Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Carl-NC
This is why I strongly suggest the following:
1. Try to get the manufacturer to demonstrate the device himself in a test that he agrees is fair to the capabilities of the device, and that you agree is fair in a scientific sense.
2. If a manufacturer demonstration isn't possible, have the manufacturer specify the exact test procedures that someone else can use to successfully demonstrate the capabilities of the device. Make sure he understands the procedures must follow good scientific protocol, i.e., randomized, blind, and repeatable.
3. If the manufacturer won't offer his own test procedures, design your own test around the explicit claims made of the device.
4. If the manufacturer makes no explicit claims (more common than you might think), design the test around what the device ought to do, if the device worked as a useful long-range locator of treasure.
|
Hi Carl,
I agree 100%.
I am amazed any manufacturer sent a sample to be tested. Rangertell has set a precedent in the recent history of LRL manufacturers.
It is nice to have a new factory-fresh sample to test.
But there is still one problem I don't like about the whole idea of testing an Examiner without a factory rep here to operate it. I am not an experienced user of any Rangertell products, or any LRL. Any failed test results can be said to be caused because I don't have the experience, or knowledge, or not using the subtle techniques that trained users acquire after some time in the field with successful results. The only simple way to avoid this potentially fatal defect in testing is to have a factory rep who knows how to use it properly and take all the precautions he knows from his years of experience. If no factory rep can demonstrate it, then maybe people who are familiar with the Examiner, and have had success with it before can make some tests to show what kind of results they get.
But if there is nobody available with some experience of successful hunting with an Examiner, the next best method is what you recommended
-- to make specific tests recommended by the manufacturer. and make tests to determine if specific claims can be demonstrated or not.
I also had some thoughts of other tests that can be performed.
The way I am thinking, I can make three kinds of tests:
1. The specific tests like you described to determine if particular claims can be demonstrated.
2. Simple tests can be conducted by ordinary people who have no knowledge or experience with any LRL to see if the average novice will find success with the Examiner by following the instructions and trying it out. This could also be done with metal detectorists who are familiar with treasure hunting, but not with LRLs, and can even be done by people who are dowsers and LRL enthusiasts. While this class of volunteer is not a trained factory rep, they can serve to show what an average treasure hobbyist would experience if he used an Examiner.
3. Lab tests designed to measure "signal lines" and EM emissions coming from the Examiner, or travelling in the air between the target and the examiner. Also tests designed to measure the charges moving from a user's body to the Examiner, and the difference in charge of the examiner between the ground, the surrounding air, and the antenna.
I already took some measurements along these lines and I measured a charge that showed a little over 200 volts in the air at 6 feet above the ground, which reduced to zero as my probe was lowered to the ground. Of course, the charge varied at different locations. These kind of tests are interesting to me to determine if we can measure the claimed "phenomenon" effects made by LRL enthusiasts. The only success rate field test I am interested in is to try it out with my own hands and see if I get the feeling it is helping me to find treasure. The other more controlled tests I am doing are for the benefit of other people who want to see them.
This is why I am taking suggestions for tests that people want to see done. I think others who can't be here will have more demanding tests, since they cannot try it out like the people here can. And even if you can be here to see the tests, and try it yourself, you should do every test that you think is important to you. Don't ever rely on second-hand information unless it is not possible to find out for yourself first-hand. When you try it out yourself in your own hands, then you will truly "know" ... not just theorise from what you see in some videos and reports.
Best wishes,
J_P