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

[Oroblanco]

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

Tropical Tramp wrote

Sceptics get in here.

OK though some would surely not count me as a skeptic on this, I am certainly not convinced that LRLs can work, based on the various theories I have seen thus far. By focusing on how the brain perceives visual stimulus and processes it, we avoid the question of how this applies to LRLs. If LRLs do actually work, then a blind person ought to be able to use them with success.

A major problem (for me) with LRLs, at least those I have read up at all (never having tried one) seems to be that a certain amount of innate ability, or intuition or ESP type of ability must be required for it to "work" for the user. This represents a major problem on several levels such as these abilities are not widely recognized by science, and whatever ability may reside in the individual apparently varies to an extreme degree. I expect that a device which claims to be able to locate valuable metallic objects, ought to function correctly even were a robot to utilize it and not require a special sensory ability on the part of the user.

I remain respectfully un-convinced by the theories thus far presented, that LRLs can work, let alone that they DO work in actuality. I would appreciate further explanation, thank you in advance.
Oroblanco

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[hung]

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

Hello Oroblanco,
I copied this post of mine from an old thread. Maybe it might be helpful to you.
All the best.
*************
First you need to understand to there are two MAJOR differences and not all LRLs are the same type.
I have explained it here more than twice and here goes again.

There are basically two types of LRLs. The all electronic units and the MFD type units.
The all electronic units feature a sensor element or any kind of receiveing element such as an antenna to identify the fields emanated by long time buried gold or noble metals such as silver, bronze, etc. Those metals when long time buried produce ionization and electric and magnetic fields with specific frequency and phase. These fields may have a span aperture in relation to the vertical axis of almost 180 deg in the case of gold which is the one that has the largest span. Then silver, bronze, and others next. Iron has only 10 to 15 deg of span.
That is why gold is the one metal that can be detected at the largest range.

I have been using these detectors for years in the field. I started using the Mineoro models and later after understanding the concept, I started building my own devices.
In this category falls devices built by Mineoro from Brazil and OKM from Germany among others.

Then we have the MFD type units which employ the concept of molecular frequency discrimination (MFD) that works on the principle of subatomic resonance and excitation of atoms at extremely low level employing magnetics and work on a swivel handle.
These devices aim to detect the element itself and not the field it produces when buried.
Tough it's not my intention to give all details on this aproach now, it generally works by tuning in ONE of the relevant resonant frequencies of an element as none element in the universe has only one frequency but several and several ones.
Depending on how relevant that frequency might be to identify that particular element with accuracy, the antenna swivels to align to the axis of emission and reception that is known by the name of 'signal line' once estabilished.
This aproach can also be used with simple rods conected to a transmitter unit. Rods by the way are the element to 'capture' this since they easily overcome the 'noise', something really troublesome for ordinary and standard electronic aproach.

Tough it's not so difficult building a MFD unit, there are several comercial manufacturers around such as Rangertell, Electroscope, Fitzgerald's, H3tec, etc.
I cannot speak for the other brands, but as I am also a user of a Rangertell Examiner, I can safely say that it's very easy to detect close targets.
I simply set some keys in the calculator which acts as the function generator and this limits the emission and reception range allowing the device's antenna only detect or react or swing to an element in the range chosen.

In the case of the all electronic units, the range and how close the device will detect or beep, depends on several factors such as size of target, how long it's been buried, intensity of fields depending on time of day, weather conditions, etc.
Small targets might be detected from 2 to 30 m or even more depending on conditions, whilst big targets of gold around 1 ton or more can be detected from several miles.

It's not so easy to be able to use the MFD swivel type units since you first need to gather precise balance as any minute move of hands will lead to false indications. Also since your body fields act as a 'trigger' mechanism for the magnetic field responses, any abnormal organic state, nervousness or health problems will interfere with detection at some level.

As an example of an all electronic unit in action, here is our great friend and LRL user Esteban, demonstrating the unit he built.
Here we see the device detecting from about 3 meters (10 feet), a small pile of silver coins buried more than 10 years in his backyard for testing purposes.
Download the files and watch the videos. Notice that not even a large steel or iron plate closeby is able to stop or avoid the emanation.

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=100543&postcount=42

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

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

Allo EE you posted --> 'prove' what you've got so far,
*************
This is precisely what we don't want. it is a closed door on what we are discussing since we will prob be delving into possible telepathy among other things. Actually nothing can be truly, 'positively proven', not even our electrical theory or of the universe. Our present understandings will be overturned many times before we ever really understand it, if ever, yet, it serves us as it is. But, remember, it is not proof of the subject, only of our method of acceptance.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

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

Hola Oro: you posted --> If LRLs do actually work, then a blind person ought to be able to use them with success.

*********************
Agreed my friend, but they would have a bit of a problem 'reading ' the results he hehe Actually they might have far better results.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ you also posted --> I expect that a device which claims to be able to locate valuable metallic objects, ought to function correctly even were a robot to utilize it and not require a special sensory ability on the part of the user.
*****************
Agreed, to a point. you exclude one of the two possibilities. We are working on the second one, the theoretical one, not the mechanical one. Both possibilities exist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You posted --> I would appreciate further explanation
***********
Of course, that is why you, and we, are here. But remember, possible explanations, not proofs -- yet.

Welcome aboard my friend. Feel free to call me anything that you wish except a 'Black foot sock coffee maker'. (private joke my friends)

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Rudy(CA)]

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

OK though some would surely not count me as a skeptic on this, I am certainly not convinced that LRLs can work, based on the various theories I have seen thus far. By focusing on how the brain perceives visual stimulus and processes it, we avoid the question of how this applies to LRLs. If LRLs do actually work, then a blind person ought to be able to use them with success.

A major problem (for me) with LRLs, at least those I have read up at all (never having tried one) seems to be that a certain amount of innate ability, or intuition or ESP type of ability must be required for it to "work" for the user. This represents a major problem on several levels such as these abilities are not widely recognized by science, and whatever ability may reside in the individual apparently varies to an extreme degree. I expect that a device which claims to be able to locate valuable metallic objects, ought to function correctly even were a robot to utilize it and not require a special sensory ability on the part of the user.

I remain respectfully un-convinced by the theories thus far presented, that LRLs can work, let alone that they DO work in actuality. I would appreciate further explanation, thank you in advance.
Oroblanco

I hope that after reading Dr Hung's pseudo scientific explanations you are now firmly convinced of your lack of conviction.

 

[Oroblanco]

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

Hung wrote

Hello Oroblanco,
I copied this post of mine from an old thread. Maybe it might be helpful to you.
All the best.

Thank you for taking the time to re-post this explanation, I have read it before; however the two concepts remain somewhat unproven for me; first type being the ionization field concept, which may well exist but as to how this field would be detected remains a mystery; the other theory based on excitation of atoms at extremely low levels is equally unproven. I am no physicist, but would think that to detect whatever emanations those low-level excited atoms might produce would require the input of some force to provide the excited state to be induced. Otherwise the atoms which made up the buried item(s) would most certainly be at virtually the same state of 'excitement' (activity) as the environment around them, since the active state of atoms are commonly affected by such variables as temperature and EM fields. So to my simple mind, without a powerful emitter tool to cause the atoms to become excited and thus detectable, the atoms would remain undetectable in their environment.

Hola Oro: you posted --> If LRLs do actually work, then a blind person ought to be able to use them with success.

*********************
Agreed my friend, but they would have a bit of a problem 'reading ' the results he hehe Actually they might have far better results.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ you also posted --> I expect that a device which claims to be able to locate valuable metallic objects, ought to function correctly even were a robot to utilize it and not require a special sensory ability on the part of the user.
*****************
Agreed, to a point. you exclude one of the two possibilities. We are working on the second one, the theoretical one, not the mechanical one. Both possibilities exist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You posted --> I would appreciate further explanation
***********
Of course, that is why you, and we, are here. But remember, possible explanations, not proofs -- yet.

Welcome aboard my friend. Feel free to call me anything that you wish except a 'Black foot sock coffee maker'. (private joke my friends)

Don Jose de La Mancha

Ahem; waffling already amigo? For a possible explanation to be acceptable, it should be more than simply within the realm of possibility, as it is possible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle yet it incredibly difficult and extremely unlikely, so can we at least set the bar of possible explanation to the level of a civil court, as in more likely than not? A 51% majority, is the standard I propose.

Rudy (CA) wrote

I hope that after reading Dr Hung's pseudo scientific explanations you are now firmly convinced of your lack of conviction.

I stand fully convicted of my state of unconvince-ed-ness. (Really poor grammar there, English is such a difficult foreign language for us po' hill folks) They are interesting explanations, but stand rather unproven in my eyes. I am not sure that in the most advanced labs in the USA, that our most advanced devices are capable of determining emanations from excited atoms so, a hand-held device that is based on this idea strikes me as likely to fail at the task. However the atom-smashers have had some success in detecting bits of the atom being broken, so I guess it must be possible.

I have a special request; I would like to have a look at a circuit blueprint/diagram of the electronics of any example of a LRL, if anyone knows of one that is online I would appreciate if you could point me to it. I claim NO expertise in electronics but have dabbled enough to read a blueprint and get a rough idea of the circuit. Preferably one that is no longer in production, and that has some supporters to say that it worked for them. Thank you in advance, and there is no rush on this request whatsoever as it will take me some time to study the circuit.

Don Jose, are you sure you don't want a nice hot cup of blackfoot sock coffee? Freshly brewed with a freshly-used sock!
Oroblanco

 

[Rudy(CA)]

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

I have a special request; I would like to have a look at a circuit blueprint/diagram of the electronics of any example of a LRL, if anyone knows of one that is online I would appreciate if you could point me to it. I claim NO expertise in electronics but have dabbled enough to read a blueprint and get a rough idea of the circuit. Preferably one that is no longer in production, and that has some supporters to say that it worked for them. Thank you in advance, and there is no rush on this request whatsoever as it will take me some time to study the circuit.

There are a few reports on LRL contents at the Geotech web site
http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=reports.dat

 

[EE THr]

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

hung-up;

So far, the LRLers have been referring to the swivel type as LRLs, and the non-swiveling type with readouts as MFDs.

In your re-posted post, your list them in the reverse.

What's up with that?


Also, you refer to the swivel type as "all electronic." Yet none of them actually transmit anything electronic.

Some of the LRLs have the battery connected only to an LED, and nothing else.

While others, namely the RangerTell, contain no amplifiers or receiver, and rely on a common calculator to provide a "signal." The so-called signal is merely noise from the internal timing pulses, which not only don't change frequency, as claimed, but can't be detected by field strength meters, or anything else, more than a few inches away (FYI, that's not "Long Range).

While the so-called MFD types have nothing more than common, low power, signal generator chips, and no amplification whatsoever. These, also, cannot send a "signal" more than a couple of inches.

But my main point is that, when you cut-and-pasted your "informative post," you seem to have gotten the LRL and MFD mixed up, and not noticed it.

 

[Oroblanco]

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

Thank you Rudy, the Electroscope 20 on that site has the sort of diagram I was wanting to see; unfortunately I can't see that circuit does anything. Anyone here ever try out an Electroscope? Are they considered typical for all LRLs? Is it intended to function based on some input from the human operator, rather than its internal circuitry?

Sorry for the barrage of questions, trying to understand this subject, beyond the general idea.
Oroblanco

PS Don Jose, we are having blue cornbread this evening, shall I save you a slice?

 

[woof!]

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

Hung is now spamming this thread in which he otherwise had no interest. Obviously to distract from the Chuckie Phenomenon in which Hung because of his insistence on clinging to Chuckie and his MO is getting rather badly pulverized.

Hung, go back to Real's first post in this thread, read everything he's posted since, and if you have no interest in or understanding of the subject, "get the hell out of Dodge." That's a Western US expression that means "go someplace where you belong and this ain't it-- NOW!"

It's not that you are unwelcome in the LRL forum, just in this thread if all you want to do is spam it. Post in the H3Tec threads, we love you there. An hour ago I paid you a heckuva compliment.

--Toto

PS to Oroblanco: welcome aboard, expect a rough ride. Anything involving LRL's is controversial. The fact that this thread's connection to LRL's isn't obvious makes it even more of a challenge to get intelligent discussion going. Real advised that this is a ride into matters that can't be "proven" to a "skeptic's" satisfaction. If you're expecting this thread to lead to some kind of proof that LRL's do what the manufacturers thereof want people to believe they do, well, if you read the fine print the manufacturers themselves don't believe it, which pretty much settles that part of it. .......If you have an interest in puzzling/mysterious things which can be shown to be plausible even if you haven't experienced them yourself, you might find the evolution of this thread quite entertaining if it can somehow manage to evolve in the direction where Real pointed.

 

[Oroblanco]

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

Woof wrote

PS to Oroblanco: welcome aboard, expect a rough ride. Anything involving LRL's is controversial. The fact that this thread's connection to LRL's isn't obvious makes it even more of a challenge to get intelligent discussion going. Real advised that this is a ride into matters that can't be "proven" to a "skeptic's" satisfaction. If you're expecting this thread to lead to some kind of proof that LRL's do what the manufacturers thereof want people to believe they do, well, if you read the fine print the manufacturers themselves don't believe it, which pretty much settles that part of it. .......If you have an interest in puzzling/mysterious things which can be shown to be plausible even if you haven't experienced them yourself, you might find the evolution of this thread quite entertaining if it can somehow manage to evolve in the direction where Real pointed.

Thank you for the welcome. I am interested in hearing out the possible theories that may be applicable to LRLs, as is the topic of the thread. My request was in hopes of a basic understanding of how LRLs are supposed to work, which then can be addressed in theoretical explanation. From all that I can gather, there doesn't seem to be an explanation for how LRLs do work; of course as the old saying goes, if you can find treasures by swinging around a dead cat, then I am not going to tell you not to use the dead cat in such a fashion however unseemly.

For the record, I do not expect absolute proof that LRLs do work. I am not convinced they will work, neither am I convinced that they can not work.

Are the LRLs supposed to function as some sort of amplifier to an innate human ability? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[J__P]

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

Allo EE you posted --> 'prove' what you've got so far,
*************
This is precisely what we don't want. it is a closed door on what we are discussing since we will prob be delving into possible telepathy among other things. Actually nothing can be truly, 'positively proven', not even our electrical theory or of the universe. Our present understandings will be overturned many times before we ever really understand it, if ever, yet, it serves us as it is. But, remember, it is not proof of the subject, only of our method of acceptance.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Hi Mr. Don,
I see you don't like the idea of proof because you say "nothing can be truly, 'positively proven', not even our electrical theory or of the universe". Actually you are right. But it depends on what you define proof to mean. There is no proof that is universally true. Each person accepts a different standard for proof. In the area of sciences, there is a large agreement of what constitutes proof. But this same degree of agreement does not exist in other fields, such as the arts. How do you prove a piece of art is good or not? The proof of goodness will depend on the observer of the art. If this wasn't true, we would not have different kinds of music, literature and other arts to suit different observers. It seems only the sciences have standards that are universally accepted. So why is this? Could it be because the proofs used in science can be repeated by different observers at different locations to find the same results?

From my point of view the sciences are not reality. They are an interpretation of things we observe with human senses. And all the numbers we use to measure things are not real either. They are simply ideas people made up because we found them useful to measure things and solve problems. I think that most of what we call science, math, physics, energy, the universe are simply ideas humans invented for their usefulness and convenience. And I should also say they have been quite useful. It appears we survived much better than the other species around us, so we don't need to fill most of our daily routine with foraging for food.

A question still remains about all the physical universe around us... is it reality, or just a collection of mental ideas and descriptions of things people agreed exist after they were able to sense some kind of repeatable tests to show these things can be verified to be there? I would think we cannot know the answer to this question except from within the limited senses we have at our disposal, or from machines we build which can sense things we cannot. In any case, our ability to sense what is around us is limited. As an example, you asked how we see, for which I gave a possible answer that described photons or waves projecting an image. It turns out these images fall in the visible light band. But suppose we had eyes which could see beyond visible... maybe far past the UV range and into gamma rays, and at the other end of the spectrum we could see colors into the VLF radio broadcast range. How would the world look different through those kind of eyes? Would we have laws which prohibit broadcasting RF in areas where people were trying to see things? Would we see things we never suspected exsit? Would we discover answers to scientific puzzles that a person who does not have this kind of vision never suspected?

Since most normal people only see visible light, we may never need to answer those questions. But it also becomes apparent that proof does not provide an absolute determination of what is real or not. It only provides a determination of what is right and wrong within a given frame of reference. Even this statement can be "proved" by a simple example showing a formula used to calculate how much power in electricity (Which we know is only a theory):

P=VI

This can be proved over and over again by observers all over the world.
But it can also be proved wrong:

P=V²/Z

The new formula can prove that the first formula is wrong in some cases. This is because these two formulas are good only in a frame of reference where they are useful. Neither of these formulas proves that the power must be a certain calculated amount. In fact, neither of these formulas proves that electricity exists, or is anything different than an idea people decided on. But they are very useful tools for calculating what we call electricity in a repeatable way when applied in a suitable circumstance. And they could save your life if your life depended on determining some electrical measurements. So did I prove that proof is only good within a given frame of reference? No. The proof is determined by the observer. I proved nothing to a person who does not know what those formulas mean.

The point is you are correct, that there is no universal proof. There are only relative proofs which can be useful tools in a given situation. What is more important is the usefulness of an idea. If an idea leads to something that we consider to be of value, then that idea becomes more important than an idea that leads nowhere. (with the caveat that something valuable is also decided by the observer).

Best wishes,
J_P

 

[J__P]

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

Hola Oro: you posted --> If LRLs do actually work, then a blind person ought to be able to use them with success.

*********************
Agreed my friend, but they would have a bit of a problem 'reading ' the results he hehe Actually they might have far better results.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ you also posted --> I expect that a device which claims to be able to locate valuable metallic objects, ought to function correctly even were a robot to utilize it and not require a special sensory ability on the part of the user.
*****************
Agreed, to a point. you exclude one of the two possibilities. We are working on the second one, the theoretical one, not the mechanical one. Both possibilities exist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You posted --> I would appreciate further explanation
***********
Of course, that is why you, and we, are here. But remember, possible explanations, not proofs -- yet.

Welcome aboard my friend. Feel free to call me anything that you wish except a 'Black foot sock coffee maker'. (private joke my friends)

Don Jose de La Mancha

Hi Mr. Don,

It appears you agree with Oroblanco's comments. You are maybe aware that blind people often are very keen at using their other senses. Most often we read about how they are good at hearing things and interpreting them in ways that seeing people do not. But blind people may also be using other senses in a more developed manner than seeing people do. For example they may be noticing subtle temperature changes and smells, or interpreting things they feel as they walk along the ground or when they touch other objects that seeing people don't. But beyond the senses that are well known, we sometimes hear about "other" senses such as the ability to sense things at locations that are hidden from the known known senses, or the ability to sense a dowsing signal, or "signal line".
The existence of these "signals lines" and "dowsing signals" can easily be verified by allowing a blind person to map them out for us. Considering the large visual cortex part of their brain that is not in use, they won't have visual stimulus to distract their focus from their other highly developed senses. We can let the blind people show us if there are some little-used senses that have gone unnoticed by all seeing people with the exception of dowsers. As long as there are seeing people nearby ready with shovels to tell the blind dowser what he found, it could be a good experiment.

A blind person could compare his ability to locate buried items with dowsing rods and without them to help discover whether there is an innate human sense that can locate things hidden at a distance, or if a rod is sensing these things and moving due to physical forces from the outside. A blind person could also solve the dilemma of determining whether a certain LRL is based on dowsing, or if it is wholly electronic. It appears a blind person could be a valuable assistant in discovering facts about LRLs.


Best wishes,
J_P

 

[woof!]

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

Woof wrote

PS to Oroblanco: welcome aboard, expect a rough ride. Anything involving LRL's is controversial. The fact that this thread's connection to LRL's isn't obvious makes it even more of a challenge to get intelligent discussion going. Real advised that this is a ride into matters that can't be "proven" to a "skeptic's" satisfaction. If you're expecting this thread to lead to some kind of proof that LRL's do what the manufacturers thereof want people to believe they do, well, if you read the fine print the manufacturers themselves don't believe it, which pretty much settles that part of it. .......If you have an interest in puzzling/mysterious things which can be shown to be plausible even if you haven't experienced them yourself, you might find the evolution of this thread quite entertaining if it can somehow manage to evolve in the direction where Real pointed.

Thank you for the welcome. I am interested in hearing out the possible theories that may be applicable to LRLs, as is the topic of the thread. My request was in hopes of a basic understanding of how LRLs are supposed to work, which then can be addressed in theoretical explanation. From all that I can gather, there doesn't seem to be an explanation for how LRLs do work; of course as the old saying goes, if you can find treasures by swinging around a dead cat, then I am not going to tell you not to use the dead cat in such a fashion however unseemly.

For the record, I do not expect absolute proof that LRLs do work. I am not convinced they will work, neither am I convinced that they can not work.

Are the LRLs supposed to function as some sort of amplifier to an innate human ability? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

Well, Oroblanco, there's a bit of a discrepancy between the title of the thread, and Real's starting point which doesn't even obviously have anything to do with LRL's. If we follow the general direction of Real on this one, we may eventually get to LRL's (there's a lot of obstacles along the way), but if we jump in with everything the title of thread suggests then I rather doubt anything can come of it because any one theory is more than enough to clog a thread if there's any interest in the theory. Theories which do not begin with the issue of human visual perception, I would say should have their own thread.

Since you're a newbie here, I'll do a quick review of what I regard as "the state of the art".

1. There are several electrical engineers who post here who have some level of familiarity with LRL's, also known as "electronic dowsing". Among these there is divergence of opinion relating to the possible usefulness of dowsing, but unanimity that the electronics (which in some cases are not even electronics but only fake electronics) perform no kind of material detection function as represented or suggested by the manufacturer. They're bogus.

2. The information that comes from LRL manufacturers usually provides solid evidence that the manufacturer does NOT believe the apparatus is anything other than fraudulent. In other words, that the manufacturers agree with the anti-fraudsters (commonly disparaged as "skeptics" as though mental hygiene were a bad thing) that the apparatus is fraudulent. The disagreement revolves around whether selling fraudulent apparatus is a good thing or a bad thing. Sometimes the anti-fraudsters get so fed up with the LRL apologists that they decide that selling the fraudulent apparatus to certain specific individuals would be a good thing, the higher the price the better.

3. LRL's, if you take a look at the physical design and listen to the descriptions of how people use them, are clearly designed for the purpose of dowsing; and, the results (whatever you think of them) that users report for LRL's are indistinguishable from the sorts of reports one hears about non-electronic dowsing. The LRL's with fake electronics (yep, not just bogus but fake) illustrate this principle.

4. Some LRL users are also dowsers, and report differences between their LRL results and dowsing results. To understand this, all you have to do is go back to #3 above. It ain't the L-rod, it's the monkey behind the wheel of the monkey who's behind the wheel.

5. You might have noticed that so far nothing I've said depends on whether or not there is some kind of mystical force unknown to science behind dowsing, influencing dowsing outcomes. That's very intentional because if you begin with an argument over outcomes, you get nowhere except when the people who obviously cain't do it tip their hand. And you don't get anywhere with them anyhow, they were already happy with their outcomes (and think that one through carefully!). You perhaps make progress with people who are watching the action trying to figure out whether or not they should pull out their wallet. I already offered my advice on that over on the dowsing forum: if you want to buy a good set of dowsing rods, spend more than $100 and you've screwed up big time.

--Toto

 

[Oroblanco]

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

Muchas gracias for the clarification Toto, just want to be on the same page when approaching this. The LRLs are in effect at least, dowsing devices. I have seen dowsing for water performed successfully with my own eyes, however not everyone can do it, so the LRLs would be along the same lines I presume.

J_P wrote

It appears a blind person could be a valuable assistant in discovering facts about LRLs.

Would a blindfolded person serve the same purpose, or do you hold that the experiment would require a non-sighted person with many years of living without sight, thus allowing time for those un-used visual portions of the brain to have been adapted to amplify or otherwise improve the performance of the remaining functional sensory abilities? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[J__P]

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

Muchas gracias for the clarification Toto, just want to be on the same page when approaching this. The LRLs are in effect at least, dowsing devices. I have seen dowsing for water performed successfully with my own eyes, however not everyone can do it, so the LRLs would be along the same lines I presume.

J_P wrote

It appears a blind person could be a valuable assistant in discovering facts about LRLs.

Would a blindfolded person serve the same purpose, or do you hold that the experiment would require a non-sighted person with many years of living without sight, thus allowing time for those un-used visual portions of the brain to have been adapted to amplify or otherwise improve the performance of the remaining functional sensory abilities? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

Hi Oroblanco,

A blindfolded person could serve the same purpose. But this is not as good as a person who was born blind, and spent his entire life focused on developing only his other senses. We can expect the blind person to have more keenly developed senses for picking up faint trails that lead to the hidden treasure. This would be similar to how we could expect a blind person to determine how far a wall is distant from him by using his hearing. Except in the case of dowsing, we would want him to use those elusive senses which dowsers say people have to locate buried things.

Best wishes,
J_P

 

[woof!]

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

Since most normal people can see visible light, we may never need to answer those questions. But it also becomes apparent that proof does not provide an absolute determination of what is real or not. It only provides a determination of what is right and wrong within a given frame of reference. Even this statement can be "proved" by a simple example showing a formula used to calculate how much power in electricity (Which we know is only a theory):

P=VI

This can be proved over and over again by observers all over the world.
But it can also be proved wrong:

P=V²/Z

Best wishes,
J_P

Excellent post, J_P, except for that V-squared formula. Replace Z with R fixes the equation, but it does not contradict in any way P=VI since R=V/I.

Nonetheless your point about frames of reference is well taken. Your example just happens to have been erroneous. I sometimes use the "Kansas analogy": in everyday life if you live in Kansas, the "earth" really is flat and to think of it as spherical is a useless absurdity. On the other hand if you want to look down on Kansas from the moon, the whole thing is going to look so spherical that the notion it's flat won't cross your mind.

* * * * * *

Oroblanco & JP: I agree in a general with JP's response to the question about blind dowsing. When it comes to what most people call "dowsing", my only interest is in developing a scientific understanding of it, I'm not a regular practitioner. Since dowsing with your eyes open is easy enough to explain without invoking any sort of mystery, my interest in dowsing is pretty much limited to blinded dowsing. And the only reason I'm interested in that, is because I've experienced it. I've investigated various theories in attempts to explain it but none of them are supported by much evidence.

--Toto

 

[J__P]

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

....Excellent post, J_P, except for that V-squared formula. Replace Z with R fixes the equation, but it does not contradict in any way P=VI since R=V/I....

--Toto

Hi woof,
I used the form P=V²/Z because it is an example which can prove that P=VI is not true in some cases. If I change Z to R, then I no longer prove my point, which was to say that Z is a more correct term, while R is only true in some cases. There are other cases where the first formula is no longer true, such as in AC circuits, where P is seldom equal to VI, but is more often equal to V²/Z.

And as you say, my point is not really about the metrics, it is about the epistemology, ontology, and axiology of proving things are real, which seem to point to the direction that what we consider reality does not exist except as convenient mental constructs that people create, and become used to thinking of as real. In other words, what we think is proven reality is simply our best guess and estimation when using the senses we have at our disposal. All we really have are theories that work in limited frames of reference.

Best wishes,
J_P

 

[woof!]

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

J_P, your electrical math is still confused. The general conclusions you drew were fairly good, the problem is the example. I'd suggest simply abandoning that example, the general conclusions are validated sufficiently from everyday life that an electrical example isn't necessary anyhow.

If it makes you feel any better, about 20% of the EE's I interview can't answer the following question: "A 1K resistor has one volt across it. What's the current?" 25%, when asked to show me what the voltage is on a 9 volt battery using an ordinary 2-channel analog scope (the formula for which has hardly changed in 40 years), can't get it figured out no matter how much time I allow them, even knowing that 9 volts ought to be a clue. Among those who say they know something about DSP, nearly half can't answer the question "what's the difference between an FIR filter and an IIR filter?". Usually they draw a complete blank as though they'd never heard those terms before. When I draw a simple RC low pass filter and I ask them to tell me something about it, 20% can't recognize it as a low pass filter and 30% can't tell me what the time-constant is when I tell them the values are 1 microfarad and 1 megohm. Fewer than half can tell me anything sensible about a parallel LRC circuit. I never even bother asking about modulation and demodulation unless the resume claims to have world-class expertise in that area: EE university grads don't know what quite a few high school kids used to know back in the 60's. Capacitors? that's the C symbol. Anything more, don't ask don't tell. The average kid who's lasted 6 months at Mickey Dee's flipping burgers can give a better account of what a burger is, than the average Master's in EE can give about VIRXCLZ. The basic characteristics of a bipolar transistor? Only about 10% can get any farther than saying that the BE voltage is 0.6 volts, which of course is actually a variable. The other day I asked a guy who was supposedly hot on analog IC design to tell me something about a differential amplifier and when that went nowhere I reverted to a simple transistor and that left him just as dead in the water. He knew there were equations for that but in school it had never dawned on him that there was a world in which the equations actually meant something. ........I'd rather interview techs any day than EE's. Most EE's land jobs where they can fake it, sometimes for decades. Techs? Employers quickly figure out who can do it and who can't, there's no convenient way to fake it. The ones who keep getting fired eventually find some other kind of work. Nearly half the techs I interview I regard as employable, and if I were allowed to hire the top 10% of the techs as engineers, I'd probably stop asking EE's to apply as engineers and tell 'em to run the gauntlet along with the techs.

--Toto

 

[J__P]

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

J_P, your electrical math is still confused. The general conclusions you drew were fairly good, the problem is the example. I'd suggest simply abandoning that example, the general conclusions are validated sufficiently from everyday life that an electrical example isn't necessary anyhow.

If it makes you feel any better, about 20% of the EE's I interview can't answer the following question...

--Toto

Thanks for the corrections Woof,

I think I will leave it as I posted it. I don't really care how right or wrong my proof is. My point is that proof is only good for a limited frame of reference, and what we consider to be true is only based on our perception of reality, which is necessarily limited. If my example causes some people to think I can make errors, this serves to prove that very point. Others may not see it the same.

I only posted that stuff about proof and perception so people would know what they are dealing with if they should try to prove something to me. I generally like repeatable things that work in situations that we might find in a treasure hunting scenario. For me, I don't really care if a detector will pass a double blind test. None of my metal detectors was tested to pass a double blind test, but I was very capable of selecting detectors that are very suitable for my purposes with only some casual hands-on testing and reading. If I found an LRL that worked every time to show me where to dig treasures, I would not care if it contained a box full of cockroaches. I would use it. But when it did not work, I would toss it quickly.

Funny how I never found an LRL that can do that.


Best wishes,
J_P