[J_Player]

These are 2 posts copied from this forum from Dell Winders explaining some of the principles of LRL detection:

[POST-1]
In my opinion, the Mineoro, does NOT actually detect the presence of an underground target. It does detect the "field" of the target at the surface above the ground. With other electronic LRL instruments I've detected the discriminated "field's" of concentrations of clusters of Gold from an aircraft at altitudes as much as 3000 feet above the earth.
In the early 1990's a NOVA TV documentary showed a division of NASA had developed the same method of discriminating the "field" of underground anomalies from an aircraft. The difference was we had spent about $70,000 to develop an analog prototype, and the division of NASA had invested over $1 million in a computerized version. We both used conventional geophysical methods and Ground truthing to verify our locations.

The idea of long time buried Gold being detectable vs freshly buried Gold not being detectable was originated by Claude Cochran, an LRL super salesman during the late 1989's as a competetive advertising scheme.

In my experience, It is true that the deeper fresh Gold is buried, the longer it will take for the "Field" to reach the surface where the "field' might be detected. Certain geologic conditions appear to not allow the concentrated earth "field" around some sub-terrain Gold buried even for thousands of years to ever reach the surface and therefore not all Gold will be detectable using this Remote sensing concept.

In my Field testing of the Mineoro, I used a 1 ounce Gokl Krugerand, lieing on the surface of the ground to tune the Mineoro, and specifically to determine if the target SOF was strong enough to be within the Mineoro's operating limitations. When the SOF was strong, the Mineoro, detected the unburied Gold from a distance of 12-15 feet. When SOF conditions were weak, the Mineoro would not detect the "field" of the un-buried Gold, and also, it would not detect the "field" of the long time buried Gold either. This is consistent with All LRL's I've used, or tested, whether electronic, or non-electronic.

At least some understanding of the Physics that are being applied are an integral part to the electronic development this remote sensing concept.

I hope my field experience provides some "food for thought". Good Luck!

[POST-2]
I guess what I am trying to say is that it appears to me that all these types of devices [including negative ion detectors] operate on the same principles of physics with slightly different variations of application.

The one common denominator that I have observed is that 18 years of residual effects of Solar magnetic activity greatly affects the operation of all these devices, as well as Magnetometer, and to a lesser degree the depth penetration of conventional metal detectors.

The conditions when these electronic, or non-electronic devices will work, or will not work, has been consistently predictable whether I am using electronic metering, or a pair of Dowsing rods to meter the Strength of Field (SOF) suffecient for these devices to operate.

To put it bluntly, there are magnetic conditions and fluxuations in which none of these devices will function effeciently, or will even work. This can be a problem with testing your design.

I was using the Mineoro, as an example because you were speaking of an Ion detector, which is the scientific principle the Mineoro, claims to be using.

I have never field tested the posted schematic, but If this schematic is indeed intended as a Gold discriminating Ion detector, and comparing it with the Mineoro field results, I suspect it will be affected by the same limitations as all other LRL remote sensing devices, whether electronic, or non-electronic.

I hope my field experience provides some "food for thought". Good Luck!

"WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, CAN BE DONE" Dell