EE THr
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #241
aarthrj3811 said:~SWR~
Thank You..he was told that early in this thread,Ransom Chance...cute hehe
The "random chance" odds are not a factor.
~Carl~
With LRLs and dowsing, "random chance" applies to randomized blind tests, not to field use. A randomized blind test does 2 things that a field test cannot do. First, it eliminates outside influences that might alter performance results, such as observable clues. Second, it provides a baseline from which to compare results, namely guessing.
Despite intentional attempts to mislead people, random chance doesn't apply to field use. You can't ask, "What are the odds of digging 10 holes in a park and recovering a gold coin?" There is no way to calculate that, because there is not enough information*. But in a randomized blind test, it is quite easy to calculate the odds. Depending on the design of the test those odds can vary, so it is not a fixed number that applies to every test, but it's not a "moving target" either.
You lack comprehension of the concept of odd related to the performance of a locating device.
You further lack the understanding of how the performance of said device under ideal conditions, relates to it's possible performance in the field.
This is the difference. The test conditions are ideal.
The area is tested ahead of time to be sure there is no "interference." That is one condition that is better in the test than in the field, as the interference level in the field is unknown, and can lead to false indications as well as preventing indications.
The second condition in favor of the device being tested, is that there are ten exact, visable, locations, one of which contains the target. This is a huge advantage, as every other, of millions of possible locations, are thus eliminated even before the test begins.
In the test, all you need to do is determine which of the ten covered spots holds the target.
In the field, your target could be anywhere, or not even be there at all---nobody knows.
Since the test conditions make it much easier for success of the device, it is totally logical that if the device can't find the target there, then it certainly can't find a target in the field.
You are given ten tries in the test. Finding the target only seven times out of the ten tries will pass the test. That's a 70% score.
It is certain that if a device can't achieve at least 70% success in the test, it can't, in any way, achieve 70% in the field.
If it achieves 50% success in the test, that's getting the target half the time. The odds are that you will be able to merely guess one correct time in ten, since there are ten possible spots. But you might be able to guess three or four correctly, out of ten different tries, and not get any correct guesses on the next set of ten.
So, a good indication of being more than random chance, would be to require 70%.
Personally, I would require ten out of ten. But Carl is giving you a big break.
The only problem now, is that LRLs are fake devices, and so you can't possibly get any success percentage beyond what you would get by just guessing. That is random chance.
But why worry about all that? Just go and pass Carl's test, and your problems will be over, once and for all. But the truth is that you can't do that, can you?
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?