Beach Hunters And Carbon Fibre Rods

[Skull diver]

Small update regarding the creation of a final rod...

I never get tired of looking for alternative and DIY solutions so I just tracked down the material needed to create a mold and be able to pour the necessary resin.

Doing the proper math and considering only the end piece for the coil bolt, the cost of silicone rubber and cheaper resin outweighs the benefit.

It remains to attach the top segment to the coil mount and track down the right inner and outer diameter as well as the right stiffness.

I do not think anything else is necessary to strongly recommend the direct purchase of the third-party manufactured aftermarket lower rod.

End of story my friends

[midalake]

5 hours ago, Skull diver said:

I am sorry that the subject of the lower rod has become a topic of heated debate, I would also like to make a video

Don't be sorry, this needs to be worked through. However IN salt water I am calling non-issue.

How do we know this is not your rod too short and you are getting pod interference?

Or interference off your scuba gear because of the short set-up that is much closer to you. 

Or you're running a threshold which is actually giving problems in Salt water. 

Have you extended the rod out much further away from you to see if there might be some other issue??? 

 

[kac]

The lower shaft doesn't sound off when it isn't moving. My test was to see if there was enough carbon to effect the coils base specs which it doesn't..

Example on the Gold Racer at 56khz

Carbon shaft alone produces an ID 37

Carbon shaft with a nickel attached to it 57

Nickel alone 57

Carbon shaft layed on the coil (not in motion) and nickel passed over 57

Carbon sharft was passed over the coil parallel to the coil to have the largest footprint. I used a nickel because it falls in the mid/lower conductor range that is more subject to phase shift if there was any frequency change vs a high conductor silver or copper coin that shift less as their phase angles are much higher.

Keep in mind it is a common practice to use a carbon spray on the inside of coil housings for emi shielding. Also keep in mind even if your crawling around on your belly with your coil upside down you should still not have any issues.

[midalake]

Just now, midalake said:

Don't be sorry, this needs to be worked through. However IN salt water I am calling non-issue.

How do we know this is not your rod too short and you are getting pod interference?

Or interference off your scuba gear because of the short set-up that is much closer to you. 

Or you're running a threshold which is actually giving problems in Salt water. 

Have you extended the rod out much further away from you to see if there might be some other issue??? 

Also.....How are you taking care of all that coil wire???  Do you have it taped TIGHT straight away, and all the wraps near the pod???? Which would be preferred. 

[steveg]

14 hours ago, Erik Oostra said:

I don't think lower rod reactivity just effects the gold prospecting community.. These carbon fibre rods have turned my 'general purpose' detector into a 'beach only' detector.. You won't do your business any favours if you keep talking down to folks because of their 'better safe than sorry' mentality, most of them (myself included) will just see it as an attempt to keep selling 'dodgy' rods.. It's not a case of 'head noises', it's a case of 'rod noises'.. 

I am sorry you are interpreting my words as me "talking down" to folks.  And I'm really sorry that you refer to a carbon lower rod a "dodgy" rod.  I have literally thousands of very happy customers swinging carbon-fiber lower rods, all very pleased with the product.  I personally have swung carbon-fiber lower rods every one of my main machines for the past 15 years, and have never had an issue myself (and, I am one who does a good bit of testing -- test garden, etc.) 

And again speaking for myself, I will continue swinging carbon lower rods, as they pose no issues for the type of detecting I do.  So, I don't see it as "talking down to" anyone, when I try to bring some "balance" to this thread, where there are large numbers of detectorists reading here who are NOT having any performance issues, and yet may be "spooked" by some of what is said here -- a large portion of which applies to specific circumstances.  And I think it is unfair to call my products "dodgy."  That's something that I consider untrue, for a majority of folks swinging them.

Steve

[Erik Oostra]

5 hours ago, steveg said:

And again speaking for myself, I will continue swinging carbon lower rods, as they pose no issues for the type of detecting I do.  So, I don't see it as "talking down to" anyone, when I try to bring some "balance" to this thread, where there are large numbers of detectorists reading here who are NOT having any performance issues, and yet may be "spooked" by some of what is said here -- a large portion of which applies to specific circumstances.  And I think it is unfair to call my products "dodgy."  That's something that I consider untrue, for a majority of folks swinging them.

After reading some of the posts on the other thread about carbon rods I was 'spooked' enough to do my own testing with different coils, modes and frequencies.. I found the problem noticeable enough to change back to plastic lower rods (with carbon fibre uppers).. In this sense I consider lower carbon rods 'dodgy' for my kind of detecting.. As I said before I don't want anything to reduce the performance of my detector, especially if there's a very easy solution to the problem.. 

I understand your position here but having run different business I learned that it pays to listen to the customer.. If they were 'spooked' by anything I would never think to minimize their problem by claiming they were a minority and therefore their concerns were invalid.. Instead I'd acknowledge the problem and work towards solving it (which you are also doing now by using other materials for your rods).. This is good business sense and leads to return customers and recommendations.. 

[steveg]

3 hours ago, Erik Oostra said:

After reading some of the posts on the other thread about carbon rods I was 'spooked' enough to do my own testing in different modes and frequencies.. I found the problem noticeable enough to change back to plastic lower rods (with carbon fibre uppers).. In this sense I consider lower carbon rods 'dodgy' for my kind of detecting.. As I said before I don't want anything to reduce the performance of my detector, especially if there's a very easy solution to the problem.. 

I understand your position here but having run different business I learned that it pays to listen to the customer.. If they were 'spooked' by anything I would never think to minimize their problem by claiming they were a minority and therefore their concerns were invalid.. Instead I'd acknowledge the problem and work towards solving it (which you are also doing now by using other materials for your rods).. This is good business sense and leads to return customers and recommendations.. 

Erik,

I believe we are having a communication breakdown.  

When I am stressing that a there is a "minority" of customers, in only "specific" applications, it is NOT me attempting to minimize those customers who ARE having issues, NOR is it implying their concerns are invalid.  IN NO WAY am I trying to communicate that.  That should be clear -- based on the fact that I'm spending considerable time and effort to come up with exactly what this "minority" of customers have expressed that they need.  It's hard to see how I can be seen as "minimizing" someone's concerns, while simultaneously working hard to address their concerns...

What I am "minimizing," or at least trying to, is that for folks who detect the way I do -- coin/relic/jewelry hunter -- that there ISN'T a problem.  And, with no disrespect meant to any other type of detectorist, hunting any other types of targets (placer gold, micro jewelry, etc.), the simple fact is that coin/jewelry/relic hunters are the vast majority of my customers.  And carbon-fiber lower rods are -- in a vast majority of situations, DO NOT CAUSE ISSUES.

We've had an inordinate amount of attention focused on the specific issues in specific circumstances that can manifest when using a carbon-fiber lower.  And what is getting lost is the fat that there are NOT issues -- for many many hundreds of my customers (and potential future customers) who are NOT prospectors, but who ALSO are reading these posts. 

My experience shows that there is NO loss of depth, NO loss of ID accuracy, and NO loss of target separation capability, when using a carbon-fiber lower rod vs. a non-carbon one. THESE THINGS are what hunters like myself are focused on.  And so, if we are having no issues with "detecting capability" (depth/ID/separation), AND, if no "chatter" is being caused by the lower rod while WE detect, in the ways that WE run OUR machines, then it seems fair for me to make the counterpoint here that IT IS NOT AN ISSUE -- for US.  And again -- that is important, because that represents a majority of detectorists.  So, again, I am NOT "minimizing" any one person's or group of peoples' own personal experiences.  NOT AT ALL.  What more do you expect me to do, besides working hard to spin up an entirely new line of non-conductive lowers TO ADDRESS these customers?  I am simply trying to keep things "balanced," as there are alot of people reading this thread, and as a result, there have been ALOT of questions being asked of me, behind the scenes, by past -- and potential future -- customers as a result of these two threads.

I don't know why it is so important for some to beat what I consider to be the "dead horse" of trying to "prove" that the problems some have experienced are "real."  I AM NOT DENYING THIS AT ALL.  YOU ARE HEARD.  ALL OF YOU.  That is why I am working for an alternative for those who want or need one.  At the same time, though, I am ALSO working to maintain a bit of sanity here -- for thousands of detectorists for whom this IS NOT an issue.  Carbon lower rods have been used for 30 years on a good many of the very top-of-the-line detectors, machines that are among the all-time favorites amongst many coin/relic/jewelry hunters, and it has NEVER been an issue.  Now, all of a sudden, the conclusion should be that I'm selling my customers "dodgy" products that should never be used on a detector?  Really?

That is not a correct assessment from my view, and it's not a correct assessment from a science point of view.  What IS correct, is that there can be issues (often manifesting as "chatter") caused by a conductive lower rod such as carbon fiber, for some folks, in some applications.  The point, in my opinion, should be for folks reading these posts to have CLEAR information, so that they can determine if they feel that they may fall into the "category of folks" who may experience the noise/chatter, or who use their detector in one of those applications where the negative effects may manifest.  OTHERWISE, though, there also needs to be (in my opinion) enough information provided for those who are NOT in that category of folks, those who do NOT use their machine in one of those applications.  THOSE folks, from my view, deserve to have enough information presented TO THEM, so that they can continue to have some peace of mind in using their carbon-fiber equipment.  And it seems that throughout these threads, every time I have tried to present this OTHER side of the story, for the OTHER group of detectorists, there seems to be this obsessive need for some posters to continue to argue and debate and dismiss what I'm trying to say, when I'm NOT aiming my comments at those who are having the issues, I am TRYING to aim them at those who ARE NOT, and WILL NOT.  

Does that explain things any more clearly?  Can you see that I am in NO WAY minimizing YOU, or YOUR detecting style or the issues YOU are experiencing?  I am speaking to OTHERS, like myself, who have been perfectly happy with their carbon-fiber lower rods for 30 years now, and are doing quite well with them, with NO issues, and NOTHING HAS CHANGED for those folks.  NOTHING IS DIFFERENT.  The only difference is that due to the highly sensitive units we are using today, SOME folks, in SOME applications, doing SOME SPECIFIC THINGS with their machines, will at times experience negative effects, and switching to a non-conductive alternative makes sense in these cases.

Steve

 

[Chase Goldman]

9 hours ago, kac said:

Also keep in mind even if your crawling around on your belly with your coil upside down you should still not have any issues.

At high gains, in gold mode on the Manticore and D2, with the coil in proximity to the CF shaft, flat on (like it would be if crawling or probing under things) it gets noisy unless there is zero relative motion.  Move it 1mm wrt the shaft and it will sound off like bad coil bump sensitivity, except you are not coming into contact with the coil, you are just rotating the coil wrt the shaft.  That’s an issue for folks who detect under bushes and rock outcroppings.  

I agree that it’s otherwise a non-issue in terms of normal swinging, probably least of all in beach modes.  Did you see my video, Ken, in the other thread?

Anyway, no one is saying that everyone needs to get rid of their CF lowers they've been using for years without issue.  But people who regularly encounter the noise effect or who just feel more confident without a conductive lower shaft in proximity to their coil, would appreciate being able to obtain an alternative rod material, and that's what SteveG is trying to provide to those who have that preference.

[kac]

54 minutes ago, Chase Goldman said:

At high gains, in gold mode on the Manticore and D2, with the coil in proximity to the CF shaft, flat on (like it would be if crawling or probing under things) it gets noisy unless there is zero relative motion.  Move it 1mm wrt the shaft and it will sound off like bad coil bump sensitivity, except you are not coming into contact with the coil, you are just rotating the coil wrt the shaft.  That’s an issue for folks who detect under bushes and rock outcroppings.  

I agree that it’s otherwise a non-issue in terms of normal swinging, probably least of all in beach modes.  Did you see my video, Ken, in the other thread?

Anyway, no one is saying that everyone needs to get rid of their CF lowers they've been using for years without issue.  But people who regularly encounter the noise effect or who just feel more confident without a conductive lower shaft in proximity to their coil, would appreciate being able to obtain an alternative rod material, and that's what SteveG is trying to provide to those who have that preference.

I run my machines with gain as high as conditions allow and still never had the lower shaft cause the machine to respond. I do quite a bit of woods hunting and bumping around the undergrowth has never posed an issue.

Some coils can be knock sensitive out of the box and should be replaced/returned. People may mistake a knock sensitive coil and blame the carbon shaft.