Mineoro tests: What's really going on

[Carl-NC]

A few years ago I obtained a Mineoro PDC205 on loan. I found that it could not detect gold, but that it would beep occasionally, in a seemingly random way. I got permission to dissect it. I found that it had no circuitry or sensor that corresponded to Mineoro claims of detecting ions. Instead, I found a loop antenna and regenerative receiver circuit, indicating an ability to detect standard RF radiowaves. I had to return the unit before fully investigating this.

I now own a Mineoro FG80. It is advertised as being able to detect fresh gold, again through ionic means. I have fully demonstrated, 100% of the time, under any conditions, that it definitely WILL NOT detect fresh gold. It has also failed to detect buried gold that is approaching 4 yrs old.

Like the PDC205, the FG80 seems to just beep in a rather random way. It is possible, by carefully adjusting the threshold while standing in one location, to get the unit to consistently beep in a particular direction, or a particular point on the ground. But if I move a few meters away, there is no consistency with the prior signal direction, even when re-tweaking the threshold. Directions are helter-skelter.

I have an invisible dog fence. It works by pulsing a low current through a buried wire. Metal detectors easily pick this up as EM interference, so when testing detectors, I turn it off. The other day I took the FG80 outside, before turning off the fence, and discovered that it would rather easily detect the buried wire. With the threshold set low, I could hold the FG80 horizontally close to the ground and precisely track the buried wire. In anticipation of a suggestion, the voltage produced on this wire is much too low to cause ionization.

I propose that the Mineoro locators are detecting EM signals, not ionization. Everywhere around us, we are bathed in EM signals of all frequencies. It is simple to build a receiver that will detect these signals and beep when a threshold is exceeded. EM signal strength can vary with direction due to obstacles and multipath. If a directional antenna is used (such as a loop), a threshold-based receiver can be made to detect a signal in certain directions but not others.

Next: tests that confirm my theory.

- Carl

[hung]

I have fully demonstrated, 100% of the time, under any conditions, that it definitely WILL NOT detect fresh gold.

No, you didn't. If you don't encounter the right conditions on humidity , hot environment, etc. you will not detect fresh gold with your present device. That's why the GIG was added. To be able to make the detector has a more consistent basis on this. Although you won't be able to detect fresh gold in rainy days, it will do it in about any sunny day.

With a similar detector as the one you own, I was able to pick my gold ring from 15 feet away on a particular day. Next day I could not. So as some skeptics here erroneously think I'm somewhat involved with Mineoro and you pose as an adversary, who do you think they will believe?
Fine, I don't care. Never will. Reality is one and only.

It has also failed to detect buried gold that is approaching 4 yrs old.

How many times will it be necessary to tell you the same thing over and over until you input data?
Gold should be at least 10 years old buried to be detectable in the usual way.

Like the PDC205, the FG80 seems to just beep in a rather random way. It is possible, by carefully adjusting the threshold while standing in one location, to get the unit to consistently beep in a particular direction, or a particular point on the ground. But if I move a few meters away, there is no consistency with the prior signal direction, even when re-tweaking the threshold. Directions are helter-skelter.

I have an invisible dog fence. It works by pulsing a low current through a buried wire. Metal detectors easily pick this up as EM interference, so when testing detectors, I turn it off. The other day I took the FG80 outside, before turning off the fence, and discovered that it would rather easily detect the buried wire. With the threshold set low, I could hold the FG80 horizontally close to the ground and precisely track the buried wire. In anticipation of a suggestion, the voltage produced on this wire is much too low to cause ionization.

I propose that the Mineoro locators are detecting EM signals, not ionization. Everywhere around us, we are bathed in EM signals of all frequencies. It is simple to build a receiver that will detect these signals and beep when a threshold is exceeded. EM signal strength can vary with direction due to obstacles and multipath. If a directional antenna is used (such as a loop), a threshold-based receiver can be made to detect a signal in certain directions but not others.

Next: tests that confirm my theory.

- Carl

Carl, what kind of scientist are you? I simply can't believe that I read the things you stated above !

Of course, there's a RF portion inside the detector which will eventually suffer from those kind of interferences. But you have to understand once and for all that the FG80 is built to detect ionic and electrostatic fields in the nano level. So altough your dog fence or whatever may appear to have a low ionization , it may be more than sufficient for the FG to pick it up.

Finally, if you are really serious about testing this device , which now I really have strong doubts, take it to a region where you suspect there's gold buried. Away from the city with no electrical interferences so it will not affect your testings.
AND NEVER GO ALONE. TAKE SOMEONE WITH YOU TO CONFIRM OR NOT YOUR CONCLUSIONS. If you go alone it will always be your word alone with NO CHANCE OF REFUTATION if you ever wish to report back as i know you are starving for it.
Take SOMEONE LIKE DELL WINDERS WITH YOU since he knows a lot of places where might exist gold, have a lot of experience on this and he already tested the FG himself.
If you decide to do it alone by yourself, you show you don't have the desire to conduct an honest and suitable test.

[Carl-NC]

Experiment #1.

Since the FG80 was adept at sensing a pulsed dog fence, I set up my Sandshark PI detector on a bench to see if the FG80 would detect the pulsed field. With the PI coil positioned vertically, and the FG80 held facing the coil (i.e., parallel), I varied the FG80 threshold setting and found the distances at which it would respond to the PI field:

[FONT=Courier New]Sensitivity   Distance
    375        12 ft
    350        10 ft
    325         9 ft
    300         8 ft
    250         7 ft
    200         6 ft
    150         5 ft
    100         4 ft
     50         3 ft
     10         2 ft
      5         1 ft[/FONT]

This clearly shows that as the sensitivity is lowered, the EM field must be stronger to enable detection.

If the FG80 is truly detecting EM using a loop antenna, then I would expect the device to show some amount of directivity. This can be, and was, tested.

With the sensitivity set to 250, the FG80 detects the PI field at 7 feet, when the FG80 is pointed at the PI coil. But when the FG80 is turned 90 degrees, or orthogonal, to the PI coil, detection does not occur until 2.5 feet away. This was repeated for a threshold of 50, and detection went from 3 feet (parallel) to less than 6 inches (orthogonal). The null with orthogonal alignment clearly shows the directionality that is expected from a loop antenna. This technique, in fact, is used in two-box detectors to achieve induction balance. And, anyone with a metal detector can demonstrate for themselves that sensitivity is highest along the coil's axis, and lowest on the edge of the coil.

Another prediction from the use of a loop antenna is that sensitivity is identical on both the front side and back side of the loop. Again, this can be easily demonstrated with a metal detector coil. The FG80 was tested again, but with the back side of the unit held facing the PI coil. Results were the same as the front side.

Although all of this very strongly points to EM detection, I nevertheless considered the possibility that it could be ions. However, the voltage produced by the Sandshark coil (~100v) is insufficient for ionizing anything in the air. Even so, if ions are being generated by the Sandshark and detected by the FG80, then I would expect that the instant I turn off the Sandshark, the FG80 should continue detecting ions for a short time until they disperse. With the FG80 placed a foot from the coil and the sensitivity set to 300, the instant I turned off the Sandshark, the FG80 ceased responding. There was no detection lag.

This set of experiments verify that the Mineoro FG80 is, in fact, detecting EM fields. There is absolutely no question whatsoever about this.

More to come...

- Carl

[hung]

Carl,

There's nothing special on what you're doing. It only shows how the FG's loop antenna behaves in the presence of a strong EM field. We all know this for eons. All predictable. So what?
The FG is not detecting EM fields, it's been AFFECTED by it.

Since you apparently forgot everything Mineoro states and all the topics we discussed here over the years, I will have to refresh your mind.

Mineoro claims that every noble metal, in this case gold, which is buried for more than 10 years release an ionic and electrostatic field which is detectable by their detectors, in this case the FG80.
So, it will EVENTUALLY detect silver, copper and bronze as I have already demonstrated showing pictures of objects I detected with my PDC210 in the topic 'weekend relics'. Those however can only be detected at short a distance. As the ionic chamber is built with a gold leaf inside it, gold detection can happen at much greater distances.

So in order to trully test the device you MUST take it over to the field and check for gold detection. What you are doing at home is useless and pointless. Since it's got a perimeter antenna, it will obviously be affected by a EM field. The knob calibration only turns it more or less sensitive to it.

Do what I told you. Call Dell Winders and go to the field. Forget home useless tests.

[hung]

Even so, if ions are being generated by the Sandshark and detected by the FG80, then I would expect that the instant I turn off the Sandshark, the FG80 should continue detecting ions for a short time until they disperse. With the FG80 placed a foot from the coil and the sensitivity set to 300, the instant I turned off the Sandshark, the FG80 ceased responding. There was no detection lag.

This set of experiments verify that the Mineoro FG80 is, in fact, detecting EM fields. There is absolutely no question whatsoever about this.

More to come...

- Carl

You did not understand what I said above. I did not mean you would be detecting ions in your dog fence case. I said the ions would be there only in a nano level.
Don't expect to detect any ions in your experiment's case because first, only gold ions will be detected, otherwise I would be detecting any ion whatsoever from far away.
And most important: Your PI EM field will destroy any ions which may appear. That's why in the field, detecting with the Mineoros, if you turn a regular EM MD on, you will make the ionic field vanish if for instance is not a very big target, making the locating process impossible until the fields are fully recovered.

[Morris_jo]

Mineoro

Hi Carl, Hung :

Still mineoro story goes on and on ............!!!! . Hung : thnks for sending the Dis-300 manual, it`s not organised or even well explained !! .

Carl: Did you find any buried nobel metal (Gold,Silver) at any depth by using LRL ( Mineoro ) ??

Hung: I am still waiting for the Dis-300 Field tests ? also, as you are now in brazil, will you be able to provide some of your finds by mineoro devices ?




Regrads

[hung]

Hung: I am still waiting for the Dis-300 Field tests ? also, as you are now in brazil, will you be able to provide some of your finds by mineoro devices ?
Regrads

Actually a member of my team is the one who will test it, probably in 1 or 2 weeks when he'll travel to Sao Paulo.

About my Mineoro findings (the ones released to be shown), I already posted some pictures in past threads. Do a search and you will find them.

[Qiaozhi]

There's nothing special on what you're doing. It only shows how the FG's loop antenna behaves in the presence of a strong EM field. We all know this for eons. All predictable. So what?
The FG is not detecting EM fields, it's been AFFECTED by it.

As the loop antenna is basically detecting unwanted EM interference, then why is it there in the first place?
Presumably the ion chamber is all that is required for the detection of gold ions.

[hung]

As the loop antenna is basically detecting unwanted EM interference, then why is it there in the first place?
Presumably the ion chamber is all that is required for the detection of gold ions.

Until we come to know (if we ever do) what phenomena exactly Damasio and Alonso discovered we will be only speculating here. I have a scientific mind and don't like speculations. I already stated I believe I understand the phenomena to some extent but will not discuss it due to ethics.

As to your question, I believe the loop (perimeter) antenna plays a role when first detecting the target at long range thus being integrated with the ionic chamber for this.

[Clondike Clad]

fg80

Carl Keep up the testing we all want to know .
Hung I am also learning from you as well.
Who know this thing may work at detecting RF but at this time Carl can't detect Gold.
Carl ask Hung for tips on testing this unit.

[Qiaozhi]

Until we come to know (if we ever do) what phenomena exactly Damasio and Alonso discovered we will be only speculating here. I have a scientific mind and don't like speculations. I already stated I believe I understand the phenomena to some extent but will not discuss it due to ethics.

As to your question, I believe the loop (perimeter) antenna plays a role when first detecting the target at long range thus being integrated with the ionic chamber for this.

Without trying to speculate too much - the loop (perimeter) antenna seems an almost obvious way of remotely triggering the device during a demonstration to fool an unwary punter into believing that it really works.

[Clondike Clad]

Rf detections

RF detections could fool someone into thinking this thing works.
I HOPE HUNG CAN TELL WHY THIS CIRCUIT IS NEEDED FOR ION DETECTION.
cARL IS VERY GOOD AT CIRCUITS AND WHEN HE GET INSIDE THE FG80 WE WILL KNOW MORE.
THIS DETECTOR SHOULD WORK FOR THE USER WHO LEARN HOW TO USE IT.
i FEEL CARL IS NO DUMMIE WITH DETECTORS.
HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO RUN THE FG80.............................................. ....
If he can't detect gold with it I know i can't .
looking more like the same old scam to me.

[Carl-NC]

Carl ask Hung for tips on testing this unit.

I have done so. Hung suggested the following test:

"Inside your car if well calibrated, the detector should beep when you press or release the brake light. An optimal setting would be beeping when pressing and releasing the pedal. If it does without 'going crazy' it's sensitive enough."

So I tried this test. Ergo, time for...

Experiment #2.

Sure enough, with the Mineoro inside the car, and the threshold properly adjusted, the FG80 will beep when I depress the brake pedal, and beep again when I release the pedal.

So the question is, why does it beep?

There are two obvious possibilities. If Mineoro's claims of ionic detection are correct, then the act of pressing and releasing the brake must somehow produce ions. Since the brake includes a switch for activating the brake light, we could suppose that the opening and closing of the switch might produce an electrical arc, which could generated ions. This would suggest that moving the FG80 farther from the switch (at the top of the brake pedal, under the dash) would make detection more difficult. Not so. In fact, I found that I could place the FG80 close to the rear brake light, outside the car, and just as easily get a response to the braking.

This brings up a second possibility: transient EM fields. On to the lab.

On the lab bench, I connected a variable power supply to a 10-ohm resistor via 1-meter leads. The power supply has a disable button which
enables/disables the output voltage. This is done electronically, not through switch contacts, so there is no chance of arcing.

With the FG80 sensitivity set to 300 and the supply set to 12V, I toggled the disable button and the FG80 would beep both at the enable and the disable transition. I then gradually reduced the supply, all the way down to 500mV, and could still get responses from the FG80 depending on how close the leads are placed to the FG80. That is, as I turned down the supply voltage, I would need to move the leads closer to the FG80 to still effect a beep.

What does this mean? As with the brake light test, toggling the power supply output produces a transient current, both at the OFF-to-ON transition as well as the ON-to-OFF transition. Transient currents generate transient EM fields. The Mineoro is detecting these transient EM fields. This is absolutely proven, beyond any doubt whatsoever, by the lab test in which detection depended on current strength through the wire and distance from the wire. Even transient currents down to 50mA were sufficient to detect from close range. The lab test also had no chance of producing ions, as there were no switch contacts involved.

All of this is precisely consistent with the Sandshark test, which involve a continuously pulsed EM field and, again, no ions.

- Carl

[J_Player]

Another simple test for the FG80

There are two obvious possibilities. If Mineoro's claims of ionic detection are correct, then the act of pressing and releasing the brake must somehow produce ions. Since the brake includes a switch for activating the brake light, we could suppose that the opening and closing of the switch might produce an electrical arc, which could generated ions. This would suggest that moving the FG80 farther from the switch (at the top of the brake pedal, under the dash) would make detection more difficult. Not so. In fact, I found that I could place the FG80 close to the rear brake light, outside the car, and just as easily get a response to the braking.

If the brake test shows the FG80 is sensing transient EM fields, then a simple experiment may further demonstrate this: Consider that in a 12vdc circuit switching power to a light bulb with a resistance filament, there are usually several spikes when the power is first applied to the filament. These spikes are caused by the minute arcing as the switch contacts close. As voltage is suddenly applied to the light filament, a surge of current can be expected for a small fraction of a second, then as the filament heats up, its resistance increases and the current drops and levels off to a constant amount. Releasing the power usually does not cause this large rush of current. Now some filaments are wound into a coil shape rather than a strand of wire. These bulbs with a coil shaped filament could be expected to send out more intense transient EM fields when the power is applied. Furthermore, I would suspect the field would be directional, due to the coil shape where the transient current flows.

A simple test would be to switch on and off a DC bulb that has a coil shaped filament. Then test the FG80 for beeping at different angles to the axis of the filament coil. I would also take note of the orientation of the coils inside the FG80 to maximize this effect. If I am correct, we might find that the FG80 also has directional properties in sensing a DC light turning on.

[Dell Winders]

O.K. so you have concluded that the Mineoro, does not detect Gold Ions, but you have determined it is sensitive to very minute EM fields, and they can even be detected from a distance.

After all these years of making false reports based on assumption it looks like you are finally getting your first clue into the workings of LRLs. WoW!

So why bother with all the mumbo jumbo crap, and just run the Mineoro in the field and see if it detects Gold?

As I have said, it will only work during favorable operating conditions, the same as all other LRL's. Have you been smart enough to figure when those favorable operating conditions are present, and know when the Mineoro, or any LRL will work, and when it will not work? No? I didn't think so. Dell