|
|
#301
12-30-2009, 10:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
 More FREE advertising. Go for it, Dell. I'm surprised you didn't mention how your LRL/MFD junk located Noah's lost Arc. C'mon Dell, give us all the fables and myths you can think of. 
__________________
 The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#302
12-30-2009, 11:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
There is only one test that can prove to me that an LRL work.
I take it and go out to a field that I have never been before and I try to locate anything metallic using the different options in search available in this LRL. When there is a signal I find the exact spot and then I use my VLF and then my pulse detector if there is not possible to detect anything at the first place while using the VLF. If the metal discovered is the metal I was looking for using the LRL then the result is satisfactory. Of course it might be a metal out there and I might not have any indication for it but then I move to another place and try to locate something there.May be this sounds for most of you a funny thing to do but I will try to explain why I do it this way. The chances that there is something metallic out in any a field are really great so if an LRL works then it should be able to pick up something. To see and to prove to yourself that always there is something out there is very easy.Just take your VLF go anywhere and start walking around. In the other hand if the LRL in test shows nothing in a place then there are two posibilities: 1.There is nothing there which is utopia(doesn't make sense) and 2.There is something there and our LRL doesnt work or it cannot pick it up. So no signal at all for any of the metals that the LRL was build to search then this LRL in test is more likely(for me definately) that doesn't work. Picking up a signal that finally proves a target then it works.As simple as that.Of course some can be better in one metal than another but then we go to a different story and other parameters must be taken in account making things complicated. I believe that people in our hobby want a simple effective way of testing an LRL and in real conditions where everybody can do it and whith no one knowing what or where something is hidden or any other info like size or weigh of the metal in search. Of course somebody can say that an LRL can pick only some of the targets around and may be is true but then this is enough to say that this LRL is working and I think you agree whith that.Which one and how can prove that it is nothing more hidden somewhere else? There is only one way. You have to have the perfect LRL! Hidding metalls for testing is not proper testing for LRLs except if they are there for long time.How long? Well don't do it for me.Because again we have to take other parameters in account and this is a mistake. For Pulse detectors may be you can do it for VLFs don't. An LRL works only when it gives you a find that you unearthed it yourself and you had no idea at all that something like that was in the area or in the exact spot that you found it. Any other attempt in testing LRLs must also have as I said above other parameters taking into account and there are so many of them that we know nothing for sure yet so I think we are better off when we don't touch them. Of course certain things can be checked in certain ways but then we are driving ourselves inside the Bermouda triangle loosing our mision which should be answered whith a YES or NO.
|
|
#303
12-31-2009, 01:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#304
12-31-2009, 10:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
As still said before: at rich places one can coincidently find gold only by middle finger, no need LRL.
__________________
Global capital is ruining your life? You have right to self-defence!
|
|
#305
12-31-2009, 12:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#306
12-31-2009, 12:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
As you can see, tests are designed for a purpose. They are designed to test a given question such as: how far is the detection distance, or what is the smallest size it will detect, or what is the percentage of correct responses for a given target, etc. If the purpose of the test is to determine if the detector is a worthwhile tool for treasure hunting, then you would run a test similar to your method. But if your test purpose is to see if the response is caused by dowsing principles, then you would use a much different test designed to demonstrate the answer to that question. Of course, the answers to all the test questions can change when we change the conditions at the test site, like the difference between fresh gold and long time buried gold. Or if you are testing a metal detector, the ground mineralization will change the answers for your tests for depth of detection. To further complicate matters, tests can be made to see if claims people make about the performance of a particular LRL is true or not. When we look at claims made about different LRLs, we see several people make conflicting claims for how they work. For example, your method of walking with the VLF detector in the field first will invalidate a test of an LRL according to hung's claim that using a metal detector in the target area will destroy the signal for up to several days before your LRL can detect it again. Yet Morgan says there is no problem to test your LRL right after scanning the target with a metal detector. Then there are LRLs which are claimed to detect fresh gold that has not been buried at long distances. One example is the Mineoro FG series. The Rangertell Examiner is another. We can also look at Dell Winders advertising page to see another example. He publishes letters from alleged customers who say they detect dollar bills that are hidden inside the house using his X-Scan. But the Omnitron brand LRLs that Dell sells are a special class of LRLs that will only work if you are not there to watch them recover the targets they detect. This makes them difficult to test in front of witnesses who want to hold a definitive test to show if they really can detect anything at all, using standard testing methods in front of observers chosen to witness the test. As you can see, in order to make any test, you first need to define exactly what you want to test, whether it is a claim someone made, or the general performance compared to other detectors, or to see what field conditions the detector is dependent upon. And after defining what you want to test, you should be familiar with the claims at least from the manufacturer, so you don't end up making a test under conditions that can't work for the particular detector you are testing. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#307
12-31-2009, 02:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Speaking of testing...... heard anything from the R-T outfit? Are we more or less dead in the water? 
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#308
12-31-2009, 02:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I got an email with some specific instructions. I am waiting for a chance to try these instructions in the field. I couldn't do it yesterday because it was raining most of the day. So I will do it when the ground dries next week sometime. But if you want to feel less primed and waiting in anticipation, I suggest you consider we are dead in the water. This is partly because I am in no rush. It's hard for me to take time away in the field during the week in normal times, and it's holidyay season where I have committments to attend to in my spare time. It is also a season where we have bad weather that leaves the ground saturated in a way I don't like for running tests. I also need to coordinate with some volunteers and drive somewhere to conduct tests in a place away from power lines and buildings. I could go on, but the bottom line is I prefer to take my time and do things in a way that makes sense to allow optimum results without a causing a lot of people to complain the testing wasn't done in good test conditions. An easy way to know when something significant happens to bring us to the start of the test program is to watch for when I make a post giving the link to my web page. This will tell you the testing program has officially started, as well as show you a lot of details I can't talk about now. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#310
12-31-2009, 04:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#311
12-31-2009, 06:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#312
01-01-2010, 04:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If I tell you that my LRL is working then you won't beleive me. If I tell you that I found many treasures whith it then you will never beleive me. Most of the people accuse the ones that sell LRLs and say that if their products work then they shouldn't need to sell them. No lets be fair, it is not like that. This is like saying that someone that made a milion selling his LRL was never poor.Well he made his milion because he kept selling it. If the man was out trying to spot the treasure whith his patented detector then he would still poor.Why? Because treasure is not everywhere as everybody thinks. The truth is that I used an rf tranceiver hunting for treasures and I never beleived that it was going to work.But it does. It was an imitation of what Thortech.org is selling and it was the first time we were picking targets from a distance.And beleive me they are more than what you think but you never know it and how can you anyway. You use to put down a transmitter sending frequencies into ground and air and after 15mins we were out searching for the target using an RF receiver. Don't ask me about frequencies and staff like that because I know nothing.I was so amazed that I could find things from a distance that I didn't care at all how can that hapened. We paid a lot of money for that and I know very well what the real cost is.But who cares?It was there working and I knew we were paid somebody else's idea and then it looked fair. Once we picked up a bronze vase from 500 meters away.It was about 30cms high. Most of the people stop talking as soon as they have something that usefull in their hands and this is why the truth doesn't come up. Some of the electronic guys over here know that this kind of detectors work and I have read it in many of their posts but only a few beleive them.I think Alonso is one of them and he keeps saying it but then what? Who listens? I revealed that myself in some other forums and sudenly everybody was against me and then I thought it is not worth it. J_P does a great job testing RT for all of us and from what I read he knows what he is doing. To tell you the truth I personally beleive that the principle behind RT is real but I can not say that it works in practice until I test it myself as well the way I beleive is right. Once many years ago using an omnitron we were lucky to find something valueable but then I can tell you that in that area it was there hidden alone and that was the only reason we succeded.Apart from this we were never had any luck when digging other targets that the MFD picked up. So we were lucky that day and all this was because the artifact was in an area that was clean from any other metalls otherwise I think it would be impossible to get. Anyway I thing when you are able to go on target whith a receiver is completely different than when you use L rods.Dowsing goes aside so everybody can go on target the same way. It doesn't say anything to me if some people say that this kind of LRLs don't work.Nobody knows better than myself and this is because it was me been everytime there. This is were I advise you all electronic people to focus.
|
|
#313
01-01-2010, 07:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Some Skeptics here don't care to hear the name Omnitron, associated with finding treasure, because that is the name I started in 1986 and is commonly associated with my products. The name Omnitron ,is banned from using on Treasure Net.
But to be fair, not all Omnitrons that have helped Treasure Hunters to find Treasure were my products. Omnitron, became a generic name that several manufacturers & sellers used to capitalize on. It depends on who you bought your Omnitron, from as to who's product you were using. Regardless, I am happy that you found Treasure with the aid of an LRL and have the honesty, and guts to post a favorable comment about LRL on this forum. Dell
__________________
  "WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, CAN BE DONE"
|
|
#315
01-01-2010, 09:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
There is one general flaw in the logic used by most skeptics: Their basic theory is they have never seen any LRL perform in a tests set up to determine if it does what it is claimed to do. The few tests they have seen set up for this purpose resulted in failure of the LRL to perform as claimed it would. Then the average skeptic uses inductive logic to conclude that since the only tests done show it does not work, and any tests they ran show it does not work, and there are no other tests results that show it does work, therefore it does not work. They bolster this logic with an analysis of the lack of known scientific principles and fatal errors in the explanations of how the particular LRL is said to work. Their logic is further supported by the fact that no LRL owner is willing to hold a demonstration of their LRL working. **(see below) Yet there is another possibility: It is possible that if another test was done, a particular LRL could pass a test to show it does work. If this happened then it would indicate the logic used by the average skeptic was flawed. The fact is, we would need to test every LRL in every condition in order to determine whether it works or not with certainty. This was not done, and it is not possible for a number of practical reasons. The next best method to determine if LRLs work is to make a lot of tests that are documented rather than just told as stories. Even if every LRL is not tested, we can generate some test data for any specific model of an LRL to see what results we get after a number of tests conducted. The value of this method is we can establish a database in which the results can be used to create a profile for that LRL. The profile can be subjected to statistical methods to see what the degree of confidence is for it's performance. In simple terms, if we see a particular LRL works most of the time, we can assume it is better to use it than use nothing when going into a field and deciding where to scan with a metal detector. Of course, there are unknown conditions that can influence the performance of any LRL that is said to utilise RF reception to locate treasure. We know that RF receptiion is influenced by atmospheric cycles that change during the day and over larger time periods. But with enough tests in the database, we can at least have an idea whether it works or not. The problem with making tests and sending the results to a database is we must first establish a test procedure, then insure that the data collected conforms to the procedure. But no LRL enthusiast has ever agreed to conduct a test that had witnesses present to confirm the test was done according to any pre-set procedure. All we hear is stories from LRL enthusiasts who refuse to demonstrate their LRL working in front of people who watch them to report the results of the test. And so far, no test was ever performed and documented with witnesses to report results that it does work under standard test conditions. So the skeptics conclusions have not been proven to be wrong. Don't expect to see any improvement in the credibility of LRLs. As long as LRL enthusiasts refuse to show what their LRLs can do in some kind of standard test with witnesses watching, most reasonable people will think there is something wrong with them. After all, most metal detectorists don't mind if watchers report how well their detectors work. ** Morgan demonstrated his LRL working in front of another forum member which resulted in the witness becoming convinced that his LRL works. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#316
01-01-2010, 10:18 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You are correct. Not all Omnitron products have helped treasure huntrers to find treasure. In fact, even you agree that your Omnitron products are not proven to work, as you published on your products page: "The PRO-4 has yet to prove it's merit with a recovery." and "As of August 2003 the X-SCAN has only been tested under the Ground & Atmospheric conditions of Central Florida, USA on a limited variety of targets. At the moment I really don't know the extent of it's capabilities, or of it's limitations." We see you claim the Pro-4 has never made a recovery, and after 6-1/2 years you still don't know the extent of the limitations and capabilities of the X-scan. Of course, you refused to demonstrate either of these products you sell in front of witnesses who will report back here to tell what they see in a standard test. So we can safely assume the Pro-4 never made a treasure recovery, and you don't know what the X-scan will do to help us find treasure if we buy one. It's no wonder why TreasureNet banned using the name Omnitron in their forum. But don't worry about your products being banned at TreasureNet. I have the guts to post comments about your Omnitron products here. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#317
01-01-2010, 11:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
J_P said above
.......Of course, there are unknown conditions that can influence the performance of any LRL that is said to utilise RF reception to locate treasure. We know that RF receptiion is influenced by atmospheric cycles that change during the day and over larger time periods. But with enough tests in the database, we can at least have an idea whether it works or not.......... I strongly agree whith the above statement from J_P and I also agree whith the following one .... After all, most metal detectorists don't mind if watchers report how well their detectors work...... But I am not very proud to say that even myself belongs to that category as well. Most of the time it was friends of mine there as well that now know what my LRL could do but again it can not be all of you having the same experience as them. So I agree J_P that this comes up as a story but anyway is better than sitting there saying nothing anyway. When you have something that does the job then it is much more difficult to spend time convincing others and especially when they ask you to test your LRL in a pre-set procedure. It is like you are saying to everybody that my name is George and then they start calling you Nick.It upsets you, as simple as that. And this is the main reason that nobody wants to prove anything to anybody. There are Dowsers out there that they can convince skeptics just in a minute whith many different ways but they sit there and laugh.They are considering it as waste of time. Skeptics are like nightbirds they can see certain things and only at nighttime. Happy new year to everybody!
|
|
#318
01-01-2010, 12:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The next time you find a location where your LRL is telling you there is a target, don't dig that target. Make a note where the location is. Then return home without disturbing anything in the target area. Get your video camera and a friend to go along with you. Bring others too if they want to come. When you return to the place where the LRL is giving a signal, begin some distance away from the target location and have someone hold the camera to film everything. Then let someone else use the LRL and watch where it points to. Make sure you get a video of the LRL moving toward the target that is unknown to the person using the LRL. When you arrive at the target location, then you can take out a metal detector to pinpoint it. Then begin digging and see what you found. This should make a good tests if it is done in a place where the ground was not disturbed by digging before making the video. It is a good idea to keep the camera running without stopping it, so we can see there was no chance to turn if off and make changes around the test area. When you are done you will recover your target the same as if you did not show the video, but the difference is you can put the video on youtube for other people to watch. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#319
01-01-2010, 12:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
#320
01-01-2010, 01:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#321
01-01-2010, 01:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#322
01-01-2010, 02:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
In reading your posting, I'm reminded of one very important truism when it comes to fairly evaluating the worth and merits of LRL devices; if you only use your LRL to search in areas where it is known that artifacts, treasure, precious metals or minerals exist - then it will always appear to work just fine. In order to be properly validated in the scientific world, it (the LRL) must be tested in a controlled environment, using acceptable protocol and witnessed and documented by several disinterested observers. Luck or subjectivity have no place in this type of testing.
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#323
01-01-2010, 02:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You don't need anything if you are that good but the manufactures make them to make money and at the end there is nothing that has no believers at all. Lets think anout something else. Butties work as a sonar when they hunt at night.They send pulses and receive back the signal analysing what the target is. Why do you think that such a thing is unbelievable to be acomplished from a human being? Is a butty more clever than a man? An elephant walks in a desert and is really thirsty.All he has to do is dowsing for water when is wondering arround.Suddenly you see him stoping and by using his long nose is digging in the sand. Oooooppps.. water comes up. Is the elephant more clever than man? Skeptics do not say anything for such things in nature they don't taking them in account at all.May be they never heard of them. All that looks strange to them has to do only whith human. May be because they will never be able to do something like that themselves.And do not offend me, this is only because they will never believe. It looks like all of them are against human capacity and abillities and probably they consider animals more capable in using their brains or their bodies or whatever else. Lets be fair to human race my friends.
|
|
#324
01-01-2010, 02:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Trying to test an LRL by trying to imitate real conditions is very tricky. Testing in a controlled environment makes a big limitation for the LRL to be used and the results it will be very poor in my opinion. Just imagine all the different compinations or environments than we can have because of the endless parameters they exist when we are out in the real thing. Go out by chance a few times to different places and not only Sundays. Use the real thing that there is out there in places as in a usaully day out.This is where we will use our LRLs anyway. May be I am wrong my friends but I think all test protocols for LRLs that we know up to now are trying to do exactly the same. Imitate the real thing.
|
|
#325
01-01-2010, 03:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
