rangertell examiner field trials

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by WM6

Dont forget gold prosthesis too.

Thanks for the very clear manual presentation.

It is interesting to note that the manual says it is ok to have some metal things such as jewelry or coins in your pocket as long as they stay there after the Examiner is tuned. I guess this means the Examiner can detect a gold ring from some distance even when you are wearing a gold ring, or have gold fillings in your teeth. They also advise you to remove your coins and jewelry if you think they are interfering with your best detection. I suppose you can tune out the metal you are carrying by adjusting the dial on top so the Examiner will ignore the stronger signal from the ring on your finger and find the weaker signal of distant gold. For my testing I think I will remove all jewelry and metal things from my pockets, just to be safe so there will be no chance of getting a false signal from things I am carrying.


The ground is beginning to dry here. I may be able to start some outdoor tests in the next few days when I can take time off during the day for it. I may need to wait for the weekend.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

J_P, there are obviously many places in the R-T Examiner manual that talk about the importance of the antenna, the length and the tuning by adjusting the antenna length to the various desired frequencies of operation.

From these references, one would have to suppose the antenna is functioning in a manner that is totally electronic in nature; coupling, receiving and transmitting real frequencies. This operation would be completely contrary to the long antenna arm of a simple dowsing rod, which essentially operates as a swinging weight to emphasize and respond to an ideomotor input from the operator. In essence, the long arm of the dowsing rod swings and indicates the force of gravity. (nothing electronic going on at all)

Assuming the antenna on the Examiner is, according to the manual, operating in a totally electronic nature, I would be remiss if I did not point out to you, one very important parameter of short whip antennas.

That is; the maximum signal strength of any antenna of this nature, will always occur at 90 degrees to the physical length dimension of the antenna. In other words, the strongest signal transmitted (or received) will occur broadside to the antenna. Thus, saying that the tip of the antenna of the device is being drawn to the target by magnetic properties, is actually contrary to how the electronic properties of a short whip antenna operate.

Could it be that it is just another indicator of gravity?

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Theseus

J_P, there are obviously many places in the R-T Examiner manual that talk about the importance of the antenna, the length and the tuning by adjusting the antenna length to the various desired frequencies of operation.

From these references, one would have to suppose the antenna is functioning in a manner that is totally electronic in nature; coupling, receiving and transmitting real frequencies. This operation would be completely contrary to the long antenna arm of a simple dowsing rod, which essentially operates as a swinging weight to emphasize and respond to an ideomotor input from the operator. In essence, the long arm of the dowsing rod swings and indicates the force of gravity. (nothing electronic going on at all)

Assuming the antenna on the Examiner is, according to the manual, operating in a totally electronic nature, I would be remiss if I did not point out to you, one very important parameter of short whip antennas.

That is; the maximum signal strength of any antenna of this nature, will always occur at 90 degrees to the physical length dimension of the antenna. In other words, the strongest signal transmitted (or received) will occur broadside to the antenna. Thus, saying that the tip of the antenna of the device is being drawn to the target by magnetic properties, is actually contrary to how the electronic properties of a short whip antenna operate.

Could it be that it is just another indicator of gravity?

Hi Theseus,
I am familiar with antenna theory and how a 1/4 wave whip antenna works. Keep in mind that we are looking for targets in the near field, which does not behave the same as far field wave propagation.

Apparently the Examiner is not functioning as a 1/4 wave whip antenna. I can't pretend to understand the exact principle how it functions. But I can tell you how the manufacturer explains it. They recognize there is considerable debate regarding the real explanation for locating power of LRLs in general, as we see in your post. But they consider the answer to be in the physics of magnetic currents, resonant frequency and coil principles e.g. induction. They say the coil antenna within the unit can amplify the frequency of the target once it detects it, provided you have set the target frequency at the calculator. (I presume this is caused by a resonant circuit utilizing a coil inside the Examiner enclosure). On being amplified by the circuitry inside the Examiner the magnetic laws govern its disposition for it to align with the target's direction.

This information is taken from the current Examiner manual. After reading what you are asserting, I can agree that normal RF transmissions behave as you said at far field distances. But the principles explained in the Examiner manual are not exactly describing far field RF transmissions or even near field transmissions. Well, maybe near field, but the principle they explain is not pure RF propagation. You have to wonder about polarization and field strength when looking at the near field effects of a resonant circuit that derives it's power by inductively picking up clocking pulses sensed through the air from a 3 volt calculator. Perhaps some of the power comes from the operator's body charge which is said to be capacitively coupled to the Examiner, and is completing a ground circuit. Or maybe some of the power comes from another source we have not noticed yet.

But there is also a non-RF part of the explanation: "magnetic laws govern its disposition for it to align with the target's direction".

I really don't know how this happens. The antenna is chrome plated brass, and I don't know of any electric currents strong enough to cause the Examiner to swing, regardless of what coils might be inside. All I can say is I don't understand the magnetic laws that cause the Examiner to swing toward the target. Perhaps there is more current moving through some internal coils than I can imagine.

What I see is two elements of operation that I don't understand. But it is clear the principle the Rangertell manual describes is not the same as ordinary 1/4 wave RF reception. And it is not totally electronic in nature, unless you consider the magnetic force and chemical-derived charges from your body to be electronic.

hmmm....
I suppose these are electronic in most ways. Only the "body charge" part is not contained within the Examiner enclosure. So the Examiner cannot function without a live operator holding it in his right hand and standing on the ground according to the Rangertell manual. It seems the Examiner is not a fully contained electronic locator. It requires the addition of a live operator who is usually suitable to complete the electronics. But sometimes the operator won't work correctly (operators who are left-handed or biologically impaired to have the wrong body charge).

This is where the differentiation becomes sketchy to me...
If a human operator holding the Examiner in his right hand is necessary to detect the same signals that dowsers find, then where do we draw the line between dowsing and electronic?

The only answer I can think of that explains how the Examiner is different from dowsing is what I read in the manual, indicating the Examiner serves to tune the antenna to a very precise frequency as opposed to dowsing rods which are not tuned.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Hi Theseus,
I am familiar with antenna theory and how a 1/4 wave whip antenna works. Keep in mind that we are looking for targets in the near field, which does not behave the same as far field wave propagation.

Apparently the Examiner is not functioning as a 1/4 wave whip antenna. I can't pretend to understand the exact principle how it functions. But I can tell you how the manufacturer explains it. They recognize there is considerable debate regarding the real explanation for locating power of LRLs in general, as we see in your post. But they consider the answer to be in the physics of magnetic currents, resonant frequency and coil principles e.g. induction. They say the coil antenna within the unit can amplify the frequency of the target once it detects it, provided you have set the target frequency at the calculator. (I presume this is caused by a resonant circuit utilizing a coil inside the Examiner enclosure). On being amplified by the circuitry inside the Examiner the magnetic laws govern its disposition for it to align with the target's direction.

This information is taken from the current Examiner manual. After reading what you are asserting, I can agree that normal RF transmissions behave as you said at far field distances. But the principles explained in the Examiner manual are not exactly describing far field RF transmissions or even near field transmissions. Well, maybe near field, but the principle they explain is not pure RF propagation. You have to wonder about polarization and field strength when looking at the near field effects of a resonant circuit that derives it's power from induced pulses from a 3 volt calculator. Perhaps some of the power comes from the operator's body charge which is said to be capacitively coupled to the Examiner, and is completing a ground circuit. Or maybe some of the power comes from another source we have not noticed yet.

But there is also a non-RF part of the explanation: "magnetic laws govern its disposition for it to align with the target's direction".

I really don't know how this happens. The antenna is chrome plated brass, and I don't know of any electric currents strong enough to cause the Examiner to swing, regardless of what coils might be inside. All I can say is I don't understand the magnetic laws that cause the Examiner to swing toward the target. Perhaps there is more current moving through some internal coils than I can imagine.

What I see is two elements of operation that I don't understand. But it is clear the principle the Rangertell manual describes is not the same as ordinary 1/4 wave RF reception. And it is not totally electronic in nature, unless you consider the magnetic force and chemical-derived charges from your body to be electronic.

hmmm....
I suppose these are electronic in most ways. Only the "body charge" part is not contained within the Examiner enclosure. So the Examiner cannot function without a live operator holding it in his right hand and standing on the ground according to the Rangertell manual. It seems the Examiner is not a fully contained electronic locator. It requires the addition of a live operator who is usually suitable to complete the electronics, but sometimes won't work (left-handed or biologically impaired people who have the wrong body charge).

This is where the differentiation becomes sketchy to me...
If a human operator holding the Examiner in his right hand is necessary to detect the same signals that dowsers find, then where do we draw the line between dowsing and electronic?

The only answer I can think of to say how the Examiner is different from dowsing is what I read in the manual, indicating the Examiner serves to tune the antenna to a very precise frequency as opposed to dowsing rods which are not tuned.

Best wishes,
J_P

I read your posting over twice before commenting; and it sounds like you are becoming more confused with the techno-babble than I expected you might. Or, if you are not, you are coming across that way. I can appreciate you maintaining an open mind about this test and evaluation, but before we go about changing the known laws of physics and wave propagation to fit into the Examiner paradigm, I think the device needs to prove itself during actual trials.

Facts are facts, and no amount of concocted craziness from the Examiner Manual (written by V. Blanes) will change these things.

Two things are quite immutable; a telescoping whip antenna does not react one way in the short range and a different way in the long range. Second, chrome-plated brass is a non-magnetic material.

In my opinion, further discussion on this thread is probably pointless until you've had a chance to actually get some of the real testing completed. Good Luck...

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Theseus

I read your posting over twice before commenting; and it sounds like you are becoming more confused with the techno-babble than I expected you might. Or, if you are not, you are coming across that way. I can appreciate you maintaining an open mind about this test and evaluation, but before we go about changing the known laws of physics and wave propagation to fit into the Examiner paradigm, I think the device needs to prove itself during actual trials.

Facts are facts, and no amount of concocted craziness from the Examiner Manual (written by V. Blanes) will change these things.

Two things are quite immutable; a telescoping whip antenna does not react one way in the short range and a different way in the long range. Second, chrome-plated brass is a non-magnetic material.

In my opinion, further discussion on this thread is probably pointless until you've had a chance to actually get some of the real testing completed. Good Luck...

Hi Theseus,
I am not confused at all. I said from the start that I can't pretend to understand the exact principle how it functions.
But I can tell you how the manufacturer explains it.

And that is what I did.
It is true, I have not received education in some of the principles I read about in the Examiner manual which seem foreign to me. But just because I am not familiar with all of the principles they explain does not mean the Examiner cannot be demonstrated to work.

The way I see it, the only real test is to see if it finds the treasure or not. If it does, then I don't care if it is a box full of cockroaches or circuit boards packed with gold plated CPUs. If it works for finding treasure, I can use it to bring home the goods without understanding a single thing about how it works.


P.S. The weather is clear and the ground is drying. Hopefully I will have time this weekend to get the Examiner checked out as being in good operating condition. I actually haven't done any testing other than an hour or so of indoor tinkering which proved intermittent at best. I think it is necessary to be standing on outdoor ground before you can expect results. My time constraints are because I work during the day and it's hard to take time away from the office. Weekends are best for me to make daytime tests.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

J_P said; "The way I see it is the only real test is to see if it finds the treasure or not. If it does, then I don't care if it is a box full of cockroaches or circuit boards packed with gold plated CPUs. If it works for finding treasure, I can use it to bring home the goods without understanding a single thing about how it works. "

I could not agree more.

But if it does not find treasure, that fact needs to be iterated as well.

[WM6]

Originally Posted by J_Player

P.S. The weather is clear and the ground is drying.

J_P

J_P dont allow the soil to dry out too much. This can lead to false examiner results, or you must splitting around before testing.

[hipopp]

the calculator settings, left handed right handed and whether the ground is wet or dry or the position of the aerial has absolutely nothing to do with the examiner being capable of finding anything. Like i said before point it at a known target and the aerial can lock on...then tell yourself that there is nothing there and the device cannot lock onto the target. It is all in the operators head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! J.Player you are setting yourself up to be duped by the six million reasons why you are doing something wrong in the way you are using the device. Your fault not the device...what baloney. Still have not heard from our sixty minutes program to expose this crock and the twit who has duped 1300 people out of their money. Going to our alternative program ''today tonight".............

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by hipopp

the calculator settings, left handed right handed and whether the ground is wet or dry or the position of the aerial has absolutely nothing to do with the examiner being capable of finding anything. Like i said before point it at a known target and the aerial can lock on...then tell yourself that there is nothing there and the device cannot lock onto the target. It is all in the operators head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! J.Player you are setting yourself up to be duped by the six million reasons why you are doing something wrong in the way you are using the device. Your fault not the device...what baloney. Still have not heard from our sixty minutes program to expose this crock and the twit who has duped 1300 people out of their money. Going to our alternative program ''today tonight".............

I don't believe J_P is going to be fooled by anything of an LRL nature, especially the R-T Examiner. I think he is trying very hard to give the Examiner every chance to do exactly what it is advertised to do; to find treasure and allow the operator to recover it.

If it turns out the Examiner equates to nothing more than another dowsing rod that merely responds to the intuition and best guessing of the operator; I'm confident J_P will make this fact known to all of us.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Theseus

I don't believe J_P is going to be fooled by anything of an LRL nature, especially the R-T Examiner. I think he is trying very hard to give the Examiner every chance to do exactly what it is advertised to do; to find treasure and allow the operator to recover it.

If it turns out the Examiner equates to nothing more than another dowsing rod that merely responds to the intuition and best guessing of the operator; I'm confident J_P will make this fact known to all of us.

Hi Theseus,
You are correct.
I will be observing tests performed, and recording the results. I will take note of the details of each test and report these so others can see what I see. This isn't the same as being here live in person, but it's the next best thing. Come to see for yourself if you want to make your own test and watch others try it.

I have a feeling others will be performing most of the tests, and I will only be watching. Part of the reason is I want videos to show, and I will end up holding the camera insted of operating the Examiner. The other reason is because I got inconsistent results so far in my preliminary tests, while others seem to do better. Maybe I am biologically impaired with a weak body charge or something. I don't know why for sure. If the testing program becomes controversial, it could also be said I am intentionally or subconsciously biasing the performance of the Examiner by the way I hold it or by carrying things in my pockets, etc. I would rather keep the tests less controversial and conduct tests from the best operators I can get to see what kind of response we can get.

I did get a chance to do some preliminary tests this weekend to check if the Examiner is working correctly. The weather was clear and the ground was dry enough to try it out away from the city and power lines. I was getting intermittent results the same as my initial try that was done indoors, but I had a volunteer who did better. I have sent a report of this test to Rangertell to see if they feel it shows the Examiner is working properly. If they say yes, then I can publish the results of the test and proceed to begin the test and demonstration program to report all the tests events. My website is already up, but I will not make it public until I get an ok from Rangertell that the Examiner is working correctly so we can start the tests.

I will report back about this as soon as I hear from Rangertell.


P.S.
If anyone wants to try the Rangertell Examiner in the Los Angeles area from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border, or even into Nevada or Arizona, send me a PM. We can set a time and place.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

J_Player...

Any progress or preliminary findings to report on the testing of the Examiner? How about the website where the results and videos will be published? Is it roughed out yet?

I hope we will see some periodic and intermediate findings and reports before you complete all the testing and reach a final conclusion.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Theseus

J_Player...

Any progress or preliminary findings to report on the testing of the Examiner? How about the website where the results and videos will be published? Is it roughed out yet?

I hope we will see some periodic and intermediate findings and reports before you complete all the testing and reach a final conclusion.

Hi Theseus,
There are no test results I can report yet. I am waiting for a reply from Rangertell after they review the results of our preliminary testing to confirm the Examiner is functioning correctly. As soon as I get an email back from them that it is working correctly, I will post the results of the initial tests, and the formal testing program will begin.

The website is up and a journal is posted that keeps tract of the the events that happend during the Examiner test program from the day I received the Examiner. There are photos and some lab tests and reports in various sections of the site, but the content will remain sparse until after the test and demonstration program starts -- After I receive a confirmation that the Examiner is working properly.
When this time comes, I will make the website public and open the testing to the general public for anyone interested in coming to try the Examiner out for themselves or watch others try it out. Your test request is already posted on the page that lists tests requested, along with others from the Geotech forum.

I agreed not to make any public tests or post test data until after the Examiner was checked to be working correctly. So for now, I wait for a reply from Rangertell to go ahead or not. The delay came when Rangertell had trouble downloading files I sent them that showed the initial tests. This was just before Christmas, and I suspect they are caught up in holiday activities like everyone else. I suppose they will get back to me as soon as they have the time to get to it. I will be emailing them to see if they finally got all my downloads and have made a determination of whether the Examiner is working properly.

I forsee the serious testing will start in January if I get a green light from Rangertell.

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

Originally Posted by J_Player

I forsee the serious testing will start in January if I get a green light from Rangertell.

J_P

What about flashing yellow? Will stop you?

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by WM6

What about flashing yellow? Will stop you?

I have done all the testing I am permitted to do until I see green. If I were to continue when only yellow, then all testing would be claimed invalid, and a waste of time. I have better things to do than making invalid tests, so I do important things like coding web pages, polishing gold statues, studying science and making Geotech forum posts.
(No watching TV, no checking football scores, no nose-picking).

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

I think we all support your efforts.

[Jim]

Originally Posted by J_Player

I have done all the testing I am permitted to do until I see green. If I were to continue when only yellow, then all testing would be claimed invalid, and a waste of time. I have better things to do than making invalid tests, so I do important things like coding web pages, polishing gold statues, studying science and making Geotech forum posts.
(No watching TV, no checking football scores, no nose-picking).

Best wishes,
J_P

With all due respect...your tests will be claimed invalid if the results are not in favor of this gimmick...regardless if you follow scientific protocol or not.

That's just my opinion, of course

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Jim

With all due respect...your tests will be claimed invalid if the results are not in favor of this gimmick...regardless if you follow scientific protocol or not.

That's just my opinion, of course

You might be right about that. I don't know because I haven't done any real tests yet. So far there have only been a couple of preliminary unofficial tests. I have also done a couple of electronic bench tests I can make public when I have confirmation the Examiner is working ok.

But I plan to avoid making lots of invalid field tests. I will only be making a very few test of my own. I basically will try it out, and if I get the feeling it is helping me find treasures, I will buy it. Most of the real testing will be done by other people who volunteer to try out the Examiner. This will give us a good cross section of a lot of different people with different backgrounds to check the performance of the Examiner. There won't be any one person who does all the testing to invalidate it.

From the preliminary unofficial tests, I observed others do better than me at locating gold so far. So I figure I should stay in the background as an observer who records the results rather than exposing the Examiner to my poor performance compared to others. This will leave me free to make close observations and record how the LRL is performing, while practicing up on breathing exercizes that Mike(Mont) recommends to get better performance. Maybe I will become as good as others using the Examiner after observating their methods, and after enough practice with breathing exercizes.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by J_Player

...From the preliminary unofficial tests, I observed others do better than me at locating gold so far...

Best wishes,
J_P

I think, from your statement above, you have just released some unofficial results.

Apparently, someone, other than yourself, WAS successful at getting the Examiner to point to the exact location of some type of hidden gold target. Further, the inference is that these operators were successful at doing this under strict double-blind protocol (if not D-B, than why not?), which means their success rate was significantly better than what could be expected from Chance Guessing.

Wow!!!!

If this is not what happened or this is not what you meant to infer, please clarify what you observed and how it was conducted.

Also, I thought the Examiner worked on principles that totally eliminated operator characteristics and traits. Why then would you not be able to obtain the same results as some other operator or operators, when fairly tested?

[WM6]

Originally Posted by J_Player

. Iif I get the feeling it is helping me find treasures, I will buy it.

I hope that once you have accumulated gold with rangertell, you will not forget us poor forum man's.

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by WM6

I hope that once you have accumulated gold with rangertell, you will not forget us poor forum man's.

Good idea!

I can accept payment by Paypal, or you can transfer directly into my bank account.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Theseus

I think, from your statement above, you have just released some unofficial results.

Apparently, someone, other than yourself, WAS successful at getting the Examiner to point to the exact location of some type of hidden gold target. Further, the inference is that these operators were successful at doing this under strict double-blind protocol (if not D-B, than why not?), which means their success rate was significantly better than what could be expected from Chance Guessing.

Wow!!!!

If this is not what happened or this is not what you meant to infer, please clarify what you observed and how it was conducted.

Also, I thought the Examiner worked on principles that totally eliminated operator characteristics and traits. Why then would you not be able to obtain the same results as some other operator or operators, when fairly tested?

Hi Theseus,

I don't know the reason why I didn't get the same results as others. According to what is written in the product literature, it could be caused by a biological deficiency in body charge. Or if I go by Mike(Mont)'s posts instead, it could have to do with breathing practices and mind control. Bottom line... I don't know. It is only an observation I made.

I meant exactly what I said. Nothing more.
I made no inference. Only a reader can infer things I did not say. If we go by the inferences you made and typed in your post, we would get a distorted view of what happened so far. This can be expected because I intentionally did not tell the details of the preliminary test conditions, or the exact results.

These were preliminary tests that are unofficial. The preliminary tests that were performed were simple tests suggested by the manufacturer to help rule out damaged sample unit. They are not intended to prove anything about the performance of the product. They are intended only to help the manufacturer ascertain whether the sample he sent was damaged in shipment or not. The preliminary tests were not done in any controlled conditions other than making adjustments to the Examiner and setting the test stage according to the manufacturer's suggestions. The exact test procedure to check for a malfunctioning Examiner was done in conditions that would probably be considered unsuitable for proof by scientific testing standards. This is the reason they are unofficial. The tests were not intended for testing the accuracy of the Examiner or it's ability to pass any contest percentages.

When I say others did better than me, you can infer whatever you want to think it means about the test conditions or percentages. The facts are that it was observed to point to treasure at some times when I tried it as well as when others tried it. I think under the circumstances of the preliminary testing, anyone would be able to observe it point at treasure some of the time. I suppose you are wondering how much of the time more than random did it point to the target? This is what I won't say until the Examiner is confirmed to be functioning correctly. But regardless of what the answer is, it has little to do with what results will be seen when actual testing is conducted. The fact is there was no scientifically controlled test method used to determine the accuracy of the Examiner yet.

The reason why I am not performing double blind testing at this point is because the testing program has not started yet, and will not start until I have a confirmation from Rangertell that the sample he sent is functioning correctly. This was the agreement I made. It is also the reason I am not talking about the details of the preliminary tests we ran until I get an OK from Rangertell.

Instead of inferring test conditions and arriving at speculative conclusions that have not been shown to be true, I suggest you wait until the test program starts, and then come to watch the actual testing and even perform your own tests done in the ways you feel are impeccable to satisfy you that it is properly tested. If you are here to oversee the tests you want done, then there can be no inferences to draw, because your tests will be definitive.

I am not anxious to form conclusions about what the tests will show until all the testing program is done. I don't think I could make accurate field test observations if I prejudge the performance and have any particular expectations of what I will observe. I don't intend to prove it works or not. I will let others do that. If I see it doesn't work, then a large number of people will have proved it to me. But if I see it working and finding treasure, then others will prove that to me as well. This way, I can see the best of the skeptics show me how it does not work, and the best of the LRL enthusiasts show me how it does. There will also be a number of volunteers who have no opinion of whether it should be able to work or not. When the last test is done, then I can decide what I want to conclude.

And this is the reason why you are best to try it yourself, so you don't need to rely on secondhand information from someone who might have an axe to grind. The best we can do for people who do not make thier own tests live is to try to conduct tests according to the instructions we get. No guarantees it can be done exactly as you would do it in every way.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Dell Winders]

In my years of Field experience,I find that no LRL, of any manufacture works all the time. They only work when the target 'Strength of Field" is sufficient.

When Magnetic interference occurs, the target SOF, is diminished and the LRL will not respond accurately, or not at all. This is a fact. Dell

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

In my years of Field experience,I find that no LRL, of any manufacture works all the time. They only work when the target 'Strength of Field" is sufficient.

When Magnetic interference occurs, the target SOF, is diminished and the LRL will not respond accurately, or not at all. This is a fact. Dell

Hi Dell,

You are invited to come and test out the Examiner and see for yourself. You can even bring some of your other treasure tools along and see how they compare. I can put it all on video if you want. But you will need to wait until I get the ok to start from Rangertell.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Hi Theseus,

...The preliminary tests that were performed were simple tests suggested by the manufacturer to help rule out damaged sample unit. They are not intended to prove anything about the performance of the product.
Best wishes,
J_P

Okay. Got no problem with that.

You did not say that in your original post. You said; "a couple of preliminary unofficial tests". The reader is left to make their own inferences as to how they were conducted and why.

Just my opinion, but probably those sorts of "checks" should not have been called tests, and would no doubt have been better left unmentioned on this thread. That way there would be no confusion from us "readers" who are not privy to all the information you have, and can only go on what you are posting (or not posting).

I'm just guessing now... but I suppose the preliminary "checks" were not conclusive as to IF you have a faulty unit or not; and that is why you are waiting for Vincent (R-T) to give you the official go-ahead. Seems like he has had ample time to make that determination... but maybe not.

Yes, I really wish I could travel to your location and try the device for myself. However, my financial resources and time constraints will not allow me that luxury. I'll just have to rely on whatever information you make public; if and when that occurs.

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

In my years of Field experience,I find that no LRL, of any manufacture works all the time. They only work when the target 'Strength of Field" is sufficient.

Dell

What an incredible convenient "backdoor" excuse for it not working.

And, exactly how are you measuring this target strength of field, so that you can reliably claim that the target strength of field is at fault, and not the LRL contraption?

Never mind... that was a rhetorical question.