aarthrj3811
Gold Member
That's about as cowardly as it gets!
Hey Real de Tayopa ..Do you except this as an insult?
Do The Math!
- Thread starter EE THr
- Start date
- Status
Hey Real de Tayopa ..Do you except this as an insult?
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
What are you talking about now ?
fenixdigger
Hero Member
- Feb 8, 2010
- 839
- 44
- Detector(s) used
- Aurora Aqua, Excalibur, Garrett CX2, Gemini-3, MFD's, Sovereign, Viper, E Trac, Dees Nutz rod, Tesoro Sand Shark. Pro pulse.
aarthrj3811 said:
They are on ignore. This is how I see what foolishness they post. Octo-fenixes ,,,, con-artie. Yep we sure insulting them.
Transference, it's not just for breakfast, lunch, and dinner anymore. SHO-NUFF
OP
OP
EE THr
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #45
aarthrj3811 said:
Well, con-artie, you see that shaded little box with words in it? It's called a "quote box." That means that someone is replying to what is inside that shaded little box. If you still don't understand that, call your grandchildren and have them explain it to you.
Goot luck with that.
(And good luck to your grand kids!)
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?
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp
Gold Member
Hmm 'transference' -- this could lead to an entire medical reference series in EE's favorite medical field. snicker
Don Jose de La Mancha
Don Jose de La Mancha
OP
OP
EE THr
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #47
fenixdigger said:
I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.
I called you octo-fenixes, because you have admitted that there are eight of you all using the same account here. I discovered it when "you" didn't remember what I had just said to you hours before, and it happened on several occasions. Just put two and two together, that's all. And now, with your imaginary friend, it makes nine, I guess. That would be ennea-fenixes. That's kinda long, can I just call you "ennea" for short?
Oops, I forgot, you're pretending to have me on Ignore. So, not to risk your exposing that as a lie again, I'll just go ahead and assume it's OK. After all, there's nothing wrong with the truth, is there? Thanks.
Now, for con-artie, I call him that because he has done every step in the Predictable Pattern of Con Artists list, and that is his prize! Congratulations, con-artie!
Now, either get back on topic, or stick to your own threads, troll.
Oh, and also---
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?
OP
OP
EE THr
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #48
EE THr said:
Hmmmmm. What a convient time to put me on Ignore. So you don't have to answer that question!
Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Keep on flipping those coins
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
~EE~
Darn..You must be reading your own posts again..Your Math only talks about a fraction of the equation…Add the value of the enjoyment the operator gets from perusing his hobby.. Little thinks like exercise, seeing new country and enjoying the company of friends and relatives. Then you complete ignore the value of what is recovered..One find can and has paid for the device..Art
Attachments
![P1010004[1].jpg](/data/attachments/20/20542-d014527c0bbe5113b90425f5625518b5.jpg)
![P1010004[1].jpg](/data/attachments/20/20564-d014527c0bbe5113b90425f5625518b5.jpg)
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Art~
Thank You again for proving that your math is screwy…My math is what the Owner/operators of these devices exspect to accomplish with their LRL’s…Welcome to the real world of Treasure Hunting..Art
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
So you are guessing ?
Assuming ?
Assuming again
We do not need to read any more..You Math is just Junk Science..Art
OP
OP
EE THr
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #53
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?
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?
OP
OP
EE THr
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #54
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!
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!
OP
OP
EE THr
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #55
Big J---
Do I need to post a link to the definition of the word "average"?
It is well documented that the more times the coin is tossed, the closer to 50-50 the outcome will be, with nobody guessing anything. It will come up heads 50% of the time, on average.
A greater number of events will give smoother averages. That's common knowledge in mathematics, which obviously is not an area of expertise for you.
Take a deep breath, let it out slowly, then go have a bowl of Pablum and a nice nap. I'd like to say that you will be alright afterwards, but I'm not so sure.
EE THr said:
Do I need to post a link to the definition of the word "average"?
It is well documented that the more times the coin is tossed, the closer to 50-50 the outcome will be, with nobody guessing anything. It will come up heads 50% of the time, on average.
A greater number of events will give smoother averages. That's common knowledge in mathematics, which obviously is not an area of expertise for you.
Take a deep breath, let it out slowly, then go have a bowl of Pablum and a nice nap. I'd like to say that you will be alright afterwards, but I'm not so sure.
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
![P1010004[1].jpg](/data/attachments/20/20546-d014527c0bbe5113b90425f5625518b5.jpg)
![P1010004[1].jpg](/data/attachments/20/20565-d014527c0bbe5113b90425f5625518b5.jpg)
OP
OP
EE THr
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #57
aarthrj3811 said:
#15, 16, 17, in the link below.
Don't be a doof---show the proof!
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
It is clear for everyone to see that you know even less about Math than you know about Treasure Hunting..Art
OP
OP
EE THr
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #59
aarthrj3811 said:
What needs to be known about treasure hunting?
And while you're at it, since you claim to be such a big treasure hunter, I'm sure you brought your camera and video recorder along on all those big hunts. So show us some of your expeditions and huge booty hauls. (Not the Tic-Tacs under the plastic eggs, or silver dollars under the napkins.)
I can't wait to see all of them!
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?
Rudy(CA)
Full Member
- Sep 24, 2004
- 171
- 9
Hopefully this will help those that are not conversant with probability and statistics.
A fair coin flip should produce a 50 50 chance of heads or tails, over a large number of flips. If you flipped the coin
three times and got heads, what are the chances that if you flipped it again a head would appear? Well, it is 50%.
The coin holds no prior history of the previous tosses and each toss has a 50 50 chance of coming up heads.
Now, lets do an experiment. Suppose we have an LRL with an experienced operator, an observer/recorder, an assistant,
two identical containers, a gold coin and a junk target. A wall separates the LRL operator from where the boxes are.
So, the assistant goes behind the wall where the two boxes and the two targets are and he places one target in each box,
then leaves the area. The observer and the LRL operator then enter the area where the boxes are and the LRL operator, using
his trusty LRL selects the box he feels has the gold. The box is opened by the observer/recorder and the results are written down.
A short digression. The above is a double blind test. Neither the observer nor the LRL operator know in advance which box has
the gold and the assistant that put the targets in the boxes left the area and can't communicate his actions to the other two.
Getting back to the test, pure chance predicts that, over a large number of tests, the LRL operator would guess correctly 50%
of the time. Ok, we need to conduct the test many times to see if there is a statistically significant difference in the number of
successful outcomes over those that pure chance predicts.
Lets say we do the test four times. There are 16 possible outcomes. Using "S" for success and "F" for failure,
SSSS
SSSF
SSFS
SSFF
SFSS
SFSF
SFFS
SFFF
FSSS
FSSF
FSFS
FSFF
FFSS
FFSF
FFFS
FFFF
Note from the above sequence of 4 tests, the average probability of getting four successes is 1/16 or 6.25%.
If instead we insisted that there'd be no more than 1 failure, then the probability would be 5/16 or 31.25%.
Of course, if we used sequences with more tests, we can produce even smaller probabilities of success from purely
random chance.
However, if we do this test only once, then we can't rule out that it may have been an accidental quirk that produced
the results obtained. To eliminate, or at least quantify the probability of a quirk producing the results, we would need to run
the experiment multiple times, each time recording the results obtained.
If enough of these 4 test trials are run (from sampling theory and the Central Limit Theorem, 30 or more sequences of tests
should suffice), we can assure ourselves of approaching the random chance probabilities with some suitably small confidence
interval, as well as determining if the LRL produced results that are statistically significant and different from random chance.
A fair coin flip should produce a 50 50 chance of heads or tails, over a large number of flips. If you flipped the coin
three times and got heads, what are the chances that if you flipped it again a head would appear? Well, it is 50%.
The coin holds no prior history of the previous tosses and each toss has a 50 50 chance of coming up heads.
Now, lets do an experiment. Suppose we have an LRL with an experienced operator, an observer/recorder, an assistant,
two identical containers, a gold coin and a junk target. A wall separates the LRL operator from where the boxes are.
So, the assistant goes behind the wall where the two boxes and the two targets are and he places one target in each box,
then leaves the area. The observer and the LRL operator then enter the area where the boxes are and the LRL operator, using
his trusty LRL selects the box he feels has the gold. The box is opened by the observer/recorder and the results are written down.
A short digression. The above is a double blind test. Neither the observer nor the LRL operator know in advance which box has
the gold and the assistant that put the targets in the boxes left the area and can't communicate his actions to the other two.
Getting back to the test, pure chance predicts that, over a large number of tests, the LRL operator would guess correctly 50%
of the time. Ok, we need to conduct the test many times to see if there is a statistically significant difference in the number of
successful outcomes over those that pure chance predicts.
Lets say we do the test four times. There are 16 possible outcomes. Using "S" for success and "F" for failure,
SSSS
SSSF
SSFS
SSFF
SFSS
SFSF
SFFS
SFFF
FSSS
FSSF
FSFS
FSFF
FFSS
FFSF
FFFS
FFFF
Note from the above sequence of 4 tests, the average probability of getting four successes is 1/16 or 6.25%.
If instead we insisted that there'd be no more than 1 failure, then the probability would be 5/16 or 31.25%.
Of course, if we used sequences with more tests, we can produce even smaller probabilities of success from purely
random chance.
However, if we do this test only once, then we can't rule out that it may have been an accidental quirk that produced
the results obtained. To eliminate, or at least quantify the probability of a quirk producing the results, we would need to run
the experiment multiple times, each time recording the results obtained.
If enough of these 4 test trials are run (from sampling theory and the Central Limit Theorem, 30 or more sequences of tests
should suffice), we can assure ourselves of approaching the random chance probabilities with some suitably small confidence
interval, as well as determining if the LRL produced results that are statistically significant and different from random chance.
- Status
Top Member Reactions
-
3351 -
1919 -
1878 -
1176 -
1096 -
873 -
829 -
828 -
827 -
808 -
779 -
532 -
503 -
486 -
429 -
E
417
-
415 -
402 -
397 -
388
