, that have to be considered separately. ONE, is knowing how to set your limits up properly to best take advantage of what the machine IS capable of, but the other of course is that there's no way ferrous limits can help in improving anything if the machine itself is NOT capable of providing accurate target identification. You and I totally agree on this. My focus here has been hoping to help people without prior FBS familiarity, to better understand FE/CO, and the 2-D screen, and how setting proper "limits" is of huge importance. There are nuances and subtleties there that will TOTALLY affect what we hear, and thus what we choose to dig. BUT -- all of that is based on the ASSUMPTION that the machine is ACCURATELY ID-ing the target IN THE FIRST PLACE, which is YOUR point. And you are spot-on, of course, because if the MC is INCAPABLE of properly IDing a nail, for instance, then all of the understanding in the world of 2D display and 2-digit VDI and ferrous limits and everything else, becomes a moot point (for those improperly ID-ing targets). So, yes, we totally agree. Again, there are two separate considerations here; ONE is knowing what limits are, why they are important, and how to set them up, so as the coax from the machine "the best that it is capable of." That video that was linked by cobill does a very good job on illustrating that, in my opinion. BUT, that still leaves the issue of what IS "the best that the machine is capable of" in terms of proper target ID? For those nails that are going to "false" as good signals, and fall right on the "zero line" (the "non-ferrous" line), nothing in that video is of any utility at all, for those specific targets. THAT problem will have to be handled in a different way (which may include some combination of frequent/proper ground balancing, lowering sensitivity, increasing recovery speed higher than might otherwise be desired, changing detecting mode to one that includes a mix of higher frequencies, etc.) And ULTIMATELY, it may have to be handled with a MUU/update, as some have speculated. But, I think the jury is still out there; I don't think there are enough machines, in enough peoples' hands, for enough time, to conclude anything in that regard just yet... Steve

cobill, Excellent, informative video. Thanks for linking it. For you or I, with Minelab FBS background, this makes sense. BUT -- for those who don't have that background, and have been a bit confused about the 2D screen, and how "ferrous limits" work, I'd think this video makes things ALOT more clear/understandable. NOW -- if I can just talk Minelab into including a TWO-DIGIT display option for target ID (i.e. including the Ferrous number, ALONG WITH the Conductive number), then things (in my opinion) would be even MORE clear, as it would show more directly the relationship between the 2-number ID (FE and CO) that is being calculated in the background, and the 2-D screen (which is simply an x,y coordinate system, with 2-number coordinate pairs -- i.e. target IDs -- plotted on the coordinate system as the machine takes snapshots of the target). Steve

Good commentary, palzynski. And yes, the S-shafts are much more complex (and expensive) to design, and manufacture. 🙂 BUT, SINCE the Deus is designed to use an S-shaft, and since I thus designed an S-shaft, it's also complex/difficult "go back the other way," so to speak, and alter the "S-handle" design to turn it into a straight shaft (like the one I made for Steelheader). Steve

Yep, air test can kind of do it, too...but I've come to prefer test garden testing. Once you learn your test garden, and how each coin responds to a given detector, it's very informative to then see how a different machine responds to those different coins. As just one example...I have an 8" quarter in my garden that is harder to detect than the adjacent 10" quarter (probably a fleck of iron near the 8" quarter, or something like that...) I know this, and so when I am testing a new machine, it's always informative to hit those two coins in succession...and compare to responses (that I have in my mind) from other, prior machines... Totally agree on the iron volume; I want it THERE, but quiet, and definitely prefer that over discriminating iron, and getting just a threshold null... Steve

Are you saying that when using "rich," that you fear that the modulation of the signal (quieter with depth) might lead you to miss some very deep (quiet) targets? I've been thinking about this myself, as it relates to the MC, as I LOVE modulated audio, and LOVE what I've heard on a couple of videos in terms of the modulation of the "rich" audio. To elaboarate...I had debates about such audio modulation years back, with other Minelab Explorer users (when I was a relatively inexperienced Explorer user). When I first was getting used to settings on that machine, I arrived at what I preferred rather quickly, which was to set my "modulation" on the Explorer (I forget what it was called..."audio limits" or something) to a setting of "7," and for me, this was perfect (so I thought). BUT I was talking to/learning from a VERY experienced Explorer user -- much moreso than I was at the time, i.e. a "guru" -- who INSISTED that running that setting at 7 (on an Explorer the lower the number you placed that setting at, the greater the modulation) was a HUGE MISTAKE, if one didn't want to miss the deepest whisper targets...and as such, he always ran his "modulation" or "audio limits" or whatever it was called, maxed out at 10, at all times, for that reason (i.e. deep targets sound just as loud, or at least nearly as loud, as shallow targets). Finally, I HAD to settle this for myself; debating it was just not going to settle it in my mind. SO, I decided to test; I set up a test garden, buried a bunch of coins and such at various depths, and then ran my Explorer over the deeper coins in my garden -- the ones that were barely detectable. I started by running the unit at my preferred "7" setting, and then switched it, and ran it at his "10" setting. I could hear the deep ones fine, either way. YES, his "10" setting made it much louder, but the negative was that of course it gave little IF ANY information as to whether it was a 3" target or a 9" target. At my setting of "7", it was MUCH quieter, but still very "audible," and the benefit for me is that I KNEW that the target was deep, due to the modulation. This is HUGE, to me...there are sites I ONLY want to dig deep targets, and having everything sound "loud" but "shallow" drives me nuts! My conclusion, after all that debating, and then testing it for myself? We were probably BOTH right -- in that he probably had some hearing loss that affected his ability to hear the deepest targets, if he was set at "7." For me, however, with my younger ears, I had no problem hearing a fringe-depth target with the unit set at "7," so in the end, the "right" setting for him was not the best for me, and vice-versa... SO -- long story short, I'd like to hear your thoughts here...as this is very important to me... Steve

Can you elaborate a tad on this, speaking from one FBS guy to another? I do NOT have an MC yet, have NOT read the manual in detail yet (I find it easier to examine manuals in depth, only with the item in-hand). But, with that said, I've been pondering/imagining in my mind what I know about FBS and smart screens, and what I THINK I may know about the MC 2D screen, and would be curious to hear what "takes getting used to," as this implies there are differences that are a bit "confusing" at first? Steve

Excellent and informative posts, strick... Steve

LOL! You are more than welcome to head down my way; I'd love to chat/learn/hunt together! Steve

Chase, a zoom meeting or Google meet is a GREAT idea... But, I also decided since posting yesterday that perhaps my arrogance may have gotten ahead of me, in thinking that I have anything of enough value to say, that would be helpful to anyone. I know that as a long-time FBS user, there are things in my head that I think would help, in terms of translation over to the MC...and an "interactive" discussion would be good in that regard. But on the other hand, I would hate to have folks say "I wasted my time joining that meeting thinking I'd learn something, and that bozo didn't tell me anything I don't already know!" So, not sure what to do... Steve

Skate, I never replied directly to this message, but it made me chuckle! 🙂 Yes, you can tell her that you certainly won't be able to find rings anymore unless you have a new shaft (and the prior ones you've found her will turn into junkers unless you upgrade, LOL!) Steve

There is SO MUCH I could say here. I really want to do an interactive YouTube livestream... Your middle paragraph above is PARTIALLY true, but not entirely... I need to ponder how to collect my thoughts and communicate them. Is doing a YouTube livestream (if you have a channel already) a hard thing to set up/accomplish? Steve

It often doesn't stop me, either, Chase...but I know I annoy people and don't like to do that. I just had someone on one of the forums yesterday, after I posted a reply to what he posted, say "we said the same thing, I just didn't take 300 words to do it like you did..." Ouch! 🙂 Steve

Maybe someone could tell me how to do a YouTube livestream...and then anyone who wanted could tune in...LOL... Steve

There is so much I could say, about Ferrous Limits, and target trace, and what should be understood (in the background) about what is going on, in terms of FE and CO, and how that relates to limits, and how we should thus be setting up the machine, and using Ferrous Limits properly, to our advantage, IN LIGHT OF that understanding... But, I don't know how to say things succinctly, and I know people don't like reading "War and Peace" in forum posts. And if I tried to type out my thoughts, I know that a tome like "War and Peace" would emerge! So, not sure how to help here... If I knew someone who was good at doing videos, and could edit/upload etc., I'd do a video and put it out there. I feel like I have things in my head (much of it carried over from FBS) that could really help here, but don't know of a good way to get it out there and not have 99% of people ignore it due to length (i.e. the tl;dr thing), and how many of the 1% who would try, would then have their eyes glaze over! Steve