|
|
#426
01-22-2010, 09:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
But if you did coat certain parts of the rod with tritium and phosphors, it could improve a user's ability to see where it is pointing at night without carrying extra lights, whose metal parts and current flow could interfere with the forces from the magnets. Also the improved visibility when using triitium at night could be proven by demonstrating it in a repeatable way. And if this rod was well balanced, It's ability to always align toward the magnetic north pole could also be demonstrated on a windless night. Best wishes, J_P 
|
|
#427
01-22-2010, 10:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
http://www.lrlman.com/Pages/MikeRod/...ocator_rod.htm He does not say here, if it is used to produce better visibility. I'm just guessing a "power" load would be something to enhance the locating properties of the dowsing rod. (a sales gimmick to further fool the "gullible") It would be most interesting to know how Tritium does that. If it's for visibility, then that is a different issue, and would not be unlike the sights on my 9mm. 
__________________
 The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#428
01-22-2010, 11:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
From the advertising I read from other sellers of power loads, the purpose is connected with small amounts of radiation causing unknown effects to be come more activated. What effects were never explained very well. These could be connected with the target, or the sample, or the user's biological response. Since there is no real explanation what a tritium power load does, I was able to see a real-science based application in Fred's photo, which could also be applied to a dowsing rod with a magnet configured as a compass by balancing it. The tritium, when used in the manner shown in Fred's photo could be used to demonstrate repeatable results of improved visibility in low light scenarios. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#429
01-22-2010, 11:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 So, is it your honest belief (interpretation) the tritium is strictly for visibility enhancement, based on what you read in the ad? Yes, I understand it is Tim's ad, but wouldn't Mike have had to agree to the content of it?
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#430
01-22-2010, 11:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Go back and read again: 1. "The source of the tritium power loads seems unclear to me". I cannot conclude Mike would have to agree with it, because it is possible this is a power load that is offered by LRL-Man as an accessory he added independently to Mike's dowsing rod. Or it is possible it is offered by Mike and simply passed on in LRL-Man's advertisement. Ordinary logic without adding prejudice would suggest we do not draw conclusions until we know what the facts are. We simply state the source of the tritium power load seems unclear. 2. "Since there is no real explanation of what a tritium power load does, I could see a real-science application in Fred's photo..." Haven't I stated there is no real explanation given of what it does? The application I saw did not come from the dowsing rod advertisement or other power load advertisements. It came from Fred's photo... an unrelated source that happens to have a basis in real explainable science. My implication is I found an alternate real-science use for tritium in the absence of any explanation of it's intended function in the advertising. Of course you are free to draw whatever erroneous inferences you want as long as you don't try to present them as my belief (interpretation). Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#431
01-23-2010, 04:17 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 Seems to be a lot of drama involved for what started out to be a simple comment about a tritium power load. Whatever.... I'll be glad when the rains stop in your area, things dry out some, and you can get out and get some fresh air again.
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#432
01-23-2010, 04:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You didn't make a simple post about tritium power loads. You posted an innuendo that I believe things which I do not, dredged from your inferences: "So, is it your honest belief (interpretation) the tritium is strictly for visibility enhancement, based on what you read in the ad?" Why not try something useful to attain your goals... For example, contact an aquaintance in the Southern California area and convince them to come and try out the examiner to see how it works in person. This will do a lot to help show you what it actually does instead of speculating. They can report back to you so you can compare what they tell you to what I post about it. Can you think of a better practical way to find the facts? No need to interject drama... just do it. Maybe you will find this actually helps to arrive at your goals. Really. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#433
01-23-2010, 11:55 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Problem is, I don't have any acquaintances that live anywhere close to you. And, that's not the only problem I have. How could I be sure they wouldn't be wasting their time if; 1). your schedule and coordination of timing for a visit might never coincide with theirs and 2). if you are never able to "adjust" the trimmer cap to the satisfaction of yourself or R-T, then there may NEVER be anything to test in the first place. Now is that being melodramatic, or just realistic? I think it is a legitimate concern based on the amount of info you've released so far. And remember, you have the "whole enchilada" to look at, all I've had are the tidbits you've been placing here. So, admittedly I have had to make some guesses, some read between the lines and probably some inferences. While we are on the subject of inferences... When I said; "So, is it your honest belief (interpretation) the tritium is strictly for visibility enhancement, based on what you read in the ad?" I was NOT trying to put words in your mouth, OR state that you believed somethinig that you do not believe. I WAS HONESTLY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU BELIEVED ABOUT THE TRITIUM POWER LOAD! That's all. If you will notice, the statement was in the form of a QUESTION. Now, why would I have a problem understanding anything you might be talking about? Because, Graham, for about the last two or three months here on this forum, you have changed the way you speak about LRLs and the LRL manufacturers; that's why. You have gone into this mode that I could only describe as Hyper-Condescending speech patterns. Are you aware you've done that? The change had to be a conscious effort on your part; I'm just really unclear why. Perhaps a PM would help me to understand. I used to think I knew your stance on these subjects. I don't think that anymore. Your stance may not have changed at all, but it certainly is no longer clear to this reader/observer. Finally, let's get all the cards face up on the table here. If I have made any inferences concerning the RT Examiner, the theory of operation, what it can do, and what it basically is; it is because of one very important piece of information that I hold as Fact and Truth in my own mind and past experience. That is; I BELIEVE Carl and everything he has posted about the Examiner(S) he has examined and tested. Further I do not believe the one you have, or any future ones you might get will be any different from or produce any different results from the ones Carl has examined. I'm very sorry you didn't see any humor in my little jingle. I thought it injected a little levity at a time when that thread could use a little. Take care... and happy fishing.
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#434
01-23-2010, 01:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Just to be clear. Mike sent me what he wanted to say about his rod. I make nothing on the sales of his rod. Just helping him.
__________________
Bringing metal detectors into the world of imaging! 
|
|
#435
01-23-2010, 06:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
you already knew my honest belief (interpretation) because you quoted my previous answer in the same post where you asked this question. How can you expect me to think you were honestly trying to figure out what I believed about the tritium power load after I already told you? I see your post where you show my answer, then rephrase it to appear I believe the tritium is strictly for visibility enhancement. This does not look like you were trying to find out my answer. It looks like you already knew my answer from reading it, and rephrased it to appear as a different answer than what I said: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...&postcount=429 What you describe as Hyper-Condescending speech patterns is not something that changed in the past few months. I generally use that manner of speech pattern when anyone misquotes a post I make, or does something else I disagree with strongly. I have used this speech pattern since my earliest posts when people were misquoting what I posted to arrive at meanings I did not express. Especially when I suspected they have an agenda to promote that is not the same as what I am saying in a post. Here is an example of me correcting a forum poster who misquoted some things I said to suit his purposes back in 2006. You will recognize a speech pattern in my response that you described: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=43481&postcount=262 You can check a lot more of my posts from that time to present to get a clear idea of where my cards are. You will find the same attitude you described when I had a purpose to use it, and you will find I don't follow any particular party line in the LRL-believer/Skeptic debate, I just follow what makes sense to me. But most consider me to lean generally toward the skeptical side of the spectrum. If you haven't heard, my main interest is to see people who claim to have working LRLs to demonstrate them recovering treasure live in front of me. I also am interested in learning some facts instead of just believeing what other people say. This has not changed since I joined this forum. It doesn't bother me to ask questions about theoretical signal lines or details of dowsing, even though I never saw any live proof that they exist as working methods. I also liked reading Carl's Rangertell article and other articles about LRLs. But instead of jumping blindly on the safety of some bandwagon, I'm taking Carl's advice.... to not believe what others tell me. See for myself. My cards have been on the table since I joined this forum. You will find many of my posts shortly after joining this forum in 2006 show me asking these same questions here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11046 You can also read my 2006 posts when I debated with Carl-NC and Jim about my belief there are gold ions dissolving in the soil here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...&postcount=105 And you can read all about my participation in an LRL project and discussion with a number of LRL supporters and skeptics here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11392 Then continue on in a forum search to see tons of condescending posts I made, LRL believer posts I made, skeptic posts I made, ions-in-the-soil posts I made, science posts, and even stupid posts. Currently you are seeing the effects of what happens when I feel like I am being misquoted or being manipulated in some other cheesy manner. My cards haven't changed. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#436
01-23-2010, 06:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
My cards have not changed either, at least not since about 1995, when I became aware of "exactly" how all ideomotor-based dowsing contraptions work. And yes, I came to my conclusions, NOT through another investigator's experiences, but MY OWN. My knowledge did not come FREE, but involved some significant time and expense. Yes, I have first hand knowledge with a great many LRLs, all the way from the most simple to the highly complex containing a multitude of do-nothing appendages. No, I've not seen or tested an Examiner, but as I have iterated before; I take the word of Carl, basically because his findings on several others I've seen match my own completely. I think it is very admirable of you to want to give everything under the sun a fair chance to work, as advertised, and to experience it with your very own eyes. I have myself tried to remain completely opened minded about this topic, with the idea that perhaps something will come along that actually works according to real science. However, at the same time, I AM NOT going to throw away all the knowledge and experience I have gained so far, and in combination with pure logic and common sense; will form any new opinions accordingly. But then, that's just my approach... YMMV. 
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#437
01-23-2010, 07:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
"No, that is not my belief or what I said. I doubt it is even what you infered unless you have a prejudiced point of view. Go back and read again....." The lengthy post you just read was not made for that particular incident. It was my answer to a number of comments you made in your new post stating you noticed a recent change that you were unclear about, and you don't know my stance on some topics. Since your forum user settings were set to not accept PMs, I decided to post a forum reply instead. This way is probably better anyway, because it will also clear up any misconceptions in case others are wondering. But don't worry, I haven't thrown anything away. I believe what I can prove to work, not just anecdotes. I just prefer to see it first-hand instead of taking others word for it. Carl agrees with this and even urges it. I think he knows there are some rare cases when he can be wrong, and doesn't even mind doing some checking in person himself to see if he's right or wrong. If I didn't agree with Carl's advice, then I may never have looked to see the evidence of gold corroding in the ground and sending ions up to the surface in trace amounts. Seems like a long shot, but sometimes it happens. Also don't worry, I don't care what anybody thinks about whether the examiner and other LRL works or not. I wouldn't expect anyone to believe anything that they were not convinced of -- for or against. But I also expect others won't expect me to believe or disbelieve unless I feel convinced by my own methods, not theirs as well. You see me making some strong posts when I see a lapse of logic used to arrive at a conclusion that looks wrong when LRL enthusiasts are trying to convince people a particular LRL works, but the same yardstick should also apply to skeptics at times when they jump to conclusions, including myself. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#438
01-23-2010, 08:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 
|
|
#439
01-23-2010, 10:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
how do you know that trace amount of gold ions originate from buried gold and not from planetary eroded gold found in traces everywhere in soil and even in sea water and vegetables. For instance there is more gold in a ton of sea water than in a ton of good to average gold ore. Gold ions are everywhere. If not, you maybe discover anti-gravity gold ions.
__________________
Global capital is ruining your life? You have right to self-defence!
|
|
#440
01-24-2010, 08:31 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I don't know any thing about anti-gravity gold ions. I only know about gold ions that are proved by scientists measuring them. The way I know the source of the gold ions is not from the ocean or the air is because scientists measured the anomalies of higher concentrations of gold ions in the soil above buried metals. When they found these high concentration of metal ions, they followed the path of the anomaly and found there are ions concentrated in a column of soil that can be traced down to the metal buried below the anomaly. Thousands of tests were performed to determine the source of metal of ions of gold and other metals which led to buried metals below. The research done at universities around the world shows that even deep buried metals including gold corrode under the ground by the action of bacteria and other microbes that are found on the surface of the metal. Some of these microbes produce cyanide and thiosulfate that dissolves gold and releases gold ions into the soil, suspended in the sulfur complex as well as organic acids produced by these microbes. Through a number of mechanisms, the ions move upwards in a column toward the surface where they can be measured as an anomaly that marks the location of metal below the surface. Many of these studies show that microgold particles are produced by similar microbes that are able to chemically precipitate the dissolved gold ions into solid gold. They have even shown many gold nuggets near the surface that were precipitated by microbes depositing gold dissolved from a source some large distance below. These ions moved up near the surface and were precipitated as new nuggets above, which is a chemical mechanism of moving gold without digging. But most of the gold transported by this method is in the form of tiny particles. The studies further suggest that much of the tiny particles of gold in the oceans originally began as natural gold deposits that were not eroded, but were transported by similar microbal action from metallic gold under the ocean floor. Is it possible that microscopic gold ions in the air or water in trace amounts is the source of ions in the soil? Maybe, but this is not what the scientists who measured the anomalies found. They found that the source was a gold deposit below. They are so sure of their findings that they developed soil sampling methods to make geochemical surveys at mine sites to pinpoint the location of gold and other metal deposits for the mines to extract. There are reports of successsful mine exploration all over the world for the past 17 years using this method called MMI (Mobile Metal Ion) surveys. These surveys take soil samples to see where there is a stronger metal ion concentration so they can pinpoint the metal ore deposits below. But the scientist aslo proved the source of metal ions in the soil is from buried metal by conducting experiments with fresh gold pellets that were placed in sterilized soil samples, then the same natural microbes that naturally attack gold were placed in some of the samples. They found that after 30-60 days, the shallow samples with the gold-attacking microbes developed a concentration of gold ions more than 10 times stronger than the concentrations they find from deeper natural gold deposits in the ground that have been buried for thousands of years. So to answer your question, I know the source of the gold ions comes from buried gold metal because I believe what the scientist and technicians measured. But even if somebody can prove these scientists were all wrong, I really don't care, because we have found from thousands of geologists soil surveys showing these anomalies in dissolved gold ions happen in locations where gold is below the anomaly. So regardless of the source, finding the anomaly will still will be useful for treasure hunting to find the buried gold below. Here are some of the reports you can read that were made by scientists who proved gold and other metals dissolve in soil after microbes attack it, and also reports of methods to find buried gold below these ion anomalies using MMI surveys: http://www.geochem.sgs.com/mmi-orientation-surveys.htm http://www.geochem.sgs.com/mmi-theory.htm http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...e54ceb8221ec30 http://www.nature.com/ismej/journal/...ej200775a.html http://crcleme.org.au/Pubs/Monograph...2002/Reith.pdf http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Gold+C...am-a0128214628 http://books.google.com/books?id=L8B...age&q=&f=false http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0818101731.htm http://books.google.com/books?id=L8B...A495&dq=microb# http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0802103513.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0523075914.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1007103034.htm http://www.gwrresources.com/s/NewsRe...Completion-Res... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...08c5fb73cb4c82 http://aris.empr.gov.bc.ca/ArisReports/28541.PDF Actually there are hundreds of thousands of reports. Maybe easier to look at them on a google search instead of listing them: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...f&aql=&aqi=&oq= Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#441
01-24-2010, 12:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You explained very well, thank you, I have only commented on the erosion, this is not just a mechanical or physical, but also electro-chemical and biological. So for detecting buried gold we need only extra sensitive GIN (Gold Ions Nose) and voilĂ*! For now, this can be the best non-electronic GIN solution: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...7&postcount=14
__________________
Global capital is ruining your life? You have right to self-defence!
|
|
#442
01-24-2010, 12:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Plants only concentrate gold when they are growing in soil that has dissolved gold in it. (This implies there is gold metal below the ionised gold in the soil). See this report where plants were found to concentrate gold from when growing above gold in the ground: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0818101731.htm The ions become bound with other constituents of the soil in the top 10-30cm below the surface. At these depths, the ions are no longer ions. For gold, the ions become mostly microscopic gold particles, which are estimated to account for most of the gold that is moved in the top layers of the soil in nature. This 10-30cm is also the depth at which erosion is likely to happen on large scale to wash tiny metallic gold particles into streams or to blow into the air. But no magic is needed to locate the gold ion concentrations. This is done by digging holes and taking soil samples to measure the amount of gold ions or other metal ions. This is all normal science. No Jinns or antimatter is needed. Why do you look for magical ways when we have good knowledge of the actual way this happens measured by scientists? Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#443
01-24-2010, 01:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Global capital is ruining your life? You have right to self-defence!
|
|
#445
01-24-2010, 01:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Again...unless I missed it in one of those links...there is no evidence of airborne gold ions, that can be captured and analyzed from the surface. Especially using random air samples. Difference between treasure hunting and mining
|
|
#446
01-24-2010, 02:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The ions become bound with other constituents of the soil in the top 10-30cm below the surface. From my understanding of what J_P is expounding on here, there are NO air-born ions rising up from buried gold. Apparently, "certain" scientists and mining exploration folks are using soil samples to discover buried gold deposits, by analyzing and detecting these migrating ions in the top layers of soil only. Since J_P has recently, and emphatically, indicated to me; "I also am interested in learning some facts instead of just believeing(sic) what other people say." ....then I would, by his own remarks, have to believe that he has actually witnessed these gold discovery techniques in operation.
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#447
01-24-2010, 02:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yes, the MMI testing is done by digging samples of soil from below the top layer of dirt where gold ions will show a representative concentration. But mining companies use a lot of other methods to indicate what is below the ground besides MMI testing. Some of these methods are not done from below the ground, but above. In most cases, these tests are not detecting gold ions. Capturing gold ions from the surface doesn't sound easy to me. To start with, the concentrations they measure below the ground are in the parts per trillion and sometimes less. By the time they reach the surface, they become bound with other elements or become metallic gold particles. Maybe a few ions of the parts per trillion could somehow escape into the air, but how would you collect them? Wouldn't a single ion blow away in the wind, or quickly neutralise with a charged particle or molecule in the air? The whole reason why they cease to be ions after they rise from the lower layers of soil is because they no longer are in an environment that has active electrolytes and complexes that support gold ions. They are moving to the surface that is rich in a large array of materials and particles that will bind the ions. This is true of the air as well, which has charged gas molecules as well as particles with molecules that can combine with metal ions from salts or other complexes. In the case of gold, when it loses it's supporting chemical complex, it usually combines with itself to form a metallic gold molecule, that can grow into a particle if other molecules attach. The gold in the air I read about is metallic microparticles, not ionic. From what I read it was measured at less than 0.003ng/kg for air on average. Because of the wind action, I doubt these measurements would be useful for locating buried gold. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#448
01-24-2010, 03:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You can believe whatever you have to believe as long as you don't try to represent your beliefs and conclusions as things that I said. But to give you some help in what to believe, yes, I have witnessed gold exploration techniques being used by geologists in operation. And no, not the technique of digging a hole and putting dirt in a plastic bag bound for the MMI lab in Canada. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#449
01-24-2010, 03:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Rather, just pay attention to the actual words he speaks; "I also am interested in learning some facts instead of just believeing(sic) what other people say."
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#450
01-24-2010, 03:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Best wishes, J_P
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
