Constructive structure of controvers topics

[Funfinder]

While reading through the whole 20 pages long "Bionic 01 Video" thread I started to wonder if this actually used style of discussion is it really worth.

What's the goal, what's the gain, what's the reason of all this?

If the reason is getting secured info that LRL really works inclusive finding proven evidence we have to work more like detectives and focus on technical details, staying strictly ontopic and avoiding any discussion that has really nothing to to with LRL if it's success that we wanna achieve.

Do we want a working LRL or not?

I hope everybody now says: YESSSS! :D

So we really have to care about technical details. To make this whole "discussion-culture" problematic better understandable I will give you a very good example:

You all know the Sony Playstation (1), THE game console from 1995-2001 (next came up the PS2, XBOX, Wii etc. etc.)

Comparable with some working LRL I'm claiming now that you can play backups completly without modchip, bootdisc or swaptrick.

What will you do now?
Searching the internet high and low! What will you find? Nothing! Try it. Really. You only will get that info I told you already.

So what will you do after this? If anybody comes up and will tell you it is possible, like with LRLs you will completly negate such claims.

This is exactly the point we have here.

If someone tells a LRL works it would be the same if I would tell you a PSX backup boots by playing some audiofile with the PC.

Can't be possible, we can't imagine this could work - same like with LRL. We never have heard such could really work. We looked in all PSX forums or at Modchip-Pages and no one knows anything about this. It is impossible, because otherwise there never would have been modchips, if it really would be that simple.

This is exactly the same like with LRLs. "We" have no proofs, "we" have no serious info that it works, so "we" don't believe in such stuff.

You even would call me a liar 'cause I claimed such "nonsens" at all.


So let's now play through that game:
I'm claiming that playing a simple soundfile with the computer and sending it into the PSX completly replaces a bootchip. :D To keep it similar to the LRL I don't give you any evidence, so you have to check for other informations for verification of this statement. Maybe I could make some video like some guys do with LRLs so you see it but still won't believe it. But this won't convict you. Because it sounds simply far too unrealistic and crazy for you. Like with LRLs. No evidence, no circuits, no double-blind tests.

I'm waiting for replys to my above claim... - let's see how you will argument. :D

[Funfinder]

OK, you won't believe me - that was clear and for you perhaps the logical, right, secure or correct way - the same as with LRL...

But you have to believe me if I'm posting the special sound file - well, I really hope you will - finally. ;)

So check this out: http://www.multiupload.com/U26BE3882T

Sorry all you nonbelievers, but you REALLY have to learn like the same with LRL that there are very clever & smart people out there that can do magic with electronic. If you like to believe it or not... :razz:

I also could have said it in other words:
"I don't care what others think and if they call it impossible, because I work already with such kind of real working stuff for a long time!" :D

But I like you and have to give you a serious: "open your mind"-lesson, because LRL is a much too important topic just for making criticism or even worse - fun - out of it! :)

[WM6]

This is exactly the same like with LRLs. "We" have no proofs, "we" have no serious info that it works, so "we" don't believe in such stuff.


:D

97.79% of LRLs are working. No doubt.

There are only small awkward details tha LRL is not working as claimed.

[WM6]

I also could have said it in other words:
"I don't care what others think and if they call it impossible, because I work already with such kind of real working stuff for a long time!" :D




If so, thend we can be sure that LRL is not working.

[Funfinder]

WM6, please get more specific or do you like to deceive me?

The last statement you've quoted was general but really fits to members like Hung or Esteban.

And if that "97.79%" just are some "awkward" details (btw. this says nothing clearly technically again - tell me those details!) I wonder why as example such topics like the Bionic 01 have been discussed pure negative only (in explanation: "No, this stuff for shure can't work").

[WM6]

Hi Funfinder,

you say "... I work already with such kind of real working stuff for a long time!" "Long time" mean years, dont you?

So, it is clear that thing is not working all this years. If your LRL was working, you would not need to buy expensive Jeohunter.

[Funfinder]

@ WM6
It's useless to discuss with you, because you just don't get it! This statement was a citate and had nothing to do with me personally. But that wise statement makes clear the big difference between real world and people that only want's to see or believe what feels comfortable for them. Dreamers like the fans of pop-stars... You WM6 would be also a good candidate for those absurd: "AIDS doesn't exists at all"-believers. :lol: :lol: :lol:


But back to our experiment. So far I haven't heard any:
"Wow, Funfinder, cool your invention is really simple but brilliant and beats all modchips." :D :D

The same like with ignorant and just wanna talking things bad LRL-nonbelievers. No interrest on technical details, just the repeat of the "allmighty theme":

"It won't work because it simply cannot work. If it works it would be an affront to "my" mind and "my" great technical knowledge." Smokers also don't want to think about that it could seriously damage their health. This is all the same kind of psychological selfprotection - or better: selfdeceiving!

At least here are some electronically skilled persons that really want to find out how and if certain LRLs really work. But this requires own efforts and some grade of technical open mind.

That's why it is almost completly useless to convice you the PSX audio file works as long as someone can't make it work, too. It's the same with LRL: If a LRL-denier ask the OKM producers in Germany he won't believe their claims, and if he asks a successful customer or reseller the same. He only would believe it if it has worked "proofable" for him personally, but in alot cases he never will try or use such device because of the high price or other more ore less "good" reasons.

So in our experiment now the big question is: Anyone here that still has some old PSX / PS1 or knows someone that has one and is willing to proof my claim?

Compared to LRL this step would be "seriously testing" or "finding out if it really works". If you start a big campagne that you are shure this special car will stop working after 10.000 miles you would get really big trouble with the big company that produces it. But what some people here doing with LRLs is almost completly the same! Claiming without any deeper technical knowledge or large test experiences that this or that LRL doesn't work at all! This simply is not fair and if I would be the producer of a really working LRL I would drag your *** to court! Because what some here are doing really could be business-destroying by making all those wrong accusations!

Of course the still untouched 25grands pot could be seen as a proof that there actual no real working LRLs out there. Or those just work under special circumstances.

Perhaps it would be better to pay some LRL-nonbelievers that money if those are proofing this stuff really does not work. Because after this you would have hard facts and strong evidence and could forcing those companies by law that these have to stop BSSing treasure hunters with their sometimes extremly overpriced "wonder-machines".
But because alot or most LRL nonbelievers just wanna make big words instead of serious technical tests this will never happen. The same with my PSX experiment, nobody even will try if it works - because the nonbeliever-mind always says:
"No, it can't work, just don't waste your time with such stupid claims".

[Funfinder]

It is always very important (really?) to understand the working principle so I will try to make it clear for you:

Well, you can listen to the Band Phenomena with fantastic Songs like "Stop!" (...before you break my heart) or "Dance With The Devil" (isn't LRL some kind of "black magic" as long as you can't scientifically prove it?) OR you can listen to my explanations:

First you only will be shure that my claims are the truth if you can experience it by yourself. So please do this not very hard job and get yourself some old PSX, there are still millions used but working out there!

If you are seriously interrested you have to prove it by yourself to convince yourself. No matter how big the personally gain or profit is.


But for making you more appetite (like here with LRLs) I will try to explain you the "phenomena":

You may say it is absolutly impossible recreating digital encryption or protection patterns by simple analog stuff like a audio-soundfile is.

Shure, because this is the general technical knowledge - but not the specific one.

In case of the PSX boot protection it was written at a 22khz modulated wobble of the game CDs Lead-In area (the one very near the center, before the data track starts). Any CD-R already has a 22kHz modulated pre-groove so the burning laser can align to the track and knows where to write. This makes it impossible to write the "boot-code" onto CD-R. You only can press it.

Making a long story short: I found out that you simply can inject the 22kHz booting code signal by the soundcard into the PSX-Lasers output connection wire.

Removing the Plastic cover and soldering the contacts of some 3,5mm audiojack to ground and the special CD-unit pin works!

The "phenomena" in fact just consists of a fitting change of digital current/voltage/frequency by analog current/voltage/frequency. The lower digital signals get a huge amount of analog power. That's why the CD-R 22kHz signal does no longer matters at all.

Is this solution too simple to understand for you? I really hope not, because the goal must be to understand it at all, no matter how simple it is. If you refuse to understand it even if it is that simple, you have to try it out as a proof your opionion is right or wrong! And believe me, it is right.

And if you ask me, the so called "LRL phenomenon" also just is a very simple change in electromagnetical field caused by a natural "condenser-effect" that interacts with the electrostatic and electromagnic field lines! The surrounding ground changes the polarity of the emanating metal-ions which causes the condenser effect! Just the way for signalizing the engery-changes of this field nowadays is too simple and therefore misunderpretable. Better sometimes we use a grafical display with different colors to make that field directly visible and taking 3 instead of just 1 antenna for showing the grafic and field-differences much more accurate.

The metal object simply distorts the EM and Voltage-Field like here described:

http://www.eskimo.com/%7Ebillb/emotor/chargdet.html


7. FIELD DISTORTIONS
Electrify a plastic object, place it on an insulating support, place the FET sensor near it, then make sure the LED is turned on. If you now wave your hand near the object or the sensor, the LED will respond. Your hand causes the e-field around the object to distort and change. Even though your hand is not electrified, the FET responds. You've created a sort of "DC Radar" system which sends out a signal and then responds when nearby objects "reflect" the signal. Some types of industrial sensors ("proximity" or "capacitive" sensors) use this effect. Some burglar alarms do as well.

and therefore leads to detectable reflection, bridge, radar or concentration effects.

[WM6]

. But this requires own efforts and some grade of technical open mind.




That is which you apparently lack of.

[Funfinder]

@ WM6
Your answer is offtopic and you are offtopic! :D


But back to our experiment:

For making it much more exciting and mysterious like with LRLs of course I also have to post some pic(s) where the important things have been edited or deleted... :cool:

[WM6]

Excellent, dear Funfinder. Best schematic ever seen.

[Funfinder]

Thanx for your kind words, WM6, i know finally you would recognise it. ;)

But this nice schematic above was just a demonstration and was used for my: "boot PSX with programmable keycard"-project. :cool:


Here what I really like to demonstrate is the contraproductive, unfair and untechnical discussion about LRLs.

ivconic was absolutly right when he criticised Esteban not posting ONE simple but working or complete LRL schematic.

Heating up the interrest of people for must having on of these LRL-wonder-machines by colorful pix/movies containing alot gold-finds is the marketing and commercial side of the whole topic (especially if we look to the extreme price of those devices!), but to proof that for shure and how good those work is THE essential and much more important thing!

Of course we should be cautious with patented and for a company important "industrial secrets" so those can live on without the fear of "chinese production pirates" etc. but at least they have to convince people that their LRLs really works, 'cose otherwise they will sell just a few at all to very uninformed, uncritical people or arabic oil-millionaires that like to play with some new toy.


The whole stuff is pretty simple:
If someone buys something he wants a working product! Basta!
And usually it's the task of the producer and the resellers for making clear it really works as claimed.

This crucial point here in this forum is completly missing!

And I doubt it is only because LRLs work just under special circumstances like dry sunny weather, very seldom long buried gold treasures or even long range to where the production-firm is located.

Taking a closer look to all those special conditions is very important, filtering them out or verifying them, so that in the end a working or not working LRL will remain.

Morgan and Geo did a great job in this direction and also J_Player would think positive about LRLs if he can be assured by personal experience those really work.

Showing you that my PSX audio file really will work is childsplay for me, but what we need are water-proofed LRLs and the active help of those that produce or claim it.


That's why we must discuss very technical without all this "offtopic smalltalk" that brings us no step further.

[J_Player]

... J_Player would think positive about LRLs if he can be assured by personal experience those really work.
I have personal experience that LRLs of the kind shown in this forum don't work. Can you show me one that does work?

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

Thanx for your kind words, WM6, i know finally you would recognise it. ;)

.

What "finally"? I believe in your ingenuity from start.

[Funfinder]

I have personal experience that LRLs of the kind shown in this forum don't work. Can you show me one that does work?

Best wishes,
J_P

OK, your negative experiences will make it more complicated, but if I have enough info I really hope I can present you a working one.

btw. "shown in this forum" is some special case... The most important technical details, witnesses that it really works and a whole bunch of user-reviews is completly missing! The most here about LRL is "guessing", like if non-meteorologists discuss what kind of weather they will have in a few days.

J_Player, I'm shure you are an open-minded and fair-judging person with technical understanding so it's a proof how problematically the whole LRL topic is.

But Morgan also has had bad experiences with LRL in the first time like you and still some of his devices only sometimes work. btw. owning a MD or LRL is no guarantee for finding treasures. OK, with a MD for shure someone will detect something out of metal, but with a "Gold only LRL" the chances are many times lower.


@ WM6
> What "finally"? I believe in your ingenuity from start.

You are fantastic, so my ingenuity now just has to proof you that there is some real working LRL outside, correct?! :D

I will do my best but it could take some time. It would be much easier just throwing all LRL-producers into jail and release them only if they can proof their devices are really that good as they claim. :lol:

[J_Player]

J_Player, I'm shure you are an open-minded and fair-judging person with technical understanding so it's a proof how problematically the whole LRL topic is.
The LRL topic is problematic because there is no proof shown in a way that an average person could determine from their own experience whether an LRL works.
To begin with, we see many expensive LRLs for sale which we are expected to believe will help us to easily find buried treasure without first trying them out before buying them. Then we read reports from people who say they work, even though they have not demonstrated that they have really found any treasure when using the LRL. We only have their report that the LRL works, and some explanation to say it works by using strange principles that do not work for the average person who reads the report. Then we have some people who post diagrams that show how to build a working circuit that they can use to find treasure. But when the average reader builds the circuit, they cannot find treasures with the LRL except by random chance. They wonder why the circuit does not work for them as it was claimed to work by the person who said it will work. The answer comes -- "You did not build it correctly" or "you did not use it properly" or "conditions were not right for detecting treasure".

The result is the same as if it is a fake LRL that does not detect treasure.
Does this mean the detector will work only if it is built in a certain way with secret circuits that are not shown in the forum?
Will the LRL work only for certain gifted people who have special abilities to operate an LRL?
Will the LRL work only at certain times and places where conditions are correct?

Looking at the reasons given why an average reader cannot find reasonable success with any LRL that is bought or built, it seems the legend of the LRL has protected itself from any possible complaint that an average reader can make to say it does not work.

So how can we determine whether they work or not?
This is simple. To make it simpler, let us consider only the LRLs which are claimed to be electronic, and do not require any special dowsing powers or other special talents of the operator. Lets consider only electronic LRLs that are claimed to work for an average person with no experience in using any metal locating equipment.

To begin, what is an LRL supposed to do? It is supposed to locate buried metal from a long distance (longer distance than a conventional metal detector).
How would you check to see if it works?
You give the LRL to an average person and tell him to read the instructions. After he reads the instructions, he uses the LRL in the way the instructions tell him to use it. Then he observes to see if the LRL was able to locate buried treasure.

So how does the average person test the LRL? He hides a peice of jewelry, or diamond, or any other treasure that the LRL is claimed to find. Then he uses the LRL according to the instructions to see if he can find the treasure. Some LRLs are claimed to locate only metal that has been buried a long time. In this case, the average person could go to a location where there is a known metal object that was buried a long time. This could be an underground pipe, wire, tank, or other metal thing he knows was buried a long time.

After following instructions for the LRL, the average person finds he cannnot locate it when using the LRL. So we see the problem with believing an LRL works when an average person gains experience to see it does not work. But still there are some people who say their LRL can find treasure because they "use it with the right method" or "they built it correctly" or "they know the right conditions where it will work".

There is another simple solution to determine whether these people have LRLs that can find treasure.
They can simply give a demonstration in front of the average readers.
The average people who want to determine whether the person who has the claimed working LRL is finding treasure can hide a treasure for the LRL to find. Then the person who has the working LRL can locate the hidden treasure without knowing where it is hidden. If he can repeat this 10 times in a row, maybe he truly does have a working LRL, or some special gift for finding treasure to convince the average observers his LRL is working.

The problem is no person who claims to have a working LRL will make this demonstration for average observers to see and experience so they will know. The one exception I can think of is where Morgan invited all people to come to his demonstration of a working LRL. Of all the billions of people on the earth, only Geo decided to attend at Morgan's demonstration. And Geo became convinced that the LRL Morgan had was working. Besides Morgan's demonstration, the only other LRL demonstrations I have read about showed failed locating attempts and detection abilities that were the same as random guessing.

The problem of showing LRLs working is easy to solve.
We do not need to know the newest circuit details, or learn the special meditation or dowsing methods. Simply let a person who claims to have a working LRL demonstrate it finding buried treasure consistently. I have had an open offer to document any demonstration of this nature that is made in the Los Angeles area for years, yet not a single person will show their LRL finding treasure. This does not give much credibility to LRLs in general. At present, I have a new, unused and unaltered deluxe LRL along with a MFD broadcating probe in my possesion which I have offered to let anyone who wants to test in the field. I made several posts inviting anyone in the Los Angeles area to come and field test it. Nobody is interested in even trying it. There was one Geotech forum member who did try it, and a number of non-treasure hunters who tried it. They all followed the operating instructions and decided it was not finding treasures.

From what I have personally experienced, I can conclude I have never experienced an LRL finding buried treasure better than guessing where the treasure is. I can also conclude from what I have read in the Remote Sensing forum that, with the exception of a few LRL enthusiasts, everyone else is convinced that LRLs do not locate treasures. The most interesting thing about LRLs I have found is the intrigue to study and experiment with the theories of how it could work, and to study the psychology of what would make a person believe that they are working.

Does this give you some idea of the real problematic nature of LRLs, and why there are many people who do not believe there is a working LRL available for purchase or to build?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

I will do my best but it could take some time. It would be much easier just throwing all LRL-producers into jail and release them only if they can proof their devices are really that good as they claim. :lol:
They could inside for a very long time. :lol:

[Funfinder]

Thank ya 4 d answers. :)


We're coming now to the final level - explanation and the following proofen ability for rebuilding!


Of course this is most of the time missing with LRLs here...

Rebuilding yes, if some useful schematics are available, but the evidence of real working often is far far away like the gold-treasures....


Perhaps because a schematic alone simply is not enough!

The creators - like I will do in this example - have also to explain what kind of technical principle lies behind - not to confuse with lying!


In our case here the secret key is encoded into the sound-data. The PSX uses 3 different country regions (Europe, America and Japan) so the soundfile has all of them present (see picture). Those are repeated for 30sec so there is plenty of time for bootup.
The goldwave capture shows you below that 1 sequence (for 1 country) incl. pause lasts 250 milli sec.

I did create this soundfile with high amplified 22khz signals and those have the exactly same structure as the digital modchip "on off" pulses!

The sound-file is an uncompressed wav so there is no loss and the final trick is very simple - now listen:

You only have to unscrew the PSXs plastic cover and locate the ribbon-cable of the laser unit. Solder a small wire to PIN 5! where that cable is connected to the mainboard (you can even solder it direct, but ribbon cables are a bit problematic for this). Connect a second wire to PSX ground - you can find this everywhere.

Now solder a small 3.5mm audio jack to those wires, ground to ground and the signal line secured by some 1k resistor, and you're ready to go!

Use some 1m male to male 3,5mm audio-plug cable and start with low volume you just have to play the special audio file and the PSX will boot! :razz: :lol:

It really is that extremly simple!!!

This is a very nice demonstration how easy you can hack digital devices with analog equipment or data-streams!

I shouldn't have told you here about such possibilities but instead secret services & Co., just I really wanted to prove you that there exists "secret special technical tricks" you don't know anything about and simply cannot or won't believe until you build, test and see that it works! btw. this CD unit Pin 5 picture below is exactly the region I did cut out on the 'Circuit Diagram' above.


Well, now you have all what's needed to proof it on your own!

And the same method we have to use with LRLs until we get such a device successfully to work and understand how it works!

We really shouldn't waste our very precious time of life by LRL half-knowledge, guessing, joking or disputing - this only will destroy our important motivation -, but in constructive investigation, experiments and electronic enineering!

[J_Player]

Now I begin to understand the brilliance of your discoveries.
It is hard for me to believe that hacking your high quality digital sound file into pin 5 of the video game will result in a working LRL.
But I want to maintain an open mind, so I will anxiously wait to see the hacked Sony PSX Play Station finding unknown gold in a treasure hunting field. :thumb:

Best wishes,
J_P

[Funfinder]

You're a joker :lol: :D - the reason of this whole thread was to show how the intelligence has to work with LRLs, too.

No secrecy, guessing, disputs, half schematics, fifty-fifty info, unproven claims, stupid advertising how good this or that LRL works without any field-tests or proofs etc. etc. etc. And this forum is full of all this bulls**t, while really worthful and usable info is rarely seed! :nono: :rolleyes:

btw. J_Player:
You'll only find treasures with PSX by inserting the right game CD - perhaps Shrek Treasure Hunt, Tales Of Phantasia or Tomb Raider! :D :lol:

[J_Player]

You're a joker :lol: :D - the reason of this whole thread was to show how the intelligence has to work with LRLs, too.

No secrecy, guessing, disputs, half schematics, fifty-fifty info, unproven claims, stupid advertising how good this or that LRL works without any field-tests or proofs etc. etc. etc. And this forum is full of all this bulls**t, while really worthful and usable info is rarely seed! :nono: :rolleyes:

btw. J_Player:
You'll only find treasures with PSX by inserting the right game CD - perhaps Shrek Treasure Hunt, Tales Of Phantasia or Tomb Raider! :D :lol:WHAT!!!
The PSX hacking will not find treasure in a real treasure hunt? :eek:

Ok, now I understand. You are only showing your hacking to the PSX to demonstrate how you will document your building of a real working LRL at a later time.
This will be good.
It will be good to see real circuits that anyone can build to work exactly as you show.
If everyone can build and calibrate an LRL circuit to work exactly as you show to locate buried metals, then nobody can argue that it does not work.

You could easily become the king of LRLs.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Funfinder]

And you easily could become the king of untechnical ironical statements like WM6...

[J_Player]

And you easily could become the king of untechnical ironical statements like WM6...There is no danger for me. I like to have fun sometimes, same as the name you use. But don't worry. I know what you are capable of.
I am watching your other experiments for some progress. When you have them developed to a point where they are close to working for detection of buried metal, you will see more practical information of a technical nature from me.

Best wishes,
J_P