Tweet
Eric, well said and I would consider this just plain common sense applied to any product one might consider purchasing.
A list of performance credits is what sells a product or service.
Treasure Hunting is somewhat different, in that the laboratory is found by hopping someone elses fense, but the proof of the pudding should be the same here as in considering any other product that one might consider purchasing.
And yes eric, you are so correct. Monsterous Lab mistakes have been the mother of invention many times in our past that gave us the transister, synthetic rubber and X-ray to name a few new ideas. Sometimes tossing the cake mix can be delightful. Science may yet solve our field problems in Treasure Hunting. But
I notice that very few knowledgeable profession people in the sea and the land respond to forums. I wonder why? It is a great way to learn and to share.
Richard
>It’s sad to see the recent animosity that has crept into this otherwise excellent forum, but fringe technology has never mixed well with the more conventional, and heated debates invariably result. Fringe is not used in any derogatory sense but rather to denote something that is on the outer edges of convention and that cannot be fully explained by the known laws of physics. Trevor Bayliss, the inventor of the clockwork radio, states on the cover of his recent book:- “convention is the enemy of progress” and “the key to success is to risk thinking unconventional thoughts”. So, we should keep open minds on alternative technology because what is alternate today may become the norm tomorrow.
>My personal experiences of LRL have been negative so far and I prefer to stick with reproducible electromagnetic phenomena which I know will work for any user in any part of the world. My first encounters with LRL were when I worked at the Research Laboratory for Archaeology in Oxford. One of our functions was to survey archaeological sites using magnetometers, resistivity meters and metal detectors. Often, archaeologists would additionally call on the services of dowsers to survey a site and indicate where prospective excavations should take place. One such site was at the top of South Cadbury Hill in Somerset which was thought, by some, to be the site of King Arthur’s Camelot. In one corner of the site a dowser indicated that there was a buried well but the instrumentation indicated nothing, despite repeated measurements in that area. The proton magnetometer and the resistivity meter were both sensitive enough to have registered such a feature even if they were buried at some depth. The dowser, however, remained convinced that the well was there. Similar experiences were repeated on other sites. Invariably the dowsers were convinced that they were right and that it was our instrumentation that was either faulty or not sensitive enough.
>Another encounter was when I was invited to participate in some mine detection tests at the Royal Military College of Science. Because some mines are purposely manufactured to be very difficult to detect, the College invited persons with many and varied methods of detection, to a test site in the New Forest that had been carefully cleared, gridded out and dummy mines buried at specific points that were unknown to the participants. Detection methods used were:- magnetic, electromagnetic, infra red, early ground radar, dogs, dowsers and a few others. Out of 40 dowsers that were originally tested only 3 had results that were slightly better than would have been obtained by simply guessing. And believe me, these were thorough tests which also included amplified dowsing rods. The military concluded that as far as dowsing went, it was a non-starter for mine detection, as you may well predict 51% of the mines but the remaining 49% would make a mess of you and your equipment.
>Having briefly related these personal experiences, I come back to Trevor Bayliss’ saying that “convention is the enemy of progress”, because there are things that I have come across that are unexplainable in conventional terms and indicate that there may be other forces and influences in nature of which at we at present know little and which lie on the fringe, so to speak. Back in the late 1960’s there was a well equipped facility just outside Oxford called the Delawarr Research Laboratories. They developed and experimented with LRL devices for different applications. I became briefly involved with them when the police forensic laboratories approached us for advice on methods to detect buried bodies. The Delawarr people claimed to be able to do this without actually visiting the site by means of one of their “black boxes” which could be tuned to various phenomena. We buried a dead sheep in a field a few miles away for a test with, again, negative results. However, these people claimed that they were able to put the seed of a plant into one of their devices together with a photographic plate and after tuning and the subsequent development of the plate a picture appeared of the plant that the seed would develop into. One of the main uses was in the diagnosis of disease. A sample of blood was placed in the box and after tuning with several dials the readout would indicate the particular malady that the person had. Fraud, charlatan? I really don’t know. Their equipment did not make any electronic sense but I saw the laboratories, the white coated staff, the equipment and the photographs and in the light of today’s DNA fingerprinting – who knows?
>The Keely Motor is a device I find fascinating. Developed in the 1890’s by John Worrell Keely of Philadelphia it promised unlimited power to drive mills, factory machinery and vehicles. Motors of 25hp were built and demonstrated, but with one snag; only he could operate them. The controversy goes on today; were they genuine, or was the whole thing a trick and a fraud to get people to invest money in his company? Some years ago a friend lent me a book called “The Applications of the Electric Motor” published in 1896. In the preface it said that the main competitor for the electric motor at that time was the Keely motor.
>How about a device manufactured and used in industry today called the Hydrosonic pump? According to Eureka, a reputable engineering magazine that we have at work, this device delivers more energy than is put into it, although nobody is quite sure why.
>How does homeopathy work where a substance is diluted almost to the point of non-existence and yet can have a major effect on one’s health? I’m not convinced it works for me and yet I have seen great benefits in other people, including members of my own family one of which was a child of 20 months.
>So, most of my work and interest is firmly planted on the side of the fence marked ‘conventional’. However, I am not afraid to look over the fence into uncharted, unconventional territory because that is where future progress is. In England we have a Latin saying:- caveat emptor, which means buyer beware. The onus is on the purchaser to investigate the prospective purchase and the credentials of the seller, so as to make an informed judgement on whether the purchase will meet the buyer’s expectations. Also we have a Trades Descriptions Act whereby any false or misleading advertising claims can be reported to a Trading Standards Officer who can then take action against the offender. Interestingly, there is little, if any, LRL advertising in our two treasure hunting magazines.
>Eric.
A list of performance credits is what sells a product or service.
Treasure Hunting is somewhat different, in that the laboratory is found by hopping someone elses fense, but the proof of the pudding should be the same here as in considering any other product that one might consider purchasing.
And yes eric, you are so correct. Monsterous Lab mistakes have been the mother of invention many times in our past that gave us the transister, synthetic rubber and X-ray to name a few new ideas. Sometimes tossing the cake mix can be delightful. Science may yet solve our field problems in Treasure Hunting. But
I notice that very few knowledgeable profession people in the sea and the land respond to forums. I wonder why? It is a great way to learn and to share.
Richard
>It’s sad to see the recent animosity that has crept into this otherwise excellent forum, but fringe technology has never mixed well with the more conventional, and heated debates invariably result. Fringe is not used in any derogatory sense but rather to denote something that is on the outer edges of convention and that cannot be fully explained by the known laws of physics. Trevor Bayliss, the inventor of the clockwork radio, states on the cover of his recent book:- “convention is the enemy of progress” and “the key to success is to risk thinking unconventional thoughts”. So, we should keep open minds on alternative technology because what is alternate today may become the norm tomorrow.
>My personal experiences of LRL have been negative so far and I prefer to stick with reproducible electromagnetic phenomena which I know will work for any user in any part of the world. My first encounters with LRL were when I worked at the Research Laboratory for Archaeology in Oxford. One of our functions was to survey archaeological sites using magnetometers, resistivity meters and metal detectors. Often, archaeologists would additionally call on the services of dowsers to survey a site and indicate where prospective excavations should take place. One such site was at the top of South Cadbury Hill in Somerset which was thought, by some, to be the site of King Arthur’s Camelot. In one corner of the site a dowser indicated that there was a buried well but the instrumentation indicated nothing, despite repeated measurements in that area. The proton magnetometer and the resistivity meter were both sensitive enough to have registered such a feature even if they were buried at some depth. The dowser, however, remained convinced that the well was there. Similar experiences were repeated on other sites. Invariably the dowsers were convinced that they were right and that it was our instrumentation that was either faulty or not sensitive enough.
>Another encounter was when I was invited to participate in some mine detection tests at the Royal Military College of Science. Because some mines are purposely manufactured to be very difficult to detect, the College invited persons with many and varied methods of detection, to a test site in the New Forest that had been carefully cleared, gridded out and dummy mines buried at specific points that were unknown to the participants. Detection methods used were:- magnetic, electromagnetic, infra red, early ground radar, dogs, dowsers and a few others. Out of 40 dowsers that were originally tested only 3 had results that were slightly better than would have been obtained by simply guessing. And believe me, these were thorough tests which also included amplified dowsing rods. The military concluded that as far as dowsing went, it was a non-starter for mine detection, as you may well predict 51% of the mines but the remaining 49% would make a mess of you and your equipment.
>Having briefly related these personal experiences, I come back to Trevor Bayliss’ saying that “convention is the enemy of progress”, because there are things that I have come across that are unexplainable in conventional terms and indicate that there may be other forces and influences in nature of which at we at present know little and which lie on the fringe, so to speak. Back in the late 1960’s there was a well equipped facility just outside Oxford called the Delawarr Research Laboratories. They developed and experimented with LRL devices for different applications. I became briefly involved with them when the police forensic laboratories approached us for advice on methods to detect buried bodies. The Delawarr people claimed to be able to do this without actually visiting the site by means of one of their “black boxes” which could be tuned to various phenomena. We buried a dead sheep in a field a few miles away for a test with, again, negative results. However, these people claimed that they were able to put the seed of a plant into one of their devices together with a photographic plate and after tuning and the subsequent development of the plate a picture appeared of the plant that the seed would develop into. One of the main uses was in the diagnosis of disease. A sample of blood was placed in the box and after tuning with several dials the readout would indicate the particular malady that the person had. Fraud, charlatan? I really don’t know. Their equipment did not make any electronic sense but I saw the laboratories, the white coated staff, the equipment and the photographs and in the light of today’s DNA fingerprinting – who knows?
>The Keely Motor is a device I find fascinating. Developed in the 1890’s by John Worrell Keely of Philadelphia it promised unlimited power to drive mills, factory machinery and vehicles. Motors of 25hp were built and demonstrated, but with one snag; only he could operate them. The controversy goes on today; were they genuine, or was the whole thing a trick and a fraud to get people to invest money in his company? Some years ago a friend lent me a book called “The Applications of the Electric Motor” published in 1896. In the preface it said that the main competitor for the electric motor at that time was the Keely motor.
>How about a device manufactured and used in industry today called the Hydrosonic pump? According to Eureka, a reputable engineering magazine that we have at work, this device delivers more energy than is put into it, although nobody is quite sure why.
>How does homeopathy work where a substance is diluted almost to the point of non-existence and yet can have a major effect on one’s health? I’m not convinced it works for me and yet I have seen great benefits in other people, including members of my own family one of which was a child of 20 months.
>So, most of my work and interest is firmly planted on the side of the fence marked ‘conventional’. However, I am not afraid to look over the fence into uncharted, unconventional territory because that is where future progress is. In England we have a Latin saying:- caveat emptor, which means buyer beware. The onus is on the purchaser to investigate the prospective purchase and the credentials of the seller, so as to make an informed judgement on whether the purchase will meet the buyer’s expectations. Also we have a Trades Descriptions Act whereby any false or misleading advertising claims can be reported to a Trading Standards Officer who can then take action against the offender. Interestingly, there is little, if any, LRL advertising in our two treasure hunting magazines.
>Eric.
Comment