discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrLs

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Back for a few days. I now have to catch up on the different posts made, Will post remarks and answers in the morning.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

hio sorry but have had the flue (?) for this past week, even (xxx) could out talk or think me, bbk in the morning if I don't die first sniff sniff

Don Jose de la Mancha (snifling and coughing, feeling sorry for himself in a lonely, cold cave - any female volunteers to hold his hand??)

 

[Unicorn]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Awwww there there Jose... to make it better.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

hi luv, are you volunteering to stroke my fevered brow? I notice that EE hasn't sniff.

Don Jose de
La Mancha

 

[fenixdigger]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

I was going to post, but I think I'll save Marc the time and just censure my self on this one.

(comment deleted) Dang it was a good one too.

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

RDT---

My theory is that if any precious metals are detectable at long range, then there are two types of sensors which might be used.

Either passive sensing, meaning just receiving some kind of input, and indicating it. Or active sensing, meaning that the locating device must emit something, which would cause the target to output something which the locator could then detect.

Passive sensing would require that the target already be emitting something on it's own (primary emission), or causing something to be emitted very nearby (secondary emission). This emission might be either matter or energy, or both. This emission would need to travel a long distance, either through the ground or in the air, in order to be sensed at a "Long Range." An exception to this traveling emission requirement, would be the camera theories.

If it's a matter of matter (heh heh), then it would need to be either airborne, or seep along the surface of the ground, in order to be detected by a hand-held sensor. If airborne, detecting and direction indicating would be at the mercy of the wind and possibly other factors. If ground seepage, sensing it at range would depend on the surface ground conditions, and possibly other influences.

Both types of matter detecting would result in widely variable difficulties in determining direction to the target.

Energy emissions would seem to be much more efficient for locating targets.

If passive detection is possible, then it must be established first that something is being emitted from, or very near, the target. The design of a locator would then depend on the type of emission. It would make no sense to try to do the reverse.

Not finding any natural emissions from the target would mean that the next step to investigate would be active detection. Try emitting various stuff at a target type of your choice, and see how it responds.

Welcome back.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Hio thanks for the coffee, having a lovely female stroke your brow does wonders, sigh,

As for your last post, it reminds me of a question that I was asked in class regarding emissions.

How does an amoeba sense and finally engulf it's prey?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Hio thanks for the coffee, having a lovely female stroke your brow does wonders, sigh,

As for your last post, it reminds me of a question that I was asked in class regarding emissions.

How does an amoeba sense and finally engulf it's prey?

Don Jose de La Mancha

How do you know that it is not the "prey" that senses and enters the amoeba?

 

[rockhound]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Don, nice thread about the theories of LRl's. But really is about dowsing in general,from what I've read.There are many theories out there about why some can and some can't dowse. I have my own theory about this. It all has to do with your electrical system,specifically you ability to feel a response from an instrument. As people age,their responses usually decline to the point that they can no longer feel any response. People who can't dowse are normally deficient in their electrical system,which could indicate a a sluggish metabolism,low electrical energy and therefore may encounter a host of medical problems down the road. When your body is in harmony,and all organs are functioning satisfactorily, then your abilities are enhanced. There are some exercises which can help to increase your senses. Touching, being the one needed to perform a successful dowse. It is also true that blind people develope their other senses to compensate for thier lack of sight. It is also true that you can't dowse properly when tired,or stressed out. You need all your strength to perform a dowse. It will exhaust you physically and zap your energy after a few dowsing sessions. I have found a way to replinish some of the energy for a short time. I only dowse when I am fully rested and can totally concentrate on my subject. LRL use, though, does not need this condition,as it has its own amplification, or sensing capability,according to which type is used. If a LRL needs human input,then it is only an amplified dowsing rod. Some I've tested are just that,while others are completely self reliant requiring no input whatsoever. I am not going to get into a discussion of which does what. I am also not getting into a discussion of whether the electronic circuits perform any function. Seems almost everyone here has already formed an opinion and is excused from jury duty. Anyway, I enjoyed the theory discussions.Good Luck. rockhound

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Seems almost everyone here has already formed an opinion....

Your use of the word "opinion" is wrong. Opinions are very different from reality.

Reality is when a person has experienced empirically that something is a certain way.

There is no LRL on the market that either transmitts or receives a signal of any type. If anyone tries to call extraneous circuit noise, a "transmission," then they are total quacks.

No matter how you try to word it, no matter how hard you try to get around it, there is no way to avoid the fact that LRLs simply don't work at all.



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
-----
ref: Predictable Pattern of Con Artists

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Your use of the word "opinion" is wrong. Opinions are very different from reality.

Reality is when a person has experienced empirically that something is a certain way.

There is no LRL on the market that either transmitts or receives a signal of any type. If anyone tries to call extraneous circuit noise, a "transmission," then they are total quacks.


Thank you for your opinion..Art

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Your use of the word "opinion" is wrong. Opinions are very different from reality.

Reality is when a person has experienced empirically that something is a certain way.

There is no LRL on the market that either transmitts or receives a signal of any type. If anyone tries to call extraneous circuit noise, a "transmission," then they are total quacks.


Thank you for your opinion..Art

I'd post the definitions of "opinion" and "reality," but you're old enough now that you shouldn't require help with your homework. I hope.



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
-----
ref: Predictable Pattern of Con Artists

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

I'd post the definitions of "opinion" and "reality," but you're old enough now that you shouldn't require help with your homework. I hope.

Thank you

 

[rockhound]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Opinion amy not be the appropriate word,but what is being discussed is theories. A theory is an opinion as far as an unproven fact. Both are subject to change whenever a more suitable Theory is proposed. There are things in which I have changed my opinion,(theory) about as I've become more learned through the years. Things tht I used to believe,I no lnger do, and things I thought were fiction, I have found that they really were true. It is said that there is some truth even in fiction, but not what percentage is entwined. I was merely stating my opinion(sorry,theory) about how some people can't dowse.From what I've witnessed through the years,to me, it is a sound theory. I have taught a few to dowse and it wasn't eay. Some are born with the gift, just as some are born with the gift of music, and either you have it or you don't. Some things can't be taught because there are not enough words in the english language to convey the experience,emotion,or soul of the some subjects. I didn't elaborate on LRLs, as I feel they are in another class of instruments altogether. I am not trying to convince anyone to try anything new,it is a personal decision, and must be decided by the individual whether or not they want to try dowsing,and afterwards,whether they are serious enough to try a LRL. I am not promoting LRL's or dowsing rods, but I do use them.Good Luck rockhound

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

rockhound---

Actually, a theory is much more than just an opinion. To offer a conclusion as a theory, it must be based on sound scientific (factual) premises, even though the theory itself has not yet been proven empirically and the results duplicated by others.

Real dowsers tell us that it is impossible to dowse for treasure. They reveal that the dowser must be directly over the target (usually water) in order to get a reaction with the forked willow branch or whatever is used. The willow branch will then dip, or the rods will cross.

Dowsing rods to not "point" to a target at a distance, therefore even if LRLs could somehow amplify the dowsing effects (which they can't), it would still be impossible for them to indicate any particular direction of some distant target.

It has become overly apparent, from many specific points, both logical and empirical, that those who claim that they find treasure with either dowsing rods or LRLs, yet continue to insist that they don't want Carl's $25K to prove it, are nothing more than scammers and con artists.

I guess you haven't read the links below yet, because you are doing exactly what has already been experienced, and described therein, as the typical pattern followed by these LRL crooks.

In other words, pardon me but your pants are on the ground.



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[fenixdigger]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Good post RockH. 1 Thing you can count on here, a couple of "experts" (who can't try a simple LRL experiment) will give you crap about even having that opinion. Best to p/m or email people you want to stay in contact with like we do. A lot of changes have been made that way by working together.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Actually, a theory is much more than just an opinion. To offer a conclusion as a theory, it must be based on sound scientific (factual) premises, even though the theory itself has not yet been proven empirically and the results duplicated by others.

A theory is just a theory until it is excepted by a simple majority of the Scientist in that fields of study.

Real dowsers tell us that it is impossible to dowse for treasure. They reveal that the dowser must be directly over the target (usually water) in order to get a reaction with the forked willow branch or whatever is used. The willow branch will then dip, or the rods will cross.

I beg your pardon..You must not know any real dowser.

Dowsing rods to not "point" to a target at a distance, therefore even if LRLs could somehow amplify the dowsing effects (which they can't), it would still be impossible for them to indicate any particular direction of some distant target.

Another rumor you are starting to start

It has become overly apparent, from many specific points, both logical and empirical, that those who claim that they find treasure with either dowsing rods or LRLs, yet continue to insist that they don't want Carl's $25K to prove it, are nothing more than scammers and con artists.

I guess you haven't read the links below yet, because you are doing exactly what has already been experienced, and described therein, as the typical pattern followed by these LRL crooks.

In other words, pardon me but your pants are on the ground.

 

[rockhound]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Dowsing rods come in all sizes and shapes. Some are designed to cross when approaching and walking over a treasure,but there are other types which can detect a target at a small distance of maybe 100 feet. It mostly depends on terrain and atmospheric conditions. A GMRS will not work through a hill ,and they are a two way radio,
transmitting and recieving a signal.Some dowsing instruments are far more sensitive than others,and have a greater range of signal reception. A bent coathanger will not tell you very much,if anything. I build all my own dowsing instruments,and I can tell you thay are far more sophisticated than a bent coathanger,but I am not advertising them for sale. I have never sold one and don't intend to. This is a hobby I enjoy, but have very little time to actually do it. I don't have time to take a test or travel very far in search of a treasure lead. If I were a professsional treasure hunter like Mel Fisher,then I would own many dowsing,LRL,MFD,proton mags,radar sacanning,and sonar detecting equipment needed to ensure my livelyhood. I don't need all that equipment, as my dowsing and LRL's suit me just fine. I think most here are hobby detectorists like myself,with little time to travel or hunt for that elusive treasure we seek. When I retire shortly,things should change,as far as traveling and searching for treasure. Although,I will take time to enjoy life spend more time with my family. When raising a family and and working to continue providing for them,and spending time with them when not working, it leaves little time for hobbies. If I ever do get serious about finding the big one,I will go all out to find it, leaving no stone unturned. But there are many decisions involved in a venture like that,more than just packing up and heading into the wild blue yonder. Research is the most time consuming part of the entire process.You need to be within range of your instrument to find it,and that is the biggest problem.Sorry for the long post,but those who have not been involved in treasure hunting think they can walk out in the back yard and dig up a pirates treasure chest full of gold,If they only had one that works.Won't happen. rockhound

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

rockhound---

That falls in the category of the usual, "I have reasons not to prove what I say, but I still insist that everyone believe it."

We have all heard that many times before from the few LRL promoters on here.

You could at least come up with something original to try and BS us with.



Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

If I ever do get serious about finding the big one,I will go all out to find it, leaving no stone unturned. But there are many decisions involved in a venture like that,more than just packing up and heading into the wild blue yonder. Research is the most time consuming part of the entire process.You need to be within range of your instrument to find it,and that is the biggest problem.Sorry for the long post,but those who have not been involved in treasure hunting think they can walk out in the back yard and dig up a pirates treasure chest full of gold,If they only had one that works.Won't happen. Rockhound

They all think that treasure is everywhere..they do not understand that it is your decision what tools, when and where you go to enjoy your hobby..You are correct about the dowsing rods..I have made and used most diameter and materials available to me. That includes rods made of wood, round plastics and even soda straws…They all work but some are just so much better..It all depends on the methods that you chose to us.Art