Conductive Carbon Fiber Lower Rods

[steveg]

19 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

I never said Tom could not comment or that you could not quote him. I was just trying to help you as I have done here since day one. Good luck with your approach, I’ll leave you to it.

Steve,

Yep, I know!  I appreciate you. I know you weren't saying that.  I'm simply having a "dispassionate discussion."  No disrespect or ill feelings intended.

That's why I don't like to engage on these things.  It is impossible, through the written word, to fully hear someone's intent, tone, etc.  Without the voice inflections, body language, etc., it is so easy to misinterpret what is being said, via the written word.

I only responded to this whole topic, to offer a counterpoint to folks who suddenly seem to be very concerned about carbon shafts, and obviously as a carbon shaft builder, it seemed that I should offer any information that I might have about my product, especially when there are questions about its performance or quality.  So, I felt that it was probably wise for me to share what I know, and what I've done to arrive at that knowledge, and to back it up with some science/facts.  But, at that point, I think I've done all I can.  And the last thing I want to do is come across as defensive or prickly or whatever.  I respect that folks will draw their conclusions, and act accordingly.  I was only hoping to toss some information out there that might help some, when they are trying to draw their conclusions.  

Thank you all for your responses, and thank you Steve for always offering me support, and the ability to be a member here AND at the same time, promote my products.  It's much appreciated.

I do believe fully in the stuff that I build and sell, and I thank all of you who have put your trust in me, and my products, over the years.

Thanks!

Steve

[Steve Herschbach]

 

29 minutes ago, steveg said:

Is there something that someone can offer that would prove to be a solid counterargument?

Well Steve I said straight up I am not one that is thinking this is a major issue. But I also think you are pissing in the wind trying to convince people that what every company including Minelab has been telling them for twenty years is now wrong. They all went to great lengths to promote non-conductive lower rods until it became inconvienient to do so.

The idea is not to be offering a counterargument when I don't disagree. The idea is to recognize that perception is reality and you can either make the rods people want or not. That is the actual choice you face, not proving what is "right" or what is "wrong". The question is - what do your customers want? That's what I am talking about. And as I am not an expert on the subject nor interested in litigating the issue I will indeed leave it for others to determine where this goes. As you say you can't tell what people are thinking or feeling online, and the fact is none of this rises to anywhere near the level of anything important in my life. Rest assured there are no ill feelings here. 

[phrunt]

All I can say is anything that causes my detector to react that's sitting so close to my coil I'm not even remotely happy about, and this isn't a weak reaction, take a carbon fibre shaft off a detector and waive that thing over the coils of any decent gold prospecting VLF and it will scream on it to a significant depth, I tried my Sphinx pin pointers discrimination on the shaft, a strong non-ferrous target from a good distance, the sort of distance I would find a coin at.  

I am not happy with this at all. 

My next experiments when I get some time are going to be testing absolutely tiny targets with the shaft resting on the coil, like it would be when I'm recovering the target, and testing the same targets with the coil removed from the shaft.  If I see any difference at all, carbon fibre shouldn't be used on a prospecting detector, full stop.  

Then, I'm going to cover the entire top surface of a coil with carbon rods, and see if it's affecting the depth on tiny targets, again if it causes me issues vs without them there, I don't want to use carbon lower rods.   I don't want dead spots on my coil when I'm chasing tiny gold.

A little experiment, take some carbon tube, put a target small enough to fit into the tube you know the target ID of tied to some string, make the target move inside the tube while holding the tube stull over the coil and see what its ID's is.

Like in Bills video my Manticore reacts the same way, I put it down to the coil wires and the sensitivity of the detector, so I removed my coil from the shaft this morning and went outside and had a play, it's not near as bad without the shaft, this to me is enough to say Minelab screwed up, went with cosmetics and marketing appeal over common sense.   The extra noise the detector makes putting down and picking up the detector should have been enough to prevent Minelab using a Carbon lower rod.  I'm going to be contacting their support once I've gathered up enough information and requesting non-carbon rod alternatives.

Someone needs to make standard lowers for it, either Minelab as an accessory we can buy or someone in the aftermarket will jump on the opportunity as any gold prospector is going to want them quick smart.

Anything that may negatively impact performance in any way, that's completely unnecessary like a carbon fibre lower shaft should not be on a detector.

[Chase Goldman]

The technical aspects of this issue are very complex as is typical when discussing all the variables that influence our ability to detect and recover targets with these machines.  A couple observations:

Is this really a micro target recovery issue vs. a micro target detection issue?  In other words, the issue appears to be that the CF shaft lying flat up against the coil interferes with people's ability to use the pass the hand/scoop over the coil method to narrow down the location of a recovered micro target that was successfully detected in the ground.  Is that the limiting case?

Second, it was mentioned that the coil cable might play some role in the issue.  To a certain extent that is true from a pure metal standpoint (in this case, the metal being the coil cable shield and connector), but there was also a discussion as to whether current passing through the coil cable was also creating an interfering EM field.  Regarding the latter statement, that would likely be "a no" for two reasons: First, the magnitude of the current flowing the coil is relatively small and second, and most importantly, the cable is shielded coax which suppresses the EM field surrounding the cable such that it is limited to existing with the dielectric between the cable wire and the shielding.  Therefore, the fact that current is flowing through the coil cable has no effect the magnetic field effects.

Anyway, very little will get settled here, and mostly people are going to have to convince themselves whether this issue matters to them to the point of needed the lower rod.  I am going to do some additional testing on my own to help me better understand the practical impacts of the CF rod.

One detector design expert I would be interested in hearing from is @Geotech to see if he has any perspective to shed on this issue.

[RONS DETECTORS MINELAB]

Here’s a simple solution for people wanting to eliminate this problem, not my idea but really should be patented as it works well on any shaft system.

[steveg]

1 hour ago, Steve Herschbach said:

 

Well Steve I said straight up I am not one that is thinking this is a major issue. But I also think you are pissing in the wind trying to convince people that what every company including Minelab has been telling them for twenty years is now wrong. They all went to great lengths to promote non-conductive lower rods until it became inconvienient to do so.

The idea is not to be offering a counterargument when I don't disagree. The idea is to recognize that perception is reality and you can either make the rods people want or not. That is the actual choice you face, not proving what is "right" or what is "wrong". The question is - what do your customers want? That's what I am talking about. And as I am not an expert on the subject nor interested in litigating the issue I will indeed leave it for others to determine where this goes. As you say you can't tell what people are thinking or feeling online, and the fact is none of this rises to anywhere near the level of anything important in my life. Rest assured there are no ill feelings here. 

Steve,

You are absolutely 100% correct that if people are convinced of something, it can be extremely difficult to alter their perception, no matter what "proof" you offer.  And you are also 100% correct that as a manufacturer, if someone wants something, for whatever reason, it is wise to consider meeting that need.  I guess my concerns are two-fold...

ONE, I always try to offer folks ONLY products that I believe will actually improve their detecting experience.  I am not into selling "snake oil," just for the sake of making a buck.  I am first and foremost a detectorist, and in offering shafts, I have always tried to offer products that are "worth it," in terms of any improvement that they might bring to our detecting, and our hobby.  And along those lines, if I believed that it was correct that my product could be improved by offering another material, I would absolutely jump at the chance to do so.  BUT -- if I am not convinced that offering another material would improve ANYTHING, it's more difficult for me to do it "just because a customer might want it."  As a quick example, there are alot of people buying alot of pills, etc., believing that they "help," because someone has "told them so."  And so they become convinced that the pills "help."  And there are many of these pills that actually DON'T work, and the folks selling them KNOW that they don't work, but -- they are making money on them, and so they continue the deception just for the sake of the almighty dollar.  And that is something that morally and ethically does not sit well with me, at all.  I would never promote, or sell, a product that I knew to be "of no use," but TELL PEOPLE (dishonestly) that it offers some benefit, just because I might be able to take a few dollars from some unsuspecting people.  I don't believe in that, at all, and I think it is morally repugnant.  Now, I'm not saying that offering a non-carbon shaft, or whatever, would be equivalent.  I'm only saying that I strive to do everything according to my own personal set of morals and values, and I'd NEVER want to sell, or promote, the idea that I'm offering some "improvement" that is really not there...

TWO, if I WERE to offer some type of lower rod, to "fix" a problem that I'm convinced (AT THE VERY LEAST in 99% of cases) is a complete non-issue, my concern is that just by offering a "fix," would that not be indirectly implying that it IS an issue?  And would that then not, potentially, serve only to create a problem in the minds of some, that is really NOT a problem at all? 

Here's what I mean.  Let's say for the sake of argument that this is a 100% non-issue for all coin/jewelry hunters (which I believe to be entirely true, and I think even the gold nugget hunters concerned about this would even agree with this).  So, using that premise, I think it is fair to say that a vast majority of coin/jewelry hunters have, rightly so, never even CONSIDERED a carbon shaft to BE an issue.  BUT -- IF I suddenly started marketing a "non-conductive" lower rod, would I not be implying to those coin/jewelry hunters that this is an "improvement," and at the same time, throwing the thousands of shafts I've sold "under the bus" -- for essentially NO REASON at all?  Would it not run the risk of making a whole bunch of folks all of a sudden become concerned that I "sold them an inferior product" (which is NOT the case), if I were to offer an "improved, non-conductive" shaft? 

Now OBVIOUSLY, I stand behind my products 100%, and if I ever do inadvertently sell someone a faulty product, I replace it, no questions asked, 100% of the time.  I always have; that's the way I do things.  BUT -- what would I do in this case?  I believe fully that this is a non-issue.  But if I offer a "non-conductive" shaft, am I not offering a mixed message?  In other words, why would a customer not say "if it's a non-issue, then why are you offering a non-conductive shaft...I want you to replace the one you sold me, with the non-conductive one, because I feel you sold me a faulty product."  Then what?  Again -- as you noted -- perception is reality.  SO, it would be extremely difficult for me to say "no, the product I sold you was NOT faulty."  EVEN THOUGH it would be true that it was not faulty, I would now be in a very difficult spot, no?

My point is, this could open up a WHOLE CAN OF WORMS.  And again, if it was a LEGITIMATE can of worms, then it's simply my job to fix it.  Recently, I had a bad batch of injection-molded plastic parts, that I built some shafts with, and a few customers had a breakage.  In other words, I sold a couple dozen shafts that unknowingly had a legitimate problem.  SO, I had to get to the bottom of it, and in the end, found that it was a mistake made at the factory, during the molding process.  So, I ended up throwing away hundreds of parts, having them remade, AND sending free replacement shafts to the customers who had the breakage issue.  That is simply what I do; it's a no-brainer.  But, what about in this case?  This is NOT a case where I have sold something flawed, or faulty.  It if were, I'd fix/remedy the situation IMMEDIATELY.  Instead, this is, as far as I can scientifically determine, NOT a problem.  BUT -- offering a "fix" implies that it IS a problem.  So, it presents a major dilemma...what do you do when you are selling a quality, properly functioning product, but that someone has become convinced IS faulty (though not in any measurable way)?  

These are some of the concerns that I have.  

Steve

[Chase Goldman]

5 minutes ago, RONS DETECTORS MINELAB said:

Here’s a simple solution for people wanting to eliminate this problem, not my idea but really should be patented as it works well on any shaft system.

Words please.  I have no idea what information I am supposed to be getting from this pic.  I see the cable is not wrapped around the shaft and some unknown material covers the end of the shaft and the coil and there is some wrap around the coil edge, also of unknown composition.  Thanks.

[RONS DETECTORS MINELAB]

4 minutes ago, phrunt said:

 

All I can say is anything that causes my detector to react that's sitting so close to my coil I'm not even remotely happy about, and this isn't a weak reaction

 

I also do not want anything conductive making me possibly miss a good target as part of a detectors components when I’m trying to hear the faintest good sounds.

[phrunt]

10 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

Second, it was mentioned that the coil cable might play some role in the issue.  

Prospectors have long put their coil cable in a way that it has a big hump with it going straight up from the coil and trying to keep the cable away from the coil as much as possible, as the detectors react to the coil cable, this is even true with the sensitive PI's like the Algoforce and GPX 6000, that coil cable causes grief unless kept away from the coil.  The carbon shaft unfortunately can't be bent to keep it away from the coil 🙂