|
|
#26
10-27-2011, 10:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Dear friends, wm6,max,j-p,mosha and....
I was confused account of the discussions you Please give me a schematic of this type of detector?  In general, a circular coil connected to an input amplifier Perry is causing the waves emitted by metal buried beneath the soil to reveal???: 
|
|
#27
10-27-2011, 10:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi guys,
go and read the antenna basics before making any speculations and assumptions. And consider the following fact: A similar comparison to the astronomy: Your detector is detecting only to micro wave and infra red spectrum. But you want to detect small particles. The emission (TX) isn't absorbed by the small particles, they "ride" with the EM waves. The small particles aren't visible to your detector. Transfer this to the frequency spectrum VLF. All the small targets can't be detected really. They don't either absorb nor reflect the TX emissions. They are completely invisible to the very long EM waves. To understand it better, look at the reflector part of directional antenna basics. When does a reflector reflects EM waves? Radios & LRL's aren't metal detectors! All this LRL stuff is bull$hit. It is what it is: bull$hit. Enough bull$hit guys. Aziz
|
|
#28
10-27-2011, 10:22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Global capital is ruining your life? You have right to self-defence!
|
|
#29
10-27-2011, 10:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Global capital is ruining your life? You have right to self-defence!
|
|
#30
10-27-2011, 10:40 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Wave length wl = c/f [m], c = speed of light [m/s] f = frequency of EM wave [1/s] Put f=100 kHz and let's see, what wave length wl is: wl = (300 000 000 m/s) / (100 000 /s) = 3000 m. Oh $hit, our gold ring is a small particle now!!!! Oh $hit!  Aziz
|
|
#31
10-27-2011, 11:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
All wave lenght are pretty same reflective from small metall target (on same field strenght). The main difference is in its dispersivity on reflection (depend on angle of incidence). Short wave lenght are very little dispersive from same metalic surface in comparition of long wavelenght. So it was possible to beat down 10m invisible aircraft with 100m (3MHz) wave lenght radar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-frequency_radar
__________________
Global capital is ruining your life? You have right to self-defence!
|
|
#33
10-27-2011, 12:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
There is a free antenna simulating software available. It's called 4nec2 ( http://home.ict.nl/~arivoors/Home.htm ). You can use the free NEC2 engines (modules).
Just make a simple VLF TX antenna over a ground plane (ground) and look at the radiation pattern. Compare this radiation pattern with a gold coin placed somewhere (not much far away to see more difference). That would be a good lecture lesson I think. But I suppose, it's beyond the scope of LRL believers. Don't spread bull$hit please. We have too much bull$hit in the world. Aziz
|
|
#36
10-27-2011, 03:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
yes, long waves are not really reflected by small metallic masses, not dubt about but that doesn't mean their presence couldn't cause some alteration in propagation of such waves e.g. in the soil, even not considering the presence of an "halo" effect due to the target and we cannot take into account cause nobody really knows if there is or how to model. It's not that easy to liquidate the topic... as an example I can say that e.g. 30 GHz microwaves propagation (10mm wavelength) is strongly affected by particulate in fog... but I don't see any fog particle anything near 10mm in diameter but maybe 1000 times less!  it's the overall effect that we are interested in, we are not talking of a standard solid "reflector" here, cause it's obvious can't work for such small stuff and so long wavelength; but maybe the effect of the metallic mass in soil is "larger" than the mass dimensions itself... think e.g. not only at "halo" but at earth currents that may develop and interfere with signal propagation, or think e.g. at eventual absorbance of RF by nanoparticles of the dispersed metal in soil e.g. in the case of copper or silver... so, probably all LRL topic is BS cause it's related to scum activities and people without a good understanding of physics, but maybe is good considering the whole scenario before liquidating as BS the rf propagation for small stuff topic...  regards Max
__________________
"Kill for gain or shoot to maim... But we dont need a reason " someone said...
|
|
#37
10-27-2011, 03:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 regards Max
__________________
"Kill for gain or shoot to maim... But we dont need a reason " someone said...
|
|
#39
10-27-2011, 04:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
In order to understand how these VLF circuits can detect you must first take a look at the near-field propagation for loop antennas. The mechanics are a bit different than far-field propagation. In your argument you make an assumption that is not true. These transmitters and receivers are not beeping at small particles. They are beeping at large volumes of soil. It is not possible for a VLF to detect a coin for example. But it is very possible to detect a larger anomaly in the chemical/electrical properties of the soil. Of course, even when we move to the higher VLF frequencies, we still have a hard time to detect a large anomaly in the soil, so we don't expect the usual geologist's 10-20 KHz frequencies to be the most suitable for this application. In fact we see most VLF experimenters using transmitters in the 60-120 KHz range who report they are finding some sort of results from more than a meter distance. Keep in mind these frequencies are not used for imaging. They are only claiming they observe beeping when pointing the direction of ground with a long-time buried metal object. I am very familiar with antenna basics and with near field propagation from a VLF loop. What most people don't understand is these transmitters and receivers are not detecting any small object. They are detecting anomalies that come from much larger volumes of soil which have changed electrically as a result of chemical actions around the buried object. It is well documented that even gold dissolves into the soil in small amounts, due to chemical actions of soil constituents. But this also applies to copper, aluminum, iron, silver, lead, zinc, and any other metals that are found buried. We can expect the copper and silver which is usually alloyed in a buried gold object to be polluting the local area of soil more than the concentration of gold dissolved. However I do not put this forth as a theory. There are hundreds of scientist and lab technicians all over the world who have already measured the chemical changes I talk about. By measuring these anomalies in the soil, technicians have been consistently locating gold ores and other metals that have been long-time buried below the anomalies for decades. You can read more about this here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...0&postcount=10 http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...9&postcount=33 http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...4&postcount=41 I do not even claim that this large volume of altered ground is what the VLF detectors are detecting. I speculate this is related to the reports of beeping from 2 meters distance or more. I actually suspect there is more involved than simply beeping at some electrically altered ground. Near field VLF wave propagation is also influenced by some related electrical events that are taking place on the surface where we find soil with anomalies in the electrical properties. I don't think any simple VLF survey equipment as used by a geologist will adequately detect these soil anomalies I am talking about. I believe it takes a specially modified version moved to a higher frequency and adapted for directional surveying and a few other details before they begin to become detectable. But this is only my thinking. At this point nobody has offered a complete theory how any of this could work or not work. So it is only a bunch of talk. Except for one thing... If VLF is not capable of detecting as I speculate, then what is causing Morgan's VLF detector to beep 2 meters distance from the buried gold medal which has been buried a long time in his test garden? I watched the video like everyone else, when he had an un-convinced electronic engineer as witness who became convinced after trying it himself. The way I see it we can either say it does not work and is bs, or we can wonder what caused the beeping. I have heard enough reports of VLF detecting at more than 2 meters distance to convince me it is worth investigating a little more before deciding a VLF machine cannot produce beeps from a few meters distance. It can't be that hard to put a scope on the detector stage of a VLF locator to see what is changing in the signal when you point it toward some buried metal. Maybe it is easier to holler BS and pretend it is not possible for the ground to be altered around buried metals and cause some beeping. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#41
10-27-2011, 06:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You make another mistake. I have not given an explanation at all. I simply showed what was wrong with your argument. I showed how you ignored some chemical/electrical events which happen in the ground around metals which have been buried a long time. And I showed that there is an overwhelming body of evidence that buried metals are routinely detected by technicians measuring these anomalies. I did not prove that VLF detects small particles, in fact I stated it cannot. But I did ask a question that you did not answer. And I ask it again... If VLF is not capable of detecting as I speculate, then what is causing Morgan's VLF detector to beep 2 meters distance from the buried gold medal which has been buried a long time in his test garden? I have heard other people give answers to this question. What is yours? Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#42
10-27-2011, 06:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
J P
A brilliant post especially for anyone like me who didn’t understand how VLF works. Also the links all about Gold in the ground and what happens to it. Have you actually made and tested a VLF unit? Great info thanks.
|
|
#44
10-27-2011, 06:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Global capital is ruining your life? You have right to self-defence!
|
|
#45
10-27-2011, 07:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Don't you know the answer??? A hiden telecontrol Regards Btw... very good post..... 
__________________
Geo
|
|
#46
10-27-2011, 07:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
J P
This subject just got me thinking “and that’s hard work for me ha ha” Its common knowledge to any one like me who has been metal detecting using a standard motion detector since 1970, that in damp ground conditions most metallic targets underground give a more positive signal than when ground conditions are very dry, we understand that this is caused by the hallow in the soil around the target? So I was surprised to read some where in this forum, that using a VLF unit in damp or moist conditions is not good? Also using a VLF unit in overcast sky’s not good? Maybe you can explain why.
|
|
#48
10-27-2011, 07:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Of course I can read. I read you still did not answer my question. Should I take your answer to mean you believe Morgan's video is fake? Or do you mean something different? Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#49
10-27-2011, 07:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I suggest you read something about antenna basics, EM wave propagation, etc., etc. . You can't read. Otherwise, you would write my name correct! Aziz
|
|
#50
10-27-2011, 08:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I have read books that explain antenna basics and EM wave propagation. What more about antennas would you suggest I should read? How would you like me to write your name? When I say there are chemical and electrical anomalies in the ground that come from buried metals, I am not talking BS. It was actually a group of Australian scientists and laboratory technicians who spread this idea. And these same scientists and technicians recovered millions of dollars worth of gold and other metals all over the world after measuring these anomalies. There are thousands of examples of gold recoveries made by measuring these anomalies. You can read hundreds of examples in my links. Do you have any evidence to show these technicians are making fake reports or the gold was really not recovered? I would like to see your evidence to show it is not true, and that they are "spreading BS". Still, You have not answered a simple question I asked about the video Morgan posted: What do you think caused Morgan's VLF detector to make beeping noises at 2 meters distance from where he buried a gold medal? The only answer I have read from you is your hollering BS. This does not answer the question I asked. Can you tell what you think is the answer to why you hear beeping in his video at 2 meters distance? Many other people have given answers. What is yours? Best wishes, J_P
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
