|
|
#1
03-02-2006, 01:04 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Dell Winders on LRL detecting
This is a special thread where we can get information about the theory and practice of LRL detection from experts with years of experience. This is where we can look for the straight facts that long-experienced LRL users have discovered, not the advertizing hype we read on LRL websites. This is not a place for posting unfounded claims or photos of treasures found.... NO, this is where we can ask the seasoned LRL users who knows from experience how these devices work. This is where they can tell us the facts of what an LRL can do, and their limitations. This is a place we can use as a resource to learn the real principles behind the LRL. This is where we can look to learn what the most knowledgable LRL users know about these machines. If there are any LRL experimenters, then this thread should be an invaluable resource for developing improved machines. The first post below is a copy of two posts made by Dell Winder's, veteran treasure hunter and developer/tester of LRLs. His explanations agree well with Esteban and others who post here, but with a few key differences. Hopefully Dell and others with his long experience in this field will add more to this thread to help explain the details of the fields and conditions that make the LRLs work, or limit their performance.
|
|
#2
03-02-2006, 01:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dell Winders posts (copied from other forum thread)
These are 2 posts copied from this forum from Dell Winders explaining some of the principles of LRL detection:
[POST-1] In my opinion, the Mineoro, does NOT actually detect the presence of an underground target. It does detect the "field" of the target at the surface above the ground. With other electronic LRL instruments I've detected the discriminated "field's" of concentrations of clusters of Gold from an aircraft at altitudes as much as 3000 feet above the earth. 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! [POST-2] I guess what I am trying to say is that it appears to me that all these types of devices [including negative ion detectors] 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. I hope my field experience provides some "food for thought". Good Luck! "WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, CAN BE DONE" Dell
|
|
#3
03-02-2006, 01:14 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thank you for the explanations, Dell.
Three questions come to mind in reading your posts: 1. In trying to get an understanding of the physics that are being applied to LRL detecting, here is the biggest question that comes to mind is about these "fields": What kind of a field lingers near a buried target? Are you talking about an electrostatic field? an electromagnetic field with a frquency of oscillaton? A pure magnetic field? Are there ions in this field? What are the characteristics of the feild that is being sensed? 2. You say that the "long buried gold" being different than freshly buried gold (for detection purposes) was an advertising scheme of Claude Cochran. Does this mean that you have found no difference in detecting "long buried gold" and "freshly buried gold"? 3. You posted: "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." What method can we use to consistently predict these these conditions and thus know when our LRLs will not work?
|
|
#4
03-02-2006, 02:03 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#6
03-02-2006, 03:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This is different because Dell has more years experience thatn any of the others of us with LRLs, and he is able to give answers from experience that the rest of us cannot. This is different because it is NOT a forum thread to argue about the credibility of LRL theory. It is a thread to find out exactly what those who have the experience will tell us.
If it is your purpose to ridicule anyone in this forum then please find another forum with much better targets than you find here. Neither Dell or I am here to sell any machinery or prove anything. I just want to know the facts from the expert's point of view without a lot of garbage and mis-quoting from people who don't have the experience.
|
|
#7
03-02-2006, 05:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe they're measuring changes in earth etheric field?
http://www.biofieldsciences.com/Human-energy-field.htm Buried object could cause local changes in it. At least we can separate field of a living stuff (plants, rocks,..) from "non-living" stuff (coins) using life energy meter? Some instruments for measuring: http://www.orgonelab.org/cgi-bin/sho...e=ylemeter.htm http://www.orgonelab.org/lemeter.htm http://www.ambro.hu/borze/egely/index2.htm Perhaps using a biological sensor such as petrovoltaic rock could be very good for that: http://www.soteria.com/petro/ Or scalar field: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/sclxmtr.htm Or time shift anomalies for at least ores: http://www.ctglabs.com/tsd1.htm http://www.intalek.com/Index/Project.../SmartSPOT.htm
|
|
#8
03-02-2006, 07:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Holy petrovolts, Batman...!!
Dang...!!
Now these references you posted seem kinda ... errrr... escoteric... According to Dell, what they are sensing is somehow linked to electrostatic fields and ions that are a secondary indicator of buried treasure. I don't think I recall him mentioning anything about life energies or scalar fields. I wonder what Dell will tell us about how the LRLs work based on his experiences?
|
|
#9
03-02-2006, 04:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Please be patient with me. I'm engaged in a project for the next several days and I can only take time for quick replies. Thanks! Dell
|
|
#10
03-05-2006, 02:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You claim that those who do not promote or believe in long range locators somehow do not have the right to post in this thread. That is ridiculous, therefore this thread is not different from any other thread promoting long range locators. I am only ridiculing ridiculous statements about long range locators. Dell promotes his ability to "find" treasure with a long range locator. Many people try to put over an incredible amount of garbage on treasure hunters. They do this in order to make a buck, or to appear to be "in" on the subject at hand. They often do it for both reasons. A good example of this is "Karl von Mueller," who actually knew a great deal about treasure hunting, but who made up all kinds of "information," which he used to pad and embellish his writings. This has caused many treasure hunters to waste a tremendous amount of time, trying to find imaginary people, businesses, literary references, etc. Von Mueller's fabrications (greatly understated below by Steve R) have been perpetuated by Fred Hollister and many others, who have done so in order to seem like big deals for knowing von Mueller, and who have contributed to his exagerated image. The following exchange is from the old treasurenet forum: Jeff K 00:27:54 9/07/2001 Fred, I use to read all of the author's you mentioned, and subscribed to Examino some 30 years ago. I may be wrong, but I got the impression that KVM may have been the biggest con-man of them all. It just seemed to me that he made-up a lot of stories. [...] Fred Hollister 10:03:50 9/07/2001 [...] There was absolutely no con in Karl! Period[...] Steve R 22:45:32 9/08/2001 Fred- Nice to see you on the Internet. I knew both of them [von Mueller and and another writer] and have nothing too bad to say about either. Von Mueller probably put treasure hunting on the map as much as anyone ever did. But, remember, he like to have a little fun now and again and some of his tales got a bit tall. I think sometimes, he wanted to see how much he could manufacture from whole cloth and see how it perpetuated itself. Now, maybe not all that commonly, but that did happen. [...] Fred Hollister 17:22:33 9/07/2001 Steve - Well said, indeed! You know more about this than most, and anybody reading these posts would be well advised to listen. [...] Jeff K 14:25:12 9/23/2001 Fred... I guess you have difficulties reading between the lines. Steve just confirmed what I said. KVM did make up stories. Period! This kind of thing happens all the time with long range locators. Someone is always selling them or promoting his ability to "find" treasure with them, or just talking about the MYSTERIOUS or "scientific" ways in which they "work." And then they claim that an accomplished design engineer of integrated circuits knows nothing...
|
|
#11
03-05-2006, 02:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The entire exchange:
Jeff K 00:27:54 9/07/2001 Fred, I use to read all of the author's you mentioned, and subscribed to Examino some 30 years ago. I may be wrong, but I got the impression that KVM may have been the biggest con-man of them all. It just seemed to me that he made-up a lot of stories. Also, I can't trust writers, at least in this business, that use phony names, and I believe he used several. Why? My guess is that he never found any treasure either, because he was too busy writing books and newspapers. Jeff Fred Hollister 10:03:50 9/07/2001 Jeff - I knew Karl von Mueller. I can not claim to have been his friend - that would have been for him to say, not me. I know a number of people that knew him, as well. And, as mentioned above, I've read everything he wrote that I can put my hands on. I had the priviledge to reprint his book "The Encyclopedia of Buried Treasure Hunting" - and that was probably the least important of the many he wrote and published. There was absolutely no con in Karl! Period. His primary goal in life was to help people - particularly, to help the "little guy" become independent. Plenty of folks followed his advice and found the path to wealth - and, what is even more important, freedom from the tyranny of the timeclock. He could have sold copies of "The Treasure Hunter's Manual - 6 or 7" for $100 each and gotten it and it would have been worth it. But he shared his priceless knowledge and wisdom for pennies. Take a look at the many, many publications he brougt back into print and sold for a few bucks each. You can still readily buy "Waybills to El Dorado." Now, THAT is an eye-opening treasure book! Karl found plenty of treasure - you can bet the ranch on that. And he was the first person to open up the world of professional treasure hunting to the amateur hobbiest. I guarantee you that this website would not be here without him. He was, of course, a columnist for "Western & Eastern Treasures." Why did he use more than one pen-name? He certainly wasn't the first person to do that. Further, you have to put yourself back to the time he began. Finally, read what Karl says about "Hush your Mush." The only treasure hunter I ever heard of who made publicity work for himself was Mel Fisher - and he had his share of woes from that fickle goddess Fame, as well... Karl was rightly sytled "The Dean of American Treasure Hunters" and he was the Father of the hobby that continues today. Sadly, he probably wouldn't be thrilled by some of the things that child is doing today - but almost any parent can honestly say that. Good luck to all - Steve R 22:45:32 9/08/2001 Fred- Nice to see you on the Internet. I knew both of them and have nothing too bad to say about either. Penfield was primarily a "compiler" and it is true he didn't check out all of his sources very well. He may have "borrowed" a thing or two. However, note that newer writers have borrowed from him as well, and some things of "minimal accuracy" (to be kind) from Penfield are now accepted by some to be gospel. It is much easier to make up a treasure than to dismiss one and put it away. Once they are out there, the stories just stay on and on and on. I know of a couple of instances where the hoaxer admitted his fiction and had friends swear they helped him make it up one night. Still people believe and you can't persuade them otherwise. Von Mueller probably put treasure hunting on the map as much as anyone ever did. But, remember, he like to have a little fun now and again and some of his tales got a bit tall. I think sometimes, he wanted to see how much he could manufacture from whole cloth and see how it perpetuated itself. Now, maybe not all that commonly, but that did happen. As time passes we always tend to idealize things that happened many years ago. There are feet of clay to go around for most everyone in this field. Steve Fred Hollister 17:22:33 9/07/2001 Steve - Well said, indeed! You know more about this than most, and anybody reading these posts would be well advised to listen. Good luck to all - Jeff K 14:25:12 9/23/2001 Fred... I guess you have difficulties reading between the lines. Steve just confirmed what I said. KVM did make up stories. Period!
|
|
#12
03-05-2006, 04:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Undoubtably, in the annals of treasure fabrications, the "Lue" was the most simplistically created (a single map, with almost no explanation), and perhaps one of the most blatantly obvious fictions ever put forth. Yet hundreds of treasure hunters--no doubt many who are otherwise very intelligent--have spent lifetimes and fortunes chasing this folly. A good example of how "treasure fever" can suppress rational thinking.
JP, you started out this thread with the statement that it is to "get information about the theory and practice of LRL detection from experts with years of experience." Then you reply that it is not "to argue about the credibility of LRL theory." If the credibility of whatever theories get presented here are not open to criticism, then this implies that you are prepared to accept and believe whatever is told to you, even if it's complete nonsense. Maybe that's not what you meant. - Carl
|
|
#13
03-05-2006, 05:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The Editor does not permit enough time for my very slow typing to correct my posts, So I would like to ask Carl, to delete my previous post on this subject. Thanks!
As it has been previously suggested, I do live in the proverbial "Glass House". Most of my use and testing of LRL, and /or Dowsing in the field, has been witnessed, and documented when possible. My life, and reputation for honesty, is one of transparency and has always been open to public scrutiny. I use my real name, provide my real address, and real telephone number, and photos of myself for any of you who wish to conduct your own investigation into my lifetime reputation achievment for honesty. Let those who wish to throw stones reveal just as much information about themselves. The Skeptic cult has been throwing rocks and boulders to serve their own agenda for 13 years, and yet the proverbal "Glass House" along with it's transparency remains intact, least if I were as some of the lies have claimed, I would not be able to be here expressing my personal opion based on my Field experience with LRL after 25 years. As a Professional Hunter, I don't use LRL, or any method, with the presumption that it is going to find Gold, or even find anything of value and I don't suggest anyone purchase any Treasure hunting product with the unrealistic expectation that it is going to find riches for them. It has never been my contention that the use of an LRL, is going to make me, or anyone wealthy, and I don't personally sell my products to consumers without them first being aware of their limitations and to use them as they are intended, "As a time & money saving tool to serve as an aid in obtaining preliminary sub-terrain geophysical information about a specific area, which can help reduce the size of the search area for the possible locations of deep buried anomalies, or vein, in a shorter period of time than by conventional means. This preliminary LRL information helps me, as the operator to determine if the location is feasible for attempting a recovery, or warrants the time & cost of continuing the survey with conventional methods, or conducting an exploratory excavation. If recovery is not feasible, the time & money saved allows me to continue on to another potential Treasure site. When used in this context, some LRL, as well as Mental Dowsing, have proved to be invaluable information gathering tools in searching for un-researchable treasures, and the possible locations of deep buried Treasure troves. Dell
|
|
#14
03-05-2006, 06:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
A news paper article denoting the use of Remote Sensing frequency discrimination for Treasure huntng. Dell
|
|
#15
03-05-2006, 08:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Before I waste my time with involvement in this subject on this forum, it should be well understood in advance that I recognize a significant difference in the application , and interpretation of using so called Dowsing rods to meter the effects of electronics & Physics, from the difference in the of intentionally controlling the so called Dowsing rods, for the purpose of mental, Meta-Physical responses to mental questions, or mental programming through the use of suggestion. I am quite familiar with the use of either application.
If you don't accept the possibility that some so called Dowsing Rod(s) can be used for dual applications, then please don't bother posting to me, or about me, because we won't have a common interest to an understanding of the facts. My reply on the Dowsing thread. Quote:
You are correct in saying it does not work very well at close range, or detect the "field" of small targets unless they are clustered in a large group of small targets such as concentrations of Gold particles. The Gold in the Denver, Co mint was one of the test targets used in determining the remote Sensing ability of the Gamma Scan, to detect that amount from an aircraft, up to 350 miles away, and navigate the aircraft according to the Gamma Scan's, point of reference. Much as the same with Frequency Discrimination (MFD) it is geographicly difficult to isolate and pinpoint the exact location of targets on the ground that are detected from high speed aircraft. To help in this determination, we would bury 25-30 pounds of low grade Uranium ore in the vicinity of the airborne location and wait 20-30 days and redo the scan. By detecting the concentrated "field" of the Uranium ore and it's relation to the airborne Gold location, we could isolate and pinpoint the Gold location. This discussion started about the Meta-Physical art of Mental Dowsing, has once again evolved to the skeptic cult interpretation of Long Range Locators. From years of being attacked for my support and practice of both methods as aids for Treasure hunting, I don't think the closed mind set of self proclaimed skeptics will ever be open to truth , or facts that are a challenge to the intelligence of their belief system. Dell
|
|
#16
03-05-2006, 10:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This thread is DOA
I opened this thread titled "Dell Winders on LRL detecting" in order to find out what Dell's ideas were on how LRLs work based on his experience. Not to hear more of the same old arguments that all skeptics have to offer on a multitude of forums concerning LRLs. I am well aware of the proofs people have presented to demonstrate the LRLs don't work. I am as skeptical as anyone else in this forum about whether LRLs work. When I was 4 years old I was skeptical of the world being round. It appeared flat to me. I figured if it was round, then this could only be true through some force of magic. I later learned that the apparent magic was not magic at all, but well-respected principles of physics and earth science that allowed the earth to be round. And it was only an illusion due to my frame of reference that caused it to appear flat. It was because I took the time to listen to the complete theory of those who had years of experience in studying the earth sciences and measuring the earth that I was able to understand how it could be round. Had I not listened to what these experts had to say, I would still believe it is flat as I had when I was 4 years old, and I would be preaching along with the other skeptics in the Flat Earth Society. I would be calling the astronauts and rocket scientists a bunch of liars and cheats who bilked the government out of billions of dollars. Today, my understanding of how LRLs work is very limited. I have no way of making an informed decision of whether I should believe they work or not until I can first hear some coherent explanation from the experts who have more experience than me.
With LRLs, there is no standard accepted principle or theory of how they work or how they should be used. The principles vary depending on which user you are talking to. For this reason we have no standard principles on which to decide whethere there is any believable science to explain the use of the so-called LRL. It was my intent to find out from only the most experienced proponents of LRLs how they believe LRLs work based on their long years of experience. It was my intent to look in one single thread to find a reference from the most knowledgable in the use of these machines have to say. It was not my intent to start another debate about whether they actually work or not. It was not my intent to ask if anyone could expose a fraudulant marketing racketeer. If I was looking for a discussion of more proofs to support whether LRLs work not, then I would have titled this thread "LRLs -- do they work or not? Can you prove it?" instead of "Dell Winders on LRL detecting". It was my hope that in One single place we could learn what theories the experienced experts have to say about what principles LRLs like the Mineoro device work on (not dowsing principles). Apparently this is not possible in this forum. It appers that any attempt to set aside a place where we can read a concise explanation of these LRL principles from an experienced user will be met with fillibustering and ridicule that clogs up the pages. A casual reader has no single place he can go to find out "just the facts" of what the experienced proponent of LRLs have to say without sifting through pages of arguments concerning the validity of LRL theory and attacks on the credibility of others who engage in mass marketing of LRL paraphenalia. As far as I am concerned, the purpose of this thread has been defeated, and it would be better to move Dell's answers to the TA forum where it has a chance of becoming a concise statement of his understanding of LRL theory and practice without needing to sift through the arguments in order to hear what he has to say. PS. A final note to Dell: You can easily deal witb the time limit for posting in this or other forums by typing your message in a text file, then pasting it into the message window. I do this by right-clicking on the Windows desktop or inside a Windows folder, then click New / Text Document. This will open a blank text file with Windows wordpad. You can type and edit your message in wordpad until it is done, then highlight the entire text and right-click for copy. Then go to the forum message and right-click to paste the text you just copied. You can also save the text file on your computer if you wish.
|
|
#18
03-06-2006, 12:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
And you say that he is not here to prove anything...
|
|
#20
03-06-2006, 07:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#21
03-06-2006, 08:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It seems to me that you are the one who intimates Dell has an agenda to sell equipment. I am asking what he tried to sell you in his posts in this thread. Do you have an answer? Or are you just spewing more garbage?
|
|
#22
03-06-2006, 10:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#25
03-07-2006, 12:08 AM
|
||||
|
||||
The Frog and the Sky
"Facts speak louder than eloquence." -- Chinese Proverb
Of course (if you are an LRL believer) then you may say that skeptics are "like a frog in a well shaft seeing the sky" - refering to the frog's vision as being narrow-minded and insulated. Mind you - wells can be comfortable places for frogs to live. 
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
