LRL Ionic/Electrostatic energy field locator

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by hung

If you can't differentiate a bedroom from a kitchen, no wonder you can't tell the difference of an emitter from a collector in a transistor!
Hey Fred, that was a good one. You are getting as funny as Max!

Regardless of the actual location, there are three main objections to your video:

1. Despite repeated protesting that LRLs must be tested outside away from any interference, you have demonstrated the PD "working" in your bedroom. Presumably your bed doesn't contain any metal springs, and your house is interference free?

2. The first test (no target) is performed at a height greater than the second test with the gold ring. This leads observers to the obvious conclusion that your PD would have responded anyway (regardless of the presence of a target) just by lowering the device.

3. A gold ring laying on your bedroom floor would be undetectable at the distance shown, particularly with such a small coil. Remember that this PD is essentially an old modified Heathkit design, which makes your claims even more ridiculous. The so-called LRL part of the design would be inoperative at this distance, according to your previous statements. Also, Morgan does not claim to have the same sensitivity on his own PD, despite having access to the original for comparison.

As a result, the video is extremely suspect and cannot be taken at face value.

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by Qiaozhi

Regardless of the actual location, there are three main objections to your video:

1. Despite repeated protesting that LRLs must be tested outside away from any interference, you have demonstrated the PD "working" in your bedroom. Presumably your bed doesn't contain any metal springs, and your house is interference free?

2. The first test (no target) is performed at a height greater than the second test with the gold ring. This leads observers to the obvious conclusion that your PD would have responded anyway (regardless of the presence of a target) just by lowering the device.

3. A gold ring laying on your bedroom floor would be undetectable at the distance shown, particularly with such a small coil. Remember that this PD is essentially an old modified Heathkit design, which makes your claims even more ridiculous. The so-called LRL part of the design would be inoperative at this distance, according to your previous statements. Also, Morgan does not claim to have the same sensitivity on his own PD, despite having access to the original for comparison.

As a result, the video is extremely suspect and cannot be taken at face value.

Is this video still available for viewing, on the internet perhaps?

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Theseus

Is this video still available for viewing, on the internet perhaps?

Yes, here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/189867703/PD_agk.avi

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by Fred

Yes, here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/189867703/PD_agk.avi

Thanks, I'll have a look.

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by Qiaozhi

Regardless of the actual location, there are three main objections to your video:

1. Despite repeated protesting that LRLs must be tested outside away from any interference, you have demonstrated the PD "working" in your bedroom. Presumably your bed doesn't contain any metal springs, and your house is interference free?

2. The first test (no target) is performed at a height greater than the second test with the gold ring. This leads observers to the obvious conclusion that your PD would have responded anyway (regardless of the presence of a target) just by lowering the device.

3. A gold ring laying on your bedroom floor would be undetectable at the distance shown, particularly with such a small coil. Remember that this PD is essentially an old modified Heathkit design, which makes your claims even more ridiculous. The so-called LRL part of the design would be inoperative at this distance, according to your previous statements. Also, Morgan does not claim to have the same sensitivity on his own PD, despite having access to the original for comparison.

As a result, the video is extremely suspect and cannot be taken at face value.

After viewing the video, I concur with all three of your points for suspicion. However, the most troublesome of the three would be number 2., since the height above "floor" level was definitely less than when the background-no-target test was performed.

The test results may have been more believable if the "device" were fixed at a certain location, either vertical or horizontal and the target passed in front of it.

Kind of reminds me of an experiment I did many years ago with a standard BFO detector. It was tuned to an EXTREMELY low beat frequency, about one tick per second, and (in the air) we could discern a slight frequency change when targets were waved in front of the coil at about 36 to 40 inches. That depth was not usable in practice, but it made an interesting experiment on the bench.

[Esteban]

Originally Posted by Theseus

After viewing the video, I concur with all three of your points for suspicion. However, the most troublesome of the three would be number 2., since the height above "floor" level was definitely less than when the background-no-target test was performed.

The test results may have been more believable if the "device" were fixed at a certain location, either vertical or horizontal and the target passed in front of it.

Kind of reminds me of an experiment I did many years ago with a standard BFO detector. It was tuned to an EXTREMELY low beat frequency, about one tick per second, and (in the air) we could discern a slight frequency change when targets were waved in front of the coil at about 36 to 40 inches. That depth was not usable in practice, but it made an interesting experiment on the bench.

Of course, the BFO pistol catch a anomaly at 30 m (big bronze spoon, very green for the time) for the few hertz variation. But BFO pistol works with a RF receiver too. But only few BFO is very stable.

[Fred]

And we don´t know what the floor is made of and what is below.Could be a plate of 1X1m gold below the ring .

[Max]

Originally Posted by Theseus

After viewing the video, I concur with all three of your points for suspicion. However, the most troublesome of the three would be number 2., since the height above "floor" level was definitely less than when the background-no-target test was performed.

The test results may have been more believable if the "device" were fixed at a certain location, either vertical or horizontal and the target passed in front of it.

Kind of reminds me of an experiment I did many years ago with a standard BFO detector. It was tuned to an EXTREMELY low beat frequency, about one tick per second, and (in the air) we could discern a slight frequency change when targets were waved in front of the coil at about 36 to 40 inches. That depth was not usable in practice, but it made an interesting experiment on the bench.

On the bench... of course. The little induction variation on the bench , controlled environment, you can even spot cause other factors do not influence or have small influence on e.g. stability...

but in practice... these BFOs are unuseful when e.g. the target is buried under 50cm of soil!

Which kind of S/N and stability will you need to see some say 10E-30 H variation at coil due to an coin at 50cm depth and say 3 meters away???

That's the clue... that BFO LRL simply can't work as described... I think we already know that.

Kind regards,
Max

[Max]

Originally Posted by Esteban

Of course, the BFO pistol catch a anomaly at 30 m (big bronze spoon, very green for the time) for the few hertz variation. But BFO pistol works with a RF receiver too. But only few BFO is very stable.

Hi,
what ? 30meters ?

Impossible.

Kind regards,
Max

[Max]

Originally Posted by Fred

And we don´t know what the floor is made of and what is below.Could be a plate of 1X1m gold below the ring .

Hi Fred,
as it's described is impossible or well...if we wanna consider all the possibilities...

Doesn't exist a BFO capable of doing a large spoon detection at 30meters... unless the spoon is VERY large... like this.

Kind regards,
Max

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by Max

but in practice... these BFOs are unuseful when e.g. the target is buried under 50cm of soil!
Max

How very true. They are totally useless.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Max

Hi Fred,
as it's described is impossible or well...if we wanna consider all the possibilities...Max

Nice spoon, but i mean on Hung´s video, why it beeps when getting closer to the ground.

[Esteban]

Originally Posted by Max

Hi Fred,
as it's described is impossible or well...if we wanna consider all the possibilities...

Doesn't exist a BFO capable of doing a large spoon detection at 30meters... unless the spoon is VERY large... like this.

Kind regards,
Max

You forgett all I try to explain. Is not only the BFO.

[detectoman]

jajaja max is one sample of perfect sceptics, he in 5 years of hear very detailed to esteban not learn nafthing,natthing, i build one bfo, i put in reference coil, one needle brass and spring anten of heavy iron, hig armonic of turns, special transistors rf, and these bfo detect object whit nice sound mum away 1. 5 mts
2n3904 bc546 2n2222 and voilaaaaaaaa
and for stabilice, mm is top secret, may be little cap. in paralell whit oscilators
these bfo is my prefered, bfo for president!
good whises
dman.

[humhum]

Originally Posted by Geo

Hi, in theory my PD works better because it detects the 1.5v spark at 60cm very easy..... sometimes at 70cm. If it says anything
But all the discussion is if it work as LRL or not, and not if detect a ring or a spark.

Regards

Hi Geo, my (62Khz) Ferrite detects the 1.5v spark at 1meter ,but I make some modification in value -parameters.

[humhum]

Originally Posted by Fred

Yes, here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/189867703/PD_agk.avi

Hello Hung. Can you test (try) Your PD (tyon) without a gold ring around 10 centimeters (the ground) to hear the sound or no sound (without the gold ring). After(then)test with a gold ring (for sound).
Please send a new video.

Regards.

[Geo]

Originally Posted by humhum

Hi Geo, my (62Khz) Ferrite detects the 1.5v spark at 1meter ,but I make some modification in value -parameters.

very good

[Max]

Originally Posted by Geo

very good

I don't understand what's that 1.5V spark !

usually sparks in the air happen at very hi-voltage not 1.5V!

Or you guys mean that you SHORT an 1.5V battery ?

Cause if so... it's not so indicative stuff I think cause you must also describe the battery you use...

The higher the capacity... the higher the peak current for a simple wire you short on its electrodes, then the higher the magnetic pulse you can generate at switchoff.

Or not ?

Kind regards,
Max

[Morgan]

Originally Posted by Max

I don't understand what's that 1.5V spark !

usually sparks in the air happen at very hi-voltage not 1.5V!

Or you guys mean that you SHORT an 1.5V battery ?

Cause if so... it's not so indicative stuff I think cause you must also describe the battery you use...

The higher the capacity... the higher the peak current for a simple wire you short on its electrodes, then the higher the magnetic pulse you can generate at switchoff.

Or not ?

Kind regards,
Max

Hello Max

This picture in your avatar is very strange...

Its Winney the P00 ???

[Morgan]

Originally Posted by Geo

very good

Hello Geo

Did you already scan with MD the place where your PD give some buzzer beeps?
I´m curious.

Regards

[Max]

Originally Posted by Morgan

Hello Max

This picture in your avatar is very strange...

Its Winney the P00 ???

I think you need eyeglasses... it's not the POO here... (but maybe you like that POO so much... I don't know ).

Look here for details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Harlock

Kind regards,
Max

[humhum]

LRL Video from Morgan.

http://rapidshare.com/files/23717910..._Test.rar.html

[Geo]

Originally Posted by Max

I don't understand what's that 1.5V spark !

usually sparks in the air happen at very hi-voltage not 1.5V!

Or you guys mean that you SHORT an 1.5V battery ?

Cause if so... it's not so indicative stuff I think cause you must also describe the battery you use...

The higher the capacity... the higher the peak current for a simple wire you short on its electrodes, then the higher the magnetic pulse you can generate at switchoff.

Or not ?

Kind regards,
Max

Hi Max,
We mean the short of the battery.
You have right

[Geo]

Originally Posted by Morgan

Hello Geo

Did you already scan with MD the place where your PD give some buzzer beeps?
I´m curious.

Regards

Hi Max.
At the place there are burried a lot of iron objects so it is not easy to clean all of them, so to understand if PD detcts something or no
Regards

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by Qiaozhi

Regardless of the actual location, there are three main objections to your video:

1. Despite repeated protesting that LRLs must be tested outside away from any interference, you have demonstrated the PD "working" in your bedroom. Presumably your bed doesn't contain any metal springs, and your house is interference free?

2. The first test (no target) is performed at a height greater than the second test with the gold ring. This leads observers to the obvious conclusion that your PD would have responded anyway (regardless of the presence of a target) just by lowering the device.

3. A gold ring laying on your bedroom floor would be undetectable at the distance shown, particularly with such a small coil. Remember that this PD is essentially an old modified Heathkit design, which makes your claims even more ridiculous. The so-called LRL part of the design would be inoperative at this distance, according to your previous statements. Also, Morgan does not claim to have the same sensitivity on his own PD, despite having access to the original for comparison.

As a result, the video is extremely suspect and cannot be taken at face value.

If I had posted a video showing some remarkable (some would say impossible) results, and someone else questioned the genuineness of that video, I would be prompted to reply. Most likely I would also address the objections by creating a second video without the problems noted in the first one.
However, your silence Hung is very illuminating.

Originally Posted by Theseus

After viewing the video, I concur with all three of your points for suspicion. However, the most troublesome of the three would be number 2., since the height above "floor" level was definitely less than when the background-no-target test was performed.

The test results may have been more believable if the "device" were fixed at a certain location, either vertical or horizontal and the target passed in front of it.

Kind of reminds me of an experiment I did many years ago with a standard BFO detector. It was tuned to an EXTREMELY low beat frequency, about one tick per second, and (in the air) we could discern a slight frequency change when targets were waved in front of the coil at about 36 to 40 inches. That depth was not usable in practice, but it made an interesting experiment on the bench.

Yes - and the second video should be conducted in the manner shown above - in bold.