rangertell examiner field trials

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Theseus

Maybe the attribute I have in mind is simply an "inferred" one rather than a specific one that is written out anywhere.

From all the advertising I've seen (and read) and from what I've seen on eBay, I think it is at least "inferred" if not said in so many words; that the Examiner will pull towards or otherwise indicate a gold target at some distance away.

That is the attribute my test would be looking to validate.

Let's say there are 5 possible locations where a single target might be located.

The target could be any piece of gold or gold bearing object (nugget, coin, etc.) that would be deemed a logical target by R-T, and would have an appropriate Number to be plugged into the calculator.

Five different locations or hiding places would be spread out probably in a semi-circle.

Distance from the target locations to the operator should probably be at least 10 feet and maybe less than 30 feet. That gives you a good range, if need be.

The method of hiding could be inverted cups, under paper plates or any other method that insures the operator has no clue as to what might be under the hiding method, or not.

There will be 5 trials, during the DB portion of the test.

Whatever the method is for concealing the target, ALL 5 of the positions and the method for hiding MUST be disturbed prior to each of the 5 trials.

Standard DB protocol is assumed, and is described on Carl's DB testing page, if you are not familiar with who is involved in the hiding and recording of the results parts of the test.

Remember of course there is a Pre-test and a Post-test, both done on a target that is EITHER in plain sight of the operator OR the operator can SEE where the target was placed.

During the DB portion of the test, the specific hiding location should be determined by drawing a single number out of a hat (containing the numbers 1 to 5).

To be convincing, although not necessarily a Final Conclusion, I believe of the 5 trials, the Examiner should successfully locate the Gold target a minimum of 4 times and 5 would be even better.

Correctly locating the Gold target 4 times comes with a Odds of Occurring By Chance Alone of 1 in 156 times.

Correctly locating the Gold target 5 times comes with a Odds of Occurring By Chance Alone of 1 in 3125 times.

Let me know if there is anything else you need from me.

Hi Theseus,
What you posted looks to be a good description of the test you want to see performed. Your idea that the the Examiner characteristics are inferred is true for some of the claims, but many of them are made as actual statements. Regardless of the source of what you want to test, I can perform the test you request with the help of WesP since you have specified the exact protocol you want to see, and have even included some leeway to allow various conditions that will show the data you are looking for.

I will summarize your double blind test protocol so there is no confusion of what test will be performed:
1. The basic attribute of the Examiner that you want to see tested is it's tendency to "pull towards" or otherwise indicate a gold target at some distance away. This is well documented in the claims of Rangertell, as well as for other target materials. This seems like a good attribute to test.

2. For your test protocol, you want to designate five different locations that are separated from each other in a semicircle by at least 10 feet, but less than 30 feet distance from each other. The target sample will be hidden in one of these five locations during the double blind portion of the test. (I am assuming that the semicircle you requested is a half circle of 180 degrees, and having a radius of at least 10 feet and less than 30 feet, with possible target locations at any of the five equally spaced paper cups set at least 10 feet apart from each other, or up to 30 feet apart if a 30 foot radius is used).

3. The method for hiding the gold sample will to be to put it under a paper cup, or a paper plate, or any other convenient way that conceals the location from the operator of the Examiner. The acceptable substitute methods of concealing the location of the target may be used in place of the cups described in the protocol (2 above).

4. The double blind portion of the test will include exactly five trials.

5. There will be shown a trial before and after the five double blind tests. The trial before and after will be done when the operator of the Examiner can see the target in plain sight, or knows where it is located.

6. A hat will be used for drawing a number from 1 to 5 to determine which hiding location is used for the next trial in the five double blind trials.

7. There is one of your specifications that I don't understand completely:
"Whatever the method is for concealing the target, ALL 5 of the positions and the method for hiding MUST be disturbed prior to each of the 5 trials".
Does this mean that the target sample must be moved to a different one of the five locations after each of the trials? Or does it mean that it must be moved to a location that may be different, or may be the same? Or does it mean that some physical disturbance must be applied to all the possible target locations? Or does it mean something different than what I am asking?

For your information, there is no standard double blind test protocol. There are thousands of different double blind protocols. The protocol suggested on Carl's test to win his prize is only one suggestion, which he states he will modify to suit both him and the person applying for the challenge. The purpose for his test is not the same as yours, and his protocol is adjusted to assure he will see evidence to convince him he is getting his money's worth of a demonstration. In your case, you have no money at stake, or any monetary investment in your test as Carl does. I think even Carl will agree that there is no standard protocol for double blind testing. It is simply a methodology that can use any double blind protocol that a person decides to apply.

Thank you for actually stating what you want to see in this test, If you clarify the final point about disturbing the hiding method, I will have what we need to proceed as soon as WesP is ready for some testing.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by J+Player

...A double blind test does not prove anything. It only provides evidence. At best, the results can be used as a model to gain insight where other methods did not work to confirm a theory.

Originally posted by Qiaozhi
I'm sure the drug companies would not agree with you on that one.

Drug companies?
Hahahahaaaa....

In the USA, drug companies don't care about proof. They care about what they must do to convince the FDA to approve their new drug. They know that double blind testing is one method that they can get their FDA approval and begin making profits on new drugs, so they use it when necessary.

If you truly believe a double blind test or any other test constitutes proof, then you are mistaken. Testing only produces evidence. The proof is interpreted by the person who assesses the data from the test and formulates a conclusion.

I am a staunch skeptic.
I am skeptical about a lot of things I read in the remote sensing forum.
I am skeptical about Dr. hung's claim that gold DNA produces a substance that coats the metal to protect it from oxidation.
I am skeptical about the claim that some people make to suggest that gold does not corrode when it is buried in the ground.
I am skeptical about the claim that there are hand-held LRLs that can locate buried metals from a long distance.
I am skeptical that all popular drugs approved by the FDA are the best remedy to use for the most popular ailments.
I could go on with examples of my skepticism, but the only convincing proof I could find was to see for myself.
Second-hand reports are only a next best alternative to seeing for myself.

Why should I rely on somebody's test or double blind test?
Should I trust second-hand information to replace better information that I can see in my own hands right in front of me here and now?

Here is an example of how the FDA determines proof:
In the USA, there is an artificial sweetener called NutraSweet manufactured by the Monsanto chemical company. This sweetener is sanctioned for use in the USA for use in soft drinks like Diet Coke, and Diet Pepsi, as well as most other uses like coffee sweeteners. But if you go to Japan, you will find that Diet Coke is sweetened with a natural sweetener that works just as well called stevia. This sweetener is extracted from a plant that was determined to be unsuitable for use as a sweetener in the USA, and is only permitted to be used as a dietary supplement.

If you look into the background of this topic, you will find that there are some hazards involved with using the Monsanto version of a sweetener, and you will find there are millions of people who found no hazards with using the natural stevia alternative. You will also find that Monsanto has their own agenda to promote the use of their version of sweetener, to the tune of millions of dollars. And any normal-brained person who reads up on it may begin to think the reason why USA citizens are using the Monsanto version is because Monsanto used their influence to cause the testing and approval methods to be biased. In fact, you may find there were no double blind tests done to show any hazards involved with using the natural stevia extract that is used in Japan and many European countries as a sweetener.

My opinion is Monsanto, and drug producing companies do not have an interest in proof. Their interest is in making a profit. I think they will use any kind of test or study that is necessary to satisfy the governing agencies to allow them to make their profits.

But getting back to what does a double blind test show...
I think it shows evidence, not proof.
The proof is formulated in the mind of the person who interprets the evidence.

You are free to believe whatever you want to the contrary

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

Originally Posted by J_Player

I am a staunch skeptic.
I am skeptical about a lot of things I read in the remote sensing forum.
I am skeptical about Dr. hung's claim that gold DNA produces a substance that coats the metal to protect it from oxidation.
I am skeptical about the claim that some people make to suggest that gold does not corrode when it is buried in the ground.
I am skeptical about the claim that there are hand-held LRLs that can locate buried metals from a long distance.
I am skeptical that all popular drugs approved by the FDA are the best remedy to use for the most popular ailments.

But you are not skeptical that you are skeptical? How did you prove that? By single blind test?

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by WM6

But you are not skeptical that you are skeptical? How did you prove that? By single blind test?

No, I saw for myself.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by WM6

But you are not skeptical that you are skeptical? How did you prove that? By single blind test?

Originally Posted by J_Player

No, I saw for myself.

Best wishes,
J_P

Maybe you interpreted the results incorrectly.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Qiaozhi

Maybe you interpreted the results incorrectly.

Does this mean I am not skeptical about the things I am skeptical of?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Hi Theseus,
What you posted looks to be a good description of the test you want to see performed.

"Whatever the method is for concealing the target, ALL 5 of the positions and the method for hiding MUST be disturbed prior to each of the 5 trials".
Does this mean that the target sample must be moved to a different one of the five locations after each of the trials? Or does it mean that it must be moved to a location that may be different, or may be the same? Or does it mean that some physical disturbance must be applied to all the possible target locations? Or does it mean something different than what I am asking?

Best wishes,
J_P

Okay, clarification:

Say we have the 5 different locations and they are on the ground in front of the operator, and in a semi-circle. Also, say you are using ordinary paper plates to hide the gold target under.

Of your questions above; Or does it mean that some physical disturbance must be applied to all the possible target locations?

Yes, it means that no matter what number was drawn out of the hat to determine where the Gold target will be hidden, THEN ALL THE OTHER 4 REMAINING PAPER PLATES MUST BE PICKED UP AND REPLACED ON THE GROUND, SUCH THAT THEIR LOCATION IS DISTURBED IN SOME SMALL WAY from the position they were in previously when the operator was either doing the Pre-test, or one of the 5 trials. To accomplish this, the person placing the gold target under a plate should go to the other 4 locations, raise the plate, as if placing a target under it, and then place it back down on the ground. Thus disturbing its position slightly from the time before.

Since numbers are being drawn out of a hat, and the numbers definitely range 1,2,3,4,5 then obviously some one of the plates WILL end up with a Gold target being placed under it. Of course it is entirely possible the same number could come out of the hat one or more times in a row, not likely, but it is possible. Also, note there is NO number Zero (0), which would indicate that none of the plates would get a target hidden under it. (That would be a different problem with a different set of odds.)

Hope this gives you the clarification you needed. Look forward to seeing the results.

[J_Player]

Hi Theseus,

Here is how I have your test protocol figured:

1. The basic attribute of the Examiner that you want to see tested is it's tendency to "pull towards" or otherwise indicate a gold target at some distance away. This is well documented in the claims of Rangertell, as well as for other target materials. This seems like a good attribute to test.

2. For your test protocol, you want to designate five different locations that are separated from each other in a semicircle by at least 10 feet, but less than 30 feet distance from each other. The target sample will be hidden in one of these five locations during the double blind portion of the test. (I am assuming that the semicircle you requested is a half circle of 180 degrees, and having a radius of at least 10 feet and less than 30 feet, with possible target locations at any of the five equally spaced paper cups set at least 10 feet apart from each other, or up to 30 feet apart if a 30 foot radius is used).

3. The method for hiding the gold sample will to be to put it under a paper cup, or a paper plate, or any other convenient way that conceals the location from the operator of the Examiner. The acceptable substitute methods of concealing the location of the target may be used in place of the cups described in the protocol (2 above).

4. The double blind portion of the test will include exactly five trials.

5. There will be shown a trial before and after the five double blind tests. The trial before and after will be done when the operator of the Examiner can see the target in plain sight, or knows where it is located.

6. A hat will be used for drawing a number from 1 to 5 to determine which hiding location is used for the next trial in the five double blind trials. All five of the numbers will be placed in the hat from which one is drawn each time a trial is made.

7. All five of the locations where the target may be hidden will have the paper cup or other substitute moved before each double blind trial so that none of the locations appears to be unmoved.

I presume the operator of the Examiner will be standing away from the test area until he is ready to make a trial. Then, when he makes the trial, he will walk to a stationary location at the center of the circle that is used to map the semicircle, and will not be permitted to move from that spot until he says the trial is completed. The location that the Examiner is pointing at the time the operator announces he has finished the trial will be observed to see which of the five possible locations it is pointing to. In the event it is not pointing exactly at any of the five locations, then the location on the radius of the semicircle will be marked and measured to determine the closest of the five locations, and the closest of the five possible target location will be used as the location detected for the trial. Upon completion of the trial the operator must move away from the stationary location until he is ready to make another trial.

I also presume that he will be permitted to move his arm in any way or direction he is able during the trial, or to not move it, at his discretion as long as he does not take any steps away from the fixed location where he makes the trial from.

And finally, I am presuming a single pre-test trial and a single post-test trial will be done in the exact same manner as the five double blind trials, except the operator of the Examiner can see or will know where the target is located. And the operator will be allowed to walk or make any tests he wants before the pre-test begins including walking close to the target while he can see it or not see it.

Does this summarize your test protocol?
If so, the test you requested can be performed as soon as WesP is ready to perform tests.

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

By the proper execution of the test may not even one person to know in which hole gold target is deposited. In contrary test can easily be false and therefore it is false.

By proper test all known potential outflow of data must be closed.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by WM6

By the proper execution of the test may not even one person to know in which hole gold target is deposited. In contrary test can easily be false and therefore it is false.

By proper test all known potential outflow of data must be closed.

Is this your request for a test to be performed, or is it a challenge against the test protocol that Theseus asked to see performed?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Hi Theseus,

Here is how I have your test protocol figured:

1. The basic attribute of the Examiner that you want to see tested is it's tendency to "pull towards" or otherwise indicate a gold target at some distance away. This is well documented in the claims of Rangertell, as well as for other target materials. This seems like a good attribute to test.

2. For your test protocol, you want to designate five different locations that are separated from each other in a semicircle by at least 10 feet, but less than 30 feet distance from each other. The target sample will be hidden in one of these five locations during the double blind portion of the test. (I am assuming that the semicircle you requested is a half circle of 180 degrees, and having a radius of at least 10 feet and less than 30 feet, with possible target locations at any of the five equally spaced paper cups set at least 10 feet apart from each other, or up to 30 feet apart if a 30 foot radius is used).

3. The method for hiding the gold sample will to be to put it under a paper cup, or a paper plate, or any other convenient way that conceals the location from the operator of the Examiner. The acceptable substitute methods of concealing the location of the target may be used in place of the cups described in the protocol (2 above).

4. The double blind portion of the test will include exactly five trials.

5. There will be shown a trial before and after the five double blind tests. The trial before and after will be done when the operator of the Examiner can see the target in plain sight, or knows where it is located.

6. A hat will be used for drawing a number from 1 to 5 to determine which hiding location is used for the next trial in the five double blind trials. All five of the numbers will be placed in the hat from which one is drawn each time a trial is made.

7. All five of the locations where the target may be hidden will have the paper cup or other substitute moved before each double blind trial so that none of the locations appears to be unmoved.

I presume the operator of the Examiner will be standing away from the test area until he is ready to make a trial. Then, when he makes the trial, he will walk to a stationary location at the center of the circle that is used to map the semicircle, and will not be permitted to move from that spot until he says the trial is completed. The location that the Examiner is pointing at the time the operator announces he has finished the trial will be observed to see which of the five possible locations it is pointing to. In the event it is not pointing exactly at any of the five locations, then the location on the radius of the semicircle will be marked and measured to determine the closest of the five locations, and the closest of the five possible target location will be used as the location detected for the trial. Upon completion of the trial the operator must move away from the stationary location until he is ready to make another trial.

I also presume that he will be permitted to move his arm in any way or direction he is able during the trial, or to not move it, at his discretion as long as he does not take any steps away from the fixed location where he makes the trial from.

And finally, I am presuming a single pre-test trial and a single post-test trial will be done in the exact same manner as the five double blind trials, except the operator of the Examiner can see or will know where the target is located. And the operator will be allowed to walk or make any tests he wants before the pre-test begins including walking close to the target while he can see it or not see it.

Does this summarize your test protocol?
If so, the test you requested can be performed as soon as WesP is ready to perform tests.

Best wishes,
J_P

That appears to be an accurate description of the test I outlined.

Of course, we did not iterate all the normal DB precautions that must be observed, such as; the operator is not in any way exposed to the hiding of the target prior to the trials, a RECORDER person (standing in the area of the operator) records the chosen location (and Trial number) after the operator decides on a location, BUT the exact location of the target is not revealed to the RECORDER or the OPERATOR at that time. After the RECORDER and OPERATOR leave the area a SCORER checks which location actually contained the target, and notes it on a separate document, where the Trial number and Location is recorded. The SCORER and the person hiding the target, should probably NOT be the same person.

Following the 5 trials and the Post-test, the two documents; one from the RECORDER and one from the SCORER are compared and only then are the results known as to how many locations were correctly identified.

The reason for the Pre-test and the Post-test should be intuitively obvious, but I will iterate here.... These tests are done to illustrate the device and operator are able to find a valid target in plain sight, or one that the operator was privy to it being hidden.

Also, another fact that should be obvious, but I will state it anyway; During ANY of the TESTS (the 5 trials) should there be any one in the area of the operator (in view of the operator) that has knowledge of where the target is hidden.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Theseus

That appears to be an accurate description of the test I outlined.

Of course, we did not iterate all the normal DB precautions that must be observed, such as; the operator is not in any way exposed to the hiding of the target prior to the trials, a RECORDER person (standing in the area of the operator) records the chosen location (and Trial number) after the operator decides on a location, BUT the exact location of the target is not revealed to the RECORDER or the OPERATOR at that time. After the RECORDER and OPERATOR leave the area a SCORER checks which location actually contained the target, and notes it on a separate document, where the Trial number and Location is recorded. The SCORER and the person hiding the target, should probably NOT be the same person.

Following the 5 trials and the Post-test, the two documents; one from the RECORDER and one from the SCORER are compared and only then are the results known as to how many locations were correctly identified.

The reason for the Pre-test and the Post-test should be intuitively obvious, but I will iterate here.... These tests are done to illustrate the device and operator are able to find a valid target in plain sight, or one that the operator was privy to it being hidden.

Also, another fact that should be obvious, but I will state it anyway; During ANY of the TESTS (the 5 trials) should there be any one in the area of the operator (in view of the operator) that has knowledge of where the target is hidden.

Hmmmm...
This introduces something new into your test.
The determination of which of the five possible target locations is to be decided by the operator of the Examiner rather than by a test proctor observing where the Examiner is pointing. This can be done as you requested.

It appears your test protocol cannot be performed with a single proctor. You want the proctor's job to be divided among several people who submit two separate documents. There is one person to score, and one to record. This becomes necessary because the recorder is required to stand in the area of the operator during his trial and record his decision. Then a separate scorer is required to check to see which location the target is actually located after the trial is done. And a third person is also suggested to be the person who hides the target in one of the five locations.

It looks to me like your protocol requires four people to perform the test:
1. The operator who will hold the Examiner
2. A person who records the operator's choice
3. A person who checks the location of the target after each trial
4. A person who hides the target before each trial

Any other persons present such as spectators or a persons operating cameras must leave the area before each trial so the only person who knows which of the possible five locations the the target is at is person hiding it. Then the person hiding the target must leave the area before everyone returns to perform the next trial.
Do I understand the details of your test protocol correctly?

I have two other questions:
1. Do you have any requirements for the ground that is used to mark out a test area?
2. What do you suggest should be done next in the event that the operator is not able to find the target in plain sight during the pre-test?


Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Hmmmm...
This introduces something new into your test.
The determination of which of the five possible target locations is to be decided by the operator of the Examiner rather than by a test proctor observing where the Examiner is pointing. This can be done as you requested.

It appears your test protocol cannot be performed with a single proctor. You want the proctor's job to be divided among several people who submit two separate documents. There is one person to score, and one to record. This becomes necessary because the recorder is required to stand in the area of the operator during his trial and record his decision. Then a separate scorer is required to check to see which location the target is actually located after the trial is done. And a third person is also suggested to be the person who hides the target in one of the five locations.

It looks to me like your protocol requires four people to perform the test:
1. The operator who will hold the Examiner
2. A person who records the operator's choice
3. A person who checks the location of the target after each trial
4. A person who hides the target before each trial

Any other persons present such as spectators or a persons operating cameras must leave the area before each trial so the only person who knows which of the possible five locations the the target is at is person hiding it. Then the person hiding the target must leave the area before everyone returns to perform the next trial.
Do I understand the details of your test protocol correctly?

I have two other questions:
1. Do you have any requirements for the ground that is used to mark out a test area?
2. What do you suggest should be done next in the event that the operator is not able to find the target in plain sight during the pre-test?


Best wishes,
J_P

Well, you said you were well aware of ordinary DB protocol, so I didn't feel it necessary to iterate the obvious. If you read over the example that Carl has already described, I don't think I'm suggesting anything different from it.

Please see:

http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/page...nfo/dbtest.dat

However, what I did discuss I figured would be redundant, since you were already aware of DB protocol.

Answers to your questions:

1. I have no requirements for the ground the target and hiding devices would be on as long as it is an environment that the Examiner would be expected to operate correctly in.

2. The pre and post tests are to verify the device and operator are working correctly. If during several attempts of a pre-test the operator/device does not locate a plain-view target, then you can quickly conclude the device does NOT satisfy the attribute being tested, and I wouldn't see why you should waste time doing the trials.

If a pre-test was successful, than a successful post-test is simply to verify the device/operator are still operating correctly following the trials. If the post-test is not successful, than probably you should consider starting all over from the beginning. Perhaps certain conditions have changed, the device is no longer operating correctly, etc. etc.

[WM6]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Then the person hiding the target must leave the area before everyone returns to perform the next trial ........

..... and ASAP communicate to "the operator who will hold the Examiner" by phone or by walky-talky regarding location of buried target.

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by WM6

..... and ASAP communicate to "the operator who will hold the Examiner" by phone or by walky-talky regarding location of buried target.

Whoa... am I calling out the details of my test, or are you?

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Theseus

Well, you said you were well aware of ordinary DB protocol, so I didn't feel it necessary to iterate the obvious. If you read over the example that Carl has already described, I don't think I'm suggesting anything different from it.

Please see:

http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/page...nfo/dbtest.dat

However, what I did discuss I figured would be redundant, since you were already aware of DB protocol.

Answers to your questions:

1. I have no requirements for the ground the target and hiding devices would be on as long as it is an environment that the Examiner would be expected to operate correctly in.

2. The pre and post tests are to verify the device and operator are working correctly. If during several attempts of a pre-test the operator/device does not locate a plain-view target, then you can quickly conclude the device does NOT satisfy the attribute being tested, and I wouldn't see why you should waste time doing the trials.

If a pre-test was successful, than a successful post-test is simply to verify the device/operator are still operating correctly following the trials. If the post-test is not successful, than probably you should consider starting all over from the beginning. Perhaps certain conditions have changed, the device is no longer operating correctly, etc. etc.

I never said I was well aware of "ordinary double blind" protocol. I said it doesn't exist. I made a post addressed to you saying
"there is no standard double blind test protocol. There are thousands of different double blind protocols".
Not only did you misquote me, you are are suggesting that Carl's protocol is the "ordinary protocol" for double blind. I say it is not, and no such "ordinary protocol" exists for double blind testing. It is a methodology, not a protocol. Carl's protocol that you cited is only one of several double blind protocols Carl described for testing dowsing and LRLs. Some of his protocols do not even include choosing from a number known hidden locations. What makes you think there is anything standard about a double blind protocol, or even about the different protocols Carl described for his tests?

I also pointed out some differences between the purpose of your double blind test and Carl's, as well as how Carl made provisions to modify his protocol to suit both him and the person applying to win his money.

You do need to be 100% redundant if you intend to copy only some parts from one or more of Carl's protocols, because you do not have any money at stake, and because the protocol you requested so far is not the same as any of Carl's. Do you have a clue why several people are specified in Carl's protocol you cited? His reasons do not apply to any of the parties who will be conducting your test request, and serve no purpose to me or anyone else involved at the test site. In fact they make the test more difficult to perform. Not even Carl's prize protocol specifies four people are necessary. He makes a provision to perform his test with only one person other than the claimant of his prize. It appears you decided to copy some procedures from one of Carl's test protocols to combine with your own protocol, not knowing how to design a simpler double blind test.

WesP as well as I will need to know any further details that you haven't explained yet, including what provisions you are allowing to modify the protocol, especially in the area of the four volunteers that must be recruited to perform your test.

I can insure the ground is suitable for testing an Examiner.

In the event that the operator is not able to find the target in plain sight during the pre-test, I still don't know what you suggest should be done. Your answer was I can formulate a conclusion about the results of test trials that are not started. I will not be formulating any conclusions. I will only perform a test and report the data. Should I speculate that you would suggest the test stopped if the operator cannot locate a known target location during the pre-test trial?


Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by J_Player

I never said I was well aware of "ordinary double blind" protocol. I said it doesn't exist. I made a post addressed to you saying
"there is no standard double blind test protocol. There are thousands of different double blind protocols".
Not only did you misquote me, you are are suggesting that Carl's protocol is the "ordinary protocol" for double blind. I say it is not, and no such "ordinary protocol" exists for double blind testing. It is a methodology, not a protocol. Carl's protocol that you cited is only one of several double blind protocols Carl described for testing dowsing and LRLs. Some of his protocols do not even include choosing from a number known hidden locations. What makes you think there is anything standard about a double blind protocol, or even about the different protocols Carl described for his tests?

I also pointed out some differences between the purpose of your double blind test and Carl's, as well as how Carl made provisions to modify his protocol to suit both him and the person applying to win his money.

You do need to be 100% redundant if you intend to copy only some parts from one or more of Carl's protocols, because you do not have any money at stake, and because the protocol you requested so far is not the same as any of Carl's. Do you have a clue why several people are specified in Carl's protocol you cited? His reasons do not apply to any of the parties who will be conducting your test request, and serve no purpose to me or anyone else involved at the test site. In fact they make the test more difficult to perform. Not even Carl's prize protocol specifies four people are necessary. He makes a provision to perform his test with only one person other than the claimant of his prize. It appears you decided to copy some procedures from one of Carl's test protocols to combine with your own protocol, not knowing how to design a simpler double blind test.

WesP as well as I will need to know any further details that you haven't explained yet, including what provisions you are allowing to modify the protocol, especially in the area of the four volunteers that must be recruited to perform your test.

I can insure the ground is suitable for testing an Examiner.

In the event that the operator is not able to find the target in plain sight during the pre-test, I still don't know what you suggest should be done. Your answer was I can formulate a conclusion about the results of test trials that are not started. I will not be formulating any conclusions. I will only perform a test and report the data. Should I speculate that you would suggest the test stopped if the operator cannot locate a known target location during the pre-test trial?


Best wishes,
J_P

Hey..... you know what, Graham; just forget I even requested a test. I really don't have time to write a dissertation on Double-Blind Testing for you, and it appears that's where we are headed. That's not to say that I couldn't write a long drawn-out method for you, I'm just saying, I don't have the desire or the time to play "what if" games and write one. I used to write test procedures for a living (among a lot of other things) and since retiring, I really have no desire to expend that kind of effort again; plus I have a large project that I'm finishing and don't have a lot of spare time right now.

Rather than me come up with a customized protocol that is obviously never going to meet with your approval; why don't you just use the one Carl wrote up, and do it exactly as he stated. I've read it over several times, agree with the protocol, and believe it to be quite adequate for the device you are testing. If you don't want to do that, why don't you forget the whole idea of "testing" the Examiner.

I really question whether you ever had any intention of testing the Examiner anyway.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but expending a huge amount of time and resources for the testing of a plain and simple dowsing wand just isn't something that is very high up on my priority pole. I've tested lots of dowsing wands, and I already know the outcome that a "fair" test of the Examiner will yield.

Good luck.... you may be better off spending your spare time on fishing and/or photography. And, yes, I've done a lot of "one" of those things too.

[WM6]

Originally Posted by Theseus

Whoa... am I calling out the details of my test, or are you?

No I am not, I am hold in top secrecy main detail that Examiner is not working.

[hung]

Originally Posted by Qiaozhi

Actually I'm an Administrator,

Humm... No moderating then. Now you are 'mr. administrator' whose only duties cover threats to members of getting their posts deleted...Situation is worse than I thought. And you infer that I'm subject to this for 'name callings'.
So, you have never had any 'name calling' post towards myself along all this time? Hilarious.
Anyway, this would never happened in our current LRL closed group forum. 'Types' as yourself would not even be allowed to join, much less getting posts deleted as you would not even get to this point.

Hey mr. administrator, what contributions have you provided to the RS forum to date? Even Carl, your boss, gave some, like his MFD project. Frequencies are completely wrong, but he did contribute.
What about you, uh? Allow me to answer it for ya: you gave nothing. None, nada, nil.
Well, except for that crap PD schematics full of mistakes that I had to retrace for the private email group at the time.
Mirror Ivconic. Being a much more competent EE than you are, he is as much of a sekptical as you, but he had the guts to leave. But you...
Explain your big contradiction here to the forum. A self confessed skeptic who does not admit LRLs, yet insists in remaining here demanding people like Esteban for instance, to provide working schematics as 'proof', just to benefit from it. Just like a bloodsucking leech to get one's sweat and efforts for free...
Always wanted lunch for free, eh? What a shame...

[hung]

Hey mr. Administrator, take a look at what your 'idemotor' effect has done to me this afternoon at my brother's backyard.
It took me the total of 1 minute and 45 seconds to locate it, pinpoint it, dig it and recover it. All with the examiner.

Now seriously... Go back to read what ideomotor is. You don't have a clue what it is. Hint, start by some german sites...

Oh, almost forgot. It's a 20 centavos brazilian coin, 1970.

[WM6]

Originally Posted by hung

It took me the total of 1 minute and 45 seconds to locate it, pinpoint it, dig it and recover it. All with the examiner.

Oh, almost forgot. It's a 20 centavos brazilian coin, 1970.

You forgot to say that you first took total 22 minutes to buried those mineoro centavos in your backyard.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by hung

It took me the total of 1 minute and 45 seconds to locate it, pinpoint it, dig it and recover it. All with the examiner.

Did you also use a regular MD to pinpoint it ? because i can´t see how you can hold the RT horizontal while pinpointing at a few cm distance...

[WM6]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Is this your request for a test to be performed, or is it a challenge against the test protocol that Theseus asked to see performed?

I agree with Theseus protocol, request is only on additional measure to prevent lack of for test validity decisive data.

[WM6]

Originally Posted by Fred

because i can´t see how you can hold the RT horizontal while pinpointing at a few cm distance...

They convert it in RT Pistol.

You cannot see because it was done in seventh dimension of his back(yard) and then coming back to blackyard.

There was an unrepeatable phenomenon.

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by hung

Humm... No moderating then. Now you are 'mr. administrator' whose only duties cover threats to members of getting their posts deleted...Situation is worse than I thought. And you infer that I'm subject to this for 'name callings'.

I do not recall "threatening" anyone. In fact we have been particularly lenient towards yourself. With the number of personal insults you have directed at Carl and others on this forum, I'm surprised Carl has not banned you a long time ago. Perhaps it is the amusement factor that weighs in your favor.

Originally Posted by hung

So, you have never had any 'name calling' post towards myself along all this time? Hilarious.

I do not indulge in name calling. If you cannot take the heat (i.e. criticism) then get out of the fire.

Originally Posted by hung

Anyway, this would never happened in our current LRL closed group forum. 'Types' as yourself would not even be allowed to join, much less getting posts deleted as you would not even get to this point.

I wouldn't expect anything different from your "LRL Closed Group Forum". It's the usual close-minded head-in-sand approach. Good luck in your current wild goose chase.

Originally Posted by hung

Hey mr. administrator, what contributions have you provided to the RS forum to date? Even Carl, your boss, gave some, like his MFD project. Frequencies are completely wrong, but he did contribute.
What about you, uh? Allow me to answer it for ya: you gave nothing. None, nada, nil.

That doesn't even make sense.

Originally Posted by hung

Well, except for that crap PD schematics full of mistakes that I had to retrace for the private email group at the time.

Considering the people who were involved in the PD back-engineering, the accuracy of the schematic is extremely high, and since the majority of the design was an exact copy of an ancient Heathkit T/R detector, the mistakes in that part are zero. The fake video you posted of your own PD only serves to show your desperation in promoting this nonsense.

Originally Posted by hung

Mirror Ivconic. Being a much more competent EE than you are, he is as much of a sekptical as you, but he had the guts to leave. But you...
Explain your big contradiction here to the forum. A self confessed skeptic who does not admit LRLs, yet insists in remaining here demanding people like Esteban for instance, to provide working schematics as 'proof', just to benefit from it. Just like a bloodsucking leech to get one's sweat and efforts for free...
Always wanted lunch for free, eh? What a shame...

You are very very confused. No-one here is "demanding" Esteban to provide a working schematic. On the contrary, the LRL proponents come to this forum of their own free will and post extraordinary claims. If you post such claims then you must be prepared to be challenged. Many times you and Esteban have been politely asked to supply a simple LRL design that can be replicated to confirm your claims. Many years later ... what do we find? ... Still nothing. Conclusion - LRLs do not work as advertised.

The PD is a different subject, and the details were supplied by another member. Have you already forgotten the panic attack you had when you discovered that skeptics were about to learn the "secret" of the Alonso PD? The "secret" was of course that it was copied from a detector kit designed in the 1970s.