Attention Examiner users
 

This info only relates to Rangertell Examiner users.
As far as I know, there's only Clondike Clad, but there could be others.

I found out a way to enhance the pull of the Examiner's antenna.
This supposed tweak makes it get a quicker response.

Although this is not the one mod I claimed to have made, which makes the Examiner a total electronic device, I think this is really useful for the original Examiner and decided to share with users.
This tweak is a simple procedure and supposedly augments the piezzoelectric effect from the calculator to the antenna, enhancing induction.

If any examiner user is interested, send me a PM and I'll share.

Regards.

I have an early model Examiner, probably version 2. It has the solar powered calculator.

Hi Mike,

If you own one of the early models with the Karce calculator and the copper wire protruding from the box, you may have an advantage.
I have received a report from a user who stated the mod doubled the strength the examiner responds. He owns one of the early models.

Drop me a private message with your email and I'll give you instructions.

Here is even better mod!
Instead cheap "drifting" Karce calculator just put TI83.
You will improve Examiner responds up to 70%!!! :D
Now i can detect gold ring at 2mm distance with it.In the past it was 1.4mm....What a progress!!!:razz:

Posted percentage i calculated with Karce calculator....so you see what i mean!? :lol:

Rangertell Examiner
 

I had a EE look at this thing and like Carl he said it will not work.
I don't know what to think about the Rangertell Examiner anymore.
MY UNIT LOOKS LIKE A SCAM OM TNE INSIDE.:angry:

I am still looking for a good LRL.

Yep..It works
 

Sorry to hear about that.
Altough the electronics are siimple the concept is complex. Your friend EE will not explain it with simple electronics alone.

Tough being a tricky device requiring a lot of practice, all I can say is: Yes, It works. It might not be perfect the way it's built currently, but it works.

Well... there's 'no lunch for free' anyway...
Study the concept and you will know.


Good luck and regards.

No - it doesn't work
 

If you really, truly, honestly think that the Ranger Tell Examiner actually works, then you are sadly deluded. :lol:
Anyone with even a modicum of technical ability can easily see that it's a scam. Quite some time ago I wrote some spoof diatribe on this forum concerning the supposed technology behind this device. It was complete nonsense, but sounded convincing because of the pseudoscientific claptrap I used in the description. This rubbish even got posted on the Ranger Tell website as a excellent description of the RT's operating principles. How gullible can anyone get? :lol:

Hung - you will never convince anyone here that a cheap calculator glued on top of a plastic case filled with nonsense electronics, and attached to a swivel handle, can detect anything but a sucker with a full wallet. :razz:
Just give up peddling this stuff, and go and do something more socially rewarding.

can you give me some tips.

My brother bought one of the units last year.We done weeks of testing and could not get it to respond at all.Three years ago my brother buried some silver dollars in the same hole to test long range locaters,to this date we have not had any luck at all,we tested the ranger tell,the rangesmaster that i purchaced and tested for three months and i was able to get half of my money back from the company,a homemade device copied from a mans in arizona that never worked,a dowsing rod with a sample of the metal in the end with four post you would set out with the same sample in them which did not ever work.

Actually, the concept is even simpler than the electronics. Each Ranger-Tell device that is sold has already located treasure, and eBay has proven to be very fertile treasure hunting grounds.

- Carl

Add up all the money have you spent on LRLs so far, and that is the sum total of treasure that has been found with them. LRLs really do bring home the gold, just not for the people who buy them.

- Carl

My EE wanted to ask how current can flow in a SHORT CIRCUIT.
As far as simple electronics,,,HOW SIMPLE CAN A SHORT BE.
.................................................. .....................................
HUNG MAYBE I GOT a BAD UNIT?????????
i LOOK AT THE UNIT CARL TOOK A PART AND IT LOOKS ALMOST LIKE THE ONE I GOT How can it work.can you post THE INSIDE OF YOUR UNIT.
i WANT TO GET THIS THING WORKING.

:D:razz:Pfffffhhhhaaaahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!

Boooouuuhhhaaahahhahahahahahahah!!!!

Rhhhah Rhhhah rhhhah!!!

Please stop! You killing me...brhahahahahaha!!!
:razz::razz::razz::razz::razz::razz::razz::razz::r azz::razz::razz:

No - I don't think so. :rolleyes:
It's obviously working ok, as you've already bought it. That's how much money it's found so far. :lol:
A simple way for it to find some more cash, is for you to sell it to someone else! :razz:

Hi Clondike, sorry for taking a while to answer. I was out in the field.

The Examiner delivers microvolts. If you walk fast past an object that you input the frequency on, the antenna will move a lot faster than if you stay in place waiting for it to point to the target.
I once emailed RT placing a coment on the aproach of increasing voltage and current on the device. They claimed they have done this in the past employing a 9v battery. Theyadded that allthough the pull increased, the accuracy was no good, so they chose to keep the design as it is.
I did not agree with this statement and moved on to add some extra electronics inside and a VU. It's ok. This was the basis on my much more complex LRL system project.

Although I cannot divulge what I changed in the examiner original circuit, I must say that the original version should work ok. If your unit is nof swinging to an object as you get past it, it sure should be deffective. As you might know, a lot of practice is required to avoid you own movement to interfere with the device's own one. My examiner is the diodes one but I already tried one from a teammate which is the inductor model. I haven't found much discernible difference, except that the diodes feel a little bit faster in response.

Please, if you want to discuss this with me, drop me your email in a private message, as this topic only matters to examiner users.

Regards.

HUNG
 

I will play with this as you said and give it more time.

Well - I don't know whether to laugh or cry... :lol: :cry:

So the new ground-breaking LRL from Hung turns out to be nothing more than a modified RT Examiner. :shocked: What a remarkable step forward in technology!
On a scale of 0 to 10 on the credibility meter, I would say that you are now nudging into the negative region. Be careful you don't bend the end-stop on the meter. :rolleyes:

NO!!

Sorry if I misexpressed myself.

The mod I did to the examiner was just to get rid of the swivel system. I inserted extra stuff inside and a VU which shows activity when pointing to a target.
The project of the original examiner works, but in my view, requires a very skilled operator to not involve his own hand movements and thus leading to incorrect readings. I also found out a way to enhance the response of the original examiner without the need of employing batteries. This is the original topic of my thread above.

My LRL system has nothing to do with the examiner itself. When I said it ‘was the basis’ of my system, I meant that upon seing the mod I did working, I came to know that the principle was correct to a more compllex aproach which now we are materializing. It’s a complex electronic system/device. As an analogy, it’s like a pocket radio and radar. The principle is the same, but they are totally different animals.

Well I hope to have cleared things up now.

PS. Clondike, If you indeed find out that your unit has problems I suggest adressing this to RT directly and maybe getting an upgraded model?

I dont know how a radio receiver and a radar are similar.For me they are totally different technologies AND principles.
Fred.

I thought this was interesting. It uses a calculator to provide a signal.

http://www.geekarmy.com/cool/Homemad...-Detector.html

Maybe after Carl sees this he will consider a total revamp of his Examiner report. How about it, Carl? Nothing wrong with admitting you made a big mistake. It's a whole lot better than denial.

So he's manipulating the volume with his thumb as he moves it back and forth.

We are not amused.

You cannot be serious! :razz:

The video either shows some interaction between the calculator and the AM radio caused by EMI or, as joecoin says, the guy is "... manipulating the volume with his thumb ...".

The Examiner RT, on the other hand, has no interaction between the calculator and the random collection of internal junk, and the device simply "works" :rolleyes: by ideomotor response, because of the swivel handle.

Does anyone here have a small AM radio to hand? This would be a very simple experiment to try.

I have a curious mind, so i did try.
I get the sound from the calculator, but no interference from metallic objects.I tried with both strong and a weak stations, i didnt understood what the guy said about this.
Anyway he is obviously hiding (and using) his thumb for some reason,however i dont think only messing with the volume would be enought to get this sound...
It is possible that by mixing the calculator oscillator circuit with one of the local oscillators inside the radio he is making a BFO detector.In that case working or not would depend of the radio and calculator circuits.
Fred.

I'm sure Carl remembers Ranger saying the calculator had to be in the exact position. The point is the calculator does do something. That report has a few holes in it like a sieve.

Hey Mike, thanks for the video link.

Yes the calculator is the function/frequency generator, although the examiner circuit delivers only microvolts, it's sufficient for the purpose of this kind of concept, although with changes it can be increased.

You are correct again, the calculator's clock circuit has to be exactly over the antenna inductors, otherwise response will be sluggish. I tried positioning the calculator in different places in my unit and response was almost null except when placing the clock circuit (key pad portion) halfway over the box, exactly how it's supposed to come from factory.

I dont know why all the fuss about the role the calculator plays. Any layman can open the examiner circuit box, position the probes of a multimeter and see changes in reading when the antenna points to something or the frequency is input in the calculator. Also, if you get rid of the calculator and take it off, the examiner won't work. Believe me, I tried. Interestingly enough, several weeks ago, I traded emails with a long time dowser who also has an examiner. He enphatically said whatever it is, he is sure it's not dowsing at all.

Regards.

I wonder if this experiment came from here -> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sneakier-Use...6626844&sr=1-1

Well, that settles it then. :rolleyes:

If a dowser says that the Examiner does not function by dowsing ... then it must be true. :lol:

Can you specify what part of my report is in error?

Carl, to start with you say the calculator does nothing and there is no induction.

True, I do state that there can be no induction -- not because the calculator doesn't produce a potential signal (I even state that it does), but rather:

The web site goes on to claim that the calculator couples to the circuitry inside the black box via induction, with the meandering piece of wire as the primary side of the "transformer". But this piece of wire is not connected to anything, and therefore is not part of any closed circuit, and cannot possibly support inductive coupling.

Mike, do you agree or disagree that a disconnected piece of wire cannot support inductive coupling? Or do you just not know?

If there is no inductive coupling, then the claims made about the calculator being able to "program" the other circuitry is false, and therefore the calculator does nothing useful.

My report is accurate on these points. Any other errors?

- Carl

Whaaat?:shocked:
Well I'm not Mike, but in this question:... Is the wire bent or straight?.. Lies your answer.

With all respect to you Carl, with the inteligence and reputation you have, you could do better than that.
I don't know about Mike, but I don't need to answer this to you.

Regards.

This little experiment does work, and has been around at least since the 1960's. In my "vintage" detector collection, I have a "Ross" from the 70's, which is literally an AM radio, slightly modified with a search coil. There have been several BFO magazine projects which have a simple Colpitts oscillator for the TX, and an AM radio for the RX.

This experiment works best if either the oscillator is easy to shift (like a Colpitts), or the receiver (like a poor AM radio design). A calculator uses a crystal oscillator so it's not going to shift, therefore you need a cheesy AM radio to get a decent BFO operation. But sure, it will work. Distances are on the order of an inch or less.

I own a Radio Shack AM radio ("Flavoradio"), which happens to be identical to the AM radio stuffed inside the Treasure Scope Raven LRL.
This is one of the last AM-only radio designs and uses a pretty stable AM radio-on-a-chip, so it does not make for a good BFO when used with a calculator. But it will still "beat" with the calculator and produce a buzz. When you move a metal target nearby, the volume (not frequency) of the buzz decreases, because the metal is stealing induction energy from the radio. So it works more like an off-resonance design.

Now for the funny part...

"What calculator did you use, Carl?"

Well, since you asked, I used the Karce calculator from my Ranger-Tell Examiner. It has an all-plastic case, so the RFI leaks out unimpeded and the experiment works as I described.

But wait... I have a second Examiner, which uses the HP-6S calculator. This calculator has an all-metal case: solid on the back, and with lots of holes on the front for the buttons and display. With the front of the HP facing the AM radio, the holes for the buttons leak enough RFI for the experiment to work.

"But Carl, what happens when the HP's solid metal back is facing the AM radio, the way it faces the "induction circuitry" inside the Examiner?"

Good question! Nothing happens. The metal back blocks the RFI, and the experiment fails.

So, if you're still inclined to believe the Examiner's calculator couples a signal into the internal circuitry, it is probably worth pointing out the stupidity of using a calculator with a metal case that blocks that very "signal".

- Carl

I'll let you explain what difference that makes.

No problem. If you can't point out any errors, then I'll accept that.

- Carl

Regarding the Examiner, it makes no difference if the calculator's back is made of metal or not.
It's the magnetic component which has to pass and this, not even a Faraday Cage will block.

Are you saying that the "signal" from the calculator is actually a static magnetic field. Really? Seriously?

And, again, why does the disconnected wire need to be twisty?

I can't make this stuff up...

- Carl

Yes - that's ye simple olde idea for a metal detector. ;)
However, I was wondering how this could be the same principle as the calculator-based detector shown in the video, even though the rate of beeping changed.

Personally I didn't think the video was a fake, as this same project is mentioned in the book "Sneakier Uses For Everyday Things".
Anyway, it's good that you can confirm its authenticity.

Yes, we could get into an argument about what "the calculator does nothing useful" means or how induction works on a disconnected wire (think of a chain of paperclips near a magnet), but since it was under the heading of "The Truth" most people would assume the author to be some kind of authority on LRL's. It's always been my opinion a non-golfer does not make a good golf club tester. I also suggest Carl do some more homework on force fields. The ranger-tell website has a diagram on the "How it works" page.

I understand some people cannot learn how to use a locator rod. Maybe they expect too much. Hold a neodymium magnet out at arms length (north seeking pole facing away), close your eyes and turn around and try to feel where north is. Like with all rod work, be casual, be cool but be ready/aware.

Mike, do you understand that the attraction a static magnetic field has on paper clips is not an example of induction?

Do you understand that the oscillator in a calculator produces an alternating electromagnetic field, not a static magnetic field?

Do you understand that a disconnected piece of wire cannot possibly form part of an induction transformer?

These are not minor nuances we can disagree about, these are very fundamental concepts that are well-known and well-understood by science. If you don't understand these, then taking the time to learn about them will be far more rewarding than simply saying everyone else has to be wrong.

Which is completely made-up, and completely laughable.

I'll ask again: Can you point out any errors in my report? Hung couldn't.

- Carl

I'm not saying this is exact, but the diagram attempts to explain the fields involved. Howard Johnson's magnetics studies might give you some insight.
http://www.rangertell.com/fieldfx.htm

Mike, do you understand that this is all made-up? Fabricated? Fake? Concocted? Pretend? Make-believe? Bogus?

Do you understand that trying to prove pseudoscience with other pseudoscience doesn't work, either?

Can you point out any errors in my report? If you can't do it, just say, "I can't do it."

- Carl

Mike,i have followed your link, it is really filled with BS.
You are making yourself ridiculous by trying ti defend such "explanations"
A least i found one phrase funny.I resumes the whole page:
"When asked whether electrical energy flowed form (+) to (-) or (–) to (+), he determined that electrical energy flowed both ways. The only difference was the polarity."

Fred.

Howard Johnson is the man who believes he can build a permanent magnet motor, which is essentially a perpetual motion machine. I do not think examining HJ's magnetics studies will provide the remotest insight into anything useful, or (in fact) anything non-useful, like a placing a cheap calculator next to a disconnected piece of wire. :frown:

Of course I couldn't. I was out of town. But now I can.

Your question above indicates you don't know what a static magnetic field is or at least you got a wrong conception.
Tell me, what sources produce a static magnetic field in the first place?

In the standard model?

No. They produce both. If you state this, then you probably wil not answer correctly the question of the previous post.

Your errors in that report.
I can think of two from the start. First you claim the calculator has no role in the examiner concept.
Thas is false. The calculator provides the frequency and function signals which is amplified by the circuit. although emplyoung diminute charges.

Second mistake, you claim the circuit is bogus and does nothing useful.

This shows you did not understand the concept and the lack of understanding makes you go the easier way. The one of denying it.

With a multimeter you can measure voltage variances when calculator is input in a frequency to the pointing target. If you remove the calculator from the box, there will be no acticvity. I believe you can get some results in an oscope, although I did not try this, cause I don’t have one at hand.

First and most important.

If you don't have any knowledge in the ECE theory and metaphysics, as you show you don't, then there's not what discuss. It will be like discussing quantum physics using using obsolete models or discussing the general theory of relativity from a static perspective.

You understand what I'm saying Carl?
First of all the static magnetic field is just the field that it's not dependent of time. Electricity and magnetism are independent phenomena as long as charges and current are static, but not that it behaves as the classical static magnetic field.

The B(3) spin field is the magnetic flux density generated by the spin
connection of a space-time with torsion. It signals the fact that
electrodynamics is a sector of a generally covariant unified field theory.
This magnetic flux density is defined by:
F = d ^ A + omega ^ A

In Maxwell Heaviside field theory:

F = d ^ A

Omega is missing , so this is not consistent part of general relativity because it does not define a B(3) field and is Lorentz covariant only, not geneally covariant. In ECE theory the B(3) field is part of the omega ^ A term and is observed experimenetally in many ways, because the electromagnetic phase is defined by B(3). This is also observed in the magnetization of matter by an electromagnetic field (the inverse Faraday effect).

Without the B(3) field there can be no generally covariant unified field theory as required by the fundamental philosophy of relativity.

This is an example how some aspects cannot be viewed through the standard model. And also blocks the complete understanding of what the examiner concept might be dealing with. Now, I'm not stating the examiner is a complex device, etc. Far from that. I even seriously doubt its inventor had all of this in mind when he developed.
The examiner is not a finished project in my view but it deals with a great concept which has a long road ahead.

The examiner is not perfect and I agree it has some pitfalls, yet as it is, allowed me and my team to find a treasure in a cave (I already told this case) and lately led us in the correct direction of the hystorical treasure of several months ago.

I’m not defending the examiner or it’s manufacturer. Don’t need to. I’m about to have my own system, but I feel the critic towards is completely unjustified.


I would be lying if I told that I completely understand the examiner. Of course not. But the knowledge I gathered applying what I already knew of physics, metaphysics, radionics, etc. allowed me to modify the unit to work without human interaction. If the examiner did not work, then also my mod would not. And it does.

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

I think this is a clue (sort of like a KGC sign). Maybe there are test points on the ckt board?

Hmmm... that's most likely correct - although I think the later is a consequence of the former.

Did not replied earlier.
Been busy lately with many things. Many very good.

Never repeat this.
You don't know me. I hate lies and liers.
While you, 'my Mineoro does not beep at my gold bar' I may never state the same.
I've been reading your posts in this forum for more than 2 years now and have been other forums and issues you were involved in those.
I can securely say I'm not the one who 'fabricate' things.

Ozzy, don't be a pest!

This is the last time I refer to you here in this thread. I'll ignore you from now one. If I had a ignore list comand here, I would debut it with you.
You never have anything useful to post.

It's simple. If you think the work of Dr. Evans is 'pseudo physics', fine. I would be gladly to tell him that there's this 'qiaozhi' from the 'tech' forum who thinks this.
You would have to options. Or either provoe him wrong or be squashed scientifically by him. Which one would be?

Move on. This thread I explicitly stated is for Examiner users. As far as know you do'nt own one.
So, get going.

Last night, my team had the regular weekly meeting to proceed the construction of our LRL system. I had the examiner in my trunk and in a soldering interval, I was having this conversation with my head engineer about getting high power employing the simple resonances and wavelength relationships to achieve that. I cited the example of the Examiner. Although he had already seen my modified version of the Examiner, he had not up to now inspected the original one. I told him about the voltage variances that could be measured.

Well to make a long story short, we went on soldering the recent parts that had just arrived as we had to import them and he took the examiner outside to play with.

Then to my surprise, in a few minutes, he called me inside and said: 'yes, I could confirm that, there's indeed variances of minimum voltages'.

He was using his old 'Sanwa' AC meter, very nice and very priecise and sensitive although pursuing only 3 digits.
I dropped my gold ring on ground in an open field (after walking away from any powerlines close) and he placed the probe inside it without taking the calculator off. I entered a frequency for gold based on our research. Although this is not the usual frequency released by RT, the original frequency works as well. I just feel ours is more precise I guess.

Well he showed that when moving the antenna away from the object and back in the direction of it, small but quite perceiving variances in the milliivolts (4 to 6) happened. When the calculator was set to '0', almost no variances at all. Well, 1 to 2 at its best. But the difference between calculator on with frequency input and off was confirmed.

As I had not telling him where to 'hook' the meter probe, I told him that some folks in the tech forum I watch, did not know where to hook those and kept me asking that. He could not believe it and laughed.

After our session for the night, we had some 20 minutes still left and we decided to check if the calculator could act as a transmitter in the usual way of frequency broadcast. So we wraped some turns of copperwire around it (clock section height) and mounted an antenna direct hooked to our kenwood receiver tuned to that frequency.
It failed to transmit or the signal was too weak for the receiver to show activity. RT once told me the numbers displayed on the LDC represented hertz in 'deg' mode.

Anyway, maybe our system is finished, we dedicate some time to investigate this, although this may not be needed anymore.

Although the mod I did to the examiner works, it does not make use of all the functions the calculator is able to produce according to RT, such as estimates on depth, shape, etc.
Well, actually my mod version only works on gold and I cannot use the functions above. But it works fine. Totally electronic without me having to worry to not move my wrist wrong anymore.

I believe that according to the concept envisioned by the inventor, the functions claimed for the calculator, might be quite possible and logical, although I still have not come to an explanation on how this happens.

In my view, the calculator produces two magnetic fields, a static one, since it employs a dc battery and a dynamic (AC), due to its oscilator, which interact. Both in its turn, interact with the user charges that produce the HEF (human electromagnetic field) and this result use the own earth's field as a carrier.

I believe (this is a personal view) our own magnetic field acts as a resonance amplifier for the field generated by both calculator and antenna circuit. It's inteteresting to see diodes present I think in all versions.

I am fascinated by things I can't comprehend and I pursue the explanation until I can find it. It's not always I'm sucessful, but the examiner's case is a teasing one. Although our system was based on its ideas and concepts, specially after my mod working fine, apart from that, it has nothing else similar to the examiner itself as our system is a much more complex and sensitive all electronic apparatus.

Anyway, I will talk about the examiner with Myron Evans and see what he thinks and how ECE can explain the interaction of all those fields. I'm sure it does when it explains the true role of the static field, getting away from the standard Maxwell-Heaviside model which omits the spin resonance.
But what about interaction of the others? At what level does this happen? What about the math to back it up?
And this I've learned from our physicist when first starting our project. He used to say: 'if there was no math to back it up, I would not even bother to stand from my couch. Now that I confirmed this mathematically, give me a hand to stand up and let's go to the lab'.
Funny guy...

Sorry. Forgot to mention that it was the first time this was done with my own device. My previous measurement was on the old model which included coils. The one I own is only diodes.

Thanks for your incessant diatribe. This tripe would be quite amusing, if it wasn't for the possibility that others - with a non-academic background - might actually interpret this stuff as fact. The Ranger Tell Examiner is such a blatant nonsense device that's it's almost brilliant. How many poor innocent people have been deluded by this pseudo-scientific gobbledygook, and parted with hard-earned money, only to be sadly dissappointed when it fails to meet the grandious claims made in the advertising. Hung - you are either directly associated with this ridiculous nonsense, or are self-deluded. Which is it?

And, by the way, when are you going to answer the question - at what point in the Examiner's "circuit" can you measure these voltage variances?

I can only conclude that you must be some kind of masochist. Who else would frequent a forum populated by skeptics, if you didn't enjoy the abuse you receive here.

Exactly.
I am certain that this is precisely the idea:to "dilute" the serious questions into a lot of nonsense , so credule readers will be kept in doubt about the truth.
I am certain of one thing:Considering people are fools is a proof of stupidity.

I respectfully submit one new idea to Hung : claim that you LRL uses extraterrestrial forces.Nobody can prove their (non)existence,so possibilities are potentially infinite.Same concept,new situation!

Hung i am afraid you have stopped answering to Qiaozhi,(as you did with Carl,it look like anyone making pertinent questions receive the same reaction,)so i show my interest too in knowing at what point in the Examiner's "circuit" can you measure these damn voltage variances?
Im sure you can answer in both circuits case.
Fred.

Question that bother me..

How many measure points average ranger-tell circuit has?? :nerd: :???:

3 or 4 ?

The boy who cried wolf...
 

Have you considered there is no place in the Ranger Tell where you can measure voltage variances as the antenna is scanned across a target? Have you considered the possibility that Carl is correct... that Hung just fabricated this whole story in order to muster support for his crackpot physicist friend's theories? Have you considered that maybe Hung has no team or chief engineer... and these are more things he made up to make himself seem important?

If there was really somewhere in the Ranger Tell that showed a voltage variance as the antenna is scanned past a target, don't you think an honest LRL proponent would be anxious to show everyone how they can see for themselves? Doesn't it appear that Hung got caught lieing to the people in this forum, and then when he couldn't find a way to prove he found a voltage variance, he pretended to think it laughable that technical people couldn't find this elusive voltage that he claims is obvious? Doesn't it appear he made up the story about a chief engineer agreeing with his position to laugh at people asking for his help to find the voltage variance? Doesn't it appear the whole story of a team with a chief engineer is another story he made up, much as child might do when they got caught spreading BS, with everyone laughing at him?

As far as I know, there is no voltage variance, there is no team, there is no chief engineer, there is no Ranger Tell modification that finds coins at large distances. As far as I know Hung just made up all this stuff. Am I wrong? If so, maybe somebody can tell me where to look in a Ranger Tell to find this elusive voltage variance that Hung says happens when a target is moved past the antenna.

Best wishes,
J_P

8, if you count the handle and the antenna, giving 28 possible measurements.

The reason for requesting exact details of this measurement is because, with LRLs proponents, I've learned there is a never-ending stream of alibis:

"You didn't measure the right voltage."
"You used the wrong kind of voltmeter."
"The temperature needs to be between 28.6C and 28.7C."
"You didn't use a 23.1K gold target."
"Your SkepticWaves jammed the voltmeter."

Since Hung cites this alleged voltage measurement as evidence my report is in error, it is his responsibility to give every detail needed to replicate his finding. If he refuses, I can only assume that it is because he cannot do so, and the only reason for that would be because the whole thing is a fabrication.

He has, he can't, and it is.

- Carl

I think all those who are asking this here perfectly know it.Just as Carl said, we are tired of evasive answers, so we are asking for practical ones.
Fred.

Carl, please don't post false statements about me. On one hand you say I didn't give you any reasons why I think your Examiner report is flawed, then you say the reason is I don't know physics. You are grasping at straw, just like sam does when he criticizes someone for poor spelling. Guess I shouldn't have expected anything else.

Say it ain't so...
 

You mean Hung made up all this Ranger Tell BS just to make it look like Myron Evans is right and Carl is wrong?
You mean Hung gave fake information?
You mean Hung lied to us all?
Say it ain't so!

http://h1.ripway.com/Forum%5FWeasel/forum/whosdum.html

:lol::lol: cool abstract.

Listen, I don't have time for all this crap from these sick minds. It's only a bit surprising (or not?) to see how Carl the moderator allows some attitudes here. But I think this won't change.

In respect to the Examiner users, who probably chose not to open the box and risk damaging the unit, I will keep updating possibly regularly.
I chose not to post about the probes (altough it's ubelievable nobody could still not figured it out) for the reason to avoid Carl twist this info before more confirmations.
Yes, if Palamedes had one unit in hand, I believe he would have done it already.

Right now I have my confirmation, my engineer's and yesterday I received an email by RT with a new one which I will try to replicate to make sure it's accurate before I divulge.
It supposedly shows that increasing the frequency in the calculator, the voltages (in mv range) also raise. They place the probes in a different spot.
Although I'm positive about the variances I measured, I want to check RT's procedure first.

Either way, it's not surprising at all and everything is within the parameters expected for the concept of such device. Only it would be a confirmation the calculator is indeed outputting frequencies, if the RT procedure can be replicated. Now, if this can make the device locate things all the time, is another story and research.

I hope the examiner users comprehend this as I, like them,also got interested in the unit's working principle and there's no going back anymore.
As I don't have a sensitive meter at hand right now (not the time) I hope to use my engineer's as soon as possible.
Regards.

PS. I'll ignore every post who I think it's not constructive regarding this subject not to mention offensive ones. So it's up to you waste your time or not.

What? Is hung trying desperately to find a method to show a voltage variance? He enlisted the help of Ranger Tell to help him figure out how to measure a voltage variance? Why can't he just tell us where he connected his meter probes to observe the voltage he already measured?
Because it never happened? :nono:

http://h1.ripway.com/Forum%5FWeasel/...ro_Trash2.html

Honestly - doesn't this just make you wonder? :???:

Imagine this scenario - if you had an LRL that actually worked (yes, I know this is difficult to believe, but please suspend belief for one moment) would you not be out there in the real world scooping up treasures galore, and becoming filthy rich in the process? Or - would you be wasting your valuable time on a skeptics' forum, bashing your head against the wall, trying to make the local propellor-heads understand your pseudoscientifc explanation?

OK - back to reality - the answer is obviously "no", you wouldn't be wasting any time here. So the question is - does Hung have a hidden agenda?

I dont know if i am just in a good mood or what, but you just made me laugh for the whole reading of your post.Really.

How convenient! But i am afraid that comercially it is a bad option -again-.

" Dear Sir, i am very interested in a good detector that can detect gold very far away, what is the best one, i can spend a substancial amount of money if you gurantee i´ll find gold..."
I think this is what you consider a positively constructive post. :razz:

Fred

Humm...I'll make an exception to answer that.
Right now I'm building coordinate vectors in google earth.
What for? You'll see here real soon.

Being an armchair poor devil like you should bring a lot of regret and envy, shouldn't it?:D

:lol: :lol: :lol: It's just like fishing .... I knew you couldn't resist! :razz:

Perhaps the answer lies in the field of psychology. We have all seen evidence of hung's love for wierd theories and people who support them (Tom Bearden, Bruce Cathie, John Hutchinson, Myron Evans, and others). But why try to promote these weird theorists? Their theories cannot be proven with any experimental results except anecdotal evidence that cannot be repeated. So why try to promote them?

Perhaps hung needs to promote them because they help him to feel important like a guru who accomplished the impossible. Perhaps this is his way of drawing attention to himself as the source of great knowledge of little known secrets of the universe. The added bonus to promoting these crackpots is they have already discovered the best methods to ward off disbelievers who question their methods and the reality of what they claim is true. These charlatains have mastered the techniques of evading the proof of their claims, and diverting attention away from embarrassing realities that show the details of their deception.

So how does psychology fit into this? The desire to gain undeserved importance is basically a dishonest goal. Anyone who puts a large amount of energy into creating a facade to make himself appear very accomplished in things he is not competent in is a fraud. Could it be that hung feels inferior and left out when he compares his abilities to the average engineer in this forum? Is this his way to bolster the perception that others will have of him? By telling fantastic stories, does he hope that readers will cling to his words and be amazed at his incredible accomplishments?

Perhaps some of the less technically inclined readers may believe his stories. He tells truly alluring tales of his adventures. But how much BS can a forum of educated technicians endure? Look at the long list of questions he never answered from the time he joined this forum. When it comes time to face the music, he quickly changes the subject and introduces new diatribe to divert attention away from the fact that he cannot back up his previous claims.

It appears the reason he keeps coming back for more abuse is because he doesn't mind the criticism as long as there are a few followers who consider him a great guru of unknown science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_liar

Best wishes,
J_P

Alright.
I'll be away in the field for the next few days.
Luckily early next week, I plan to post a complete and detailed report of the measurements performed by 4 or 5 different sources plus an experiment done which confirms the examiner working principle.

Let's see if the pets will still be monking around.
Till then.

Interesting ... mythomania could quite possibly be a correct diagnosis. ;)
It seems to fit really well:

"... pathological liars tend to become hostile or try to disregard the fact they lied; ..."

"... but for a compulsive liar telling lies is routine - it becomes a habit and a way of life."

However, Hung does appear to actually belief this nonsense. In that case my diagnosis is "self-deception": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception
which in itself incorporates an element of mythomania.

Hunf please post the votage points for us.
Don't let them stop you from giving info to us.

Do you really believe hung ever measured any voltage variances in a Ranger Tell? Doesn't it look like hung is using every excuse possible to avoid telling us where to hook up the probes to see a voltage reading as he described? Isn't this whole story about leaving for the field another stalling technique to evade proving these measurements were made?

Where did I do that?

Yup... you said my report had errors, but you didn't point out any. Do you disagree?

Yup again... your comments clearly showed you don't understand basic induction principles. Do you disagree?

- Carl

Hung already told us that it will take several days and engineers ,along with as "sensitive meter" just to tell us where are the test points in a 3-components circuit.

BTW due to the "complexity" of the circuit i´m sure that if you get close to neon lights, computer, power lines or broadcast station,you will get a (uV)reading anywhere in the circuit.
Fred

Dang! I wonder if you put a gold ring in the microwave oven and rig it to run with the door open, will you be able to measure some voltage on the Ranger Tell as you scan past the ring? :eek:

Don't worry Clondike. Nobody will stop me to divulge the truth.
Stand by.
Regards.

Uh-oh, there goes that flying pig again! :D

Ok will stand by for info.

Hung waiting for the test points
 

Are you giving the test points so I can check My Unit.
Did you let them run you away?
Let me test and I will post the voltage.

There can't be any victory here...
 

Hey Clondike,
those voltage variances along with testpoints will never be revealed.
Why?
Simple reason:
Hung had accident while prospecting in a desert with his new LRL device.. no harm done, just slight selective amnesia.. forgot everything about those measurements.

I hope Hung will give voltage points
 

I hope he will give those measurements points
He can post photo of area for measurements

Hung what about postint voltage points?
 

Are you going to show how to get the voltage reading on thr RT.

Hung posted here that "luckily he will post results "early next week".
So i am sure we dont have to wait much more.I have been anxiously waiting, the week-end seem it will never end!
Fred.

Hello, Mr. Hung. I would ask you if you send me your e-mail address, to talk about Rangertell and your tests so far. I can not send you a private message. I do not know why. Thank in advance, Goran.
Cheers.

My e-mail is goranspeed@yahoo.com
cheers

You were unable to send an PMs because you had not made any posts. Now your post count is above 1, it should be ok. Please try again.

Thanks. Cheers

i decided to give the rangertell i try myself,my brother has an older unit,he had some sucess at first,then all the test later did not work,i will have a new model in a week,my impression of the people who make and sell the rangertell is that they beleive in the unit,i do not beleive they are lyeing to anybody,but it may work for some people and not everybody,i will see.

Their belief in the unit ends at your credit card. They are frauds.

In the same way a Ponzi scheme works for some people and not others. Mostly for the people running the Ponzi scheme.

Go to the website and take a look at what you find there. An enormous amount of word-salad pseudoscience intended to impress people who know nothing of science, and to confuse people who think they know a little bit.

The Mineoro site has the same thing for their LRL products, although written with less word-salad unintelligible blather, at least with Mineoro you can tell what it was they said even though it may have been either irrelevant or total BS.

When you go to the websites of companies that manufacture stuff that's not fraudulent, you don't see those kinds of salespitches. This principle of how to pitch fraudulent products is demonstrated by... yes..... Mineoro! Their non-LRL VLF locating products can be presumed to actually work, and therefore Mineoro does not try to fake it with a bunch of pseudoscience.

It's been said many times that the people who manufacture and sell LRL's know the same thing about LRL's do that the dreaded "skeptics" do, that LRL's are frauds. The difference is that the dreaded "skeptics" who have figured out how the LRL business works, don't want to ruin their personal reputations by going into that business themselves.

--Dave J.

I don't recommend buying this locator.
But if you are determined to buy it, then there is a precaution you can learn from other people who bought Examiners and were not happy with the lack of performance.

The deluxe Examiner costs $999 while the T-G version 8.08B costs $719.
If you buy your Examiner through ebay, you will have a 7 day period when you can return the Examiner and receive your money back.
But you must pay the return shipping cost and a $50 restocking fee.
Other buyers of Examiner complained that they did not have time to test the Examiner and send it back before the 7 day trial period was expired, and they were stuck with an Examiner that did not find hidden treasures.
You should be prepared to test this locator as soon as it arrives, then send it back before the 7 days have passed when you see it does not locate treasure.

See here for the ebay trial period details: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Rangertel...170b4727#rpdId

It will be good to hear your report after you receive the Examiner so we can know whether it finds treasure or not for you.
If it turns out we are wrong, and your Examiner is locating treasure, please post pictures of all the treasure you find.


Best wishes,
J_P