Examiner Results: AC and DC variations

[hung]

My initial claim was that voltage variances were found inside the examiner and could be measured.
Bellow I offer pictures and narrations of such which corroborates that. Actually this always was normal and expectable in my view, but what was not normal and expected was the very unusual results when performing tests regarding DC variances which were not predicted at all and it was a big surprise. This will be covered in the last part of this report.

All tests here can be easily replicated by any examiner user, provided he owns a multimeter (4 digit display better) and some spare time. Variances are minimum although clearly demonstrated.
For this, I suggest an automatic multimeter. It is more sensitive and with a longer sustained delay
making the readings more precise.
In fact, for the DC test this is the only model which will provide accurate results.

Multimeter used was an ICEL MD 5011 fully automatic model.

With that said let’s go into it.

[hung]

The way I was measuring the variances, was opening the examiner box and placing the positive probe in the lead of the diode which is connected to the pot. This however proved awkward to perform, specially because I had the top lid with the calculator falling to the sides risking to break the tiny wires soldered inside the circuit and also for dificulty of maneuvering for a photo session.
RT claimed to have measured the voltages without the need of opening the box. Simply connecting the positive lead to the handle and the negative to the antenna tip would suffice. I checked that and confirmed no perceivable differences existed, so I decided to use this aproach for this intent.

The initial series of pics show my wife holding the examiner. On pic#1, probes unconected and multimeter display with minimum activity, in this case, 0.000mv.
Pic#2, with calculator display on zero. Notice the low value reading on the multimeter. In fact as the 4 digit multimeter is very sensitive, it keeps changing values all the time. This makes it hard to document it in pictures, as I would have to use a very fast camera to shoot all these peak variations which would be completely unpractical. So I chose to shoot peaks according to parameters. So on 3, with calculator on gold’s frequency, notice the relative voltage rise. The display kept changing with up variations peaking at 8 (shown) with average on 5 to 6. No contact from her hand to any probe lead.

[hung]

Next set of pictures shows another person holding the device. I confirmed that different persons holding it, might get different voltage values. On 3A, notice how the voltages are clearly higher when the negative lead gets a contact from the user’s hand.

This might explain why users of the examiner get different performances and why when they are ill, results are poor. I myself already noticed real poor detection results at night, specially if real tired.

*For those who thinks the hand contact might have accounted for this rise alone, simply get a multimeter and hold both probes with both hands. You’ll see a complete voltage decrease until display shows zero volts.

On 1A, calculator in ‘zero’ (voltages increased a little in respect to my wife’s turn). On 2A, gold frequency input and voltage rising.

Worth of mentioning that the examiner in the pictures is pointed towards a ‘supposed’ gold target.
I say supposed because when I hit a gold frequency and set the knob in a particular value, it points in thte direction showed.

[hung]

I found out that Rangertell provides a video with this covered in detail. Since I don’t offer a movie, the link to the video which I think it’s worth watching is here.
http://www.rangertell.com/EXAMINER%20WORKS%20ON%20MILLIVOLTS.htm

The page buildup is slow but it’s worth it.


I tried that kind of test but could not replictate it exactly. Maybe for two different things. First the ICEL multimeter is very sensitive and does not go to zero and ‘stays there’. It varies a bit to 1. The multimeter on video has 3 digits only and apparently less sensitive, is able to hold to zero. Second, I did not attach the probes, rather held it touching both antenna and handle. This way I locked the examiner in my hands which did not allow it to swing in the natural way. What I did was turning the unit in a 360 degrees manually. Despite of that, I know 2 long time gold deposits confirmed by the Mineoro PDC210 and by documentation. When I pointed the examiner’s antenna to those directions I got slight increasing in peaks in the ICEL. Going from 1 to 2 with a rapid 3 dsiplay, then going back to 2.

In sum, there’s no doubt that AC variances can be measured in the Examiner.
Although diminute and minimum (that’s why a sensitive multimeter is required), they are clearly perceivable and I believe any Examiner user will corroborate that. No tricky positionings, places, meditiation or ESP is required. Just a good measuring device and some patience.

It will be interesting tough, expecting reports of different users regarding voltage values. I bet this will vary dramatically.

This concludes the AC part.

[hung]

Actually there was going to be no DC part at all. This happened by mere accident.

I was thinking a bit that if the calculator is theoretically the function generator on the examiner, there had to be a way to check it. So I decided just for curiosity to measure the DC activity to see if there would be any changes.
By logic, to check the calculator’s relation to the circuit, then I chose the best location to place the probes would be benneath it. So I inserted the negative probe, under pressure, between the adhesive tapes which glues it to the top cover. With the positive lead I touched the handle in a manner which also allowed me to hold the examiner in the regular way, just placing my index finger under it to avoid rotation.

It was impressive and totally unexpectable. With calculator on ‘zero’ DC milivotages showed some negative value. Then I entered random numbers. In the series of pictures bellow I entered 895 first, but this could be any value. It abruptly raised voltage. I looked at it with amazement. Then I added some more digits. The voltage went even higher. More amazement.
To make a long story short. As this wasn’t enough of and incredible and unusual behaviour, I found out that if I touched (not pressed) the numbered key pads, the voltages reversed rising and began to fall, as long as I kept touching the particular keypad. So, for instance, if I touched 6, voltages reversed direction and started to fall. When I released my finger, voltages started to rise again. Never heard of anything like that before. So what apparently the circuit is doing is ‘extracting’ electrical pulses from the calculator as a ‘galvanic effect’.

I used to own a Sony DMX mixing board which utilizes this principle. To write automation on it you had to actually touch the plastic faders which galvanically transmitted the info to the processor.

I reported this to RT and they could not achieve the same results as me with their meter. So they will be getting another one to check it. I decided to post this anyway.

And this is not the end. I also found that when I touched the zero keypad, the voltages would fall down but at a much slower rate compared to other keypad numbers which would fall faster.
**Note: I could only confirm this on the ICEL multimeter. I tried the same in another automatic brand and I could not repeat it. The voltages reversed as in the other model but not a slower rate as in the ICEL. So results may vary according to the type of multimeter used.

Anyway this deserves more time testing and time is one thing I don’t have much. So results may vary.

With very interesting and highly unusual results, I double checked my instrument to see if it was faulty or not. Everything normal in all checkups.

Next logical step was to check if this all could be reproduced with a calculator alone without the examiner. I have to my own use, a HP 6S model similar to the one glued to the examiner, so I did not need to unattach it.
I hooked the negative lead under it and no similar behaviour as above happened.

[hung]

Picture 4 shows where to hook the positive lead. On 5 calculator is zeroed and multimeter display shows -000.1mV. Pic 6 shows the display after I have entered 5692 in calculator. In fact the voltage rise was so abrupt that after I have entered these, I looked at the display and the v alue was already high close to the value shown. On pic7 a rise to 43.1mV after I have entered more digits in the calculator.

[Clondike Clad]

Originally Posted by hung

My initial claim was that voltage variances were found inside the examiner and could be measured.
Bellow I offer pictures and narrations of such which corroborates that. Actually this always was normal and expectable in my view, but what was not normal and expected was the very unusual results when performing tests regarding DC variances which were not predicted at all and it was a big surprise. This will be covered in the last part of this report.

All tests here can be easily replicated by any examiner user, provided he owns a multimeter (4 digit display better) and some spare time. Variances are minimum although clearly demonstrated.
For this, I suggest an automatic multimeter. It is more sensitive and with a longer sustained delay
making the readings more precise.
In fact, for the DC test this is the only model which will provide accurate results.

Multimeter used was an ICEL MD 5011 fully automatic model.

With that said let’s go into it.

All I can see is the bull is still dropping the $hi+.
When is this crap going to END