rangertell examiner field trials

[Theseus]

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.

A wise decision.... and a very wise man.

BTW, some feel that the practice of dowsing does give them a sort of "edge" to locating placer gold and/or lucrative spots to coinhunt. In that regard, you can quite cheaply give it a try for yourself by making yourself a homemade dowsing rod, as described here on the Geotech site.

Good Luck....

[GoldSeeker]

Thanks Theseus,

I shall look into dowsing a bit further.

Just getting back to this RangerTel gadget. Surely if it was a scam (and I'm not suggesting it is or it isn't), wouldn't the dept of Fair Trading or Consumer Affairs have been a better avenue for Hipopp?

I was thinking after the so claimed 1300+ sales, not a peep from too many people who bought one. Maybe too embarassed if it is a scam.?

I wonder if Fair Trading have some knowledge of this at all ?

Cheers,

GoldSeeker.


PS, Just another observation. Why are the pics of JP opening the box at his home in the USA almost identical to the pics on the RangerTell website. Looks like the same table, room, settings and even the same utility knife being used to open the box ?

[Theseus]

Thanks Theseus,

I shall look into dowsing a bit further.

Just getting back to this RangerTel gadget. Surely if it was a scam (and I'm not suggesting it is or it isn't), wouldn't the dept of Fair Trading or Consumer Affairs have been a better avenue for Hipopp?

I was thinking after the so claimed 1300+ sales, not a peep from too many people who bought one. Maybe too embarassed if it is a scam.?

I wonder if Fair Trading have some knowledge of this at all ?

Cheers,

GoldSeeker.


PS, Just another observation. Why are the pics of JP opening the box at his home in the USA almost identical to the pics on the RangerTell website. Looks like the same table, room, settings and even the same utility knife being used to open the box ?

Dowsing has always been a "fun" hobby. Just don't get too wrapped up in it, as some people have. Plus, there is never any reason to buy a dowsing (or LRL) gadget; you can try dowsing for yourself with just homemade rods and pendulums and they work every bit the same as the commercial ones.

Well, there are more than just one LRL scam device out there on the market, but my guess is the State Attorneys General have a whole lot bigger problems than messing with these LRL scams. So a few remain in business, but several have also gone out of business as well.

Why are the pics of JP opening the box identical to the ones on the RT website. I don't know.... but good question! Use your own judgement.

[GoldSeeker]

The pics I'm referring to are here; http://www.rangertell.com/Examiner%20Close%20Up.htm Compare them to the photos J Player attached here; http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...&postcount=179

But ok, could be my mistake. It actually say's on the RT Website; See a 'Tester' take it out for a spin.

I guess they are using the pics as taken by J Player. Perhaps he could confirm that they are indeed his own photos taken by him and then sent to RangerTell to be published as promo shots we now see on RangerTell ?

They certainly are different pics, taken at different times as evidenced by the slightly different postpak and the guy opening the box has a different shirt sleeve in camera. But why would he open the package on two seperate occasions ?

Think I smell a rat here. A large one!

[J_Player]

Why are the pics of JP opening the box identical to the ones on the RT website. I don't know.... but good question! Use your own judgement.

The pics are the same because the contact who sent the Examiner for me to test asked if he could use the pictures I took on the Rangertell website. I told him I don't mind if he does. In fact, the Rangertell people probably didn't need to ask. Most forums claim copyrights on all the content that members contribute to the forum, yet Carl seldom makes an issue of other sites cross posting content from his forum. We see the Rangertell site also has posted "Avramenko's fork" excerpts from Qiaozhi's spoof of how to build your own long range locator here: http://www.rangertell.com/frequently...uestions-a.htm

taken from Qiaozhi's post here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...45&postcount=9

The pics I posted in the Geotech forum are probably in the public domain, because I never claimed copyrights. I presume if there are any copyrights to the photos I posted here, they belong to Carl Moreland, just as the copyright to all the content in Geotech forums belong to Carl unless someone else has prior copyright claims on some of the content.

Photos of me opening the enclosure to an Examiner also appear in Tnet. Jim asked me for permission to post those photos, but I told him Carl owns any copyrights, and to ask Carl. (I also told him I think it is a good idea to post those photos).

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 never beat around the bush. The fact is I do not have enough information to make a scientific determination whether the Examiner works or not. If you are willing to donate your time to establish a scientific test that will satisfy the scientific community, you are welcome to come and test the factory-fresh Examiner I have on loan.

This also makes me wonder on what basis you determined your own conclusions. As near as I can tell, it is on circumstantial evidence and a strong bias. But definitely not based on any scientific tests you performed.

As I said, I have not established any consistent base line for a scientific test for the reason that nobody has been able to get the Examiner to work reliably so far for known targets. This condition provides a lot of non-scientific evidence. But since I don't base my conclusions on non-scientific tests, I can say I don't know if it works or not. I presume you have the intelligence necessary to identify the pitfalls of making a definite conclusion based on flawed non-scientific tests.

Also note, I have never paid money to purchase any LRL, nor do I intend to purchase any LRL unless I become convinced it is a useful tool to help me find the kind of treasure I like to hunt for, or if I am convinced that the price is low enough and the novelty value high enough to be worthwhile as a conversation piece. No beating around any bushes, those are facts of my intentions and feelings about LRLs in general.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

Just getting back to this RangerTel gadget. Surely if it was a scam (and I'm not suggesting it is or it isn't), wouldn't the dept of Fair Trading or Consumer Affairs have been a better avenue for Hipopp?

I was thinking after the so claimed 1300+ sales, not a peep from too many people who bought one. Maybe too embarassed if it is a scam.?

I wonder if Fair Trading have some knowledge of this at all ?

Cheers,

GoldSeeker.


PS, Just another observation. Why are the pics of JP opening the box at his home in the USA almost identical to the pics on the RangerTell website. Looks like the same table, room, settings and even the same utility knife being used to open the box ?

Hi GoldSeeker.
See the reply above I made to Theseus for the answer why the Rangertell site has the same pictures.

I was wondering about these 1300+ sales. I have had an open invitation for more than a year for any volunteers to come and test a new Examiner. But not a single one of the 1300+ buyers of the Examiner was interested in testing it. As I recall, the Rangertell representative tried to get some local Examiner owners to show a demonstration of their Examiner working. But the local Examiner owners did not respond to any emails from the Rangertell rep. and I was told there is nobody within a few hundred miles who would demonstrate the Examiner.

It seemed kind of odd to me that of 1300+ owners there is nobody willing to show what their Examiner can do. When I later received a loaner Examiner, I found the same condition. Nobody wanted to test it. Not Examiner owners, not LRL enthusiasts, not dowsers, not treasure hunters. The only volunteers I could find were friends, one skeptical forum member, and a hand full of watchers who I invited to try it out. It just seems odd that the actual owners of the Examiner do not want to demonstrate it working. It makes me wonder if their actual results when people are watching is the same as the results I observed when my volunteers tried it?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

This also makes me wonder on what basis you determined your own conclusions. As near as I can tell, it is on circumstantial evidence and a strong bias. But definitely not based on any scientific tests you performed.
Best wishes,
J_P

As a matter of fact I have conducted scientific tests on certain other commercial LRLs; just not the R-T Examiner.

However, just because I have not personally tested an Examiner, does not categorically disqualify me from rendering my opinion based on lots of previous experiences with similar contraptions.

Think of it this way.... I've never been to Australia either, but I've seen enough evidence to allow me to believe it does in fact exist, and were I to buy a plane ticket for Australia, I'm confident that is where I would end up.

The point is, one does not have to necessarily personally experience something to draw on their previous experience and observations; and make an informed opinion (conclusion).

(Not to mention the fact, Carl M. has already done a very in-depth study of the Examiner; and I trust what he reported as accurate and truthful.)

[Qiaozhi]

We see the Rangertell site also has posted "Avramenko's fork" excerpts from Qiaozhi's spoof of how to build your own long range locator here: http://www.rangertell.com/frequently...uestions-a.htm

taken from Qiaozhi's post here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...45&postcount=9

This post is just to emphasize the fact that the "explanation" of the inner workings of the RangerTell Examiner was a complete spoof, and not intended to be taken seriously. I simply took a number of pseudo-scientific ideas and strung them together in a convincing manner. It was basically gobbledygook / techo-babble.

However, it was enough to confuse the owners of the RT Examiner website, who promptly highjacked the information, and proudly displayed it as an excellent description of the underlying principles of their electronic dowsing gadget. I also suspect they believe that the word "naive" is not in the Oxford English dictionary.

[Theseus]

This post is just to emphasize the fact that the "explanation" of the inner workings of the RangerTell Examiner was a complete spoof, and not intended to be taken seriously. I simply took a number of pseudo-scientific ideas and strung them together in a convincing manner. It was basically gobbledygook / techo-babble.

However, it was enough to confuse the owners of the RT Examiner website, who promptly highjacked the information, and proudly displayed it as an excellent description of the underlying principles of their electronic dowsing gadget. I also suspect they believe that the word "naive" is not in the Oxford English dictionary.

Which only goes to strengthen my original concensus of the R-T dowsing contraption.

[J_Player]

As a matter of fact I have conducted scientific tests on certain other commercial LRLs; just not the R-T Examiner.

However, just because I have not personally tested an Examiner, does not categorically disqualify me from rendering my opinion based on lots of previous experiences with similar contraptions.

Think of it this way.... I've never been to Australia either, but I've seen enough evidence to allow me to believe it does in fact exist, and were I to buy a plane ticket for Australia, I'm confident that is where I would end up.

The point is, one does not have to necessarily personally experience something to draw on their previous experience and observations; and make an informed opinion (conclusion).

(Not to mention the fact, Carl M. has already done a very in-depth study of the Examiner; and I trust what he reported as accurate and truthful.)

Of course Carl-NC has done an in-depth study of the Examiner. Furthermore, Carl-NC is highly qualified in electronics that pertain to metal detection, to the point that he could be used as an expert witness in litigation that would determine the validity of the circuitry and the intimate details of what, if anything can be detected with the Examiner circuits. In the case of Carl-NC, he has more than an opinion about the examiner. He has an expert opinion.

In your case, you have no expert electronics credentials as far as I know, nor have you conducted any testing of an Examiner, so any opinions you may have are simply your opinions that you base on selected information that you read, and tests you performed on other LRLs which are not made by Rangertell. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion and stating it. You have read above that my opinion is I will not buy any LRL unless I become convinced it can help me find the kind of treasure I like to hunt for. So far, that has not happened. And I continue to wait for the day when I can see real live evidence that an LRL can help me find treasures.

You say the basis for your opinion is that you tested similar LRLs, and you read Carl's report before you arrived at the statement "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".

Sure, I could say it doesn't work because Carl did not find any valid electronics, and because you tested some non-Rangertell LRLs that did not work. But then I would have to ignore some facts I discovered during my testing of the Examiner. For example, the controversy of whether the calculator signal is transferred to the electronics inside the Examiner. I have oscilloscope photos showing the calculator signal measured at the back of the calculator circuit board, and more oscilloscope photos showing the same signal measured at different test points from inside the Examiner internal wiring. I see the calculator signal is transferred to the internal wiring of the Examiner when I make actual test measurements, which proves certain claims made by skeptics were simply incorrect assumptions they made. I also see how the calculator signal is mixed with "other signals" inside the Examiner as displayed on the oscilloscope screen.

Maybe this means nothing to you, (possibly part of the information that you feel should be ignored).
But for me, I must say I observed that some of what skeptics have been claiming about the Examiner is not correct.
This observation also highlights some things that Carl-NC said about the calculator signal.

1. According to Carl, the calculator produces a fixed frequency that is not altered by pressing keystrokes. My testing confirmed he is correct.

2. In a forum post, Carl indicated the calculator produces a signal which does not couple to the Examiner inductively: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showp...9&postcount=32
In my testing, I found the calculator signal is coupled to the Examiner, but not inductively. Carl was correct again. After I observed the calculator signal from inside the Examiner circuit, I made a spiral coil identical to the Examiner "calculator receiver coil", and connected it to the scope probe. I positioned this coil at the back of the calculator in the same location where the Examiner coil would be positioned, and I received a signal. It did not matter if I had the end of the spiral coil connected to the probe ground, left open, or shorted. I picked up the calculator signal. I then put a 1 inch square piece of aluminum foil in an alligator clip at the tip of the scope probe and checked for a signal at the back of the calculator. I found I could pick up the signal a little stronger than with the coil I had used before. I could even pick up the calculator signal from a simple alligator clip at the tip of the probe. This told me the calculator signal is not being inductively coupled. It could be be picked up by capacitive coupling or by RF coupling. I used the coil to scan around the calculator to see what range I could detect the signal, and I found I could get a recognizable calculator signal up to about 3 cm from the calculator, depending on how much background noise is in the air. I also noticed there are hot spots on the calculator where the signal is stronger. the area around the epoxy dot that covers the processor is a strong area, and the display is a hot area. I also noted that the signal around the display accentuates some of the lower frequency attributes of the signal, which seems normal, as this is an area where conductors carry the display clocking pulses. In short, I have to respect Carl-NC for his astute knowledge of electronics, and his ability to not make statements that he doesn't know to be a fact. See the attachment for more details of what I observed from the calculator. (Note: All of the images and content of in attachment are copyrighted material which cannot be used on other web pages or for commercial purposes without first obtaining written permission).

Maybe after looking at the oscilloscope images in my report, you will begin to understand the reason why I prefer to state that I don't know if it works, rather than blindly stating it is impossible for any calculator signal to couple to the internal Examiner circuits. Of course, you are free to believe there is no calculator signal measurable from inside the Examiner if you wish. And you are free to believe the Examiner cannot possibly work because other LRLs you tested did not work. But at least you now know the answer to why I don't rely on partial information and tests performed on non-Rangertell products to form a basis for definite statements I make about the Examiner.

Best wishes,
J_P

[J_Player]

This post is just to emphasize the fact that the "explanation" of the inner workings of the RangerTell Examiner was a complete spoof, and not intended to be taken seriously. I simply took a number of pseudo-scientific ideas and strung them together in a convincing manner. It was basically gobbledygook / techo-babble.

However, it was enough to confuse the owners of the RT Examiner website, who promptly highjacked the information, and proudly displayed it as an excellent description of the underlying principles of their electronic dowsing gadget. I also suspect they believe that the word "naive" is not in the Oxford English dictionary.

I have to agree.
I even saw the words "THIS IS A SCAM" cleverly encoded in your post.
And who could be more qualified to claim it is "gobbledygook / techo-babble" intended as a spoof than the actual author of the spoof?
As long as the "Avramenko's fork" episode remains on the Rangertell website, we will have a classic monument to LRL-itis gone astray.

Why would a manufacturer latch onto "gobbledygook / techo-babble" as science facts?
Perhaps the answer was best sung in a song from the Broadway play "Barnham" ....

There is a sucker
Born every minute.
And the biggest one
excluding none
is me!



Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

the reason why I prefer to state that I don't know if it works, rather than blindly stating it is impossible for any calculator signal to couple to the internal Examiner circuits. Of course, you are free to believe there is no calculator signal measurable from inside the Examiner if you wish. And you are free to believe the Examiner cannot possibly work because other LRLs you tested did not work. But at least you now know the answer to why I don't rely on partial information and tests performed on non-Rangertell products to form a basis for definite statements I make about the Examiner.

What you are convienently side-stepping is not the "straw man" concerning whether or not noise from the calculator is being coupled to the do-nothing Examiner circuits; but rather the implication/claims that these noise signals are somehow being radiated to distant buried objects and the objects are re-radiating said signal to the contraption in the dowser's hand.

That claim is what I contend IS NOT HAPPENING, and if you think there is a possibility it could be happening (as claimed) you are sorely mistaken and I'm quite surprised an otherwise rational thinking individual would even entertain such a notion.

[J_Player]

What you are convienently side-stepping is not the "straw man" concerning whether or not noise from the calculator is being coupled to the do-nothing Examiner circuits; but rather the implication/claims that these noise signals are somehow being radiated to distant buried objects and the objects are re-radiating said signal to the contraption in the dowser's hand.

That claim is what I contend IS NOT HAPPENING, and if you think there is a possibility it could be happening (as claimed) you are sorely mistaken and I'm quite surprised an otherwise rational thinking individual would even entertain such a notion.

Actually, I have not conveniently side stepped those issues. The fact is I have not done extensive testing to determine what if any signal is present between the Examiner and a distant target. Some preliminary testing showed that the equipment I was using did not detect a "signal line". I was able to detect a signal some small distance from the Examiner ground probe, but since I haven't done extensive testing, I do not have facts to report about that signal. Therefore I can only say I don't know if a signal is being radiated or returned from a target, and it doesn't look promising. By the way, where did you obtain your facts to contend that claim "IS NOT HAPPENING"?

Through testing an Examiner with signal detecting instruments?
By testing equipment different than an Examiner?
How scientific was your test?
What did you use for a control?

My opinion is a rational person would not make statements about how an Examiner performs when they never held an Examiner in their hands, and tested only equipment that is different than an Examiner, and was not manufactured by Rangertell. It brings to mind a person who might test drive a Fiat Brava, then decide Ferraris are are junk because his test drive in a Fiat proved it. But I am still happy to read your logic in the Remote Sensing forum.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Theseus]

The fact is I have not done extensive testing to determine what if any signal is present between the Examiner and a distant target. Some preliminary testing showed that the equipment I was using did not detect a "signal line".

I'm not surprised you did not detect a "signal line". The term "signal line" is thought to be something tangible, by certain LRL users. In fact it is a term made up by LRL salesmen and has no relation at all to what is actually happening in the real world.

The truth is, when someone holding an LRL (such as the Examiner) causes it to swing or lock, it is because of an ideomotor response. They "think" of this as detecting or crossing a tangible "signal line", because that's what they've been told is happening. Nothing could be further from the truth. I really hope you've not been suckered into thinking "signal lines" actually exist.

[J_Player]

I'm not surprised you did not detect a "signal line". The term "signal line" is thought to be something tangible, by certain LRL users. In fact it is a term made up by LRL salesmen and has no relation at all to what is actually happening in the real world.

The truth is, when someone holding an LRL (such as the Examiner) causes it to swing or lock, it is because of an ideomotor response. They "think" of this as detecting or crossing a tangible "signal line", because that's what they've been told is happening. Nothing could be further from the truth. I really hope you've not been suckered into thinking "signal lines" actually exist.

I have not been suckered into thinking signal lines do exist or do not exist. I prefer to decide what to think about them after I conduct some tests that produce data I can base a decision on. Thank you for posting your hope.

Best wishes,
J_P