rangertell examiner field trials

[Theseus]

That little venture is in the same stage of progress as I stated in numerous posts above. Currently I am waiting for people to send me a PM to come and try it out with their own hands. But nobody responded. I contacted 4 Geotech forum members in my local area, and found that four of them declined to do any testing on the Examiner, even if I came to where they are located so they could conveniently perform tests.

At present. After trying to locate known targets with the Examiner adjusted at the factory settings, and re-adjusted to different settings, I have concluded that I am a person who is biologically impaired, and cannot perform a scientific test on an Examiner even if it is tuned perfectly. Without a person who has "normal biological signals", I cannot make an accurate adjustment of the trimmer cap.

I have no questions other than to ask if anyone wants to try it out in thie Los Angeles area and see if they can find good response with it after making their best adjustments at the controls. If you have suggestions of how you think I should proceed next, I would be interested in hearing them.

Best wishes,
J_P

I would like to offer something constructive here. Could we start with you explaining to me (and anyone else the could help) exactly what you mean by... and how you determined.... you were biologically impaired? What, exactly are normal biological signals? Can you get a standard L-rod to respond to targets in plain sight? I can, and I've found very few who can't get that kind of response. Maybe that's not the response you are talking about... please enlighten me.

There must have been something in the information you received from R-T that is different from the advertising I've seen. I was under the impression the Examiner was STRICTLY a electronic device, thus any and all reactions had nothing to do with the operator or the characteristics of the operator.

Now obviously I've gotten a wrong impression, so I wish you could refer me to the public information that states it WILL NOT work if the operator has certain characteristics or attributes. And, what about members of your immediate family? A son, a daughter or perhaps your wife? Maybe a sister or brother, aunt or uncle. Have they also been determined to be biologically impaired?

Also, I'm really surprised that forum members in your immediate area would not be willing to give it a try. Unfortunate indeed. :frown: If I was that close, you can bet I would have tried it.

Thanks for the update....

[osman]

I would like to offer something constructive here. Could we start with you explaining to me (and anyone else the could help) exactly what you mean by... and how you determined.... you were biologically impaired? What, exactly are normal biological signals? Can you get a standard L-rod to respond to targets in plain sight? I can, and I've found very few who can't get that kind of response. Maybe that's not the response you are talking about... please enlighten me.

There must have been something in the information you received from R-T that is different from the advertising I've seen. I was under the impression the Examiner was STRICTLY a electronic device, thus any and all reactions had nothing to do with the operator or the characteristics of the operator.

Now obviously I've gotten a wrong impression, so I wish you could refer me to the public information that states it WILL NOT work if the operator has certain characteristics or attributes. And, what about members of your immediate family? A son, a daughter or perhaps your wife? Maybe a sister or brother, aunt or uncle. Have they also been determined to be biologically impaired?

Also, I'm really surprised that forum members in your immediate area would not be willing to give it a try. Unfortunate indeed. :frown: If I was that close, you can bet I would have tried it.

Thanks for the update....



hi Theseus

a long time, it hangs. I tried yesterday, where a very wet much, I received an incorrect signal.
little thing, turned to the left.
was better, now does not find the stone.
What do you suggest?

good work. osman

[osman]

[quote = Theseus; 107.906] Ben burada yapıcı bir şey sunmak istiyorum. Sizinle benim için (ve herkesten yardımcı olabilir) tam olarak ne demek istediğinizi açıklayan başlayabileceğini ... ve nasıl belirlenir .... were you biyolojik engelli? Ne, tam olarak normal biyolojik sinyaller? Standart bir L alabilir miyim-hedefler düz görme yanıt için çubuk? I can, ve çok az olan tepkisi bu tür can't get bulduk. Belki de bahsediyorsun sen cevap değil ... Beni aydınlatmak edebilirsiniz.

Orada RT o I've seen reklam farklıdır alınan bilgi bir şey olmalıdır. Ben Examiner KESİNLİKLE bir elektronik cihaz, böylece her türlü reaksiyonlar operatörü veya operatörün özellikleri ile ilgisi vardı izlenim altındaydı.

Şimdi açıkça ben de size genel bilgiler eğer operatör bazı özellikleri veya özniteliklerine devletlerin o değil iş OLACAKTIR beni bakın isterdim yanlış bir izlenim gotten ettik. Ve sizin yakın aile üyeleri ne olacak? Bir oğlu, bir kızı ya da belki senin karın? Belki bir kız veya erkek kardeşi, halası veya amcası. Onlar da belirlenmiştir biyolojik engelli mi?

Ayrıca, ben gerçekten sizin yakın bölgede forum üyeleri bunu denemeye istekli olmayacağını şaşırttı. Gerçekten Unfortunate. :frown: Eğer bu yakın olduğunu, bunu denedim olurdu bahse girebilirsiniz.

Güncelleme için teşekkürler ....[/ quote]

[quote = osman; 107.908]hi Theseus

uzun bir süre, duruyor. Dün, burada çok fazla ıslak, ben yanlış bir sinyal aldı çalıştı.
küçük şey, sola döndü.
daha iyi, şimdi taş bulamaz oldu.
Ne tavsiye edersiniz?

iyi iş. osman[/ quote]


merhaba resim eklemek değil thesus.
bahsediyorum.lütfen yardımdan goldbeam

[J_Player]

I would like to offer something constructive here. Could we start with you explaining to me (and anyone else the could help) exactly what you mean by... and how you determined.... you were biologically impaired? What, exactly are normal biological signals? Can you get a standard L-rod to respond to targets in plain sight? I can, and I've found very few who can't get that kind of response. Maybe that's not the response you are talking about... please enlighten me.How I determined I am biologically impaired?
Well, that's a long story, starting back in the days when I worked with high voltage, and was accidentally electrohuted due to a careless person who did not connect the grounding straps before we went in to service the power equipment. Luckily, I survived, but I had nerve damage to my right arm, which was first to touch the high voltage conductor. My right arm is working ok now, but the nerves in that arm are not the same as they were before this accident. It is only my speculated opinion that there is some biological impairment due to the nerve damage that occurred in the right arm. The doctor only diagnosed nerve damage, not biological impairment. If there is a licensed biologist or medical doctor in Geotech, then maybe they could contribute some insight into whether this injury could constitute "biological impairment".

The second way I can explain how I concluded I am biologically impared, came from an observation I made when an aquaintance tried the examiner to see if it would point to a sample placed where he could see it. After over an hour of trying it out, we discovered that when he set the sensitivity to a certain setting, then he observed it pointing toward the treasure nearly every time when he walked past it, but when I tried it at the exact same setting, it seldom pointed toward the target. The difference I noted are historical facts, but the method was subjective. So There is no scientific basis to prove anything based on what we observed, unless a large amount of other people were also to perform the same routine as we did to provide a meaningful statistical basis.

In answer to your question, I have never gotten any response whatsoever from standard L-rod, other than a coat hanger wire L-rod tends to swing toward the direction of a magnet that is held in close proximity.

Finally, there are countless hours of making adjustments and more adjustments, without seeing any notable changes in performance when I tried to locate a known target. Of course, the nerve damage to my right arm, and observing a significant difference in response between me and another preson who has no nerve damage does not prove I am biologically impaired. But it is the conclusion I arrived at for the purposes of testsing. So I am relying on others to come try it and see if it works, because I can't be able to insure valid tests on my own. This also works out well because I really need to be holding a camera to show exactly what is seen during the tests. I am probably more proficient than most people operating a camera, and I know what the forum members want to see in a video.

Also, I'm really surprised that forum members in your immediate area would not be willing to give it a try. Unfortunate indeed. If I was that close, you can bet I would have tried it.I am surprised too.
I would have thought everyone would be anxious to get a shot at it without needing to send in their cash first. But all declined. Hopefully, g-sani will keep his Examiner to let other Greek treasure hunters try it out regardless of what kind of response he finds. (Maybe nobody in Greece besides Geo will want to try it out, same as happened here)
There must have been something in the information you received from R-T that is different from the advertising I've seen. I was under the impression the Examiner was STRICTLY a electronic device, thus any and all reactions had nothing to do with the operator or the characteristics of the operator.
Now obviously I've gotten a wrong impression, so I wish you could refer me to the public information that states it WILL NOT work if the operator has certain characteristics or attributes. And, what about members of your immediate family? A son, a daughter or perhaps your wife? Maybe a sister or brother, aunt or uncle. Have they also been determined to be biologically impaired?None of my relatives touched a high voltage conductor that caused nerve damage in their right arm, nor did I have occasion to send them to a doctor to determine whether there is nerve damage to thier right arm or whether they are biologically impaired.

You are mistaken. All of what is in the instruction manual is posted for all the public to see except for some proprietary key code sequences.

The Examiner is not a strictly electronic device. According to what is published, it is an electronic device that operates in conjuction with electromagnatic signals originating at the target, electromagnetic signals originating at the calculator, and biological signals originating from the body of the user. Furthermore, the user must be standing on the ground (earth ground) in order to complete the circuit that allows detection of a target. Of course you know this if you read the public literature. Here are some public references that you can read to this effect, as well as some little known facts from a "Geotech expert" on the Rangertell Examiner:

Examiner facts posted by the Rangertell factory:
"Your body is a major component in the use of these instruments. It literally becomes part of the receiving component due to that fact that your body has an electrical charge which in turn emits an electromagnetic field or flux around it. The polarities around the body were determined by R-T using an Examiner tuned to the body frequency (between 6 and 7Hz)..."
http://www.rangertell.com/fieldfx.htm

"The left side of the body and thus hand is much weaker electromagnetically than the right. You can also prove this by holding the electrodes of a multimeter and measuring the millivolts holding the electrodes one way then the other.There is a marked difference as you have reversed the polarities and can now see the flow of electricity in millivolts through both sides of the body".
http://www.rangertell.com/booster.htm

"the Examiner makes use of resonance techniques and longitudinal wave coupling to boost the energy to a level necessary for long range detection. The human component is also an essential part of the design". http://www.rangertell.com/frequently_asked_questions-a.htm

"...Out of about 1000 units sold very few users have returned it and received a refund due to anything but mechanical reasons. Health and difficult left-handedness have been the only factors". http://www.rangertell.com/faq.html

Geotech forum member contribution to a Rangertell website:
"...The human component is also an essential part of the design. Just as a tuning fork..."
http://www.rangertell.com/to_the_skeptic.htm

Advanced Rangertell facts from Mike(Mont):
...you want to be several feet away from the target. If you are too close, your energy field will interact with the target's field and you won't feel it...
...Typically the beginner is going to have mental interference. This might be more than you can overcome, so you are going to have to work hard at eliminating negative thoughts and doubts. If you can get the meditation down, your mind will be still and it won't be "your own worst enemy".
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=101560&postcount=144

Advanced Rangetell facts from Dr. hung:
"This is the principle in which the Rangertell Examiner works. Resonance to the elements subatomic levels when a carrier signal line is shot and returned".
http://geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=41226#post41226

"The Examiner is clearly a radionic device".
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=64567

The final clue is where Dr. hung accidentally tells us his secret discovery of a substance produced by gold DNA:
This anti-oxidation substance that coats gold metal is important to those who theorize the new calculator key codes Dr. hung uses are actually detecting the genetic makeup of this DNA-produced substance, not the gold metal that is hidden beneath the coating.
"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'"
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=84058

With your constructive motive in mind, how do you think I should proceed?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

How I determined I am biologically impaired?
Well, that's a long story, starting back in the days when I worked with high voltage, and was accidentally electrohuted due to a careless person who did not connect the grounding straps before we went in to service the power equipment. Luckily, I survived, but I had nerve damage to my right arm, which was first to touch the high voltage conductor. My right arm is working ok now, but the nerves in that arm are not the same as they were before this accident. It is only my speculated opinion that there is some biological impairment due to the nerve damage that occurred in the right arm. The doctor only diagnosed nerve damage, not biological impairment. If there is a licensed biologist or medical doctor in Geotech, then maybe they could contribute some insight into whether this injury could constitute "biological impairment".

The second way I can explain how I concluded I am biologically impared, came from an observation I made when an aquaintance tried the examiner to see if it would point to a sample placed where he could see it. After over an hour of trying it out, we discovered that when he set the sensitivity to a certain setting, then he observed it pointing toward the treasure nearly every time when he walked past it, but when I tried it at the exact same setting, it seldom pointed toward the target. The difference I noted are historical facts, but the method was subjective. So There is no scientific basis to prove anything based on what we observed, unless a large amount of other people were also to perform the same routine as we did to provide a meaningful statistical basis.

In answer to your question, I have never gotten any response whatsoever from standard L-rod, other than a coat hanger wire L-rod tends to swing toward the direction of a magnet that is held in close proximity.

Finally, there are countless hours of making adjustments and more adjustments, without seeing any notable changes in performance when I tried to locate a known target. Of course, the nerve damage to my right arm, and observing a significant difference in response between me and another preson who has no nerve damage does not prove I am biologically impaired. But it is the conclusion I arrived at for the purposes of testsing. So I am relying on others to come try it and see if it works, because I can't be able to insure valid tests on my own. This also works out well because I really need to be holding a camera to show exactly what is seen during the tests. I am probably more proficient than most people operating a camera, and I know what the forum members want to see in a video.

I am surprised too.
I would have thought everyone would be anxious to get a shot at it without needing to send in their cash first. But all declined. Hopefully, g-sani will keep his Examiner to let other Greek treasure hunters try it out regardless of what kind of response he finds. (Maybe nobody in Greece besides Geo will want to try it out, same as happened here)
None of my relatives touched a high voltage conductor that caused nerve damage in their right arm, nor did I have occasion to send them to a doctor to determine whether there is nerve damage to thier right arm or whether they are biologically impaired.

You are mistaken. All of what is in the instruction manual is posted for all the public to see except for some proprietary key code sequences.

The Examiner is not a strictly electronic device. According to what is published, it is an electronic device that operates in conjuction with electromagnatic signals originating at the target, electromagnetic signals originating at the calculator, and biological signals originating from the body of the user. Furthermore, the user must be standing on the ground (earth ground) in order to complete the circuit that allows detection of a target. Of course you know this if you read the public literature. Here are some public references that you can read to this effect, as well as some little known facts from a "Geotech expert" on the Rangertell Examiner:

Examiner facts posted by the Rangertell factory:
"Your body is a major component in the use of these instruments. It literally becomes part of the receiving component due to that fact that your body has an electrical charge which in turn emits an electromagnetic field or flux around it. The polarities around the body were determined by R-T using an Examiner tuned to the body frequency (between 6 and 7Hz)..."
http://www.rangertell.com/fieldfx.htm

"The left side of the body and thus hand is much weaker electromagnetically than the right. You can also prove this by holding the electrodes of a multimeter and measuring the millivolts holding the electrodes one way then the other.There is a marked difference as you have reversed the polarities and can now see the flow of electricity in millivolts through both sides of the body".
http://www.rangertell.com/booster.htm

"the Examiner makes use of resonance techniques and longitudinal wave coupling to boost the energy to a level necessary for long range detection. The human component is also an essential part of the design". http://www.rangertell.com/frequently_asked_questions-a.htm

"...Out of about 1000 units sold very few users have returned it and received a refund due to anything but mechanical reasons. Health and difficult left-handedness have been the only factors". http://www.rangertell.com/faq.html

Geotech forum member contribution to a Rangertell website:
"...The human component is also an essential part of the design. Just as a tuning fork..."
http://www.rangertell.com/to_the_skeptic.htm

Advanced Rangertell facts from Mike(Mont):
...you want to be several feet away from the target. If you are too close, your energy field will interact with the target's field and you won't feel it...
...Typically the beginner is going to have mental interference. This might be more than you can overcome, so you are going to have to work hard at eliminating negative thoughts and doubts. If you can get the meditation down, your mind will be still and it won't be "your own worst enemy".
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=101560&postcount=144

Advanced Rangetell facts from Dr. hung:
"This is the principle in which the Rangertell Examiner works. Resonance to the elements subatomic levels when a carrier signal line is shot and returned".
http://geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=41226#post41226

"The Examiner is clearly a radionic device".
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=64567

The final clue is where Dr. hung accidentally tells us his secret discovery of a substance produced by gold DNA:
This anti-oxidation substance that coats gold metal is important to those who theorize the new calculator key codes Dr. hung uses are actually detecting the genetic makeup of this DNA-produced substance, not the gold metal that is hidden beneath the coating.
"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'"
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=84058

With your constructive motive in mind, how do you think I should proceed?

Best wishes,
J_P

Thanks for all that.... it's late and I been busy with other projects all evening. Let me cogitate on what you said; and I'll try to get back to you with something positive.

Later.... :)

[Qiaozhi]

The only thing I can say is that whenever gave us a target we found it and proved right using our rods to follow the signal to the target.
This is the point we are unable agree on. You cannot "prove" that a target was found by using rods, particularly since there is no such thing as a signal line.

[Qiaozhi]

"the Examiner makes use of resonance techniques and longitudinal wave coupling to boost the energy to a level necessary for long range detection. The human component is also an essential part of the design". http://www.rangertell.com/frequently...uestions-a.htm (http://www.rangertell.com/frequently_asked_questions-a.htm)

Geotech forum member contribution to a Rangertell website:
"...The human component is also an essential part of the design. Just as a tuning fork..."
http://www.rangertell.com/to_the_skeptic.htm
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :cry:
I see they are still quoting from my spoof article on the RT Scaminer! :shocked:

[J_Player]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :cry:
I see they are still quoting from my spoof article on the RT Scaminer! :shocked:Actually, I was not aware you were so knowledgeable in the principle of operation for this circuit until I discovered you wrote that detailed description. Of course, you realise the new model has a different circuit, but it interacts with the same forces of magnetism and frequency as the older circuits.

What is interesting is I don't see you make any reference to the carrier signal line being shot and returned. Maybe this principle only applies to the diodes model and is not actually put into practice in the current model. I suspect you have held back a couple of key technical secrets so the average experimenter would not be able to produce a working model, which is a wise thing to do. But even if all the technical details were given, the circuit would not work unless the user was able to enter the proprietary calculator key sequences.

I am thinking the codes to detect the substance that gold DNA produces are probably the most valuable of all the codes. If you think about it, every person who hoarded gold must have had some of this substance rub off the gold surface on their hands and become embedded in the ground where they were digging to bury their treasure. And even non-buried gold that is hidden from sight will have telltale traces of this substance everywhere the gold touched. Can you imagine the implications?

At present, I am re-reading Mike(Mont)'s posts to refresh my understanding of the basics of meditation. The "scarecrow position" could be tiring and cause undue strain to the arm muscles after awhile, but his other suggestions seem less rigourous.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

J_Player,

Well, I've had a chance to think some about helping you with how to proceed, with the Examiner testing.

First, I'm very sorry to hear about your nerve damage from a previous accident. Of course if you cannot get a typical dowsing response from a bent L-shaped wire, over a target in plain sight, then I would not expect you to get a typical response from an Examiner either. In all my years of testing and observing various dowsers, I've not run across a single individual who, after being shown what the typical response should look like over a garden hose or a known underground pipe, or a coin thrown on the ground; could not themselves get a similar or like response.

Of course, if the nerve connections between the brain and the hand (or arm) are damaged, then the ideomotor response could fire in the brain, but be blocked from getting to the hand.

I have but one single suggestion for you to try. Realizing that "apparently" using the device in your left hand, there will be a reduction "supposedly" in the the response; is it possible for you to try it several times in your left hand, and just see what you might get. Perhaps over the course of several tries you might be surprised at what you could train your left hand to do.

Now, to get down to some "brass tacks", so to speak. I have decided there is probably nothing that I can offer you in the way of constructive suggestions for how to proceed from this point. And, here is why I can't offer anything:

From your recent posting and several others in the past, concerning the RT Examiner; YOU seem to be "buying into and entertaining all of the RT marketing BS as IF it were True and Valid". Whether this is how you truly think or not, I cannot tell for sure. I can't believe you do, in your heart, but I can't tell at this point.

I, on the other hand, will not and cannot buy into a single iota of the RT marketing BS concerning the operation of the Examiner, the stated theory of operation, or any of the other nonsense perpetrated simply to snow the gullible and technically-challenged. I'm sorry, but I can't do that. Neither could I "make-out" like I believe it, just so it would appear that I am trying to give the device every opportunity for it to work and do what it is supposed to be able to do.

I know how the device operates. It is nothing more than a plastic box mounted atop a swivel handle, which responds to simple ideomotor responses from the operator. And, certainly, it WILL operate that way whether you hold it in your right hand or your left hand, it does not make a difference. The calculator and the "secret" codes to be plugged into it have not a single input or influence as to how the device will respond. There are NO signal lines traveling out to a target and back to the device or to the operator.

Since these are my opinions and understanding, I really cannot offer you anything constructive, especially in light of the "apparent" understanding and approach you are taking to the device. If you want to believe that a box full of do-nothing components with an Asian calculator stuck to it is somehow doing something constructive in terms of enhancing your own biological dowsing response, that is YOUR business. Frankly, I'm shocked that a man of your "seeming" intelligence would present yourself as harboring this kind of belief or understanding about such an obvious ruse. I still suspect it is an "act", but I can't prove it... I can only suspect it, since I never thought you qualified as a "gullible or technically-challenged".

I will consider the once bally-whoed testing of the Examiner as permanently closed, and will promise to quit "bugging" you about getting on with it. I was really looking forward to some meaningful conclusions to come out of your testing, as I'm sure many others were.... sorry it has to be shelved this way. :frown:

I suppose you will be sending it back to RT, in the not too distant future.

[Fred]

Thanks to JP, what is now clear to me is that RangerTell adverts are lies, that it is NOT simple and straightforward to use their device, and that NOT everyone can use it.

So i will NOT buy this LRL.
Thanks JP for helping us making our choice.

[J_Player]

J_Player,

Well, I've had a chance to think some about helping you with how to proceed, with the Examiner testing.

First, I'm very sorry to hear about your nerve damage from a previous accident. Of course if you cannot get a typical dowsing response from a bent L-shaped wire, over a target in plain sight, then I would not expect you to get a typical response from an Examiner either. In all my years of testing and observing various dowsers, I've not run across a single individual who, after being shown what the typical response should look like over a garden hose or a known underground pipe, or a coin thrown on the ground; could not themselves get a similar or like response.

Of course, if the nerve connections between the brain and the hand (or arm) are damaged, then the ideomotor response could fire in the brain, but be blocked from getting to the hand.

I have but one single suggestion for you to try. Realizing that "apparently" using the device in your left hand, there will be a reduction "supposedly" in the the response; is it possible for you to try it several times in your left hand, and just see what you might get. Perhaps over the course of several tries you might be surprised at what you could train your left hand to do.

Now, to get down to some "brass tacks", so to speak. I have decided there is probably nothing that I can offer you in the way of constructive suggestions for how to proceed from this point. And, here is why I can't offer anything:

From your recent posting and several others in the past, concerning the RT Examiner; YOU seem to be "buying into and entertaining all of the RT marketing BS as IF it were True and Valid". Whether this is how you truly think or not, I cannot tell for sure. I can't believe you do, in your heart, but I can't tell at this point.

I, on the other hand, will not and cannot buy into a single iota of the RT marketing BS concerning the operation of the Examiner, the stated theory of operation, or any of the other nonsense perpetrated simply to snow the gullible and technically-challenged. I'm sorry, but I can't do that. Neither could I "make-out" like I believe it, just so it would appear that I am trying to give the device every opportunity for it to work and do what it is supposed to be able to do.

I know how the device operates. It is nothing more than a plastic box mounted atop a swivel handle, which responds to simple ideomotor responses from the operator. And, certainly, it WILL operate that way whether you hold it in your right hand or your left hand, it does not make a difference. The calculator and the "secret" codes to be plugged into it have not a single input or influence as to how the device will respond. There are NO signal lines traveling out to a target and back to the device or to the operator.

Since these are my opinions and understanding, I really cannot offer you anything constructive, especially in light of the "apparent" understanding and approach you are taking to the device. If you want to believe that a box full of do-nothing components with an Asian calculator stuck to it is somehow doing something constructive in terms of enhancing your own biological dowsing response, that is YOUR business. Frankly, I'm shocked that a man of your "seeming" intelligence would present yourself as harboring this kind of belief or understanding about such an obvious ruse. I still suspect it is an "act", but I can't prove it... I can only suspect it, since I never thought you qualified as a "gullible or technically-challenged".

I will consider the once bally-whoed testing of the Examiner as permanently closed, and will promise to quit "bugging" you about getting on with it. I was really looking forward to some meaningful conclusions to come out of your testing, as I'm sure many others were.... sorry it has to be shelved this way. :frown:

I suppose you will be sending it back to RT, in the not too distant future.Hi Theseus,
Apparently you are forming conclusions based on an impoverished view of the facts around you.

First, the nerve damage was diagnosed in my lower right arm. The damaged nerves have mostly healed, but they are not the same as nerves that never needed to heal. I know this because there still remains some loss of feeling in that arm. But this is not the issue with making a valid test with the Examiner. If you had read their literature, you would have seen the manufacturer states the right arm has a different millivolt signal than the left arm, and for this reason, left-handed people cannot expect good results when using the examiner. In my case, I did happen to check the millivolt signal in both hands, and I found they were nearly the same at both sides within 5% when measuring AC or DC millivolts. This, in combination with the observed response became a strong indicator to me, especially after seeing someone else find much better response. But I did try the Examiner with my left hand on quite a number of ocasions. I did not notice any substantial difference in response from the right or left hand.

As far as the Rangertell marketing claims, of course I take them seriously. These are what I am interested in testing. If I were to start out before making a test and state that I already know all of the claims are false, and that there is absolutely nothing happening in the electronics, then any testing would be predjudiced. Further there would not be a purpose to conduct a test if I had already concluded all the tests would fail. However, my puprpose is not to predjudice a test. I am interested in making observations to see if the claims are true or not. In order to do so, I must first read what the claims are then find a way to conduct a test that will give reasonable evidence that any particular claim is true or not. It simply cannot be done if the conclusion is arrived at before a test is performed.

It does not matter what opinion I may have about the performance of the Examiner, of Esteban's LRLs, of a White's PI detector, or a NASA satellite. My opinion means nothing in a test routine unless I use it to decide what the performance is before completing a test. In that cases it would mean the test was tainted by a predjudiced person influencing the results by interjecting conclusions tainted with his own bias rather than observations.

As an example, the Examiner literature does not make claims about ideamotor, so there is no basis to test that non-claim. But they did make a claim about a charge and a frequency passing from the user to the Examiner. This is something I can test on a subject who is holding the Examiner in his right hand to see if it is true or not. I can also test to see if the claim that the millivolt signal passing from the right hand is stronger than the left hand, as well as making observations of field trials. And I can perform tests to observe if any "signal lines" are established in the air between a target and the antenna, which diminish when the claimed signal source removed from the Examiner.

Apparently you don't consider it necessary to read the claims before concluding what claims are true or false. This is your prerogative. Your purpose is apparenly not to find a way to test an Examiner, but to form conclusions without even bothering to read what the claims are you conclude are wrong. It is not surprising to me that you have no constructive suggestions of how you think I should proceed.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Hi Theseus,
Apparently you are forming conclusions based on an impoverished view of the facts around you.

However, you want to verbalize my opinion is certainly your option.

If testing a device requires that I completely throw out ALL of what I have experienced, researched and learned over a great many years; AS WELL AS completely discounting my rational education in science, physics and electronics - then, unlike you; I CANNOT do that and would not make a good subject to test the Examiner. You make it sound like the only fair way to conduct the test would be with the intelligence quotient of a new-born babe who had just exited the womb.

Now probably between YOUR line of thinking and MY line of thinking there is some neutral ground where a fair test could be formulated and conducted. In locating that neutral ground, I guess I would like to see how the investigators at Sandia Labs would approach the testing of the Examiner. ;)

They already have experience in testing things of this variety and I have the distinct feeling their approach would be more like mine than yours.

What would be nice.... would be to get the testing of the device OFF dead center. I'm not sure with the "apparent" thought processes and "blocks" you have introduced, that will ever be possible. Unfortunate... indeed. :frown:

[WesP]

J_P,
I live in Fullerton and I would like to volunteer my services to assist int the testing of the RangerTell Examiner. Please email me with info on when and where we can set up a test. I will bring my video camera to record the testing. I can assure everyone that any testing I am involved with will done in a non biases and scientific manner.

Wes Pearson
rwpilot@roadrunner.com

[Theseus]

J_P,
I live in Fullerton and I would like to volunteer my services to assist int the testing of the RangerTell Examiner. Please email me with info on when and where we can set up a test. I will bring my video camera to record the testing. I can assure everyone that any testing I am involved with will done in a non biases and scientific manner.

Wes Pearson
rwpilot@roadrunner.com

Go for it, Wes. And, thanks for coming forward.

[WM6]

I live in Fullerton and I would like to volunteer my services to assist int the testing of the RangerTell Examiner.





Too late, J_Ps Examiner expired shelf-life.

[Qiaozhi]

Now probably between YOUR line of thinking and MY line of thinking there is some neutral ground where a fair test could be formulated and conducted. In locating that neutral ground, I guess I would like to see how the investigators at Sandia Labs would approach the testing of the Examiner. ;)
The only way to test the RT Scaminer is in a scientifically controlled double-blind test. This procedure is designed to eliminate any prejudice by the person(s) performing the tests. In this way, even the most biased person can be assured of a correct result. ;)

[Theseus]

The only way to test the RT Scaminer is in a scientifically controlled double-blind test. This procedure is designed to eliminate any prejudice by the person(s) performing the tests. In this way, even the most biased person can be assured of a correct result. ;)

I would agree completely, and that is exactly how I would've recommended proceeding. However, all the other stuff that it seemed J_P was trying to include, or allow for... I personally would not know what to tell him.... other than just what you said. ;)

[J_Player]

The only way to test the RT Scaminer is in a scientifically controlled double-blind test. This procedure is designed to eliminate any prejudice by the person(s) performing the tests. In this way, even the most biased person can be assured of a correct result. ;)Excellent suggestion.
Can you tell me the specific protocol to use in a field test with the Examiner, and what attribute exactly is your test protocol designed to test?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Fred]

:shocked: Should i hold on with my money ? :shocked:

[g-sani]

This is the point we are unable agree on. You cannot "prove" that a target was found by using rods, particularly since there is no such thing as a signal line.

May be that 'signal line' is not the corect name given and may be plain 'line' is better but I use it as well for comunicating purposes.
I can pick something up from a distance using the freq.gen. and the rods and also i can feel the finds whith my fingers when I hold them.
Dear Qiaozhi, you suggest that this is an illusion? :shocked:

[Qiaozhi]

May be that 'signal line' is not the corect name given and may be plain 'line' is better but I use it as well for comunicating purposes.
I can pick something up from a distance using the freq.gen. and the rods and also i can feel the finds whith my fingers when I hold them.
Dear Qiaozhi, you suggest that this is an illusion? :shocked:
Again, you are talking about rods (i.e. dowsing).
Yes - the signal line is an illusion.

[g-sani]

Thats a nice illusion for one to experience then. :D

[Qiaozhi]

Excellent suggestion.
Can you tell me the specific protocol to use in a field test with the Examiner, and what attribute exactly is your test protocol designed to test?

Best wishes,
J_P
May I suggest that you ask the man himself - James Randi ->
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ask all those who wish to claim the prize based upon their dowsing skills to first try a double-blind test of their abilities. We at the JREF can advise you how to design such a test protocol. You will find, I assure you, that the description above of the ideomotor effect will be proven valid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above quote was taken from here -> http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/

[Qiaozhi]

If you do not want to contact JR, then you can devise your own test procedure from here -> http://www.skepdic.com/control.html

[hung]

If you do not want to contact JR, then you can devise your own test procedure from here -> http://www.skepdic.com/control.html

Away for sometime and when I come back I face this...
It's more than clear that one of the reasons this RS forum in Carlland is of really bad quality can be blamed direct to Carl's choice to promote Qiaozhi as a moderator.
He is completely ignorant on this subject and now he comes with the above pathetic post.

The skeptic dictionary which is at best a joke, and Randi, the GREATEST FRAUD all over internet!

Qiaozhi has given already enough evidence he is totally biased against LRL and dowsing subjects, again, through his complete ignorance on those matters.

If serious and minimally competent as moderator, the least expected from his moderating attitude would be an isent one and not biased as he is.
He is doing a terrible job. As dowsing ignorant, we all know of this already.
At least he could let the ones like g-sani express himself. And not try to interfere with his posts. Moderating is not try influencing others posts in favor of a particular belief.

I think he should either quit as moderator and restart his member only status when he is allowed to say all the mambo he is used to or assume another posture as a true moderator.

This is very bad to newbies who happen to land here and see his mentionings in his posts as source of reliable. This is grotesque.

Well, this is my opinion and Carl do what he wants in Ozzy's case... Tough I don't post here often anymore, might this one work to prevent newbies and unadvised people who happen to visit this forum.

Here some thread about Randi. Let people take their conclusions. Sorry for Geotech in the old days... Today is trully Geoskepth...
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,235008.0.html

[WM6]

Hi hung,

that disclosed skamers proclaim Randi as greatest fraud is understandable.

That you get on chills because of skamer commission loss is also understandable.

However, that all your arguments were limited to insults, personal devaluation, and profanity, but it is not understandable.

If you denied scientifically established principles of testing extraordinary claims, you denied current science.

You can protect novice from current science, but you cannot protect they from yourself.

[J_Player]

May I suggest that you ask the man himself - James Randi ->
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ask all those who wish to claim the prize based upon their dowsing skills to first try a double-blind test of their abilities. We at the JREF can advise you how to design such a test protocol. You will find, I assure you, that the description above of the ideomotor effect will be proven valid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above quote was taken from here -> http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/Hi Qiaozhi,
I can see the reference you provided is for those who wish to claim the JREF prize based on their dowsing skills. I do not wish to claim the JREF prize based on my dowsing skills. I am not performing tests to satisfy Randi, nor do I have any dowsing skills that I know of.

The reason I asked you for a specific test protocol is so I can perform a test that will satisfy you.

You are the first person who told me a double blind test is the only way the Examiner can be tested.
I am ready to perform your test regardless of whether I believe there are other ways it can be tested or not.
All I need to know is the exact test protocol you require to satisfy you that the test was performed to your specifications, and to know exactly what attribute of the Examiner your test protocol is designed to test.

I am sure you are aware there are thousands of kinds of double blind tests that could be arranged to test an Examiner, each designed to test a different attribute of the Examiner. There is no possible way I can test the attribute you want tested, or set up the test protocol to conduct the test you have in mind unless you tell me what they are.

Are you able to provide instructions that I can use to arrange the specific test protocol you want, and provide a description of what attribute of the Examiner your protocol is designed to test?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

Hi Qiaozhi,
I can see the reference you provided is for those who wish to claim the JREF prize based on their dowsing skills. I do not wish to claim the JREF prize based on my dowsing skills. I am not performing tests to satisfy Randi, nor do I have amy dowsing skills that I know of.

The reason I asked you for a specific test protocol is so I can perform a test that will satisfy you.

You are the first person who told me a double blind test is the only way the Examiner can be tested. And I am ready to perform your test regardless of whether I believe there are other ways it can be tested or not. All I need to know is the exact test protocol you require to satisfy you that the test was performed to your specifications, and to know exactly what attribute of the Examiner your test protocol is designed to test.

I am sure you are aware there are thousands of kinds of double blind tests that could be arranged to test an Examiner, each designed to test a different attribute of the Examiiner. There is no possible way I can test the attribute you want tested, or set up the test protocol to conduct the test you have in mind unless you tell me what they are.

Are you able to provide instructions that I can use to arrange the specific test protocol you want, and provide a description of what attribute of the Examiner your protocol is designed to test?

Best wishes,
J_P
You should be able to understand the correct procedure from here -> http://www.skepdic.com/control.htm (http://www.skepdic.com/control.html)

However, if you are still struggling to understand it, then watch Randi on youtube -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOsCnX-TKIY
This is the way it should be done, with the addition of a third-party who places the target under one of the cups but does not attend the actual test.

[Qiaozhi]

Away for sometime and when I come back I face this...
Something in the previous posts seems to have rattled your cage. :D

It's more than clear that one of the reasons this RS forum in Carlland is of really bad quality can be blamed direct to Carl's choice to promote Qiaozhi as a moderator.
Actually I'm an Administrator, but I doubt that you can understand the difference.

He is completely ignorant on this subject and now he comes with the above pathetic post.

The skeptic dictionary which is at best a joke, and Randi, the GREATEST FRAUD all over internet!
Of course, you would say that, as it's clearly evident you will never shake your self-delusion concerning dowsing. Randi has clearly stated in the previous link (which no doubt you never bothered to even read) that not one dowser he has ever tested has accepted the fact that their ability to detect the target was no better than chance. Such is the power of selective memory and self-delusion.

Qiaozhi has given already enough evidence he is totally biased against LRL and dowsing subjects, again, through his complete ignorance on those matters.

If serious and minimally competent as moderator, the least expected from his moderating attitude would be an isent one and not biased as he is.
He is doing a terrible job. As dowsing ignorant, we all know of this already.
At least he could let the ones like g-sani express himself. And not try to interfere with his posts. Moderating is not try influencing others posts in favor of a particular belief.

I think he should either quit as moderator and restart his member only status when he is allowed to say all the mambo he is used to or assume another posture as a true moderator.

This is very bad to newbies who happen to land here and see his mentionings in his posts as source of reliable. This is grotesque.

Well, this is my opinion and Carl do what he wants in Ozzy's case... Tough I don't post here often anymore, might this one work to prevent newbies and unadvised people who happen to visit this forum.

Here some thread about Randi. Let people take their conclusions. Sorry for Geotech in the old days... Today is trully Geoskepth...
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,235008.0.html
If this forum was as moderated as you claim, at least 50% of your posts would have been deleted for their inflammatory content. Luckily for you, we find your nonsense posts quite amusing. :lol:

[J_Player]

You should be able to understand the correct procedure from here -> http://www.skepdic.com/control.htm (http://www.skepdic.com/control.html)

However, if you are still struggling to understand it, then watch Randi on youtube -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOsCnX-TKIY
This is the way it should be done, with the addition of a third-party who places the target under one of the cups but does not attend the actual test.Actually those references don't describe a protocol that can be used to test the Examiner or what attribute of the Examiner is being tested.
Rangertell has made no claims the examiner can locate people hiding behind crates, nor do I think it is able to do that.

I understand the principle of double blind testing very well. It generally involves three parties, where a proctor is used. But there are thousands of protocols that could be used. In order to perform the test procedure you want to see, I only need to know the specific protocol you want to see set up, and to know what attribute of the Examiner you want to test.

I am presuming you don't want to see if it can locate a person hiding behind a crate, but rather, some claim that Rangertell makes about the Examiner.

If you don't really know what attribute of the Examiner you want to test, or any details of the test protocol you want to see done, please say so, because I can't figure it out by guessing at other people's ideas to test different things than the Examiner I have for testing.

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

with the addition of a third-party who places the target under one of the cups but does not attend the actual test.



What if third party is in connection with dowser? This option must be extracted in serious tests.

It is better to place real target and similar placebo targets (eg. made from glass) first from fourth person in small and exactly the same paper boxes filled with cotton to dumping target noise and sealed by sixth person. But then comes the third person who places the boxes under cups but does not attend the actual test. It is recommended that, between persons changing, boxes are mixed by second person.

[Theseus]

Actually those references don't describe a protocol that can be used to test the Examiner or what attribute of the Examiner is being tested.
Rangertell has made no claims the examiner can locate people hiding behind crates, nor do I think it is able to do that.

I understand the principle of double blind testing very well. It generally involves three parties, where a proctor is used. But there are thousands of protocols that could be used. In order to perform the test procedure you want to see, I only need to know the specific protocol you want to see set up, and to know what attribute of the Examiner you want to test.

I am presuming you don't want to see if it can locate a person hiding behind a crate, but rather, some claim that Rangertell makes about the Examiner.

If you don't really know what attribute of the Examiner you want to test, or any details of the test protocol you want to see done, please say so, because I can't figure it out by guessing at other people's ideas to test different things than the Examiner I have for testing.

Best wishes,
J_P

I don't know what Qiaozhi would like to see tested either, so I certainly wouldn't hazard a guess.

However, if you don't mind me sticking my nose in.....

I wouldn't mind seeing a DB test of the Examiner attempting to find some Gold (a nugget or a coin or a ring). Now if you have full knowledge of how a standard DB test should be conducted, then there is no sense in me describing that to you.

All I would like to see is a Pre-test of the device done on a valid target that is in plain sight of the operator, and in the same setup and area as the real test would be conducted.

Then do the DB test with a target(s) completely unknown to the operator.

Then do a Post-test, again using a valid target in plain sight and conducted as the Pre-test was done.

Does that seem reasonable? The attribute we are testing is to see if the Examiner will point towards a Gold item, and do it repeatedly so that a statistical calculation might be performed based on the number of Trials and the number of Hits, and the results would be considerably better than what one might expect from Chance Guessing.

Just my thoughts.... :)

[Qiaozhi]

I wouldn't mind seeing a DB test of the Examiner attempting to find some Gold (a nugget or a coin or a ring). Now if you have full knowledge of how a standard DB test should be conducted, then there is no sense in me describing that to you.

All I would like to see is a Pre-test of the device done on a valid target that is in plain sight of the operator, and in the same setup and area as the real test would be conducted.

Then do the DB test with a target(s) completely unknown to the operator.

Then do a Post-test, again using a valid target in plain sight and conducted as the Pre-test was done.

Does that seem reasonable? The attribute we are testing is to see if the Examiner will point towards a Gold item, and do it repeatedly so that a statistical calculation might be performed based on the number of Trials and the number of Hits, and the results would be considerably better than what one might expect from Chance Guessing.

Just my thoughts.... :)
You have more or less described the procedure that was shown in the Randi youtube link, and I totally agree with this method.

Perhaps we can now look forward to some results on the long awaited RT testing.

[J_Player]

I don't know what Qiaozhi would like to see tested either, so I certainly wouldn't hazard a guess.

However, if you don't mind me sticking my nose in.....

I wouldn't mind seeing a DB test of the Examiner attempting to find some Gold (a nugget or a coin or a ring). Now if you have full knowledge of how a standard DB test should be conducted, then there is no sense in me describing that to you.

All I would like to see is a Pre-test of the device done on a valid target that is in plain sight of the operator, and in the same setup and area as the real test would be conducted.

Then do the DB test with a target(s) completely unknown to the operator.

Then do a Post-test, again using a valid target in plain sight and conducted as the Pre-test was done.

Does that seem reasonable? The attribute we are testing is to see if the Examiner will point towards a Gold item, and do it repeatedly so that a statistical calculation might be performed based on the number of Trials and the number of Hits, and the results would be considerably better than what one might expect from Chance Guessing.

Just my thoughts.... :)Hi Theseus,
Thank you for the input.
I wouldn't hazard a guess at what protocol of double blind testing Qiaozhi wants to see done either.
I need to know the details of how he wants the test set up before I perform it.

For the test that you would like to see, I have a 14k gold man's ring that can be used for the test. Of course, I will want to see some pre-tests as well. I will allow the operator to make dry runs while he makes whatever adjustments to the Examiner controls he needs to find the best performance. Then, when the operator has satisfied himself that he has found the best adjustment, I will film a pre-test done with the gold ring in plain sight of the operator. After the pretest is done, I can film repeated runs of double blind testing with the location of the gold ring unknown to the operator. Then I can allow the operator to repeat the pre-run test where the location of the target is known.

There are only two missing element to the test you want to see. If you can provide the missing information, then I can perform the test.

1. Can you make a statement that describes what attribute of the Examiner this test is designed to test?

2. I know a lot about double blind testing. and I know that there are thousands of protocols that are used for double blind testing of this kind. In order to provide the degree of precision you want to see, I need to know the details of how you want the test set up. For example how many test runs, how the target is hidden from view of the operator, what distances, what kind of test field setting, etc. More details will make it more likely that you will see the kind of test you want to have done.

"Does it sound reasonable? "

For my purposes, it could be very reasonable depending on what attribute is being tested. Actually my own personal testing does not require double blind testing. I never performed a double blind test on any metal detector I bought, but I did test them out and read other people's reports about them. I was able to determine what detectors were suitable for me to purchase after trying out several competing models without a single scientific test. And I have always been happy with my purchases. I also have been happy with my choice not to buy detectors that did not seem suitable after trying them out (no scientific testing of my reject detectors either).

I have no need to perform a double blind test of the Examiner for myself. I can make my determination of it's treasure locating value by testing it the same way I test any other metal detector. The only reason I am performing other tests is because I am interested to see if certain claims are true, or to act as a proxy tester for other people who want to see some test that I don't have a need to see.

If I hear back from WesP, then we would only need to know the details of how you want the test protocol and the attribute you are looking to test before we can perform the test you have in mind.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Hi Theseus,

1. Can you make a statement that describes what attribute of the Examiner this test is designed to test?
Best wishes,
J_P

You know... I'm frankly not certain what you mean by attribute here, but perhaps if you could give me some examples of what you believe are possible attributes, I'm sure I could choose one. :)

[J_Player]

You have more or less described the procedure that was shown in the Randi youtube link, and I totally agree with this method.

Perhaps we can now look forward to some results on the long awaited RT testing.Hi Qiaozhi,
The Randi test procedure showed a methodology and a protocol. I cannot use his protocol because it is one of thousands that must be adapted in any of a number of ways before it can be applied to the Examiner.

Apparently you cannot describe the details of the protocol you want to see, or even describe what attribute of the Examiner you want to test. Unless you can tell the details of your protocol, I cannot follow it.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

You know... I'm frankly not certain what you mean by attribute here, but perhaps if you could give me some examples of what you believe are possible attributes, I'm sure I could choose one. :)Sure, there are many claimed attributes of the Examiner.
You can read the Rangertell public information to see them at the links in above posts and others.

Here are a few examples:
The Examiner can discriminate different target materials.
The calculator sets various frequencies which the Examiner resonates at.
The calculator sends signals to the internal circuitry by induction.
The operator must be standing on the ground to complete a circuit that allows it to function.
Etc, etc, etc.

There are hundreds of them. Pick one that seems appropriate for your test.

Best wishes,
J_P

[g-sani]

......Actually my own personal testing does not require double blind testing. I never performed a double blind test on any metal detector I bought, but I did test them out and read other people's reports about them. I was able to determine what detectors were suitable for me to purchase after trying out several competing models without a single scientific test. And I have always been happy with my purchases. I also have been happy with my choice not to buy detectors that did not seem suitable after trying them out (no scientific testing of my reject detectors either).....

Thats how it should be for everybody.DB tests say nothing to me.
Telling to someone what the blind tests produced means nothing for the simple reason that he has to try something himself anyway before buying.
How can somebody ask for a DB test when he admits that he doesn't believe the word of others?

[Qiaozhi]

Sure, there are many claimed attributes of the Examiner.
You can read the Rangertell public information to see them at the links in above posts and others.

Here are a few examples:
The Examiner can discriminate different target materials.
The calculator sets various frequencies which the Examiner resonates at.
The calculator sends signals to the internal circuitry by induction.
The operator must be standing on the ground to complete a circuit that allows it to function.
Etc, etc, etc.

There are hundreds of them. Pick one that seems appropriate for your test.

Best wishes,
J_P
The requirements of the test are very simple. That is, can it detect a hidden target or not? If you are planning to use a gold ring for the testing, then put whatever secret numbers that VB supplied to you into the calculator and run the tests. Otherwise you will remain in a perpetual loop of getting ready to get ready.

Remember that procrastination is the thief of time.

[J_Player]

Thats how it should be for everybody.DB tests say nothing to me.
Telling to someone what the blind tests produced means nothing for the simple reason that he has to try something himself anyway before buying.
How can somebody ask for a DB test when he admits that he doesn't believe the word of others?Hi g-sani,
I think you are correct. A double blind test does not prove anything. It only provides evidence. At best, the results can be used as a model to gain insight where other methods did not work to confirm a theory.

I think you are right. The only method that will convince an average user is to try it out and see if it is working for themselves. When you receive your Examiner, then I hope you will also invite others in your area to come and try it for themselves to see if it works for them. This is the best evidence that a person can see to determine if they think it is working.

But as long as I have an Examiner, I can easily perform scientific tests for people who describe how they want the tests done.
Maybe this will give them the information they want to know.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

The requirements of the test are very simple. That is, can it detect a hidden target or not? If you are planning to use a gold ring for the testing, then put whatever secret numbers that VB supplied to you into the calculator and run the tests. Otherwise you will remain in a perpetual loop of getting ready to get ready.

Remember that procrastination is the thief of time.Hi Qiaozhi,
I am presuming the attribute of the Examiner you want to test is its ability to detect a hidden target.

So far, your double blind test protocol includes putting numbers into the calculator that are used to detect a gold ring.
This is not a double blind test protocol. Can you describe the details of the test protocol you want to see done?

For example, how do you want the ring hidden, what distances, how many locations, how many test runs, what kind of test field etc. I am not interested in wasting time guessing what you want, only to be told later that we didn't guess the test you wanted to see correctly. You only need to give the details so WesP and I will know what to set up before the test is performed.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

Hi g-sani,
I think you are correct. A double blind test does not prove anything. It only provides evidence. At best, the results can be used as a model to gain insight where other methods did not work to confirm a theory.
I'm sure the drug companies would not agree with you on that one.

I think you are right. The only method that will convince an average user is to try it out and see if it is working for themselves. When you receive your Examiner, then I hope you will also invite others in your area to come and try it for themselves to see if it works for them. This is the best evidence that a person can see to determine if they think it is working.
As I'm sure you're well aware, simply trying dowsing-based equipment for yourself, to decide if it is working, is a no-no. Dowsing rods are driven by the ideomotor effect, which is subject to selective memory and self-delusion. Therefore such testing methods are unreliable.

[g-sani]

When you receive your Examiner, then I hope you will also invite others in your area to come and try it for themselves to see if it works for them. This is the best evidence that a person can see to determine if they think it is working.

Of course I will ask other people to try it as well.
There is a friend of mine that whatever you give him he can make it work.
So I will exclude him from this as it is going to be too much for the skeptics.;)

[J_Player]

Of course I will ask other people to try it as well.
There is a friend of mine that whatever you give him he can make it work.
So I will exclude him from this as it is going to be too much for the skeptics.;)Hahahaaaa... :lol:

If you find your Examiner is non-working, then you can take it to your friend to make it work.
So you have a second guarantee that others do not have. :)

By the way, I am skeptic about all LRL claims that I have not seen work in front of me with my own hands. But I don't have any problem reading stories told by people who say they find long range detection as long as I don't see them telling stories that are shown to be false information.
I like to read your stories of what you found with your detectors, and also your fish stories.
Did you send for your pocket fisherman yet?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

Hi Qiaozhi,
I am presuming the attribute of the Examiner you want to test is its ability to detect a hidden target.
Personally I do not find it necessary to test any aspect of the RangerTell Scaminer, but if you are asking for guidance, then it's ability or not to detect a hidden target seems an obvious choice.

So far, your double blind test protocol includes putting numbers into the calculator that are used to detect a gold ring.
This is not a double blind test protocol. Can you describe the details of the test protocol you want to see done?
Previously you said: "I know a lot about double blind testing".
Please pick whichever protocol that you think appropriate and go with that.

Whatever procedure you decide to use with be disputed by the dowsing fraternity anyway. Perhaps it's Hung you should be asking for an acceptable protocol, not the skeptics. We are already convinced that a cheap calculator, glued to a plastic box of do-nothing electronics, and fixed to a swivel handle can only detect treasure at the time of purchase. There have been many published tests which clearly demonstrate dowsing to be a trick of the mind. If dowsing really worked, despite many scientific tests that show otherwise, then Randi's wallet would be lighter to the tune of $1M ... and it is not.

[J_Player]

Personally I do not find it necessary to test any aspect of the RangerTell Scaminer, but if you are asking for guidance, then it's ability or not to detect a hidden target seems an obvious choice.


Previously you said: "I know a lot about double blind testing".
Please pick whichever protocol that you think appropriate and go with that.

Whatever procedure you decide to use with be disputed by the dowsing fraternity anyway. Perhaps it's Hung you should be asking for an acceptable protocol, not the skeptics. We are already convinced that a cheap calculator, glued to a plastic box of do-nothing electronics, and fixed to a swivel handle can only detect treasure at the time of purchase. There have been many published tests which clearly demonstrate dowsing to be a trick of the mind. If dowsing really worked, despite many scientific tests that show otherwise, then Randi's wallet would be lighter to the tune of $1M ... and it is not.Hi Qiaozhi,
I never asked for guidance. I asked for a specific test protocol to use.

Without knowing what kind of test procedure you want to see, I can speculate that whatever procedure Theseus decides on will probably work to satisfy your requirements. I am guessing this because it seems he wants to test for a more specific version of detecting a hidden target where the target material is defined. After you see what Theseus requests for a tests protocol, then please make your comments that will let us know if this protocol is acceptable to you before we proceed. We can make a second test for you if the Theseus version is not acceptable.

I have no worries about hung or other LRL believers. None of them have asked for any double blind tests while refusing to define a test protocol to use for their double blind test. If the dowsing fraternity disputes my tests, I don't care. The can dispute all they want, but they can't stop me from following a test procedure that is requested.

It seems like you have a good idea to ask hung for a test protocol. Maybe the LRL enthusiasts have forgotten I am willing to perform tests for them since they can't be here to test this Examiner. All LRL believers are invited to post their requests for a test that they want to see done. This can be some simple test, or a double blind test, or any other kind of test. I already have collected a few requests, so those who already made their requests don't need to send it in again.

And here is a special invitation for hung to send any request for testing that he wants to see. I need to know the specific test protocol you want to see performed before we perform the test. We can perform your test if we know the details you want done. Keep in mind, we can only perform a test. We will not hiring consultants or going to extraordinary lengths to create some strange conditions that don't exist in the local area where we will be testing.

Best wishes,
J_P

[g-sani]

Hahahaaaa... :lol:

If you find your Examiner is non-working, then you can take it to your friend to make it work.
So you have a second guarantee that others do not have. :)

By the way, I am skeptic about all LRL claims that I have not seen work in front of me with my own hands. But I don't have any problem reading stories told by people who say they find long range detection as long as I don't see them telling stories that are shown to be false information.
I like to read your stories of what you found with your detectors, and also your fish stories.
Did you send for your pocket fisherman yet?

Best wishes,
J_P

Believe what you see whith your own eyes is the best you can do.
I said it before that I was not a strong believer as far as dowsing concerns.
Now I know and I am always studying more and more about the subject.
When we treasure hunting whith my friend first we go somewhere on a suitable day and check it out whith our LRLs or sometimes even whith plain rods.If there is a response at the first place then we try to spot the target and we use our detectors for verification.
It is difficult to say what you can do because you will have everybody after you especially when you live in a small country as Greece.
The same applies for photos.I will send you some in private to see by e-mail.You see the law over here is made from the politicians for themselves in order to get richer.
You want privacy more than anything as you get older and one thing that I hate to say is that you don't really want other people whith you except one or two good friends.Leting everybody know proved to be a silly thing to do.But this has nothing to do whith what I have said whith the LRL we are using.It is working as I said and whith the dowsing help you don't miss a target.I let a friend sometime ago to get the rods and try to go on target and he couldn't.But the meter was giving a reading and we knew that something silver was there.It took us 15minutes to unearth a very old silver fork.If it is something serious hidden then about always is put in a safe and difficult to reach place and we have to visit it many times.Most of these times it is impossible to get the treasure because they put it that way you need a very long time to get it out.They knew that this way it would be safe because it would be impossible for somebody to get it whithout somebody else see him.Some other times you need many people to work together and again you forget it.
You cannot dig in here as in some other country.You have to have your mouth shut and be very carefull when you are going to do it.
Pocket fisherman will soon have its own permanent place in my car.:lol: :lol:

[J_Player]

...Pocket fisherman will soon have its own permanent place in my car.:lol: :lol:Yes, But you will have 2 pocket fishermen (2 for the price of one).
Will the other be in your pocket? :rolleyes:

You cannot dig in here as in some other country.You have to have your mouth shut and be very carefull when you are going to do it.Here is a way you can dig your treasure without people seeing what you recover:

[J_Player]

You cannot dig in here as in some other country.You have to have your mouth shut and be very carefull when you are going to do it.
Pocket fisherman will soon have its own permanent place in my car.:lol: :lol:Hi g-sani...
I forgot to include details for recovery protocol.
See photo below for missing details.
Also, you need to take Pocket Fisherman in the water for recovering fish :lol:

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Sure, there are many claimed attributes of the Examiner.
You can read the Rangertell public information to see them at the links in above posts and others.

Here are a few examples:
The Examiner can discriminate different target materials.
The calculator sets various frequencies which the Examiner resonates at.
The calculator sends signals to the internal circuitry by induction.
The operator must be standing on the ground to complete a circuit that allows it to function.
Etc, etc, etc.

There are hundreds of them. Pick one that seems appropriate for your test.

Best wishes,
J_P

Maybe the attribute I have in mind is simply an "inferred" one rather than a specific one that is written out anywhere.

From all the advertising I've seen (and read) and from what I've seen on eBay, I think it is at least "inferred" if not said in so many words; that the Examiner will pull towards or otherwise indicate a gold target at some distance away.

That is the attribute my test would be looking to validate.

Let's say there are 5 possible locations where a single target might be located.

The target could be any piece of gold or gold bearing object (nugget, coin, etc.) that would be deemed a logical target by R-T, and would have an appropriate Number to be plugged into the calculator.

Five different locations or hiding places would be spread out probably in a semi-circle.

Distance from the target locations to the operator should probably be at least 10 feet and maybe less than 30 feet. That gives you a good range, if need be.

The method of hiding could be inverted cups, under paper plates or any other method that insures the operator has no clue as to what might be under the hiding method, or not.

There will be 5 trials, during the DB portion of the test.

Whatever the method is for concealing the target, ALL 5 of the positions and the method for hiding MUST be disturbed prior to each of the 5 trials.

Standard DB protocol is assumed, and is described on Carl's DB testing page, if you are not familiar with who is involved in the hiding and recording of the results parts of the test.

Remember of course there is a Pre-test and a Post-test, both done on a target that is EITHER in plain sight of the operator OR the operator can SEE where the target was placed.

During the DB portion of the test, the specific hiding location should be determined by drawing a single number out of a hat (containing the numbers 1 to 5).

To be convincing, although not necessarily a Final Conclusion, I believe of the 5 trials, the Examiner should successfully locate the Gold target a minimum of 4 times and 5 would be even better.

Correctly locating the Gold target 4 times comes with a Odds of Occurring By Chance Alone of 1 in 156 times.

Correctly locating the Gold target 5 times comes with a Odds of Occurring By Chance Alone of 1 in 3125 times.

Let me know if there is anything else you need from me.

[J_Player]

Maybe the attribute I have in mind is simply an "inferred" one rather than a specific one that is written out anywhere.

From all the advertising I've seen (and read) and from what I've seen on eBay, I think it is at least "inferred" if not said in so many words; that the Examiner will pull towards or otherwise indicate a gold target at some distance away.

That is the attribute my test would be looking to validate.

Let's say there are 5 possible locations where a single target might be located.

The target could be any piece of gold or gold bearing object (nugget, coin, etc.) that would be deemed a logical target by R-T, and would have an appropriate Number to be plugged into the calculator.

Five different locations or hiding places would be spread out probably in a semi-circle.

Distance from the target locations to the operator should probably be at least 10 feet and maybe less than 30 feet. That gives you a good range, if need be.

The method of hiding could be inverted cups, under paper plates or any other method that insures the operator has no clue as to what might be under the hiding method, or not.

There will be 5 trials, during the DB portion of the test.

Whatever the method is for concealing the target, ALL 5 of the positions and the method for hiding MUST be disturbed prior to each of the 5 trials.

Standard DB protocol is assumed, and is described on Carl's DB testing page, if you are not familiar with who is involved in the hiding and recording of the results parts of the test.

Remember of course there is a Pre-test and a Post-test, both done on a target that is EITHER in plain sight of the operator OR the operator can SEE where the target was placed.

During the DB portion of the test, the specific hiding location should be determined by drawing a single number out of a hat (containing the numbers 1 to 5).

To be convincing, although not necessarily a Final Conclusion, I believe of the 5 trials, the Examiner should successfully locate the Gold target a minimum of 4 times and 5 would be even better.

Correctly locating the Gold target 4 times comes with a Odds of Occurring By Chance Alone of 1 in 156 times.

Correctly locating the Gold target 5 times comes with a Odds of Occurring By Chance Alone of 1 in 3125 times.

Let me know if there is anything else you need from me.Hi Theseus,
What you posted looks to be a good description of the test you want to see performed. Your idea that the the Examiner characteristics are inferred is true for some of the claims, but many of them are made as actual statements. Regardless of the source of what you want to test, I can perform the test you request with the help of WesP since you have specified the exact protocol you want to see, and have even included some leeway to allow various conditions that will show the data you are looking for. :)

I will summarize your double blind test protocol so there is no confusion of what test will be performed:
1. The basic attribute of the Examiner that you want to see tested is it's tendency to "pull towards" or otherwise indicate a gold target at some distance away. This is well documented in the claims of Rangertell, as well as for other target materials. This seems like a good attribute to test.

2. For your test protocol, you want to designate five different locations that are separated from each other in a semicircle by at least 10 feet, but less than 30 feet distance from each other. The target sample will be hidden in one of these five locations during the double blind portion of the test. (I am assuming that the semicircle you requested is a half circle of 180 degrees, and having a radius of at least 10 feet and less than 30 feet, with possible target locations at any of the five equally spaced paper cups set at least 10 feet apart from each other, or up to 30 feet apart if a 30 foot radius is used).

3. The method for hiding the gold sample will to be to put it under a paper cup, or a paper plate, or any other convenient way that conceals the location from the operator of the Examiner. The acceptable substitute methods of concealing the location of the target may be used in place of the cups described in the protocol (2 above).

4. The double blind portion of the test will include exactly five trials.

5. There will be shown a trial before and after the five double blind tests. The trial before and after will be done when the operator of the Examiner can see the target in plain sight, or knows where it is located.

6. A hat will be used for drawing a number from 1 to 5 to determine which hiding location is used for the next trial in the five double blind trials.

7. There is one of your specifications that I don't understand completely:
"Whatever the method is for concealing the target, ALL 5 of the positions and the method for hiding MUST be disturbed prior to each of the 5 trials".
Does this mean that the target sample must be moved to a different one of the five locations after each of the trials? Or does it mean that it must be moved to a location that may be different, or may be the same? Or does it mean that some physical disturbance must be applied to all the possible target locations? Or does it mean something different than what I am asking?

For your information, there is no standard double blind test protocol. There are thousands of different double blind protocols. The protocol suggested on Carl's test to win his prize is only one suggestion, which he states he will modify to suit both him and the person applying for the challenge. The purpose for his test is not the same as yours, and his protocol is adjusted to assure he will see evidence to convince him he is getting his money's worth of a demonstration. In your case, you have no money at stake, or any monetary investment in your test as Carl does. I think even Carl will agree that there is no standard protocol for double blind testing. It is simply a methodology that can use any double blind protocol that a person decides to apply.

Thank you for actually stating what you want to see in this test, If you clarify the final point about disturbing the hiding method, I will have what we need to proceed as soon as WesP is ready for some testing.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

...A double blind test does not prove anything. It only provides evidence. At best, the results can be used as a model to gain insight where other methods did not work to confirm a theory.

Originally posted by Qiaozhi
I'm sure the drug companies would not agree with you on that one.Drug companies?
Hahahahaaaa.... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

In the USA, drug companies don't care about proof. They care about what they must do to convince the FDA to approve their new drug. They know that double blind testing is one method that they can get their FDA approval and begin making profits on new drugs, so they use it when necessary.

If you truly believe a double blind test or any other test constitutes proof, then you are mistaken. Testing only produces evidence. The proof is interpreted by the person who assesses the data from the test and formulates a conclusion.

I am a staunch skeptic.
I am skeptical about a lot of things I read in the remote sensing forum.
I am skeptical about Dr. hung's claim that gold DNA produces a substance that coats the metal to protect it from oxidation.
I am skeptical about the claim that some people make to suggest that gold does not corrode when it is buried in the ground.
I am skeptical about the claim that there are hand-held LRLs that can locate buried metals from a long distance.
I am skeptical that all popular drugs approved by the FDA are the best remedy to use for the most popular ailments.
I could go on with examples of my skepticism, but the only convincing proof I could find was to see for myself.
Second-hand reports are only a next best alternative to seeing for myself.

Why should I rely on somebody's test or double blind test?
Should I trust second-hand information to replace better information that I can see in my own hands right in front of me here and now?

Here is an example of how the FDA determines proof:
In the USA, there is an artificial sweetener called NutraSweet manufactured by the Monsanto chemical company. This sweetener is sanctioned for use in the USA for use in soft drinks like Diet Coke, and Diet Pepsi, as well as most other uses like coffee sweeteners. But if you go to Japan, you will find that Diet Coke is sweetened with a natural sweetener that works just as well called stevia. This sweetener is extracted from a plant that was determined to be unsuitable for use as a sweetener in the USA, and is only permitted to be used as a dietary supplement.

If you look into the background of this topic, you will find that there are some hazards involved with using the Monsanto version of a sweetener, and you will find there are millions of people who found no hazards with using the natural stevia alternative. You will also find that Monsanto has their own agenda to promote the use of their version of sweetener, to the tune of millions of dollars. And any normal-brained person who reads up on it may begin to think the reason why USA citizens are using the Monsanto version is because Monsanto used their influence to cause the testing and approval methods to be biased. In fact, you may find there were no double blind tests done to show any hazards involved with using the natural stevia extract that is used in Japan and many European countries as a sweetener.

My opinion is Monsanto, and drug producing companies do not have an interest in proof. Their interest is in making a profit. I think they will use any kind of test or study that is necessary to satisfy the governing agencies to allow them to make their profits.

But getting back to what does a double blind test show...
I think it shows evidence, not proof.
The proof is formulated in the mind of the person who interprets the evidence.

You are free to believe whatever you want to the contrary

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

I am a staunch skeptic.
I am skeptical about a lot of things I read in the remote sensing forum.
I am skeptical about Dr. hung's claim that gold DNA produces a substance that coats the metal to protect it from oxidation.
I am skeptical about the claim that some people make to suggest that gold does not corrode when it is buried in the ground.
I am skeptical about the claim that there are hand-held LRLs that can locate buried metals from a long distance.
I am skeptical that all popular drugs approved by the FDA are the best remedy to use for the most popular ailments.


But you are not skeptical that you are skeptical? How did you prove that? By single blind test?

[J_Player]

But you are not skeptical that you are skeptical? How did you prove that? By single blind test?No, I saw for myself.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

But you are not skeptical that you are skeptical? How did you prove that? By single blind test?

No, I saw for myself.

Best wishes,
J_P
Maybe you interpreted the results incorrectly. :lol:

[J_Player]

Maybe you interpreted the results incorrectly. :lol:Does this mean I am not skeptical about the things I am skeptical of? :shocked:

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Hi Theseus,
What you posted looks to be a good description of the test you want to see performed.

"Whatever the method is for concealing the target, ALL 5 of the positions and the method for hiding MUST be disturbed prior to each of the 5 trials".
Does this mean that the target sample must be moved to a different one of the five locations after each of the trials? Or does it mean that it must be moved to a location that may be different, or may be the same? Or does it mean that some physical disturbance must be applied to all the possible target locations? Or does it mean something different than what I am asking?

Best wishes,
J_P

Okay, clarification:

Say we have the 5 different locations and they are on the ground in front of the operator, and in a semi-circle. Also, say you are using ordinary paper plates to hide the gold target under.

Of your questions above; Or does it mean that some physical disturbance must be applied to all the possible target locations?

Yes, it means that no matter what number was drawn out of the hat to determine where the Gold target will be hidden, THEN ALL THE OTHER 4 REMAINING PAPER PLATES MUST BE PICKED UP AND REPLACED ON THE GROUND, SUCH THAT THEIR LOCATION IS DISTURBED IN SOME SMALL WAY from the position they were in previously when the operator was either doing the Pre-test, or one of the 5 trials. To accomplish this, the person placing the gold target under a plate should go to the other 4 locations, raise the plate, as if placing a target under it, and then place it back down on the ground. Thus disturbing its position slightly from the time before.

Since numbers are being drawn out of a hat, and the numbers definitely range 1,2,3,4,5 then obviously some one of the plates WILL end up with a Gold target being placed under it. Of course it is entirely possible the same number could come out of the hat one or more times in a row, not likely, but it is possible. Also, note there is NO number Zero (0), which would indicate that none of the plates would get a target hidden under it. (That would be a different problem with a different set of odds.)

Hope this gives you the clarification you needed. Look forward to seeing the results. :)

[J_Player]

Hi Theseus,

Here is how I have your test protocol figured:

1. The basic attribute of the Examiner that you want to see tested is it's tendency to "pull towards" or otherwise indicate a gold target at some distance away. This is well documented in the claims of Rangertell, as well as for other target materials. This seems like a good attribute to test.

2. For your test protocol, you want to designate five different locations that are separated from each other in a semicircle by at least 10 feet, but less than 30 feet distance from each other. The target sample will be hidden in one of these five locations during the double blind portion of the test. (I am assuming that the semicircle you requested is a half circle of 180 degrees, and having a radius of at least 10 feet and less than 30 feet, with possible target locations at any of the five equally spaced paper cups set at least 10 feet apart from each other, or up to 30 feet apart if a 30 foot radius is used).

3. The method for hiding the gold sample will to be to put it under a paper cup, or a paper plate, or any other convenient way that conceals the location from the operator of the Examiner. The acceptable substitute methods of concealing the location of the target may be used in place of the cups described in the protocol (2 above).

4. The double blind portion of the test will include exactly five trials.

5. There will be shown a trial before and after the five double blind tests. The trial before and after will be done when the operator of the Examiner can see the target in plain sight, or knows where it is located.

6. A hat will be used for drawing a number from 1 to 5 to determine which hiding location is used for the next trial in the five double blind trials. All five of the numbers will be placed in the hat from which one is drawn each time a trial is made.

7. All five of the locations where the target may be hidden will have the paper cup or other substitute moved before each double blind trial so that none of the locations appears to be unmoved.

I presume the operator of the Examiner will be standing away from the test area until he is ready to make a trial. Then, when he makes the trial, he will walk to a stationary location at the center of the circle that is used to map the semicircle, and will not be permitted to move from that spot until he says the trial is completed. The location that the Examiner is pointing at the time the operator announces he has finished the trial will be observed to see which of the five possible locations it is pointing to. In the event it is not pointing exactly at any of the five locations, then the location on the radius of the semicircle will be marked and measured to determine the closest of the five locations, and the closest of the five possible target location will be used as the location detected for the trial. Upon completion of the trial the operator must move away from the stationary location until he is ready to make another trial.

I also presume that he will be permitted to move his arm in any way or direction he is able during the trial, or to not move it, at his discretion as long as he does not take any steps away from the fixed location where he makes the trial from.

And finally, I am presuming a single pre-test trial and a single post-test trial will be done in the exact same manner as the five double blind trials, except the operator of the Examiner can see or will know where the target is located. And the operator will be allowed to walk or make any tests he wants before the pre-test begins including walking close to the target while he can see it or not see it.

Does this summarize your test protocol?
If so, the test you requested can be performed as soon as WesP is ready to perform tests.

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

By the proper execution of the test may not even one person to know in which hole gold target is deposited. In contrary test can easily be false and therefore it is false.

By proper test all known potential outflow of data must be closed.

[J_Player]

By the proper execution of the test may not even one person to know in which hole gold target is deposited. In contrary test can easily be false and therefore it is false.

By proper test all known potential outflow of data must be closed.Is this your request for a test to be performed, or is it a challenge against the test protocol that Theseus asked to see performed?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Hi Theseus,

Here is how I have your test protocol figured:

1. The basic attribute of the Examiner that you want to see tested is it's tendency to "pull towards" or otherwise indicate a gold target at some distance away. This is well documented in the claims of Rangertell, as well as for other target materials. This seems like a good attribute to test.

2. For your test protocol, you want to designate five different locations that are separated from each other in a semicircle by at least 10 feet, but less than 30 feet distance from each other. The target sample will be hidden in one of these five locations during the double blind portion of the test. (I am assuming that the semicircle you requested is a half circle of 180 degrees, and having a radius of at least 10 feet and less than 30 feet, with possible target locations at any of the five equally spaced paper cups set at least 10 feet apart from each other, or up to 30 feet apart if a 30 foot radius is used).

3. The method for hiding the gold sample will to be to put it under a paper cup, or a paper plate, or any other convenient way that conceals the location from the operator of the Examiner. The acceptable substitute methods of concealing the location of the target may be used in place of the cups described in the protocol (2 above).

4. The double blind portion of the test will include exactly five trials.

5. There will be shown a trial before and after the five double blind tests. The trial before and after will be done when the operator of the Examiner can see the target in plain sight, or knows where it is located.

6. A hat will be used for drawing a number from 1 to 5 to determine which hiding location is used for the next trial in the five double blind trials. All five of the numbers will be placed in the hat from which one is drawn each time a trial is made.

7. All five of the locations where the target may be hidden will have the paper cup or other substitute moved before each double blind trial so that none of the locations appears to be unmoved.

I presume the operator of the Examiner will be standing away from the test area until he is ready to make a trial. Then, when he makes the trial, he will walk to a stationary location at the center of the circle that is used to map the semicircle, and will not be permitted to move from that spot until he says the trial is completed. The location that the Examiner is pointing at the time the operator announces he has finished the trial will be observed to see which of the five possible locations it is pointing to. In the event it is not pointing exactly at any of the five locations, then the location on the radius of the semicircle will be marked and measured to determine the closest of the five locations, and the closest of the five possible target location will be used as the location detected for the trial. Upon completion of the trial the operator must move away from the stationary location until he is ready to make another trial.

I also presume that he will be permitted to move his arm in any way or direction he is able during the trial, or to not move it, at his discretion as long as he does not take any steps away from the fixed location where he makes the trial from.

And finally, I am presuming a single pre-test trial and a single post-test trial will be done in the exact same manner as the five double blind trials, except the operator of the Examiner can see or will know where the target is located. And the operator will be allowed to walk or make any tests he wants before the pre-test begins including walking close to the target while he can see it or not see it.

Does this summarize your test protocol?
If so, the test you requested can be performed as soon as WesP is ready to perform tests.

Best wishes,
J_P

That appears to be an accurate description of the test I outlined.

Of course, we did not iterate all the normal DB precautions that must be observed, such as; the operator is not in any way exposed to the hiding of the target prior to the trials, a RECORDER person (standing in the area of the operator) records the chosen location (and Trial number) after the operator decides on a location, BUT the exact location of the target is not revealed to the RECORDER or the OPERATOR at that time. After the RECORDER and OPERATOR leave the area a SCORER checks which location actually contained the target, and notes it on a separate document, where the Trial number and Location is recorded. The SCORER and the person hiding the target, should probably NOT be the same person.

Following the 5 trials and the Post-test, the two documents; one from the RECORDER and one from the SCORER are compared and only then are the results known as to how many locations were correctly identified.

The reason for the Pre-test and the Post-test should be intuitively obvious, but I will iterate here.... These tests are done to illustrate the device and operator are able to find a valid target in plain sight, or one that the operator was privy to it being hidden.

Also, another fact that should be obvious, but I will state it anyway; During ANY of the TESTS (the 5 trials) should there be any one in the area of the operator (in view of the operator) that has knowledge of where the target is hidden.

[J_Player]

That appears to be an accurate description of the test I outlined.

Of course, we did not iterate all the normal DB precautions that must be observed, such as; the operator is not in any way exposed to the hiding of the target prior to the trials, a RECORDER person (standing in the area of the operator) records the chosen location (and Trial number) after the operator decides on a location, BUT the exact location of the target is not revealed to the RECORDER or the OPERATOR at that time. After the RECORDER and OPERATOR leave the area a SCORER checks which location actually contained the target, and notes it on a separate document, where the Trial number and Location is recorded. The SCORER and the person hiding the target, should probably NOT be the same person.

Following the 5 trials and the Post-test, the two documents; one from the RECORDER and one from the SCORER are compared and only then are the results known as to how many locations were correctly identified.

The reason for the Pre-test and the Post-test should be intuitively obvious, but I will iterate here.... These tests are done to illustrate the device and operator are able to find a valid target in plain sight, or one that the operator was privy to it being hidden.

Also, another fact that should be obvious, but I will state it anyway; During ANY of the TESTS (the 5 trials) should there be any one in the area of the operator (in view of the operator) that has knowledge of where the target is hidden.Hmmmm...
This introduces something new into your test.
The determination of which of the five possible target locations is to be decided by the operator of the Examiner rather than by a test proctor observing where the Examiner is pointing. This can be done as you requested.

It appears your test protocol cannot be performed with a single proctor. You want the proctor's job to be divided among several people who submit two separate documents. There is one person to score, and one to record. This becomes necessary because the recorder is required to stand in the area of the operator during his trial and record his decision. Then a separate scorer is required to check to see which location the target is actually located after the trial is done. And a third person is also suggested to be the person who hides the target in one of the five locations.

It looks to me like your protocol requires four people to perform the test:
1. The operator who will hold the Examiner
2. A person who records the operator's choice
3. A person who checks the location of the target after each trial
4. A person who hides the target before each trial

Any other persons present such as spectators or a persons operating cameras must leave the area before each trial so the only person who knows which of the possible five locations the the target is at is person hiding it. Then the person hiding the target must leave the area before everyone returns to perform the next trial.
Do I understand the details of your test protocol correctly?

I have two other questions:
1. Do you have any requirements for the ground that is used to mark out a test area?
2. What do you suggest should be done next in the event that the operator is not able to find the target in plain sight during the pre-test?


Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Hmmmm...
This introduces something new into your test.
The determination of which of the five possible target locations is to be decided by the operator of the Examiner rather than by a test proctor observing where the Examiner is pointing. This can be done as you requested.

It appears your test protocol cannot be performed with a single proctor. You want the proctor's job to be divided among several people who submit two separate documents. There is one person to score, and one to record. This becomes necessary because the recorder is required to stand in the area of the operator during his trial and record his decision. Then a separate scorer is required to check to see which location the target is actually located after the trial is done. And a third person is also suggested to be the person who hides the target in one of the five locations.

It looks to me like your protocol requires four people to perform the test:
1. The operator who will hold the Examiner
2. A person who records the operator's choice
3. A person who checks the location of the target after each trial
4. A person who hides the target before each trial

Any other persons present such as spectators or a persons operating cameras must leave the area before each trial so the only person who knows which of the possible five locations the the target is at is person hiding it. Then the person hiding the target must leave the area before everyone returns to perform the next trial.
Do I understand the details of your test protocol correctly?

I have two other questions:
1. Do you have any requirements for the ground that is used to mark out a test area?
2. What do you suggest should be done next in the event that the operator is not able to find the target in plain sight during the pre-test?


Best wishes,
J_P

Well, you said you were well aware of ordinary DB protocol, so I didn't feel it necessary to iterate the obvious. If you read over the example that Carl has already described, I don't think I'm suggesting anything different from it.

Please see:

http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=/info/dbtest.dat

However, what I did discuss I figured would be redundant, since you were already aware of DB protocol.

Answers to your questions:

1. I have no requirements for the ground the target and hiding devices would be on as long as it is an environment that the Examiner would be expected to operate correctly in.

2. The pre and post tests are to verify the device and operator are working correctly. If during several attempts of a pre-test the operator/device does not locate a plain-view target, then you can quickly conclude the device does NOT satisfy the attribute being tested, and I wouldn't see why you should waste time doing the trials.

If a pre-test was successful, than a successful post-test is simply to verify the device/operator are still operating correctly following the trials. If the post-test is not successful, than probably you should consider starting all over from the beginning. Perhaps certain conditions have changed, the device is no longer operating correctly, etc. etc.

[WM6]

Then the person hiding the target must leave the area before everyone returns to perform the next trial ........



..... and ASAP communicate to "the operator who will hold the Examiner" by phone or by walky-talky regarding location of buried target.

[Theseus]

..... and ASAP communicate to "the operator who will hold the Examiner" by phone or by walky-talky regarding location of buried target.

Whoa... am I calling out the details of my test, or are you? :(

[J_Player]

Well, you said you were well aware of ordinary DB protocol, so I didn't feel it necessary to iterate the obvious. If you read over the example that Carl has already described, I don't think I'm suggesting anything different from it.

Please see:

http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=/info/dbtest.dat

However, what I did discuss I figured would be redundant, since you were already aware of DB protocol.

Answers to your questions:

1. I have no requirements for the ground the target and hiding devices would be on as long as it is an environment that the Examiner would be expected to operate correctly in.

2. The pre and post tests are to verify the device and operator are working correctly. If during several attempts of a pre-test the operator/device does not locate a plain-view target, then you can quickly conclude the device does NOT satisfy the attribute being tested, and I wouldn't see why you should waste time doing the trials.

If a pre-test was successful, than a successful post-test is simply to verify the device/operator are still operating correctly following the trials. If the post-test is not successful, than probably you should consider starting all over from the beginning. Perhaps certain conditions have changed, the device is no longer operating correctly, etc. etc.I never said I was well aware of "ordinary double blind" protocol. I said it doesn't exist. I made a post addressed to you saying
"there is no standard double blind test protocol. There are thousands of different double blind protocols".
Not only did you misquote me, you are are suggesting that Carl's protocol is the "ordinary protocol" for double blind. I say it is not, and no such "ordinary protocol" exists for double blind testing. It is a methodology, not a protocol. Carl's protocol that you cited is only one of several double blind protocols Carl described for testing dowsing and LRLs. Some of his protocols do not even include choosing from a number known hidden locations. What makes you think there is anything standard about a double blind protocol, or even about the different protocols Carl described for his tests?

I also pointed out some differences between the purpose of your double blind test and Carl's, as well as how Carl made provisions to modify his protocol to suit both him and the person applying to win his money.

You do need to be 100% redundant if you intend to copy only some parts from one or more of Carl's protocols, because you do not have any money at stake, and because the protocol you requested so far is not the same as any of Carl's. Do you have a clue why several people are specified in Carl's protocol you cited? His reasons do not apply to any of the parties who will be conducting your test request, and serve no purpose to me or anyone else involved at the test site. In fact they make the test more difficult to perform. Not even Carl's prize protocol specifies four people are necessary. He makes a provision to perform his test with only one person other than the claimant of his prize. It appears you decided to copy some procedures from one of Carl's test protocols to combine with your own protocol, not knowing how to design a simpler double blind test.

WesP as well as I will need to know any further details that you haven't explained yet, including what provisions you are allowing to modify the protocol, especially in the area of the four volunteers that must be recruited to perform your test.

I can insure the ground is suitable for testing an Examiner.

In the event that the operator is not able to find the target in plain sight during the pre-test, I still don't know what you suggest should be done. Your answer was I can formulate a conclusion about the results of test trials that are not started. I will not be formulating any conclusions. I will only perform a test and report the data. Should I speculate that you would suggest the test stopped if the operator cannot locate a known target location during the pre-test trial?


Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

I never said I was well aware of "ordinary double blind" protocol. I said it doesn't exist. I made a post addressed to you saying
"there is no standard double blind test protocol. There are thousands of different double blind protocols".
Not only did you misquote me, you are are suggesting that Carl's protocol is the "ordinary protocol" for double blind. I say it is not, and no such "ordinary protocol" exists for double blind testing. It is a methodology, not a protocol. Carl's protocol that you cited is only one of several double blind protocols Carl described for testing dowsing and LRLs. Some of his protocols do not even include choosing from a number known hidden locations. What makes you think there is anything standard about a double blind protocol, or even about the different protocols Carl described for his tests?

I also pointed out some differences between the purpose of your double blind test and Carl's, as well as how Carl made provisions to modify his protocol to suit both him and the person applying to win his money.

You do need to be 100% redundant if you intend to copy only some parts from one or more of Carl's protocols, because you do not have any money at stake, and because the protocol you requested so far is not the same as any of Carl's. Do you have a clue why several people are specified in Carl's protocol you cited? His reasons do not apply to any of the parties who will be conducting your test request, and serve no purpose to me or anyone else involved at the test site. In fact they make the test more difficult to perform. Not even Carl's prize protocol specifies four people are necessary. He makes a provision to perform his test with only one person other than the claimant of his prize. It appears you decided to copy some procedures from one of Carl's test protocols to combine with your own protocol, not knowing how to design a simpler double blind test.

WesP as well as I will need to know any further details that you haven't explained yet, including what provisions you are allowing to modify the protocol, especially in the area of the four volunteers that must be recruited to perform your test.

I can insure the ground is suitable for testing an Examiner.

In the event that the operator is not able to find the target in plain sight during the pre-test, I still don't know what you suggest should be done. Your answer was I can formulate a conclusion about the results of test trials that are not started. I will not be formulating any conclusions. I will only perform a test and report the data. Should I speculate that you would suggest the test stopped if the operator cannot locate a known target location during the pre-test trial?


Best wishes,
J_P

Hey..... you know what, Graham; just forget I even requested a test. I really don't have time to write a dissertation on Double-Blind Testing for you, and it appears that's where we are headed. That's not to say that I couldn't write a long drawn-out method for you, I'm just saying, I don't have the desire or the time to play "what if" games and write one. I used to write test procedures for a living (among a lot of other things) and since retiring, I really have no desire to expend that kind of effort again; plus I have a large project that I'm finishing and don't have a lot of spare time right now.

Rather than me come up with a customized protocol that is obviously never going to meet with your approval; why don't you just use the one Carl wrote up, and do it exactly as he stated. I've read it over several times, agree with the protocol, and believe it to be quite adequate for the device you are testing. If you don't want to do that, why don't you forget the whole idea of "testing" the Examiner.

I really question whether you ever had any intention of testing the Examiner anyway.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but expending a huge amount of time and resources for the testing of a plain and simple dowsing wand just isn't something that is very high up on my priority pole. I've tested lots of dowsing wands, and I already know the outcome that a "fair" test of the Examiner will yield.

Good luck.... you may be better off spending your spare time on fishing and/or photography. And, yes, I've done a lot of "one" of those things too. :D

[WM6]

Whoa... am I calling out the details of my test, or are you? :(



No I am not, I am hold in top secrecy main detail that Examiner is not working.

[hung]

Actually I'm an Administrator,


Humm... No moderating then. Now you are 'mr. administrator' whose only duties cover threats to members of getting their posts deleted...Situation is worse than I thought. And you infer that I'm subject to this for 'name callings'.
So, you have never had any 'name calling' post towards myself along all this time?:lol::lol: Hilarious.
Anyway, this would never happened in our current LRL closed group forum. 'Types' as yourself would not even be allowed to join, much less getting posts deleted as you would not even get to this point.

Hey mr. administrator, what contributions have you provided to the RS forum to date? Even Carl, your boss, gave some, like his MFD project. Frequencies are completely wrong, but he did contribute.
What about you, uh? Allow me to answer it for ya: you gave nothing. None, nada, nil.
Well, except for that crap PD schematics full of mistakes that I had to retrace for the private email group at the time.
Mirror Ivconic. Being a much more competent EE than you are, he is as much of a sekptical as you, but he had the guts to leave. But you...
Explain your big contradiction here to the forum. A self confessed skeptic who does not admit LRLs, yet insists in remaining here demanding people like Esteban for instance, to provide working schematics as 'proof', just to benefit from it. Just like a bloodsucking leech to get one's sweat and efforts for free...
Always wanted lunch for free, eh? What a shame...

[hung]

Hey mr. Administrator, take a look at what your 'idemotor' effect has done to me this afternoon at my brother's backyard.
It took me the total of 1 minute and 45 seconds to locate it, pinpoint it, dig it and recover it. All with the examiner.

Now seriously... Go back to read what ideomotor is. You don't have a clue what it is. Hint, start by some german sites...:lol:

Oh, almost forgot. It's a 20 centavos brazilian coin, 1970.

[WM6]

It took me the total of 1 minute and 45 seconds to locate it, pinpoint it, dig it and recover it. All with the examiner.

Oh, almost forgot. It's a 20 centavos brazilian coin, 1970.



You forgot to say that you first took total 22 minutes to buried those mineoro centavos in your backyard.

[Fred]

It took me the total of 1 minute and 45 seconds to locate it, pinpoint it, dig it and recover it. All with the examiner.
Did you also use a regular MD to pinpoint it ? because i can´t see how you can hold the RT horizontal while pinpointing at a few cm distance...

[WM6]

Is this your request for a test to be performed, or is it a challenge against the test protocol that Theseus asked to see performed?



I agree with Theseus protocol, request is only on additional measure to prevent lack of for test validity decisive data.

[WM6]

because i can´t see how you can hold the RT horizontal while pinpointing at a few cm distance...



They convert it in RT Pistol.

You cannot see because it was done in seventh dimension of his back(yard) and then coming back to blackyard.

There was an unrepeatable phenomenon.

[Qiaozhi]

Humm... No moderating then. Now you are 'mr. administrator' whose only duties cover threats to members of getting their posts deleted...Situation is worse than I thought. And you infer that I'm subject to this for 'name callings'.
I do not recall "threatening" anyone. :shrug: In fact we have been particularly lenient towards yourself. With the number of personal insults you have directed at Carl and others on this forum, I'm surprised Carl has not banned you a long time ago. Perhaps it is the amusement factor that weighs in your favor. :rolleyes:

So, you have never had any 'name calling' post towards myself along all this time?:lol::lol: Hilarious.
I do not indulge in name calling. If you cannot take the heat (i.e. criticism) then get out of the fire. :razz:

Anyway, this would never happened in our current LRL closed group forum. 'Types' as yourself would not even be allowed to join, much less getting posts deleted as you would not even get to this point.
I wouldn't expect anything different from your "LRL Closed Group Forum". It's the usual close-minded head-in-sand approach. Good luck in your current wild goose chase. :lol:

Hey mr. administrator, what contributions have you provided to the RS forum to date? Even Carl, your boss, gave some, like his MFD project. Frequencies are completely wrong, but he did contribute.
What about you, uh? Allow me to answer it for ya: you gave nothing. None, nada, nil.
That doesn't even make sense. :stars:

Well, except for that crap PD schematics full of mistakes that I had to retrace for the private email group at the time.
Considering the people who were involved in the PD back-engineering, the accuracy of the schematic is extremely high, and since the majority of the design was an exact copy of an ancient Heathkit T/R detector, the mistakes in that part are zero. The fake video you posted of your own PD only serves to show your desperation in promoting this nonsense.

Mirror Ivconic. Being a much more competent EE than you are, he is as much of a sekptical as you, but he had the guts to leave. But you...
Explain your big contradiction here to the forum. A self confessed skeptic who does not admit LRLs, yet insists in remaining here demanding people like Esteban for instance, to provide working schematics as 'proof', just to benefit from it. Just like a bloodsucking leech to get one's sweat and efforts for free...
Always wanted lunch for free, eh? What a shame...
You are very very confused. No-one here is "demanding" Esteban to provide a working schematic. On the contrary, the LRL proponents come to this forum of their own free will and post extraordinary claims. If you post such claims then you must be prepared to be challenged. Many times you and Esteban have been politely asked to supply a simple LRL design that can be replicated to confirm your claims. Many years later ... what do we find? ... Still nothing. Conclusion - LRLs do not work as advertised.

The PD is a different subject, and the details were supplied by another member. Have you already forgotten the panic attack you had when you discovered that skeptics were about to learn the "secret" of the Alonso PD? :lol: The "secret" was of course that it was copied from a detector kit designed in the 1970s. :razz:

[Qiaozhi]

Hey mr. Administrator, take a look at what your 'idemotor' effect has done to me this afternoon at my brother's backyard.
It took me the total of 1 minute and 45 seconds to locate it, pinpoint it, dig it and recover it. All with the examiner.

Now seriously... Go back to read what ideomotor is. You don't have a clue what it is. Hint, start by some german sites...:lol:

Oh, almost forgot. It's a 20 centavos brazilian coin, 1970.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: That's funny!

This what I meant about the amusement factor.

[Jim]

Hey mr. Administrator, take a look at what your 'idemotor' effect has done to me this afternoon at my brother's backyard.
It took me the total of 1 minute and 45 seconds to locate it, pinpoint it, dig it and recover it. All with the examiner.

Now seriously... Go back to read what ideomotor is. You don't have a clue what it is. Hint, start by some german sites...:lol:

Oh, almost forgot. It's a 20 centavos brazilian coin, 1970.

Awww...you've started padding threads with staged photographs like your comrade Art.

Isn't that special

[J_Player]

....we have been particularly lenient towards yourself. With the number of personal insults you have directed at Carl and others on this forum, I'm surprised Carl has not banned you a long time ago. Perhaps it is the amusement factor that weighs in your favor. :rolleyes:Hey...
You are right about that. I like the amusement factor a lot.

From the time I learned the new hungScience where signal lines are shot and returned, and the secret gold DNA produced substance that coats gold to protect it from oxidation, I knew that Geotech would be a good place to look for amusement. And the stories I hear of great achievements from the secret team along with debunkering are enough to make me watch patiently for the next Dr. hung episode. :rolleyes:

I guess I could sum up hung's contributions in a single image:
.
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3125&stc=1&d=1191304780

[WM6]

This what I meant about the amusement factor.



Hovever, maybe hung is right (see on his "coin finding" picture), because he has scientific HP calculator on his RT, not common Casio.

I am somewhat in doubt only because of the soil from flower pots on his brasilian coin.

[Theseus]

Wow! Your latest discussion (dissertation) in the area of the possible "halo effect" was most impressive...

Excerpt... "What we do know is that in some cases, a long-time buried metal object will give a larger than normal signal until after it is dug. Your source of information would have us believe the larger signal is caused by corroding metal ions creating a battery in the ground, with the help of water and natural acids and sulfur compounds that are rinsed into the soil when it is rainy."

....and must have taken some significant time to put together and pen.

With those kinds of resources available to you, I'm wondering if you have also had similar resources and time to devote to the rather "quiet" topic of Examiner testing?

What's been happening in that arena... now that the rains and mud are gone?

What happened with the GeoTech member who was coming to your location to try the device and run through a few tests?

Any videos up on the "special" website you were creating for the reporting of the test results?

Just kind of wondering what happened.... :shrug:

[J_Player]

Wow! Your latest discussion (dissertation) in the area of the possible "halo effect" was most impressive...

Excerpt... "What we do know is that in some cases, a long-time buried metal object will give a larger than normal signal until after it is dug. Your source of information would have us believe the larger signal is caused by corroding metal ions creating a battery in the ground, with the help of water and natural acids and sulfur compounds that are rinsed into the soil when it is rainy."

....and must have taken some significant time to put together and pen.

With those kinds of resources available to you, I'm wondering if you have also had similar resources and time to devote to the rather "quiet" topic of Examiner testing?

What's been happening in that arena... now that the rains and mud are gone?

What happened with the GeoTech member who was coming to your location to try the device and run through a few tests?

Any videos up on the "special" website you were creating for the reporting of the test results?

Just kind of wondering what happened.... :shrug:Hi Theseus,
It takes a lot less resoruces than you might imagine when I have electronic tools at hand.

I don't generally conduct the kind of tests you want to see until after I establish a base line, which I haven't been able to do yet. However, I have spent considerable time making adjustments trying to establish a baseline, and arrived at a conclusion that I must be biologically impaired. Either that, or the Examiner is damaged in a way that prevents it from functioning as intended by the designer. The amount of time that passes before testing begins is more than most people realize when considering the scheduling and preparations that must be mobilized at a test site, and do not compare to the time to make a long forum post.

I was planning to send the Examiner back to the factory to exchange it for a replacement in order to see if a fresh one makes a difference in my ability to locate treasure. This would tend to confirm that I am biologically impaired or not, and remove all doubts that there is any damage that makes the Examiner non-functional. However, with the appearance of a volunteer, I decided to wait until he is ready to try to establish a base line with the examiner. I consider this much preferable to sending the Examiner back, because the response we see from another LRL operator may be able to show if I am biologically impaired, or if the Examiner simply needs replacement.

So I will hang onto the Examiner until the volunteer has had a chance to try the Examiner and see if we can establish a base line to perform tests with.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Hi Theseus,
It takes a lot less resoruces than you might imagine when I have electronic tools at hand.

I don't generally conduct the kind of tests you want to see until after I establish a base line, which I haven't been able to do yet. However, I have spent considerable time making adjustments trying to establish a baseline, and arrived at a conclusion that I must be biologically impaired. Either that, or the Examiner is damaged in a way that prevents it from functioning as intended by the designer. The amount of time that passes before testing begins is more than most people realize when considering the scheduling and preparations that must be mobilized at a test site, and do not compare to the time to make a long forum post.

I was planning to send the Examiner back to the factory to exchange it for a replacement in order to see if a fresh one makes a difference in my ability to locate treasure. This would tend to confirm that I am biologically impaired or not, and remove all doubts that there is any damage that makes the Examiner non-functional. However, with the appearance of a volunteer, I decided to wait until he is ready to try to establish a base line with the examiner. I consider this much preferable to sending the Examiner back, because the response we see from another LRL operator may be able to show if I am biologically impaired, or if the Examiner simply needs replacement.

So I will hang onto the Examiner until the volunteer has had a chance to try the Examiner and see if we can establish a base line to perform tests with.

Best wishes,
J_P

I thought you had definitely determined, some time ago, that you were not personally going to be able to test the device.

At present, after trying to locate known targets with the Examiner adjusted at the factory settings, and re-adjusted to different settings, I have concluded that I am a person who is biologically impaired, and cannot perform a scientific test on an Examiner even if it is tuned perfectly.Bringing in the volunteer should prove that what you suspect is actually true. On the other hand, if the volunteer at least gets a response from the device for targets in plain sight, but fails to get accurate results on targets that are unknown to him; might you still conclude the device is damaged and have to send it back?

I'm curious at what point, a conclusion may be drawn that in fact the device simply does not live up to the advertised claims? Seems like we could be chasing our tail here.... to infinity.

[J_Player]

I thought you had definitely determined, some time ago, that you were not personally going to be able to test the device.You can spend your time reading my previous posts and look for the words you need to formulate what you want to think. My conclusion is that I am biologically impaired. Any uncertainty is a matter of degree of impairment, not a question of whether the impairment exists. Until I see some evidence that I am able to find a suitable response, I will consider myself to be a poor choice as an operator of the Examiner. However, I will be conducting tests if I see a base line can be established. I suspect you are aware that I am capable of conducting tests without being the operator of the Examiner.
Bringing in the volunteer should prove that what you suspect is actually true. On the other hand, if the volunteer at least gets a response from the device for targets in plain sight, but fails to get accurate results on targets that are unknown to him; might you still conclude the device is damaged and have to send it back?Unless I see that that this Examiner is ready to perform a number of documented tests, I plan to send it back for a replacement. I leave the conclusions to others.
I'm curious at what point, a conclusion may be drawn that in fact the device simply does not live up to the advertised claims? Seems like we could be chasing our tail here.... to infinity. For your purposes you may be wise to draw that conclusion now. In fact, it surprises me you even have an interest in any of my activities with the Examiner after reading your previous post where you stated:
"I will consider the once bally-whoed testing of the Examiner as permanently closed, and will promise to quit "bugging" you about getting on with it".


Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

You can spend your time reading my previous posts and look for the words you need to formulate what you want to think. My conclusion is that I am biologically impaired. Any uncertainty is a matter of degree of impairment, not a question of whether the impairment exists. Until I see some evidence that I am able to find a suitable response, I will consider myself to be a poor choice as an operator of the Examiner. However, I will be conducting tests if I see a base line can be established. I suspect you are aware that I am capable of conducting tests without being the operator of the Examiner.
Unless I see that that this Examiner is ready to perform a number of documented tests, I plan to send it back for a replacement. I leave the conclusions to others.
For your purposes you may be wise to draw that conclusion now. In fact, it surprises me you even have an interest in any of my activities with the Examiner after reading your previous post where you stated:
"I will consider the once bally-whoed testing of the Examiner as permanently closed, and will promise to quit "bugging" you about getting on with it".


Best wishes,
J_P

Well, I keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but perhaps I'm wasting my time, and should simply (as you recommend) revert to my earlier conclusion: I will consider the once bally-whoed testing of the Examiner as permanently closed...

...especially in light of you not coming forward with a scheduled time frame for your volunteer(?) to arrive.

:frown: incredibly sad really, when you consider we are approaching 600 postings in this thread, and the readership is no closer today, to seeing test results, than we were when the thread was started.

(Incidentally, I'm not Ernie... perhaps your ref was simply in error.)

[J_Player]

(Incidentally, I'm not Ernie... perhaps your ref was simply in error.)Yes, it was an error. Sorry.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

J_P...are you still in possession of the device, or did you send it back for a replacement?

Did this discussion get moved to a "secret" area?

Thanks, Jim

[J_Player]

J_P...are you still in possession of the device, or did you send it back for a replacement?

Did this discussion get moved to a "secret" area?

Thanks, JimI am not in posession of the device. I sent it back for a replacement. I will make a post here when the replacement arrives.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

I am not in posession of the device. I sent it back for a replacement. I will make a post here when the replacement arrives.

Best wishes,
J_P


Thank you for your reply :)

[hipopp]

discussion moved to secret area? No just sick of hearing about it all the time needed a break...just the outcome rangertell wanted to make us all shut up. This guy is a real sicko no doubt about it. In the meantime he has a new device equally as fraudulent and selling on Ebay. Communications with our current affairs TV programs are continuing. He will be subjected to the full weight of consumer law and public sentiment. Probably run out of the country I reckon....will keep you all informed. regards hipopp

[Theseus]

discussion moved to secret area? No just sick of hearing about it all the time needed a break...just the outcome rangertell wanted to make us all shut up. This guy is a real sicko no doubt about it. In the meantime he has a new device equally as fraudulent and selling on Ebay. Communications with our current affairs TV programs are continuing. He will be subjected to the full weight of consumer law and public sentiment. Probably run out of the country I reckon....will keep you all informed. regards hipopp

Yes, please keep us informed. It is fraud and should be prosecuted, or at the very least exposed so the consumer public can be made aware of it.

[Jim]

Yes, please keep us informed. It is fraud and should be prosecuted, or at the very least exposed so the consumer public can be made aware of it.

Actually, with all the goings on over in the UK, in regards to these scam devices...now would be a good time for public awareness of these fraudulent devices

[Jim]

Another quick question for you, J_P (sorry to keep bothering you).....did your RangerTell device have a FCC ID number on it, or any FCC data contained within the owners manual that would indicate the device was approved for export into the Untied States, as per Part 15 and Federal Law?

Thanks again, Jim

[hung]

Another quick question for you, J_P (sorry to keep bothering you).....did your RangerTell device have a FCC ID number on it, or any FCC data contained within the owners manual that would indicate the device was approved for export into the Untied States, as per Part 15 and Federal Law?

Thanks again, Jim

Not satisfied enough in being spanked by the facts, spanked by Art and also by some new members over TNET, this poor fella now attains to an insignificancy in one more attempt to discredit the device.

There are skeptics and obsessed skeptics suffering from mental problems.
This poor soul falls in this last category.
He is now only a sad object of our concern.

[Fred]

There are skeptics and obcessed skeptics suffering from mental problems.
This poor soul falls in this last category.
He is now only a sad object of our concern.
Hung, it looks like you are concerned by legal issues....:shocked:
As the device is totally passive i´m sure there will be no FCC problems-except for the chinese calculator maybe :D

[Theseus]

Not satisfied enough in being spanked by the facts, spanked by Art and also by some new members over TNET, this poor fella now attains to an insignificancy in one more attempt to discredit the device.

There are skeptics and obsessed skeptics suffering from mental problems.
This poor soul falls in this last category.
He is now only a sad object of our concern.

What a laugh you are Hung. In the past few weeks, Art has proved himself to be nothing more than a mental case with some really serious psychological problems.

He adds absolutely nothing to the Forum over there and is the only participant who can boast; being placed on IGNORE by the most number of readers. He neither understands the dialog nor can render meaningful input, since he can hardly compose any type of posting that isn't filled with made up terms, misspelled words galore and grammar that is basically at the level of the severely handicapped.

I really feel very sorry for him, since his daily (or hourly) presence is such an embarrassment to him and I'm sure other LRL users and "believers".

But if Art is your poster boy for showcasing your LRL concepts and beliefs; well, all I can say is - you picked a real winner. Art needs all the help he can get so I hope you stick around to help him.

Far as spanking anyone with facts; Art wouldn't know or recognize a fact if it hit him squarely between the eyes.

Art's facts, that you speak about, consist of "staged videos (where he is trying to make people think he is finding stuff)", "Photoshopped pictures" and totally wrong crap he gathers off of Google and pastes into postings.

The poor man really needs some professional help, and if you were really his friend, you would be trying to get him convinced of that fact. :D

[Dell Winders]

Hi hipopp,
I think Dell is posting laughing faces because he thinks Carl doesn't know much about the RangerTell Examiner while Dell does. Maybe it would be good for Dell Winders to tape an interview with 60 minutes too, so he can show us a Rangertell finding hidden treasures. Maybe coins hidden in the sand. This would show once and for all that Dell knows what he is talking about.

I think you are right about Carl. He probably has more experience in dealing with electronic circuits used for metal detecting than most of the members of this forum, and can speak with authority on the topic better than the rest of us can. I think he is the only forum member who has taken apart a RangerTell Examiner, and is also willing to demonstrate it doing what it does. Do you think Dell Winders will demonstrate the RangerTell Examiner doing what it does on international TV? Or maybe hung, who claims he can locate treasures at long range with his "diode model"?

I haven't had anyone take me up on my offer to make a videotape of them demonstrating their LRL recovering treasure live yet, and post a free professional website showing their demonstration along with videos linked to all the major treasure hunting forums. So maybe a "60 Minutes" interview with Geotech forum members is RangerTell's chance to get the much needed publicity to promote the RangerTell Examiner by showing what it is and what it can do worldwide.

Best wishes,
J_P

I don't visit this site much any more, so I apologize for not making a reply to my name sooner.

I have never seen, tested , or used a RT examiner. I know nothing about it, so I am not qualified to comment on it. Carl, has more experience with the Ranger Tell, than I do. Your attempted interpretation of the laughing faces is totally inaccurate.

I don't have the ability to look at a photo and determine if a product works or not, or how it works, as some pretend to be able to do. I don't accept Carl's Duck criterion for evaluating an LRL, as credible.

It will be awhile before I visit here again, so I won't be responding to any reply Dell

[WM6]

I don't visit this site much any more, so ....



Why Dell? I can only explain that you must found a huge treasure?

[Qiaozhi]

I have never seen, tested , or used a RT examiner. I know nothing about it, so I am not qualified to comment on it.
So what was the point of this random post? :rolleyes:

[Jim]

Not satisfied enough in being spanked by the facts, spanked by Art and also by some new members over TNET, this poor fella now attains to an insignificancy in one more attempt to discredit the device.

There are skeptics and obsessed skeptics suffering from mental problems.
This poor soul falls in this last category.
He is now only a sad object of our concern.

I believe my question was directed to J_P.

No need to get worked up into a lather, just because you yourself spent hundreds of dollars for a calculator :lol:

[Qiaozhi]

Not satisfied enough in being spanked by the facts, spanked by Art and also by some new members over TNET, this poor fella now attains to an insignificancy in one more attempt to discredit the device.

There are skeptics and obsessed skeptics suffering from mental problems.
This poor soul falls in this last category.
He is now only a sad object of our concern.
Still busy flogging a dead horse? :lol:

[Jim]

Still busy flogging a dead horse? :lol:

Hung is quite the gossiping Nancy. Bouncing back and forth between forums, as if what he has to say has any weight to it.

I own him....and didn't even have to go phishing :lol:

[J_Player]

I don't visit this site much any more, so I apologize for not making a reply to my name sooner.

I have never seen, tested , or used a RT examiner. I know nothing about it, so I am not qualified to comment on it. Carl, has more experience with the Ranger Tell, than I do. Your attempted interpretation of the laughing faces is totally inaccurate.

I don't have the ability to look at a photo and determine if a product works or not, or how it works, as some pretend to be able to do. I don't accept Carl's Duck criterion for evaluating an LRL, as credible.

It will be awhile before I visit here again, so I won't be responding to any reply DellOk Dell,
You may be excused. Please don't let it happen again.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

Another quick question for you, J_P (sorry to keep bothering you).....did your RangerTell device have a FCC ID number on it, or any FCC data contained within the owners manual that would indicate the device was approved for export into the Untied States, as per Part 15 and Federal Law?

Thanks again, JimI saw no FCC ID number on the Examiner. In fact you saw what I saw from the photos I posted. I could find no numbers anywhere except some silk screened on components.

I doubt the Examiner is subject to FCC ID, as it has no power source other than picking up induced signals broadcast by the calculator (I believe the calculator is approved for use in the USA). I would imagine the Examiner actually detects and emits signals in a similar fashion to a crystal radio, so whatever FCC requirements a crystal radio has would seem to be correct for the Examiner. But then I'm just guessing.

I receieved an email from the Rangertell factory rep stating they received the Examiner I returned.
They gave me permission to repost their email message, so here is what they said:
"The returned Examiner's coil required readjusting. Whether this occurred during transit or not is impossible to tell.
It works fine now but we’ve sent another to save time. This doesn’t happen often but it does occasionally. In these cases we replace free of charge.
There were also issues with the trimmer cap making the first experiments inaccurate".

I expect the replacement Examiner to arrive any day now judging from my previous experience with shipping from Australia.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

I saw no FCC ID number on the Examiner. In fact you saw what I saw from the photos I posted. I could find no numbers anywhere except some silk screened on components.

I doubt the Examiner is subject to FCC ID, as it has no power source other than picking up induced signals broadcast by the calculator (I believe the calculator is approved for use in the USA). I would imagine the Examiner actually detects and emits signals in a similar fashion to a crystal radio, so whatever FCC requirements a crystal radio has would seem to be correct for the Examiner. But then I'm just guessing.

I receieved an email from the Rangertell factory rep stating they received the Examiner I returned.
They gave me permission to repost their email message, so here is what they said:
"The returned Examiner's coil required readjusting. Whether this occurred during transit or not is impossible to tell.
It works fine now but we’ve sent another to save time. This doesn’t happen often but it does occasionally. In these cases we replace free of charge.
There were also issues with the trimmer cap making the first experiments inaccurate".

I expect the replacement Examiner to arrive any day now judging from my previous experience with shipping from Australia.

Best wishes,
J_P

Thanks for your reply. I assume there was no mention in the owners manual or instructions that the device was certified/verified/tested, by any agencies or by the manufactuerer in regards to being compliant to any standards. Understandable.

Part 15 is not specific as to how, or what drives the low-power transmitter. That would include a crystal driven transmitter, rubbing two sticks together or wishing really, really hard. A low power transmitter is just that. Unless, of course the low power transmitter doesn't actually transmit. The Part 15 would not apply

Good luck with the new unit.

[J_Player]

Thanks for your reply. I assume there was no mention in the owners manual or instructions that the device was certified/verified/tested, by any agencies or by the manufactuerer in regards to being compliant to any standards. Understandable.

Part 15 is not specific as to how, or what drives the low-power transmitter. That would include a crystal driven transmitter, rubbing two sticks together or wishing really, really hard. A low power transmitter is just that. Unless, of course the low power transmitter doesn't actually transmit. The Part 15 would not apply

Good luck with the new unit.From what I have read, the Examiner is not a transmitter, but a receiver. The signal that determines the resonant frequency tuning for the Examiner is derived from the EMI emissions from a nearby calculator as well as a low frequency millivolt signal from the operator's body. But the actual power that drives the Examiner circuit is derived from atmospheric static electric field differential between the antenna altitude and the ground path in the operator's hand. From what I read, the examiner does not send a signal. It receives a signal if one is present in the air at the resonant frequency it is tuned to. In essence, if you hold a hold a non-powered circuit board with an ariel soldered to it in your hand while your feet are on the ground, you are generating a similar amount of power and RF interference as the Examiner from another passive circuit into the atmosphere, which I suspect is below level of ambient EMI/RFI interference in the air.

Now, if you are suggesting that Part 15 would require the circuit board with an ariel soldered to it must have some FCC certification because the operator is holding it outside where there is a static voltage gradient in the air, then I would think all electronic circuits that are hand-held outside in the air must also have an FCC certificate. Maybe holding a piece of wire in the air must also have an FCC certificate. Somehow, I haven't yet seen any FCC stickers on the spools of wire at the supply houses, nor do I see FCC stickers on miniature crystal radio receivers, or sticks used to rub together to make fire. Maybe this is the reason why Part 15 is not specific to what equipment requires the approval. Maybe they want to require approvals only for circuits that use enough power to generate some interference above the ambient levels found in relatively quiet EMI areas (ie: devices that show measureable radiated power that could cause interference in consumer electronics). But then, I am only speculating. Perhaps you know better.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Fred]

Hi JP,

I hope providence ha been taken so that "detuning" will not happen again, or else it could be an endless story.
On the other hand, that would explain the apparent success of ebay business :D

[J_Player]

Hi JP,

I hope providence ha been taken so that "detuning" will not happen again, or else it could be an endless story.
On the other hand, that would explain the apparent success of ebay business :DHi Fred,
I asked the Factory rep to personally test the replacement Examiner or have someone at the factory personally test it before sending it. I was told They will send a unit that has a fixed trimmer cap.
I presume this means the trimmer cap is adjusted at the factory to work for average users, and is somehow fixed so it cannot be adjusted to a different value.

Also, this time I will take precautions, such as not opening the examiner. This should eliminate any possibility of causing anything inside to become detuned or damaged after the Examiner arrives.
And with no trimmer cap to adjust, this leaves only three controls to be concerned about: The sensitivity adjustment, antenna length, and calculator key codes.

For an ordinary test scenario on a grass lawn or an open field, the procedure should be simple now. Simply extend the antenna by one segment, then enter the key code for the target you are searching for. And adjust the sensitivity before starting for the best response to the target. Of course there are other time consuming details to take care of such as bringing the test target items, the testing parafanalia, recording equipment, and checking the test area for trash that could cause a false signal. In spite of the time consuming details, testing should be easier than the previous attempts because we know there is no need to suspect a difficult trimmer cap adjustment must be made before the Examiner can become operational.

Best wishes,
J_P

[osman]

If, rangertell, everyone can use, in a way
precise, measurable, adjustable.
if.
better, would have imagined.
Each device, unfortunately, there are weaknesses.
many, I used the device.
Most of the money trap.
(Through radio, out) $ 1,650
who make and sell on this site, these pages frequently writes.
Do not write a word of criticism badly.
A device with work, I think if you can get.
To critics, up to a point.
What systems of land, which the technology, to treasure the most information, data, gives.
bilgisi.olan experience for the open front.
A simple flip-flop circuit, + tip dipped into the soil, better than many MFD.

osman

[hung]

From what I have read, the Examiner is not a transmitter, but a receiver. The signal that determines the resonant frequency tuning for the Examiner is derived from the EMI emissions from a nearby calculator as well as a low frequency millivolt signal from the operator's body. But the actual power that drives the Examiner circuit is derived from atmospheric static electric field differential between the antenna altitude and the ground path in the operator's hand. From what I read, the examiner does not send a signal. It receives a signal if one is present in the air at the resonant frequency it is tuned to.

Best wishes,
J_P

No. You are mistaken on this. The device actually transmits and receives. Alignment of the swiveling antenna is acomplished by induced polarization.

[Fred]

No. You are mistaken on this. The device actually transmits and receives. Alignment of the swiveling antenna is acomplished by induced polarization.


:lol::lol: I am beginning to like your sense of humor, Hung :thumb:

[Qiaozhi]

No. You are mistaken on this. The device actually transmits and receives. Alignment of the swiveling antenna is acomplished by induced polarization.
No. You are also mistaken. Alignment of the swiveling antenna is accomplished by the ideomotor effect, not by any pseudo-scientific gobbledygook explanation.

[J_Player]

No. You are mistaken on this. The device actually transmits and receives. Alignment of the swiveling antenna is acomplished by induced polarization.According to what is written in the Rangertell factory manual your statement is not correct. Based only on what the factory manual says, the Examiner detects signals in the air in a similar manner to a radio tuning signals in the air that are at the same frequency as the receiver is set to. In other words, the factory is saying the Examiner is a receiver, not a transmitter. In fact there is no place in the manual where the Examiner is claimed to transmit anything. Nor is it claimed to incorporate any of the principles of induced polarization. But then you are aware that induced polarization requires two or more probes in the ground, and a high voltage/high current power supply which is often provided by a portable generator, and electronics that measures the phase variations between the current in remote ground probes connected to the power source. I see no high power equipment in any Rangertell products used to inject high voltage into remote ground probes or circuits to measure phase information travelling through the conductors from the remote probes.
More importantly, you are now contradicting your previous statements where you definitely described how the Examiner works:

Originally posted by hung
"This is the principle in which the Rangertell Examiner works. Resonance to the elements subatomic levels when a carrier signal line is shot and returned". http://geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=41226#post41226 (http://geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=41226#post41226)

Most of the world is believing your earlier teachings of shooting signal lines, not your new induced polarization teaching. I am suspecting your new induced polarization teaching is false infornation you are posting to confuse the readers of this forum. We all know induced polarization methods cannot be accomplished in a hand-held device that is not connected to two or more ground probes.

.... Unless.... it is working through advanced radionics techniques known only to paranormal people...

Originally posted by hung
"The Examiner is clearly a radionic device.
Now if you don't believe in radionics, dowsing, zahoris, UFOs, etc. it's another thing and you have all the right to do it and it's your prvillege too".
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=64567#post64567 (http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=64567#post64567)

I have heard stories where some operators of UFOs are able to accomplish feats that appear to be magic to normal earth people... :rolleyes:

Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

From what I have read, the Examiner is not a transmitter, but a receiver. The signal that determines the resonant frequency tuning for the Examiner is derived from the EMI emissions from a nearby calculator as well as a low frequency millivolt signal from the operator's body. But the actual power that drives the Examiner circuit is derived from atmospheric static electric field differential between the antenna altitude and the ground path in the operator's hand. From what I read, the examiner does not send a signal. It receives a signal if one is present in the air at the resonant frequency it is tuned to. In essence, if you hold a hold a non-powered circuit board with an ariel soldered to it in your hand while your feet are on the ground, you are generating a similar amount of power and RF interference as the Examiner from another passive circuit into the atmosphere, which I suspect is below level of ambient EMI/RFI interference in the air.

Now, if you are suggesting that Part 15 would require the circuit board with an ariel soldered to it must have some FCC certification because the operator is holding it outside where there is a static voltage gradient in the air, then I would think all electronic circuits that are hand-held outside in the air must also have an FCC certificate. Maybe holding a piece of wire in the air must also have an FCC certificate. Somehow, I haven't yet seen any FCC stickers on the spools of wire at the supply houses, nor do I see FCC stickers on miniature crystal radio receivers, or sticks used to rub together to make fire. Maybe this is the reason why Part 15 is not specific to what equipment requires the approval. Maybe they want to require approvals only for circuits that use enough power to generate some interference above the ambient levels found in relatively quiet EMI areas (ie: devices that show measureable radiated power that could cause interference in consumer electronics). But then, I am only speculating. Perhaps you know better.

Best wishes,
J_P

Thanks for your reply.

I read that the device has a resonant frequency amplification circuit. That's an awesome feat of engineering for a calculator!?

Maybe the Buc's will go to the Superbowl this year (adding to the maybe-feast) :thumb:

[J_Player]

Thanks for your reply.

I read that the device has a resonant frequency amplification circuit. That's an awesome feat of engineering for a calculator!?

Maybe the Buc's will go to the Superbowl this year (adding to the maybe-feast) :thumb:A length of tubing will appear to amplify any sound at the resonant frequency of the tube even though there is no power circuitry involved. When you hold a tube to your ear, only the resonant frequency sounds will become louder than the rest, if there are resonant frequency sounds in the air.

From what I gather, the Examiner amplification is not done by power amplifiers such as transistors, but by allowing a resonant circuit to oscillate at its resonant frequency and tune any signals at the same frequency, same as a crystal radio tunes resonant frequencies. I suppose this is Rangertell's way of saying their resonant frequency circuitry amplifies tiny electronic signals in the air if they are present.

Awseome feat?
Nah, it's been done with crystal radios decades ago.

But with a calculator?
Maybe. I can run some tests to see if there is any calculator signal coupled into the Examiner circuitry, as well as check for frequencies from the calculator if you want.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

A length of tubing will appear to amplify any sound at the resonant frequency of the tube even though there is no power circuitry involved. When you hold a tube to your ear, only the resonant frequency sounds will become louder than the rest, if there are resonant frequency sounds in the air.

From what I gather, the Examiner amplification is not done by power amplifiers such as transistors, but by allowing a resonant circuit to oscillate at its resonant frequency and tune any signals at the same frequency, same as a crystal radio tunes resonant frequencies. I suppose this is Rangertell's way of saying their resonant frequency circuitry amplifies tiny electronic signals in the air if they are present.

Awseome feat?
Nah, it's been done with crystal radios decades ago.

But with a calculator?
Maybe. I can run some tests to see if there is any calculator signal coupled into the Examiner circuitry, as well as check for frequencies from the calculator if you want.

Best wishes,
J_P

A length of tube makes a great circuit. I guess the same could be said for sea shells.

Some calculator signal tests would be nice, kinda surprised you didn't do any with the first Examiner.

Later, Jim

[J_Player]

A length of tube makes a great circuit. I guess the same could be said for sea shells.

Some calculator signal tests would be nice, kinda surprised you didn't do any with the first Examiner.

Later, JimTubes are only used for resonant cavities in a very few electronic circuits that are not generally related to passive receivers. Tubes are more commonly used in acoustic applications such as pipe organs, xylophones, shotgun microphones and other acoustic applications where a sound frequency is to be boosted by a resonating tube. It is amazing people will post technical BS in a technical forum such as tubes and sea shells making a great circuit. It brings to mind the quality of teachings from the famous post where we were told that gold DNA produces a substance that coats the metal to fight rust and oxidation.

Actually I did make some tests on the calculator with the first Examiner. When the new Examiner arrives, I will put it and the calculator on the scope to see what signals are there.

Best wishes,
J_P

[hung]

No. I did not contradict myself. You will eventually have your answers in the long run if you study it and make tests.

How are you going to measure signals and emissions?
Answer: The same way you would in the case of radionics machines.

[Jim]

Tubes are only used for resonant cavities in a very few electronic circuits that are not generally related to passive receivers. Tubes are more commonly used in acoustic applications such as pipe organs, xylophones, shotgun microphones and other acoustic applications where a sound frequency is to be boosted by a resonating tube. It is amazing people will post technical BS in a technical forum such as tubes and sea shells making a great circuit. It brings to mind the quality of teachings from the famous post where we were told that gold DNA produces a substance that coats the metal to fight rust and oxidation.

Actually I did make some tests on the calculator with the first Examiner. When the new Examiner arrives, I will put it and the calculator on the scope to see what signals are there.

Best wishes,
J_P

Sorry....you brought up the sound frequency/ tube BS and I was just rolling with it. Whatever it takes to find treasure :::shrugs:::

[J_Player]

Sorry....you brought up the sound frequency/ tube BS and I was just rolling with it. Whatever it takes to find treasure :::shrugs:::What I brought up was not BS, I described a principle that is used regularly in acoustics, and a well known scientific principle. It is analogous to the principle of electronic resonance in a passive electronic circuit. You know this as well as most of the educated people who read this forum. If you are attempting to pretend you are too dum to know that, it didn't work on me, or I doubt on any other person who passed high school science classes.

I will keep in mind your pretentious attitude against well established science when considering any posts you make in the future. :nono:

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

No. I did not contradict myself. You will eventually have your answers in the long run if you study it and make tests.

How are you going to measure signals and emissions?
Answer: The same way you would in the case of radionics machines.I can easily measure induced polarization phase angles. The problem is there is no induced polarization equipment on the Examiner for me to connect to and measure.

If you are certain you did not contradict yourself, then I do not have any instruments that can capture shot or returned signal lines or any radionic signals. Therefore I have no way to measure them. I can only measure signals that are electronic or magnetic in nature with the instruments I have. Maybe you could post something like a schematic of an instrument I can use to measure shot signal lines or returned signal lines. I will also need to know the tuning instructions for this alleged method and instructions for finding consistent measurement results from signals in the radionic spectrum.

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

Hi Fred,

I was told They will send a unit that has a fixed trimmer cap.



In this case, you will also need fixed humidity otherwise the thing will not work.

[J_Player]

In this case, you will also need fixed humidity otherwise the thing will not work.Can you elaborate?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

What I brought up was not BS, I described a principle that is used regularly in acoustics, and a well known scientific principle. It is analogous to the principle of electronic resonance in a passive electronic circuit. You know this as well as most of the educated people who read this forum. If you are attempting to pretend you are too dum to know that, it didn't work on me, or I doubt on any other person who passed high school science classes.

I will keep in mind your pretentious attitude against well established science when considering any posts you make in the future. :nono:

Best wishes,
J_P

Wow. I feel as though I just got a Dell Winders lambasting.

I make mention "I read that the device has a resonant frequency amplification circuit" and get some sort of spin-off about sound frequency and a hollow tube. One has nothing to do with the other.

Yes, please keep in mind not everybody is grasping for straws, when discussing flawed logic :)

[J_Player]

Wow. I feel as though I just got a Dell Winders lambasting.

I make mention "I read that the device has a resonant frequency amplification circuit" and get some sort of spin-off about sound frequency and a hollow tube. One has nothing to do with the other.

Yes, please keep in mind not everybody is grasping for straws, when discussing flawed logic :)Are you now claiming you have no knowledge that a resonating acoustic tube is an analogy to a passive resonating circuit? Are you claiming this is the reason why you posted BS that a tube and a seashell make a good circuit? Shall we take it that you cannot understand any analogy of resonant frequencies and how they can be utilized to make a signal stronger than without resonating apparatus?

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

Can you elaborate?



Yes I can, but need detailed used calculator specifications first.

[J_Player]

Yes I can, but need detailed used calculator specifications first.I don't think the calculator has a trimmer cap on it. Maybe it is not effected by humidity?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

Are you now claiming you have no knowledge that a resonating acoustic tube is an analogy to a passive resonating circuit? Are you claiming this is the reason why you posted BS that a tube and a seashell make a good circuit? Shall we take it that you cannot understand any analogy of resonant frequencies and how they can be utilized to make a signal stronger than without resonating apparatus?

Best wishes,
J_P

I guess I am calling shenanigans on your BS analogy. I am not claiming anything. A non-existing circuit is just that, not something else that "maybe" the same...but in a different application.

[J_Player]

I guess I am calling shenanigans on your BS analogy. I am not claiming anything. A non-existing circuit is just that, not something else that "maybe" the same...but in a different application.Well then you better get your facts straight. First, I never said a tube is a circuit. You are the person who made that reference. I only talked about a length of tube as an example of how it resonates with sound waves of the same frequency as the tube. If you think that is BS, you are mistaken. Any high school science student knows you are wrong about that.

If you want to try to imply I consider a tube an electronic circuit, you are also wrong. I didn't make any statement to that effect. You did. This is where you introduced BS into the concept of resonance. And it is analogous to passive resonant electornic circuits such as a coil and a capacitor. If you doubt that, you could ask any acoustic engineer who knows the answer. They are very familiar with the concepts of tuning the frequencies and impedance matching in acoustics, just as electronic engineers are familiar with resonant tuning and impedance matching in electronic circuits.

I have not introduced shenanegans into the concept of resonance, you did the moment you claimed tubes and seashells make a good circuit. I only made an analogy of resonance in two different mediums, and questioned your implications that the Examiner may be subject to FCC registration. The fact is the Examiner does not contain any transmitting equipment or power amplifiers that I am aware of, nor is it capable of creating any EMI/RFI interference above the background levels present in the air. It is claimed to be a passive receiver circuit that amplifies minute external signals through the principle of resonance. If it does indeed create EMI/RFI interference problems, then I am not aware of these problems or any FCC registration requirements.

It does not make you appear any closer to correct about how resonance works, or whether FCC registration is required even when you try to obfuscate the facts.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Fred]

If you want to make serious measurements first you need a non-existing diode.
Then some more hands.

[J_Player]

If you want to make serious measurements first you need a non-existing diode.
Then some more hands.Where should we look to find a non-existing diode?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Esteban]

In this case, you will also need fixed humidity otherwise the thing will not work.

Esteban's battery. Without humidity, this doesn't work. Here an example. Voltage is zero (or not enough for to manage the fet) without the water. Also you can comprobe that a fet can work only with few milivolts and obtain very noticeable signal. Maybe in the soil the good conductive metal show this process, in consideration humidity of the soil too.

In the diode question thread I notice that with 4 Ge high quality diodes in serie can amplify big. Maybe this don't have relation with this theme, but... sorry, I have strange ways of seeing things. :lol: I save the old parts of the experiment, you can see below the schematic.

[J_Player]

Esteban's battery. Without humidity, this doesn't work. Here an example. Voltage is zero (or not enough for to manage the fet) without the water. Also you can comprobe that a fet can work only with few milivolts and obtain very noticeable signal. Maybe in the soil the good conductive metal show this process, in consideration humidity of the soil too.

In the diode question thread I notice that with 4 Ge high quality diodes in serie can amplify big. Maybe this don't have relation with this theme, but... sorry, I have strange ways of seeing things. :lol: I save the old parts of the experiment, you can see below the schematic.Hi Esteban,
What was the reason why you built this battery? Was it part of an experiment different than simply building a battery?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Fred]

Where should we look to find a non-existing diode?

Best wishes,
J_P

Inside the RT, but without opening it.

[J_Player]

Inside the RT, but without opening it.In the previous Examiner, I saw a silicon diode soldered inside between the coil at the brass handle pivot and the antenna. Is there a reason to think the diode will be nonexisting in the replacement Examiner?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Esteban]

Hi Esteban,
What was the reason why you built this battery? Was it part of an experiment different than simply building a battery?

Best wishes,
J_P

Not only battery per se. Wish comprobe is a fet can be supplied by few milivolts. And, of course, similar battery can show metals in soil.

[J_Player]

Only wish comprobe is a fet can be supplied by few milivolts. And, of course, similar battery can show metals in soil.Interesting experiment. You found that the moisture content would determine how much voltage could be detected from the battery, which could be used to extrapolate to how voltages produced by "ground batteries" can change when the moisture content of the ground is changed.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

The replacement Examiner arrived, so I took photos today.

In the photos below you will see the replacement Examiner is the Deluxe model, not the G-T Ver 8.08B.
In an email from the Rangertell factory, they told me this model is identical to the G-T Ver 8.08B except it uses a different calculator, and the decals on the sides are different. One change they did make for me is to fix the trimmer cap so it cannot be adjusted. It will remain at the factory setting during the time I am conducting field tests without being touched. Another difference from the G-T Ver 8.08B is the Deluxe model came with a ground probe that can be used in conjunction with the Examiner if desired. This ground probe is intended to be used with a laptop computer that is running a software program to cause it to send out an audio signal to the ground probe (software is included). The signal sent out can be adjusted to whatever audio frequency you want as well as the amplitude set from 0 to the full power of your computer sound circuit. If the optional ground probe is not used, then the Examiner will work the same as any G-T Ver 8.08B model, with the exception that the calculator will not turn off after a few minutes. The Deluxe model uses a TI-36X solar calculator which always remains on until you turn it off. This means you don't need to bother with re-entering the key codes every few minutes like on the G-T Ver 8.08B.

See photos below:

[Esteban]

Interesting experiment. You found that the moisture content would determine how much voltage could be detected from the battery, which could be used to extrapolate to how voltages produced by "ground batteries" can change when the moisture content of the ground is changed.

Best wishes,
J_P

Yes, without the moisture, the fet can't be managed. Here I don't use corrosive liquid, only few drops of water (2 or 3) and a few zinc oxide. Maybe content of minerals in soil + the sand + moisture acts as the zinc + the zinc oxide (many kinds of oxides exists in the soil) + water: This is the negative pole. And the positive is the solid metal, a coin for example.

[Esteban]

The replacement Examiner arrived, so I took photos today.

In the photos below you will see the replacement Examiner is the Deluxe model, not the G-T Ver 8.08B.
In an email from the Rangertell factory, they told me this model is identical to the G-T Ver 8.08B except it uses a different calculator, and the decals on the sides are different. One change they did make for me is to fix the trimmer cap so it cannot be adjusted. It will remain at the factory setting during the time I am conducting field tests without being touched. Another difference from the G-T Ver 8.08B is the Deluxe model came with a ground probe that can be used in conjunction with the Examiner if desired. This ground probe is intended to be used with a laptop computer that is running a software program to cause it to send out an audio signal to the ground probe (software is included). The signal sent out can be adjusted to whatever audio frequency you want as well as the amplitude set from 0 to the full power of your computer sound circuit. If the optional ground probe is not used, then the Examiner will work the same as any G-T Ver 8.08B model, with the exception that the calculator will not turn off after a few minutes. The Deluxe model uses a TI-36X solar calculator which always remains on until you turn it off. This means you don't need to bother with re-entering the key codes every few minutes like on the G-T Ver 8.08B.

See photos below:

Thanks. Did you try the Examiner sometimes?

[J_Player]

Thanks. Did you try the Examiner sometimes?
I have not tried it yet. I am ready for finding volunteers to take it into the field for testing. Anyone who wants to try it in the Los Angeles area can send me a PM.

Best wishses,
J_P

[Jim]

It does not make you appear any closer to correct about how resonance works, or whether FCC registration is required even when you try to obfuscate the facts.

Best wishes,
J_P

Facts? Good grief. Its a friggen calculator...sitting on top of a do nothing box, for Christs sake! Of course it is not a transmitter.

Lets just agree we disagree. Lowering yourself to Dell Winders tactics is neither warranted or wanted.

[WM6]

Y

+ water: This is the negative pole. And the positive is the solid metal, a coin for example.



You only need to modulate this weak soil battery current and receive signal at location of highest signal concentration. To do this soil battery have to be treated as semiconductor.

[Theseus]

I have not tried it yet. I am ready for finding volunteers to take it into the field for testing. Anyone who wants to try it in the Los Angeles area can send me a PM.

Best wishses,
J_P

So, are you still maintaining that "you" are not able to fairly test the device, because of your prior nerve damage? Therefore, any testing will need to be done by volunteer operators, and you will only be recording the proceedings?

Perhaps I asked you this before; have you ever tried to use a simple bent wire L-rod, over a target in plain sight? What were your results?

[J_Player]

Facts? Good grief. Its a friggen calculator...sitting on top of a do nothing box, for Christs sake! Of course it is not a transmitter.

Lets just agree we disagree. Lowering yourself to Dell Winders tactics is neither warranted or wanted.Lower myself to Dell Winders level?
The only thing I am guilty of is lowering myself to giving a fair argument to a person of your level.
You pretend to have facts while you try to obfuscate the facts. You make posts here with an agenda you want to prove with innuendos based on false information, then when you are shown to be wrong, you look for ways to prove it is someone else's fault, and call people names.

Isn't that what Dell sometimes does?

For example, before starting in on me, you called hung the "the gossiping Nancy".
Then, when I explained how your innuendo that the Examiner may not be compliant with Part 15 of Fedaral Law seems to have no basis in fact, because you erroneously assumed it is a transmitter, You continued to call the Examiner a transmitter, which It is not. Then you tried to prove it is subject to the FCC ID because according to you, it is required for even sticks that you rub together as long as the sticks are called a transmitter.

But when You discovered I wouldn't pretend the Examiner is a transmitter to help your innuendo, then you switched to trying to a new innuendo also based on erroneous facts, stating that resonant frequency amplification circuit is an awesome feat of engineering, as if it had not been done before. When I also pointed out this error, you then switched to a new way to prove your point --- focus the blame for your errors on me!
All you needed to do is to somehow prove I gave a bad explanation, then you could easily obfuscate the fact that you had no clue whether the Examiner has any FCC ID requirements, nor do you have any idea whether it is claimed to be a transmitter or receiver. You came here to advance your agenda regardless of the basic fact that has been known for some time:

The Rangertell factory claims the Examiner is a receiver that is tuned through small signals that are induced from outside the enclosure.
The manufacturer never claimed it was a transmitter.

Only hung and you made the claim the Examiner is a transmitter, and used that argument to advance your own agendas.

Sure, you proved something. You proved you preferred to use false information to prove your point rather than to admit you were were wrong from the beginning.
Based on your original faulty information that the Examiner is a transmitter, I can safely say you did not read what the Rangertell factory published on their website or what I repeated from their manual. Instead you chose to believe hung's version of how it works in order to support your innuendos that it is subject to FCC ID.

Now you are hoping I will drop your whole argument because you think I am lowering myself to Dells level?
Hahahahahaa...

No, I don't simply agree to disagree with you. I believe you are one of the few people who is willing to use false information to prove whatever agenda you have at the moment and call people names, rather than to use facts and evidence to support what you are saying. And when you are shown to be wrong, then you are happy to look for ways to obfuscate the facts so readers will loose tract of how you began with false information to begin with. As I said, I will keep your pretentious attitude in mind in all your future posts.

But I will run some tests on the calculator as soon as I get a chance.


Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

So, are you still maintaining that "you" are not able to fairly test the device, because of your prior nerve damage? Therefore, any testing will need to be done by volunteer operators, and you will only be recording the proceedings?

Perhaps I asked you this before; have you ever tried to use a simple bent wire L-rod, over a target in plain sight? What were your results?Hi Theseus,
I am looking for people who want to test the Examiner in thier own hands to see how well it works for them. I will be documenting the public testing done.

On the occasions I tried dowsing with bent wires, I was not successful.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

:::chortles:::

[Jim]

Sorry...had to do that. Dell Winders is the only LRL proponent I've seen that really lashes out to other posters, such as that.

FYI....there are various other discussions about these devices, and FCC compliance has come up several times. Allow me to quote just a snippet from Carl Moreland:

"Even non-transmitter circuits often must be tested as unintentional radiators, and at least be self-verified. Calculators, ferinstance, fall in this category. So any electronic LRL probably needs to be at least self-verified, even if it doesn't intentionally transmit a signal."

No innuendos at all, my friend. Simple research. Your RT gimmick had no FCC ID on it...and you informed me of such. However, you did not reply to the second part of my question "or any FCC data contained within the owners manual that would indicate the device was approved for export into the Untied States, as per Part 15 and Federal Law?"

Although you doubted that the Examiner is subject to FCC ID....and it might not be....it still needs to be certified/verified as per Part 15.

I wanted to talk alleged electronic circuits, and you wanted to talk about resonant sound frequency's and hollow tubes. So...I threw in a sea shell. Neither has anything to do with the alleged circuits in the RT.

Ciao

[Theseus]

Hi Theseus,
I am looking for people who want to test the Examiner in thier own hands to see how well it works for them. I will be documenting the public testing done.

On the occasions I tried dowsing with bent wires, I was not successful.

Best wishes,
J_P

You were not successful getting them to move or cross over a target in plain sight? Or, you were not successful at locating totally unknown targets?

[J_Player]

You were not successful getting them to move or cross over a target in plain sight? Or, you were not successful at locating totally unknown targets?On the few occasions I tried dowsing rods, I saw no movement of the rods whether the target location was known or not, or even if a target didn't exist.
The rods simply did not move unless I made a conscious effort to cause them to move.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

Sorry...had to do that. Dell Winders is the only LRL proponent I've seen that really lashes out to other posters, such as that.

FYI....there are various other discussions about these devices, and FCC compliance has come up several times. Allow me to quote just a snippet from Carl Moreland:

"Even non-transmitter circuits often must be tested as unintentional radiators, and at least be self-verified. Calculators, ferinstance, fall in this category. So any electronic LRL probably needs to be at least self-verified, even if it doesn't intentionally transmit a signal."

No innuendos at all, my friend. Simple research. Your RT gimmick had no FCC ID on it...and you informed me of such. However, you did not reply to the second part of my question "or any FCC data contained within the owners manual that would indicate the device was approved for export into the Untied States, as per Part 15 and Federal Law?"

Although you doubted that the Examiner is subject to FCC ID....and it might not be....it still needs to be certified/verified as per Part 15.

I wanted to talk alleged electronic circuits, and you wanted to talk about resonant sound frequency's and hollow tubes. So...I threw in a sea shell. Neither has anything to do with the alleged circuits in the RT.

CiaoActually, Dell winders is the other person who uses false information and missing information to prove his points. And he calls people names like you do.
If you consider this lashing out, you are welcome to your opinion. I see it as an observation that anyone can make from reading your recent posts.

In the snippet you presented from your "simple research" I don't see where Carl says the Examiner is among the "non-transmitter circuits often must be tested as unintentional radiators". Do you suppose Carl was referring to LRLs that use batteries for their internal power when he says "any electronic LRL probably needs to be at least self-verified"? Maybe the same as calculators that use batteries or solar cells as a power source can become unintentional radiators? Do you suppose the FCC requires certification of devices that do not have a power source connected to the circuit inside?

Personally, I have never seen any electronic circuit that does not use a power source such as a battery or solar cell to power it with an FCC ID on it. Maybe this is because non-powered passive circuits do not radiate, but collect noise from the outside. In the case of a calculator, the power is applied inside the circuit where it can radiate outward rather than being a non-powered circuit that can only pick up electronic emissions from the outside.

The TI-36X calculator is the only part of the Examiner that can concievably radiate anything to my knowledge. And it is hard for me to believe a TI-36X calculator is not FCC compliant. Most of the calculators I own have FCC compliance information posted in the instruction booklet that comes with the calculator, if it is published at all. My guess is this information is in the TI-36 calculator manual, which was not included in the package that I received. Just because I didn't see the statement FCC compliance statement doesn't mean the calculator does not comply. Can you show any evidence that the TI-36X calculator is in violation of the FCC requirements?

If we are to believe your new innuendo, we must also believe the part of the Examiner (aside from the calculator) is a radiator, or unintentional radiator, and that Carl was also referring to LRL circuits that have no internal power source when he says "probably needs to be at least self-verified". In fact this "simple research" is not based on facts at all. You are quoting what Carl thinks probably needs to be done for unintentional radiating devices. And in fact, the Examiner is not a radiating device, but a device that captures EMI/RFI radiations from the outside.

Then you say you wanted to talk about electronic circuits, not resonance. The question is how can you not talk about resonance when the Examiner circuit is claimed to be a resonant circuit? If you decide you want to talk about electronic circuits but leave out all mention of resonance, then we must omit any talk of the coils and capacitors inside the Examiner, as well as the diode, which is often used in conjunction with electronic resonant circuits. And we should also not mention the ariel, because it is claimed to collect a signal in the air that resonates at the same frequency as the alleged resonant circuit inside that we are not talking about. So what's left? There is a sensitivity pot, a crystal clock and a plastic enclosure with a handle. Not much electronic circuits left to talk about when you ignore the claimed resonant circuit inside, right?

So what is your agenda? You want all mention of claims of a resonant passive receiver to go away, and you want the non-powered internal circuit to be classed as an unintentional radiator so you can claim it is not in compliance with US Federal law, and you want people to believe that you are presenting simple research instead of quoting second hand information of what someone else says they think is probably required, rather than to show the actual provision of a law that was violated. It appears you are attempting to dredge up whatever you can find to promote your agenda, not present actual facts.

I don't see anything in the Examiner that would indicate to me it is an radiator of any signal. I see a calculator that I believe is probably a radiator of very small signals and I believe is compliant with the FCC requirements in the USA. I don't recall ever seeing any FCC statements in the manual, but I haven't looked for any specifically. Let's assume there is no statement concerning the FCC published in the manual. Is this a problem? I thought this was required only for devices that are radiators, which the Examiner is not. And is it required that a an FCC approval must be published, or stamped on a device, or is it only required that certain classes of products must be certified?

I actually don't know if there is any violation of FCC or federal laws. Until I see some real evidence that there is a violation, then I will presume there is not.
So far you have shown a lot of "probably required" and implied violations that I see no proof of.
If you expect me to pass judgment on your hearsay and innuendos, you can forget it. I prefer to see the actual facts.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

On the few occasions I tried dowsing rods, I saw no movement of the rods whether the target location was known or not, or even if a target didn't exist.
The rods simply did not move unless I made a conscious effort to cause them to move.

Best wishes,
J_P

I understand.

Long ago, I found that I could consciously block the ideomotor response from causing movement of a dowsing implement in my hands. It takes a lot of concentration, but I can do it. Most folks cannot block it, and when shown (once or twice) how an implement reacts in a dowser's hands, they are immediately successful at mimicking the same movement, and it occurs AS IF some unseen force were actually causing the rods to move.

You must be a very rare exception, not to get any movement at all; or as you said, the previous nerve damage is itself stopping it from happening. In either case, I would agree you would not be a logical operator to be testing any sort of dowsing implement, such as the Examiner. :frown:

I hope you can find the volunteers to act as operators of the device. ;)

[GoldSeeker]

Hi all,

Joined this forum after reading this (rather lengthy) thread.

Is there any further to add. What was the outcome of all this ?

I looked at a RangerTell box of tricks years back, but spent my hard earned on a pair of decent Minelab MD's. Not sure I've done any better with these than with a RangerTell though !! :D:D

Think I'm looking in the wrong places.

Cheers,

GoldSeeker


PS,

I just noticed another thread where the original poster (Hipopp)? was raving about how good his RangerTell was, then this post where he is clearly P***ed off.

What happend along the way to cause such a radical change of mind? (Sorry, I have just stumbled across all this, but very interested to know a bit more background).

[J_Player]

Hi all,

Joined this forum after reading this (rather lengthy) thread.

Is there any further to add. What was the outcome of all this ?

I looked at a RangerTell box of tricks years back, but spent my hard earned on a pair of decent Minelab MD's. Not sure I've done any better with these than with a RangerTell though !! :D:D

Think I'm looking in the wrong places.

Cheers,

GoldSeeker


PS,

I just noticed another thread where the original poster (Hipopp)? was raving about how good his RangerTell was, then this post where he is clearly P***ed off.

What happend along the way to cause such a radical change of mind? (Sorry, I have just stumbled across all this, but very interested to know a bit more background).Hi Goldseeker,
From what I read, Hippop was convinced the Examiner finds gold, and set out to start a test program to prove how well it works. After many months he returned to tell us it does not work at all. Apparently, his tests convinced him he was deluded into thinking it worked, and he changed his mind to say it does not work.

But he continued on his crusade with intentions to get the local 60 minutes TV program to make an expose on the examiner. As near as I can tell, Hippop paid for his Examiner, and wanted to receive a full refund many months later when he decided it does not work. From my point of view, he is motivated to recover his loss of money he spent on the Examiner. The forum spokesman from Rangertell was not anxious to refund his money, but made some offers to partially refund it on the condition that the Examiner is first returned in the same condition as when it was shipped. I doubt Hippop accepted that offer, and we haven't heard much from Hippop since that time.

Like most LRLs, the Examiner is difficult to prove that it works or does not work. Simple tests I have conducted by myself and with other volunteers have resulted in no repeatable detection of gold targets that are hidden in an unknown location. But when the location is known, the results can approach 50% on avearage depending on the user. The problem with this kind of simple test is it cannot be classed as scientific. But it does provide some evidence of what an average volunteer user finds when they try it.

I found that a more scientific test is also difficult. The problem I encountered is you need to establish a control for a scientific test. In the kind of scientific test that most Geotech readers want to see, the control is to let a user establish the Examiner is working to locate gold in known locations before the blind testing begins. But no volunteers have been able to consistently get the Examiner to locate gold in known locations well enough to say it is working properly (less than 50% success for known locations). I have been looking for volunteers who are familiar with the Examiner, who can get good performance to participate in the testing in the Los Angeles area, but there have been no responses my invitations. (Invitations are still open ... send me a PM if you want to try it out).

As it stands, I cannot prove scientifically the Examiner will find treasure or not. At least not until someone is able to try it and find success with it. This leaves us with using the best information available. For me, the best information available is from people who bought and used the Examiner. You can read a number of threads from users. As I recall, hung, fenixdigger, Mike(Mont) and the Rangertell factory says it works fine. Hippop, Clondike-Clad, Carl-NC, Putrechigi, me, and several volunteers who tried my test unit say it does not work, or they are not sure if it works or not. I believe there are a number of other members who also made reports about how well the Examiner works.

Hope that helped.

Best wishes,
J_P

[GoldSeeker]

Hi JP

Thanks for bringing me up to date. Very interstesting discussion.

I'd love to take you up on a trial of the RangerTell but I am in Australia.

I'm almost tempted to buy one if for no other reason than its value as a talking piece alone would be worth it! :)

I could hang it from the wall behind my bar for when my mates come round for a beer!! "Hey dude, is that what I think it is hanging up there"!:D:D:D

Cheers,

GoldSeeker.

[J_Player]

Hi JP

Thanks for bringing me up to date. Very interstesting discussion.

I'd love to take you up on a trial of the RangerTell but I am in Australia.

I'm almost tempted to buy one if for no other reason than its value as a talking piece alone would be worth it! :)

I could hang it from the wall behind my bar for when my mates come round for a beer!! "Hey dude, is that what I think it is hanging up there"!:D:D:D

Cheers,

GoldSeeker.Yes, the examiner is a classic collector's item and excellent conversation piece. It always attracts attention whenever I carry it in public places. People wonder what strange instrument you are carrying, and when you tell them it is a treasure finding machine, you become important with a captive audience. I am sure Carl's two Examiners have enhanced his museum of LRLs. I also considered buying one for that purpose, but he price is a bit high for a conversation piece. I believe you could acquire a little-used Examiner at a large discount if you place a notice in the Buy-Sell-Trade section of the forum. You could PM Putrechigi. I think he wants to sell the Examiner he bought last year. There are probably other forum members who want to sell their Examiners in mint condition complete with instruction CD. :thumb:

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

.....

Like most LRLs, the Examiner is difficult to prove that it works or does not work.




It is difficult to prove that Earth is round too.
I hope you are still in doubt about Earth.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

[GoldSeeker]

Yes, the examiner is a classic collector's item and excellent conversation piece. It always attracts attention whenever I carry it in public places. People wonder what strange instrument you are carrying, and when you tell them it is a treasure finding machine, you become important with a captive audience. I am sure Carl's two Examiners have enhanced his museum of LRLs. I also considered buying one for that purpose, but he price is a bit high for a conversation piece. I believe you could acquire a little-used Examiner at a large discount if you place a notice in the Buy-Sell-Trade section of the forum. You could PM Putrechigi. I think he wants to sell the Examiner he bought last year. There are probably other forum members who want to sell their Examiners in mint condition complete with instruction CD. :thumb:

Best wishes,
J_P

Thanks JP

I'm somewhat open minded about the RangerTell. Will probably buy a new model from the manufacturer.

Inspite of all the negativity, I still think it has some credibility and merit.

Cheers,

GoldSeeker

[WM6]

Thanks JP

I'm somewhat open minded about the RangerTell. Will probably buy a new model from the manufacturer.

Inspite of all the negativity, I still think it has some credibility and merit.

Cheers,

GoldSeeker

Think twice again.

Funfinder proposed here (in other thread) a way better solution than those "Neanderthell joke" and it is for free and even its electronic work. Go to build it or ask someone to build it for you - will be way cheaper.

[Theseus]

Thanks JP

I'm somewhat open minded about the RangerTell. Will probably buy a new model from the manufacturer.

Inspite of all the negativity, I still think it has some credibility and merit.

Cheers,

GoldSeeker

You will be throwing your money away. Buying an Examiner, because you believe there is a chance it could work, is akin to climbing a very high cliff, then tossing a handful of paper money into the air and believing the wind will bring it all back into your hands. :nono:

I'm not sure why J_Player is "beating around the bush" about this device when it is so obviously a fraud from the git go. I suppose he has his reasons, but I could not imagine what they would be. (I could guess, but I won't do that.... here.)

If you have a quantity of money, that you don't mind totally losing, I suppose the only way to satisfy your curiosity about the Examiner is to buy one.

Fact: The Examiner exactly replicates the action of an L-shaped bent piece of wire, also known as a dowsing rod. Every once in awhile, the practice of dowsing will appear to work. However, if you "look" closer at the phenomenon, and test dowsing under a controlled protocol, it will ALWAYS produce results that are completely consistent with pure chance guessing.

[GoldSeeker]

Thanks to all,

After careful consideration, I might just stick to my proven, traditional MD technology.

Interesting discussion all the same and I appreciate and enjoy all the views and opinions put forward here.

If the RangerTell was around 100 - 200 bucks, it might just be worth the splurge (and to get that collectors item to hang from the wall), but around $1000 a pop! Shudder!!!

I was really only looking at someway of getting some sort of edge to supplement my gold MD'ing. Anyway, think I have learnt all I needed to make up my mind.

Cheers,

GoldSeeker.

[Theseus]

Thanks to all,

After careful consideration, I might just stick to my proven, traditional MD technology.

Interesting discussion all the same and I appreciate and enjoy all the views and opinions put forward here.

If the RangerTell was around 100 - 200 bucks, it might just be worth the splurge (and to get that collectors item to hang from the wall), but around $1000 a pop! Shudder!!!

I was really only looking at someway of getting some sort of edge to supplement my gold MD'ing. Anyway, think I have learnt all I needed to make up my mind.

Cheers,

GoldSeeker.

A wise decision.... and a very wise man. ;)

BTW, some feel that the practice of dowsing does give them a sort of "edge" to locating placer gold and/or lucrative spots to coinhunt. In that regard, you can quite cheaply give it a try for yourself by making yourself a homemade dowsing rod, as described here on the Geotech site.

Good Luck....

[GoldSeeker]

Thanks Theseus,

I shall look into dowsing a bit further.

Just getting back to this RangerTel gadget. Surely if it was a scam (and I'm not suggesting it is or it isn't), wouldn't the dept of Fair Trading or Consumer Affairs have been a better avenue for Hipopp?

I was thinking after the so claimed 1300+ sales, not a peep from too many people who bought one. Maybe too embarassed if it is a scam.?

I wonder if Fair Trading have some knowledge of this at all ?

Cheers,

GoldSeeker.:)


PS, Just another observation. Why are the pics of JP opening the box at his home in the USA almost identical to the pics on the RangerTell website. Looks like the same table, room, settings and even the same utility knife being used to open the box ?

[Theseus]

Thanks Theseus,

I shall look into dowsing a bit further.

Just getting back to this RangerTel gadget. Surely if it was a scam (and I'm not suggesting it is or it isn't), wouldn't the dept of Fair Trading or Consumer Affairs have been a better avenue for Hipopp?

I was thinking after the so claimed 1300+ sales, not a peep from too many people who bought one. Maybe too embarassed if it is a scam.?

I wonder if Fair Trading have some knowledge of this at all ?

Cheers,

GoldSeeker.:)


PS, Just another observation. Why are the pics of JP opening the box at his home in the USA almost identical to the pics on the RangerTell website. Looks like the same table, room, settings and even the same utility knife being used to open the box ?

Dowsing has always been a "fun" hobby. Just don't get too wrapped up in it, as some people have. Plus, there is never any reason to buy a dowsing (or LRL) gadget; you can try dowsing for yourself with just homemade rods and pendulums and they work every bit the same as the commercial ones.

Well, there are more than just one LRL scam device out there on the market, but my guess is the State Attorneys General have a whole lot bigger problems than messing with these LRL scams. So a few remain in business, but several have also gone out of business as well.

Why are the pics of JP opening the box identical to the ones on the RT website. I don't know.... but good question! Use your own judgement. ;)

[GoldSeeker]

The pics I'm referring to are here; http://www.rangertell.com/Examiner%20Close%20Up.htm Compare them to the photos J Player attached here; http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=102241&postcount=179

But ok, could be my mistake. It actually say's on the RT Website; See a 'Tester' take it out for a spin.

I guess they are using the pics as taken by J Player. Perhaps he could confirm that they are indeed his own photos taken by him and then sent to RangerTell to be published as promo shots we now see on RangerTell ?

They certainly are different pics, taken at different times as evidenced by the slightly different postpak and the guy opening the box has a different shirt sleeve in camera. But why would he open the package on two seperate occasions ?

Think I smell a rat here. A large one!

[J_Player]

Why are the pics of JP opening the box identical to the ones on the RT website. I don't know.... but good question! Use your own judgement. ;)The pics are the same because the contact who sent the Examiner for me to test asked if he could use the pictures I took on the Rangertell website. I told him I don't mind if he does. In fact, the Rangertell people probably didn't need to ask. Most forums claim copyrights on all the content that members contribute to the forum, yet Carl seldom makes an issue of other sites cross posting content from his forum. We see the Rangertell site also has posted "Avramenko's fork" excerpts from Qiaozhi's spoof of how to build your own long range locator here: http://www.rangertell.com/frequently_asked_questions-a.htm

taken from Qiaozhi's post here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=39945&postcount=9

The pics I posted in the Geotech forum are probably in the public domain, because I never claimed copyrights. I presume if there are any copyrights to the photos I posted here, they belong to Carl Moreland, just as the copyright to all the content in Geotech forums belong to Carl unless someone else has prior copyright claims on some of the content.

Photos of me opening the enclosure to an Examiner also appear in Tnet. Jim asked me for permission to post those photos, but I told him Carl owns any copyrights, and to ask Carl. (I also told him I think it is a good idea to post those photos).

I'm not sure why J_Player is "beating around the bush" about this device when it is so obviously a fraud from the git go.I never beat around the bush. The fact is I do not have enough information to make a scientific determination whether the Examiner works or not. If you are willing to donate your time to establish a scientific test that will satisfy the scientific community, you are welcome to come and test the factory-fresh Examiner I have on loan.

This also makes me wonder on what basis you determined your own conclusions. As near as I can tell, it is on circumstantial evidence and a strong bias. But definitely not based on any scientific tests you performed.

As I said, I have not established any consistent base line for a scientific test for the reason that nobody has been able to get the Examiner to work reliably so far for known targets. This condition provides a lot of non-scientific evidence. But since I don't base my conclusions on non-scientific tests, I can say I don't know if it works or not. I presume you have the intelligence necessary to identify the pitfalls of making a definite conclusion based on flawed non-scientific tests.

Also note, I have never paid money to purchase any LRL, nor do I intend to purchase any LRL unless I become convinced it is a useful tool to help me find the kind of treasure I like to hunt for, or if I am convinced that the price is low enough and the novelty value high enough to be worthwhile as a conversation piece. No beating around any bushes, those are facts of my intentions and feelings about LRLs in general.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

Just getting back to this RangerTel gadget. Surely if it was a scam (and I'm not suggesting it is or it isn't), wouldn't the dept of Fair Trading or Consumer Affairs have been a better avenue for Hipopp?

I was thinking after the so claimed 1300+ sales, not a peep from too many people who bought one. Maybe too embarassed if it is a scam.?

I wonder if Fair Trading have some knowledge of this at all ?

Cheers,

GoldSeeker.:)


PS, Just another observation. Why are the pics of JP opening the box at his home in the USA almost identical to the pics on the RangerTell website. Looks like the same table, room, settings and even the same utility knife being used to open the box ?Hi GoldSeeker.
See the reply above I made to Theseus for the answer why the Rangertell site has the same pictures.

I was wondering about these 1300+ sales. I have had an open invitation for more than a year for any volunteers to come and test a new Examiner. But not a single one of the 1300+ buyers of the Examiner was interested in testing it. As I recall, the Rangertell representative tried to get some local Examiner owners to show a demonstration of their Examiner working. But the local Examiner owners did not respond to any emails from the Rangertell rep. and I was told there is nobody within a few hundred miles who would demonstrate the Examiner.

It seemed kind of odd to me that of 1300+ owners there is nobody willing to show what their Examiner can do. When I later received a loaner Examiner, I found the same condition. Nobody wanted to test it. Not Examiner owners, not LRL enthusiasts, not dowsers, not treasure hunters. The only volunteers I could find were friends, one skeptical forum member, and a hand full of watchers who I invited to try it out. It just seems odd that the actual owners of the Examiner do not want to demonstrate it working. It makes me wonder if their actual results when people are watching is the same as the results I observed when my volunteers tried it? :???:

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

This also makes me wonder on what basis you determined your own conclusions. As near as I can tell, it is on circumstantial evidence and a strong bias. But definitely not based on any scientific tests you performed.
Best wishes,
J_P

As a matter of fact I have conducted scientific tests on certain other commercial LRLs; just not the R-T Examiner.

However, just because I have not personally tested an Examiner, does not categorically disqualify me from rendering my opinion based on lots of previous experiences with similar contraptions.

Think of it this way.... I've never been to Australia either, but I've seen enough evidence to allow me to believe it does in fact exist, and were I to buy a plane ticket for Australia, I'm confident that is where I would end up.

The point is, one does not have to necessarily personally experience something to draw on their previous experience and observations; and make an informed opinion (conclusion). ;)

(Not to mention the fact, Carl M. has already done a very in-depth study of the Examiner; and I trust what he reported as accurate and truthful.)

[Qiaozhi]

We see the Rangertell site also has posted "Avramenko's fork" excerpts from Qiaozhi's spoof of how to build your own long range locator here: http://www.rangertell.com/frequently_asked_questions-a.htm

taken from Qiaozhi's post here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=39945&postcount=9
This post is just to emphasize the fact that the "explanation" of the inner workings of the RangerTell Examiner was a complete spoof, and not intended to be taken seriously. I simply took a number of pseudo-scientific ideas and strung them together in a convincing manner. It was basically gobbledygook / techo-babble.

However, it was enough to confuse the owners of the RT Examiner website, who promptly highjacked the information, and proudly displayed it as an excellent description of the underlying principles of their electronic dowsing gadget. I also suspect they believe that the word "naive" is not in the Oxford English dictionary. :D

[Theseus]

This post is just to emphasize the fact that the "explanation" of the inner workings of the RangerTell Examiner was a complete spoof, and not intended to be taken seriously. I simply took a number of pseudo-scientific ideas and strung them together in a convincing manner. It was basically gobbledygook / techo-babble.

However, it was enough to confuse the owners of the RT Examiner website, who promptly highjacked the information, and proudly displayed it as an excellent description of the underlying principles of their electronic dowsing gadget. I also suspect they believe that the word "naive" is not in the Oxford English dictionary. :D

Which only goes to strengthen my original concensus of the R-T dowsing contraption.

;)

[J_Player]

As a matter of fact I have conducted scientific tests on certain other commercial LRLs; just not the R-T Examiner.

However, just because I have not personally tested an Examiner, does not categorically disqualify me from rendering my opinion based on lots of previous experiences with similar contraptions.

Think of it this way.... I've never been to Australia either, but I've seen enough evidence to allow me to believe it does in fact exist, and were I to buy a plane ticket for Australia, I'm confident that is where I would end up.

The point is, one does not have to necessarily personally experience something to draw on their previous experience and observations; and make an informed opinion (conclusion). ;)

(Not to mention the fact, Carl M. has already done a very in-depth study of the Examiner; and I trust what he reported as accurate and truthful.)Of course Carl-NC has done an in-depth study of the Examiner. Furthermore, Carl-NC is highly qualified in electronics that pertain to metal detection, to the point that he could be used as an expert witness in litigation that would determine the validity of the circuitry and the intimate details of what, if anything can be detected with the Examiner circuits. In the case of Carl-NC, he has more than an opinion about the examiner. He has an expert opinion.

In your case, you have no expert electronics credentials as far as I know, nor have you conducted any testing of an Examiner, so any opinions you may have are simply your opinions that you base on selected information that you read, and tests you performed on other LRLs which are not made by Rangertell. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion and stating it. You have read above that my opinion is I will not buy any LRL unless I become convinced it can help me find the kind of treasure I like to hunt for. So far, that has not happened. And I continue to wait for the day when I can see real live evidence that an LRL can help me find treasures.

You say the basis for your opinion is that you tested similar LRLs, and you read Carl's report before you arrived at the statement "I'm not sure why J_Player is "beating around the bush" about this device when it is so obviously a fraud from the git go".

Sure, I could say it doesn't work because Carl did not find any valid electronics, and because you tested some non-Rangertell LRLs that did not work. But then I would have to ignore some facts I discovered during my testing of the Examiner. For example, the controversy of whether the calculator signal is transferred to the electronics inside the Examiner. I have oscilloscope photos showing the calculator signal measured at the back of the calculator circuit board, and more oscilloscope photos showing the same signal measured at different test points from inside the Examiner internal wiring. I see the calculator signal is transferred to the internal wiring of the Examiner when I make actual test measurements, which proves certain claims made by skeptics were simply incorrect assumptions they made. I also see how the calculator signal is mixed with "other signals" inside the Examiner as displayed on the oscilloscope screen.

Maybe this means nothing to you, (possibly part of the information that you feel should be ignored).
But for me, I must say I observed that some of what skeptics have been claiming about the Examiner is not correct.
This observation also highlights some things that Carl-NC said about the calculator signal.

1. According to Carl, the calculator produces a fixed frequency that is not altered by pressing keystrokes. My testing confirmed he is correct.

2. In a forum post, Carl indicated the calculator produces a signal which does not couple to the Examiner inductively: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=63039&postcount=32
In my testing, I found the calculator signal is coupled to the Examiner, but not inductively. Carl was correct again. After I observed the calculator signal from inside the Examiner circuit, I made a spiral coil identical to the Examiner "calculator receiver coil", and connected it to the scope probe. I positioned this coil at the back of the calculator in the same location where the Examiner coil would be positioned, and I received a signal. It did not matter if I had the end of the spiral coil connected to the probe ground, left open, or shorted. I picked up the calculator signal. I then put a 1 inch square piece of aluminum foil in an alligator clip at the tip of the scope probe and checked for a signal at the back of the calculator. I found I could pick up the signal a little stronger than with the coil I had used before. I could even pick up the calculator signal from a simple alligator clip at the tip of the probe. This told me the calculator signal is not being inductively coupled. It could be be picked up by capacitive coupling or by RF coupling. I used the coil to scan around the calculator to see what range I could detect the signal, and I found I could get a recognizable calculator signal up to about 3 cm from the calculator, depending on how much background noise is in the air. I also noticed there are hot spots on the calculator where the signal is stronger. the area around the epoxy dot that covers the processor is a strong area, and the display is a hot area. I also noted that the signal around the display accentuates some of the lower frequency attributes of the signal, which seems normal, as this is an area where conductors carry the display clocking pulses. In short, I have to respect Carl-NC for his astute knowledge of electronics, and his ability to not make statements that he doesn't know to be a fact. See the attachment for more details of what I observed from the calculator. (Note: All of the images and content of in attachment are copyrighted material which cannot be used on other web pages or for commercial purposes without first obtaining written permission).

Maybe after looking at the oscilloscope images in my report, you will begin to understand the reason why I prefer to state that I don't know if it works, rather than blindly stating it is impossible for any calculator signal to couple to the internal Examiner circuits. Of course, you are free to believe there is no calculator signal measurable from inside the Examiner if you wish. And you are free to believe the Examiner cannot possibly work because other LRLs you tested did not work. But at least you now know the answer to why I don't rely on partial information and tests performed on non-Rangertell products to form a basis for definite statements I make about the Examiner.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

This post is just to emphasize the fact that the "explanation" of the inner workings of the RangerTell Examiner was a complete spoof, and not intended to be taken seriously. I simply took a number of pseudo-scientific ideas and strung them together in a convincing manner. It was basically gobbledygook / techo-babble.

However, it was enough to confuse the owners of the RT Examiner website, who promptly highjacked the information, and proudly displayed it as an excellent description of the underlying principles of their electronic dowsing gadget. I also suspect they believe that the word "naive" is not in the Oxford English dictionary. :DI have to agree.
I even saw the words "THIS IS A SCAM" cleverly encoded in your post.
And who could be more qualified to claim it is "gobbledygook / techo-babble" intended as a spoof than the actual author of the spoof? :lol:
As long as the "Avramenko's fork" episode remains on the Rangertell website, we will have a classic monument to LRL-itis gone astray.

Why would a manufacturer latch onto "gobbledygook / techo-babble" as science facts?
Perhaps the answer was best sung in a song from the Broadway play "Barnham" ....

There is a sucker
Born every minute.
And the biggest one
excluding none
is me!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

the reason why I prefer to state that I don't know if it works, rather than blindly stating it is impossible for any calculator signal to couple to the internal Examiner circuits. Of course, you are free to believe there is no calculator signal measurable from inside the Examiner if you wish. And you are free to believe the Examiner cannot possibly work because other LRLs you tested did not work. But at least you now know the answer to why I don't rely on partial information and tests performed on non-Rangertell products to form a basis for definite statements I make about the Examiner.




What you are convienently side-stepping is not the "straw man" concerning whether or not noise from the calculator is being coupled to the do-nothing Examiner circuits; but rather the implication/claims that these noise signals are somehow being radiated to distant buried objects and the objects are re-radiating said signal to the contraption in the dowser's hand.

That claim is what I contend IS NOT HAPPENING, and if you think there is a possibility it could be happening (as claimed) you are sorely mistaken and I'm quite surprised an otherwise rational thinking individual would even entertain such a notion.

[J_Player]

What you are convienently side-stepping is not the "straw man" concerning whether or not noise from the calculator is being coupled to the do-nothing Examiner circuits; but rather the implication/claims that these noise signals are somehow being radiated to distant buried objects and the objects are re-radiating said signal to the contraption in the dowser's hand.

That claim is what I contend IS NOT HAPPENING, and if you think there is a possibility it could be happening (as claimed) you are sorely mistaken and I'm quite surprised an otherwise rational thinking individual would even entertain such a notion.Actually, I have not conveniently side stepped those issues. The fact is I have not done extensive testing to determine what if any signal is present between the Examiner and a distant target. Some preliminary testing showed that the equipment I was using did not detect a "signal line". I was able to detect a signal some small distance from the Examiner ground probe, but since I haven't done extensive testing, I do not have facts to report about that signal. Therefore I can only say I don't know if a signal is being radiated or returned from a target, and it doesn't look promising. By the way, where did you obtain your facts to contend that claim "IS NOT HAPPENING"?

Through testing an Examiner with signal detecting instruments?
By testing equipment different than an Examiner?
How scientific was your test?
What did you use for a control?

My opinion is a rational person would not make statements about how an Examiner performs when they never held an Examiner in their hands, and tested only equipment that is different than an Examiner, and was not manufactured by Rangertell. It brings to mind a person who might test drive a Fiat Brava, then decide Ferraris are are junk because his test drive in a Fiat proved it. But I am still happy to read your logic in the Remote Sensing forum.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

The fact is I have not done extensive testing to determine what if any signal is present between the Examiner and a distant target. Some preliminary testing showed that the equipment I was using did not detect a "signal line".


I'm not surprised you did not detect a "signal line". The term "signal line" is thought to be something tangible, by certain LRL users. In fact it is a term made up by LRL salesmen and has no relation at all to what is actually happening in the real world.

The truth is, when someone holding an LRL (such as the Examiner) causes it to swing or lock, it is because of an ideomotor response. They "think" of this as detecting or crossing a tangible "signal line", because that's what they've been told is happening. Nothing could be further from the truth. I really hope you've not been suckered into thinking "signal lines" actually exist. :shocked:

[J_Player]

I'm not surprised you did not detect a "signal line". The term "signal line" is thought to be something tangible, by certain LRL users. In fact it is a term made up by LRL salesmen and has no relation at all to what is actually happening in the real world.

The truth is, when someone holding an LRL (such as the Examiner) causes it to swing or lock, it is because of an ideomotor response. They "think" of this as detecting or crossing a tangible "signal line", because that's what they've been told is happening. Nothing could be further from the truth. I really hope you've not been suckered into thinking "signal lines" actually exist. :shocked:I have not been suckered into thinking signal lines do exist or do not exist. I prefer to decide what to think about them after I conduct some tests that produce data I can base a decision on. Thank you for posting your hope.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

I have not been suckered into thinking signal lines do exist or do not exist. I prefer to decide what to think about them after I conduct some tests that produce data I can base a decision on. Thank you for posting your hope.

Best wishes,
J_P

Do you have an "active" schedule for conducting those tests, or might they be delayed for as long as the Examiner testing? "Hope" you get time to work them in your schedule.

I conducted several tests, back in the 80s, to determine that "signal lines" were an imaginary entitiy, invented strictly to fool the technically-challenged.

"Hope" you can catch up soon. ;)

[J_Player]

Do you have an "active" schedule for conducting those tests, or might they be delayed for as long as the Examiner testing? "Hope" you get time to work them in your schedule.

I conducted several tests, back in the 80s, to determine that "signal lines" were an imaginary entitiy, invented strictly to fool the technically-challenged.

"Hope" you can catch up soon. ;)I haven't made a schedule to test signal lines. I don't currently own the correct test equipment needed to detect the kind of signal that was described to be a signal line. Quite a few other tests are ongoing, which I have not decided to post in Geotech at this time. Perhaps if you posted a detailed report showing the tests you completed to determine signal lines don't exist, it would help to enlighten forum readers for the time being. I, for one would like to see definitive proof that signal lines do or don't exist instead of opinions.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

I haven't made a schedule to test signal lines. I don't currently own the correct test equipment needed to detect the kind of signal that was described to be a signal line. Quite a few other tests are ongoing, which I have not decided to post in Geotech at this time. Perhaps if you posted a detailed report showing the tests you completed to determine signal lines don't exist, it would help to enlighten forum readers for the time being. I, for one would like to see definitive proof that signal lines do or don't exist instead of opinions.

Best wishes,
J_P

Do you have the same "neutral" view about Santa Claus and The Tooth Fairy as you do about Signal Lines?

Have you gathered the "correct" test equipment and scheduled the tests so you can come to an informed decision about Santa Claus and The Tooth Fairy; and until you do, will you be "on the fence about their existence"?

Try to remember, the burden of proof is on those making the claims for Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy and Signal Lines. No credible evidence has ever been shown for any of those things, and it is not up to the rest of the world to prove a negative. Plain and simple.

[hung]

I conducted several tests, back in the 80s, to determine that "signal lines" were an imaginary entitiy, invented strictly to fool the technically-challenged.
;)

Sam, you must be very, very stupid into thinking you can fool people in this forum about your tests.

Do you really think there are retardeds here?

You actually proved nothing. You found nothing about signal lines, specially in the 80's with no right equipment to measure its existence.
Well unless you were using one of Raudive's Spiricom...:lol:

Let's talk about 1981.
What kind of equipment in existence at the time, could be used to measure or display any signals when the gifted children in the Telekinetics experiment in China, teleported the objects from one place to another employing quantum psi waves, other than cameras and radio receivers to confirm the teleportation?

Time goes, time returns... Still no inteligent life signals from skepthics here.

[Theseus]

You actually proved nothing. You found nothing about signal lines, specially in the 80's with no right equipment to measure its existence.

Sam? As you are on a great many topics you like to expound on; you must be seriously confused.

Time goes and time returns, and still Hung produces no valid evidence for his claims.

"Signal Lines" are nothing more than a concoction of lies from LRL/MFD salesmen like yourself.

Your time has come and gone... and still you remain empty-handed in your little pseudo-scientific world. What a waste.

[J_Player]

Do you have the same "neutral" view about Santa Claus and The Tooth Fairy as you do about Signal Lines?

Have you gathered the "correct" test equipment and scheduled the tests so you can come to an informed decision about Santa Claus and The Tooth Fairy; and until you do, will you be "on the fence about their existence"?

Try to remember, the burden of proof is on those making the claims for Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy and Signal Lines. No credible evidence has ever been shown for any of those things, and it is not up to the rest of the world to prove a negative. Plain and simple.Hi Theseus,
You failed to describe the test you made to prove signal lines don't exist.

If you recall, I asked
"...How scientific was your test?
What did you use for a control? ..."

I also asked to see a detailed report of the test you performed that proved signal lines are imaginary. If the burden of proof is on a person making a claim, then let's see your proof.

Or is it possible you never ran any scientific tests to prove what you are claiming?
Could this be simply more made up BS you are using to try to waste other people's time, or bully them into doing scientific testing that you never did?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Sooooo.... you do believe in Santa Claus and the The Tooth Fairy. :D (I'm not surprised)

Do you also work for Hung and R-T on a commission basis?

Might I remind you; some of the truth in this world is self-evident and really doesn't require buying test equipment and rearranging your busy schedule to test for it.

;)

[Qiaozhi]

Let's talk about 1981.
What kind of equipment in existence at the time, could be used to measure or display any signals when the gifted children in the Telekinetics experiment in China, teleported the objects from one place to another employing quantum psi waves, other than cameras and radio receivers to confirm the teleportation?

Time goes, time returns... Still no inteligent life signals from skepthics here.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: That's one of your best!

No comment needed.

[hung]

Sam? As you are on a great many topics you like to expound on; you must be seriously confused.

Time goes and time returns, and still Hung produces no valid evidence for his claims.

"Signal Lines" are nothing more than a concoction of lies from LRL/MFD salesmen like yourself.

Your time has come and gone... and still you remain empty-handed in your little pseudo-scientific world. What a waste.

First, I'm no LRL salesman. I'm a LRL user, Sam.

Second, I state again that your limited knowledge of science do not allow you to acknowledge what is happening and has already happened out there in terms of scientific events and due to that I know for a fact that you have never performed any tests on this subject simply because you have not or had not any realiable way to confirm or not a scientific observation.
So, stop being ridiculous.

Pal, I do not have the time nor feel like wasting my precious one arguing with types as yourself and also your skepthics peers here.

I am quite right you don't have the slightest idea of what I am talking about regarding the experiment performed in China.
So, before you write more BS on an alien subject to you, here's your chance to read about it and at least have a chance to write BS on something that you became aware before you get a punch right between your eyes from facts themselves.

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,327684.0.html

Take your time to read.
And then, please don't say you were not allowed the chance to free yourself from darkness later.

[J_Player]

Sooooo.... you do believe in Santa Claus and the The Tooth Fairy. :D (I'm not surprised)

Do you also work for Hung and R-T on a commission basis?

Might I remind you; some of the truth in this world is self-evident and really doesn't require buying test equipment and rearranging your busy schedule to test for it.

;)If you recall, I said nothing about Santa Clause or tooth fairies. Those are claims you did not succeed in putting in my post.
If you are capable of reading what was claimed, you can see your inquisition was on the topic of "signal lines" for which I said "I don't know" if they are being radiated or returned because I don't have the correct equipment to measure them.
However, you said you did test them and arrived at a determination to make a definite statement of fact about signal lines:

Statements you made:
"That claim is what I contend IS NOT HAPPENING, and if you think there is a possibility it could be happening (as claimed) you are sorely mistaken..."

Tests you said you made that prove your statement of fact:
"I conducted several tests, back in the 80s, to determine that "signal lines" were an imaginary entitiy".

As you stated, the burden of proof lies with a person making a claim.
So where is your proof? You failed at the second request to prove your claims.

There are plenty of skeptics and LRL enthusiasts who would like to see the data from the tests you conducted that show definitive prove signal lines are an imaginary entity.
So I ask again:

How scientific was your test?
What did you use for a control?

Let's see a detailed report that shows your proof so we can also read the data to determine whether signal lines are an imaginary entity or not.

Or is is possible you never really made any scientific tests?
Are you simply making up tests you never performed like some LRL enthusiasts are reputed to do?
Shall we presume your claims are fake, and you really did not perform any tests to support them?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

If you recall, I said nothing about Santa Clause or tooth fairies. Those are claims you did not succeed in putting in my post.
If you are capable of reading what was claimed, you can see your inquisition was on the topic of "signal lines" for which I said "I don't know" if they are being radiated or returned because I don't have the correct equipment to measure them.
However, you said you did test them and arrived at a determination to make a definite statement of fact about signal lines:

Statements you made:
"That claim is what I contend IS NOT HAPPENING, and if you think there is a possibility it could be happening (as claimed) you are sorely mistaken..."

Tests you said you made that prove your statement of fact:
"I conducted several tests, back in the 80s, to determine that "signal lines" were an imaginary entitiy".

As you stated, the burden of proof lies with a person making a claim.
So where is your proof? You failed at the second request to prove your claims.

There are plenty of skeptics and LRL enthusiasts who would like to see the data from the tests you conducted that show definitive prove signal lines are an imaginary entity.
So I ask again:

How scientific was your test?
What did you use for a control?

Let's see a detailed report that shows your proof so we can also read the data to determine whether signal lines are an imaginary entity or not.

Or is is possible you never really made any scientific tests?
Are you simply making up tests you never performed like some LRL enthusiasts are reputed to do?
Shall we presume your claims are fake, and you really did not perform any tests to support them?

Best wishes,
J_P
He doth protest too much, methinks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks.

Couldn't resist it! :D

Regarding the so-called "signal lines", you can get the real story here:
http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=/info/lrl_qa.dat&zoom

[Theseus]

He doth protest too much, methinks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks.

Couldn't resist it! :D

Regarding the so-called "signal lines", you can get the real story here:
http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=/info/lrl_qa.dat&zoom

It appears most evident that J_P is not really interested in any sort of evidence why Signal Lines (LRL related) DO NOT exist.

From the reference you gave, it clearly states why they aren't real.

Q: Why do people believe signal lines exist?
A: MFDs are dowsing devices. As such, people who use them often experience the "dowsing response", which is usually a sensation that the device (or rods) is doing something on its own, such as moving or hesitating. Even though the real source of this sensation comes from the movement of the user's own hand, people assume that it is caused by an external influence. The appearance that the MFD responds as if there is an external influence, has manifested itself into a belief that the MFD is responding to an external influence. The belief of choice is the signal line.


Even if I had the time to scan and post all of my data and test protocol details, it would not be convincing to J_P. (and I don't have the time) He'd rather keep running around in proverbial circles, looking for the proper test equipment, locating volunteers, questioning the validity of his sample Examiner... and all other manner of stall tactics.

Why? I've asked myself. Is he that afraid of the outcome, such that avoiding the test altogether precludes ever having to face the reality of actually making a decision... and taking a firm stance.

Must be terribly uncomfortable, always straddling the fence he is perched on. :D

[J_Player]

He doth protest too much, methinks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks.

Couldn't resist it! :D

Regarding the so-called "signal lines", you can get the real story here:
http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=/info/lrl_qa.dat&zoomHi Qiaozhi,
I agree. I have the same general opinion about signal lines as most metal detectorists have until someone can demonstrate otherwise.

And now we finally have a forum member who says he actually performed tests to prove they are imaginary. He keeps protesting to drag Santa and tooth fairies into his inquisition, yet he cannot simply show the data from his alleged tests to prove his claims of testing. Isn't this valuable skeptic information that any skeptic would be anxious to show?

He still continues to make excuses for why he can't show his test data.
He uses the same methods as LRL promoters use to evade backing up his claims of testing.
So far, my opinion is he is he did no testing, and he will protest any request to prove he did.

But regardless of whether Theseus made up stories about his testing or not, I still won't spend any money to buy a gizmo that finds treasure from signal lines unless I can see it actually working to find hidden treasures first. :rolleyes:

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Hi Qiaozhi,
And now we finally have a forum member who says he actually performed tests to prove they are imaginary. He keeps protesting to drag Santa and tooth fairies into his inquisition, yet he cannot simply show the data from his alleged tests to prove his claims of testing. Isn't this valuable skeptic information that any skeptic would be anxious to show?

J_P

Not sure how many times I need to repeat this.

It's not that I don't have the data, it's located in a collection of notes, yellow-grid engineering paper and small spiral notebooks. I simply do not have the desire or the time to dig into the source, rent time on a scanner and try to place it on a public forum. Not to mention the fact; I already know ahead of time, you would not be satisfied by it anyway since it is my data and you did not observe it being recorded.

I guess you'll just have to believe my data on faith. After all, if you are a theist, you believe and accept your beliefs on blind faith - so I guess that's what you'll have to do here, in regards to my test results and conclusions.

:|

[J_Player]

Not sure how many times I need to repeat this.

It's not that I don't have the data, it's located in a collection of notes, yellow-grid engineering paper and small spiral notebooks. I simply do not have the desire or the time to dig into the source, rent time on a scanner and try to place it on a public forum. Not to mention the fact; I already know ahead of time, you would not be satisfied by it anyway since it is my data and you did not observe it being recorded.

I guess you'll just have to believe my data on faith. After all, if you are a theist, you believe and accept your beliefs on blind faith - so I guess that's what you'll have to do here, in regards to my test results and conclusions.

:|I never asked for scans of yellow grid paper and spiral notebooks. I only asked to see the evidence that you actually performed testing. Specifically, to tell us:

How scientific was your test?
What did you use for a control?

Let's see a detailed report that shows your proof so we can also read the data to determine whether signal lines are an imaginary entity or not.

No scanning is necessary, simply tell us how the test was conducted, what protocol, what controls, and the data from the results. Just type in the answers so we can see how your test proved that signal lines are imaginary. Then we can all know for sure instead of relying on hearsay and logical arguments that had no testing to support it. If this was a scientific test, then we skeptics will finally have indisputable proof when we tell people signal lines don't exist. It does not need to satisfy me, as long as the proof is there. Any skeptic will easily accept your scientific test that proves signal lines are imaginary. Some LRL enthusiasts may change their views on "signal lines" after reading tour test report, and a lot of undecided treasure hunters could become convinced. And I will be happy to admit I was wrong to think you did not conduct any test.

My guess is you cannot tell us what protocol, controls and data because there was no protocol, controls, data, or test made at all. The brings to mind the time when hung insisted he made tests to find a signal from the Rangertell calculator, but after Carl-NC pointed out it is obvious he did not, he quickly got a cheap voltmeter and took some measurements so people wouldn't think he just made up the story of how he actually ran tests.

If you really did make tests that proved the signal line is imaginary, then I am surprised you never published the results to support your argument. This is the only information that can validate your claims that you ran tests. Yet you are still making excuses why you cannot disclose the details of this test. Shall we presume you never conducted this test, or do you actually have details you could describe?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Can you describe to me the type and content of the data you would accept (from outside sources you did not observe) as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world?

When you can do that, I'll have a better idea of what I should take the time to place on here, or any open forum.

:D

[J_Player]

Can you describe to me the type and content of the data you would accept (from outside sources you did not observe) as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world?

When you can do that, I'll have a better idea of what I should take the time to place on here, or any open forum.

:DSure. Any test that the owner of this forum would describe as a scientific test that proves signal lines are imaginary is satisfactory. As far as presentation, the protocol should be described, along with any controls that were used, a list of the data observed in the test results, and any other pertinent information you want to include. In short, any test report that would convince Carl-NC that you ran a test that proves signal lines are imaginary.

But to satisfy me, it is easier. I will concede that you actually ran tests if you simply post the information, regardless of whether Carl-NC accepts it as scientific proof. My argument is you did not show evidence of testing, so if you show the details as described above, I would be happy to admit I was wrong.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Sure. Any test that the owner of this forum would describe as a scientific test that proves signal lines are imaginary is satisfactory. As far as presentation, the protocol should be described, along with any controls that were used, a list of the data observed in the test results, and any other pertinent information you want to include. In short, any test report that would convince Carl-NC that you ran a test that proves signal lines are imaginary.

But to satisfy me, it is easier. I will concede that you actually ran tests if you simply post the information, regardless of whether Carl-NC accepts it as scientific proof. My argument is you did not show evidence of testing, so if you show the details as described above, I would be happy to admit I was wrong.

Best wishes,
J_P

Heh, heh..... :lol: another "straw man" you've knocked down. Do you think I was born yesterday (rhetorical).

The question I asked you was NOT what I could post that would prove I ran the tests. I specifically asked; "Can you describe the type and content of the data you would accept (from outside sources you did not observe) as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world?"

Quite obviously you didn't like that question; but in putting up your "straw man" you gave me my answer anyway. Thank you. :D

[goldfinder]

Great that you posted a tiny fraction of the data that proves many of these advanced psychotronics discoveries made in the last 50 years.

I myself ran some test on signal lines. A friend of mine is a very good clairvoyant and can see interdimensionally. I used to work for a human factors testing company, know all the rules and scientific methods so I know what I am doing. I have proved that the clairvoyant is in fact for real.

One of my LRL transmitters was set up to transmit the gold frequency. A couple of gold coins were place in the yard about 50 feet away. The clairvoyant knew nothing of what was to happen. I ask the clairvoyant to look on the inner level and tell me what he saw. He described a stream of energy going between the LRL transmitter and the gold. When I turned the xmitr off he said the energy line vanished after about 1 minute. It slowly died down to nothing.

Then I walked between the xmitr and the gold with the xmitr on, a signal line established, and the clairvoyant said that my walking through the energy line between the LRL xmitr and the gold was broken up. He said that the line would reestablish after the xmitr had been running about a minute after I walked through it. These test were repeated with silver and other metals and they all had the same result.

I myself can feel the energy lines.

Extensive testing with various types of sensitive electronic equipment and special equipment that I developed to detect the energy lines also proved positive. No I am not going to disclose these!

What was most disconcerting was the fact that we could not create the signal lines with the LRL xmitr and samples after the sun had gotten very high (after 9am and before 4 pm). So searching for treasure was restricted to early morning and late afternoon hours or at night.

Also, I did these types of tests at different times of the year and over several years. During the high sun spot cycles it was nigh impossible to establish an LRL signal line at any time as the sun increased activity would wipe out any signal lines or never let them be established. There is a good reason for this!

Just a word on skeptics - this is a religion with them. Just like liberalism is a religion and no matter how much proof you go through will ever convince them. So lets those of us who want to work on these things ignore them They are mentally sick and incapable of operating in a higher level mode of though! They need help so lets all just God Bless them All.

Best Regards,
Goldfinder

[Qiaozhi]

Just a word on skeptics - this is a religion with them. Just like liberalism is a religion and no matter how much proof you go through will ever convince them. So lets those of us who want to work on these things ignore them They are mentally sick and incapable of operating in a higher level mode of though! They need help so lets all just God Bless them All.

Best Regards,
Goldfinder
It is not a religion to us, but it clearly appears be a religion for people such as yourself.

The tests you have presented cannot be described as "scientific". There is no suggestion that you carried out any double-blind testing whatsoever, and therefore your conclusions are purely subjective in nature. In this case they are subject to the usual errors in judgment caused by self-delusion and selective memory. Any conclusions can be unintentionally biased by the human unconscious mind unless double-blind testing is used, especially where the tester has a preconceived idea of the expected result.

[Theseus]

It is not a religion to us, but it clearly appears be a religion for people such as yourself.

The tests you have presented cannot be described as "scientific". There is no suggestion that you carried out any double-blind testing whatsoever, and therefore your conclusions are purely subjective in nature. In this case they are subject to the usual errors in judgment caused by self-delusion and selective memory. Any conclusions can be unintentionally biased by the human unconscious mind unless double-blind testing is used, especially where the tester has a preconceived idea of the expected result.

:thumb:

If revealing scams and telling the truth about dowsing and LRL contraptions is a sickness; I admit to being infected with the malady.

[hung]

Great that you posted a tiny fraction of the data that proves many of these advanced psychotronics discoveries made in the last 50 years.

I myself ran some test on signal lines. A friend of mine is a very good clairvoyant and can see interdimensionally. I used to work for a human factors testing company, know all the rules and scientific methods so I know what I am doing. I have proved that the clairvoyant is in fact for real.

One of my LRL transmitters was set up to transmit the gold frequency. A couple of gold coins were place in the yard about 50 feet away. The clairvoyant knew nothing of what was to happen. I ask the clairvoyant to look on the inner level and tell me what he saw. He described a stream of energy going between the LRL transmitter and the gold. When I turned the xmitr off he said the energy line vanished after about 1 minute. It slowly died down to nothing.

Then I walked between the xmitr and the gold with the xmitr on, a signal line established, and the clairvoyant said that my walking through the energy line between the LRL xmitr and the gold was broken up. He said that the line would reestablish after the xmitr had been running about a minute after I walked through it. These test were repeated with silver and other metals and they all had the same result.

I myself can feel the energy lines.

Extensive testing with various types of sensitive electronic equipment and special equipment that I developed to detect the energy lines also proved positive. No I am not going to disclose these!

What was most disconcerting was the fact that we could not create the signal lines with the LRL xmitr and samples after the sun had gotten very high (after 9am and before 4 pm). So searching for treasure was restricted to early morning and late afternoon hours or at night.

Also, I did these types of tests at different times of the year and over several years. During the high sun spot cycles it was nigh impossible to establish an LRL signal line at any time as the sun increased activity would wipe out any signal lines or never let them be established. There is a good reason for this!

Just a word on skeptics - this is a religion with them. Just like liberalism is a religion and no matter how much proof you go through will ever convince them. So lets those of us who want to work on these things ignore them They are mentally sick and incapable of operating in a higher level mode of though! They need help so lets all just God Bless them All.

Best Regards,
Goldfinder

Goldfinder, I salute you for you superior understanding of these matters. Your tests and your equipment proved what we all know about signal lines.
I too, have employed already methods that corroborate what you found, and... just like yourself, no disclosing. Specially here.

Thanks for the compliments. My goal in posting all the information about that scientific experiment in China was to shut the skeptics mouth up in that forum regarding the HUGE BS they became used to pronounce, blasfeming science and giving it a bad name. Ignorant people are everywhere, but the worst thing to meet is some ignorant with bad intention.

That post with the published research had the impact of a megaton in their heads. It was like a complete bowling strike with just one ball.
After that, they fell apart and became aware that scientific phenomena might be much deeper than their limited minds may think of.

Keep evolving Goldfinder and God bless you too. Steping into the light is one true personal conquest.
All the best.

[Theseus]

Isn't pseudoscience wonderful and heart-warming. :)

[Saturna]

How come the LRL guys also seem to be quite religious ? Coincidence ?

[J_Player]

If revealing scams and telling the truth about dowsing and LRL contraptions is a sickness; I admit to being infected with the malady.It appears you are not revealing the truth you about your signal line tests.
Are you are concealing the truth of your alleged signal line tests, or you just plain didn't perform any tests as I suspected?

The reason you gave is "I simply do not have the desire or the time...".
It appears obvious you are not willing to tell the truth about your testing (or lack of testing) of signal lines.
No evidence to show whatsoever -- not even a brief description off the top of your head of the protocol and controls?
How much time would that take?

Are we hearing the same old "straw man" excuses like LRL promoters use to evade admitting you have no test data because you did not perform any tests?
Hmmm... Maybe you don't want to talk about the details of your alleged test because it was conducted using a protocol similar to goldfinder's tests?
Or maybe you just plain made up the story of conducting signal line tests. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should join hung for the forum title of fake tests or no tests?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

:thumb:

If revealing scams and telling the truth about dowsing and LRL contraptions is a sickness; I admit to being infected with the malady.
I also felt slightly queasy after my last post.... :barf:

[Qiaozhi]

Thanks for the compliments. My goal in posting all the information about that scientific experiment in China was to shut the skeptics mouth up in that forum regarding the HUGE BS they became used to pronounce, blasfeming science and giving it a bad name. Ignorant people are everywhere, but the worst thing to meet is some ignorant with bad intention.

That post with the published research had the impact of a megaton in their heads. It was like a complete bowling strike with just one ball.
After that, they fell apart and became aware that scientific phenomena might be much deeper than their limited minds may think of.
Where do you get this nonsense from?
I would advise staying away from the hallucinogens, as they can really mess your head up.

[Theseus]

Speaking of appearing.....

It appears J_Player refuses to answer my rather pointed question:

The question I asked you was NOT what I could post that would prove I ran the tests. I specifically asked; "Can you describe the type and content of the data you would accept (from outside sources you did not observe) as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world?"

What are you afraid of?

Why not tell us in simple terms the framework, protocol and data that you would accept (from a third party you did not observe) that would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world?

Check and Mate! Game Over, Mr. G. Owen! :lol:

[Fred]

Goldfinder, I salute you for you superior understanding of these matters.

Ignorant people are everywhere...

Keep evolving Goldfinder and God bless you too. Steping into the light is one true personal conquest.

...blasfeming science and giving it a bad name.



Isn't pseudoscience wonderful and heart-warming. :)

...Steping into the light is one true personal conquest


How come the LRL guys also seem to be quite religious ? Coincidence ?
God bless you too

[J_Player]

Heh, heh..... :lol: another "straw man" you've knocked down. Do you think I was born yesterday (rhetorical).

The question I asked you was NOT what I could post that would prove I ran the tests. I specifically asked; "Can you describe the type and content of the data you would accept (from outside sources you did not observe) as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world?"

Quite obviously you didn't like that question; but in putting up your "straw man" you gave me my answer anyway. Thank you. :DWrong again. Here are your words:

"It appears most evident that J_P is not really interested in any sort of evidence why Signal Lines (LRL related) DO NOT exist".

"I conducted several tests, back in the 80s, to determine that "signal lines" were an imaginary entitiy, invented strictly to fool the technically-challenged".

"Try to remember, the burden of proof is on those making the claims..."

"Even if I had the time to scan and post all of my data and test protocol details, it would not be convincing to J_P".
You are well aware from my previous posts that I am of the opinion signal lines don't exist, I just haven't been able to prove it. Therefore I cannot claim I have factual proof that they are imaginary. But you have posted that you ran tests that prove they are imaginary. You posted the burden of proof is on those making the claims.

What happened? Did you change your mind? Are you now exempt from the burden of proof? Your claim that you ran tests does not seem factual, simply because nobody has seen any evidence that you ran any tests. Now you pretend it takes too much time to post details of your proof unless you first know what I am interested to see? Whether you conducted tests or not does not depend on what I want, think believe or hope. The burden of proof is satisfied by showing the evidence of your tests.

It won't work to pretend I didn't specify the type and content. I posted the answer here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=117493&postcount=692
In case you forgot. The answer was: "Sure. Any test that the owner of this forum would describe as a scientific test that proves signal lines are imaginary is satisfactory. As far as presentation, the protocol should be described, along with any controls that were used, a list of the data observed in the test results, and any other pertinent information you want to include. In short, any test report that would convince Carl-NC that you ran a test that proves signal lines are imaginary".

In addition to what I would accept, I also offered to be satisfied with a much easier test report that would simply satisfy me that you actually ran the alleged tests: "But to satisfy me, it is easier. I will concede that you actually ran tests if you simply post the information, regardless of whether Carl-NC accepts it as scientific proof. My argument is you did not show evidence of testing, so if you show the details as described above, I would be happy to admit I was wrong".

I have answered all your questions, yet you still can't produce any evidence you conducted tests of signal lines. :nono:

Remember, I never asked you to convince me of anything except that you ran tests to determine signal lines are imaginary.
Real test results that prove signal lines are imaginary are a bonus that any skeptic including myself will be happy to have at their disposal, but not something I required.
I only asked to see details of evidence that you conducted tests.

I am becoming more convinced you did not perform any tests, and your claims of testing are fake. The only excuse you offered is you don't have time, and you will not be able to consider finding the time until after you know something about what kind of tests I like?
Are you serious?
There is no burden of proof for me or any one else to show that you performed tests.
In fact it is not possible for anyone to prove you conducted tests if you did not.
Only you could prove it, and it does not take more than a few minutes to type in the protocol and controls you used in these alleged tests.

It looks to me like another case similar to when hung stalled and made all kind of excuses why he could not show any test results.
...At least not until someone challenged him, and he found a way to produce test results afterward.
It is beginning to seem obvious you did not conduct testing of signal lines.

Here is my prediction:
You will not tell any details of your alleged testing to determine signal lines are imaginary.
Instead you will produce excuses, and raise hurdles that others must first pass before you will consider describing the details of your tests.
In the end you will never show test details.
Yet you will attempt to maintain you have conducted tests while failing to show any real evidence you conducted tests. :rolleyes:

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

"Can you describe the type and content of the data you would accept (from outside sources you did not observe) as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world?"

Graham, when you get through with your ducking and dodging routine, I'll still be waiting for your answer.

There is no way I will waste a lot of valuable time placing a target up here, to then have you merely argue that it is worthless and unacceptable as proof "signal lines" do not exist. Do you think I was born yesterday and can't see through your little dance routine? (rhetorical)

Throw up all the straw men you want; but when you get tired, just remember the question above still needs an answer from you.

Speaking of delay tactics; what progress are you making towards completing the Examiner field trials? :shrug:

[J_Player]

"Can you describe the type and content of the data you would accept (from outside sources you did not observe) as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world?"

Graham, when you get through with your ducking and dodging routine, I'll still be waiting for your answer.

There is no way I will waste a lot of valuable time placing a target up here, to then have you merely argue that it is worthless and unacceptable as proof "signal lines" do not exist. Do you think I was born yesterday and can't see through your little dance routine? (rhetorical)

Throw up all the straw men you want; but when you get tired, just remember the question above still needs an answer from you.

Speaking of delay tactics; what progress are you making towards completing the Examiner field trials? :shrug:I already told you twice the answer. Scroll up and read it.
It is here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=117493&postcount=692
and here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=117533&postcount=705

I answered your question yesterday and repeated them today.
Still you consider you have no burden of proof?
Guess again!

They were your own words: "Try to remember, the burden of proof is on those making the claims..."
And it was also you who made the claim: "I conducted several tests, back in the 80s, to determine that "signal lines" were an imaginary entity"

So what happened to your burden of proof?
Would you like to modify your statement to say A) "The burden of proof is on those people other than me making the claims"?
Or maybe you want to modify your statement to say B) "I never made any tests in 1988 or any other time on signal lines, and this is the reason I cannot tell any details of a test I never did"

Have you chosen option-A to avoid being discovered as a fraud if you choose option B?
Or is there another reason?
Is it possible that you actually did perform some sort of test, but are afraid to tell any details of it because some readers may recognize the test incident and discover a secret identity which you don't wish to reveal?
Nah, I don't think that is likely. Everyone knows you, they love you, they can't live without you. The most probable scenario in my opinion is you didn't perform any tests on signal lines.

You already had my answers for two days now. Any weird ideas that your burden of proof is contingent on what I think, say or do is mistaken. Only the test evidence has any importance in determining proof, not peoples opinion about a test. But you knew that because you read what Carl had to say about it. You are just wasting time making excuses for what? So you don't have to admit you never did a test?
Did you?
Prove it.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

I don't want to enter into this "discussion" ... but only to say that the burden of proof is on the person(s) who are claiming that signal lines exist, not on everyone else to disprove it. Someone waving a couple of sticks around in the air, and stating that they can feel the force, does not constitute proof.

Some time ago I used an analogy where I stated that there was a tea tray in orbit around the Earth, and challenged others to disprove it. If that sounds silly ... well, it is! But the same concept applies to signal lines. The most you could ever hope to prove is that someone claiming they can feel the signal line should be tested using doubled-blind methods. Even if the (inevitable) result shows that the person being tested cannot detect the lines, it does not prove their non-existence. It only proves that they were not detected.

This is why the burden of proof is on the claimant. Otherwise you could keep scanning Earth's orbit for the tea tray, only to be told, "Keep searching, it's definitely there. You're just not looking in the right place".

[J_Player]

This is why the burden of proof is on the claimant. Otherwise you could keep scanning Earth's orbit for the tea tray, only to be told, "Keep searching, it's definitely there. You're just not looking in the right place".I agree. This is a basic principle that is used in the legal system of every civilized country. In this case we see someone coming around boasting about how he made tests that show proof, yet is not able to describe what kind of tests for the reason "it takes too much time". :lol: When he learned it is not necessary to retrieve documents and scan them, but to simply describe the test, we heard a new reason why he no longer had the burden to prove his claim that he conducted tests: He is afraid his tests would not be convincing to skeptics! (You recall I answered him "In short, any test report that would convince Carl-NC that you ran a test that proves signal lines are imaginary" is satisfactory). So he is afraid his testing would not convince Carl-NC he conducted a test that proves signal lines are imaginary?

This sounds similar to an excuse an LRL promoter uses to typically avoid proving he conducted tests to demonstrate his scientific discoveries. We are expected to believe his alleged tests took place and therefore he also has the scientific discoveries which he keeps secret for his own use. So we must believe that he is the only person who has actually tested and proved these discoveries, without providing any details or proof that he made these tests. His latest excuse was "I have absolutely no interest whasoever in discussing it or convincing anyone about it. But even if I did have... no, I beleive I would not be able to convince you or some skeptics here and I doubt it that I would ever be".

Now Theseus has copied this exact same excuse used by the LRL promoter to evade showing that he actually did testing on signal lines and arrived at a determination, when it seems obvious he did not. He brags about how he made tests to determine that signal lines are imaginary, yet cannot even describe these tests. The issue is not whether the test results were convincing. It is whether any tests were done at all!

What makes more sense?
Does Theseus also have a secret bunker where he and his team perform tests that are so secret they cannot be talked about?
Or did he simply make up the story of conducting tests of signal lines? :rolleyes:

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

The title of this thread is "Rangertell Examiner Field Trials". I mention it in passing, wondering what the latest status (excuses) are at this point in time..... and the silence was deafening. Shhhhhhhhhhh........ :rolleyes:

But going off topic again; "The issue is not whether the tests were actually conducted, because they were. Rather, the issue is having you tell me.... "the type and content of the data you would accept (from outside sources you did not observe) as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world?"

I can repeat that request just as many times as you want, Graham. :cool:

ps:.... the tea tray fell out of orbit last week and is buried in my back yard. :lol:

[J_Player]

I can repeat that request just as many times as you want...Sure you can repeat your request. You can also continue to pretend I didn't answer it. But what you can't do is describe the alleged testing you claimed to do.
As a reminder, here is the answer: Any test that the owner of this forum would describe as a scientific test that proves signal lines are imaginary is satisfactory. As far as presentation, the protocol should be described, along with any controls that were used, a list of the data observed in the test results, and any other pertinent information you want to include. In short, any test report that would convince Carl-NC that you ran a test that proves signal lines are imaginary.

So far, my predictions are correct:
Here is my prediction:
You will not tell any details of your alleged testing to determine signal lines are imaginary.
Instead you will produce excuses, and raise hurdles that others must first pass before you will consider describing the details of your tests.
In the end you will never show test details.
Yet you will attempt to maintain you have conducted tests while failing to show any real evidence you conducted tests. :rolleyes:

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Whenever you can verbalize the type and content of the data you would accept (from outside sources you did not observe) as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world, ....just let me know, so I format my data accordingly.

Since you refuse to do that, in the meantime.... what about the subject of this thread?

RangerTell Examiner Field Trials -- What's the latest status, excuses related to this topic?

You are the one who claimed you would test and report on this item. "Try to remember, the burden of proof is on those making the claims..."

;)

[J_Player]

Whenever you can verbalize the type and content of the data you would accept (from outside sources you did not observe) as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world, ....just let me know, so I format my data accordingly.Sure, here it is typed out the fourth time: "Any test that the owner of this forum would describe as a scientific test that proves signal lines are imaginary is satisfactory. As far as presentation, the protocol should be described, along with any controls that were used, a list of the data observed in the test results, and any other pertinent information you want to include. In short, any test report that would convince Carl-NC that you ran a test that proves signal lines are imaginary".

In case your intellect doesn't have the resolving power to understand what it means, I can diagram what it means in precise detail:
1. You can format the data in any type or content you want provided Carl-NC can read it and identify it as a scientific test you ran that proves signal lines are imaginary. This includes all types, contents, and formats that you may want to use, provided they are acceptable to Carl-NC. (Of course, this is easy for you, as you have shown you generally follow the types and formats that Carl-NC uses).
2. Your test report should describe the protocol and any controls you used for the tests.
3. Your test report should include the test result data you observed.
4. You may (at your option) include any additional information that you consider pertinent.

As you can see I placed no limitations on the type, content or format for the data other than Carl-NC can read it and identify it as a scientific test you ran that proves signal lines are imaginary. This would of necessity rule out making a test report in chinese symbols, or printing white type over a white background. Since we know Carl is reasonable, we know he accepts any reasonable test types and data formats that do not violate the rules of testing. And since there are unlimited ways to format any type or content of valid tests, I don't see a reason to rule any of them out.

Now you have your answer the fourth time. You know what type, content and format is acceptable. Basically there are no restrictions on the type, content or formatting of the data as long as they don't invalidate the test or make it illegible or otherwise obscure the data. The fact is I don't care about the formatting as long as it is comprehensible and the data can be understood by a casual reader. I care more about the content. That is the reason I summed up what is acceptable by saying: "In short, any test report that would convince Carl-NC that you ran a test that proves signal lines are imaginary". Why not use the type and content you used for the tests you ran in 1988?

Carl's concept of testing theory is more similar to mine than what I find from most other forum members. So if what you present as a test convinces Carl-NC you ran tests that proved signal lines are imaginary, then you will have no problem convincing me as well. And even if he doesn't consider your tests to be conclusive proof, they still may be very good evidence.

Take note: A test you ran in 1988 is a test from outside sources I did not observe, so your question is answered.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Geo]

Hi.
Can you give me the protocol that i must keep to, so to prove that the signal lines there are??
Of course it is not so often phenomenon but i saw it some times. If the protocol that you talk is easy, then next time that i will see it i could take a video.

Regards:)

[Theseus]

Nice duck and dodge, Graham.

1. You can format the data.....
2. Your test report should describe.....
3. Your test report should include.....
4. You may (at your option) include any.....

Contrary to you, I have been designing, conducting and overseeing experimental test procedures (specifically electronic instrumentation) for probably longer than you have been on this planet. Your points above (1 thru 4) are the most elementary, and obvious, that even the most novice engineers and test technicians are aware of as basic requirements. (There are several others you've not included, but I'm assuming that's because you are covering ground that is totally foreign to you.)

Iterating the obvious, as a smoke screen to avoid what I asked for, may fool some here; but it does not satisfy my original request.

Further, I am very aware that; "Any test that the owner of this forum would describe as a scientific test that proves signal lines are imaginary is satisfactory."


Now, what I need from you is for you to verbalize the actual explanation you would accept as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world.

Once I see that; we can quit playing your circular delay tactic game, I can evaluate if my test protocol and results will be accepted by you and will be worth my time and effort to transcribe it to this forum. Alternatively, if I determine my test results are not something that will "cause you to believe" - than I'm not wasting my time putting it up here.

BTW, why do you keep ignoring my question about the current status of the RangerTell Examiner Field Trials?

[J_Player]

"....just let me know, so I format my data accordingly".
You have your answer regardless of whether you choose to ignore the details I gave.

Here are the details you omitted from my post that verbalized the actual type and content of the data I would accept:
...format the data in any type or content you want provided Carl-NC can read it and identify it as a scientific test you ran that proves signal lines are imaginary.
...describe the protocol and any controls you used for the tests.
...include the test result data you observed.
...include any additional information that you consider pertinent.

What more information is necessary when you have been told that you can format the data any way you want?
Are you afraid Carl-NC will not be convinced you performed a scientific test that proves signal lines are imaginary?

If you really believe you no longer have the burdon of proof for your claim unless I specify a specific type and content, then I choose the type and content that you used in your alleged tests in the 80s to determine signal lines are imaginary.

Of course I cannot guess the exact type and content you used in your alleged tests, as there are unlimited types and content for tests. Any excuse that I didn't name the type and content you used won't work, because you never told what type or content appears in the alleged tests. The only smoke screen I see is the fact you can produce no information to substantiate that you conducted tests that prove signal lines are imaginary.
You can produce no information of type or content, no protocol, no controls, and no data.
It looks like you got nothing.

Did you actually perform any tests?
It seems obvious you did no testing of signal lines.
Did you also make up the story about testing LRLs?

Why should anyone believe you ever did testing, or that you really know any factual information about LRLs?
Isn't it true that everything you have to say about LRLs is selected secondhand information that you collected from others?
You have demonstrated that you are as credible as Dr. Hung when you copied his same excuses for why you can't substantiate your claims.


By the way, I don't feel compelled to pay attention to your request for a status report. You can scroll up and read the information about current testing status in my recent posts, and peruse some photos of actual signals I measured. Or you can scroll back farther to where you already decided the testing of the Examiner is permanently closed: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=107938&postcount=509
If you feel you are entited to have details of on-going testing forwarded to you, maybe you can explain on what basis you have earned this entitlement.


Best wishes,
J_P

[goldfinder]

I don't want to enter into this "discussion" ... but only to say that the burden of proof is on the person(s) who are claiming that signal lines exist, not on everyone else to disprove it. Someone waving a couple of sticks around in the air, and stating that they can feel the force, does not constitute proof.

Some time ago I used an analogy where I stated that there was a tea tray in orbit around the Earth, and challenged others to disprove it. If that sounds silly ... well, it is! But the same concept applies to signal lines. The most you could ever hope to prove is that someone claiming they can feel the signal line should be tested using doubled-blind methods. Even if the (inevitable) result shows that the person being tested cannot detect the lines, it does not prove their non-existence. It only proves that they were not detected.

This is why the burden of proof is on the claimant. Otherwise you could keep scanning Earth's orbit for the tea tray, only to be told, "Keep searching, it's definitely there. You're just not looking in the right place".

When you get down to the very basics, all proof at some level is a matter of faith. Faith in instrumentation, faith in yours or others test results, etc.

For example, saying I can feel the force or energies could very well be proof for me but obviously not for you. for myself - I am not interested in "proving" anything to anyone. I personally don't give a crap in your beliefs or what constitutes proof to you. If I or anyone else can find gold, treasure, or whatever methods or equipment they use to find it, GREAT, let them have at it. I don't operate in a mode that I have to justify any of my beliefs or existing operating methods as. My little world in not shook up by whatever someone else believes in so that I have to "disprove" them or their methods.

I also feel that if I have something that might help others I will pass it on. In my own researches I have been most grateful to some hint that someone passed to me that enabled me to operate in a better mode.

If someone wants to share some methodology they use I feel free to examine it, perhaps test it, and if useful, I'll incorporate it into my toolkit. If it doesn't seem worthwhile at any point I don't have to tear down the person or device.

So all these "proof" arguments. demands, etc. and critical bashing of someone else's methods is really a waste of time. Why don't we all just let whomever tell what methods, equipment, etc. they use and if interesting, get some details and quit all this bashing. It really wastes all our time to have to wade through a lot of BS to find a grain of truth. A simple "I tried it out and it doesn't work for me" is usually sufficient. You can't protect the morons. They have to learn it for themselves.

Goldifinder

[Theseus]

I must admit Graham, I can't figure out if you are really as dense as you portray yourself to be; or perhaps it's just an act.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. You seem to be hung up on how I "format" my test data and protocol definition, and what I include in my details.

...format the data in any type or content you want provided Carl-NC can read it and identify it as a scientific test you ran that proves signal lines are imaginary.
...describe the protocol and any controls you used for the tests.
...include the test result data you observed.
...include any additional information that you consider pertinent.

Now, for the very last time, Graham... it is not how I format the information, or how I describe it, or what I include in it; that I am concerned about. Trust me, I have been conducting tests, reducing data, drawing conclusions and putting my results in very readable report formats since before you found out the ASA rating of Panatomic X could be doubled with the proper mix of D-76, time and temperature adjustments.

My ONLY concern is what you would accept as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world.

If you can't or don't wish to verbalize that kind of information; just say so. I sense the readership is tiring of this "back and forth".... and I am too.

;)

BTW, if this thread, Rangertell Examiner Field Trials, is in your mind closed because you have decided not to test the Examiner, might I suggest you request an Admin to close and lock the thread.

[J_Player]

I must admit Graham, I can't figure out if you are really as dense as you portray yourself to be; or perhaps it's just an act.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. You seem to be hung up on how I "format" my test data and protocol definition, and what I include in my details.

...format the data in any type or content you want provided Carl-NC can read it and identify it as a scientific test you ran that proves signal lines are imaginary.
...describe the protocol and any controls you used for the tests.
...include the test result data you observed.
...include any additional information that you consider pertinent.

Now, for the very last time, Graham... it is not how I format the information, or how I describe it, or what I include in it; that I am concerned about. Trust me, I have been conducting tests, reducing data, drawing conclusions and putting my results in very readable report formats since before you found out the ASA rating of Panatomic X could be doubled with the proper mix of D-76, time and temperature adjustments...;)Wrong again!
I was never hung up on what format you used. You are the one who posted you wanted to know how to format your data.
Scroll up and read your words: " ....just let me know, so I format my data accordingly". If you didn't want to know how to format your data, then why did you post that?
And why attempt to blame me for answering?
This wouldn't be another trick to direct attention away from the fact you have no evidence of testing signal lines to present, would it?

My ONLY concern is what you would accept as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world. Also scroll up and see the answer several times. I will accept any test you made in any format with any data types that will convince Carl-NC that you conducted a scientific test that proves signal lines are imaginary. Take note: "any test you made" is what I would accept as valid. The only condition is that Carl is convinced.

There it is verbalized in words again.
Are you still afraid Carl-NC won't be convinced you conducted a test that proves signal lines are imaginary?

You realize of course, if Carl is not convinced, I probably won't be either.
But then you have nothing to lose.
After seeing what you posted so far instead of supporting evidence, it looks like you never ran any tests that prove signal lines are imaginary.
It seems to me you just made it all up.
Hmmmm... maybe you made up the stories about testing LRLs too.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

When you get down to the very basics, all proof at some level is a matter of faith. Faith in instrumentation, faith in yours or others test results, etc.

For example, saying I can feel the force or energies could very well be proof for me but obviously not for you. for myself - I am not interested in "proving" anything to anyone. I personally don't give a crap in your beliefs or what constitutes proof to you. If I or anyone else can find gold, treasure, or whatever methods or equipment they use to find it, GREAT, let them have at it. I don't operate in a mode that I have to justify any of my beliefs or existing operating methods as. My little world in not shook up by whatever someone else believes in so that I have to "disprove" them or their methods.

I also feel that if I have something that might help others I will pass it on. In my own researches I have been most grateful to some hint that someone passed to me that enabled me to operate in a better mode.

If someone wants to share some methodology they use I feel free to examine it, perhaps test it, and if useful, I'll incorporate it into my toolkit. If it doesn't seem worthwhile at any point I don't have to tear down the person or device.

So all these "proof" arguments. demands, etc. and critical bashing of someone else's methods is really a waste of time. Why don't we all just let whomever tell what methods, equipment, etc. they use and if interesting, get some details and quit all this bashing. It really wastes all our time to have to wade through a lot of BS to find a grain of truth. A simple "I tried it out and it doesn't work for me" is usually sufficient. You can't protect the morons. They have to learn it for themselves.

GoldifinderHi Goldfinder,
I am skeptical about a lot of things. I generally don't subscribe to methods related to dowsing. All this BS from Theseus is just that. In my opinion, he never ran any tests on signal lines or LRLs. He can't even describe the kind of tests he allegedly ran. The notion that a double blind test is the only kind of valid test is not a fact. It is only the opinion of some people. Can you remember a double blind test ever being conducted on a metal detector? I can't. Yet I ran some simple non-scientific tests to determine what metal detectors I wanted to buy. And I found them to be very suitable for my purposes.

The simple tests I ran on the Examiner did not help me to find treasure. So I decided not to buy any Examiners. Can I prove the examiner won't pass a scientific test? Not so far. At least not until someone can get it to work well enough with known targets to perform a randomized test. But my non-scientific testing was enough to convince me I don't want to spend any money to buy one. For others, maybe they will find success in their non-scientific testing. In their cases, they may want to buy an Examiner. I am not stupid enough to say I have scientific proof it can't work, because I don't have that proof. I can safely say Theseus does not have that scientific proof either.

Qiaozhi was right -- it is impossible to prove there is no tea tray in orbit, just as it is impossible to prove there are no signal lines. The best any skeptic has been able to do is to conduct tests that provide evidence it is statistically unlikely for LRL/dowsing to work. As a substitute to proving LRL/dowsing can't work, people have run tests to show a collection of LRL user/dowsers are not able pass a statistical test to locate a target. And even this test does not prove dowsing doesn't work. It only shows evidence that a particular collection of people can't pass the test. They can open LRL contraptions and show the circuitry does not make sense. This can show evidence of fraud from the manufacturer, but it still does not prove that signal lines don't exist.

But most people aren't interested in testing. They are ordinary treasure hunters who are looking for something that helps them find treasure. Like you, they don't care to prove anything, nor do they wish to perform tests. They rely on what they hear from their friends or read about that helps to find treasures.

Think about it:
If you were to find a chicken that squalked whenever you got near treasures, then I think you would simply use the chicken to locate treasures. You wouldn't stop to conduct double blind tests, or any tests at all on this chicken. You would go treasure hunting. And when the chicken couldn't find the treasure any more, then you would stop taking it on the treasure hunts.
If a testing fanatic got hold of your chicken, it would probably undergo several weeks of testing before they performed an autopsy. And you would lose your treasure finding chicken!

If self-professed testing experts insist they have scientific proof signal lines are imaginary, then let them spin their wheels. They will never be able to convince anyone familiar with testing theory that they have any proof. Sure this forum has ameteur "experts", but the people who run this forum are wise enough to know what can be proved and what cannot. You won't see Qiaozhi or Carl claiming they conducted a scientific test that proved signal lines don't exist.

I have seen some of your circuits posted on other sites. Good luck with your treasure hunting. :)

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Well, Thank You.... you finally (inadvertantly) answered my question. I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you did.

Graham said; ".....just as it is impossible to prove there are no signal lines"

That's the answer I've been looking for all along, which proves No Matter what evidence I place here proving that signal lines do not exist - YOU (in your infinite wisdom :rolleyes:) would not accept it, and WOULD NOT change your mind about signal lines. Wonderful!

Consequently, me going to the trouble of placing my test results and evidence here would be a huge waste of my time.

Thanks again for finally answering my question, even though you didn't mean to. :lol:

If this latest little "dance routine" of yours is any indication of how difficult it is to communicate with you; I can certainly see why you are not following through with the testing of the Examiner. Have you ever made a decision in your entire life, and then followed through with it? Apparently not. ;)

[J_Player]

Well, Thank You.... you finally (inadvertantly) answered my question. I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you did.

Graham said; ".....just as it is impossible to prove there are no signal lines"

That's the answer I've been looking for all along, which proves No Matter what evidence I place here proving that signal lines do not exist - YOU (in your infinite wisdom :rolleyes:) would not accept it, and WOULD NOT change your mind about signal lines. Wonderful!

Consequently, me going to the trouble of placing my test results and evidence here would be a huge waste of my time.

Thanks again for finally answering my question, even though you didn't mean to. :lol:
You are exactly right.
I wouldn't accept it unless you showed some ground-breaking new test method that could convince Carl-NC you succeeded in performing the impossible test.
Carl, Qiaozhi, me, and anyone with a basic understanding of testing theory know the limitations that make some claims impossible to disprove. We all know you have been passing off your opinions as fact while it is certain you never ran any tests that prove "signal lines" are imaginary. After seeing how you have nothing to show, appears obvious to me that you never ran any tests of "signal lines" or LRLs at all.

But you are wrong to think I didn't mean to answer your question. I answered it repeatedly in my posts above. You never asked the question if it is possible to make a scientific test that "proves signal" lines don't exist. You asked about content, data and format. I explained some basic testing theory for Goldfinder because he does not need to be persuaded to believe your claims that you made tests that prove "signal lines" are imaginary. I figured it might educate you as well when you read it. Maybe I was wrong about that.

It appears you are so ignorant of testing theory that you actually believe you can trick people into thinking you proved "signal lines" don't exist in a test. We still haven't seen any evidence you ran any kind of tests at all. Do you really expect anyone to believe you know how to design and conduct tests?

We spent three days watching the "Theseus Flying Circus" of fake BS testing claims for what? :shrug:
So you can clog up the Remote Sensing forum with stories of Santa Claus, the The Tooth Fairy, fake testing and other hot air?
What was your purpose?
To demonstrate you make fraudulent claims?
To learn methods from LRL promoters weasel out of backing up your claims?

It's ok.
We know you, we love you, we can't live without you,
even if you tell us fake BS about your testing prowess.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Graham, unless you are somehow claiming to be a psychic, and can see into my reams of test data and private files; you are just a sick little bold-faced liar.

Maybe you should stick with making imitation bugs and ants, and leave the investigation of LRLs to those of us who actually understand these bogus contraptions and exactly what they were designed to do. (Wallet-mine from the naive and technically-challenged)

BTW, you speak of "we" as if you have the agreement from, and are speaking for Carl M. and Qiaozhi. Are you representing their opinions in your diatribe? If so, why haven't they come forward and let me know you are their representative?

Until I hear otherwise, I think it is quite safe to say your reference to "we" is as baseless and fabricated as your other lies. :razz:

[Qiaozhi]

OK guys ... I think it's time to stop the bickering. As I stated earlier:
I don't want to enter into this "discussion" ... but only to say that the burden of proof is on the person(s) who are claiming that signal lines exist, not on everyone else to disprove it.
And this is still true. If either of you insist that signal lines exist then you need to provide proof, otherwise we are back to the tea tray analogy. However (as I understand it) you both believe that signal lines do not exist, so this continued arguing makes no sense.

Please leave the burden of proof to the dowsing fraternity where it belongs, and let's return to the original purpose of this thread ... which (in case you've forgotten) is "RangerTell Examiner Field Tests". The results of which we are all eagerly awaiting...

[Carl-NC]

Whether you are a proponent or a skeptic, if you make a claim the be prepared to back it up. If you refuse, be prepared to be doubted.

I think everyone has stated their positions so I agree with Q, time to move on.

- Carl

[goldfinder]

Hi Goldfinder,
I am skeptical about a lot of things. I generally don't subscribe to methods related to dowsing. All this BS from Theseus is just that. In my opinion, he never ran any tests on signal lines or LRLs. He can't even describe the kind of tests he allegedly ran. The notion that a double blind test is the only kind of valid test is not a fact. It is only the opinion of some people. Can you remember a double blind test ever being conducted on a metal detector? I can't. Yet I ran some simple non-scientific tests to determine what metal detectors I wanted to buy. And I found them to be very suitable for my purposes.

The simple tests I ran on the Examiner did not help me to find treasure. So I decided not to buy any Examiners. Can I prove the examiner won't pass a scientific test? Not so far. At least not until someone can get it to work well enough with known targets to perform a randomized test. But my non-scientific testing was enough to convince me I don't want to spend any money to buy one. For others, maybe they will find success in their non-scientific testing. In their cases, they may want to buy an Examiner. I am not stupid enough to say I have scientific proof it can't work, because I don't have that proof. I can safely say Theseus does not have that scientific proof either.

Qiaozhi was right -- it is impossible to prove there is no tea tray in orbit, just as it is impossible to prove there are no signal lines. The best any skeptic has been able to do is to conduct tests that provide evidence it is statistically unlikely for LRL/dowsing to work. As a substitute to proving LRL/dowsing can't work, people have run tests to show a collection of LRL user/dowsers are not able pass a statistical test to locate a target. And even this test does not prove dowsing doesn't work. It only shows evidence that a particular collection of people can't pass the test. They can open LRL contraptions and show the circuitry does not make sense. This can show evidence of fraud from the manufacturer, but it still does not prove that signal lines don't exist.

But most people aren't interested in testing. They are ordinary treasure hunters who are looking for something that helps them find treasure. Like you, they don't care to prove anything, nor do they wish to perform tests. They rely on what they hear from their friends or read about that helps to find treasures.

Think about it:
If you were to find a chicken that squalked whenever you got near treasures, then I think you would simply use the chicken to locate treasures. You wouldn't stop to conduct double blind tests, or any tests at all on this chicken. You would go treasure hunting. And when the chicken couldn't find the treasure any more, then you would stop taking it on the treasure hunts.
If a testing fanatic got hold of your chicken, it would probably undergo several weeks of testing before they performed an autopsy. And you would lose your treasure finding chicken!

If self-professed testing experts insist they have scientific proof signal lines are imaginary, then let them spin their wheels. They will never be able to convince anyone familiar with testing theory that they have any proof. Sure this forum has ameteur "experts", but the people who run this forum are wise enough to know what can be proved and what cannot. You won't see Qiaozhi or Carl claiming they conducted a scientific test that proved signal lines don't exist.

I have seen some of your circuits posted on other sites. Good luck with your treasure hunting. :)

Best wishes,
J_P
JP,
Don't know where Thesus gets this "Graham" stuff. He is just deluded so we can all ignore him.

That chicken sounds like the way to go. :lol: Maybe we could go into the business of raising and selling gold detecting chickens.

Like you, I believe in the scientific method. The problem when one gets into a domain where mental phenomena enters the picture you have a whole group of people still operating at a level of consciousness and brainwashed belief that precludes them ever moving to proofs that involves testing by peers (e.g. you could never use Thesus as he is not a peer). For example, if the only way to prove that the signal lines exist is to test with people who can actually see or sense the signal lines then how do you ever "prove" to someone who is sensory challenged and mentally challenged that they exist?

Onward,
Goldfinder

[Geo]

Ιn Greece a proverb says..
"Δύο γαιδαροι μαλωνανε σε ξενη αχυρώνα"...:lol::lol:
It means .. if the Boss says something, then :angry:

My Regards:)

[Theseus]

JP,
.....I believe in the scientific method. Goldfinder

Could not have said it better myself. The scientific method involves gathering evidence and then forming conclusions based on the available evidence. That is in fact the only way I've ever tested LRLs, and how I've come to understand exactly how they operate. :)

I'm glad you agree.

[J_Player]

OK guys ... I think it's time to stop the bickering. As I stated earlier:

And this is still true. If either of you insist that signal lines exist then you need to provide proof, otherwise we are back to the tea tray analogy. However (as I understand it) you both believe that signal lines do not exist, so this continued arguing makes no sense.

Please leave the burden of proof to the dowsing fraternity where it belongs, and let's return to the original purpose of this thread ... which (in case you've forgotten) is "RangerTell Examiner Field Tests". The results of which we are all eagerly awaiting...The bickering already stopped when Theseus discovered nobody will believe he conducted a test that proves signal lines don't exist. I think you are correct. The burden of proof that signal lines exist belongs with the LRL/dowsing community. This is why I cannot understand why a skeptic would make false claims he ran tests that prove they do not exist, and hide his evidence. As you said, that kind of test is not possible.

But you are mistaken about what people believe.
I believe things that I can see proof of. For signal lines, I have not seen any conclusive proof they exist or don't exist. All I can say is I am of the opinion there is no such thing as a signal line, but I don't know for sure. And I am very interested to see any test that proves they don't exist.

There is the difference between an opinion and a belief. Having a belief that signal lines don't exist depends on having faith in things you cannot prove. In order to believe signal lines don't exist a person would have to have faith that nobody will ever demonstrate conclusive evidence of signal lines from now to eternity. Like most skeptics, I think it is highly unlikely, but I don't have the blind faith to believe it can never happen, ever.

Let's put it this way:
A lot of people including the best scientist had the belief that the world is flat for centuries. They believed there was danger for people who sailed their ships too close to the edge, where they might fall off the earth. The burden of proof was on the people who claimed the earth was round, which they did not prove at that time, so a lot of people continued to believe the earth is flat. Nobody could devise a test for earth-flattness, so the experts used the argument that earth-flattness is self-evident, without any way to prove the flattness. The point is all those experts and average people believed in flat-earth on faith. And they had faith that nobody would ever be able to prove otherwise. Doesn't clinging to faith in leiu of facts indicate a lack of critical thinking? Eventually somebody did provide credible proof the earth is not flat.

Who's to say someone won't someday show credible evidence that there are signal lines? Not me. I can't prophesize the future any more than early experts could prophesize living in a round earth. I can have an opinion, about the non-existence of signal lines, but I won't elevate the glory of signal lines to a faith belief that they exist or do not exist. I prefer to see the proof first. Otherwise signal lines might take on religious attributes. If Theseus really has the proof they don't exist, let him prove it. As you say, "the burden of proof is on the claimant".

If there is no proof of testing claims coming from Theseus, I think you are right. Time to move on.


Best wishes,
J_P

[goldfinder]

Just for laughs I looked up Thesus.

Theseus (Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language): Θησεύς) was the mythical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth) founder-king of Athens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens), son of Aethra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aethra_%28Greek_mythology%29), and fathered by Aegeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegeus) and Poseidon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poseidon), both of whom Aethra lay with in one night. Theseus was a founder-hero, like Perseus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus), Cadmus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmus) or Heracles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heracles), all of whom battled and overcame foes that were identified with an archaic religious and social order.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus#cite_note-0) As Heracles was the Dorian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorians) hero, Theseus was the Ionian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionia) founding hero, considered by Athenians as their own great reformer.

So we have on this LRL forum a reformer battling the archaic LRL believers. :razz:

You don't suppose that Thesus is really Sam Samscafarti the old nemesus of LRLers everywhere. :lol:

Goldfinder

[J_Player]

Moving on...

I have recently made posts about the status of the Rangertell field tests. I can summarize the testing in more detail here:

1. previous testing:
If you recall, I spent a lot of time testing the Examiner to see how well it found targets in the field. I also took electronic measurements on all the internal parts I could access with my instruments. And I took measurements in the air around the Examiner. The results in finding targets were poor, with less than 50% average success rate to find targets that were in plain sight, and where the buried location was known by the person holding the examiner. Tests to locate unknown targets showed the Examiner was pointing random directions, without making any definite movement to the direction of the target. At some times it would point to the target momentarily, but it would also point other directions just as often momentarily. I tested this Examiner with my own hands as well as observing a number of volunteers test it. For my own testing, all of the trials showed random pointing. But for others, the tendency to point to a known target would vary depending on the user. It would sometimes exceed 50% success, but averaged less than 50% success rate. The success rate for unknown targets for all who tested the Examiner to locate unknown targets was random. These tests were not scientific double-blind randomized tests. The few attempts to conduct a scientific test were unsuccessful because we could not establish a base line for a scientific test (this means nobody could get the Examiner to locate known targets reliably enough to satisfy the prerequisite base line needed for a scientific test). A remedy to this poor performance was suggested by the factory rep to adjust the trimmer cap to a very difficult-to-locate setting, which varies for each person. After weeks of trying to get the trimmer cap to the correct setting, there was no sign of improvement for the field tests. Eventually I sent this Examiner back to the factory for a replacement. The factory rep said it was out of calibration and was not working. He said it may have been damaged in transit, or in the field. He said it was re-calibrated at the factory, and is working correctly. He sent a replacement Examiner which was not the same Examiner we previously tested.

The replacement Examiner was the Deluxe model, which is nearly identical to the earlier model T-G Ver 8.08B. The internal circuit and parts are the same, but with a different calculator, and with a ground probe included that you can connect to a computer to send an audio signal to the ground probe. In the initial field tests I made I did not observe any detection of known targets or targets hidden in unknown locations. I saw random swinging of the Examiner which occasionally pointed to a target location. For others testing the examiner, I also saw the same performance as I saw from the previous Examiner. Scientific randomized tests cannot be performed because nobody who tried it can get it to locate known targets reliably enough to perform a scientific test. Invitations have been open for volunteers who want to try the Deluxe Examiner for some time. Send me a PM if you want to try it. Maybe you will find it works for you.

2. Current testing:
In addition to the field tests, I have been taking electronic measurements on the replacement Examiner. I have noted some differences in the signals between the two sample Examiner signals. These signal differences can be traced to different signals originating inside the two different calculators. These electronic tests are on-going at the moment. It should be noted, the signals I am seeing on the Deluxe model are notably weaker than the model T-G Ver 8.08B. And the frequency/timing is notably different. This will seem to be insignificant information to most EEs considering what is claimed for the Examiner, but I am still taking these measurements so I have something to compare for later analysis. Also note: this weaker signal, after coupling to the internal Examiner circuit produces a signal that is so weak that the ambient noise in the air is stronger. Depending on where the Examiner is located, the ambient noise can cause a signal approximately equal in amplitude, or many times greater than the signal measured at the antenna when the calculator is turned on. For this reason, the Examiner signal is better observed away from the lab, in open areas that are not surrounded by equipment that is powered by mains power. I occasionally take the Deluxe examiner for field tests to see if a different "target frequency" shows any improvement in success rates. Sometimes I recruit a watcher who tries it to see if he finds a known or hidden target. So far, the results have been the same as before.

3: Results:
You can see the results of the non-scientific testing we were able to conduct in the summary above, or you can read through the forum posts for other information. Nobody so far has been able to get it to work well enough for a scientific test of the kind that Randi might conduct. Basically, I haven't seen signs of the Examiner locating hidden metal targets. As goldfinder might say: I tried it and it didn't work for me. I also did not see it work for other volunteers who tried it.

4: Next tests:
I don't see any signs that people will be responding to my open invitations to test the Examiner. So I have been making arrangements to begin a new phase of testing after I take more electronic measurements. I will be consulting with the people who run the Geotech forum for feasibility and guidance in this next testing phase. When there is something to report on this next phase, I will make a post.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Geo]

You don't suppose that Thesus is really Sam Samscafarti the old nemesus of LRLers everywhere. :lol:

Goldfinder


Hi.
Only Dell said about Sam!!!!:lol::lol::lol:
Who is your opinion

Regards:)

[J_Player]

I just saw Tnet is talking about some tests I made on the Examiner: http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,392399.msg2795671.html#msg2795671
It appears our friend Art is confused about calculators. So I should clarify again about Examiner calculators:

Rangertell sells Examiners that use two different calculators.
The Deluxe model uses the TI scientific calculator with solar panel, while the T-G model uses a 2-cell calculator with no solar panel and no brand name.

TI calculator produces weaker signal
My testing showed the TI calculator signal is much weaker and cannot be picked up from the same distance as the 2-cell model on an oscilloscope.
The internal voltage is only 1/2 of what we find on the no-name calculator, so this is expected.
In fact the TI signal is so weak that it is hard to find and sync on from the background noise if there is much AC or electronic gadgets around that pollute the air with RF.
The TI signal is also at a different frequency, and has a different series of pulses in each "pulse packet".
This seems to be normal, considering the TI has more digits on the display, and the pulses appear to be display driver clock pulses to turn on each of the digits in series.
Hence the 30 Hz refresh frequency for the display... about right to make an image that is perceived to be without flicker, as used on many electronic screens for viewing.

No amount of pressing keys caused either of these calculators to change their frequencies.
The only significant frequency shift I saw is with the TI calculator. When you walk into a dark shaded area like under a large tree, the frequency slows down noticeably as seen on an oscilloscope.
This presents a serious problem to the claim that a specific frequency must be entered into the calculator display.
We have two problems actually:
1. Tests show that pressing calculator keys does not change the frequency measured at the calculator.
2. Tests showed that for the TI solar calculator, the frequency dropped noticeably whenever the calculator was moved to a dark shaded area.

Why a frequency drop when you walk in the shade?
Further investigation showed the TI calculator voltage also dropped when it was moved to the dark shaded area and the frequency dropped.
This testing was done with a probe picking up the signal through about an inch distance from the circuit board, as well as with the probe placed on the conductors at the back of the board to see the frequency drop.
The voltage was measured at the positive battery lead that feeds to the circuit board.
Take note this frequency shift problem did not occur on the no-name calculator that had no solar cell on the T-G model.
Apparently, the single battery is heavily loaded when there is not enough light for the solar panel to assist it to drive the calculator load.

It would seem a user could enter in any series of numbers and walk around thinking he had adjusted the frequency, when it did not change from when no numbers were entered, only the default 0.
Then he could follow an alleged signal line into a cave, where he marks the treasure locations.
After a few hours of digging lots of dirt and rocks out of the cave, he might go home, leaving the empty holes behind.
Then he could take photos of gold and other stuff he drags out of the garage which he says he found in the cave, or he could splice photos together to make it look like he found gold.

This is why I think most LRL users refuse to show their methods working in front of strangers who want to be convinced.

Here are some more test details I posted at Geotech:
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=110221#post110221 TI solar calculator arrived with Deluxe model
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=117747#post117747 Summary of some field tests of T-G and Deluxe models
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=116004#post116004 Another more detailed summary of field tests of T-G and Deluxe models


Best wishes,
J_P

[Saturna]

Then he could take photos of gold and other stuff he drags out of the garage which he says he found in the cave, or he could splice photos together to make it look like he found gold.

This is why I think most LRL users refuse to show their methods working in front of strangers who want to be convinced.


I'd say that's about as accurate as it gets.

[J_Player]

This Examiner talk over at Tnet is getting interesting.

They are all debating about whether the calculator transmits various frequencies which change when different keys are pressed.
I see some of our Tnet refugee friends like Art and hung MR. Don are promoting new new emerging hungscience as if it is real, and is good to use for an argument.

So let's see what new things we can learn today about calculator key frequencies from Dr. Hung's teachings: http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,392399.msg2797097.html#msg2797097
The calculator keyboards employ a matrix to reduce the number of pins needed for the microchip. Copper tracks turn on in a sequence and behaves as an oscilator where these tracks act as an antenna. Tone changes happen and thus frequency changes when typing the keys. The internal circuits get in loops when more complex and longer operations are performed.
Or no frequencies are involved in an EM field produced by an oscilator?
Since I have SWR on ignore, I think and later saw that the text you posted came from JP on Carl's forum.
This is the problem with these people. They expect to use conventional methods to measure unconventional devices.
The examiner and the calculator in this case, output minute changes. He apparently used to oscope to get the clock signals only. In order to get the frequency thing going he would need a very sensitive pickup antenna and booster conected to the oscope. This would likely be able to capture the minute EM variations when the keys are pressed.
But wait, there's more from Dr. Hung's previous post here: http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,342554.msg2492296.html#msg2492296
...Altough I have alreadyposted several times how the resonance thing happens, the subject of your post was regarding the calculator clock in which you claimed it was fixed and could not generate variable frequencies. I told you that the clock's frequency had nothing to do with the the generating frequencies role, as each key has its own particular frequency.

...Now DO YOU SEE, that each key has a frequency, Mr. bigmouth?

Hmmm... no wonder Dr. Hung posts his hungscience in Tnet.
They don't have any rules to back up your extraordinary claims there.
I suppose he knows he couldn't get away with anything that stupid here because we have too many EEs who know how keypads work.

For the rest who don't know, the processor in a calculator scans the wires leading to all the keys in order to see if they are pressed or not. It will scan across each wire connected to a key, one after another at a fixed frequency. All the keys are scanned in an endless loop which continually repeats to check for when keys are pressed. Unlike PC keyboards, there is no decoder IC or serial data stream on a calculator keypad. All the decoding is done entirely inside the processor chip. If the processor detects that the key is pressed down, then it will decode which key, then enter a number or arithmetic operations in assembly language into it's stack (memory). These memory operations and all the calculations are done inside the processor chip, and are not sent out to the conductors that lead to the keys. In fact the processor never sends any signal to the conductors that lead to the keys except an endless loop of identical pulses that are used to check and see if the key is pressed down or not. And the processor does not change the frequency it scans to check each successive key.
The keys do not have any other circuitry to send out a frequency. They are simply switches that short two conductors together when they are pressed. The processor checks to see if the two conductors at each key location are shorted together when the key is pressed, or if they are not.
From what we know of the construction of calculators, we can determine that the frequency on any of the copper keypad conductors cannot change due to pressing keys.
If pressing keys causes this frequency to change, then is a trick of the mind, and is not real.


But According to hungscience, we see Dr. hung does not agree. He believes that pressing the keys will alter the frequency at the conductors on the keypad.
According to Dr. hung, the copper conductors at the calculator keypad act as an antenna that makes tone changes when typing the keys.
And each calculator key has a separate frequency.
Further, Dr. hung maintains that I can't measure the minute changes in frequency because I don't have a sensitive pickup antenna and booster connected to my probe.

Hmmmm.... My probe was connected to an identical spiral coil as we find inside the Examiner.
I picked up the same signals that came from the same exact location as the Examiner picks the up.
The Examiner coil is also located behind these same copper traces that contain the alleged changed frequencies.
I wonder why the Examiner didn't need a booster to pick up these frequencies?
Is the circuitry inside the Examiner the booster? :???:
Does this Examiner circuitry boost the signal to make changed frequencies detectable?

No, the circuitry inside the examiner does not. :nono:
I tested every point in that circuitry while the calculator was running with different keys pressed and different numbers entered.
What I discovered is the circuitry inside the examiner serves to attenuate the exact same signal that I can detect with a spiral coil or alligator clip from behind the calculator.
The strongest signal I could measure anywhere in the Examiner circuit was only about 1/3 the strength as I measured when I used the plain spiral coil to detect it at the calculator.
And further, the examiner circuit also picks up electronic noise from the air that is added to the calculator signal.
This electronic noise in the air is usually of a similar strength to the signal picked up from the calculator, and the noise remains even when you remove the calculator.
But if you measure the signals indoors where there are electronics, the noise is stronger than the calculator signal and makes the calculator signals impossible to find.
The idea that a sensitive pickup antenna and booster circuit is needed seems to be false, as this antenna with booster do not exist in the Examiner.

But what about the claim that frequencies are changed?
If resonance was occurring as a result of the Examiner circuitry, we would expect to see an increase in the strength of whatever frequency was resonating.
But this did not happen no matter what keys were pressed.
Nor did any frequencies change when different keys were pressed.
I have photos of the frequencies that are picked up from the Examiner spiral coil before and after keys are pressed.
These photos show the frequency does not change, and is in agreement with the general knowledge of pocket calculator keypad construction.
I also have photos of signals picked up from all the different points of the Examiner circuitry before and after keys are pressed.
These photos also show there is no place I measured in the Examiner circuitry where the frequencies are changed as a result of pressing calculator keys.

In short, it appears electronics and science work.
Hungscience does not work.
We can easily measure the frequencies that come from the Examiner spiral coil behind the calculator without using a special antenna with a booster.
But we cannot see any changed frequencies after pressing keys or making calculations on the calculator.

Where to next?
I haven't yet published the photos of measurements made on the TI solar calculator model. Is it time I should post them to show exactly what signals we find?
I have photos that show the TI solar calculator signal is a lot weaker than the the signal from the no-name calculator that has no solar panel.
Most of these photos are meaningless because the signal is so weak that it is not discernible at all except on a few occasions when you are far outside of the laboratory and away from electronic noise in the air.
I can see from my old photos that my previous post describing a battery in the TI solar calculator was in error.
I was speaking from memory at the time, and I mistakenly remembered my Casio solar calculator which has a battery and a solar panel.
The TI calculator runs only on the solar panel, and has a small capacitor to store a charge for a short while in case the light is interrupted.
And I also have photos to show the calculator frequency changes a lot when the amount of light falling on the solar panel changes.

Maybe it is time to publish what signals I measured from the TI solar calculator.
Or better yet, I could make some new measurements directly from the copper conductors on the keypad so we can see exactly what frequencies are on this keypad.
This way we can settle the question of whether frequencies change on these keypad conductors or not, without needing any antennas or booster circuits to see exactly what signal is there.





If anyone wants to see what signals I can measure on the Examiner calculator keyboard before and after pressing keys, let me know.
Or if you want to see how much the frequency changes when the light changes, let me know.
Also, if there are other tests you would like to check inside the calculator, let me know what to check for.
I can post what you want to see here.

Meanwhile, I can continue to watch some more interesting and entertaining hungscience in the never-ending saga of eternal torment over at Tnet. :rolleyes:


Best wishes,
J_P

[Geo]

Hi J_P.
From what i know, i agree with you about the frequency of the calculator.
You wrote """""And further, the examiner circuit also picks up electronic noise from the air that is added to the calculator signal.
This electronic noise in the air is usually of a similar strength to the signal picked up from the calculator, and the noise remains even when you remove the calculator""""".
Can you explain me how the noise remains????

Regards:)

[WM6]

Hi J_P.

, and the noise remains even when you remove the calculator""""".
Can you explain me how the noise remains????

Regards:)

Probably J_P means "long nose" not "noise".

[Geo]

I saw a similar "phenomenon", this is the reason that i made the question!!!
:)

[J_Player]

Hi J_P.
From what i know, i agree with you about the frequency of the calculator.
You wrote """""And further, the examiner circuit also picks up electronic noise from the air that is added to the calculator signal.
This electronic noise in the air is usually of a similar strength to the signal picked up from the calculator, and the noise remains even when you remove the calculator""""".
Can you explain me how the noise remains????

Regards:)Hi Geo,
The noise is in the air, and can be measured if you set your oscilloscope to a sensitive enough setting. You can connect to a short length of wire like a coat hanger for an aerial, and walk around to see where the noise is stronger. The examiner has an aerial which acts to conduct most of the broadband noise in the air so the signal is a little stronger than if the probe is not connected to it. When we place the calculator on the Examiner, the noise coming from a calculator is slightly stronger than the broadband noise in the air because it is so close to the metal inside the Examiner. At a distance of about 1 cm the calculator noise can trigger an oscilloscope to follow any repetitive pulsing even with the broadband noise in the air competing to trigger the oscilloscope. But when you remove the calculator or turn it off, the broadband noise from the air remains, and still can be seen on an oscilloscope. Many of these noise signals from the air are also repetitive so you can lock their signal.

With the solar calculator, the the noise signal is weaker, and is not always stronger than the broadband noise in the air. I suppose it depends on what location you are measuring from. Keep in mind that when you are measuring calculator signals at these low levels, it can be easy to confuse some noise from the air with calculator noise. You will see a distorted wave form from the calculator because of the added noise from the air which makes it hard to know exactly what is coming from the calculator. So when you remove the calculator, you may begin to think that part of its signal is remaining, when it is not. This is why it might be good to put the probes directly on the calculator conductors to see a clear image of only the calculator signals. I have seen a lot of new noise in the air related to increased radio broadcasts, mobile phones, other high frequency transmissions, and new electronic equipment in homes which were not present in past decades. I suppose the cleanest areas for low background noise are very remote places far away from civilization. Maybe in the middle of a large desert, or at the north or south pole, or a deserted island in the pacific. In these locations, I expect man-made noise will be less, and natural electronic noises from the earth or space will be easier to detect.

See below for some clean measurements I made inside the Examiner TI solar calculator a year ago.

I am thinking I should make some more photos to show how these frequencies change when the light falling on the solar panel changes.
Do you think I should?


Best wishes,
J_P