|
|
#626
04-07-2010, 11:02 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Best wishes, J_P 
|
|
#627
04-07-2010, 11:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#628
04-07-2010, 11:50 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If you want to try to imply I consider a tube an electronic circuit, you are also wrong. I didn't make any statement to that effect. You did. This is where you introduced BS into the concept of resonance. And it is analogous to passive resonant electornic circuits such as a coil and a capacitor. If you doubt that, you could ask any acoustic engineer who knows the answer. They are very familiar with the concepts of tuning the frequencies and impedance matching in acoustics, just as electronic engineers are familiar with resonant tuning and impedance matching in electronic circuits. I have not introduced shenanegans into the concept of resonance, you did the moment you claimed tubes and seashells make a good circuit. I only made an analogy of resonance in two different mediums, and questioned your implications that the Examiner may be subject to FCC registration. The fact is the Examiner does not contain any transmitting equipment or power amplifiers that I am aware of, nor is it capable of creating any EMI/RFI interference above the background levels present in the air. It is claimed to be a passive receiver circuit that amplifies minute external signals through the principle of resonance. If it does indeed create EMI/RFI interference problems, then I am not aware of these problems or any FCC registration requirements. It does not make you appear any closer to correct about how resonance works, or whether FCC registration is required even when you try to obfuscate the facts. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#631
04-07-2010, 04:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
In the diode question thread I notice that with 4 Ge high quality diodes in serie can amplify big. Maybe this don't have relation with this theme, but... sorry, I have strange ways of seeing things.  I save the old parts of the experiment, you can see below the schematic.
|
|
#632
04-07-2010, 05:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
What was the reason why you built this battery? Was it part of an experiment different than simply building a battery? Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#634
04-07-2010, 05:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#635
04-07-2010, 05:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#636
04-07-2010, 06:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#637
04-07-2010, 06:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The replacement Examiner arrived, so I took photos today.
In the photos below you will see the replacement Examiner is the Deluxe model, not the G-T Ver 8.08B. In an email from the Rangertell factory, they told me this model is identical to the G-T Ver 8.08B except it uses a different calculator, and the decals on the sides are different. One change they did make for me is to fix the trimmer cap so it cannot be adjusted. It will remain at the factory setting during the time I am conducting field tests without being touched. Another difference from the G-T Ver 8.08B is the Deluxe model came with a ground probe that can be used in conjunction with the Examiner if desired. This ground probe is intended to be used with a laptop computer that is running a software program to cause it to send out an audio signal to the ground probe (software is included). The signal sent out can be adjusted to whatever audio frequency you want as well as the amplitude set from 0 to the full power of your computer sound circuit. If the optional ground probe is not used, then the Examiner will work the same as any G-T Ver 8.08B model, with the exception that the calculator will not turn off after a few minutes. The Deluxe model uses a TI-36X solar calculator which always remains on until you turn it off. This means you don't need to bother with re-entering the key codes every few minutes like on the G-T Ver 8.08B. See photos below:
|
|
#638
04-07-2010, 06:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#639
04-07-2010, 06:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#640
04-07-2010, 08:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Best wishses, J_P
|
|
#641
04-07-2010, 09:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Lets just agree we disagree. Lowering yourself to Dell Winders tactics is neither warranted or wanted.
|
|
#642
04-07-2010, 11:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Global capital is ruining your life? You have right to self-defence!
|
|
#643
04-08-2010, 01:36 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Perhaps I asked you this before; have you ever tried to use a simple bent wire L-rod, over a target in plain sight? What were your results?
__________________
 The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#644
04-08-2010, 01:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The only thing I am guilty of is lowering myself to giving a fair argument to a person of your level. You pretend to have facts while you try to obfuscate the facts. You make posts here with an agenda you want to prove with innuendos based on false information, then when you are shown to be wrong, you look for ways to prove it is someone else's fault, and call people names. Isn't that what Dell sometimes does? For example, before starting in on me, you called hung the "the gossiping Nancy". Then, when I explained how your innuendo that the Examiner may not be compliant with Part 15 of Fedaral Law seems to have no basis in fact, because you erroneously assumed it is a transmitter, You continued to call the Examiner a transmitter, which It is not. Then you tried to prove it is subject to the FCC ID because according to you, it is required for even sticks that you rub together as long as the sticks are called a transmitter. But when You discovered I wouldn't pretend the Examiner is a transmitter to help your innuendo, then you switched to trying to a new innuendo also based on erroneous facts, stating that resonant frequency amplification circuit is an awesome feat of engineering, as if it had not been done before. When I also pointed out this error, you then switched to a new way to prove your point --- focus the blame for your errors on me! All you needed to do is to somehow prove I gave a bad explanation, then you could easily obfuscate the fact that you had no clue whether the Examiner has any FCC ID requirements, nor do you have any idea whether it is claimed to be a transmitter or receiver. You came here to advance your agenda regardless of the basic fact that has been known for some time: The Rangertell factory claims the Examiner is a receiver that is tuned through small signals that are induced from outside the enclosure. The manufacturer never claimed it was a transmitter. Only hung and you made the claim the Examiner is a transmitter, and used that argument to advance your own agendas. Sure, you proved something. You proved you preferred to use false information to prove your point rather than to admit you were were wrong from the beginning. Based on your original faulty information that the Examiner is a transmitter, I can safely say you did not read what the Rangertell factory published on their website or what I repeated from their manual. Instead you chose to believe hung's version of how it works in order to support your innuendos that it is subject to FCC ID. Now you are hoping I will drop your whole argument because you think I am lowering myself to Dells level? Hahahahahaa... No, I don't simply agree to disagree with you. I believe you are one of the few people who is willing to use false information to prove whatever agenda you have at the moment and call people names, rather than to use facts and evidence to support what you are saying. And when you are shown to be wrong, then you are happy to look for ways to obfuscate the facts so readers will loose tract of how you began with false information to begin with. As I said, I will keep your pretentious attitude in mind in all your future posts. But I will run some tests on the calculator as soon as I get a chance. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#645
04-08-2010, 01:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I am looking for people who want to test the Examiner in thier own hands to see how well it works for them. I will be documenting the public testing done. On the occasions I tried dowsing with bent wires, I was not successful. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#647
04-08-2010, 02:31 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sorry...had to do that. Dell Winders is the only LRL proponent I've seen that really lashes out to other posters, such as that.
FYI....there are various other discussions about these devices, and FCC compliance has come up several times. Allow me to quote just a snippet from Carl Moreland: "Even non-transmitter circuits often must be tested as unintentional radiators, and at least be self-verified. Calculators, ferinstance, fall in this category. So any electronic LRL probably needs to be at least self-verified, even if it doesn't intentionally transmit a signal." No innuendos at all, my friend. Simple research. Your RT gimmick had no FCC ID on it...and you informed me of such. However, you did not reply to the second part of my question "or any FCC data contained within the owners manual that would indicate the device was approved for export into the Untied States, as per Part 15 and Federal Law?" Although you doubted that the Examiner is subject to FCC ID....and it might not be....it still needs to be certified/verified as per Part 15. I wanted to talk alleged electronic circuits, and you wanted to talk about resonant sound frequency's and hollow tubes. So...I threw in a sea shell. Neither has anything to do with the alleged circuits in the RT. Ciao
|
|
#648
04-08-2010, 04:32 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#649
04-08-2010, 05:21 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The rods simply did not move unless I made a conscious effort to cause them to move. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#650
04-08-2010, 05:22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If you consider this lashing out, you are welcome to your opinion. I see it as an observation that anyone can make from reading your recent posts. In the snippet you presented from your "simple research" I don't see where Carl says the Examiner is among the "non-transmitter circuits often must be tested as unintentional radiators". Do you suppose Carl was referring to LRLs that use batteries for their internal power when he says "any electronic LRL probably needs to be at least self-verified"? Maybe the same as calculators that use batteries or solar cells as a power source can become unintentional radiators? Do you suppose the FCC requires certification of devices that do not have a power source connected to the circuit inside? Personally, I have never seen any electronic circuit that does not use a power source such as a battery or solar cell to power it with an FCC ID on it. Maybe this is because non-powered passive circuits do not radiate, but collect noise from the outside. In the case of a calculator, the power is applied inside the circuit where it can radiate outward rather than being a non-powered circuit that can only pick up electronic emissions from the outside. The TI-36X calculator is the only part of the Examiner that can concievably radiate anything to my knowledge. And it is hard for me to believe a TI-36X calculator is not FCC compliant. Most of the calculators I own have FCC compliance information posted in the instruction booklet that comes with the calculator, if it is published at all. My guess is this information is in the TI-36 calculator manual, which was not included in the package that I received. Just because I didn't see the statement FCC compliance statement doesn't mean the calculator does not comply. Can you show any evidence that the TI-36X calculator is in violation of the FCC requirements? If we are to believe your new innuendo, we must also believe the part of the Examiner (aside from the calculator) is a radiator, or unintentional radiator, and that Carl was also referring to LRL circuits that have no internal power source when he says "probably needs to be at least self-verified". In fact this "simple research" is not based on facts at all. You are quoting what Carl thinks probably needs to be done for unintentional radiating devices. And in fact, the Examiner is not a radiating device, but a device that captures EMI/RFI radiations from the outside. Then you say you wanted to talk about electronic circuits, not resonance. The question is how can you not talk about resonance when the Examiner circuit is claimed to be a resonant circuit? If you decide you want to talk about electronic circuits but leave out all mention of resonance, then we must omit any talk of the coils and capacitors inside the Examiner, as well as the diode, which is often used in conjunction with electronic resonant circuits. And we should also not mention the ariel, because it is claimed to collect a signal in the air that resonates at the same frequency as the alleged resonant circuit inside that we are not talking about. So what's left? There is a sensitivity pot, a crystal clock and a plastic enclosure with a handle. Not much electronic circuits left to talk about when you ignore the claimed resonant circuit inside, right? So what is your agenda? You want all mention of claims of a resonant passive receiver to go away, and you want the non-powered internal circuit to be classed as an unintentional radiator so you can claim it is not in compliance with US Federal law, and you want people to believe that you are presenting simple research instead of quoting second hand information of what someone else says they think is probably required, rather than to show the actual provision of a law that was violated. It appears you are attempting to dredge up whatever you can find to promote your agenda, not present actual facts. I don't see anything in the Examiner that would indicate to me it is an radiator of any signal. I see a calculator that I believe is probably a radiator of very small signals and I believe is compliant with the FCC requirements in the USA. I don't recall ever seeing any FCC statements in the manual, but I haven't looked for any specifically. Let's assume there is no statement concerning the FCC published in the manual. Is this a problem? I thought this was required only for devices that are radiators, which the Examiner is not. And is it required that a an FCC approval must be published, or stamped on a device, or is it only required that certain classes of products must be certified? I actually don't know if there is any violation of FCC or federal laws. Until I see some real evidence that there is a violation, then I will presume there is not. So far you have shown a lot of "probably required" and implied violations that I see no proof of. If you expect me to pass judgment on your hearsay and innuendos, you can forget it. I prefer to see the actual facts. Best wishes, J_P
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
