|
|
#51
12-22-2009, 02:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Best wishes, J_P 
|
|
#52
12-22-2009, 02:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#53
12-22-2009, 03:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You are trying to switch the test again? You claimed "Exactly as I made with a FM radio since more than 20 years ago!" ...without using 100m LEDS or variable duty cycle circuits! Isn't it possible there are no sounds to be heard from a microphone when you use the simple IR LED you claimed causes acoustic vibration sounds like your diagram shows? Sweeping the IR LED you used does not cause buried metal to vibrate to make an audio sound in a microphone. Acoustic vibration cannot not heard from a microphone when done "Exactly as you made" The microphone sound can only be heard when you shine a chopped IR light onto the target... not when the target is buried where the IR radiation cannot reach it. I think you were wrong. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#54
12-22-2009, 03:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi Jplayer and others
I am in no way trying to give out misinformation to anybody,but I highly respect Esteban and his experiences in LR metal detection. As I understand it we do not know many things that he does because we have not experimented with these systems. But if you attack Esteban with accusations instead of giving respect for his help here, then why should he give out information?????? Esteban keep up the good work...
__________________
 Astrodetect
|
|
#55
12-22-2009, 04:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I also consider Esteban to be a great experimenter and innovator with experimental methods to locate metals. He deserves all the respect that comes with his years of experience and dedication to these studies. My accusations are not intended to show disrespect, but to point out that he is using flawed logic to arrive at conclusions based on speculative thoughts rather than data that can be proven to be true. And he is publishing his speculations as if they were facts. There are no facts to support the two claims he made, and there will not be any facts until the speculations are verified to be true or not. If we look into the facts concerning metals vibrating under a chopped IR source, we find that Alaxender Graham Bell discovered thin metal disks emit a sound you can hear when place under sunlight that is interrupted rapidly, and this discovery was later developed into IR and UV PAS methods we see today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoacoustic_spectroscopy Sure, I would wonder if PAS is related to what Esteban observed on his FM receiver, until I realized the principle is not the same when the path of the light is blocked. Then I would look for other reasons why the sound is changing in the FM receiver. But when we see a post stating "Exactly as I made with a FM radio since more than 20 years ago!", it causes people to learn false data in the Geotech forums. Many readers visit this forum to learn the best of knowledge from experts who know what they are talking about, because they don't understand the science behind it, or don't have time to check the sources. Isn't believing false premises the point where a person stops looking at science and starts believing in pseudo-science? In this case Esteban is wrong. Unless readers have another opinion to read that shows them why they shouldn't believe it, they may even waste time and money on equipment that is claimed to "hear acoustical sounds from buried metal". Carl was wise when he placed a rule for this forum stating "Be factual. If you make an extraordinary claim, be prepared to get challenged". His purpose was to put some kind of control so people who read his forum will be able to see both sides of any debatable topic. In this case it allows readers to see an alternative to the notion that shining an IR LED on the dirt will make buried metals begin to vibrate and make sounds you can hear. I have great respect for the years of dedication and experimenting Esteban has done. And I like to read his posts showing his latest experiments. I only point out he is posting his speculations as if they are facts, when they are not. And that this sloppy chain of logic is a sure way to be posting false information. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#56
12-22-2009, 05:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Esteban did you realise that all your experiments are random-beeping devices? Always tuned to the edge of instability.
|
|
#57
12-23-2009, 11:55 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Any time high sensitivity amplifiers, BFO oscillators or circuits of any kind are tuned to the very edge of instability; and then these same circuits are moved around in various contortions, and in proximity to sought after targets, there will always be resultant subtle changes that will touch off the circuit towards beeping (or not beeping). Trying to purpose theories of operation or prove ideas from ANY experiment involving these types of circuits is fool-hearty at best, and in general will categorically result in the experimenter merely chasing their tail. In other words, no clear result or conclusion can ever be sustained. This type of experimentation is really not unlike holding an ordinary dowsing rod at the "ready" position, which is essentially a very precarious balancing routine between reacting to gravity and not reacting to gravity. The slightest little twitch or movement from the operator's hand, and the rod will swing in response to the ideomotor input, and indicate a direction or "lock" in congress with the operator's own intuition, or wish. 
__________________
 The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#58
12-23-2009, 12:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
And I wish to be more clear, idiom can be a problem: I don't use microphone, but, of course, in the audio (in radio) is the detection. I'm not wrong, sorry to contradict you... Exactly is to use the audio variation for to detect the buried metal. I don't said that I make vibrate the matter with IR (but maybe is possible, don't know). But the IR detect the phenomenon causes by metal buried many years. If you can't found literature about it, I'm a person who post here literature about it... maybe in bad English. Take it or leave.
|
|
#59
12-23-2009, 12:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You posted that the IR LED and FM receiver you used more than 20 years ago is exactly the same as the acoustic microphone listening to sounds coming from a metal target vibrating. Your followup posts confirmed you were referring to your conclusion that the buried metal is vibrating because of the IR LED you were shining at the dirt where the metal was buried. Of course you want to use different equipment than you said was exactly the same. If you use exactly the same equipment, it will prove there is no sound coming from a microphone placed at the buried metal! You cannot prove the buried metal is vibrating to make an acoustic sound with an FM broadcast receiver. You need a microphone to prove it is vibrating. You know that, but now you are trying to change the test so there will be no evidence seen that proves you were wrong! You also said there was a phase shift. There was not! You cannot prove that by changing to different equipment. Only with the equipment you said was exactly the same more than 20 years ago. Are you looking for a chance to build a circuit that produces phase shift hidden in your new design? You cannot prove it exactly as you did more than 20 years ago because it is not true. You were wrong. Simple as that. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#60
12-23-2009, 12:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#62
12-23-2009, 12:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#63
12-23-2009, 01:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Wouldn't it be prudent to accurately identify and define this all encompassing and wonderful phenomenon; BEFORE you go about building detectors and receivers and reporting glorious results? Without a more clear understanding of the phenomenon, you and the ones you are attempting to entice to follow in your footsteps, are destined to continually chase an illusion without any hope of reaching a clear conclusion or collaboration from your peers. What a waste of time (and I suppose money).
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#64
12-23-2009, 01:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't think Esteban is claiming that the IR beam excites the soil in any way. From his description I think he believes the beam acts like a probe, and the PHENOMENON somehow modulates the beam, transporting the signal back to the detector. The idea appears to be similar to a BFO, but in the infra-red.
Whether this represents a viable method for treasure hunting is another question, but that seems to be the theory.
|
|
#65
12-23-2009, 01:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
That's an interesting concept. How does the FM broadcast receiver fit into the IR beam modulation? Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#66
12-23-2009, 01:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#67
12-23-2009, 01:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#68
12-23-2009, 03:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Me thinks you missed the point! It does not matter if you waste $2 or $20,000 on experiments and equipment. If you have not identified the parameters and characteristics of your phenomenon, then any results you might report are of no real use or importance to anyone but yourself. If in fact your phenomenon  could be experienced by more than just yourself (in validated experiments), would it not have a better chance of being developed into a viable technology?What exactly are your reasons for posting claimed results, with devices and contraptions that only you can boast results from?
__________________
The Wallet-Miner's Creed Why bother with the truth, when it doesn't suit the argument?
|
|
#69
12-23-2009, 07:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I do admire your patience. And since we are all in this same 'signal line' ... Hey, I would like to wish you, the mambo boys, and all here at the Remote Sensing forum a Merry, wonderful Xmas and naturally a great new year.May peace guide men, may fraternity be among us not only this time of year but along our whole lives and may we don't forget that we are in this planet to help our brothers, feed the poor and confort the best we can the ones who suffer. Merry Xmas to you and everybody.  PS. Hope the toroid get to your address before new year's time.
__________________
"Should exist injustice and untruths towards working LRLs, I'll show up to debunker the big mouths"
|
|
#70
12-23-2009, 07:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
According to Esteban we have missed his point, not the other way around. To start with, Esteban already stated his reason for posting his claimed results: "Just I wish to explain that many things made of other in the past, today is "discovered", this is, re-discovered with implementation of modern equipment". He is referring, of course to how his method of hearing a change in the sound of an FM radio when he shined his IR LED beam at the dirt is the same as the IR PAS method to hear metals vibrate with a microphone he posted . ...Only he used an FM pocket radio to hear the metal vibrate instead of a microphone. Did Esteban get it right? Is this a case where Esteban found a new way to implement the PAS principle? Esteban never demonsrated he found an alternate method to detect vibrating metals. This is only a speculative conclusion he states as being a fact instead of a speculation. Same as he speculates it is phase shift he sensed rather than checking to see if it is a fact. Let's look at what he observed, not what he speculated: His observation was "the sound changed in the FM receiver" when he scanned his IR beam over an area where metal is buried a long time. How does this demonstrate the metal is making mechanical vibrations, to allow him to hear it vibrate on an FM receiver? I think If he is hearing a change in the sound on an FM radio, the cause lies elsewhere... not from the metal beginning to vibrate when he shines the IR LED its direction. Shining an IR LED at the dirt above buried metal does not cause it to make audible mechanical vibrations that create a phase shift to the signal received on an FM radio. If this were truly an implementation of the PAS effect, then anyone could shine a 400 hz square wave powered IR LED over a buried coin and microphone to hear it vibrating. So we see the concept Esteban posts is not correct. He did not discover the PAS principles he posted, using an FM radio instead of a microphone 20 years ago. He only speculates he rediscovered it with his FM radio, which can be shown to be an erroneous speculation by using an IR LED and a microphone to check a buried coin. But your question is about the use and importance of his experiments. Esteban says he is not looking for glory: "Just I wish to explain that many things made of other in the past, today is "discovered", this is, re-discovered with implementation of modern equipment". So Esteban's motive is not glory, only to explain that he is re-implementing past technology with modern equipment. It is interesting he does not provide some simple circuitry we can try to hear for ourselves the sound of the buried metal vibrating to make the FM radio sounds change. Since he is not here to harvest glory, then checking these simple devices would not be a concern if nobody could get them to demonstrate the PAS principle working in his detectors. I guess if nobody is given an opportunity to check to see how this stuff really works, the reports we hear can only serve to direct glory to Esteban from the people who believe is speculations are facts. Best wishes, J_P
|
|
#71
12-23-2009, 09:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 what video ? and what was detected ??
|
|
#72
12-23-2009, 11:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are we all THAT lazy?!!
C'mon guy's this isn't rocket science that we can't get off our easy chairs and duplicate this simple test. This is what bothers me about this and other threads. Going on and on everyone theorizing whether this circuit or that works without bothering to test it for ourselves and THEN we would have the right to say it doesn't work.
 I will step up to the plate with my 820nm 10mw laser (oh my I'm not using a standard red led-doesn't change anything folks) modulate it with a 400hz square wave and get back to the group. I too thank Esteban for his patience although I don't know why he bothers with people who refuse to put out the effort to replicate what he presents,I sure wouldn't-screw it. Randy
|
|
#73
12-23-2009, 11:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
None of us can replicate what Esteban presents, because the IR LED circuit Esteban used is a secret. Any replication we make can be said to be using the wrong IR LED, or wrong pulsing circuit, or wrong configuration if we don't observe the buried metal is vibrating and causing a phase shift as Esteban claims it does. (Remember the Zahori tests where Esteban claims skeptics failed because they did not use the exact same circuit as he used? ...added pot adjustments invalidated it!) Of course you will be able to show that a chopped IR laser beam directed at the surface of a metal plate causes it to vibrate as is done in ordinary PAS tests. You will be able to prove this with a microphone. I know you won't "screw it". And you will also show what happens when you bury the plate under a few inches of dirt and shine the IR laser at an angle like Esteban claims causes the response. You will provide good proof to show whether the photoacoustic effect is causing buried metal to vibrate as it does for metal that has chopped IR striking directly on it above the surface. And you will show us any phase shift too, right? Thank you for taking the time for this testing, J_P
|
|
#74
12-24-2009, 12:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loose the photoacoustic effect for now
J_Player,
For now drop the obsession with the photoacoustic effect. Actually yes I will share my results with the group as you have been doing with the RangerTell so to answer your question the reply would be 'Damn straight Skippy!'. Look J_Player you've been a pretty fair in your comments up until recently. Maybe you're getting burnt out on all this which I don't blame you. If you notice there are large gaps in time when you don't see my posting and this is why. This particular experiment of Estebans requires little effort on either of our parts so I don't mind as I have my own projects that I'm working on as the rest of the group does. I just get so tired of the bantering back and forth of pure theory without anyone bothering to test it for themselves. You are familiar with the old saying about opinions. It reminds me of when I used to work at the Hughes Aircraft Missile research Centre,you'd get these authoritative arrogant know it all's who would love to claim to know better than anyone else and enjoyed correcting their fellow co-worker in front of others-I'm sick of it. It get's down to put up or shut up in the end-otherwise it's a chasing of the wind for people who have nothing better to do. Yeah it's easy,just keep the soldering iron off and type. This is said in general not to you J_Player as I have nothing against you. Randy By the way group, please take note that I sign my first name so please USE it when you reply.
|
|
#75
12-24-2009, 12:52 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Why should I drop the question of a photoacoustic effect? This is my only argument... that there is no photoacoustic effect causing a signal. I have no argument that Esteban observed a change in the sound on his FM radio, or that it happened in areas where there was buried metals. My point is that it cannot be caused by a photoacoustic effect -- and any assersions to say it is are misinformation. Conducting tests can be very simple as you say, but not when using the circuitry that Esteban used. We can check his assertions only if he tells us what simple circuits to build to hear the sound for ourselves. Any other substitute tests don't really check his claim: "exactly the same as he did more than 20 years ago". Using different equipment than he used produces tainted tests, as Esteban says the modified Zahori tests did. If this is so easy to replicate, then it is even easier for Esteban to replicate. He already has the exact equipment that he claims produced the photoacustic responses. He has to build nothing... only to take a microphone to a buried sample and check whether it is making a sound. There is no chance it will be the "built the wrong way". Hopefully, you don't see this as an unfair request. I have also been involved in testing for years, and I am well aware of the pitfalls of making modifications when testing a simple theory, as well as the pitfalls of publishing speculative thoughts as if they are facts. I have the highest respect for the experimentation and dedication Esteban has put into metal locating research. My only argument is with publishing speculations as facts. So let your test determine if the speculation is correct or not about buried metals responding to photoacoustic effects. Best wishes, J_P
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
