rangertell examiner field trials

[Esteban]

I see the xtal. and the diode in the Rangertell. The use of silicon diode is wrong here. Must be used high quality low drift germanium diode or even a germanium transistor as diode. Also the Xtal. freq. MAYBE is wrong, 4.43. In the 2000 I work with different xtals. in antenna FOR ELECTRONIC LRL PISTOL. Yes, this frequency (4.43) detect the gold (OBJECT PLATTED BY GOLD), but with interruptions. Of course, I have buried gold in my patio, no pure gold, clock platted by gold BURIED MANY YEARS. But found other object, a small platted gold chain by Rommanel, bijouterie, only platted by gold jewel, not pure.

[WM6]

Originally Posted by Esteban

Of course, I have buried gold in my patio, no pure gold, clock platted by gold BURIED MANY YEARS. But found other object, a small platted gold chain by Rommanel, bijouterie, only platted by gold jewel, not pure.

The Bible says: those who search for, find it.

But I agree with you about rectifier silicon diode. It is about basic RF knowledge. With such design RT can detect only power line hum (which was measured on Dell pictures). On other hand for scamming people even defective diode is a good diode.

Interruptions you detect, have nothing to do with gold, as with xtal too. Natural gold resonate at 173o MHz (173 mm wavelength) here you can find explanation why only gold plated.

[Jim]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Yet we have people here that claim they have done it. So I am taking the advice of Carl-NC who runs this forum. He says we should not take his word or for it, or the word of people who make these claims. We should try it out and see for ourselves. And that is what I am doing. If it works, then I will see it work in my own hands. And if it doesn't work I will see it doesn't work. I will have a chance to test it any way I want to arrive at a final conclusion. I can't think of a better way than that to find out if those claims are true or not.

But, are you going to be allowed to post your results online? Has the manufacturer lifted restrictions on what you are allowed, or not allowed to report? This is where it gets confusing

[Boldgold]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Hi Boldgol,

You might be right about that. This is what I though also. And so far, I have never seen any real live evidence of any handheld instrument finding buried treasure off at a distance on the horizon.

Yet we have people here that claim they have done it. So I am taking the advice of Carl-NC who runs this forum. He says we should not take his word or for it, or the word of people who make these claims. We should try it out and see for ourselves. And that is what I am doing. If it works, then I will see it work in my own hands. And if it doesn't work I will see it doesn't work. I will have a chance to test it any way I want to arrive at a final conclusion. I can't think of a better way than that to find out if those claims are true or not.

But that's not all. I will also be inviting anyone else to come try it out and see for themselves too. And I will make photos and videos to show what I see it doing or not doing. So if you want people to believe like you do, send me a PM to come try it out yourself so I can post a video to show everybody exactly what kind of performance you see.

Best wishes,
J_P

Thanks JP, I understand what you are saying. The best way is try it out for yourself-ourself is always the best, yes this is true. Thanks for the offer to come and try it out then report what I see. I would meet with you if I was close to you. But I am a long way off from you and I am not in the USA. Go ahead and try it out since you alread have it and let us know. But I can not 99%, but can instead 100% assure you that expensive electronic machines will not pick up gold and silver on the distant horizon, horizontally 25, 100, 1000 (meters)yards out.

WM6 and JP, people claim they have done it you said. I never said that finding gold and silver in the distant horizon or under the hands-feet was not possible, but it is the operator doing it, that can be done with about $5 or so worth of homemade equipment that does it, not a high priced scam instrument itself doing it that rips off people to put it honestly and bluntly. What does it is the operator him or herself doing it from the gift they have from God. Do you think all the old-time miners in all the gold rushes had electronic equipment. Yes they were first on the site-virgin ground, and yes they were the same people as us, but they had a sense in finding gold activated by being down and out, down to their last straw, when this sense works the best.

If you buy either an expensive electronic or non-electronic dowsing machine(loaded with false resistors and the like), you can also make one at home for a fraction of the cost. Amazingly my dad does find things with 'bent wires' that cost under $5. (Either bent metal wires, or wood at 90 degree shaped and glued at the ends being smaller round wooden dowels can be put directly in the hands, or inside bigger sized 2x-pieces of about 6" long & about 1" diameter round wooden or metal dowels with the middle drilled out a little bigger than the wire or smaller wood dowel to be inserted inside them.) Some people use no metal but instead an ALL wood dowser like a forked shaped willow. This is all of no use to you if you do not have the gift with this skill. Not everyone has this gift and MOST people cannot even do it. It is the persons sense working through the instument, and NOT only a long range instrument doing it for you like a metal detector. Rather it's the person instead. As these high priced long range instruments are totally worthless in themselves and taking buyers for a financial rip-off ride.

Somebody wrote this and is very true in most cases:

Be careful when you purchase any treasure hunting unit.
It's best to talk to people that have had success with the unit you are interested in.
ONLY TO THE OWNERS.
Not just one person, at lease 5.
Tim Williams

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Boldgold

Thanks JP, I understand what you are saying. The best way is try it out for yourself-ourself is always the best, yes this is true. Thanks for the offer to come and try it out then report what I see. I would meet with you if I was close to you. But I am a long way off from you and I am not in the USA. Go ahead and try it out since you alread have it and let us know. But I can not 99%, but instead 100% assure you that these expensive electronic machines will not pick up gold and silver on the distant horizon, horizontally 25, 100, 1000 (meters)yards out.

WM6 and JP, I never said that finding gold and silver in the distant horizon or under the hands-feet was not possible, but it is the operator doing it with about $5 or so worth of homemade equipment that does it, not a high priced scam instrument that rips off people to put it honestly and bluntly. What does it is the operator him or herself doing it from the gift they have from God. Do you think all the old-time miners in all the gold rushes had electronic equipment. Yes they were first on the site-virgin ground, and yes they were the same people as us, but they had a sense in finding gold activated by being down and out, down to their last straw, when this sense works the best.

If you buy an either an expensive electronic or non-electronic dowsing machine(loaded with false resistors and the like), you can also make one at home for a fraction of the cost. Amazingly my dad does find things with 'bent wires' that cost under $5. (Either bent wires, or 90 degree shaped, glued at the ends, smaller round wood dowels can be put directly in the hands, or in 2x-pieces of about 6" long & about 1" diameter round wooden or metal dowels with the middle drilled out a little bigger than the wire.) Some people use no metal but am ALL wooden dowsing like a forked shaped willow. Not everyone has this gift and MOST people cannot do it. It is ONLY the persons sense, and NOT an instrument doing it for you. As these high priced instruments are totally worthless in themselves and taking buyers for a financial rip-off ride.

Somebody wrote this and is very true in most cases:

Be careful when you purchase any treasure hunting unit.
It's best to talk to people that have had success with the unit you are interested in.
ONLY TO THE OWNERS.
Not just one person, at lease 5.
Tim Williams

Hi Boldgold,
It sounds like you are talking about dowsing when you say it is possible for some people to locate buried things at some distance in the horizon using homemade equipment. And your point is that by using an electronic apparatus to hold as a dowsing rod, you are adding nothing to this dowsing effect. This suggests an interesting test that I could perform using the Examiner. If a dowser were to show how he can locate a target item using simple dowsing rods, then we can see what difference we find when he tries with the Examiner. There are a number of ways to set up tests that would show us if there is any difference.

From what I have read so far, it appears the Examiner is said to follow the same "signal lines" that dowsers claim they are locating, but with the added advantage that it is able to accurately tune to a single target material, much like a radio receiver tunes to a single station instead of receiving all radio stations at the same time. The theory is it amplifies the single "signal line" from the target you set it to find which makes it easy for people who have difficulty with dowsing to locate targets.

You can see this is not too hard to test, and find out if a dowser says he finds it any easier when using the LRL instead of simple dowsing rods. And there are many other ways to make more scientific tests as well.

And you are aware there are many people who post in this forum say who the electronic LRLs don't work, and neither does dowsing. This test may be hard to conduct if nobody can demonstrate that they are able to locate targets by dowsing with simple dowsing methods. (By demonstrate they can locate targets, I mean to demonstrate they can identify the location of a target that we recover to see that it is really there. Not a target that they say is buried a hundred feet down that we will never take out of the ground to see the item they found).

In any case I won't begin the testing just yet until I feel confident the Examiner is functioning correctly, which will require some time-consuming adljustments. But when I start the public test program, all are invited to come try it out and see for yourself what it can do for you to locate treasure. If you know someone in the Southern California area that would like to try it or simply watch, have them send a PM.

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

Originally Posted by J_Player

And your point is that by using an electronic apparatus to hold as a dowsing rod, you are adding nothing to this dowsing effect. This suggests an interesting test that I could perform using the Examiner.

J_P

Hi J_P

Can we expect that you will soon come to a test flight with a broom?



So low, neither Esteban has slipped. At least Esteban is trying to use some solutions and discoveries in the field of electronics in order to manufacture super-sensitive devices for detecting treasures. He is not a medieval dowser.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by WM6

Hi J_P

Can we expect that you will soon come to a test flight with a broom?



So low, neither Esteban has slipped. At least Esteban is trying to use some solutions and discoveries in the field of electronics in order to manufacture super-sensitive devices for detecting treasures. He is not a medieval dowser.

Hi WM6,

I have no interest in testing a broom.
But if someone wants to fly in on a broom, I can make a video of them demonstrating their flying broom to post on youtube.
Tell any broom-flyers to send a PM if they want to have videos made.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Jim

But, are you going to be allowed to post your results online? Has the manufacturer lifted restrictions on what you are allowed, or not allowed to report? This is where it gets confusing

Hi Jim,
I thought I already made a lengthy explanation of what I agreed to. I will repeat myself only one more time. This will be a super-long post so you can bookmark it to come back and use it for reference any time you forget what my answer is. I will not be repeating the same answers to your questions again:

I agreed to make sure the Examiner I have is functioning correctly before I release public test results. I consider this to be a reasonable request from any manufacturer of equipment who sends out a sample to be tested. In addition to what I agreed to with the manufacturer, I decided I do not want to waste time testing a defective piece of equipment. So I also have an interest in making sure this Examiner is working the same as any other Examiner that is sent out and reported to be working correctly. Once I feel confident I have a properly working Examiner, then I will make my website address public so the public testing can begin. At that time you will be able to read my preliminary test results along with tests that may be performed afterwards without any restrictions from the manufacturer or anyone else.

I made a few preliminary tests before I even took out a camera, and found I did not see the response I expected based on the instructions. I did get some intermittent response. When I checked with the manufacturer, I was told that I cannot rely on tests that are made on raised floors, because the Examiner depends on the user standing on solid ground in order for it to work. I made some other preliminary tests only to determine if it was functioning correctly. These were not scientific tests. But I did take photos of what I saw when others also tried it. We still found intermittent results in the non-scientific outdoor tests away from electrical interference. After spending a lot of time tweaking and adjusting different things in several sessions which were not recorded, it appears that the best we found so far is intermittent success observing the antenna point to the target. This leads me to believe the Examiner is damaged or is in need of an adjustment before it can be deemed to be functioning properly.

The adjustment procedure is going to require that we make some tweaks to a small trimmer cap that is said to be very difficult to set to the exact position for good performance. I was told that it must be moved by a "hair at a time" until I find the setting that works, and to be careful once I find that setting because if I lose it, I may not be able to easily find it again. For each "hair movement", I will also need to adjust the sensitivity and antenna position after entering some specific sequences of calculator buttons. Then walk past a target placed on the ground and make observations of what I see happening with the antenna.

This procedure must be repeated each time the trimmer cap is moved another "hair movement". You can imagine it takes some time to do all this, and my free time is limited, so it will not happen as quickly as some people may hope.

During this tweaking process to find the best position of the trimmer cap, I will not be making videos for everyone to see what happens after each "hair movement" of the trimmer cap. I really don't have time for that. And these are not actual tests of the Examiner, they are an adjustment procedure that shows nothing of scientific significance to prove anything about the Examiner. However I have nothing to hide about the procedure or what results any settings of the trimmer cap will result in or not result in. If you consider it important to document the process of making adjustments to the trimmer cap to see where the best response is, then I am inviting you to come and run the video camera while we try to tune it for good performance. This may take awhile, but if you get bored holding the camera, I will let you make the "hair movement" adjustments while I hold the camera. You can submit all the videos you get to youtube and make any comments to go along with them you like. But I will not be posting videos of this procedure on my web page.

I did take some photos at a preliminary test that showed only intermittent performance. My electronic journal accounts of the preliminary tests will be fully disclosed whether they show success or failure, and whether they are known to be made on a non-functioning Examiner or a functioning Examiner. I will not remove any data from test sessions that have been entered into my electonic journal. But I will make it known that they are preliminary tests which are non-scientific tests made only for the purpose of determining if the Examiner is functioning correctly. And I will make it known what we find out about the whether the Examiner is functioning correctly at the time of the preliminary tests.

After the preliminary testing and adjustments are done to find the best settings we can find for the Examiner, a determination will be made to decide whether this Examiner is functioning as it is supposed to function, or if it needs to be returned for a replacement. When the time comes that we know we have an Examiner in hand that functions correctly, then I will make the web address of my website public for anyone to see, and the public test program will begin. When I make my website address public, you will see the electronic journal reports I made along with any non-scientific data that was noted during these preliminary tests. There are no preliminary tests that will be deleted from the journal. But you may want to pay more close attention to the public testing that follows. This is where the real tests will be done by others who may be LRL enthusiasts as well as skeptics, or even dowsers.


If your urgency for me to show all the test data is so you can post content from my website on TNet like you did from Geotech, you can forget it. I won't tolerate people hot-linking or stealing content from any of my websites without going through me first. Not you and not TNet.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

The adjustment procedure is going to require that we make some tweaks to a small trimmer cap that is said to be very difficult to set to the exact position for good performance. I was told that it must be moved by a "hair at a time" until I find the setting that works, and to be careful once I find that setting because if I lose it, I may not be able to easily find it again. For each "hair movement", I will also need to adjust the sensitivity and antenna position after entering some specific sequences of calculator buttons. Then walk past a target placed on the ground and make observations of what I see happening with the antenna.

Just out of curiosity, was this incredibly complex "tuning" procedure a part of the enclosed instructions (that accompanies all Examiners), or is it something special that was transmitted to you by R-T?

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Theseus

The adjustment procedure is going to require that we make some tweaks to a small trimmer cap that is said to be very difficult to set to the exact position for good performance. I was told that it must be moved by a "hair at a time" until I find the setting that works, and to be careful once I find that setting because if I lose it, I may not be able to easily find it again. For each "hair movement", I will also need to adjust the sensitivity and antenna position after entering some specific sequences of calculator buttons. Then walk past a target placed on the ground and make observations of what I see happening with the antenna.

Just out of curiosity, was this incredibly complex "tuning" procedure a part of the enclosed instructions (that accompanies all Examiners), or is it something special that was transmitted to you by R-T?

Hi Theseus,
This is included in the instructions as a "last resort" in the case you don't see the results expected after following the other instructions. There is nothing complex about it, but it requires looking for a very hard-to-find setting that may take some time for a new user of an Examiner. From what I read, this is only necessary on a few units that show poor performance. Apparently, I have a unit that needs this adjustment.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

Originally Posted by J_Player

If your urgency for me to show all the test data is so you can post content from my website on TNet like you did from Geotech, you can forget it. I won't tolerate people hot-linking or stealing content from any of my websites without going through me first. Not you and not TNet.

I thought my question was a simple one, that really didn't require a lengthily reply. I simply asked if the manufacturer has lifted the restrictions on what you can or cannot report.

There is no urgency, nor did I state the data was urgent. You just made that up. If you do not want your data shared with like minded folks on other websites, with proper credit given...simply say so. Tolerate people stealing content....to much drama. Thread/picture removed.

[Theseus]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Hi Theseus,
This is included in the instructions as a "last resort" in the case you don't see the results expected after following the other instructions. There is nothing complex about it, but it requires looking for a very hard-to-find setting that may take some time for a new user of an Examiner. From what I read, this is only necessary on a few units that show poor performance. Apparently, I have a unit that needs this adjustment.

Best wishes,
J_P

"..nothing complex about it.." Let's say we substitute the word complex with the phrase "incredibly time consuming".

Also, by the way you explained it (the procedure); it would seem that there are some rather lop-sided odds associated with even achieving the correct tuning... ever. I'm not a bookie, but I would say it could be like 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 odds of ever achieving a satisfactory tuning.

Is it just me, or does this smell a lot like a built-in escape clause for those operators who fail to get the desired results? Certainly, if it is not an escape clause, it has got to be a delay clause, possibly eating up all the time on the return for a full refund clock.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Jim

I thought my question was a simple one, that really didn't require a lengthily reply. I simply asked if the manufacturer has lifted the restrictions on what you can or cannot report.

There is no urgency, nor did I state the data was urgent. You just made that up. If you do not want your data shared with like minded folks on other websites, with proper credit given...simply say so. Tolerate people stealing content....to much drama. Thread/picture removed.

Hi Jim,

I don't mind my data being shared. My concern is for other sites using my bandwidth to keep afloat. No drama intended, just trying to avoid spending extra money for more bandwidth that runs other people's websites. Geotech probably does not have bandwith concerns, so I doubt they care if you hotlink them or post photos from their forums.

The manufacturer made no restrictions on what I can post or not. Therefore he cannot lift restrictions he did not make. I agreed not to show test results until I know the Examiner is working properly. The only restrictions have to do with copyrights and international disclosure laws that I made no specific agreement to. But I do abide by international laws when posting on international forums. You can expect I will not post proprietary information unless I have written permission from the owner of the information.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Hi Jim,

I don't mind my data being shared. My concern is for other sites using my bandwidth to keep afloat. No drama intended, just trying to avoid spending extra money for more bandwidth that runs other people's websites. Geotech probably does not have bandwith concerns, so I doubt they care if you hotlink them or post photos from their forums.

if you think something smells like a lot like a built-in escape clause, tben come on over and videotape everything you see. You are invited.

Best wishes,
J_P

I deleted the thread/picture on TreasureNet. Way to much drama for me.

I didn't mention a escape clause.....and this is not urgent

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Jim

I deleted the thread/picture on TreasureNet. Way to much drama for me.

I didn't mention a escape clause.....and this is not urgent

Then why did you put text that includes "escape clause" in my quote? Isn't that from Theseus?

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Theseus

"..nothing complex about it.." Let's say we substitute the word complex with the phrase "incredibly time consuming".

Also, by the way you explained it (the procedure); it would seem that there are some rather lop-sided odds associated with even achieving the correct tuning... ever. I'm not a bookie, but I would say it could be like 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 odds of ever achieving a satisfactory tuning.

Is it just me, or does this smell a lot like a built-in escape clause for those operators who fail to get the desired results? Certainly, if it is not an escape clause, it has got to be a delay clause, possibly eating up all the time on the return for a full refund clock.

Hi Theseus,
I really don't know the answer to your questions. You may be right. Or maybe we will find that there is more to it than that. I really can't predict what we will observe. But I do know it takes time to make the adjustments at the trimmer cap. From what I read, there are only a few Examiners that need to have the setscrew adjusted as a last resort. I am taking a neutral position so I can make objective tests without speculating about what will be observed in the future and forecasting odds like a bookie might do. I suppose you could apply the same odds scenario to any metal detector that is suspect of not working properly and say there is an escape clause or delay clause built in. I guess I just havent arrived at that conclusion yet. But you could make a case about it.

As far as the refund clock, I do have an opinion that it would be better to have a 30 day period based on my experience.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Then why did you put text that includes "escape clause" in my quote? Isn't that from Theseus?

Best wishes,
J_P

I just clicked Quote...and replied.

The text you see in the quote is what was there

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Jim

I just clicked Quote...and replied.

The text you see in the quote is what was there

Ok, no problem.
When my website is shown online, you can send me a PM or use the link at the website to contact me for posting content. No need for drama.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by hung

Hey bigmouth, so there's indeed a diode as I had stated eh ??

Why is the presence of a diode important?

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

Why is the presence of a diode important?

Hi Carl,
I don't think the presence of a diode is important.
The question I wonder about is if hung ever really measured any variances inside the Examiner. I saw the meter he used to measure the outside antenna and brass rod. But I never saw any measurements he claims he made inside. Personally I don't think he was able to get any meter measurements from inside his Examiner. I think he would need a more precision meter to see variances from inside the Examiner. My feeling is he made up the story about making measurements of variances inside. But this is only an opinion. Maybe hung really did measure something on his meter inside the Examiner. We will never know, because he never showed us any measurements he made inside. He only showed us some measurements outside with fingers touching the probes.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Carl-NC]

This stuff has been going on for so long, I can't remember what's been said in the past. Hung seemed to make a Big Deal about the diode, and I wondered why.

Yeah, I remember now that he (supposedly) made internal measurements, but he would never show how to replicate them. Can't do anything with that but dismiss it.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

This stuff has been going on for so long, I can't remember what's been said in the past. Hung seemed to make a Big Deal about the diode, and I wondered why.

Yeah, I remember now that he (supposedly) made internal measurements, but he would never show how to replicate them. Can't do anything with that but dismiss it.

Ya, yer right

It was awhile ago. hung was trying to prove he measured variances inside his Examiner. He had a version that was called the "diodes" model that was in production after the version you tested in your report, and his model was replaced with the version I have. The big deal hung complained about is whether a diode was connected to a pot inside his Examiner. Maybe there is a diode connected to a pot like hung says, but nobody knows except hung because he never showed any evidence of it.

But this is not what the forum debate was about. Hung said he measured variances inside his Examiner. But when we asked to see some proof, he did not show any measurements from inside his examiner. He switched the test points to places on the outside instead. The question was posed "why can't we see the variances you claimed to measure from the inside like you said you did?" We never got an answer other than "I opened the Examiner and I made mods" or "there is a diode connected to the pot". But we never saw the alledged measurements hung says he made inside.

The measurements hung made on the outside are highly suspect to be tainted by errors. See what hung presented as a substitute for internal measurements here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...light=examiner

As an EE, you can draw your own conclusions of what hung actually measured in his presentation.

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

Originally Posted by Rangertell

Rangertell is engaged in high level mineral detection. We have found an area with the Examiners which has assayed at 40 gm ton zinc, copper, gold, silver etc and hundreds of gm copper in one spot. All things being equal we won't even need to sell the locators eventually.

You forgot to tall that all those treasure was detected lying in sofa from 532 miles of distance.

Originally Posted by Rangertell

Been there done that and 1300 users round the world are happy.

Honestly, not "are" but "would be" happy if they can do a little strangling with you.

Originally Posted by Rangertell

Come up for a demo and we'll see what is wrong with your unit. Your body in fact may be out. It needs to resonate at normal levels, approx 6.9Hz. If you have a problem it would not.

Not only your body, your ethic may be out too. Your body resonate only on money frequency.

Originally Posted by Rangertell

BTW, the owner is a Garry Brooker.

Brooker? Yes, this can be true.

Originally Posted by Rangertell

Just because you've used the Examiner and not found gold doesn't mean a thing. Most people have found very little using metal detectors of the beeping kind over decades , so what's the difference?

If one as experienced detectorist search over decade by MD, mean that within range of the detector there is no gold, but if one search by RT over decade, mean that his mind and body not "resonate at normal level".

Originally Posted by Rangertell

That is all I wish to say re this.

We already know. You do not have to be trying.

Originally Posted by Rangertell

PS: If J Player can travel to Phoenix there is a guy there that uses the Examiner.

And maybe sell too?

Originally Posted by Rangertell

Tech Support

You mean "Scam Support"?

[hung]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Hi Theseus,
This is included in the instructions as a "last resort" in the case you don't see the results expected after following the other instructions. There is nothing complex about it, but it requires looking for a very hard-to-find setting that may take some time for a new user of an Examiner. From what I read, this is only necessary on a few units that show poor performance. Apparently, I have a unit that needs this adjustment.

Best wishes,
J_P

It's more than obvious by now that you are not able to make the Examiner work.
It's so easy to maket it work tough. But I admit there are some people who simply can't do it as RT states. My wife being one of them.
So direct to the point. My advices for you:

1 - Contact Art trying to make an apointment with him. He lives in your neighboorhood. See if you can have him demonstrate the device live before your very eyes.
Tell him his emails with instructions are not working for you. This either due to your lack of ability as I stated above or in the worst case simply by conscient negligence.

2 - Quit at once the mambo you are trying to conduct here for weeks in a row. Once at Art's, you can film him, conduct lots of interviews, ask all the questions you feel like you need to and who knows, maybe you can start to learn how to use the device.
And don't forget to pay the guy for his time, please...

Well, all of the above provided you are serious as you claimed to be about your intented report and also, of course, if he thinks you are serious enough before he accepts to demo the device for you.
I for my part, don't think you are and never will be serious in this subject as you gave myself and the forum plenty of reasons to support this claim due to your lying and cheating in the PD past episodes.
Tough I cared to suggest the advices above, I know you will cheat again and discard what I suggest, simply because you actually NEVER had the intention to conduct a serious research. RT was all kindness in sending you a unit and after weeks, you still are blowing hot air, did no test it at all, and even pushed to open the device as you perfectly know.

If you were serious, by now, clearly knowing you can't handle the examiner, you would have already called Art and would have made all possible efforts to document his aproach on the device.
You are perfectly aware of his skills over the TNET forum.
Also you had my own testing report with the AC and DC variances, you had RT's own you tube video showing this procedure and did not bother to replicate either.

In sum, stop fooling the naives here because the ones who use the device and knows how to work with it, have already figured out what you are up to.
For those who really understand about the scientific concept behind it, your pictures clearly show how the device MUST and why it HAS to work. There's no other way!

I sincerelly hope you don't fall in the category of Carl's who owns more than 15 LRLs and can't make ANY of them work. Not even the all electronic ones!
Actually I'm thinking about calling Guiness this week to suggest his name for the category of the most incompetent LRL user to date!
Humm.. Maybe not the fame he expected...

[hung]

Originally Posted by Esteban

I see the xtal. and the diode in the Rangertell. The use of silicon diode is wrong here. Must be used high quality low drift germanium diode or even a germanium transistor as diode. Also the Xtal. freq. MAYBE is wrong, 4.43. In the 2000 I work with different xtals. in antenna FOR ELECTRONIC LRL PISTOL. Yes, this frequency (4.43) detect the gold (OBJECT PLATTED BY GOLD), but with interruptions. Of course, I have buried gold in my patio, no pure gold, clock platted by gold BURIED MANY YEARS. But found other object, a small platted gold chain by Rommanel, bijouterie, only platted by gold jewel, not pure.

No Esteban, this is not a Xtal or fequency for gold. The device is a substance detector able to react to many targets, not only gold, according to the frequencies that are input.

The Xtal I believe is acting as a stabilizer due to its properties, for keeping the pulses steady in the induction process and to avoid drifting.
Altough, there is much still to be done to perfect the device, I can safely say that its concept and the functions it can perform are the most advanced in LRL history to date.