rangertell examiner field trials

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by g-sani

May be you are right and I see your point Theseus but I think that when somebody is Treasure hunting he wants mainly to see their practical side of things and he doesn't like theories that can never put down in practice.
Trying to test an LRL by trying to imitate real conditions is very tricky.
Testing in a controlled environment makes a big limitation for the LRL to be used and the results it will be very poor in my opinion.
Just imagine all the different compinations or environments than we can have because of the endless parameters they exist when we are out in the real thing.
Go out by chance a few times to different places and not only Sundays.
Use the real thing that there is out there in places as in a usaully day out.This is where we will use our LRLs anyway.
May be I am wrong my friends but I thing all test protocols for LRLs that we know up to now are trying to do exactly the same.
Imitate the real thing.

You said; "when somebody is Treasure hunting he wants mainly to see their practical side of things and he doesn't like theories that can never put down in practice."

Treasure hunting requires an expenditure of time and usually significant monetary resources. I'm not one who likes to waste either time or money. Therefore, before I go into the field, I only make sure I am using tools that have been tried and tested, and that I am confident will perform as claimed or advertised. If the tools used were never tested under controlled conditions, how could I know they were worth depending on in conditions that are not controlled? The answer is simple; I could not.

Actual projects in the field, under varying conditions is not the place to evaluate tools of any kind, especially LRL implements. Unless of course you are not concerned with real conclusions and only want to verify a theory of operation. In which case, conclusions and results reached in that manner have no value whatsoever to the serious treasure hunter.