Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Player
Actually those references don't describe a protocol that can be used to test the Examiner or what attribute of the Examiner is being tested.
Rangertell has made no claims the examiner can locate people hiding behind crates, nor do I think it is able to do that.
I understand the principle of double blind testing very well. It generally involves three parties, where a proctor is used. But there are thousands of protocols that could be used. In order to perform the test procedure you want to see, I only need to know the specific protocol you want to see set up, and to know what attribute of the Examiner you want to test.
I am presuming you don't want to see if it can locate a person hiding behind a crate, but rather, some claim that Rangertell makes about the Examiner.
If you don't really know what attribute of the Examiner you want to test, or any details of the test protocol you want to see done, please say so, because I can't figure it out by guessing at other people's ideas to test different things than the Examiner I have for testing.
Best wishes,
J_P
|
I don't know what Qiaozhi would like to see tested either, so I certainly wouldn't hazard a guess.
However, if you don't mind me sticking my nose in.....
I wouldn't mind seeing a DB test of the Examiner attempting to find some Gold (a nugget or a coin or a ring). Now if you have full knowledge of how a standard DB test should be conducted, then there is no sense in me describing that to you.
All I would like to see is a Pre-test of the device done on a valid target that is in plain sight of the operator, and in the same setup and area as the real test would be conducted.
Then do the DB test with a target(s) completely unknown to the operator.
Then do a Post-test, again using a valid target in plain sight and conducted as the Pre-test was done.
Does that seem reasonable? The attribute we are testing is to see if the Examiner will point towards a Gold item, and do it repeatedly so that a statistical calculation might be performed based on the number of Trials and the number of Hits, and the results would be considerably better than what one might expect from Chance Guessing.
Just my thoughts....
