Attention Examiner users

[hung]

Are you saying that the "signal" from the calculator is actually a static magnetic field. Really? Seriously?

I can't make this stuff up...

- Carl

Your question above indicates you don't know what a static magnetic field is or at least you got a wrong conception.
Tell me, what sources produce a static magnetic field in the first place?

[hung]

Mike, do you understand that the attraction a static magnetic field has on paper clips is not an example of induction?

In the standard model?

Do you understand that the oscillator in a calculator produces an alternating electromagnetic field, not a static magnetic field?

No. They produce both. If you state this, then you probably wil not answer correctly the question of the previous post.

Your errors in that report.
I can think of two from the start. First you claim the calculator has no role in the examiner concept.
Thas is false. The calculator provides the frequency and function signals which is amplified by the circuit. although emplyoung diminute charges.

Second mistake, you claim the circuit is bogus and does nothing useful.

This shows you did not understand the concept and the lack of understanding makes you go the easier way. The one of denying it.

With a multimeter you can measure voltage variances when calculator is input in a frequency to the pointing target. If you remove the calculator from the box, there will be no acticvity. I believe you can get some results in an oscope, although I did not try this, cause I don’t have one at hand.

[hung]

First and most important.

If you don't have any knowledge in the ECE theory and metaphysics, as you show you don't, then there's not what discuss. It will be like discussing quantum physics using using obsolete models or discussing the general theory of relativity from a static perspective.

You understand what I'm saying Carl?
First of all the static magnetic field is just the field that it's not dependent of time. Electricity and magnetism are independent phenomena as long as charges and current are static, but not that it behaves as the classical static magnetic field.

The B(3) spin field is the magnetic flux density generated by the spin
connection of a space-time with torsion. It signals the fact that
electrodynamics is a sector of a generally covariant unified field theory.
This magnetic flux density is defined by:
F = d ^ A + omega ^ A

[hung]

In Maxwell Heaviside field theory:

F = d ^ A

Omega is missing , so this is not consistent part of general relativity because it does not define a B(3) field and is Lorentz covariant only, not geneally covariant. In ECE theory the B(3) field is part of the omega ^ A term and is observed experimenetally in many ways, because the electromagnetic phase is defined by B(3). This is also observed in the magnetization of matter by an electromagnetic field (the inverse Faraday effect).

Without the B(3) field there can be no generally covariant unified field theory as required by the fundamental philosophy of relativity.

This is an example how some aspects cannot be viewed through the standard model. And also blocks the complete understanding of what the examiner concept might be dealing with. Now, I'm not stating the examiner is a complex device, etc. Far from that. I even seriously doubt its inventor had all of this in mind when he developed.
The examiner is not a finished project in my view but it deals with a great concept which has a long road ahead.

[hung]

The examiner is not perfect and I agree it has some pitfalls, yet as it is, allowed me and my team to find a treasure in a cave (I already told this case) and lately led us in the correct direction of the hystorical treasure of several months ago.

I’m not defending the examiner or it’s manufacturer. Don’t need to. I’m about to have my own system, but I feel the critic towards is completely unjustified.


I would be lying if I told that I completely understand the examiner. Of course not. But the knowledge I gathered applying what I already knew of physics, metaphysics, radionics, etc. allowed me to modify the unit to work without human interaction. If the examiner did not work, then also my mod would not. And it does.

[hung]

I'm not saying this is exact, but the diagram attempts to explain the fields involved. Howard Johnson's magnetics studies might give you some insight.
http://www.rangertell.com/fieldfx.htm

Mike, keep up the good research. I've already read some of your posts in TN and you always bring some very interesting topics, regarding metaphysics and correlated matters.
And apart from all the 'techinicalities' you show an admirable open mind which is gathaering an impressive amount of data in the matter mentioned.

Regards.

[hung]

In the standard model?



The calculator provides the frequency and function signals which is amplified by the circuit.

Sorry, wrong term. Change that for 'broadcast' as actually the amplifying stage is done by air charges.

[Carl-NC]

"If you don't have any knowledge in the ECE theory and metaphysics..."

Hung, I considered replying to your made-up nonsense with my own made-up nonsense, just to show that I possibly could make this stuff up if I really wanted to.

But I just don't have time.

If you want to discuss my report from a RealScience perspective as opposed to your fictitious WishScience, then I'll be glad to. We can start with this:

"With a multimeter you can measure voltage variances when calculator is input in a frequency to the pointing target."

OK, you show me exactly where in the Examiner's circuit I can "measure voltage variances when calculator is input in a frequency to the pointing target" and I will give it a try. Be exact in your explanation, including the voltage I should get, the calculator settings, the target type, the kind of voltmeter, temperature, humidity, anything at all I will need to know to replicate your measurements.

No alibis, please.

- Carl

[hung]

My 'made up nonsense' helped me to know where to hook the multimeter with no problems. So I believe your 'made up nonsense' will help you to figure it out as well.

[Carl-NC]

My 'made up nonsense' helped me to know where to hook the multimeter with no problems. So I believe your 'made up nonsense' will help you to figure it out as well.

Is that a "cain't do it" or what?

[Qiaozhi]

First and most important.

If you don't have any knowledge in the ECE theory and metaphysics, as you show you don't, then there's not what discuss. It will be like discussing quantum physics using using obsolete models or discussing the general theory of relativity from a static perspective.

You understand what I'm saying Carl?
First of all the static magnetic field is just the field that it's not dependent of time. Electricity and magnetism are independent phenomena as long as charges and current are static, but not that it behaves as the classical static magnetic field.

The B(3) spin field is the magnetic flux density generated by the spin
connection of a space-time with torsion. It signals the fact that
electrodynamics is a sector of a generally covariant unified field theory.
This magnetic flux density is defined by:
F = d ^ A + omega ^ A

Hung, I considered replying to your made-up nonsense with my own made-up nonsense, just to show that I possibly could make this stuff up if I really wanted to.

But I just don't have time.

And this is where Hung's made-up nonsense really comes from -> http://www.atomicprecision.com/blog/...-the-b3-field/

I would't get hung-up on this stuff. (See what I did there?)

[Carl-NC]

And this is where Hung's made-up nonsense really comes from -> http://www.atomicprecision.com/blog/...-the-b3-field/

Hmmmm. Seems that "Myron Evans" is an honorary member of the Wikipedia "Pseudophysics" page.

Hung, you gonna show me exactly where to measure those "voltage variances" or can we just go ahead and file that one away as completely bogus? No alibis...

- Carl

[hung]

And this is where Hung's made-up nonsense really comes from -> http://www.atomicprecision.com/blog/...-the-b3-field/

We are studying and discussing the B3 field among other subjects.
Yesterday I received an email from Gianni, one of the authorities on the subject forwarded to me by Dr. Evans as part of our internal emailing list.
I found it relevant to include as part of my coments since it explains precisely one of the many aspects why the standard model lacks understanding of the true nature of the B3 field.

I would't get hung-up on this stuff. (See what I did there?)

Oh, I'm sure you wouldn't get hung up not even in beginner's physics of the Maxwell equations. No need to come 10% as far as the B3 field concept.
You would probably think of it as a famous model of the Hammond organ.

[J_Player]

What? Myron Evans again?


Isn't Myron Evans the the unemployed physicist whose publications were removed from the record when it was discovered that he used fraudulent mathematical formulas to prove his theories are correct? Isn't he the one who asks other scientists to help him get nominated for a Nobel prize while ignoring the gross errors in his math and ignoring the failed attempts to demonstrate any of his theories? Hasn't Evans been recently caught fraudulently using government titles to trick people into thinking he is a recognized authority? Why does the majority of the scientific community call him a crackpot, quack and fraud? Because of his claims of free energy from a vacum? Because of his claims of having solved the problem of the Unified Field Theory?

It appears Hung learned his science from "great scientific scholars" that he respects such as Tom Bearden, Bruce Cathie, John Hutchinson, Myron Evans, and others. Isn't it interesting... none of these people will demonstrate their theories working in front of a large group of witnesses to see if they really work. Isn't this is the same method Hung uses? Does he like to talk of his accomplishments pioneering the LRL field without ever demonstrating any of his accomplishments or apparatus working where people can verify it? Is it any wonder why hung clings to these people for pseudo-scientific support (and perhaps moral support)?

The driving reason we see all this conversation about Ranger Tell and its operating principles is because people are considering whether to spend a large chunk of money and spend a lot of time for a device that may lead to treasure or may be a worthless piece of junk (except for the proven calculating function).

So far, I have read a lot of BS theories in this thread made by people who apparently don't know the basics of electronics or physics, explaining how the Ranger Tell works and how to improve it. I cannot believe these explanations which contradict known and tested principles of electronics. But I have an open mind. I would be willing to observe any demonstration of the methods of enhancing a Ranger Tell or other similar device to find small buried metal objects that can be recovered at a distance of more than 5 meters.

Let's forget about non-provable theories until the demonstration is done. After recovering buried objects from a long distance on a reasonably consistent basis, then we can begin to discuss how these contradictory theories work. If anyone is willing to demonstrate a Ranger tell or modified Ranger Tell or similar device as I described, I have access to locations with many long-time buried non-ferrous objects as well as locations with ferrous and mixed long time buried objects, including long time buried gold. I will be happy to take photos and videos of the LRL finding and recovering the treasure and posting them on a professional web page with links to this forum and others.

Any takers? Contact me with a private message.

Best wishes
J_P

[hung]

Carl, the discussion with you has ended.
You rule my explanation as 'non sense' as if you knew what you were talking about and yet is unable to percieve where to hook 2 simple probes of a multimeter?

But I'm positive whoever is watching this thread will perceive your contradictions.

You and a few others here are still sleeping.
But the awakening will come inevitably to everybody sooner or later whether you ask for it or not.