LRL Ionic/Electrostatic energy field locator

[Qiaozhi]

If you can't differentiate a bedroom from a kitchen, no wonder you can't tell the difference of an emitter from a collector in a transistor!
Hey Fred, that was a good one. You are getting as funny as Max!

Regardless of the actual location, there are three main objections to your video:

1. Despite repeated protesting that LRLs must be tested outside away from any interference, you have demonstrated the PD "working" in your bedroom. Presumably your bed doesn't contain any metal springs, and your house is interference free?

2. The first test (no target) is performed at a height greater than the second test with the gold ring. This leads observers to the obvious conclusion that your PD would have responded anyway (regardless of the presence of a target) just by lowering the device.

3. A gold ring laying on your bedroom floor would be undetectable at the distance shown, particularly with such a small coil. Remember that this PD is essentially an old modified Heathkit design, which makes your claims even more ridiculous. The so-called LRL part of the design would be inoperative at this distance, according to your previous statements. Also, Morgan does not claim to have the same sensitivity on his own PD, despite having access to the original for comparison.

As a result, the video is extremely suspect and cannot be taken at face value.

[Theseus]

Regardless of the actual location, there are three main objections to your video:

1. Despite repeated protesting that LRLs must be tested outside away from any interference, you have demonstrated the PD "working" in your bedroom. Presumably your bed doesn't contain any metal springs, and your house is interference free?

2. The first test (no target) is performed at a height greater than the second test with the gold ring. This leads observers to the obvious conclusion that your PD would have responded anyway (regardless of the presence of a target) just by lowering the device.

3. A gold ring laying on your bedroom floor would be undetectable at the distance shown, particularly with such a small coil. Remember that this PD is essentially an old modified Heathkit design, which makes your claims even more ridiculous. The so-called LRL part of the design would be inoperative at this distance, according to your previous statements. Also, Morgan does not claim to have the same sensitivity on his own PD, despite having access to the original for comparison.

As a result, the video is extremely suspect and cannot be taken at face value.

Is this video still available for viewing, on the internet perhaps?

[Fred]

Is this video still available for viewing, on the internet perhaps?

Yes, here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/189867703/PD_agk.avi

[Theseus]

Yes, here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/189867703/PD_agk.avi

Thanks, I'll have a look.

[Theseus]

Regardless of the actual location, there are three main objections to your video:

1. Despite repeated protesting that LRLs must be tested outside away from any interference, you have demonstrated the PD "working" in your bedroom. Presumably your bed doesn't contain any metal springs, and your house is interference free?

2. The first test (no target) is performed at a height greater than the second test with the gold ring. This leads observers to the obvious conclusion that your PD would have responded anyway (regardless of the presence of a target) just by lowering the device.

3. A gold ring laying on your bedroom floor would be undetectable at the distance shown, particularly with such a small coil. Remember that this PD is essentially an old modified Heathkit design, which makes your claims even more ridiculous. The so-called LRL part of the design would be inoperative at this distance, according to your previous statements. Also, Morgan does not claim to have the same sensitivity on his own PD, despite having access to the original for comparison.

As a result, the video is extremely suspect and cannot be taken at face value.

After viewing the video, I concur with all three of your points for suspicion. However, the most troublesome of the three would be number 2., since the height above "floor" level was definitely less than when the background-no-target test was performed.

The test results may have been more believable if the "device" were fixed at a certain location, either vertical or horizontal and the target passed in front of it.

Kind of reminds me of an experiment I did many years ago with a standard BFO detector. It was tuned to an EXTREMELY low beat frequency, about one tick per second, and (in the air) we could discern a slight frequency change when targets were waved in front of the coil at about 36 to 40 inches. That depth was not usable in practice, but it made an interesting experiment on the bench.

[Esteban]

After viewing the video, I concur with all three of your points for suspicion. However, the most troublesome of the three would be number 2., since the height above "floor" level was definitely less than when the background-no-target test was performed.

The test results may have been more believable if the "device" were fixed at a certain location, either vertical or horizontal and the target passed in front of it.

Kind of reminds me of an experiment I did many years ago with a standard BFO detector. It was tuned to an EXTREMELY low beat frequency, about one tick per second, and (in the air) we could discern a slight frequency change when targets were waved in front of the coil at about 36 to 40 inches. That depth was not usable in practice, but it made an interesting experiment on the bench.

Of course, the BFO pistol catch a anomaly at 30 m (big bronze spoon, very green for the time) for the few hertz variation. But BFO pistol works with a RF receiver too. But only few BFO is very stable.

[Fred]

And we don´t know what the floor is made of and what is below.Could be a plate of 1X1m gold below the ring .

[Max]

After viewing the video, I concur with all three of your points for suspicion. However, the most troublesome of the three would be number 2., since the height above "floor" level was definitely less than when the background-no-target test was performed.

The test results may have been more believable if the "device" were fixed at a certain location, either vertical or horizontal and the target passed in front of it.

Kind of reminds me of an experiment I did many years ago with a standard BFO detector. It was tuned to an EXTREMELY low beat frequency, about one tick per second, and (in the air) we could discern a slight frequency change when targets were waved in front of the coil at about 36 to 40 inches. That depth was not usable in practice, but it made an interesting experiment on the bench.

On the bench... of course. The little induction variation on the bench , controlled environment, you can even spot cause other factors do not influence or have small influence on e.g. stability...

but in practice... these BFOs are unuseful when e.g. the target is buried under 50cm of soil!

Which kind of S/N and stability will you need to see some say 10E-30 H variation at coil due to an coin at 50cm depth and say 3 meters away???

That's the clue... that BFO LRL simply can't work as described... I think we already know that.

Kind regards,
Max

[Max]

Of course, the BFO pistol catch a anomaly at 30 m (big bronze spoon, very green for the time) for the few hertz variation. But BFO pistol works with a RF receiver too. But only few BFO is very stable.

Hi,
what ? 30meters ?

Impossible.

Kind regards,
Max

[Max]

And we don´t know what the floor is made of and what is below.Could be a plate of 1X1m gold below the ring .

Hi Fred,
as it's described is impossible or well...if we wanna consider all the possibilities...

Doesn't exist a BFO capable of doing a large spoon detection at 30meters... unless the spoon is VERY large... like this.

Kind regards,
Max

[Theseus]

but in practice... these BFOs are unuseful when e.g. the target is buried under 50cm of soil!
Max

How very true. They are totally useless.

[Fred]

Hi Fred,
as it's described is impossible or well...if we wanna consider all the possibilities...Max

Nice spoon, but i mean on Hung´s video, why it beeps when getting closer to the ground.

[Esteban]

Hi Fred,
as it's described is impossible or well...if we wanna consider all the possibilities...

Doesn't exist a BFO capable of doing a large spoon detection at 30meters... unless the spoon is VERY large... like this.

Kind regards,
Max

You forgett all I try to explain. Is not only the BFO.

[detectoman]

jajaja max is one sample of perfect sceptics, he in 5 years of hear very detailed to esteban not learn nafthing,natthing, i build one bfo, i put in reference coil, one needle brass and spring anten of heavy iron, hig armonic of turns, special transistors rf, and these bfo detect object whit nice sound mum away 1. 5 mts
2n3904 bc546 2n2222 and voilaaaaaaaa
and for stabilice, mm is top secret, may be little cap. in paralell whit oscilators
these bfo is my prefered, bfo for president!
good whises
dman.

[humhum]

Hi, in theory my PD works better because it detects the 1.5v spark at 60cm very easy..... sometimes at 70cm. If it says anything
But all the discussion is if it work as LRL or not, and not if detect a ring or a spark.

Regards

Hi Geo, my (62Khz) Ferrite detects the 1.5v spark at 1meter ,but I make some modification in value -parameters.