Moving on...
I have recently made posts about the status of the Rangertell field tests. I can summarize the testing in more detail here:
1. previous testing:
If you recall, I spent a lot of time testing the Examiner to see how well it found targets in the field. I also took electronic measurements on all the internal parts I could access with my instruments. And I took measurements in the air around the Examiner. The results in finding targets were poor, with less than 50% average success rate to find targets that were in plain sight, and where the buried location was known by the person holding the examiner. Tests to locate unknown targets showed the Examiner was pointing random directions, without making any definite movement to the direction of the target. At some times it would point to the target momentarily, but it would also point other directions just as often momentarily. I tested this Examiner with my own hands as well as observing a number of volunteers test it. For my own testing, all of the trials showed random pointing. But for others, the tendency to point to a known target would vary depending on the user. It would sometimes exceed 50% success, but averaged less than 50% success rate. The success rate for unknown targets for all who tested the Examiner to locate unknown targets was random. These tests were not scientific double-blind randomized tests. The few attempts to conduct a scientific test were unsuccessful because we could not establish a base line for a scientific test (this means nobody could get the Examiner to locate known targets reliably enough to satisfy the prerequisite base line needed for a scientific test). A remedy to this poor performance was suggested by the factory rep to adjust the trimmer cap to a very difficult-to-locate setting, which varies for each person. After weeks of trying to get the trimmer cap to the correct setting, there was no sign of improvement for the field tests. Eventually I sent this Examiner back to the factory for a replacement. The factory rep said it was out of calibration and was not working. He said it may have been damaged in transit, or in the field. He said it was re-calibrated at the factory, and is working correctly. He sent a replacement Examiner which was not the same Examiner we previously tested.
The replacement Examiner was the Deluxe model, which is nearly identical to the earlier model T-G Ver 8.08B. The internal circuit and parts are the same, but with a different calculator, and with a ground probe included that you can connect to a computer to send an audio signal to the ground probe. In the initial field tests I made I did not observe any detection of known targets or targets hidden in unknown locations. I saw random swinging of the Examiner which occasionally pointed to a target location. For others testing the examiner, I also saw the same performance as I saw from the previous Examiner. Scientific randomized tests cannot be performed because nobody who tried it can get it to locate known targets reliably enough to perform a scientific test. Invitations have been open for volunteers who want to try the Deluxe Examiner for some time. Send me a PM if you want to try it. Maybe you will find it works for you.
2. Current testing:
In addition to the field tests, I have been taking electronic measurements on the replacement Examiner. I have noted some differences in the signals between the two sample Examiner signals. These signal differences can be traced to different signals originating inside the two different calculators. These electronic tests are on-going at the moment. It should be noted, the signals I am seeing on the Deluxe model are notably weaker than the model T-G Ver 8.08B. And the frequency/timing is notably different. This will seem to be insignificant information to most EEs considering what is claimed for the Examiner, but I am still taking these measurements so I have something to compare for later analysis. Also note: this weaker signal, after coupling to the internal Examiner circuit produces a signal that is so weak that the ambient noise in the air is stronger. Depending on where the Examiner is located, the ambient noise can cause a signal approximately equal in amplitude, or many times greater than the signal measured at the antenna when the calculator is turned on. For this reason, the Examiner signal is better observed away from the lab, in open areas that are not surrounded by equipment that is powered by mains power. I occasionally take the Deluxe examiner for field tests to see if a different "target frequency" shows any improvement in success rates. Sometimes I recruit a watcher who tries it to see if he finds a known or hidden target. So far, the results have been the same as before.
3: Results:
You can see the results of the non-scientific testing we were able to conduct in the summary above, or you can read through the forum posts for other information. Nobody so far has been able to get it to work well enough for a scientific test of the kind that Randi might conduct. Basically, I haven't seen signs of the Examiner locating hidden metal targets. As goldfinder might say: I tried it and it didn't work for me. I also did not see it work for other volunteers who tried it.
4: Next tests:
I don't see any signs that people will be responding to my open invitations to test the Examiner. So I have been making arrangements to begin a new phase of testing after I take more electronic measurements. I will be consulting with the people who run the Geotech forum for feasibility and guidance in this next testing phase. When there is something to report on this next phase, I will make a post.
Best wishes,
J_P
|