Tweet
Carl: There must be ten thousand metal detector users out there for one LRL user. So who would find the most? I recall an article in W & E a number of years ago about a father and son finding something good in a burned out house. I have a video made by Mac Herman and Larry McCaig that detail how they found a woman's lost ring in Oklahoma using long-distance. I know of many articles written in a treasure hunting newspaper detailing accounts of successes. A fellow from Tennessee comes to mind who used an electroscope to find gold rings in lakes and then recovered them with a regular metal detector. I have found nice things with an electroscope but haven't written them up. A person just wrote to me telling of many finds with long-distance. Are these people lying for some reason? Am I lying? I went to all the electroscope hunts in PA and they were not fake. I entered just once and found nothing, much to my embarassment. But I didn't whine and say the scope was no good. Others did just fine. If you think the hunts were fake I would like to see you explain it to the many contestants who worked in the rain and found things under impossible conditions. When long distance gets as "scientific" as you think it should be there will be nothing left to find. In the meantime, I am going to keep on working and finding things even if you think it is impossibe. By the way Carl, I like the other parts of your site and think it contributes a lot. I don't understand many of the electronic ideas talked about here either, but I assume everyone is telling the truth as they know it. I will be seeing Christian in a few weeks at a treasure hunt in Germany. I think it will be a lot of fun.
-
-
Re: LRL Statement
Carl: There must be ten thousand metal detector users out there for one LRL user. So who would find the most? I recall an article in W & E a number of years ago about a father and son finding something good in a burned out house. I have a video made by Mac Herman and Larry McCaig that detail how they found a woman's lost ring in Oklahoma using long-distance. I know of many articles written in a treasure hunting newspaper detailing accounts of successes. A fellow from Tennessee comes to mind who used an electroscope to find gold rings in lakes and then recovered them with a regular metal detector. I have found nice things with an electroscope but haven't written them up. A person just wrote to me telling of many finds with long-distance. Are these people lying for some reason? Am I lying? I went to all the electroscope hunts in PA and they were not fake. I entered just once and found nothing, much to my embarassment. But I didn't whine and say the scope was no good. Others did just fine. If you think the hunts were fake I would like to see you explain it to the many contestants who worked in the rain and found things under impossible conditions. When long distance gets as "scientific" as you think it should be there will be nothing left to find. In the meantime, I am going to keep on working and finding things even if you think it is impossibe. By the way Carl, I like the other parts of your site and think it contributes a lot. I don't understand many of the electronic ideas talked about here either, but I assume everyone is telling the truth as they know it. I will be seeing Christian in a few weeks at a treasure hunt in Germany. I think it will be a lot of fun. -
Re: LRL Statement
>Carl: There must be ten thousand metal detector users out there for one LRL user. So who would find the most?
But LRLs can cover an area 10,000 times faster, so it should be even.
>I recall an article in W & E a number of years ago about a father and son finding something good in a burned out house. I have a video made by Mac Herman and Larry McCaig that detail how they found a woman's lost ring in Oklahoma using long-distance. I know of many articles written in a treasure hunting newspaper detailing accounts of successes. A fellow from Tennessee comes to mind who used an electroscope to find gold rings in lakes and then recovered them with a regular metal detector. I have found nice things with an electroscope but haven't written them up. A person just wrote to me telling of many finds with long-distance. Are these people lying for some reason? Am I lying? I went to all the electroscope hunts in PA and they were not fake. I entered just once and found nothing, much to my embarassment. But I didn't whine and say the scope was no good. Others did just fine. If you think the hunts were fake I would like to see you explain it to the many contestants who worked in the rain and found things under impossible conditions. When long distance gets as "scientific" as you think it should be there will be nothing left to find. In the meantime, I am going to keep on working and finding things even if you think it is impossibe.
I'm sure that many of the people who claim success with an LRL are honest, though it is very possible that some have a hidden agenda. Again, I am not claiming that LRL users never find anything, I am saying this method is the least successful and that it is very probable that any and all discoveries are due not to the LRL, but to other factors. You have provided an excellent example. Anywhere that people swim there is a good chance that rings and coins have been lost. You do not need a LRL to tell you this, but you do need a metal detector to actually find them. As far as the Electroscope hunts go, I do not know the details on this. Is it a seeded hunt? Are metal detectors used to pinpoint? Etc... I am always looking for documented success stories in this area so if you would like to share these I would be grateful.
It is my general position that if LRLs actually worked as claimed they would be able to find simple hidden targets in a properly conducted double-blind test. They cannot. Yes, I know, Jim passed a d-b test, but I also know that it was not properly conducted. He has also not gone after Randi's prize which suggests he is not the least bit confident in his test result.
>By the way Carl, I like the other parts of your site and think it contributes a lot. I don't understand many of the electronic ideas talked about here either, but I assume everyone is telling the truth as they know it. I will be seeing Christian in a few weeks at a treasure hunt in Germany. I think it will be a lot of fun.
Wish I could join you guys...
- CarlComment
-
Re: LRL Statement
>Carl: There must be ten thousand metal detector users out there for one LRL user. So who would find the most?
But LRLs can cover an area 10,000 times faster, so it should be even.
>I recall an article in W & E a number of years ago about a father and son finding something good in a burned out house. I have a video made by Mac Herman and Larry McCaig that detail how they found a woman's lost ring in Oklahoma using long-distance. I know of many articles written in a treasure hunting newspaper detailing accounts of successes. A fellow from Tennessee comes to mind who used an electroscope to find gold rings in lakes and then recovered them with a regular metal detector. I have found nice things with an electroscope but haven't written them up. A person just wrote to me telling of many finds with long-distance. Are these people lying for some reason? Am I lying? I went to all the electroscope hunts in PA and they were not fake. I entered just once and found nothing, much to my embarassment. But I didn't whine and say the scope was no good. Others did just fine. If you think the hunts were fake I would like to see you explain it to the many contestants who worked in the rain and found things under impossible conditions. When long distance gets as "scientific" as you think it should be there will be nothing left to find. In the meantime, I am going to keep on working and finding things even if you think it is impossibe.
I'm sure that many of the people who claim success with an LRL are honest, though it is very possible that some have a hidden agenda. Again, I am not claiming that LRL users never find anything, I am saying this method is the least successful and that it is very probable that any and all discoveries are due not to the LRL, but to other factors. You have provided an excellent example. Anywhere that people swim there is a good chance that rings and coins have been lost. You do not need a LRL to tell you this, but you do need a metal detector to actually find them. As far as the Electroscope hunts go, I do not know the details on this. Is it a seeded hunt? Are metal detectors used to pinpoint? Etc... I am always looking for documented success stories in this area so if you would like to share these I would be grateful.
It is my general position that if LRLs actually worked as claimed they would be able to find simple hidden targets in a properly conducted double-blind test. They cannot. Yes, I know, Jim passed a d-b test, but I also know that it was not properly conducted. He has also not gone after Randi's prize which suggests he is not the least bit confident in his test result.
>By the way Carl, I like the other parts of your site and think it contributes a lot. I don't understand many of the electronic ideas talked about here either, but I assume everyone is telling the truth as they know it. I will be seeing Christian in a few weeks at a treasure hunt in Germany. I think it will be a lot of fun.
Wish I could join you guys...
- CarlComment
-
Re: LRL Statement
Yes, I know, Jim passed a d-b test, but I also know that it was not properly conducted.
Carl we did the test just as you described. That's not good enough? Why would you describe in detail how to do a double blind test and then say it is not a valid double blind test? Aren't you contradicting yourself?
I sure like the way you gloss over success stories with your dismisive tone...very "scientific sounding".
Perhaps we should be doing something usefull instead of digging things up we should spend our time redesigning the BFO. Ha Ha Ha now thats a worthy enterprise!!!Comment
-
Re: LRL Statement
Yes, I know, Jim passed a d-b test, but I also know that it was not properly conducted.
Carl we did the test just as you described. That's not good enough? Why would you describe in detail how to do a double blind test and then say it is not a valid double blind test? Aren't you contradicting yourself?
I sure like the way you gloss over success stories with your dismisive tone...very "scientific sounding".
Perhaps we should be doing something usefull instead of digging things up we should spend our time redesigning the BFO. Ha Ha Ha now thats a worthy enterprise!!!Comment
-
Re: LRL Statement
I can see by your answer you are completely close minded on the subject of LRL. You in fact are calling me liar, of course pretending you are the great scientist who needs some sort of special evidence. I have shared information with you and you dismiss it like only you know what the truth is. No matter what evidence I send you would not be enough or correct so I won't even try. The gold rings in the water is a good example. I actually interviewed this guy and understand what he was saying. But you simple dismiss this as unreliable and your analysis correct, of course.
You were not even in Quartzite but you know more about it than the people who were there. You are basing your judgment on what we told you. What if Jungle Jim and I were simply making the whole thing up? What if Jim did even better than we told you? Of course you would know. When a man won't treat me with any respect I cut off the relationship. You won't have to answer this post as I won't read it anyway. You remind me of the naughty little boys I had in my classroom for so many years but I don't have to deal with them or you anymore. Go back to rediscovering the wheel while we find the goodies.-Comment
-
Re: LRL Statement
I can see by your answer you are completely close minded on the subject of LRL. You in fact are calling me liar, of course pretending you are the great scientist who needs some sort of special evidence. I have shared information with you and you dismiss it like only you know what the truth is. No matter what evidence I send you would not be enough or correct so I won't even try. The gold rings in the water is a good example. I actually interviewed this guy and understand what he was saying. But you simple dismiss this as unreliable and your analysis correct, of course.
You were not even in Quartzite but you know more about it than the people who were there. You are basing your judgment on what we told you. What if Jungle Jim and I were simply making the whole thing up? What if Jim did even better than we told you? Of course you would know. When a man won't treat me with any respect I cut off the relationship. You won't have to answer this post as I won't read it anyway. You remind me of the naughty little boys I had in my classroom for so many years but I don't have to deal with them or you anymore. Go back to rediscovering the wheel while we find the goodies.-Comment
-
Re: LRL Statement
>>Yes, I know, Jim passed a d-b test, but I also know that it was not properly conducted.
>Carl we did the test just as you described. That's not good enough? Why would you describe in detail how to do a double blind test and then say it is not a valid double blind test? Aren't you contradicting yourself?
Your test, at least as it has been described, was not the same as what I posted. There were at least two major infractions that would render it non-double blind and a third issue that alone would also invalidate the test. You could have duplicated exactly what I described but you chose to take shortcuts instead.
- CarlComment
-
Re: LRL Statement
>>Yes, I know, Jim passed a d-b test, but I also know that it was not properly conducted.
>Carl we did the test just as you described. That's not good enough? Why would you describe in detail how to do a double blind test and then say it is not a valid double blind test? Aren't you contradicting yourself?
Your test, at least as it has been described, was not the same as what I posted. There were at least two major infractions that would render it non-double blind and a third issue that alone would also invalidate the test. You could have duplicated exactly what I described but you chose to take shortcuts instead.
- CarlComment
-
Re: Sensors
Phil,
Thanks for the reply. Sorry it has taken so long for me to respond but
I've been incredibly busy with the holidays and the flu hit me pretty
hard. I'm still quite sick.
Addressing your second point first, I've used several types of
"traditional" metal detectors. I'm not interested in building (or buying)
one of these detectors because of it's inability to discriminate between
different types of metals.
In junky areas, especially old trailings, the detector becomes practically
worthless. In my experiences, I've spent most of my time tossing away
"hot rocks", nails, bullet casings, and similar false positives. It's
really amazing how much junk is out in the middle of nowhere. In many
man-months of detecting, I've never found a single nugget.
Maybe I just haven't been looking in the right places and once I have
found that first nugget I'll take on an enlightened position. But as of
now I'm just not very impressed with them for gold prospecting.
Regarding the frequencies and magnetic flux density, I'm still trying to
figure it all out. I don't expect to be able to make a field unit that
can do a Tesla, but I thought .01 Tesla would be feasible. Ceramic
magnets are about .02T from what I've read.
At .01T, the Larmor frequency for 197Au is 5681.84Hz. Yeah, that's low.
A full-wave antenna would have be something like 32 miles. But I've
talked to a few hams and they seem to think that for a localized signal
with a good, low-noise amplifier, it should be detectable. Something not
unlike detecting VLF whistler events. A optional bandpass filter for the
60Hz harmonics might be necessary. I'm sure there will be a lot of other
issues and I'll surely need to bounce them off others to get this working.
I'm still scratching my head about how to design the electromagnet. For
the proton precession magnetometer, the toroid design seems optimal since
the goal is to detect the precession frequencies of the hydrogen atoms
and the magnetic flux density should be the highest in the core of the
toroid. Conversely, the magnetic resonsance spectroscope needs to focus
the magnetic field into the ground. I also need a method of actually
measuring the flux density/field strength (B0) so I can calculate the
expected frequencies.
Finally, I'm concerned about the effects of the false positives from the
compounds in the field. Will certain molecules resonate in a similar
fashion as gold atoms do? Is it more difficult to detect the Larmor
frequency of gold in a compound? Will the Larmor frequency shift when
gold is in a compound and, if so, how will it change?
Lots of questions and few answers. I'll probably make a few educated
guesses and go ahead and construct the first unit. Using some actual gold
nuggets I've found and some dirt, I should be able to find the weaknesses
and either improve the design or scrap it as unfeasible.
Do you see any serious faults in my logic?
Best Regards,
Ben Ginter
(I hope you don't mind I cc:'d the protonmag list on this)
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 [email protected] wrote:
> Hi Ben
>
> I read your post with great interest. I would like to share some thoughts
> with you.
>
> 1. The proton precession frequency is directly proportional the the flux
> density. At 10K Gauss the precession for water is 42 MHz. At one Gauss it
> is 4200 Hz, and at the strength of the earths magnetic field (0.5 Gauss) it
> is around 2100 Hz.
> Gold on the other hand has a frequency of 1 Mhz at 10K Gauss and is subsonic
> at 0.5 Gauss. Thus the spectrometer would have to have a very wide bandwidth
> at very low frequencies in order to display the spectrum for all of the
> elements present.
>
> 2. Pulse Induction Metal detectors are available today which emit a very
> strong, short duration magnetic pulse. This pulse induces eddy currents
> into any conductive metal within the magnetic field. These eddy currents
> effect the decay time of the original power pulse and make the pules
> "longer". This is a very effective technique for finding gold nuggets. It
> uses reasonable amounts of battery power, Is portable and light weight. It
> has the short coming of not being able to discriminate different metal types,
> so it finds all conductive metals.
>
> I use an older type of metal detector, The Gold Bug 2. It finds nuggets OK
> but I sure would like to have a new PI unit.
>
> For more information on PI detectors visit this forum.
> http://www.insidetheweb
> .com/mbs.cgi/mb122618
>
> For more information on magnetometers visit this site.
> http://members.aol.com/phi
> l770/index.html
>
> Sincerely, Phil Barnes
>Comment
Comment