|
|
#27
07-02-2009, 03:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
See Seebeck effect
Quote:
Aurificus
__________________
The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong! 
|
|
#28
07-02-2009, 03:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Hi, Congratulations! For the big pile of BS. I think it doesn't work, and will never work in the real world, maybe yours is different. Have any idea of what percentage of IR radiation arrives to a deep buried target ???  ZERO. The soil will dump anything your ridiculos 10mW from the led!  The LED you'll not read any measurable variation. Follow this thought: suppose you have a 23mm diameter/4.15cm^2 area coin buried at half a meter underground... and you're 10meters far from target on the horizontal plane... OK the half-meter means 50cm of soil above the coin... The soil will swamp any reading... or you're talking here that a target like a coin cause if the thermal gradient is what you're looking for you must know that heath transfers are related to the MASS of objects ...so considering a deep buried small target (50cm and a coin) you're trying to let people here think that the coin retains or delivers heath to/from the soil in a way that's detectable by a simple IR LED + amplifier ! Isn't it ? Now... the heath radiation happens from/to coin isotropically, so in all direction from/to coin vs soil , right ? So... a coin placed at 50cm will radiate or receive heath equally from a volume of 1m^3 soil if we consider soil temperature about flat constant in the 1st meter (a good approximation in most cases during the day). 1m^3=10,000,000 cm^3 Now look at the coin that is e.g. a 23mm diameter one, 1mm thick: you'll get a volume of around 4.15 cm^3 means something 4*10^-7 order to be clear... so the coin's volume is about 4/10,000,000 the volume of soil we are talking about... About mass... soil mass for 1m^3 vary due to soil composition/density but in organic soil (farm soil in most places) is about roughly 1200kg/m^3 so 1200Kg mass for 1m^3 and for coin, say it's silver... with density of 10490Kg/m^3 , so 10490*0.000000415= 0.00435Kg or 4.35grams Now look at energy transfer (heath) in ideal conditions between these 2 mass... in the case the silver coin is hotter than soil around it... with a temperature difference of 20°C = 20°K....with wide approximations it's something like this: The energy release from silver coin is due to Qc= volume_of_coin*volumetric_heat_capacity_for_silver *delta_T(°K)... so Qc= 4.15*2.44*20= 202.52 joules ... then we suppose the soil that's 20°K lower in temperature will get that heath by conduction mostly (an approximation close to reality) and so the temperature in soil will increase , but what's that increase in °K considering all energy will be transferred with no losses and no dispersions ? here the energy Qs=volume_of_soil*volumetric_heat_capacity_soil(si lica,water)*delta_T_soil(°K) Qs=Qc (perfect transfer) delta_T_soil(°K) = Qs/(volume_of_soil_volumetric_heat_capacity_soil(sili ca,water)) = 202.52/(10,000,000*2.9)= 6.98*10^-6 °K  In other words... if your soil is humid, organic and hi content silica... say it's at 30°C and the 23mm silver coin buried at 50cm reach 50°C, so with gradient of +20°C at coin, and we approximate full heat transfer between coin and soil, you'll get just about 7u°K or 7*10^6 °C variation in the considered 1m^3 soil. GUYS !? We consider having 20°C gradient at coin soil interface and end up with 7 MICRO CELSIUS variation at soil volume... so at surface.Can you detect 7*10^-6 °C variations with a LED diode ??? From 10meters away ??? Consider also S/N... 7uCelsius variations will be swamped out by any e.g. wind movement... that will cause the soil to cool down at really faster rate than 7uCelsius!  Consider the evaporation of trapped water in soil... will that cool the surface or not ??? It's a themodynamic-hell for you PYROMETER OR LED... OR WHATEVER! Is that the new LRL-science-fiction! I'm sure you didn't realize any of these fairy-tales devices... otherwise YOU MUST KNOW that's impossible detecting something this way. On the air... of course, things are quite different... but soil it's a well known dumping filler... that's cause e.g. an atomic bomb shelter is usually underground... (not only... there are other reasons too ) the heath is dispersed by soil/water volume... will not work at ground zero just under the bomb maybe... but at few distance the soil will shield from excess heath... not like painting white your room and wear your preferite sunglasses! Kind regards, Max
__________________
"Kill for gain or shoot to maim... But we dont need a reason " someone said...
|
|
#29
07-02-2009, 03:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Regards
|
|
#30
07-02-2009, 05:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Aurificus and Esteban are putting forward two separate theories.
Aurificus' "hypothesis" (as he calls it) is unworkable in practice, and has already been detroyed by Max. Esteban has a different idea whereby the beam acts as an antenna that transports the "phenomenon" to the detector Neither of these theories is scientifically plausible, but Esteban insists that his method works. Perhaps this approach needs further investigation to prove/disprove the idea.
|
|
#31
07-02-2009, 06:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yes , exactly... Esteban is focusing on the "beam antenna" topic... already shown in another thread... but as said before... the "principle" is totally based on nothing... the carrier that "transport the phenomenon" he said does not exist. The wave propagation from IR led to soil or the back/side effects of that have no relationship with target, that's buried in the soil... that cannot receive consistent amount of radiated power in IR wavelenght etc So it's just his "interpretation" of maybe randomic beeps. Kind regards, Max
__________________
"Kill for gain or shoot to maim... But we dont need a reason " someone said...
|
|
#32
07-02-2009, 08:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
If only....
Quote:
 The obvious problem here is; only a select few individuals in just certain parts of the world "claim" to have experienced such things. I'm afraid that isn't enough to prove the concept. If these phenomenon, halo/fields actually existed, then they could be detected/experienced by any and all observers in all parts of the world.
__________________
 The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#33
07-02-2009, 09:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#34
07-03-2009, 12:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Hi Max, The LED detector DOES NOT (probably Can Not) measure radiated heat from small buried metal objects. (I'm sure I've said this Many times). J_P's experiment shows that this is not a viable technique even with quality, commercial available equipment. I have made no claims as to the depth, distance or size of object that can be located. I have also stated that results are likely to be "hit & miss" due to the large number of variables involved. However, I have no reason to disbelieve what Esteban claims. So…If the LED Detector works it must be "sensing" something else. My proposal is that it is sensitive to the change of energy levels in the vicinity of a buried metal object. (I call it IR/heat ) From your figures above we have an energy transfer of 200J into and 200J out of the coin over a 24 hour cycle. If the majority of the change occurred in one hour, (not totally unreasonable because thermal change by conduction is exponential), then the power involved would be about 55mW (think portable phone, wireless network etc.) But, in My real world this is not a smooth stable process, J_P has clearly explained and quantified the sort of dramatic temperature differences and changes that occur on and beneath the surface under the sort of normal conditions we might expect “in the field” . You yourself have proposed the cooling effects of the wind as an important factor, I fully agree. A metallic ‘treasure’ target is therefore unlikely to have a "uniform" temperature at any time. The top will always be slightly different to the bottom. This means we have electrons moving back and forward all the time. (……. fluctuating electrical currents in our target object….) Did I mention Seebeck???? We also have IR radiation continually crossing and re-crossing the interface between the metal object and the surrounding matter dirt…sand…..silicon…………Whats that called?. (OOPS, more outrageous, impossible, psuedo-scientific mumbo jumbo) There is enough going on to produce detectable signals! Scientifically yours, AURIFICUS
__________________
The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong!
|
|
#35
07-03-2009, 12:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Buried metals do exhibit some of the "field" effects associated with halos. To start with, after a metal object is buried for a long enough time, it will corrode. Even gold and platinum corrode as do all other metals. This has been observed and measured by hundreds of scientists all over the world. When buried metals corrode, the corroded metal that departs from the buried object becomes metal ions dissolved in the soil, which begin to migrate upward very slowly in a column shape above the buried metal. Eventually these ions reach the surface of the soil, where they bind with other soil constituents within the last 10-30 cam of the surface. For a large ore deposit, this column will appear to be a very large column taking the shape of the ore deposit. but for a single metal object, it will look more like a single column. Thousands of scientists and test technicians claim to have observed and measured this mechanism. Not just a few select individuals. If you google "MMI testing" and MMI, you will find over a million reports of tests that located buried metals (mostly gold) from places all over the world. The "halo effect" in relation to buried metal within metal detector range has been reported by more than a handful of select individuals. Many metal detectorists as well as LRL proponents claim to have observed it. The detectorists claim they found a small target which gave a signal as a much larger target. But after recovering the target, an air test shows the signal is only a normal signal for the target. Thus the "halo effect" was lost when a hole digging old, long-time buried targets. There was never a case of a detectorist reporting a "halo effect" when digging a recently buried object. Now, if we use a little logic, we will see that the observed trail of metal ions in the soil above a long-time buried target would be necessarily removed in the process of recovering the target. Thus we would also remove the central core of the "halo effect". This can explain how the detectorists came to find that the target returned to a normal signal after recovering it. We have similar reports from LRL proponents who described their experiences when digging a target that was endowed with this "halo effect" that they call "the phenomenon". Thus, the "halo effect" is not an imaginary device invented by charlatans to convince people to by overpriced electronic junk. It is a fact that has been studied and measured by scientists, and is being used to recover tons of gold and other industrial metals. But there is a missing link: We know there is a trail of ions above long-time buried metals which has several secondary phenomena ocurring. The secondary phenomena include: 1. Ground battery action of the metal ions reacting with other ions in the soil to produce a small voltage. 2. A small current flow due to the ground battery action of the metal ion column. 3. A distortion of the natural telluric current flow in the vicinity of the metal ion column. 4. An increased soil conductivity in the vicinity of the metal ion column. 5. An increased in atmospheric charge leakage through the air at the location of the metal ion column, which continues through the column before dispersing and mixing with natural telluric currents. 6. A reduced voltage gradient in the air above the location of the metal ion column. 7. A distortion of the earth's magnetic field at the location of the metal ion column due to currents moving through the column. 9. An anomaly in certain subatomic particle and other space energy emissions such as cosmic rays at the location of the ion column. With all those secondary effects and more taking place at the location of this dissolved metal ion column, it seems that one or more of them could be theoretically used to advantage in order to locate the ion column, and the buried metal object below it. The MMI method is to simply dig soil samples and perform very precise tests to see if there is a metal ion anomaly in any samples taken over a field that is surveyed. A higher than average reading of dissolved metal ions tells them there is something buried below. But the LRL proponents claim they have built electronic detectors that can sense one or more of these associated secondary effects. The missing link is that we only have claims and theories that LRL proponents have electronic detectors which are detecting these effects. Where have we ever seen any measured data mapping the distortions of the earth's magnetic field? When has anyone shown us the relative strength of the distortion compared to the strength of the natural magnetic field of the earth? Who has ever mapped out the reduced atmospheric voltage gradient above a metal ion column, showing data points of measured voltages? etc. etc... LRL proponents have been drawing conclusions without any test measurements at all. And their conclusions are lumped in with their claims of electronics that locate these effects. We also see that nobody on earth is willing to demonstrate any of these LRLs recovering a buried metal object today in front of witnesses who will document what they observe for readers of this forum. We have heard claims that people will do this, but I have not seen it happen yet. So where does this leave us? We have a scientifically documented "halo effect" , but just a bunch of claims by people who say they found a way to lock onto some part of this halo effect, and no test measurements to back up what they are saying, not even a demonstration to show it working. So what do you think? Is the "halo effect" for real? Are thse LRLs for real? Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#36
07-03-2009, 12:41 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
destroyed by Max??? Supported & Re-inforced by his calculations, I think.  Aurificus
__________________
The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong!
|
|
#37
07-03-2009, 12:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You provided a simple theory that answered the question of how does the IR LED respond to buried metal. I think your theory was destroyed by Max. I think it was also destroyed by plain common sense. I think maybe the quote you use below your name is apporpriate for your simple answer: "The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong! "Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#38
07-03-2009, 01:32 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 Which part did he destroy? A) Targets: That changes of of thermal energy in conductors and across semi-conductor boundaries produce electromagnetic effects. ie signals B) LED Detection: Diode as as a "energy change detector" see above Aurificus
__________________
The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong!
|
|
#39
07-03-2009, 02:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The answer is "none of the above". You provide choice "A" (Targets: That changes of of thermal energy in conductors and across semi-conductor boundaries produce electromagnetic effects. ie signals), and choice B: (LED Detection: Diode as as a "energy change detector" see above). But you missed the obvious point that everybody has been telling you from the start: C) The variations of thermal energy that exist at the surface of the ground are so immense that they swamp any minuscule anomaly from a buried metal object below the surface, so as to make it undetectable. As was pointed out by more than one member, there is a severe signal to noise ratio problem with the thermal energy theory. A good analogy to this signal to noise problem might be: "It's as easy as hearing the sound of a pin dropping on the floor of a concert stage next to the drummer playing for a heavy metal band, from 20 meters distance". Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#40
07-03-2009, 03:30 AM
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
The MMI Technology
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And this missing liink brings me back to my previous posting. Unfortunately, I was not that clear in how I verbalized my thoughts/posting. I was thinking some things but my thoughts did not make it into the posting.  (sorry)When I said; "If only buried metals (treasure) actually "caused" these so-called phenomenon, halo or fields." I was thinking in terms of what is being "claimed" by a few individuals that they are detecting at long distances with their LRLs. In that regard, and in light of the lack of validation for their claims; I still believe there is NO SUCH phenomenon taking place "above" the soil (or slightly sub-surface) that can be detected as an anomaly by the LRL contraptions proposed here in this forum. If evidence to the contrary is presented, and can be validated by others, I would be among the first to change my mind - and say so. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As far as the second question; No!
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#41
07-03-2009, 01:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
By your standards we shouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't, detect the Rx signal from a Pi MD on a Sunny day: say 100mV in a 5 Ohm coil = 0.002W Combined solar EM radiations/mxm = 750 W S/N Ratio = 2.667 x e-6 = 0.000002667 Did I just hear... a pin drop? I say, "Be Discriminating, Focus attention on the signals...they are not the same as the noises." LRL - If it was Easy...everyone would be doing it! Cheers, Aurificus
__________________
The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong!
|
|
#42
07-03-2009, 01:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This could modify ambient Rf noise level, or be directly measured with almost any of the devices presented by Esteban. This theory of course need (in)validation. About the IR beam,it could present a "preferencial" path to this way of making the measure, i don´t know how, but for example...drying the air ? Ionizing it ?
|
|
#43
07-03-2009, 01:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The MMI Technology
Quote:
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#44
07-03-2009, 01:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The MMI Technology
Quote:
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#45
07-03-2009, 02:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
S/N is not that simple...
Quote:
is not like that. The PI md send a magnetic pulse... at collapse of magnetic field there's a reversed voltage spike where rx take place after say 10-15us or the like. The absolute height of the collapsing voltage is a function of force balancing e.g. energy stored in the inductor vs joule dissipation at resistor etc including the eddy currents effect: the collapse of primary field is braked a little by the opposing magnetic field due to eddy-curent in the target. Now... The sun relationship is not really strict... with that happens at the MD coil. The sun radiated energy (you said 750W) is mostly due to extremely high frequency components EM waves, such as IR, visible light and a portion of UV rays (part are filtered very well by ozone layer... if still there is! ). Visible light has frequency in the order of 10^15 Hz (under 1000 TERAHERTZ!)The PI md runs , instead, at say 100Hz or 400Hz , so 10^2 or 4*10^2 Hz ...depends on models... brands... and design (some up to 3-4Khz). At those frequencies the sun rays don't influence much (at all). So... even a very strong solar activity , strong sunny day, don't change much for your PI... unless you have other troubles like heath generated on a black painted control box... that could make electronics to experience some thermal drift. But if design is good, and you haven't problems with thermal stuff your PI md will work exactly the same at night than at sunny day. You'll not hear the pin drops... cause when the pin will hit the floor it will resonate like a diapason at an audible frequency of some Khz ... but your ears are already full of strong hi volume (amplitude) notes and drums hits by the musicists there... and you're far from the pin. The pin you'll not hear cause the impact of noise is very great cause the pin resonance happens at audible frequency, the same audible frequency of notes from concert. But reversing the idea... what if the concert hall is in low light and the pin will generate an enormous flash light when hit the floor instead of sound ??? Suppose you coat the pin with pure metallic magnesium powder say 1gram, then add above it a thin layer of mylar 0.05mm, then you add another coat with mercury fulminate... say 5 grams... and a final coat , thin layer of acrylic enamel. I'm sure that even at very hi volume of the music you'll see the pin's flashlight in the low light of the hall even from 50meters back! Or even 100meters! The fact is... you'll see the light (signal) cause the signal frequency is very different from the sound frequencies... and then the signal can travel undisturbed all the space to you without interferences... if not someone that light a cigar. But flash is big... do you see the exit signs in concert halls ? Usually they are green glowing stuff... not much light but you'll see them too right ? Same stuff... hall is in low light....(few noise of same "frequency") and even if AC/DC are playing 2 minutes to midnight there... (strong "noise" BUT very different frequency) you'll always see the exit signs , right ? That's all... your S/N at md cannot be disturbed by sunlight or UV or IR that much...and directly. Instead you'll get lowered S/N when e.g. another , same model/frequency, PI is running near yours... or your near powerlines... the noise IS in the frequency spectrum of interest and you'll get much affected S/N. That's why e.g. Eric Foster made many units with tunable frequency... you shift a bit the frequency then cancel the noise from e.g. some powerlines harmonic or a near to yours running detector. But that's fairly obvious... I never heard of people triggering e.g. their PI md by light! Unless you mean switching inside home the lights and then generating low frequency noise by the switch contacts. That seems another activity LRL-guys like... PS: maybe it's tricky stuff for some...so I explain that... I forget to say that sound is not EM... but the interference path could be supported by e.g. electronic amplifiers , coils of speakers etc... that carry actually currents modulated at such audible frequencies. Of course, sound as compression/decompression waves in a medium (air) usually don't interact directly with an electronic device... that rely on EM signals/waves unless some microphonic effects related... like the coil that vibrates due to sound waves or vibrations... and could trigger microphonic noise at receiver like happens with outdoor antennas subject to e.g. wind. Kind regards, Max
__________________
"Kill for gain or shoot to maim... But we dont need a reason " someone said...
|
|
#46
07-03-2009, 02:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I gave a possible technical explanation, i would expect a real reply, it makes me think you don´t want to hear about a solution
|
|
#47
07-03-2009, 02:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I would be very open to a REAL technical solution, but real solutions by default must be accompanied by real facts, repeatable experiments with valid and supporting outcomes, and be experienced by several observers. Otherwise all you have are a lot of "could affect", "could modify", "it could" and "I don't know how.... but maybe".  There is hardly anything there to hang your hat on... now is there?
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#48
07-03-2009, 03:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Regards
|
|
#49
07-03-2009, 03:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#50
07-03-2009, 03:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
IR leds... like any led stuff have epoxy container and some "cup" stuff... these things have a strong impact on e.g. aperture angle of light emitted... you can test very easy... use an IR camera or a simple CCD one in low light ...dark room. Power the led and point horizontal... put the camera vertical above it at 20-30cm from it... then spray around some stuff... like e.g. some deodorant spray thing. The aerosol stuff made of thiny particles will scatter IR photons you''ll see at camera ... that way you'll see the conic shaped "beam" so the angle. At meters this kind of propagation will make you "illuminate" several square meters of soil... cause these things are not lasers... their use is mostly for remote controls and it's good for remotes having such large diffusion of IR light, otherwise you'll have to aim the remote to the VCR/DVD thing... (like in cheap chinese stuff, very annoying ! )If wanna a narrow spot you MUST use a laser module... So I don't understand which concentration you're talking about ?  As always... Kind regards, Max
__________________
"Kill for gain or shoot to maim... But we dont need a reason " someone said...
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
