Attention Examiner users

[Mike(Mont)]

I'm sure Carl remembers Ranger saying the calculator had to be in the exact position. The point is the calculator does do something. That report has a few holes in it like a sieve.

[hung]

Hey Mike, thanks for the video link.

Originally Posted by Mike(Mont)

Ithe calculator had to be in the exact position. The point is the calculator does do something. That report has a few holes in it like a sieve.

Yes the calculator is the function/frequency generator, although the examiner circuit delivers only microvolts, it's sufficient for the purpose of this kind of concept, although with changes it can be increased.

You are correct again, the calculator's clock circuit has to be exactly over the antenna inductors, otherwise response will be sluggish. I tried positioning the calculator in different places in my unit and response was almost null except when placing the clock circuit (key pad portion) halfway over the box, exactly how it's supposed to come from factory.

I dont know why all the fuss about the role the calculator plays. Any layman can open the examiner circuit box, position the probes of a multimeter and see changes in reading when the antenna points to something or the frequency is input in the calculator. Also, if you get rid of the calculator and take it off, the examiner won't work. Believe me, I tried. Interestingly enough, several weeks ago, I traded emails with a long time dowser who also has an examiner. He enphatically said whatever it is, he is sure it's not dowsing at all.

Regards.

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by Fred

I have a curious mind, so i did try.
I get the sound from the calculator, but no interference from metallic objects.I tried with both strong and a weak stations, i didnt understood what the guy said about this.
Anyway he is obviously hiding (and using) his thumb for some reason,however i dont think only messing with the volume would be enought to get this sound...
It is possible that by mixing the calculator oscillator circuit with one of the local oscillators inside the radio he is making a BFO detector.In that case working or not would depend of the radio and calculator circuits.
Fred.

I wonder if this experiment came from here -> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sneakier-Use...6626844&sr=1-1

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by hung

Interestingly enough, several weeks ago, I traded emails with a long time dowser who also has an examiner. He enphatically said whatever it is, he is sure it's not dowsing at all.

Regards.

Well, that settles it then.

If a dowser says that the Examiner does not function by dowsing ... then it must be true.

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by Mike(Mont)

Maybe after Carl sees this he will consider a total revamp of his Examiner report. How about it, Carl? Nothing wrong with admitting you made a big mistake. It's a whole lot better than denial.

Can you specify what part of my report is in error?

[Mike(Mont)]

Carl, to start with you say the calculator does nothing and there is no induction.

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by Mike(Mont)

Carl, to start with you say the calculator does nothing and there is no induction.

True, I do state that there can be no induction -- not because the calculator doesn't produce a potential signal (I even state that it does), but rather:

The web site goes on to claim that the calculator couples to the circuitry inside the black box via induction, with the meandering piece of wire as the primary side of the "transformer". But this piece of wire is not connected to anything, and therefore is not part of any closed circuit, and cannot possibly support inductive coupling.

Mike, do you agree or disagree that a disconnected piece of wire cannot support inductive coupling? Or do you just not know?

If there is no inductive coupling, then the claims made about the calculator being able to "program" the other circuitry is false, and therefore the calculator does nothing useful.

My report is accurate on these points. Any other errors?

- Carl

[hung]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

Mike, do you agree or disagree that a disconnected piece of wire cannot support inductive coupling? Or do you just not know?

Whaaat?
Well I'm not Mike, but in this question:... Is the wire bent or straight?.. Lies your answer.

If there is no inductive coupling, then the claims made about the calculator being able to "program" the other circuitry is false, and therefore the calculator does nothing useful.

My report is accurate on these points. Any other errors?

- Carl

With all respect to you Carl, with the inteligence and reputation you have, you could do better than that.
I don't know about Mike, but I don't need to answer this to you.

Regards.

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by Mike(Mont)

I thought this was interesting. It uses a calculator to provide a signal.

http://www.geekarmy.com/cool/Homemad...-Detector.html

Originally Posted by Qiaozhi

The video either shows some interaction between the calculator and the AM radio caused by EMI or, as joecoin says, the guy is "... manipulating the volume with his thumb ...".

Does anyone here have a small AM radio to hand? This would be a very simple experiment to try.

This little experiment does work, and has been around at least since the 1960's. In my "vintage" detector collection, I have a "Ross" from the 70's, which is literally an AM radio, slightly modified with a search coil. There have been several BFO magazine projects which have a simple Colpitts oscillator for the TX, and an AM radio for the RX.

This experiment works best if either the oscillator is easy to shift (like a Colpitts), or the receiver (like a poor AM radio design). A calculator uses a crystal oscillator so it's not going to shift, therefore you need a cheesy AM radio to get a decent BFO operation. But sure, it will work. Distances are on the order of an inch or less.

I own a Radio Shack AM radio ("Flavoradio"), which happens to be identical to the AM radio stuffed inside the Treasure Scope Raven LRL.
This is one of the last AM-only radio designs and uses a pretty stable AM radio-on-a-chip, so it does not make for a good BFO when used with a calculator. But it will still "beat" with the calculator and produce a buzz. When you move a metal target nearby, the volume (not frequency) of the buzz decreases, because the metal is stealing induction energy from the radio. So it works more like an off-resonance design.

Now for the funny part...

"What calculator did you use, Carl?"

Well, since you asked, I used the Karce calculator from my Ranger-Tell Examiner. It has an all-plastic case, so the RFI leaks out unimpeded and the experiment works as I described.

But wait... I have a second Examiner, which uses the HP-6S calculator. This calculator has an all-metal case: solid on the back, and with lots of holes on the front for the buttons and display. With the front of the HP facing the AM radio, the holes for the buttons leak enough RFI for the experiment to work.

"But Carl, what happens when the HP's solid metal back is facing the AM radio, the way it faces the "induction circuitry" inside the Examiner?"

Good question! Nothing happens. The metal back blocks the RFI, and the experiment fails.

So, if you're still inclined to believe the Examiner's calculator couples a signal into the internal circuitry, it is probably worth pointing out the stupidity of using a calculator with a metal case that blocks that very "signal".

- Carl

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by hung

Well I'm not Mike, but in this question:... Is the wire bent or straight?.. Lies your answer.

I'll let you explain what difference that makes.

"My report is accurate on these points. Any other errors?"

I don't know about Mike, but I don't need to answer this to you.

No problem. If you can't point out any errors, then I'll accept that.

- Carl

[hung]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

The metal back blocks the RFI, and the experiment fails.

Regarding the Examiner, it makes no difference if the calculator's back is made of metal or not.
It's the magnetic component which has to pass and this, not even a Faraday Cage will block.

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by hung

Regarding the Examiner, it makes no difference if the calculator's back is made of metal or not.
It's the magnetic component which has to pass and this, not even a Faraday Cage will block.

Are you saying that the "signal" from the calculator is actually a static magnetic field. Really? Seriously?

And, again, why does the disconnected wire need to be twisty?

I can't make this stuff up...

- Carl

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

This little experiment does work, and has been around at least since the 1960's. In my "vintage" detector collection, I have a "Ross" from the 70's, which is literally an AM radio, slightly modified with a search coil. There have been several BFO magazine projects which have a simple Colpitts oscillator for the TX, and an AM radio for the RX.

Yes - that's ye simple olde idea for a metal detector.
However, I was wondering how this could be the same principle as the calculator-based detector shown in the video, even though the rate of beeping changed.

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

This is one of the last AM-only radio designs and uses a pretty stable AM radio-on-a-chip, so it does not make for a good BFO when used with a calculator. But it will still "beat" with the calculator and produce a buzz. When you move a metal target nearby, the volume (not frequency) of the buzz decreases, because the metal is stealing induction energy from the radio. So it works more like an off-resonance design.

Personally I didn't think the video was a fake, as this same project is mentioned in the book "Sneakier Uses For Everyday Things".
Anyway, it's good that you can confirm its authenticity.

[Mike(Mont)]

Yes, we could get into an argument about what "the calculator does nothing useful" means or how induction works on a disconnected wire (think of a chain of paperclips near a magnet), but since it was under the heading of "The Truth" most people would assume the author to be some kind of authority on LRL's. It's always been my opinion a non-golfer does not make a good golf club tester. I also suggest Carl do some more homework on force fields. The ranger-tell website has a diagram on the "How it works" page.

I understand some people cannot learn how to use a locator rod. Maybe they expect too much. Hold a neodymium magnet out at arms length (north seeking pole facing away), close your eyes and turn around and try to feel where north is. Like with all rod work, be casual, be cool but be ready/aware.

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by Mike(Mont)

Yes, we could get into an argument about what "the calculator does nothing useful" means or how induction works on a disconnected wire (think of a chain of paperclips near a magnet)...

Mike, do you understand that the attraction a static magnetic field has on paper clips is not an example of induction?

Do you understand that the oscillator in a calculator produces an alternating electromagnetic field, not a static magnetic field?

Do you understand that a disconnected piece of wire cannot possibly form part of an induction transformer?

These are not minor nuances we can disagree about, these are very fundamental concepts that are well-known and well-understood by science. If you don't understand these, then taking the time to learn about them will be far more rewarding than simply saying everyone else has to be wrong.

The ranger-tell website has a diagram on the "How it works" page.

Which is completely made-up, and completely laughable.

I'll ask again: Can you point out any errors in my report? Hung couldn't.

- Carl

[Mike(Mont)]

I'm not saying this is exact, but the diagram attempts to explain the fields involved. Howard Johnson's magnetics studies might give you some insight.
http://www.rangertell.com/fieldfx.htm

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by Mike(Mont)

I'm not saying this is exact, but the diagram attempts to explain the fields involved. http://www.rangertell.com/fieldfx.htm

Mike, do you understand that this is all made-up? Fabricated? Fake? Concocted? Pretend? Make-believe? Bogus?

Howard Johnson's magnetics studies might give you some insight.

Do you understand that trying to prove pseudoscience with other pseudoscience doesn't work, either?

Can you point out any errors in my report? If you can't do it, just say, "I can't do it."

- Carl

[Fred]

Mike,i have followed your link, it is really filled with BS.
You are making yourself ridiculous by trying ti defend such "explanations"
A least i found one phrase funny.I resumes the whole page:
"When asked whether electrical energy flowed form (+) to (-) or (–) to (+), he determined that electrical energy flowed both ways. The only difference was the polarity."

Fred.

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by Mike(Mont)

I'm not saying this is exact, but the diagram attempts to explain the fields involved. Howard Johnson's magnetics studies might give you some insight.
http://www.rangertell.com/fieldfx.htm

Howard Johnson is the man who believes he can build a permanent magnet motor, which is essentially a perpetual motion machine. I do not think examining HJ's magnetics studies will provide the remotest insight into anything useful, or (in fact) anything non-useful, like a placing a cheap calculator next to a disconnected piece of wire.

[hung]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

Can you point out any errors in my report? Hung couldn't.

- Carl

Of course I couldn't. I was out of town. But now I can.

[hung]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

Are you saying that the "signal" from the calculator is actually a static magnetic field. Really? Seriously?

I can't make this stuff up...

- Carl

Your question above indicates you don't know what a static magnetic field is or at least you got a wrong conception.
Tell me, what sources produce a static magnetic field in the first place?

[hung]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

Mike, do you understand that the attraction a static magnetic field has on paper clips is not an example of induction?

In the standard model?

Do you understand that the oscillator in a calculator produces an alternating electromagnetic field, not a static magnetic field?

No. They produce both. If you state this, then you probably wil not answer correctly the question of the previous post.

Your errors in that report.
I can think of two from the start. First you claim the calculator has no role in the examiner concept.
Thas is false. The calculator provides the frequency and function signals which is amplified by the circuit. although emplyoung diminute charges.

Second mistake, you claim the circuit is bogus and does nothing useful.

This shows you did not understand the concept and the lack of understanding makes you go the easier way. The one of denying it.

With a multimeter you can measure voltage variances when calculator is input in a frequency to the pointing target. If you remove the calculator from the box, there will be no acticvity. I believe you can get some results in an oscope, although I did not try this, cause I don’t have one at hand.

[hung]

First and most important.

If you don't have any knowledge in the ECE theory and metaphysics, as you show you don't, then there's not what discuss. It will be like discussing quantum physics using using obsolete models or discussing the general theory of relativity from a static perspective.

You understand what I'm saying Carl?
First of all the static magnetic field is just the field that it's not dependent of time. Electricity and magnetism are independent phenomena as long as charges and current are static, but not that it behaves as the classical static magnetic field.

The B(3) spin field is the magnetic flux density generated by the spin
connection of a space-time with torsion. It signals the fact that
electrodynamics is a sector of a generally covariant unified field theory.
This magnetic flux density is defined by:
F = d ^ A + omega ^ A

[hung]

In Maxwell Heaviside field theory:

F = d ^ A

Omega is missing , so this is not consistent part of general relativity because it does not define a B(3) field and is Lorentz covariant only, not geneally covariant. In ECE theory the B(3) field is part of the omega ^ A term and is observed experimenetally in many ways, because the electromagnetic phase is defined by B(3). This is also observed in the magnetization of matter by an electromagnetic field (the inverse Faraday effect).

Without the B(3) field there can be no generally covariant unified field theory as required by the fundamental philosophy of relativity.

This is an example how some aspects cannot be viewed through the standard model. And also blocks the complete understanding of what the examiner concept might be dealing with. Now, I'm not stating the examiner is a complex device, etc. Far from that. I even seriously doubt its inventor had all of this in mind when he developed.
The examiner is not a finished project in my view but it deals with a great concept which has a long road ahead.

[hung]

The examiner is not perfect and I agree it has some pitfalls, yet as it is, allowed me and my team to find a treasure in a cave (I already told this case) and lately led us in the correct direction of the hystorical treasure of several months ago.

I’m not defending the examiner or it’s manufacturer. Don’t need to. I’m about to have my own system, but I feel the critic towards is completely unjustified.


I would be lying if I told that I completely understand the examiner. Of course not. But the knowledge I gathered applying what I already knew of physics, metaphysics, radionics, etc. allowed me to modify the unit to work without human interaction. If the examiner did not work, then also my mod would not. And it does.