Testing for signal lines [Archive] - LongRangeLocators Forums

Carl-NC

05-08-2007, 12:43 AM

Clondike Clad

05-08-2007, 01:39 AM

I will like to learn about the so all signal lines.
I would like to learn WHAT KIND OF SIGNAL GOLD AND PAPER MONEY GIVE OFF. So let us all learn about the signal lines.
One question I have is what frequency the cosmic ray is. 100,000,000,000,000 hz or more or is it VLF.
or is it RF. IR, or what?
What is the output power .00001 nanowatt or less.
How it it detected. broad band or a tight fixed detections
How it the pickup anntena tuned .
Well I am not that smart but I hope others can help.
let us get this post rolling:razz:

Carl-NC

05-08-2007, 02:11 AM

While some people believe that gold and other objects radiate signals on their own, and that these signals can be detected with, say, dowsing rods, MFD theory does not necessarily claim that. The basic tenet of MFD is that the signal from the transmitter radiates outward and resonates with a frequency-compatible target. This establishes a "signal line" that can be tracked with dowsing rods. This does not require that objects radiate on their own.

- Carl

Dell Winders

05-08-2007, 04:07 AM

Yes, please tell us, Carl, How does radiate apply to Frequency Discrimination? Dell

Clondike Clad

05-08-2007, 09:13 AM

Gold silver etc size will effect it frequency.
the question is what is the frequency of the items detected?????????
Items are of many shapes and sizes????????????????????????????????

Carl-NC

05-08-2007, 12:21 PM

Gold silver etc size will effect it frequency.
the question is what is the frequency of the items detected?????????
Items are of many shapes and sizes????????????????????????????????

I agree that shape, size and exact composition could have strong effects on a theoretical resonance frequency. But for the purpose of this discussion, let's say it doesn't matter because, in the world of MFD, these issues are not accounted for.

Ferinstance, an MFD might have a setting for "gold". That setting produces a particular frequency that will supposedly resonate with a gold target, regardless of its shape, size, or alloy.

The question is, how would you demonstrate this device? How do dealers demonstrate them? How do buyers practice with them?

- Carl

hung

05-08-2007, 05:02 PM

There's a missing link.
All manufacturers of MFDs are right in some extent.
I discovered aditional information which I can't talk of now.

I am currently working with a project team which is covering all that. Our goal is to develop an LRL system based on frequencies and also on what we're discovering, which will hopefully adress all the insuficient information and consequently, technology, which turn current devices not completely reliable and akin of perfect working.

Our problem is time to devote to this. We are all busy in different jobs. However, I am proud to have back now as a consultant, the nuclear physicist who was with me in 1994 in a scientific project. He's a true genius.

In a few days I will post a topic covering this.

Clondike Clad

05-08-2007, 05:03 PM

Ok if gold has a particular frequency we need to find that frequency.
LRL makers don't use the same frequency for gold.silver, money etc
So do the LRL circuit have anything to do with that particular frequency of gold etc.
Do LRL Circuits pick up parts of the particular frequency of the item being detected.
Do some of the LRL makers take the signal the using a IF frequency to find tune the particular frequency of item being detected.
It look as if we need to find what frequency that is being detected.:cool:

hung

05-08-2007, 09:26 PM

I agree that shape, size and exact composition could have strong effects on a theoretical resonance frequency. - Carl

It's the opposite.
Shape, size and composition are consequence and not cause of specific frequencies.

Qiaozhi

05-08-2007, 10:25 PM

Rudy

05-09-2007, 01:52 AM

"MFD"-type LRLs typically have a signal generator for (supposedly) transmitting a signal of some sort that (supposedly) resonates with a desirable buried target. The signal is usually injected into the ground using a pair of ground probes, and detected using dowsing rods.

The purpose of this thread is to explore ways in which this theory can be both subjectively and objectively tested. Yes, I have a proposal which I'll get to, but I would like this to be open to everyone's input, to see what other ideas come out.

Ok Carl,

It seems to me that one of the first things to do is to ascertain the nature of the resonance being detected. In other words, what is the nature of the resonance?

There are several resonances possible and we need to explre and identify which one is used in this method of detection. Here are a couple of electrical resonances that come to mind. Maybe there are others?

At the macro level, a possible electrical resonant frequency is dependent on the object's inductance and capacitance (or if you come at it from the physics side, the object's permeability and permitivity). In other words, the target can be looked at as a resonant tank circuit with a resonant frequency given by its capacitance and inductance. The geometrical properties of the target (size and shape) have a great effect on this type of resonance, thus there is no "one frequency fits all shapes" for any particular metal.

Next, we could look at the quantum level or Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR). At this level we are looking at the spin angular momentum of an atom's nucleus. There isn't any angular momentum unless there are an odd number of nucleons (protons and or neutrons), so not all elements have angular momentum and therefore detectable by NMR. If there are an odd number of nucleons, then the spin is either +1/2 or -1/2 depending on orientation.

A problem with detecting this type of resonant frequency, on gold or anything else, is that the target (the gold) must be immersed in a very strong magnetic field so that all the nuclei in the material are lined up in parallel or anti-parallel with the applied magnetic field. This is a magnetic field very much larger that the earth's field, typically tens of thousands of Gauss.

Why is this strong magnetic field needed you may ask? Because if the nuclei weren't aligned, you would get no useful signal. Quite simply, there would be an equal population of atoms with a spin state of +1/2 and -1/2 and their signals would cancel out.

After the nucleus are aligned, then we can pulse irradiate the sample with an RF energy at the NMR resonant frequency and presumably make a detection.

Unfortunately, it is not even that simple. In solids, the orientation of the crystal lattice leads to anisotropic shiedling effects producing a whole smear of resonances, depending on the lattice orientation. In an NMR laboratory, this effect is circumvented by spinning the sample around a specific plane at pretty high angular velocity (18000 to 25000 RPMs), but this is hardly doable in the hunting fields.

In conclusion:
Macro level resonant frequency techniques are very dependent on the target's geometry as it affects the inductance and capacitance of the sample, thus not providing a unique signature for a specific metal type.

NMR techniques seem outside of the capabilities of the field detection equipment under discussion for the reasons given above.

Are there any other types of resonances that could be looked at?

Carl-NC

05-09-2007, 03:32 AM

You guys are missing the bigger picture.

It doesn't matter how this resonance stuff (supposedly) works. The manufacturer claims it works. We'll go with that.

The manufacturer's product (supposedly) transmits some kind of signal, at some frequency, that (supposedly) detects gold. Doesn't matter what it is. We'll assume it's right.

So here I am, with my brand new MFD... I want to give it a try, see if I can really make it work... what should I do?

What do MFD owners usually do to test their new purchase?

How would a dealer demonstrate the device?

What would they do?

- Carl

Jim

05-09-2007, 09:37 AM

"What would they do?"

Find it, but not dig it up?

Clondike Clad

05-09-2007, 02:01 PM

The manufacturer's product (supposedly) transmits some kind of signal, at some frequency, that (supposedly) detects gold. Doesn't matter what it is. We'll assume it's right.

- Carl

Now how do we know what signal and frequency to use.??
Do we get the infomation from the manufacture's product or do we ask them.

Esteban

05-09-2007, 05:02 PM

hung

05-09-2007, 05:41 PM

Are there any other types of resonances that could be looked at?

I'm thinking in molecular vibration of each material. Each metal has particular atomic (or molecular) vibration. Use harmonic of these very high vibration frequency and go!

Yes. This is more or less what Rangertell states. Only it's subatomic vibration. If this gets free out ot the 'macro' analysis and enters the micro one, it will be better understood. Also it's not resonance indeed. But true broadcasting.

By the way, I'm not wishing to raise controversy here, but I received a call today from a friend who lives in another state. He told me he bought an examiner about 2 weeks ago and he's delighted with the device. He said he could find an object hidden by his friend several times and could 'feel' the signal lines when crossing it. I already adressed him tests to gather more information.

Qiaozhi

05-09-2007, 08:42 PM

Question #1...

When a person buys an MFD, how would they normally test the device?

Or, how would a manufacturer normally demonstrate an MFD?

Hi Carl,

According to Question #1 in your original post (see above) you asked how a manufacturer would normally demonstrate an MFD.
Is Dell Winders' explanation not one possible answer?
i.e. How Do I Make Sure I Can Use an MFD With Success?
http://www.omnitron.net/success.htm

Or - are you directly asking any MFD owners reading this thread how they went about testing their new purchases?

I assume you are trying to establish a set of agreed tests. ??

Carl-NC

05-09-2007, 10:15 PM

Now how do we know what signal and frequency to use.??
Do we get the infomation from the manufacture's product or do we ask them.

Yes, and we assume it's valid.

Is Dell Winders' explanation not one possible answer?
i.e. How Do I Make Sure I Can Use an MFD With Success?
http://www.omnitron.net/success.htm

Or - are you directly asking any MFD owners reading this thread how they went about testing their new purchases?

I assume you are trying to establish a set of agreed tests. ??

Dell's page apparently suggests a dowsing experiment you can try to determine if you might be compatible with an MFD. It doesn't really suggest any methods for testing an MFD itself.

Basically, I'm asking anyone -- MFD owner or not -- how you might test an MFD. Or even practice with it.

Here's a similar question... you've just bought a new metal detector... the manufacturer claims it will detect gold and only gold, and nothing else, at average expected depths (inches)... What might you do to test this new detector?

- Carl

Dell Winders

05-09-2007, 10:28 PM

oooh! Sneaky!

hung

05-09-2007, 11:07 PM

Interesting...
All the answers Carl needs might lie elsewhere.
This subject of signal lines, etc. was all discussed in the old Tnet forum several years ago. At the time, Ranger from Rangertell tried to make his points and was bashed by Carl and others. As usual, atacks among pro and and non pro LRLs also happened.
Is a feeling of 'nostalgia' starting to hover around here?

Qiaozhi

05-09-2007, 11:25 PM

Here's a similar question... you've just bought a new metal detector... the manufacturer claims it will detect gold and only gold, and nothing else, at average expected depths (inches)... What might you do to test this new detector?
- Carl
OK - I think this makes things a lot clearer. ;)
If I was going to test my brand new shiny metal detector to see how it performs, I would first carry out an air test on various items and record the detection distance for each.
Next I would set up a test garden with some items buried at known depths, and again see how the detector performs.
Thirdly I would take the detector out on a field trip.
Presumably the same testing procedure could be used for an MFD, but with a some slight variation. Instead of checking between ferrous and nonferrous items, you would check between gold and everything else. :)

Dell Winders

05-09-2007, 11:46 PM

You wouldn't read the instructions and devote practice to learning how to use your detector before you started testing it? Wow!:shocked:

Dell Winders

05-09-2007, 11:48 PM

You wouldn't read the instructions and devote practice to learning how to use your detector before you started testing it? Wow!:shocked: You're smart!

Clondike Clad

05-10-2007, 01:05 AM

"MFD"-type P.S. -- Those who don't want to participate in this discussion, need not reply at all. Stay on topic -- attempts to hijack this thread will simply be deleted.
Carl delete the junk we want to stay on the topic.
Some are not on the topic. Let us keep this clean and on topic.:nono:

Carl-NC

05-10-2007, 01:49 AM

OK - I think this makes things a lot clearer. ;)
If I was going to test my brand new shiny metal detector to see how it performs, I would first carry out an air test on various items and record the detection distance for each.
Next I would set up a test garden with some items buried at known depths, and again see how the detector performs.
Thirdly I would take the detector out on a field trip.
Presumably the same testing procedure could be used for an MFD, but with a some slight variation. Instead of checking between ferrous and nonferrous items, you would check between gold and everything else. :)

Ahhh... how simple! YES! In order to test your shiny new detector, you might turn the durned thing on, and wave some targets near the coil. See if it beeps for gold. See if it ignores everything else*.

What might you do with a brand new MFD? Why, you might take it outside, plant a test target, turn the durned thing on, and see it you can "find" the target.

OK, back to the metal detector...

Suppose you don't turn it on... huh? Yes, you don't turn it on... you wave some targets near the coil... what results would you expect? What results would you get?

- Carl

*All the while, you have no idea how the metal detector works, and you have no idea what frequency it uses. You just set it up according to the directions.

Clondike Clad

05-10-2007, 07:53 PM

Ok what frequency and output power for the signal lines sand how do we detct it.
If we inject a signal into the ground how do the L rods pick them up and how do we know it is picking them up.????????????????????
At this time I can't get any LRL to work or picl up any signal.
If we can generte a signal we can detector it. but what signal?????????

Qiaozhi

05-10-2007, 10:34 PM

Suppose you don't turn it on... huh? Yes, you don't turn it on... you wave some targets near the coil... what results would you expect? What results would you get?

- Carl
Not quite sure what you're aiming for with this question - BUT - I wouldn't expect anything to happen, and there wouldn't be any result. :???:

You wouldn't read the instructions and devote practice to learning how to use your detector before you started testing it? Wow!:shocked: You're smart!
Of course, it goes without saying that I would actually have read the manual first. :razz: And yes - I would do an air test before testing outside.

*All the while, you have no idea how the metal detector works, and you have no idea what frequency it uses. You just set it up according to the directions.
That might seem silly, but that's true for most metal detector users. In fact, despite Dell's ridiculous comment earlier, many users don't even try to read the manual.

Seden

05-10-2007, 11:15 PM

Klondike,

Esteban I feel has it right in detecting a harmonic of the frequency of gold. German Physicist Dr. Paul E. Dobler's test showed to be 1.2mm or around 240GHZ.
The NMR frequency of gold is given as 1.729MHZ for the particular strength of the earths magnetic field,but as pointed out with the present state of the art is undetectable.

And then there's the gamma signature that Bickel used successfully which after doing a little Google searching found out last night I've got to spend several tens of thousands of dollars to acquire a gamma spectrometer. When I get my Uranium, I will still use it to highlight the gold and see if I can see any differance on an oscilloscope connected to the audio output on my cheap gamma detector (pulse width).

So there you have it,take your pick.

Randy

Clondike Clad

05-11-2007, 01:27 AM

harmonic of the frequency of gold. German Physicist Dr. Paul E. Dobler's test showed to be 1.2mm or around 240GHZ.
----------------------------------------------------------------
AT THAT FREQUENCY LRL ANTENNA would be a very hi Z
How would a radio antenna pick up a 240 ghz signal?????
also the circuit for that signal.
I look at some LRL circuits and well you get the point.
I'm lost on the 240 ghz with the LRL circuits i have seen.
It must be something else going on.

Carl-NC

05-11-2007, 02:56 AM

Not quite sure what you're aiming for with this question - BUT - I wouldn't expect anything to happen, and there wouldn't be any result. :???:

Now we are really making progress. ;)

I've found that if you don't turn the metal detector on, rather amazingly it won't respond to targets. I was out hunting with a Tesoro one time... it runs in a "silent search" mode... at some point in digging a difficult target I turned it off... when I resumed detecting I forgot to turn it back on. It was when I went over a visible target that I realized... errr... duh.

OK, now back to the MFD.

Do MFDs behave the same way? That is, if I fail to turn it on, will it fail to respond?

Once upon a time, I was with some LRLers who were doing some testing with an MFD. At one point, as one person went out to look for the hidden target, I flipped the transmitter off. Still, he got his "hits" and tracked his "signal line" and never once suspected the transmitter was off. Everything was working as he expected. Before he returned, I flipped the transmitter back on. Then a second person went out to look for the hidden target, and I left the transmitter on. He wandered around a while, and finally looked over and asked me if the transmitter was still turned on. Why, yes, it was.

Once upon another time, I was with an E-scope user who was "scoping" an area for a suspected cache. He was getting a hit over here, and another hit over there, and was triangulating and whatever else... after 10 or 15 minutes of all this, he looked at his E-scope and realized he forgot to turn the durned thing on. All the while it was operating as he expected it to.

So does an MFD really behave differently when it is turned off? Perhaps only if the user is aware of it. If the MFD user knows the device is turned on, he will get the response he expects. If he knows it is turned off (or, perhaps suspects it has been turned off!), he will not get the response he expects.

We could do an experiment where the MFD user attempts to locate a signal line while knowing the state of the transmitter. This is a subjective test. MFD users have told me that they can definitely tell whether the transmitter is turned on or off, but my experiences tell me they cannot, unless they already know.

If this is the case, then either the so-called signal line does not really exist, or L-rods are an ineffective means of detecting it.

Next question...

What sort of experiment could we perfom that objectively tests the MFD user's ability to tell whether the transmitter is turned on or off?

- Carl

Seden

05-11-2007, 04:37 AM

There are companies that do sell off the shelf detectors,but looking at the picture of their ad in "Microwaves and RF" magazine it looks expensive!
So where does that leave us? For the moment, out of luck I'm afraid. Also the antennas are made from a lithographed PCB for extremely small dipoles. Too bad neon bulb detectors are only good up to 100GHZ,that would of made it easy. Makes me wonder if there is a gas out there that would ionize at that frequency or a way to get the neon bulb to detect higher up.
Sure wish I knew a Microwave PHD. There are some books at Amazon on Terahertz systems and the best one is around $90 or so darn it.
Randy

Qiaozhi

05-11-2007, 08:51 PM

Next question...

What sort of experiment could we perfom that objectively tests the MFD user's ability to tell whether the transmitter is turned on or off?

- Carl
Hmmm... looks like the MFD users and manufacturers are afraid of these questions. :shocked:

I can think of a nasty experiment which might do the trick. Is this what you're looking for?

Let's say you have a selection of MFDs, and (to remove any bias) let's say they're all the same make and model. Now, some of these MFDs are working and some are not. One way of achieving this would be to fit a selection with good batteries, and the rest with depleted batteries. These batteries should be fitted by a third party who is not present at the testing. In this way the test organiser cannot unconsciously inform the MFD user which ones are which. The gold can be placed in full view. The purpose of this test then becomes whether an MFD user can say which detector (or detectors) are working, and which ones are not, rather than an objective test related to detecting a gold target. If the detectors are numbered, the results can be recorded and later decoded by the third-party who originally fitted the batteries.

In fact, I've just thought of a slight variation. There should be two third-parties (if that makes sense). The first one numbers the batteries and records which ones are dud. The second one takes the numbered batteries and randomly puts these into the MFDs. Neither of these two people are present when the other performs their task, and neither are present at the testing. I suspect the ratio of good to bad batteries should be 50%.

Carl-NC

05-12-2007, 12:56 AM

Hmmm... looks like the MFD users and manufacturers are afraid of these questions. :shocked:

I think the average user doesn't really understand the test issues. But, yes, manufacturers and those who should know better, definitely don't care to see this discussed.

I can think of a nasty experiment which might do the trick. Is this what you're looking for?
.....
What you proposed is a randomized blind test, exactly what should be done in determining whether this is a Useful Method or not. I expect that no MFD manufacturer has ever done such a test.

The exact method you described has 2 drawbacks.

One, it requires more than one person to do the experiment.

Two, many MFDs have LEDs and meters that will give away a dead battery.

So, what we need is a way to set up an MFD transmitter so that it either outputs a signal, or does not output a signal, in a way that is both random, and not visibly apparent. Preferably in a way that doesn't require extra people to do the experiment.

That is what I have built.

- Carl

Clondike Clad

05-12-2007, 11:19 AM

How do we how if manufacturers of MFD transmitters have a secret the signal that the MFD transmitter put out. Type of AM mix with pulse of FM mixed with signl timing etc.
One test is to have a real gold bar and a fake gold bar that is the same size.
THE USER OF THE LRL WILL NOT KNOW REAL FROM FAKE BUT THE LRL WILL KNOW.
TAKE A LEAD GIVE IT A GOLD COLOR ETC KEEP THE TESTER MORE THAN 10 FEET FROM THE REAL AND FAKE AND YOU WILL HAVE A GOOD TEST,:D

J_Player

05-12-2007, 07:34 PM

One test is to have a real gold bar and a fake gold bar that is the same size.

This sounds like an excellent idea. Suppose you took a small gold object such as a bar, ring, pendant, etc. and then prepare an identical lead object. Someone could hide both the gold and lead objects in locations unknown to the LRL operator. After the targets are hidden, the LRL operator could use his machine to determine where signal lines exist, and tell what element the signal line has picked up, then continue following the signal line until he locates locates the hidden object.

This test could be carried out in a measured area of land that has had all near-surface targets removed using a conventional metal detector. Then let the LRL operator look for any signal lines in the test area before hiding the two targets. An initial search for signal lines in the barren area allows the LRL operator to mark the location of pre-existing signal lines. Then the targets can be hidden (buried 2 inches deep) to see if there is any change in the initial signal lines. If the LRL operator believes he has found one of the two targets, let him recover it (no backhoe needed).

The outcome of the test could be any of the following:
1. LRL operator refuses to participate in describing the locations of signal lines because he claims the test is not fair.
2. LRL operator does not find any signal lines in the test area of the targets.
3. LRL operator finds signal lines that lead him to the gold, and (A) identifies the gold, or (B) does not identify the gold before finding it.
4. LRL operator finds signal lines that lead him to the lead, and (A) identifies the lead, or (B) does not identify the lead before finding it.
5. LRL operator locates signal lines that do not lead to either of the two targets, but lead to other locations in the test area.
6. LRL operator locates signal lines that do not lead to either of the two bars or any other location in the test area.

After this test is done, then remove one or both or none of the two targets and allow the LRL operator to describe any changes in the signal lines.

Measuring this test can be done by recording the distance error the LRL missed the target by, or if repeated trials are conducted, you could have an empty hole count scoring system.
The actual test for signal lines could be done by making a sketch of the test area on graph paper and marking the signal lines on the sketch along with the location of the targets.

If this test is to be repeated in many distant locations, then the size of the test field and the targets should be made uniform in order that all the tests are done on a comparable field. ie: A 30 meter square section of land marked off with 10 cm grid marks at the perimeter would allow a similar graph paper sketch to be made that accurately indicates the locations of the targets and signal lines. The test for any LRL should be conducted under LRL operating conditions and instructions specified by the manufacturer.

This test can be carried out by anyone including LRL manufacturers, LRL training personnel, skeptics, scientists, small children, homeless people, dowsers, space aliens, or anyone else capable of walking and holding a LRL.

Qiaozhi

05-12-2007, 09:43 PM

I think the average user doesn't really understand the test issues. But, yes, manufacturers and those who should know better, definitely don't care to see this discussed.

What you proposed is a randomized blind test, exactly what should be done in determining whether this is a Useful Method or not. I expect that no MFD manufacturer has ever done such a test.

The exact method you described has 2 drawbacks.

One, it requires more than one person to do the experiment.

Two, many MFDs have LEDs and meters that will give away a dead battery.

So, what we need is a way to set up an MFD transmitter so that it either outputs a signal, or does not output a signal, in a way that is both random, and not visibly apparent. Preferably in a way that doesn't require extra people to do the experiment.

That is what I have built.

- Carl
I thought a double-blind test was probably not the answer, but we needed to try that first. ;)
OK - let me see... the MFD must appear to be powered on, even if it is disabled, and only one person is required to control the experiment. :cool:

In that case, if we cannot physically disable the MFD, then we must disable the user. Of course I don't mean calling in Luigi and the boys to give the MFD guy a nuckle sandwich. Nothing so drastic. :lol:
I was thinking more in terms of a bit of mind control. Let's say you've built a "mystery" box that is able to remotely disable the MFD. You can either keep the current state of the MFD a secret, or alternatively tell the user whether it's enabled or not. Depends on the experiment. The reality is that the "mystery" box is only another bunch of nonsense electronics, or possibly just full of fresh air. It could have two buttons - one marked "enable" and another marked "disable". The user (being an MFD believer) is convinced that the device can be remotely controlled by initially getting him/her to do a small test with a visible gold bar. Then the real test begins.
I guess you get the general idea?

As a skeptic, I am unable to think of an actual method of disabling an MFD, since (in my mind) it's already disabled. :D

Carl-NC

05-13-2007, 02:10 PM

How do we how if manufacturers of MFD transmitters have a secret the signal that the MFD transmitter put out. Type of AM mix with pulse of FM mixed with signl timing etc.

Most (if not all) of the MFD transmitters I've seen put out a simple non-modulated waveform. However, the circuit I'm building will work for any kind of transmitter.

One test is to have a real gold bar and a fake gold bar that is the same size.
THE USER OF THE LRL WILL NOT KNOW REAL FROM FAKE BUT THE LRL WILL KNOW.
TAKE A LEAD GIVE IT A GOLD COLOR ETC KEEP THE TESTER MORE THAN 10 FEET FROM THE REAL AND FAKE AND YOU WILL HAVE A GOOD TEST,:DThis is basically the same as the double-blind tests I've proposed and performed in the past. These kinds of tests require one or more extra people, and their setup and execution means you can't do them anytime, anywhere. LRL users (and esp. manufacturers!) have complained that they are artificial because they don't deal in real-world buried treasure, and that the presence of skeptics creates pressure that hinders their performance.

I thought a double-blind test was probably not the answer, but we needed to try that first. ;)

Well, it still is the answer, but in a different way.

OK - let me see... the MFD must appear to be powered on, even if it is disabled, and only one person is required to control the experiment. :cool: Actually, the MFD gives no appearance of being on, or off.

In the audiophile industry, component testing is difficult to do because audio "quality" is very subjective and easily swayed by personal biases. Does amplifier "A" sound better than amplifier "B"? The way to find out is to have a bunch of people listen to them and give feedback. In such a test, a listener first hears "A", and then hears "B". He gives his opinion. Then he is subjected to a series of tests in which A & B are randomly selected -- blindly -- and each time he gives his opinion. This is to see if there is enough of a performance difference in A & B such that he can consistently tell the difference.

The device that is used to select the components is called an "ABX" box. It has a switch that selects "A", or "B", or "X". "X" is a random selection... when the switch is set to X, either A or B is selected, but you have no idea which one. Even the ABX box doesn't tell you, until you press a "reveal" button.

This same technique can very easily be applied to any MFD transmitter. The ABX selector is used to control power to the signal generator circuit. The user can turn it "on", or "off", or randomly select between on/off.

There are several advantages to this approach. The user can do this anytime, anywhere, all by himself. No extra people, no big setup, no pressure. And it can be used either with planted targets or ordinary field use.

This is the kind of testing that MFD manufacturers should be doing, but never do. I suspect they don't even want to do tests like this, because they already know what the results will be.

- Carl

Dell Winders

05-13-2007, 04:15 PM

This is the kind of testing that MFD manufacturers should be doing, but never do
WRONG, Carl

I suspect they don't even want to do tests like this, because they already know what the results will be.

WRONG again, Carl. I've conducted hundreds of such tests in the field, and YES, I already know what the results of your tests will be. Dell

I was happy to see intelligent viewers exercising their own ability for critical thinking, and it looked like they were headed on the right track, but I see you have swayed the discussion back in the direction to conform to your own prejudice mindset and personal agenda. The puppets were apparently out of line with thinking independently and are back dancing in syncronization to your tune of Scientific pretense.

'THE DOOR TO KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING IS NEVER OPEN TO A CLOSED, OR PREJUDICE MIND" Dell

Qiaozhi

05-13-2007, 04:54 PM

Max

05-13-2007, 05:03 PM

WRONG, Carl

WRONG again, Carl. I've conducted hundreds of such tests in the field, and YES, I already know what the results of your tests will be. Dell

I was happy to see intelligent viewers exercising their own ability for critical thinking, and it looked like they were headed on the right track, but I see you have swayed the discussion back in the direction to conform to your own prejudice mindset and personal agenda. The puppets were apparently out of line with thinking independently and are back dancing in syncronization to your tune of Scientific pretense.

'THE DOOR TO KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING IS NEVER OPEN TO A CLOSED, OR PREJUDICE MIND" Dell

Hi Dell,
I totally agree...ehm...with this too:
'THE DOOR TO KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING IS NEVER OPEN TO A CLOSED, OR PREJUDICE WALLET" Max :D
Means that one only can say that some stuff doesn't works after buying and testing...but seems too expensive for my taste...this kind of knowledge & understanding...I still prefer the old wood...dowsing-rod...that costs nothing (and works nothing too ???) or the famous telephone wire wounded all around the head...(that maybe works...somehow ...like in Franklin's experiment...you know with the kyte and the key...:rolleyes: ).

Best regards,
Max

Carl-NC

05-13-2007, 05:24 PM

WRONG again, Carl. I've conducted hundreds of such tests in the field, and YES, I already know what the results of your tests will be.

You've done ABX transmitter tests? Excellent! Perhaps you could describe the protocol, show the circuit used, and share the results.

Or, maybe you didn't really do those tests, and you'll just continue to complain and blame me.

- Carl

P.S.--I know as well what the results will be. I'll bet we agree, too.

J_Player

05-13-2007, 06:14 PM

Actually, an ABX switch to disconnect the power from the active circuitry in a device could be a good idea. If A=on and B=off and X=random selection of on/off, then we will find that any device that uses electricity will stop working when the off condition is selected from B or X.

If this ABX switch was used on a conventional metal detector, the operator would immediately recognize when the power is off during the X position because of the lack of any sound or visible reading on a display. Also, the operator would immediately lose his ability to locate unknown targets when the power was off. There would be no doubt in anyone's mind that the metal detector worked to pick up some kind of signals when power is on, and fails to pick up any signals when the power is off.

In the case of a LRL, the difference is that most manufacturers claim the signal lines they are seeking have a varying strength due to physical conditions in the environment. This would suggest that there may be times and places where there are no signal lines even when a treasure is nearby, and other times when signals re-appear. If a meaningful ABX power test is to be conducted with a LRL, then I would suggest the test is started by finding a location where a good signal line is established, then while following the signal, remove the power to see if the signal disappears as it would on a conventional detector.

This kind of test satisfies the condition of not needing any other person to conduct the testing, and can be applied to any kind of test field.

The ABX switch could also be easily modified for conducting double blind tests if a small transmitter to control the power state was operated by a 3rd party. This could prove to be a valuable test method for determining whether added circuitry enhancements are an improvement or not. It could also be used to eliminate any idea-motor bias for people following signals. ie: A person listening to the signal of a target as he waves the coil over the target is told to "say when you lose the signal". Then we can expect him to identify the times when the power is removed. Or a LRL operator following a strong signal could say when the signal suddenly disappears in the same way.

Dell Winders

05-14-2007, 02:37 AM

P.S.--I know as well what the results will be. I'll bet we agree, too.

For years, you have consistently reported the same results on every so called test you say you have conducted. Failure is the only results you have ever reported. So, is there any reason to think any biased test you design against me will be any different? Dell

Clondike Clad

05-14-2007, 11:29 AM

Dell what do you thank of the circuit carl is building.
Will the circuit work or not.Do you have a loner circuit I can test.
I will post the results on this forum.
Carl is not the only one who can make test circuits
DELL WILL YOU MAKE A TEST CIRCUIT FOR TESTING. WE WILL ONLY POST THE FACTS
NOW THE SMALL PRINT.
we will test all circuits the same way
We will not use tricks,scams or deceits or lies

Carl-NC

05-14-2007, 12:40 PM

In the case of a LRL, the difference is that most manufacturers claim the signal lines they are seeking have a varying strength due to physical conditions in the environment. This would suggest that there may be times and places where there are no signal lines even when a treasure is nearby, and other times when signals re-appear. If a meaningful ABX power test is to be conducted with a LRL, then I would suggest the test is started by finding a location where a good signal line is established, then while following the signal, remove the power to see if the signal disappears as it would on a conventional detector.

That's exactly the kind of test condition I had in mind. An MFD user can go out in the field -- anytime, anywhere, alone or not -- and find a "signal line." Run a known-state test:

TX is ON: there is a signal line.
TX is OFF: there is no signal line.
TX is ON: there is a signal line.
TX is OFF: there is no signal line.

Then switch to random mode, and see if he can determine when the TX is ON or OFF.

This sort of test won't work for all MFD users. Some people claim that when you switch off the TX power, the signal line remains intact, possibly for hours. Most people who make this claim are those who are most opposed to objective testing*, and use it for an excuse. Many MFD users don't believe this claim to be true at all**.

Another way of using this device -- one in which even proponents of residual signal lines can use -- is in planted target testing. There is no question that both manufacturers and users of MFDs run tests (or demonstrations!) using planted targets. With this method, the user could run a daily test:
Set up the TX in OFF mode, check that there is no signal line.
Switch to random, see if there is a signal line, then check the TX state.
Finally, switch to ON and verify the signal line.Ideally, you would not want to know the answer to (2) until (3) was completed. I think the way my circuit is designed, it inadvertently allows for this.

In either case -- field test or planted target test -- it will not take long to determine whether or not the claim of a detectable signal line is true, or false.

- Carl

*The same sort of people who claim that buried gold "ages", or that skeptics emit disabling SkepticWaves.

**Amazing how something like this could even be debatable. It's so incredibly easy to design a scientific test for signal line "remanence", that it should have been conclusively determined years ago. After, of course, the very existence of signal lines is proven.

Carl-NC

05-14-2007, 01:28 PM

For years, you have consistently reported the same results on every so called test you say you have conducted. Failure is the only results you have ever reported.

I agree, my results have been consistent.

So, is there any reason to think any biased test you design against me will be any different? DellI didn't design this test "against you". I designed it to test people's ability to objectively detect signal lines with L-rods. Not sure why you take this so personally.

If you believe the test to be flawed, please state your objections. These generic "blame Carl" arguments are vapid. Let's hear how you would conduct tests that are of scientific quality. Let's hear how you did conduct these tests, if you ever really did.

- Carl

Carl-NC

05-15-2007, 03:15 AM

No I have never used Carl's ABX design, and never suggested that I did. Common logic would question the accuracy of tests using the electronic X factor until it was determined whether or not the added electronic components of the auto switching device would affect the integrity of the signal. But that's only one factor to be considered.

No more so than the power switch.

I am taken back by the mentality that would compare the analogy of using an LRL to that of using a metal detector. That argument is just plain egotistical meaningless garbage. Totally unrealistic thinking.The comparison was whether they both would work when turned "on," and whether they both would cease working when turned "off." That comparison doesn't seem very unrealistic.

- Carl

Qiaozhi

05-17-2007, 10:57 PM

Given Dell's recent incisive comments, there are only two possibilities that come to mind: :rolleyes:

1. Dell doesn't want to know the truth. Which shows that he has a closed mindset. This is something he has accused skeptics of having on several occassions. Somewhat ironic, as it happens.

2. He already knows the sad truth, that dowsing and signal lines are false concepts. In this case the only conclusion is that he must be perpetrating a scam.

I sincerely hope that possibility #2 is not the reality. My only concern about believing possibility #1 to be correct, is Dell's refusal to attend the Treasure Hunting event and meet with Carl. If he was 100% convinced of the reality of signal lines, then he would have nothing to fear and everything to gain.

Taking a positive view on this, let's say that #2 is incorrect. Then there is only one possible answer. He is simply a deluded person with a pseudoscientific closed mindset, who's head might explode if he learned the truth after so many decades of self-deception.

To quote Dell's own words:
"It's a fact. Denial is self-deception." Dell Winders
and:
"The closed minded 'one size fits all' mentality is not going to work when testing LRL. You continue to doom yourself to failure." Dell

Many a true word .... etc., etc.....