Mike, keep up the good research. I've already read some of your posts in TN and you always bring some very interesting topics, regarding metaphysics and correlated matters.
And apart from all the 'techinicalities' you show an admirable open mind which is gathaering an impressive amount of data in the matter mentioned.

Regards.

Sorry, wrong term. Change that for 'broadcast' as actually the amplifying stage is done by air charges.

"If you don't have any knowledge in the ECE theory and metaphysics..."

Hung, I considered replying to your made-up nonsense with my own made-up nonsense, just to show that I possibly could make this stuff up if I really wanted to.

But I just don't have time.

If you want to discuss my report from a RealScience perspective as opposed to your fictitious WishScience, then I'll be glad to. We can start with this:

"With a multimeter you can measure voltage variances when calculator is input in a frequency to the pointing target."

OK, you show me exactly where in the Examiner's circuit I can "measure voltage variances when calculator is input in a frequency to the pointing target" and I will give it a try. Be exact in your explanation, including the voltage I should get, the calculator settings, the target type, the kind of voltmeter, temperature, humidity, anything at all I will need to know to replicate your measurements.

No alibis, please.

- Carl

My 'made up nonsense' helped me to know where to hook the multimeter with no problems. So I believe your 'made up nonsense' will help you to figure it out as well.

Is that a "cain't do it" or what? :lol:

And this is where Hung's made-up nonsense really comes from -> http://www.atomicprecision.com/blog/...-the-b3-field/

I would't get hung-up on this stuff. :lol: (See what I did there?)

Hmmmm. Seems that "Myron Evans" is an honorary member of the Wikipedia "Pseudophysics" page.

Hung, you gonna show me exactly where to measure those "voltage variances" or can we just go ahead and file that one away as completely bogus? No alibis...

- Carl

We are studying and discussing the B3 field among other subjects.
Yesterday I received an email from Gianni, one of the authorities on the subject forwarded to me by Dr. Evans as part of our internal emailing list.
I found it relevant to include as part of my coments since it explains precisely one of the many aspects why the standard model lacks understanding of the true nature of the B3 field.

Oh, I'm sure you wouldn't get hung up not even in beginner's physics of the Maxwell equations. No need to come 10% as far as the B3 field concept.
You would probably think of it as a famous model of the Hammond organ.

What? Myron Evans again?
 

:eek:
Isn't Myron Evans the the unemployed physicist whose publications were removed from the record when it was discovered that he used fraudulent mathematical formulas to prove his theories are correct? Isn't he the one who asks other scientists to help him get nominated for a Nobel prize while ignoring the gross errors in his math and ignoring the failed attempts to demonstrate any of his theories? Hasn't Evans been recently caught fraudulently using government titles to trick people into thinking he is a recognized authority? Why does the majority of the scientific community call him a crackpot, quack and fraud? Because of his claims of free energy from a vacum? Because of his claims of having solved the problem of the Unified Field Theory?

It appears Hung learned his science from "great scientific scholars" that he respects such as Tom Bearden, Bruce Cathie, John Hutchinson, Myron Evans, and others. Isn't it interesting... none of these people will demonstrate their theories working in front of a large group of witnesses to see if they really work. Isn't this is the same method Hung uses? Does he like to talk of his accomplishments pioneering the LRL field without ever demonstrating any of his accomplishments or apparatus working where people can verify it? Is it any wonder why hung clings to these people for pseudo-scientific support (and perhaps moral support)?

The driving reason we see all this conversation about Ranger Tell and its operating principles is because people are considering whether to spend a large chunk of money and spend a lot of time for a device that may lead to treasure or may be a worthless piece of junk (except for the proven calculating function).

So far, I have read a lot of BS theories in this thread made by people who apparently don't know the basics of electronics or physics, explaining how the Ranger Tell works and how to improve it. I cannot believe these explanations which contradict known and tested principles of electronics. But I have an open mind. I would be willing to observe any demonstration of the methods of enhancing a Ranger Tell or other similar device to find small buried metal objects that can be recovered at a distance of more than 5 meters.

Let's forget about non-provable theories until the demonstration is done. After recovering buried objects from a long distance on a reasonably consistent basis, then we can begin to discuss how these contradictory theories work. If anyone is willing to demonstrate a Ranger tell or modified Ranger Tell or similar device as I described, I have access to locations with many long-time buried non-ferrous objects as well as locations with ferrous and mixed long time buried objects, including long time buried gold. I will be happy to take photos and videos of the LRL finding and recovering the treasure and posting them on a professional web page with links to this forum and others.

Any takers? Contact me with a private message.

Best wishes
J_P

Carl, the discussion with you has ended.
You rule my explanation as 'non sense' as if you knew what you were talking about and yet is unable to percieve where to hook 2 simple probes of a multimeter?

But I'm positive whoever is watching this thread will perceive your contradictions.

You and a few others here are still sleeping.
But the awakening will come inevitably to everybody sooner or later whether you ask for it or not.

Amazing how you considered posting such blah blah blah about Dr. Evans.
Sounds like you navigated the internet collecting all non senses about him by envious people as you show evidence you don't know nothing of what you're talking about.

Dr. Evans conducts a team of scientists from all over the world trough AIAS. As you are not a scientist for a living you don't know anything of what happens in the scientific comunity underground where envy and dismay towards others who achieve sucess is a constant. If you navigate the internet correctly, you will find out how ALL scientific comunity in the world utilizes AIAS as basis for their research.
Right now AIAS is developing practical use to the industry for the BEDINI motor as the ECE is the only resource who perfectly explains it as recognized by Bedini himself.

And I did not learn my physics from AIAS. I simply joined them because I have and think with the same phylosophy.

Jplayer, go get a living!

:lol:Ha,ha,ha,ha. That's hilarious! So you refers to Wikipedia as a secure source of information even after EVERYBODY knows about the many holes and mistakes it has in its 'explanations'?

Now I know where your technicality comes from.:razz:

CHALLENGE
 

Carl,

Since you call 'pseudo science' what Dr. Evans postulate, I public challenge you to prove mathematically one single mistake in the ECE theory.

You may write your counterproof equations and I'll forward him and also to an independent source.

Detailed arrangements can be made later at your request.

This is open to anyone who thinks the ECE theory is wrong.

I understand that if anyone does not prove the theory is 'pseudo science', they shall stop imediately calling it so risking to be seriously falling into ridicule.

Let's see how serious you are about calling it 'pseudoscience'.

At first I wasn't even going to reply for reason of too stupid to waste time on. But after reading your post a second time, I became curious about some of the things you said:

So, according to hung, am I to believe all the negative material people say about Myron Evans is due to envious scientists? I have a hard time believing this theory when I read quotes from government officials stating that evans does NOT hold this government position. And it is hard to believe those publications were not removed, after reading all the complaints and cross complaints about this over the years. And look at his math. A first year physics student can plainly see he doesn't understand basic scalar matrices. Sorry hung, your theory of conspiring envious scientists does not convince me that Myron Evans is anything different than what the majority of his contemporaries describe him: "unemployed crackpot, quack fraud". But here is where it gets interesting:

How interesting! Can you give us some clues as to how ALL scientific community in the world utilizes AIAS as basis for their research?

Another interesting thing I noticed is you never answered Carl's question of where to connect the meter leads on the Ranger Tell. You told him the discussion has ended after he asked the second time. Is this because you don't know anywhere to connect the meter where the we can see the readings you are talking about? Can you tell any of the others reading this forum where to connect the meter so we can see these readings like you did?

Have you ever considered learning physics? It could prove very helpful in connection with your treasure hunting. There are academic institutions that teach basic and advanced courses in most large cities. You may be interested to look into taking electronics courses too. (Just a suggestion).

I don't really care about any unprovable theories made by crackpot physicists, or stupid electronic theories that can't stand up to testing. What really counts is whether the instrument finds buried metal at long distances like you say it does. Are you willing to demonstrate a Ranger Tell finding buried treasure at a long distance in front of live witnesses to show that all this theory talk is correct?

Best wishes,
J_P

Is that because your claim, "With a multimeter you can measure voltage variances when calculator is input in a frequency to the pointing target," is false?

Can't you back up one little claim?

Just one?

And a really really easy one at that.

No alibis.

- Carl

When you go there to claim your diploma, tell them the course did not include instructions on where to hook probes of a multimeter.

No Carl it's not false. But I think up to this point, that question it's so ridiculous that I consider not answering it just for stubborness.

The voltage variance is just a detail when the most important information lies in revising the static magnetic field concept.


PS. Are you brave enough to take the challenge? Or is it one more of all your alibis?:nono:
I veemently want to see you contradict the static magnetic field function according to ECE.

Looks like he don't know anything, as usual
 

"I veemently want... bla, bla, bla... " :barf:

Are these the typical words we can expect from a self-proclaimed LRL developer who cannot answer simple questions or demonstrate any of his LRLs finding targets at long range?

Your claim is false.

Let's do a quick review...

Mike: "Carl's Examiner report has errors."
Carl: "Can you point out those errors?"
Mike: "No, because I don't understand basic physics."
Hung: "I can point out some errors. I also don't understand basic physics, so I will use pseudoscience to do so, and then ask you to disprove everything I claim."
Carl: "How about something real and tangible?"
Hung: "Yes, there is something you can physically measure."
Carl: "OK, tell me what it is, and I'll do it."
Hung: "I don't feel like it."

Why does all this sound so very familiar? All I ever hear are alibis.

- Carl

I am glad it is just a detail, that is what I am very interested in, things called details. Will you tell me where to take the measurement from?

voltage
 

Hung tell me how and I will post the votage.
Do I need scope or hi Z meter or both?

I too am tempted to just ignore this sort of erroneous thinking, but then someone needs to put the record straight. Personally, I wouldn't simply "suggest" to Hung, that he might consider learning physics. I would be strongly in favour of starting again from the beginning, with a Ladybird book on physics, followed by the Dummies Guide. It appears there has been some serious brain damage inflicted by reading the sort of nonsense put out by the likes of Myron Evans and Tom Bearden.

Anyone who believes that the Ranger Tell Examiner is anything other than a blatant ripoff, knows absolutely nothing about either physics or electronics.

For goodness sake Hung, just answer the question - at what point in the Examiner's "circuit" can you measure these voltage variances?
Perhaps I can answer for you ... "Actually - nowhere - because I haven't the foggiest clue what I'm talking about."

I see alway the same method: someone with a good imagination,but very limited knowledge in electronics, claims a new miraculous theory, then challenge someone else to find mistakes in the theory.As the whole theory is based on pseudo-science, it becomes dificult to prove its nonsense.
Its very easy to claim: "I have discovered that gold transmit on a very special frequency, and i made a very special receiver for it", but it is very dificult to prove it is impossible.
This method IS lucrative, too.
Fred.

About LRL findings, I think this is the ONLY professional web page for to post such things. This is the reason why I post here findings since 1978. You can see the great quantities of photos and sequences I was posted. :D

... or demonstrate any of his LRLs finding targets at long range

1981, in Texas, USA –one of many, many– (but this isn't a proof!!!). Investigate, ask in Galveston, Forth Worth, etc., about men who collect gold and silver objects with special instrument in 1981 and 1983, there are 1,000 witnesses. :D

I'll have to disagree with this... the real reason is because he fabricated this claim.

- Carl