Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurificus
Here. All interested parties may have their Discussion on the Criteria for Scientific Proof of LRL, and related matters.
Suggested discussion items include: Acceptable "hit rates", Suitable "real" or artificial targets, Repeatability, Operator skill. experience, influence etc, etc. etc.
Go for it...
Your Welcome,
Aurificus
|
Hi,
it's simple: it must find the stuff from long range.
Assume it will not always hit the target... and so that sometimes it will miss it.
Now... the problem is that if you put this way we fall into statistical way to prove it works or not... and so the number of tests rise, cause in statistical report you need big numbers.
I think the test can be made by say 100 attempts but on a single target between 10 near locations, say spaced 5 meters from each other, kinda of narrow pits/holes in the soil covered by e.g. a brick on top.
At any attempt one target at a time will stay in one pit... other 9 pits will be empty.
For example I will put target at 50cm depth and LRL/operator at 10 meters from target pits.
This way you just need less than 50meters for the test field, or put pits in a circle... even less... just about 50meters circumference.
The hit ratio I will consider probatory that the LRL works is 95%.
It must detect the target location 95 times over 100 attempts. If so , to me it passed, otherwise not.
Now... the problem is how the heck you'll do such kind of tests if LRL requires the target must be long time buried !
In itself this "requirement" of long time buried stuff... is a trick. No reliable test can be made under that requirement.
Kind regards,
Max