|
|
#51
03-01-2006, 05:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In the early 1990's a NOVA TV documentary showed a division of NASA had developed the same method of discriminating the "field" of underground anomalies from an aircraft. The difference was we had spent about $70,000 to develop an analog prototype, and the division of NASA had invested over $1 million in a computerized version. We both used conventional geophysical methods and Ground truthing to verify our locations. The idea of long time buried Gold being detectable vs freshly buried Gold not being detectable was originated by Claude Cochran, an LRL super salesman during the late 1989's as a competetive advertising scheme. In my experience, It is true that the deeper fresh Gold is buried, the longer it will take for the "Field" to reach the surface where the "field' might be detected. Certain geologic conditions appear to not allow the concentrated earth "field" around some sub-terrain Gold buried even for thousands of years to ever reach the surface and therefore not all Gold will be detectable using this Remote sensing concept. In my Field testing of the Mineoro, I used a 1 ounce Gokl Krugerand, lieing on the surface of the ground to tune the Mineoro, and specifically to determine if the target SOF was strong enough to be within the Mineoro's operating limitations. When the SOF was strong, the Mineoro, detected the unburied Gold from a distance of 12-15 feet. When SOF conditions were weak, the Mineoro would not detect the "field" of the un-buried Gold, and also, it would not detect the "field" of the long time buried Gold either. This is consistent with All LRL's I've used, or tested, whether electronic, or non-electronic. At least some understanding of the Physics that are being applied are an integral part to the electronic development this remote sensing concept. I hope my field experience provides some "food for thought". Good Luck! "WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, CAN BE DONE" Dell 
|
|
#52
03-01-2006, 07:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi IONFINDERS!!!
Some considerations: 1. I have different "proof fields" and sometimes I don't obtain the necessary signal to conclude if work or not work X experimental machine or X Mineoro model. So, my team and I makes short (one day) or large trips (3-4 days) for to examine the situation. As treasure can't find all the days and also as nobody knows where is it, decide to probe this "gadgets" in natural fields. The more secure sites you can probe to respond your devices are battlefields, soldiers encampments, ruins or old houses. In this sites there are real old targets and we can to comprobe the efectivesness or not of different machines. 2. Long distance detector (10, 20, 30, 40 50 m are long distance for me) needs delicate threshold adjustment (sensibility in the limit) in stable point. With this characteristics, is possible to find conductive targets. 3. Very wet ambient shortcircuited the field. 4. Sunny days are better. 5. Ferriferous soils in high iron's concentration (main in zone of iron mines) nulliffy the signal for small items. Don't know for treasure, maybe not.
|
|
#53
03-01-2006, 08:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Mineoro? We are not discussing the Mineoro principles
Ummm... Dell,
This thread is about an electronic ion detector, not about any Mineoro device. The ion detector we are discussing is wholly an electronic device that works with standard electronic circuitry. There are no bait loads or treasure frequencies involved, only a standard circuit to detect negative ions the same as any commercially available negative ion detector. This machine is in no way related to the Mineoro machine from the previous thread. But as long as you opened the topic, when will you find time to answer the questions I ased about the Mineoro machine and other LRLs in your TA forum? Please answer the questions in that thread rather than here where we are discussing the refinements of an electronic ion detector. In my opinion you probably know more about the principles of LRL detection than anyone else using a Mineoro type device. It would be interesting to see how they work in your opinion. Are you aware that at least one of the scientists who built the NASA LRL that discriminated the field of underground anomolities was a closet dowser, hesitant to let his colleagues know that he sometimes used "L" rods to confirm their findings?
|
|
#54
03-01-2006, 08:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
HI J PLAYER
It’s true that ground battery formed by gold and other metals/minerals it gives low voltage, may be 1 volt or less, but for long buried gold the battery takes up 50 meters or plus in all directions and the voltage can appear to the ground surface. 1 volt is 1/100 of the static atmospheric voltage at 1 meter above the ground and it may be detected easy by every home made electronic instrument. Ordinary metal detectors work with signal less than 1 mV…
|
|
#55
03-01-2006, 09:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi Franco,
You may be right. Maybe the ion detector will find the ground battery. Maybe I am wrong and atmospheric interference is not so strong as obscure the field from the ground battery when measuring the air ions. Keep in mind that when ordinary metal detectors measure less than 1 mv signal, this is induced voltage from eddy currents that were caused by the search coil. The ordinary metal detector is detecting an electromagnetic wave that is expected to arrive at a very specific time (PI), or a deformity in the elelctromagnec field of the search coil (non-PI). This is not the same as trying to detect static electric fields 4 feet above the ground. I think it is time to build the ion detector and find out what it will measure. Then we can see for ourselves what it will measure and will not measure. This machine is very inexpensive to build. most of the parts are cheap or free from salvged equipment. My problem is I do not have the proper facility to construct the circuit. I can build the mechanical part if someone else builds the circuit boards with electronics. So far nobody except Estseban has given us any practical information how to use this machine, and I think the only way we will learn how it works is to build the detector and learn from experience.
|
|
#56
03-01-2006, 09:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I guess what I am trying to say is that it appears to me that all these types of devices operate on the same principles of physics with slightly different variations of application.
The one common denominator that I have observed is that 18 years of residual effects of Solar magnetic activity greatly affects the operation of all these devices, as well as Magnetometer, and to a lesser degree the depth penetration of conventional metal detectors. The conditions when these electronic, or non-electronic devices will work, or will not work, has been consistently predictable whether I am using electronic metering, or a pair of Dowsing rods to meter the Strength of Field (SOF) suffecient for these devices to operate. To put it bluntly, there are magnetic conditions and fluxuations in which none of these devices will function effeciently, or will even work. This can be a problem with testing your design. I was using the Mineoro, as an example because you were speaking of an Ion detector, which is the scientific principle the Mineoro, claims to be using. I have never field tested the posted schematic, but If this schematic is indeed intended as a Gold discriminating Ion detector, and comparing it with the Mineoro field results, I suspect it will be affected by the same limitations as all other LRL remote sensing devices, whether electronic, or non-electronic. Not that I personally care, but I'm trying to be helpful by suggesting it as a consideration in your modifications of componnents to be included in the schematic. I probably am intruding in the electronic engineering, which admittedly I know nothing about. Sorry! I mean no offense. I'll stay out of it, unless asked. Dell
|
|
#57
03-01-2006, 11:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Ups!
 "First, Ivconic should build the detectror circuit and tune it and test it to insure that it works for collecting ions. Then send only the circuit boards to me along with trim pots connected (this is to make inexpensive shipping cost)." Huh! A whole cost to build that ions detector would be $20-$30, for you J PLayer.Since I am living in Europe, in Serbia, what do you mean, how much it is gonna take for me to send to you assmebled pcb!? Incuding shipment and anoyance through post and other stuff. Serbia is not even a member of european community, so there is no way to send enything by usual channels like it is a case in the rest of Europe.Costs would overcome $100 and more!Forget about that. If you want to check that device than you have to build it yourself. I made it for some time. It is working and it is detecting ions for real. I checked it as follows: I made a long time ago a Tesla coil, which is producing a high voltage, over the 5000 volts. I added to it a typical tv cascade to obtain higher voltage, over 17 000 Volts. Output is connected to a metal ball. In it's nearby (aprox. 15cm) is a ground plate.So when is switched on it produce a giant sparks, and you can see a voltage crossing through the air....etc. I guess all of you already know about Tesla's coils, and how they are working. It is producing a clouds of ions in no time! In a minute or two my lab is full of them and i can even feel and smell ionizied air. It has pleasant taste an it is good for respiration for a 10-20 minutes per day. It is a sort of ozone. Now, what you have to do is to switch on the detector and you gonna detect ions easy. Because the concentration in a closed space is on a high level, i repeated a test outdoor of my house. The detection is still good,loud and clear.I was rambled backwards for about 20 metres and the detection was still unchanged. On 21. metre the detection decay a bit by bit as i rambled more.After aprox. 25 metres there was no detection any more. So it seems that it's shows all the results by this test. About burried metals i don't know really. I do have a sort of test field with coins,metal pieces and one big,old transmission from some used car, burried in about 2 metres deep. I tried to detect it with no results at all! It was some clicking in the speaker but as any where else on the field, nothing like a real detection! That's why i posted some ideas about improving late stages on the device. I think that input stage is good enough.I think that problem is with a further processing. One more thing, during the test i switched off a 555 part of the device, and guess what? The detection was attenuated appreciably, and some other weak noises occured. So the 555(polarisation of dish) is acting very important role in the project. Right now that device is reassembled on the desk and wait for improvements. I was thinking to do that by my own, but have no idea.So i decide to stop for a while and wait for some better solutions. Since i am working parallel on several projects like resistivity meter, copy of some IB Minelab, one MD3007 and one PI, i am very abstracted to think only on this project. That's why i posted schematic here and wait for your opinions. And it seems very productive, all of your posts shows some good ideas here. I am very restless to see somebody's else expirience with this ionic detector. ...... FrancoItaly "I noticed in Ivconic's circuit that there is not capacitor between pin 2/6 and ground of LM555' stage, this capacitor would determine the output frefrequency.." JESUS !!!! It is true ! I am sorry i missed that! Here is a reclamation.... regards!
|
|
#58
03-02-2006, 12:55 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi Ivconic,
You are right. It is not a good idea to send a circuit. The cost of the parts is not a problem for me. I cannot build this circuit because I do not have the facilities to build and test it. It will be another 6 months before I have the proper tools and test meters to make simple circuit boards with electronics like the ion detector. So we will need to rely on someone else to build and test this machine. It seems to me that this machine will only detect ions. If we want more information from the signal then first we must know what kind of information we are looking for. I expect many of the variations will depend on where we move the dish. But maybe there are signal variations that come from different targets. The variations in signal from different targets can only be found by experimenting with known targets. One idea you could try is to put an iron rod in the ground 2 meters away from where you buried the targets, and see if the detector will find the electric field from the "ground battery" as Franco says.
|
|
#59
03-02-2006, 12:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi Dell,
Thanks for the tips. You are answering some of the questions I asked in another thread. I suppose you have chosen to post your answers here instead of the TA forum. Your comments do appear to apply to the negative ion detector, but they are really comments aboout LRLs in general. In order that you will have a proper place to elaborate, I will open a new thread, restating what you have said about SOF and LRLs where we can ask questions without straying away from the ion detector. Your information should be good for all LRLs that work on the principles you are talking about, and will be a valuable resource for all who want to know the theory of how LRLs work from an expert with decades of experience. Look for the new thread. Thanks in advance for the help in LRL theory
|
|
#60
03-02-2006, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Other thoughts about Ivconics' ion detector
Hi All,
I don't think that Ivconics' ion detector is only a traditional instrument, I find very interesting the first stage of LM555, this is not only a way to increase tha battery voltage as we can have a better efficiency with a more suitable frequency, but the very low frequency plays an important role. I'm sure that on the Dish there is a little AC component and I ask to Ivconic if He can meausure the voltage on the Dish with a analogue voltmeter: the needle should be to tremble. I have tested a LM358 circuit with many trasformers ( I have not a old modem to sacrifice!) at very low frequency and the output voltage is very poor, only few volts and I doubt that it's possible to obtain 15 volt with a frequency of only 1 Hz.
|
|
#61
03-02-2006, 10:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It would be interesting to add some filter circuitry to the charging circuit that can be switched on and off. Then we could see if the filtered charging makes any difference when looking for ions. It also seem that if this charging frequency plays a part in the ion detection, then we might see differences when we change the frequency at the 555. I would suggest that if this frequency is adjusted, it might be good to add a circuit that automatically adjusts the gain at BC107 to keep the dish voltage constant.
|
|
#62
03-03-2006, 05:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi All
The best solution in my opinion for the LM555 stage it's a DC to DC conversion by an oscillator of 1 khz or more in according with resonance frequency of the trasformer and then we may use LM555 oscillator or 2 X BC107 as astable multivibrator with a voltage up to 50 volt. I think that the voltage on Dish is it' subordinate to its physical dimentions. My next steep will be to build a mix of ZAHORI and Ivconics' circuit without LM555 stage and with a only stage in high impedance imput... I think that ZAHORI it was the founder of the long range family... perhaps also Minero...
|
|
#63
03-03-2006, 07:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
555 ?
To FrancoItaly
Franco You can not possibly expect LM358 to act like 555 !? Power supply is already 9V ! As I told before, no need for regulator at all.That is the catch!Concerning all mentioned just remember a transf. rate 1/1.5 (aprox....it should be a bit more).And freq.can vary from 1-5Hz (i think).Voltage is aprox. 15 v. We don't have to be neat in %. About AC component, yes there is a "microscopic" tremble.About those rect.diodes....they can be debated so.About other transformers...I really don't know, I never tried any other type.56K modems, here are very cheap 5-6 euros, mostly "made in China" stuff.But transformer has some code I mentioned before, and I met some types with Motorola logo on.Resistance is 45 ohm and 75 ohm, although my DVM maybe is not so precise. ............... I agree J Player. ............... One more thing again.I would rather pay attention to improve stage which comes after second TLC272. Until that point everything looks nice to me. It will take more stages,buffers...i don't know. It just has to be experimented with.
|
|
#64
03-03-2006, 10:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
LM358 vs LM555
Hi Ivconics,
For our purpose I think that the LM358, double single supply operational,it can easy replace the LM555: it has a frequency range of 1 Mhz and a current output of 50 ma... I use it very often and I have a circuit board with this IC for ewperimental uses. Do you have measured a voltage of 15 Volts between Dish and ground?
|
|
#65
03-03-2006, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi All
Look for theese link: http://www.vlf.it/kurt/elf.html http://www.vlf.it/Schumann/schumann.htm http://www.vlf.it/below150/below150.htm http://www.vlf.it/parmigiani-frozen/frlight.htm A Ulf receiver with an E-field antenna it’s very similar to an ion detector, it can receive Schumann frequency, it may be that ground battery troubles Schumann signals?
|
|
#66
03-03-2006, 08:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
#67
03-03-2006, 11:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Nice the links, Franco and Esteban.
It seems that these experimenters are interested in the frequencies they are seing displayed on an oscilloscope, while the ion detector is only looking at relative changes in the static ion/electric fields. If we were to look at the signal at the output of the ion detector on an oscilloscope, then we would be able so see if there are frequencies or noise being sensed at the antenna. This Ion detector should be as sensitive as the detectors in the links shown above if we have a way to see the signal coming from the antenna better than a speaker and analog meter. The oscilloscope shown in the first link is actually a PC that uses the signal converter (probably on the sound card) to display the signl from the sensior circuit. I presume the processed signal is sent into the microphone input or line input, then converted to a voltage that is displayed as an audio wave would be done. The author wrote a C program to create a proper graphic interface that will display the signal with the same scaling as an occilloscope. He used the inexpensive method instead of using an ordinary oscilloscope. But either way, the key is to find a method to see the full spectrum of the signal that is coming in when we move the dish to different locations with different targets. A second comment about the low frequency signals that were found on the links above: Many of these signals are man-made signals, For example the low frequency signals that submarines use to communicate from deep under the oceans, and other man-made signals used in power transmission, telemetry, and studies of astronomy, etc. Also, some of these signals appear to be naturally occuring signals which originate in far space, while others seem to originate from within the earth or the earth's atmosphere. With all these stray signals that are easily measured with sensitive instruments, we are interested in discriminating the signal that will be present when a treasure is in the proximity of the detector. It is our goal to scan the naturally occuring signals until we see they change in a way that will make us expect there is gold or silver influencing these signals. This is why I think our first step is to take a close look at what signals our sensor is picking up, and learn what are the naturally occuring signals that we should expect. We also need to learn what common environmental anomalies will cause a chang in the signal, so we can predict what should be considered a trash target and what is a good target. This means we should learn what is the influence of a tree nearby, a building, a car driving by, or an airplane, or perhaps how the signal can be expected to change at different times of the day, or different sunspot activity or lunar tides, etc. By becoming familiar with these common influences, we can compensate the detector so it will not confuse us when we are looking for a target. It seems to me the first step is to connect an oscilloscope to the detector.
|
|
#68
03-04-2006, 10:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi J PLAYER
You have fixed very good the main points of our “problem” . I have a 20 Mhz oscilloscope and other instruments in my lab but I don’t have a portable computer for external measurements.In the past time I have designed a vlf receiver in the range of 500 Hz – 50 Khz with a 2 ferrite coils as antenna and a VCF, a voltage controlled pass band filter, as tuning. Now I can achieve a ULF receiver in the range of 3 – 30 Hz with an E-Field antenna, a very high impedance amplifier, a VCF (I use CA3080 operational), a rectifier stage with a meter. By this “instrument” it would be possible to scan the above mentioned frequencies and to find possible anomaly in the ground (perhaps ground battery, my obsession !!!). I think it’s necessary to use a long handle, like a metal detector, for avoiding body’s influence.
|
|
#69
03-05-2006, 02:55 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi Franco,
If you have no way to take an aocilloscope in the field, then your filter circuit to detect 3-30 hz can help see the lower end of the spectrum. You should also be able to hear the spectrum from 30-1200 hz on the speaker or headphones. Here is another Idea: Ther are low-power cmos phase locked loop chips that will follow a frequency, and can be used in conjunction with a cmos decade counter that could change the frequency of what you sense on the signal. The decade counter can take the frequency of the input signal and divide by 10 to allow you to hear signals in the 12,000 to 120,000 hz range, or cascade a second counter for higher frequencies. The input signal to these counters would be sent through a schmidt trigger first with an adjustable threshold to set the sensitivity. I believe the cmos PLL has both an analog and digital input, and the analog signal threshold can be adjusted with trimpots. These decade counters can also be used to multiply the low frequencies to 10 times higher, so they will produce an audible tone. This is done by using the phase locked loop's oscillator to clock the counter at a rate 10 times faster than the antenna signal, then using the carry from the counter to sync the PLL frequency. The only problem with this frequency multiplier scheme is the amplitude of the signal is lost after the digital stages. Perhaps the amplitude could be recovered by putting the digital signal and the filtered antenna signal into a comparator. The digital signal will have a known voltage, while the filtered antenna signal can be compared and the output could set the gain on the audio amplifier. If any of this circuitry was to be built, then It would look like a control knob that you adjust to several positions: F/10, Fx1, Fx10, Fx100. Similar to sweep time constants on an oscilloscope, while you listen for the sounds. It seems to me that a meter is ok for a simple indicator of signal. Audio will tell a lot more information because you can hear frequencies and amplitudes. But oscilloscope is still the best because you will see many things that cannot be heard, and you will be able to enlarge any small detail that you want to see closer. I have seen some small portable oscilloscopes on ebay. Some of the older ones seem like they sell cheap, and can be connected to an inverter at your car battery. Here is an example... maybe there are inexpensive deals like this in your area... http://cgi.ebay.com/Oscilloscope-BK-...QQcmdZViewItem
|
|
#70
03-05-2006, 07:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi J PLAYER
Thank’ for your hints, I use often the PLL CD4046, it’s a great integrated circuit that has a stable and very linear VCO…
|
|
#71
03-07-2006, 01:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
.....
Hi,people!
I am very busy these days, I simply can not follow you in this very interesting thread. But ideas are more than inspirative. I would tell you again, let's just leave for a moment a 555 stage. It is working just fine and no need for any mods.Let's just focus on further signal analyze after the second TL272. Second, I was thinking already to make some experiments with VLF bellow 150 kHz.Not original at all, I know. Just look at the GISCO EMFAD UG12, which is basic primer. I was thinking to use already existent VLF signals from remote TX's as it is the case in UG12. But further talking about that will dilute this subject of ion detector. Somebody ask about dish dimensions.It is stated on schematic. I also made experiment with one plate taken from old 8" ancient hard disk as a "dish". It will need some experiments too. Many mails come to me with a questions about real ion detection on the field. It seems that some people had just skim visits on this thread.People,read this thread and every post letter by letter! Many questions are already answered here.It is not productive to talk about same questions here again and again.(This is not addressed to the registered members here). I was tested ion detector and it is detecting my "home made" ions for real! Airborne ions...maybe. Burried gold and relics....NOT! Why? I guess cose burried stuff do not produce ions at all, or at least, not at wanted quantity!Than why are we talking about that device here on forum like this one!? Because huge number of people are still beleive in that theory that burried things can be detected by detection of ions. I can not disallow that theory as i can not prove it either.But it will take more experiments and mutual contributions to establish some firmly attitude on that matter.Until that, i can agree or disagree with both sides in many points. Delayed tribute to Dell for his contribution on this thread, although i would be very joyous if we switch from very academic to some more practical talk here.I mean more schematics,less talks.Schematics do talk it self.Mods,schematics....schematics..mods. J PLayer mentioned some ways how to further analyze signal from detected ions.That is the point! J Player can you post some schematic on that here? ..... regards P.S. FrancoItaly "Hi Ivconics,For our purpose I think that the LM358, double single supply operational,it can easy replace the LM555: it has a frequency range of 1 Mhz and a current output of 50 ma...I use it very often and I have a circuit board with this IC for experimental uses. Do you have measured a voltage of 15 Volts between Dish and ground?" Yes.Between 13.5 to 15.xx volts. About LM358...maybe so! But why wasting time on that? 555 is just fine.You are straying of the main problem.What we need from that stage, 555 is already providing.Again no need for higher voltage. Higher voltage on the dish is a mismatch.Higher freq. on the dish is a huge mismatch.1 to 5, even 10 Hz is just fine. Starting point here is that we supposed to deal with ions, not with any kind of waves.Unlike in the ANKER post where we had a case of nonsence explanations and jumbled various scientific principles. Again leave that stage unchanged and focus on the further inspection of received signal.Regards to you friend.
|
|
#72
03-07-2006, 10:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
555 Timer
Quote:
Also - Ivconic is correct - forget about replacing the 555 timer. It's only there to provide an energizing voltage to the dish.
|
|
#73
03-09-2006, 10:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Huh!
:mad:
I spend a some time to build that ionic detector and it is not working at all! Is it a joke or what? Even a TL... burned! Is there any mistake in the schem.? Any body help?
|
|
#74
03-09-2006, 10:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ivconic built this machine and it is working fine for him. There are 2 parts to the detector: The charging circuit, and the sensing circuit. You can test the charging circuit with a digital volt meter. Connect between the dish and the battery ground. you should have at least 12 volts. if not there is a problem in the charging circuit that needs to be corrected.
The sensing circuit is seperate from the charging circuit. There should be no connection between the two. Test for continuity between the ground of charging circuit and the ground of the sensor circuit. if it is less than 1 meg ohm then I would look for where the leak is. Also test between the antenna and dish. This should also be more than 1 meg ohm. If you find these two circuits are connected, then there is a chance of damage to the TL op amps. If these 2 tests test ok, then the remaining sensing circuit is a simple differential amplifier and power amp stages to run a speaker and meter. You can test each stage at a time to locate the problem. be careful with the TLC271 and TLC272. These are FET devices and can be easily damaged if you touch the leads when you have a static charge on your hands. Use a grounding strap on your wrist.
|
|
#75
03-16-2006, 02:40 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Here is a simpler design for an ion detector based on a very easy ion detector at this link: http://www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Circui.../staticdet.htm
The author says his detector works for finding ions in the air around ion sources. It is a sensitive detector because of the high impedance FET, but maybe not as sensitive as Ivconic's design with 2-stage FET amplifier. My modified version of the simple circuit is below, for use with headphones. I have not tested this circuit, so some of the front end resistors at the FET may need to be adjusted. The audio amp portion is a working model that will make sound for any headphones from 8 ohms to high impedance. The dish charge is adjusted between 12 and 18 volts directly from the batteries and a potentiometer, thus eliminating the seperate charging circuit. This method of charging may introduce more noise into the signal, but maybe not.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
