rangertell examiner field trials

[Jim]

:::chortles:::

[Jim]

Sorry...had to do that. Dell Winders is the only LRL proponent I've seen that really lashes out to other posters, such as that.

FYI....there are various other discussions about these devices, and FCC compliance has come up several times. Allow me to quote just a snippet from Carl Moreland:

"Even non-transmitter circuits often must be tested as unintentional radiators, and at least be self-verified. Calculators, ferinstance, fall in this category. So any electronic LRL probably needs to be at least self-verified, even if it doesn't intentionally transmit a signal."

No innuendos at all, my friend. Simple research. Your RT gimmick had no FCC ID on it...and you informed me of such. However, you did not reply to the second part of my question "or any FCC data contained within the owners manual that would indicate the device was approved for export into the Untied States, as per Part 15 and Federal Law?"

Although you doubted that the Examiner is subject to FCC ID....and it might not be....it still needs to be certified/verified as per Part 15.

I wanted to talk alleged electronic circuits, and you wanted to talk about resonant sound frequency's and hollow tubes. So...I threw in a sea shell. Neither has anything to do with the alleged circuits in the RT.

Ciao

[Theseus]

Hi Theseus,
I am looking for people who want to test the Examiner in thier own hands to see how well it works for them. I will be documenting the public testing done.

On the occasions I tried dowsing with bent wires, I was not successful.

Best wishes,
J_P

You were not successful getting them to move or cross over a target in plain sight? Or, you were not successful at locating totally unknown targets?

[J_Player]

You were not successful getting them to move or cross over a target in plain sight? Or, you were not successful at locating totally unknown targets?

On the few occasions I tried dowsing rods, I saw no movement of the rods whether the target location was known or not, or even if a target didn't exist.
The rods simply did not move unless I made a conscious effort to cause them to move.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

Sorry...had to do that. Dell Winders is the only LRL proponent I've seen that really lashes out to other posters, such as that.

FYI....there are various other discussions about these devices, and FCC compliance has come up several times. Allow me to quote just a snippet from Carl Moreland:

"Even non-transmitter circuits often must be tested as unintentional radiators, and at least be self-verified. Calculators, ferinstance, fall in this category. So any electronic LRL probably needs to be at least self-verified, even if it doesn't intentionally transmit a signal."

No innuendos at all, my friend. Simple research. Your RT gimmick had no FCC ID on it...and you informed me of such. However, you did not reply to the second part of my question "or any FCC data contained within the owners manual that would indicate the device was approved for export into the Untied States, as per Part 15 and Federal Law?"

Although you doubted that the Examiner is subject to FCC ID....and it might not be....it still needs to be certified/verified as per Part 15.

I wanted to talk alleged electronic circuits, and you wanted to talk about resonant sound frequency's and hollow tubes. So...I threw in a sea shell. Neither has anything to do with the alleged circuits in the RT.

Ciao

Actually, Dell winders is the other person who uses false information and missing information to prove his points. And he calls people names like you do.
If you consider this lashing out, you are welcome to your opinion. I see it as an observation that anyone can make from reading your recent posts.

In the snippet you presented from your "simple research" I don't see where Carl says the Examiner is among the "non-transmitter circuits often must be tested as unintentional radiators". Do you suppose Carl was referring to LRLs that use batteries for their internal power when he says "any electronic LRL probably needs to be at least self-verified"? Maybe the same as calculators that use batteries or solar cells as a power source can become unintentional radiators? Do you suppose the FCC requires certification of devices that do not have a power source connected to the circuit inside?

Personally, I have never seen any electronic circuit that does not use a power source such as a battery or solar cell to power it with an FCC ID on it. Maybe this is because non-powered passive circuits do not radiate, but collect noise from the outside. In the case of a calculator, the power is applied inside the circuit where it can radiate outward rather than being a non-powered circuit that can only pick up electronic emissions from the outside.

The TI-36X calculator is the only part of the Examiner that can concievably radiate anything to my knowledge. And it is hard for me to believe a TI-36X calculator is not FCC compliant. Most of the calculators I own have FCC compliance information posted in the instruction booklet that comes with the calculator, if it is published at all. My guess is this information is in the TI-36 calculator manual, which was not included in the package that I received. Just because I didn't see the statement FCC compliance statement doesn't mean the calculator does not comply. Can you show any evidence that the TI-36X calculator is in violation of the FCC requirements?

If we are to believe your new innuendo, we must also believe the part of the Examiner (aside from the calculator) is a radiator, or unintentional radiator, and that Carl was also referring to LRL circuits that have no internal power source when he says "probably needs to be at least self-verified". In fact this "simple research" is not based on facts at all. You are quoting what Carl thinks probably needs to be done for unintentional radiating devices. And in fact, the Examiner is not a radiating device, but a device that captures EMI/RFI radiations from the outside.

Then you say you wanted to talk about electronic circuits, not resonance. The question is how can you not talk about resonance when the Examiner circuit is claimed to be a resonant circuit? If you decide you want to talk about electronic circuits but leave out all mention of resonance, then we must omit any talk of the coils and capacitors inside the Examiner, as well as the diode, which is often used in conjunction with electronic resonant circuits. And we should also not mention the ariel, because it is claimed to collect a signal in the air that resonates at the same frequency as the alleged resonant circuit inside that we are not talking about. So what's left? There is a sensitivity pot, a crystal clock and a plastic enclosure with a handle. Not much electronic circuits left to talk about when you ignore the claimed resonant circuit inside, right?

So what is your agenda? You want all mention of claims of a resonant passive receiver to go away, and you want the non-powered internal circuit to be classed as an unintentional radiator so you can claim it is not in compliance with US Federal law, and you want people to believe that you are presenting simple research instead of quoting second hand information of what someone else says they think is probably required, rather than to show the actual provision of a law that was violated. It appears you are attempting to dredge up whatever you can find to promote your agenda, not present actual facts.

I don't see anything in the Examiner that would indicate to me it is an radiator of any signal. I see a calculator that I believe is probably a radiator of very small signals and I believe is compliant with the FCC requirements in the USA. I don't recall ever seeing any FCC statements in the manual, but I haven't looked for any specifically. Let's assume there is no statement concerning the FCC published in the manual. Is this a problem? I thought this was required only for devices that are radiators, which the Examiner is not. And is it required that a an FCC approval must be published, or stamped on a device, or is it only required that certain classes of products must be certified?

I actually don't know if there is any violation of FCC or federal laws. Until I see some real evidence that there is a violation, then I will presume there is not.
So far you have shown a lot of "probably required" and implied violations that I see no proof of.
If you expect me to pass judgment on your hearsay and innuendos, you can forget it. I prefer to see the actual facts.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

On the few occasions I tried dowsing rods, I saw no movement of the rods whether the target location was known or not, or even if a target didn't exist.
The rods simply did not move unless I made a conscious effort to cause them to move.

Best wishes,
J_P

I understand.

Long ago, I found that I could consciously block the ideomotor response from causing movement of a dowsing implement in my hands. It takes a lot of concentration, but I can do it. Most folks cannot block it, and when shown (once or twice) how an implement reacts in a dowser's hands, they are immediately successful at mimicking the same movement, and it occurs AS IF some unseen force were actually causing the rods to move.

You must be a very rare exception, not to get any movement at all; or as you said, the previous nerve damage is itself stopping it from happening. In either case, I would agree you would not be a logical operator to be testing any sort of dowsing implement, such as the Examiner.

I hope you can find the volunteers to act as operators of the device.

[GoldSeeker]

Outcome ?

Hi all,

Joined this forum after reading this (rather lengthy) thread.

Is there any further to add. What was the outcome of all this ?

I looked at a RangerTell box of tricks years back, but spent my hard earned on a pair of decent Minelab MD's. Not sure I've done any better with these than with a RangerTell though !!

Think I'm looking in the wrong places.

Cheers,

GoldSeeker


PS,

I just noticed another thread where the original poster (Hipopp)? was raving about how good his RangerTell was, then this post where he is clearly P***ed off.

What happend along the way to cause such a radical change of mind? (Sorry, I have just stumbled across all this, but very interested to know a bit more background).

[J_Player]

Hi all,

Joined this forum after reading this (rather lengthy) thread.

Is there any further to add. What was the outcome of all this ?

I looked at a RangerTell box of tricks years back, but spent my hard earned on a pair of decent Minelab MD's. Not sure I've done any better with these than with a RangerTell though !!

Think I'm looking in the wrong places.

Cheers,

GoldSeeker


PS,

I just noticed another thread where the original poster (Hipopp)? was raving about how good his RangerTell was, then this post where he is clearly P***ed off.

What happend along the way to cause such a radical change of mind? (Sorry, I have just stumbled across all this, but very interested to know a bit more background).

Hi Goldseeker,
From what I read, Hippop was convinced the Examiner finds gold, and set out to start a test program to prove how well it works. After many months he returned to tell us it does not work at all. Apparently, his tests convinced him he was deluded into thinking it worked, and he changed his mind to say it does not work.

But he continued on his crusade with intentions to get the local 60 minutes TV program to make an expose on the examiner. As near as I can tell, Hippop paid for his Examiner, and wanted to receive a full refund many months later when he decided it does not work. From my point of view, he is motivated to recover his loss of money he spent on the Examiner. The forum spokesman from Rangertell was not anxious to refund his money, but made some offers to partially refund it on the condition that the Examiner is first returned in the same condition as when it was shipped. I doubt Hippop accepted that offer, and we haven't heard much from Hippop since that time.

Like most LRLs, the Examiner is difficult to prove that it works or does not work. Simple tests I have conducted by myself and with other volunteers have resulted in no repeatable detection of gold targets that are hidden in an unknown location. But when the location is known, the results can approach 50% on avearage depending on the user. The problem with this kind of simple test is it cannot be classed as scientific. But it does provide some evidence of what an average volunteer user finds when they try it.

I found that a more scientific test is also difficult. The problem I encountered is you need to establish a control for a scientific test. In the kind of scientific test that most Geotech readers want to see, the control is to let a user establish the Examiner is working to locate gold in known locations before the blind testing begins. But no volunteers have been able to consistently get the Examiner to locate gold in known locations well enough to say it is working properly (less than 50% success for known locations). I have been looking for volunteers who are familiar with the Examiner, who can get good performance to participate in the testing in the Los Angeles area, but there have been no responses my invitations. (Invitations are still open ... send me a PM if you want to try it out).

As it stands, I cannot prove scientifically the Examiner will find treasure or not. At least not until someone is able to try it and find success with it. This leaves us with using the best information available. For me, the best information available is from people who bought and used the Examiner. You can read a number of threads from users. As I recall, hung, fenixdigger, Mike(Mont) and the Rangertell factory says it works fine. Hippop, Clondike-Clad, Carl-NC, Putrechigi, me, and several volunteers who tried my test unit say it does not work, or they are not sure if it works or not. I believe there are a number of other members who also made reports about how well the Examiner works.

Hope that helped.

Best wishes,
J_P

[GoldSeeker]

Hi JP

Thanks for bringing me up to date. Very interstesting discussion.

I'd love to take you up on a trial of the RangerTell but I am in Australia.

I'm almost tempted to buy one if for no other reason than its value as a talking piece alone would be worth it!

I could hang it from the wall behind my bar for when my mates come round for a beer!! "Hey dude, is that what I think it is hanging up there"!

Cheers,

GoldSeeker.

[J_Player]

Hi JP

Thanks for bringing me up to date. Very interstesting discussion.

I'd love to take you up on a trial of the RangerTell but I am in Australia.

I'm almost tempted to buy one if for no other reason than its value as a talking piece alone would be worth it!

I could hang it from the wall behind my bar for when my mates come round for a beer!! "Hey dude, is that what I think it is hanging up there"!

Cheers,

GoldSeeker.

Yes, the examiner is a classic collector's item and excellent conversation piece. It always attracts attention whenever I carry it in public places. People wonder what strange instrument you are carrying, and when you tell them it is a treasure finding machine, you become important with a captive audience. I am sure Carl's two Examiners have enhanced his museum of LRLs. I also considered buying one for that purpose, but he price is a bit high for a conversation piece. I believe you could acquire a little-used Examiner at a large discount if you place a notice in the Buy-Sell-Trade section of the forum. You could PM Putrechigi. I think he wants to sell the Examiner he bought last year. There are probably other forum members who want to sell their Examiners in mint condition complete with instruction CD.

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

.....

Like most LRLs, the Examiner is difficult to prove that it works or does not work.

It is difficult to prove that Earth is round too.
I hope you are still in doubt about Earth.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

[GoldSeeker]

Yes, the examiner is a classic collector's item and excellent conversation piece. It always attracts attention whenever I carry it in public places. People wonder what strange instrument you are carrying, and when you tell them it is a treasure finding machine, you become important with a captive audience. I am sure Carl's two Examiners have enhanced his museum of LRLs. I also considered buying one for that purpose, but he price is a bit high for a conversation piece. I believe you could acquire a little-used Examiner at a large discount if you place a notice in the Buy-Sell-Trade section of the forum. You could PM Putrechigi. I think he wants to sell the Examiner he bought last year. There are probably other forum members who want to sell their Examiners in mint condition complete with instruction CD.

Best wishes,
J_P

Thanks JP

I'm somewhat open minded about the RangerTell. Will probably buy a new model from the manufacturer.

Inspite of all the negativity, I still think it has some credibility and merit.

Cheers,

GoldSeeker

[WM6]

Thanks JP

I'm somewhat open minded about the RangerTell. Will probably buy a new model from the manufacturer.

Inspite of all the negativity, I still think it has some credibility and merit.

Cheers,

GoldSeeker

Think twice again.

Funfinder proposed here (in other thread) a way better solution than those "Neanderthell joke" and it is for free and even its electronic work. Go to build it or ask someone to build it for you - will be way cheaper.

[Theseus]

Thanks JP

I'm somewhat open minded about the RangerTell. Will probably buy a new model from the manufacturer.

Inspite of all the negativity, I still think it has some credibility and merit.

Cheers,

GoldSeeker

You will be throwing your money away. Buying an Examiner, because you believe there is a chance it could work, is akin to climbing a very high cliff, then tossing a handful of paper money into the air and believing the wind will bring it all back into your hands.

I'm not sure why J_Player is "beating around the bush" about this device when it is so obviously a fraud from the git go. I suppose he has his reasons, but I could not imagine what they would be. (I could guess, but I won't do that.... here.)

If you have a quantity of money, that you don't mind totally losing, I suppose the only way to satisfy your curiosity about the Examiner is to buy one.

Fact: The Examiner exactly replicates the action of an L-shaped bent piece of wire, also known as a dowsing rod. Every once in awhile, the practice of dowsing will appear to work. However, if you "look" closer at the phenomenon, and test dowsing under a controlled protocol, it will ALWAYS produce results that are completely consistent with pure chance guessing.

[GoldSeeker]

Thanks to all,

After careful consideration, I might just stick to my proven, traditional MD technology.

Interesting discussion all the same and I appreciate and enjoy all the views and opinions put forward here.

If the RangerTell was around 100 - 200 bucks, it might just be worth the splurge (and to get that collectors item to hang from the wall), but around $1000 a pop! Shudder!!!

I was really only looking at someway of getting some sort of edge to supplement my gold MD'ing. Anyway, think I have learnt all I needed to make up my mind.

Cheers,

GoldSeeker.