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.

[hung]

In the previous pictures although not shown, I was holding the handle of examiner with my right hand in the usual way. In the next series, I’m not holding it.
So 12 shows the voltage rising after a random value is entered in calculator. Then on 13, I touch the key pad. Notice the voltage drop. Then after releasing my finger, votages start to build up again (pic 14). And once again I touch a keypad and the voltage drops as shown in pc15.

[hung]

Last set of pictures show my head engineer performing similar tests with his SANWA multitester.
Results are the same.

[hung]

Instructions to perform the DC test.

1 – Clear the calculator display by hitting AC key.
2 – Turn Multimeter on DC with lowest reading.
Important: An automatic model is required for the reasons explained above. If other model is used, you probably won’t get the results I got.
3 – Insert the negative lead right under the calculator from its front side, between the adhesive spacings.
4 – Hold the examiner the usual way but with the index finger positioned above it to avoid movement and at the same time using your middle finger and thumb position the read probe lead in contact with handle close to the bottom of box as shown in the picture.

5- Look at the multimeter display, It should be displaying a negative voltage or a low positive one.
I did this many times and there are variations.
6 – Enter any ramdom value in calculator. Eg. 98746
7 – You will see a quick rise in voltages happening.
8 – Now gently touch any numbered keypad. You will see this voltage lowering fast. Release your finger and voltage build up again.

[hung]

In sum, there are AC and DC voltage variances happening in the examiner circuit / calculator combo. Calculator unquestionably provides electrical pulses (frequencies) to the circuit.
And let’s just not get silly on this. A calculator does not produce a fixed frequency. As it employs electrical pulses to the the tasks, obviously the display digits add on frequencies.

At this point, It’s interesting to read what Franklin Amador, an engineer and physicist has to say about it, in a recent email to me:

“ In college I used to build circuits for the fun of it...but mainly because I wanted to understand how transistors worked. It turned out that I built a circuit that would translate EM fields to sound. It was a very basic circuit and used a pickup coil with a suction cup to keep it fixed on plastic or metal surfaces. To my surprise, I had put it next to my calculator and it produced sound! I found out that the more complex mathematics I used on my HP68GX the louder it got. My conclusion was, that although transistors turn on and off...the hard switching of these circuits physically slam electrons to such high degree of forces that in the process EM field are created. I wasn't clear if electrons were flying off from the transistors or just the produced EM fields, but either way...the circuit was picking up EM fields.
The question still remains if these fields are good enough to produce high voltages at resonance of an Tuned Tank circuit for power extraction.”


Actually in my own opinion, and according to the experiment results, yes, these fields are stable enough to resonate as a tuned tank circuit. In fact, when I was performing the mod on the examiner which allows it to work without swinging, the greatest difficulty was to apply power at its input and keep it stable enough without fading out. Taking from an audio perspective. It was like using several high powered multiwatts poweramps to be used with a diminute power preamp.
When we finally could make it stable, we noticed how this could be applied to a more powerful and complex approach of using resonance as power magnifier.
But this would enter the discussion of my LRL system, something I won’t discuss anytime.
Back to the Examiner’s concept, there’s a portion in ECE which I already mentioned which might explain how the magnetic fields produced by the unit even diminute might be working provided one gets free of the standard Maxwell Heaviside concept and maybe start to find some backup on the Aharonov-Bohm and the field and potential relationship, as Myron Evans points out as part of an explanation when I presented him the examiner pictures , concepts and my initial tests:

“Interesting! These would be Aharonov Bohm type effects. In a Ricci flat spacetime for example the tetrad is still non-zero because metric elements are non - zero. This leads to the gravitational AB effect. The spin connection in a Ricci flat spacetime is non-zero because the connection is non-zero even though the Ricci tensor is zero. In ECE the potential is proportional to the tetrad and the field is proportional to the Cartan torsion. The latter disappears in a Ricci flat spacetime because it is proprotional to the canonical angular energy momentum density. So there is a potential but no field - AB effect. In the ECE version of e/m the relation between field and potential in shorthand notation is:

F = d ^ A + omega ^ A

so when F = 0 , A and omega are not zero:

d ^ A + omega ^ A = 0

giving an AB effect as in the ECE papers and GCUFT books “


Whatever the final explanation might be, it requires a lot of research and study time. Something I absolutely don’t have right now.

The making of this report consumed me a lot more time than thought at first.

So if any examiner user is interested in taking this further go for it, as this concept is fascinating, vast and still not completely understood.

I hoped to include also in this report, tests and conclusions from other users which I contacted but as I don’t have anymore time left to wait, I invite them to post here.

Note that what all tests seem to demonstrate is that the examiner varies and deal with AC and DC variations and when pointing to a target (gold in the test) it seems to raise voltage. Now since user own charges, fields, etc. seem to add in the equation, the question whether one will find any sought target with it all the time, is another huge debate as many variables are involved.
Although I succeeded in locating 2 big gold targets with the examiner as I mentioned in previous posts, I still could not get it to work in some other scenarios such as on the beach for instance in a satisfactory way. Maybe I need more practice for small objects, maybe there’s another explanation.

As if all of the above were not enough, I also found evidence of the examiner working by my PDC210. Yes. When I enter the gold frequency and tune it to say a ring and place it close to the PDC, when the antenna aligns to the ring, the PDC beeps. Also if I tune the knob to the PDC’s gold leaf inside the ionic chamber and the antenna aligns to the chamber it also beeps!

Although this can only be replicated by someone who has both, I received a report from the person who noticed it first. A friend who has an examiner and now a DC2008. The guy I already told with the incredible mark of finding 22 gold rings in the beach shore at once with the DC.

He also told me that his DC model has the protruding brass lead to help electrostatic detection. This is also present in some FGs. Well he got some tiny wire, wrapped around the brass lead in his DC2008 and the other end he wound around the brass handle of the examiner. And every time the examiner points to a gold target he throws on the ground, the DC beeps.

I cannot replicate this since my PDC has not the brass lead, so I’m relying on his narration for this.


Finally, it was a time consuming task and although I just wanted to prove there were AC variances, I ended up encountering DC anomalies.

Although I don’t plan to go over to this again due to complete lack of time, lots on things to do that were on hold and other interests now, it was rewarding and I learned a lot.
Actually when we keep an open mind, we learn everyday.



I

[Esteban]

Hi Hung,

Thanks for the job and the patience. You have done a great effort and dedicated a lot of time in this.

I assume the calculator emit different frequencies by different numbers selecting in the calculator. This frequencies are surrounding the resonant circuit and acts as a non very invasive level of voltage, the enough for to act in concordance with the voltage of the body. Is in this way?

Regards

Esteban

[michael]

Hi Hung, thank you for your efforts and reports. good, patiently, humbly and talented job. keep this.

[Clondike Clad]

I will take a long look at this thanks

[Max]

Hi,
I've took a look around these pictures... and only thing I see is that seems exist some kind of relationship between the digits on solar calculator display and the voltage the multimeter measure.

But I think that's quite obvious ... and explaination could be done without using relativistic physics and space-time alterations (that I already know happen so frequent at those latitudes of Hung ).

Ok , lets explain:

you see the picture with 4 digits and 22.5mv ? ok the next is with 6 digits and a reading of 43.1mV right ?

Now use some neurons from time to time... : with 4 digits -> 22.5 and with 6 digits -> 43.1 (that's about double of voltage).

Now what you see there ? If number of digits is higher you get higher voltage , yes or not ?

Now think at RT thing as at something with some hi-impeadance input amplifier connected to antenna set ... do you'll get a variation in voltage at inputs of amplifier if there is even a minimum circuit variation ??? Yes or not ?

Lets say there's some variation in circuit params that show as voltage variations at antenna... which could be ?

What's the purpose... but what's , most important, the effect of the solar calculator there ??? Doesn't it need current to work ? What about current needed to drive LCD display (that's realy few but that could lead to the difference you see on pictures) ?

So 4 digits 22.5mv... 6 digits 43.1 mv... and with 8 digits ? Maybe 85mV ??? What do you think ? Ok you have to use same multimeter to see that...

You read with sanwa multimeter 144.2mV and 6 digits... but think think think: it's not the same multimeter ! So there's some input impedance difference ... and what about light !?

Yes light ! It's a solar calculator man ! Light is important too... cause supply the calculator or not ? So if light change also readings must change ?

Enough ? For me yes. All that tests means nothing apart some small voltage variation at random segments on on display... what a discovery man.

Kind regards,
Max

[Fred]

By just handling the multimeter probe in your hand, you will get readings like those , even more mv.The simple fact that touching only the keys makes the reading drop is a proof that you are just measuring static buildup ,AC coupled and the like.
I have just achieved excellent results with my tape dispenser.When i touch the tape i get readings.I choosed the tape dispenser because it have a handle too...
Fred.

[hung]

Originally Posted by Fred

By just handling the multimeter probe in your hand, you will get readings like those , even more mv.The simple fact that touching only the keys makes the reading drop is a proof that you are just measuring static buildup ,AC coupled and the like.
I have just achieved excellent results with my tape dispenser.When i touch the tape i get readings.I choosed the tape dispenser because it have a handle too...
Fred.

And you consider yourself an electronic engineer?...
I wouldn't let you fix my TV set. Sorry.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by hung

And you consider yourself an electronic engineer?...

that´s what i am.

Originally Posted by hung

I wouldn't let you fix my TV set. Sorry.

Why? If you cannot do it , someone else must.

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by Fred

I choosed the tape dispenser because it have a handle too...
Fred.

And it has more uses than an RT Examiner ... ... ignoring the calculator, of course.

[joecoin]

Too bad you cannot afford some test leads with alligator clips. (But your wife has very pretty hands).

[J_Player]

Interesting photos. From what I can see, it appears hung went to the Ranger Tell website and hooked up his meter according to their instructions and took photos. Then he posted a heaping load of diatribe designed to prove that the Ranger Tell finds treasure and that Myron Evan's ECE theory could explain it. The details he gives are concerned with a lot of voltage variations and spurious voltages noted when touching keypads without pressing them, as well as differences between meters taking the measurements. I do not see any photos of his measurements that he claims he made inside the circuit board area, at "the diode which is connected to the pot". In fact there is no place the diode is connected to a pot inside the Ranger Tell, as Carl's internal photos show. The diode is connected between an enameled coil and a variable capacitor. (Did hung really open up a Ranger Tell)?

Hung follows with his statement that he confirmed that "no perceivable differences existed" when following the Ranger Tell method of measuring between the antenna and handle instead of from the antenna to the diode inside. How convenient! Now we no longer need to perform the alleged testing that hung claims he did initially. We can switch to the Ranger Tell approved method to test this device!
Errr... wait a minute... does this smell kinda like a bait and switch trick? Why use the Ranger Tell method when hung says he got his readings from inside where the diode is? Is it possible the readings are not the same? Is it possible hung never measured anything inside the Ranger Tell?

Originally Posted by hung

My initial claim was that voltage variances were found inside the examiner and could be measured.

It sure is hard to believe hung ever did any electronic testing before the weekend, considering he was not able to tell us where to connect the meter until after discovering the Ranger Tell website instructions. But putting aside the facts of whether hung ever made any previous tests or has a team capable of doing so, let's take a look at what the Ranger Tell website tells us to test:

According to Ranger Tell's pictures, a digital volt meter should be connected from the tip of the antenna to the brass rod in the base of the handle. The meter leads are left dangling in loops beneath the pistol while it is moved in an arc or pointed at objects. Of course, they say you should enter in the "gold frequency' on the calculator. This means you enter the number they specify for gold before looking to see voltage differences. From what I see in their pictures, there are several ways false signals could cause a voltage variation at the meter that have nothing to do with a target. In order to eliminate the possible voltage errors, here are some precautions that you could take to save yourself a lot of time contending with intermittent false readings:

1. Take the pistol and digital voltmeter to a large field that has no nearby power lines or other interference.
2. Make sure the field is free of targets that the Ranger Tell could find.
3. set up the Ranger Tell and meter on a cardboard box or wooden bench without metal so it is pointing into the field with no targets around.
4. Connect the meter and enter your favorite numbers on the calculator. Observe the meter while standing away from it and not touching the apparatus. When you see a constant reading, then get a friend to place a target in front of the meter using the method in step 5.
5. Tie a gold ring to a fishing line and have a friend toss it out in front of where the antenna is pointing (15 feet distance from the antenna or more). make sure the person holding the line is far away from the Ranger Tell. Drag the ring back and forth to the side of where the antenna is pointing. If you have a fishing rod, try casting it out in the path where the Ranger Tell is pointing. Try moving the ring around like a fly fisherman would so it moves around a lot in front of where the Ranger tell is pointing. Watch for changes in the volt meter while the target moves around. Be careful that neither you or your friend move around much in the vicinity of the Ranger Tell apparatus when the target is being tested.
6. Try the same fishing line experiment with several other target materials like brass, steel, coins, silver, etc.
7. Take note of any voltage variations while you move these targets in front of the Ranger Tell.
8. If you are able to see a voltage that consistently follows the movement of a gold ring at more than 15 feet distance, immediately apply to win Carl's $25,000 prize and prove everyone wrong who says the Ranger Tell can't locate gold at more than 15 feet distance. You can use the meter connected to the Ranger Tell to indicate when you have correctly located Carl's hidden gold bar, and then cruise home with your $25,000!

Why take these precautions when testing? Because there are many reasons you will get a voltage reading that have nothing to do with the presence of treasure if you follow the instructions given by Ranger Tell. Any real EE can tell you about it. The method I suggested above removes most of the ways you will get voltage readings not related to a treasure in the sights of a Ranger Tell.

But what about hung's claim that he took readings inside the Ranger Tell? Wouldn't he know there is no pot connected to the diode if he opened the enclosure? And why did we need to wait till he located the Ranger Tell website before he would tell us where we can connect a meter to see a reading? Was he lying to us? Perhaps some of the Ranger Tell owners will open their Ranger Tell and compare what they read between the diode and antenna to the readings when using the website method. Then we will see real factual results of the earlier alleged test hung claims he made.

It appears no real EE paid much attention to this test report based on the feedback. Is this another one of hung's attempts to drag electronic testing methods into the dark ages? Or is this just another of hung's operations to try to promote the crackpot theories of Myron Evans? Why are we hearing about ECE theory? Hasn't Myron Evans made a fool of himself by using erroneous math with fatal errors to prove his crackpot theories? Would any real physicist believe his BS when it doesn't work in practice and the math doesn't add up either?

The bad part of this exercise is we had to listen to more rubbish theories and speculations of someone who does not understand electronics or basic physics. The good part is hung finally experimented with a meter in his hands. Do you think he maybe missed some things that he would have known better if he had an understanding of electronics?

Best wishes,
J_P

[hung]

Hey JP, please, avoid your long mumble jumble. You can't say three meaningful words, imagine a long soup of them like the one above...
I could not pass the 4th word honestly.

Why just not admiting you and your other friends were put into pieces?

PS:Where's all the monking around now?


Merry Xmas.

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by J_Player

From what I see in their pictures, there are several ways false signals could cause a voltage variation at the meter that have nothing to do with a target. In order to eliminate the possible voltage errors, here are some precautions that you could take to save yourself a lot of time contending with intermittent false readings:

Exactly. There is no mystery here, except in Hung's overactive imagination. If you take any digital multimeter, and set it to to a low mV range, there will be some low level intermittent readings if the leads are left dangling. After a short time the meter will settle at 0V, but even bringing your hands close to the meter leads will give a small reading. You will note that in all the images posted by Hung, that someone is physically making contact with the meter leads. The mysterious meter readings are nothing more than measurement error.

[Max]

Hi,
yes all right about errors in measures... but I was thinking at implications of having that calculator on the RT.... I mean it needs some current... lcd need the electric field to be generated... solar cells gives power according to light intensity etc etc all this stuff vary with time and other conditions (like showing 1 or more digit on the lcd screen that it's not only electric field problem there but also the logic part of circuit that drive it, so currents flowing in the chip etc etc).

Do you understand what I mean !? I'm not saying that he measured just errors by hands and the like BUT ALSO electric variations due to other components of RT (mainly calculator on top of it).

You see clear that when digits number increase you have rapid increase in readings in (supposed) same other conditions.

That's what I say: errors are due mainly to calculator cause RT has probably an hi-impedance amplifier connected to the antenna ... all the rest follow that thing ---> antenna and input path get an increase of signal due to interference of calculator circuitry.

So, I belive his readings are all true but there's a clear way of explain that without the device has to detect anything at all.

Maybe I've expressed bad my thought ?

Kind regards,
Max

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by hung

You can't say three meaningful words, imagine a long soup of them like the one above...

Really? so you can't understand the meaning of using electronic methods instead of bogus experimenting? Let me translate it into a short statement that maybe you can understand more easily: It looks like you lied to us again about measuring voltage inside the Ranger Tell. You don't have a clue of how to use a voltmeter to make millivolt readings, as you followed the misinformation shown on the Ranger Tell page rather than showing us any readings you want us to believe you made inside the enclosure.



Max is correct. The calculator does produce small voltages.

Originally Posted by Max

I mean it needs some current... lcd need the electric field to be generated...

You are correct. The calculator does use current to light up the digits in the LCD display. This is easy to measure on a calculator. Simply wind a small coil around a steel core using the same wire as you use to make a detector search coil. You can make this coil the size of a coin wrapped around a steel bolt, or up to the size of the calculator. Connect the ends to an oscilloscope and scan the calculator for magnetic components of a field. You will see the voltages inside the calculator, you will see some in the audio range that you could actually hear if you connected the coil ends to an audio amplifier. And you would also hear sounds change if you start to press buttons. You will find you can also measure some of the internal calculator operations with other odd tools instead of a coil. Maybe connecting the voltmeter to an old circuit board with some components on it placed near the calculator will give a reading, or a coat hanger wire with a transistor soldered to the end.

Inside the calculator
Whether the power comes from a battery or solar panel, a small amount is used to power each segment of the display as well as the processor and controllers in the main processor chip. While the statement that the calculator frequency varies is false, there are several fixed frequencies inside a calculator beginning with the main clock, and then lower frequencies used to drive the display and scan the keypad to detect buttons being pressed, and a few other functions. These frequencies don't change. If a number is entered into the calculator, the only change involves shift registers storing the numbers entered, and the display driver electronics sending impulses to the display segments. The frequency of the display driver does not change. Only the power sent to segments changes as different segments are switched on at this constant frequency.

Reading the rise and fall of these small switching circuits by using a coil outside the calculator is enhanced by a grid of keypad conductors which carry the low-frequency keypad scan strobe to a planar array that almost has the form of a kind of antenna printed on the circuit board. In addition, the voltage impulses sent to the LCD will show a pulse train with varying lengths and durations within the same frequency, in order to select which segments to light up. This pulse train is carried through a short ribbon cable usually. While these are the two most likely places to see a low frequency component perhaps in the audio range, there are other higher frequency components that happen only momentarily while the calculator is processing a user input or making a calculation. In the quiescent state, the only active circuits are the clock refreshing the memory, the keypad strobe, and the display driver. None of these frequencies change. But they can be measured on an oscilloscope or heard a sensitive audio amp.

How to promote bad science
Now if you wanted to use the voltage transients that are generated by a calculator to collect lots of money, or to prove some stupid concept of pseudoscience, first you would need to find a source of people who have little knowledge of the workings in a calculator, and don't have much experience using test equipment. Then direct them to use a millivolt meter in a way prone to electrical interference and use sloppy testing methods that are guaranteed to produce errors. This will make a good blend between the errors and calculator measurements. By using this technique, you may be able to convince a non-technical person that the calculator is finding gold, or that the readings prove you can extract free energy from a vacum. You might even convince him to send you a large sum of money to buy your calculator apparatus.

Think I am wrong? Think the Ranger Tell really does signal the presence of gold in the distance? Then try the experiment I described in the post above to remove the fake readings, and see for yourself.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by Max

That's what I say: errors are due mainly to calculator cause RT has probably an hi-impedance amplifier connected to the antenna ... all the rest follow that thing ---> antenna and input path get an increase of signal due to interference of calculator circuitry.

Hi Max,

Have you looked at Carl's report on the RT Examiner? There is no hi-impedance amplifier inside the plastic case. There is just a jumbled collection of bits and pieces soldered together and hot glued in place.
If you place the leads of a digital multimeter close to a calculator, there is no pickup whatsoever, as long as you move away from these two items, and allow the readings to stabilize (to zero).

Well done J_P on an excellent description of what's really going on here.

There is definitely some electromagnetic interference (EMI) coming from the calculator, and this can indeed be detected by a small coil connected to an amplifier. However, this is not the case with the Examiner, which has been sadly totally misunderstood by Hung, unless (of course) you confer with the idea that the standard Maxwell-Heaviside model is erroneous because it omits the spin resonance.