|
|
#27
01-08-2006, 01:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Once again, we have a disagreement over the concept of ion detection, and of Mineoro's claims. In order to detect ions, you need either a collector plate or a drift tube, and it must be exposed so ions can enter. The Mineoro has neither; it has a black plastic "sensor" on the front, and because it is sealed, ions cannot possibly enter it. It is silly to suggest otherwise.
Besides that, ion detection from a long distance is unfeasable. Ions are physical atoms... they will scatter, mix, and move with air currents. Even if you manage to detect a particular ion, there is no way to tell where it came from. And discriminating ion types (gold from oxygen) requires a drift tube, and a fair concentration of ions. Please remember, I've actually tested a Mineoro PDC-205... it DID NOT work. It was completely unable to detect gold. I took it apart, and found that it DID NOT have the sensor or the circuitry needed for ion detection. The claims made by Mineoro are flatly false. I don't want this to turn into a big argument. The purpose of these forums is to disseminate technical information about detecting methods. That's why I keep asking for experimental methods that will prove a claim... in these forums, claims alone mean nothing. If anyone wishes to convince me that I'm wrong, you will need to provide some physical evidence. I suggest an experiment that conclusively demonstrates that gold emits ions. As an alternative, a chemical equation that shows the reaction which produces the gold ions. Or an experiment that demonstrates a long distance ion detector. I'm still waiting for Mineoro to follow up on their request to take my $25,000 LRL challenge. My last few emails have gone unanswered. So, for those who believe the Mineoro detectors work, have fun with them. Everyone else, be wary. - Carl 
|
|
#29
01-09-2006, 11:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
A Simple Experiment
|
|
#31
01-10-2006, 05:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A simple experimence (more simple than I expected)
I am not a electronic engeneer, but Pardon Qiaozhi, the efect you refer about glowing incrase when you increase the antena lenght is induced by antena capacitance, once you feed the leds with ac current. Once the antena capacitance increase, the antena will be more tunned and irradiate (dissipate) more common radio electromagnetic energy! until you reach some multiple of wave lenght. (if you decrease the ac frequence you will see less glowing on the led - higher the frequency higher capacitance you need to stay the antena tunned -> more lenght of wiring you need!) It is basic. If you feed the led with DC or very low frequency you would not glow the led. Greetings and wish success to you Francisco Xavier
|
|
#32
01-10-2006, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Excuse me, at my post bellow:
higher the frequency higher capacitance you need to stay the antena tunned must read: lower the frequency higher capacitance you need to stay the antena tunned Thank you, Francisco Xavier
|
|
#34
01-10-2006, 08:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Avramenko's Fork
Hi Estaban,
I am aware of J.L. Naudin's work. This is a similar experiment, but uses a very high voltage to transmit power along a single wire. Obviously it is more complicated to construct. You will note that it also requires an antenna, supposedly to collect free electrons from space, otherwise the xenon tube does not light. Sound familiar? As I asked in the PDF document, does this have something to do with ionic detection - you decide... Naudin states the device must be battery driven and not grounded. For the simple experiment I have described, this is not true. I used a bench power supply and that was connected to earth, and running at 5V (not 30KV). Good detective work though. I really must insist that you construct this simple experiment. To Francisco Xavier (what a excellent name :-) - please to not dismiss this with the theory that it is the tuning which is affected. My guess is that you have not constructed or tested this experiment. Sorry - but basic tuning is not the correct answer. As soon as someone builds this and confirms the results, I will post the detailed LRL instructions. To Strujas: "With time and patience the mulberry leaf becomes a silk robe." So be patient my friend.
|
|
#36
01-11-2006, 10:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Awaiting results from simple experiment
As soon as someone builds the circuit for this simple experiment and confirms the results, I will post the detailed LRL instructions.
And yes - the design I intend to post does have a means of target discrimination. But - I will away on business for 2 weeks from this coming Saturday, so you must be patient. Also, I will need some time to make a decent job of the instructions, otherwise there will no doubt be a ton of problems. Qiaozhi *************************************** "Yup - That sure is a big pile alright" - Don Lancaster ***************************************
|
|
#38
01-12-2006, 09:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
after allllllllll...
After so many discussions about ionic metal detection, began by a simple question,now I say:this toy is only
a "lier detector" that exactly targets to Mr. mineoro and some other stupids that forgotten honesty! For your information ,there is some E_mail adds in mineoro website as a treasure hunters using these silly tools! ALL E_MAIL ADDS ARE INVALID!!! What u think?! Special thanks for all open_mind people writing here. I mean CARL......  Yours. Shila
|
|
#39
01-12-2006, 11:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Don't get upset - it was all a hoax
OK - I give up!
My apologies to anyone who believed the total drivel that I have posted over the last couple of weeks. Let's get one thing straight - LRLs do not work, have never worked, and never will work in a month of Sundays. They are based on a set of completely ridiculous ideas involving either dowsing or some pseudoscience about ions and electrostatic electricity. There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that buried objects emit ions that can be detected hundreds of metres away. This is complete bollocks. Neither do they emit "continually replenished alternating potential" (or C.R.A.P. for short). The work "crap" has a number of meanings, but in this instance it means "bull****". In other words, nothing but a load of manufactured nonsense. I'm actually quite dismayed it has taken so long for someone (thanks Shila) to come forward and call a halt to this thread. Not that I haven't made it blatantly obvious from the very start that this was a hoax. The whole idea of LRLs is too ridiculous for words. I am aware that several contributors to this forum do not have English as their first language, and therefore certain subtle references may not have been obvious. (Actually they were more akin to a large brick.) Carl (of course) spotted the hoax very early in the proceedings, when I wrote "The IEP Biotronic System (codenamed Garreutto) consists of the following building blocks: Target Height Identification System, Identification Stabilizer, Amplifier, and Sample Chamber Amplifier Module." The highlighted letters spell out "THIS IS A SCAM". I'm sure Carl was not the only eagle-eyed reader to spot that one. Other clues were: "Ionic-Electrostatic B.S.", where B.S. obviously refers to "bull****". "Garreutto" - a reference to Garrett, since Mineoro (Minelabs) and Tesouros (Tesoro) had already been used. LRLs are not for everyone, but they work best for people who fit this quote: "Gaining an Understanding of Longrange Locator Instruments Breeds a Lifetime of Experience". Come on guys...... this spells out "gullible" - meaning "naive and easily deceived or tricked". I did guess that some of you were playing along with the hoax, but others..... well I'm not so sure. Anyway, I had some fun concocting this ridiculous fantasy, and particularly enjoyed writing the description of the Ranger-Tell Examiner with its ability to couple the human operator to the Earth's Schumann resonances by using longitudinal coupling. To be perfectly honest I had not expected to push this crazy charade as far as this, and the detailed step-by-step instructions do not exist. Although I do have an outline in my mind for a fairly convincing design, complete with SCAM chamber. However, I don't think it is really fair for any of you to waste money on something that has not the slightest chance of detecting anything useful. In other words, it would definitely have been crap. The only truthful part of this fairy story is the Avramenko's Fork circuit. Trust me - it does work... and I really would like someone else to build it. Also, see if you can figure out how it actually works. It's a little strange when you see the LED illuminate with a single wire feeding the diodes. There is no return path, so why is it alight? It has nothing to do with tuning. Anyway, I'll leave you with that little puzzle, as I will be away for 2 weeks. To end on a serious note - please, please, please do not spend your hard earned money on an LRL. Carl only purchases them in order to disassemble and expose these items as the worthless pieces of junk that they are. Please listen to him - he knows what he's talking about. Lastly - I promise from now on to be a good citizen and only post good stuff. Qiaozhi Last edited by Qiaozhi; 01-12-2006 at 11:44 PM. Reason: Corrected typos
|
|
#40
01-13-2006, 03:14 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Nicely done my friend, I was waiting to see how far this would go before someone finally caught on.
Take care and have a safe trip.
__________________
Dennis USAF Ret. "A liberal is man too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel." -- Robert Frost
|
|
#41
01-13-2006, 04:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
New Telepatic LRL detector .
This design is tested!
For better performance, all diode may be generally deleted. But, supply must be increased from 5V over 220 V/ac, or dc line, as minimum. 
|
|
#42
01-13-2006, 04:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Re: New Telepathetic LRL detector
Oh dear - I expect I'll be telepathic by the time this thread is finished.
Dear LRL User, Firstly - thanks for building and testing the Avramenko's Fork circuit. Unfortunately I don't think you've quite grasped the point of this experiment. :confused: The diodes are a necessary part of the design and cannot be removed. I'm not sure what you mean to achieve by removing these components, or by increasing the voltage to 220V. The whole idea behind this circuit is to demonstrate something that (on the face of it) should not work. How can the LED possibly be illuminated when there is no return path for the current? There is a single wire leaving the output of the oscillator, and the end of the wire is just hanging in free space with 2 diodes connected back-to-back across an LED load. The antenna also adds another element of mystery. This really has nothing directly to do with LRL detectors, but I worked the idea into my B.S. description of these machines, if "machine" is the correct word to use. I can think of other less polite terms. Can you confirm for everyone else's benefit that the LED was alight when connected in the configuration shown? There is no point removing the diodes and connecting the other terminal of the LED to ground. It is obvious that this will work as it simply follows Kirchoff's voltage (KVL) and current (KCL) laws. You can also try running a SPICE simulation if you like, and (with the circuit exactly as shown in the diagram) you will discover that there is insufficient current flowing in the LED for it to illuminate. This is the mystery. One last point - what is the significance of the strangely shaped brown object called RLOAD. Although I know what it looks like!  Perhaps you're just playing along with the game.  Qiaozhi "The more a man learns, the more he sees his ignorance" Last edited by Qiaozhi; 01-13-2006 at 04:24 PM. Reason: Switched icon to face with shades
|
|
#43
01-13-2006, 08:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
SPICE Netlist
Here's the SPICE netlist:
Avramenko's Fork D1 VIN A 1N914 D2 B VIN 1N914 * LED D3 A 2 1N914 D4 2 3 1N914 D5 3 B 1N914 .MODEL 1N914 D RS=0.806986 EG=1.11 XTI=3 VJ=0.509542 M=0.0139603 + FC=0.99 BV=100 CJO=8.43931E-013 IS=7.86336E-009 N=2 TT=2.594864E-008 VIN VIN 0 SIN ( 0 2.5 8E+006 0 0 ) R1 VIN 0 1E+012 .TRAN 1E-005 0.01 0 1E-008 .END The LED has been simply modelled as three diodes in series. This is sufficient for the purposes of this exercise. R1 is a 1 tera ohm resistor to satisfy the requirements of the simulator. i.e. that it needs 2 connections per node. In practice it's an open-circuit, but for the simulator it provides a DC path to ground as well. Measure the voltage between nodes A and B. You will find that it's zero. So - when you actually build the circuit, why the does the LED illuminate? That's the riddle...
|
|
#44
01-22-2006, 05:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Good Job PDC
Sorry if I hurt some feelings, but after all the non sense post here regarding the supposed non existence of ionic fields, I have some good news to the ones who have detectors based on this.
A friend of mine, serious treasure hunter in Brazil, with record of several valuable finds, while searching for a certain target on beach, detected a 7 gram gold ring with a PDC 210 (same model as I have) from 230 feet away which was 12 inches deep. Of course this was not the target he was after. But this is important news since this is an impressive mark for the PDC. This mark is usually up to the new GDMs and GDPs. The ionic fields right now in Brazil are excellent. Regards to all.
|
|
#45
01-23-2006, 04:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Valuable Find
Quote:
It is impossible to ascertain whether the target (a gold ring in this case) was actually detected using the PDC 210, or was the result of a lucky find. Perhaps the "serious treasure hunter" in this quote should step forward and take Carl's LRL challenge. There's a guaranteed $25,000 reward for a successful result.  Zhu ni hao yunqi!
|
|
#46
01-23-2006, 08:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
qiaozhi
did not you come back to your home You give a promise on your long rang locator.why did you stop talking on it there is a truth of locating from long distances but the right way could not find yet.even a stick can locate cavities underground. we are waiting for yours.it looks like earth's magnetic field density locator
|
|
#47
01-24-2006, 12:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I've heard of a number of finds made with dowsing-type LRLs, yet my own testing shows they do not work. So how do people find things with them? There are a number of different ways that have nothing at all to do with the LRL itself. So, I generally don't place a lot of weight on sporadic LRL successes, especially when the failure rate is so overwhelmingly high. If I had a legitimate LRL that could detect gold from even 100 feet away, I would be walking the resort beaches and digging up 100 rings a day, easy. What I still want to see, is an experiment that demonstrates this ionic detection method. No one yet has come up with anything. - Carl
|
|
#48
01-24-2006, 01:43 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Sorry
Quote:
I think you must have missed one of my earlier posts entitled - "Don't get upset - it was all a hoax". For whatever bizarre and twisted reason, I was simply playing with the minds of the LRL users on this forum. Personally I believe that LRLs are based on flawed science, and (at worst) are scams perpetrated by people who are perfectly aware that these devices have no chance of detecting gold or silver from even a few inches. You may believe otherwise, and I wish you luck in your treasure hunting. However - do you not find it the least bit strange that no-one has ever claimed the $25,000 dollar prize that is on offer? Surely one of the LRL manufacturers should be able to prove the reality of their claims by taking this simple test. My apologies if you were expecting something more. By the way, I am still away from home, but am able to access the internet. Qiaozhi.
|
|
#50
01-24-2006, 10:25 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You've heard a lot of sucess stories from people who dowse yet you still claim it does not work. It's a big contradiction don't you think? When a lot of people who dowse report sucess and you can't dowse and yet report it does not work. This is not fair. I think you should investigate why you can't do it other than bashing people who can. I don't believe dowsing works. I KNOW it works. For reasons I won't bring here because the evidences would bring another 'battle' just like in other forums. Anyway, the PDC is no dowsing . It's an electronic equipment which is able to trace down the gold target to its source. After about a year and a half of owning one, I have located a lot of targets. I've noticed that for small objects like coins or rings, the PDC almost beep directly to them. Although the use of a 2 box is welcome. But one should only use it when he knows the aproximate spot, as the 2 box will destroy the field for several days. For bigger targets or when the object is buried for a very long time, the ionic field is huge and when you walk inside its perimeter, there will be beeps in all directions. In this case, the use of a 2 or 3 KV generator is necessary to bring the field down and depolarize it. Quote:
When I was at Mineoro's factory I saw the hundreds of items recovered at the beach in Garopaba where 30,000 pieces are estimated waiting to be recovered. You'll need time, lots of water, sunscreen and perseverance. The best time here is the summer time. Temperatures of 104 degrees almost all day long. Beach is completely crowded. You have almost no space to even walk a 10 foot straight line. Peak times for ionic fields are bet 11:30 and 13:00 and from 15:00 to 17;30. So as you see, it's a lot easier saying 'Ill recover every ring at the beach' and actually going there and doing it under these conditions. Are you ready to only do this for a living? No LRL around is a 'ready, out of the box' unit for general use. If it was, then all the gold of the world would be probably gone by now. It takes experience, personal techniques, knowledge of your equipment and perseverance. It also takes time. In the case of Mineoro detectors, they are all dependent of the ionic field phenomena. There are proved times of year when those fields are real low, and the probability of finding diminishes completely. I for myself had sucess locating a long time seek target in those bad times. Quote:
If you think the ionic field is a falacy, fine. Just go up front and say you found no evidence it works. But I think it's trully unfair to deliberately claim it does not work. You run the serious risk to be disproved and the inconvenience of not being taken seriously anymore. If you want proof, have a trip to Mineoro. Talk to Damasio, the inventor. Take your conclusions. Have you noticed he don't bother to come to forums to discuss this? And before you think of saying this, I can do it . I'm no representative, affiliated, or work for Mineoro. I know a lot of people who use the detectors and had sucess. Why you can't? When I was there Damasio's secretary received a fax from a mexican researcher who for several months could not detect anything. As I could read his story, he said he was about to also think it was just a big BS detector. When... He had been in an old abandoned church lots of times and the PDC beeped every time he was there in a certain direction. Only then he realized the beeps were not falsing or caused by electrical interference. Also they were not coming from any buried object. The origin of them was from candeliers which were over a table. As they were full of dirt, people always thought they ware made of brass. Surprise, surprise....
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
