Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Theseus
As a matter of fact I have conducted scientific tests on certain other commercial LRLs; just not the R-T Examiner.
However, just because I have not personally tested an Examiner, does not categorically disqualify me from rendering my opinion based on lots of previous experiences with similar contraptions.
Think of it this way.... I've never been to Australia either, but I've seen enough evidence to allow me to believe it does in fact exist, and were I to buy a plane ticket for Australia, I'm confident that is where I would end up.
The point is, one does not have to necessarily personally experience something to draw on their previous experience and observations; and make an informed opinion (conclusion). 
(Not to mention the fact, Carl M. has already done a very in-depth study of the Examiner; and I trust what he reported as accurate and truthful.) |
Of course Carl-NC has done an in-depth study of the Examiner. Furthermore, Carl-NC is highly qualified in electronics that pertain to metal detection, to the point that he could be used as an expert witness in litigation that would determine the validity of the circuitry and the intimate details of what, if anything can be detected with the Examiner circuits. In the case of Carl-NC, he has more than an opinion about the examiner. He has an expert opinion.
In your case, you have no expert electronics credentials as far as I know, nor have you conducted any testing of an Examiner, so any opinions you may have are simply your opinions that you base on selected information that you read, and tests you performed on other LRLs which are not made by Rangertell. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion and stating it. You have read above that my opinion is I will not buy any LRL unless I become convinced it can help me find the kind of treasure I like to hunt for. So far, that has not happened. And I continue to wait for the day when I can see real live evidence that an LRL can help me find treasures.
You say the basis for your opinion is that you tested similar LRLs, and you read Carl's report before you arrived at the statement
"I'm not sure why J_Player is "beating around the bush" about this device when it is so obviously a fraud from the git go".
Sure, I could say it doesn't work because Carl did not find any valid electronics, and because you tested some non-Rangertell LRLs that did not work. But then I would have to ignore some facts I discovered during my testing of the Examiner. For example, the controversy of whether the calculator signal is transferred to the electronics inside the Examiner. I have oscilloscope photos showing the calculator signal measured at the back of the calculator circuit board, and more oscilloscope photos showing the same signal measured at different test points from inside the Examiner internal wiring. I see the calculator signal is transferred to the internal wiring of the Examiner when I make actual test measurements, which proves certain claims made by skeptics were simply incorrect assumptions they made. I also see how the calculator signal is mixed with "other signals" inside the Examiner as displayed on the oscilloscope screen.
Maybe this means nothing to you, (possibly part of the information that you feel should be ignored).
But for me, I must say I observed that some of what skeptics have been claiming about the Examiner is not correct.
This observation also highlights some things that Carl-NC said about the calculator signal.
1. According to Carl, the calculator produces a fixed frequency that is not altered by pressing keystrokes. My testing confirmed he is correct.
2. In a forum post, Carl indicated the calculator produces a signal which does not couple to the Examiner inductively:
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...9&postcount=32
In my testing, I found the calculator signal is coupled to the Examiner, but not inductively. Carl was correct again. After I observed the calculator signal from inside the Examiner circuit, I made a spiral coil identical to the Examiner "calculator receiver coil", and connected it to the scope probe. I positioned this coil at the back of the calculator in the same location where the Examiner coil would be positioned, and I received a signal. It did not matter if I had the end of the spiral coil connected to the probe ground, left open, or shorted. I picked up the calculator signal. I then put a 1 inch square piece of aluminum foil in an alligator clip at the tip of the scope probe and checked for a signal at the back of the calculator. I found I could pick up the signal a little stronger than with the coil I had used before. I could even pick up the calculator signal from a simple alligator clip at the tip of the probe. This told me the calculator signal is not being inductively coupled. It could be be picked up by capacitive coupling or by RF coupling. I used the coil to scan around the calculator to see what range I could detect the signal, and I found I could get a recognizable calculator signal up to about 3 cm from the calculator, depending on how much background noise is in the air. I also noticed there are hot spots on the calculator where the signal is stronger. the area around the epoxy dot that covers the processor is a strong area, and the display is a hot area. I also noted that the signal around the display accentuates some of the lower frequency attributes of the signal, which seems normal, as this is an area where conductors carry the display clocking pulses. In short, I have to respect Carl-NC for his astute knowledge of electronics, and his ability to not make statements that he doesn't know to be a fact. See the attachment for more details of what I observed from the calculator. (Note: All of the images and content of in attachment are copyrighted material which cannot be used on other web pages or for commercial purposes without first obtaining written permission).
Maybe after looking at the oscilloscope images in my report, you will begin to understand the reason why I prefer to state that I don't know if it works, rather than blindly stating it is impossible for any calculator signal to couple to the internal Examiner circuits. Of course, you are free to believe there is no calculator signal measurable from inside the Examiner if you wish. And you are free to believe the Examiner cannot possibly work because other LRLs you tested did not work. But at least you now know the answer to why I don't rely on partial information and tests performed on non-Rangertell products to form a basis for definite statements I make about the Examiner.
Best wishes,
J_P