Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Player
Most of us are smart enough to recognize the value of a double blind test. It is virtually impossible for anyone to use trickery or to
tamper with the results. Whatever results are returned from the testing then can be tallied and run through a statistical analysis to
determine the efficiency of the device testsed. But even if the kind of testing does not lend itself to statistical analysis, double
blind is still the best way to assure unbiased and accurate testing methodology.
I suppose most of the metal detectors sold can pass a double blind test. We may find that some of them will have shorter range than
advertised, or discrimination properties that are not as good as advertised. But most all of them will prove to be useful tools. In the
case of LRLs, we see another scenario. No manufacturer has ever allowed a public double blind test of his LRL products. Even more
curious, no owner of an LRL has submitted their LRL to a public double blind test. This raises serious questions to whether they work or
not. So do they or don't they work?
We hear occasional anecdotal stories about how great treasures were found with an LRL, and other anecdotes about which LRL performs
better than another. But never a test with recorded results that show the performance values like we do for metal detectors. And never
test results from double blind testing. This LRL story-telling is hardly convincing considering the the hard facts that we've learned
about LRLs. For example, many LRLs contain rods with or without attached electronics that are supposed to point in the direction of the
target, and no known principles of electronics or physics to explain why it should do that. Also no LRL can be demonstrated to find a
target that is recovered in a test. So what do we have? A contraption that has no valid working principle, and no valid evidence of
working. Just stories by people who will not demonstrate it working to prove what they say is true.
This is not a very convincing scenario for LRLs.
Consider the conventional metal detectors: The working principles of search coils are well known and substantiated by engineers and
physicists. The manufacturers of metal detectors as well as owners are usually happy to demonstrate them working right in front of you.
And I doubt anyone with a metal detector would mind participating in a double blind test.
Did you ever wonder why we have this scenario with LRLs, but not conventional metal detectors?
The skeptics seem to know the answer: Because LRLs don't work.
They are just another version of a bogus contraption to get peoples money.
The added electronics are simply there as sales gimmicks to fool people into thinking their version is more high-tech than a competitor.
But what about Dell Winders?
Dell has offered a demonstration where you get to try it out - a major exception to the rule maintained by most LRL manufacturers.
Let's assume that Dell is completely ignorant of real physics and electronics, and is incapable of explaining correctly how his LRLs work or don't work. Let's also suppose that none of the Omnitron products can pass a double blind test. His LRLs are functionally the same as anyone else's LRLs with one exception: He is willing to show you how well it works for yourself before you buy one. No double-blind test, but you get to try it out first to see if it works for you. This is the back door to testing. If there is no valid working principle, and no valid evidence that it works, then there is one last resort to see if it has value -- try it out and see for yourself.
According to Dell, it takes practice. Thus, someone untrained would have a difficult time getting it to work. But Dell offered to demonstrate it and show you how to use it. You are not testing to see if it can find a hidden target in one of 10 places -- you are testing to see if you can use it to find a target that someone else hides in a field. Suppose you discover you can find the target 90% of the time within 14 feet of the target?
Would you care if it passes Carl's double blind test?
Would you care if it has do-nothing electronics attached?
And then if it doesn't work, you didn't rely on guessing or theories to figure it out.... you will know from first hand experience.
If I was in Central Florida, I would certainly give it a try, just to see if it really works. If I was impressed with the results, I would place my order on the spot.
Best wishes,
J_P
|
THIS IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE that after all these years, a loyal Skeptic on Carl Morland's, forum is suddenly speaking with rational logic. I am shocked,and impressed, but from past experience, I'm untrusting of the sincerity, and expecting there wil be a catch.
Anyway, Thank you JP, for this miracle moment.
I have my motive for inviting folks to test my products for themselves. It gives them the opportunity, to experience the conditions, and have an awareness of when the Rod(s) will react to the "field" of a target, and when they will not. It is of utmost importance to me, and to the customers success that they experience, and understand the physical limitations associated with using Rods, that are also used for Dowsing, when they are used in a physics application.
This problem applies to ALL MFD, Directional Locators, and LRL that utilize Hand Held Rod(s), or electronic receivers, to detect "field" of a signal line, or target.
You won't find any of the electronics people manufacturing these products and selling at outrageous prices, ripping off consumers, that are warning their customers of this problem. In fact, according to their advertising, there are no problems with their products. After all, they have electronic credentials, and utilizing the latest advance technology. Why should there be limitations to in the use of the Rod(s) Right?
Carl, and the Skeptics on this forum have fully supported their Electronic buddies who are making a fortune ripping off consumers, in the LRL industry, for years.
How? Well, according to Skeptics, a pair of hand held Rod(s) are not affected by physics, and that fluxuations, or changes of a magnetic "Field" can have any possible affect on hand held rods is, total nonsense. (err, scientifically speaking of course.) BS, and pure assumption at best.
It's spoken with authority by folks with Electronic credentials, and Scientific pretense, but without field tests, or evidence to substantiate.
It's an excellent example of the way Skeptics, using pretend Science to help their fellow electronic engineers, and Techs, rip off trusting consumers, cover up lies, and discredit those of lesser education.
How can you trust the logic of a person who's stated criteria for a Scientific evaluation is, If it looks to him like a duck, appears to walk like a duck, and seems to sound like duck, then it has to be a duck?
Without consideration of the possibility that even what appears to be an ugly Duck, can in reality, turn out to be a Swan. Dell