What have we learn in all this time?

[Clondike Clad]

Do we have a circuit for a real working LRL that can pick up a coin or ring at 10 meters.
Do we have a real working LRL that will pass a DB test.
Thae question is WHAT HAVE WE LEARN ON THIS FORUM.
Me first:I can build them but I can't make them WORK.
Most of the circuits are full of pure you know what.
How can you pin point a ring or coin from 70 meters away.
It could be that I just learn the wrong electronics.
So for me most of the stuff on this forum will not fool anyone with a good electronics education.

[homefire]

I've Learned if I can sell a few of these , I can go gold panning and not have to work for a month or so!

[ToyMaker]

having watched the posts in the Remote Sensing
forum for a couple years, I have learned that for
those who believe, LRLs are something, and for
those that don't believe, LRLs are nothing.

Or in the immortal words of Kermit The Frog:
"Time's fun when you're having flies."



robotic regards,

Tom

[Esteban]

Do we have a circuit for a real working LRL that can pick up a coin or ring at 10 meters.
Do we have a real working LRL that will pass a DB test.
Thae question is WHAT HAVE WE LEARN ON THIS FORUM.
Me first:I can build them but I can't make them WORK.
Most of the circuits are full of pure you know what.
How can you pin point a ring or coin from 70 meters away.
It could be that I just learn the wrong electronics.
So for me most of the stuff on this forum will not fool anyone with a good electronics education.

You can learn if you pay attention and read... a few! Here there are many information nobody can found in any book!

For you, to learn is only to construct devices... If you don't see a circuit, you go to lurking!

[Geo]

Hi.

All these years i learn a lot of things about LRLs.
As Esteban says with some attention you may learn how the lrl work.
I dont know if you can make a lrl that work fine only from this forum

Regards

[Clondike Clad]

Need to what what I am deteting

You can learn if you pay attention and read... a few! Here there are many information nobody can found in any book!

For you, to learn is only to construct devices... If you don't see a circuit, you go to lurking!

OK I Can't make them work.
But many others can't.

I need to know what the siganl is to learn to detect it.
So answer that one question.

[Fred]

Esteban, why you don+t post a complete working schematic ?
You gave enought info to build one, so it´is no secret.
Just compile it and make one good (no need to be the best) device...

[Morgan]

One working LRL

Esteban, why you don+t post a complete working schematic ?
You gave enought info to build one, so it´is no secret.
Just compile it and make one good (no need to be the best) device...

Hello Fred

Put yourself in Esteban situation,after studing and develop LRL circuits and find some who can work as LRL Simply give this information to everybody here ?!
Esteban put his knolenge in more dificult form,using this way, only the more inteligent understand,and also, only forum members who believe him can be sucessful in LRL projects...

[J_Player]

After all these years I have not found a complete schematic and instructions to build any LRL that has been demonstrated to work.
But I have learned some things:

What I learned:
1. There are natural and man made geophysical forces that could support long range detection in theory.
2. The forces that could support long range detection are highly variable, and unreliable. Thus no electronic device or other device that I learned about could have reliable detection like a metal detector does.
3. Most LRL proponents do not know what kind of signal their machines are sensing, whether it is noise, electrostatic, magnetic, RF, etc. They speculate, and conclude what they think to be the treasure signal, but do not really know exactly what is causing their machines to make a target signal alert.
4. With a few exceptions, most of the posts made by LRL proponents demonstrate ignorance of the basic postulates of chemical, electrical, magnetic, or wave propagation science.
5. There is nobody on earth who is willing to demonstrate an LRL recovering treasure in front of witnesses who will report back to the Geotech forum to verify how these LRLs perform. (This may soon change if Geo reports back after observing Morgan's PD recovering treasure).
5. Skeptics in this forum generally have a good scientific education and understanding of things that make sense and do not.
6. Skeptics can be wrong sometimes.
7. Skeptics are at an advantage, when the burden of proof is usually on people who are making extraordinary claims.
8. Skeptics often are blind to a basic error of their methods, when they occasionally make claims that any particular phenomenon does not exist, yet they do not provide any basis to back up their claim... just an unfounded claim. ie: I never saw it happen, so it must not exist. Or I ddin't read about it in school, so it does not exist. But this happens only occasionally.
9. LRL proponents exhibit a similar error much more than occasionally. They habitually make claims that any particular phenomenon exists, yet never show any proof to support it. Only talk, stories and diagrams.
10. A few people habitually post statements about scientific principles that are so far removed from anything any LRL proponent or skeptic have ever heard of, that their statements alone invite challenges. But when challenged, they say "it is a secret" rather than to face the challenge with some real proof.
11. I like things that make sense, and I like to see if I can figure out things that don't make sense. I learned this cannot be done if I were to join either the skeptic camp or the LRL proponent camp, because of the expectations that forum readers may develop. But I think Seden has found a happy medium... where he can look at seemingly nonsensical things and make more sense of them than all the chatter we hear from LRL proponents or skeptics. I was surprised to learn that he knows as much about geology and the instruments used in their profession as he does. This is a very good background to start if you want to begin to understand the theories of how remote sensing could or could not work. Maybe nothing definitive, but still a good background of knowledge.
12. I learned that this is the best forum on earth (in my opinion) to find general knowledge and specific technical knowledge about locating buried objects, and the electronic tools that accomplish it. I see some of the best minds in the industry visiting the Geotech forums.
13. Some people come here expecting to have a schematic handed to them, along with instructions for building a circuit. This seems normal to me, considering that we usually find these schematics and instructions in the other Geotech forums. I never have figured out why this never happens in the remote sensing forum. Maybe the skeptics are right... maybe because posting a schematic would lead to proving the circuit does not work?
14. I learned that it is important to recognize the difference between posts that report observations and differentiate between observations and conclusions. It is important to know the difference between an inference and an implication. A good understanding of these differences can insure that you understand what you are reading, and do not confuse the issue.
15. I learned that it is often advisable to use easily understood language. This means at some times it is wise to use simple English words that cannot be misunderstood to mean something different. This becomes important when explaining things to international readers whose first language is not English, who have taken the time to learn. It is easier for me to use easy English than it is for a non English-speaking visitor to try to figure out what some colloquialisms and slang phrases mean.
16. I must have learned a lot of other things here, but one thing I learned is I could read through all Esteban's and other informative posts that give partial circuits and details about field experiences with LRLs. And from these, I could easily build a collection of LRLs from old radio parts, and breadboards. But considering what I know about the geophysics that are to be measured, I don't have any interest in investing the time to tinker endlessly with unstable circuits measuring unstable geophysical signals smothered in noise. It is enough for me to understand what can be measured and what cannot.

My best wishes to those who pursue the experimenting in the remote sensing field,
and best wishes to those who prefer only conventional methods.

p.s. Happy birthday to Nicola Tesla. Today is his day!

J_P

[Clondike Clad]

WHAT I LEARN IS PHENOMENA IS NOT DEFINED

One thing I know is for years people made circuit to pick up some kind of signal DNA FROM GOLD OR SOME KIND OF SIGNAL OF LOSS OF SIGNAL BUT TO THIS DAY ALL I KNOW IS IT IS CALL A PHENOMENA

[Fred]

Good resumee J_P !
But it would be interesting to quantifiy how (un)reliable is the detection , even if unstable could it be usefull and how ? Esteban has been trying to improve it for 20 years i think.

[Max]

Good resumee J_P !
But it would be interesting to quantifiy how (un)reliable is the detection , even if unstable could it be usefull and how ? Esteban has been trying to improve it for 20 years i think.

And will require other 20years before...he will convince himself to release a complete schematic!

Cause the LRL-people think and do at geological-time rate!

At least seems so...

Kind regards,
Max

[J_Player]

Good resumee J_P !
But it would be interesting to quantifiy how (un)reliable is the detection , even if unstable could it be usefull and how ? Esteban has been trying to improve it for 20 years i think.

Hi Fred,
You can find a condensed listing of things that make up signals that might be used for remote sensing here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...9&postcount=12

The nature of these forces suggest that the strength of any signal will be different for long-time buried metal objects in different locations, simply because the soil chemistry cannot support the same amount of signal. But the most notable variable is the difference in the driving atmospheric static field, and interference noise to machines that would try to detect it. The field strength averages about 100V/meter, but changes with weather, humidity, time of day, time of year, solar activity and some non-predictable events. This 100V/meter gradient can rise to over 300V/meter, or drop to below zero, and become reversed. This can happen within the period of a few hours if conditions are right. An easy way to quantify this is to build an electric field meter, and monitor the field in a fixed location. You can record readings over a time period to see how the gradient fluctuates in your area. You will find it changes in different locations of the earth. This is only one of the most easily measurable signals that could be used in remote sensing. Other signals derived from this can be expected to be influenced by it as well, while there may be some signals that are not so much variable.

BEst wishes,
J_P

[Infamy]

LRL = Scam

No proof = Scam

LRL device not used in Queensland gold fields = Scam

The amount of posting on here about LRL devices is making me wonder where this forum is going, reliability, credibility is going down hill. Why give a home to scammers.

[Qiaozhi]

LRL = Scam

No proof = Scam

LRL device not used in Queensland gold fields = Scam

The amount of posting on here about LRL devices is making me wonder where this forum is going, reliability, credibility is going down hill. Why give a home to scammers.

Because someone has to expose their scams.