Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seden
J_Player,
For now drop the obsession with the photoacoustic effect. Actually yes I will share my results with the group as you have been doing with the RangerTell so to answer your question the reply would be 'Damn straight Skippy!'.
Look J_Player you've been a pretty fair in your comments up until recently. Maybe you're getting burnt out on all this which I don't blame you. If you notice there are large gaps in time when you don't see my posting and this is why. This particular experiment of Estebans requires little effort on either of our parts so I don't mind as I have my own projects that I'm working on as the rest of the group does. I just get so tired of the bantering back and forth of pure theory without anyone bothering to test it for themselves. You are familiar with the old saying about opinions. It reminds me of when I used to work at the Hughes Aircraft Missile research Centre,you'd get these authoritative arrogant know it all's who would love to claim to know better than anyone else and enjoyed correcting their fellow co-worker in front of others-I'm sick of it.
It get's down to put up or shut up in the end-otherwise it's a chasing of the wind for people who have nothing better to do. Yeah it's easy,just keep the soldering iron off and type. This is said in general not to you J_Player as I have nothing against you.
Randy
By the way group, please take note that I sign my first name so please USE it when you reply.
|
Hi Randy,
Why should I drop the question of a photoacoustic effect?
This is my only argument... that there is no photoacoustic effect causing a signal.
I have no argument that Esteban observed a change in the sound on his FM radio, or that it happened in areas where there was buried metals. My point is that it cannot be caused by a photoacoustic effect -- and any assersions to say it is are misinformation.
Conducting tests can be very simple as you say, but not when using the circuitry that Esteban used. We can check his assertions only if he tells us what simple circuits to build to hear the sound for ourselves. Any other substitute tests don't really check his claim: "exactly the same as he did more than 20 years ago". Using different equipment than he used produces tainted tests, as Esteban says the modified Zahori tests did.
If this is so easy to replicate, then it is even easier for Esteban to replicate. He already has the exact equipment that he claims produced the photoacustic responses. He has to build nothing... only to take a microphone to a buried sample and check whether it is making a sound. There is no chance it will be the "built the wrong way".
Hopefully, you don't see this as an unfair request. I have also been involved in testing for years, and I am well aware of the pitfalls of making modifications when testing a simple theory, as well as the pitfalls of publishing speculative thoughts as if they are facts.
I have the highest respect for the experimentation and dedication Esteban has put into metal locating research.
My only argument is with publishing speculations as facts. So let your test determine if the speculation is correct or not about buried metals responding to photoacoustic effects.
Best wishes,
J_P