Im going to build an LRL (seriously)

[aarthrj3811]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

~Mike~
Just a note here. I love locating. It gives my life joy. As I said I wouldn't be into treasure hunting if all I had was a metal detector.
The truth, the whole truth…Art

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Carl-NC]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

Assuming the whirly-gig LRL, the numero uno, absolute must-have-or-you're-dead-in-the-water feature is.... a freely swiveling pointer.

Let's see how many folks disagree with this.

LS, it appears that no one disagrees with the need for the Freely Swiveling Pointer thingy. So there's your starting design: make a dowsing rod.

Next question is, what do you add to it so it looks more impressive than an ordinary dowsing rod? Options are:

A bait chamber
A chamber for adding a powerful chemical load
A box with knobs and lights
A battery
An electronic circuit board
An electronic circuit board that works
A helical winding of wire
Lots and lots of wire
A calculator
An AM radio
A USB port
An ionic resonator
A flux capacitor

To answer your question, what these parts accomplish is all the same, regardless of which path you choose. And you can combine elements to create a SuperLRL. Here's a possibility:

Take a small project box, add a swivel handle to the bottom, and 3 antenna sticking out the front. Like an Electroscope. Make a 555-based oscillator circuit, install in the box. Add a battery to make it Really Work. The ground attaches to the 2 outer antennae. Route the signal output through a chamber that contains a sample of gold, plus some charcoal, sulfur, and saltpeter, and connect to the center antenna using a helically-bent wire. Mount some control knobs and switches and at least a couple of flashing LED's to the top of the box. Add a USB port, connect 10 feet of Bell wire to the D+ and D- terminals, and stuff all that wire into the box. Buy a calculator that can plug into a USB port, use the calculator to program distance and depth.

There ya go, a gold-only LRL that absolutely won't pick up anything EXCEPT gold. Be aware, though, that it will be so sensitive that it will pick up microscopic gold from miles and miles away.

 

[EE THr]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

Art---

~EE THr~

1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.
2. The swivel pointer does not move by the initiative of the devices.
3. The devices cannot pass a double blind test.
4. Their only rebuttal is fictional mumbo-jumbo and insults.
5. They refuse to answer the most significant questions, at all.

Just so the skeptics don’t get more confused..I am talking about Treasure Hunting Devices.

1.. False..There are to may different designs to be explained.
2..False..The swivel because they have made contact with the material they are programmed to locate.
3.. False…The do not have to pass a double blind…The only people I know of that are required to use Double Blind testing is the Drug Company…there is no reason to think that our devices are no safe.
4..False..We leave that job to the Skeptics
5..False…The most significant question on this board is..Please tell us where the proof that our treasure hunting devices are fraudulent and do not work..The word of the Skeptics is not acceptable proof..

Just so proponents don't get confused, I stated that I was talking about swivel pointer LRLs. So why not respond to what was actually stated?

1. I'm not asking you to explain each maker's design. I'm saying that none of them can be explained with standard electronics. That is, you might be locating your intended targets with these, but it is by dowsing ability, not electronics. The only reason the makers add electronics is to charge high prices, when you could be doing the same thing with your own, inexpensive, home made rod(s).

2. No, the pointer doesn't swivel without you, consciously or subconsciously, tilting it. This can easily be tested, including having the operator hold the handle to provide "bio-energy" if necessary, but you have refused to answer my questions to you about this.

3. Saying that "it doesn't have to" is not passing the test. That's just words. That does not nullify the validity of the double blind test question. And drug companies have nothing to do with it, that is just another Straw Man.

4. Your reply here is obviously not even worth rebuttal.

5. I'm talking about my most significant questions to you. You are trying to change my statement here. Another blatant Straw Man. You should be ashamed. Besides, these five statements are the proof you keep requesting! (Duh.)


I'll add one more proof.

6. You, and others, keep replying to the questions and statements above, by saying that you are successful in finding what you are looking for, with these things. The problem with that rebuttal is, again, that it is not what I'm talking about. I don't doubt that you are finding what you are looking for! How many times does that need to be repeated? My point is that the electronics add-ons, to what is a dowsing device, are not necessary, and are only there to charge high prices. The statements that you are finding stuff are totally irrelevant to my position on swivel pointer LRLs. Hello? Do you understand this point?



There are the "Big Six" problems with swivel pointer LRLs.

So far, your rebuttals to them are totally ineffective, either by irrelevance, or plain denials without any reasoning whatsoever.

 

[Mike(Mont)]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

Floppy L-rods just shows you do not have a grasp of how things work. I can only assume you are parrotting your spiritual leader. I'd go back and yell that person out for the deceitful BS they are spreading.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

~ EE THr~

There are the "Big Six" problems with swivel pointer LRLs.

1..I understand what you are saying..That seems to be the believe of the Skeptics believe system
2…And the people who use these devices say you are wrong
3…I already know what my equipment and myself can do…The skeptics think that a double blind test will finally give them some kind of proof..We understand that because in other a year you have not presented any kind of prove to the treasure hunters.
4..Your opinion
5… Your proof sure is different from the owner/ operators here
6…It comes down to one thing for you skeptics..Your believe system tells you that all LRL’s are just dowsing rods. It also tells you that dowsing is fake so the LRL’s are also..Just more stuff for you to talk about

 

[Mike(Mont)]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

You seem to have a similarity with E.T. I think you know full well I don't push the Revelation Locator Rod. There have been posts on T-net asking which rod to buy. I don't recall ever replying. But since you brought up the subject, yes I developed and build the RLR. I'm going to raise the price when I run out of stock. I am embarassed to admit how many hours I spend building them.

You skeptics and your floppy L-rods. Reminds me of a failed golfer who throws their golf clubs in the pond. I know I should become an L-rod instructor. I've done enough locating/dowsing study and practice to have gained a doctorate degree.

 

[architecad]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

I built my own L-rod for less than $8.00 in a local hardware, and I find whatever I put in this chamber used for prescriptions.

Arch

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

~SWR~

I've exposed your deceitful BS topped-off with the $125 Floppy L-rod.

The only thing that you have exposed in the past year is your lack of knowledge about this subject…Art

 

[EE THr]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

Art---

Since my #4 and #5, above, may be a matter of opinion, I'm going to drop them from the list (even though they are true), since they could be termed argumentative.

So the new list will be called "The Big Four Proofs of Electronic Swivel Pointer LRLs Fraud."

This, then, is the revised list---

1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.
2. The swivel pointer does not move by the initiative of the devices.
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a double blind test.
4. The proponent's only semi-logical rebuttal is that they find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by items #1-3. The statement of this list is that the electronics add-ons, to what is merely a dowsing device, are not necessary, and are only there to charge high prices. This makes their reports of finding stuff a total Straw Man argument, and thus void.

Note that I changed the wording in #3, to allow for #4.

This list stands as unrebutted.

~ EE THr~

2…And the people who use these devices say you are wrong

Name at least one of these devices which will move the pointer while the unit is bolted down level, and a target presented. You won't, because you can't. Sorry.

 

[LM]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

Lets get back on the topic of building a LRL.

I do think it says something that so far, for the most part, the most specific and clear instructions in terms of parts needed have come from the skeptics camp.

I would really like to hear from LRL proponents on this- what parts I should buy, what use they're for and if you disagree with anything written by woof, Carl, etc.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

Hey LSMorgan….Just look around this forum..There are 100’s of photos of wiring and doodad’s inside of boxes. We have been told that they do not work by the skeptic..So you have to disrecard all these electronic parts..
If you think the skeptics advice is good use it..After all they are experts on this subject..I am just a LRL owner/operator and do not know much about what is in the box..
You may want to take a look at these devices as I know from personal experience that they find gold…The Gold Prospector , The Range Master, the Si-Go, Ranger Tell Examiner and the Pro 4…Real simple designs that work…Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

So the new list will be called "The Big Four Proofs of Electronic Swivel Pointer LRLs Fraud."

This, then, is the revised list---

1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.
2. The swivel pointer does not move by they of the devices.
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a double blind test.
4. The proponent's only semi-logical rebuttal is that they find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by items #1-3. The statement of this list is that the electronics add-ons, to what is merely a dowsing device, are not necessary, and are only there to charge high prices. This makes their reports of finding stuff a total Straw Man argument, and thus void.

1. http://www.rangertell.com/....40 testimonials, technical data and photo’s of finds
2. It will when you apply the necessary voltage to the handle
3. I have performed over 20m double blind tests for friends and family. I see no reason to prove to anyone else that I know how to use these devices
4. Or is it that you are unable to understand the truth about LRL’s ?

Ref…http://rangertell.com/no2.htm
http://www.rangertell.com/Testing1.htm
http://www.rangertell.com/Testing1.htm

Here’s your test on wheels

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,350128.0.html

 

[architecad]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

So the new list will be called "The Big Four Proofs of Electronic Swivel Pointer LRLs Fraud."

This, then, is the revised list---

1. There is no standard electronics explanation for the devices ever working.
2. The swivel pointer does not move by they of the devices.
3. Makers and owners of these devices refuse to take a double blind test.
4. The proponent's only semi-logical rebuttal is that they find what they are looking for. This, however is not being contested by items #1-3. The statement of this list is that the electronics add-ons, to what is merely a dowsing device, are not necessary, and are only there to charge high prices. This makes their reports of finding stuff a total Straw Man argument, and thus void.

1. http://www.rangertell.com/....40 testimonials, technical data and photo’s of finds
2. It will when you apply the necessary voltage to the handle
3. I have performed over 20m double blind tests for friends and family. I see no reason to prove to anyone else that I know how to use these devices
4. Or is it that you are unable to understand the truth about LRL’s ?

Ref…http://rangertell.com/no2.htm
http://www.rangertell.com/Testing1.htm
http://www.rangertell.com/Testing1.htm

Here’s your test on wheels

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,350128.0.html

Arr


I saw those Rangertell pics and that equipment really works. I don't know why people like "SWR" doesn't understand?

Arch

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

Hey Arch…I see good reports about LRL’s and a few bad reports..the skeptics are all hung up because they think it is all about dowsing…A person has to learn to control his mind when using these devices..I think of anything else but what I am doing..a movie I saw or the best sex I ever had..Anything…I can use my Ranger Tell as a dowsing rod and at times I have when searching for caves..I can separate the two disciplines so I have no problem..

When using Dells unit and my Si-Go both units lead me to the same gold mini-bar (2 ½ oz bar)…They both worked but I do not like wires connect to my rods…

Is there any LRL’s that do not work ? I don’t know and neither do the skeptics’…

The difference between the users and the Skeptics is real simple…the treasure hunters know their equipment works and skeptics don’t want to understand the truth..Art

 

[architecad]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

Hey Arch…I see good reports about LRL’s and a few bad reports..the skeptics are all hung up because they think it is all about dowsing…A person has to learn to control his mind when using these devices..I think of anything else but what I am doing..a movie I saw or the best sex I ever had..Anything…I can use my Ranger Tell as a dowsing rod and at times I have when searching for caves..I can separate the two disciplines so I have no problem..

When using Dells unit and my Si-Go both units lead me to the same gold mini-bar (2 ½ oz bar)…They both worked but I do not like wires connect to my rods…

Is there any LRL’s that do not work ? I don’t know and neither do the skeptics’…

The difference between the users and the Skeptics is real simple…the treasure hunters know their equipment works and skeptics don’t want to understand the truth..Art

You're right. The Skeptics are like atheist; they believe, but they don't know how to, and it's better for them criticize rather than put in practice.

Arch

 

[EE THr]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

Art---

At LSMorgan's request, let's keep this on-topic, huh?

First he will need a minimum parts list. Why don't you supply that, so he can get on with it?

Next, he will need to know the exact, formal, Theory of Operation, so he can make sure it's all connected right, and tuned-up properly. Your attempt, above in your #2, to substitute testimonials, for a standard electronics explanation, won't help him any in this regard. (It also violates #4 in my list. Uh-oh, you goofed already. Shame on you!)

Next, he needs to know how to get the pointer to move. In your #2, above, you say he needs to apply the necessary voltage, but you don't tell us how much voltage that is. I guess a nice 440 to the ball bearing, with the rod grounded, would move it---probably blow it into the next county, though. So tell us what the proper voltage is, so we can all build one of these. After all, you only want to help people, right?

Then, he will need to know what kind of reliability to expect, to make sure he has done a good job of building his. You say, in your #3 above, you have done 20m double blind tests. Usually a "m" stands for thousands (it couldn't be thousandths, that wouldn't make sense), so he can expect it to pass twenty thousand double blind tests in a row without a miss? OK, that's a good goal to shoot for, then. At one per day, that would only have taken you 5 1/2 years to do all those tests, that must have given you a lot of free time, then. Sweet.

By the way, your answer to my #4, refers to LRLs. But #4 is not about LRLs. Rather it is about the science of logic, and the Straw Man fallacy. So you failed again on that one, by actually using a Straw Man, to try to disprove the Straw Man statement itself. That's got to be an all time low in logic! Congratulations!

Anything else you can do to help build one, would be appreciated. Oops, wait a minute, you haven't contributed anything to help, have you?

 

[architecad]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

Art---

At LSMorgan's request, let's keep this on-topic, huh?

First he will need a minimum parts list. Why don't you supply that, so he can get on with it?

Next, he will need to know the exact, formal, Theory of Operation, so he can make sure it's all connected right, and tuned-up properly. Your attempt, above in your #2, to substitute testimonials, for a standard electronics explanation, won't help him any in this regard. (It also violates #4 in my list. Uh-oh, you goofed already. Shame on you!)

Next, he needs to know how to get the pointer to move. In your #2, above, you say he needs to apply the necessary voltage, but you don't tell us how much voltage that is. I guess a nice 440 to the ball bearing, with the rod grounded, would move it---probably blow it into the next county, though. So tell us what the proper voltage is, so we can all build one of these. After all, you only want to help people, right?

Then, he will need to know what kind of reliability to expect, to make sure he has done a good job of building his. You say, in your #3 above, you have done 20m double blind tests. Usually a "m" stands for thousands (it couldn't be thousandths, that wouldn't make sense), so he can expect it to pass twenty thousand double blind tests in a row without a miss? OK, that's a good goal to shoot for, then. At one per day, that would only have taken you 5 1/2 years to do all those tests, that must have given you a lot of free time, then. Sweet.

By the way, your answer to my #4, refers to LRLs. But #4 is not about LRLs. Rather it is about the science of logic, and the Straw Man fallacy. So you failed again on that one, by actually using a Straw Man, to try to disprove the Straw Man statement itself. That's got to be an all time low in logic! Congratulations!

Anything else you can do to help build one, would be appreciated. Oops, wait a minute, you haven't contributed anything to help, have you?

EE

Unfortunately, everytime LRL's user post a thread about LRL and MFD, it turn in personal attack because Skeptics, so, try to keep this thread in topic is almost "Impossible".

Arch

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

They are a bunch of confused puppies…They want to make a better mouse trap..They don’t want to use Rods to follow the signal..That is old technology so I agree with that..They seem to have a bias against swinging devices which incorporates the newest technology…I disagree with that…They may be able to come up with something but by far the cheapest way to go is the use of rods…Art

 

[EE THr]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

Arch---

In this case, a non-LRL user posted the thread.

No skeptics argued with him.

Only the LRL proponents have been sniping, instead of helping.



Go figure.

 

[architecad]

Re: I'm going to build an LRL (seriously)

Arch---

In this case, a non-LRL user posted the thread.

No skeptics argued with him.

Only the LRL proponents have been sniping, instead of helping.



Go figure.

Well, I'm an expertise LRL and I'm here posting and "Yes" Skeptic always is posting, just look SWR's post