|
|
|
|
#1
07-01-2009, 07:51 AM
|
||||
|
||||
The Aurificusian Hypothesis
PULSING IR LED DETECTORS - Theory & Practice
Background : IR remote sensing Common uses currently include: Satellite weather imaging, crops and land clearing studies, monitoring river, dams & lake levels. etc, etc. Movement sensors to operate security, lights, alarms, cameras,etc. For less than $50 you can purchase a quite accurate, IR, remote sensing, digital pyrometer (thermometer), (pay the extra and get the one with the laser pointer). These detection systems rely on receiving “black body” IR radiation emitted by objects. ATTENTION: A pulsing LED detector DOES NOT use this method. What we are attempting to detect is far more subtle and is the type of effect that is considered inconsequential noise in standard EE practice. In fact, standard theories & practices are designed to dampen, cover-up, ignore or over-power these effects. The LED emits energy as IR radiation. When it contacts matter this energy can be transmitted, absorbed or reflected. Standard theory assumes that the matter involved has a constant temperature and therefore the rate of transmission, absorption or reflection is constant. In a real world, (the one I’m in, maybe not yours!!) matter is constantly changing its temperature. The rate of change depends on the introduction or removal of an energy source (radiation, let’s call it ‘heat’) and the composition and physical properties of the object in question and the medium it is in. i.e. What size is the object?, what is it made of?, what it is buried in?, how deep is it?, is heat from the sun warming it?, is it cooling down?, etc, etc, etc, etc,……. The zone around a buried object will therfore have a thermal energy gradient, except for brief periods where equilibrium might exist. Depending on conditions the gradient could extend to the air space above a buried object ( phenomenal!) So what?!!! The emission from an IR LED is tiny and will have a negligible effect on any of “that BS” at any sort of distance!!!!! True…..but what if a remote energy level change has an effect on the LEDs? An LED will have a “rise time” from the application of power to its full IR emission level. Energy is required to excite (don’t say heat) a diode each time it is triggered. The amount of energy needed will depend on how much energy the LED has dissipated whilst switched off. If the pulse is constant the LED’s start-up power requirement will change according to how much energy it is transferring to the environment while it is emitting. Monitoring these undoubtedly very small voltage and/or current fluctuations might best performed with a sensitive ‘amplitude’ detector or similar that is separated from the power circuit to minimise any effect on it. In conclusion, the theory is this: The pulsed beam is a ‘detection probe’ or a ‘transmitting antenna’, the zone around the target absorbs or rejects ‘additional’ energy at a greater rate than ‘ambient’ and the response is measured as power fluctuations at the transmitter not in reflected signals from the target. No magic, No mumbo Jumbo. Just science and physics and not letting “the big stuff over-power the small stuff”. May I have a Patent, please? Plenty granted for a lot less than that!! I’ll share it with Esteban, we’ll be rich and retire and go treasure hunting. P.S. For practical use, the variables involving real targets are so numerous that results might be “Very Hit & Miss”. When it works, it works, when it doesn’t……..try again, under different conditions……try again…… (more system development and/or control of the variables is required) P.P.S The concept, however, has a lot of value. This type of sensing of seemingly insignificant, but quite measurable “side effects” can be applied to many different real world problems. P.P.P.S. My deep RESPECT to Esteban, who politely and patiently shares elements of his years of work on Remote Detection equipment. The good, the bad & the otherwise. Without his input this thread would be little more than sceptics teasing novices & stroking their own and each others……prejudices. Cheers, Aurificus
__________________
The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong! 
|
|
#2
07-01-2009, 09:42 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Thank you for the first intelligible theory of how the IR LED detector could work. I have never put it into words, but this is the mechanism I was considering that may be taking place if the reports of IR LEDs finding buried metals are actually true. It seems your theory is all-encompassing, regardless of what kind of "energy anomaly" exists at the location of buried metal. Thus, we have a workable theory of how the electronic end of the detector works. The other end --- the buried treasure still is a complex mystery, as well as another single detail: Is whatever anomaly we will find at the treasure location capable of causing a measurable variation in the power passing through an IR LED when it is pointed at the anomaly? There are two unsolved questions left: 1. What energy anomalies exist at the treasure location that could influence a pulsed IR LED? 2. Are these energy anomalies strong enough to influence the power passing through an IR LED at a distance? 1. Starting with the buried metal energy anomaly, this is a very complex thing. It will vary depending on many factors. First, according to Esteban, we are lookig for long-time buried metals. These are the targets that the IR LED responds to. The short version of a very complex phenomenon is that all buried metals corrode over a period of time (usually years or decades), and corroding metal ions travel upwards through the soil in a column to the surface where they become bound with the constituents of the soil and are no longer ions. But because there is a column of ions in the soil above the metal, the ground is more conductive, and is also acting as a "ground battery". This conductivity and "ground battery" action will be more pronounced when the soil is damp. At the same time, there is a static field in the air of about 100v/meter with small amounts of current leaking through the atmosphere. When this leakage current in the air sees a more conductive area of soil, then it will tend to flow more toward the area of high conductivity (the ionized soil above the treasure) than in the surrounding soil. This results in a reduced voltage gradient in the air above the buried metal. These are the most prominent effects of long-time buried metals. But there is much more to the energy anomalies... such as minor magnetic anomalies with the earth's magnetic field, and telluric anomalies. The idea of temperature anomalies does not come to mind, but it may play a part at certain times of the day depending on depth, mass, constitution of the metal and time of day. I doubt it plays a part in the detection from a pulsed LED, because the treasures Esteban talks of recovering are mostly coin-sized objects at a large distance which would seem to have minimal temperature anomalies. Also, consider the resolution of an IR LED. The angle of illumination is so great that it would need to illuminate something much larger than a coin in order to show a temperature anomaly at long range with any directional accuracy. There are also other anomalies associated with long-time buried metals that include subatomic particle physics. These anomalies are secondary effects that are caused by the primary chemical effects of the corroding metal and associated electric anomalies in the soil and air. This leaves us with the unanswered question concerning the long-time buried metal: Which of the associated anomalies are causing the IR LED to respond? 2. The second question -- are the anomalies at the buried metal location strong enough to influence a pulsed IR LED? This is another complex question which depends partly on the nature of the anomaly that the IR LED responds to. Keep in mind, we do not know exactly what the IR LED is responding to, so we are grasping in the dark. But if we presume that the IR LED is responding to one or more of the known larger anomalies related to the voltage gradient, curent leakage, electrical currents in the ground, ionic movements or binding, ect, then we also know we are looking for relatively small anomalies. (Small in comparison to large anomalies that are sensed by more conventional instruments measureing conventional physical properties). In addition, we are dealing with an IR LED, which has an illumination pattern that resembles a floodlight. For a typical IR LED, the illuminating power is spread within a 40 degree cone. This means that if we are to find a buried metal target at 30 meters range, we are looking for a target that is within a cone of IR illumination that is about 20 meters diameter. If we have a highly focused beam that is only 10 degrees cone, then the area we are illuminating is about 10 meters diameter at 30 meters distance from the target. Can we find a buried metal anomaly in a 10 meter cone? is this enough resolution? I can see where an IR laser would have a very small dispersion of its beam, and would be useful in solving the "floodlight" resolution effect. But Esteban says he found these treasures with IR LEDs, not lasers. Another group of influences that could effect the detector's ability to locate the target is the physical conditions that exist in the vicinity of the buried metal. For one, other buried metals could interfere with the treasure signal you are looking for. But there are also other influences, like the atmosphere. The electric voltage gradient in the air will be less when the humidity is high, and lower when it is dry. When a storm is approaching, the gradient can reverse, due to local cloud charge conditions. We also have daily cycles that influence the telluric currents in the ground as well as the atmospheric voltage gradient. And there are man-made and natural electrical noises that cause interference with the smooth leakage of current from the atmosphere. These are just for starters. There are also fluctuations in the subatomic particles that show as an anomaly in the treasure area, as well as fluctuations in other space energies such as cosmic rays. These complex variances are influencing extremely small anomalies which are almost impossible to detect at a buried metal object except when condions are right. With this in mind, we can see how you concluded: "When it works, it works, when it doesn't...... try again, under different conditions..... try again......." Again, thank you for a clear explanation of how the IR LED could work, and thanks to Esteban for his years of testing in this field. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#3
07-01-2009, 10:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thanks for the reply J_P,
I concentrated on a changing thermal gradient in the theory because it is pretty easy for anyone to "accept". Things heat up & cool down every day... It suits the idea of an IR detection device, natural fit. Plus I think Esteban said works best between 10am & 2pm. Greatest transfer of solar shortwave radiation into the ground. BUT.....Heat is only one form of Energy and interchangable with any other energy so detection of other changing energy is quite possible. Re: distance I think Esteban says up to 10m with IR , so detection area would be smaller. Perhaps LED in pistol barrell would constrain it further. Cheers, Aurificus Aurificus
__________________
The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong!
Last edited by Aurificus; 07-01-2009 at 10:32 AM. Reason: Typo
|
|
#4
07-01-2009, 10:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Why do objects need to be long buried?
This is not inconsistent with the Theory.
 Fresh, clean, shiny, metal Reflects rather than Absorbs radiation. ie slows down temperature change,. The Theory suggests we need relatively quick thermal changes to produce a “detectable anomaly” An object recently buried is likely to have a thin layer of air surrounding it, in its surface ‘roughness’ and in the disturbed soil. Air is a good insulator. A/A Objects in the soil for longer periods, through wetting & compaction will have much closer contact with the soil. better conduction, better response Objects in "close contact” for very very long periods of time bond slightly from an exchange of molecules at the contact points. This should enhance thermal conductivity. Aurificus
__________________
The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong!
|
|
#5
07-01-2009, 12:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I think it is not possible to detect variations of energy due to the heat in a buried object (assuming this heat variation is caused by the daily cycling of the sun and darkness). I say this based on an experiment I conducted to measure the infrared emissions at buried objects. What I discovered when I buried a number of metal objects is the difference in infrared measured above the objects was insignificant compared to the thermal swings measured between areas in sunlight and in shadows. See my preliminary test here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...2&postcount=34 This experiments was done with an infrared thermometer. But also I have years of experience using infrared imaging cameras that locate very subtle differences in infrared energy to produce a colored image similar to a photograph showing areas of higher and lower thermal energy. I can tell you that a coin buried 6 inches in the soil will not show any anomaly. The anomalies of sunlit and shaded areas are the most prominent variations in a landscape scene. But if there is a damp area, or a body of water, expect to see a much cooler "cold spot" which acts as a heat sink to the thermal energy of the sun. And, of course, if there is a fire, or a metal object in the sun, expect to see a much warmer anomaly. You saw in my experiment that the temperature varied 11 degrees Fahrenheit even after I cleaned and smoothed the sand to eliminate buried objects and shadows to give a uniform surface (This variation was presumed to be caused only by the variation in the depth where the sand became damp below, based on the depths to damp sand I saw when I dug up the dry sand after the test). Then after burying coin-sized objects, there was no perceptible change due to the buried objects at any time, including after waiting for the temperature to completely stabilize. After performing that experiment, I realized that measuring the infrared above a buried object was useless in those conditions because the signal to noise ratio made it impossible. ie: The existing anomalies due to natural forces (variable dampness below) was in the order of 100 times greater than the questionable temperature deviations above buried metal in the few cases where a difference was noted. This does not include the greater temperature swings that happened in the shadows before I smoothed the surface of the test area. In other words, the natural thermal anomalies obscured any chance of detecting an anomaly due to the buried targets. It would have to be a very massive object buried near the surface being detected just after the ground starts warming up from the sun, or starts cooling off after sunset. You can test this yourself by finding a buried object with your metal detector. Try finding buried coins in the park. Then, before you dig the coin, push a meat thermometer into the ground and see the temperature at the coin. Compare it to the temperature 6 inches away. Or, check the surface temperature with an infrared thermometer. Better yet, try a thermal imaging camera. You will see there is no anomaly that could locate buried coins in normal treasure hunting conditions unless there was a very sudden change in temperature to the surface, with the coins nearly at the surface. But you will find plenty of other objects on the surface that show thermal anomalies. The above is only part of the reason I look to other forms of anomaly that would cause the IR LED to respond. Another reason is because of what Esteban said about the IR LED detecting circuit. He says it works with long-time buried metals, not fresh-buried metals. And it works between the hours of 10 am and 2 pm. The time of 10 am to 2 pm are not close to the optimum hours to see a thermal anomaly pattern. Temperature anomalies are usually best seen shortly after sunrise, or after sunset. But the time of 10 am to 2 pm happen to be the time window when the atmosphere is most stable in South America for taking measurements in the phenomenon associated with the ground above long-time buried metals. Esteban can confirm this for you. In other parts of the world, the time can vary slightly. In Western USA, it is close to the same. Later in the day, the response from measuring the fields I described in my post above begin to decay due to interference from natural forces. This is a daily cycle which becomes stronger and weaker at different times of the year, as well as is influenced by solar activity and the weather. Those are the reasons that point me away from the thermal anomaly theory, and toward the theory that the IR LED is responding to some electrical or secondary phenomena related to the metal ions in the soil above the buried object. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#6
07-01-2009, 02:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The pulsing LED Detector does not sense the temperature of targets.
Quote:
The pulsing LED Detector does not sense the temperature of targets. Changes of several degrees would require the "re-tuning" of the detector "receiver" to create a new base-line. The order of temperature shifts required to be 'located' are likely to be in the order of hundredths of degrees.  Aurificus
__________________
The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong!
|
|
#7
07-01-2009, 03:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
A pulsed IR led I use in low frequency, 400 Hz. Is different a beam in wich you introduce the frequency, than pulsed the led at this frequency. Maybe pulsed led doesn't measure the temp. but reveals the "phenomenon" around long time buried metals. The precission is very high regarding other LRL systems, but here you assume that you must uses strong pulses.
Other system wich reveals the phenomenon is a cheap Chinese laser pointer, but you use here more low voltage, near 4.5 V. With IR leds you can use 9 V. 10-12 ohms resistor is necessary, and at this point the IR led works in the limit. Regards Esteban
|
|
#8
07-01-2009, 12:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
But they are not alone. There's also other aspects as electric field gradient, which behaves pretty much similar as wind gradients found close to sea level. Detection is not exclusively IR, but also due to that. No constant time period of detection: 10 to 2 PM. No, it's all day long, including night when depending of the case, detection is clearer. Theory is only one piece of many. You still have a long way to go.
__________________
"Should exist injustice and untruths towards working LRLs, I'll show up to debunker the big mouths"
|
|
#9
07-01-2009, 02:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
way to go.[/quote]
Quote:
a flat tyre, a leaking radiator, a faulty alternator and an empty gas tank! or....Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes... That way, your already a mile in front of him...and he has No Shoes! Theories....Ive got a million of them  Aurificus
__________________
The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong!
|
|
#10
07-02-2009, 02:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The IR thermometers do not measure temperature directly. They measure IR emissions, which are converted to temperatures electronically. Thus, the instrument I used is measuring the IR emitted from whatever surface it is pointed at, within a 10 degree cone from the tip of the sensor. The point is, that the temperature varies over any stretch of landscape which has enough texture to cast a shadow. This surface temperature variation can be as much as 30 degrees Fahrenheit, or even more depending on the sun, air temperature, and wind conditions. This condition exists on nearly all ground that has shadows and that has variations in the soil moisture content. Because this condition exists, then according to your dissertation, the detector "receiver" would require "retuning" whenever you found this change more than a few degrees. (In the location where I conducted the test, this means retuning must be done at least every 8 inches for the undisturbed sand, and every foot or so in the sand that was smoothed to remove the shadows. But what is confusing is that you are focusing on a changing thermal gradient, using IR to detect it: Quote:
But putting aside the exact frequency of the IR LED, your theory is that the buried metal anomaly anomaly can be detected because it received heat from the sun which was transferred by conduction through the soil. According to your dissertation, the thermal energy can easily be converted to other forms of energy: "Heat is only one form of Energy and interchangable with any other energy so detection of other changing energy is quite possible." the heat supplied by the sun is converted to a different form of energy. And this transformed energy will forma an anomaly at the treasure location, which will absorb a different amount of the IR pulsed at the soil above the buried metal. If this is correct, then let's look back at what I measured on the ground in the way of temperature (IR emissions actually, which follow closely with the temperature). There was a 30 degree Fahrenheit temperature swing in the undisturbed soil, due to shadows, and an 11 degree swing due to moisture variations below the surface. The question that comes to mind is how will these large natural variations in soil surface temperature allow a buried metal object to receive an un-skewed amount of thermal radiation from the sun to allow the pulsed IR LED to detect the converted energy within the equivalent of a few hundredths of a degree? This seems impossible, especially when the shaded areas change as the sun moves across the sky, and moves the cool spots away from the buried metal, or toward it. The questions that keep coming to mind are: what energy are you talking about (as in what frequency is the thermal gradient from the sun transformed into that is detected by a pulsed IR LED at the treasure location?) And, how can you spot such a small anomaly when the source energy supplied has anomalies at and around the treasure site that are hundreds of time larger? I believe Esteban said he found targets using infrared up to 30 meters. Am I correct Esteban? Perhaps Esteban can shed some light on the reason to do your sampling between the hours of 10 am and 2 pm. This would help greatly to explain what phenomenon is being detected. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#11
07-02-2009, 07:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Consider a waterfall, different energy potential between a rock at the top & one at the bottom. A changing thermal gradient is like the "flow of the water" between those points. Aurificus
__________________
The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong!
|
|
#12
07-02-2009, 07:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
[quote=J_Player;93285]
your theory is that the buried metal anomaly anomaly can be detected because it received heat from the sun which was transferred by conduction through the soil. According to your dissertation, the thermal energy can easily be converted to other forms of energy: "Heat is only one form of Energy and interchangable with any other energy so detection of other changing energy is quite possible." the heat supplied by the sun is converted to a different form of energy. And this transformed energy will forma an anomaly at the treasure location, which will absorb a different amount of the IR pulsed at the soil above the buried metal. [\quote] The largest portion of radiation from the sun arrives as visible light, and the wavelengths closest to either side (short-waves) . It is absorbed by matter and re-radiated mostly as IR radiation (long waves). Energy as light is converted to heat! Micro-waves can be converted to heat. Radio waves can be converted to heat No VooDoo magic here  Aurificus
__________________
The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong!
|
|
#13
07-02-2009, 10:42 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
We could take numerous measurements of the rivers current at points above and below and all across the stream and hope to find the infintesimal change in Kilo litres/per min caused by the obstruction of the rock. Or... we could sprinkle lots of tiny leaves on the surface upstream and look for the one that stops or circles in the "eddy" caused by the Rock. Dont let the big stuff cloud your view of the small stuff Aurificus
__________________
The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong!
|
|
#15
07-02-2009, 12:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
In the analogy you presented, the large rock would represent the degree of variations in the thermal energy supplied by the sun (due to shadows and surface moisture). And what we are looking for is not a large rock, but a very small pebble which is buried amongst the large rocks. ie: The shadows and damp spots in the soil cause large deviations and gradients in the solar energy supplied. The buried metal object represents only a very small fraction of a percent of the thermal gradients seen at the surface above it. In fact, any thermal gradient derived from the presence of the buried metal receives it's energy from the same non-uniform larger gradients above at the surface, after it is conducted downwards as heat. So we are basically starting with a non-uniform energy input to energize the buried metal before trying to locate it. Since we are looking to sense a very small thermal anomaly where the buried metal object is, the problem becomes one of signal to noise ratio. In other words, what is to stop the large energy anomalies caused from shadows cast on the surface from absorbing the pulsed IR LED energy instead of the faint anomaly from a metal coin buried 10 cm below the surface? After all, the variation of thermal energy caused by the surface shadows and moisture is at least several hundreds of times stronger than the variations in thermal energy caused by a buried metal object. Then there is still the problem of the divergence of the beam of an IR LED. Esteban did not use a collimator to focus into a narrow beam. He used a plain IR LED with the attached factory lens, which typically has a 40 degree cone of illumination. This suggests that at 10 meters, the IR LED is illuminating a spot of 6 meters diameter. A deviation in the power pulsed to the LED could be caused by absorption anywhere within that 6 meter diameter circle. If the theory presented is correct (an anomaly of thermal gradient is causing the small variation in pulsed IR LED power), then the shaded side of stones, plants, or footprints within this 6-meter circle the ground would have an influence on the LED which is hundreds of times larger than a tiny gradient from a metal object buried below the surface. Perhaps it is time to look for a different secondary effect of buried metal object phenomenon to explain why the IR LED power would change when pointed at the treasure location? Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#16
07-02-2009, 01:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Regards
|
|
#17
07-02-2009, 01:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Regards
|
|
#18
07-02-2009, 03:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Hi, Congratulations! For the big pile of BS. I think it doesn't work, and will never work in the real world, maybe yours is different. Have any idea of what percentage of IR radiation arrives to a deep buried target ??? ZERO. The soil will dump anything your ridiculos 10mW from the led!  The LED you'll not read any measurable variation. Follow this thought: suppose you have a 23mm diameter/4.15cm^2 area coin buried at half a meter underground... and you're 10meters far from target on the horizontal plane... OK the half-meter means 50cm of soil above the coin... The soil will swamp any reading... or you're talking here that a target like a coin cause if the thermal gradient is what you're looking for you must know that heath transfers are related to the MASS of objects ...so considering a deep buried small target (50cm and a coin) you're trying to let people here think that the coin retains or delivers heath to/from the soil in a way that's detectable by a simple IR LED + amplifier ! Isn't it ? Now... the heath radiation happens from/to coin isotropically, so in all direction from/to coin vs soil , right ? So... a coin placed at 50cm will radiate or receive heath equally from a volume of 1m^3 soil if we consider soil temperature about flat constant in the 1st meter (a good approximation in most cases during the day). 1m^3=10,000,000 cm^3 Now look at the coin that is e.g. a 23mm diameter one, 1mm thick: you'll get a volume of around 4.15 cm^3 means something 4*10^-7 order to be clear... so the coin's volume is about 4/10,000,000 the volume of soil we are talking about... About mass... soil mass for 1m^3 vary due to soil composition/density but in organic soil (farm soil in most places) is about roughly 1200kg/m^3 so 1200Kg mass for 1m^3 and for coin, say it's silver... with density of 10490Kg/m^3 , so 10490*0.000000415= 0.00435Kg or 4.35grams Now look at energy transfer (heath) in ideal conditions between these 2 mass... in the case the silver coin is hotter than soil around it... with a temperature difference of 20°C = 20°K....with wide approximations it's something like this: The energy release from silver coin is due to Qc= volume_of_coin*volumetric_heat_capacity_for_silver *delta_T(°K)... so Qc= 4.15*2.44*20= 202.52 joules ... then we suppose the soil that's 20°K lower in temperature will get that heath by conduction mostly (an approximation close to reality) and so the temperature in soil will increase , but what's that increase in °K considering all energy will be transferred with no losses and no dispersions ? here the energy Qs=volume_of_soil*volumetric_heat_capacity_soil(si lica,water)*delta_T_soil(°K) Qs=Qc (perfect transfer) delta_T_soil(°K) = Qs/(volume_of_soil_volumetric_heat_capacity_soil(sili ca,water)) = 202.52/(10,000,000*2.9)= 6.98*10^-6 °K  In other words... if your soil is humid, organic and hi content silica... say it's at 30°C and the 23mm silver coin buried at 50cm reach 50°C, so with gradient of +20°C at coin, and we approximate full heat transfer between coin and soil, you'll get just about 7u°K or 7*10^6 °C variation in the considered 1m^3 soil. GUYS !? We consider having 20°C gradient at coin soil interface and end up with 7 MICRO CELSIUS variation at soil volume... so at surface.Can you detect 7*10^-6 °C variations with a LED diode ??? From 10meters away ??? Consider also S/N... 7uCelsius variations will be swamped out by any e.g. wind movement... that will cause the soil to cool down at really faster rate than 7uCelsius! Consider the evaporation of trapped water in soil... will that cool the surface or not ??? It's a themodynamic-hell for you PYROMETER OR LED... OR WHATEVER! Is that the new LRL-science-fiction! I'm sure you didn't realize any of these fairy-tales devices... otherwise YOU MUST KNOW that's impossible detecting something this way. On the air... of course, things are quite different... but soil it's a well known dumping filler... that's cause e.g. an atomic bomb shelter is usually underground... (not only... there are other reasons too ) the heath is dispersed by soil/water volume... will not work at ground zero just under the bomb maybe... but at few distance the soil will shield from excess heath... not like painting white your room and wear your preferite sunglasses! Kind regards, Max
__________________
"Kill for gain or shoot to maim... But we dont need a reason " someone said...
|
|
#19
07-02-2009, 03:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Regards
|
|
#20
07-02-2009, 05:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Aurificus and Esteban are putting forward two separate theories.
Aurificus' "hypothesis" (as he calls it) is unworkable in practice, and has already been detroyed by Max. Esteban has a different idea whereby the beam acts as an antenna that transports the "phenomenon" to the detector Neither of these theories is scientifically plausible, but Esteban insists that his method works. Perhaps this approach needs further investigation to prove/disprove the idea.
|
|
#21
07-02-2009, 06:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yes , exactly... Esteban is focusing on the "beam antenna" topic... already shown in another thread... but as said before... the "principle" is totally based on nothing... the carrier that "transport the phenomenon" he said does not exist. The wave propagation from IR led to soil or the back/side effects of that have no relationship with target, that's buried in the soil... that cannot receive consistent amount of radiated power in IR wavelenght etc So it's just his "interpretation" of maybe randomic beeps. Kind regards, Max
__________________
"Kill for gain or shoot to maim... But we dont need a reason " someone said...
|
|
#22
07-02-2009, 09:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#23
07-03-2009, 12:41 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
destroyed by Max??? Supported & Re-inforced by his calculations, I think.  Aurificus
__________________
The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong!
|
|
#24
07-03-2009, 12:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You provided a simple theory that answered the question of how does the IR LED respond to buried metal. I think your theory was destroyed by Max. I think it was also destroyed by plain common sense. I think maybe the quote you use below your name is apporpriate for your simple answer: "The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong! "Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#25
07-02-2009, 08:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
If only....
Quote:
 The obvious problem here is; only a select few individuals in just certain parts of the world "claim" to have experienced such things. I'm afraid that isn't enough to prove the concept. If these phenomenon, halo/fields actually existed, then they could be detected/experienced by any and all observers in all parts of the world.
__________________
 The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
