Facts about those Skeptics' reports

[architecad]

Fact 1. VR-800 Report: Addendum

This article shows a report about the VR-800 and the "Geo Surveyor". Both equipment are no longer on the market. However, reading this article I don't find any evidence of some exhausted research conducted by some engineer to confirm some fact. The Skeptics in this forum argue the LRL's user should be accept the Carl's challenge $25K, however in this article there are not any evidence of some research. Should I accept a challenge of $25K for who doesn't conduit a true research as is described in this article? If you read only you can find pure opinion. For example:

Paragraph #7, last sentence state;

"However, considering the paltry transmitter circuitry, I don't believe the signal is detectable beyond a few feet at most."

This is pure opinion, not a fact proved by test, so what is the skeptics position? The Skeptics demand evidence of our finds in front other skeptics but here in this article there are not any kind of evidence that this equipment didn't work. The Author wrote "I don't believe". What does he mean? MFD and LRL don't work because somebody doesn't believe?. Is this the challenge that Skeptics want we take? No way!!. I used the Geo Surveyor for years and I never had complain against to it. Let's take a look the whole article.

by Carl Moreland

Shortly after I posted the VR-800 Report I ran across an interesting equipment review in an older issue of Treasure magazine (June, 1991). The review is on the Dell Geo-Surveyor, another long-range device very similar (if not identical) in design to the VR-800. The major difference apprears to be that the Geo-Surveyor is a 2-element unit (gold & silver only) whereas the VR-800 is a 6-element unit. The description of the Geo-Surveyor is virtually identical to the VR-800, which leads me to believe that it is virtually the same design. Besides a photographed unit that is almost identical to the VR-800, the report claims "the Geo-Surveyor's micro-processor transmits several synchronized, encoded signals simultaneously" and "The Geo-Surveyor comes factory programmed to identify and locate gold or silver, but it can be custom programmed to find more than 58 other elements."

The most enlightening parts of the Geo-Surveyor report were the description of the "Magnetic Wave Guide Receiver" of which I had no other information on, and the instructions on using the transmitter's built-in AQC. In the Geo-Surveyor report, the belt unit is called a "Magna-Wave receiver". According to the report, the Magna-Wave receiver is used to "smooth distortions of the magnetic field, providing more definable responses from the receiver antenna rods." Another claim is made in the report: "The returning signals are received through an analyzer which rejects frequencies other than those that it is programmed to accept." It is not clear from the text if the "analyzer" refers to the Magna-Wave receiver but, since the supposed "returning signals" are received by the L-rods which are plugged into the Magna-Wave receiver, there is nothing else in the receive path to call an "analyzer". Keep in mind that the "Magnetic Wave Guide Receiver" that came with the VR-800 contained nothing but a switch to short the rods together, plus a small permanent magnet glued inside the box, not connected to anything.

It is also interesting to note that what I called the "fine-adjustment knob" on the face of the VR-800 transmitter is called the "anomaly qualifier knob" on the Geo-Surveyor. The subsequent description of it makes it clear that it serves the same function as the "AQC" belt unit that I included in the VR-800 report: "Turning the knob counter-clockwise identifies the quantity [of precious metal] in ounces. Turning it clockwise identifies the quantity in pounds, up to five pounds." It goes on to say that the search should begin with the knob set to zero, and when a target is found "the operator can then adjust a rotating anomaly qualifier knob ... in order to identify the quantity of precious metal present."

As I pointed out in the VR-800 report, the adjustment knob referred to merely changes the output frequency of the transmitter. It was also noted that there is significant overlap in the frequency adjustment ranges. If this knob is used as described in the Geo-Surveyor article, then it would be very likely that the user will adjust the frequency into the range of another element - pretending, of course, that the whole concept of resonant target frequencies is even valid. For example, if searching for silver, the user might turn the knob slightly clockwise and quickly hit the "center frequency" for tin. At this point, theoretically, the transmitter will be sending the frequency for tin and the user will have no idea what he is supposedly receiving. So even if there was a signal line being generated, the whole concept of changing the transmit frequency to determine weight is grossly flawed.

A final omission in the original report was that the "AQC" belt unit has a frequency range of 744-3606 Hz. This range does not correspond well to the transmitted frequencies, which have a range of 275-1169 Hz. If the AQC belt unit is supposed to serve the same purpose as the built-in adjustment knob, then it should be adjustable over the same frequencies. It is inconsistent to have the built-in AQC adjustable over the transmit frequency range, but the add-on AQC adjustable over a different frequency range.

Dell Winders of Dell Systems posted some feedback concerning the original report. He stated that the report was nothing new, as he had been showing people the contents of these units at treasure shows. He later stated that he had no idea what was inside the "VR" units, and went on to say that he was unqualified to discuss the technical aspects of electronics. Mr. Winders has also stated that he has only a 6th grade education.

In the original report I stated that "The transmitter... does not have the capacity to drive the signal to anywhere near the claimed distance of 2 miles." Mr. Winders complained that he never claimed it could detect a target at 2 miles, which is true - the ads only claimed one mile for maximum target distance. However, Mr. Winders has also stated that the signal is transmitted to the target and then returns to the transmitter, which requires a maximum round-trip distance of two miles, hence the transmitter must have enough signal drive for this distance (the same basic principle is true for metal detectors). I should have either included this statement, or used the 1 mile number. Mr. Winders also states that the VR-800 is really only practical in scanning a radius up to 100 yards or so. However, considering the paltry transmitter circuitry, I don't believe the signal is detectable beyond a few feet at most.

Mr. Winders primary response is that he was merely a dealer for another party who manufactured the device, and blamed the other party for all of the advertising claims that were shown to be false. I cannot confirm this because I don't have contact information for the other person - I have asked Mr. Winders and others for a phone number but have been refused. However, in reviewing everything I have, I find only the name "Dell Systems" on the components, the manuals, and the advertisements. In my opinion, it is prudent for anyone who labels something as their own to thoroughly understand what it is and does, and to make sure all claims are factual. Mr. Winders should take full responsibility for the products he sold under his label.

http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/page...0/addendum.dat

Arch

Note: Nothing personal against this article's author, just opinions and evaluations.

[aarthrj3811]

Check this thread
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.p...,291819.0.html

[EE THr]

"Research" has nothing to do with the proof of a valid random double-blind test.

Although having knowledgable people examine the so-called "electronic" circuits of an LRL can determine if the claims of LRL functioning "electronically" could possible be valid, these evaluations are totally separate from acutal scientific testing of the "performance" of these devices.

Either they work, or they don't.

However, nobody knowledgable in electronics has ever concluded that there is any possibility of the LRLs functioning "electronically," and they have all stated that the circuits "do nothing." Even scientific laboratories have stated such. Only the LRL promoters have said that they actually function, yet none of the LRL promoters are knowledgable in electronics, and so cannot give a step-by-step rundown of how each component in these circuits performs in a way which would allow these devices to "Locate" anything at all, and certainly not at "Long Range."

If you would like to send a schematic of an LRL to your local college's science department for evaluation, and then publish their findings on here, you are certainly free to do so.

But your refusal to choose a college that you approve of, for testing of LRLs, or their circuitry, is supporting evidence that the reason you refuse to participate in a random double-blind test is because the LRL devices don't really work.

[aarthrj3811]

SWR
Alternatively, reading this post I don't find any evidence of anything intellectual being posted!
Why not direct your post to the appropriate forum (Geotech) where Electrical Engineer's around the world can get a laugh.
Daaaaa..Thanks SWR...The report was written by the Head Engineer at White's Metal Detectors..

[aarthrj3811]

Sorry.

For the illiterate... this thread was created by a TreasureNet member, and not the head Engineer @ White's

Fact 1. VR-800 Report: Addendum

This article shows a report about the VR-800 and the "Geo Surveyor". Both equipment are no longer on the market. However, reading this article I don't find any evidence of some exhausted research conducted by some engineer to confirm some fact. The Skeptics in this forum argue the LRL's user should be accept the Carl's challenge $25K, however in this article there are not any evidence of some research. Should I accept a challenge of $25K for who doesn't conduit a true research as is described in this article? If you read only you can find pure opinion. For example:

Paragraph #7, last sentence state;

"However, considering the paltry transmitter circuitry, I don't believe the signal is detectable beyond a few feet at most."

This is pure opinion, not a fact proved by test, so what is the skeptics position? The Skeptics demand evidence of our finds in front other skeptics but here in this article there are not any kind of evidence that this equipment didn't work. The Author wrote "I don't believe". What does he mean? MFD and LRL don't work because somebody doesn't believe?. Is this the challenge that Skeptics want we take? No way!!. I used the Geo Surveyor for years and I never had complain against to it. Let's take a look the whole article.

by Carl Moreland

Shortly after I posted the VR-800 Report I ran across an interesting equipment review in an older issue of Treasure magazine (June, 1991). The review is on the Dell Geo-Surveyor, another long-range device very similar (if not identical) in design to the VR-800. The major difference apprears to be that the Geo-Surveyor is a 2-element unit (gold & silver only) whereas the VR-800 is a 6-element unit. The description of the Geo-Surveyor is virtually identical to the VR-800, which leads me to believe that it is virtually the same design. Besides a photographed unit that is almost identical to the VR-800, the report claims "the Geo-Surveyor's micro-processor transmits several synchronized, encoded signals simultaneously" and "The Geo-Surveyor comes factory programmed to identify and locate gold or silver, but it can be custom programmed to find more than 58 other elements."

The most enlightening parts of the Geo-Surveyor report were the description of the "Magnetic Wave Guide Receiver" of which I had no other information on, and the instructions on using the transmitter's built-in AQC. In the Geo-Surveyor report, the belt unit is called a "Magna-Wave receiver". According to the report, the Magna-Wave receiver is used to "smooth distortions of the magnetic field, providing more definable responses from the receiver antenna rods." Another claim is made in the report: "The returning signals are received through an analyzer which rejects frequencies other than those that it is programmed to accept." It is not clear from the text if the "analyzer" refers to the Magna-Wave receiver but, since the supposed "returning signals" are received by the L-rods which are plugged into the Magna-Wave receiver, there is nothing else in the receive path to call an "analyzer". Keep in mind that the "Magnetic Wave Guide Receiver" that came with the VR-800 contained nothing but a switch to short the rods together, plus a small permanent magnet glued inside the box, not connected to anything.

It is also interesting to note that what I called the "fine-adjustment knob" on the face of the VR-800 transmitter is called the "anomaly qualifier knob" on the Geo-Surveyor. The subsequent description of it makes it clear that it serves the same function as the "AQC" belt unit that I included in the VR-800 report: "Turning the knob counter-clockwise identifies the quantity [of precious metal] in ounces. Turning it clockwise identifies the quantity in pounds, up to five pounds." It goes on to say that the search should begin with the knob set to zero, and when a target is found "the operator can then adjust a rotating anomaly qualifier knob ... in order to identify the quantity of precious metal present."

As I pointed out in the VR-800 report, the adjustment knob referred to merely changes the output frequency of the transmitter. It was also noted that there is significant overlap in the frequency adjustment ranges. If this knob is used as described in the Geo-Surveyor article, then it would be very likely that the user will adjust the frequency into the range of another element - pretending, of course, that the whole concept of resonant target frequencies is even valid. For example, if searching for silver, the user might turn the knob slightly clockwise and quickly hit the "center frequency" for tin. At this point, theoretically, the transmitter will be sending the frequency for tin and the user will have no idea what he is supposedly receiving. So even if there was a signal line being generated, the whole concept of changing the transmit frequency to determine weight is grossly flawed.

A final omission in the original report was that the "AQC" belt unit has a frequency range of 744-3606 Hz. This range does not correspond well to the transmitted frequencies, which have a range of 275-1169 Hz. If the AQC belt unit is supposed to serve the same purpose as the built-in adjustment knob, then it should be adjustable over the same frequencies. It is inconsistent to have the built-in AQC adjustable over the transmit frequency range, but the add-on AQC adjustable over a different frequency range.

Dell Winders of Dell Systems posted some feedback concerning the original report. He stated that the report was nothing new, as he had been showing people the contents of these units at treasure shows. He later stated that he had no idea what was inside the "VR" units, and went on to say that he was unqualified to discuss the technical aspects of electronics. Mr. Winders has also stated that he has only a 6th grade education.

In the original report I stated that "The transmitter... does not have the capacity to drive the signal to anywhere near the claimed distance of 2 miles." Mr. Winders complained that he never claimed it could detect a target at 2 miles, which is true - the ads only claimed one mile for maximum target distance. However, Mr. Winders has also stated that the signal is transmitted to the target and then returns to the transmitter, which requires a maximum round-trip distance of two miles, hence the transmitter must have enough signal drive for this distance (the same basic principle is true for metal detectors). I should have either included this statement, or used the 1 mile number. Mr. Winders also states that the VR-800 is really only practical in scanning a radius up to 100 yards or so. However, considering the paltry transmitter circuitry, I don't believe the signal is detectable beyond a few feet at most.

Mr. Winders primary response is that he was merely a dealer for another party who manufactured the device, and blamed the other party for all of the advertising claims that were shown to be false. I cannot confirm this because I don't have contact information for the other person - I have asked Mr. Winders and others for a phone number but have been refused. However, in reviewing everything I have, I find only the name "Dell Systems" on the components, the manuals, and the advertisements. In my opinion, it is prudent for anyone who labels something as their own to thoroughly understand what it is and does, and to make sure all claims are factual. Mr. Winders should take full responsibility for the products he sold under his label.

http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pag....0/addendum.dat

Arch

[EE THr]

Well, as long as you want to talk about reports, how about this one?




This is an interesting Government document, from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service Website, at http://www.ncjrs.gov/, which is mostly about explosives detection equipment, but also mentions LRL Fraud, in the excerpt below, as indicated by the green font color---


"From time to time, there are new devices that enter the market. Most companies make reasonable claims, and their products are based on solid scientific principles. Claims for some other devices may seem unreasonable or may not appear to be based on solid scientific principles. An old truism that continues to offer good advise is “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is not true.” If there are any questions as to the validity of a device, caution should be used and thorough research must be performed before a purchase is made. Money can be wasted and even lives may be risked. Although there may be other types of nonoperational devices around, dowsing devices for explosives detection have emerged during the past couple of years. There is a rather large community of people around the world that believes in dowsing: the ancient practice of using forked sticks, swinging rods, and pendulums to look for underground water and other materials. These people believe that many types of materials can be located using a variety of dowsing methods. Dowsers claim that the dowsing device will respond to any buried anomalies, and years of practice are needed to use the device with discrimination (the ability to cause the device to respond to only those materials being sought). Modern dowsers have been developing various new methods to add discrimination to their devices. These new methods include molecular frequency discrimination (MFD) and harmonic induction discrimination (HID). MFD has taken the form of everything from placing a xerox copy of a Polaroid photograph of the desired material into the handle of the device, to using dowsing rods in conjunction with frequency generation electronics (function generators). None of these attempts to create devices that can detect specific materials such as explosives (or any materials for that matter) have been proven successful in controlled double-blind scientific tests. In fact, all testing of these inventions has shown these devices to perform no better than random chance.

"Mostly these devices are used to locate water and now are used extensively by treasure hunters looking for gold and silver. In recent years some makers of these dowsing devices have attempted to cross over from treasure hunting to the areas of contraband detection, search and rescue, and law enforcement. The Quadro Tracker is one notable example of this cross-over attempt. This device was advertised as being a serious technology with a realistic sounding description of how it worked (close examination showed serious errors in the scientific sounding description). Fortunately, the National Institute of Justice investigated this company and stopped the sale of this device for these purposes, but not before many law enforcement agencies and school districts wasted public funds on the purchase of these devices.

"Things to look for when dealing with “new technologies that may well be a dowsing device are words like molecular frequency discrimination, harmonic induction discrimination, and claims of detecting small objects at large distances. Many of these devices require no power to operate (most real technology requires power). Suspect any device that uses a swinging rod that is held nearly level, pivots freely and “indicates” the material being sought by pointing at it. Any device that uses a pendulum that swings in different shaped paths to indicate its response should also arouse suspicion. Advertisements that feature several testimonials by “satisfied users,” and statements about pending tests by scientific and regulatory agencies (but have just not happened yet) may be indications that the device has not been proven to work. Statements that the device must be held by a human to operate usually indicate dowsing devices. Statements that the device requires extensive training by the factory, the device is difficult to use, and not everyone can use the device, are often made to allow the manufacturer a way of blaming the operator for the device’s failure to work. Another often used diversion is that scientists and engineers cannot understand the operation of the device or the device operates on principles that have been lost or forgotten by the scientific community.

"In general, any legitimate manufacturer of contraband detection equipment will eagerly seek evaluation of their device’s performance by scientific and engineering laboratories. Any doubt that a device is legitimate can quickly be dispelled by making a call to any of the known agencies whose business it is to know about security-related technology."

ref: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178913-2.pdf
Credit: Originally found and posted by SWR.

[aarthrj3811]

Yes this is a report about how to use a test kit to test “explosive” devices...It has been discussed at

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.p...,321542.0.html
Please note who found this report..Art

[EE THr]

Yes this is a report about how to use a test kit to test “explosive” devices...It has been discussed at http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.p...ic,404216.html
Please note who found this report..Art

And it's also about LRL fraud, as noted in the post, and as seen in my excerpt.

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

And it's also about LRL fraud, as noted in the post, and as seen in my excerpt.

Sorry that you did not see fit to read the full discussion about the thing you excerpted..That is your problem..I do not like re-runs
It is a common psychological problem in that insecure people tend to project their personal deficiencies unto another in self defense, they are sure trying to pass theirs lack of knowledge over to you

[EE THr]

~EE~

And it's also about LRL fraud, as noted in the post, and as seen in my excerpt.

Sorry that you did not see fit to read the full discussion about the thing you excerpted..That is your problem..I do not like re-runs
It is a common psychological problem in that insecure people tend to project their personal deficiencies unto another in self defense, they are sure trying to pass theirs lack of knowledge over to you

Wrong again, Art.

In fact, I did read the whole report.

But only part of it pertained to LRLs, so that's the only portion that I excerpted. That doesn't make the LRL portion any less significant. And, after all, I did say it was just an excerpt, at the very beginning. I don't see any problem with that. It is what it says it is.

And speaking of credentials, do you have a degree in psychology, and a license to practice?

Also, I might point out that this is not a psychology forum, so your attempts at amateur psychology (insults) are off-topic, anyway.

[aarthrj3811]

Wrong again, Art.

In fact, I did read the whole report.

But only part of it pertained to LRLs, so that's the only portion that I excerpted. That doesn't make the LRL portion any less significant. And, after all, I did say it was just an excerpt, at the very beginning. I don't see any problem with that. It is what it says it is.

That’s good that you read the entire report of the unsigned document by one of our employees but failed to read the discussion on the subject.. http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.p...,321542.0.html

And speaking of credentials, do you have a degree in psychology, and a license to practice?

I don’t think that I have to answer that

Also, I might point out that this is not a psychology forum, so your attempts at amateur psychology (insults) are off-topic, anyway.

What’s wrong..I’m right?...Art

[EE THr]

Wrong again, Art.

In fact, I did read the whole report.

But only part of it pertained to LRLs, so that's the only portion that I excerpted. That doesn't make the LRL portion any less significant. And, after all, I did say it was just an excerpt, at the very beginning. I don't see any problem with that. It is what it says it is.

That’s good that you read the entire report of the unsigned document by one of our employees but failed to read the discussion on the subject.. http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.p...,321542.0.html

And speaking of credentials, do you have a degree in psychology, and a license to practice?

I don’t think that I have to answer that

Also, I might point out that this is not a psychology forum, so your attempts at amateur psychology (insults) are off-topic, anyway.

What’s wrong..I’m right?...Art

What's wrong, obviously, is your inference that anyone who doesn't "believe" you is crazy.

You really didn't know that?

[fenixdigger]

Wrong again, Art.

In fact, I did read the whole report.

But only part of it pertained to LRLs, so that's the only portion that I excerpted. That doesn't make the LRL portion any less significant. And, after all, I did say it was just an excerpt, at the very beginning. I don't see any problem with that. It is what it says it is.

That’s good that you read the entire report of the unsigned document by one of our employees but failed to read the discussion on the subject.. http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.p...,321542.0.html

And speaking of credentials, do you have a degree in psychology, and a license to practice?

I don’t think that I have to answer that

Also, I might point out that this is not a psychology forum, so your attempts at amateur psychology (insults) are off-topic, anyway.

What’s wrong..I’m right?...Art

Let me get some of this one.
A license gives one the right to TREAT the patient. Most diagnosis is done by the nurse or even the OFFICE
staff with questionnaires. The trick is to add the psychosis's together and come up with an "in depth" assessment. If one is trained in clinical psychiatry assessment is easy. In this forum, several posters are so blatantly afflicted, it becomes a nuisance to everyone.
When something like this is mentioned by 1 or 2 people, it's questionable and may simply be an INSULT. But when a lot of people mention it over and over, the certainty of it being correct is no longer in question and is guaranteed not an insult, but a COMPLAINT.

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

What's wrong, obviously, is your inference that anyone who doesn't "believe" you is crazy.
You really didn't know that?

Did I say anyone was crazy?...Remember..If the shoe fits...Art

[fenixdigger]

Ahh Art; Truer words were never posted. (how'd ya like that little twist?)

[EE THr]

~EE~

What's wrong, obviously, is your inference that anyone who doesn't "believe" you is crazy.
You really didn't know that?

Did I say anyone was crazy?...Remember..If the shoe fits...Art

It's about your cute little psychological quote, that you resort to whenever you have no other answer.

Or is that your answer about yourself?

[EE THr]

In this forum, several posters are so blatantly afflicted, it becomes a nuisance to everyone.
When something like this is mentioned by 1 or 2 people, it's questionable and may simply be an INSULT. But when a lot of people mention it over and over, the certainty of it being correct is no longer in question and is guaranteed not an insult, but a COMPLAINT.

Have you factored your fantasy friends and your imaginary treasure finds into that formula?

[EE THr]

It appears that your attempts to anger those who are knowledgeable in electronics, has only worked in reverse.

[aarthrj3811]

Psycho Babble
Psychobabble (a portmanteau of "psychology" or "psychoanalysis" and "babble") is a form of prose using jargon, buzzwords and highly esoteric language to give an impression of plausibility through mystification, misdirection, and obfuscation. The term implies that the speaker of psychobabble lacks the experience and understanding necessary for proper use of a given psychological term. Frequent usage can associate a clinical word with less meaningful buzzword definitions. Some psychological buzzwords have come into widespread use in business management training, motivational seminars, self-help, folk psychology, and popular psychology. Laypersons may overuse such words in describing life problems as clinical maladies when such nomenclature is not valuable, meaningful or appropriate. Theodore Dalrymple defines the term as "the means by which people talk about themselves without revealing anything".[1]
EE~

It appears that your attempts to anger those who are knowledgeable in electronics, has only worked in reverse.

Yes we have noticed that...Art

[aarthrj3811]

eh? unsigned? It appears to be signed by some very influential folks, with the proper credentials

All I see is a list of names..Who wrote the report?..Art