The Aurificusian Hypothesis [Archive] - LongRangeLocators Forums

Aurificus

07-01-2009, 07:51 AM

J_Player

07-01-2009, 09:42 AM

PULSING IR LED DETECTORS - Theory & Practice

What we are attempting to detect is far more subtle and is the type of effect that is considered inconsequential noise in standard EE practice.
In fact, standard theories & practices are designed to dampen, cover-up, ignore or over-power these effects.

The LED emits energy as IR radiation.
When it contacts matter this energy can be transmitted, absorbed or reflected.
Standard theory assumes that the matter involved has a constant temperature and therefore the rate of transmission, absorption or reflection is constant.
In a real world, (the one I’m in, maybe not yours!!) matter is constantly changing
its temperature. The rate of change depends on the introduction or removal of an energy source (radiation, let’s call it ‘heat’) and the composition and physical properties of the object in question and the medium it is in.

i.e. What size is the object?, what is it made of?, what it is buried in?, how deep is it?, is heat from the sun warming it?, is it cooling down?, etc, etc, etc, etc,…….

The zone around a buried object will therfore have a thermal energy gradient, except for brief periods where equilibrium might exist. Depending on conditions the gradient could extend to the air space above a buried object ( phenomenal!)

So what?!!! The emission from an IR LED is tiny and will have a negligible effect on any of “that BS” at any sort of distance!!!!!

True…..but what if a remote energy level change has an effect on the LEDs?

An LED will have a “rise time” from the application of power to its full IR emission level. Energy is required to excite (don’t say heat) a diode each time it is triggered.
The amount of energy needed will depend on how much energy the LED has dissipated whilst switched off. If the pulse is constant the LED’s start-up power requirement will change according to how much energy it is transferring to the environment while it is emitting.

Monitoring these undoubtedly very small voltage and/or current fluctuations might best performed with a sensitive ‘amplitude’ detector or similar that is separated from the power circuit to minimise any effect on it.

In conclusion, the theory is this: The pulsed beam is a ‘detection probe’ or a ‘transmitting antenna’, the zone around the target absorbs or rejects ‘additional’ energy at a greater rate than ‘ambient’ and the response is measured as power fluctuations at the transmitter not in reflected signals from the target.

No magic, No mumbo Jumbo. Just science and physics and not letting “the big stuff over-power the small stuff”. May I have a Patent, please? Plenty granted for a lot less than that!! I’ll share it with Esteban, we’ll be rich and retire and go treasure hunting.

P.S. For practical use, the variables involving real targets are so numerous that results might be “Very Hit & Miss”. When it works, it works, when it doesn’t……..try again, under different conditions……try again…… (more system development and/or control of the variables is required)

P.P.S The concept, however, has a lot of value. This type of sensing of seemingly insignificant, but quite measurable “side effects” can be applied to many different real world problems.

P.P.P.S. My deep RESPECT to Esteban, who politely and patiently shares elements of his years of work on Remote Detection equipment. The good, the bad & the otherwise. Without his input this thread would be little more than sceptics teasing novices & stroking their own and each others……prejudices.

Cheers, AurificusHi Aurificus,
Thank you for the first intelligible theory of how the IR LED detector could work. I have never put it into words, but this is the mechanism I was considering that may be taking place if the reports of IR LEDs finding buried metals are actually true.

It seems your theory is all-encompassing, regardless of what kind of "energy anomaly" exists at the location of buried metal. Thus, we have a workable theory of how the electronic end of the detector works. The other end --- the buried treasure still is a complex mystery, as well as another single detail: Is whatever anomaly we will find at the treasure location capable of causing a measurable variation in the power passing through an IR LED when it is pointed at the anomaly?

There are two unsolved questions left:
1. What energy anomalies exist at the treasure location that could influence a pulsed IR LED?
2. Are these energy anomalies strong enough to influence the power passing through an IR LED at a distance?

1. Starting with the buried metal energy anomaly, this is a very complex thing. It will vary depending on many factors. First, according to Esteban, we are lookig for long-time buried metals. These are the targets that the IR LED responds to. The short version of a very complex phenomenon is that all buried metals corrode over a period of time (usually years or decades), and corroding metal ions travel upwards through the soil in a column to the surface where they become bound with the constituents of the soil and are no longer ions. But because there is a column of ions in the soil above the metal, the ground is more conductive, and is also acting as a "ground battery". This conductivity and "ground battery" action will be more pronounced when the soil is damp. At the same time, there is a static field in the air of about 100v/meter with small amounts of current leaking through the atmosphere. When this leakage current in the air sees a more conductive area of soil, then it will tend to flow more toward the area of high conductivity (the ionized soil above the treasure) than in the surrounding soil. This results in a reduced voltage gradient in the air above the buried metal. These are the most prominent effects of long-time buried metals. But there is much more to the energy anomalies... such as minor magnetic anomalies with the earth's magnetic field, and telluric anomalies. The idea of temperature anomalies does not come to mind, but it may play a part at certain times of the day depending on depth, mass, constitution of the metal and time of day. I doubt it plays a part in the detection from a pulsed LED, because the treasures Esteban talks of recovering are mostly coin-sized objects at a large distance which would seem to have minimal temperature anomalies. Also, consider the resolution of an IR LED. The angle of illumination is so great that it would need to illuminate something much larger than a coin in order to show a temperature anomaly at long range with any directional accuracy.

There are also other anomalies associated with long-time buried metals that include subatomic particle physics. These anomalies are secondary effects that are caused by the primary chemical effects of the corroding metal and associated electric anomalies in the soil and air. This leaves us with the unanswered question concerning the long-time buried metal: Which of the associated anomalies are causing the IR LED to respond?

2. The second question -- are the anomalies at the buried metal location strong enough to influence a pulsed IR LED?

This is another complex question which depends partly on the nature of the anomaly that the IR LED responds to. Keep in mind, we do not know exactly what the IR LED is responding to, so we are grasping in the dark.

But if we presume that the IR LED is responding to one or more of the known larger anomalies related to the voltage gradient, curent leakage, electrical currents in the ground, ionic movements or binding, ect, then we also know we are looking for relatively small anomalies. (Small in comparison to large anomalies that are sensed by more conventional instruments measureing conventional physical properties).

In addition, we are dealing with an IR LED, which has an illumination pattern that resembles a floodlight. For a typical IR LED, the illuminating power is spread within a 40 degree cone. This means that if we are to find a buried metal target at 30 meters range, we are looking for a target that is within a cone of IR illumination that is about 20 meters diameter. If we have a highly focused beam that is only 10 degrees cone, then the area we are illuminating is about 10 meters diameter at 30 meters distance from the target. Can we find a buried metal anomaly in a 10 meter cone? is this enough resolution? I can see where an IR laser would have a very small dispersion of its beam, and would be useful in solving the "floodlight" resolution effect. But Esteban says he found these treasures with IR LEDs, not lasers.

Another group of influences that could effect the detector's ability to locate the target is the physical conditions that exist in the vicinity of the buried metal. For one, other buried metals could interfere with the treasure signal you are looking for. But there are also other influences, like the atmosphere. The electric voltage gradient in the air will be less when the humidity is high, and lower when it is dry. When a storm is approaching, the gradient can reverse, due to local cloud charge conditions. We also have daily cycles that influence the telluric currents in the ground as well as the atmospheric voltage gradient. And there are man-made and natural electrical noises that cause interference with the smooth leakage of current from the atmosphere. These are just for starters. There are also fluctuations in the subatomic particles that show as an anomaly in the treasure area, as well as fluctuations in other space energies such as cosmic rays.

These complex variances are influencing extremely small anomalies which are almost impossible to detect at a buried metal object except when condions are right. With this in mind, we can see how you concluded: "When it works, it works, when it doesn't...... try again, under different conditions..... try again......."

Again, thank you for a clear explanation of how the IR LED could work, and thanks to Esteban for his years of testing in this field.

Best wishes,
J_P

Aurificus

07-01-2009, 10:15 AM

Aurificus

07-01-2009, 10:30 AM

This is not inconsistent with the Theory.:D

Fresh, clean, shiny, metal Reflects rather than Absorbs radiation.
ie slows down temperature change,.
The Theory suggests we need relatively quick thermal changes to produce a “detectable anomaly”

An object recently buried is likely to have a thin layer of air surrounding it, in its surface ‘roughness’ and in the disturbed soil. Air is a good insulator. A/A

Objects in the soil for longer periods, through wetting & compaction will have much closer contact with the soil. better conduction, better response

Objects in "close contact” for very very long periods of time bond slightly from an exchange of molecules at the contact points. This should enhance thermal conductivity.

Aurificus

J_Player

07-01-2009, 12:22 PM

Thanks for the reply J_P,
I concentrated on a changing thermal gradient in the theory because it is pretty easy for anyone to "accept". Things heat up & cool down every day...
It suits the idea of an IR detection device, natural fit.
Plus I think Esteban said works best between 10am & 2pm. Greatest transfer of solar
shortwave radiation into the ground.

BUT.....Heat is only one form of Energy and interchangable with any other energy
so detection of other changing energy is quite possible.

Re: distance I think Esteban says up to 10m with IR , so detection area would be smaller. Perhaps LED in pistol barrell would constrain it further.

Cheers,
Aurificus

AurificusHi Aurificus,
I think it is not possible to detect variations of energy due to the heat in a buried object (assuming this heat variation is caused by the daily cycling of the sun and darkness). I say this based on an experiment I conducted to measure the infrared emissions at buried objects. What I discovered when I buried a number of metal objects is the difference in infrared measured above the objects was insignificant compared to the thermal swings measured between areas in sunlight and in shadows. See my preliminary test here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=52102&postcount=34

This experiments was done with an infrared thermometer. But also I have years of experience using infrared imaging cameras that locate very subtle differences in infrared energy to produce a colored image similar to a photograph showing areas of higher and lower thermal energy. I can tell you that a coin buried 6 inches in the soil will not show any anomaly. The anomalies of sunlit and shaded areas are the most prominent variations in a landscape scene. But if there is a damp area, or a body of water, expect to see a much cooler "cold spot" which acts as a heat sink to the thermal energy of the sun. And, of course, if there is a fire, or a metal object in the sun, expect to see a much warmer anomaly.

You saw in my experiment that the temperature varied 11 degrees Fahrenheit even after I cleaned and smoothed the sand to eliminate buried objects and shadows to give a uniform surface (This variation was presumed to be caused only by the variation in the depth where the sand became damp below, based on the depths to damp sand I saw when I dug up the dry sand after the test). Then after burying coin-sized objects, there was no perceptible change due to the buried objects at any time, including after waiting for the temperature to completely stabilize. After performing that experiment, I realized that measuring the infrared above a buried object was useless in those conditions because the signal to noise ratio made it impossible. ie: The existing anomalies due to natural forces (variable dampness below) was in the order of 100 times greater than the questionable temperature deviations above buried metal in the few cases where a difference was noted. This does not include the greater temperature swings that happened in the shadows before I smoothed the surface of the test area. In other words, the natural thermal anomalies obscured any chance of detecting an anomaly due to the buried targets. It would have to be a very massive object buried near the surface being detected just after the ground starts warming up from the sun, or starts cooling off after sunset.

You can test this yourself by finding a buried object with your metal detector. Try finding buried coins in the park. Then, before you dig the coin, push a meat thermometer into the ground and see the temperature at the coin. Compare it to the temperature 6 inches away. Or, check the surface temperature with an infrared thermometer. Better yet, try a thermal imaging camera. You will see there is no anomaly that could locate buried coins in normal treasure hunting conditions unless there was a very sudden change in temperature to the surface, with the coins nearly at the surface. But you will find plenty of other objects on the surface that show thermal anomalies.

The above is only part of the reason I look to other forms of anomaly that would cause the IR LED to respond. Another reason is because of what Esteban said about the IR LED detecting circuit. He says it works with long-time buried metals, not fresh-buried metals. And it works between the hours of 10 am and 2 pm. The time of 10 am to 2 pm are not close to the optimum hours to see a thermal anomaly pattern. Temperature anomalies are usually best seen shortly after sunrise, or after sunset. But the time of 10 am to 2 pm happen to be the time window when the atmosphere is most stable in South America for taking measurements in the phenomenon associated with the ground above long-time buried metals. Esteban can confirm this for you. In other parts of the world, the time can vary slightly. In Western USA, it is close to the same. Later in the day, the response from measuring the fields I described in my post above begin to decay due to interference from natural forces. This is a daily cycle which becomes stronger and weaker at different times of the year, as well as is influenced by solar activity and the weather.

Those are the reasons that point me away from the thermal anomaly theory, and toward the theory that the IR LED is responding to some electrical or secondary phenomena related to the metal ions in the soil above the buried object.

Best wishes,
J_P

hung

07-01-2009, 12:23 PM

changing thermal gradient

These are key words.
But they are not alone. There's also other aspects as electric field gradient, which behaves pretty much similar as wind gradients found close to sea level.

Detection is not exclusively IR, but also due to that. No constant time period of detection: 10 to 2 PM. No, it's all day long, including night when depending of the case, detection is clearer.

Theory is only one piece of many. You still have a long way to go.:D

Aurificus

07-01-2009, 02:05 PM

I think it is not possible to detect variations of energy due to the heat in a buried object............ based on an experiment I conducted to measure the infrared emissions at buried objects.......... See my preliminary test here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=52102&postcount=34

J_P Your experiments were well performed and thorough. They prove that conventional sensors that detect IR radiation ( thermometers, cameras, etc.) are of little use for the detection of small buried metal objects.

The pulsing LED Detector does not sense the temperature of targets.

Changes of several degrees would require the "re-tuning" of the detector "receiver" to create a new base-line.

The order of temperature shifts required to be 'located' are likely to be in the order of hundredths of degrees.:shocked:

Aurificus

Aurificus

07-01-2009, 02:41 PM

Theory is only one piece of many. You still have a long way to go.:D

A Journey of a Thousand Miles, starts with.........
a flat tyre, a leaking radiator, a faulty alternator and an empty gas tank!

or....Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes...
That way, your already a mile in front of him...and he has No Shoes!

Theories....Ive got a million of them :lol:

Aurificus

Esteban

07-01-2009, 03:15 PM

A pulsed IR led I use in low frequency, 400 Hz. Is different a beam in wich you introduce the frequency, than pulsed the led at this frequency. Maybe pulsed led doesn't measure the temp. but reveals the "phenomenon" around long time buried metals. The precission is very high regarding other LRL systems, but here you assume that you must uses strong pulses.

Other system wich reveals the phenomenon is a cheap Chinese laser pointer, but you use here more low voltage, near 4.5 V. With IR leds you can use 9 V. 10-12 ohms resistor is necessary, and at this point the IR led works in the limit.

Regards

Esteban

Aurificus

07-01-2009, 03:59 PM

Hello Esteban,
I've been hoping you would pop-up. it's 12.30am in Oz!

A pulsed IR led I use in low frequency, 400 Hz.

In my theory, a low LED pulse rate is necessary to allow the LED to "cool" a little so we can find the changes in the power needed to bring it back up to full emission.

Is different a beam in wich you introduce the frequency, than pulsed the led at this frequency.

We are producing 400 Hz Pulses of IR beam.
The IR in each pulse is around 3THz

Maybe pulsed led doesn't measure the temp. but reveals the "phenomenon" around long time buried metals. The precision is very high regarding other LRL systems, but here you assume that you must uses strong pulses.

I am proposing that one source of the "phenomenon" is due to a changing thermal energy gradient around a target.
The IR LED detector is very sensitive to the changes not the overall temp.

Does that seem to fit with your experiences in the field.
Have you tried it at night?

Cheers,
Aurificus

Esteban

07-01-2009, 04:30 PM

Hello Esteban,
I've been hoping you would pop-up. it's 12.30am in Oz!

In my theory, a low LED pulse rate is necessary to allow the LED to "cool" a little so we can find the changes in the power needed to bring it back up to full emission.

We are producing 400 Hz Pulses of IR beam.
The IR in each pulse is around 3THz

I am proposing that one source of the "phenomenon" is due to a changing thermal energy gradient around a target.
The IR LED detector is very sensitive to the changes not the overall temp.

Does that seem to fit with your experiences in the field.
Have you tried it at night?

Cheers,
Aurificus

Yes, the IR band is in the THz region, but, for me, is necessary pulsed. Don't know if laser termometer is or not useful, due digital changes is low in screen and you must pay attention. For this is better to convert audible. You need to capture very rapid.

In a place of a small target as a coin difference is near 4-6ºC (we use here French scale). Maybe nobody pay attention in this: if in site of target is most hot, some animals can live close the target. In 2 opportunities we found scorpions over the target. Once, a chain with a lot of medals hanging in it with a pair of scorpions (red). The other, a black scorpion was over a copper 130 years plate (in battlefield). My hand was very near :shocked: when I dug it! Now, this is indicative of changes in temperature. And maybe also is indicative that scorpions has a temp. sensor as snakes... Sometimes occurs the same with ants. So, collateral discoveries... :lol:

Never I try at night, but light of Sun isn't problem, maybe fog.

Regards

Esteban

Aurificus

07-02-2009, 12:26 AM

When looking for Opal at night, using UV light source, must be careful not to pick-up thing too quickly. scorpions "glow" like opal.

Using a radio receiver "tuned" to the power supply to the LED is what I alluded to in the original theory. It will produce a varying audio signaI, how to interpet that sound from the noise probably needs lots of field time or sophisticated signal analysis.

Any one heard from Max?

J_Player

07-02-2009, 02:09 AM

J_P Your experiments were well performed and thorough. They prove that conventional sensors that detect IR radiation ( thermometers, cameras, etc.) are of little use for the detection of small buried metal objects.

The pulsing LED Detector does not sense the temperature of targets.

Changes of several degrees would require the "re-tuning" of the detector "receiver" to create a new base-line.

The order of temperature shifts required to be 'located' are likely to be in the order of hundredths of degrees.:shocked:Hi Aurificus,
The IR thermometers do not measure temperature directly. They measure IR emissions, which are converted to temperatures electronically. Thus, the instrument I used is measuring the IR emitted from whatever surface it is pointed at, within a 10 degree cone from the tip of the sensor. The point is, that the temperature varies over any stretch of landscape which has enough texture to cast a shadow. This surface temperature variation can be as much as 30 degrees Fahrenheit, or even more depending on the sun, air temperature, and wind conditions. This condition exists on nearly all ground that has shadows and that has variations in the soil moisture content. Because this condition exists, then according to your dissertation, the detector "receiver" would require "retuning" whenever you found this change more than a few degrees. (In the location where I conducted the test, this means retuning must be done at least every 8 inches for the undisturbed sand, and every foot or so in the sand that was smoothed to remove the shadows.

But what is confusing is that you are focusing on a changing thermal gradient, using IR to detect it:
I concentrated on a changing thermal gradient in the theory because it is pretty easy for anyone to "accept". Things heat up & cool down every day...
It suits the idea of an IR detection device, natural fit.
Plus I think Esteban said works best between 10am & 2pm. Greatest transfer of solar shortwave radiation into the ground.

BUT.....Heat is only one form of Energy and interchangable with any other energy so detection of other changing energy is quite possible.

Re: distance I think Esteban says up to 10m with IR , so detection area would be smaller. Perhaps LED in pistol barrell would constrain it furtherTo the best of my knowledge, a thermal gradient is a gradient in temperature, is it not? You say the "changing thermal gradient" suits the idea of an IR detection device, natural fit. I am wondering if you are talking about measuring the gradient in temperature or something else. Depending on the wavelength of the IR, you may be illuminating the target area with something more similar to light, or more similar to heat. If you are really talking about a thermal gradient, then I would think it is important to choose a wavelength closer to the heat radiation end of the spectrum. But if not, then I would think it is still meaningful to at least specify what transmitted frequency is responding to the presence of a buried target.

But putting aside the exact frequency of the IR LED, your theory is that the buried metal anomaly anomaly can be detected because it received heat from the sun which was transferred by conduction through the soil. According to your dissertation, the thermal energy can easily be converted to other forms of energy: "Heat is only one form of Energy and interchangable with any other energy so detection of other changing energy is quite possible." the heat supplied by the sun is converted to a different form of energy. And this transformed energy will forma an anomaly at the treasure location, which will absorb a different amount of the IR pulsed at the soil above the buried metal.

If this is correct, then let's look back at what I measured on the ground in the way of temperature (IR emissions actually, which follow closely with the temperature). There was a 30 degree Fahrenheit temperature swing in the undisturbed soil, due to shadows, and an 11 degree swing due to moisture variations below the surface. The question that comes to mind is how will these large natural variations in soil surface temperature allow a buried metal object to receive an un-skewed amount of thermal radiation from the sun to allow the pulsed IR LED to detect the converted energy within the equivalent of a few hundredths of a degree? This seems impossible, especially when the shaded areas change as the sun moves across the sky, and moves the cool spots away from the buried metal, or toward it.

The questions that keep coming to mind are: what energy are you talking about (as in what frequency is the thermal gradient from the sun transformed into that is detected by a pulsed IR LED at the treasure location?)
And, how can you spot such a small anomaly when the source energy supplied has anomalies at and around the treasure site that are hundreds of time larger?

I believe Esteban said he found targets using infrared up to 30 meters. Am I correct Esteban?
Perhaps Esteban can shed some light on the reason to do your sampling between the hours of 10 am and 2 pm. This would help greatly to explain what phenomenon is being detected.

Best wishes,
J_P

Aurificus

07-02-2009, 07:33 AM

But what is confusing is that you are focusing on a changing thermal gradient, using IR to detect it:
To the best of my knowledge, a thermal gradient is a gradient in temperature, is it not? You say the "changing thermal gradient" suits the idea of an IR detection device, natural fit. I am wondering if you are talking about measuring the gradient in temperature or something else.

My idea of a thermal gradient is the difference between the thermal energy levels of two pieces of matter.

Consider a waterfall, different energy potential between a rock at the top & one at the bottom.

A changing thermal gradient is like the "flow of the water" between those points.

Aurificus

Aurificus

07-02-2009, 07:58 AM

[quote=J_Player;93285]
your theory is that the buried metal anomaly anomaly can be detected because it received heat from the sun which was transferred by conduction through the soil. According to your dissertation, the thermal energy can easily be converted to other forms of energy: "Heat is only one form of Energy and interchangable with any other energy so detection of other changing energy is quite possible." the heat supplied by the sun is converted to a different form of energy. And this transformed energy will forma an anomaly at the treasure location, which will absorb a different amount of the IR pulsed at the soil above the buried metal. [\quote]

The largest portion of radiation from the sun arrives as visible light, and the wavelengths closest to either side (short-waves) . It is absorbed by matter and re-radiated mostly as IR radiation (long waves).

Energy as light is converted to heat!
Micro-waves can be converted to heat.
Radio waves can be converted to heat

No VooDoo magic here :nono:

Aurificus

Aurificus

07-02-2009, 10:42 AM

And, how can you spot such a small anomaly when the source energy supplied has anomalies at and around the treasure site that are hundreds of time larger?

Consider a large, wide, dark, deep, fast flowing river. We wish to find the rock that is just bigger than the others and will snag the bottom of our boat.

We could take numerous measurements of the rivers current at points above and below and all across the stream and hope to find the infintesimal change in Kilo litres/per min caused by the obstruction of the rock.

Or... we could sprinkle lots of tiny leaves on the surface upstream and look for the one that stops or circles in the "eddy" caused by the Rock.

Dont let the big stuff cloud your view of the small stuff
Aurificus

Aurificus

07-02-2009, 12:19 PM

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=5&pictureid=5

AURIFICUS :razz:

J_Player

07-02-2009, 12:58 PM

Consider a large, wide, dark, deep, fast flowing river. We wish to find the rock that is just bigger than the others and will snag the bottom of our boat.

We could take numerous measurements of the rivers current at points above and below and all across the stream and hope to find the infintesimal change in Kilo litres/per min caused by the obstruction of the rock.

Or... we could sprinkle lots of tiny leaves on the surface upstream and look for the one that stops or circles in the "eddy" caused by the Rock.

Dont let the big stuff cloud your view of the small stuff
AurificusThis is precisely the problem with the theory you presented. The big stuff is clouding the view of the small stuff that the detector is looking for.

In the analogy you presented, the large rock would represent the degree of variations in the thermal energy supplied by the sun (due to shadows and surface moisture). And what we are looking for is not a large rock, but a very small pebble which is buried amongst the large rocks. ie: The shadows and damp spots in the soil cause large deviations and gradients in the solar energy supplied. The buried metal object represents only a very small fraction of a percent of the thermal gradients seen at the surface above it. In fact, any thermal gradient derived from the presence of the buried metal receives it's energy from the same non-uniform larger gradients above at the surface, after it is conducted downwards as heat. So we are basically starting with a non-uniform energy input to energize the buried metal before trying to locate it.

Since we are looking to sense a very small thermal anomaly where the buried metal object is, the problem becomes one of signal to noise ratio. In other words, what is to stop the large energy anomalies caused from shadows cast on the surface from absorbing the pulsed IR LED energy instead of the faint anomaly from a metal coin buried 10 cm below the surface? After all, the variation of thermal energy caused by the surface shadows and moisture is at least several hundreds of times stronger than the variations in thermal energy caused by a buried metal object.

Then there is still the problem of the divergence of the beam of an IR LED. Esteban did not use a collimator to focus into a narrow beam. He used a plain IR LED with the attached factory lens, which typically has a 40 degree cone of illumination. This suggests that at 10 meters, the IR LED is illuminating a spot of 6 meters diameter. A deviation in the power pulsed to the LED could be caused by absorption anywhere within that 6 meter diameter circle. If the theory presented is correct (an anomaly of thermal gradient is causing the small variation in pulsed IR LED power), then the shaded side of stones, plants, or footprints within this 6-meter circle the ground would have an influence on the LED which is hundreds of times larger than a tiny gradient from a metal object buried below the surface.

Perhaps it is time to look for a different secondary effect of buried metal object phenomenon to explain why the IR LED power would change when pointed at the treasure location?

Best wishes,
J_P

Esteban

07-02-2009, 01:01 PM

Hi Aurificus,
The IR thermometers do not measure temperature directly. They measure IR emissions, which are converted to temperatures electronically. Thus, the instrument I used is measuring the IR emitted from whatever surface it is pointed at, within a 10 degree cone from the tip of the sensor. The point is, that the temperature varies over any stretch of landscape which has enough texture to cast a shadow. This surface temperature variation can be as much as 30 degrees Fahrenheit, or even more depending on the sun, air temperature, and wind conditions. This condition exists on nearly all ground that has shadows and that has variations in the soil moisture content. Because this condition exists, then according to your dissertation, the detector "receiver" would require "retuning" whenever you found this change more than a few degrees. (In the location where I conducted the test, this means retuning must be done at least every 8 inches for the undisturbed sand, and every foot or so in the sand that was smoothed to remove the shadows.

But what is confusing is that you are focusing on a changing thermal gradient, using IR to detect it:
To the best of my knowledge, a thermal gradient is a gradient in temperature, is it not? You say the "changing thermal gradient" suits the idea of an IR detection device, natural fit. I am wondering if you are talking about measuring the gradient in temperature or something else. Depending on the wavelength of the IR, you may be illuminating the target area with something more similar to light, or more similar to heat. If you are really talking about a thermal gradient, then I would think it is important to choose a wavelength closer to the heat radiation end of the spectrum. But if not, then I would think it is still meaningful to at least specify what transmitted frequency is responding to the presence of a buried target.

But putting aside the exact frequency of the IR LED, your theory is that the buried metal anomaly anomaly can be detected because it received heat from the sun which was transferred by conduction through the soil. According to your dissertation, the thermal energy can easily be converted to other forms of energy: "Heat is only one form of Energy and interchangable with any other energy so detection of other changing energy is quite possible." the heat supplied by the sun is converted to a different form of energy. And this transformed energy will forma an anomaly at the treasure location, which will absorb a different amount of the IR pulsed at the soil above the buried metal.

If this is correct, then let's look back at what I measured on the ground in the way of temperature (IR emissions actually, which follow closely with the temperature). There was a 30 degree Fahrenheit temperature swing in the undisturbed soil, due to shadows, and an 11 degree swing due to moisture variations below the surface. The question that comes to mind is how will these large natural variations in soil surface temperature allow a buried metal object to receive an un-skewed amount of thermal radiation from the sun to allow the pulsed IR LED to detect the converted energy within the equivalent of a few hundredths of a degree? This seems impossible, especially when the shaded areas change as the sun moves across the sky, and moves the cool spots away from the buried metal, or toward it.

The questions that keep coming to mind are: what energy are you talking about (as in what frequency is the thermal gradient from the sun transformed into that is detected by a pulsed IR LED at the treasure location?)
And, how can you spot such a small anomaly when the source energy supplied has anomalies at and around the treasure site that are hundreds of time larger?

I believe Esteban said he found targets using infrared up to 30 meters. Am I correct Esteban?
Perhaps Esteban can shed some light on the reason to do your sampling between the hours of 10 am and 2 pm. This would help greatly to explain what phenomenon is being detected.

Best wishes,
J_P

25 meters. But is associated with a magnetic loop, seems the "phenomenon" "travel" into this light and secondary system is capable to detect. But was a wire, yes a quality galvanized special wire. A beam of light acts as an antenna.

Regards

Esteban

07-02-2009, 01:08 PM

This is precisely the problem with the theory you presented. The big stuff is clouding the view of the small stuff that the detector is looking for.

In the analogy you presented, the large rock would represent the degree of variations in the thermal energy supplied by the sun (due to shadows and surface moisture). And what we are looking for is not a large rock, but a very small pebble which is buried amongst the large rocks. ie: The shadows and damp spots in the soil cause large deviations and gradients in the solar energy supplied. The buried metal object represents only a very small fraction of a percent of the thermal gradients seen at the surface above it. In fact, any thermal gradient derived from the presence of the buried metal receives it's energy from the same non-uniform larger gradients above at the surface, after it is conducted downwards as heat. So we are basically starting with a non-uniform energy input to energize the buried metal before trying to detect the anomaly.

Since we are looking to sense a very small thermal anomaly where the buried metal object is, the problem becomes one of signal to noise ratio. In other words, what is to stop the large energy anomalies caused from shadows cast on the surface from absorbing the pulsed IR LED energy instead of the faint anomaly from a metal coin buried 10 cm below the surface? After all, the variation of thermal energy caused by the surface shadows and moisture is at least several hundreds of times stronger than the variations in thermal energy caused by a buried metal object.

Then there is still the problem of the divergence of the beam of an IR LED. Esteban did not use a collimator to focus into a narrow beam. He used a plain IR LED with the attached factory lens, which typically has a 40 degree cone of illumination. This suggests that at 10 meters, the IR LED is illuminating a spot of 6 meters diameter. A deviation in the signal power pulsed to the LED could be caused by absorption anywhere within that 6 meter diameter circle. If the theory presented is correct (an anomaly of thermal gradient is causing the small variation in pulsed IR LED power), then the shaded side of stones and footprints within this 6-meter circle the ground would have an influence on the LED which is hundreds of times larger than a small gradient from a metal object buried below the surface.

Perhaps it is time to look for a different secondary effect of buried metal object phenomenon to explain why the IR LED power would change when pointed at the treasure location?

Best wishes,
J_P

Don't know if the power would change when the beam is pointed at the item location, but maybe change the voltage in the secondary detector (the receiver or monitor). But this system need the adjustment of receiver very sensitive.

Regards

Esteban

07-02-2009, 01:19 PM

J_Player

07-02-2009, 01:42 PM

Exactly as I described some years, but my example was a brick. Alonso tell me: "In the rain you see the water flow normally by the terrain, but when collide with a brick, the original flow changes, is similar to the detection with LRL pistols". So, is a distortion of natural flow. The natural flow is magnetic field of Earth, and here is produced a distortion in site of the target and around it.

RegardsHi Esteban,
I have a few questions about the IR LED detectors you built:

1. Can you tell us if the IR LED detectors you built work with long-time buried coins, or do they work equally well with fresh buried coins?

2. What hours of the day or night did you find your best detection using the IR LED detectors you built?
Were there times of the day or night that the IR LED detector does not work adequately?

3. Do you think the IR LED detector is sensing the difference in temperature from a buried metal object, or do you think it is sensing something different, such as might be caused by an anomaly of the magnetic field, or electric field, or maybe disturbances in other energies?

Best wishes,
J_P

Aurificus

07-02-2009, 01:52 PM

The natural flow is magnetic field of Earth, and here is produced a distortion in site of the target and around it.

Well,Well .. A varying magnetic field interacting with a changing electromagnetic energy potential.....sounds like something???

SOMETHING... THAT MIGHT PRODUCE A DETECTABLE RESPONSE:shocked:

Esteban

07-02-2009, 02:10 PM

Hi Esteban,
I have a few questions about the IR LED detectors you built:

1. Can you tell us if the IR LED detectors you built work with long-time buried coins, or do they work equally well with fresh buried coins?

2. What hours of the day or night did you find your best detection using the IR LED detectors you built?
Were there times of the day or night that the IR LED detector does not work adequately?

3. Do you think the IR LED detector is sensing the difference in temperature from a buried metal object, or do you think it is sensing something different, such as might be caused by an anomaly of the magnetic field, or electric field, or maybe disturbances in other energies?

Best wishes,
J_P

1. Never I test with fresh items. I have a big patio in when supossed through the years things has been lost. The first time I found a 5.5 compressed air rifle bullet at 2 m. I'm with a friend. We walk and obtain another persistent signal. Was a bronze coin. And similar items. As I start investigating other type of pistols I abandon it. Later I rebuild other and found round copper object and small things, as a 1.5 mm copper wire. All these detection was very good, no random here. The IR and loop was another experiment.

2. I use only at day, never I test at night. But Alonso build with IR and lenses for to use at night, because some kind of pistols has poblem at night, so the problem was "solved" using IR.

3. I think is a mixing of various of all it. I think we can't separate. There are magnetic and electric fields and difference of temperature too.

Regards

Esteban

07-02-2009, 02:20 PM

Well,Well .. A varying magnetic field interacting with a changing electromagnetic energy potential.....sounds like something???

SOMETHING... THAT MIGHT PRODUCE A DETECTABLE RESPONSE:shocked:

Before start searching you adjust the pistol with all gradients of energy around, in the air, magnetic fields, etc. This gradient of energy is all the voltage, include the possible interferences (but no strong). So, pistol detects the difference, this is, the metal buried for long time, wich causes the distortion. But here pistol need to work in the limit of sensibility for to catch the difference. Is not important if this add of substract energy of the pistol. If energy ups in the system, OK, no problem. If energy down, when return at preadjusted point, this "nock" the system and beeps occurs.

Regards

Esteban

07-02-2009, 02:23 PM

Mr. Alonso is the inventor. To him my GREAT gratefulness and recognition. :) :) :)

Aurificus

07-02-2009, 03:12 PM

3. Do you think the IR LED detector is sensing the difference in temperature from a buried metal object, or do you think it is sensing something different, such as might be caused by an anomaly of the magnetic field, or electric field, or maybe disturbances in other energies?

Google: Seebeck effect

Aurificus

Max

07-02-2009, 03:49 PM

PULSING IR LED DETECTORS - Theory & Practice

Background : IR remote sensing

Common uses currently include: Satellite weather imaging, crops and land clearing studies, monitoring river, dams & lake levels. etc, etc.

Movement sensors to operate security, lights, alarms, cameras,etc.

For less than $50 you can purchase a quite accurate, IR, remote sensing, digital pyrometer (thermometer), (pay the extra and get the one with the laser pointer).

These detection systems rely on receiving “black body” IR radiation emitted by objects.

ATTENTION: A pulsing LED detector DOES NOT use this method.

What we are attempting to detect is far more subtle and is the type of effect that is considered inconsequential noise in standard EE practice.
In fact, standard theories & practices are designed to dampen, cover-up, ignore or over-power these effects.

The LED emits energy as IR radiation.
When it contacts matter this energy can be transmitted, absorbed or reflected.
Standard theory assumes that the matter involved has a constant temperature and therefore the rate of transmission, absorption or reflection is constant.
In a real world, (the one I’m in, maybe not yours!!) matter is constantly changing
its temperature. The rate of change depends on the introduction or removal of an energy source (radiation, let’s call it ‘heat’) and the composition and physical properties of the object in question and the medium it is in.

i.e. What size is the object?, what is it made of?, what it is buried in?, how deep is it?, is heat from the sun warming it?, is it cooling down?, etc, etc, etc, etc,…….

The zone around a buried object will therfore have a thermal energy gradient, except for brief periods where equilibrium might exist. Depending on conditions the gradient could extend to the air space above a buried object ( phenomenal!)

So what?!!! The emission from an IR LED is tiny and will have a negligible effect on any of “that BS” at any sort of distance!!!!!

True…..but what if a remote energy level change has an effect on the LEDs?

An LED will have a “rise time” from the application of power to its full IR emission level. Energy is required to excite (don’t say heat) a diode each time it is triggered.
The amount of energy needed will depend on how much energy the LED has dissipated whilst switched off. If the pulse is constant the LED’s start-up power requirement will change according to how much energy it is transferring to the environment while it is emitting.

Monitoring these undoubtedly very small voltage and/or current fluctuations might best performed with a sensitive ‘amplitude’ detector or similar that is separated from the power circuit to minimise any effect on it.

In conclusion, the theory is this: The pulsed beam is a ‘detection probe’ or a ‘transmitting antenna’, the zone around the target absorbs or rejects ‘additional’ energy at a greater rate than ‘ambient’ and the response is measured as power fluctuations at the transmitter not in reflected signals from the target.

No magic, No mumbo Jumbo. Just science and physics and not letting “the big stuff over-power the small stuff”. May I have a Patent, please? Plenty granted for a lot less than that!! I’ll share it with Esteban, we’ll be rich and retire and go treasure hunting.

P.S. For practical use, the variables involving real targets are so numerous that results might be “Very Hit & Miss”. When it works, it works, when it doesn’t……..try again, under different conditions……try again…… (more system development and/or control of the variables is required)

P.P.S The concept, however, has a lot of value. This type of sensing of seemingly insignificant, but quite measurable “side effects” can be applied to many different real world problems.

P.P.P.S. My deep RESPECT to Esteban, who politely and patiently shares elements of his years of work on Remote Detection equipment. The good, the bad & the otherwise. Without his input this thread would be little more than sceptics teasing novices & stroking their own and each others……prejudices.

Cheers, Aurificus

Hi,
Congratulations! For the big pile of BS.

I think it doesn't work, and will never work in the real world, maybe yours is different.

Have any idea of what percentage of IR radiation arrives to a deep buried target ??? :lol:

ZERO. The soil will dump anything your ridiculos 10mW from the led! :razz:

The LED you'll not read any measurable variation.

Follow this thought: suppose you have a 23mm diameter/4.15cm^2 area coin buried at half a meter underground... and you're 10meters far from target on the horizontal plane...

OK the half-meter means 50cm of soil above the coin...

The soil will swamp any reading... or you're talking here that a target like a coin cause if the thermal gradient is what you're looking for you must know that heath transfers are related to the MASS of objects ...so considering a deep buried small target (50cm and a coin) you're trying to let people here think that the coin retains or delivers heath to/from the soil in a way that's detectable by a simple IR LED + amplifier ! Isn't it ? :lol:

Now... the heath radiation happens from/to coin isotropically, so in all direction from/to coin vs soil , right ?

So... a coin placed at 50cm will radiate or receive heath equally from a volume of 1m^3 soil if we consider soil temperature about flat constant in the 1st meter (a good approximation in most cases during the day).

1m^3=10,000,000 cm^3

Now look at the coin that is e.g. a 23mm diameter one, 1mm thick: you'll get a volume of around 4.15 cm^3 means something 4*10^-7 order to be clear... so the coin's volume is about 4/10,000,000 the volume of soil we are talking about...

About mass... soil mass for 1m^3 vary due to soil composition/density but in organic soil (farm soil in most places) is about roughly 1200kg/m^3 so 1200Kg mass for 1m^3 and for coin, say it's silver... with density of 10490Kg/m^3 , so 10490*0.000000415= 0.00435Kg or 4.35grams

Now look at energy transfer (heath) in ideal conditions between these 2 mass... in the case the silver coin is hotter than soil around it... with a temperature difference of 20°C = 20°K....with wide approximations it's something like this:

The energy release from silver coin is due to Qc= volume_of_coin*volumetric_heat_capacity_for_silver *delta_T(°K)...

so Qc= 4.15*2.44*20= 202.52 joules

... then we suppose the soil that's 20°K lower in temperature will get that heath by conduction mostly (an approximation close to reality) and so the temperature in soil will increase , but what's that increase in °K considering all energy will be transferred with no losses and no dispersions ?

here the energy Qs=volume_of_soil*volumetric_heat_capacity_soil(si lica,water)*delta_T_soil(°K)

Qs=Qc (perfect transfer)

delta_T_soil(°K) = Qs/(volume_of_soil_volumetric_heat_capacity_soil(sili ca,water)) = 202.52/(10,000,000*2.9)= 6.98*10^-6 °K :rolleyes:

In other words... if your soil is humid, organic and hi content silica... say it's at 30°C and the 23mm silver coin buried at 50cm reach 50°C, so with gradient of +20°C at coin, and we approximate full heat transfer between coin and soil, you'll get just about 7u°K or 7*10^6 °C variation in the considered 1m^3 soil.

:lol: GUYS !? We consider having 20°C gradient at coin soil interface and end up with 7 MICRO CELSIUS variation at soil volume... so at surface.

Can you detect 7*10^-6 °C variations with a LED diode ??? :razz:

From 10meters away ??? :lol:

Consider also S/N... 7uCelsius variations will be swamped out by any e.g. wind movement... that will cause the soil to cool down at really faster rate than 7uCelsius! :D

Consider the evaporation of trapped water in soil... will that cool the surface or not ??? :rolleyes:

It's a themodynamic-hell for you PYROMETER OR LED... OR WHATEVER!

Is that the new LRL-science-fiction! :lol:

I'm sure you didn't realize any of these fairy-tales devices... otherwise YOU MUST KNOW that's impossible detecting something this way.

On the air... of course, things are quite different... but soil it's a well known dumping filler... that's cause e.g. an atomic bomb shelter is usually underground... (not only... there are other reasons too ) the heath is dispersed by soil/water volume... will not work at ground zero just under the bomb maybe... but at few distance the soil will shield from excess heath... not like painting white your room and wear your preferite sunglasses! :lol:

Kind regards,
Max

Esteban

07-02-2009, 03:56 PM

Hi,
Congratulations! For the big pile of BS.

I think it doesn't work, and will never work in the real world, maybe yours is different.

Have any idea of what percentage of IR radiation arrives to a deep buried target ??? :lol:

ZERO. The soil will dump anything your ridiculos 10mW from the led! :razz:

The LED you'll not read any measurable variation.

Follow this thought: suppose you have a 23mm diameter/4.15cm^2 area coin buried at half a meter underground... and you're 10meters far from target on the horizontal plane...

OK the half-meter means 50cm of soil above the coin...

The soil will swamp any reading... or you're talking here that a target like a coin cause if the thermal gradient is what you're looking for you must know that heath transfers are related to the MASS of objects ...so considering a deep buried small target (50cm and a coin) you're trying to let people here think that the coin retains or delivers heath to/from the soil in a way that's detectable by a simple IR LED + amplifier ! Isn't it ? :lol:

Now... the heath radiation happens from/to coin isotropically, so in all direction from/to coin vs soil , right ?

So... a coin placed at 50cm will radiate or receive heath equally from a volume of 1m^3 soil if we consider soil temperature about flat constant in the 1st meter (a good approximation in most cases during the day).

1m^3=10,000,000 cm^3

Now look at the coin that is e.g. a 23mm diameter one, 1mm thick: you'll get a volume of around 4.15 cm^3 means something 4*10^-7 order to be clear... so the coin's volume is about 4/10,000,000 the volume of soil we are talking about...

About mass... soil mass for 1m^3 vary due to soil composition/density but in organic soil (farm soil in most places) is about roughly 1200kg/m^3 so 1200Kg mass for 1m^3 and for coin, say it's silver... with density of 10490Kg/m^3 , so 10490*0.000000415= 0.00435Kg or 4.35grams

Now look at energy transfer (heath) in ideal conditions between these 2 mass... in the case the silver coin is hotter than soil around it... with a temperature difference of 20°C = 20°K....with wide approximations it's something like this:

The energy release from silver coin is due to Qc= volume_of_coin*volumetric_heat_capacity_for_silver *delta_T(°K)...

so Qc= 4.15*2.44*20= 202.52 joules

... then we suppose the soil that's 20°K lower in temperature will get that heath by conduction mostly (an approximation close to reality) and so the temperature in soil will increase , but what's that increase in °K considering all energy will be transferred with no losses and no dispersions ?

here the energy Qs=volume_of_soil*volumetric_heat_capacity_soil(si lica,water)*delta_T_soil(°K)

Qs=Qc (perfect transfer)

delta_T_soil(°K) = Qs/(volume_of_soil_volumetric_heat_capacity_soil(sili ca,water)) = 202.52/(10,000,000*2.9)= 6.98*10^-6 °K :rolleyes:

In other words... if your soil is humid, organic and hi content silica... say it's at 30°C and the 23mm silver coin buried at 50cm reach 50°C, so with gradient of +20°C at coin, and we approximate full heat transfer between coin and soil, you'll get just about 7u°K or 7*10^6 °C variation in the considered 1m^3 soil.

:lol: GUYS !? We consider having 20°C gradient at coin soil interface and end up with 7 MICRO CELSIUS variation at soil volume... so at surface.

Can you detect 7*10^-6 °C variations with a LED diode ??? :razz:

From 10meters away ??? :lol:

Consider also S/N... 7uCelsius variations will be swamped out by any e.g. wind movement... that will cause the soil to cool down at really faster rate than 7uCelsius! :D

Consider the evaporation of trapped water in soil... will that cool the surface or not ??? :rolleyes:

It's a themodynamic-hell for you PYROMETER OR LED... OR WHATEVER!

Is that the new LRL-science-fiction! :lol:

I'm sure you didn't realize any of these fairy-tales devices... otherwise YOU MUST KNOW that's impossible detecting something this way.

On the air... of course, things are quite different... but soil it's a well known dumping filler... that's cause e.g. an atomic bomb shelter is usually underground... (not only... there are other reasons too ) the heath is dispersed by soil/water volume... will not work at ground zero just under the bomb maybe... but at few distance the soil will shield from excess heath... not like painting white your room and wear your preferite sunglasses! :lol:

Kind regards,
Max

This is not problem regarding the beam is a kind of antenna. If you can transmit voice, music, etc., through an IR beam, then, you can receive the "phenomenon" or halo or "field".

Regards

Qiaozhi

07-02-2009, 05:29 PM

Max

07-02-2009, 06:20 PM

Aurificus and Esteban are putting forward two separate theories.

Aurificus' "hypothesis" (as he calls it) is unworkable in practice, and has already been detroyed by Max.

Esteban has a different idea whereby the beam acts as an antenna that transports the "phenomenon" to the detector

Neither of these theories is scientifically plausible, but Esteban insists that his method works. Perhaps this approach needs further investigation to prove/disprove the idea.

Hi,
Yes , exactly... Esteban is focusing on the "beam antenna" topic... already shown in another thread... but as said before... the "principle" is totally based on nothing... the carrier that "transport the phenomenon" he said does not exist.

The wave propagation from IR led to soil or the back/side effects of that have no relationship with target, that's buried in the soil... that cannot receive consistent amount of radiated power in IR wavelenght etc

So it's just his "interpretation" of maybe randomic beeps.

Kind regards,
Max

Theseus

07-02-2009, 08:47 PM

This is not problem regarding the beam is a kind of antenna. If you can transmit voice, music, etc., through an IR beam, then, you can receive the "phenomenon" or halo or "field".

Regards

If only buried metals (treasure) actually "caused" these so-called phenomenon, halo or fields. :frown: The obvious problem here is; only a select few individuals in just certain parts of the world "claim" to have experienced such things.

I'm afraid that isn't enough to prove the concept. If these phenomenon, halo/fields actually existed, then they could be detected/experienced by any and all observers in all parts of the world.

Qiaozhi

07-02-2009, 09:51 PM

So it's just his "interpretation" of maybe randomic beeps.
Exactly. Whenever you tweak a system to the edge of instability you can never be certain what your detecting ... if anything. Unfortunately the human mind is very good at deceiving itself into believing things that are not true. Self deception, coupled with selective memory and wishful thinking, are the true source of many so-called "phenomenon". It has been stated many times before that double-blind testing is required to show the true nature of the "phenomenon". Without this it's just hearsay.

Aurificus

07-03-2009, 12:09 AM

J_Player

07-03-2009, 12:35 AM

If only buried metals (treasure) actually "caused" these so-called phenomenon, halo or fields. :frown: The obvious problem here is; only a select few individuals in just certain parts of the world "claim" to have experienced such things.

I'm afraid that isn't enough to prove the concept. If these phenomenon, halo/fields actually existed, then they could be detected/experienced by any and all observers in all parts of the world.Hi Theseus,
Buried metals do exhibit some of the "field" effects associated with halos. To start with, after a metal object is buried for a long enough time, it will corrode. Even gold and platinum corrode as do all other metals. This has been observed and measured by hundreds of scientists all over the world. When buried metals corrode, the corroded metal that departs from the buried object becomes metal ions dissolved in the soil, which begin to migrate upward very slowly in a column shape above the buried metal. Eventually these ions reach the surface of the soil, where they bind with other soil constituents within the last 10-30 cam of the surface. For a large ore deposit, this column will appear to be a very large column taking the shape of the ore deposit. but for a single metal object, it will look more like a single column. Thousands of scientists and test technicians claim to have observed and measured this mechanism. Not just a few select individuals. If you google "MMI testing" and MMI, you will find over a million reports of tests that located buried metals (mostly gold) from places all over the world.

The "halo effect" in relation to buried metal within metal detector range has been reported by more than a handful of select individuals. Many metal detectorists as well as LRL proponents claim to have observed it. The detectorists claim they found a small target which gave a signal as a much larger target. But after recovering the target, an air test shows the signal is only a normal signal for the target. Thus the "halo effect" was lost when a hole digging old, long-time buried targets. There was never a case of a detectorist reporting a "halo effect" when digging a recently buried object.

Now, if we use a little logic, we will see that the observed trail of metal ions in the soil above a long-time buried target would be necessarily removed in the process of recovering the target. Thus we would also remove the central core of the "halo effect". This can explain how the detectorists came to find that the target returned to a normal signal after recovering it. We have similar reports from LRL proponents who described their experiences when digging a target that was endowed with this "halo effect" that they call "the phenomenon".

Thus, the "halo effect" is not an imaginary device invented by charlatans to convince people to by overpriced electronic junk. It is a fact that has been studied and measured by scientists, and is being used to recover tons of gold and other industrial metals.

But there is a missing link:
We know there is a trail of ions above long-time buried metals which has several secondary phenomena ocurring. The secondary phenomena include:
1. Ground battery action of the metal ions reacting with other ions in the soil to produce a small voltage.
2. A small current flow due to the ground battery action of the metal ion column.
3. A distortion of the natural telluric current flow in the vicinity of the metal ion column.
4. An increased soil conductivity in the vicinity of the metal ion column.
5. An increased in atmospheric charge leakage through the air at the location of the metal ion column, which continues through the column before dispersing and mixing with natural telluric currents.
6. A reduced voltage gradient in the air above the location of the metal ion column.
7. A distortion of the earth's magnetic field at the location of the metal ion column due to currents moving through the column.
9. An anomaly in certain subatomic particle and other space energy emissions such as cosmic rays at the location of the ion column.

With all those secondary effects and more taking place at the location of this dissolved metal ion column, it seems that one or more of them could be theoretically used to advantage in order to locate the ion column, and the buried metal object below it.

The MMI method is to simply dig soil samples and perform very precise tests to see if there is a metal ion anomaly in any samples taken over a field that is surveyed. A higher than average reading of dissolved metal ions tells them there is something buried below. But the LRL proponents claim they have built electronic detectors that can sense one or more of these associated secondary effects. The missing link is that we only have claims and theories that LRL proponents have electronic detectors which are detecting these effects. Where have we ever seen any measured data mapping the distortions of the earth's magnetic field? When has anyone shown us the relative strength of the distortion compared to the strength of the natural magnetic field of the earth? Who has ever mapped out the reduced atmospheric voltage gradient above a metal ion column, showing data points of measured voltages? etc. etc...

LRL proponents have been drawing conclusions without any test measurements at all. And their conclusions are lumped in with their claims of electronics that locate these effects. We also see that nobody on earth is willing to demonstrate any of these LRLs recovering a buried metal object today in front of witnesses who will document what they observe for readers of this forum. We have heard claims that people will do this, but I have not seen it happen yet.

So where does this leave us?
We have a scientifically documented "halo effect" , but just a bunch of claims by people who say they found a way to lock onto some part of this halo effect, and no test measurements to back up what they are saying, not even a demonstration to show it working.

So what do you think?
Is the "halo effect" for real?
Are thse LRLs for real?

Best wishes,
J_P

Aurificus

07-03-2009, 12:41 AM

J_Player

07-03-2009, 12:49 AM

For IR LED detector, Same Theory, differences only in language, terminology, interpretation.

destroyed by Max???
Supported & Re-inforced by his calculations, I think.:)

Aurificus
__________________________________________________ _____
The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong! :cool:Hi Aurificus,
You provided a simple theory that answered the question of how does the IR LED respond to buried metal.
I think your theory was destroyed by Max.
I think it was also destroyed by plain common sense.
I think maybe the quote you use below your name is apporpriate for your simple answer:
"The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong! :cool:"

Best wishes,
J_P

Aurificus

07-03-2009, 01:32 AM

Hi Aurificus,
You provided a simple theory that answered the question of how does the IR LED respond to buried metal.
I think your theory was destroyed by Max.
I think it was also destroyed by plain common sense.
I think maybe the quote you use below your name is apporpriate for your simple answer:
"The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong! :cool:"

Best wishes,
J_P

"Plain Common Sense" is always the SIMPLEST answer.;)

Which part did he destroy?

A) Targets: That changes of of thermal energy in conductors and across semi-conductor boundaries produce electromagnetic effects. ie signals

B) LED Detection: Diode as as a "energy change detector" see above

Aurificus:rolleyes:

J_Player

07-03-2009, 02:19 AM

"Plain Common Sense" is always the SIMPLEST answer.;)

Which part did he destroy?

A) Targets: That changes of of thermal energy in conductors and across semi-conductor boundaries produce electromagnetic effects. ie signals

B) LED Detection: Diode as as a "energy change detector" see above

Aurificus:rolleyes:Hi Aurificus,
The answer is "none of the above".

You provide choice "A" (Targets: That changes of of thermal energy in conductors and across semi-conductor boundaries produce electromagnetic effects. ie signals),

and choice B: (LED Detection: Diode as as a "energy change detector" see above).

But you missed the obvious point that everybody has been telling you from the start:
C) The variations of thermal energy that exist at the surface of the ground are so immense that they swamp any minuscule anomaly from a buried metal object below the surface, so as to make it undetectable.

As was pointed out by more than one member, there is a severe signal to noise ratio problem with the thermal energy theory.
A good analogy to this signal to noise problem might be: "It's as easy as hearing the sound of a pin dropping on the floor of a concert stage next to the drummer playing for a heavy metal band, from 20 meters distance".

Best wishes,
J_P

Theseus

07-03-2009, 03:30 AM

Hi Theseus,
Buried metals do exhibit some of the "field" effects associated with halos. To start with, after a metal object is buried for a long enough time, it will corrode. Even gold and platinum corrode as do all other metals. This has been observed and measured by hundreds of scientists all over the world. When buried metals corrode, the corroded metal that departs from the buried object becomes metal ions dissolved in the soil, which begin to migrate upward very slowly in a column shape above the buried metal. Eventually these ions reach the surface of the soil, where they bind with other soil constituents within the last 10-30 cam of the surface. For a large ore deposit, this column will appear to be a very large column taking the shape of the ore deposit. but for a single metal object, it will look more like a single column. Thousands of scientists and test technicians claim to have observed and measured this mechanism. Not just a few select individuals. If you google "MMI testing" and MMI, you will find over a million reports of tests that located buried metals (mostly gold) from places all over the world.

J_Player, I agree with everything you've said about the mobile metal ion technology. The effect of these "mobile" ions, as a result of deeply buried underground mineral deposits, is a well-known phenomenon and IS being utilized (exploited) today to "help" discover locations of certain buried mineral deposits.

The "halo effect" in relation to buried metal within metal detector range has been reported by more than a handful of select individuals.

I am personally one of the detectorists who can say I have in fact observed what can only be described as a "halo" effect when recovering a deeply buried single coin. Can't say that I experienced it a lot but out of the thousands of older coins recovered, I probably noticed it less than a dozen times. That is, the target indicated as something much larger or perhaps shallower than it actually was. The only thing I could attribute it to would be what "we" call the "halo effect". Actually, IMHO, it is a leeching out of metalic "material, ions or whatever", that looks like a larger target than it really is.

Now, if we use a little logic, we will see that the observed trail of metal ions in the soil above a long-time buried target would be necessarily removed in the process of recovering the target. Thus we would also remove the central core of the "halo effect". This can explain how the detectorists came to find that the target returned to a normal signal after recovering it. We have similar reports from LRL proponents who described their experiences when digging a target that was endowed with this "halo effect" that they call "the phenomenon".

Thus, the "halo effect" is not an imaginary device invented by charlatans to convince people to by overpriced electronic junk. It is a fact that has been studied and measured by scientists, and is being used to recover tons of gold and other industrial metals.

But there is a missing link:
We know there is a trail of ions above long-time buried metals which has several secondary phenomena ocurring. The secondary phenomena include:
1. Ground battery action of the metal ions reacting with other ions in the soil to produce a small voltage.
2. A small current flow due to the ground battery action of the metal ion column.
3. A distortion of the natural telluric current flow in the vicinity of the metal ion column.
4. An increased soil conductivity in the vicinity of the metal ion column.
5. An increased in atmospheric charge leakage through the air at the location of the metal ion column, which continues through the column before dispersing and mixing with natural telluric currents.
6. A reduced voltage gradient in the air above the location of the metal ion column.
7. A distortion of the earth's magnetic field at the location of the metal ion column due to currents moving through the column.
9. An anomaly in certain subatomic particle and other space energy emissions such as cosmic rays at the location of the ion column.

With all those secondary effects and more taking place at the location of this dissolved metal ion column, it seems that one or more of them could be theoretically used to advantage in order to locate the ion column, and the buried metal object below it.

The MMI method is to simply dig soil samples and perform very precise tests to see if there is a metal ion anomaly in any samples taken over a field that is surveyed. A higher than average reading of dissolved metal ions tells them there is something buried below. But the LRL proponents claim they have built electronic detectors that can sense one or more of these associated secondary effects. The missing link is that we only have claims and theories that LRL proponents have electronic detectors which are detecting these effects.

A missing link for sure!

And this missing liink brings me back to my previous posting. Unfortunately, I was not that clear in how I verbalized my thoughts/posting. I was thinking some things but my thoughts did not make it into the posting. :shocked: (sorry)

When I said; "If only buried metals (treasure) actually "caused" these so-called phenomenon, halo or fields." I was thinking in terms of what is being "claimed" by a few individuals that they are detecting at long distances with their LRLs. In that regard, and in light of the lack of validation for their claims; I still believe there is NO SUCH phenomenon taking place "above" the soil (or slightly sub-surface) that can be detected as an anomaly by the LRL contraptions proposed here in this forum. If evidence to the contrary is presented, and can be validated by others, I would be among the first to change my mind - and say so.

So where does this leave us?
We have a scientifically documented "halo effect" , but just a bunch of claims by people who say they found a way to lock onto some part of this halo effect, and no test measurements to back up what they are saying, not even a demonstration to show it working.

Exactly!

So what do you think?
Is the "halo effect" for real?
Are thse LRLs for real?

Best wishes,
J_P

My personal answers would be: Yes, it is real but it is strictly a geochemical process that occurs within the soil, and might be evidenced by what detectorists have experienced or what can be analyzed through MMI testing.

As far as the second question; No!

Aurificus

07-03-2009, 01:09 PM

But you missed the obvious point that everybody has been telling you from the start:
C) The variations of thermal energy that exist at the surface of the ground are so immense that they swamp any minuscule anomaly from a buried metal object below the surface, so as to make it undetectable.

As was pointed out by more than one member, there is a severe signal to noise ratio problem with the thermal energy theory.
A good analogy to this signal to noise problem might be: "It's as easy as hearing the sound of a pin dropping on the floor of a concert stage next to the drummer playing for a heavy metal band, from 20 meters distance".

S/N ratios are The Issue with any detection system.

By your standards we shouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't, detect the Rx signal from a Pi MD on a Sunny day:

say 100mV in a 5 Ohm coil = 0.002W

Combined solar EM radiations/mxm = 750 W

S/N Ratio = 2.667 x e-6 = 0.000002667

Did I just hear... a pin drop?;)

I say, "Be Discriminating, Focus attention on the signals...they are not the same as the noises."

LRL - If it was Easy...everyone would be doing it!:lol:

Cheers,
Aurificus

Fred

07-03-2009, 01:10 PM

I still believe there is NO SUCH phenomenon taking place "above" the soil (or slightly sub-surface) that can be detected as an anomaly by the LRL contraptions proposed here in this forum. If evidence to the contrary is presented, and can be validated by others, I would be among the first to change my mind - and say so.
If there is a change of soil conductivity on a relatively large suface, i supose it could affect the voltage gradient above earth.
This could modify ambient Rf noise level, or be directly measured with almost any of the devices presented by Esteban.
This theory of course need (in)validation.
About the IR beam,it could present a "preferencial" path to this way of making the measure, i don´t know how, but for example...drying the air ? Ionizing it ? :)

Theseus

07-03-2009, 01:45 PM

LRL - If it was Easy...everyone would be doing it!:lol:

Cheers,
Aurificus

LRL - If it was a viable technology it would have been advanced decades ago, right along with space travel and other scientific axioms.

Theseus

07-03-2009, 01:47 PM

Max

07-03-2009, 02:14 PM

S/N ratios are The Issue with any detection system.

By your standards we shouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't, detect the Rx signal from a Pi MD on a Sunny day:

say 100mV in a 5 Ohm coil = 0.002W

Combined solar EM radiations/mxm = 750 W

S/N Ratio = 2.667 x e-6 = 0.000002667

Did I just hear... a pin drop?;)

I say, "Be Discriminating, Focus attention on the signals...they are not the same as the noises."

LRL - If it was Easy...everyone would be doing it!:lol:

Cheers,
Aurificus

Hi,
is not like that.

The PI md send a magnetic pulse... at collapse of magnetic field there's a reversed voltage spike where rx take place after say 10-15us or the like.
The absolute height of the collapsing voltage is a function of force balancing e.g. energy stored in the inductor vs joule dissipation at resistor etc including the eddy currents effect: the collapse of primary field is braked a little by the opposing magnetic field due to eddy-curent in the target.

Now...

The sun relationship is not really strict... with that happens at the MD coil.

The sun radiated energy (you said 750W) is mostly due to extremely high frequency components EM waves, such as IR, visible light and a portion of UV rays (part are filtered very well by ozone layer... if still there is! :D). Visible light has frequency in the order of 10^15 Hz (under 1000 TERAHERTZ!)

The PI md runs , instead, at say 100Hz or 400Hz , so 10^2 or 4*10^2 Hz ...depends on models... brands... and design (some up to 3-4Khz). At those frequencies the sun rays don't influence much (at all).

So... even a very strong solar activity , strong sunny day, don't change much for your PI... unless you have other troubles like heath generated on a black painted control box... that could make electronics to experience some thermal drift.

But if design is good, and you haven't problems with thermal stuff your PI md will work exactly the same at night than at sunny day.

You'll not hear the pin drops... cause when the pin will hit the floor it will resonate like a diapason at an audible frequency of some Khz ... but your ears are already full of strong hi volume (amplitude) notes and drums hits by the musicists there... and you're far from the pin.

The pin you'll not hear cause the impact of noise is very great cause the pin resonance happens at audible frequency, the same audible frequency of notes from concert.

But reversing the idea... what if the concert hall is in low light and the pin will generate an enormous flash light when hit the floor instead of sound ??? :rolleyes:

Suppose you coat the pin with pure metallic magnesium powder say 1gram, then add above it a thin layer of mylar 0.05mm, then you add another coat with mercury fulminate... say 5 grams...:D and a final coat , thin layer of acrylic enamel.

I'm sure that even at very hi volume of the music you'll see the pin's flashlight in the low light of the hall even from 50meters back! Or even 100meters! :lol:

The fact is... you'll see the light (signal) cause the signal frequency is very different from the sound frequencies... and then the signal can travel undisturbed all the space to you without interferences... if not someone that light a cigar.

But flash is big... do you see the exit signs in concert halls ? Usually they are green glowing stuff... not much light but you'll see them too right ?

Same stuff... hall is in low light....(few noise of same "frequency") and even if AC/DC are playing 2 minutes to midnight there... (strong "noise" BUT very different frequency) you'll always see the exit signs , right ?

That's all... your S/N at md cannot be disturbed by sunlight or UV or IR that much...and directly.

Instead you'll get lowered S/N when e.g. another , same model/frequency, PI is running near yours... or your near powerlines... the noise IS in the frequency spectrum of interest and you'll get much affected S/N. :rolleyes:
That's why e.g. Eric Foster made many units with tunable frequency... you shift a bit the frequency then cancel the noise from e.g. some powerlines harmonic or a near to yours running detector.

But that's fairly obvious... I never heard of people triggering e.g. their PI md by light! Unless you mean switching inside home the lights and then generating low frequency noise by the switch contacts. :D

That seems another activity LRL-guys like...

PS: maybe it's tricky stuff for some...so I explain that... I forget to say that sound is not EM... but the interference path could be supported by e.g. electronic amplifiers , coils of speakers etc... that carry actually currents modulated at such audible frequencies. Of course, sound as compression/decompression waves in a medium (air) usually don't interact directly with an electronic device... that rely on EM signals/waves unless some microphonic effects related... like the coil that vibrates due to sound waves or vibrations... and could trigger microphonic noise at receiver like happens with outdoor antennas subject to e.g. wind.

Kind regards,
Max

Fred

07-03-2009, 02:28 PM

You are grasping at straws... and random beeps. :D
Any reason to say this ?
I gave a possible technical explanation, i would expect a real reply, it makes me think you don´t want to hear about a solution :razz:

Theseus

07-03-2009, 02:41 PM

If there is a change of soil conductivity on a relatively large suface, i supose it could affect the voltage gradient above earth.
This could modify ambient Rf noise level, or be directly measured with almost any of the devices presented by Esteban.
This theory of course need (in)validation.
About the IR beam,it could present a "preferencial" path to this way of making the measure, i don´t know how, but for example...drying the air ? Ionizing it ? :)

If there is a change..... I suppose it could affect..... This could modify.... it could present a "preferential" path..... I don't know how.....

I would be very open to a REAL technical solution, but real solutions by default must be accompanied by real facts, repeatable experiments with valid and supporting outcomes, and be experienced by several observers.

Otherwise all you have are a lot of "could affect", "could modify", "it could" and "I don't know how.... but maybe". 8) There is hardly anything there to hang your hat on... now is there? :lol:

Esteban

07-03-2009, 03:20 PM

Esteban

07-03-2009, 03:24 PM

Exactly. Whenever you tweak a system to the edge of instability you can never be certain what your detecting ... if anything. Unfortunately the human mind is very good at deceiving itself into believing things that are not true. Self deception, coupled with selective memory and wishful thinking, are the true source of many so-called "phenomenon". It has been stated many times before that double-blind testing is required to show the true nature of the "phenomenon". Without this it's just hearsay.

Sorry, Qioazhi. Here the detection is very accurate, where the "eyes" of the leds are pointed.

Max

07-03-2009, 03:33 PM

Who is going to set to think that the phase shift is altered, or increasing a small amount of voltage in the system, by the buried metal? This does not happen with a coil, which transmission is dispersed and of short scope. Here the light of the led, the transmitter, is concentrated more in comparison with the transmission by a coil or a common antenna.

Regards

Hi,
IR leds... like any led stuff have epoxy container and some "cup" stuff... these things have a strong impact on e.g. aperture angle of light emitted... you can test very easy...

use an IR camera or a simple CCD one in low light ...dark room.

Power the led and point horizontal... put the camera vertical above it at 20-30cm from it... then spray around some stuff... like e.g. some deodorant spray thing.

The aerosol stuff made of thiny particles will scatter IR photons you''ll see at camera ... that way you'll see the conic shaped "beam" so the angle.

At meters this kind of propagation will make you "illuminate" several square meters of soil... cause these things are not lasers... their use is mostly for remote controls and it's good for remotes having such large diffusion of IR light, otherwise you'll have to aim the remote to the VCR/DVD thing... (like in cheap chinese stuff, very annoying ! :rolleyes:)

If wanna a narrow spot you MUST use a laser module...

So I don't understand which concentration you're talking about ? :???:

As always...

Kind regards,
Max

Fred

07-03-2009, 04:21 PM

I would be very open to a REAL technical solution, but real solutions by default must be accompanied by real facts, repeatable experiments with valid and supporting outcomes, and be experienced by several observers.

I have never claimed to give a REAL technical solution, only one more theorical proposition.
Just like it happened many times before, in this thread with Aurificus and in others before, and Max and JPlayer have constructively and inteligently debated about this IDEA and given information about why it doesn´t work .
I didn´t say "it works" or "here is how it works" , just "it could work that way", based on common sense and previously gathered info.
It´s just a theory, if you don´t like it i respect this that but i was expecting constructive comments.

detectoman

07-03-2009, 04:43 PM

my dog what came whit me to desk, whit explanations of esteban lrl tecnic, have built today one own lrl
is joke

Theseus

07-03-2009, 05:18 PM

I have never claimed to give a REAL technical solution, only one more theorical proposition.

Oh! :shocked: I'm sorry, your words were "...I gave a possible technical explanation..."

I was merely pointing out the attributes of a real technical explanation. Not sure how I could be any more constructive.

Now, if you really meant to say; theoretical proposition, then of course that is something different. I expect we have plenty of those to go around, and yours would be as good as any of the others. :)

Max

07-03-2009, 07:19 PM

my dog what came whit me to desk, whit explanations of esteban lrl tecnic, have built today one own lrl
is joke

:lol:
Seems your dog is smart enough ... to get Esteban's secrets all at one single request! :D

What's your dog avatar ???

Maybe had some appeal to him... :shocked:

Kind regards,
Max

Aurificus

07-04-2009, 12:50 AM

You'll not hear the pin drops... cause when the pin will hit the floor it will resonate like a diapason at an audible frequency of some Khz ... but your ears are already full of strong hi volume (amplitude) notes and drums hits by the musicists there... and you're far from the pin.

The pin you'll not hear cause the impact of noise is very great cause the pin resonance happens at audible frequency, the same audible frequency of notes from concert.

Thank you Max, for a very polite and thoughtful response, lots of good info there for people following this thread.

Q.) What if I take my Dog to the concert? He is old and a bit deaf to Low Frequency noise............He Ignores me, even if I yell at him..

He can, however, hear the Ultrasonic Dog Whistle (I can't) or the rattle of my keys at the door (many Ultrasonic noises) and will immediately come home for dinner from 2 blocks away.:shocked:

I suspect the pin will generate some ultrasonics as well as audible noise.

There is, also, a strong possibility that he CAN hear me, and perhaps even understands some of what I'm saying...... but he chooses to ignore it, because it doesn't suit his dog's world view and agenda. :lol:

P.S. I don't really have a dog, but if I did I would not consider locking him out to roam the neighbourhood all day. No yelling at him either. :nono:

P.P.S. This post must not be used to imply that any LRL detector is a "dog".

Cheers,
Aurificus

Aurificus

07-04-2009, 01:10 AM

I have never claimed to give a REAL technical solution, only one more theorical proposition.
Just like it happened many times before, in this thread with Aurificus and in others before, and Max and JPlayer have constructively and inteligently debated about this IDEA and given information about why it doesn´t work .
I didn´t say "it works" or "here is how it works" , just "it could work that way", based on common sense and previously gathered info.
It´s just a theory, if you don´t like it i respect this that but i was expecting constructive comments.

A hypothesis (from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) ὑπόθεσις [iˈpoθesis]) consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.

This thread is designed to be exactly that, a Discussion about a suggested explanation(s) for a phenomenon.
i.e. IR LED detection as reported by Esteban & others.

By proposing Theories and being challenged to respond, I have gained a much deeper understanding of what might be occuring to allow Buried Metal Objects to be remotely (and basically passively) located. I'm hoping others are getting something out of it as well.

However, a Discussion on the Criteria for Scientific Proof of LRL, Acceptable "hit rates", Suitable "real" or artificial targets, operater skill. experience, influence etc, etc. etc. are much better presented in the New Thread,
"Criteria for Scientific Proof of LRL" Go for it...

Aurificus

Aurificus

07-04-2009, 02:03 AM

Hi,
IR leds... like any led stuff have epoxy container and some "cup" stuff... these things have a strong impact on e.g. aperture angle of light emitted... you can test very easy...

At meters this kind of propagation will make you "illuminate" several square meters of soil... cause these things are not lasers... their use is mostly for remote controls and it's good for remotes having such large diffusion of IR light, otherwise you'll have to aim the remote to the VCR/DVD thing... (like in cheap chinese stuff, very annoying ! :rolleyes:)

If wanna a narrow spot you MUST use a laser module...

I must have a Chinese one, must aim directly at cable TV box, then wiggle around till it recognises it.

Perhaps cheap, Chinese led's have different lens/focal length, tighter beam?8)

Aurificus

detectoman

07-04-2009, 02:13 AM

Aurificus

07-04-2009, 02:24 AM

LRL - If it was a viable technology it would have been advanced decades ago, right along with space travel and other scientific axioms.

What? Like Manned lunar Exploration, It's been 40 years, no change, no improvement.
Are you sure it wasn't done in a hanger in the desert? ;)

Just kiddin'
Aurificus

Aurificus

07-04-2009, 02:43 AM

jajaja max, you always find the humor', embraces to all, build lrl is easy, most easy what md complex, but the lrl is critic in final adjustments this boom! the head
my dog is egresed of texas electronician university
good whises to all
detectoman

Hey Detectoman,

Your dog is cleverer than my dog.:lol:

"this boom! the head" do you mean increase the sensitivity :) or make your head explode? :shocked: ..or both?

To think beyond existing standard techniques and to consider developing new ones is really hard work. It streches your brain & makes it hurt, I find it’s best done while asleep or in the shower. ( neither option is good for final tuning detectors though.)

Good wishes to you,
Aurificus

Max

07-04-2009, 08:21 AM

I must have a Chinese one, must aim directly at cable TV box, then wiggle around till it recognises it.

Perhaps cheap, Chinese led's have different lens/focal length, tighter beam?8)

Aurificus

Hi,
I don't think so, I had one of them... but scraped cause was annoyed of pointing the box with remote all the times...

In my case was due to not so smart design of the box: the IR receiver was put under plexiglass window but in kind of a "pit" ...too deep and not near surface...

the result was that even at small angle the remote was unable to illuminate the IR receiver and the so the box must be placed in a way the remote could easy point to front of it... very bad design of the box I think.

I mean... sometimes are cheap and also well looking... slim...silvery color like that I had... but an IR receiver that works just at -+5 degrees is not that smart for consumer product like this DVD player I'm talking about.:rolleyes:

Kind regards,
Max

Max

07-04-2009, 08:42 AM

What? Like Manned lunar Exploration, It's been 40 years, no change, no improvement.
Are you sure it wasn't done in a hanger in the desert? ;)

Just kiddin'
Aurificus

Hmmmm.... I think last 40years have lot of new discoveries... for space exploration and not only.

Just the space-race ended with Apollo missions and all interest drop to nearly zero...

Space Shuttle program created just a fraction of the interest than Apollo... and mostly cause of accidents that occurred in 1986 and 2003. I think many people see the money employed in that program as wasted cause there were no big apparent "results". Indeed, there were many from microgravity experiments etc but big fraction of common people don't see anything interesting in that.

We already have full technology and knowledge for Mars exploration... maybe from 20-30years ago now... but nobody go there cause the cost of that missions will be in the hundreds billion dollars... that's it.

There's no cold war anymore, there's no reason to spend such money just for the glory maybe... or to justify to the people such expense... there are other BIG problems... and economic crisis in US and other countries don't help politicians in such a move...

The rocket technology required for Mars missions is probably related to the use of nuclear-thermal-propulsion... and that's another issue: people don't like today the word "nuclear" ... and there are real risks employing such a thing in the atmosphere (worldwide nuclear contamination possible)... so the rocket NASA have to assemble in pieces in the space ! :D

Too complex... too money required... too things to worry about... and no real reason to start that program.

I think... if we'll not have another phenomenon like cold-war space-race we can also forget the man will go on Mars by 2037 o 2050... or whatever.:lol:

Kind regards,
Max

J_Player

07-04-2009, 08:45 AM

By proposing Theories and being challenged to respond, I have gained a much deeper understanding of what might be occuring to allow Buried Metal Objects to be remotely (and basically passively) located. I'm hoping others are getting something out of it as well.Hi Aurificus,
I see you have found much satisfaction in participating in a circus of humor. But what have you learned, specifically in your much deeper understanding of what might be occurring to allow buried metal objects to be remotely located?

Best wishes,
J_P

Aurificus

07-04-2009, 09:24 AM

Hi Aurificus,
I see you have found much satisfaction in participating in a circus of humor. But what have you learned, specifically in your much deeper understanding of what might be occurring to allow buried metal objects to be remotely located?

Best wishes,
J_P

1) "Be Discriminating, Focus attention on the signals...they are not the same as the noises."

2) take a Dog to a rock concert.... if you want to detect a pin drop!

3) google Seebeck effect

4) to be continued....more to come :)

Kind wishes to you, also
Aurificus

Max

07-04-2009, 10:23 AM

1) "Be Discriminating, Focus attention on the signals...they are not the same as the noises."

2) take a Dog to a rock concert.... if you want to detect a pin drop!

3) google Seebeck effect

4) to be continued....more to come :)

Kind wishes to you, also
Aurificus

Hi,
for point 2 ... I don't really think that a dog could hear the pin hit the floor from 20 meters far in a concert... not that have importance here...

but I think in a concert there's enough ultrasound noise to swamp any tiny amount due to the pin.

Even if a person rubs his eyes or the crown jewels area... there will be alot of ultrasounds generated...

now... think at a boring , tedious concert with violins (this also generates plenty of ultrasound waves), basses and oboe stuff... I think many boys that are there just to partner their girl... who is possibly passionate of classical music... instead of being at home...on the sofa... playing with their playstation3...:D drinking beer and screaming blasphemies ... will rub eyes/jewels... thinking "how much it takes that damn $@!& concert... wanna go home...drink the beer...etc" :lol:

Now... the problem is: is the dog able to discriminate ultrasound generated by the pin hitting the floor and all the rubs there ??? :rolleyes:

I don't think so.

Kind regards,
Max

J_Player

07-04-2009, 10:32 AM

1) "Be Discriminating, Focus attention on the signals...they are not the same as the noises."

2) take a Dog to a rock concert.... if you want to detect a pin drop!

3) google Seebeck effect

4) to be continued....more to come :)

Kind wishes to you, also
AurificusInteresting.
From what I can gather, these things you learned pertain to the following:
1) Be Discriminating, Focus attention on the signals...they are not the same as the noises -- pertains to the concept that the noise does not matter if you only want to detect the signal.
2) take a Dog to a rock concert.... if you want to detect a pin drop! -- pertains to the concept that you should use a detector that cannot hear the noise, it only hears the signal you want to find.
3) google Seebeck effect -- pertains to the concept that the Seebeck effect, or Peltier effect of generating electricity from the junction of two dissimilar metals at different temperatures will allow an IR LED to detect a buried coin.
4) to be continued....more to come -- pertains to more examples like those above to be seen in future episodes of how an IR LED responds to the thermal gradient of a buried coin.

I must congratulate you for persevering through the challenges that tend to illustrate how the thermal gradient of a coin cannot be detected when buried some distance below a normal soil surface.

Best wishes,
J_P

Aurificus

07-04-2009, 11:10 AM

Interesting.
From what I can gather, these things you learned pertain to the following:
1) Be Discriminating, Focus attention on the signals...they are not the same as the noises -- pertains to the concept that the noise does not matter if you only want to detect the signal.
2) take a Dog to a rock concert.... if you want to detect a pin drop! -- pertains to the concept that you should use a detector that cannot hear the noise, it only hears the signal you want to find.
3) google Seebeck effect -- pertains to the concept that the Seebeck effect, or Peltier effect of generating electricity from the junction of two dissimilar metals at different temperatures will allow an IR LED to detect a buried coin.
4) to be continued....more to come -- pertains to more examples like those above to be seen in future episodes of how an IR LED responds to the thermal gradient of a buried coin.

I must congratulate you for persevering through the challenges that tend to illustrate how the thermal gradient of a coin cannot be detected when buried some distance below a normal soil surface.

Best wishes,
J_P

Thank-you, J_P, I have no illusions of the difficulty of the task.

I just prefer to approach this problem from the position of:

"If the reported phenomenon is true, Why is it so?"

rather than:

" I don't think this can work, here's why!"

and especially:

" I don't think,.....this can't work,.... it's all BS....show me the treasure!!

Dialectical discussion is fundamental to development of deeper understanding of any issue. I am enjoying the process. :)

cheers,
Aurificus

Theseus

07-04-2009, 11:29 AM

What? Like Manned lunar Exploration, It's been 40 years, no change, no improvement.
Are you sure it wasn't done in a hanger in the desert? ;)

Just kiddin'
Aurificus

Just because we haven't gone back in 40 years does not infer the technology is not available to go today; ...if we wanted to. :D

LRL and dowsing in general, on the other hand, has been mired down with the same problems since history has recorded its use by the Egyptians.

Surely, if it was a real science-related technology, it would have been advanced to some degree by now. Wouldn't you think? :D

Aurificus

07-04-2009, 02:31 PM

LRL and dowsing in general, on the other hand, has been mired down with the same problems since history has recorded its use by the Egyptians.

Surely, if it was a real science-related technology, it would have been advanced to some degree by now. Wouldn't you think? :D

I have no Understanding or Interest in dowsing, divining and the like.

I have a set of electrical technology manuals from c.1920. None of the
electrical theories & concepts have changed, some seem a bit basic,
but actually more clearly & far better explained than most current texts.
(but, no TV,FM radio, transistors or solid state stuff).
I'm an analogue kind of guy, in an increasingly digital world.

As far as advancing the science, little effort is put into anything for the benefit of "hobbyists" any more, no (not enough) money in it.
I hear Minelab is shutting down the Irish factory.

Lots of money spent making computers smaller & faster for movies & games.

Lots of the advanced science is being used for deep space investigation.
It's amazing what they can do with remote sensing. Detecting the presence of tiny planets around stars from the interference patterns in the gravity waves and "dark matter" Of course we just have to accept what they say is true, cos, they're scientists and we can't repeat their experiments.

There has been some military work done on mine detection at night using
"cosmic radiation" as the illumination source. ie passive detection
quite successful according to the extract I saw. I don't suppose that counts.

Looks like its up to me to advance things a degree or two :lol:

To Infinity.... & Beyond
Aurificus

Theseus

07-04-2009, 03:53 PM

I have no Understanding or Interest in dowsing, divining and the like.

Maybe so... but lots of current-day LRLs still utilize L-rods for getting responses, so if you have any interest in these contraptions, then by default you have an interest in dowsing, since they cannot operate without the operator supplying a dowsing response.

Looks like its up to me to advance things a degree or two :lol:

To Infinity.... & Beyond
Aurificus

Good luck... ;)

detectoman

07-05-2009, 01:08 AM

J_Player

07-05-2009, 02:19 AM

Lots of the advanced science is being used for deep space investigation.
It's amazing what they can do with remote sensing. Detecting the presence of tiny planets around stars from the interference patterns in the gravity waves and "dark matter" Of course we just have to accept what they say is true, cos, they're scientists and we can't repeat their experiments.

There has been some military work done on mine detection at night using
"cosmic radiation" as the illumination source. ie passive detection
quite successful according to the extract I saw. I don't suppose that counts.

Looks like its up to me to advance things a degree or two :lol:

To Infinity.... & Beyond
AurificusHi Aurificus,
Does this mean that after you complete your advanced LRL, you will only tell stories about the great performance, and will never show a demonstration of it actually recovering treasures in front of witnesses who can report what they observe in the Geotech forums?

Will you keep the circuit diagram and easy instructions to assemble a working advanced LRL as a secret?
Or will you show people how they can easily build one of these advanced LRLs to test for themselves to see if it can actually find buried metal or not?

Best wishes,
J_P

J_Player

07-05-2009, 03:17 AM

i carry my dog to field, to detection, and he learn to excave and detect whit snif the objects, one cake for he if find one nuget, only one candy if he find coins, so he then discriminate
detectoman and dogdetectorHi Dman,
Does dogdetector have puppies for sale?
¿Hay perritos en venta de este detector-perro?

Best wishes,
J_P

Aurificus

07-05-2009, 05:00 AM

Hi Aurificus,
Does this mean that after you complete your advanced LRL, you will only tell stories about the great performance, and will never show a demonstration of it actually recovering treasures in front of witnesses who can report what they observe in the Geotech forums?

Will you keep the circuit diagram and easy instructions to assemble a working advanced LRL as a secret?
Or will you show people how they can easily build one of these advanced LRLs to test for themselves to see if it can actually find buried metal or not?

I think I'll just keep considering the Physics at the moment. (Quantum & Newtonian)

If I stop posting, and the price of gold drops dramatically, and photos of new big nugget finds keep popping up on forums....well......
I would rather be out "in the bush" than selling cheap, easily, copyable, electronic devices. (plenty of others out there, happy to do that!)

Still, if the current exploration of the Science proves that a detectable "Phenomena" is likely to be present, then I'm sure, there are plenty with "knowledge of the arts" from the MD area to fill a thread with viable circuits and improvements.

Of course, we would need to shift over to MD or Geophysics......No longer being illegitimate "B**t**d's"...:D

I also have, what I consider to be a great original idea for a quite different type of MD too! But then, doesn't every-one?

cheers,
Aurificus

J_Player

07-05-2009, 05:45 AM

I think I'll just keep considering the Physics at the moment. (Quantum & Newtonian)

If I stop posting, and the price of gold drops dramatically, and photos of new big nugget finds keep popping up on forums....well......
I would rather be out "in the bush" than selling cheap, easily, copyable, electronic devices. (plenty of others out there, happy to do that!)

Still, if the current exploration of the Science proves that a detectable "Phenomena" is likely to be present, then I'm sure, there are plenty with "knowledge of the arts" from the MD area to fill a thread with viable circuits and improvements.

Of course, we would need to shift over to MD or Geophysics......No longer being illegitimate "B**t**d's"...:D

I also have, what I consider to be a great original idea for a quite different type of MD too! But then, doesn't every-one?

cheers,
AurificusNo, no....
You have it all wrong!

We are not interested in knowing the details of your great original idea for a quite different type of MD. This belongs to you alone.

What we are interested in is to learn what results you get from the knowledge you say gou gained from reading this forum about detecting buried metal using an IR LED detector. Since we hear claims of detecting buried metal with IR LED detectos, but no plausible explanation to describe how it could possibly work, and no demonstration to show that it actually will result in recovering a treasure, we only look for a way to convince ourselves that it works in spite of the preponderance of evidence that suggests it does not. A simple demonstration, or an easy to build project would settle the dispute as to whether this method works or not.

Considering how you claim to have gathered much of the key information from this forum to pioneer an advanced IR LRL which surpasses the capabilities of Esteban's IR LRL, does it not seem fitting that you would feel gratitude enough to demonstrate to the forum what you have learned?

Or is it your intention to act as a parasitic organism who extracts the best of the years of toil and tormentuous work of dedicated experimenters like Esteban and others who have found the keys to unlock the locks that have concealed the method for so many ages, only to hide the fruits of their labours, while tormenting those who contributed by showing photos of nuggets you have found using their methods? :eek:

Best wishes,
J_P

Aurificus

07-05-2009, 07:08 AM

No, no....
You have it all wrong!

We are not interested in knowing the details of your great original idea for a quite different type of MD. This belongs to you alone.

What we are interested in is to learn what results you get from the knowledge you say gou gained from reading this forum about detecting buried metal using an IR LED detector. Since we hear claims of detecting buried metal with IR LED detectos, but no plausible explanation to describe how it could possibly work, and no demonstration to show that it actually will result in recovering a treasure, we only look for a way to convince ourselves that it works in spite of the preponderance of evidence that suggests it does not. A simple demonstration, or an easy to build project would settle the dispute as to whether this method works or not.

Considering how you claim to have gathered much of the key information from this forum to pioneer an advanced IR LRL which surpasses the capabilities of Esteban's IR LRL, does it not seem fitting that you would feel gratitude enough to demonstrate to the forum what you have learned?

Or is it your intention to act as a parasitic organism who extracts the best of the years of toil and tormentuous work of dedicated experimenters like Esteban and others who have found the keys to unlock the locks that have concealed the method for so many ages, only to hide the fruits of their labours, while tormenting those who contributed by showing photos of nuggets you have found using their methods? :eek:

Best wishes,
J_P

Sounds like Politics....Not Technology
Do we need to start another thread?

"Social,Economic & Ethical Criteria for Investigation of LRL" :lol:

but seriously... read this Slowly and Carefully:

1) I have made no claims to depth, distance, accuracy.....anything at all??

2) I have stated that I am interested in discussing the physics of how the reported results might be possible.

3) I have stated that if such a system is possible it is likely to be "hit & miss". due to an huge range of vaiables in the sort of targets we seek and the enviroments they are found in.

4) Esteban seems to be Strong and Smart and Stable enough to look after himself.

5) Anything that I have learned from the Geotech forums is still available to any who are prepared to read each post carefully and attempt to understand, using an open and enquiring mind.

6) If we choose to enhance a process or system with such Public Knowledge, well that is what it is for. If the author did not wish this, he should not post. However an acknowlegment of the contributions of others is good manners.

6) I think a Parasite survives by enjoying the goodness and new nurishment provided by the Host only to harm or destroy it by regularly injecting its vile & bitter regurgitations.

Back to the TECH,

Aurificus

J_Player

07-05-2009, 08:42 AM

Looks like its up to me to advance things a degree or two :lol:

...Sounds like Politics....Not Technology
Do we need to start another thread?Not at all.
My question is whether you will provide a simple demonstration, or an easy to build project to show how well your concept of an advanced IR LED LRL works. This question has remained unanswered.

After reading your detailed items 1-6 in your post above, should we conclude that no demonstration or a simple to build project will be forthcoming upon your building an advanced IR LED LRL?

Best wishes,
J_P

Max

07-05-2009, 09:32 AM

Sounds like Politics....Not Technology
Do we need to start another thread?

"Social,Economic & Ethical Criteria for Investigation of LRL" :lol:

but seriously... read this Slowly and Carefully:

1) I have made no claims to depth, distance, accuracy.....anything at all??

2) I have stated that I am interested in discussing the physics of how the reported results might be possible.

3) I have stated that if such a system is possible it is likely to be "hit & miss". due to an huge range of vaiables in the sort of targets we seek and the enviroments they are found in.

4) Esteban seems to be Strong and Smart and Stable enough to look after himself.

5) Anything that I have learned from the Geotech forums is still available to any who are prepared to read each post carefully and attempt to understand, using an open and enquiring mind.

6) If we choose to enhance a process or system with such Public Knowledge, well that is what it is for. If the author did not wish this, he should not post. However an acknowlegment of the contributions of others is good manners.

6) I think a Parasite survives by enjoying the goodness and new nurishment provided by the Host only to harm or destroy it by regularly injecting its vile & bitter regurgitations.

Back to the TECH,

Aurificus

Hi,
about IR LRL (as with other kinds)...

the fact is ...there aren't facts.

Just words... and with words you'll not detect coins buried 50cm from 10meters far.

All discussions and dialectics here serve nothing if you'll not detect long range the coin!

For so many years now we heard of wonderful results of LRLs (not only from Esteban , but also from Dr. Hung and many others) but get no facts, no proofs, no reliable theory, no complete schematics/plans, no patents, no double blind-test with educated observers, no new attempt about the challenge(s), no serious and trustable report about a working LRL.

Just words... and with words we can make jokes and sarcasm too... why not ? These jokes or sarcasm don't change reality: that LRLs don't work in practice.

Any serious THunter knows that these LRLs are BS... and serious ones that belive they work are simply self-decepted cause cannot pass with success any double-blind test.:rolleyes:

But self-deception trick their mind... they don't wanna make double-blind tests cause INCONSCIOSLY FEAR of the results... I mean, that in double-blind test their LRL will show its total unusefulness. :lol:

Then , how to explain themselves that they are such morons cause spent thousands dollars in some spare plastic... hot melt glue and some pvc pipe filled with south-american made coffee-taste farts? :D

Kind regards,
Max

Aurificus

07-05-2009, 11:47 AM

Hi,
about IR LRL (as with other kinds)...

the fact is ...there aren't facts.

Just words... and with words you'll not detect coins buried 50cm from 10meters far.

All discussions and dialectics here serve nothing if you'll not detect long range the coin!

I'd be happy to detect gold nuggets, size (mass) of coin, in real "'natural ground", at 50cm deep, standing on top of it, with reasonably priced commercial MD. Double blind tested & manufacturer guaranteed, Of course

Aurificus

Max

07-05-2009, 01:36 PM

I'd be happy to detect gold nuggets, size (mass) of coin, in real "'natural ground", at 50cm deep, standing on top of it, with reasonably priced commercial MD. Double blind tested & manufacturer guaranteed, Of course

Aurificus

?

You asked for params about test, hit ratio etc for LRL... I told you my idea.:razz:

We are not talking of conventional MDs... that are know for their limitation in detection of small metallic masses in soil. Not a big news.

Anyway, some PIs can detect a single coin at that range if some conditions are matched... e.g. on dry sand it is possible and I've done...the problem is that conditions are far from average search field and that device will be so sensitive to other stuff like brick/pottery and , of course, can't discriminate anything like a VLF will do in a more close range.

It's supposed an LRL CAN/MUST detect items like coins at least at 50cm depth...and from several meters away... otherwise what we are talking about here ? :rolleyes:

Normal range detection ? You have it already on common MDs.:D

Kind regards,
Max

Aurificus

07-06-2009, 10:26 AM

?
It's supposed an LRL CAN/MUST detect items like coins at least at 50cm depth...and from several meters away... otherwise what we are talking about here ? :rolleyes:
Normal range detection ? You have it already on common MDs.:D
Kind regards,
Max

MD's use Brute force of transmitted EMR, I am interested in investigating possible sources of "signals" from gold nuggets that can be detected passively.
You have "proved" that IR LED affect targets "ZERO" so that can therefore be considered passive!

Re: Valuable Coins, Treasures,... Not much of that around here!!, :frown:
but if works for gold should have some application for other items.

I make no claims for distance etc. but 1 metre @ 50cm. would be Amazingly Excellent for starters, easier than swinging coils.

So if necessary for correctness, call it sRL, rL, passive MD, Geo Sensor, whatever keeps you happy :)

I'm interested in the physics not the politics or marketing.

Aurificus

Max

07-06-2009, 03:13 PM

MD's use Brute force of transmitted EMR, I am interested in investigating possible sources of "signals" from gold nuggets that can be detected passively.
You have "proved" that IR LED affect targets "ZERO" so that can therefore be considered passive!

Re: Valuable Coins, Treasures,... Not much of that around here!!, :frown:
but if works for gold should have some application for other items.

I make no claims for distance etc. but 1 metre @ 50cm. would be Amazingly Excellent for starters, easier than swinging coils.

So if necessary for correctness, call it sRL, rL, passive MD, Geo Sensor, whatever keeps you happy :)

I'm interested in the physics not the politics or marketing.

Aurificus

Hi,
I understand... you want a passive detector... with no transmitter then.

But the problem is : receiver of what ?

Cause if you don't know what to look for it's difficault thinking that a passive approach would work.

I read Esteban's claims on IR and RF passive devices but to me the first is impossible in practice... the second I don't understand which signal (e.g. frequency) you're supposed to detect to locate the target.

That's much talk about... but we end up with an FM radio that untuned it's supposed to pick up some signal (or absence of signal ?) from targets...

But where's theory for that ? What's explaination of this supposed phenomenon ?

Cause it's easy say... wire an FM radio or a square frame of aluminium with a toroid... but if you don't know what are you doing you'll not ever know if you're doing good... or if failure is due to your implementation etc

But seems Esteban is always playing the old game of "duck and cover" about informations... :lol:

Maybe he's under some table there... thinking how to take and post some other brilliant picture of his LRL pistols.:cool:

Kind regards,
Max

J_Player

07-06-2009, 03:51 PM

MD's use Brute force of transmitted EMR, I am interested in investigating possible sources of "signals" from gold nuggets that can be detected passively.
You have "proved" that IR LED affect targets "ZERO" so that can therefore be considered passive!

Re: Valuable Coins, Treasures,... Not much of that around here!!, :frown:
but if works for gold should have some application for other items.

I make no claims for distance etc. but 1 metre @ 50cm. would be Amazingly Excellent for starters, easier than swinging coils.

So if necessary for correctness, call it sRL, rL, passive MD, Geo Sensor, whatever keeps you happy :)

I'm interested in the physics not the politics or marketing.

AurificusDr. hung has found a way to lock onto the signal of gold, using a RangerTell LRL. He has since modified this LRL. But I doubt his improved method would work for other Items different than gold because of the unique nature of gold that he discovered. According to Dr. hung, the signal from gold can be sensed via the mechanism of the capacitance in the cells of the body of a person using a RangerTell. A signal line is shot and returned to the RangerTell due to the action of the signal generator (calculator) coupling with the antenna circuit below. The return signal apparently becomes much stronger when pointed at buried gold, and rebounds to the cells of the LRL user's hand which are acting like a capacitor. It is presumed that this is due to resonance with the gold frequency. To get the deepest detection you will need to use an LRL that is capable of sending microwave trains, such as his modified RangerTell. But also, take note that he is locking onto the signal that comes from gold, because gold DNA produces a substance that does not permit it to corrode like other metals. Therefore he cannot rely on any "halo effects" from gold, but only the native gold signal. Some have speculated that the signal emitted from gold actually comes from the substance the gold DNA produces to coat the gold, not the gold itself. The feeling is this organic substance is much more likely to produce a signal that can couple with the capacitor effects of the operator's cells. The details are more accurately understood when taken directly from Dr. hung's post:
Actually it can go much, much deeper if you use a special aproach of 'microwave trains'.

Gold is the most powerful 'self defensive' metal when it comes to avoid any harm to its structure, such as rust, oxidation, etc. Its DNA produces a substance which coats the metal to fight against those 'threats'.

Best wishes,
J_P

Esteban

07-06-2009, 04:06 PM

Hi,
I understand... you want a passive detector... with no transmitter then.

But the problem is : receiver of what ?

Cause if you don't know what to look for it's difficault thinking that a passive approach would work.

I read Esteban's claims on IR and RF passive devices but to me the first is impossible in practice... the second I don't understand which signal (e.g. frequency) you're supposed to detect to locate the target.

That's much talk about... but we end up with an FM radio that untuned it's supposed to pick up some signal (or absence of signal ?) from targets...

But where's theory for that ? What's explaination of this supposed phenomenon ?

Cause it's easy say... wire an FM radio or a square frame of aluminium with a toroid... but if you don't know what are you doing you'll not ever know if you're doing good... or if failure is due to your implementation etc

But seems Esteban is always playing the old game of "duck and cover" about informations... :lol:

Maybe he's under some table there... thinking how to take and post some other brilliant picture of his LRL pistols.:cool:

Kind regards,
Max

You have the info... but the dedication? :lol:

Regards

Fred

07-06-2009, 04:45 PM

Hi,
I read Esteban's claims on IR and RF passive devices but to me the first is impossible in practice... the second I don't understand which signal (e.g. frequency) you're supposed to detect to locate the target.

That's much talk about... but we end up with an FM radio that untuned it's supposed to pick up some signal (or absence of signal ?) from targets...

But where's theory for that ? What's explaination of this supposed phenomenon ?

Cause it's easy say... wire an FM radio or a square frame of aluminium with a toroid... but if you don't know what are you doing you'll not ever know if you're doing good... or if failure is due to your implementation etc

But seems Esteban is always playing the old game of "duck and cover" about informations... :lol:
Max

My non-technical-hypothetical-possible explanation :
I´t absorbtion of natural radiated energy by the halo effect, from long wave to X-ray wavelenght.
So with a AM radio, fm , wideband microwave or IR light you will detect the same effect.for some reason the IR light must be modulated, just has the PD in the khz range needed to be.
Of course it could also be random beeping wrongly interpreted by human brain.But the halo effect is there...
I believe Esteban don´t know more about the effect itself, so he explains how to build it but no more.

so your IR

J_Player

07-07-2009, 06:16 AM

My non-technical-hypothetical-possible explanation :
I´t absorbtion of natural radiated energy by the halo effect, from long wave to X-ray wavelenght.
So with a AM radio, fm , wideband microwave or IR light you will detect the same effect.for some reason the IR light must be modulated, just has the PD in the khz range needed to be.
Of course it could also be random beeping wrongly interpreted by human brain.But the halo effect is there...
I believe Esteban don´t know more about the effect itself, so he explains how to build it but no more.

so your IRHi Fred,
Of course, this could not work when using the Aurificus theory and practice of detecting gold with an IR LED, simply because he is sensing a thermal gradient, not anything related to a "halo effect". The Aurificus theory relies on thermal variations at the location of the buried metal, which are powered by the solar energy at the surface of the soil. Because of little-understood energy transformations, the effects of a thermal gradient at the buried metal object will be detected using a pulsed IR LED, regardless of any evidence of a serious signal to noise ratio problem. This can all be proved by observing Arurificus demonstrating his IR LED detector working, or by building a simple test device patterned after Aurificus advanced version of Esteban's IR LED detector. But you will never have the chance to see this proof, because Aurificus has indicated that he does not intend to provide any demonstration or simple plans to allow people to prove that what he says is true or not.

But you can take Aurificus word for it that it is sensing thermal gradients from the buried metal, just as sure as you can take Dr. hung's word for it that gold DNA produces a substance that coats the gold to protect it from corrosion. Dr. hung's observation of gold behavior constitutes further proof that gold does not produce any "halo effect". Thus, the Aurificus theory of detecting energy derived from a thermal gradient must be the only remaining method to detect the elusive gold signal.

p.s. There is one other way to detect the gold signal in the absence of any "halo effect". You can use a RangerTell to shoot and return a signal line. If it is properly programmed for the gold frequency, then it will charge the cells in your hand that is holding the RangerTell, and point the direction of the gold. This is said to be a good method to sense a coin at a range up to a mile.

Best wishes,
J_P

Aurificus

07-07-2009, 06:50 AM

Thank-you, Max, J-P, Esteban & Fred,

As the discussion is now tending towards the technical :), I would like to initially concentrate on proposals by which buried metal objects might produce "detectable" signals.

I am personally interested in signals that could/can be detected "passively" with a "sensor" constructed from "conventional electronic components".

As my time to devote to this project (one of Way Too Many) is limited, I prefer to investigate what I should be looking for, first, before considering what might be the best way to find it.

Please forgive me, in advance, if I do not respond to general posts about the impossibility, non-viability, un-reality, BS of LRL, remote sensing, etc.
"Criteria for Scientific Proof of LRL" is a better place for that

For any-one following the thread who is looking for plans, schematics, etc.
I Have None, this is not what is happening here. Morgan recently posted schematics, descriptions, photos, in another thread, I suggest you look at those for some ideas.

Cheers
Aurificus.

Theseus

07-07-2009, 12:15 PM

Hi Fred,
p.s. There is one other way to detect the gold signal in the absence of any "halo effect". You can use a RangerTell to shoot and return a signal line. If it is properly programmed for the gold frequency, then it will charge the cells in your hand that is holding the RangerTell, and point the direction of the gold. This is said to be a good method to sense a coin at a range up to a mile.

Best wishes,
J_P

Surely you jest. :D

J_Player

07-07-2009, 02:54 PM

As my time to devote to this project (one of Way Too Many) is limited, I prefer to investigate what I should be looking for, first, before considering what might be the best way to find it.Hi Aurificus,
Perhaps the RangerTell method is not the best.

I think you have found the answer. It seems obvious that a thermal gradient at the location of the buried metal is the way to go. But not with a simple IR thermometer. You should use a pulsed IR LED in order to get past the purely heat energy at the surface. We have learned that the heat from the buried coin must go through an energy frequency transformation before it will become detectable, and the IR LED is just the tool which can detect the transformed solar energy anomaly.

The IR LED is one of the few passive LRLs that would qualify for your search. The only other might be a ferrite sensor. But the ferrite is said to be highly susceptable to RF noise, unlike the IR LED. The other LRLs are for the most part active detectors, in the sense that they must send out a signal in order to receive a response. As far as I know, there are no other passive LRL techniques other than the passive RF receiver (ferrite) and the IR passive receiver.

Technically, the IR LED could be classed as an active detector in the sense that it emits an IR illumination in a 40 degree cone. But this emission is only acting as an antenna (according to Esteban). The actual sensor for this IR LEDis a passive modified broadcast receiver which is not really connected to the IR LED. So in reality, aside from building a simple square wave driven IR LED, you will only need to modify an FM receiver in order to passively detect the thermal gradient that you have described.

Any other LRL would require building circuits that must energize the target in order to receive a signal, and would not fall in the class of passive detectors.

Best wishes,
J_P

Aurificus

07-08-2009, 11:20 AM

Hi Aurificus,

I think you have found the answer. It seems obvious that a thermal gradient at the location of the buried metal is the way to go. But not with a simple IR thermometer. You should use a pulsed IR LED in order to get past the purely heat energy at the surface. We have learned that the heat from the buried coin must go through an energy frequency transformation before it will become detectable, and the IR LED is just the tool which can detect the transformed solar energy anomaly.

Any other LRL would require building circuits that must energize the target in order to receive a signal, and would not fall in the class of passive detectors.

Best wishes,
J_P

YES & NO
Aurificus

J_Player

07-08-2009, 11:59 AM

Surely you jest. :D:cool:

Max

07-08-2009, 01:46 PM

My non-technical-hypothetical-possible explanation :
I´t absorbtion of natural radiated energy by the halo effect, from long wave to X-ray wavelenght.
So with a AM radio, fm , wideband microwave or IR light you will detect the same effect.for some reason the IR light must be modulated, just has the PD in the khz range needed to be.
Of course it could also be random beeping wrongly interpreted by human brain.But the halo effect is there...
I believe Esteban don´t know more about the effect itself, so he explains how to build it but no more.

so your IR

Hmmmmm.... Esteban tells just what he wanna you read... not the whole stuff... nor a complete design/schematic... at the end... nothing you can really use to test and repeat what he said...wrote...claimed.

Is up to you... you make some IR LRL crap... (remember to add hot melt glue) and it doesn't work... then you start asking Esteban again... and the cycle repeats... forever.

In this way you'll never know if your LRL doesn't work cause cannot (simply) work... or just cause you made it ... and failed at implementation.

If implementation details are "secret" nor you have any idea of what you're supposed to do... e.g. how the LRL is supposed to work... not your theory but HIS theory...there's no way for you to know what's wrong at your LRL implementation.

Happened with PD, will happen again with other crazy projects cause you need a complete design or , at least, know what are you doing to have some success.

At PD the lack of informations makes you, as an example, don't replicate the ferrite circuit at first... on PCB!

But seems they claim PD needs ferrite circuit... then you add a board for it...

but , cause you don't know what to do with it e.g. how to tune, that's changed nothing... and PD clone doesn't work.

Supposing LRLs work (and I don't belive that) trying to replicate one this way it's like you ask some swordsmith of year 1200 a.C. to replicate a boeing 747 ... just giving hints and making long jokes...I'm sure it will not fly! :D

You must know what you're doing... or have , at least, a complete project you can replicate without knowing about the supposed "principle of operation".

All other attempts out of the 2 alternative scenarios of above will simply fail... and we already know.

If we suppose (I don't) that Morgan's PD is a perfect replica of Alonso one... and that works... it's possible just cause he had on hands the original one to copy/clone... then take measures and everything... things that we haven't.:rolleyes:

Of course, Esteban will say that we have everything, all informations but failed at experiments... but it's just plain stupid joke... he knows we haven't all details and play this game from many years now! :lol:

Kind regards,
Max

Aurificus

07-08-2009, 01:55 PM

YES & NO
Aurificus

The following mechanism that may enable (some) buried metal objects to
produce an electromagnetic signal that can be detected passively.

Sunlight striking the earth warms the ground

There is a gradient of heat (energy) from surface to depth (ignore geothermal)

Heat transfer is in the direction from hottest to coolest

The energy transfer through the soil is due to molecular vibration (phonons) and is relatively slow,

Thermal conductivity for soils around 1 - 2 W/(m.K)

For our preferred target metals: Gold 318 W/(m.K) Silver 429 W/(m.K)
Copper 380 W/(m.K)

Metals transfer heat by movement of free electrons, therefore rapid heat transfer.

Metal in the soil will transfer heat from top of object to bottom faster than surrounding soil.

Metal is an excellent electrical conductor .

Soil is a poor electrical conductor, but not an insulator.

Maximum thermal transfer will occur near top of target (from soil to target)

As target warms, electrons will migrate to bottom of object.

Accumulation of electrons at bottom will repel electrons in soil, leaving “holes”

The close contact of the metal object to the soil is analogous to a “Schottky” barrier.

Once the “forward voltage” potential is achieved the electrons will cross the junction and fill the holes.

Current flow (metal to semiconductor) is very fast and high.

And it will stop very quickly as it has next to nowhere else to go.

As the electrons are returning to a lower state they must release their energy.

This will manifest as a burst of electromagnetic radiation.

The metal target will also have lost its stored energy (ie “cooled)

Enhanced energy transfer from soil at top (phonons & free electrons) to cool target

Cycle repeats,,,,,,,Cool:cool:

Aurificus

J_Player

07-08-2009, 02:35 PM

That pretty much proves that a buried coin produces an EM signal by the mechanism of heat conduction.
No need to ask further questions here. Simply build your passive circuit to detect the effects of the gradient you discovered. :rolleyes:

Best wishes,
J_P

Max

07-08-2009, 03:40 PM

The following mechanism that may enable (some) buried metal objects to
produce an electromagnetic signal that can be detected passively.

Sunlight striking the earth warms the ground

There is a gradient of heat (energy) from surface to depth (ignore geothermal)

Heat transfer is in the direction from hottest to coolest

The energy transfer through the soil is due to molecular vibration (phonons) and is relatively slow,

Thermal conductivity for soils around 1 - 2 W/(m.K)

For our preferred target metals: Gold 318 W/(m.K) Silver 429 W/(m.K)
Copper 380 W/(m.K)

Metals transfer heat by movement of free electrons, therefore rapid heat transfer.

Metal in the soil will transfer heat from top of object to bottom faster than surrounding soil.

Metal is an excellent electrical conductor .

Soil is a poor electrical conductor, but not an insulator.

Maximum thermal transfer will occur near top of target (from soil to target)

As target warms, electrons will migrate to bottom of object.

Accumulation of electrons at bottom will repel electrons in soil, leaving “holes”

The close contact of the metal object to the soil is analogous to a “Schottky” barrier.

Once the “forward voltage” potential is achieved the electrons will cross the junction and fill the holes.

Current flow (metal to semiconductor) is very fast and high.

And it will stop very quickly as it has next to nowhere else to go.

As the electrons are returning to a lower state they must release their energy.

This will manifest as a burst of electromagnetic radiation.

The metal target will also have lost its stored energy (ie “cooled)

Enhanced energy transfer from soil at top (phonons & free electrons) to cool target

Cycle repeats,,,,,,,Cool:cool:

Aurificus

Hi,
still the thermal gradient here... :D

Ok... but Seebeck's effect you describe works good with metallic junctions... more than between a metal and soil.

This is first problem.

Second problem is that you're talking about large (?) current...
What ? Seebeck effect between metals generates very small currents...and voltages.
As an example common themocouple alloys gives you a maximum of around 70uV/°K = 70uV/°C

So... if gradient is just 1°C you get maximum 70uV.
In the metal-soil interface you'll maybe get a voltage of some uV/°C at maximum.

About current... they are known to be really small... and usually thermocouple devices need proper preamplifier design with hi-impedance to get useful readings.

Indeed the power you could get from a single junction is really small... as another example: old radioactive generators used many thousands of them both for increasing voltage (in series) and for increase output current (parallel of them).
Such systems are widely inefficient... think that you need maybe 2KW thermal power (e.g. Plutonium-238 bars) to get maybe 100W electrical , like used in old spacecrafts (and also today's made are not much different about that). We are talking of something 5-10% power efficiency... you put in 2000 and get 100 at output!

About EM pulse... (?)
the thermal gradient you talk is there while things are going on... the heath moves from hot to cold and this will create small current... with no sharp cutoff... so not really an EM pulse... but maybe a small current which vary as function of time... then a magnetic field is surely present but of which amplitude ?

Maybe can e.g. deflect the needle of a compass if strong enough (maybe) but sure is not an EM pulse, and of course we are talking of very weak magnetic field.

Kind regards,
Max

Aurificus

07-09-2009, 05:42 AM

Hi,
still the thermal gradient here... :D

About EM pulse... (?)
the thermal gradient you talk is there while things are going on... the heath moves from hot to cold and this will create small current... with no sharp cutoff... so not really an EM pulse... but maybe a small current which vary as function of time... then a magnetic field is surely present but of which amplitude ?

Kind regards,
Max

So, the Mechanism is Legitimate, Just a question of Magnitude?:)

I will Work(J) on the Numbers & report back.
May take some time & Brain Power(J/sec)

Aurificus

Theseus

07-09-2009, 12:20 PM

So, the Mechanism is Legitimate, Just a question of Magnitude?:)

I will Work(J) on the Numbers & report back.
May take some time & Brain Power(J/sec)

Aurificus

Is there any chance this concept could wipe out metal detector sales? ;)

J_Player

07-09-2009, 02:25 PM

Is there any chance this concept could wipe out metal detector sales? ;)Sure...

Take note: Aurificus will be spending a lot of time running numbers to see how to make the concept work, after erroneously concluding the mechanism is legitimate, and only needs calculations to estimate the magnitude. He failed to grasp that people have been telling him the magnitude of signal to noise ratio removes the legitimacy from this method. But even if the energy supplied to the surface of the earth by the sun was completely homogeneous, the calculations already show that there is way too little heat conduction through the soil to heat a buried coin enough to maintain a differential thermal gradient, much less produce a voltage, especially when a second metal is not present to cause the peltier-effect induced voltage he is relying on for this concept to work.

Answer to Theseus question:
The chance that this concept courld wipe out metal detector sales is about the same as the chance that people will stop buying tickets to heavy metal concerts because of the annoying sound of a pin that might accidentally fall and crash against the concert stage floor.

Best wishes,
J_P

Theseus

07-09-2009, 03:46 PM

Sure...

Take note: Aurificus will be spending a lot of time running numbers to see how to make the concept work, after erroneously concluding the mechanism is legitimate, and only needs calculations to estimate the magnitude. He failed to grasp that people have been telling him the magnitude of signal to noise ratio removes the legitimacy from this method. But even if the energy supplied to the surface of the earth by the sun was completely homogeneous, the calculations already show that there is way too little heat conduction through the soil to heat a buried coin enough to maintain a differential thermal gradient, much less produce a voltage, especially when a second metal is not present to cause the peltier-effect induced voltage he is relying on for this concept to work.

Answer to Theseus question:
The chance that this concept courld wipe out metal detector sales is about the same as the chance that people will stop buying tickets to heavy metal concerts because of the annoying sound of a pin that might accidentally fall and crash against the concert stage floor.

Best wishes,
J_P

Ummmmm..... that's more or less my opinion too. :cool:

I thought maybe it was only me that saw; "He failed to grasp that people have been telling him the magnitude of signal to noise ratio removes the legitimacy from this method."

Max

07-09-2009, 06:46 PM

So, the Mechanism is Legitimate, Just a question of Magnitude?:)

I will Work(J) on the Numbers & report back.
May take some time & Brain Power(J/sec)

Aurificus

Hi,
"So, the Mechanism is Legitimate, Just a question of Magnitude?:)"

Hmmmmmm ... maybe you misunderstud...:shocked:

the mechanism is true cause the Seebeck effect is real and measurable also... but this doesn't mean that it's "legitimate" as LRL principle of operation of claimed working passive devices.

The magnitude is small, no dubt about... just if someone wanna quantify it several factors must be taken into account including e.g. conductivity of soil, soil composition, if there's an oxide layer it's e.g. porosity and density and influence on charge exchange/flow, conductivity of matrix, level of mean humidity etc etc...

A simplified model I think is possible to obtain with realistic results for voltage generated and then also current flow due to the thermal gradient.

As an example then suppose that we have say 1uA/°K and 20°K thermal gradient at coin/soil interface so... 20uA current when process starts... the B-field could be (using approximation of single turn of current with radius equals to coin's diameter of 23mm)...

B= (2*pi*b^2*I)/(c*(z^2+b^2))^(3/2)

b is radius of turn = 23mm = 0.023m
pi = 3.1416
I=20uA = 0.00002A
c=speed of light 300,000,000m/s
z= 10meters (distance on z axis from the coin... turn of current)

So... let's go for it...

B=(0.0000000664)/(30000158700)^(3/2) = (about) 1.28*10^-23 Tesla

or... to put it simple... 12.9 yoctoTesla! :rolleyes:

So at 10meters from the coin... supposing the things of above... just this small value...

The intensity drops as power of 3 with distance... so it's easy understand why so slight magnetic field is absolutely undetectable using actual technology. ;)

Now consider that you have something 30-50microTesla as Earth magnetic field...

1.29*10^-24/30*10^-6 = 4.3*10^-20

You need something that's capable to look at 1/4.3*10^-20 part of your background noise... it's like looking for 1 volt difference when you have a noise of 2.32*10^19 volts! :lol:

If we consider SNR... as SNR=(Asignal/Anoise)^2 we have (4.3*10-20)^2 = 1.8949*10^-39

and in decibels... SNRdB= -387.33

I think no passive device could be made (at present years) to detect so small variations... and with that dramatic SNR... a huge negative one! :rolleyes:

Impossible.

Kind regards,
Max

J_Player

07-10-2009, 02:30 AM

SNRdB= -387.33What?
Only -387.33 dB?
Maybe it would go lower if an earthworm who was near the surface burrowed down and helped to add some thermal gradient.

Hmmm... but wouldn't that just be more noise? :shocked:

Best wishes,
J_P

Aurificus

07-10-2009, 11:37 AM

or... to put it simple... 12.9 yoctoTesla! :rolleyes:

Kind regards,

Max

Thanks, for mentioning Tesla, IT'S HIS BIRTHDAY!!

I agree, an operating voltage derived from the Seebeck coeff. is about 1 million times to small to produce a measurable signal.

So, I won't use it.

Fred

07-10-2009, 02:13 PM

So, I won't use it.

You won´t use it where ? :lol:

Qiaozhi

07-10-2009, 06:18 PM

Thanks, for mentioning Tesla, IT'S HIS BIRTHDAY
Have you seen today's Google image?

Qiaozhi

07-10-2009, 10:21 PM

... and, continuing the subject of Tesla, here's an interesting article ->

http://atlasobscura.com/places/electrum

Esteban

07-10-2009, 10:37 PM

In Tesla's birthday: :cool: (He's 10th July :), I'm 6th July, as G. Bush :lol:)

Aurificus

07-11-2009, 12:09 AM

If my proposed signal effect is "powered" by diurnal solar radiation then detectable depth is likely to max out at around 0.3 metres. :oh:.

Great illustration, Wish I'd found it earlier!!
The amount of "lag" is clearly shown too.

Not completely BUSTED, But definitely, Bruised & Battered.
Cheers, Aurificus :)

J_Player

07-11-2009, 01:40 AM

... and, continuing the subject of Tesla, here's an interesting article ->
http://atlasobscura.com/places/electrumHi Qiaozhi,
And happy birthday Nicola Tesla..!!! :)

Remember this Telsa coil locator that Seden posted the Lockheed patent 5,982,180 for?
It is not a pistol type detector, but a full Tesla coil that produces sparks to locate buried objects.
When you see sparks, then you know you found something.
It was originally intended for land mine detection, but could be modified to find treasures as a hand-held portable model:

Max

07-11-2009, 02:10 PM

Hi Qiaozhi,
And happy birthday Nicola Tesla..!!! :)

Remember this Telsa coil locator that Seden posted the Lockheed patent 5,982,180 for?
It is not a pistol type detector, but a full Tesla coil that produces sparks to locate buried objects.
When you see sparks, then you know you found something.
It was originally intended for land mine detection, but could be modified to find treasures as a hand-held portable model:

Hi,
I think who made this patent... was a joker... cause who really is so stupid to swing over a landmine an electrode with say 100000V potential ??? :lol:

But sure... these "companies" are well known and trusted by government (sure they have brilliant scientists and technicians) and so patent anything that come in mind... for future (potential) use.

That's what I think of this patent... they found a potential application (though not so safe , indeed) and patented the "principle".

What's wrong with these devices is that if one have to use outdoor there's a serious risk to be struck by a lighting... :lol:

But maybe this is unimportant for the average LRL-user...beliver...

Kind regards,
Max

Max

07-11-2009, 02:12 PM

In Tesla's birthday: :cool: (He's 10th July :), I'm 6th July, as G. Bush :lol:)

As said... before....

you're a natural born killer ! :lol:

Anybody here MUST know that this "plan" is seriously dangerous... and make a mistake with that stuff could be THE LAST mistake you made! :razz:

Don't tell me... you realized many and all them work as LRL locating stuff at tens meters away ? :rolleyes:

Kind regards,
Max

Esteban

07-11-2009, 03:16 PM

As said... before....

you're a natural born killer ! :lol:

Anybody here MUST know that this "plan" is seriously dangerous... and make a mistake with that stuff could be THE LAST mistake you made! :razz:

Don't tell me... you realized many and all them work as LRL locating stuff at tens meters away ? :rolleyes:

Kind regards,
Max

Don't worry for me! :rolleyes: :lol: At low current think is not letal, except for pacemaker user.

Regards

Max

07-11-2009, 04:56 PM

Don't worry for me! :rolleyes: :lol: At low current think is not letal, except for pacemaker user.

Regards

Hmmmm... you don't noticed the real danger.

If it creates a ionized area around a a sharp tip... :rolleyes:

can actract lightnings ... in which case the current can rise also to some 200,000 amperes.... frying the pacemaker and everything around it! :lol:

Be careful... in your country there are big lightning storms...:rolleyes:

Kind regards,
Max

Aurificus

07-12-2009, 02:55 AM

J_Player

07-12-2009, 04:38 AM

I think I may have over-reacted to the thermal change illustration.
It's a mathematical Model only and applies to a generic media (soil) and not the "target". Max's elegant calculations apply to conventional circuits, but this is not what we have here.

I have struggled to to develop a schematic equivalent, mostly because they require the inclusion of "one-dimensional thin wires". (ODTW's are generally used by Scientists & EE to keep things "simple", so that the observed phenomena matches the formula.). This is a 3D open system

We have an excellent electrical & heat conductor "encased" (long-buried) in a semi conductor (significantly reduced electrical & heat conductivity by factors of hundreds)
Schottky type barrier exists
A Schottky type barrier exists which provides capacitance for free electrons to collect & a "high speed switch" to allow them to flow when sufficient potential has developed.

We have have a thermal energy differential between the top of the of the target and the bottom. It might be "negligible" to some, but it is NOT zero. Electrons notice these things.

The Seebeck effect will operate "on top" of the potential maintained by the capacitance and "pump up the charge". Sort of more like an "electrotatic" build up than a conventional flowing current.

When sufficient forward voltage potential has been developed all of the charge will cross the barrier in "a Very Short Time". A pulse of EMR will be emitted.

The frequency, magnitude and periodicy of any such emissions are yet to be determined.

Discussion Invited :)
Cheers,
Aurificus Hi Aurificus,
It appears you changed your mind, and are again looking for ways to show that a thermal gradient will result in an electrical signal from a buried object.
Discussion invited? Ok.

First, let's start with the reason why you decided to re-examine the concept. According to your post, you concluded that Max's calculations don't apply to the actual phenomenon, and are only suitable for a simplified model. Thus new theories and calculations are justified to explain why your favourite concept of thermal gradient could be what's responsible for a IR LED receiving a signal.
So your basis to re-examine thermal gradient is that the logic used to show it can't work does not match the conditions at a buried metal object site.

Next we see your explanations of what is different at the buried metal object location. It is proposed in four stages:
1. "A Schottky type barrier exists which provides capacitance for free electrons to collect & a "high speed switch" to allow them to flow when sufficient potential has developed".
2. There is a thermal gradient from the top of the buried metal to the bottom. Maybe negligible, but not zero.
3. Because of this non-zero difference in temperature between the top of the buried metal and the bottom, we will find there is a voltage caused by the Seebeck effect, which will charge the expected capacitance due to the supposed Schottky diode effect which exists where metals are buried in the soil.
4. When the voltage becomes too great to be confined within the capacitance of the Schottky diode effect, the buried metal object is suddenly discharged into the soil, resulting the emanation of "a Very Short Time" pulse of EMR to be emitted into the soil.

Therefore, an IR LED will respond by variations in the pulse train that is sent to power it when pointed in the direction where the metal is buried.

If I understand your theories correctly, then here are the things that come to mind immediately that make me wonder why anyone would propose that theory:
1. The idea that Max's calculations are only a model and do not represent actual conditions may be true within an order of magnitude. But the idea that there is a thermal gradient from a real condition buried metal (coin for example) that has enough temperature difference to generate a voltage due to Seebeck effect seems many orders of magnitude unfeasible to me. It is also necessary to have a second metal present in the junction in order to produce a voltage. Somehow, I don't see the second metal, or the terminals where the voltage would be collected, or sent to the metal as a charge. Also, real soil has a lot of non-homogeneous temperature gradients in it caused by things like water tables and underground streams as well as moisture near the surface which is further complicated by plant roots and burrows made by small animals. I don't see your concept of the actual conditions at a buried metal site to be accurate for the purposes of proving the gradient will be adequate, or that there will be a voltage generated capable to build a measurable charge in a buried object due to Seebeck effect.
2. I will believe that a charge builds up in a buried metal object and exhibits a measurable Schottky diode effect to inject fast pulses into the soil when I see a test that demonstrates it is so. Do you have any experimental evidence to suggest this has occurred in the past for buried metals such as coins?
3. I will not believe there is any Seebeck effect charging the buried metal object until I see some experimental evidence to suggest that this actually happens in real conditions found for a buried coin. ie: Measure the voltage and current flow from this charge from a buried coin using a calibrated measuring instrument.
4. This collection of theories appears to be an attempt to prove that a particular favourite idea is correct, rather than to find out what works and what does not. But I could be wrong about that, I will be waiting to see some interesting experimental data to show that these theoretical thermal and semiconductor principles of buried metal are feasible.

Best wishes,
J_P

Aurificus

07-12-2009, 02:53 PM

If I understand your theories correctly, then here are the things that come to mind immediately that make me wonder why anyone would propose that theory:
1. The idea that Max's calculations are only a model and do not represent actual conditions may be true within an order of magnitude. But the idea that there is a thermal gradient from a real condition buried metal (coin for example) that has enough temperature difference to generate a voltage due to Seebeck effect seems many orders of magnitude unfeasible to me. It is also necessary to have a second metal present in the junction in order to produce a voltage. Somehow, I don't see the second metal, or the terminals where the voltage would be collected, or sent to the metal as a charge.............................. I don't see your concept of the actual conditions at a buried metal site to be accurate for the purposes of proving the gradient will be adequate, or that there will be a voltage generated capable to build a measurable charge in a buried object due to Seebeck effect.

J_P

No, I believe I said ...The moving thermal gradient gif is just a model.

Re; The Unfeasibility of Seebeck effects ..or otherwise.......

In 1821, the German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany)–Estonian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia) physicist Thomas Johann Seebeck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Johann_Seebeck) discovered that when any conductor is subjected to a thermal gradient, it will generate a voltage. This is now known as the thermoelectric effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect) or Seebeck effect.

Any attempt to measure this voltage necessarily involves connecting another conductor to the "hot" end. This additional conductor will then also experience the temperature gradient, and develop a voltage of its own which will oppose the original.

Fortunately, the magnitude of the effect depends on the metal in use. Using a dissimilar metal to complete the circuit creates a circuit in which the two legs generate different voltages, leaving a small difference in voltage available for measurement. That difference increases with temperature, and can typically be between 1 and 70 microvolts per degree Celsius (µV/°C) for the modern range of available metal combinations.

Introducing a Negative voltage when creating a circuit for measurement is what reduces the potential to muV.8)

My proposal doesn't have a real "circuit" until the potential is sufficient to break the metal to semi-conductor(soil) barrier.

cheers,
Aurificus

Theseus

07-12-2009, 04:34 PM

Fortunately, the magnitude of the effect depends on the metal in use. Using a dissimilar metal to complete the circuit creates a circuit in which the two legs generate different voltages, leaving a small difference in voltage available for measurement. That difference increases with temperature, and can typically be between 1 and 70 microvolts per degree Celsius (µV/°C) for the modern range of available metal combinations.
cheers,
Aurificus

You've just described how a basic thermocouple works. These devices, when connected (by wires) to a suitable transmitter, have been in use for a very long tiime for measuring process temperatures. The other thing you are "sort of" talking about is a cold junction.

In any event these things only work when connected by wires to the measuring unit. They don't transmit anything through the air..... if that's what you were thinking. :)

WM6

07-12-2009, 04:39 PM

No, I believe I said ...

That difference increases with temperature, and can typically be between 1 and 70 microvolts per degree Celsius (µV/°C) for the modern range of available metal combinations.

It can be as you say.

Unfortunately (to aurificius method) soil act as everywhere on target connected constantly unlimited dumping resistor so nothing of microvolts even of nanovolts nor picovolts exist around metal target as thermovoltaic effect.

However, if we considers that the termovoltaic efect appear due to temperature changes in a fraction of the time, all this equally less smart, as changes in temperature drawn in the days and months, to offset mentioned effect to non existend.

Blinkig IR leds are nonsens cause due to lack of energy needed for thermovoltaic effect even when target is close and direct illuminated. In the ground, however, your weak infrared rays do not penetrate deeper than 0.5 cm in the best conditions and invalidate tehemselves due soil temperature hysteresis (second blinkig nonsens).

Suggestions: forget blinking IR rays and try with nonblinking gama rays, these penetrate deeper..

But as you say, you belive, so this is religious and not scientific question.

J_Player

07-12-2009, 10:08 PM

...Re; The Unfeasibility of Seebeck effects ..or otherwise.......

In 1821, the German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany)–Estonian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia) physicist Thomas Johann Seebeck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Johann_Seebeck) discovered that when any conductor is subjected to a thermal gradient, it will generate a voltage. This is now known as the thermoelectric effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect) or Seebeck effect.

Any attempt to measure this voltage necessarily involves connecting another conductor to the "hot" end. This additional conductor will then also experience the temperature gradient, and develop a voltage of its own which will oppose the original.

Fortunately, the magnitude of the effect depends on the metal in use. Using a dissimilar metal to complete the circuit creates a circuit in which the two legs generate different voltages, leaving a small difference in voltage available for measurement. That difference increases with temperature, and can typically be between 1 and 70 microvolts per degree Celsius (µV/°C) for the modern range of available metal combinations.

Introducing a Negative voltage when creating a circuit for measurement is what reduces the potential to muV.8)

My proposal doesn't have a real "circuit" until the potential is sufficient to break the metal to semi-conductor(soil) barrier.Hi Aurificus,
Your proposal described a buried metal acting as a charged capacitor. A charged capacitor does not have a real "circuit" either until it is connected to something that will conduct the charge. This is also true of a battery, or any other device that can store a charge. Yet we can connect instruments that will measure the voltage these charged capacitors and batteries, and we can place an appropriate load to measure the current that will flow. There is no reason why the same cannot be done for a coin in the soil.

The Seebeck effect involves production of electrical power as a result of heat at the junction of two dissimilar metals. A buried coin does not have a junction with another dissimilar metal to generate electricity from a thermal gradient. Thus it is impossible to form a Seebeck junction unless there is a second metal for this junction.

But suppose we switch over to the Thompson effect, that better describes a single conductor charge in a thermal gradient. Would the charge be able to send out Schottky pulses of power? Lets start with the example of a capacitor, which has been suggested to represent the mechanism that allows charge to build up in a buried coin:

In the case of a capacitor at a workbench, there are also thermal gradients which are expected to be many orders of magnitude greater than the thermal gradient found at a buried coin. Even if the potential difference due to the thermal gradient found on a capacitor lead does not follow a complete circuit across the dielectric, the microvolt difference will be seen at the opposite polarity terminal where the conductive foil is found. this difference in microvolts will transfer through to the other terminal via capacitive coupling, as a voltage, although no substantial current will pass the dielectric.

If the end of the capacitor lead was found to be 1/10°C cooler than the foil end, then we might find there is 1uV difference between the foil end and the free end. This 1uV becomes part of the voltage that charges the capacitor, and is added to any voltage seen across the capacitor which arrived by other means. Thus the 1uV will be measured as part of the voltage reading when a voltmeter is connected to the two leads of the capacitor.

Suppose we charged a capacitor to exactly 10.000000 V, when the themperature was exactly uniform throughout the capacitor. Then if the lead of the capacitor closer to the table lamp by became 1/10°C warmer than the lead farther away, we would see the voltmeter change it's reading to 10.000010 V, due to the temperature difference between the leads. any thermocouple effects from the meter probes are canceled in the same manner as you already described.

However, we are talking about 1uV for a capacitor terminal in the air, which is expected to be exposed to much larger temperature variations than a buried coin. Suppose a coin is buried horizontally in a place where the thermal gradient does not go over 0.1°C/cm. and the thickness of the coin is 1mm. The most temperature gradient in the soil from the top of the coin to the bottom would be 1/100°C. But the thermal conductivity of a coin is much more than the soil around it. If it is a copper coin, the thermal conductivity of the coin will insure that it maintains a relatively constant temperature from top to bottom in spite of the 1/100°C gradient in the soil around it.
This is because the thermal conductivity of copper is over 100 times greater than any typical soil. Thus I would expect to see maybe 1/10,000°C variation within the coin when the soil reached its peak gradient. This results in less than 1/100 of the charge that we were previously counting on without considering the thermal conductivity of buried metal.
Thermal conductivity of things buried:
1 to 3 W/(m-K) soil, depending on composition
12-45 W/(m-K) stainless steel
35.3 W/(m-K) lead
120-220 W/(m-K) aluminum
318 W/(m-K) gold
380 W/(m-K) copper
429 W/(m-K) silver

Looking at the conductivity values, I would expect the thermal gradient concept would favour finding stainless steel and lead items with a much stronger gradient than copper, gold and silver. This makes me wounder why Esteban hasn't been talking about all the bullets and stainless steel stuff he found with his IR LED detector. Maybe because there is no where near enough heat or gradient to produce a charge in a buried coin, much less send out Schottky pulses that will signal a detector at distance.

I suppose that even if the metal had the same conductivity as the soil, I still can't imagine a way it could send a pulse of power through a "Schottky diode" effect forming around it. I can't even imagine how it could develop a charge that reaches over a microvolt strength.

Best wishes,
J_P

Max

07-13-2009, 01:41 PM

You've just described how a basic thermocouple works. These devices, when connected (by wires) to a suitable transmitter, have been in use for a very long tiime for measuring process temperatures. The other thing you are "sort of" talking about is a cold junction.

In any event these things only work when connected by wires to the measuring unit. They don't transmit anything through the air..... if that's what you were thinking. :)

Hi,
yes , exactly... thermocouples give just weak signals... require preamplification, impedance matching etc... be connected with wires etc...

all right.

The idea of above I think it was about some kind of short turn in which the metal alone experiencing a suitable thermal gradient would expose a small voltage and current in the path to flow, very weak.
Or, in another post he wrote, about metal/soil interaction so one may expect (depending on soil composition) that a small voltage (order of 1uV/K) can develop at interface between the metal and the soil.
Some earth batteries work closing the "circuit" similar way... around an electric electrode of battery there's soil and ionic movement due to moisture/water-trapped (even root of plants!) make current flow... that's like telluric currents move in that surface layers...

The idea, as explained, is not completely non-sense to me... the problem is , also supposing that weak current flow around target possibly exist, that the current flow will create just a too weak magnetic field to be detected in any way... cause of the power of 3 attenuation of field strenght with distance.

The order of magnitude I see this stuff is the like you can have making e.g. a simple bimetallic turn and expose to sun... say copper/zinc stuff 30cm diameter... now... if you'll place a good compass in the middle you can (maybe) get a small deviation of needle if enough magnetic force is generated.

But , then, even if this experiment work... it's very different than e.g. thinking at a visible/measurable deviation of compass needle from 10 meters away... also the copper/zinc is an ideal case... and e.g. a gold target in soil matrix is quite different stuff.

Indeed, I think, this phenomenon are not suitable for long range detection cause no detector can be realized with required sensitivity and SNR to win the overwhelming effect of e.g. Earth magnetic field.

An interesting aspect of this stuff could be that a good/interesting test could be made with a very sensitive magnetometer... if the current really develops as described the magnetometer held just over the buried target could maybe locate the target even if out of range of common MDs.
Would be impressive e.g. detecting a coin at 1meter deep! :lol:
But, of course, just theory... I didn't made any experiement to confirm that... nor I'm not sure the things are like exposed... and the current really exist. Just ideas. (btw I haven't handy any mag at now to test:rolleyes:)

Kind regards,
Max

Fred

07-13-2009, 02:34 PM

J_Player

07-13-2009, 04:41 PM

From what i understood,,Esteban said that the IR leds are just a way to improve the radio detection, not a detection system by itself.

I wonder what is the local effect of a IR beam in a voltage gradient...Hi Fred,
The average voltage gradient in open air where Esteban uses the IR LED is 100v/m, but can be up to 300v/m, or less than zero. But on normal fair weather days will average 100v/m. According to LRL theory this gradient is much reduced locally above a long-time buried metal object, which could be the basis for the variations in the power pulses of an IR LED if it's power use is influenced by the voltage gradient where it is illuminating.

If you want to experiment with this, you could create an artificial local gradient using a high voltage source such as a neon sign transformer with rectifier and some metal plates and shielding. ie: build a semi-closed Faraday cage that has a controlled voltage gradient inside which can be adjusted to different amounts than the surrounding atmospheric gardient.

It is possible the IR LED is not responding to the local voltage gradient anomaly, and the fluctuations in the power pulses are caused by something else. Some voltage gradient experiments could help determine if this is the case.

Best wishes,
J_P

J_Player

07-13-2009, 04:58 PM

...The idea, as explained, is not completely non-sense to me... the problem is , also supposing that weak current flow around target possibly exist, that the current flow will create just a too weak magnetic field to be detected in any way... cause of the power of 3 attenuation of field strenght with distance.

The order of magnitude I see this stuff is the like you can have making e.g. a simple bimetallic turn and expose to sun... say copper/zinc stuff 30cm diameter... now... if you'll place a good compass in the middle you can (maybe) get a small deviation of needle if enough magnetic force is generated.

But , then, even if this experiment work... it's very different than e.g. thinking at a visible/measurable deviation of compass needle from 10 meters away... also the copper/zinc is an ideal case... and e.g. a gold target in soil matrix is quite different stuff.

...An interesting aspect of this stuff could be that a good/interesting test could be made with a very sensitive magnetometer... if the current really develops as described the magnetometer held just over the buried target could maybe locate the target even if out of range of common MDs.
Would be impressive e.g. detecting a coin at 1meter deep! :lol:
But, of course, just theory... I didn't made any experiement to confirm that... nor I'm not sure the things are like exposed... and the current really exist. Just ideas. (btw I haven't handy any mag at now to test:rolleyes:)This is easy to test with a US penny. US pennies are made of zinc with a copper outer layer. If you cut one in half, you can see the zinc core layer inside the copper shell. You could put a US penny in the sun and hols your magnetometer above it to see what effect you detect in ideal conditions. You could also arrange the penny so half of it is shaded, while the other half is in the sun from different angles to see if this makes any difference. Also try cutting the penny into different shapes to see if this makes any difference. My guess is you will detect no magnetic change that does not exist with the penny at a stabilized temperature throughout.

This will only serve to demonstrate that there is or is not a flow of current in the penny in the test condition. Of course, we do not expect a flow of current when no load is connected. So we can connect a sensitive voltmeter to see how much voltage the penny has aquired in it's thermal gradient.

If this test thermal gradient voltage test shows nothing conclusive, then we could try a third test by cutting the penny in half and carefully connecting a Schottky diode to the zinc core, and the other lead to the copper shell. When repeating the same experiments in different lighting conditions, you can see if you can detect any pulses of power moving through the diode. Any pulses are sure to be sensed on a magnetometer, or even a small coil nearby connected to an oscilloscope.

Best wishes,
J_P

Max

07-13-2009, 07:09 PM

This is easy to test with a US penny. US pennies are made of zinc with a copper outer layer. If you cut one in half, you can see the zinc core layer inside the copper shell. You could put a US penny in the sun and hols your magnetometer above it to see what effect you detect in ideal conditions. You could also arrange the penny so half of it is shaded, while the other half is in the sun from different angles to see if this makes any difference. Also try cutting the penny into different shapes to see if this makes any difference. My guess is you will detect no magnetic change that does not exist with the penny at a stabilized temperature throughout.

This will only serve to demonstrate that there is or is not a flow of current in the penny in the test condition. Of course, we do not expect a flow of current when no load is connected. So we can connect a sensitive voltmeter to see how much voltage the penny has aquired in it's thermal gradient.

If this test thermal gradient voltage test shows nothing conclusive, then we could try a third test by cutting the penny in half and carefully connecting a Schottky diode to the zinc core, and the other lead to the copper shell. When repeating the same experiments in different lighting conditions, you can see if you can detect any pulses of power moving through the diode. Any pulses are sure to be sensed on a magnetometer, or even a small coil nearby connected to an oscilloscope.

Best wishes,
J_P

Hi,
I don't belive in the EM pulse generation described by Aurificus but the experiment with two conductors, not only the penny stuff, but e.g. two wires of different metal like copper and zinc (or also some iron) could give some result if there will be some thermal gradient in the shorted turn.

If so... a simple sensitive galvanometer for that stuff... (I still have it in garage,hopefully) will read current even really small, if there is. No need of amplifiers etc... will just add noise in this case.

My instrument is old style... wood and glass made and can read maybe 10nA at end of scale! :lol:

Thompson like!:D Thompson era ? :shocked: Thompson owned that ???:???:

Maybe is from 1910... :lol: museum grade

Maybe I can read the dang current... if there is... :rolleyes:

Kind regards,
Max

Aurificus

07-14-2009, 05:59 AM

Still all this talk of thermistors, bi-metal contacts, closed loops etc. etc.
all very standard, conventional stuff and well known (c1750-1915) to produce very small phenomena. :nono:

The 'Experiment' will require a metal conductor 'encased' in a large semi-conductor to create a fully enclosed Schottky type barrier.
The contact between conductor and external media will need to be "very" close, ie. with some electron sharing (like..say.. long time "buried")

Energy source will be a thermal gradient between top of media and bottom.
Energy transfer into the metal will be greater than transfer out, leading to an increase of the internal energy.
This will excite electrons in the metal and cause them to seek the lower energy areas at the lower boundary surfaces.(charge carrier diffusion)

They will be held at this surface by the increasing energy level behind them. They cannot transfer their energy out quickly due to the lower temp gradient at the bottom compared to the top and they are trying to transfer energy to a low thermal conductive material by phononic atomic vibration (slower).

They will also create a voltage potential across the barrier by displacing electrons in the semiconductor medium. When the potential has reached the forward voltage requirement (say, .2 -.5V for commercial Schottkys, who knows for this?) a current will flow across the barrier. It is a function of the Schottky barrier that the switching takes micro seconds.

The current might be small but is extremely quick resulting in a brief but intense pulse of EMR maybe several mW. or even more, possibly quite detectable from a distance.

Question is... how to build such an experimental device?

They appear to be rather rare and hard to find in nature!!
And the exposing of a potential find destroys the "structure".

Remember also that, the introduction of wires between separate elements
with different temperatures and crating a circuit will produce their own voltage potentials by Seebeck/Thompson/Lord Kelvin .... Thermoelectric effects.... which may negate the potential required for the device to function.

Phew,
Aurificus

PS. This is just a theory to explain a reported phenomena no need to "git all het up" :)

Aurificus

07-14-2009, 01:34 PM

It is a function of the Schottky barrier that the switching takes micro seconds.

Reverse recovery time

The most important difference between p-n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-n_junction) and Schottky diode is reverse recovery time, when the diode switches from non-conducting to conducting state and vice versa. Where in a p-n diode the reverse recovery time can be in the order of hundreds of nanoseconds and less than 100 ns for fast diodes, Schottky diodes do not have a recovery time, as there is nothing to recover from. The switching time is ~100 ps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picosecond) for the small signal diodes, and up to tens of nanoseconds for special high-capacity power diodes. With p-n junction switching, there is also a reverse recovery current, which in high-power semiconductors brings increased EMI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_interference) noise. With Schottky diodes switching instantly with only slight capacitive loading, this is much less of a concern.

OOPS! Sorry, Switch time down by X10,000. Output power up by....X10,000
or current required, reduced....x10,000

cheers,
Aurificus

WM6

07-14-2009, 04:42 PM

Max

07-14-2009, 07:33 PM

Better to use bio-sensor like "Girl's Are a Diamonds and Gold Best Friend". There are no problem with reverse recovery time. All you need is only to look occasionally at here eyes. If the spark gap out then diamonds in the soil, but if something glow there is some gold.

That's why it's a good idea inviting some pretty girl at LRL tests in the woods... :D

I mean... if your LRL don't work... you can use the girl... to locate stuff... or , if also this fail, at least could have some alternative to hearing that boring randomic beep beep... :rolleyes:

and focus on some other topic...;)

Kind regards,
Max

Fred

07-14-2009, 08:22 PM

I mean... if your LRL don't work... you can use the girl... to locate stuff... or , if also this fail, at least could have some alternative to hearing that boring randomic beep beep... :rolleyes: Max
Choose carefully, or you will hear randomic noise all the same but there is no on/off switch...
...Or is there? :razz:

J_Player

07-14-2009, 08:36 PM

Choose carefully, or you will hear randomic noise all the same but there is no on/off switch...
...Or is there? :razz:Maybe you need to listen to random noise, but it is a time-proven fact that women are excellent for locating gold and diamonds.

Best wishes,
J_P

Fred

07-14-2009, 10:11 PM

Maybe you need to listen to random noise, but it is a time-proven fact that women are excellent for locating gold and diamonds.

Best wishes,
J_P

But can we call them wallet-miners ? :lol:

Max

07-15-2009, 07:09 AM

Choose carefully, or you will hear randomic noise all the same but there is no on/off switch...
...Or is there? :razz:

kinda of laptops...

Don't you have the instruction manual ??? :lol:

It's kind of pointing stick... near the expansion port on the bottom! :D

Kind regards,
Max

Fred

07-15-2009, 01:23 PM

kinda of laptops...

Don't you have the instruction manual ??? :lol:

It's kind of pointing stick... near the expansion port on the bottom! :D

Kind regards,
Max

Carefull to choose the right port at the right time, or you may create a short circuit . :p

Max

07-15-2009, 06:22 PM

Carefull to choose the right port at the right time, or you may create a short circuit . :p

Ideed... mistakes are possible... and LRLs are of no help in that...
as always! :lol:

Aurificus

07-18-2009, 12:47 AM

The current might be small but is extremely quick resulting in a brief but intense pulse of EMR maybe several mW. or even more, possibly quite detectable from a distance.

Aurificus :)

In the absence of "contrary, Technical, discussion" we may consider the emission of small Rf pulses from "long buried, metal objects" to be Theoretically POSSIBLE! :shocked:

Theseus

07-18-2009, 01:27 AM

In the absence of "contrary, Technical, discussion" we may consider the emission of small Rf pulses from "long buried, metal objects" to be Theoretically POSSIBLE! :shocked:

Certainly.

As theoretically possible as; the remains of little green aliens stored in the bowels of Area 51, or that the real secret ingredient in all LRL devices is hot melt glue and all the electronic componentry is just a grand diversion, or .......... ...well, you get the idea. 8)

Lots of things could be considered theoretically possible, especially in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary... but at the same time common sense and logic dictate they are also highly unlikely. ;)

Aurificus

07-18-2009, 03:39 AM

Lots of things could be considered theoretically possible, especially in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary... but at the same time common sense and logic dictate they are also highly unlikely. ;)

If "Common Sense" was the the determining factor for scientific advancement.... We'd still be burning witches.:lol:

Theseus

07-18-2009, 11:49 AM

If "Common Sense" was the the determining factor for scientific advancement.... We'd still be burning witches.:lol:

Do you smell smoke? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Get real!

Scientific advancement happens when a theory is tested by enough different parties, over many different conditions (who observe the same results) and finally the theory can be advanced to an axiom. And.... yes, common sense and logical reasoning play an important role and always have. That's why things that go bump in the night rarely if ever make it out of the theory stage.

But keep trying...... :)

Max

07-18-2009, 07:18 PM

If "Common Sense" was the the determining factor for scientific advancement.... We'd still be burning witches.:lol:

Hmmmm... not really...

Think e.g. at Dr. Hung... she has red hairs... but we'll not burn her! :D

Or well... maybe she'll ignite some gasoline with is light dynamite candle... and we'll not need provide that extreme solution or make anything. :cool:

Indeed... science addicted red-haired modern "witches" can light fires... sometimes! Really hot! ;)

But much depends on your flash point... also! :rolleyes:

Kind regards,
Max

J_Player

07-18-2009, 11:08 PM

Hmmmm... not really...

Think e.g. at Dr. Hung... she has red hairs... but we'll not burn her! :DHmmmm.... Red hairs?

Are you sure the Aurificus proposition that using common sense as a determining factor in scientific advancement is associated with burning witches with red hairs?

It seems to me that by removing common sense from the determining factors of the scientific advancement process can lead to a lot of fake technology that doesn't work. For example, If we remove common sense from the determining factors, we might end up with these scientific advancements:

1. The pope was recently shown to not be the pope at all. He is really a small flock of ducks hiding inside the pope garments, and pretending to be the pope. These clever ducks learned to make sounds the same as a human voice in several languages, so as to give the illusion of a real person. Researchers know it is obvious that someone expert in the makeup business must have made a very realistic mask for these ducks to appear as the pope's face. All this is proved by science by using a duck detector pendulum, which was corroborated from 6 different geological locations, that effectively triangulate the ducks to the location of the pope. Do not let common sense dissuade you from this scientific advance.

2. The earth was proven to be flat once and for all. Yes, scientists recalled all the satellite images and videos to re-examine them. Much to their surprise, they discovered the earth is really flat, but is in a round disk shape that gives the illusion of spherical. After carefully viewing satellite images from all angles, scientists discovered there is an optical illusion that is created by the time-space continuum -- which makes it appear that there is more to the earth on the other side of a hypothetical sphere. New discoveries show that when you reach the edge of the earth, the optical illusion comes into play to make more land appear beyond the edge, similar to a GPS map which adds more land as you move to the edge of the screen. As you continue scrolling further past the edge of the earth, the optical illusion "recycles" back to the opposite edge... similar to how a computer screen can wrap back to the starting point, and you end up where you started. This illusion is pervasive from all angles of satellite view and movement. Now common sense would dictate that if all this is true, then show us some photos of the bottom side of the earth disk to prove it. However, this illusion does not permit us to see the bottom of the earth because of the persistence of the phenomenon. And besides, common sense is not allowed as a determining factor when new science is advanced.

3. Buried coins send out very fast pulses of electrical charge that can be sensed above the surface of the ground using an IR LED. This is proven by the science which dictates that chemical action will create a Schottky barrier around the coin, and a thermal gradient will cause a charge to migrate to one side of the coin, then capacitor action will allow the charge to build up to such a degree that it can no longer be contained within the barrier, and will discharge into the soil. From the soil, the pulsed discharges will propagate to the surface and interact with an IR beam to cause it to send a perturbation to the train of power pulses that cause it to light. If common sense suggests that any of the events in this chain reaction are highly unlikely, forget it. This discovery represents a scientific advancement where common sense cannot interfere with the determining factors.

So Max, are you sure that using common sense is associated with burning witches with "Red hairs"?

Could it be more likely that the new technique of "not using common sense as a determining factor when advancing science" is more like accepting "Red herrings" to be fact?

Red Herring:
A type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one's point by means of irrelevant arguments (see Ignorati elenchi).
http://dictionary.sensagent.com/red+herring/en-en/ (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html)

(No need to burn red herrings... the have already been smoked enough).

Best wishes,
J_P

Max

07-19-2009, 12:25 PM

Hmmmm.... Red hairs?

Are you sure the Aurificus proposition that using common sense as a determining factor in scientific advancement is associated with burning witches with red hairs?

It seems to me that by removing common sense from the determining factors of the scientific advancement process can lead to a lot of fake technology that doesn't work. For example, If we remove common sense from the determining factors, we might end up with these scientific advancements:

1. The pope was recently shown to not be the pope at all. He is really a small flock of ducks hiding inside the pope garments, and pretending to be the pope. These clever ducks learned to make sounds the same as a human voice in several languages, so as to give the illusion of a real person. Researchers know it is obvious that someone expert in the makeup business must have made a very realistic mask for these ducks to appear as the pope's face. All this is proved by science by using a duck detector pendulum, which was corroborated from 6 different geological locations, that effectively triangulate the ducks to the location of the pope. Do not let common sense dissuade you from this scientific advance.

2. The earth was proven to be flat once and for all. Yes, scientists recalled all the satellite images and videos to re-examine them. Much to their surprise, they discovered the earth is really flat, but is in a round disk shape that gives the illusion of spherical. After carefully viewing satellite images from all angles, scientists discovered there is an optical illusion that is created by the time-space continuum -- which makes it appear that there is more to the earth on the other side of a hypothetical sphere. New discoveries show that when you reach the edge of the earth, the optical illusion comes into play to make more land appear beyond the edge, similar to a GPS map which adds more land as you move to the edge of the screen. As you continue scrolling further past the edge of the earth, the optical illusion "recycles" back to the opposite edge... similar to how a computer screen can wrap back to the starting point, and you end up where you started. This illusion is pervasive from all angles of satellite view and movement. Now common sense would dictate that if all this is true, then show us some photos of the bottom side of the earth disk to prove it. However, this illusion does not permit us to see the bottom of the earth because of the persistence of the phenomenon. And besides, common sense is not allowed as a determining factor when new science is advanced.

3. Buried coins send out very fast pulses of electrical charge that can be sensed above the surface of the ground using an IR LED. This is proven by the science which dictates that chemical action will create a Schottky barrier around the coin, and a thermal gradient will cause a charge to migrate to one side of the coin, then capacitor action will allow the charge to build up to such a degree that it can no longer be contained within the barrier, and will discharge into the soil. From the soil, the pulsed discharges will propagate to the surface and interact with an IR beam to cause it to send a perturbation to the train of power pulses that cause it to light. If common sense suggests that any of the events in this chain reaction are highly unlikely, forget it. This discovery represents a scientific advancement where common sense cannot interfere with the determining factors.

So Max, are you sure that using common sense is associated with burning witches with "Red hairs"?

Could it be more likely that the new technique of "not using common sense as a determining factor when advancing science" is more like accepting "Red herrings" to be fact?

Red Herring:
A type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one's point by means of irrelevant arguments (see Ignorati elenchi).
http://dictionary.sensagent.com/red+herring/en-en/ (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html)

(No need to burn red herrings... the have already been smoked enough).

Best wishes,
J_P

Hi,
1. I agree the pope is not the pope...

2. the Earth is with no dubt flat...

3. every coin buried for long time EMITS rf pulses...

pseudo-scientists with common sense wrote that so maybe is true... cause also TV said so... :lol:

...and also I like red hairs... this a fact! ;)

Of course... not Dr. Hung's hairs... no no:rolleyes:

Kind regards,
Max