Bionic 01 Video

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Excellent! Will you be going to see for yourself with your own eyes too?

Best wishes,
J_P

"I also am interested in learning some facts instead of just believeing(sic) what other people say." are YOUR words, not mine!

My intent is to watch very carefully exactly what you say, from now on, and that is how I will decide WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM! No inferences, feelings, or "read between the lines" will enter into it.

However, NO! Seeing for myself is NOT necessarily how I will gain knowledge and insight into things I choose to research. It could be, but wouldn't have to be "seeing for myself". To my way of thinking, that is like taking a giant leap backwards, and akin to reinventing the wheel, or rope.

Rather, if I get data from a source I am comfortable is valid and trustworthy, that is what I will use to gain additional knowledge, when I can't experience things for myself. If in past decades, all scientists worked under the adage that all principles and axioms would need to be experienced with their own eyes before acceptance, I would guess we might still be in the early 1700s, technology-wise.

If you want to conduct your research under your own set of constraints, have at it. (So far... your research appears to be on some kind indefinite hold, so rather a moot point.)

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Theseus

...Seeing for myself is NOT necessarily how I will gain knowledge and insight into things I choose to research. It could be, but wouldn't have to be "seeing for myself". To my way of thinking, that is like taking a giant leap backwards, and akin to reinventing the wheel, or rope.

Rather, if I get data from a source I am comfortable is valid and trustworthy, that is what I will use to gain additional knowledge, when I can't experience things for myself. If in past decades, all scientists worked under the adage that all principles and axioms would need to be experienced with their own eyes before acceptance, I would guess we might still be in the early 1700s, technology-wise...

Hi Theseus,

It looks like you have an excellent outlook on how to do your research. As an opinion, I think you will find the answers that are suitable to you with your method. My method is actually the same except I like to see some things with my own eyes instead of relying only on what I read or hear from others. And I do form opinions and talk about them as being my opinions, not other people's opinions.

An interesting exception the concept that most science facts are pretty well known and do not need to be checked by seeing it in person is the discovery of the Americas by Columbus. This is one example where accepting the best known science of the day instead of going to see for himself could have led to us being still back in the 1400s, not the 1700s. Maybe that is why I like Carl's suggestion that we don't need to believe him, we should see for ourselves.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Hi Theseus,

Maybe that is why I like Carl's suggestion that we don't need to believe him, we should see for ourselves.

Best wishes,
J_P

Key phrase there is; "we don't need to believe him". There is nothing indicated in that statement that observers should not believe him, or that it was wrong to believe him.

The option, to see for oneself, is always available to every investigator. The trick is to let logic enter into determining when and if it is prudent to "see with ones own eyes".

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Theseus

Key phrase there is; "we don't need to believe him". There is nothing indicated in that statement that observers should not believe him, or that it was wrong to believe him.

The option, to see for oneself, is always available to ever investigator. The trick is to let logic enter into determining when and if it is prudent to "see with ones own eyes".

Exactly

But there is no trick, just a personal choice of what you want to do.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Hi Jim,
Yes, the MMI testing is done by digging samples of soil from below the top layer of dirt where gold ions will show a representative concentration. But mining companies use a lot of other methods to indicate what is below the ground besides MMI testing. Some of these methods are not done from below the ground, but above. In most cases, these tests are not detecting gold ions.

Capturing gold ions from the surface doesn't sound easy to me. To start with, the concentrations they measure below the ground are in the parts per trillion and sometimes less. By the time they reach the surface, they become bound with other elements or become metallic gold particles. Maybe a few ions of the parts per trillion could somehow escape into the air, but how would you collect them?
Wouldn't a single ion blow away in the wind, or quickly neutralise with a charged particle or molecule in the air?
The whole reason why they cease to be ions after they rise from the lower layers of soil is because they no longer are in an environment that has active electrolytes and complexes that support gold ions. They are moving to the surface that is rich in a large array of materials and particles that will bind the ions. This is true of the air as well, which has charged gas molecules as well as particles with molecules that can combine with metal ions from salts or other complexes. In the case of gold, when it loses it's supporting chemical complex, it usually combines with itself to form a metallic gold molecule, that can grow into a particle if other molecules attach.

The gold in the air I read about is metallic microparticles, not ionic. From what I read it was measured at less than 0.003ng/kg for air on average. Because of the wind action, I doubt these measurements would be useful for locating buried gold.

Best wishes,
J_P

Good deal. Thanks for the reply. It tends to get a bit confusing around here sometimes. Especially when treasure hunting, metal detecting and mining are all mixed into the equation

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Jim

Good deal. Thanks for the reply. It tends to get a bit confusing around here sometimes. Especially when treasure hunting, metal detecting and mining are all mixed into the equation

Yup.
The ions corroding from gold was only something I offered as an example of how using Carl's suggestion to not believe what he says, but to check for yourself resulted in discovering even Carl can be wrong. I guess anybody can.

I already knew Gold ions could form at buried gold in trace amounts, but I had no clue they followed the path of a column in the soil that moves up above buried metal. I thought the Mineoro pages that show gold ions rising in the soil were only something they speculated about and published as facts. But after checking it the best way I had at hand, I saw how a lot of scientist also found this same column of gold ions rising in the soil. And I found the ion concentration anomalies in the soil were being used by geologists to map the location they expect to find buried metals and ores.

Wow! Carl's advice sure showed me he was right about the way to verify what you believe is true or not.

Best wishes
J_P

[J_Player]

I was reading that link I posted about dead tree stumps concentrating gold.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070818101731.htm

Then I read it again, and it hit me....
"The researchers found native gold, silver and platinum salts in the dust of decayed stumps. A ton of their ashes contains 3 kilograms of silver, nearly 200 milligrams of gold and 5 grams of platinum".

Now, lemme see.... what does treasure metal cost at this moment?
Gold = $35.33 USD/gm
silver = $0.5514 USD/gm
platinum = $35.035 USD/gm

1 ton of decayed tree stump dust measured by researchers:
Gold = 200mg = $7.07 USD
Silver = 3Kg = $1654.20 USD
Platinum = 5 Gm = $175.18 USD
Total treasure metal = $1836 USD (1296 EUR) treasure measured in one ton of decayed tree stump dust.

So how much is a ton of decayed tree stump dust?
It should come between one and two cubic meters depending on the dust.

<-- always loved trees.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Yup.
Wow! Carl's advice sure showed me he was right about the way to verify what you believe is true or not.

Best wishes
J_P

Cool! What do you suppose happened to that philosophy and the Examiner?

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Theseus

Cool! What do you suppose happened to that philosophy and the Examiner?

What philosophy? It was an observation.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by J_Player

What philosophy? It was an observation.

Best wishes,
J_P

It's a really fine line we walk, isn't it.

What do you suppose happened to that "observation" and the Examiner?

[WM6]

Originally Posted by J_Player

It was an observation.

You started to observe Carl insteed of Examiner?

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by WM6

You started to observe Carl insteed of Examiner?

I observed that Carl's advice sure showed me he was right about the way to verify what you believe is true or not. That observation is made after looking at information I found over a year ago.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Esteban]

About bionic and ions, read post # 16 in the link posted. Now you can imagine that ions can be "sniffed" with this technique also. In the past we used this technique AFTER many scientific, but not the same method showed in the pic. We called this molecular detection. So, you have in the block diagramm how you can use this info for to build your RS machinery.

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...d=1#post105922

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Esteban

About bionic and ions, read post # 16 in the link posted. Now you can imagine that ions can be "sniffed" with this technique also. In the past we used this technique AFTER many scientific, but not the same method showed in the pic. We called this molecular detection. So, you have in the block diagramm how you can use this info for to build your RS machinery.

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...d=1#post105922

Hi Esteban,

The problem with the Bionic sniffing ions is it uses magnetometers for sensors, not a piezo crystal with materials glued on it. It senses changes in magnetic field gradients, not signals from a vibrating crystal or ions. This was shown in the geophysics forum. You can read what the people found there when they posted the data sheet for the sensors used in the Bionic detector at post #17. http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15985

[Esteban]

The method describes for xtal. is not for to sense iron. I'm not refering magnetometer use.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Esteban

The method describes for xtal. is not for to sense iron. I'm not refering magnetometer use.

When you said "About bionic and ions, read post # 16 in the link posted", wasn't your way to say to read your post # 16 to see how the Bionic can detect ions?

Maybe I don't understand why you say about bionic and ions for your post #16.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Esteban]

Originally Posted by J_Player

When you said "About bionic and ions, read post # 16 in the link posted", wasn't your way to say to read your post # 16 to see how the Bionic can detect ions?

Maybe I don't understand why you say about bionic and ions for your post #16.

Best wishes,
J_P

Bionic for the use of biological (tissue) element as a sample. Here I extend the word for the possible use of this. Ionic... can be used other kind of samples for to detect ions of metals.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Esteban

Bionic for the use of biological (tissue) element as a sample. Here I extend the word for the possible use of this. Ionic... can be used other kind of samples for to detect ions of metals.

Ok Thank you Esteban.
I ws confused to think you were talking about the principle of the Bionic 01.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Esteban]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Ok Thank you Esteban.
I ws confused to think you were talking about the principle of the Bionic 01.

Best wishes,
J_P

Also was used the word "Biotronic", a mix of biological and electronic.

If you leave the pistol detector fixed on something, the target is not detected. It is only detected when the person carries, seems that also the human being is like an antenna.

[gibon]

An other kind of Bionic from maxfind !! Any suggestion about that stuff ?




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMW4GsSGN7M

[gibon]

VIBLAN


http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMW4GsSGN7M

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by gibon

An other kind of Bionic from maxfind !! Any suggestion about that stuff ?




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMW4GsSGN7M

As usual, no actual target recovered.

Originally Posted by gibon

VIBLAN


http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMW4GsSGN7M

The link is broken.

[Qiaozhi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcLcvjAnhZQ

[Morgan]

Originally Posted by putrechigi

ok perfect I see that many have 'drawn the conclusions, I respect but do not share them, I apologize to anyone who wanted more news, but the tests we do "positive or negative will be" soon will not be posted, if you're interested contact me in mp


regardless of what you think if bionic not work, I'd be the first to say, just waiting to do tests before coming to conclusions
reguards

Olá Manolo

This girl told me better invest the money in a second hand Mercedes...
Seems the BIONIC 01 is a bad investment

[Fred]

Girls prefer Ferrari.Better 5th hand Ferrari than 2nd hand Mercedes, except if you are old