NON-ELECTRONIC LRL

[Tom_in_CA]

because I don't know how it works, ...

So is it safe to call this "Un-discovered" science then ? In-so-far as I'm assuming there is an explanation for the results, that are not supernatural in basis. Ie.: there is some "attraction" or "signal" that causes it ultimately to work , right ? Albeit "unknown science" of how it actually works.

Just seeing if I understand you correctly.

... with out being mocked.

And I am assuming this question to Dell is not "mocking". I was very careful to word it.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Dell Winders]

The science behind it appears to be well known. My application may be slightly different than other uses. For one thing, it is too simple. No patent could be acquired unless it is enhanced and complicated with electronics. There is no scientific interest that I know of probably because there are no investors no grants, and no money to be made in it's present state. You are among the first to even hear about it. Without knowing me, it's unlikely you, or anyone would take a serious interest in it.

I will restate my belief that, with the addition of electronics, and imaging software this simple premise will be the basis of all Remote sensing, long range, Geophysical instruments of the future. Dell

 

[Tom_in_CA]

The science behind it appears to be well known. ...

....For one thing, it is too simple....

I'm a little confused. In the quote from your previous post, you clearly said : "I don't know how it works" (refer to your post #18). Now you're saying the way it works is "well known" and "simple" ? Which is it ?

..... My application may be slightly different than other uses. ....

Ahhh, so let's clarify then: The other applications are "simple" and the science is "known", right ? But not for *your* application. Right ? Can we therefore say that your application is "un-discovered science" then ? After all:

.... with the addition of electronics, and imaging software this simple premise will be the basis of all Remote sensing, long range, Geophysical instruments of the future. Dell

All the terms in bold above, distinctly imply there is something physical and scientific going on. Thus can we call it "un-discovered" science ? Or if its science that others understand, but perhaps not you (in the same way I probably couldn't explain how my metal detector works), can you link to where the science of your instrument is explained ? Thanx.

 

[boogeyman]

Ooops, is this forum also only for proponents ? If so, I will not chime in here.

Didn't take long for Sheldon (the Big Bang Theory) er ah Tom to show up did it?

Please keep going Dell the rest of us are interested!

 

[Dell Winders]

Tom, by the way you redefine my words, I will agree with you about your confusion problem. I don't wish to be a cause of any more of your confusion, so I will end my discussion with you now, and wish you success in resolving your confusion problems. Dell

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom, by the way you redefine my words, ....

This is the typical come-back line when someone is caught in a contradiction, eh ? They will say something like: "What I said was such & such. But what I MEANT was such & such". Even though the 2 things can be totally contradictory. It absolves them of having to explain or defend any illogical point to their assertions.

But that's fine. I expected as such. We will end this conversation, and then you won't need to be accountable . PS: Have you ever googled your own name ? It was very interesting.

 

[TerryC]

Tom, I try to stick to the facts. I can't rationalize, because I don't know how it works, just what it does, and does not do in tests, and under the conditions in which I have tested. I will leave it to Carl, and the pretender experts to do the rationalizing. Thank you for understanding.

The X-Scan, has no electronics whatsoever. It is a 100% Physics application.The Laser, is merely an experiment which visually points to within a few inches of the target, and "appears" to better define the outline and size of the target "field". I have no idea why the latter "appears" to be happening so I cannot rationalize this effect However, I will continue with experiments and tests along this line to hopefully learn more

I assume the Critics will agree with me that the definition of Dowsing, is better defined as "meta-physics (unknown physics). A mental, sub-conscious act where the movement of the L-Rods, or pendulum, is created by a mentally trained Ideomotor muscle response, not to be confused with known laws of physics?

Scientist who have studied this subject have concluded that all humans are Psychic, on a sub-conscious level, which would explain the ability to learn to Dowse.

I can understand the reason for skepticism, and criticism when so many Dowsers, unwittingly cause confusion by intertwining physics, with meta-physics, and defining it all as mental Dowsing, without making any distinction.

The X-Scan, would be extremely difficult to control with a mental Ideomotor Dowsing response. Dell

I have a neighbor who firmly believes in dowsing yet he is constantly asking me to check his property/rocks with my metal detector for gold. Hmm. He also has shown me an area his dowsing says has BILLIONS in gold. The area is BLM so he would have no private permission problems. He says he hasn't dug for the gold because it would cost millions. WOW! Spending millions to get billions should be a no brainer. Why is he having problems getting investors to fund such a profitable venture if dowsing is so "proven"? ╦╦Ç

 

[TerryC]

Open minded Skeptics, without an agenda are welcomed. In the past, when I was building LRL's for the market, Skeptics, made for my very best and loyal customers. Dell

Ok, Dell, I'm a skeptic. You don't have to show me HOW one of your market LRLs works, just show me results. Show me the machine's abilities (capabilities) as touted in your advertising. Allow me to video capture the results. SELL me on your product and I will buy one. If you automatically label me a close-minded skeptic, I will understand. Yes, I will understand. ╦╦Ç

 

[Dell Winders]

TERRY C, the X-Scan article is an FYI, I submitted and is an accurate statement to the best of what I have learned so far about this application of Physics. It is NOT an advertisement. On the photo, and at the beginning of the article I clearly stated, "Experimental" , The X-SCAN, IS NOT FOR SALE, that is a fact.. I shared my information truthfully and in good faith. It matters not to me as to whether you wish to accept, or reject, the information I have shared with this forum. Dell

 

[TerryC]

TERRY C, the X-Scan article is an FYI, I submitted and is an accurate statement to the best of what I have learned so far about this application of Physics. It is NOT an advertisement. On the photo, and at the beginning of the article I clearly stated, "Experimental" , The X-SCAN, IS NOT FOR SALE, that is a fact.. I shared my information truthfully and in good faith. It matters not to me as to whether you wish to accept, or reject, the information I have shared with this forum. Dell

Dell, Forgive me for singling you out. That was not my intention. I am not accepting claims or rejecting claims of these sellers of LRLs. I have been with this forum from back to the original owners. I again "re-upped" with the present owners in '08. I don't remember when I started perusing this particular forum. Geology.... is theory. Astronomy is also pretty much conjecture. Fact... scientists have debunked LRLs in you guys' present form. Scientists, both private and government, have debunked dowsing, yet your groups have (in summary) said, "Screw science, you "gotta believe" to get it to work. I have read this forum for years yet, other than subjective testimonials, I have never heard of one of you following a double blind test to a positive fruition. If I missed anything, enlighten me. ╦╦Ç

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Terry, good post.

.... Fact... scientists have debunked LRLs in you guys' present form. Scientists, both private and government, have debunked dowsing,....

But if you've been participating on forums discussions this long, don't you know the come-back lines ?? = "Un-discovered science". After all: Science once thought the earth was flat, right ? Or that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. Right ? Hence yes: LRL's and dowsing are "scientific". Albeit as-yet undiscovered. Tsk Tsk.

.... .... yet your groups have (in summary) said, "Screw science, you "gotta believe" to get it to work. ...

Again I will beat them to the punch-line: "Well so too do you 'have to believe' (so to speak) in metal detecting , or any other skill or sport too". Example: If you're having a bad day, & aren't concentrating, mind wandering, you will do bad at detecting. You will not hear the whispers. Or like sports athletes : They put a lot of mind psychology into their training as well. LOTS of things in like rely on psychosomatic influences (how well/fast you heal, etc....). If ANYONE goes out there with a p*ss-p**r attituded when md'ing, they too will likewise get tromped by the seasoned hardcore positive enthusiast md'r. Why then the double standard for LRL & dowsing ? tsk tsk.

.... ....other than subjective testimonials ...

Terry terry terry, don't you see your contradiction ? You tell them "show & proof" and "put it to the test", and "show results". BUT THE MINUTE ANY OF THEM relay results, then guess what you do ?? You turn around and 'diss it as "subjective testimonials". Do you see your contradiction ? Tsk tsk.

.... ....I have never heard of one of you following a double blind test to a positive fruition. ...

Well that's because any double blind test done or planned is unfair. They're rigged. The testers make it impossible to perform in-some-way. And let's be honest: When you go md'ing, do you *always* find a cool silver coin or gold coin each time you go out ? Of course not ! So too is the same for LRL/Dowsing. Why the double standard ?

Same for anything in life: A golfer will not always hit a hole in one, right ? So when you demand of the golfer "show me a hole in one", and he can't lickety split show you, does that mean it's not true ? Of course not. And if you never golf, you will never hit a hole in one. So too with LRL: There is to be expected some misses. Just like sometimes Terry digs a pulltab instead of a gold coin, eh? Tsk tsk Terry. Get with the show.

I think I'd make a better dowser/ LRL proponent than even the adherents themselves, eh ?

 

[TerryC]

Sorry Tom, I didn't realize the mere mention of the name Hitler would put you in such a tizzy! (deflection). Even the law of probabilities says SOMEONE will "hit the mark". Yet probability still has a consistent, repeatable outcome. Dowsing has been around for hundreds of years. Hundreds of years of faith must mean it is true. Right? Now MDing...... I have been detecting for decades. Reputable producers of detectors have PROVEN their machines work. The leaders can back up their advertised claims with tangible results. I can prove they work even though I wouldn't know their schematic from a toaster's. No, I've never detected a gold coin, an escudo, or old Roman coins, but others have! I'm beginning to ramble but...... but....... BINGO! That would sound like the LRL forums here, me thinks. ╦╦Ç

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I didn't realize the mere mention of the name Hitler would put you in such a tizzy! (deflection)....

Huh ? I didn't see the name Hitler" anywhere. Must've missed it ha!

... Even the law of probabilities says SOMEONE will "hit the mark". ...

Uh, so this is along the lines of : "If you dig enough holes around enough likely lookie ruins, you will eventually find a goodie", right ? Esp. when using a detector to "pinpoint" (that's the ticket). After all, history is FILLED with persons who accidentally stumble onto goodies. Ie.: const. workers, ditch diggers, farmers with plow, etc.. Hence HOW MUCH MORE SO the person going out with the intent and purpose, eh ? And sure, dig around enough likely looking ruins and so forth, yes, you'll eventually find something. And presto, it was the coat hanger that did it, right ?

But the faithful will dismiss this. They will say that they do not dig "dry holes". And they will say their odds are better than random chance.

....Dowsing has been around for hundreds of years. Hundreds of years of faith must mean it is true. Right? ...

Yes, I've heard this many time. Eg.: that if it didn't work, then how come it's 100's or 1000's of years old ? But this is fairly easy to debunk: So too did primitive cultures use witch doctors and throw virgins into volcanoes in order to control the weather, right ? Hence those practices must therefore be true , eh ?

.... Reputable producers of detectors have PROVEN their machines work. The leaders can back up their advertised claims with tangible results...

Well, to be the devil's advocate here: SO TOO can the LRL/dowsers "back up their claims". They too can show you results of goodies found. After all, haven't you seen the various advertisements of guys posing next to a jar of silver coins they found with the devices ? And after all "photographs don't lie". So there. tsk tsk.

 

[TerryC]

Huh ? I didn't see the name Hitler" anywhere. Must've missed it ha!



Uh, so this is along the lines of : "If you dig enough holes around enough likely lookie ruins, you will eventually find a goodie", right ? Esp. when using a detector to "pinpoint" (that's the ticket). After all, history is FILLED with persons who accidentally stumble onto goodies. Ie.: const. workers, ditch diggers, farmers with plow, etc.. Hence HOW MUCH MORE SO the person going out with the intent and purpose, eh ? And sure, dig around enough likely looking ruins and so forth, yes, you'll eventually find something. And presto, it was the coat hanger that did it, right ?

But the faithful will dismiss this. They will say that they do not dig "dry holes". And they will say their odds are better than random chance.



Yes, I've heard this many time. Eg.: that if it didn't work, then how come it's 100's or 1000's of years old ? But this is fairly easy to debunk: So too did primitive cultures use witch doctors and throw virgins into volcanoes in order to control the weather, right ? Hence those practices must therefore be true , eh ?



Well, to be the devil's advocate here: SO TOO can the LRL/dowsers "back up their claims". They too can show you results of goodies found. After all, haven't you seen the various advertisements of guys posing next to a jar of silver coins they found with the devices ? And after all "photographs don't lie". So there. tsk tsk.

WOW! Did I say all that? May have invoked Hitler's name from a different post. Actually, I could have said it better than you, or Carl-NC, but not being a heavy hitter, my response here would not have been taken serious enough. ╦╦Ç

 

[Dell Winders]

View attachment 1438786

NOT FOR SALE
X-SCAN (Experimental) Remote sensing, multi discriminating Long Range Locator (LRL)prototype, with Laser attachment and wireless" Weight Chek"

100% Pure Physics No batteries, No wires, No electronics

Hand held, lightweight, highly directional, and non visual. You actually "Feel" when the X-Scan locks on the " Field" of a discriminated target, even blindfolded.

Range: Up to 60 + meters

Depth: X-Scan does not measure target depth It detects the emamating "Field" of a target above the ground, or water surface. The target can be at any depth as long as the Emanating "Field" is not blocked and rises to and above the surface. The "Field" of a freshly buried target on the surface, or a couple of inches in depth can usually be detected immediately. A target buried 1 foot in depth may take up to a week for the "Field" to reach the surface and be detectable. Deeper buried targets take much longer to be detectable. Weeks, months, or years, depending on the depth, soil, and atmospheric conditions. Both MFD and HID discriminating LRL's are applications to the same physics and subject to the same limitations whether they are electronic, or non-electronic.

The deepest I have detected with the X-Scan, or MFD devices, and recorded with electronic Geophysical instruments is a Silver Vein, 20 meters below the ground surface.
There are a couple of simple methods to determine the approximate target depth that can be learned.

Simple, Easy to use, hand held, light weight, highly directional, multi target element discrimination. It works according to a proven theory of MAGNETIC RESONANCE (MR) and HARMONIC INDUCTION DISCRIMINATION (HID)

X-SCAN, prototypes are nothing new. I have been experimenting, conducting scientific double blind tests, and field tests with this concept for more than 10 years. I placed the first Frequency Discriminating LRL (MFD) concept on the market in 1986 after 6 years of experimenting, testing, and personal use. There are now manufacturers of this proven basic concept (with Treasure finds) throughout the world, so I have a precedented comparison to guide me. A few Treasure Hunters have purchased my earlier X-Scan, prototypes to conduct their own experiments and provided me their personal feedback and suggestions. Their feedback has proven to be very beneficial.

Vindictive critics have attacked me viciously for the past 27 years with determined effort to put me out of business, ruin a lifelong reputation of honesty, and silence my voice. This post may give a few cause to renew their efforts. So be it.

Admittedly, in my own mind, I am amazed and logically what myself, and others have experienced with the multi-element Discrimination abilities of the X-Scan concept do not seem possible. For example. detecting and tracing buried PVC water pipe, or discriminating between the ink and dyes of modern US currency, and 1800's vintage Confederate currency, from a distance. Because of my own skepticism of this possibility I don't intend to make any advertising claims of the X-Scan's abilities, if any, but I will post in the future what appears to be happening.

It is my strong belief that with the addition of electronics and imaging software this concept will be the future of all Geophysical instruments

X-SCAN, Explanation (photo)
The Black object in the photo is an attachable Laser Pointer. (optional) It serves to point a Red beam pointing to within 5 inches of the target
It also appears that it may act as a carrier wave and better defines the target

The module near the handle is the Resonance chamber. Samples of the searched for target is placed in this chamber. Unlike electronic Frequency Discrimination (MFD) that only discriminates onr element at a time, HID appears to have the ability to detect and discriminate to specific combined elements that may be contained in a target. For example, Pharmaceuticals.

The White box pictured below the X-Scan, is the "WEIGHT CHEK". It doesn't actually measure the weight of the target, but serves to help measure the volume of the emanating magnetic field that surrounds the target and can be nulled out in increments of volume with the dial. By comparing with an object of known weight, the weight of the unseen target can be estimated. This is an extremely helpful tool in the field when analyzing the potential of a target and eliminating digging unnecessary holes. It has been used for years with the PRO-4 model, and by Dowsers, which required a connecting wire from the L-Rods to the WC. It would remotely null out up to 5 lbs, of solid target weight, or up to 2 ounces of Micron particles, sulphide and oxidation which resonates strongly.
The WC, I am working on now requires no batteries or attached wires and the present model nulls out by volume, up to 20 lbs of solid target weight, and about 2 ounces of Micron particles, Sulphide, or Oxidation.

Thanks for reading. Dell

Boot

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Dell, something is wrong. In this post #35, you have a dizzying array of high-sounding scientific technical jargon. Suggesting that you know how it works.

But in Post #18, you say you don't know how it works. Eh ?

 

[TerryC]

Dell, something is wrong. In this post #35, you have a dizzying array of high-sounding scientific technical jargon. Suggesting that you know how it works.

But in Post #18, you say you don't know how it works. Eh ?

I appreciate your lengthy response. But I have a problem with your use of the term(s) .... proven theory..... of .....harmonic induction discrimination. Please direct me to the scientific definition of "harmonic induction discrimination". The only reference available (as I can see) of the term is unique to your written publications. Correct me if I'm wrong but I see no scientific use of the term "harmonic induction discrimination" except in publications authored by you, or publications debunking your product (i.e. questioning the term harmonic induction discrimination). ╦╦Ç

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I appreciate your lengthy response. But I have a problem with your use of the term(s) .... proven theory..... of .....harmonic induction discrimination. Please direct me to the scientific definition of "harmonic induction discrimination". The only reference available (as I can see) of the term is unique to your written publications. Correct me if I'm wrong but I see no scientific use of the term "harmonic induction discrimination" except in publications authored by you, or publications debunking your product (i.e. questioning the term harmonic induction discrimination). ╦╦Ç

What are you talking about? The more High sounding technical scientific words that are used, the more true it must be.

 

[TerryC]

What are you talking about? The more High sounding technical scientific words that are used, the more true it must be.

Sorry, Tom. My question(s) about recent phrases was not directed at you. In fact, I would have responded sooner but certain "scientific" phrases is causing my computer to cough up blood trying to come up with rebuttal. "Proven"... theory...? Isn't that a contradiction of terms? I am going to back off for awhile.... this is all making me really dizzy! ╦╦Ç

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Sorry, Tom. My question(s) about recent phrases was not directed at you....

I knew it wasn't directed at me. I knew it was directed at the LRL of this O.P. thread. And I was saying that .... most certainly .... when $20 words like that start getting thrown around, it must be true

It's known as "blinded by science". If you start talking very technical jargon, then your hearers will think "gee, he must know what he's talking about".