|
|
|
|
#1
07-03-2009, 12:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
The MMI Technology
Quote:
__________________
 The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#2
07-04-2009, 01:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Are you sure it wasn't done in a hanger in the desert?  Just kiddin' Aurificus
__________________
The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong! 
|
|
#3
07-04-2009, 07:42 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
money and reasons
Quote:
Just the space-race ended with Apollo missions and all interest drop to nearly zero... Space Shuttle program created just a fraction of the interest than Apollo... and mostly cause of accidents that occurred in 1986 and 2003. I think many people see the money employed in that program as wasted cause there were no big apparent "results". Indeed, there were many from microgravity experiments etc but big fraction of common people don't see anything interesting in that. We already have full technology and knowledge for Mars exploration... maybe from 20-30years ago now... but nobody go there cause the cost of that missions will be in the hundreds billion dollars... that's it. There's no cold war anymore, there's no reason to spend such money just for the glory maybe... or to justify to the people such expense... there are other BIG problems... and economic crisis in US and other countries don't help politicians in such a move... The rocket technology required for Mars missions is probably related to the use of nuclear-thermal-propulsion... and that's another issue: people don't like today the word "nuclear" ... and there are real risks employing such a thing in the atmosphere (worldwide nuclear contamination possible)... so the rocket NASA have to assemble in pieces in the space !  Too complex... too money required... too things to worry about... and no real reason to start that program. I think... if we'll not have another phenomenon like cold-war space-race we can also forget the man will go on Mars by 2037 o 2050... or whatever.  Kind regards, Max
__________________
"Kill for gain or shoot to maim... But we dont need a reason " someone said...
|
|
#4
07-04-2009, 10:29 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
LRL and dowsing in general, on the other hand, has been mired down with the same problems since history has recorded its use by the Egyptians. Surely, if it was a real science-related technology, it would have been advanced to some degree by now. Wouldn't you think?
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#5
07-04-2009, 01:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I have a set of electrical technology manuals from c.1920. None of the electrical theories & concepts have changed, some seem a bit basic, but actually more clearly & far better explained than most current texts. (but, no TV,FM radio, transistors or solid state stuff). I'm an analogue kind of guy, in an increasingly digital world. As far as advancing the science, little effort is put into anything for the benefit of "hobbyists" any more, no (not enough) money in it. I hear Minelab is shutting down the Irish factory. Lots of money spent making computers smaller & faster for movies & games. Lots of the advanced science is being used for deep space investigation. It's amazing what they can do with remote sensing. Detecting the presence of tiny planets around stars from the interference patterns in the gravity waves and "dark matter" Of course we just have to accept what they say is true, cos, they're scientists and we can't repeat their experiments. There has been some military work done on mine detection at night using "cosmic radiation" as the illumination source. ie passive detection quite successful according to the extract I saw. I don't suppose that counts. Looks like its up to me to advance things a degree or two To Infinity.... & Beyond Aurificus
__________________
The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong!
|
|
#6
07-04-2009, 02:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#7
07-05-2009, 12:08 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
i carry my dog to field, to detection, and he learn to excave and detect whit snif the objects, one cake for he if find one nuget, only one candy if he find coins, so he then discriminate
detectoman and dogdetector
|
|
#8
07-05-2009, 02:17 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Does dogdetector have puppies for sale? ¿Hay perritos en venta de este detector-perro? Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#9
07-05-2009, 01:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Does this mean that after you complete your advanced LRL, you will only tell stories about the great performance, and will never show a demonstration of it actually recovering treasures in front of witnesses who can report what they observe in the Geotech forums? Will you keep the circuit diagram and easy instructions to assemble a working advanced LRL as a secret? Or will you show people how they can easily build one of these advanced LRLs to test for themselves to see if it can actually find buried metal or not? Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#10
07-05-2009, 04:00 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If I stop posting, and the price of gold drops dramatically, and photos of new big nugget finds keep popping up on forums....well...... I would rather be out "in the bush" than selling cheap, easily, copyable, electronic devices. (plenty of others out there, happy to do that!) Still, if the current exploration of the Science proves that a detectable "Phenomena" is likely to be present, then I'm sure, there are plenty with "knowledge of the arts" from the MD area to fill a thread with viable circuits and improvements. Of course, we would need to shift over to MD or Geophysics......No longer being illegitimate "B**t**d's"... I also have, what I consider to be a great original idea for a quite different type of MD too! But then, doesn't every-one? cheers, Aurificus
__________________
The simplest answer to a complex problem.... is invariably wrong!
|
|
#11
07-05-2009, 04:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You have it all wrong! We are not interested in knowing the details of your great original idea for a quite different type of MD. This belongs to you alone. What we are interested in is to learn what results you get from the knowledge you say gou gained from reading this forum about detecting buried metal using an IR LED detector. Since we hear claims of detecting buried metal with IR LED detectos, but no plausible explanation to describe how it could possibly work, and no demonstration to show that it actually will result in recovering a treasure, we only look for a way to convince ourselves that it works in spite of the preponderance of evidence that suggests it does not. A simple demonstration, or an easy to build project would settle the dispute as to whether this method works or not. Considering how you claim to have gathered much of the key information from this forum to pioneer an advanced IR LRL which surpasses the capabilities of Esteban's IR LRL, does it not seem fitting that you would feel gratitude enough to demonstrate to the forum what you have learned? Or is it your intention to act as a parasitic organism who extracts the best of the years of toil and tormentuous work of dedicated experimenters like Esteban and others who have found the keys to unlock the locks that have concealed the method for so many ages, only to hide the fruits of their labours, while tormenting those who contributed by showing photos of nuggets you have found using their methods?  Best wishes, J_P
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
