I now own a Mineoro FG80

[Clondike Clad]

WHAT Particles THAT IS THE QUESTION.
Gold or SILVER WILL NOT GIVE OFF Particles UNLESS SOMETHING IS ADDED OR REMOVED TO CAUSE A CHANGE IN "E" BUT WHAT DO I KNOW????

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by Rudy

You should be able to visualize it if you switched to a complex Hilbert space wherein the fields can be reduced to a time dependent function, whose Hamiltonian is defined as a constant K, such as it would be for a system with Continuously Replenishable Asymmetric Particles.

... just a thought.

Personally I would use a Krylov subspace algorithm together with diamond truncation. If you attempt this with a Hilbert transformation, the time-invariant nature of the ionic wind could lead to chaotic behaviour.
i.e it might not work properly.

[Rudy]

Originally Posted by Qiaozhi

Personally I would use a Krylov subspace algorithm together with diamond truncation. If you attempt this with a Hilbert transformation, the time-invariant nature of the ionic wind could lead to chaotic behaviour.
i.e it might not work properly.

Ahh, but using a Hilbert space lends itself very well to doing some very powerful conformal mapping transformations and thereby hopefully simpliflying the underlying calculations such as has been done by Joukowski.

Other powerful conformal mapping techniques have been applied to electrostatic potential, heat flow, etc. For example, the Schwartz-Cristoffel transformation, Möbius transformation,... As long as the electrostatic field in question meets the Cauchy-Riemann conditions.

On the other hand, a Krylov subspace leads you straight into numerical calculations and approximations on a computer, without the elegance involved in being able to visualize the fields in all their analytic beauty.

That is why I sugested the Hilbert approach to Hung.

[Clondike Clad]

Can you add to this You know more about the FG80 type of detector?\YOU NEED TO k.I.S.S FOR ME THANKS

[J_Player]

There is no need to use a Krylov subspace algorithm for multiquadric interpolation. The best it can accomplish is to calculate where we would see the ions if they existed. And, while Hilbert space generalizes the notion of Euclidean space in a way that extends methods of vector algebra from the plane and three-dimensional space to spaces of functions, it still fails to make the evasive ionic fields visible. And I am sure you will recall Joukowski transformation involves the vector addition of a point and its reciprocal. Are we all fools? Have we forgotten that none of these methods are consistent with the theories of Myron Evans or his math, which Hung has been trying to explain?

Hung claims the theories of Myron Evans and his math are responsible for the underlying principles that prove dowsing and LRLs work. The Evans "Generally Covariant Unified Field Theory" cannot be understood using vector addition or transformations because it is predominantly dependent on scalar curvature, not vector math. To further clarify, the electric field in a circuit is generated from the product of the fundamental potential and the acceleration due to gravity, which in general relativity is non-Euclidean spacetime. The fundamental potential in volts is the scaling factor that links the electromagnetic potential to the scalar curvature. In other words, the FG80 works. No need to prove it with demonstrations when we have Myron Evan's theory that is unquestionably correct.

You say Evans has never been able to demonstrate any useful working mechanism that utilizes his theories? No problem. Hung's research team proved it:

Originally Posted by Hung

I had a research team which was developing a project which completely have ‘blown’ some accepted standards of quantum mechanics. I will never tell this because besides the fact I’m not allowed to, it’s too much, incredibly dangerous. ...thank God all went fine and stoped in time. What purpose served this? To demonstrate EXACTLY what Evans states in his speech...

Well, he almost proved it. It appears it was too dangerous to talk about the test or the results, but we all know we can trust Hung. What he says is true. No need for publishing any results or demonstrations.

How does any of this relate to the FG80? It's a secret. So secret that not even Hung can say how it relates (of course he knows the answer, but he is not allowed to tell, or perhaps he just is not capable of explaining it).

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by J_Player

There is no need to use a Krylov subspace algorithm for multiquadric interpolation. The best it can accomplish is to calculate where we would see the ions if they existed. And, while Hilbert space generalizes the notion of Euclidean space in a way that extends methods of vector algebra from the plane and three-dimensional space to spaces of functions, it still fails to make the evasive ionic fields visible. And I am sure you will recall Joukowski transformation involves the vector addition of a point and its reciprocal. Are we all fools? Have we forgotten that none of these methods are consistent with the theories of Myron Evans or his math, which Hung has been trying to explain?

Hung claims the theories of Myron Evans and his math are responsible for the underlying principles that prove dowsing and LRLs work. The Evans "Generally Covariant Unified Field Theory" cannot be understood using vector addition or transformations because it is predominantly dependent on scalar curvature, not vector math. To further clarify, the electric field in a circuit is generated from the product of the fundamental potential and the acceleration due to gravity, which in general relativity is non-Euclidean spacetime. The fundamental potential in volts is the scaling factor that links the electromagnetic potential to the scalar curvature. In other words, the FG80 works. No need to prove it with demonstrations when we have Myron Evan's theory that is unquestionably correct.

You say Evans has never been able to demonstrate any useful working mechanism that utilizes his theories? No problem. Hung's research team proved it:
Well, he almost proved it. It appears it was too dangerous to talk about the test or the results, but we all know we can trust Hung. What he says is true. No need for publishing any results or demonstrations.

How does any of this relate to the FG80? It's a secret. So secret that not even Hung can say how it relates (of course he knows the answer, but he is not allowed to tell, or perhaps he just is not capable of explaining it).

Now you're getting silly.
Everyone knows the reality is not in the mathematics. Anyway, Hung (if he can face the ridicule) will no doubt admit that dowsing and LRLs are governed by tetrahedral geometric aggregate resonance and the Rule of Nines.

[Clondike Clad]

Noew someone please take carl"s $25,000 this will be a good test.
I have a LRL and it is a XL PRO with a 25inch coil.
I can tahe the $25,000 with that.

[J_Player]

Since the FG80 is not capable of locating Carl's 10-oz gold bar, We must use other methods to find it and claim his $25,000. I would suggest enlisting the help of BB Sailor and Reg to wind a 5 meter search coil and use your 25 inch coil for a pinpointer. But Carl does not allow conventional detectors. The only remaining workable method I know is to cheat. Look at how this dowser cheats on a national television broadcast...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8BxmXHRaBI

But beware. Carl is too smart to allow that old trick. He wants us to find the 10 ounce gold bar that he hides, not our own target that we drop in the dig site using slight of hand.

[Clondike Clad]

aNYONE WITH THE SENSOR CIRCUIT.
IS THE SENSOR LIKE THE PDC205 OR FG79.
iF THE SENSOR IS LIKE THE PDC205 THAT IS ALL I NEED TO KNOW.
Carl is going to show us all about this detector or what you may call it.
If Carl can may it work...I want one ............................