Ivconic's Negative Ion Detector circuit

[goldfinder]

Same FET electrostatic field detector

Hi J Player,
the circuit you referenced is the one I built and it works fine for electrostatic fields but is lousy for a strict ion detector as one cannot tell the difference between ions and electrostatic field with it. What is needed is a true ion detector. Now, your mods with the charged antenna might do the trick; however, I doubt it. The FEt can't distinguish.

So this may point to the IVCONC circuit having the same problem since the opamp he is using has a high impedance FET frontend. So maybe we haven't gotten anywhere.

Hello IVCONIC,
What you say on this? Do you have any evidence that your circuit also detects electrostatic fields? I suppose its possible that the antenna will shield out the ES fields and also seperate/filter the ions so only ions get to the center probe antenna. If that is the case I'd go for the J_Player circuit mod. I KNOW that 3819 FET is extremely sensitive. It will detect a flea scratching his ear from 10 feet (haha).

Goldfinder

[J_Player]

Hi Goldfinder, thanks for the input.
I am not certain of this, But I think that in air, you will find find ions where you find an electostatic field, and vica versa. Even though the two are different, I think they always exist together in air. If I am right, then I would expect to sense ions and electrostatic fields in the same place and the same concentration. But I may be wrong. Ivconic says he can easily detect ions from any ion source, and I believe he said he can detect electrostatic fields too.

It would seem that with insulated gate mos input, and a positive charged dish around the antenna, either circuit would pick up the signal just as well. The only difference I see is the higher degree of amplification in Ivconic's circuit. This is why I speculate that your circuit may be just as suitable as Ivconic's. I also feel that adding an audio circuit is an enhancement that will tell more about the signal in terms of audio frequencies that may be present. And I wonder if looking at the signal with an oscilloscope would tell information about the source of the ions or electrostatic field. Ivconic may have some answers.

[J_Player]

Hi goldfinder,
After reading about the 400mv charge in most plants, I came to the same conclusion as what you found in your field test.

As far as a special field around buried gold, there is a lot of evidence from conventional detectorists to support this. Many detectorists talk about a "halo" around old coins and gold they find. They say they get a really strong signal on their metal detector, as if the coin is much bigger than what they actually dig up. But after digging up the coin, it then gives a normal signal, even if they bury it again. The explanation I heard is these coins develop oxides and other salts around them after they are in the ground for a long time. Apparently it takes a lot longer for gold because it more inert than silver, copper and other metals used in coins and jewelry. But even gold does form a very thin film of oxides and other salts after it has been in the ground long enough (most gold has a certain amount of copper or silver alloyed that will also corrode slightly at the surface and leach into the soil over time).

The inference is that as the metal piece corroded, oxides and salts were leached into the soil immediately adjacent to the metal piece, helping to create an electrolyte, and possibly a battery that reacted with other metals or minerals in the nearby ground. By digging up the metal piece, it was removed from it's long-developing battery environment. Replacing it in the ground will then give the same signal as any other new coin that will not develop a halo until it has time to oxidize at the surface. At least this is how some detectorists explain it.

If LRL detectorists are able to sense static fields, then I would think the voltage of plants as well as other objects above the ground heavily interfere with any field caused by a buried coin. Also, I cannot imagine any line of ions transporting from a buried object into the air and directly to a LRL sensor. It seems to me that all experiments with free ions in air show that the ions will move where the wind blows them, or toward a nearby oppositely charged object. Ions in the free air cannot be expected to move any more strongly than statically charged styrofoam beads would move in the air. It also seems ludicrous that there would be a stream of gold ions escaping into the air from a gold object buried under the ground.

If LRL detectors are actually able to locate buried treasure, I would look for other principles to explain how they work besides that the "stream of ions" theory. So far I have not heard any coherent explanation from a LRL proponent.

The best theories I have heard are centered around sensing existing electromagnic waves from man-made sources as well as natural sources (radio, power transmission, sunspots, earth's magnetic field, etc). The more credible theory is that a person who is dowsing or using a LRL is able to sense variations in these existing fields, and with enough practice, can learn to ignore stray anomolies caused by trees, etc, and focus on buried targets. (This theory does not address para-psychology and metaphysical methods). While there is no known human organ that has been demonstrated to sense these weak anomolies in EM fields, nobody has proven it can't be done by some sensitive people. The only proof I have seen is the apparent success of some dowsers in finding water. I have actually collected a good amount of information about some feasable principles for how dowsing and LRLs work, but they are maybe to involved to put in a post here.

Good luck finding treasure with what ever means work for you.

[J_Player]

Hi Lake,

That's an interesting graph of basalt that develops a voltage. It shows a voltage between about 43 mv and 55 mv that seems to have a daily cycle as well as a cycle that varies over a month. I doubt this voltage is similar to the 400 mv-500 mv measured in plants, because plants are chemical factories that manufacture complex hydrocarbons from water and minerals in the ground, while the rock does not. But from the chart, it is evident that the voltage measured in the rock does vary dependent on geophysical events (daly cycle and possibly lunar cycle or other influences).

After seeing the test made on these rocks, I wonder if some of these same influences will cause the voltage in plants to fluctuate. It seems very likely to me. IF so, then this is something that I would think interferes with dowsing and LRL operation. Possibly it is another thing that LRL users need to learn about to help refine their searching.

[goldfinder]

J_Player ion/ES detector

I built a breadboard test circuit of J_Player ion/ES detector. It works fine except for the audio/headphone. I got nothing on the headphones despite seeing a signal on my Oscope and DVM.

My antenna is a simple rod sticking up from the plugin board. So testing for ions is a waste of time. It does detect electrostatic fields quite well. I had on an acrylic sweater and at about 18 inches the detector was picking up my sweater moving back and forth about 1/4 of an inch due to my breathing. The response was about 300 millivolts.

I will have to mount the circuit in a good metal box and make an antenna for the ion detection test. I presume that the ions will give some kind of quick pulse response. If that works and I can characterize the signal then I'll consider outoutting the signal into a microcontroller and doing a little DSP on it. If my hunch is halfway correct I should be able to distinguish between ES fields and ion pops.

Goldfinder

[goldfinder]

IONs and ES Fields

Yes, ions and electrostatic fields coexist. You can have one without the other as anyone with some physics or electronics background would know.

The problem is to be able to distinguish. From analyzing the various commercial detectors they do this in several ways. Some of these suck air into a charged chamber and detect when an where in the chamber the ions are attraced. + ions are attracted to the negative plate of the chamber and vice verse. I looked to me like one of the Mineorotried to do versions did this. In a simplified view, with the proper technique, it is possible to identify ions since the lighter ions will be attracted to the chamber walls before the heavier ones. Ion identification and ion seperation is thus possible.

However, these types of detectors are mostly costly laboratory analysis instruments and unsuited for out in the field usage.

AND no one has come forward to PROVE that buried gold even emits its ions. If this technique works for long buried gold then I suspect the detectors are simply picking up the expanded ionic fied effects in the ground due to ground saturation with corrosion effects from the buried metals.

Now as to ions travelling 4 or 5 feet above the surface of the earth for long distances we only have Mineoro to claim this. There is a well known phenomena in physics that ions are deflected in a magnetic field. The older tube TV sets, the tube monitors of your computer you are sitting in front reading this as well as oscilloscopes all deflecting the electrons (charged particles) and directing them to certain places on the screen. So possibly charged ions coming up from the ground are deflected and guided by the earth's magnetic field which "flows" from south to north. This might account for the claim by Mineoro that detection with their instrument is to scan east/west with the detector looking south (for ions coming north).

All this speculation is just that. Lets build some detectors and see if we can find some buried caches with them. Of course, no one in their right mind would admit they have found anything so possibly we will never resolve this whole thing.

Fun thread anyway!

Goldfinder

[hung]

Yes, ions and electrostatic fields coexist. You can have one without the other as anyone with some physics or electronics background would know.

I looked to me like one of the Mineorotried to do versions did this. In a simplified view, with the proper technique, it is possible to identify ions since the lighter ions will be attracted to the chamber walls before the heavier ones. Ion identification and ion seperation is thus possible.

Congratulations. Finally I see someone admit it, besides me, Esteban or Mineoro. Keep striving..

AND no one has come forward to PROVE that buried gold even emits its ions.

We the users who found gold with the detectors are your best proof.

So possibly charged ions coming up from the ground are deflected and guided by the earth's magnetic field which "flows" from south to north. This might account for the claim by Mineoro that detection with their instrument is to scan east/west with the detector looking south (for ions coming north).

All this speculation is just that. Lets build some detectors and see if we can find some buried caches with them. Of course, no one in their right mind would admit they have found anything so possibly we will never resolve this whole thing.

Ionic fields propagate in an 'egg' shaped pattern. You can check this at Mineoro's site and read the explanation. Pretty sane to me.
In fact all your research would benefit from their information.

Sorry, I don't mean or intend to discourage you people at all. In fact I always wanted to investigate everything I could not fully understand in my life, but Damasio and Alonso spent more than 30 years of their lives to get to the point where Mineoro is now. The discoveries they made are developed into the detectors sold by Mineoro. Yet they are always improving their methods.
How long do you expect would take to 'reinvent the wheel'?

Besides, the time people are spending to figure out how it works, the users are in the field recovering what the detectors were made for.

Best to all.

Fun thread anyway!

Goldfinder[/QUOTE]

[J_Player]

A question for hung:

When goldfinder says "AND no one has come forward to PROVE that buried gold even emits its ions", You say:

"We the users who found gold with the detectors are your best proof".

Now I am asking where is your proof that buried gold emits ions? Can you taste an ion? can you feel it in your LRL? How do you know that your reaction is caused by ions? Did you take measurements with an ion detector to verify that it was ions that caused the reaction? Is it possible that another Geologphysical property caused the reaction? Do you have any proof whatsoever to show that ions are responsible for LRL detection?

Is your only proof centered around unfounded allegations that ions cause you to find gold by using the LRL machines? Or do you have some actual proof that ions are involved in the process? Is the Mineoro propaganda your only source of knowledge about gold ions being resonsible for how it all works?

Do you have any proof that ions are responsible rather than electromagnetic waves? Or rather than isotope emissions? Or rather than static forces of magnetism or electricity? Please tell us what you actually know, not what Mineoro propaganda says.

[J_Player]

Hi goldfinder,
I agree that electrostatic fields can exist without ions, but it seems to me that in free air, there would be an electrostatic field gradient caused by an anomoly in the concentration of ions, and vica versa, even if in small amounts. Maybe I am wrong.

However, If you wanted to measure only ions, then I would suggest that your ion detector is placed inside a metal enclosure that is shielded from any external static fields, and use a small fan to draw samples through the sensor. I would think you could use the same sensor as you originally built, or the differential FET design that Ivconic designed. But the dish should be replaced by a metal tube with the antenna running down the center of the axis. It is important to have the fan draw air from the exhaust end of the detector tube because the motor brushes generate ozone which would be a source of stray ion noise if sent into the tube.

This method will not distinguish what ion molecules you are sensing, only the current generated by the ions sensed. In fact, you will not know if you are sensing ionized molecules or free electrons. I still feel that the best data to be seen from the detector is found by putting an oscilloscope probe on the amplifier output to see the time based fluctuations. This could give valuable information that is not available with a meter or speaker. (I wonder if the reason the audio section I suggested was unresponsive could be because the fluctuations in detected signal were below the audio range -- or above it).

Anyway, it should be easy to replace the dish with a metal tube, and place the whole assembly inside a metal box. The fan and motor could be omitted if there is a breeze to carry samples through the tube.

Remember, we are looking for an anomoly in the concentration of ions in the free air that can lead us to a buried treasure. My personal feeling is you won't find a concentration of any kind of ions above a buried target. I think any unusual concentration of ions you sense will be attributable to an ion source that is recognizable (ie: crt tube, ionic air purifier, motor brushes, etc.) But I don't really know this, and we won't know until we see the results of your experiments.

[J_Player]

Are we wasting our time?

According to Dell Winders, there are certain frequencies which are used to sense different elements when using LRLs. When he tallks about frequencies, he is referring to the advantages of connecting a low power oscillator to the hand probes (modified rods that look like dowsing rods) held in his hands. This battery operated device is worn on the belt, and the frequency is adjusted by a potentiometer somewhere between 100 hz and 1000 hz to aid in detecting the element you are searching for.



While Dell has offered no coherent explanation as to how this works, He did say that there are various frequencies that work for gold, silver and other elements. The only other comment Dell makes about this device is that it is a "molecular frequency discriminator" (MFD). He never says it will help to find gold or other treasures, only that it is a molecular frequency discriminator. I made numerous attempts to have him explain how it works, and his replies were inconsistent, and tell us very little about what principles an LRL works on:

"I have probably been the strongest most vocal proponnent of this concept. (not the bogus advertising claims) I have never, ever promoted any ION or ELECTROSTATIC field detection theories."

"According to science, water is a strong concentrator of the earth's magnetic "field" and will follow even slightly moving water."

"Physical Dowsing" detects the stronger emenating "fields" at the surface of the earth which are layered over weaker "fields", over weaker "fields" etc, etc."

"Discrimination of the "field" concentrated around a chemical element, can be accompolished with the mind via "Mental Dowsing", or with the use of frequency, and/or electronics."

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

"The repelling force that seems to affect the LRL Rod(s) appears "As If" it is more magnetic, than electrical. In that context, I built an experimental magnetic/harmonics prototype based on a theory I developed in the field study of MFD, of what I think could be classified as a method of Magnetic ressonance."

"Under optimum operating conditions, I can "Feel" the strength of the target "Field" repel against the Rod. I have traced to the location of test targets from 60 feet away while blindfolded."

No where in Dell's statements did he ever offer any proof by test instruments that confirm what these devices are measuring.
As near as I can tell, Dell Winders doesn't know what physical principles are involved in the workings of a LRL. It appears he knows they work from his personal success in using them, and he believes some kind of "field" is involved. My opinion is he has very little konwledge about the developed sciences which measure signals and fields at the surface of the earth. I speculate that based on his experiences with LRLs, any theories he developed are more subjective rather than factual concerning the geophysical attributes involved. This is to say, that if there is a magnetic field anomoly where the LRL device is reacting, then I have never seen any evidence that anyone did a survey with a magnetometer to confirm that the magnetic anomoly actually exists. Without such a confirmation, then it is anybody's guess whether the LRL is responding to a magnetic field, static field, radio waves, gamma emissions or a host of other anomalies that could exist at the location of the response.

It is precicely for this reason that the LRL proponents have come under so much criticism. They have no science to prove that they are sensing anything, and the theories of how LRLs work change with each user. As long as this condition exists, we can expect to get very bad information about LRL theory from these non-scientists. It will be nice if some day one of the modern LRL proponents produces some honest testing to show exactly what these devices are measuring. It would be nice to see proof from ion detectors, magnetometers, EM frequency detectors, and other calibrated instruments that are known to give accurate readings. Then we wouldn't need to waste our time looking into technologies that can't possibly work, while concentrating on methods that have the most promise.

[Qiaozhi]

Are we wasting our time?

Are we wasting our time?

YES!

[Carl-NC]

As far as a special field around buried gold, there is a lot of evidence from conventional detectorists to support this. Many detectorists talk about a "halo" around old coins and gold they find. They say they get a really strong signal on their metal detector, as if the coin is much bigger than what they actually dig up. But after digging up the coin, it then gives a normal signal, even if they bury it again.

These are anecdotal stories, and have not been backed up either in experiments or in theory. Oxidized iron can definitely produce a larger response under certain conditions, but copper or silver oxides probably do not. I've read on other forums where a couple of people have tried to experimentally verify halos, and have failed. I suspect halos are mostly a myth.

The explanation I heard is these coins develop oxides and other salts around them after they are in the ground for a long time. Apparently it takes a lot longer for gold because it more inert than silver, copper and other metals used in coins and jewelry. But even gold does form a very thin film of oxides and other salts after it has been in the ground long enough (most gold has a certain amount of copper or silver alloyed that will also corrode slightly at the surface and leach into the soil over time).

Gold does not produce oxides, at all. Metals (copper, silver, etc) alloyed with gold will corrode, but not the gold.

- Carl

[Carl-NC]

Yes, ions and electrostatic fields coexist. You can have one without the other as anyone with some physics or electronics background would know.

I think the term "electrostatic field" is a misnomer. We have electric fields, and magnetic fields. Either one may be static or dynamic. So we can have a "static electric field" or a "dynamic electric field." Also, I don't think you can have an ion without an electric field, though you can have an electric field without an ion. When ions are in (relative) motion, the E-field is no longer static.

- Carl

[Carl-NC]

The only other comment Dell makes about this device is that it is a "molecular frequency discriminator" (MFD). He never says it will help to find gold or other treasures, only that it is a molecular frequency discriminator.

According to the advertising, what is the device supposed to do?

Now, take a look an issue of "Gold Prospecting" magazine... look up the ad for the (Electroscope) Gravitator... what is that device advertised to do?

- Carl

[FrancoItaly]

halo

Hi All
A ground battery with gold and other metals or minerals it can make an electric field and this is a real fact. The chemical reaction requires a lot of time if the 2 electrodes are very distant...