rangertell examiner field trials

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by g-sani

To prove how bad we think sometimes I will tell you this.
When somebody wants to test an LRL by following a standard protocol or procedure first of all(please tell me your opinion) he has to search the area whith the LRL and before anything is touched or hidden.Then and only then he could carry on whith the procedures to be made.
This is the question now.
Please tell me if anybody ever mentioned this or tell me if you think that this is not that important but you have to explain the reason as well.
This I believe is the most important thing somebody must first do when he wants to test an LRL no matter what test-protocol he is going to follow.
Well sorry, I haven't seen anybody doing it yet.
Well, as far as I know.

P.S. Just keep in mind that I am always talking about the majority of people and that there are always exceptions as in anything in life.


Originally posted by Theseus
Part of the requirements of testing in a controlled environment requires that there be a Pre-test and a Post-test using a target in plain sight, which of course the LRL is supposed to be able to locate.

The confines of the test area should be searched for possible targets, but NOT with the LRL itself. Naturally, any possible targets should be removed from the test area that might interfere with the LRL.

If the Pre-test is successful, then one can go ahead with the Real-test, which should be of a double-blind protocol. Following the Real-test, you then perform a Post-test. If the Post-test is successful, then you can be reasonably sure the results of the Real-test are valid and significant.


....Naturally, any possible targets should be removed from the test area that might interfere with the LRL...


Originally posted by g-sani
No I do not agree whith that Theseus.
The most usual case in most areas is many objects arround in different sizes and depths.
This is where an LRL should show abillities if any of course.
And this is why I wrote about the omnitron's experience of mine.
I discovered then that if a metal is lying there alone is much easier to detect it whith any LRL
This in turn is no good for me because from experience I know that is always more bits and pieces arround wherever you go.

Hi g-sani,
A controlled test does not require any particular pre-test or post test or even to check the area for interference. A controlled test simply is a test where the person conducting the test made some sort of control to the test that would help make it a suitable test for the purpose he has.

Taking steps to search the area first is one kind of control you can make. Making pre-tests and post tests to the area another kind of control. You can conduct controlled tests without taking those particular precautions. In fact, for some controlled tests, you would want to make certain you did not search the area first or make any pre-tests. It all depends on what the objective of your test is. If you want to conduct a test for prize money to see if an LRL locates a single hidden target object from one of ten locations, then searching the field first for interference can be a good control, as well as a pre test and post test.

But some tests are not conducted to see if an LRL can find a single freshly hidden target object. For example, some LRLs are claimed to work well only for long-time buried targets. Suppose we did not want to conduct a test for a prize, but we wanted to conduct a test to see which of several LRLs shows the best evidence of responding to only treasure items when it is surrounded by trash items. Suppose this test was held to show to some people who want to buy an LRL to use in areas that have a lot of signals that make it hard to hunt treasure. They ask for a test that will show them which one is best to buy to use in the trashy area where they will be hunting.

In this case, a test I would want to see is a test where nothing was disturbed in the field at all. If there are power lines nearby, or metal trash that was scattered in the area, I would not want anyone to clean it. I would think making pre-tests and post-tests is optional work that would not help much for me to decide which LRL works best compared to the others.
I would want to see the controls made only by making sure all the LRLs were put through the same test conditions. The controls should insure nobody disturbs the ground or digs the targets until after all the tests were completed and recorded. And controls would insure all the LRLs start from the same place and distance from the target. And we would mark all the treasure locations that are located within the test area by each LRL. Then, after all the tests were done and recorded, we would dig all the treasure targets to see what the LRLs located at what depth, (if they located anything at all).

You can see the controls I would want are designed to provide a comparison for a person who wants to know which works best in his area full of non-treasure trash. It uses very different controls than a test designed to measure the statistical success rate of locating where a single target is hidden in a large test area. And there are many other ways to put controls on a tests to make it suitable for any particular purpose.

So remember... there is no one standard method for controls that tests everything you could want to know about an LRL.
The test protocol you choose will depend on what the purpose of your test is.


Best wishes,
J_P