MFD Frequencies?

[J_Player]

MFD Question for Tim Williams

Hi Tim,

I started a new thread to ask this question because it may lead to a discussion that is not relevant to the H3Tec testimonial thread where it arose from.

You have established your position that MFD is not the same method as MRI, and does not use magnetic detection methods at all.
While you don't explain how MFD can work or even make a claim that MFD works, you do acknowledge that some people find buried things when they are using MFD signal generators.
My question is about MFD frequencies. I am not opening this thread to argue about whether MFD works or not, only to ask about the frequencies used in MFD methods.

You have stated that MFD methods incorporate a signal generator which uses frequencies found in a table listing the NMR frequencies known to exist in the magnetic field found on the earth.
MFD is term used by Dell as the frequency at which elements resonate. Guess where it was taken from? The frequencies of NMR. So if I tell you that 197 Gold resonates at 36.80hz @ 50nt Would I be liying? Or 107 Ag @ 86.16? How about H @ 2128.58hz? Those are not harmonics.
If we put aside the unknown explanations and arguments of whether it works or not, we have an understandable element in MFD, ....the NMR frequencies.
As you described above, there are NMR frequencies in the audio range for most substances you would want to search for.
We also see people often posting questions of what frequencies to use.

It seems strange to me that anyone would ask.
These frequencies are published in many reference databases.
The only variation of any big importance would be the local earth magnetic field and temperature.
The average local magnetic fields of most locations on earth are published in databases, and the temperature can be found with a thermometer.
(I suppose you would be interested in the ground temperature at the depth you want to hunt for a treasure).
If you wanted an exact correction for the earth's magnetic field, then you could take a portable magnetometer to your treasure hunting site and measure it.
With this information, you could know with good precision what the NMR frequency is for any element.

Yet we see people keep posting requests for information of what frequency to use.
This seems silly, because the NMR frequency is not the same in one location as it is in another, simply because the magnetic field strength and the temperature are not the same.
They would obviously find a more precise NMR frequency by looking at the NMR tables and applying the correction factor for local temperature and field strength:

g = hv/BH

Secondly, we know the earth's magnetic field and temperature are constantly changing enough as time passes to make a substantial change in the frequency.
This is another reason why it would be appropriate to periodically check the temperature and magnetic field strength to adjust for the changed NMR frequency.
And even after we arrive at the calculated frequency, there will be minor adjustments to be made to correct for chemical impurities at the sample which will change the frequency.

So according to the same scientists who publish NMR data, we see the exact NMR frequency will be different when we change the magnetic field strength, the temperature, or the chemical invironment of the sampled element. This means the NMR frequency will be different when any of the following variables change:

1. temperature of the ground where the sample is located
2. chemistry of the ground where the sample is located, and impurities in the sample
3. time of day as the magnetic field and temperature changes
4. magnetic field changed from geographic location where the sample is being measured
5. materials in the ground or near the sample that concentrate magnetic field such as black sand, iron objects, magnetic rocks, etc.

The biggest variable is the geographical location, which can cause the frequency to become double or reduce to half because of the magnetic field strength can vary from double to half.
And the other variables seem to be constantly changing to such a degree I would want to check my calibration every 15 minutes or so to be reasonably close to the actual NMR frequency of an element.
I can envision carrying a portable magnetometer and a probe-style thermometer I could poke into the ground.
But I would see no usefulness to ask people in other locations what is the frequency.
This is because other locations seem very irrelevant to the NMR frequencies where I am located, considering I am at a different place and time.

So there is my question:
Why do people use standard fixed frequencies for MFD methods when we know the NMR frequencies are not standard fixed frequencies for the earth field in different locations and different times?
Why wouldn't a person adjust his frequency to the actual NMR frequency that is found at the time and place where he is located?

I also have a second question:
Why would anyone want to use a harmonic of a frequency when the fundamental NMR frequency resonates stronger?


Best wishes,
J_P

[Tim Williams]

Yes yes to all of the above! Very good. This is where I get my fields in nt.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomagmodels/IGRFWMM.jsp

They use fixed because they don't know. When you are at the fundamental frequency temp does not bother you as much as harmonics.

Good job!

[aft_72005]

Hi J_player ant Tim Williams
I study about NMR and function generator with lords . Carl MFD article use sinuses
Wave and Carl VR 800 article use 555 as repeated pulses . it produced wide range
Harmonic frequencies ( saw on spectrum analyzer screen) .
Both wave method generation with LRODS produce behavior result .
Maybe LRODS with transmitter base on NMR . finally I cannot fined method base on theory :???:!!!
Therefore released this subject at that time !!! . But also I am interest know more in
The mater .
Best regards.

[J_Player]

Hi J_player ant Tim Williams
I study about NMR and function generator with lords . Carl MFD article use sinuses
Wave and Carl VR 800 article use 555 as repeated pulses . it produced wide range
Harmonic frequencies ( saw on spectrum analyzer screen) .
Both wave method generation with LRODS produce behavior result .
Maybe LRODS with transmitter base on NMR . finally I cannot fined method base on theory :???:!!!
Therefore released this subject at that time !!! . But also I am interest know more in
The mater .
Best regards.
Hi Aft,
I never saw any evidence that a function generator can find hidden substances. There is no base theory to support this idea that makes any sense to me. But there is a theory about oscillating motions that resonate. The theory is that oscillating things tend move in a sinusoidal motion when they are oscillating mechanically or if they have charges or currents moving in a circular motion.

The theory suggests they will resonate with other oscillating things that are moving in a sinusoidal motion, whether mechanical or electronic. When we look at the 555 timer oscillators, these are usually producing square wave output that is sent to dowsing rods or to the ground.
This square wave represents a huge amount of odd harmonic sinusoidal oscillations mixed together, even though there is no electronic mixer (see here for some theory: http://www.tpub.com/content/neets/14181/css/14181_190.htm ). The result can be expected to be different from the same oscillator which is producing a well-formed sinusoidal wave instead of a square wave.

I don't know from experience, but I would expect a sine wave to respond mostly to other things resonating at the same frequency or a harmonic of it in reduced amounts. And I would expect the square wave to respond the same as the sine wave, except I would expect the square wave to resonate much stronger with the harmonic frequencies you are not interested in.

But that is just a guess based on what the Fourier transforms look like when we see the harmonics and noise levels. Since we have no working model for MFD due to no understandable theory of resonant transmission and coupling for MFD, we can make a model with an acoustic system that has a large pipe organ and an audio sound generator.

Let us suppose we set up the sound generator (audio amplifier) in front of the organ pipes and turn it on to make a sine wave at one frequency. We will expect the pipe that is tuned to the same frequency to resonate and make a sound we can hear. We would also expect pipes which resonate at the second, third and other harmonics to make weaker sounds. When we listen to sounds from pipes that resonate at much higher harmonic numbers of the fundamental frequency, we would expect their resonant sounds to become weaker.

Now, if we were to switch the audio sound generator to make a square wave, then I would expect much more of the wave energy is being sent to other harmonic frequencies rather than concentrating only at the fundamental frequency. I would expect the organ pipes tuned to harmonic frequencies to be making louder resonating sounds than when the sine wave sound was played. I would also expect the sound from the fundamental resonating pipe will not be heard as well as when we had a sine wave because its sound is becoming lost in the noise of the unwanted pipes filling the air with sounds at various odd harmonic frequencies.

If we translate this model into detecting objects with electronic resonance, it would mean we are more likely to detect the object with the same resonant frequency if we are using a sine wave. And if we are using a square wave, we are more likely to become confused by the false objects we are detecting at harmonics of the oscillator frequency.

There are also other wave shapes which produce various harmonic distributions of the fundamental frequency of the oscillator, and may cause strange results if you are trying to couple only to the object which has the same frequency as the oscillator.

Another thing to consider if you are expecting to find atoms oscillating at their NMR frequency when they are buried in the ground is they are not in a uniform magnetic field. This means that for any element, not all the atoms are oscillating at the same frequency. The un-evenness of the earth's field in most ground will cause the Fourier distribution to become mushy instead of a sharp peak that only rings at a single frequency. This means your resolution goes way down, and it becomes difficult to detect the object you want if there are other objects that have similar NMR frequencies nearby. The overlap of frequencies could easily confuse to cause a number of false detections which turn out to be some different element than what you are looking for. This is a condition where noise becomes a more prominent factor in the method of detection.

For people who are not technical, I just said I expect a sine wave works better than a square wave for resonant coupling. And I expect it to be very difficult to identify elements by their NMR frequencies if they are buried and are only in the earth's magnetic field instead of being placed inside a very strong and uniform magnetic field coil. And I said I don't think any of this resonant NMR stuff can work for MFD oscillators. And I also said it is possible I made some errors in my description above. Some of what I wrote is based on the theory rather than my experience.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

I am not opening this thread to argue about whether MFD works or not, only to ask about the frequencies used in MFD methods.
That's a shame ... because I was going to point out that this is like discussing what type of cheese the Moon is made of. :rolleyes:

[Carl-NC]

The only variation of any big importance would be the local earth magnetic field and temperature.

Temperature doesn't really affect NMR precession frequencies.

[J_Player]

That's a shame ... because I was going to point out that this is like discussing what type of cheese the Moon is made of. :rolleyes:We all know that,
hopefully if people know there is no fixed frequencies for NMR, we will stop reading requests for these frequencies clogging up our pages.

Temperature doesn't really affect NMR precession frequencies.It is my understanding that temperature correction is close to nothing for practical purposes when treasure hunting. According to the formula temperature does not make much difference in frequency, but the temperature is part of the correction factor formula, which makes me think it is a good thing to measure. Maybe it will be found to be negligible, and only the magnetic field strength is important for calculating the NMR frequency in a typical earth field.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

We all know that,
hopefully if people know there is no fixed frequencies for NMR, we will stop reading requests for these frequencies clogging up our pages.
My point was with reference to the question: "What are the correct frequencies to use for MFD?" ... not NMR.
The question (by definition) is pointless.

[aft_72005]

“Another thing to consider if you are expecting to find atoms oscillating at their NMR frequency when they are buried in the ground is they are not in a uniform magnetic field. This means that for any element, not all the atoms are oscillating at the same frequency. The un-evenness of the earth's field in most ground will cause the Fourier distribution to become mushy instead of a sharp peak that only rings at a single frequency”
J_player
All of you said is correct and I am agree with you.

“For people who are not technical, I just said I expect a sine wave works better than a square wave for resonant coupling”
I did this test , LRODS work random !!!!.same times show me target place was correct
And sometimes not correct .
Strange point is here , The persons who believe LRODS is working good with more success and the persons don’t believe LRODS , without any success . !!!!!!
I cannot say as I couldn’t found theory , then therefore , there isn’t correct LRODS .
For this reason , I think as Qiaozhi said for several times in other threads in this forum .
“It is only trick of Mind “.
Best regards.

[J_Player]

I did this test , LRODS work random !!!!.same times show me target place was correct
And sometimes not correct .
Strange point is here , The persons who believe LRODS is working good with more success and the persons don’t believe LRODS , without any success . !!!!!!
I cannot say as I couldn’t found theory , then therefore , there isn’t correct LRODS .
For this reason , I think as Qiaozhi said for several times in other threads in this forum .
“It is only trick of Mind “.
Best regards.
Hi Aft,
I found the exact same response from L-rods and from swivel handle LRL.
This makes me think not it is a trick of my mind.
It makes me think that random pointing will point to targets some times and point away from targets other times, all by random chance.
I see no trick. I see only random non-working rods and swivel handles.
For believers maybe it is a trick that makes their rods point to the target more times.
As long as they refuse to demonstrate their rods pointing to the target more times than random in a blind test, people will continue to think it is a trick.

But since we are only talking about NMR frequencies in this thread, I will save my discussions of whether MFD and rods work or not for other threads.


Best wishes, :)
J_P

[Carl-NC]

According to the formula temperature does not make much difference in frequency, but the temperature is part of the correction factor formula, which makes me think it is a good thing to measure.

Temp affects the SNR of the precession signal, but not the frequency. There is nothing to correct by measuring temp, because there is no correction for poor SNR. The best thing to do is get the temp as low as possible, which is what a Squid mag does.

Regarding "trick of the mind," that's a phrase I've used a lot to describe the "dowsing reaction" people get with dowsing rods and LRLs. That is, the "tugging" or "hesitation" feeling. What people feel is truly a mind trick, nothing more.

The overall use of a dowsing device, and the results obtained, are not a trick of the mind, but a result of knowledge (I already know where the target is at), intuition (this looks like a likely place to hunt), and blind luck (the random part). That's why, in a randomized blind test where knowledge and intuition are removed, the results are consistently blind luck. The funny thing is, practically all of the vocal LRL proponents know this! Which is why they avoid and even outright belittle any kind of scientific test.

- Carl

[Mike(Mont)]

Yes yes to all of the above! Very good. This is where I get my fields in nt.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomagmodels/IGRFWMM.jsp

They use fixed because they don't know. When you are at the fundamental frequency temp does not bother you as much as harmonics.

Good job!

Thanks Tim. I input my coordinates and elevation. Then I divided this result by 50,000 then multiplied that result by 36.85 to get the frequency for my area. I went out into the strong sunlight and melting snow and it hit hard. I was using the thin wire with the magnet on the tip.

[aft_72005]

Temp affects the SNR of the precession signal, but not the frequency. There is nothing to correct by measuring temp, because there is no correction for poor SNR. The best thing to do is get the temp as low as possible, which is what a Squid mag does.

Regarding "trick of the mind," that's a phrase I've used a lot to describe the "dowsing reaction" people get with dowsing rods and LRLs. That is, the "tugging" or "hesitation" feeling. What people feel is truly a mind trick, nothing more.

The overall use of a dowsing device, and the results obtained, are not a trick of the mind, but a result of knowledge (I already know where the target is at), intuition (this looks like a likely place to hunt), and blind luck (the random part). That's why, in a randomized blind test where knowledge and intuition are removed, the results are consistently blind luck. The funny thing is, practically all of the vocal LRL proponents know this! Which is why they avoid and even outright belittle any kind of scientific test.

- Carl

Hi Carl
As you said , and as my experiment , when I know place of buried metals , could detect by
LRODS . and when I didn’t know couldn’t detect . only one thing also strange for me , I remember at place of this forum I saw movie about LRODS which powered by radioactive and sample . in this movie I saw the person didn’t know hidden place of sample , but lords
Pointed correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:???:
Best regards.

[aft_72005]

“But since we are only talking about NMR frequencies in this thread, I will save my discussions of whether MFD and rods work or not for other threads.”
Hi J_player
I remember saw cure about NMR in book. Resonance region is sharp. If assume LRODS
Base on NMR . then we need very precision and high stable oscillator for example 4.9876445…khz
Also we must be measure exactly magnetic vector amplitude at place of under search
Area. But all of oscillators use with LRODS is simply oscillator without high stability design .
Best regards.

[Rudy]

That's a shame ... because I was going to point out that this is like discussing what type of cheese the Moon is made of. :rolleyes:

Gruyere. I thought everyone knew that. :rolleyes:

[J_Player]

“But since we are only talking about NMR frequencies in this thread, I will save my discussions of whether MFD and rods work or not for other threads.”
Hi J_player
I remember saw cure about NMR in book. Resonance region is sharp. If assume LRODS
Base on NMR . then we need very precision and high stable oscillator for example 4.9876445…khz
Also we must be measure exactly magnetic vector amplitude at place of under search
Area. But all of oscillators use with LRODS is simply oscillator without high stability design .
Best regards.
Hi Aft,
If we were using MRI methods to determine if a particular substance is present, then the substance is placed in a very high strength uniform magnetic field which will produce a sharp center frequency where a pure substance will resonate. In this condition, it makes sense to adjust your oscillator to a fairly precise frequency. But when the same substance is placed in the earth magnetic field near the ground or under the ground, the field is 350 times weaker and not very uniform. In this condition, the center frequency for resonating is not a sharp narrow band. The center resonant frequency quickly becomes a wider band as we reduce the magnetic field and allow the non-uniform variations in field that we find near the ground. By the time we reach the earth field strength, the resonant frequency is lost in the noise. In the uneven earth field, the sample substance is resonating at many frequencies depending on the various magnetic field strengths that pass through the sample from anomalies in the earth field. You no longer have any use for a precision oscillator because there is no longer a precise single resonant frequency for the buried sample. Use any frequency you like, and you will get the same signal of nothing coming back from the sample. The wide frequency band and the weak response is so bad that we can only see noise, not even a hint of a resonant frequency.

Take a look a the video which shows what happens to a sample when you are looking for the NMR frequency and you remove the sample from the high strength magnetic field: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPXbDDRumwM&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

You can see the difference... it no longer matters what you set the oscillator frequency for in the earth field because the resonant response has disappeared. The sample is no longer close enough to respond to the resonator. And if it was, you would find a very wide band shifted frequency which overlaps the noise. The high strength and uniform magnetic field was needed to make the resonant response visible above the background noise.

See measured NMR response below...
Does this give you some idea of why your trick of the mind theory seems to be a more likely explanation for why MFD users report success?

[Mike(Mont)]

Correction: Here is the correct way

1. Start by finding the strength for your area. My area today was 55374

2. Convert this number to Tesla. Easiest way is just add four decimal places in front. So 55374 becomes .000055374

3. Divide 2.35/.000055374 = 43645 (remember you have to find the strength for your area).

4. Divide 1,754,000/43645 = 41.3 Hz

[Mike(Mont)]

j_p remember the human nervous system and a good quality consciousness and good L-rod skill can filter the background noise out. Believe it or not.

[Qiaozhi]

.

[J_Player]

j_p remember the human nervous system and a good quality consciousness and good L-rod skill can filter the background noise out. Believe it or not.Hi Mike(Mont),
I bet you are right.
I bet you can use your consciousness and your custom designed L-rods to filter out all awareness of tricks of the mind you may be experiencing.

Best wishes,
J_P

[aft_72005]

Hi Aft,
If we were using MRI methods to determine if a particular substance is present, then the substance is placed in a very high strength uniform magnetic field which will produce a sharp center frequency where a pure substance will resonate. In this condition, it makes sense to adjust your oscillator to a fairly precise frequency. But when the same substance is placed in the earth magnetic field near the ground or under the ground, the field is 350 times weaker and not very uniform. In this condition, the center frequency for resonating is not a sharp narrow band. The center resonant frequency quickly becomes a wider band as we reduce the magnetic field and allow the non-uniform variations in field that we find near the ground. By the time we reach the earth field strength, the resonant frequency is lost in the noise. In the uneven earth field, the sample substance is resonating at many frequencies depending on the various magnetic field strengths that pass through the sample from anomalies in the earth field. You no longer have any use for a precision oscillator because there is no longer a precise single resonant frequency for the buried sample. Use any frequency you like, and you will get the same signal of nothing coming back from the sample. The wide frequency band and the weak response is so bad that we can only see noise, not even a hint of a resonant frequency.

Take a look a the video which shows what happens to a sample when you are looking for the NMR frequency and you remove the sample from the high strength magnetic field: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPXbDDRumwM&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

You can see the difference... it no longer matters what you set the oscillator frequency for in the earth field because the resonant response has disappeared. The sample is no longer close enough to respond to the resonator. And if it was, you would find a very wide band shifted frequency which overlaps the noise. The high strength and uniform magnetic field was needed to make the resonant response visible above the background noise.

See measured NMR response below...
Does this give you some idea of why your trick of the mind theory seems to be a more likely explanation for why MFD users report success?



Hi J_Player
You said exactly very well . yes , for some reason we cannot, find target by LRODS base
On NMR .
But I pointed to the subject here , the company in my country produced LRODS with
Oscillator at far past , unfortunately I couldn’t work rally with it . I saw and study only user manual .
Oscillator out put voltage was very high and apply to ground , from 12 volt / hi amperage battery . the variable electronic oscillator box with battery weight was 7 KG.
2 LROD connect to small box as named in manual “ receiver” . There are some switchs
On receiver box to select metal type . if person when with LRODS while walk , if rods contact with together , produced big electrical shock for user !!!!!!!!!.
Many users of this system said found items with successfully . for a longer time didn’t produced this system . this is interesting for me “ is high voltage oscillation is affected really visible long buried metals underground??”
Please “ what is your opinion?”
Best regards.

[J_Player]

Hi J_Player
You said exactly very well . yes , for some reason we cannot, find target by LRODS base
On NMR .
But I pointed to the subject here , the company in my country produced LRODS with
Oscillator at far past , unfortunately I couldn’t work rally with it . I saw and study only user manual .
Oscillator out put voltage was very high and apply to ground , from 12 volt / hi amperage battery . the variable electronic oscillator box with battery weight was 7 KG.
2 LROD connect to small box as named in manual “ receiver” . There are some switchs
On receiver box to select metal type . if person when with LRODS while walk , if rods contact with together , produced big electrical shock for user !!!!!!!!!.
Many users of this system said found items with successfully . for a longer time didn’t produced this system . this is interesting for me “ is high voltage oscillation is affected really visible long buried metals underground??”
Please “ what is your opinion?”
Best regards.
Hi Aft,
I will believe this works only if I can watch it work with my own eyes to pass a double blind test 7 times or more in 10 trials.

Best wishes,
J_P

[aft_72005]

Hi Aft,
I will believe this works only if I can watch it work with my own eyes to pass a double blind test 7 times or more in 10 trials.

Best wishes,
J_P


Yes, I agree with you, I didn’t see real working with my eyes. only heard!!!!!
But I want your opinions or other people opinions at this thread about applying
High voltage variable frequency oscillator to ground?????:???:
Best regards.

[Qiaozhi]

Yes, I agree with you, I didn’t see real working with my eyes. only heard!!!!!
But I want your opinions or other people opinions at this thread about applying
High voltage variable frequency oscillator to ground?????:???:
Best regards.

If LRODS are involved, then it's still dowsing; even if you apply a million volts to the ground. :stars:

[Geo]

If LRODS are involved, then it's still dowsing; even if you apply a million volts to the ground. :stars:



What interests us is the right result and not the name of the method.
If it works I do not care if you named dowsing, pulse induction, vlf or anything else. But you probably have a problem with some words ....
:):)

[Mike(Mont)]

On another thread Tim said NMR frequencies have nothing to do with MFD. I just thought I would mention this here as a sort of disclaimer.

I also want to reinterate MFD is not exactly like a radio transmitter and receiver as many of the skeptics seem to imagine. However the signal line works, it somehow acts as an antenna. Why does it take time to build up? If it was just a radio signal reflection it would take no time. From what I know about resonance, it does not have to be exact--maybe this is why it takes some time to build.

[Mike(Mont)]

I've done work with an electronic receiver and another coil I built. The signal line (or whatever you want to call it) is there. I have not been able to pick it up with the typical low power MFD. That's L-rod territory. I was able to boost the output and pick up a weaker signal. So I would say it's a power issue. Most MFD's run on very low power and there is a reason for this.

[Qiaozhi]

What interests us is the right result and not the name of the method.
I agree, but ...

If it works I do not care if you named dowsing, pulse induction, vlf or anything else. But you probably have a problem with some words ....
:):)
... since dowsing has been proven to produce results no better than guessing, and the use of an MFD involves dowsing rods, then [by implication] it doesn't matter how much voltage you connect to the ground, the result will still be the same. That is, no better than guessing. :???:

[aft_72005]

I've done work with an electronic receiver and another coil I built. The signal line (or whatever you want to call it) is there. I have not been able to pick it up with the typical low power MFD. That's L-rod territory. I was able to boost the output and pick up a weaker signal. So I would say it's a power issue. Most MFD's run on very low power and there is a reason for this.


Hi Mike
What is signal line? What is inside of receiver circuit ? is it tuned receiver on main transmitter frequency ?
Best regards.

[Mike(Mont)]

I don't have an exact definition of what a signal line is, but it must be some kind of concentration of lines of force that develop between an MFD transmitter and the target. My understanding is it is magnetic. That's what is detected when a person with L-rods walks around the transmitter. I do not know what is inside an electronic receiver.

[Geo]

I agree, but ...


... since dowsing has been proven to produce results no better than guessing, and the use of an MFD involves dowsing rods, then [by implication] it doesn't matter how much voltage you connect to the ground, the result will still be the same. That is, no better than guessing. :???:

I agree with the voltage amount... but i disagree:nono: with the "guessing":cool:

[Qiaozhi]

I agree with the voltage amount... but i disagree:nono: with the "guessing":cool:
I know you don't agree with me on that point. ;)

There is no problem with anyone wanting to try out dowsing for themselves, or even believing that perhaps it actually works. I also certainly have no problem with anyone wanting to experiment with LRLs. Indeed, I have even been known to encourage it. :shocked:

It's just the totally ludicrous pseudo-scientific claptrap, that certain people insist on spreading around the internet, which is particularly obnoxious. And (of course) the people / companies that aim to profit from such ignorance, especially when it can lead to loss of life.

So ... dowsing or LRLs for fun ... go ahead. But post outlandish theories on the Geotech forums, and prepare to get challenged! :D

[Jim]

.....develop between an MFD transmitter and the target.



MFD transmitter....isn't that just a basic/simple frequency generator?

How may inches ya reckon that MFD "transmitter" is transmitting?

Good grief

[J_Player]

MFD transmitter....isn't that just a basic/simple frequency generator?

How may inches ya reckon that MFD "transmitter" is transmitting?

Good griefI can pick up an audio oscillator square wave at 5v on the end of a wire up to 5 cm distance in an air test using only an oscilloscope probe with an alligator clip on the end to detect it.
I can get 5 cm range whether I check the plain oscillator wire or if I connect the oscillator to an L-Rod. (It works as long as there is not too much electrical noise in the air to swamp the signal).
The problem is I can detect my cheapest metal detector magnetic signal with the same alligator clip from least 3 times farther. :frown:

Wait... I figgered it out...
Metal detector field is designed to reach a farther distance than a 5v audio oscillator signal field on a wire.

No wonder. :eek:

Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

I can pick up an audio oscillator square wave at 5v on the end of a wire up to 5 cm distance in an air test using only an oscilloscope probe with an alligator clip on the end to detect it.
I can get 5 cm range whether I check the plain oscillator wire or if I connect the oscillator to an L-Rod. (It works as long as there is not too much electrical noise in the air to swamp the signal).
The problem is I can detect my cheapest metal detector magnetic signal with the same alligator clip from least 3 times farther. :frown:

Wait... I figgered it out...
Metal detector field is designed to reach a farther distance than a 5v audio oscillator signal field on a wire.

No wonder. :eek:

Best wishes,
J_P

Hum....about a two (2) inch signal line.

[J_Player]

Hum....about a two (2) inch signal line.Actually I could not find a line. I can get the signal all around the wire from any direction. It seems more like the field strength gradient you would expect from an electric field around a wire. The signal gets so weak by the time I move the probe away farther than 3 inches that I can only see noise... Must be the inverse square law at work.

But my PI detector sends a signal to the alligator clip even though yer sposta use a coil to pick up magnetic signals. I think it is inducing eddy currents in the clip up to about 8-9 inches enough make a signal I can see on the oscilloscope screen. It might work better if I took the detector away in a field somewhere where there's less noise and use a battery power instrument to test it.
Hmmm.... I wonder if that eddy current principle could be used to find buried treasure?


Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

Yeah....maybe Mike will step back in and explain how that MFD transmitter (frequency generator) pushes the signal more than two or three inches.

That just don't sound Long Distance to me

[Mike(Mont)]

Can't help you and I don't think it's an electronics issue--more like physics or rather paraphysics. How the human body can detect something that weak is obviously beyond your comprehension.

[WM6]

Can't help you and I don't think it's an electronics issue--more like physics or rather paraphysics. How the human body can detect something that weak is obviously beyond your comprehension.



Human body cannot detect in time even mortal dose of ionising radiation, let alone that it can detect non-existend gold "signals".

But I encourage you to detect somewhere good radiating physics textbook using your LRL scaming devices.

[Mike(Mont)]

Not only is it beyond your comprehension, but you don't even realize it is beyond your comprehension. Where does that leave things? Get some books and read up on it if you really want to know.

[WM6]

Not only is it beyond your comprehension, but you don't even realize it is beyond your comprehension. Where does that leave things? Get some books and read up on it if you really want to know.

Mean, good for me, because I will never throw my money for such crappy and funny creations as mineoro and rangertell sell. And bad for you and your scammers companion.

[Qiaozhi]

Not only is it beyond your comprehension, but you don't even realize it is beyond your comprehension. Where does that leave things? Get some books and read up on it if you really want to know.
Mike - if you have taken some time away from your paraphysical, spiritual and mystical books; you may have noticed in the intro part of this forum that it states:

The term "remote sensing" is used to describe scientifically viable methods of detecting geophysical anomalies from a distance. It is also used to describe the less scientific method of "long-range locating", which is engulfed in controversy.

So (whether you like it or not) the majority of members here are interested in real demonstrable facts, not pseudo-scientific gobbledygook. Perhaps you are able to leave 'commonsense' at the door, but others here are not. This is why you are frequently challenged to provide hard evidence. Simply stating that it is beyond our comprehension is just laughable.

[Mike(Mont)]

Human body cannot detect in time even mortal dose of ionising radiation, let alone that it can detect non-existend gold "signals".

But I encourage you to detect somewhere good radiating physics textbook using your LRL scaming devices.

I don't recall saying it could "detect" radiation. What I do know is resonance has an effect on the human body and this (or some effect from it like ion flow) can be sensed by those who have developed their sensitivity. The dowsers from the early 1900's used color as a witness. It's all about frequencies. If you read the Supersensonis book you might get a clue. Look at the part about the rainbow. Why do we see different colors? I don't think you can answer that one with your feeble mind. But that's a clue for you.

[WM6]

. It's all about frequencies.



For sure.

All ionising Radiations are basically high energetic electromagnetic wave at specific frequencies.

So you say, that human body cannot detect high energetic frequencies, but can detect very, very, very low energetic frequencies.

Send your Supersensinics book back asap.

[J_Player]

Not only is it beyond your comprehension, but you don't even realize it is beyond your comprehension. Where does that leave things? Get some books and read up on it if you really want to know.Funny you should ask.
Here is where it leaves things:

1. You continue to make statements that you can locate things from long distance with your dowsing rods, yet you cannot. The proof is that you are incapable of passing a test to prove you can, and you refuse to demonstrate that you can. Further, all other people who say they can dowse or they can locate things from a long distance also refuse to demonstrate that they can pass a test to prove it. Every person who does try an actual scientific double blind test to find distant hidden objects fail to find them except for a few random coincidences that show they can do no better than a person who is guessing the location.

2. How you can fail to locate things at a long distance is beyond your comprehension.
But how you could be successful at finding things at a long distance is also beyond your comprehension.
After reading several years of your explanations it becomes apparent that nobody knows what you are talking about including yourself. This is not surprising when you study a few books which promote weird nonsense like the importance of the magnetic alignment of your bones. There is some hope if you ever care to try it: You could read textbooks which explain the nature of science, and seem to actually work in practice instead of failing every time. In fact the mainstream science books teach principles that work so well that you can demonstrate them working instead of refusing to because you are afraid of people pointing and laughing. The thing you cannot comprehend is that it is not only you who cannot pass a test to prove dowsing and long range locating works. The people who write the weird books you read cannot pass a test to prove it either. Nobody can prove dowsing and LRL detection works better than guessing.

Prove me wrong.
Here is a video that shows what happens when some really good dowsers try to prove it works: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7461912885649996034#

3. To say that a skeptic doesn't even realize it is beyond his comprehension is a stupid thing to say.
Of course skeptics realize it is beyond their comprehension of how dowsing can work.
It is also beyond the comprehension of dowsing promoters how it can work.
Nobody knows how it can work because it does not work.
If it did, then people could take a simple test to prove it. But nobody can.
Not a skeptic, and not the best dowsers.
Everyone realizes this fact, including skeptics and dowsing promoters.
This fact is within everyone's comprehension and realization.

It is also within everyone's comprehension that how dowsing could work cannot be explained unless we enter the field of magic and tricks.
Could this be the reason why nobody can pass a test to prove that it works?
Is this why the only explanations how it could work depend on stating some really stupid theories to explain how it work, and then making certain that nobody can see you proving these theories work (or fail to work) in practice?

I think you are wrong when you say skeptics don't even realize that dowsing is beyond their comprehension. They realize very well that dowsing, magic, and other tricks can all be explained by the art of illusions, which are best left to magicians and talented showmen rather than amateurs who want us to believe science explains it.


Best wishes,
J_P

[Mike(Mont)]

In the link below, both circles and both squares are the exact same color.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:optical_grey_squares_orange_brown.svg

[Qiaozhi]

In the link below, both circles and both squares are the exact same color.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:optical_grey_squares_orange_brown.svg
No doubt your intention here is to demonstrate how reality can be somewhat different to what we see. In other words, the world is more mysterious than we can imagine, etc., etc. :rolleyes:

But the real lesson here is how easily the human brain can be deceived. In fact quite similar to dowsing. :shocked: Look how a simple test, using an image manipulation program, proves the circles and squares are actually the same, despite appearances. No need for extra-sensory perception, or things that go bump in the night. Just a simple computer program.

The lesson for today is "don't trust your senses". They can be tricked so easily. This is the reason we (the skeptics) use double-blind testing to reveal the true reality. You should try it sometime. It could save you a lot of unnecessarily wasted time reading books on mysticism and paraphysics. By the way, if this was supposed to be your trump card, I'm afraid you'll need to do better than that. :D

Thanks for sharing though. It's a very good optical illusion. :thumb:

[Mike(Mont)]

Okay, I won't post anymore. I don't drink whiskey but I thought the lyrics were appropriate.

Click "play"

http://www.reverbnation.com/artist/song_details/2760771

[Jim]

Can't help you and I don't think it's an electronics issue--more like physics or rather paraphysics. How the human body can detect something that weak is obviously beyond your comprehension.

Well...not really Mike.

I know that a frequency generator will not transmit/broadcast a signal several hundred feet downrange and cause a reaction with an atom/molecule. That is an electronics issue.

[J_Player]

If we go back to the beginning post #1 we can read how I started this thread to learn about some details of MFD frequencies, not to argue about whether MFD works or not.
Yet we see that anything related to MFD usually leads to attracting discussions of whether it works or not instead of talking about the frequencies that people use for MFD oscillators.
MFD Question for Tim Williams

...My question is about MFD frequencies. I am not opening this thread to argue about whether MFD works or not, only to ask about the frequencies used in MFD methods.
You have stated that MFD methods incorporate a signal generator which uses frequencies found in a table listing the NMR frequencies known to exist in the magnetic field found on the earth.

If we put aside the unknown explanations and arguments of whether it works or not, we have an understandable element in MFD, ....the NMR frequencies.
MFD is term used by Dell as the frequency at which elements resonate. Guess where it was taken from? The frequencies of NMR. So if I tell you that 197 Gold resonates at 36.80hz @ 50nt Would I be liying? Or 107 Ag @ 86.16? How about H @ 2128.58hz? Those are not harmonics.

We already know the opinions of most of the people here who are posting to talk about whether MFD methods work or not.
But we learned some new things about the frequencies used for MFD methods:

1. MFD methods use NMR frequencies
According to Tim Williams, MFD methods use the same frequencies that we can find in a NMR table, and we are correct to adjust the frequency found in the table for the local magnetic field and temperature.

2. The NMR frequency must be calculated for the exact magnetic field
This need for calculating the frequency was confirmed by "LRL Man" Tim Williams. Also, according to Carl-NC, there is no need to correct for temperature, only for the magnetic field. I checked this and found it to be correct for all practical purposes. The temperature can cause a negligible variation in frequency (parts per million change) as reported by some scientists for temperatures usually found on earth. In order to see any noticeable change of frequency, the temperature must be brought near absolute zero.
So Carl is correct... we only need to check the local magnetic field strength in order to find the NMR frequency for any element buried in the ground with good precision.

3. The NMR frequency cannot be expected to be the same at different locations and at different times.
The frequencies will wander above and below the frequency we expect because the magnetic field strength of the earth wanders above and below the single value we usue in our equation to determine the frequency. This variation in magnetic field strength is expected as we move to different locations along the magnetic circuit of the earth, but it is also caused by variations in the earth material, (other objects and minerals buried, or above ground that can concentrate the earth's magnetic field). And it is also caused by fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field strength that vary with the time all over the earth.
The result of these variations is the earth's field in one location can be more than double than what it is in another location. And then when we measure the field strength a few hours later, we see it can change significantly to the point that the NMR frequency has changed.
What this all means is we can rely on a chart for the local magnetic field strength to show only an average for our area. The variations within a city can be up to double what the average is. This is especially true of places that have geographical faults and folds. The only way to get an accurate idea of the magnetic field to use for NMR calculations is to measure it at the time and in the location where you want to know the frequency. Any other approximation is likely to give you the wrong NMR frequency.

4. Objects that are buried or on the ground do not have a precise MNR frequency
The exact NMR frequency of any element buried in the ground or sitting on the ground can be expected to be a poor resolution frequency, meaning the atoms are not resonating at one single frequency. This is because the earth's magnetic field is not uniform. There are buried rocks, minerals and sands as well as other objects which distort the earth's magnetic field to make anomalies in the field where your target element is buried. These earth field anomalies cause the NMR frequency to become more broadband instead of a single precise frequency.

5. The NMR frequency is extremely difficult to measure unless the sample is placed in a very strong magnetic field
NMR measurements are usually done in coil set to at least 350 times stronger than the earth field in a laboratory. When an element is measured only in the earth field, nearly all the NMR signal is canceled by opposing forces within the atoms. So any amount of unbalanced resonance signal you could measure is extremely weak. The result is any NMR signal you try to measure is lost in noise (noise from external sources is detected at the NMR frequency rather than resonance from the atom when scientists attempted to measure the NMR in an earth field).


It appears the NMR frequency of different elements can be used to identify an element in a laboratory, but would be useless to identify elements in the earth field.
We also see most people who use MFD methods are set for single frequencies which are very unlikely to be the NMR frequency of the element they are searching for.
This leads to speculation that maybe the MFD users are not detecting the nuclear magnetic resonance of the elements they are searching for.
A more refined way to tune an oscillator to the NMR frequency was reported by Mike(Mont):
Correction: Here is the correct way

1. Start by finding the strength for your area. My area today was 55374

2. Convert this number to Tesla. Easiest way is just add four decimal places in front. So 55374 becomes .000055374

3. Divide 2.35/.000055374 = 43645 (remember you have to find the strength for your area).

4. Divide 1,754,000/43645 = 41.3 Hz

But wait...
This calculation will give us only the average NMR frequency for a general area, not for the location and time where he is standing with his MFD oscillator.
The calculated magnetic field could be off by up to 50% anywhere in the general area due to the natural variations.
And by simply walking a quarter mile you could find the magnetic field and NMR frequency has changed by 50%.
The magnetic field strength could also change another 5-10% during the day as the earth's field strength changes.
In other words, we have no assurance that we are tuned to the correct NMR frequency unless we measure the field where we are standing unless we measure it.

Is this the end of the theory that MFD oscillators are resonating with the nuclear magnetic resonance of elements?
It certainly does not appear to be possible, considering nobody I know of has ever taken steps to insure their oscillators are even tuned to the NMR frequency.
What would happen if you were to tune a low voltage oscillator to a NMR frequency?
Would it would be impossible to tune a resonant signal from the oscillator wire through the air or ground to a group of distant atoms? Not by any known theory of electronics or physics (see 4 and 5 above).

But what about magical parapsychology theories?
Again, no.
Why?
Assuming that for some people these magical powers exist, they are looking to identify the location of an element which is resonating at the frequency they set their MFD oscillator to.
But we know it is virtually impossible that this is the NMR frequency of the element they are searching for unless they used a calibrated magnetometer to check the field first.
In addition, the NMR signal from elements in an earth field is so minuscule that it is smaller than the noise signals which would easily be orders of 10 larger than any trace of a NMR signal.
And who knows where the noise is coming from?
The sky?
A junk pile inside a shed?
An empty hole?
Who cares where the noise comes from?
What is important is we know the element does not have the same NMR frequency as the MFD oscillator.
And if it did, there would be a lot of noise from different directions at that same frequency which is stronger than the target resonance to confuse the treasure hunter.
It all points to the theory that MFD users are not detecting NMR frequencies of elements.

But we also have another reason to speculate that the MFD users are not detecting the nuclear magnetic resonance of the elements they are searching for:
On another thread Tim said NMR frequencies have nothing to do with MFD. I just thought I would mention this here as a sort of disclaimer.

Has anyone discovered whether this is a true statement?
If it is true, then what what frequencies are used in MFD? :shocked:

Best wishes,
J_P

[Tim Williams]

J_P so we are on the same page. The spike you see on the computer for H is found using the earths field. The strong field that is turned on for a few seconds is only to cause the H protons to tilt. It's when this field is turned off and the H protons return to the earths field is the frequency read. So in the earths field H Protons @ 50nt should be around 2128 or so. This is what proton mags are calibrated to. look on page 9.

http://perso.infonie.be/j.g.delannoy/BAT/IntroductiontoMagnetometerTechnology.pdf

This is what I said. "Correct! But MFD uses the frequencies in the earth field that is in the audio range. That is all I am saying."

[Geo]

Hi J_P.

I can say that the MFD frequency varies from person to person.
For example I have a good response to the gold at 4814 Hz. I know many people who use MFD and use for the gold frequencies from 4500 until 5500. In every person there is a frequency that suits more.

Regards:)

[J_Player]

J_P so we are on the same page. The spike you see on the computer for H is found using the earths field. The strong field that is turned on for a few seconds is only to cause the H protons to tilt. It's when this field is turned off and the H protons return to the earths field is the frequency read. So in the earths field H Protons @ 50nt should be around 2128 or so. This is what proton mags are calibrated to. look on page 9.

http://perso.infonie.be/j.g.delannoy/BAT/IntroductiontoMagnetometerTechnology.pdfHi Tim,
Of course that is correct.
And we see it is impossible to find the reading if we don't first turn on the super strong field in order to cause the imbalance in the internal atomic resonance forces.
This super strong field is what removes the opposite atomic forces, that make this precession signal visible at the moment we remove the field.

When we do not begin with a field stronger than the earth's field, the imbalance of opposing resonant forces is so small that the noise is many times stronger.
This raises some questions about people who claim to locate distant substances using NMR frequencies.

And there is the nagging problem that the earth's field is not uniform... look at page 7 which shows the variations in the earth's field in a small area.
What that map does not show is the micro variations that also happen.
And it does not have a larger scale map to show how far off a given spot of ground is different from the field strength value you looked up on the daily report for your location.
The fact is that any value we look up in the daily reports is only an interpolation of what was measured between magnetometer stations, not a real measurement that was taken at your spot.
If you actually measure the magnetic field, you will find a lot of variations like you see in the chart page 7.

But the main problem I see is nobody who claims to find things with MFD methods even bothers to measure the field.
I can't imagine they could have their oscillators set for the actual NMR frequency for materials nearby them.
This fact, along with the fact they are not using a strong field to initiate the precession which makes the NMR measurable makes me think MFD does not use NMR frequencies, regardless of what MFD users think.

We then see Geo reports a frequency far different, and I read his posts where he reported an oscillator at MHz range also works for him.

This is why I wonder if you happen to know anything about what Mike(Mont) claims you said?
On another thread Tim said NMR frequencies have nothing to do with MFD. I just thought I would mention this here as a sort of disclaimer.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Tim Williams]

I think He means I said MFD has nothing to do with MRI. I think I told Jim that or someone.

[J_Player]

I think He means I said MFD has nothing to do with MRI. I think I told Jim that or someone.Ok, I got it.
MFD does not produce an image of soft tissues from people who were placed inside a giant magnetic coil. Nor does it involve any strong magnetic fields at all.

So what about the claims of using NMR frequencies, considering the near impossibility that MFD users could be at the correct NMR frequency for the time of day at their location?
How can we attribute any claims of finding something buried to having an oscillator tuned to the NMR frequency, when it is highly unlikely they are tuned to a NMR frequency?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Tim Williams]

Well that silver I dowse I used NMR frequencies. I didn't do too bad.

[J_Player]

Well that silver I dowse I used NMR frequencies. I didn't do too bad.Hi Tim,
It appears you are saying the fact you find silver confirms you are tuned to the correct NMR frequency of silver.
This logic might seem reasonable if we hadn't just read a lot of facts published by scientists who say the NMR frequency depends on the magnetic field strength where the sample is located.
For example, look at the different field strengths reported by NOAA at different locations around the world today, and the NMR frequency we find when we use Mike(Mont)'s formula:

45,745.0 nT = 34.143 Hz = Athens, Greece
23,277.5 nT = 17.374 Hz = Rio De Janiero, Brazil
43,737.0 nT = 32.645 Hz = Lisbon, Portugal
61,540.3 nT = 45.933 Hz = Tura, Russia
47,470.2 nT = 35.431 Hz = Los Angeles, USA

You can see the field strength and the NMR frequency is different for every place I listed.
I presume you looked up the daily magnetic field strength where you are located on the days you searched for silver in order to calculate the NMR frequency.

NOAA Daily reports are not good enough to find the NMR frequency in an earth field
The problem is NOAA data does not show the magnetic field strength for the exact spot where you are treasure hunting.
These are daily averages for your area which were interpolated from various magnetometer stations some distance from you.
There are many local anomalies of substantial proportions which are averaged in order to make these daily reports.
It is very unlikely the daily average you saw published is the same as the actual field strength where you were standing.
Most of the geological magnetometer surveys I have seen show the earth's magnetic field is far from a uniform field.
Most surveys show magnetic variations that change the NMR frequency substantially within a space the size of a soccer field.
The published NOAA average field strength for your area is probably far different than the actual field strength where you are standing.
It is probably enough different that you cannot possibly calculate the correct NMR frequency.

NOAA does not catch 5000 nT anomalies in a small field, or even in a big field
For example, the image below shows a magnetometer survey in newfoundland with a magnetic field variation between 52000 nT and 67000 nT within a distance of about 100 meters (328 feet).
This amount of variation in magnetic field strength means the NMR frequency of hydrogen changes from 2213.72 Hz to 2742.59 Hz when you walk 328 feet!
In other areas of the survey, we see a more uniform field.
But we have no way to know if the NOAA reported field strength is the same as even the areas of uniform field unless we measure the field with a magnetometer.

Let's see what NOAA has to report about the two corners of that soccer field sized area today:
NOAA reports for the lower left corner : 58°00'20" W 48°31'40" N = 53,567.0 nT
NOAA reports at the upper right corner: 58°00'15" W 48°31'44" N = 53,567.1 nT
They show the two corners to be 0.1 nT difference... not the 5000 nT difference that the geological survey measured.

Was NOAA wrong, or was the magnetic survey company wrong?
We expect the absolute field value is different today than when the magnetometer survey was made, but the 5000 nT variation across the two corners of this field does not change.
We should still find somewhere close to 5000 nT difference, but NOAA is reporting 0.1 nT difference, or essentially the same field strength.
We know NOAA did not report the true field strength, and we know the NOAA report does not give us a usable measurement to calculate the NMR frequency.

How can the NOAA report be wrong?
Because there are so many variations in the earth's magnetic field, NOAA only publishes the interpolated averages for an area that do not show these variations we could measure.
Thus the NOAA daily report for this location is only the average for a large area of the map, with no indication of what the actual field strength is at any area the size of a soccer field.
In fact we cannot even expect the areas of uniform field strength to be accurately reported for this map, because the NOAA interpolation is for a larger area than we would normally search on this map.

The only way to calculate the NMR of an element on the ground is to begin with the actual magnetic field first
The point is the only way you can know the NMR frequency where you are standing is to measure the field strength with a calibrated magnetometer like a geologist does.
Unless you measured the magnetic field strength with a magnetometer before making your frequency calculation, it is highly unlikely your oscillator was set to the actual NMR frequency.

Did NMR find your silver, or was it something else?
This raises serious questions about what NMR frequency you were using with your oscillator.
In other words... Did you measure the field strength where you are standing with a calibrated magnetometer before you calculated what frequency to set your oscillator?
Or did you use the NOAA interpolated field strength in your area to calculate the NMR frequency?

If you were finding silver, then I would think we cannot attribute the silver finds to an oscillator resonating at the NMR frequency.
If you really did have exceptionally good silver recovery results, I suspect the results must be attributed to a different cause than NMR frequency.

My question is:
How certain are you that your oscillator was set to the actual NMR frequency of silver when you were finding silver?


Best wishes,
J_P


---------------
P.S.
Take a look at the image below from this website: http://triplenineresources.com/project-overview/exploration-updates/ and http://triplenineresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/MAG2.jpg

You cans see the large variation in the earth's field when you walk across the length of a soccer field.
But if you check another location in the map, you can find areas that have fairly uniform field strength.
The problem with the NOAA daily report is the value they report is about 53560 nT (within 20 or 30 nT) for everywhere on this map.
you could not possibly find the correct NMR frequency when using thier reported value.

other interesting links:
http://loganresources.blogspot.com/2010/05/mag-map-fade-to-historic-air-photo.html
http://www.haranga.com/Selenge.html
http://www.anglocanex.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=380069&_Title=Airborne-Magnetic-Survey-Results-for-Quebec-Gold-Property

[Tim Williams]

J_P in dowsing the frequency is not that exact. In other words if I'm set to 38.2 hz for gold I will still hit that target +-1 hz. The plot you show above is not a normal area. this is a plot showing high mineral content. Possible gold silver or whatever vein running through that area and causing the earths field to change as you see it. As far as using NMR frequencies I set to the area I'm hunting. Lets say Ag @ 47000 nt is 80.99 hz. At 47010.5 it's not changed much but to 81.0. In my area the most it changes is about .1 hz from day to day.

I use my Iphone with an on-board 3 axis mag to check total nt. If I was in that area in the plot it would be a red flag that I'm standing in a large anomaly.

As far as map dowsing goes I can only hit targets that were in the picture at the time it was taken. So for that silver lamp I set for the field nt according to the day of the photo. Elevation also comes in to play.

Problem is, none of this makes sense to science. I'll be the first to agree with that. But! Many are using dowsing and locating just find. It's a big part of my hunt. Just saying. There are people today that have developed electronic sensing and are working with mining companies and are staying very busy.

If this forum want to try a little test I will post 2 NMR compound frequencies of their choice. I will give the NMR field strength to use for mikes calculation. So anyone can try the frequency if they have a rod and a sine wave generator. It can be an drug or mineral type or whatever. Of course all should have access to the same target. So lets think of that.

TIm

[J_Player]

J_P in dowsing the frequency is not that exact. In other words if I'm set to 38.2 hz for gold I will still hit that target +-1 hz. The plot you show above is not a normal area. this is a plot showing high mineral content. Possible gold silver or whatever vein running through that area and causing the earths field to change as you see it. As far as using NMR frequencies I set to the area I'm hunting. Lets say Ag @ 47000 nt is 80.99 hz. At 47010.5 it's not changed much but to 81.0. In my area the most it changes is about .1 hz from day to day.

I use my Iphone with an on-board 3 axis mag to check total nt. If I was in that area in the plot it would be a red flag that I'm standing in a large anomaly.

As far as map dowsing goes I can only hit targets that were in the picture at the time it was taken. So for that silver lamp I set for the field nt according to the day of the photo. Elevation also comes in to play.

Problem is, none of this makes sense to science. I'll be the first to agree with that. But! Many are using dowsing and locating just find. It's a big part of my hunt. Just saying. There are people today that have developed electronic sensing and are working with mining companies and are staying very busy.

If this forum want to try a little test I will post 2 NMR compound frequencies of their choice. I will give the NMR field strength to use for mikes calculation. So anyone can try the frequency if they have a rod and a sine wave generator. It can be an drug or mineral type or whatever. Of course all should have access to the same target. So lets think of that.

TIm
Hi Tim,

What you are saying is when dowsing, you no longer need the precision of NMR methods, and that none of it makes sense to science.
I can agree that none of it makes sense to science.
This is why I am only addressing the one part that does make sense, ie: the NMR frequency of an element and how to determine it.


What causes magnetic gradients in the ground?
To start, the tiny area of the map I showed has a larger magnetic gradient than other areas of the map.
We can expect the NOAA report will not catch this high gradient in their interpolated values.
However, this is not an abnormal area that was mapped. Most magnetic surveys I have seen show gradients which are similar even when they are not in a mining area.
In most magnetic survey maps that span several miles we find areas where there are large gradients and small gradients.
These gradients are not caused by silver or gold veins.
They are caused by folds and faults, or other geological movements of the earth which concentrate minerals that are more magnetic or diamatic.
In addition to the folds and faults, there are also other geological forces such as erosion, glaciers, and volcanos which move earth materials that can alter magnetic fields.
Even sediments and overburdon can contain pockets of materials that concentrate magnetic fields.
Gold and silver metal or ore veins do not contribute substantially to these variations in the magnetic field.
But magnetic sands, rocks and even foriegn objects located at or under the surface do.
The places where you find large anomalies are places where the earth has moved and shifted the position of the materials that can focus a magnetic field.
If gold or silver ores or treasure items happen to be in these places, then their presence does not have any direct influence on the magnetic field gradient.

Let's see what happens outside the strong gradient area:
We know the strong gradient I showed over a 100 meter span could be hard for NOAA to catch in their interpolated reading for the area.
But what about the parts of that map that do not have a large gradient?
Suppose we check the NOAA report for the large blue area at the bottom, and the center of the large purple area in the center.
We can see these two areas are about two miles (3 Km) away from each other.
Let's see what the NOAA reports for field strength in these areas that do not have a large gradient (see image below).

NOAA reports the lower blue area to have a field of 52708 nT, while the survey measured to be 57000 nT.
This means that the NOAA data for today is coincidentally the same as the magnetic survey crew measured back at the time when the survey was done.
This is good for a base reference so we can see if we find the same relative field strength in other low-gradient areas of the map.
Now, lets take a look at the dark purple area in the center...
NOAA reports a field of 52721 nT in the center of the purple where there is no strong gradient. But the survey crew measured 57000 nT.
NOAA is off by 4300 nT! :frown:
This is not a heavy gradient area. It is the center of a large uniform area over a mile long.
We see the resolution of the NOAA interpolation does not include this particular location.
So we can be walking along the purple area for a mile or so and have no idea that we are using the wrong NMR frequency calculated from the NOAA report.

How far off are we?
We set our oscillator to 39.4 Hz after we check the NOAA magnetic field value and made a calculation.
But if we take the actual measured magnetic field value, we find the actual NMR frequency is 42.5 Hz.
There is no way we can pretend these two frequencies are about the same.
What further complicates the error is the magnetic field changes during the day. And NOAA does not give us updates throughout the day every time the field changes strength.
We see the frequencies calculated from the NOAA reports are highly unlikely to give the correct values unless we are lucky enough to be standing in a patch of ground which has the same value at the moment as was published by NOAA.
And our Ipod did not tell us we are in a heavy magnetic field gradient.
There are many areas like the purple area I showed on the map. Your own area has many places with a flat gradient that NOAA does not interpolate near the correct value.
And the Ipod shows us the magnetic gradient is fairly even, so we are walking along thinking everything is ok.
As we leisurly stroll past the four buried treasure chests from the 1852 bank robbery, we are not disturbed by the chests with the 40 pounds of gold about 5 feet below where we are walking. :angry:

According to the NMR knowledge that makes sense, we could determine a person using MFD does not have his oscillator set to the NMR frequency except on rare occasions when he happened to set it at the correct frequency by chance. The calculations a person might make could bring him somewhere close to the NMR frequency, but not likely at the correct frequency. At this point we can conclude that MFD is not related to NMR because MFD oscillators are not tuned to NMR frequencies, and because a low voltage oscillator does not resonate with distant atoms at a different frequency.

Or we could look further into the part of MFD that doesn't make any sense.
According to the nonsense part of MFD, an Ipod is good enough to measure the magnetic field strength because precision is not important for NMR. 32 Hz give or take 1Hz works fine.
If this is the case, then of course, there is no reason to know the magnetic field strength any more precisely than an Ipod or a cheap magnetometer with a solid state fluxgate chip will indicate.
Of course, since it makes no sense, we can't expect people who understand the dynamics of NMR to believe MFD is utilizing these dynamics.
But we are taking an excursion into nonsense, with the hope that by the end of the tour we may find some sense in it.
Even though MFD does not make any sense as you say, there is always a final way to break through the barrier of disbelief...
The proof of the pudding is in the tasting.

I propose we try your experiment and see if anyone finds any response for the frequencies you suggest.
Let's all of us who are interested try it out and see if it really works to connect a 5v oscillator to L-Rods.

Why not tell us exactly how to build the rods (size and construction details), and give us a circuit diagram for an oscillator you consider suitable to connect.
Be sure to show how to connect the oscillator and any grounds. Also instructions for how to use the rods, and what they are supposed to do to indicate the target material.

If we see some results, then we will have a reason to figure out some real explanation how it is happening.


Best wishes,
J_P


----------------
See illustration of how NOAA does not tell you the exact magnetic field strength where you are standing. It only interpolates the general value for a large area.

[Tim Williams]

JP you need to pick an area you are going to hunt and set for that area! I agree NOAA has different readings. I guess the science they are using is flawed! As I said I always check my mag and adjust accordingly.

For those who want to test will need a generator that has .1hz increments and sine wave. They will have to make a coil also. Using a spool of speaker wire 16ga. 100ft attach one end to the generator output and the other end split to about 2 ft and solder to brass rods to insert into the ground.

[Geo]

Hi TIM.
Are you make a coil or you let the wire onto the soil??
If you make a coil with the 100f of wire then who is the diameter of the coil??

Regards

[Tim Williams]

The coil size does not matter. The wire is on the spool. One end is connected to the signal generator and the other 2 ends connected to rods that you insert into the ground. You use the soil to limit the current through the coil.

[Geo]

The coil size does not matter. The wire is on the spool. One end is connected to the signal generator and the other 2 ends connected to rods that you insert into the ground. You use the soil to limit the current through the coil.


Do you mean 2 starts (bridged in one) connected to the signal generator and the other 2 ends connected to rods that you insert into the ground. [/quote]

[Tim Williams]

Take one end of the 2 conductor wire and connect it to the generator. Take the other end and solder to 2 rods. I will post a picture tomorrow.

[Geo]

Take one end of the 2 conductor wire and connect it to the generator. Take the other end and solder to 2 rods. I will post a picture tomorrow.

Thanks Tim:).
Who is the distance between the 2 rods???
Also... what about the common of the generator???
The idea of picture is very good

Regards

[Tim Williams]

Look at this photo. It's a coil of 16ga speaker wire with 2 brass rods. Sorry about the size.

http://lrlman.com/coil.jpg

[Geo]

Thank you Tim.
Please can you give me a photo from the other side of the connector??

Regards:)

[Tim Williams]

http://lrlman.com/ref1.jpg

Try this.

[Geo]

Thank you:)

[J_Player]

What is the NMR for gold and silver and copper?

After reading above, we discovered that the nuclear magnetic frequency for different elements depends on how strong the magnetic field they are in.
So the NMR frequency will change if the magnetic field is changed.
scientists usually measure the NMR frequency in the MHz range after they put an element in a very strong magnetic field.
They do this because it is nearly impossible to measure a NMR frequency in the natural field of the earth.
They find the natural earth field is constantly changing, and it is different at every location on the earth.

But let us suppose we wanted to know how to find the NMR frequency of metals at the surface of the earth.
How would you find the frequency?
You must start by measuring the strength of the earth's magnetic field at the place where the metal is located.
You will measure a magnetic field which is somewhere between 22,000 nT and 68,000 nT.
After you have this measurement for the magnetic field, you can use the formulas at the bottom of the image below to find the NMR frequency for gold, silver, coppper and aluminum.

You can see there is a formula to calculate the gold NMR.
But the silver NMR frequency has two formulas.
This is because there are two isotopes of silver which are found in equal amounts for all the silver on earth.
This means that any silver will have two NMR frequencies which you can calculate by using the two formulas below.
Either of these frequencies will identify silver.
We see the same for copper. It has two isotopes and two frequencies.
For copper, the 63 isotope is 70% of all the copper on earth, and the 65 isotope is 30% of the copper on earth.
For copper, you are better to use the 63 isotope because there is more of it in the copper you find.

Another interesting property of these four metals it they have different receptivity values.
The receptivity is the tendency of an element to precess, or to react to the magnetic field and produce a NMR frequency.

If we consider carbon to be a standard to measure other elements against, we find that other elements will precess more easily, or less easily than carbon.
Gold has only 1/6 the tendency as carbon to precess. So we say gold has a receptivity of 0.158.
This means that it we can see carbon precessing and showing us NMR frequencies 6 times stronger than gold does.
Here are the receptivity values for gold, silver, copper and aluminum:

0.158 Gold 197
0.200 Silver 107
0.282 Silver 109
371.0 Copper 63
202.0 Copper 65
1220.0 Aluminum 27

we can see gold and silver have a very weak ability to precess compared to copper or aluminum.
The precession strength of aluminum is 4000-7000 stronger than silver or gold.
And copper has a precession strength 1300-2300 times stronger than silver or gold.
This means that if you were able to detect the NMR of any of these metals in an earth field,
then aluminum would have the strongest amount of precession and NMR signals which are thousands of times stronger than silver or gold.

This leads me to believe that MFD methods are not detecting the NMR frequency of these metals.
Because MFD methods do not detect aluminum with a signal thousands of times stronger than for silver or gold, I would think MFD is detecting something different than the NMR frequencies for these elements.

But in case I am wrong about this, you can use the formulas below to calculate the NMR frequencies.
Be careful with the chart.
This chart shows only the average magnetic field strength and the average NMR frequency found on Dec 21, 2011 in the general areas of the locations listed.
The actual frequency varies because the magnetic field you will measure in any of those locations is not the average value shown.
As an example, the NMR frequency of gold in Los Angeles can be measured to be between 22Hz and 41Hz depending on where in Los Angeles you are measuring it.
See the magnetic field map here to see how the NMR frequency can change by 10% at different locations inside a soccer field: http://www.longrangelocators.com/forums/showthread.php?p=125686#post=125686
The only way you can know the actual NMR frequency is to measure the magnetic field where the metal is located, then calculate the frequency with the formulas below.


Best wishes, :)
J_P