NON-ELECTRONIC LRL

[Tom_in_CA]

.... term Harmonic Induction Discrimination, he mentions, there seems to be NO mention of that phrase in scientific circles....

Terry, that's because this is so ground-breaking, that it's simply not in the common lexicon yet. Give it time. Also: Such that the term might be explaining an observed RESULT. Not a CAUSE. So that, eventually, the science of HOW it works, will un-ravel someday.

In the same way we once didn't know how lightening storms worked. Science, at one time, couldn't explain how the science of that worked. But did that mean lightening didn't occur ? Of course not. In the same way my wife probably can't tell you about pistons, combustion, etc... that her car relies on. Yet she knows what it does when she puts gas in the tank and steps on the accelerator. So too could people like Dell be referring to a RESULT they view. And give it the best description based on tests-to-date, figuring links to things like "sound waves", must/might be involved.

Have I done a fair job at defending Dell ?

The x-scan has never been for sale? Check out post # 35. His post (35) seems to be on just the x-scan ....

As for "sales": Perhaps there is no sale of this particular unit. But doesn't a good sales person know that if you have a "coming soon" model, that that propels sells of current units, or hypes the soon-to-be-sales later ? This is why, for example, auto makers will start advertising WAY IN ADVANCE of a release. To "amp up" the "must have" psyche Not faulting Dell for this, but ... just clarifying that the fact that (maybe) there is seemingly no financial motive at present... .A) doesn't mean that such a motive isn't there for the long run, and B) doesn't absolve the unit under discussion from scrutiny.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Ditlihi]

The x-scan has never been for sale? Check out post # 35. His post (35) seems to be on just the x-scan. If his mention of "prototypes" means more than one LRL, then my lumping of other LRLs "in toto" is indeed relevant. Might I also add that if his products are based on the "scientific" term Harmonic Induction Discrimination, he mentions, there seems to be NO mention of that phrase in scientific circles. I asked him to clarify the phrase yet he seems to be refusing to answer, as he has been refusing to answer how his product works even after YEARS of experimenting. ╦╦Ç

Post #35 is simply a quote, or bump, of the initial title post for this thread. Nothing new here, no additional claims.

I see his reference to the term Harmonic Induction Discrimination, and the mention of prototypes. You are correct, he doesn't mention any theory in association with the term, nor does he state it is a proven theory either ( although he does state that Magnetic Resonance is ). Since I see no claim that HID is a proven theory, your point in that respect is moot.

In regards to his mention of prototypes, plural. In case you're unfamiliar with the term "prototype", it is a preliminary model of something, a sample, from which other forms are developed. Preliminary/develope = experimental. We've already established the device as experimental, so this line of reasoning is moot as well. I stand by my statement that " LRLs, in Toto " has no relevance. I still see no mention of his intent to mass produce and market the device.

Next?

 

[Ditlihi]

Terry, that's because this is so ground-breaking, that it's simply not in the common lexicon yet. Give it time. Also: Such that the term might be explaining an observed RESULT. Not a CAUSE. So that, eventually, the science of HOW it works, will un-ravel someday.

In the same way we once didn't know how lightening storms worked. Science, at one time, couldn't explain how the science of that worked. But did that mean lightening didn't occur ? Of course not. In the same way my wife probably can't tell you about pistons, combustion, etc... that her car relies on. Yet she knows what it does when she puts gas in the tank and steps on the accelerator. So too could people like Dell be referring to a RESULT they view. And give it the best description based on tests-to-date, figuring links to things like "sound waves", must/might be involved.

Have I done a fair job at defending Dell ?




As for "sales": Perhaps there is no sale of this particular unit. But doesn't a good sales person know that if you have a "coming soon" model, that that propels sells of current units, or hypes the soon-to-be-sales later ? This is why, for example, auto makers will start advertising WAY IN ADVANCE of a release. To "amp up" the "must have" psyche Not faulting Dell for this, but ... just clarifying that the fact that (maybe) there is seemingly no financial motive at present... .A) doesn't mean that such a motive isn't there for the long run, and B) doesn't absolve the unit under discussion from scrutiny.

Are you now claiming to be psychic, Tom, able to foretell the future?

You do know what they say regarding extraordinary claims, don't you?

 

[Ditlihi]

I have a question for you, Gentlemen.

These so-called fraudulent devices you mention. Is it illegal to own/possess one?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... Is it illegal to own/possess one?

Of course not. People can buy anything they want to. So I don't know the purpose of this question.

 

[Ditlihi]

Of course not. People can buy anything they want to. So I don't know the purpose of this question.

What? People can buy those devices the DoJ have determined to be fraudulent?

 

[Carl-NC]

For those who insist they want an LRL, I heartily recommend they buy the most expensive one they can possibly get. Borrow from family & friends, clean out the IRA, get an equity loan, whatever it takes. The more expensive the education, the more likely it'll be remembered.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

What? People can buy those devices the DoJ have determined to be fraudulent?

Correct. People can buy whatever they want.

If uncle sam (perhaps the DoJ study that Terry was referring to) can decide that a device doesn't find landmines , or sniff out drugs or explosives and airport checkpoints, for example. In which case it's perhaps lableled "fraudulent". Un-founded, or whatever.

But sure, people buy snake-oil silly things that have no basis in science all the time. I've got some magic beans you're welcome to buy, for instance.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... The more expensive the education, the more likely it'll be remembered.

On the contrary: The more expensive the device, the more likely it will be to find the bigger/deeper treasures.

I mean, c'mon Carl: What would you rather detect a virgin ghost town with: A bounty hunter radio shack cheapie detector ? Or a bells-&-whistles top of the line detector ? OF COURSE the better detector finds more goodies. Tsk tsk. So too is it with LRL's. And the added expense is simply off-set by the more goodies $$ at the end of the day.

I would also add that your comments mean that you have "feelings of inferiority" (post #41). And that you are just into "ridicule" and "bullying". As soon as you have something substantive to add, feel free.

 

[Ditlihi]

For those who insist they want an LRL, I heartily recommend they buy the most expensive one they can possibly get. Borrow from family & friends, clean out the IRA, get an equity loan, whatever it takes. The more expensive the education, the more likely it'll be remembered.

Thank you, Mr. NC. I find myself in agreement.

The same for overpriced metal detectors.

 

[Ditlihi]

On the contrary: The more expensive the device, the more likely it will be to find the bigger/deeper treasures.

I mean, c'mon Carl: What would you rather detect a virgin ghost town with: A bounty hunter radio shack cheapie detector ? Or a bells-&-whistles top of the line detector ? OF COURSE the better detector finds more goodies. Tsk tsk. So too is it with LRL's. And the added expense is simply off-set by the more goodies $$ at the end of the day.

I've heard it said that holds true for comedy schools as well.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... The same for overpriced metal detectors.

Right. It doesn't mean detectors don't work. Simply because some are more expensive than others. There's just a sliding scale of performance: The more you spend, the better machine you'll probably get. Like cars, detectors, LRL's, stereos, etc... Eh ?

 

[Ditlihi]

Right. It doesn't mean detectors don't work. Simply because some are more expensive than others. There's just a sliding scale of performance: The more you spend, the better machine you'll probably get. Like cars, detectors, LRL's, stereos, etc... Eh ?

Sure, Tom.

 

[Carl-NC]

The same for overpriced metal detectors.

Some are overpriced, some are not. But it's sure hard to find one that fundamentally won't detect metal.

 

[Ditlihi]

Ahh....now that we have all the back slapping out of the way....

It must be terribly frustrating when you're all ready to save the world from the monsters under the bed, only to find out there isn't one.

Good night, Gentlemen.

 

[TerryC]

Post #35 is simply a quote, or bump, of the initial title post for this thread. Nothing new here, no additional claims.

I see his reference to the term Harmonic Induction Discrimination, and the mention of prototypes. You are correct, he doesn't mention any theory in association with the term, nor does he state it is a proven theory either ( although he does state that Magnetic Resonance is ). Since I see no claim that HID is a proven theory, your point in that respect is moot.

In regards to his mention of prototypes, plural. In case you're unfamiliar with the term "prototype", it is a preliminary model of something, a sample, from which other forms are developed. Preliminary/develope = experimental. We've already established the device as experimental, so this line of reasoning is moot as well. I stand by my statement that " LRLs, in Toto " has no relevance. I still see no mention of his intent to mass produce and market the device.

Next?

Portions of post # 1... It works according to a proven theory of MAGNETIC RESONANCE (MR) and HARMONIC INDUCTION DISCRIMINATION (HID)
I placed the first Frequency Discriminating LRL (MFD) concept on the market in 1986
A few Treasure Hunters have purchased my earlier X-Scan
Sure looks to me like he wrote HID is a proven theory, although it appears that he is the only one that has proven the theory. A theory is no longer a theory if it is proven. The phrase is double speak. Also looks like he has sold his product(s) at one time. He says so. Ok, Dit, why not just ASK him if he has ever sold the x=scan? Ask him to define HID. It is a phrase that appears to have been invented by him for his product(s). Nothing else. As far as the DoJ paper, still trying to re-find it. Are the LRLs frauds? Is a Ouija board a fraud? It is my opinion that they are but, what the Hell, if it makes you feel good, go for it! ╦╦Ç

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...save the world from the monsters under the bed, only to find out there isn't one.....

The "monster" you are making an allegory to, is : "Whether or not LRL's work". Right ? And if they work (ie.: there is no "monster" to "warn" people about), then there's nothing to save (warn) people about. Right ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... proven theory,...

Terry terry terry, you are getting much-too caught up in semantics. The thing that is "proven" is the RESULTS that he observed. Hey, it's hard to argue with the thing when it pointed to a gold test object off-yonder. Thus THAT is the part that is "proven". And "Theory" IN ITSELF denotes implicitly that it's ....... well *theory*. And here is the dictionary definition of that:

"..... a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

Hence Dell could be observing a repeatable (hence proven) exercise result. And posting his "theory". Why must you split hairs ? Is it your "inferiority complex" ? Your desire to ridicule, mock, and bully ?

 

[TerryC]

Terry terry terry, you are getting much-too caught up in semantics. The thing that is "proven" is the RESULTS that he observed. Hey, it's hard to argue with the thing when it pointed to a gold test object off-yonder. Thus THAT is the part that is "proven". And "Theory" IN ITSELF denotes implicitly that it's ....... well *theory*. And here is the dictionary definition of that:

"..... a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

Hence Dell could be observing a repeatable (hence proven) exercise result. And posting his "theory". Why must you split hairs ? Is it your "inferiority complex" ? Your desire to ridicule, mock, and bully ?

I'm sorry, again, Tom. I TOLD you this stuff is making me dizzy..... downright WHACKO now! May I add that you must prove to me that you have EVER split hairs. ╦╦Ç

 

[Dell Winders]

When this article first appeared it specifically included my name, and products in one of many attempts to ruin my honest reputation and defame me. My MFD products did not detect explosives, but I can say that tests with the X-Scan (HID) prototypes have shown me this is possible.

My name was later deleted from the DOJ article. The author, a pretend scientist, has since deceased. Dell

DOJ ARTICLE: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/178913.htm Pages 71-72

7. WARNING: DO NOT BUY BOGUS EXPLOSIVES DETECTION EQUIPMENT 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 Poloroid 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.