Desperate!
 

It appears that Mineoro not working,
Magnacast not working,
OKM not working,
UG.. not working,
Dell not working,
any LRL not working!?
So, do we have any chance to go deeper than conventional MD ? Any other device?
Is that all what modern science can offer to us?

I agree. Max does know more than you do. :razz:

Has it ever occurred to anyone that Garrett, Whites, Fisher, Tesoro, Minelabs, and all the other reputable metal detector manufacturers do not sell LRLs. Why is this? Perhaps they are just incompetent engineers who are unable to think outside the box.
Alternatively, they may just know a thing or two about science. 8)

What else should I expect from a skeptic website? Everyone claims to know everything about the Magnacast except for one small detail--they ain't never even seen one. Now that's about as scientific as you can get.

Mike
 

INTERESTING DETAILS - VR SERIES DETECTORS
 

Putting aside the question of whether the VR series of LRLs works or not, what Mike(Mont) says is interesting.

His source of information is Bill Dunning, CEO of Vernell Electronics that developed the VR series of long range locators. The Magnacast 5000 consists of a RF transmitter with a coil transmitting antenna, and a hand-held "scan gun" receiver. What Bill told Mike(Mont) is to maintain the receiver sensor at a fixed distance of 13.5 feet from the transmitter coil and rotate the hand held receiver in a manner similar to a radio direction finder. Now, in order to maintain the 13.5 feet, you would walk in an arc 13.5 feet from the transmitter coil while rotating the sensor and looking for anomalies in signal strength along that arc. Presumably you will find an anomaly when you walk along the arc and cross a "signal line" from the target. According to Dunning, this anomaly can be an irregular response or a sharp drop in response of the receiver scan gun. Dunning also said it is important to set the RSL to get as close as possible to the threshold as possible. Also, looking at the instruction manual from the Vernell website, we see that the search area is limited to a 45 degree arc in front of the transmitter coil.

Magical 13.5 feet distance?
What comes to mind when listening to this kind of instruction are two things: First, what is the magical 13.5 feet distance? Is this distance related to the broadcast frequency and the wavelength of the RF that is broadcast? Does 13.5 feet correspond to a 1/4 wavelength for an 18 MHZ signal? Until we have more information about the 5000 model we cannot know the answer to the magic 13.5 feet distance.

Signal line can be easily tested:
A second thing that comes to mind is the "Scan Gun" sensor is intended to be used by rotating it from a fixed location, then moving it to various locations and rotating it again, looking for variations in received signal at the different locations. This sounds like the scan gun is a directional antenna being used to survey the plot of land in front of the transmitter. What Dunning suggests is you are looking for a "signal line" which we presume is a straight line terminating at the target. Fortunately, the existence of this "signal line" can be tested by placing a target on the surface of the ground and surveying the plot of land between the transmitter and the target. According to Dunning, we do not need to rely on long-time buried gold or dig large craters in order to verify these signal lines.

Where are the VR detectors really manufactured?
Another item of interest is the product line shown at Vernell Electronics is includes the VR1000, which looks to be identical to the VR1000B sold by a Chinese factory. While the Vernell Electronics VR1000 unit is priced at $2750, (same as the Chinese VR1000B), they have it on special for $1802.50. This is not the same unit as the Magnacast 5000 that Earthworm Jim asked about, with a listed price of $2500.

When we look at the Shanghai TianXun Electronic Equipment Co.,Ltd web page we see only the VR1000B LRL and 10 conventional metal detectors for use in treasure hunting. Most of their metal locating products are walk-through and security metal detectors: http://www.cnmetaldetector.com/product_class.asp
Further searching produces another website in Shanghai that sells a variety of the VR models as well as Mineoro and other conventional metal detectors. Their advertising for each of the Vernell products states they sell are made in the USA:
http://www.shcx555.com/en/product.as...eyword=&page=1
http://www.shcx555.com/en/product.as...eyword=&page=2
http://www.shcx555.com/en/product.as...eyword=&page=3
http://www.shcx555.com/en/product.as...eyword=&page=4

This makes me wonder if only the VR1000 is manufactured in China, and the other VR series locators are manufactured at in the USA. Or perhaps there was once an agreement to manufacture the VR1000 in China, and maybe it was later decided to change the manufacturing plans?

Where does Dell Winders fit into this picture?
Going back to the Vernell website, we see a variety of LRL models for sale including the earlier versions using pvc pipe parts holding brass rod probes to be placed in the ground and L-rods that connect electrically. But this brings us back to Dell Winders, who says he pioneered multifrequency discrimination, and placed the first "MFD" unit on the market in 1986. When you look at the products Dell sells, we see that the "Dell Professional Model GS" looks similar to the earlier models sold by Vernell electronics. We also find in this LRL forum an earlier thread where a LRL unit Dell sold had a label identifying it as a DELL (tm) OMNITRON with a V.R. model number. Even though this unit has Dell's label on the back, Dell claims he did not manufacture it, Vernell did. Dell said he only sold these LRLs. We also find a V.R. 800 Dell Omnitron that Dell sold years ago which looks identical to the Vernell VR 800 except for minor cosmetic differences. Dell has stated he does not manufacture the electronics in his electronic instruments. We no longer see these older V.R. models for sale on Dell Winders website.

Did Vernell Electronics manufacture Dell's V.R. electronic models?
Was Dell the inventor of this technology, or was Vernell Electronics?
Perhaps Dell could enlighten us about the history of the VR series of long range locators.

See the Vernell website here: http://www.vernellelectronics.com/products.cfm
See the Dell Winders website here: http://www.omnitron.net/using_page1.htm http://www.omnitron.net/del_prod.htm

Hi,
"it's really just a way to take out your frustrations/aggressions "...
ehm are stupid claims that furstrate me... and stupid assertion like yours.:razz:
But not too much :razz:

"They won't admit they are at fault." eh ???
which fault ??? can't see any fault on my side...
- i belive in science
- i belive in facts
- i belive in proofs

Are those my faults ??? :lol:

Have a good time with your MagnaDollars,
Max

Hi JPlayer,
I appreciate your research about these products... that clarify some points about manifacture plants, brands etc... think that some light about that stuff of various brand goes in the direction I've indicated in a previous post... same machine... different packages... different brand etc
some new "antenna", some "particular frequency"...

Same "principles" involved. Can they work ? I think not... but who knows ? maybe I'm wrong! Maybe there is some obscure and unknow principle that make them work...

I know what my friend told me about.

I trust my friend, who read a lot all that stuff of the "Magical 13.5 feet distance"... then applied all that "instructions" on the field without any success.

Oh yeah! someone here could say that maybe there wasn't any treasure or gold items in the fields he searched... that's why the magnaXXX have not signaled anything... or that he hasn't any luck ! yeah !
Problem is that I know that places too. I found gold, copper, silver, bronze items and many other stuff there using VLFs/PIs, all small things of course... but I found them! :D And are all good targets!
And maybe there is some real big thing at depth... I don't know cause of limitation of conventional MDs to locate at great depth. Never dug under 40cm there.

Places were well known and "productive"... BUT my friend found absolutely nothing, though following all the instructions etc.

I found always something there... and when build new detectors (like with bandido) test there too. Yes sometimes is just iron... other times good targets.

As I said... all that stuff around LRLs seems to me even more idiot if I think that someone would spend 2000 or 3000 usd to get one and find NOTHING.

My friend was really depressed of his experience and selled the "unit" for half the price he bought... to recover some money. He wasted a lot of time...
Now he searches just with MDs... and found many interesting things, he's happy.

I told him do not trust LRLs, but he bought it!

What to say... It's life... sometimes is better hit a wall to understand it's there ! :lol:

Best regards,
Max

Hi,
I never said that e.g. "OKM not working" no no...
it works somehow but not as they describe on their website. I think that OKM has at least a good computer... can make some "discoveries" but not as they claim.
It's a middle-range fluxgate mag, with some other sensor ("anomalies detectors" I call them) that mix data in a human readable presentation on the screen... not too bad.

Think OKM products could be useful... e.g. if you know that you search in a place where there are e.g. cavities underground... iron stuff that could indicate you where to dig.
Problem is that can't identify just metal/gold (as they claim) and suffer (as any other device) of some drawbacks.

But it works ! :D Then, when you identify a cavity or tunnel you need some kind of depth PI (lorentz , PSII... deltapulse) to have indication (for sure) there is some metal! Then you have to dig meters of soil...

It's good ??? Depends of your needs and seach conditions...
Make what's supposed/claimed to do ??? No, not really

You need also much luck using that stuff cause you could dig an entire town and found nothing! Think that many guys from central-ASIA knows what I'm talking about... :rolleyes:

Kind regards,
Max

I think there is a chance to go deeper than conventional metal detectors allow. Today there are a number of technologies in use that go deeper than conventional detectors:

1. Magnetometers can find magnetic signals deeper than the deepest conventional metal detectors. but their use is limited to magnetic signals, and their use is best done using survey methods rather than simply hunting in random paths like many detectorists do.
2. Ground penetrating radar can sense objects deeper than a conventional metal detector.
3. Side scan sonar allows very deep hunting below the surface of the water that cannot be done with a metal detector at the surface. There still is some question of whether a submerged detector can spot targets as well as the sonar, because of the imaging capabilities of the sonar.
4. Ground resistivity methods have been used to successfully locate metal and ore anomalies and other objects much deeper than any conventional metal detector can sense. This is also best done with imaging methods.
5. Induced polarization (SIP) soil testing methods are similar to ground resistivity measurements, except the phase angle of a pulse is measured. The results produced by this kind of testing is much more effective than simple resistivity probing, and is used by mining exploration companies to locate ore bodies and other metal objects in the ground.
6. Gamma (nuclear spectral identification) testing has been used successfully for the past 20 years to pinpoint ore and oil deposits over 5000 feet deep. But only a few reliable hand-held units are in existence outside the units in the NASA satellites.
7. Recent testing in the past 20 years has led to using chemical analysis of the surface soils to find anomalies that pinpoint the location of underground ore bodies including metallic gold. There are also mining exploration companies who look for the presence of certain microbes in the soil that are known to digest metallic gold to indicate the location of gold deposits beneath the soil.

Where does the future hold?
The search for better methods always continues. As long as there are people who want to push the limits of treasure locating, we will find experimenters and researchers looking for new ways to use technology. The conventional metal detectors are constantly being improved, as a patent search will confirm the new patents issued this year. Each of the other methods I listed above have improvements in the making as we speak, as well. The methods I listed are only some of the better known methods to search deeper than a conventional metal detector. In addition, there are other methods I have not listed that are in use and being developed. You won't find these "other methods" in this forum for a number of reasons.

Best wishes,
J_P

Many thanks!
OKM - had 2004 on test, also Gems. I have to admitt - i am not expert in hadling so might be subjective, but...
2004, also Gems are showing mostly different pictures on same spots?
Also heard same experiences from other people.
Is it also "weather - dependable" as Mineoro?
I dont want to waste big money on devices like that!

Hi Earthworm Jim,

An easy way to avoid wasting big money is to ask the people selling the machine to show you it working in front of you before you hand over the cash. Most reputable metal detector dealers will be happy to demonstrate their various models so you have first-hand experience seeing which is your favorite machine for locating a hidden treasure.

In the case of the Magnacast 5000, you can easily test to see if you can locate a coin or piece of jewelry, because the target does not need to be a long-time buried object. Simply let the dealer set up the Magnacast 5000 in a field where there are no targets, then put a gold ring about 30 feet away hidden beneath one inch of soil and let him show you how to locate it.

Be sure to stop and "hide the ring" in about 10 different locations so he won't know which one you actually put it. After he finds the ring, then try it yourself. See if you can hear the signal and if you can track it to your ring. Also, bring a conventional metal detector along just in case something goes wrong with the Magnacast 5000 demonstration. If you don't have one, Walmart will work ok for a ring an inch below the surface of the ground. Hope this helps.

Best wishes,
J_P

Sorry, your research is incomplete. Nowhere have I ever claimed to be the inventor of this technology. My creations are the Dell directional locator & the X-Scan.

EARTHWORM JIM. My suggestion to you and my critics on this forum would be, not to bother to even attempt to search for deep buried treasure that is beyond the limitations of the detectors that you know will work for you.

With everything non-conventional that you don't understand, there is going to be a learning curve to using it. If it's too difficult for you to learn, why bother talking about it.

My Remote Sensing Frequency Discriminator (Pro-4) and the OKM Rover C (EM) were working fine yesterday behind the Holiday Inn, at Cocoa Beach, Florida. I was the only thing that wasn't functioning up to par. Dell

Hi Dell,
It's nice to see you are recovering.

I am beginning to wonder about your comment:
Did I say you were the inventor of the technology that Vernell Electronics invented? I thought I asked if you were.

What I did say is that you said you "pioneered multifrequency discrimination, and placed the first "MFD" unit on the market in 1986".
The source of this information is your website where you say: "We are the creators of OMNITRON and the Molecular Frequency Discrimination, MFD remote sensing concept. I placed the very first MFD on the market in 1986..." http://www.omnitron.net/del_prod.htm

When I look at the early MFD devices you sold and your Dell (tm) V.R. 800 Omnitron System II Anomaly Qualifier, I see a striking similarity to the Vernell devices. In fact, you told Carl that Vernell manufactured one of the devices with your nameplate on it in another thread. This leads me to believe you had business ties with Vernell Electronics. A quick search on the map shows the Vernell headquarters is in easy driving range of where you are. And when you say "We are the creators of the Omnitron", it makes me think you created the Dell (tm) V.R. 800 Omnitron System II Anomaly Qualifier. What you say on your website is confusing. It seems obvious that Vernell was in some way involved in the production of your V.R. 800.

This is the reason I asked if you could enlighten us about the history of the VR series of long range locators. I am interested to know the story about the development of the VR series. I see the photos above of Dell V.R. 800 that does not appear to be functionally different than the Vernell VR 800. It would seem that You were using the L-rods much earlier than V. R. Rose, who founded Vernell Electronics. But I don't know the facts, that's why I asked you.

Of course, if you don't want us to know the facts, that is ok too.

Best wishes,
J_P

DUH! If I was not the inventor, I certainly would not claim I was the inventor, or manufacturer of VR-detectors, or even LRL's.

I have posted for years letting people know that I am not the inventor. Folks here continue to confuse and believe their own assumptions as being truth and fact.

Your quoted references from me are true. I do not lie, nor is there any reason for me to do so.

Check your dates. Vernell detectors were far from being the first frequency Discriminators on the market.

Vernon Rose is no doubt the original inventor. His instruments were fully electronic in 1979, and not intended for the market, and certainly none of his products were on the market in 1986, electronic, or with the use of Antenna Rods.


I was the one who introduced the hand held antenna Rods to use as an inexpensive alternative to the electronic receivers which were NOT introduced to the market until about 20 years later, using outdated technology.

This information has already been posted many times over many years. But, you are right! I don't have to tell you anything, or even post on this forum.

As long as Carl, allows, and contributes to dis-respectful inferences and inneuendo, and ignoramus mockery, you will see even fewer of my posts and efforts to share any knowledge, or field experience with Remote sensing Frequency Discrimination. It's your loss.

What has been done, and is being done, can be done. A fact that is ignored, and mocked on this forum.

Get real folks. get off your egotistical high horses. You aren't smart enough to know and understand everything about the Physics of Earth Science. In fact, I read your posts and shake my head in disappointment at the pretense of knowledge, and deception by supposedly educated people.

With Carl, it's intentional. He has an agenda. With the rest of you it appears to be the blind following the blind. Are there only a couple of you capable of thinking for your self, or does Monkey have to do as monkey see peers do? Dell

Is it okay to call them "pseudoskeptics"? Seems fair to me.

?
 

J Player, you have right about testing it before wasting money. And i tested already few
of those. All failed any tests so far! O.K. i am ignorant and subjective. But there are a lot
of other people with very same experiences!? Are we all ignorants?

"I was the one who introduced the hand held antenna Rods to use as an inexpensive
alternative to the electronic receivers which were NOT introduced to the market
until about 20 years later, using outdated technology."

Holding hand held antenna Rods in your hands makes me imagine that your body is
"receiver" and Rods are - antenna! Simply as that!
Further, it means (like you said) "..there is going to be a learning curve to using it."
So it is not only up to the device itself. Human mind and body should be involved
also, and playing most important role in this kind of "detecting"?!
Dell you have right when saying: "If it's too difficult for you to learn, why bother
talking about it."
I never said, i want to learn! NO!
I want to buy device, accurate device which is gonna do the job itself - without extra
mumble-jumblING arround.
I can accept the fact, that some people are capable and some are not.
Because i am not capable and dont have "third eye" i just want to buy accurate electronic
device....nothing else.
SO I ASKED SIMPLE QUESTION:
"So, do we have any chance to go deeper than conventional MD ? Any other device?
Is that all what modern science can offer to us?"

"As long as Carl, allows, and contributes to dis-respectful inferences and inneuendo,
and ignoramus mockery, you will see even fewer of my posts and efforts to share any knowledge,
or field experience with Remote sensing Frequency Discrimination. It's your loss."
Dell, i dissagree with you here. Why are you paying any attention on eventual mockery?
If you have something to offer here, c'mon offer. Those who want to accept and listen
to you - they will listen. Others, you should not mind at all.
I just asked about electronic device capable to detect burried items at higher depths than
conventional MD's...WITHOUT INVOLVING HUMAN BODY AND MIND - ONLY ELECTRONIC.

At the end it seems there is not such device at all. Shame!


"My Remote Sensing Frequency Discriminator (Pro-4) and the OKM Rover C (EM) were working
fine yesterday behind the Holiday Inn, at Cocoa Beach, Florida."
Dell, please, can you share with us; what have you founded yesterday?

EW J I agree with your post about finding a unit that doesn't require a learning curve and some sort of personal involvement. Sorry, but at least for now this is a fairy tale. Even an electronic-receiver locator requires quite a bit of practice to be able to interpret what the equipment is telling you. Not much different than a metal detector. Sure it will beep if you wave a piece of gold in front of it, but finding a gold item in the ground is a whole different story--it may be too deep, the ground might be mineralized, nearby junk metal, electrical interference, on and on. Sure, someday there will be a computer system that can reduce the odds, but then everyone will be able to "clean up".

Just to avoid confusion, when I said "Sure it will beep when you wave a piece of gold in front of it" I was refering to a metal detector, not the VR5000.

Sorry, I can't help you. Every conventional detector that I have ever used involves the use of the human body & mind to some extent. The learning curve for correct usage and accurate interpretation is greater in some detection methods than it is in others, but there is no single detector, or locator that does everything. They are just an aid, no single detector that I have ever used would fill your requirment.

We are all suckers for the high tech electronic automation that promises to make Treasure finding easy for anyone. Just turn on the power switch, dig at the sound of the beep and get rich.

Unfortunately, it's not that easy. In my experience, every treasure detector I have ever used in the past 40 years as a Professional Treasure hunter/salvor has only been as effecient as the knowledge, experience, and luck of the operator. So, if you aren't willing to devote the money, and necessary time to learning, and become experienced and profecient in the use of the tools presently avaialble for detecting deep targets, there's no need to even talk about it.

There is no meta-physical ability necessary to get a reaction to the "field" of a buried anomaly, or an electronic harmonic frequency response with a pair of bent Rods, or a directional locator. Ignorance of the physics of Earth science appears to be contagious on this forum.

You can't knock science. It's way ahead of the limited knowledge and understanding of the egotistical techs and engineers posting on this forum. The technology for computerized, long range, deep target detection has been around for at least 2 decades. I have witnessed some of this earlier technology used in the field. Now days, it will take half $million$ just to open the scientific technology door for you.

A couple of weeks ago I announced on TNET that I had mentally located some Iron cannon buried about 20 feet deep behind the Cocoa Beach, Florida, Holiday Inn, where 'Pegleg's Treasure Hunters Expo was held July 28-29th.

I was hoping that some of the Pro Treasure hunters would independently check the location with magnetometer, or any other scientificly accepted methods that would detect, or image deep buried ferrous anomalies under those conditions.

I used the Frequency Discriminator to locate the specific Iron anomalies I had plotted on an aerial photo as being cannon, and marked the locations with plastic stakes.

Only one person brought equipment that might go deep enough to deny, or confirm the locations. It was an OKM Rover-C deluxe (EM). The whole process of locating the targets and imaging with the Rover-C only took 30 minutes, and then it started to rain.

The operator of the Rover -C has had very little experience in using it, or interpreting the software. But, he did manage to image an anomaly at the staked location that is probably a Cannon, identifiable by the shape of the image. A nearby image showed straight lines which if interpreted correctly may indicate part of a man made structure?

I was told there are plans to have the location checked with a magnetometer to attempt a third method of confirming the presence of a ferrous anomaly at that depth. I have no concern about the results. I have tested the Frequency Discriminator several times on deep buried IRON anomalies that have been confirmed independently with a Geometrics proton Magnetometer, and ground truthing.

The real proof will be in ground truthing the location. That may, or may not ever happen. If an Iron cannopn is recovered at this location, I'm sure you will read about it in the news.

I'm weary of wasting my time trying to answer questions for dis-respectful, and ungrateful people on this forum.

Maybe later! Dell

Dell, you just made the best LRL in history!!!!

Mike, Are you referring to the X-Scan & Directional locator, or the mental locating?

Because, the Pro-4 is basically just a simple Frequency Generator, that performs equally well as the advertised technologically advanced $20,000 LRL's on the market. Dell

Dell, I made no assumptions. I found information you put on your website that says you are the creator of the Omnitron: "We are the creators of OMNITRON..." And I look at a picture of one of your Omnitrons that you are now saying you are not the inventor. Why is the "Dell Systems Omnitron" shown as a V.R. 800 if you did not invent any of the VR detectors?

We know you do not lie, so the explanation must lie elsewhere. Did you make an error when you placed the statement on your website saying you are the creator of the Omnitron? Did your statement "We are the creators of OMNITRON..." mean that "Vernell and me" are the creators of the Omnitron in the picture below? Did Vernell illegally use your Dell Systems trademark to sell his VR 800 model as an Omnitron? When we look at this photo of the Dell systems Omnitron, are we looking an an Omnitron, or is it a Vernell Electronics locator? No disrespect intended, no assumptions being made here, Just asking and trying to understand your confusing explanation.

Best wishes,
J_P

I have no idea what difference a name makes at this point and time, or what trickery you or Carl, are trying to lead up to now.

I created "Omnitron" as a marketing name in 1986 when I introduced the "Noah" model. Shortly afterward "Omnitron'' became a public generic name for at least 5 manufacturers that jumped on the band wagon within 3 months of it's introduction. I had no control.

It's a long involved story of greedy people, lies and deception, but Vernon Rose, (Vernell) did not start manufacturing FD's until 18 months later, which I also introduced to the market at competetive pricing to stop a profiteering monopoly that was taking place.

Later, I assume to please me, and without my knowledge, Vernon had a batch of face plates printed with the "Omnitron", and "Dell" name on them. At least a dozen other manufacturers were calling their product an "Omnitron" or "Omini" some thing by that time, and one had applied for a copyright patent and received it against all my protest. So, it didn't really matter if Vernon Rose added the "Omnitron" name to his products for whatever reason, and I didn't have the heart to ask him not to use the face plates after he had already gone to the expense of having them made.

I added the name "Dell Systems" to "Omnitron" to make the distinction between other manufacturers "Omnitron" and my own.

I do not legally own the copyright patent for the name "Omnitron" or "Dell Systems" but I did obtain verbal permission to use the latter, not that it means anything.

This information has nothing to do with your ability, or interest, to build an LRL, and I am weary of wasting my time answering questions that are none of your business.

Don't expect, ask, or demand, that I answer any more irrevelant questions. I have no interest in the stupid intellectual mind games that Carl, and followers play against LRL users, on this forum.

it's 4 A.M. I've contributed more than my time allows. So, what's next? Dell

Kudos for Dell
 

Hi Dell,

Actually it's a fascinating story. We don't need to know the tabloid details, but it is quite an accomplishment to be an innovator who others tried to copy. When there is money involved, we often hear stories of deciet, and the innovator often is taken advantage of.

Because you finally gave a comprehensible explanation, we now can understand that the nonsense Vernell electronics Carl complains about is not yours. You have cleared up the confusion of who manufactured the circuitry that serves only to drain a battery.

Congratulations for the pioneer work in your field where you led a trail of hungry followers! :thumb:

Best wishes,
J_P