rangertell examiner field trials

[goldfinder]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Hi Goldfinder,
I am skeptical about a lot of things. I generally don't subscribe to methods related to dowsing. All this BS from Theseus is just that. In my opinion, he never ran any tests on signal lines or LRLs. He can't even describe the kind of tests he allegedly ran. The notion that a double blind test is the only kind of valid test is not a fact. It is only the opinion of some people. Can you remember a double blind test ever being conducted on a metal detector? I can't. Yet I ran some simple non-scientific tests to determine what metal detectors I wanted to buy. And I found them to be very suitable for my purposes.

The simple tests I ran on the Examiner did not help me to find treasure. So I decided not to buy any Examiners. Can I prove the examiner won't pass a scientific test? Not so far. At least not until someone can get it to work well enough with known targets to perform a randomized test. But my non-scientific testing was enough to convince me I don't want to spend any money to buy one. For others, maybe they will find success in their non-scientific testing. In their cases, they may want to buy an Examiner. I am not stupid enough to say I have scientific proof it can't work, because I don't have that proof. I can safely say Theseus does not have that scientific proof either.

Qiaozhi was right -- it is impossible to prove there is no tea tray in orbit, just as it is impossible to prove there are no signal lines. The best any skeptic has been able to do is to conduct tests that provide evidence it is statistically unlikely for LRL/dowsing to work. As a substitute to proving LRL/dowsing can't work, people have run tests to show a collection of LRL user/dowsers are not able pass a statistical test to locate a target. And even this test does not prove dowsing doesn't work. It only shows evidence that a particular collection of people can't pass the test. They can open LRL contraptions and show the circuitry does not make sense. This can show evidence of fraud from the manufacturer, but it still does not prove that signal lines don't exist.

But most people aren't interested in testing. They are ordinary treasure hunters who are looking for something that helps them find treasure. Like you, they don't care to prove anything, nor do they wish to perform tests. They rely on what they hear from their friends or read about that helps to find treasures.

Think about it:
If you were to find a chicken that squalked whenever you got near treasures, then I think you would simply use the chicken to locate treasures. You wouldn't stop to conduct double blind tests, or any tests at all on this chicken. You would go treasure hunting. And when the chicken couldn't find the treasure any more, then you would stop taking it on the treasure hunts.
If a testing fanatic got hold of your chicken, it would probably undergo several weeks of testing before they performed an autopsy. And you would lose your treasure finding chicken!

If self-professed testing experts insist they have scientific proof signal lines are imaginary, then let them spin their wheels. They will never be able to convince anyone familiar with testing theory that they have any proof. Sure this forum has ameteur "experts", but the people who run this forum are wise enough to know what can be proved and what cannot. You won't see Qiaozhi or Carl claiming they conducted a scientific test that proved signal lines don't exist.

I have seen some of your circuits posted on other sites. Good luck with your treasure hunting.

Best wishes,
J_P

JP,
Don't know where Thesus gets this "Graham" stuff. He is just deluded so we can all ignore him.

That chicken sounds like the way to go. Maybe we could go into the business of raising and selling gold detecting chickens.

Like you, I believe in the scientific method. The problem when one gets into a domain where mental phenomena enters the picture you have a whole group of people still operating at a level of consciousness and brainwashed belief that precludes them ever moving to proofs that involves testing by peers (e.g. you could never use Thesus as he is not a peer). For example, if the only way to prove that the signal lines exist is to test with people who can actually see or sense the signal lines then how do you ever "prove" to someone who is sensory challenged and mentally challenged that they exist?

Onward,
Goldfinder

[Geo]

Ιn Greece a proverb says..
"Δύο γαιδαροι μαλωνανε σε ξενη αχυρώνα"...
It means .. if the Boss says something, then

My Regards

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by goldfinder

JP,
.....I believe in the scientific method. Goldfinder

Could not have said it better myself. The scientific method involves gathering evidence and then forming conclusions based on the available evidence. That is in fact the only way I've ever tested LRLs, and how I've come to understand exactly how they operate.

I'm glad you agree.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Qiaozhi

OK guys ... I think it's time to stop the bickering. As I stated earlier:

And this is still true. If either of you insist that signal lines exist then you need to provide proof, otherwise we are back to the tea tray analogy. However (as I understand it) you both believe that signal lines do not exist, so this continued arguing makes no sense.

Please leave the burden of proof to the dowsing fraternity where it belongs, and let's return to the original purpose of this thread ... which (in case you've forgotten) is "RangerTell Examiner Field Tests". The results of which we are all eagerly awaiting...

The bickering already stopped when Theseus discovered nobody will believe he conducted a test that proves signal lines don't exist. I think you are correct. The burden of proof that signal lines exist belongs with the LRL/dowsing community. This is why I cannot understand why a skeptic would make false claims he ran tests that prove they do not exist, and hide his evidence. As you said, that kind of test is not possible.

But you are mistaken about what people believe.
I believe things that I can see proof of. For signal lines, I have not seen any conclusive proof they exist or don't exist. All I can say is I am of the opinion there is no such thing as a signal line, but I don't know for sure. And I am very interested to see any test that proves they don't exist.

There is the difference between an opinion and a belief. Having a belief that signal lines don't exist depends on having faith in things you cannot prove. In order to believe signal lines don't exist a person would have to have faith that nobody will ever demonstrate conclusive evidence of signal lines from now to eternity. Like most skeptics, I think it is highly unlikely, but I don't have the blind faith to believe it can never happen, ever.

Let's put it this way:
A lot of people including the best scientist had the belief that the world is flat for centuries. They believed there was danger for people who sailed their ships too close to the edge, where they might fall off the earth. The burden of proof was on the people who claimed the earth was round, which they did not prove at that time, so a lot of people continued to believe the earth is flat. Nobody could devise a test for earth-flattness, so the experts used the argument that earth-flattness is self-evident, without any way to prove the flattness. The point is all those experts and average people believed in flat-earth on faith. And they had faith that nobody would ever be able to prove otherwise. Doesn't clinging to faith in leiu of facts indicate a lack of critical thinking? Eventually somebody did provide credible proof the earth is not flat.

Who's to say someone won't someday show credible evidence that there are signal lines? Not me. I can't prophesize the future any more than early experts could prophesize living in a round earth. I can have an opinion, about the non-existence of signal lines, but I won't elevate the glory of signal lines to a faith belief that they exist or do not exist. I prefer to see the proof first. Otherwise signal lines might take on religious attributes. If Theseus really has the proof they don't exist, let him prove it. As you say, "the burden of proof is on the claimant".

If there is no proof of testing claims coming from Theseus, I think you are right. Time to move on.


Best wishes,
J_P

[goldfinder]

Just for laughs I looked up Thesus.

Theseus (Greek: Θησεύς) was the mythical founder-king of Athens, son of Aethra, and fathered by Aegeus and Poseidon, both of whom Aethra lay with in one night. Theseus was a founder-hero, like Perseus, Cadmus or Heracles, all of whom battled and overcame foes that were identified with an archaic religious and social order.[1] As Heracles was the Dorian hero, Theseus was the Ionian founding hero, considered by Athenians as their own great reformer.

So we have on this LRL forum a reformer battling the archaic LRL believers.

You don't suppose that Thesus is really Sam Samscafarti the old nemesus of LRLers everywhere.

Goldfinder

[J_Player]

Moving on...

I have recently made posts about the status of the Rangertell field tests. I can summarize the testing in more detail here:

1. previous testing:
If you recall, I spent a lot of time testing the Examiner to see how well it found targets in the field. I also took electronic measurements on all the internal parts I could access with my instruments. And I took measurements in the air around the Examiner. The results in finding targets were poor, with less than 50% average success rate to find targets that were in plain sight, and where the buried location was known by the person holding the examiner. Tests to locate unknown targets showed the Examiner was pointing random directions, without making any definite movement to the direction of the target. At some times it would point to the target momentarily, but it would also point other directions just as often momentarily. I tested this Examiner with my own hands as well as observing a number of volunteers test it. For my own testing, all of the trials showed random pointing. But for others, the tendency to point to a known target would vary depending on the user. It would sometimes exceed 50% success, but averaged less than 50% success rate. The success rate for unknown targets for all who tested the Examiner to locate unknown targets was random. These tests were not scientific double-blind randomized tests. The few attempts to conduct a scientific test were unsuccessful because we could not establish a base line for a scientific test (this means nobody could get the Examiner to locate known targets reliably enough to satisfy the prerequisite base line needed for a scientific test). A remedy to this poor performance was suggested by the factory rep to adjust the trimmer cap to a very difficult-to-locate setting, which varies for each person. After weeks of trying to get the trimmer cap to the correct setting, there was no sign of improvement for the field tests. Eventually I sent this Examiner back to the factory for a replacement. The factory rep said it was out of calibration and was not working. He said it may have been damaged in transit, or in the field. He said it was re-calibrated at the factory, and is working correctly. He sent a replacement Examiner which was not the same Examiner we previously tested.

The replacement Examiner was the Deluxe model, which is nearly identical to the earlier model T-G Ver 8.08B. The internal circuit and parts are the same, but with a different calculator, and with a ground probe included that you can connect to a computer to send an audio signal to the ground probe. In the initial field tests I made I did not observe any detection of known targets or targets hidden in unknown locations. I saw random swinging of the Examiner which occasionally pointed to a target location. For others testing the examiner, I also saw the same performance as I saw from the previous Examiner. Scientific randomized tests cannot be performed because nobody who tried it can get it to locate known targets reliably enough to perform a scientific test. Invitations have been open for volunteers who want to try the Deluxe Examiner for some time. Send me a PM if you want to try it. Maybe you will find it works for you.

2. Current testing:
In addition to the field tests, I have been taking electronic measurements on the replacement Examiner. I have noted some differences in the signals between the two sample Examiner signals. These signal differences can be traced to different signals originating inside the two different calculators. These electronic tests are on-going at the moment. It should be noted, the signals I am seeing on the Deluxe model are notably weaker than the model T-G Ver 8.08B. And the frequency/timing is notably different. This will seem to be insignificant information to most EEs considering what is claimed for the Examiner, but I am still taking these measurements so I have something to compare for later analysis. Also note: this weaker signal, after coupling to the internal Examiner circuit produces a signal that is so weak that the ambient noise in the air is stronger. Depending on where the Examiner is located, the ambient noise can cause a signal approximately equal in amplitude, or many times greater than the signal measured at the antenna when the calculator is turned on. For this reason, the Examiner signal is better observed away from the lab, in open areas that are not surrounded by equipment that is powered by mains power. I occasionally take the Deluxe examiner for field tests to see if a different "target frequency" shows any improvement in success rates. Sometimes I recruit a watcher who tries it to see if he finds a known or hidden target. So far, the results have been the same as before.

3: Results:
You can see the results of the non-scientific testing we were able to conduct in the summary above, or you can read through the forum posts for other information. Nobody so far has been able to get it to work well enough for a scientific test of the kind that Randi might conduct. Basically, I haven't seen signs of the Examiner locating hidden metal targets. As goldfinder might say: I tried it and it didn't work for me. I also did not see it work for other volunteers who tried it.

4: Next tests:
I don't see any signs that people will be responding to my open invitations to test the Examiner. So I have been making arrangements to begin a new phase of testing after I take more electronic measurements. I will be consulting with the people who run the Geotech forum for feasibility and guidance in this next testing phase. When there is something to report on this next phase, I will make a post.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Geo]

Originally Posted by goldfinder

You don't suppose that Thesus is really Sam Samscafarti the old nemesus of LRLers everywhere.

Goldfinder

Hi.
Only Dell said about Sam!!!!
Who is your opinion

Regards

[J_Player]

I just saw Tnet is talking about some tests I made on the Examiner: http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.p...tml#msg2795671
It appears our friend Art is confused about calculators. So I should clarify again about Examiner calculators:

Rangertell sells Examiners that use two different calculators.
The Deluxe model uses the TI scientific calculator with solar panel, while the T-G model uses a 2-cell calculator with no solar panel and no brand name.

TI calculator produces weaker signal
My testing showed the TI calculator signal is much weaker and cannot be picked up from the same distance as the 2-cell model on an oscilloscope.
The internal voltage is only 1/2 of what we find on the no-name calculator, so this is expected.
In fact the TI signal is so weak that it is hard to find and sync on from the background noise if there is much AC or electronic gadgets around that pollute the air with RF.
The TI signal is also at a different frequency, and has a different series of pulses in each "pulse packet".
This seems to be normal, considering the TI has more digits on the display, and the pulses appear to be display driver clock pulses to turn on each of the digits in series.
Hence the 30 Hz refresh frequency for the display... about right to make an image that is perceived to be without flicker, as used on many electronic screens for viewing.

No amount of pressing keys caused either of these calculators to change their frequencies.
The only significant frequency shift I saw is with the TI calculator. When you walk into a dark shaded area like under a large tree, the frequency slows down noticeably as seen on an oscilloscope.
This presents a serious problem to the claim that a specific frequency must be entered into the calculator display.
We have two problems actually:
1. Tests show that pressing calculator keys does not change the frequency measured at the calculator.
2. Tests showed that for the TI solar calculator, the frequency dropped noticeably whenever the calculator was moved to a dark shaded area.

Why a frequency drop when you walk in the shade?
Further investigation showed the TI calculator voltage also dropped when it was moved to the dark shaded area and the frequency dropped.
This testing was done with a probe picking up the signal through about an inch distance from the circuit board, as well as with the probe placed on the conductors at the back of the board to see the frequency drop.
The voltage was measured at the positive battery lead that feeds to the circuit board.
Take note this frequency shift problem did not occur on the no-name calculator that had no solar cell on the T-G model.
Apparently, the single battery is heavily loaded when there is not enough light for the solar panel to assist it to drive the calculator load.

It would seem a user could enter in any series of numbers and walk around thinking he had adjusted the frequency, when it did not change from when no numbers were entered, only the default 0.
Then he could follow an alleged signal line into a cave, where he marks the treasure locations.
After a few hours of digging lots of dirt and rocks out of the cave, he might go home, leaving the empty holes behind.
Then he could take photos of gold and other stuff he drags out of the garage which he says he found in the cave, or he could splice photos together to make it look like he found gold.

This is why I think most LRL users refuse to show their methods working in front of strangers who want to be convinced.

Here are some more test details I posted at Geotech:
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...221#post110221 TI solar calculator arrived with Deluxe model
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...747#post117747 Summary of some field tests of T-G and Deluxe models
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...004#post116004 Another more detailed summary of field tests of T-G and Deluxe models


Best wishes,
J_P

[Saturna]

Then he could take photos of gold and other stuff he drags out of the garage which he says he found in the cave, or he could splice photos together to make it look like he found gold.

This is why I think most LRL users refuse to show their methods working in front of strangers who want to be convinced.

I'd say that's about as accurate as it gets.

[J_Player]

This Examiner talk over at Tnet is getting interesting.

They are all debating about whether the calculator transmits various frequencies which change when different keys are pressed.
I see some of our Tnet refugee friends like Art and hung MR. Don are promoting new new emerging hungscience as if it is real, and is good to use for an argument.

So let's see what new things we can learn today about calculator key frequencies from Dr. Hung's teachings: http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.p...tml#msg2797097

Originally Posted by hung

The calculator keyboards employ a matrix to reduce the number of pins needed for the microchip. Copper tracks turn on in a sequence and behaves as an oscilator where these tracks act as an antenna. Tone changes happen and thus frequency changes when typing the keys. The internal circuits get in loops when more complex and longer operations are performed.
Or no frequencies are involved in an EM field produced by an oscilator?
Since I have SWR on ignore, I think and later saw that the text you posted came from JP on Carl's forum.
This is the problem with these people. They expect to use conventional methods to measure unconventional devices.
The examiner and the calculator in this case, output minute changes. He apparently used to oscope to get the clock signals only. In order to get the frequency thing going he would need a very sensitive pickup antenna and booster conected to the oscope. This would likely be able to capture the minute EM variations when the keys are pressed.

But wait, there's more from Dr. Hung's previous post here: http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.p...tml#msg2492296

Originally Posted by hung

...Altough I have alreadyposted several times how the resonance thing happens, the subject of your post was regarding the calculator clock in which you claimed it was fixed and could not generate variable frequencies. I told you that the clock's frequency had nothing to do with the the generating frequencies role, as each key has its own particular frequency.

...Now DO YOU SEE, that each key has a frequency, Mr. bigmouth?

Hmmm... no wonder Dr. Hung posts his hungscience in Tnet.
They don't have any rules to back up your extraordinary claims there.
I suppose he knows he couldn't get away with anything that stupid here because we have too many EEs who know how keypads work.

For the rest who don't know, the processor in a calculator scans the wires leading to all the keys in order to see if they are pressed or not. It will scan across each wire connected to a key, one after another at a fixed frequency. All the keys are scanned in an endless loop which continually repeats to check for when keys are pressed. Unlike PC keyboards, there is no decoder IC or serial data stream on a calculator keypad. All the decoding is done entirely inside the processor chip. If the processor detects that the key is pressed down, then it will decode which key, then enter a number or arithmetic operations in assembly language into it's stack (memory). These memory operations and all the calculations are done inside the processor chip, and are not sent out to the conductors that lead to the keys. In fact the processor never sends any signal to the conductors that lead to the keys except an endless loop of identical pulses that are used to check and see if the key is pressed down or not. And the processor does not change the frequency it scans to check each successive key.
The keys do not have any other circuitry to send out a frequency. They are simply switches that short two conductors together when they are pressed. The processor checks to see if the two conductors at each key location are shorted together when the key is pressed, or if they are not.
From what we know of the construction of calculators, we can determine that the frequency on any of the copper keypad conductors cannot change due to pressing keys.
If pressing keys causes this frequency to change, then is a trick of the mind, and is not real.


But According to hungscience, we see Dr. hung does not agree. He believes that pressing the keys will alter the frequency at the conductors on the keypad.
According to Dr. hung, the copper conductors at the calculator keypad act as an antenna that makes tone changes when typing the keys.
And each calculator key has a separate frequency.
Further, Dr. hung maintains that I can't measure the minute changes in frequency because I don't have a sensitive pickup antenna and booster connected to my probe.

Hmmmm.... My probe was connected to an identical spiral coil as we find inside the Examiner.
I picked up the same signals that came from the same exact location as the Examiner picks the up.
The Examiner coil is also located behind these same copper traces that contain the alleged changed frequencies.
I wonder why the Examiner didn't need a booster to pick up these frequencies?
Is the circuitry inside the Examiner the booster?
Does this Examiner circuitry boost the signal to make changed frequencies detectable?

No, the circuitry inside the examiner does not.
I tested every point in that circuitry while the calculator was running with different keys pressed and different numbers entered.
What I discovered is the circuitry inside the examiner serves to attenuate the exact same signal that I can detect with a spiral coil or alligator clip from behind the calculator.
The strongest signal I could measure anywhere in the Examiner circuit was only about 1/3 the strength as I measured when I used the plain spiral coil to detect it at the calculator.
And further, the examiner circuit also picks up electronic noise from the air that is added to the calculator signal.
This electronic noise in the air is usually of a similar strength to the signal picked up from the calculator, and the noise remains even when you remove the calculator.
But if you measure the signals indoors where there are electronics, the noise is stronger than the calculator signal and makes the calculator signals impossible to find.
The idea that a sensitive pickup antenna and booster circuit is needed seems to be false, as this antenna with booster do not exist in the Examiner.

But what about the claim that frequencies are changed?
If resonance was occurring as a result of the Examiner circuitry, we would expect to see an increase in the strength of whatever frequency was resonating.
But this did not happen no matter what keys were pressed.
Nor did any frequencies change when different keys were pressed.
I have photos of the frequencies that are picked up from the Examiner spiral coil before and after keys are pressed.
These photos show the frequency does not change, and is in agreement with the general knowledge of pocket calculator keypad construction.
I also have photos of signals picked up from all the different points of the Examiner circuitry before and after keys are pressed.
These photos also show there is no place I measured in the Examiner circuitry where the frequencies are changed as a result of pressing calculator keys.

In short, it appears electronics and science work.
Hungscience does not work.
We can easily measure the frequencies that come from the Examiner spiral coil behind the calculator without using a special antenna with a booster.
But we cannot see any changed frequencies after pressing keys or making calculations on the calculator.

Where to next?
I haven't yet published the photos of measurements made on the TI solar calculator model. Is it time I should post them to show exactly what signals we find?
I have photos that show the TI solar calculator signal is a lot weaker than the the signal from the no-name calculator that has no solar panel.
Most of these photos are meaningless because the signal is so weak that it is not discernible at all except on a few occasions when you are far outside of the laboratory and away from electronic noise in the air.
I can see from my old photos that my previous post describing a battery in the TI solar calculator was in error.
I was speaking from memory at the time, and I mistakenly remembered my Casio solar calculator which has a battery and a solar panel.
The TI calculator runs only on the solar panel, and has a small capacitor to store a charge for a short while in case the light is interrupted.
And I also have photos to show the calculator frequency changes a lot when the amount of light falling on the solar panel changes.

Maybe it is time to publish what signals I measured from the TI solar calculator.
Or better yet, I could make some new measurements directly from the copper conductors on the keypad so we can see exactly what frequencies are on this keypad.
This way we can settle the question of whether frequencies change on these keypad conductors or not, without needing any antennas or booster circuits to see exactly what signal is there.





If anyone wants to see what signals I can measure on the Examiner calculator keyboard before and after pressing keys, let me know.
Or if you want to see how much the frequency changes when the light changes, let me know.
Also, if there are other tests you would like to check inside the calculator, let me know what to check for.
I can post what you want to see here.

Meanwhile, I can continue to watch some more interesting and entertaining hungscience in the never-ending saga of eternal torment over at Tnet.


Best wishes,
J_P

[Geo]

Hi J_P.
From what i know, i agree with you about the frequency of the calculator.
You wrote """""And further, the examiner circuit also picks up electronic noise from the air that is added to the calculator signal.
This electronic noise in the air is usually of a similar strength to the signal picked up from the calculator, and the noise remains even when you remove the calculator""""".
Can you explain me how the noise remains????

Regards

[WM6]

Originally Posted by Geo

Hi J_P.

, and the noise remains even when you remove the calculator""""".
Can you explain me how the noise remains????

Regards

Probably J_P means "long nose" not "noise".

[Geo]

I saw a similar "phenomenon", this is the reason that i made the question!!!

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Geo

Hi J_P.
From what i know, i agree with you about the frequency of the calculator.
You wrote """""And further, the examiner circuit also picks up electronic noise from the air that is added to the calculator signal.
This electronic noise in the air is usually of a similar strength to the signal picked up from the calculator, and the noise remains even when you remove the calculator""""".
Can you explain me how the noise remains????

Regards

Hi Geo,
The noise is in the air, and can be measured if you set your oscilloscope to a sensitive enough setting. You can connect to a short length of wire like a coat hanger for an aerial, and walk around to see where the noise is stronger. The examiner has an aerial which acts to conduct most of the broadband noise in the air so the signal is a little stronger than if the probe is not connected to it. When we place the calculator on the Examiner, the noise coming from a calculator is slightly stronger than the broadband noise in the air because it is so close to the metal inside the Examiner. At a distance of about 1 cm the calculator noise can trigger an oscilloscope to follow any repetitive pulsing even with the broadband noise in the air competing to trigger the oscilloscope. But when you remove the calculator or turn it off, the broadband noise from the air remains, and still can be seen on an oscilloscope. Many of these noise signals from the air are also repetitive so you can lock their signal.

With the solar calculator, the the noise signal is weaker, and is not always stronger than the broadband noise in the air. I suppose it depends on what location you are measuring from. Keep in mind that when you are measuring calculator signals at these low levels, it can be easy to confuse some noise from the air with calculator noise. You will see a distorted wave form from the calculator because of the added noise from the air which makes it hard to know exactly what is coming from the calculator. So when you remove the calculator, you may begin to think that part of its signal is remaining, when it is not. This is why it might be good to put the probes directly on the calculator conductors to see a clear image of only the calculator signals. I have seen a lot of new noise in the air related to increased radio broadcasts, mobile phones, other high frequency transmissions, and new electronic equipment in homes which were not present in past decades. I suppose the cleanest areas for low background noise are very remote places far away from civilization. Maybe in the middle of a large desert, or at the north or south pole, or a deserted island in the pacific. In these locations, I expect man-made noise will be less, and natural electronic noises from the earth or space will be easier to detect.

See below for some clean measurements I made inside the Examiner TI solar calculator a year ago.

I am thinking I should make some more photos to show how these frequencies change when the light falling on the solar panel changes.
Do you think I should?


Best wishes,
J_P