Your feedback wanted on dowsing.

[hung]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

Magnetohydrodynamics requires a conductive fluid, such as seawater, and really has nothing to do with whether water is a magnetic field concentrator.

???????????

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.

Sure not. You are trying to replicate a huge and complex teluric phenomena inside the earth doing a small scale conversion. No way it will work. No one needs to use tap water in the above experiment to know it won't raise induction. This experiment does not prove anyting.
I say again, check magnetohydrodynamics and you will find the answer.
Also check gird pattern harmonic equations and how they relate to the earths magnetic lines and waterfalls.. You will find those in Bruce Cathie's books.

You see, many of the magnetic concepts taught in the school are wrong. If people are still not aware of the nulling point in the center of a bar magnet, then it's hard to discuss magnetism... But this is another story..

[J_Player]

I can agree that iron concentrates a magnetic field. I have seen evidence that it is true from simple experiments of placing a piece of iron in a field and watching a pattern of iron filings move due to the presence of the iron. But I have never seen this happen due to the presence of a body of water. If water concentrates a magnetic field, then I have never seen this demonstrated or taught in any school.

The principle of MHD concerns a charge moving through a magnetic field. If we have a stream of water that contain ions moving through a magnetic field, then the ions will interact with that field in a way that can be measured. Most ground water is not pure distilled water, but has some mineralization and some degree of ionization as a result. even if it is only a slight amount, when the water is moving through a magnetic field such as the earth's magnetic field, I would expect the ions in the water to to be influenced by the field, and perhaps influence the field at the same time. I can't imagine that the amount of charge or power in such a stream would be anywhere near as strong as man made MHD generators, but I would still have to agree that there is some MHD action happening at a much weaker level. In the case of natural occuring streams, underground or above, It seems that any movement of ions caused by the earth's magnetic field would be minimal, and hard to detect. Furthermore, the amount of MHD effect would be limited by the allignment of the stream in relation to the earth's magnetic field. Because there are both positive and negative ions moving in the field with no connecting wires to complete a circuit that would harness any of this weak power, I would expect the net effect to be nil. However, I wonder if there are local effects detectable within the stream that could be measured, for example the two sides of the steam becoming polarized with oppositely charged ions? Just a thought.

[Dell Winders]

According to the Science article I read years ago the earth's magnetic field "follows" even slightly moving water. It could very well be soluble chemical elements such as Iron in the water that causes this "appears as if" it's a magnetic field disturbance the water Dowser is sensitive to. Any number of theories might apply. I don't know. I have had very little experience locating water. Dell

[Elie]

Originally Posted by J_Player

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.

What is it with you and that one quote about Bickel? Forget that quote. What about the other quote?
"'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."
And you wrote that I "continue to post out of context exerpts," but, despite my request, did not provide even ONE other example.
"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."
What should I try to show? That I am wrong? As for the ONE spelling error which I pointed out, if it really hurts your feelings that much that I pointed it out, then I will not do it again.
The evidence against against water dowsing is twofold:
Firstly, there is no scientific principle that I can think of which would make it possible. Also, Carl, who has made a thorough study of dowsing, and who has an extensive scientific background, has not come up with any such scientific principle.
Secondly, examining the claims made for water dowsing, I find that they are incredibly insane. For example, Dell, whom you respect greatly, wrote, "According to science, water is a strong concentrator of the earth's magnetic 'field.'"
The same thing goes for long range locators.
Carl on one of Dell's machines:
"In summary, the VR-800 is an extremely poor design with amateurish construction. The transmitter outputs a signal which radically changes with soil conditions and does not have the capacity to drive the signal to anywhere near the claimed distance of 1 mile. Even adding an output power amp and matching the output impedance to the ground will only result in signal transmitted for maybe tens of feet, not miles. The frequency setting is arbitrary and has no meaning. The Weight Chek unit is of similar poor design and does not even come close to doing what is claimed of it. The Magnetic Wave Guide Receiver is just a shorting switch and serves no apparent useful function. In the end, most, if not all, of the technical and performance claims of this unit are blatantly false."
I am tired of your immature, nonsensical arguments, on which I have wasted a great deal of time in response. If you make one more post in this vein, I will stop resonding to you.

[Dell Winders]

Elie, let me try to clarify.

DOWSING is classified within the;

NON- Scientific, estoric realm of META-PHYSICS. Meaning, that real Science has not yet determined how, or why DOWSING does, or might work.

META-PHYSICAL DOWSING, is considered to b a NON-technical, NON-Scientificly established subject.

THE SOURCE OF CONFUSION; Carl, has referred to the devices written about in his Scientific, technical engineering reports as being META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES.

With no Scientific criteria ever being established for determining NON-TECHNICAL META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES, the question arises how Carl, alone has made that determination and can factually, and truthfully proclaim the devices he writes his technical reports on are truly META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES? How do you write a factual scientific technical report on a NON-scientific, NON-technical subject?

With regard to the VR-800, you quoted, if it is indeed a NON-TECHNICAL, META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICE, as Carl, claims, then in order for it to work META-PHYSICLY. it would not even matter how it was made, or what the componnents were. Right?

For the record, I had nothing to do with the manufacturing of the VR-800. Their website is http://www.vernellelectronics.com

I hope this helps you to understand that META-PHYSICAL DOWSING is NOT a technical discussion. Dell

[J_Player]

Hey Elie,
Sorry you don't see a difference between sensing fields on the ground and sensing gamma waves. If you think they are the same I see no point in discussing it any further.

I am aware of Carl's excellent work in disecting several LRLs and reporting what he found. However this is not a scientific proof that the principle of LRLs cannot work. It is a proof that an individual is selling a poorly made electronic device that does not meet the specifications listed in the advertizing. I have little doubt that If I were to try to use this device I would probably detect nothing except gravity. I will never know until I try.

I asked you only two 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.

Your first answer is "..there is no scientific principle that I can think of which would make it possible", and "Carl... has not come up with any such scientific principle". This is your scientific proof? Guess what? I don't believe that is scientific proof.

I think there are a lot of geophysics that nobody has discovered the mechanics of yet. It seems to me that scientists are learning more details how the earth works every year. If I hadn't elaborated on how satellites are able to locate ore deposits from long distances, then would you have said "..there is no scientific principle that I can think of which would make it possible"? Would you have used that same logic to prove that the scintillators don't work either? Are you aware that there are other electronic methods to detect anomolies under the earth from long distances with repeatable results? Will you use the same logic for your "scientific proof" that other instruments in the satellites can't work?

Apparently there is no real scientific proof that a LRL couldn't work. All we have is circumstantial evidence, in that no LRL user is willing to demonstrate to us how to find gold with their LRL, and a number LRL machines disected by Carl and others which have circuitry that is not comprehensible as being functional to anyone familiar with electronics. This is evidence against the manufacturers of those particular devices. Not evidence against the theory that underground objects can be detected by sensing fields on the surface of the earth.

The underlying principle of sensing fields at the surface of the earth and detecting anomolies in these fields linked to underground objects has never been proven to be impossible. In fact there are a number of wholly electronmic devices that measure near earth-fields and are capable of mapping out an area without any user intervention. Are any of these fields measured on the surface linked to underground anomolies? I think so. There are instruments that measure anomolies and even running water from the surface. If someone were to build a hand-held LRL that could actually locate buried objects from a distance say 100 ft, with 80% repeatability regardless of any atmospheric conditions, then I would think they built a useful tool. So far I haven't seen anyone demonstrate such a machine. But I have a feeling it is only a matter of time till someone does. I suppose it is a matter of a lot more time before any such device would be able to discriminate what it located with any kind of accuracy.

For the record, I have respect for all the members of this forum whose main focus is not to discredit the people who they disagree with. I prefer to read the posts that show ideas to investigate rather than posts that only focus on the negative sarcasm. What Dell has that nobody else here has is years of experience, and the knowledge that goes with it. I have never seen him focus on any individual with the intent of derision. This is the same degree of respect that I find with most of the people who post in this forum. The fact is I don't agree with some of the science principles and references Dell quotes. But I still would like to see what his has to say about LRLs.

[J_Player]

I may have spoken too soon. I see Dell posted just before I made my post.

According to Dell, the apparently "defective" LRL devices require the use of personal metaphysical powers in order to function correctly. If this is the case, then maybe we scientifically minded people are not able to adequately test or use these devices. It seems to me that these devices are only usefuul to people who have special metaphysical powers, and cannot be depended on by an average consumer who wants to buy one to locate treasures. Only those people who have developed matabhysical abilities would have success with them as I understand it. I guess that leaves me out.

From here on in my discussions of LRL will pertain only to those devices that work on geophysical properties and measuring techniques. It would be very helpful if Dell could give us a list of those LRL detectors that require metaphysical abilities and those that can be used by average people with no special metaphysical abilities. Can you help us out Dell?

[Elie]

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

Elie, let me try to clarify.

DOWSING is classified within the;

NON- Scientific, estoric realm of META-PHYSICS. Meaning, that real Science has not yet determined how, or why DOWSING does, or might work.

META-PHYSICAL DOWSING, is considered to b a NON-technical, NON-Scientificly established subject.

THE SOURCE OF CONFUSION; Carl, has referred to the devices written about in his Scientific, technical engineering reports as being META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES.

With no Scientific criteria ever being established for determining NON-TECHNICAL META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES, the question arises how Carl, alone has made that determination and can factually, and truthfully proclaim the devices he writes his technical reports on are truly META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES? How do you write a factual scientific technical report on a NON-scientific, NON-technical subject?

With regard to the VR-800, you quoted, if it is indeed a NON-TECHNICAL, META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICE, as Carl, claims, then in order for it to work META-PHYSICLY. it would not even matter how it was made, or what the componnents were. Right?

For the record, I had nothing to do with the manufacturing of the VR-800. Their website is http://www.vernellelectronics.com

I hope this helps you to understand that META-PHYSICAL DOWSING is NOT a technical discussion. Dell

"Polka dots" is not a refutation of the argument "Stripes are evil."
I did not write that you manufactured it, and it does not really matter who manufactured it. YOU SOLD IT.
As for your claim that dowsing is metaphysical, fine.
Dowsing is a METAPHYSICAL method of finding METAPHYSICAL treasure.

[Esteban]

"I know very well that many scientists consider dowsing as they do astrology, as a type of ancient superstition. According to my conviction this is, however, unjustified. The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time."


Albert Einstein

[J_Player]

I have a question for Dell:

Are all the LRLs that you have experience with classed as meta-physical devices? Or are there some that are purely geophysical? If so, which ones are geophysical and don't require any meta-physical techniques?

Thanks in advance

[J_Player]

That's an interesting quote, Esteban.

Dr. Bickel told me that he knew Einstein when he was studying astrophysics at the university. The quote by Einstein is consistent with what Dr. Bickel told me about his understanding of dowsing.

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by hung

I say again, check magnetohydrodynamics and you will find the answer.

Magnetohydrodynamics has nothing to do with the medium (water) being a strong concentrator of magnetic fields. MHD was part of a graduate Emag course I took in college.

Also check gird pattern harmonic equations and how they relate to the earths magnetic lines and waterfalls.. You will find those in Bruce Cathie's books.

This got me all curious and such, as I've never heard of Cathie, so I looked him up. I found not only has he constructed a rather bizzarre alternate science to call his own, but that he also quoted:

"One of the most startling facts that I discovered by application of grid mathematics was that an atomic bomb is a device based on the geometrics of space and time. To be successfully detonated, the bomb MUST be geometrically constructed, placed on, under, or over a geometric position in relation to the Earth’s surface, and activated at a SPECIFIC TIME in relation to the geometrics of the solar system. I found that it was possible to precalculate the time of various bomb tests, and the locations where it was possible to explode a bomb.......I realised that an all-out atomic war was an impossibility. Both sides could precalculate well in advance the time and positions of atomic attack. Plus the fact that only certain geometric locations could be detonated anyhow. A logical war cannot be considered under these circumstances. This could be the explanation for the proliferation of conventional weapons in modern warfare."----Bruce Cathie

This level of ignorance is rather scary.

You see, many of the magnetic concepts taught in the school are wrong.

Errrr.... all of science is wrong, and Cathie is right? Really? Are you serious?

- Carl

[Esteban]

J Player

Einstein had reason or not? This is my question: why his mind is opened to unexplained or controversial theories and our minds is closed?

[Jim]

Originally Posted by Esteban

"I know very well that many scientists consider dowsing as they do astrology, as a type of ancient superstition. According to my conviction this is, however, unjustified. The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time."


Albert Einstein

Esteban,
I have looked all over the internet, and have not been able to find where the above quote originated from. Could you be so kind as to let us know just when, and where Albert Einstein made this quote?



Thanks in advance, Jim

[Carl-NC]

I know very well that many scientists consider dowsing as they do astrology, as a type of ancient superstition. According to my conviction this is, however, unjustified. The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time. That the same circumstances can bring forth nervous difficulties in breathing appears entirely plausible. However, I do not think there is any connection with the occurrence of cancer. This latter connection, if true, would not be easy to prove with supporting statistics. -- A. Einstein

Einstein was not involved in dowsing. He had been asked if dowsing might have caused someone's cancer. Taken out-of-context, as it usually is, it might appear as if Einstein had an interest in dowsing.

His statement--The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time--was, in fact, incorrect, as the factors that control dowsing were known almost 100 years prior to his letter. But, I would not expect him to know that, unless he had studied the practice.

- Carl

[Dell Winders]

THE SOURCE OF CONFUSION; Carl, has referred to the devices written about in his Scientific, technical engineering reports as being META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES. Dell

Let me make it clear, I have NEVER claimed, or believed for a moment, that any electronic configurations, and even some non-electronic configurations can be used effeciently as a Meta-Physical Dowsing tool. A simple needle & thread is suffice to me for that purpose.

I clearly stated that it is Carl Morland, who is claiming in his scientific reports the LRL's he has disected are Meta-Physics Dowsing devices. It is a Skeptic cult mentality. Start your argument with Carl, if you wish. Dell

[Dell Winders]

Einstein was not involved in dowsing. He had been asked if dowsing might have caused someone's cancer. Taken out-of-context, as it usually is, it might appear as if Einstein had an interest in dowsing.

His statement--The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time--was, in fact, incorrect, as the factors that control dowsing were known almost 100 years prior to his letter. But, I would not expect him to know that, unless he had studied the practice.

Carl, are you saying Einstein, was incorrect as being your personal opinion based on assumption, or is there a basis in fact? It seems to me that we are still questioning the intracacies that make meta-physics dowsing work, or not work. I didn't know that modern Science had proclaimed a decisive clear cut explanation.

If that is what Einstein, actually stated, my experience with meta-physics Dowsing concurs with his correctness. I have no problem with the addition of "Ideomoter response" to the equation. Dell

[J_Player]

Hey Dell,

I don't have an argument about meta-physical dowsing tools or purerly geophysical tools. I only want to know which are which, in your opiinion. I have never had any success with the metaphysical tools so far, so I want to see what you consider to be the best of the geophysical tools. I am not looking for an argument, just the facts. Can you help?

Thanks, J_P

[J_Player]

Hi Carl,
Thanks for posting the rest of Einstein's quote.

I wonder why he made that incorrect statement. Do you suppose he just didn't know the accepted theory of the factors that cause the nervous system to react? Or do you suppose he considered the consensus of what these factors were to be incorrect, thinking that there must be a better explation still unknown to him?

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

Carl, are you saying Einstein, was incorrect as being your personal opinion based on assumption, or is there a basis in fact? It seems to me that we are still questioning the intracacies that make meta-physics dowsing work, or not work. I didn't know that modern Science had proclaimed a decisive clear cut explanation.

If that is what Einstein, actually stated, my experience with meta-physics Dowsing concurs with his correctness. I have no problem with the addition of "Ideomoter response" to the equation. Dell

I doubt Einstein had any dealings with dowsing, and probably was not aware of prior research. I'm just pointing out that there is more to the popular quote than dowsers would like us to know, and when taken in it's proper context, really says nothing. And, as I recall, there have been wholly fabricated quotes as well... I recall one that went something like, "Dowsing is an established scientific fact" -- Einstein.

I'm not even sure why anyone would quote Einstein, or anyone else for that matter, in attempting to support dowsing, or anything else for that matter. The mechanics of our natural world do not operate according to anyone's authority. Newton was not the final word on gravity, and Einstein may not be, either.

One of my all-time favorite quotes is, in fact, from Einstein:

"There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." - Albert Einstein, 1932.

I like it, because it shows just how wrong a prominent scientist can be, and how science builds upon itself and self-corrects towards higher accuracy.

- Carl

[Alexismex]

Hello Forum,
I respond to your question...For the geophysical detector, I can give my own experience with a very good GPR , the Ramac/x3M
http://www.malags.com/ with antenna shielded of 250MHz , it is easy to use, to learn also because it is very "friendly", in about 10 hours of use you know with a good precision what you "see" underground , deep from zero meters to about six meters in a very bad clay soil (electrical conductor) here in our region of Mexico (Guanajuato).
you have a good definition with 250 MHZ you can see easily a one foot target with the Ramac .
We have discovered in old Hacienda ;tunnel, human bones,etc... but at this time ,not the big treasure........the more important is the investigating part , old maps, old documents, etc.... without this, you can work with the gpr without result : it is so extending the search you need many lifes!!!!!
For the precision it is very good , for exemple we see a target at two meters and the reality is + - 20centimenters when it is well calibrated.
For the kind of your target , more you search ,more you know why it is , but when you encounter for exemple a tunnel 4 meters deeps , you never forget your enjoy , you never forget the signature because you have your search image in memory , you can analyse in your home after .
If you have some field target , your practice a little to know when it is a good target , a metallic target...OK
For the weight it is not the old apparatus of ton of stuff and cable,no ,it is light and very easy to move with the wheels in the field also with rocks etc... no problem , you must clear sometimes the place when you have many rocks because it is very important for the coil to close to the soil ....two inch max.
We enjoy the gpr technology , you need time , historic infos, maps etc...to discover "the treasure of your dream".....we hope one day....
have a good time ,
Alex.

[Dell Winders]

The problem appears that folks anymore can't seem to envision a tool as being multi-purpose. Heck, I use my favorite meta-physics Dowsing tool, a needle & thread to sometimes make locations on a map or photo of targets thousands of miles from where I am. I've used it to stich wounds, pick splinters, sew clothing, and sweeten water melons.

I use L-Rods for mental Dowsing (meta-physics), physical Dowsing (applied to physics) they work just as good for metering the SOF above the earth as my electronic meter does. I use L-rods to meter and trace natural, and generated harmonic signal lines to their sources, stick a rod in the ground as a marker, tape a magnet on the end and retrieve fastners dropped in tight places, and they are great for unclogging the scuppers on my boat.

I can't advise on the best geophysical tool to use. It all depends on the circumstances, the target, and the tool's limitations.

In conducting my own geophysical survey's, I don't leave home before mentally dowsing an aerial photo of the area to determine the starting points for my search.

On site, I start my search with a Frequency Discriminator, and a directional locator as the fastest method of obtaining preliminary geological information about the area and plot potential targets. If the preliminary data shows possible targets, and feasibility for recovery, then I will use conventional Geophysical instruments to try to obtain graphic imaging to confirm my locations and provide more data.

I posted the Conneticut newspaper article to demonstrate documented, Professional use and effeciency of utilizing these methods in combination.

But the bottom line is, all of these methods and instruments are only going to be as good as the knowledge and experience of the persons operating them. It's up to the person, whether they want to take the time and expense to gain the experience to learn for themselves, or hire a knowledgeable Professional with field experience. Either way there are financial risks, and critics. I know! For the money I have spent for my practical field education, I could have been a scientist, or an electronics engineer, several times . Dell

[Elie]

As a gesture of civility (see the other thread), I am posting a link related to my previous statement about water dowsing:
"Firstly, there is no scientific principle that I can think of which would make it possible. Also, Carl, who has made a thorough study of dowsing, and who has an extensive scientific background, has not come up with any such scientific principle."

http://www.thunting.com/cgi-bin/geot...o/question.dat

This report, with its list of sources at the end, should suffice for anyone who is interested in the scientific evidence against water dowsing (and other kinds of dowsing and "long range locating"), and if they are not convinced, then they can perform their own tests, as outlined in the article.

[J_Player]

Interesting post Carl,

It reminds me that the physical laws are what they are, regardless of what anyone has to say about them.

In fact all of our understanding of the physical universe is based on theories of energy and matter. Even the electronics experts work with circuitry based on electron theory. As we learn more, the theories seem to keep changing and adapting to our newer understanding. I doubt that even 100 years from now any person will have a definitive unmutable knowledge of the laws of physics, only a different interpretation.

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by J_Player

According to Dell, the apparently "defective" LRL devices require the use of personal metaphysical powers in order to function correctly. If this is the case, then maybe we scientifically minded people are not able to adequately test or use these devices. It seems to me that these devices are only usefuul to people who have special metaphysical powers, and cannot be depended on by an average consumer who wants to buy one to locate treasures. Only those people who have developed matabhysical abilities would have success with them as I understand it. I guess that leaves me out.

In my $25,000 LRL challenge, an average Joe who fails the test will surely bring about the excuse that they didn't have the necessary skills to use the device. That's why I try to focus on the LRL manufacturer, with them running the LRL in the test--who is more qualified than them to run the device?

So do LRL manufacturers have whatever abilities are necessary to demonstrate their own device, in an objective, randomized blind test? So far, no.

- Carl