|
|
#26
03-02-2006, 09:40 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Your link shows a gamma/photon sensing device that will discriminate what the different elements it is looking at. This is exactly how Dr. Bickel's machine worked. He was a pioneer in this field. I havent really elaborated on the details of Dr. Bickels machine. Ok... here is how the machine that Dr. Bickel built works:
The sensor contains a special crystal that is sensative to gamma waves, called a scintillator. His scintillator crystals are not the average type used for medical instruments. They are extremely sensitive and not generally available to the industrial/commercial users. Because of his work with NASA, he had a direct link with the suppliers who sold him some of these crystals to use in his machines for locating oil fields and mineral deposits. How his machine worked? When a gamma wave passes into the crytstal, a very small light (a photon) is emmited. The energy of the gamma wave will determine the characteristics of the light, or the photon energy. By measuring the light that is emitted with a photomultiplier tube, the energy of the gamma wave can be determined. This energy can be compared to a known list of energies that will tell where the isotope that sent the gamma wave came from. This is a simplified version of the actual method, but the electronics are able to identify exactly what element is below the probe that sent the gamma waves. By looking at the enery in the photons before they disintigrate into positrons, the exact element that sent the gamma wave and caused the photon can be determined as accurately as a fingerprint can be measured. These gamma waves come from a very few radio isotopes of that element that exist in the natural deposits under the earth. It is only when there is a large deposit of an element that we will see a large reading on the probe. When we are looking for gold, it does not matter if the gold is in a solid metal form, or a telluride or sulfide. Any compound of gold or matallic gold will send gamma waves from the very few traces of gold isotopes. What the machine is looking for is an area of the earth that shows a relatively larger concentration of gold (or other element) than the surrounding areas. It is looking for an area that has a heavy deposit of a mineral. This is what the detecror does best. It is not able to find a small coin or nugget in the near proximity. it is specialized in sensing trace anounts of gamma rays from large deposits of minerals. This machine can sense the gamma waves from isotopes of other elements like silver, copper and carbon (oil). By comparing the light energy sensed to the known energies of isotopes of these elements, the element can be identified. This is how the discrimination is accomplished. This method is known as gamma spectroscopy. It is commonnly used in the laboratory to identify unknown substances which have been irradiated to caues the substance to emit gamma waves. The difference with Dr. Bickel's machine that it senses gammma waves in very small amounts, which came from naturally occuring isotopes, not from pounding the target with a high dose of radiation. This is why the sensor in his machine must be of the highest quality and extremely sensitive to these faint gamma waves. The advantage of Dr. Bickel's LRL over the conventional LRLs is that it will work even when there is heavy sunspot activity and the conventional LRLs are not able to get a signal from the near ground fields. Dr. Bickel's sensors are not dependent on these fields because he is measuring the gamma waves, not the fields near the surface of the earth. If you check with the oil companies and mining companies you will find that Dr. Bickels detectors are very highly respected. These companies pay a premium price to have a survey done whith his machines. Before ending this discussion, I shoud tell you that Dr. Bickel was a very nice man. He had a heavy German accent and white hair, and he was very accommodating. He showed me a handful of gold nuggets he found on his expeditions making surveys for the oil companies. He showed me several other projects he was working on including a 2-cylinder aluminum hydrogen-fueled engine. All this happened when he was in his 80's, and he was still lecturing to the NASA scientists and others in his spare time when not looking for oil and gold. Dang, I hope I am that active in my 80s 
|
|
#28
03-03-2006, 03:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Hello J.Player, very good explanation of the gamma ray detector , I print it to show to my friends and thank you again for your time and amability to explain well .
Another question , do you really believe in this full of farse publicity like the famous KOCHRAN , for the mineoro ......of some infamous selling people... I hope to have in my hand one off these to show the kind of machine is this , one of these day and complete reverse ing..with photos....for the Forum many people here in Mexico was trapped in internet and pay cash these funny detector for to find NOTHING , not gold not silver not a small piece of iron.... nothing only the big laughing of Mineoro "inventor"....with the cash in his pocket.....Ah...Ah...Ah... Have a nice day J.player , Alex.
|
|
#29
03-03-2006, 04:50 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have never seen anyone find gold using a LRL like the Mineoro. If they work then I know nothing about it. My understanding is that they work exactly as well as dowsing. But I may be wrong.
If I had $8000 to spend on a Mineoro deteector, then I would spend the money on an Eric Foster Goldscan 5 PI detector instead, and I would spen the remaining money traveling from Arizona to Mexico looking for nuggets and buried treasures.
|
|
#30
03-04-2006, 03:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hello J.player,
One 100% thinking the same for the 8000$ and like I said when I have one (mineoro ) in my hand I will do the work I think soon.... And for the phenomenum of Radiesthesia For me it exist , I know a very good dowser who discover water very deep 80-200 meters with accuracy in difficult soil where water is difficult to find with traditional geophysical instruments ....he say me for water is easy for him but for something without movement he do not have result ( metal treasure etc...) ...it is physical a flux of water generate a flux of something this something detected by the dowser.... Have a good day Saludos Alex
|
|
#31
03-04-2006, 02:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You really don't know anything about them. Mineoro dectetors are TOTALLY electronic. No dowsing involved.
|
|
#32
03-05-2006, 01:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Iron is another chemical element that the earth's magnetic field concentrates around quite strong making it's "field" detectable and measurable. "Physical Dowsing" detects the stronger emenating "fields" at the surface of the earth which are layered over weaker "fields", over weaker "fields" etc, etc. Discrimination of the "field" concentrated around a chemical element, can be accompolished with the mind via "Mental Dowsing", or with the use of frequency, and/or electronics. Dell
|
|
#33
03-05-2006, 02:17 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hung says: "You really don't know anything about them".
You are right. I admit it. I don't know anything about them except I have never seen anyone find gold using a LRL like the Mineoro. This is why I would spend my money on a high-end PI detector that I know works instead. Hung also says: "Mineoro dectetors are TOTALLY electronic. No dowsing involved". There are real TOTALLY electronic LRL detectors located in satellites that send back information telling where real underground ore deposits are to geologists. If the Mineoro detectors are TOTALLY electronic, then they should work just as well whether you hold the machine in your hand, or if you mount it on the back of a tractor, or in a plane and watch the electronics tell you where the treasures are. If they are TOTALLY electronic, then you should be able to adjust the controls and send it of in a remotely piloted vehicle to search a large area of land for all the hidden treasures. I never heard of anybody having any success with a Mineoro type LRL mounted in a remotely piloted vehicle to locate treasures. But I have heard a lot about true electronic locators that find ore deposits and oil by using Gamma spectroscopy methods. In fact mining and oil companies pay big money to have surveys done using these machines. I am sure they will pay the same big money to anyone who brings a Mineoro detector and shows them where there are large mineral deposits that they didn't know about as well. Are the LRL people in Brazil so rich from the treasures they found that they don't have time to pick up an extra $50,000 or more for a couple week's work showing a mining company where to find a large deposit of copper or gold? Second: Regardless of what principle the LRLs work on, I still have not seen anyone find gold using a LRL like the Mineoro. Maybe somebody has, but I just haven't seen them. I live in a well known area where there are abandoned gold mines and silver mines nearby. I even found a few small nuggets in these areas. There is still some gold there, because nobody really worked these areas much after the 1900s. There may even be burried treasures and church ornaments left behind by the Jesuit priests who were told to return to Spain, thinking they would return in a couple of years to dig up their caches. If your LRLs work then you should certainly find more than the few small nuggets I found. Yes, I know nothing about these machines, and I will continue to know nothing until somebody shows me some results. Then I will be able to honestly post here in the forum about the treasures that I saw the LRLs find. But that hasn't happened yet. Here is an open invitation to anyone who has a LRL that works: Come on over and I will show you where the old gold mines and silver mines are. Then you will have the chance to dig in the same place where the Jesuit priests got their gold and silver to make church ornaments. Click on my profile and send me an email so we can make arrangements.
|
|
#34
03-05-2006, 02:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I asked what Dr. Bickel taught you because you stated that he was a dowser. Even if his machine is as good as you claim, it does not mean that we have to accept his ideas about related matters. Someone might invent or discover something very important, and then come up with a crazy idea related to it. Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA, thought that it was brought to Earth by aliens. And so with Dr. Bickel's idea that dowsing actually worked, using the same principle as his machine.
|
|
#35
03-05-2006, 03:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
You are saying: "And so with Dr. Bickel's idea that dowsing actually worked, using the same principle as his machine." ??
Did you actually read my post? Neither I nor Dr. Bickel ever said dowsing worked on the same principle as his machine that detected mineral deposits. If you go back and carefully read, you will see where I explained that he "taught me the difference between what his machine was measuring and what dowsers are sensing". Dr. Bickel told me in no uncertain terms that his machines had nothing to do with dowsing. You will also find another post at the top of this page where I explain the workings of his machine in a little more detail. His machines are not capable of measuring any near-earth fields, only light. By processing the signal recieved by very tiny, dim flashes of light, the identity of the material under the probe can be determined. How does that sound in any way similar to the principles of dowsing? You are right. You do not have to accept his ideas obout these related matters. You do not have to accept the explanation that his machines are measuring photons flashing in a crystal, or even accept that these devices exist in satellites. You are free to accept whatever theories you like the best.
|
|
#36
03-05-2006, 04:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
- Carl
|
|
#37
03-05-2006, 05:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#38
03-05-2006, 05:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#40
03-05-2006, 06:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Unfortunately the references I have are on books and reports.
You however will find plenty of this on 'magnetohydrodynamics'. About ten years ago I had a research team who studied deeply and acomplished projects on magnetohydrodynamics. Here are a couple of links which I found quickly as I don't have the time now. One coincidentally is Dell's explanation. Have fun. http://www.nmsr.org/magnetic.htm http://www.omnitron.net/success.htm
|
|
#41
03-05-2006, 08:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You are correct in saying it does not work very well at close range, or detect the "field" of small targets unless they are clustered in a large group of small targets such as concentrations of Gold particles. The Gold in the Denver, Co mint was one of the test targets used in determining the remote Sensing ability of the Gamma Scan, to detect that amount from an aircraft, up to 350 miles away, and navigate the aircraft according to the Gamma Scan's, point of reference. Much as the same with Frequency Discrimination (MFD) it is geographicly difficult to isolate and pinpoint the exact location of targets on the ground that are detected from high speed aircraft. To help in this determination, we would bury 25-30 pounds of low grade Uranium ore in the vicinity of the airborne location and wait 20-30 days and redo the scan. By detecting the concentrated "field" of the Uranium ore and it's relation to the airborne Gold location, we could isolate and pinpoint the Gold location. This discussion started about the Meta-Physical art of Mental Dowsing, has once again evolved to the skeptic cult interpretation of Long Range Locators. From years of being attacked for my support and practice of both methods as aids for Treasure hunting, I don't think the closed mind set of self proclaimed skeptics will ever be open to truth , or facts that are a challenge to the intelligence of their belief system.
|
|
#42
03-05-2006, 10:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Your two links were interesting though... one from Dell who initiated the claim, so I wouldn't count his web page as supporting evidence, especially when that same page has so many other gross errors of fact... and one from a group who thoroughly debunked the claims of magnetic water treatment, and includes a statement that supports my position: "unless it's made conductive and is moving really fast in a strong magnetic field, water has very little magnetic response." There is a simple experiment to determine whether water is a magnetic field concentrator... simply wind an open-core inductor, and see if the value of the inductance changes when water is inserted as the core material. It does not. - Carl
|
|
#43
03-05-2006, 11:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#44
03-05-2006, 11:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#45
03-06-2006, 12:31 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Even dowsers can invent useful non-dowsing devices! - Carl
|
|
#46
03-06-2006, 12:55 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't know much about the how dowsing works except a few theories I have heard. But one thing seems evident is there are quite a number of dowsers who can find water. It seems a lot more dowsers are able to find water than those who can find other buried objects. Just from the numbers, it would seem that if none of the water-finding dowsers could perform, then nobody would pay them to show where to drill their wells. From what I have seen it seems that water is much easier for a dowser to locate than other objects. When I try to figure what makes water different, the main differences that come to mind is that it is liquid and often flowing underground, unlike other targets that a dowser would try to locate.
One of the theories I have heard is that dowsers are sensitive to changes in the patterns of electromagnetic fields at the surface of the earth. What electormagnetic fields are at the surface of the earth? A lot of them, starting with broadcast radio waves from under 600 khz to the ghx range, in all different signal strengths. These are easily picked up with a commomn radio antenna and heard on a suitable listening device after demodulation. There are also many man-made stray electromagnetic waves caused from power transmission and telemetry, even from friction of man-made vehicles rolling on the ground. We can detect stray signals from high voltage power lines by holding a 4-ft fluorescent light tube in the air under the lines in some locations. There are a number of other naturally occurring fields that can be measured at the earth's surface including electrostatic fields and the earth's magnetic field. There are also other seldom considered eneregies that exist at the surface of the earth like radioactive emissions from within the earth, cosmic rays and and other space energies caused by sunspots, ionosphere, etc. With all these measurable fields at the surface of the earth, is it not possible that some dowsers are more sensitive to sense their presence? I have heard of no known organ in the human body devoted to sensing any of these energies, but is it not possible? One theory of the principles of dowsing says that a dowser is indeed sensing some kind of fields at the surface of the earth. If this theory is correct, then we are talking about a few people who are more sensitive than average at sensing very weak fields existing at the surface of the earth. I suspect that what they are sensicg would be a very small change in the pattern of these fields as they walk around an area. According to this theory, these fields change their pattern where there is an anomoly. For example, we know that radio waves can be reflected by buildings, or they can allign their nodes around buildings or other protruberancecs at the surface of the earth, depending on the frequencies involved. We can easily demonstrate this by tuning a radio to a weak station and moving it through a downtown area to find the weak and strong locations, and multipath distortions. We also can see these weak and strong locations change at different times of the day. Radio transmission engineers routinely change the antenna patterns late in the day to compensate for this effect. But what about the effect of anomolies under the ground? can they influence these fields on the surface? According to some theories they can. The presence of solid matallic objects buried near the surface is considered to be one anomoly that has a local inluence on the patterns of these electromagnetic fields at the surface. Also, according to the proponents of this theory, underground water has a much larger influence. How this works I have no idea. Presumably even the purest water found underground has dissolved minerals and ions in small concentrations. In addition, natural gamma emmisions from deep within the earth are absorbed by water molecules which readily ionize as the result of the absorption. The net effect of this action is that the body of water becomes more ionized, while the surrounding solid materials do not. Thus a body of underground water could concievably be considered an absorber of neutrons and gamma waves and producer of ions in comparison to its surroundings. Even if this is happening in very small concentrations, we have established it is an anomoly which has properties of different ionization, different background radiation, and different chemical composition. Now if this stream is moving, it can be expected to interact with any weak electromagnetic fields it is passing through. In My opinion, the strength of all these fields and ion levels is very weak at best, and hard to measure. It is no where near the power levels of MHD generators. And I have no Idea if dowsers are actually able to sense these weak fields using their bodies and dowsing rods. But I must admit there is a possibility that the electromagnetic fields that exist on the surface of the earth are influenced by underground water. For reference, here are links from another post that shows a hobbyist who built an electronic field detector and was amazed at the strange signals he found around the surface of the ground: http://www.vlf.it/kurt/elf.html http://www.vlf.it/kurt/elf.html http://www.vlf.it/kurt/elf.html http://www.vlf.it/kurt/elf.html
|
|
#47
03-06-2006, 01:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#48
03-06-2006, 02:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I am having a hard time understanding your point Elie. Your train of thought is hard to follow.
After I made several long pages of detailed explanations, you should have been able to grasp what I said about my understanding of dowsing and of a working long range mineral deposit locator. However, you continue to post out of context exerpts that prove no point that I can discern. As near as I can tell you are trying to prove that I am saying gamma spectroscopy is the principle of dowsing, using an out-of context exerpt from an early post I made, while ignoring all the detailed explanations that show otherwise. Is this the case? Is your only point to prove that what I posted can't be correct? The fact is that the book I refer to does represent Dr. Bickel's machine as an electronic dowsing machne, just as I stated. If you ever bother to read the book, you will find that this is true. Neither Dr. Bickel or I ever made a statement that we agree with the representation put forward in this book about his machine being an electronic dowsing machine. I suppose his speciallized scintillator could be called a "dowsing machine" in the loose sense of the word, in that it locates underground anomolies, just as dowsers claim to do. Do you have any real proof that this machine cannot locate underground ore deposits? Do you have any real proof that no dowser has never found underground water more often than a non-dowser would find it with random attempts? If your only proof is to show that some people make fraudulent claims about LRLs this does not prove anything about whether LRLs work or not. If you show that some people sell LRLs, this does not prove that nothing they say has truth in it. Have you considered that Carl sells circuit boards to build PI detectors? By your own style insinuations, does this prove that we can't trust what Carl tells us about metal detectors or electronics? There have been cases of people making fraudulant claims about conventional metal detectors. Does this prove that all metal detectors are worthless and none of them work based on the style "proof" that you use? So far, all I have heard from you are attempts to discredit anyone who has a different opinion than you. I would like to see what proof you have for your apparent opinion that dowsing does not work for finding water. I personally have never seen any dowser or LRL detector locate buried treasures. But I have seen a number of dowsers show people where to drill water wells with a good success rate, much better than random drilling, and better than I would figure on my own. I have 3 specific questions for you: 1. Can you show any proof that dowsers have ablolutely no success at locating water? Can you bring any scientific knowledge to the forum about this without discrediting somebody? Do you actually have any knowledge about this? 2. Do you have any real proof that the machine Dr. Bickel built cannot locate underground ore deposits? Can you prove that he ever said it works on dowsing principles? Or must you rely on that out-of-context exerpt from my post to try to discredit him? 3. Do you actually have any knowledge about dowsing or LRLs that could be used in a constructive manner in this forum? If so please elaborate. I am particularly interested in the scientific proofs that you may have, not attacks on peoples motives or charachters.
|
|
#49
03-06-2006, 09:55 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(And spell "excerpts" correctly.) Quote:
You also wrote, "According to Dr. Bickel, the dowsers are not (in his opinion) sensing gamma radiation directly, but the effects it has on a number of naturally occurring fields that can be sensed on the surface of the earth." This excerpt CLEARLY shows that your assertion that "Neither I nor Dr. Bickel ever said dowsing worked on the same principle as his machine that detected mineral deposits" is FALSE. Quote:
"I did not claim that the machine did not work..." Quote:
This question shows what a hoax dowsing is. You did not write, "Do you have any real proof that a dowser REGULARLY finds underground water more often than a non-dowser would find it with random attempts?" Based on your actual question, if a dowser had a "good day," then that would "prove" that there was something to dowsing. You are grasping at straws! If a type of search is not REGULARY better than a random search, then to claim that there is (or might be) anything to that type of search is to perpetrate a HOAX! Quote:
"I liked the Hammerhead shark image that I found on the web, far better than any other shark image, and I wanted a sorta "official" logo for the project. So, I contacted the illustrator for permission to use the image. Well, it cost a little $$$ to license the image, but it's all legal. I can use the image on the web site, and in articles that I write for the project. I can also use it on the control panel layout, or for other box decals. The illustrator also gives permission for individuals to use the image in their own custom panel designs, or decals, for this project only. If you want to use the image for anything else, please get permission!" In other words, Carl paid out of his own pocket for everyone else to be able to use the logo, for free. Does THAT answer your question? By the way, some of you guys really make me SICK. Carl does more for treasure hunters than just about anyone in the whole world. He runs a treasure hunting website, which he pays for himself, he answers questions about treasure hunting technology, free of charge (and he is a professional electrical engineer), he keeps people (if they LISTEN to him) from spending TONS of money on outright HOAXES (and he does this at great personal expense), he has invested a great deal of time and money in a metal detector project from which he does not make any money (see above), in order to help those who are interested in learning about metal detector technology, and he probably does other things which I do not know about. And what is the result of all this? He is villified (here and elsewhere), and accused of lying, ignorance, stupidity, and having sinister motives for trying to help people. You guys should be ASHAMED of yourselves. Quote:
See above and below. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#50
03-06-2006, 11:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hey Elie,
You have made a really long post which seems like another example of your trying to prove that only you are right and those with a different opinion are wrong. You are repeating your "out of context" quote conerning what principle Dr. Bickel's machine works on. Again you cleverly fail to include the later part of my post where my final statement was "All of what I described above is theory, and has no basis in fact, except the data that was collected by researchers, and the machine that the German scientist built on this principle, which can locate gold under the earth." Rather than taking responsibility for your error you try to blame your misconstrued interpretations on me? "It is my fault"? And at thae same time your are asserting you grasped what I said about my understanding of dowsing and a working long range locator? It seems to me that the point of your post is to prove that you ar right, and those whe have a differing opinion are wrong, using whatever means you can muster, including focusing on spelling errors. If your main point is that long range locators are hoaxes, I couldn't find it in your last post. I agree that Carl is one of the best assets that the treasure hunters have anywhere on the internet. And I am also a skeptic when it comes to spending money for LRLs. But the funny thing is I have never seen anyone show that LRLs don't work with hard evidence except Carl who disected some of these machines, and pointed out an individual whose LRL was analyzed by Sandia Labs. What Carl and others proved is that there are individuals selling paraphanalia that has non-functional electronic circuits, and that the particular devices tested did not function as their manufacturers specified. I have heard no concrete explanations that prove the general principle of LRLs can't work. Unlike Carl, you have focused your efforts on discrediting people who dare to have a different opinion than you. Apparently you have no interenst in learning what the LRL proponents have to say. This is of no concern to me. But in all your last lengthy post, I can't find any concise answers to the questions I asked, except the question about water dowsing, and it seems you are now saying you don't disagree that Dr. Bickel's machine can locate ore deposits. I am still wondering what "scientific" facts you have to substantiate these opinions you have advanced. I have only two questions. I Am not looking for any more of your clever methods of mis-quoting me or non-answers in the form of more questions. I am loking only the answers to these 2 questions: 1. If you can offer some scientific evidence that water dowsing does not work, then let's hear it. 2. Can you offer any scientific evidence that LRL detection cannot work? Lets hear the science you have to prove it.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
