Carl-NC said:
The real problem with E-scopes is, when you remove the "protection," there was nothing to hide in the first place. There's nothing there. A battery that either powers a light bulb or a meter. That's all. That's probably what everyone was laughing at... a big rat's nest of nothing.
I'm not familiar with the Electroscopes circuits, so I can't tell you how effective they are on acomplishing what it's supposed to do, but I can tell you right away that you should NEVER underestimate what might look simple. Universe is so simple, yet extremely complex and perfect. Remember your physics classes... Transmissions of radio waves are a simple procedure. But the complexity of transmitters and receivers vary widely.
Courts generally give scientific evidence far more weight than anecdotal evidence.
Only when they are able to understand 'the scientific evidence'. If they don't, they need to realy on hard facts. And congratulations, you finally used the correct word this time. It's an evidence, not a proof. See bellow my explanation.
100 people can claim to have been successful, but if no one can demonstrate it in a reasonable scientific test (that is, it continuously fails), then those 100 people won't look very credible.
Your answer would only apply to a swivel type LRL that needs mastering and practice on how to use it in balance to avoid false signals or imprecise detection.
Yet, if out of 100 people, only one could perfectly suceed with it, an element of evidence would appear in the case, and the judge would have to consider this as (now it's the correct term), 'proof' because it would be documented. See what I have written about the 'benefit of doubt'.
You speak of legal proof, whereas I believe everyone around here is demanding scientific proof. As I said before, "proofs" are for mathematicians and distillers (and maybe lawyers); science deals in evidence, not proofs.
The meanings are the same whether it's in the legal, scientific or logical realms.
And no, science first deals with observations and expectations, then mathematics help to predict the expected model. And finally the model turns into an evidence which by the way many times has some variations over the predicted mathematical model.
But as I said, once evidence is factual, no proof is required anymore as proof does need documentation to be factual, whereas evidence is the fact itself.
