:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You should be in marketing ... NOT!!

"Don't worry about whether it actually works or not, just buy it! If you have to ask the price, then you can't afford it." :frown:

Yes - you would need to be stupid to fall for that one. :razz:
Try getting your money back afterwards, when you find out it was all a scam. :nono:

This to Hipopp or anyone following this thread with a non-skeptical mind only.

So if you are not hipopp or you are a 'sketphic', please ignore the following info and don't be a pest!
Thanks.
*********
Hipopp,

There's a report on LRLs type dowsing done in the past by treasurehunter David Villanueva where he teaches great techniques to be used in the field for locating targets.
David is an Electroscope user and a master of it.
I used his techniques with great sucess, back when I got my Examiner years ago.

I have this complete report in PDF. It used to be available for free in his site a few years ago, but apparently now it's for sale only. No big deal, for only 10 bucks I guess.

I strongly suggest that you or others read this report as it's rich in great information on how to use LRL type rods.

Since it's for sale now, I feel I am not allowed to publicly post the PDF file as I was going to.
But his site is highly worth a visit. There are lots of info on this subject also and the mentioning of the above report.
I would suggest you get this report as it will be a great basis for your your own study.
There's even a coment on Randi's (the balloney) test.:razz:

Good luck.

http://www.truetreasure.co.uk/

thanks for the link re examiner Hung
 

i better not read it i might be accused of being biased...will get a friend to download a copy for reading later after i evaluate mine. These things work but how they work has me beat...will do full testing and let you know. there is far more to Physics (electronics/electromagnetism) than we know right??? so this will be a real challenge....will keep you informed Hung.

David Villanueva

The guy is actually selling his report ?!! man that´s sick

The greatest difference among the RT Examiner and the Electroscope is that this last one has a fixed frequency and does employ a circuit battery unlike the RT. But the Electroscope is a fine device.

The RT has many, several different frequencies for each substance plus the equations and data to be input to estimate weight, distance, depth, and many other features. This is a fantastic great feature only equaled by high complex electronic gear. But even this gear can't do some readings at distance such as weight and shape estimatives as the RT does.

Its concept was the basis for my team's complex system, the MIDAS.

The real price value for the RT unit lies in the frequencies and in the equations to be input. Not in the circuit box. Once you master it, you literally have the 'field at your feet', as their site advertised once.

But built in a swivel handle brings problems we know, as there's a very thin line between the real detection of the device and the user interference by ideomotor and unconscious movement of the hand. The better the practice to leave the device do all the work with no interference, the better the results.

What does MIDAS stand for?

Is it "Metal Indicating Device Advanced Scanner"?
Or should that be "Scammer"? :razz:

Close.

Actually it's Mental Implants Donated to Aid Skeptics.

Good for those handicaped to LRLs and born with inherited skepticism.

So this new device has to be implanted in the buyer's head?
Ouch! :stars:

Should i take this as an evidence that the device only works if the user follows mental conditioning?
I thought it was a tecnhinal (elctronic) instrument that could work with anyone ??

Flogging a dead horse.
 

:lol:

Only CRISS ANGEL can do that:razz: but if that stick has a calculator attached on it, yes it is possible......:lol::lol::lol:

By "fixed frequency," do you mean zero Hertz? The Electroscopes are DC circuits, no frequency involved at all. It's just a battery, and a resistor that drains the battery.

You did know this, right?

- Carl

DC? Well, Yes... but not exactly.

When we look at the Rangertell, we see the calculator is not electrically connected to any of the wires or components inside the enclosure. Yet we are told that it is transmitting by means of shooting a carrier signal line which returns from a target.
How? Enough power radiates through the calculator enclosure and leaks into the bent wire below, whereby it is transmitted long range to buried metals, then returned to capacitor-like cells in the user's hand. Sound hard to believe? Well look at all the proof that hung has supplied to prove it.

But what about the Electroscope? ...DC?
Sure, when you open the enclosure, it looks like a battery that is drained by a resistor. But wait... What kind of resistor? Have you ever read a report on electronic noise caused by metal film resistors? In fact, Metal film resistors are not the only components to introduce noise into a circuit. Even solder joints can add very slight amounts of current depending on temperature (thermocouple effect). If you look at this noise signal, you will see it has an AC component that covers more than one frequency, but perhaps is hard to identify any particular frequency in the circuit noise.

So what about this noise in the electroscope? You think it doesn't amount to much? Well maybe not, but it could be on the same order of radiated power as a Rangertell, and also capable of shooting a carrier signal line long range and returning it to the capacitive cells in the user's hand.

Just because no electronic engineer or radio antenna technician is capable of detecting any radiated power from the Rangertell or the Electroscope does not mean they are not shooting and returning carrier signal lines. After reading hung's explanations and proof that it is backed up by the science of Myron Evans, It would seem that the calculator and resistor are somehow coupled to the antennas to shoot these powerful carrier signals lines long range. And of course, the Rangertell is a much better LRL because you can program heaps of information into the carrier signal line by pressing different keystrokes before using it.

So, after being told all about the theory and practice of the Rangertell and Electroscope, as well as having been told stories of great treasures found by them, how can anyone refute whether they work?

Best wishes,
J_P

Carl, It's not exactly that.
The dielectric constants exchange that the Electroscope deals with have high frequency responses which dinamically tends to move towards the one that presents zero frequency.

This is the classic charges exchange and of course frequencies are involved with particular dielectric characteristics to identify the material detected.

I found a portion on one of Afilani's patents that ilustrates well this:

'The first three modes of dielectric polarization electronic, atomic and nomadic, are molecular in distance scale and occur "instantaneously" as soon as the external electric field is imposed and contribute to the dielectric constant of the material at very high frequencies (infrared and optical). The last two polarization modes, rotational and interfacial, are molecular and macroscopic in distance scale and appear dinamically over time with characteristic time constants to help increase the high frequency dielectric constant at zero frequency. These characteristic material time constants control the dielectric and mechanical response of a material.'


Afilani calls this process, 'dielectrophoresis'. OK... induced polarization, law of charges, etc.
So, the Electroscope also employs the same charges exchange involved with the operator/target material, air, etc. as the RT unit, only focusing the material dielectric freq trough this exchange. Crystals inside the circuit set up this.

But the RT employs a function generator which sends out the signal and receives it back estabilishing the so called 'signal line'.


This is the furthest I will go.
This is my view. I can even be wrong in some issues and you don't have to agree with me.

I already said I would not discuss this here for the reasons given by me already in the past. I don't have the time nor I feel like being here flaming threads about this.
But time is going by, years are passing by and you still keep your outdated agenda against LRLs for self promotion. This is getting tiresome and will lead to nowhere. You know that. Wake up. Life is short.

Regards.

Pure gobbledygook.

Which, incidentally, doesn't actually exist.

Yes - you're always saying this, and then doing the opposite. Very consistent. :lol:

It's time to take your own advice. :razz:

No.
I just 'drop the bombs'...
I don't remain to discuss the effects.
No more.:nono:

You drop the bombs but i see no explosion.wet powder?

You just copy portions of patents that you dont understand and use it in your posts.this makes no sense at all and you should stop using this if you want to (to begin to) gain some credit .
Hung, try to explain something from you own words :D

...patents I don't understand...
Oh, I see...
At least my PD is not in the garbage can as yours...

Credit from you? :lol::lol: Do you I think I need it? :razz:

PS. Hope also someday you understand 10% of what Esteban tries to teach you. Or will he need to open your head by hand and stuck it inside?:shocked:

Are you referring to the faked video, where you hold the PD is higher up in the first test, and then lower it for the second?
Nice try, but no cigar. :razz:

You should, but you'll never admit it.

You and Esteban are like chalk and cheese.
Dropping wet gun powder here has no effect. You should understand that by now.

Fake?:lol::lol:

As Dell wisely said, the only thing fake here are the scientific pretenders such as you who pretend to understand physics.:lol:

C'mon Ozzy, not even a simple PD schematic you were able to produce! Full of mistakes...:rolleyes:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Also, try to get the sound synchronized next time. That was a dead giveaway.

I understand and i like what he says,instead of giving imaginary explanations he justs give FACTS.and it is easy to understandf precisely because those are real observations.

Like Qiaozhi said, your video was not convincing at all , an outdoor video on real targets would have been more usefull.

Hung, I buy items that have a purpose and work for the intended purpose.
I can't think of anyone on the U.S. detector forums that use both conventional detectors and LRLs.
That leaves a wide gap as far as LRLs are concerned, one tends to seek out information before purchase that the product is capable of the task at hand.
Placing all skeptics into one lump isn't helpful for getting your point across as they (we) all have different backgrounds.
Now if someone wants to send me an LRL free of charge to test(without obligation), I would be glad to do that:lol:.
A better idea is since you have deep pockets, come to the US with your LRLs and put on a demonstration on how useful they are.
Wouldn't you like to show Carl and skeptics are wrong about LRLs?
Somewhere through all the haze, I have read different sources that LRL's don't work for everyone.......
Hmmm.....maybe that is a red flag:D:D:razz::razz::lol::lol:.

I'm sorry if the question was too hard to understand, I felt that I had phrased it in such a way that you could have just answered "yes" or "no".