transmitter vlf

[WM6]

Originally Posted by fmnotes

HELLO.
YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS SYSTEM WILL HELP IN THE DETECTION OF TREASURE?

THAT IS TO SAY THE AIR MISSION OF FREQUENCIES.

CAN GIVE ME MORE INFORMATION?
I THANK

In simplified theory only, not in real.

But is interesting to play with. It is about GoldGun 707 (71 principle.

Main problem here is how to build small and very directive antenna (5-10° of directivity) at VLF.

[fmnotes]

Originally Posted by WM6

In simplified theory only, not in real.

But is interesting to play with. It is about GoldGun 707 (71 principle.

Main problem here is how to build small and very directive antenna (5-10° of directivity) at VLF.

I MANUFACTURED ONE ALMOST SIMILAR SYSTEM.

ALSO A VLF OF RECEPTOR WITH FERRITI.

I HAVE REGULATED THE RECEPTOR IT ONLY RECEIVES A FREQUENCY. WITH FILTER.

I REGULATE ALSO THE GENERATOR OF FREQUENCIES IT EMITS THE SAME FREQUENCY WITH THE ONE THAT I REGULATED THE VLF OF RECEPTOR.
ALSO I CONNECT IN THE GROUND 2 BARS THAT THEM I CONNECT ALSO IN THE GENERATOR OF FREQUENCIES.

THAT IS TO SAY I SEND ALSO AIR SIGNAL OF FREQUENCIES BUT ALSO IN THE GROUND.

I MIGHT LOCATE METALS THAT ARE FOUND IN THE GROUND?

I WILL ONLY LOCATE THE FREQUENCIES THAT DOES EMIT THE GENERATOR?

I REQUEST IF YOU TRYED HIM YOU SAY ME YOUR IMPRESSIONS.
I THANK

[WM6]

Filtering doesn't help much, if you do not have very directive antenna.

Here is problem of many reflective signal of same frequency from different direction.

Of course from target too.

You need to select only those frequency received from target. This is possible by very directive antenna only.

[fmnotes]

Originally Posted by WM6

Filtering doesn't help much, if you do not have very directive antenna.

Here is problem of many reflective signal of same frequency from different direction.

Of course from target too.

You need to select only those frequency received from target. This is possible by very directive antenna only.

YOU PROPOSE TO ME REMOVING THE FILTER?


THAT I CAN KNOW THE FREQUENCY OF TARGET?

IF I SEND 8KHZ FROM THE GENERATOR. THE FREQUENCY OF TARGET IT CAN BE 4KHZ? GENERALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE THAT I WILL SEND FROM THE GENERATOR?

I THANK

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by fmnotes

YOU PROPOSE TO ME REMOVING THE FILTER?


THAT I CAN KNOW THE FREQUENCY OF TARGET?

IF I SEND 8KHZ FROM THE GENERATOR. THE FREQUENCY OF TARGET IT CAN BE 4KHZ? GENERALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE THAT I WILL SEND FROM THE GENERATOR?

I THANK

Is your Caps Lock key stuck down?
Did you know that when you write your posts in Capital Letters (Uppercase), it is equivalent to SHOUTING.

[WM6]

Originally Posted by fmnotes

YOU PROPOSE TO ME REMOVING THE FILTER?

No.

[Dave J.]

This conversation which started in nonsense, isn't getting any closer to sense.

All this concern about "transmitter vlf" (title of the thread) with almost no concern about the receiver.

Ordinary metal detectors have VLF transmitters which are designed by real engineers to actually transmit! Not this NE555 or calculator-on-a-stick malarkey.

And, real metal detectors have real receivers. That really work. The most sensitive units can detect a VLF energy perturbation about the same magnitude as the energy of one red wavelength photon.

You heard me right. Multiply voltage sensitivity by the equivalent current sensitivity and by the response time, and if you have the necessary scientific and engineering knowledge, you can verify it for yourself. One red photon.

Try that with your swivelly thingy. Holding it in your hand in a perfectly neutral (laboratory perfect, non-field) environment, its directional sensitivity is limited by hand tremor, as any time spent following dowsing forum posts will confirm. It ain't the rod, it's the hand holding it and therefore the brain that's behind the hand.

Anyone who's dealt with the challenge of making sensitive electronic measurements where something in the signal path had to be hand-held knows the problem: until you eliminate the ability of the hand to change the signal, you're schitt outa luck. It ain't happnin'. Hand tremor has too much energy.

I am not saying that dowsing is entirely bogus. What I am saying is that the electrical theories behind LRL'ing are entirely bogus, and provably so. In fact it's that provability that has LRL fans so parsed arf with folks like Carl and the A.R. and even with me. In the case of Carl and myself, VLF electronics are our livelihood, for which we get paid only because the stuff we design actually works and nobody, not even the LRL dependabillies, dispute that it works! In the VLF detection industry there are lots of arguments about who's got the best stuff for what purpose and whose advertising department stretches the truth a hair too much, but assertions that the stuff is bogus from the get-go are entirely absent no matter how stiff the competition.

To simplify the foregoing argument a bit: no matter how much I dislike a competitor in the metal detection business, I can't say that metal detection is all a fraud. However I can say that all LRL's are fraudulent, because they are not competing for targets to be located, they don't locate buried targets at all! They only do wallet biopsies.

--Dave J.

[WM6]

Originally Posted by Dave J.

However I can say that all LRL's are fraudulent, because they are not competing for targets to be located, they don't locate buried targets at all!

They only do wallet biopsies.

Thanks Dave, I agree with you.

But you know that we enter here religious sphere and there is no acceptable arguments that can replace someone beliefs. Beliefs wants to be satisfied.

So we are here to meet those unchanged LRL demand. Practically for free, instead of possible "wallet biopsies LRL".

I can guarantee that all my, J_Ps and oter members construction proposed here, worked as well and even better, than all those extremely expensive mineoros, rangertells, H3tecs, bionics etc.. Verifiable.

And all those practically for free. One needs some cheap parts and some of his time only and get funny and by the way educative things which can do those "something".

[Seden]

Since JPlayer pointed out the realities of the article you posted, I think I would use a low noise design of a Q-Multiplier antenna circuit. They work great. Google it.

Randy

[Dave J.]

Yeah, but Randy, there some problems with your suggestion.

1. You suggested doing some real engineering-- low noise, active high Q circuit. LRL'ers are lousy circuit engineers, because after all, if they had the knowledge and skills to design such a thing, they wouldn't be wasting their time on LRL's.

2. Which leads to the opposite problem: the phrase "low noise Q multiplier" supplies great raw material for a pseudoscience word salad, and in the world of LRL's, things are whatever your fairy tale fancies them to be, what they really are is no more relevant to LRL's than the ARRL Handbook is to Alice in Wonderland. Simply applying the words to something that isn't a low noise Q multiplier circumvents the whole messy problem of how to actually build a low noise Q multiplier.

3. But suppose that a person were to actually build a real low noise Q multiplier. Now that you've got it, what does it have to do with finding buried treasures? Nothing, unless it's part of real geophysical apparatus and therefore not in the "LRL" category.

[For what it's worth, the last time I built an LC circuit Q multiplier was 50 years ago. They're not nearly as magic as they might seem at first glance, that's why I've not used them since.]

--Dave J.