Quote:
|
Originally Posted by g-sani
There is only one test that can prove to me that an LRL work.
I take it and go out to a field that I have never been before and I try to locate anything metallic using the different options in search available in this LRL.
When there is a signal I find the exact spot and then I use my VLF and then my pulse detector if there is not possible to detect anything at the first place while using the VLF.
If the metal discovered is the metal I was looking for using the LRL then the result is satisfactory.
Of course it might be a metal out there and I might not have any indication for it but then I move to another place and try to locate something there.May be this sounds for most of you a funny thing to do but I will try to explain why I do it this way.
The chances that there is something metallic out in any a field are really great so if an LRL works then it should be able to pick up something.
To see and to prove to yourself that always there is something out there is very easy.Just take your VLF go anywhere and start walking around.
In the other hand if the LRL in test shows nothing in a place then there are two posibilities:
1.There is nothing there which is utopia(doesn't make sense) and
2.There is something there and our LRL doesnt work or it cannot pick it up.
So no signal at all for any of the metals that the LRL was build to search then this LRL in test is more likely(for me definately) that doesn't work.
Picking up a signal that finally proves a target then it works.As simple as that.Of course some can be better in one metal than another but then we go to a different story and other parameters must be taken in account making things complicated.
I believe that people in our hobby want a simple effective way of testing an LRL and in real conditions where everybody can do it and whith no one knowing what or where something is hidden or any other info like size or weigh of the metal in search.
Of course somebody can say that an LRL can pick only some of the targets around and may be is true but then this is enough to say that this LRL is working and I think you agree whith that.Which one and how can prove that it is nothing more hidden somewhere else? There is only one way. You have to have the perfect LRL!
Hidding metalls for testing is not proper testing for LRLs except if they are there for long time.How long?
Well don't do it for me.Because again we have to take other parameters in account and this is a mistake.
For Pulse detectors may be you can do it for VLFs don't.
An LRL works only when it gives you a find that you unearthed it yourself and you had no idea at all that something like that was in the area or in the exact spot that you found it.
Any other attempt in testing LRLs must also have as I said above other parameters taking into account and there are so many of them that we know nothing for sure yet so I think we are better off when we don't touch them.
Of course certain things can be checked in certain ways but then we are driving ourselves inside the Bermouda triangle loosing our mision which should be answered whith a YES or NO.
|
This is an interesting idea. When you go into a field where you have never been before and try to locate anything metallic using the different options in search, this is the same as you would do when you are not making tests on the LRL. This is how you would use it when you are on a treasure hunt to find new treasures. This is the kind of test that would be useful to a person who wanted to decide if they should buy a particular treasure finding machine. You use it the way you always use for finding treasure, and you watch to see if it is helping you to find treasures. If it is, then it is a useful treasure tool.
As you can see, tests are designed for a purpose. They are designed to test a given question such as: how far is the detection distance, or what is the smallest size it will detect, or what is the percentage of correct responses for a given target, etc. If the purpose of the test is to determine if the detector is a worthwhile tool for treasure hunting, then you would run a test similar to your method. But if your test purpose is to see if the response is caused by dowsing principles, then you would use a much different test designed to demonstrate the answer to that question.
Of course, the answers to all the test questions can change when we change the conditions at the test site, like the difference between fresh gold and long time buried gold. Or if you are testing a metal detector, the ground mineralization will change the answers for your tests for depth of detection.
To further complicate matters, tests can be made to see if claims people make about the performance of a particular LRL is true or not. When we look at claims made about different LRLs, we see several people make conflicting claims for how they work. For example, your method of walking with the VLF detector in the field first will invalidate a test of an LRL according to hung's claim that using a metal detector in the target area will destroy the signal for up to several days before your LRL can detect it again. Yet Morgan says there is no problem to test your LRL right after scanning the target with a metal detector.
Then there are LRLs which are claimed to detect fresh gold that has not been buried at long distances. One example is the Mineoro FG series. The Rangertell Examiner is another. We can also look at Dell Winders advertising page to see another example. He publishes letters from alleged customers who say they detect dollar bills that are hidden inside the house using his X-Scan.
But the Omnitron brand LRLs that Dell sells are a special class of LRLs that will only work if you are not there to watch them recover the targets they detect. This makes them difficult to test in front of witnesses who want to hold a definitive test to show if they really can detect anything at all, using standard testing methods in front of observers chosen to witness the test.
As you can see, in order to make any test, you first need to define exactly what you want to test, whether it is a claim someone made, or the general performance compared to other detectors, or to see what field conditions the detector is dependent upon.
And after defining what you want to test, you should be familiar with the claims at least from the manufacturer, so you don't end up making a test under conditions that can't work for the particular detector you are testing.
Best wishes,
J_P