Hi Max,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Max
My real problem thinking at a way like this is cause of noise sources.
...But phenomenon could be different. Right.
|
The biggest problem to overcome with an electronic LRL is noise. We are looking to identify exrtremely small anomalies over a large area full of noise from outside physical sources. If there was no outside noise, we would still need to deal with the internal electronic noise when measuring such small signals. The internal noise is best dealt with by eliminating the noise sources from the input side of the amplifiers (resistor noise and coupling from other parts of the circuitry). Of course we would be using the lowest noise components available to start with. Even if the circuitry is optimized for low noise detection, we still have external sources to filter or cancel.
A passive electronic LRL does not need to be limited to the circuit designs we have seen like Zahori and similar. It is true the phenomenon could be different than measuring electric field anomalies. In fact there could be several phenomena involved in building a high-reliability LRL. Consider the night-vision example I explained earlier: There are some night vision scopes that convert ambient infrared to visible images by using lenses and infrared image sensors to detect patterns that cannot be seen with the eye. These scopes also use sophisticated electronics to amplify the and convert the invisible received signal to visible light levels and adjust the intensity for easy recognition. Another variant of this night vision scope transmits infrared over the field of view to illuminate the targets and make them more visible (non-passive design).
These concepts can be used in the development of a working LRL. We are not trying to detect the image of someone hiding in the dark, but we have more phenomena to work with than the night vision example. When designing a LRL to find long time buried metal, we are not limited to looking only at the electric field anomalies. There are also many other physical anomalies that come as a result of buried metal with trace amounts of ions in a column of soil above it. Here is a partial list of some of the phenomena that can be expected to show at least a faint anomaly:
• variation in the electric field of the air around soil with metal ions in it.
• variation in the atmospheric leakage of current through the air above soil with metal ions in it.
• variation in chemical activity and soil chemistry due to the presence of metal-eating microbes.
• variation in metal radionuclides emmitted above this soil with metal ions.
• Variation in telluric earth currents.
• variation in magnetic field lines, depending on surrounding soil conditions.
• variation in local radio signal patterns from natural and man-made sources.
These variations may be extremely small and hard to measure. We rely on the energy mostly from the sun and other space energies to ultimately supply the power that generates the dim signals that we might measure. Now what happens when we discover some phenomena that is not quite strong enough to give a measurable signal? By understanding the details of the energies that power these phenomena, we can construct equipment to energize the area artifically. We cannot expect to guess what to transmit and at what levels. It requires examining what caused these anomalies to appear. In some cases there have been exceptions where experimenters stumbled onto unexpected responses. These also work, but we have no clue to what is causing the accidental response and how to optimize it.
Can any of this really work? I can guarantee there are several approaches of passive long range detection in use today which pinpoint long time buried metal, and have been in use for over 2 decades with varying degrees of success depending on the approach and sophistication of the electronics. The answers come with education and knowledge of the process, not by deciding it can't be done because we haven't figured out how yet.
Best wishes,
J_P