|
|
#26
03-24-2011, 03:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
On another thread Tim said NMR frequencies have nothing to do with MFD. I just thought I would mention this here as a sort of disclaimer.
I also want to reinterate MFD is not exactly like a radio transmitter and receiver as many of the skeptics seem to imagine. However the signal line works, it somehow acts as an antenna. Why does it take time to build up? If it was just a radio signal reflection it would take no time. From what I know about resonance, it does not have to be exact--maybe this is why it takes some time to build. 
|
|
#27
03-24-2011, 03:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've done work with an electronic receiver and another coil I built. The signal line (or whatever you want to call it) is there. I have not been able to pick it up with the typical low power MFD. That's L-rod territory. I was able to boost the output and pick up a weaker signal. So I would say it's a power issue. Most MFD's run on very low power and there is a reason for this.
|
|
#28
03-24-2011, 03:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#29
03-24-2011, 05:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Hi Mike What is signal line? What is inside of receiver circuit ? is it tuned receiver on main transmitter frequency ? Best regards.
|
|
#30
03-24-2011, 07:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't have an exact definition of what a signal line is, but it must be some kind of concentration of lines of force that develop between an MFD transmitter and the target. My understanding is it is magnetic. That's what is detected when a person with L-rods walks around the transmitter. I do not know what is inside an electronic receiver.
|
|
#31
03-24-2011, 10:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 with the "guessing"
__________________
Geo
|
|
#32
03-24-2011, 10:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 There is no problem with anyone wanting to try out dowsing for themselves, or even believing that perhaps it actually works. I also certainly have no problem with anyone wanting to experiment with LRLs. Indeed, I have even been known to encourage it.  It's just the totally ludicrous pseudo-scientific claptrap, that certain people insist on spreading around the internet, which is particularly obnoxious. And (of course) the people / companies that aim to profit from such ignorance, especially when it can lead to loss of life. So ... dowsing or LRLs for fun ... go ahead. But post outlandish theories on the Geotech forums, and prepare to get challenged! 
|
|
#33
03-24-2011, 10:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
How may inches ya reckon that MFD "transmitter" is transmitting? Good grief
|
|
#34
03-25-2011, 12:55 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I can get 5 cm range whether I check the plain oscillator wire or if I connect the oscillator to an L-Rod. (It works as long as there is not too much electrical noise in the air to swamp the signal). The problem is I can detect my cheapest metal detector magnetic signal with the same alligator clip from least 3 times farther.  Wait... I figgered it out... Metal detector field is designed to reach a farther distance than a 5v audio oscillator signal field on a wire. No wonder.  Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#35
03-25-2011, 01:36 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#36
03-25-2011, 08:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
But my PI detector sends a signal to the alligator clip even though yer sposta use a coil to pick up magnetic signals. I think it is inducing eddy currents in the clip up to about 8-9 inches enough make a signal I can see on the oscilloscope screen. It might work better if I took the detector away in a field somewhere where there's less noise and use a battery power instrument to test it. Hmmm.... I wonder if that eddy current principle could be used to find buried treasure? Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#38
03-25-2011, 02:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can't help you and I don't think it's an electronics issue--more like physics or rather paraphysics. How the human body can detect something that weak is obviously beyond your comprehension.
|
|
#39
03-25-2011, 03:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
But I encourage you to detect somewhere good radiating physics textbook using your LRL scaming devices.
__________________
Global capital is ruining your life? You have right to self-defence!
|
|
#40
03-25-2011, 03:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not only is it beyond your comprehension, but you don't even realize it is beyond your comprehension. Where does that leave things? Get some books and read up on it if you really want to know.
|
|
#41
03-25-2011, 03:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Global capital is ruining your life? You have right to self-defence!
|
|
#42
03-25-2011, 04:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The term "remote sensing" is used to describe scientifically viable methods of detecting geophysical anomalies from a distance. It is also used to describe the less scientific method of "long-range locating", which is engulfed in controversy. So (whether you like it or not) the majority of members here are interested in real demonstrable facts, not pseudo-scientific gobbledygook. Perhaps you are able to leave 'commonsense' at the door, but others here are not. This is why you are frequently challenged to provide hard evidence. Simply stating that it is beyond our comprehension is just laughable.
|
|
#43
03-25-2011, 04:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#44
03-25-2011, 04:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
All ionising Radiations are basically high energetic electromagnetic wave at specific frequencies. So you say, that human body cannot detect high energetic frequencies, but can detect very, very, very low energetic frequencies. Send your Supersensinics book back asap.
__________________
Global capital is ruining your life? You have right to self-defence! Last edited by WM6; 03-25-2011 at 05:39 PM. Reason: clarification
|
|
#45
03-25-2011, 05:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Here is where it leaves things: 1. You continue to make statements that you can locate things from long distance with your dowsing rods, yet you cannot. The proof is that you are incapable of passing a test to prove you can, and you refuse to demonstrate that you can. Further, all other people who say they can dowse or they can locate things from a long distance also refuse to demonstrate that they can pass a test to prove it. Every person who does try an actual scientific double blind test to find distant hidden objects fail to find them except for a few random coincidences that show they can do no better than a person who is guessing the location. 2. How you can fail to locate things at a long distance is beyond your comprehension. But how you could be successful at finding things at a long distance is also beyond your comprehension. After reading several years of your explanations it becomes apparent that nobody knows what you are talking about including yourself. This is not surprising when you study a few books which promote weird nonsense like the importance of the magnetic alignment of your bones. There is some hope if you ever care to try it: You could read textbooks which explain the nature of science, and seem to actually work in practice instead of failing every time. In fact the mainstream science books teach principles that work so well that you can demonstrate them working instead of refusing to because you are afraid of people pointing and laughing. The thing you cannot comprehend is that it is not only you who cannot pass a test to prove dowsing and long range locating works. The people who write the weird books you read cannot pass a test to prove it either. Nobody can prove dowsing and LRL detection works better than guessing. Prove me wrong. Here is a video that shows what happens when some really good dowsers try to prove it works: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2885649996034# 3. To say that a skeptic doesn't even realize it is beyond his comprehension is a stupid thing to say. Of course skeptics realize it is beyond their comprehension of how dowsing can work. It is also beyond the comprehension of dowsing promoters how it can work. Nobody knows how it can work because it does not work. If it did, then people could take a simple test to prove it. But nobody can. Not a skeptic, and not the best dowsers. Everyone realizes this fact, including skeptics and dowsing promoters. This fact is within everyone's comprehension and realization. It is also within everyone's comprehension that how dowsing could work cannot be explained unless we enter the field of magic and tricks. Could this be the reason why nobody can pass a test to prove that it works? Is this why the only explanations how it could work depend on stating some really stupid theories to explain how it work, and then making certain that nobody can see you proving these theories work (or fail to work) in practice? I think you are wrong when you say skeptics don't even realize that dowsing is beyond their comprehension. They realize very well that dowsing, magic, and other tricks can all be explained by the art of illusions, which are best left to magicians and talented showmen rather than amateurs who want us to believe science explains it. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#46
03-25-2011, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In the link below, both circles and both squares are the exact same color.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:op...ange_brown.svg
|
|
#47
03-25-2011, 11:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 But the real lesson here is how easily the human brain can be deceived. In fact quite similar to dowsing. Look how a simple test, using an image manipulation program, proves the circles and squares are actually the same, despite appearances. No need for extra-sensory perception, or things that go bump in the night. Just a simple computer program.The lesson for today is "don't trust your senses". They can be tricked so easily. This is the reason we (the skeptics) use double-blind testing to reveal the true reality. You should try it sometime. It could save you a lot of unnecessarily wasted time reading books on mysticism and paraphysics. By the way, if this was supposed to be your trump card, I'm afraid you'll need to do better than that. Thanks for sharing though. It's a very good optical illusion. 
|
|
#48
03-26-2011, 03:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Okay, I won't post anymore. I don't drink whiskey but I thought the lyrics were appropriate.
Click "play" http://www.reverbnation.com/artist/song_details/2760771
|
|
#49
03-26-2011, 12:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I know that a frequency generator will not transmit/broadcast a signal several hundred feet downrange and cause a reaction with an atom/molecule. That is an electronics issue.
|
|
#50
03-26-2011, 08:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
If we go back to the beginning post #1 we can read how I started this thread to learn about some details of MFD frequencies, not to argue about whether MFD works or not.
Yet we see that anything related to MFD usually leads to attracting discussions of whether it works or not instead of talking about the frequencies that people use for MFD oscillators. Quote:
Quote:
But we learned some new things about the frequencies used for MFD methods: 1. MFD methods use NMR frequencies According to Tim Williams, MFD methods use the same frequencies that we can find in a NMR table, and we are correct to adjust the frequency found in the table for the local magnetic field and temperature. 2. The NMR frequency must be calculated for the exact magnetic field This need for calculating the frequency was confirmed by "LRL Man" Tim Williams. Also, according to Carl-NC, there is no need to correct for temperature, only for the magnetic field. I checked this and found it to be correct for all practical purposes. The temperature can cause a negligible variation in frequency (parts per million change) as reported by some scientists for temperatures usually found on earth. In order to see any noticeable change of frequency, the temperature must be brought near absolute zero. So Carl is correct... we only need to check the local magnetic field strength in order to find the NMR frequency for any element buried in the ground with good precision. 3. The NMR frequency cannot be expected to be the same at different locations and at different times. The frequencies will wander above and below the frequency we expect because the magnetic field strength of the earth wanders above and below the single value we usue in our equation to determine the frequency. This variation in magnetic field strength is expected as we move to different locations along the magnetic circuit of the earth, but it is also caused by variations in the earth material, (other objects and minerals buried, or above ground that can concentrate the earth's magnetic field). And it is also caused by fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field strength that vary with the time all over the earth. The result of these variations is the earth's field in one location can be more than double than what it is in another location. And then when we measure the field strength a few hours later, we see it can change significantly to the point that the NMR frequency has changed. What this all means is we can rely on a chart for the local magnetic field strength to show only an average for our area. The variations within a city can be up to double what the average is. This is especially true of places that have geographical faults and folds. The only way to get an accurate idea of the magnetic field to use for NMR calculations is to measure it at the time and in the location where you want to know the frequency. Any other approximation is likely to give you the wrong NMR frequency. 4. Objects that are buried or on the ground do not have a precise MNR frequency The exact NMR frequency of any element buried in the ground or sitting on the ground can be expected to be a poor resolution frequency, meaning the atoms are not resonating at one single frequency. This is because the earth's magnetic field is not uniform. There are buried rocks, minerals and sands as well as other objects which distort the earth's magnetic field to make anomalies in the field where your target element is buried. These earth field anomalies cause the NMR frequency to become more broadband instead of a single precise frequency. 5. The NMR frequency is extremely difficult to measure unless the sample is placed in a very strong magnetic field NMR measurements are usually done in coil set to at least 350 times stronger than the earth field in a laboratory. When an element is measured only in the earth field, nearly all the NMR signal is canceled by opposing forces within the atoms. So any amount of unbalanced resonance signal you could measure is extremely weak. The result is any NMR signal you try to measure is lost in noise (noise from external sources is detected at the NMR frequency rather than resonance from the atom when scientists attempted to measure the NMR in an earth field). It appears the NMR frequency of different elements can be used to identify an element in a laboratory, but would be useless to identify elements in the earth field. We also see most people who use MFD methods are set for single frequencies which are very unlikely to be the NMR frequency of the element they are searching for. This leads to speculation that maybe the MFD users are not detecting the nuclear magnetic resonance of the elements they are searching for. A more refined way to tune an oscillator to the NMR frequency was reported by Mike(Mont): Quote:
This calculation will give us only the average NMR frequency for a general area, not for the location and time where he is standing with his MFD oscillator. The calculated magnetic field could be off by up to 50% anywhere in the general area due to the natural variations. And by simply walking a quarter mile you could find the magnetic field and NMR frequency has changed by 50%. The magnetic field strength could also change another 5-10% during the day as the earth's field strength changes. In other words, we have no assurance that we are tuned to the correct NMR frequency unless we measure the field where we are standing unless we measure it. Is this the end of the theory that MFD oscillators are resonating with the nuclear magnetic resonance of elements? It certainly does not appear to be possible, considering nobody I know of has ever taken steps to insure their oscillators are even tuned to the NMR frequency. What would happen if you were to tune a low voltage oscillator to a NMR frequency? Would it would be impossible to tune a resonant signal from the oscillator wire through the air or ground to a group of distant atoms? Not by any known theory of electronics or physics (see 4 and 5 above). But what about magical parapsychology theories? Again, no. Why? Assuming that for some people these magical powers exist, they are looking to identify the location of an element which is resonating at the frequency they set their MFD oscillator to. But we know it is virtually impossible that this is the NMR frequency of the element they are searching for unless they used a calibrated magnetometer to check the field first. In addition, the NMR signal from elements in an earth field is so minuscule that it is smaller than the noise signals which would easily be orders of 10 larger than any trace of a NMR signal. And who knows where the noise is coming from? The sky? A junk pile inside a shed? An empty hole? Who cares where the noise comes from? What is important is we know the element does not have the same NMR frequency as the MFD oscillator. And if it did, there would be a lot of noise from different directions at that same frequency which is stronger than the target resonance to confuse the treasure hunter. It all points to the theory that MFD users are not detecting NMR frequencies of elements. But we also have another reason to speculate that the MFD users are not detecting the nuclear magnetic resonance of the elements they are searching for: Quote:
If it is true, then what what frequencies are used in MFD? Best wishes, J_P
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
