Temperature, the best friend of LRL's

[Geo]

Hi Geo

You need only a buzzer, for audio part, no for led part. Sometimes when led bright is in coincidence with audio, but no always occurs this. My absorptive pistol works at night (no high temperature), but was with spiral coil, I remember this was nude, this mean the wire exposed. But spiral coil is more sensitive and you need to put in best sensibility point, no random.

Regards

Esteban

Hi Esteban.

Who is then min temperature that yoyr MFD gave you good results ????

Regards

[Geo]

Is not that he gets just randomic beeps... due maybe to some background noise that has nothing to do with treasures!

Kind regards,
Max

Hi Max.

At the place where i test my MFD, i have buried some copper coins before 18...19 years. So when i take a beep from this place, it is from coins.
When it is a background noise, then i get it at every point and place.

Regards

[Geo]

One of the same....

Hi.
Yesterday i made the same test at the place with the buried copper coins.
I don't know what is happening with other metals but with copper the temperature is a very critical point in the working of the LRLs.
I went for the test at 13:00 and the temp was 36oC. The MFD located the place with coins from 5m very easy. Also yesterday i had the ability to pinpoint it at a distance of about 60...80 cm from the coins. When i was exactly on the coins i had not any indicator. Very good...
But ..... on afternoon i went again. Time was 20:45 and the Temperature was 31oC. Results.... ZERO. Yes no one beep. The led did not light a little.
I don't know what is happening with other metals, but with copper at my Country this method is not good.
I will try for silver detecting when a frind of me will come back from holidays.


Regards

[Theseus]

Casual observation...

This is just a casual observation from a rather uninvolved and only slightly interested bystander; but don't you think your results are a little too random to be of any real significance?

I mean, I used to setup and test electronic and electromechanical devices for a living, and frankly it seems like temperature may not have anything to do with the inconsistencies of your results.

First, I would verify the concept in a controlled laboratory environment, before I ever tried it in the field. If you can't make it work in a controlled situation (minus temp changes) then you certainly don't have chance of making it work where more of the conditions are variable.

[Fred]

First, I would verify the concept in a controlled laboratory environment, before I ever tried it in the field.

You can´t,if it must b long-time buried and interact with some natural fields.

[Esteban]

Hi Esteban.

Who is then min temperature that yoyr MFD gave you good results ????

Regards

More important is wet in air than temperature. Excess of wet "shortcircuit" the field.


Regards

[Max]

More important is wet in air than temperature. Excess of wet "shortcircuit" the field.


Regards

these LRLs are too freakish to me... leave them to you!

I don't wanna the LRL will tell me how to pi$$ otherwise it stop working!

Kind regards,
Max

[Theseus]

You can´t,if it must b long-time buried and interact with some natural fields.

I respectfully disagree. If the concept (premise) is valid and repeatable, there has got to be a way to create an emulation of the "field" ???? being sensed, even if it is not a real "field". Further, perhaps the "field" in the emulation would be of greater strength than you would ever see in "real life", but at least you would know when you were sensing something, or if your device was merely sensing random noise because the gain was turned up too high.

To reach a conclusion, there must be an established level of response in relation to a given amount of background (ambient) noise.

Without a starting point of this nature, you will only ever go in greater and greater circles of confusion and uncertainty.

Essentially, "chasing your tail" towards infinity, without ever solving the problem; or worse yet identifying the correct problem.

[Fred]

I know, this is why i am not chasing anything except an explanation of the theory.
But if the device detect a small change in RF noise because of changes of soil resistivity or/and changes in the voltage gradient above earth, it could be tested but probably only in a specially made laboratory:Any electric device or floor material will detroy the effect, even if artificially made.

[J_Player]

This is just a casual observation from a rather uninvolved and only slightly interested bystander; but don't you think your results are a little too random to be of any real significance?

I mean, I used to setup and test electronic and electromechanical devices for a living, and frankly it seems like temperature may not have anything to do with the inconsistencies of your results.

First, I would verify the concept in a controlled laboratory environment, before I ever tried it in the field. If you can't make it work in a controlled situation (minus temp changes) then you certainly don't have chance of making it work where more of the conditions are variable.

I was thinking the same thing.
From what I know that has been observed by scientists who study long-time buried metals, the most likely strong influences are in the electric field in the air. This field is heavily influenced by humidity and weather conditions. There are also sources of electric noise that interfere with detection of electric field strength in the air at different times of the day. Temperature may play a role, but my feeling is it is a minor role, and may only be an artifact of the real physical properties that are influencing the detection.

As far as laboratory conditions, I would suggest taking the laboratory to the field, and set it up in a manner that cannot interfere with the electric field and other known anomalies that develop around long-time buried metals.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Geo]

More important is wet in air than temperature. Excess of wet "shortcircuit" the field.


Regards

Hi Esteban.
I agree but simple i write what i see at my experiments. If i had an answer there was not reason to write anything

Regards

[Theseus]

As far as laboratory conditions, I would suggest taking the laboratory to the field, and set it up in a manner that cannot interfere with the electric field and other known anomalies that develop around long-time buried metals.

Best wishes,
J_P

Exactly! At least "start" eliminating ALL those parameters that could influence the result, until only the true "field(?)" as their theory defines - remains.

Until that is the course of action, all other random observations and results(?) are completely futile.

Nobody said making technology advancements would be easy - but if all we are dealing with here is fringe technology based on random uncontrolled observations, than perhaps it is time to accept the fact that it simply is not a valid concept; ....and move on.

[Geo]

Exactly! At least "start" eliminating ALL those parameters that could influence the result, until only the true "field(?)" as their theory defines - remains.

Until that is the course of action, all other random observations and results(?) are completely futile.

Nobody said making technology advancements would be easy - but if all we are dealing with here is fringe technology based on random uncontrolled observations, than perhaps it is time to accept the fact that it simply is not a valid concept; ....and move on.

I agree with all of you ( i don't have any theory to give to you), but PLEASE explain me why every midday with temp >34oC i can locate the buried objects very good???. It is a experiment. I write the results.
If you don't have answer , you can't reject the results of the experiment. I am not a physic.... but guys that are physics please let give a answer.
But please not again as the dowsing, "we can't answer how it work, so it don't work "

Regards

[Qiaozhi]

But please not again as the dowsing, "we can't answer how it work, so it don't work "

That's like asking a man - "When did you stop beating your wife?"

The question makes certain assumptions.

[Theseus]

I agree with all of you ( i don't have any theory to give to you), but PLEASE explain me why every midday with temp >34oC i can locate the buried objects very good???. It is a experiment. I write the results.
If you don't have answer , you can't reject the results of the experiment. I am not a physic.... but guys that are physics please let give a answer.
But please not again as the dowsing, "we can't answer how it work, so it don't work "

Regards

First, dowsing is a poor example to use as an analogy. Why? Because, to my knowledge, every single time the practice of dowsing has been fairly tested under controlled and monitored conditions, it has been shown to NOT work any better than what could be expected from ordinary "guessing" (chance results). In that regard, answering a question about how it works is by default making the assumption that it does work, when clearly the practice of dowsing does not work in the first place.

Secondly... Yes, results of experiments may be rejected, especially if under close examination by multiple observers, the conditions of the test protocol are found to be lacking in controls and/or poor design criteria.

I cannot be a true observer of your experiment from this distance, only offer valid suggestions based on the scant information you place here; hence cannot render an opinion about your protocol or design. However, as one who has prior experience in the design and implementation of testing procedures, I was merely offering the suggestion to; "start" eliminating ALL those parameters that could influence the result, until only the true "field(?)" as their theory defines - remains.

As far as your question; why every midday with temp >34oC i can locate the buried objects very good???

My best educated guess (from this distance) would be you probably have a temperature sensitive component in your LRL detecting device and it is giving you a false result above a certain temperature.

I still contend you first need to eliminate the parameter of temperature change from the experiment, and identify/quantify the real "field"(?) you believe you are measuring.