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

[J__P]

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

...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.

Hi Oroblanco,

If you are interested in the electronic aspects of LRLS, you may want to explore a little farther on the link that Rudy gave you. For example, here are instructions for building dowsing rods and for building a MFD signal generator to connect to wires you poke in the ground:
http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=projects.dat

Here is a report that shows the diagram for a common MFD type LRL that was sold for a number of years:
http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=reports/vr800/index.dat

But you may also be interested in their remote sensing forum where they actually talk about the circuitry in addition to talking about who is a liar and who is right and wrong. You may want to look at some of the circuits and even build them to see how they work for you. Some of them have become very popular with experimenters.
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=13


Best wishes,
J_P

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[woof!]

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

Oroblanco, since you're new to this, here's another summary mostly in response to J_P:

For a long time now, LRL's have been dissected, inspected, and rejected by people who are knowledgeable in electronics, which of course is the key element which distinguishes LRL's from regular dowsing rods. A second opinion might have been warranted had the field performance claims been distinguishable from those we're already familiar with relating to dowsing, but sorry, that's not how it is. LRL's are just another kind of dowsing rod until someone comes up with ones that aren't. And that's actually happened with so-called gold ion detectors that can't even be dowsed with unless you're more creative than anyone here has been so far.

Looking at photos and schematics of LRL's may be entertaining, ten times so if you understand what you're looking at, which is my point. The LRL learning fast track is to simply decide who around here you can trust on the electronics stuff, and take a ride on that trust rather than invest in an electrical engineering education. If you don't trust me on that score, heck, trust EE whom I disagree with on huge bunches of stuff. His essay on why LRL's are fraudulent is excellent. He'd probably be happy to point you to the post/thread if you PM him, or maybe he'll even handle it right here.

--Dave J.

 

[Bill]

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

Roy,
I have been acquainted with Woof, Toto for many years, and i will use only one of his quotes which completely quantifies this entire series of posts.
"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. "
I have owned and experimented (and built) many types of LRL's, and the above quote completely covers everything that can be stated about this subject.
Dowsing works!! Take that to the bank! Will it help find UNKNOWN, lost, buried, or sunken treasure? the REAL answer is no. I don't care what the proponents claim. I have been a professional treasure finder for over forty years, and I do not know of one major find made by dowsing.

 

[hung]

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

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;

If you research both behaviors of Earth's magnetic field and telluric currents, also understanding that electrostatics/electric fields are the responsible means of 'transportation' for the buried metal ions (gold at large distance), since the electron is not a particle but a wave, nothing is a mystery anymore.

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.

You are refering to the Rydberg atom that produces long excited states when subject to higher forces.
This is not the case here.
In simple words, there is a polar pattern that some say a polar current manifesting on Earth. All the quantum system, per se is around us already. The understanding that the so called swivel LRL needs to 'hit an atom hard' to get it in its excited state with brute force to induce resonance is wrong.
Think of the elements on Earth being buried or not, as components of a 'natural' transmitter. The broacasting is always happening. You only have to magnetically tune to it as the swivel antenna aligns to the 'magnetic line' of T/R.
To eleaborate on this would require too much time typing and also a revision on many erroneous and incomplete aspects of Physics.
If current academic Physics still can't explain what magnetism is, how to use their current concepts to elaborate on that?
There is a thread I started in this forum called 'When Ordinary Science can't explain'. I posted the link to a video shot in the 70's showing Uri Geller habilities being researched by the government. You can see a very clear example of how magnetism has a much broader concept than thought by science, by watching the telepathy part.
When Geller concentrated on what could be drawn in the papers, he estabilished a magnetic pattern that allowed him to receive the broadcast thought form. The scientist who made the drawing, did not need to turn any switch or button to start the transmission. It had been already started the moment he thought about drawing it and would remain indefinitely. Uri just 'tuned' his mind to align to the transmission to get it.

 

[hung]

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

Interesting to see that one skeptic from Carl's forum started to post here.
What's the matter, feeling bored in that forum?
Yeah I know, it's over.

In that forum, he used to bash TNET and members here such as myself, Art, Tayopa, etc. Well, coherence is obviously not in his vocabulary.
Hey John Player Special, this is not geotech. Here the repertoire is much diverse.
Remember: Respect to be respected.

 

[J__P]

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

Oroblanco, since you're new to this, here's another summary mostly in response to J_P:

For a long time now, LRL's have been dissected, inspected, and rejected by people who are knowledgeable in electronics, which of course is the key element which distinguishes LRL's from regular dowsing rods. A second opinion might have been warranted had the field performance claims been distinguishable from those we're already familiar with relating to dowsing, but sorry, that's not how it is. LRL's are just another kind of dowsing rod until someone comes up with ones that aren't. And that's actually happened with so-called gold ion detectors that can't even be dowsed with unless you're more creative than anyone here has been so far.

Looking at photos and schematics of LRL's may be entertaining, ten times so if you understand what you're looking at, which is my point. The LRL learning fast track is to simply decide who around here you can trust on the electronics stuff, and take a ride on that trust rather than invest in an electrical engineering education. If you don't trust me on that score, heck, trust EE whom I disagree with on huge bunches of stuff. His essay on why LRL's are fraudulent is excellent. He'd probably be happy to point you to the post/thread if you PM him, or maybe he'll even handle it right here.

--Dave J.

Hi Woof,
It's interesting that you would make a post like this.
When I read through the posts in this forum, I would tend to agree that the people who claim their LRLs are working are incorrect. But I wouldn't take an EE's word for it. I would think that there exists a possibility that the LRL user has found a way to make his LRL really work, and let him show some evidence to convince me it is so. Yet I haven't seen anyone in this forum do that. What I do see is a lot of claims and photos that cannot be verified or repeated by anyone except the people who took the photos. I also don't think the commercially sold LRLs that people are claiming to work are actually working. If I saw a blind person demonstrating these LRLs to actually work, I would consider it worth further investigation. And I still wouldn't blindly trust some EE to do my investigation for me. I would want to see the performance myself to satisfy myself that an LRL performs or fails to perform, with the idea that there may be some little-known principle which causes it to work. I would consider an EE's comments about a particular circuit to be helpful evidence in this investigation, but not infallible, as I have noticed a number of EEs make errors in their statements about not only circuitry, but in other sciences that could be important to long range locating.

Having said that, I have not seen any commercially sold LRL that I think will help a treasure hunter to find treasure. Nor do I think the circuitry in most commercially sold LRLs is capable of doing anything useful in locating treasure. But it would not bother me to learn that I am wrong about this if I saw first-hand evidence to convince me my idea is wrong. I can honestly say I have never seen any evidence of this nature. But I have seen evidence which shows that commercially sold LRLs perform about the same as a dowsing rod does when tested with ordinary volunteers off the street. The results I saw were about the same as guessing which direction the treasure is located.

However, I directed Oroblanco to the Geotech forum where some different observations were reported. That is a forum which is focused more on the technical side of remote sensing. The LRLs shown there are not simply commercial rip-off scams. There are a number of home-brew LRLs which work on different principles than the junk LRL. Some of these have gained popularity with hobbyists and experimenters who believe they are helping them find treasure in some way. Again, I would want to see it with my own eyes before I would believe any of them works, but at least these experimenters are not saying they are finding success because they want to sell products for a huge fee. In most cases, they are hobbyist and recreational treasure hunters who want some better treasure hunting tools. The few who are acting as shills for manufacturers are easy to spot and remove from the pool of plausible information.

But how are the experimental LRLs I read about at Geotech different than what I read about here?
To start with, there are several kinds.

There are electric charge detectors which measure the electric charge in the air. These consist of a FET gate or similar connected to an antenna positioned in front of a metal plate or dish that is grounded or charged to attract either positive or negative charges. I observed reports that these are good for detecting static charges and things that have substantial voltage on them. Some of these have special signal processing circuitry added. Can they help locate treasure? There is some debate about that, but I have not seen any convincing evidence they can yet. I watch ongoing experiments to see what people come up with on these experiments because it's kind of interesting.

A second kind of experimenter's LRL is similar to a kind that is sold commercially, and that we also read about here. The MFD kind is simply a 5v adjustable signal generator that you connect to brass rods that you stick in the ground, or you connect to a dowsing rod. I can't imagine this to help anyone find treasure, but if anyone wanted to experiment with it, this is a cheap thing to build. Maybe $10 of parts could give you hours of fun to see if it works or not. Some experimenters are using variants that operate in the megahertz range and send the signal to a whip antenna directed at the field where they are treasure hunting. This variant does not seem to follow the classical pseudoscience theory of resonant audio frequency coupling.

A third kind of experimenter's LRL I have seen circuits for at Geotech is the VLF locator. The variants I saw seem similar to the VLF loops that geologists use to map the ground under them for variations in soil and rock strata. Can a geologist find buried things under the ground using a VLF receiver coil? Of course they can. They map out large sections of ground, and are able to find buried objects besides rocks in some circumstances. I would think it is plausible to modify the standard VLF equipment used to measure what's under the ground to work better for identifying smaller objects. And this is what some people are reporting they can sometimes do with their experimental VLF LRL projects. I have even seen a video of one of these modified VLF circuits beeping at a gold medal about 2 meters distance. (at least I was told that this is what I was seeing in a video - the medal was buried under a rockpile so I couldn't see it). But I would rather see it actually work hands-on than to take the producers of the video's word that it detected a medal at 2 meters, or an EE's word for it that it cannot possibly work. After all, I have seen a lot of geologist reports showing things they found deeper in the ground than this group of hobbyists claim.

The reason I directed Oroblanco to Geotech remote sensing forum is because it shows the kind of circuits he says he is interested in seeing. I suppose anyone might want to read about them if they are interested in the technical aspects of LRLs that were actually being reported as working in some field conditions. In my opinion, I don't think any of these would help me to find treasure. But then, if I was interested in experimenting to see if my opinions are correct, this is the place I would start. Instead of reading an endless trail of useless forum posts arguing about who is a liar and who is right and wrong, they have some actual circuits and experimental details included that you can try for yourself. Even Carl, who runs that forum encourages people to not take his word for it. He is an EE who urges people to try it and see for themselves. I did as he said, and found he was correct for the things I tried. But then I showed how he was wrong about some of the things he said. Just as he showed how I was wrong in some of my statements. In the end, the evidence determined what was considered right and wrong, not someone's opinion.


Best wishes,
J_P

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

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

Ladies and gentlemen: excellent posts such as -->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?
*****************
This is type of thing is what we need to discuss, not if any present lrl's work or not. That has been hacked to death in thousands of posts.

As an example, photons, do they only consists of visible frequencies,. or do they cover the entire spectrum from one to ?? If photons do not cover the spectrum, then what does?

Why did the human visual senses settle on what we presently call the narrow visible spectrum ?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

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

HI again: It was speculated how 'much' energy would be need to transmit useful information ? May I suggest how much energy is transmitted for the most distant planet in our solar system for us to interpretate it's basic physical characteristics?

Why does the 'reflectance' of our sun on the Moon directly effect life's mental, physical and social characteristics?

Why is most of Earth's higher forms of life tied to Lunar phases, i.e reflective frequencies from the Sun?

Getting back to the original track, what frequencies are in a Photon?

Remember, many in here do not a high formal education for many reasons, including economical, so stick to the simpler more direct forms of posting. I doubt that there is anything or action in the Universe that can't be explained in simple language. The more intelligent one is the easier it is.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[J__P]

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

Ladies and gentlemen: excellent posts such as -->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?
*****************
This is type of thing is what we need to discuss, not if any present lrl's work or not. That has been hacked to death in thousands of posts.

As an example, photons, do they only consists of visible frequencies,. or do they cover the entire spectrum from one to ?? If photons do not cover the spectrum, then what does?

Why did the human visual senses settle on what we presently call the narrow visible spectrum ?

Don Jose de La Mancha

Hi Mr. Don,

I see you will soon be ready to get on to the substance of your thread, whcih is discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's.
You are correct again. This is not the same as arguments about whether LRLs currently for sale are working or not. It is a discussion about possible theories.
Since it is only a theoretical discussion you want, it seems that skeptics as well as LRL believers can particpate.
The only qualifier you put on this discssion is "possible", which seems kind of nebulous to me.

Maybe "plausible" would be a more useful limit for the discussion in order to keep from wading through fantastic theories such as parallel universes, or signal electronics unexplainably causing rods to move with a force that requires more power than the entire circuit draws. I believe there are some plausible theories that could contribute to the development of a working LRL. But not theories that use fake math to prove nonexistent evidence of alleged experiments which can't be repeated.




To answer your current question concerning speculations of how 'much' energy would be needed to transmit useful information...

The amount of energy depends on the signal to noise ratio and the receiving equipment. We know that the current which moves by touching two opposite hands together sends a small amount of energy which continues throughout space, becoming rapidly weaker as the inverse of the distance squared. But this energy can only be detected when it is above the noise floor, and when using equipment that is suitable to detect it. I would suspect the best instrument an average treasure hunting experimenter could build might be able to detect it from an inch or so, or maybe even a foot if atmospheric conditions permitted. It actually seems doubtful he could do it at all, but plausible if conditions were right, and if he knew what to build.

Best wishes,
J_P

 

[aarthrj3811]

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

Theories are made by man and are all subject to change. When using antenna rods while Dowsing two rods will always cross when you encounter a natural signal line. One rod will lock on to the rays…Man made signals are completely different..Some make the antenna rods cross, some make the rods swing open. When you reach the target some man made signals just keep going and others stop at the target. Some signals are much stronger than others.Could it just be that the inventor is using a different theory ?...Art

 

[Rudy(CA)]

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

HI again: It was speculated how 'much' energy would be need to transmit useful information ? May I suggest how much energy is transmitted for the most distant planet in our solar system for us to interpretate it's basic physical characteristics?

Why does the 'reflectance' of our sun on the Moon directly effect life's mental, physical and social characteristics?

Why is most of Earth's higher forms of life tied to Lunar phases, i.e reflective frequencies from the Sun?

Getting back to the original track, what frequencies are in a Photon?

Remember, many in here do not a high formal education for many reasons, including economical, so stick to the simpler more direct forms of posting. I doubt that there is anything or action in the Universe that can't be explained in simple language. The more intelligent one is the easier it is.

Don Jose de La Mancha

DJ, With regards to your first and last questions above.

1.- ... how 'much' energy would be need to transmit useful information ?

The answer to this question was originally rigorously formulated by Claude Shanon in his seminal paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication". Published in the Bell System Technical Journal (BSTJ) in July and expanded in October 1948.

2.- ... what frequencies are in a Photon?

The answer is that it is a single frequency (or wavelength) at a given particular energy level.

A photon is characterised by either a wavelength (the reciprocal of frequency), denoted by λ, or equivalently an energy, denoted by E. There is an inverse relationship between the energy of a photon (E) and the wavelength of the light (λ) given by the equation:

E = hc/λ or in terms of frequency f E=hcf where h is Plank's constant and c is the speed of light.

Although you didn't ask, it also turns out that a photon has an effective mass. It can be simply found by equating the Energy to Einstein's famous equation:

mc^2 = E = hc/λ and we obtain the mass of a photon as: m = h/(cλ) or m = hf/c Thus the more energetic photons have a higher
effective mass.

 

[EE THr]

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

I hate to break this news to the Quantum Theory boys, but Planck's constant is not only just a theory, but it doesn't exist.

It is based on the formula λ v = c, where λ = wavelength, v = frequency, and c = the speed of light.

But wavelength and frequency are both measurements of the same thing, if both are measured in the same time continuum.

One is represented as the count of cycles (or pulses) per unit of time, while the other is represented as the length of one complete cycle (or length between pulses) per unit of distance.

But they are both measurements of the same thing, so they both represent the same thing.

The numerological representations, however are inversely proportional. Simply because they are opposite methods of measuring the same thing. One is based on time (v ), and the other is based on distance (λ ), in measuring the same thing.

So the formula is based on the different measuring methods, and that is all.

And, since the measurements are of two things which are inversely proportional, of course you will always get the same answer. But does that answer actually mean anything?

And if one proposes that it does mean something, then why?

...Just sayin'....

8)

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

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

HI J_P good post. you asked -> But this energy can only be detected when it is above the noise floor, and when using equipment that is suitable to detect it
************

We are using equipment designed by Mother Nature, and refined over the countless millennia.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

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

HI Art. you posted -->.Could it just be that the inventor is using a different theory ?...Art
**************
Yes, or perhaps he didn't really understand what he was working with, and attempted to define it
with the knowledge that he was familiar with, which would be workable under the circumstances,
yet be completely incorrect..

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

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

HI Rudy, you posted --> 1.- ... how 'much' energy would be need to transmit useful information ? The answer to this question was originally rigorously formulated by Claude Shanon in his seminal paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication". Published in the Bell System Technical Journal (BSTJ) in July and expanded in October 1948
******************
An excellent post , but you are falling into the trap of attempting to define our present problem with
mechanical devices instead of biological ones. Remember the first stage indicator is the human interface.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

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

EE posted --> But wavelength and frequency are both measurements of the same thing, if both are measured in the same time continuum.
***************
Agreed. now back to "what is the wave length / frequency of a Photon ?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

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

Rudy you posted -->The answer is that it is a single frequency (or wavelength) at a given particular energy level.
***********
Obviously this means multiple frequencies are possible, no?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[J__P]

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

HI J_P good post. you asked -> But this energy can only be detected when it is above the noise floor, and when using equipment that is suitable to detect it
************

We are using equipment designed by Mother Nature, and refined over the countless millennia.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Hi Mr. Don,
Your question was about speculations of how 'much' energy would be needed to transmit useful information. And I presume the equipment you refer to are human senses, or possibly domesticated animal senses. If this is the case, we need to know exactly what information are you referring to that would be transferred in a useful way?

The question of how much energy is meaningless unless we know the nature of information is transferred and can identify the equipment used to detect it. Yet it will still be subject to being above the noise floor when using suitable equipment to detect it.
For example, the energy of a sound needed could vary greatly depending on the nature of the sound, the background noise, the distance, and who's ears are used to hear it.

Best wishes,
J_P

 

[Rudy(CA)]

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

HI Rudy, you posted --> 1.- ... how 'much' energy would be need to transmit useful information ? The answer to this question was originally rigorously formulated by Claude Shanon in his seminal paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication". Published in the Bell System Technical Journal (BSTJ) in July and expanded in October 1948
******************
An excellent post , but you are falling into the trap of attempting to define our present problem with
mechanical devices instead of biological ones. Remember the first stage indicator is the human interface.

Don Jose de La Mancha

You obviously haven't read it, or haven't grasped it. It has nothing to do with devices of any kind.

 

[Rudy(CA)]

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

Rudy you posted -->The answer is that it is a single frequency (or wavelength) at a given particular energy level.
***********
Obviously this means multiple frequencies are possible, no?

Don Jose de La Mancha

Obviously. That is why it makes little sense to ask ..."what frequencies are in a Photon? "
At any instant in time, a photon has only one frequency.