rangertell examiner field trials

[Geo]

Γιωργο Γεια και καλη χρονια!!
Αυτοι δεν ενδιαφερονται για αποδεικτικα στοιχεια οτι τα ΛΡΛ δουλευουν, αλλα για στοιχεια οτι δεν δουλευουν
Οτι και να τους δειξεις θα βρουν κατι αλλο να γραφουν ωστε να αντικρουσουν την πραγματικοτητα.

Φιλικα

[g-sani]

....Naturally, any possible targets should be removed from the test area that might interfere with the LRL...

No I do not agree whith that Theseus.
The most usual case in most areas is many objects arround in different sizes and depths.
This is where an LRL should show abillities if any of course.
And this is why I wrote about the omnitron's experience of mine.
I discovered then that if a metal is lying there alone is much easier to detect it whith any LRL
This in turn is no good for me because from experience I know that is always more bits and pieces arround wherever you go.

[g-sani]

Γιωργο Γεια και καλη χρονια!!
Αυτοι δεν ενδιαφερονται για αποδεικτικα στοιχεια οτι τα ΛΡΛ δουλευουν, αλλα για στοιχεια οτι δεν δουλευουν
Οτι και να τους δειξεις θα βρουν κατι αλλο να γραφουν ωστε να αντικρουσουν την πραγματικοτητα.

Φιλικα

Γεια σου Γιωργο υγεια και ευτυχια να μας φερει το 2010.Τωρα και για κανενα κασονακι δεν λεμε οχι.
Το ξερω οτι αντιδρουν οπως τα μικρα παιδια αλλα κατα βαθος αμα τους βαλεις κανενα LRL που ψιλοδουλευει στο χερι δεν θα μπορεις να τους το παρεις μετα.
Tους γυρισε το μυαλο παντως και κατα πολυ με τα βιντεακια απο τα τεστ που κανατε.
Τους βλεπω να γινονται φανατικοι ατο τελος φιλε.

[Qiaozhi]

Γιωργο Γεια και καλη χρονια!!
Αυτοι δεν ενδιαφερονται για αποδεικτικα στοιχεια οτι τα ΛΡΛ δουλευουν, αλλα για στοιχεια οτι δεν δουλευουν
Οτι και να τους δειξεις θα βρουν κατι αλλο να γραφουν ωστε να αντικρουσουν την πραγματικοτητα.

Φιλικα

Translation:
George Hello and Happy New Year! Those not interested in evidence that the LRL works, but for data that does not work that show them they will find something else to write so counter to reality.

Γεια σου Γιωργο υγεια και ευτυχια να μας φερει το 2010.Τωρα και για κανενα κασονακι δεν λεμε οχι.
Το ξερω οτι αντιδρουν οπως τα μικρα παιδια αλλα κατα βαθος αμα τους βαλεις κανενα LRL που ψιλοδουλευει στο χερι δεν θα μπορεις να τους το παρεις μετα.
Tους γυρισε το μυαλο παντως και κατα πολυ με τα βιντεακια απο τα τεστ που κανατε.
Τους βλεπω να γινονται φανατικοι ατο τελος φιλε.

Translation:
Hi George healthy and happy to bring us the 2010.Tora and no kasonaki not say no. I know it performs as young children, but basically the AMA put any LRL psilodoulefei at hand that will not be able to get to the post. Tous turned his brain, however, by far the videos of the tests that you did. we are seeing them fanatics individual end bud.

[Geo]

Translation:
George Hello and Happy New Year! Those not interested in evidence that the LRL works, but for data that does not work that show them they will find something else to write so counter to reality.



Translation:
Hi George healthy and happy to bring us the 2010.Tora and no kasonaki not say no. I know it performs as young children, but basically the AMA put any LRL psilodoulefei at hand that will not be able to get to the post. Tous turned his brain, however, by far the videos of the tests that you did. we are seeing them fanatics individual end bud.

Hi Qiaozhi...
Good work

Regards

[J_Player]

To prove how bad we think sometimes I will tell you this.
When somebody wants to test an LRL by following a standard protocol or procedure first of all(please tell me your opinion) he has to search the area whith the LRL and before anything is touched or hidden.Then and only then he could carry on whith the procedures to be made.
This is the question now.
Please tell me if anybody ever mentioned this or tell me if you think that this is not that important but you have to explain the reason as well.
This I believe is the most important thing somebody must first do when he wants to test an LRL no matter what test-protocol he is going to follow.
Well sorry, I haven't seen anybody doing it yet.
Well, as far as I know.

P.S. Just keep in mind that I am always talking about the majority of people and that there are always exceptions as in anything in life.


Originally posted by Theseus
Part of the requirements of testing in a controlled environment requires that there be a Pre-test and a Post-test using a target in plain sight, which of course the LRL is supposed to be able to locate.

The confines of the test area should be searched for possible targets, but NOT with the LRL itself. Naturally, any possible targets should be removed from the test area that might interfere with the LRL.

If the Pre-test is successful, then one can go ahead with the Real-test, which should be of a double-blind protocol. Following the Real-test, you then perform a Post-test. If the Post-test is successful, then you can be reasonably sure the results of the Real-test are valid and significant.


....Naturally, any possible targets should be removed from the test area that might interfere with the LRL...


Originally posted by g-sani
No I do not agree whith that Theseus.
The most usual case in most areas is many objects arround in different sizes and depths.
This is where an LRL should show abillities if any of course.
And this is why I wrote about the omnitron's experience of mine.
I discovered then that if a metal is lying there alone is much easier to detect it whith any LRL
This in turn is no good for me because from experience I know that is always more bits and pieces arround wherever you go.

Hi g-sani,
A controlled test does not require any particular pre-test or post test or even to check the area for interference. A controlled test simply is a test where the person conducting the test made some sort of control to the test that would help make it a suitable test for the purpose he has.

Taking steps to search the area first is one kind of control you can make. Making pre-tests and post tests to the area another kind of control. You can conduct controlled tests without taking those particular precautions. In fact, for some controlled tests, you would want to make certain you did not search the area first or make any pre-tests. It all depends on what the objective of your test is. If you want to conduct a test for prize money to see if an LRL locates a single hidden target object from one of ten locations, then searching the field first for interference can be a good control, as well as a pre test and post test.

But some tests are not conducted to see if an LRL can find a single freshly hidden target object. For example, some LRLs are claimed to work well only for long-time buried targets. Suppose we did not want to conduct a test for a prize, but we wanted to conduct a test to see which of several LRLs shows the best evidence of responding to only treasure items when it is surrounded by trash items. Suppose this test was held to show to some people who want to buy an LRL to use in areas that have a lot of signals that make it hard to hunt treasure. They ask for a test that will show them which one is best to buy to use in the trashy area where they will be hunting.

In this case, a test I would want to see is a test where nothing was disturbed in the field at all. If there are power lines nearby, or metal trash that was scattered in the area, I would not want anyone to clean it. I would think making pre-tests and post-tests is optional work that would not help much for me to decide which LRL works best compared to the others.
I would want to see the controls made only by making sure all the LRLs were put through the same test conditions. The controls should insure nobody disturbs the ground or digs the targets until after all the tests were completed and recorded. And controls would insure all the LRLs start from the same place and distance from the target. And we would mark all the treasure locations that are located within the test area by each LRL. Then, after all the tests were done and recorded, we would dig all the treasure targets to see what the LRLs located at what depth, (if they located anything at all).

You can see the controls I would want are designed to provide a comparison for a person who wants to know which works best in his area full of non-treasure trash. It uses very different controls than a test designed to measure the statistical success rate of locating where a single target is hidden in a large test area. And there are many other ways to put controls on a tests to make it suitable for any particular purpose.

So remember... there is no one standard method for controls that tests everything you could want to know about an LRL.
The test protocol you choose will depend on what the purpose of your test is.


Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

Hi g-sani,
A controlled test does not require any particular pre-test or post test or even to check the area for interference. A controlled test simply is a test where the person conducting the test made some sort of control to the test that would help make it a suitable test for the purpose he has.

Taking steps to search the area first is one kind of control you can make. Making pre-tests and post tests to the area another kind of control. You can conduct controlled tests without taking those particular precautions. In fact, for some controlled tests, you would want to make certain you did not search the area first or make any pre-tests. It all depends on what the objective of your test is. If you want to conduct a test for prize money to see if an LRL locates a single hidden target object from one of ten locations, then searching the field first for interference can be a good control, as well as a pre test and post test.

But some tests are not conducted to see if an LRL can find a single freshly hidden target object. For example, some LRLs are claimed to work well only for long-time buried targets. Suppose we did not want to conduct a test for a prize, but we wanted to conduct a test to see which of several LRLs shows the best evidence of responding to only treasure items when it is surrounded by trash items. Suppose this test was held to show to some people who want to buy an LRL to use in areas that have a lot of signals that make it hard to hunt treasure. They ask for a test that will show them which one is best to buy to use in the trashy area where they will be hunting.

In this case, a test I would want to see is a test where nothing was disturbed in the field at all. If there are power lines nearby, or metal trash that was scattered in the area, I would not want anyone to clean it. I would think making pre-tests and post-tests is optional work that would not help much for me to decide which LRL works best compared to the others.
I would want to see the controls made only by making sure all the LRLs were put through the same test conditions. The controls should insure nobody disturbs the ground or digs the targets until after all the tests were completed and recorded. And controls would insure all the LRLs start from the same place and distance from the target. And we would mark all the treasure locations that are located within the test area by each LRL. Then, after all the tests were done and recorded, we would dig all the treasure targets to see what the LRLs located at what depth, (if they located anything at all).

You can see the controls I would want are designed to provide a comparison for a person who wants to know which works best in his area full of non-treasure trash. It uses very different controls than a test designed to measure the statistical success rate of locating where a single target is hidden in a large test area. And there are many other ways to put controls on a tests to make it suitable for any particular purpose.

So remember... there is no one standard method for controls that tests everything you could want to know about an LRL.
The test protocol you choose will depend on what the purpose of your test is.


Best wishes,
J_P

I certainly hope you apply all this same objectivity to the testing of the Examiner... if those tests actually take place.

[Carl-NC]

Then the average skeptic uses inductive logic to conclude that since the only tests done show it does not work, and any tests they ran show it does not work, and there are no other tests results that show it does work, therefore it does not work.

This is why I strongly suggest the following:

1. Try to get the manufacturer to demonstrate the device himself in a test that he agrees is fair to the capabilities of the device, and that you agree is fair in a scientific sense.

2. If a manufacturer demonstration isn't possible, have the manufacturer specify the exact test procedures that someone else can use to successfully demonstrate the capabilities of the device. Make sure he understands the procedures must follow good scientific protocol, i.e., randomized, blind, and repeatable.

3. If the manufacturer won't offer his own test procedures, design your own test around the explicit claims made of the device.

4. If the manufacturer makes no explicit claims (more common than you might think), design the test around what the device ought to do, if the device worked as a useful long-range locator of treasure.

[Theseus]

This is why I strongly suggest the following:

1. Try to get the manufacturer to demonstrate the device himself in a test that he agrees is fair to the capabilities of the device, and that you agree is fair in a scientific sense.

2. If a manufacturer demonstration isn't possible, have the manufacturer specify the exact test procedures that someone else can use to successfully demonstrate the capabilities of the device. Make sure he understands the procedures must follow good scientific protocol, i.e., randomized, blind, and repeatable.

3. If the manufacturer won't offer his own test procedures, design your own test around the explicit claims made of the device.

4. If the manufacturer makes no explicit claims (more common than you might think), design the test around what the device ought to do, if the device worked as a useful long-range locator of treasure.

[J_Player]

This is why I strongly suggest the following:

1. Try to get the manufacturer to demonstrate the device himself in a test that he agrees is fair to the capabilities of the device, and that you agree is fair in a scientific sense.

2. If a manufacturer demonstration isn't possible, have the manufacturer specify the exact test procedures that someone else can use to successfully demonstrate the capabilities of the device. Make sure he understands the procedures must follow good scientific protocol, i.e., randomized, blind, and repeatable.

3. If the manufacturer won't offer his own test procedures, design your own test around the explicit claims made of the device.

4. If the manufacturer makes no explicit claims (more common than you might think), design the test around what the device ought to do, if the device worked as a useful long-range locator of treasure.

Hi Carl,
I agree 100%.

I am amazed any manufacturer sent a sample to be tested. Rangertell has set a precedent in the recent history of LRL manufacturers.
It is nice to have a new factory-fresh sample to test.

But there is still one problem I don't like about the whole idea of testing an Examiner without a factory rep here to operate it. I am not an experienced user of any Rangertell products, or any LRL. Any failed test results can be said to be caused because I don't have the experience, or knowledge, or not using the subtle techniques that trained users acquire after some time in the field with successful results. The only simple way to avoid this potentially fatal defect in testing is to have a factory rep who knows how to use it properly and take all the precautions he knows from his years of experience. If no factory rep can demonstrate it, then maybe people who are familiar with the Examiner, and have had success with it before can make some tests to show what kind of results they get.

But if there is nobody available with some experience of successful hunting with an Examiner, the next best method is what you recommended
-- to make specific tests recommended by the manufacturer. and make tests to determine if specific claims can be demonstrated or not.
I also had some thoughts of other tests that can be performed.

The way I am thinking, I can make three kinds of tests:
1. The specific tests like you described to determine if particular claims can be demonstrated.
2. Simple tests can be conducted by ordinary people who have no knowledge or experience with any LRL to see if the average novice will find success with the Examiner by following the instructions and trying it out. This could also be done with metal detectorists who are familiar with treasure hunting, but not with LRLs, and can even be done by people who are dowsers and LRL enthusiasts. While this class of volunteer is not a trained factory rep, they can serve to show what an average treasure hobbyist would experience if he used an Examiner.
3. Lab tests designed to measure "signal lines" and EM emissions coming from the Examiner, or travelling in the air between the target and the examiner. Also tests designed to measure the charges moving from a user's body to the Examiner, and the difference in charge of the examiner between the ground, the surrounding air, and the antenna.

I already took some measurements along these lines and I measured a charge that showed a little over 200 volts in the air at 6 feet above the ground, which reduced to zero as my probe was lowered to the ground. Of course, the charge varied at different locations. These kind of tests are interesting to me to determine if we can measure the claimed "phenomenon" effects made by LRL enthusiasts. The only success rate field test I am interested in is to try it out with my own hands and see if I get the feeling it is helping me to find treasure. The other more controlled tests I am doing are for the benefit of other people who want to see them.

This is why I am taking suggestions for tests that people want to see done. I think others who can't be here will have more demanding tests, since they cannot try it out like the people here can. And even if you can be here to see the tests, and try it yourself, you should do every test that you think is important to you. Don't ever rely on second-hand information unless it is not possible to find out for yourself first-hand. When you try it out yourself in your own hands, then you will truly "know" ... not just theorise from what you see in some videos and reports.


Best wishes,
J_P

[g-sani]

This is why I strongly suggest the following:

1. Try to get the manufacturer to demonstrate the device himself in a test that he agrees is fair to the capabilities of the device, and that you agree is fair in a scientific sense.

2. If a manufacturer demonstration isn't possible, have the manufacturer specify the exact test procedures that someone else can use to successfully demonstrate the capabilities of the device. Make sure he understands the procedures must follow good scientific protocol, i.e., randomized, blind, and repeatable.

3. If the manufacturer won't offer his own test procedures, design your own test around the explicit claims made of the device.

4. If the manufacturer makes no explicit claims (more common than you might think), design the test around what the device ought to do, if the device worked as a useful long-range locator of treasure.

That's a good suggestion Carl, I have to say it.

[g-sani]

Hi Carl,
I agree 100%.

I am amazed any manufacturer sent a sample to be tested. Rangertell has set a precedent in the recent history of LRL manufacturers.
It is nice to have a new factory-fresh sample to test.

But there is still one problem I don't like about the whole idea of testing an Examiner without a factory rep here to operate it. I am not an experienced user of any Rangertell products, or any LRL. Any failed test results can be said to be caused because I don't have the experience, or knowledge, or not using the subtle techniques that trained users acquire after some time in the field with successful results. The only simple way to avoid this potentially fatal defect in tests we could perform is to have a factory rep who knows how to use it properly and take all the precautions he knows from his years of experience. If no factory rep can demonstrate it, then maybe people who are familiar with the Examiner, and have had success with it before can make some tests to show what kind of results they get.

But if there is nobody available with some experience of successful hunting with an Examiner, the next best method is what you recommended
-- to make specific tests recommended by the manufacturer. and make tests to determine if specific claims can be demonstrated or not.
I also had some thoughts of other tests that can be performed.

The way I am thinking, I can make three kinds of tests:
1. The specific tests like you described to determine if particular claims can be demonstrated.
2. Simple tests can be conducted by ordinary people who have no knowledge or experience with any LRL to see if the average novice will find success with the Examiner by following the instructions and trying it out. This could also be done with metal detectorists who are familiar with treasure hunting, but not with LRLs, and can even be done by people who are dowsers and LRL enthusiasts. While this class of volunteer is not a trained factory rep, they can serve to show what an average treasure hobbyist would experience if he used an Examiner.
3. Lab tests designed to measure "signal lines" and EM emissions coming from the Examiner, or travelling in the air between the target and the examiner. Also tests designed to measure the charges moving from a user's body to the Examiner, and the difference in charge of the examiner between the ground, the surrounding air, and the antenna.

I already took some measurements along these lines and I measured a charge in the air that showed a little over 200 volts in the air at 6 feet above the ground, which reduced to zero as my probe was lowered to the ground. Of course, the charge varied at different locations. These kind of tests are interesting to me to determine if we can measure the claimed "phenomenon" effects made by LRL enthusiasts. The only success rate field test I am interested in is to try it out with my own hands and see if I get the feeling it is helping me to find treasure. The other more controlled tests I am doing are for the benefit of other people who want to see them.

This is why I am taking suggestions for tests that people want to see done. I think others who can't be here will have more demanding tests, since they cannot try it out like the people here can. And even if you can be here to see the tests, and try it yourself, you should do every test that you think is important to you. Don't ever rely on second-hand information unless it is not possible to find out for yourself first-hand. When you try it out yourself in your own hands, then you will truly "know" ... not just theorise from some videos and reports.


Best wishes,
J_P

Dear J_P It is very wise from you to admit that may be somebody needs some experience in a specific LRL when tests it.
You seem you have everything in your mind in order to do the test as good as possible.
I realise that you cannot satisfy all of us and you are trying your best.
I also liked that you said that an area shouldn't cleaned before you put the metal in search.Putting a sample in a clean place says nothing when testing an LRL.

.....Don't ever rely on second-hand information unless it is not possible to find out for yourself first-hand. When you try it out yourself in your own hands, then you will truly "know" ... not just theorise from some videos and reports......

Whith this last statement J_P you saved me writing the post I was thinking.
It is going to be interesting for sure, the stage is yours!

[Theseus]

A memory jog....

Bionic 01 Video, Dr. Best Ultimate Cough Remedy, or was that LRL, Alonso PD... all rather interesting diversions; but wait a minute!

Don't we have a real live LRL that needs to be tested? Looked at? Evaluated?

Wasn't there an earth-shaking precedent here, when this ONE brave LRL manufacturer sent a free sample to J_Player for complete testing and evaluation?

Or, did he really send it? Well, I recall seeing pictures of it being unwrapped. Or, did he really intend that it would be tested and evaluated. Hmmm... interesting.

I'm bored with detecting shovels with laser beams and the like. I would think this thread should have been at the top of the list for many days now, instead it is sliding off into oblivion. Wonder why?

[Qiaozhi]

Bionic 01 Video, Dr. Best Ultimate Cough Remedy, or was that LRL, Alonso PD... all rather interesting diversions; but wait a minute!

Don't we have a real live LRL that needs to be tested? Looked at? Evaluated?

Wasn't there an earth-shaking precedent here, when this ONE brave LRL manufacturer sent a free sample to J_Player for complete testing and evaluation?

Or, did he really send it? Well, I recall seeing pictures of it being unwrapped. Or, did he really intend that it would be tested and evaluated. Hmmm... interesting.

I'm bored with detecting shovels with laser beams and the like. I would think this thread should have been at the top of the list for many days now, instead it is sliding off into oblivion. Wonder why?

I think J_P is waiting for RangerTell to confirm the Examiner is a working unit. But I agree ... there seems to be a long delay in getting that agreement.

[Theseus]

I think J_P is waiting for RangerTell to confirm the Examiner is a working unit. But I agree ... there seems to be a long delay in getting that agreement.

Yeah... I know that was the latest "official" status. Glad I'm not the only one that thinks this whole verification process is draaaaaaaaaaaaging on a bit more than expected. Could there be something foul in Denmark?

I just surmised from all the preliminary hoopla that things would flow a bit more smoothly once the item actually got delivered in the US. So much for surmising....

Oh well..... back to locating shovels with laser beams, and the Dr. Hung Debunker Comedy Routine.

Incidentally, where are all these interesting and noteworthy LRL conversations that are supposed to be taking place on Tnet? I just checked and that place is as dead as yesterday's newspaper.