Do The Math!

[EE THr]

So why don't you do so, and prove your claims, and get it over with?

I have strong reason to suspect that it is because you are lying. What else cound anyone think?


Anyone else would think you are being demanding and insulting. P.S. The red line means something---O-TAY

I think you are either made a mistake, and posted to the wrong thread, or are intentionally spamming, by posting an obvious Straw Man Fallacy, again.

The more you do that, the more everyone can see that you have nothing to back up your wild claims about junk electronics somehow performing the miracle of Long Range detection. While the truth is that they can't even detect metal at two inches! And that's already been proven!



Don't be a doof---show the proof! And quit complaining about the truth, the facts, and reality!

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?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[aarthrj3811]

Either post on-topic, or don't post in this thread.

Ok...Art

 

[architecad]

More "Do the Math!"


As an example of how to figure what value you get from an LRL, here is a hypothetical comparison.

Since just guessing which of two possible targets is the real one, will give the random percentage the same as coin flipping, which is 50%, then consider a dowsing test where 55% success is attained.

That's only 5% above the "nothing" point of random chance, or 50%. Although there has never been a random, double-blind test which has proven this to be possible, just take this as a mathematical example.

Then, since LRLs are supposed to be better than dowsing, assume somebody scored 60% success on the same type of test, with an LRL.

So that would be 10% above random chance, and an increase of 5% above the dowser. The 10% above random chance is twice what the dowser got, so the success rate ratio of the LRLer to the dowser would be 2:1 (two to one), or twice as good. But it's still only 10% better than just guessing. And only 5% better than just dowsing. Although neither dowsing nor LRL success, of any kind, has ever been proven scientifically, if either or both were real, and reliable, would the LRL be worth it?

For this hypothetical, the LRL cost is $1,000.00, and the dowser used a pair of coat hangers for 50 cents apiece, totalling $1.00. So the cost ratio is 1000:1 (one thousand to one).

And the success improvement ratio, over dowsing, would be as stated above, 2:1, but it's only an increase of 5%. That's $200.00 for each single percentage point over the random guessing point! And $1,000.00 to double the efficiency over just dowsing, but the dowsing was barely more than random guessing!

Considering that some LRLs cost multiple thousands of dollars, would it be worth it even if they did work? If someone paid $5,000.00 for an LRL, that would be $1,000.00 per single percentage point over dowsing's success rate!

If dowsing were 60% successful, and the LRL increase was the same 5% greater than that, at 65%, then the ratio for LRL success to dowser success would only be 1.5:1, and the $5,000.00 LRL would still cost $1,000.00 per single percentage point over dowsing. If the LRL in this case made it up to 70% accuracy, then it would double the success rate over dowsing, and cost only $500.00 per single percentage point over dowsing success.

And, if the LRL could reliably work at that 70% rate, all the time, then someone could use it to pass Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00!

The problem is threefold, however. As previously stated, no dowser or LRLer has ever passed a real test, scoring 70% or better.

Secondly, even if an LRL could pass the test, and be reliable at 70% success under the optimum conditions provided by the test, what would it be worth in the field, where many different types of outside influences might interfere with it's functioning, as the LRL promoters often tell about?

And third, in the field, under real treasure hunting conditions, it is not a matter of choosing between two possible targets, as it is in the test I described. In a real hunt, there are infinite possible targets! So this reduces the chance of guessing to zero! Whereas in the hypothetical test I suggested, if the operator isn't sure, he can just guess, and still has a 50% chance of getting that test right, thus raising the average of the entire test run, resulting in an artificially high score on the overall tests! Whereas this opportunity for lucky guessing does not exist in the field.

Therefore, field use will be less successful than the optimum conditions and guessing opportunities of the test procedures.

The conclusion must be that, since no LRL can achieve a score of 70% in tests, then how could they possibly do that well in actual use in the field, where both, unknown interference factors can reduce the success rate, and an infinite number of possible targets eliminate the 50-50 guessing opportunity?

Remember, the point of zero success of a device, or the point of just random guessing, is 50%.

So even if LRLs did sometimes work just a little bit, how far are you willing to walk to localize that "Long Range" target? And how many deep, empty, holes are you willing to dig? And how much are you willing to spend on a device, to end up with that kind of expenditure in travel money, and effort, and time loss?

Then factor in the nonfunctional, useless, "electronic circuits" and the junk science explanations of how they allegedly work, and it's a no-brainer!






P.S. I predict that the LRLers will have no rational response to this, but will instead reply with nonsensical insults or gibberish. Or will divert away from LRLs, and want to talk about ME, instead, whining because I post truth and facts. Let's see what happens....




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?

 

[EE THr]

He who refuses to provide real evidence, resorts instead to insults, because that's all he has left.

 

[fenixdigger]

He who refuses to provide real evidence, resorts instead to insults, because that's all he has left.

Something smells off topic about this,,, oh wait that can't be, look who said it. Perfect example of the "Erkle" "Did I do that"

Good job Sparky.

 

[EE THr]

He who refuses to provide real evidence, resorts instead to insults, because that's all he has left.

Something smells off topic about this,,, oh wait that can't be, look who said it. Perfect example of the "Erkle" "Did I do that"

Good job Sparky.

You really want to bother the moderators, don't you.

Well, that's totally your responsibility.

 

[EE THr]

Since the thread has drifted off from the original topic post, I'll put it here, again, as a reminder.

Unfortunately, none of the LRLers can stipulate to the average success rate of plain dowsing rods, nor to the success rate of LRLs, to enable anyone to see their claimed performance over simple simple rods.



Do The Math!

The LRL promoters were complaining about personal insults, in a couple other threads here, so there won't be any personal insults here. Just the mathematics of LRLs, and of LRLs compared to other equipment.

First let's establish the success rate percentage math, and what it means.

If you toss a coin, the random odds of guessing which side will land up, is 50-50. In percentages, this is expressed as an average success rate of 50%.

So, if any type of locating device is used to select between two unknown targets, with one of them being an agreed upon desireable target, and the other not, you would have the same random chance of 50-50 for just guessing---with or withour any locating device.

That means that a success rate of 50%, for a locating device, is really zero, because it's no better than random chance or just guessing.

So, the only percentages that are significant for testing dowsing or LRLs, are those between 50 and 100. Because anything less would mean that the locating device is doing nothing better than someone just guessing.

Since the whole LRL question revolves around the claim that LRLs are better than just dowsing, then it should stand to reason that, if dowsing and LRLs do work, the LRLs would have a significantly better average percentage of success than mere dowsing, right?

Now we have something to work with. Just the data, and no need for insults, right? Straight math. Good.

Furthermore, it has been claimed that a couple coat hangers (thank you SWR) will work as well as anything for standard dowsing rods. Now we can do the math, comparing the retail price of coat hangers to the retail price of an LRL device.

Since most metal coat hangers are free, let's assign them a hidden cost of 50 cents, since whoever gives them out with their laundry does have to pay for them, and that cost is passed on to the consumer. And since most people use two, that's a total cost of $1.00 to dowse.

Now we can compare the cost ratio of any particular LRL-to-coat hangers, with ratio of success percentage of the same LRL-to-coat hangers, right?

But remember, the success percentage of both dowsing, and LRLs, begins at 50% equals zero success above random guessing chance. So tests resulting in 50% success or less, must be calculated into the over all average success rate, but do not by themselves indicate any success at all.

Now we can express the value of, for example, a RangerTell LRL, by comparing it's cost ratio to it's success ratio.

No insults, no opinions, no bias. Just pure, simple math. Just the data, folks!

Fair enough?

 

[EE THr]

More "Do the Math!"


As an example of how to figure what value you get from an LRL, here is a hypothetical comparison.

Since just guessing which of two possible targets is the real one, will give the random percentage the same as coin flipping, which is 50%, then consider a dowsing test where 55% success is attained.

That's only 5% above the "nothing" point of random chance, or 50%. Although there has never been a random, double-blind test which has proven this to be possible, just take this as a mathematical example.

Then, since LRLs are supposed to be better than dowsing, assume somebody scored 60% success on the same type of test, with an LRL.

So that would be 10% above random chance, and an increase of 5% above the dowser. The 10% above random chance is twice what the dowser got, so the success rate ratio of the LRLer to the dowser would be 2:1 (two to one), or twice as good. But it's still only 10% better than just guessing. And only 5% better than just dowsing. Although neither dowsing nor LRL success, of any kind, has ever been proven scientifically, if either or both were real, and reliable, would the LRL be worth it?

For this hypothetical, the LRL cost is $1,000.00, and the dowser used a pair of coat hangers for 50 cents apiece, totalling $1.00. So the cost ratio is 1000:1 (one thousand to one).

And the success improvement ratio, over dowsing, would be as stated above, 2:1, but it's only an increase of 5%. That's $200.00 for each single percentage point over the random guessing point! And $1,000.00 to double the efficiency over just dowsing, but the dowsing was barely more than random guessing!

Considering that some LRLs cost multiple thousands of dollars, would it be worth it even if they did work? If someone paid $5,000.00 for an LRL, that would be $1,000.00 per single percentage point over dowsing's success rate!

If dowsing were 60% successful, and the LRL increase was the same 5% greater than that, at 65%, then the ratio for LRL success to dowser success would only be 1.5:1, and the $5,000.00 LRL would still cost $1,000.00 per single percentage point over dowsing. If the LRL in this case made it up to 70% accuracy, then it would double the success rate over dowsing, and cost only $500.00 per single percentage point over dowsing success.

And, if the LRL could reliably work at that 70% rate, all the time, then someone could use it to pass Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00!

The problem is threefold, however. As previously stated, no dowser or LRLer has ever passed a real test, scoring 70% or better.

Secondly, even if an LRL could pass the test, and be reliable at 70% success under the optimum conditions provided by the test, what would it be worth in the field, where many different types of outside influences might interfere with it's functioning, as the LRL promoters often tell about?

And third, in the field, under real treasure hunting conditions, it is not a matter of choosing between two possible targets, as it is in the test I described. In a real hunt, there are infinite possible targets! So this reduces the chance of guessing to zero! Whereas in the hypothetical test I suggested, if the operator isn't sure, he can just guess, and still has a 50% chance of getting that test right, thus raising the average of the entire test run, resulting in an artificially high score on the overall tests! Whereas this opportunity for lucky guessing does not exist in the field.

Therefore, field use will be less successful than the optimum conditions and guessing opportunities of the test procedures.

The conclusion must be that, since no LRL can achieve a score of 70% in tests, then how could they possibly do that well in actual use in the field, where both, unknown interference factors can reduce the success rate, and an infinite number of possible targets eliminate the 50-50 guessing opportunity?

Remember, the point of zero success of a device, or the point of just random guessing, is 50%.

So even if LRLs did sometimes work just a little bit, how far are you willing to walk to localize that "Long Range" target? And how many deep, empty, holes are you willing to dig? And how much are you willing to spend on a device, to end up with that kind of expenditure in travel money, and effort, and time loss?

Then factor in the nonfunctional, useless, "electronic circuits" and the junk science explanations of how they allegedly work, and it's a no-brainer!






P.S. I predict that the LRLers will have no rational response to this, but will instead reply with nonsensical insults or gibberish. Or will divert away from LRLs, and want to talk about ME, instead, whining because I post truth and facts. Let's see what happens....




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?