pointronic 98

[Max]

Hi,
I'm very upset... read my previous post and then...
DAMN ! Used 3 times don't with 3rd person singular !

he doesn't
he doesn't
he doesn't

Esteban come here... lets start an english conversation about ions and piles!

Have to improve my English!
And if btw you have that circuit... post it !

Make us this gift !

Kind regards,
Max

[Max]

Hi,
have to call "America's Most Wanted" to find Esteban ?

Please respond senor.

We are awaiting for your answer and possibly the schematic/plan.

Kind regards,
Max

[J_Player]

Hi Max,
Perhaps you don't understand what people think about your posts. Lets take a look at some of the statements from your posts in the past couple weeks:

• Gold ions generation depends on many factors but no need of any long time...
• I still think that's a matter of hours and days if right conditions are present in the soil.
• Cannot see any good reason why e.g. gold ions have to concentrate or increase in number with long time last.
• after 1 month or 1 million years you'll have about the same amount of free gold ions in the soil.
• For me all this talking about "long time buried gold" that produce tons of ions is just another fake argument flying around LRL... BS.
• Changes nothing, no more gold ions, no remote location: NO IONIC LRL.
• No just-electronic handheld device could detect that ions. This is a fact.

• Have no time to read tons of documents about how microbes could give you the map of treasure...
• for sure LRL design is not my goal.

Now you say:

I don't wanna be polemic here BUT
Oh man... so I'm the problem now ??? ... that's why you are upset with me ?
You cannot say that "my purpose is prove LRLs can't work" cause of the request above...

Anybody who reads this forum knows what your real purpose is. We all know you are looking for a way to prove any circuit diagram cannot possibly work, just as you tried to prove buried metal chemistry does not work the way that chemists demonstrated. We all know you will ignore facts in front of you in order to prove you are right and millions of reports from scientists research are wrong. We know your purpose is to prove any circuitry presented cannot work even if the designers are successful with their circuits. We know your goal is not to design a working LRL, because you told us it is not.

"... that's why you are upset with me ?"
But you are mistaken. I am not upset with you. I think you are funny. It makes me laugh when I see someone who tries to convince other people he is very knowledgeable, and at the same time says he does not have time to read documents that prove he doesn't know what he is talking about. When I read your posts, it makes me laugh the same as if I read a publication from a member of the "Flat Earth Society" trying to prove the earth is flat. I suspect a few other readers have the same experience when reading your posts, but I think most would rather you stop clogging up the forum with stupid posts that don't add anything of value, and only serve to attempt to get others to provide you with more fodder to fuel your silly diatribe.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Max]

Hi Max,
Perhaps you don't understand what people think about your posts. Lets take a look at some of the statements from your posts in the past couple weeks:

Now you say:

Anybody who reads this forum knows what your real purpose is. We all know you are looking for a way to prove any circuit diagram cannot possibly work, just as you tried to prove buried metal chemistry does not work the way that chemists demonstrated. We all know you will ignore facts in front of you in order to prove you are right and millions of reports from scientists research are wrong. We know your purpose is to prove any circuitry presented cannot work even if the designers are successful with their circuits. We know your goal is not to design a working LRL, because you told us it is not.

"... that's why you are upset with me ?"
But you are mistaken. I am not upset with you. I think you are funny. It makes me laugh when I see someone who tries to convince other people he is very knowledgeable, and at the same time says he does not have time to read documents that prove he doesn't know what he is talking about. When I read your posts, it makes me laugh the same as if I read a publication from a member of the "Flat Earth Society" trying to prove the earth is flat. I suspect a few other readers have the same experience when reading your posts, but I think most would rather you stop clogging up the forum with stupid posts that don't add anything of value, and only serve to attempt to get others to provide you with more fodder to fuel your silly diatribe.

Best wishes,
J_P

Hi JP,
"We all know you are looking for a way to prove any circuit diagram cannot possibly work, just as you tried to prove buried metal chemistry does not work the way that chemists demonstrated. "

Suppose I want to see that circuit ? Where is it ?
Where is that "circuit diagram" you're talking about ???
Cannot see anything but just your silly contestation against me.

"We know your purpose is to prove any circuitry presented cannot work even if the designers are successful with their circuits. "

WHERE IS THAT CIRCUIT ?
WHO PROVED WHAT ??? TO WHO ??? ARE YOU THE WITNESS ???
OF WHAT ???

You are talking of NOTHING JP. VACUUM.

"I think you are funny. It makes me laugh when I see someone who tries to convince other people he is very knowledgeable, and at the same time says he does not have time to read documents that prove he doesn't know what he is talking about."

I have few time. I'm a busy man...That's true... but you can't make me belive that microbes can indicate you where the gold is... using just a (supposed working) LRL... without using instead lab analisys.

Can you ? I think not. Have you a working electronic-LRL ? A schematic ?
Something really working apart some papers ???

My friend I can find double of your documents like these... and then ?
These give the key to just-electronic-LRL design ?
Ionic detection again ???

Still the same stuff... columns of ions, tons of ions ???
Where do you see them ?
Telluric currents ?

BLA BLA BLA

"When I read your posts, it makes me laugh the same as if I read a publication from a member of the "Flat Earth Society" trying to prove the earth is flat."

Well... someone here said that currents are like static fields, not me.
I'm the ignorant here ? I'm blind ?

If you say that... have to trust!

The Earth is flat ? Uhm... who is the new Columbus ???
You ? or Esteban ?

C'mon give us the schematic if so.
I wanna see the NEW WORLD OF LRL.

Give us a proof that your theory is truth, science.

And I'll belive at your words in a microsecond ! I swear !

But till then, you talk like Esteban... with any proof in your hands.
Just funny pictures and lots of papers.

You have no LRLs... and Esteban the same. Just fantasies.

Best regards,
Max

BTW: you posted that funny picture ...do you remember ?
I think you fallen in the trap of false prophets here.

[Max]

SORRY FOR THE TYPO ERROR
"But till then, you talk like Esteban... with any proof in your hands."

I MEAN

But till then, you talk like Esteban... withOUT any proof in your hands.

[J_Player]

Hi Max,
You have already proved what I say is true, and continue just as I described.
Do you really think anyone reading this forum doesn't know your true purpose?
No amount of your arguments will convince me that it is not possible to develop
a working LRL. But I still find it humorous to read your silly diatribe.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Max]

Hi Max,
You have already proved what I say is true, and continue just as I described.
Do you really think anyone reading this forum doesn't know your true purpose?
No amount of your arguments will convince me that it is not possible to develop
a working LRL. But I still find it humorous to read your silly diatribe.

Best wishes,
J_P

Hi JP,
I don't know if I'm silly or if diatribe is silly or whatever.

WHERE IS THE SCHEMATIC ?
WHERE IS ESTEBAN ?

That's what interest me.

HAVE YOU A WORKING LRL ?
HAVE YOU A WORKING DESIGN, SCHEMATIC ?

Cause if not... your suppot to nonsense isn't less silly than my "diatribe" here.

Read all this stuff to understand nothing...
and belive in Esteban's claims with no proofs.

It's not silly that ?

Kind regards,
Max

[Max]

Hi,
here is a schematic by Esteban... he said something 10 years ago if remember well.
He claimed it work as LRL so could suit requirements here.

Do you read anything ???

I read only (7)555 ---> ICM7555

And that say everything of the state of the art of his technology.
Or not ?

On the front-end you'll see a broadband "something" amplifier with 3 antenna... another StarTrek pistol.

Just another pearl... of an older diatribe.

NOW BUILD IT (IF YOU CAN) AND FIND THE GOLD.

But if he'll post the right schematic, and we find it's working like in requirements I swear I'll do what I've said.

Till then my dear JP, and all the others here... you have to built your LRL from that pearl.

Kind regards,
Max

[J_Player]

Hi Max,
These are your questions?

HAVE YOU A WORKING LRL ?
HAVE YOU A WORKING DESIGN, SCHEMATIC ?

Sorry max, your tricks won't work on me. I know what is your purpose, same as anyone else who reads this forum. We all know you don't have time to read the facts because you told us you don't. We all know you are only here to make trouble for anyone who does not play your games. If you recall, I already posted long ago that if I had a working LRL, I would not be talking about it in this forum, so you can forget about seeing any LRL schematics from me.

The fact is I really don't care what silly tricks you try to launch against people who are interested in learning about LRLs. You have no power over my decisions. Apparently only esteban cares what you say. And it looks to me like nothing you can say or do will provoke esteban to show you his circuit diagrams. Apparently, he did not accept your cordial invitation.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Geo]

Hi Max .
All we have a part from right . However why you search for exotic circuits with exotic materials??? Possibly it is something very simple..... so much simple that we cannot imagine it, whenever one 555 and one 741 are enough. In any case if the drawing was appearred clearly I would manufacture for trial.
I do not agree with all here, simple I try to don't be negative and to have open brain, because who it knows..... perhaps some time I will understand something more.
My Regards

[Max]

Hi,
real problem is that NO SCHEMATIC is being posted by anyone.

I don't want JP's schematic... I even don't know if he has one schematic or one working LRL untill I read his last post...
cause he said me before "someone" realized a working LRL... not that this "someone" actully is JP himself and HE have one.

Geo, I agree with yuor point of view... also me could give a try even at a simple circuit with 555 etc if I have one that is claimed to be a working LRL.
You are right on that approach, could be also a simple thing... no need of strange exotic components... depends on the principle of operation.

My thoughts about ICM7555 are related to some old zahori projects that are proved not working finding metals from long distance.

I think that the schematic I've reposted is just another Zahori, with mods by Esteban.

Maybe I'm wrong... I can't read the schematic cause is low resolution... I think he made that for the same reason the person who posted the pointronic98 schematic altered it in a way you can't build anything... and test if work or not... see with your eyes.

They don't give proofs... cause they haven't.
This is my idea of LRL.

If I'm wrong why don't anyone post anything we can test ?

Kind regards,
Max

[Nihil Roma Maius]

The 555 is for to generate an audible tone for time 1/2 second for each detection. Nothing special, and necessary.

[Max]

Hi,
problem is that it's only thing I can read there.

Cannot talk about anything else... cause the resolution is too low.
Just see 3 antenna... but then is a blackhole.

Seems a zahori from the simple "design" and "placement".

Problem is that there is nothing real to talk about in this thread !
Apart the Esteban's missing in action.

I'd like having a clue of where is he!

Best regards,
Max

[J_Player]

.

[Max]

.

Oh... nice !
Thanks JP.
I only miss his schematic now.

Have you a clue for that ?

Kind regards,
Max