Tweet
All this tinkering, discovering, helping together here concerning electronical issues is ok.
As long as the info doesn't leads us "real results wanting" persons away from the serious track. I self built and tested one of those Zahori circuits which mainly are based on electrostatic so afterwards I knew with this stuff you can find electricity lines or rubbed air-ballons from a good distance but no treasures.
I like tinkering but it was still a waste of time and ressources - just because some people here suggested this "could work".
And the same it might be with the ToTeM or the Alonso Clone....
btw. I am not a "skeptic" which condemns everything completly. First some persons here thought I would be a LRL-believer and now some may think I am a skeptic. I am also nothing in the middle, I am a realist who controls everything exactly, compares how much truth a story really could contain and I work with very fair warrants.
This world or better the own personal life will always be full of decisions and judgments of what it is good for me or others and whats not. It is not just to make their lifes hard if doctors, judges or even politicians have to study first. Complex and sophisticated things need alot background- or special-knowledge otherwise people will fail with good work or correct results.
Shure, I could start to experiment with those circuits, too, but why I should find out completly the same as we know already?
And what we know is not really convincing if it comes to real treasure-hunting.
If we see the whole thing as a development-process then it's useless to test the same stuff over and over again. But the motivation to contribute to this kind of "not really promising stuff" would return if there should popup really promising results.
Do you know what is CW? It is "continuous wave". Do you know SSB? Its Single Side Band.
Why do I ask? Because with special ham amateur radio transceivers you can hear ultrashort bandwidths of just a few Hertz thousands miles away.
It is no big deal to create ultra-sensitive detectors - its pretty simple today.
But those must work for the intended purpose.
This micro-adjustment stuff shows already clearly that we have a very ultra-sensitive receiver of some sort. And of course ultra-sensitive detectors react on minimal EM-field chances, be it a magnet or a 1.5v spark 5 meters away.
Just the question is:
For what it is really ultra-sensitive and under what stability conditions?
This here is a forum about metal detection an not radio-station-LRL-detection.
It is not about the Hubble telescope which is ultra-sensitive for super far away stars.
So the question is: How useful is this kind of supersensitive-detector for metal?
For metal buried under ground, otherwise we may find it with some field-glasses, too.
Or in other words:
Its wasted time to experiment with ultra sensitive radio-receivers if those are not good for metal-detection.
I'm pretty shure the ToTeM or Alonso is some kind of BFO which only reacts on metal or magnets because the coil-activity or inductivity is extremly very slightly changing (on a level of just a part of 1 Hz, it could be even just the shape of the wave-form which gets slightly disturbed or interrupted for some time), even passivly if a huge metal object already interacts with some long-wave frequency. Thats also the reason why those both coils have to be so extremly well adjusted.
To make it more clearly:
Those kinds of detectors may listen at the 50.000 Hz area but they could see the difference of 50.000,012 and 50.000,025 Hz at a certain frequency (the 50KHz was just an example).
btw. first it would be really important if you know on what kind of detection-principle this stuff is based before you experiment with it. I guess I gave you now the answer, so you know with what kind of supersensitive detection circuit you are dealing and now you can find a way to modify it until it's really useful for treasure-detection.
Perhaps it would be better to start with ultra-sensitive BFOs directly - making "tabula rasa" (clear table) and not messing with such "pre-ready-made" circuits which contain alots of disturbing and unneeded content.
And if you need a handholdable metal-detector better buy a Garrett Ace 250 including snipercoil an mount both on a just 30cm long pole.
As long as those "longer range detection" doesn't work reliable and on a clear level concerning on what kind of influence it really reacts, this 2in1 circuit is just hindering important improvements.
You also should input the schematics into some circuit simulating software so you may see under which kind of EM-influence the coils etc. will react on what level or intensity.
Or do we wanna have this whole riddle-guessing going on and on for years and years?
For the moment all those ToTeM-, Alonso- or PDK detectors seems to me like bad AM-Radios which will receive all kind of household-disturbances, too, because they are not shielded and designed the right way for only receiving what they should receive or detect!
But perhaps you're already on the right track and by clearing things up and improving stuff on the right area we finally get some reliable "more distance metal detection".
And without the possibility of receiving intense and highly directional buried metal signals - without radio-activity almost impossible, especially if those targets are very small - some kind of highly sensitive or for a certain area specialized detector would be an absolutly must!
As long as the info doesn't leads us "real results wanting" persons away from the serious track. I self built and tested one of those Zahori circuits which mainly are based on electrostatic so afterwards I knew with this stuff you can find electricity lines or rubbed air-ballons from a good distance but no treasures.
I like tinkering but it was still a waste of time and ressources - just because some people here suggested this "could work".
And the same it might be with the ToTeM or the Alonso Clone....
btw. I am not a "skeptic" which condemns everything completly. First some persons here thought I would be a LRL-believer and now some may think I am a skeptic. I am also nothing in the middle, I am a realist who controls everything exactly, compares how much truth a story really could contain and I work with very fair warrants.
This world or better the own personal life will always be full of decisions and judgments of what it is good for me or others and whats not. It is not just to make their lifes hard if doctors, judges or even politicians have to study first. Complex and sophisticated things need alot background- or special-knowledge otherwise people will fail with good work or correct results.
Shure, I could start to experiment with those circuits, too, but why I should find out completly the same as we know already?
And what we know is not really convincing if it comes to real treasure-hunting.
If we see the whole thing as a development-process then it's useless to test the same stuff over and over again. But the motivation to contribute to this kind of "not really promising stuff" would return if there should popup really promising results.
Do you know what is CW? It is "continuous wave". Do you know SSB? Its Single Side Band.
Why do I ask? Because with special ham amateur radio transceivers you can hear ultrashort bandwidths of just a few Hertz thousands miles away.
It is no big deal to create ultra-sensitive detectors - its pretty simple today.
But those must work for the intended purpose.
This micro-adjustment stuff shows already clearly that we have a very ultra-sensitive receiver of some sort. And of course ultra-sensitive detectors react on minimal EM-field chances, be it a magnet or a 1.5v spark 5 meters away.
Just the question is:
For what it is really ultra-sensitive and under what stability conditions?
This here is a forum about metal detection an not radio-station-LRL-detection.
It is not about the Hubble telescope which is ultra-sensitive for super far away stars.
So the question is: How useful is this kind of supersensitive-detector for metal?
For metal buried under ground, otherwise we may find it with some field-glasses, too.
Or in other words:
Its wasted time to experiment with ultra sensitive radio-receivers if those are not good for metal-detection.
I'm pretty shure the ToTeM or Alonso is some kind of BFO which only reacts on metal or magnets because the coil-activity or inductivity is extremly very slightly changing (on a level of just a part of 1 Hz, it could be even just the shape of the wave-form which gets slightly disturbed or interrupted for some time), even passivly if a huge metal object already interacts with some long-wave frequency. Thats also the reason why those both coils have to be so extremly well adjusted.
To make it more clearly:
Those kinds of detectors may listen at the 50.000 Hz area but they could see the difference of 50.000,012 and 50.000,025 Hz at a certain frequency (the 50KHz was just an example).
btw. first it would be really important if you know on what kind of detection-principle this stuff is based before you experiment with it. I guess I gave you now the answer, so you know with what kind of supersensitive detection circuit you are dealing and now you can find a way to modify it until it's really useful for treasure-detection.
Perhaps it would be better to start with ultra-sensitive BFOs directly - making "tabula rasa" (clear table) and not messing with such "pre-ready-made" circuits which contain alots of disturbing and unneeded content.
And if you need a handholdable metal-detector better buy a Garrett Ace 250 including snipercoil an mount both on a just 30cm long pole.
As long as those "longer range detection" doesn't work reliable and on a clear level concerning on what kind of influence it really reacts, this 2in1 circuit is just hindering important improvements.
You also should input the schematics into some circuit simulating software so you may see under which kind of EM-influence the coils etc. will react on what level or intensity.
Or do we wanna have this whole riddle-guessing going on and on for years and years?
For the moment all those ToTeM-, Alonso- or PDK detectors seems to me like bad AM-Radios which will receive all kind of household-disturbances, too, because they are not shielded and designed the right way for only receiving what they should receive or detect!
But perhaps you're already on the right track and by clearing things up and improving stuff on the right area we finally get some reliable "more distance metal detection".
And without the possibility of receiving intense and highly directional buried metal signals - without radio-activity almost impossible, especially if those targets are very small - some kind of highly sensitive or for a certain area specialized detector would be an absolutly must!
"WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, CAN BE DONE" 
Comment