Testing for signal lines

[Seden]

Klondike

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

MFD transmitter

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,

[J_Player]

Testing for signal lines

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]

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.

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.
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.

[Carl-NC]

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,

This 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.

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]

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]

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

OK Dell, give us the benefit of your infinite wisdom. What tests have you performed?

[Max]

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
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... ).

Best regards,
Max

[Carl-NC]

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]

ABX power switch

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]

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]

CARL CIRCUIT

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]

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:

1. Set up the TX in OFF mode, check that there is no signal line.
2. Switch to random, see if there is a signal line, then check the TX state.
3. 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.