Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
CTX 3030 lower rods, an update -- SUCCESS!!
- Thread starter sgoss66
- Start date
sgoss66
Well-known member
sprchng --
Thanks for the kind words on the rod.
Interesting that you also don't like the "cam." I checked Minelab patents through a patent search, and didn't see anything -- so that probably isn't an issue, BUT...interesting that you feel the same way that I, and jas415 do, about that cam. The ONLY purpose for it, as far as I could tell, was so that once you have the rod inserted properly, your coil is "aligned right," relative to the ground. In other words, without the "cam," your rod is free to spin 360 degrees, until you locked the locking mechanism on the upper rod (and thus you'd have to be careful to align the coil properly with respect to the ground, before locking the rod lock). But, WITH the cam installed, you can't "spin" the lower rod (and coil) in a 360 degree circle. So maybe that's why it's there? Whatever the case, to me, it's really a pretty irrelevant piece, that probably really doesn't need to be there.
Hmm...
My next one that I build (I need two, only have 1 right now), I might try it without that "cam" and see how I like it.
Steve
Thanks for the kind words on the rod.
Interesting that you also don't like the "cam." I checked Minelab patents through a patent search, and didn't see anything -- so that probably isn't an issue, BUT...interesting that you feel the same way that I, and jas415 do, about that cam. The ONLY purpose for it, as far as I could tell, was so that once you have the rod inserted properly, your coil is "aligned right," relative to the ground. In other words, without the "cam," your rod is free to spin 360 degrees, until you locked the locking mechanism on the upper rod (and thus you'd have to be careful to align the coil properly with respect to the ground, before locking the rod lock). But, WITH the cam installed, you can't "spin" the lower rod (and coil) in a 360 degree circle. So maybe that's why it's there? Whatever the case, to me, it's really a pretty irrelevant piece, that probably really doesn't need to be there.
Hmm...
My next one that I build (I need two, only have 1 right now), I might try it without that "cam" and see how I like it.
Steve
Jeff In North Georgia
Member
Also stops the round rod from being pulled completely out of the square shaft when extending the lower rod.
sgoss66
Well-known member
Jeff in North Georgia --
Good point. It does indeed do that. Not sure if it's CRITICAL, though, or not. I might try my OTHER rod without it, that way I'd have one, each way. Interesting.
Also, I want to say that while I earlier thanked "everyone for their help/suggestions/inspiration," I want to explicitly thank you, Jeff. No way would I have been able to get to where I could actually make my rod, without your help. Anyone who has followed my posts on this knows that I was "stuck" for quite awhile on how to get that "yoke/clevis" piece figured out. It was a dead end, with respect to my desire to make a nice rod. And then I saw what you had come up with! Your "yoke/clevis" design is SUPER, in my opinion. I love it, and really appreciate you being kind enough to share your design with me. You are a very talented individual -- as those of us who have used your "Herke" arm cuffs for the Explorers/E-Tracs/CTXs already know. But in addition to being "talented," you are also very generous with your time and ideas, and just a great person to talk to.
So, a very sincere THANK YOU, to you, Jeff!
Steve
Good point. It does indeed do that. Not sure if it's CRITICAL, though, or not. I might try my OTHER rod without it, that way I'd have one, each way. Interesting.
Also, I want to say that while I earlier thanked "everyone for their help/suggestions/inspiration," I want to explicitly thank you, Jeff. No way would I have been able to get to where I could actually make my rod, without your help. Anyone who has followed my posts on this knows that I was "stuck" for quite awhile on how to get that "yoke/clevis" piece figured out. It was a dead end, with respect to my desire to make a nice rod. And then I saw what you had come up with! Your "yoke/clevis" design is SUPER, in my opinion. I love it, and really appreciate you being kind enough to share your design with me. You are a very talented individual -- as those of us who have used your "Herke" arm cuffs for the Explorers/E-Tracs/CTXs already know. But in addition to being "talented," you are also very generous with your time and ideas, and just a great person to talk to.
So, a very sincere THANK YOU, to you, Jeff!
Steve
Jason in Enid
Active member
sgoss66 said:
whoa!!!! Are you saying that this Jeff is the creator of the Herke cuff?! I "EDIT"LOVE my Herke cuffs. Best addtion I've ever put on my E-Trac or CTX. PLease tell us you are going to work on a version for the Nox as well! I will definitely be buying one if they are ever created!