“New for 2009 - The most advanced long range locator on the world”

[Dell Winders]

Why don't you build your own Frequency Discriminator? An inexpensive frequency generator, and a pair of Dowsing rods is all it takes. You can probably do that for under 50 bucks. Even a $3 transistor radio will work. At the one Treasure show I attended I showed folks how to build their own Frequency Discriminator, for under $20 and 2 hours time.

If there is any secret to it, it's learning to allow the rod(s) to respond to a physics application, and don't override the natural reaction with a mind/muscle ideomotor response. This usually requires practice to mastered, and an understanding that a physics application has limitations that have to be recognized, and accepted accordingly.

The electronics people have been bamboozling,and swindling gullible consumers out of millions for years, with bells & whistles, and advanced technology claims that their electronic circuit is farther advanced, and better than the other. But most of them are using the hand held Antenna Rods, which can also be used as Mental, meta-physical tools with the stigma of Dowsing attached.

You guys crying skeptic on the forums have done an excellent job of making your high tech electronic friends wealthy in the LRL industry, by bashing and ridding the industry of low priced competition such as myself.

The electronics in the LRL have a purpose, but are of lesser importance, unless you are building an electronic receiver. Learning to use, and correctly interpreting the reactions of the Rods, is key important to having success with present Locators.

It's been my experience that electronics people won't believe anything works unless they can complicate it. Personally, I think the arm chair idiot's paper cup tests to gather data are Stupid gimmickry, and prove nothing. True field tests, successes, and failures provide usable information and scientific data.

Unless it is the intent of the electronics people to continue ripping off people with electronic jargon, exaggerated, and false advertising claims, and using so called skeptics to bash low priced competition, my advise is, "keep it simple, stupid". Learn to use the Rod(s) like your electronic friends have, and you too may be on to something that will contribute to future development.

Trying to pi$$ people off with egotistic arrogance, and intellectual ignorance hasn't carried this forum very far. Dell

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

Why don't you build your own Frequency Discriminator? An inexpensive frequency generator, and a pair of Dowsing rods is all it takes. You can probably do that for under 50 bucks. Even a $3 transistor radio will work. At the one Treasure show I attended I showed folks how to build their own Frequency Discriminator, for under $20 and 2 hours time.

If there is any secret to it, it's learning to allow the rod(s) to respond to a physics application, and don't override the natural reaction with a mind/muscle ideomotor response. This usually requires practice to mastered, and an understanding that a physics application has limitations that have to be recognized, and accepted accordingly.

The electronics people have been bamboozling,and swindling gullible consumers out of millions for years, with bells & whistles, and advanced technology claims that their electronic circuit is farther advanced, and better than the other. But most of them are using the hand held Antenna Rods, which can also be used as Mental, meta-physical tools with the stigma of Dowsing attached.

You guys crying skeptic on the forums have done an excellent job of making your high tech electronic friends wealthy in the LRL industry, by bashing and ridding the industry of low priced competition such as myself.

The electronics in the LRL have a purpose, but are of lesser importance, unless you are building an electronic receiver. Learning to use, and correctly interpreting the reactions of the Rods, is key important to having success with present Locators.

It's been my experience that electronics people won't believe anything works unless they can complicate it. Personally, I think the arm chair idiot's paper cup tests to gather data are Stupid gimmickry, and prove nothing. True field tests, successes, and failures provide usable information and scientific data.

Unless it is the intent of the electronics people to continue ripping off people with electronic jargon, exaggerated, and false advertising claims, and using so called skeptics to bash low priced competition, my advise is, "keep it simple, stupid". Learn to use the Rod(s) like your electronic friends have, and you too may be on to something that will contribute to future development.

Trying to pi$$ people off with egotistic arrogance, and intellectual ignorance hasn't carried this forum very far. Dell

Well ... I've read this diatribe twice, and it still doesn't make any sense.

What on Earth is meant by "respond to a physics application"? Your rant here is just gobbledygook.

Perhaps you should try stringing the words effortlessly so that they formulate a nonsensical concatenated sequence of syncopated verbage.

[Dell Winders]

I assume this is your intellectual way of saying that Copper & Brass Rods sometimes used for Dowsing, cannot be used as an application of physics??

Or, perhaps you are defending electronics people who are using this antenna method, their electronic credentials, and false advertising claims to scam unsuspecting consumers out of millions each year by fooling them into believing they are getting what they pay for when they get an LRL product manufactured by an Electronics engineer, or tech? Dell

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

I assume this is your intellectual way of saying that Copper & Brass Rods sometimes used for Dowsing, cannot be used as an application of physics?? Dell

You mean "psychology" not "physics".

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

Why don't you build your own Frequency Discriminator? An inexpensive frequency generator, and a pair of Dowsing rods is all it takes. You can probably do that for under 50 bucks. Even a $3 transistor radio will work. At the one Treasure show I attended I showed folks how to build their own Frequency Discriminator, for under $20 and 2 hours time.

Hi Dell,
The reason I don't build a frequency generator is because of the secret you refer to:

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

If there is any secret to it, it's learning to allow the rod(s) to respond to a physics application, and don't override the natural reaction with a mind/muscle ideomotor response. This usually requires practice to mastered, and an understanding that a physics application has limitations that have to be recognized, and accepted accordingly.

For one, I don't believe there is any physics application involved, nor do I think ideamotor response has anything to do with locating treasure. Keeping in mind that what I believe is irrelevant as long as I hold the LRL and let it work, all my previous attempts to allow rods to respond were fruitless for locating anything. Therefore, I expect to have a 100% failure rate, based on previous experience. The only way this might change is if someone were to give live instructions on the proper way to handle a LRL. Unless this happens, then I expect to have continued 100% failure rate, and any building of apparatus is wasted time. This is the reason I prefer to let the LRL experts demonstrate how to make them work live and in person. When I see them work, then I will be ready to be trained by a successful operator of an LRL to become proficient. The fact is I would prefer to buy a working machine than to build one of my own.

Your opinion of the electronics industry is sadly mistaken:

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

The electronics people have been bamboozling,and swindling gullible consumers out of millions for years, with bells & whistles, and advanced technology claims that their electronic circuit is farther advanced, and better than the other. But most of them are using the hand held Antenna Rods, which can also be used as Mental, meta-physical tools with the stigma of Dowsing attached.

You guys crying skeptic on the forums have done an excellent job of making your high tech electronic friends wealthy in the LRL industry, by bashing and ridding the industry of low priced competition such as myself.

The electronics in the LRL have a purpose, but are of lesser importance, unless you are building an electronic receiver. Learning to use, and correctly interpreting the reactions of the Rods, is key important to having success with present Locators.

It's been my experience that electronics people won't believe anything works unless they can complicate it. Personally, I think the arm chair idiot's paper cup tests to gather data are Stupid gimmickry, and prove nothing. True field tests, successes, and failures provide usable information and scientific data.

Unless it is the intent of the electronics people to continue ripping off people with electronic jargon, exaggerated, and false advertising claims, and using so called skeptics to bash low priced competition, my advise is, "keep it simple, stupid". Learn to use the Rod(s) like your electronic friends have, and you too may be on to something that will contribute to future development.

Trying to pi$$ people off with egotistic arrogance, and intellectual ignorance hasn't carried this forum very far. Dell

From my point of view, what you view as egotistic arrogance is in reality righteous indignation. The electronic engineers who post in the Geotech forums are for the most part exceptionally bright engineers who are well equipped to recognize bogus electronic circuits and fake theories that were simply made up in order to convince the ignorant that a particular contraption is so advanced that only a rocket scientist would be able to understand how it works. The real scientific pretenders are people who make up this crap about swivel rods with electronic trash connected to it in hopes that ignorant customers will believe it is the latest and greatest from the scientific world.

You are sadly mistaken if you think Carl, Qiaozi, Max, Ivconic, Geo, and dozens of others who post in this forum are not among the top electronic engineers to be found in the treasure hunting world.

You think I am wrong?
Look at what Geo posted just a few posts above this post. In o few lines, he totally de-bunked the Spektra, detailing how it uses a fake ground balance which is simply a timer flashing a message on the screen until the timer runs out. Then it pretends to be switching out of the ground balance mode and start generating a frequency. Geo is no scientific pretender. The person who made the Spectra is. In fact it is fraud to advertise an electronic device as automatic ground balancing when it does not perform any ground balancing:

Originally Posted by Geo

It is a simple and expensive generator. No Ground balance
It has a inner timer so at first 2...3 minutes it display ground scaning, but it give the desired frequency at the probes. It only writes "Ground balance", nothing else
With some words... "Very expensive generator for its ability"

When these engineers are pointing out bad electronics and fradulent claims, this does not brand them as egotistical or arrogant. Any self-respecting person would be indignant over discovering such a fraud, and we are fortunate to have them looking out for the rest of us who don't have the time or perhaps not the ability to examine the circuits and determine they are fake.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by Qiaozhi

You mean "psychology" not "physics".

Dell believes if he uses the word "physics" enough times in relation to his do-nothing ideomotor-based contraptions, that eventually some small portion of his targeted "gullible" audience will fall for his ruse. He knows very well that real physics are not involved, but he must maintain the use of the word in order to keep up the scam. He's been doing it for decades now.

[Fred]

Dell, do you realise what you say ? :

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

Why don't you build your own Frequency Discriminator? An inexpensive frequency generator, and a pair of Dowsing rods is all it takes. You can probably do that for under 50 bucks. (...) I showed folks how to build their own Frequency Discriminator, for under $20 and 2 hours time.

Then:

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

You guys crying skeptic on the forums have done an excellent job of making your high tech electronic friends wealthy in the LRL industry, by bashing and ridding the industry of low priced competition such as myself.

BUT :
PRO-4 FREQUENCY DISCRIMINATOR, Price $950

[Dell Winders]

Then:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dell Winders
You guys crying skeptic on the forums have done an excellent job of making your high tech electronic friends wealthy in the LRL industry, by bashing and ridding the industry of low priced competition such as myself.
BUT :
PRO-4 FREQUENCY DISCRIMINATOR, Price $950

Comparable in utility to electronic engineers/techs versions selling for $3000 to $22,000. All using antenna Rod(s) in a physics application. Do these educated folks with electronic degrees know something about physics you don't? Or, are they running a profiteering scam to rip off trusting consumers with mis-leading advertising, and ridiculous prices? You tell me?

Another example: A simple Non electronic discrimination module. Dell's price $75. A comparable tech version $1,800, with a no refund policy.

I can see why you protect your greedy electronic friends, and try to put me out of business. "Birds of a feather flock together" Dell

[Morris_jo]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

More dowsing rod nonsense.

Why all MFD devices are scam ? Is The principle does`t belong to science ?

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

Another example: A simple Non electronic discrimination module. Dell's price $75. A comparable tech version $1,800, with a no refund policy.

There is big scammers and smaller ones...

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

Comparable in utility to electronic engineers/techs versions selling for $3000 to $22,000. All using antenna Rod(s) in a physics application. Do these educated folks with electronic degrees know something about physics you don't?

Which manufacturer of LRLs has a true degreed electronic engineer?

Or, are they running a profiteering scam to rip off trusting consumers with mis-leading advertising, and ridiculous prices?

"PRO-4 FREQUENCY DISCRIMINATOR, Price $950"

Dell, your LRL garbage cost over twice as much as Ranger-Tell's LRL garbage. Does that mean, relative to him, you're ripping people off with ridiculous prices?

I can see why you protect your greedy electronic friends, and try to put me out of business.

Take a look at my LRL reports page... exactly who am I trying to protect?

- Carl

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by Morris_jo

Why all MFD devices are scam ? Is The principle does`t belong to science ?

Yes, ALL MFD devices are "non-science" nonsense.

[Rudy]

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

Another example: A simple Non electronic discrimination module. Dell's price $75. A comparable tech version $1,800, with a no refund policy.

Dell, you are a man with scruples. You are satisfied with a $75 rip off, rather than going for $1,800. You are to be commended.

[Dell Winders]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dell Winders
Comparable in utility to electronic engineers/techs versions selling for $3000 to $22,000. All using antenna Rod(s) in a physics application. Do these educated folks with electronic degrees know something about physics you don't?
Which manufacturer of LRLs has a true degreed electronic engineer?

Quote:
Or, are they running a profiteering scam to rip off trusting consumers with mis-leading advertising, and ridiculous prices?
"PRO-4 FREQUENCY DISCRIMINATOR, Price $950"

Dell, your LRL garbage cost over twice as much as Ranger-Tell's LRL garbage. Does that mean, relative to him, you're ripping people off with ridiculous prices?

Quote:
I can see why you protect your greedy electronic friends, and try to put me out of business.
Take a look at my LRL reports page... exactly who am I trying to protect?

- Carl

Uh oh! Looks like a scientific pretender's ego has been stepped on. Carl, I don't see any replies I made that were to your posts.

For 7 years I was the ONLY one you attacked on forums all over the internet to put me out of business. I'm still here. Still trying to compete honestly with Electronic engineers/ techs manufacturing LRL, and duping consumers with their credentials, and fancy electronics to justify charging gullible consumers rip off prices . I'm still here. Get over it!

Your attacks on me have supported the sales of folks in the Electronics industry who have made millions manufacturing LRL's. So back off your high horse, Carl. To me you are just a sneaky, lieing, Charlatan, who has tried to ruin the reputation, and life of another human being. Dell

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

Uh oh! Looks like a scientific pretender ego has been stepped on. Carl, I don't see any replies I made that were to your posts.

For 7 years I was the ONLY one you attacked and tried to put out of business. I'm still here. Get used to it. Dell

Like a bad ...

[J_Player]

Most of us are smart enough to recognize the value of a double blind test. It is virtually impossible for anyone to use trickery or to
tamper with the results. Whatever results are returned from the testing then can be tallied and run through a statistical analysis to
determine the efficiency of the device testsed. But even if the kind of testing does not lend itself to statistical analysis, double
blind is still the best way to assure unbiased and accurate testing methodology.

I suppose most of the metal detectors sold can pass a double blind test. We may find that some of them will have shorter range than
advertised, or discrimination properties that are not as good as advertised. But most all of them will prove to be useful tools. In the
case of LRLs, we see another scenario. No manufacturer has ever allowed a public double blind test of his LRL products. Even more
curious, no owner of an LRL has submitted their LRL to a public double blind test. This raises serious questions to whether they work or
not. So do they or don't they work?

We hear occasional anecdotal stories about how great treasures were found with an LRL, and other anecdotes about which LRL performs
better than another. But never a test with recorded results that show the performance values like we do for metal detectors. And never
test results from double blind testing. This LRL story-telling is hardly convincing considering the the hard facts that we've learned
about LRLs. For example, many LRLs contain rods with or without attached electronics that are supposed to point in the direction of the
target, and no known principles of electronics or physics to explain why it should do that. Also no LRL can be demonstrated to find a
target that is recovered in a test. So what do we have? A contraption that has no valid working principle, and no valid evidence of
working. Just stories by people who will not demonstrate it working to prove what they say is true.

This is not a very convincing scenario for LRLs.

Consider the conventional metal detectors: The working principles of search coils are well known and substantiated by engineers and
physicists. The manufacturers of metal detectors as well as owners are usually happy to demonstrate them working right in front of you.
And I doubt anyone with a metal detector would mind participating in a double blind test.

Did you ever wonder why we have this scenario with LRLs, but not conventional metal detectors?
The skeptics seem to know the answer: Because LRLs don't work.
They are just another version of a bogus contraption to get peoples money.
The added electronics are simply there as sales gimmicks to fool people into thinking their version is more high-tech than a competitor.

But what about Dell Winders?
Dell has offered a demonstration where you get to try it out - a major exception to the rule maintained by most LRL manufacturers.
Let's assume that Dell is completely ignorant of real physics and electronics, and is incapable of explaining correctly how his LRLs work or don't work. Let's also suppose that none of the Omnitron products can pass a double blind test. His LRLs are functionally the same as anyone else's LRLs with one exception: He is willing to show you how well it works for yourself before you buy one. No double-blind test, but you get to try it out first to see if it works for you. This is the back door to testing. If there is no valid working principle, and no valid evidence that it works, then there is one last resort to see if it has value -- try it out and see for yourself.

According to Dell, it takes practice. Thus, someone untrained would have a difficult time getting it to work. But Dell offered to demonstrate it and show you how to use it. You are not testing to see if it can find a hidden target in one of 10 places -- you are testing to see if you can use it to find a target that someone else hides in a field. Suppose you discover you can find the target 90% of the time within 14 feet of the target?
Would you care if it passes Carl's double blind test?
Would you care if it has do-nothing electronics attached?
And then if it doesn't work, you didn't rely on guessing or theories to figure it out.... you will know from first hand experience.

If I was in Central Florida, I would certainly give it a try, just to see if it really works. If I was impressed with the results, I would place my order on the spot.

Best wishes,
J_P

[hung]

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

For 7 years I was the ONLY one you attacked on forums all over the internet to put me out of business. I'm still here. Still trying to compete honestly with Electronic engineers/ techs manufacturing LRL, and duping consumers with their credentials, and fancy electronics to justify charging gullible consumers rip off prices . I'm still here. Get over it!

Your attacks on me have supported the sales of folks in the Electronics industry who have made millions manufacturing LRL's. So back off your high horse, Carl. To me you are just a sneaky, lieing, Charlatan, who has tried to ruin the reputation, and life of another human being. Dell

Hey Dell, you are still here (hope for many years to come). So does RT, Afilani's Electroscope, Mineoro, Fitzgeralds, OKM, etc.

In fact, I think everytime Carl states a particular LRL 'should' not work, he somehow creates an effect that misteriously help to add to the sales of these LRLs. It's like his verdict against them becomes at the same time a 'validation' they work! This is amazing. RT for instance has reached a mark of several thousands of users.

I believe many of LRL manufacturers have Carl as a good advertiser for them. Maybe they already pay him some comission.

I think Carl is much like the 'Charles Ponzi' of the 'Anti LRL Brigade'. Always emitting 'pearls' that really help LRL sales.

Like this one:

Which manufacturer of LRLs has a true degreed electronic engineer?

Frankly, to me this is a one more strong evidence that Carl not only is a LRL believer in disguise, but also has always dreamed about launching his own LRL manufacturing corp.
Well he has joined Whites... Hey, I believe now!

Carl, don't be jealous. People will buy your LRLs too!

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by J_Player

.......

According to Dell, it takes practice. Thus, someone untrained would have a difficult time getting it to work. But Dell offered to demonstrate it and show you how to use it. You are not testing to see if it can find a hidden target in one of 10 places -- you are testing to see if you can use it to find a target that someone else hides in a field. Suppose you discover you can find the target 90% of the time within 14 feet of the target?
Would you care if it passes Carl's double blind test?
Would you care if it has do-nothing electronics attached?
And then if it doesn't work, you didn't rely on guessing or theories to figure it out.... you will know from first hand experience.

Best wishes,
J_P

Basically I agree with most of what you've said in the posting above.

Would just like to add a few additional thoughts.

It would seem to me that if a device could find a target 90% of the time, then by default it would ALSO be able to find a hidden target, in one of ten places 90% of the time. Thus, I see no problem with evaluating/testing the device according to a double-blind protocol.

Also, it is well known that informal demonstrations (devoid of d-b protocol) are typically skewed by all manner of information leaks; and are really worthless when it comes to serious evaluation procedures and techniques.

So...... to answer your questions:

Would you care if it passes Carl's double blind test?

My answer would have to be Yes, for the reasons stated above.

Would you care if it has do-nothing electronics attached?

Again, Yes. If the device is sold under certain theories and claims (real or inferred) whereby the operation and performance of the device is as a function of said electronic components, and the inclusion of said components are a part of the purchase price - then I would care if they are functioning per the claims and advertising.

Again, just my thoughts, and my answers to the questions posed.

----------------------

Different topic.........

Further, I do not agree with the premise that if Carl (or other skeptics) point out the flaws and scams related to commercial LRL products, that somehow this act alone works in reverse, essentially validating the scam LRL products, and helps to increase their sales.

That thinking is pure BS and is not unlike another example of pure BS that is aimed at somehow putting your opponent at a psychological disadvantage. The example I'm thinking of is the golf star Tiger Woods. No matter how many strokes Tiger is behind the leaders, he will always respond to commentators with the same BS. That is.... he sees himself as in a perfect position, has done nothing wrong and is at the very top of his game. Which of course is nothing more than a total psych job, aimed directly at his opponents. (Sometimes it even works... but it did not work for him in this past Master's event.)

Actually, pointing out a scam device does in fact hurt future sales of it. Hundreds of emails, from people who are thankful they read about these scam LRL products, saving them from wasting their money on them; is proof enough. Not to mention the fact that Carl and other skeptics have suffered all manner of threats for what they have written. One would have to ask; Why threaten someone with possible law suits and other techniques of slander and abuse, if in fact their writings were actually furthering your sales. The simple answer is; you wouldn't.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Theseus

It would seem to me that if a device could find a target 90% of the time, then by default it would ALSO be able to find a hidden target, in one of ten places 90% of the time. Thus, I see no problem with evaluating/testing the device according to a double-blind protocol.

Would you care if it passes Carl's double blind test?
My answer would have to be Yes, for the reasons stated above.

Would you care if it has do-nothing electronics attached?
Again, Yes. If the device is sold under certain theories and claims (real or inferred)

Hi Theseus,
It appears you are not interested in locating a working treasure finding machine, but a machine that meets specifications that are stated or implied by subjecting the machine to DB testing.

The problem with using DB testing is that Dell did not offer to subject his LRL to DB testing. He offered to demonstrate it and to show me how to use it. As I previously stated, let's suppose none of the Omnitron products can pass a DB test, --- we can assume this is true because neither Dell or any other LRL manufacturer will submit their products for that test. But when we assume this is true, we are still not certain, because we haven't conducted a DB test to prove we are right. Suppose you ran a DB test and it passed?

Another assumption is "then by default it would ALSO find a hidden target in one of ten places 90% of the time."
There is no default in this case.... This is another assumption. How can you be sure that by marking 9 additional possible locations, you don't cause the LRL to stop working properly? My argument may sound silly, but there is no known principle of operation for any LRL I have seen advertised. So maybe it works on the principle of subconscious mind magic link to a man named Murphy who lives in the sky. And Murphy applies Murphy's law to any situation that looks like a valid test with choices of locations marked. Sure it's silly, but if it were true, then it would invalidate that double blind test with 10 locations. ...Then what about a few of the LRLs that require long-time buried gold? Do you suppose a 10-location test of fresh gold would invalidate that test?

It is my belief that Dell is not capable of explaining the working of any electronic device, and has no knowledge of physics other than what he can pick up from watching tv. I decided to disregard all of what he said about how LRLs work, because even if it were possible for an LRL to work, I don't believe he would be able to describe what makes it work. I think Dell assigned technical terms to things he observed, without knowing exactly what those technical terms mean. If there are any technical details involved with the working of an LRL, they would require a better knowledge of electronics and physics to describe what's really happening.

This is why I don't think Dell is intentionally misleading people to believe his electronics are performing secret rocket-science functions that are really do-nothing circuits like timers that simply flash messages on a screen. If a technically educated person was to find an LRL that works better than random, then he may be able to examine it and find some appropriate technical words to describe what is happening to cause the better than random performance.

A final thought: Suppose I open my LRL factory, and you send your $5000 for a guaranteed 90% accurate gold finding machine. When you open the box, you find a chicken with a paper clip attached to it's comb. After much hollering and calling to my factory, I tell you to try it out before you send it back. -- and you do. Suppose the chicken squawks incessantly every time you get near gold. You take the chicken to the ancient ruins and find about 400 lbs of gold artifacts. You go fishing and find a sunken ship with 2 tons of gold bullion. You have to leave the chicken at home when you go to the jewelry store because it won't stop squawking. Then you set up the double blind test and the chicken does not squawk at all it just wanders around pecking on the 10 location markers.

Would you send back the chicken and demand your $5000 back, or take the chicken for more treasure hunting?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Carl-NC]

Dell, I figured you'd just dodge my questions, and blame me as usual... can you not answer at least this one?

"Which manufacturer of LRLs has a true degreed electronic engineer?"

[Dell Winders]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Most of us are smart enough to recognize the value of a double blind test. It is virtually impossible for anyone to use trickery or to
tamper with the results. Whatever results are returned from the testing then can be tallied and run through a statistical analysis to
determine the efficiency of the device testsed. But even if the kind of testing does not lend itself to statistical analysis, double
blind is still the best way to assure unbiased and accurate testing methodology.

I suppose most of the metal detectors sold can pass a double blind test. We may find that some of them will have shorter range than
advertised, or discrimination properties that are not as good as advertised. But most all of them will prove to be useful tools. In the
case of LRLs, we see another scenario. No manufacturer has ever allowed a public double blind test of his LRL products. Even more
curious, no owner of an LRL has submitted their LRL to a public double blind test. This raises serious questions to whether they work or
not. So do they or don't they work?

We hear occasional anecdotal stories about how great treasures were found with an LRL, and other anecdotes about which LRL performs
better than another. But never a test with recorded results that show the performance values like we do for metal detectors. And never
test results from double blind testing. This LRL story-telling is hardly convincing considering the the hard facts that we've learned
about LRLs. For example, many LRLs contain rods with or without attached electronics that are supposed to point in the direction of the
target, and no known principles of electronics or physics to explain why it should do that. Also no LRL can be demonstrated to find a
target that is recovered in a test. So what do we have? A contraption that has no valid working principle, and no valid evidence of
working. Just stories by people who will not demonstrate it working to prove what they say is true.

This is not a very convincing scenario for LRLs.

Consider the conventional metal detectors: The working principles of search coils are well known and substantiated by engineers and
physicists. The manufacturers of metal detectors as well as owners are usually happy to demonstrate them working right in front of you.
And I doubt anyone with a metal detector would mind participating in a double blind test.

Did you ever wonder why we have this scenario with LRLs, but not conventional metal detectors?
The skeptics seem to know the answer: Because LRLs don't work.
They are just another version of a bogus contraption to get peoples money.
The added electronics are simply there as sales gimmicks to fool people into thinking their version is more high-tech than a competitor.

But what about Dell Winders?
Dell has offered a demonstration where you get to try it out - a major exception to the rule maintained by most LRL manufacturers.
Let's assume that Dell is completely ignorant of real physics and electronics, and is incapable of explaining correctly how his LRLs work or don't work. Let's also suppose that none of the Omnitron products can pass a double blind test. His LRLs are functionally the same as anyone else's LRLs with one exception: He is willing to show you how well it works for yourself before you buy one. No double-blind test, but you get to try it out first to see if it works for you. This is the back door to testing. If there is no valid working principle, and no valid evidence that it works, then there is one last resort to see if it has value -- try it out and see for yourself.

According to Dell, it takes practice. Thus, someone untrained would have a difficult time getting it to work. But Dell offered to demonstrate it and show you how to use it. You are not testing to see if it can find a hidden target in one of 10 places -- you are testing to see if you can use it to find a target that someone else hides in a field. Suppose you discover you can find the target 90% of the time within 14 feet of the target?
Would you care if it passes Carl's double blind test?
Would you care if it has do-nothing electronics attached?
And then if it doesn't work, you didn't rely on guessing or theories to figure it out.... you will know from first hand experience.

If I was in Central Florida, I would certainly give it a try, just to see if it really works. If I was impressed with the results, I would place my order on the spot.

Best wishes,
J_P

THIS IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE that after all these years, a loyal Skeptic on Carl Morland's, forum is suddenly speaking with rational logic. I am shocked,and impressed, but from past experience, I'm untrusting of the sincerity, and expecting there wil be a catch.

Anyway, Thank you JP, for this miracle moment.

I have my motive for inviting folks to test my products for themselves. It gives them the opportunity, to experience the conditions, and have an awareness of when the Rod(s) will react to the "field" of a target, and when they will not. It is of utmost importance to me, and to the customers success that they experience, and understand the physical limitations associated with using Rods, that are also used for Dowsing, when they are used in a physics application.

This problem applies to ALL MFD, Directional Locators, and LRL that utilize Hand Held Rod(s), or electronic receivers, to detect "field" of a signal line, or target.

You won't find any of the electronics people manufacturing these products and selling at outrageous prices, ripping off consumers, that are warning their customers of this problem. In fact, according to their advertising, there are no problems with their products. After all, they have electronic credentials, and utilizing the latest advance technology. Why should there be limitations to in the use of the Rod(s) Right?

Carl, and the Skeptics on this forum have fully supported their Electronic buddies who are making a fortune ripping off consumers, in the LRL industry, for years.

How? Well, according to Skeptics, a pair of hand held Rod(s) are not affected by physics, and that fluxuations, or changes of a magnetic "Field" can have any possible affect on hand held rods is, total nonsense. (err, scientifically speaking of course.) BS, and pure assumption at best.

It's spoken with authority by folks with Electronic credentials, and Scientific pretense, but without field tests, or evidence to substantiate.
It's an excellent example of the way Skeptics, using pretend Science to help their fellow electronic engineers, and Techs, rip off trusting consumers, cover up lies, and discredit those of lesser education.

How can you trust the logic of a person who's stated criteria for a Scientific evaluation is, If it looks to him like a duck, appears to walk like a duck, and seems to sound like duck, then it has to be a duck?

Without consideration of the possibility that even what appears to be an ugly Duck, can in reality, turn out to be a Swan. Dell

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

How can you trust the logic of a person who's stated criteria for a Scientific evaluation is, If it looks to him like a duck, appears to walk like a duck, and seems to sound like duck, then it has to be a duck?

Hi Dell,
The logic of a person using the "looks like a duck" principle is called inductive logic, developed by one of the most famous Greek philosophers of all time -- Aristotle. This kind of logic is indispensable in modern technology, and the basis for statistical analysis which sets the standards for electronic parts testing to see if you have a good batch or bad batch of parts for the rocket scientist to put in orbit, as well as millions of other applications in everyday life.

To clarify, double blind testing is field testing. When people refuse to subject their LRL to a double blind test, then we are left with using inductive logic --- Gee... not a single manufacturer will show their LRL doing what they say it will do in the field using a DB test, so it looks like they're trying to hide the fact that they don't work. If LRLs only cost $1.99 plus s&h, nobody would care. Throw it out if it doesn't work. But when people have to save and plan how they spend their money, then they want assurances that it will work. And refusing a DB test is not a very good assurance.

For the record, I am not anyone's loyal Skeptic. I gravitate toward ideas that make sense. If you see me agreeing more with Carl-NC than LRL promoters, it is because he makes more sense. In fact most of the engineers in this forum make more sense. This is what an engineer is trained to do --- figure out how things work and utilize them to their best advantage. I am skeptical for the same reasons most people are skeptical about spending large amounts of money for items that are described to work on nonsensical principles, and have no credible evidence that they work.

There is no catch to what I offered. If anyone wants to show me an LRL working, and show me how I can recover targets with it, then I will meet with them in Southern California and find targets in the field. For any LRL that works, I will post a professional web page with photos and videos, and links to all the major treasure hunting forums including this one. You will also see a post in this forum describing the event. If I am impressed with the results, I may even buy one for myself.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Dell Winders]

"Trained",or perhaps brainwashed, appears to be the optimum word here to describe rationalizing, assumption, presumption, and irrelevance to truth, or fact, by Geotech skeptics.

I'm glad that I haven't read the electronic text books, that tell me what is possible, or impossible, to do.

Not knowing in advance what works, or doesn't, allows me the freedom to learn from my personal experience of trial & error, without bias, prejudice, or judgement ,and enjoy the benefit of knowing and practicing that what the skeptics say, can't be done, is neither fact, or truth in this case.

Thanks for the skeptics miracle moment of rational logic, and instance of common sense. Dell

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

"Trained",or perhaps brainwashed, appears to be the optimum word here to describe rationalizing, assumption, presumption, and irrelevance to truth, or fact, by Geotech skeptics.

Sure Dell,
Enter your LRLs in a double blind test in the field.
When you show your LRLs pass a double blind test, then I will stop assuming that they can't pass a double blind test.

Until the time comes when I see an LRL finding treasure live, I will continue to assume they can't find treasure.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Dell said; "I'm glad that I haven't read the electronic text books, that tell me what is possible, or impossible, to do.

Not knowing in advance what works, or doesn't, allows me the freedom to learn from my personal experience of trial & error...... "

Every time you turn on your computer, or jump in your car/truck and motor off to the bank with someone's cash, or watch the space shuttle arrive or depart from your fair State - you should be THANKFUL that your reasoning and thinking is limited to only yourself and a very few individuals who by design or accident are completely devoid of a basic education.

It would be hard to imagine just how many technological advances we would be WITHOUT today, if everyone had to learn/discover things by trial and error. It's probably fair to say our advancements would no doubt be stuck at least in the early 1900s and more likely the middle 1800s; if that far.

Your persistence in putting down those with a basic, or even a higher education is really a very poor marketing tool for your do-nothing LRL contraptions. Think of the many years you've wasted pursuing that line of thinking. If you'd of spent an equal amount of time developing a device that would actually pass a d-b test, and succeeded, perhaps you could have followed a legitimate business career.