Mineoro tests: What's really going on

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Carl

There are two obvious possibilities. If Mineoro's claims of ionic detection are correct, then the act of pressing and releasing the brake must somehow produce ions. Since the brake includes a switch for activating the brake light, we could suppose that the opening and closing of the switch might produce an electrical arc, which could generated ions. This would suggest that moving the FG80 farther from the switch (at the top of the brake pedal, under the dash) would make detection more difficult. Not so. In fact, I found that I could place the FG80 close to the rear brake light, outside the car, and just as easily get a response to the braking.

If the brake test shows the FG80 is sensing transient EM fields, then a simple experiment may further demonstrate this: Consider that in a 12vdc circuit switching power to a light bulb with a resistance filament, there are usually several spikes when the power is first applied to the filament. These spikes are caused by the minute arcing as the switch contacts close. As voltage is suddenly applied to the light filament, a surge of current can be expected for a small fraction of a second, then as the filament heats up, its resistance increases and the current drops and levels off to a constant amount. Releasing the power usually does not cause this large rush of current. Now some filaments are wound into a coil shape rather than a strand of wire. These bulbs with a coil shaped filament could be expected to send out more intense transient EM fields when the power is applied. Furthermore, I would suspect the field would be directional, due to the coil shape where the transient current flows.

A simple test would be to switch on and off a DC bulb that has a coil shaped filament. Then test the FG80 for beeping at different angles to the axis of the filament coil. I would also take note of the orientation of the coils inside the FG80 to maximize this effect. If I am correct, we might find that the FG80 also has directional properties in sensing a DC light turning on.

[Dell Winders]

O.K. so you have concluded that the Mineoro, does not detect Gold Ions, but you have determined it is sensitive to very minute EM fields, and they can even be detected from a distance.

After all these years of making false reports based on assumption it looks like you are finally getting your first clue into the workings of LRLs. WoW!

So why bother with all the mumbo jumbo crap, and just run the Mineoro in the field and see if it detects Gold?

As I have said, it will only work during favorable operating conditions, the same as all other LRL's. Have you been smart enough to figure when those favorable operating conditions are present, and know when the Mineoro, or any LRL will work, and when it will not work? No? I didn't think so. Dell

[Clondike Clad]

dETECTING RF OR RMF CAN BE DONE WITH A SIMPLE CIRCUIT.
wITH THE FG80 THIS COULD BE A NEW TWIST FOR A SCAM.
NOW GOLD ION DETECTIONS I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY PROOF.
HOW STUPID DO SOME PEOPLE THANK WE ARE.
KEEP TESTING CARL YOU ARE DOING A GOOD JOB

[hung]

Carl, it seems you don't really wish to perform REAL tests but instead you keep attempting to make the FG80 fit in your theory of working principle which is false.

The FG80 works by detecting electrostatic and ionic fields from long time buried gold. You have to accept this fact.
With a simple procedure you can check that an electric field even diminshed can be detected. No need to rely on all the mumbo jumbo tests above. Simply get a 1.5 ordinary battery and short circuit it. The FG will beep from about 3 to 4 feet away.
The breaklight procedure is to check whether the detector is well calibrated or not. It's sensing the electric fields as it would if you aproach it from a simple light switch outlet in the wall of your home. Although there might be EM presence as in fluroescent lights, it's not detecting it as you think.
The FG80 is more resistant to electrical interference than the PDC210.
Inside the car I cannot point the PDC to the ignition coil's direction or it will go crazy. Due to the proximitiy position.
Now, with your car engine on, position your detector from about 20 feet with the usual calibration. I bet it won't beep. It's not DETECTING EM FIELDS. But if in place of your car, there was a relatively large mass of gold long time buried, you would be picking it up from at least 10 times this distance.

In july of 2006 I was in an expedition to locate gold veins for farmers in the central region of Brazil. One day I arrived at a farm which seemed to be located in the end of the world. In the middle of nothing. No electric lights, antennas, nada. It was night about 8:30 PM, When we were unpacking outside, I decided just for fun get the PDC210 (did not have the FG80 at the time) and scanned 360 deg the environment. Suddenly strong beeps came from one particular direction. As it was night we had to wait till next morning when we found out we detected a gold vein 400 feet away in a small hill which now gold is being extracted. Since the region is rich of natural gold the atmosphere is vastly ionized making detection even easier.

Accept this fact. There'snothing to do with EM although the detector might be affected by it. For the tenth time or more, the detector works by detecting electrostatic and ionic fields. This is true. Mineoro's explanation is true.
Accept this fact.
Please, for the last time. GO OUT TO DETECT GOLD. Stop playing with the detector at home. Go for the gold. Dell Winders is there not so far from you. GO WITH HIM and see for yourself. Otherwise this thread will become empty discussions as many others here, trying to speculate on this on and on and on...

[Clondike Clad]

Loss of atomic weight releases atoms of the matter in infinitesimal volume. The magnitude of that loss is not measurable
How do you know this if you can't measure it.
How do you detect it if you can't measure the released atoms
Atoms OF GOLD IN THE AIR.
SOUNDS LIKE A PACK OF BULL TO ME.
KEEP ON TESTING CARL.

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by hung

The FG80 works by detecting electrostatic and ionic fields from long time buried gold. You have to accept this fact.

This is not a fact. There is a lot of skeptism about the so-called ionic detection method, particularly since the whole idea is based on pseudoscience. It might be a fact in your mind, but that's all it is. Just another example of bad thinking.

Originally Posted by hung

Simply get a 1.5 ordinary battery and short circuit it. The FG will beep from about 3 to 4 feet away.
The breaklight procedure is to check whether the detector is well calibrated or not. It's sensing the electric fields as it would if you aproach it from a simple light switch outlet in the wall of your home. Although there might be EM presence as in fluroescent lights, it's not detecting it as you think.

This is probably the most (some might say "only") sensible thing you've said on this forum. According to Carl's tests so far, and your own description, it appears that the FG80 reacts to transient EM fields and not to EM fields that are in steady-state. In that case there's no surprise that it beeps when the brake light is activated, or when a power supply is connected to a resistor via a long length of wire, but not when pointed at a flourescent light.

Originally Posted by hung

In july of 2006 I was in an expedition to locate gold veins for farmers in the central region of Brazil. One day I arrived at a farm which seemed to be located in the end of the world. In the middle of nothing. No electric lights, antennas, nada. It was night about 8:30 PM, When we were unpacking outside, I decided just for fun get the PDC210 (did not have the FG80 at the time) and scanned 360 deg the environment. Suddenly strong beeps came from one particular direction. As it was night we had to wait till next morning when we found out we detected a gold vein 400 feet away in a small hill which now gold is being extracted. Since the region is rich of natural gold the atmosphere is vastly ionized making detection even easier.

So you got lucky. By the way, this is another way of saying "it was a coincidence". You are currently caught in the trap of "confirmation bias". If you don't know what that means, then get a good psychology book and read it.

Originally Posted by hung

Accept this fact.

It's not a fact, regardless of the number of times you make this statement.

Originally Posted by hung

Dell Winders is there not so far from you. GO WITH HIM and see for yourself. Otherwise this thread will become empty discussions as many others here, trying to speculate on this on and on and on...

There is little point Carl going out with Dell to test the FG80. Dell's modus operandi is to compare the device under test with one of his own non-working devices. Such a self-fulfilling prophecy is unscientific in its approach. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far we're not seeing any. Your own personal experience is not proof.

"What can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence."

Hopefully Carl will continue his illuminating experiments with the FG80, even though your whinging, and lack of objective evidence to support your claims, will no doubt continue unabated.

[Dell Winders]

Kudo's, to Sam Scafferi, for producing another clone. Dell

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by J_Player

He has also demonstrated that the FG80 contains a regenerative receiver, and responds like a regenerative receiver.

Well, no, I don't know that the FG80 contains a regenerative receiver, because I've never looked inside. I did find such a circuit in the PDC205 I dissected.

Originally Posted by Qiaozhi

According to Carl's tests so far, and your own description, it appears that the FG80 reacts to transient EM fields and not to EM fields that are in steady-state.

I haven't shown (yet) whether the FG80 will (or will not) respond to a steady-state signal. I'll describe that experiment later, when I have time to type it up. Meanwhile, keep in mind that transient EM fields are nothing more broadband signals, made up of lots and lots of frequencies.

- Carl

[hung]

Oh man... It's impressive how the 'scientific experts' here have an instantaneous diagnosis and explanations to miserably try to explain why the device SHOULD NOT work as said.
At least Carl is being mininally honest in his answers.

1 - Fact: It seems real tests on this device are being postponed in an attempt to search for another explanation other than the one Mineoro gives. This is silly.

2 - Fact : Gold has to be more than 10 years old buried OR undisturbed for more than 10 years to be detectable. In this case, no need to be buried. Unless one of the above cases are present in a home environment, gold will not be detected.

3 - Fact : I have no reasons to lie. I know the detector works as I have been finding gold. The ones who own a similar device and still have not, are falling in 2 possible scienarios such as misuse of the device or no existence of gold in the region researched. It's either one of the two.

The one example I previously gave is to ilustrate a case of ionized atmosphere and detection happening at night what is not usual for the phenomena to happen.

I could simply not care and not give a sh... about remaining here and saying the same things over and over, but as Carl now owns a FG80, I want him to be able to find gold with it. I'm here to help him as I was here regarding Michael, Neronc, etc. I'm doing an honest attempt to help here. But if I perceive bad intentions to twist what I'm saying or any attempt to discredit myself, I will leave this discussion.

Note that I did not need to be here doing this as I get this disaproval from other sucessful Mineoro users who visit this forum once in a while and laugh in one side and get shocked in another with many things usually said by skeptics.

When I say ACCEPT THE FACT regarding the scientific explanation of the device, it's because there's no other way to understand its working principle other than admiting it. The phenomena is real despite of some skeptics here fool themselves thinking otherwise.
That's why I quit discussing scientific matters in this forum. No can do.
Science is one and only and if you don't look over the 'shoulders' of classical concepts you're dead scientifically. There are several examples which comes to mind as according to classical electrodynamics there should be no radial electric field in direction to the earth, but there is... Standard electrodynamics model not being able to explain the Faraday disk generator for instance, and etc, and etc.

I will not discuss them here. Waste of time.
All I expect is that a real and honest test of this device be made and conducted. The real test of going in the field with it, in the real conditions. To gain time, I suggested Carl to take Dell Winders with him since Dell know of places where gold exists. No reply from Carl. Sounds like prejudgement agains Dell. That's (REAL) bad.
Honestly and realistically, there's no other thing the detector will do in a region where there's long time buried gold but beep. Period.

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

I haven't shown (yet) whether the FG80 will (or will not) respond to a steady-state signal. I'll describe that experiment later, when I have time to type it up. Meanwhile, keep in mind that transient EM fields are nothing more broadband signals, made up of lots and lots of frequencies.

- Carl

Looking forward to it.

Originally Posted by hung

1 - Fact: It seems real tests on this device are being postponed in an attempt to search for another explanation other than the one Mineoro gives. This is silly.

2 - Fact : Gold has to be more than 10 years old buried OR undisturbed for more than 10 years to be detectable. In this case, no need to be buried. Unless one of the above cases are present in a home environment, gold will not be detected.

3 - Fact : I have no reasons to lie. I know the detector works as I have been finding gold. The ones who own a similar device and still have not, are falling in 2 possible scienarios such as misuse of the device or no existence of gold in the region researched. It's either one of the two.

Again, you are confusing wishful thinking with reality.
None of the above are facts in the remotest sense of the word.

Originally Posted by hung

When I say ACCEPT THE FACT regarding the scientific explanation of the device, it's because there's no other way to understand its working principle other than admiting it.

This is just utter tripe.
Let's see that again: "...there's no other way to understand its working principle other than admiting it."

Give me strength...

In other words you're simply saying "have faith". Anyone reading your verbage could be excused for concluding that this LRL nonsense has developed into a religion. It seems you're now asking us engineers and scientists to forget about understanding how this works, and simply "believe". This smacks of pseudoscientific witchcraft. Unfortunately for you, we are not yet prepared to worship at the Church of Mineoro.

Originally Posted by hung

Standard electrodynamics model not being able to explain the Faraday disk generator for instance, and etc, and etc.

Actually the Faraday disk (or homopolar generator, as it's also known) is quite easily explained by science, without recourse to "made-up" physics.

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by J_Player

If I am correct, we might find that the FG80 also has directional properties in sensing a DC light turning on.

I did this with the Sandshark. I found the FG80 had max detection along the facial axis, in either direction. It had minimum detectability along the perimeter (edge-on). Detection range would increase as the FG80 is rotated from edge-on to directly facing. This is precisely what I would expect from a loop antenna.

- Carl

[Dell Winders]

Wow! Sounds like you are on to something. I eagerly wait to hear of your new discoveries. Dell

[J_Player]

Now since Carl has conducted some tests on his FG80, I hear a weasel squealing ferociously, trying to tell him to stop his tests and listen to more of the ion diatribe.

Originally Posted by Hung

The FG80 works by detecting electrostatic and ionic fields from long time buried gold. You have to accept this fact.

Now, I wonder why this is? Is he afraid that Carl might demonstrate that the FG80 can reliably sense transient EM fields? Wasn't this whiner given every opportunity to demonstrate the Mineoro machines finding gold for several years, yet refused to conduct any repeatable tests for the members of this forum to read about? Isn't this the same whiner who refused to tell how the FG80 is able to sense ions because of "ethical reasons". Isn't this the same whiner who claims he "had a research team which was developing a project which completely have ‘blown’ some accepted standards of quantum mechanics", yet he refused to post any of the test details or results?

It seems a little late to whine and cry about how Carl is not conducting a "Real test" after refusing to conduct or post the results of any "real tests" of his own. All I have heard from this whiner is anecdotal stories about how he found lots of treasures with his Mineoro machines, no repeatable test results at all. Now that Carl has finally demonstrated some repeatable test results on the FG80, he wants him to stop his testing?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA...

So far, we have a number of reports of FG80 tests in the field by neronc, vcrb, and Carl, looking for the elusive "gold ions in the air", and none of them has been able to find the ions or any gold, not even the sample gold included with the FG80. So now that Carl finds the FG80 can reliably detect transient EM fields, the same weasel comes out whining that his test is no good.

Hahahahahahahahaaa

The whiners as well as anyone else are free to conduct their "Real" tests and post the test results in this forum or anywhere else they want. It is not necessary for Carl or anyone to stop running tests on the FG80 because a whiner tells him to. So far I have not heard anyone post a concise test procedure to demonstrate the FG80 sensing ions, or conduct any tests of the FG80 detecting ions. All I have heard are anecdotal stories about how they found gold. But the people who recently bought FG80s reported in this forum that they do not work to find gold.

I believe Carl has demonstrated that the FG80 can be used to detect faint transient EM fields repeatably with directional characteristics. He has also demonstrated that the FG80 contains a regenerative receiver, and responds like a regenerative receiver. But Carl has not demonstrated that the FG80 can find gold. Maybe someone can suggest a simple method to demonstrate the FG80 finding gold repeatably or finding gold ions in the air repeatably.