MFD Frequencies?

[Geo]

I agree, but ...


... since dowsing has been proven to produce results no better than guessing, and the use of an MFD involves dowsing rods, then [by implication] it doesn't matter how much voltage you connect to the ground, the result will still be the same. That is, no better than guessing.

I agree with the voltage amount... but i disagree with the "guessing"

[Qiaozhi]

I agree with the voltage amount... but i disagree with the "guessing"

I know you don't agree with me on that point.

There is no problem with anyone wanting to try out dowsing for themselves, or even believing that perhaps it actually works. I also certainly have no problem with anyone wanting to experiment with LRLs. Indeed, I have even been known to encourage it.

It's just the totally ludicrous pseudo-scientific claptrap, that certain people insist on spreading around the internet, which is particularly obnoxious. And (of course) the people / companies that aim to profit from such ignorance, especially when it can lead to loss of life.

So ... dowsing or LRLs for fun ... go ahead. But post outlandish theories on the Geotech forums, and prepare to get challenged!

[Jim]

.....develop between an MFD transmitter and the target.

MFD transmitter....isn't that just a basic/simple frequency generator?

How may inches ya reckon that MFD "transmitter" is transmitting?

Good grief

[J_Player]

MFD transmitter....isn't that just a basic/simple frequency generator?

How may inches ya reckon that MFD "transmitter" is transmitting?

Good grief

I can pick up an audio oscillator square wave at 5v on the end of a wire up to 5 cm distance in an air test using only an oscilloscope probe with an alligator clip on the end to detect it.
I can get 5 cm range whether I check the plain oscillator wire or if I connect the oscillator to an L-Rod. (It works as long as there is not too much electrical noise in the air to swamp the signal).
The problem is I can detect my cheapest metal detector magnetic signal with the same alligator clip from least 3 times farther.

Wait... I figgered it out...
Metal detector field is designed to reach a farther distance than a 5v audio oscillator signal field on a wire.

No wonder.

Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

I can pick up an audio oscillator square wave at 5v on the end of a wire up to 5 cm distance in an air test using only an oscilloscope probe with an alligator clip on the end to detect it.
I can get 5 cm range whether I check the plain oscillator wire or if I connect the oscillator to an L-Rod. (It works as long as there is not too much electrical noise in the air to swamp the signal).
The problem is I can detect my cheapest metal detector magnetic signal with the same alligator clip from least 3 times farther.

Wait... I figgered it out...
Metal detector field is designed to reach a farther distance than a 5v audio oscillator signal field on a wire.

No wonder.

Best wishes,
J_P

Hum....about a two (2) inch signal line.

[J_Player]

Hum....about a two (2) inch signal line.

Actually I could not find a line. I can get the signal all around the wire from any direction. It seems more like the field strength gradient you would expect from an electric field around a wire. The signal gets so weak by the time I move the probe away farther than 3 inches that I can only see noise... Must be the inverse square law at work.

But my PI detector sends a signal to the alligator clip even though yer sposta use a coil to pick up magnetic signals. I think it is inducing eddy currents in the clip up to about 8-9 inches enough make a signal I can see on the oscilloscope screen. It might work better if I took the detector away in a field somewhere where there's less noise and use a battery power instrument to test it.
Hmmm.... I wonder if that eddy current principle could be used to find buried treasure?


Best wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

Yeah....maybe Mike will step back in and explain how that MFD transmitter (frequency generator) pushes the signal more than two or three inches.

That just don't sound Long Distance to me

[Mike(Mont)]

Can't help you and I don't think it's an electronics issue--more like physics or rather paraphysics. How the human body can detect something that weak is obviously beyond your comprehension.

[WM6]

Can't help you and I don't think it's an electronics issue--more like physics or rather paraphysics. How the human body can detect something that weak is obviously beyond your comprehension.

Human body cannot detect in time even mortal dose of ionising radiation, let alone that it can detect non-existend gold "signals".

But I encourage you to detect somewhere good radiating physics textbook using your LRL scaming devices.

[Mike(Mont)]

Not only is it beyond your comprehension, but you don't even realize it is beyond your comprehension. Where does that leave things? Get some books and read up on it if you really want to know.

[WM6]

Not only is it beyond your comprehension, but you don't even realize it is beyond your comprehension. Where does that leave things? Get some books and read up on it if you really want to know.

Mean, good for me, because I will never throw my money for such crappy and funny creations as mineoro and rangertell sell. And bad for you and your scammers companion.

[Qiaozhi]

Not only is it beyond your comprehension, but you don't even realize it is beyond your comprehension. Where does that leave things? Get some books and read up on it if you really want to know.

Mike - if you have taken some time away from your paraphysical, spiritual and mystical books; you may have noticed in the intro part of this forum that it states:

The term "remote sensing" is used to describe scientifically viable methods of detecting geophysical anomalies from a distance. It is also used to describe the less scientific method of "long-range locating", which is engulfed in controversy.

So (whether you like it or not) the majority of members here are interested in real demonstrable facts, not pseudo-scientific gobbledygook. Perhaps you are able to leave 'commonsense' at the door, but others here are not. This is why you are frequently challenged to provide hard evidence. Simply stating that it is beyond our comprehension is just laughable.

[Mike(Mont)]

Human body cannot detect in time even mortal dose of ionising radiation, let alone that it can detect non-existend gold "signals".

But I encourage you to detect somewhere good radiating physics textbook using your LRL scaming devices.

I don't recall saying it could "detect" radiation. What I do know is resonance has an effect on the human body and this (or some effect from it like ion flow) can be sensed by those who have developed their sensitivity. The dowsers from the early 1900's used color as a witness. It's all about frequencies. If you read the Supersensonis book you might get a clue. Look at the part about the rainbow. Why do we see different colors? I don't think you can answer that one with your feeble mind. But that's a clue for you.

[WM6]

. It's all about frequencies.

For sure.

All ionising Radiations are basically high energetic electromagnetic wave at specific frequencies.

So you say, that human body cannot detect high energetic frequencies, but can detect very, very, very low energetic frequencies.

Send your Supersensinics book back asap.

[J_Player]

Not only is it beyond your comprehension, but you don't even realize it is beyond your comprehension. Where does that leave things? Get some books and read up on it if you really want to know.

Funny you should ask.
Here is where it leaves things:

1. You continue to make statements that you can locate things from long distance with your dowsing rods, yet you cannot. The proof is that you are incapable of passing a test to prove you can, and you refuse to demonstrate that you can. Further, all other people who say they can dowse or they can locate things from a long distance also refuse to demonstrate that they can pass a test to prove it. Every person who does try an actual scientific double blind test to find distant hidden objects fail to find them except for a few random coincidences that show they can do no better than a person who is guessing the location.

2. How you can fail to locate things at a long distance is beyond your comprehension.
But how you could be successful at finding things at a long distance is also beyond your comprehension.
After reading several years of your explanations it becomes apparent that nobody knows what you are talking about including yourself. This is not surprising when you study a few books which promote weird nonsense like the importance of the magnetic alignment of your bones. There is some hope if you ever care to try it: You could read textbooks which explain the nature of science, and seem to actually work in practice instead of failing every time. In fact the mainstream science books teach principles that work so well that you can demonstrate them working instead of refusing to because you are afraid of people pointing and laughing. The thing you cannot comprehend is that it is not only you who cannot pass a test to prove dowsing and long range locating works. The people who write the weird books you read cannot pass a test to prove it either. Nobody can prove dowsing and LRL detection works better than guessing.

Prove me wrong.
Here is a video that shows what happens when some really good dowsers try to prove it works: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2885649996034#

3. To say that a skeptic doesn't even realize it is beyond his comprehension is a stupid thing to say.
Of course skeptics realize it is beyond their comprehension of how dowsing can work.
It is also beyond the comprehension of dowsing promoters how it can work.
Nobody knows how it can work because it does not work.
If it did, then people could take a simple test to prove it. But nobody can.
Not a skeptic, and not the best dowsers.
Everyone realizes this fact, including skeptics and dowsing promoters.
This fact is within everyone's comprehension and realization.

It is also within everyone's comprehension that how dowsing could work cannot be explained unless we enter the field of magic and tricks.
Could this be the reason why nobody can pass a test to prove that it works?
Is this why the only explanations how it could work depend on stating some really stupid theories to explain how it work, and then making certain that nobody can see you proving these theories work (or fail to work) in practice?

I think you are wrong when you say skeptics don't even realize that dowsing is beyond their comprehension. They realize very well that dowsing, magic, and other tricks can all be explained by the art of illusions, which are best left to magicians and talented showmen rather than amateurs who want us to believe science explains it.


Best wishes,
J_P