Your personal information you provide will be transfered and stored as encrypted data.
You have the ability to update and remove your personal information.
You consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.
Allow cookies for
Necessary Cookies Necessary Cookies cannot be unchecked, because they are necessary for our website to function properly. They store your language, currency, shopping cart and login credentials.
Analytics Cookies We use google.com analytics and bing.com to monitor site usage and page statistics to help us improve our website. You may turn this on or off using the tick boxes above.
Marketing Cookies Marketing Cookies do track personal data. Google and Bing monitor your page views and purchases for use in advertising and re-marketing on other websites. You may turn this on or off using the tick boxes above.
Social Cookies These 3rd Party Cookies do track personal data. This allows Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest integration. eg. shows the Facebook 'LIKE' button. They will however be able to view what you do on our website. You may turn this on or off using the tick boxes above.
Posted:First off, your english seems just fine to me!
Second, there is a slight flaw in your staff design which is making it too heavy. You dont need wood running through the whole thing. All you need is one piece in each end, about as long as your wicks are wide (14cm). This way, your staff ends are capped with wood but it leaves the middle hollow, reducing the weight. Doing that should get the weight to around 500 - 600 grams.
As for the staff youre looking to buy, it looks very nice. I cant speak from experience as Ive never used or even seen that type before. It looks expensive though and I would suggest working with what you have first before you go blowing a wad of dough on a fancy shmancy doohicky. Aluminum tubes have been used successfully for years, dont see why you would need a staff with a "glass fibre spine" In fact, I think the thick center part would hinder your contact work slightly.
Let's turn those old bridges we crossed into ashes. We'll blaze a new trail, and torch the rough patches.
1. Some blubbering about my al staff 2. Request for further opinion about the mystec staff concerning contact
Ok, I don't think the staff would become very lighter with wooden core just in the ends of both sides.
Perhaps I've used the wrong Aluminium.
I made some further measuring using spare parts for the calculations:
My 1,4m al staff with wooden core and wicks (kevlar) weights 1,15kg.
My 1,4m al staff with wooden core without wicks (kevlar) weights 820g.
(So the Wicks with screws etc. weight 320g.)
My 1,4m al staff without wooden core and without wicks weights 500g.
My 1,4m al staff with wooden core just at the ends (20cm) without wicks would weight 660g.
My 1,4m al staff with wooden core just at the ends with wicks would weight 980g.
(That seems to be right, because if I get rid of 1m wood I would save 200g)
So 980g is still too much (especially when spinning with fire, because it becomes even heavier with fuel)
OT:my new iPod Mini just arrived with TNT from Shanghai. Way cool. ;-)
Ok, well, I gave the al construction some thought and also looked for titanium tubes. A titanium tube (1,7m) would cost me 35 Euro. That's quite ok, but I read that Titanium is even heavier than Aluminium and doesn't stand temperature that well. (check wikipedia.org)
Ok, why am I writing all this stuff:
I just need a staff without any further construction thinking, nights in front of the notebook reading articles about material and so on.
I anyone could tell me that the mystec staff will be ok for contact or at least might me modified (e.g. taping the staff so it becomes as thick as the middle part) to be ok it would be really nice. ahm ;-)
Posted:my staff is 3/4 in. diameter aluminum. its 5 ft long and has about 4 in. of wood in each end. i have 4 in. kevlar wicks on it and it cant weigh more than 2 pds. most staff spinners find it a little light. it works for me though. as far as contact with a raised center, ive never tried it. ive read that it can be a hinderance though. it catches and pushes or pulls the staff in irregular directions. makes sense i guess. my advice is to make a practice staff with a raised grip and try it. that way you havent layed down a bunch of dosh for something that isnt going to work for you.
starring Skippy the green llama Location: Seattle, WA
Total posts: 1148
Posted:Written by: ICoN
Second, there is a slight flaw in your staff design which is making it too heavy. You dont need wood running through the whole thing.
Having bent/broken/demolished staves that did not have any kind of solid core, I'd definitely argue this point. It doesn't have to be wood, but a solid core is not a design 'flaw', it's actually a preferred design for me(and many others), unless the staff is titanium. I'm through w aluminum, I'm through w steel, and I'm not touching copper Broken my heart too many times. But there is always wood, just make sure to fireproof your areas close to the wick, some use copper sheeting, some use aluminum tape, some use holographic alu tape stuff.
Also, as far as the middle of the staff hindering your contact work, it doesn't look like it should. There are plenty of people that learn on innercores with that big rubber hand grip in the center. I dunno if a little grip like that will make it much easier tho.
First intention, then enlightenment.. Ars Pyronomica
" Life is programmed. Whether death is programmed or not is yet to be determined."
Posted:Its an easy question. Not too heavy and not too light.
Mine is 1" aluminum (or maybe 3/4" I don't know...) with wood dowel through the whole thing and 8 inchs of wicking on each end (That is, two 4" wide strips on each end... about 1 foot per strip). Some consider it heavy. I think its perfect for contact. Anything heavier would be a little hard to swing around for some stuff (for me anyway). I don't know how heavy it is, but I would guess at a few pounds probably close to 2.5 lbs.