I don't think the calculator has a trimmer cap on it. Maybe it is not effected by humidity?

Best wishes,
J_P

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

Well then you better get your facts straight. First, I never said a tube is a circuit. You are the person who made that reference. I only talked about a length of tube as an example of how it resonates with sound waves of the same frequency as the tube. If you think that is BS, you are mistaken. Any high school science student knows you are wrong about that.

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

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

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

Best wishes,
J_P

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

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

Best wishes,
J_P

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

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

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

Best wishes,
J_P

Inside the RT, but without opening it.

In the previous Examiner, I saw a silicon diode soldered inside between the coil at the brass handle pivot and the antenna. Is there a reason to think the diode will be nonexisting in the replacement Examiner?

Best wishes,
J_P

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

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

Best wishes,
J_P

The replacement Examiner arrived, so I took photos today.

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

See photos below:

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

Thanks. Did you try the Examiner sometimes?

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

Best wishses,
J_P

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

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

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

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

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

Lower myself to Dell Winders level?
The only thing I am guilty of is lowering myself to giving a fair argument to a person of your level.
You pretend to have facts while you try to obfuscate the facts. You make posts here with an agenda you want to prove with innuendos based on false information, then when you are shown to be wrong, you look for ways to prove it is someone else's fault, and call people names.

Isn't that what Dell sometimes does?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Best wishes,
J_P

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

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

Best wishes,
J_P

:::chortles:::

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ciao

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

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

Best wishes,
J_P

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best wishes,
J_P