discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrLs

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

JP---

I should add that, as I tried to point out to you, if there is radiation generated by the precipitation, it would be abundant in what was shown in the video.

In other words, if you can't detect it by the means I mentioned, and as shown in the video, then there will not be enough to be detectable in the soil example you gave.

Right?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[J__P]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

JP---

I should add that, as I tried to point out to you, if there is radiation generated by the precipitation, it would be abundant in what was shown in the video.

In other words, if you can't detect it by the means I mentioned, and as shown in the video, then there will not be enough to be detectable in the soil example you gave.

Right?

Ok, then you mean that the any radio emissions that might be detectable coming from the experiment in the beaker shown in the video, would theoretically be detectable from a very few ions slowly precipitating more than 4 inches under the ground.

Next it would be helpful to know what if any radio frequency emissions are being radiated if any, from the source. Depending on the frequency, and nature of transmission to the location where you are detecting it, it could arrive in different strengths, or not at all. For example, if we are talking about a sizable VLF emission, we might be able to detect it with sensitive enough equipment if the background noise is not too high. But what happens when we get into the MHz range? RF propagation is already changing noticably. I would suspect the electrolytes in the ground have a lot to do with attenuation of any RF transmissions including VLF. Which points to a poorer ability to detect anything in field conditions than in the laboratory condition where a beaker is in plain line of sight with only glass and air separating the detecting apparatus from the source of emissions.

I only mentioned an electrical cell to point out where it is a different condition than the purely chemical reaction that has no electrical assistance like buried gold could have from telluric currents passing through it. But detecting during a lightning storm is something nobody can avoid. It happens to every single treasure hunter. These lightning storms are not generally happening exactly where people are hunting, but they are happening all over the world continuously, and are providing the return path for the charges that leak through the air to the ionosphere. These distant lightning discharges are detectable in the same receivers that listen for VLF and ELF noises in the air. The lightning does not need to be anywhere near where you are measuring it. It could be a fine sunny day. But you can continue to pick up the lightning discharge noises as long as there are charges leaking between the ionosphere and the surface of the ground. And these can show as stronger voltage pulses than we see as seismic voltage pulses, depending on where the lightning storm is and how strong it is, and also on the telluric current paths under the ground. I have only touched the surface of geophysical forces that are measureable. The seismic events also register magnetic changes that are not hard to measure with a magnetometer/gradiometer. I could go on with other natural airborne and underground electrical noises. The point is these noises and forces are measurable not only in the air, but also under the ground where the ions are precipitating, even when the events are ocurring far away from the ions. And from what I can see, I am guessing these noises are at least as strong as any noise that may come from an ionic reaction happening above a nugget. Possibly these noises can be exploited to make an ionic reaction visible.

As another interesting diversion into endothermic/exothermic studies, you may be intersted in this assessment: http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/hell.asp


Best wishes,
J_P

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Ok, then you mean that the any radio emissions that might be detectable coming from the experiment in the beaker shown in the video, would theoretically be detectable from a very few ions slowly precipitating more than 4 inches under the ground.

Actually, I meant just the opposite. If there are radio emissions from the neutralization of gold ions, then they would be much, much, more likely to be detectable, and generally identified, by the reaction shown in the video.

Thus, if found there, it may be worthwhile to try to detect the, presumed to be, smaller amounts in applicable soils, especially if you knew generally what you were looking for.

Conversely, if not found in the lab reaction, then either they are too small to detect, or just don't exist. In this case, it would seem futile to spend the time and effort trying to detect, what is expected to be much smaller signals, from soils.

The lightning and earthquake stuff is a different story, altogether.

 

[J__P]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Ok, then you mean that the any radio emissions that might be detectable coming from the experiment in the beaker shown in the video, would theoretically be detectable from a very few ions slowly precipitating more than 4 inches under the ground.

Actually, I meant just the opposite. If there are radio emissions from the neutralization of gold ions, then they would be much, much, more likely to be detectable, and generally identified, by the reaction shown in the video.

Thus, if found there, it may be worthwhile to try to detect the, presumed to be, smaller amounts in applicable soils, especially if you knew generally what you were looking for.

Conversely, if not found in the lab reaction, then either they are too small to detect, or just don't exist. In this case, it would seem futile to spend the time and effort trying to detect, what is expected to be much smaller signals, from soils.

The lightning and earthquake stuff is a different story, altogether.

Hi EE THr,

Ya I think you are right if RF was detectable only from the precipitation alone.
We should be able to detect it from the beaker. Maybe we can with a sensitive enough detector set very close to the beaker. Maybe at a laboratory with shielded rooms and a super expensive spectrum analyzer and small signal amplifiers. Maybe that would give us something to start with to at least know what we are looking for.

My thinking is any RF that comes from the action of precipitation alone is not detectable at long range and probably not at short range either without super-expensive laboratory instruments. I am thinking that if you can detect these ions at all in the field, then their detection depends on the participation of one or more of these concurrent geophysical forces or noises that could be present in the same location.

The presence of thes other forces or noises may be able to act as an amplifyer of sorts which could vary a lot more when buried ions are neutralizing nearby, than they normally do without these ions present. Or possibly the other forces or noises will be inherently more easy to detect when near the ion source than trying to detect the ion source directly.

It seems hard to explain... Maybe an analogy of detecting the current flowing through FET transistor... Suppose what you want to detect is a small movement of current in a wire. But it is too small to measure with your current meter movement. Any attempt to measure it results in shorting any voltage that is driving the current you want to measure. So you send this current to a FET gate where it can actually build up a slight voltage, then you measure the current that changes in the output, which is actually a separate circuit insulated from the current you are trying to measure. The output current just happens to be flowing very close by the input current, and seems to show changes that we can measure which tells us what is happening with the the tiny signal at the input. In some strange way, I am wondering if the natural geological forces could be exploited to behave in a similar way, where they are more observable than trying to measure some tiny ion noise directly.


Best wishes,
J_P

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

JP---

OK. It's just that when you said that you wanted to detect the possible radio emissions which resulted from the ion neutralization, I somehow thought that you meant that you wanted to detect the possible radio emissions which resulted from the ion neutralization. Silly me.

On to the lightning and earthquakes.

One major problem I see is that the initial energy discharge from either lightning or earthquake piezoelectric effect, will overpower any secondary emissions from anything. You would need to have some kind of time delay detection circuit, like the Pulse Induction metal detectors have.

If that is what you are talking about.

 

[J__P]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

JP---

OK. It's just that when you said that you wanted to detect the possible radio emissions which resulted from the ion neutralization, I somehow thought that you meant that you wanted to detect the possible radio emissions which resulted from the ion neutralization. Silly me.

On to the lightning and earthquakes.

One major problem I see is that the initial energy discharge from either lightning or earthquake piezoelectric effect, will overpower any secondary emissions from anything. You would need to have some kind of time delay detection circuit, like the Pulse Induction metal detectors have.

If that is what you are talking about.

Hi EE THr,

You may have understood about radio emissions. I am talking about radio emissions that could result from ions. Only not directly from ions. You are aware there are some natural radio emissions in the air, especially in the VLF/ELF range, as well as some very high frequency EM radiation actually higher than what is considered radio, into light and ex-rays. These emissions happen whether there are a sample of precipitating ions in the ground or not. But they might change as a result of the ions being there. They would not be caused directly by the ions, but the change would be considered to be cause by them if the change does not happen when they are not there. It would not matter if the ions took power from or added power to the natural emissions, or if they simply altered the frequency or modulation. As long as something changes that can be measured, then we can say whatever we measured resulted from the ions.

Here is a controversial example:
There is a man-made magnetic noise signal that penetrates the ground whenever a metal detectorist goes hunting. It is a VLF RF, which is usually thought of as a VLF magnetic field because the coil has a Faraday shield. So the treasure hunter goes along detecting metal things and listening to a returned eddy current signal tell him when he finds some metal. The metal he finds is often on the verge of not being detectable. Then every once in awhile we hear some detectorist report they found some metal thing that was buried a long time that gave them an unusually large signal for the size item they found. Yet after they dig it up, they say it stopped making a loud signal. I have heard a lot of explanations from people who say it was an illusion, and did not happen. And also from people who say they are sure it did.

Just thinking about it, if there was some ionic activity that somehow interacted with other conductive current moving forces in the ground, maybe it is possible there was some mechanism working that caused the larger than average signal to the detector. If this was happening, then it would partially explain why it could stop working after digging the soil and upsetting some ions which may become neutralized in mass at that point to stop whatever else could have been going on. It doesn't explain all the details, so I can't consider it is an answer. But it could be a clue. And I am sure it is controversial, as people seem to have strong opinons about that.

But putting aside any controversies, this is the kind of thing I am wondering if exists in nature. Maybe this example proves to be an unworkable one, but maybe there is another one that does work to show a larger than signal than we would expect to calculate without understanding all the details of what is happening in the process.

After all, when we measure a tiny signal through an amplifier, we say we are measuring the signal from the source, when really we are not. We are measuring battery or another source of power that flows through a power transistor and drives a meter. The signal from the source simply influences the amplifier to give us a much stronger signal from a larger source. This is all I am looking to find a condition that can be exploited like this in a treasure hunting scenario. If it can be found to exist in nature, then a machine can be built to detect the stronger secondary signal from a distance instead of directly measuring the ions.

You may be right about a delay when trying to detect the effects of voltage pulses in the ground. This is in fact a principle used in induced polarization, where the phase is checked after pulsing a high voltage through the ground in order to locate ores. In fact the whole process somewhat resembles a PI metal detector timing method, but without the eddy current sensing. If voltage pulses were used to detect the presence of ions, perhaps they would be seen to cause a large number of ions to suddenly neutralize, which would temporarily upset the equilibrium of the precipitation rate. Maybe the soil will be temporarily depleted of available ions, and maybe it would take a fraction of a second for new to ions to move into place and begin to neutralize at the same rate again (a temporary stalling in the precipitation process). Maybe there is a way to measure something like this, perhaps in combination with the large array of other forces of nature which are also available, such as the 100 volt/meter static field in the air, and telluric currents under the ground. This is only one example. We may have some easier natural forces which are more convenient for this end than what we have been talking about so far.

And I also expect to hear from Mr. Don, who I expect will return sometime soon to proclaim how we don't need to build any machines, because we already have them built into our senses without realizing it. I expect what he has to offer may seem less promising than any far fetched ideas I am thinking about now. Maybe if he can show some examples that are easy for anyone to observe instead of things that nobody can see working except him.


Best wishes,
J_P

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

JP---

Your amplification idea sounds good, if a natural amplifier media can be determined to already exist. Or a synthetic one created.

What easily measurable phenomenon is an indication of a smaller, difficult to measure one?

 

[J__P]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

JP---

Your amplification idea sounds good, if a natural amplifier media can be determined to already exist. Or a synthetic one created.

What easily measurable phenomenon is an indication of a smaller, difficult to measure one?

Hi EE THr,

I don't know. I think this is something that a person would find out with research and spending a lot of time in the field.
It seems like partly a trial and error thing that you might find by accident instead of looking for it. Maybe like the person who invented velcro after watching natural seed pods with curly stickers sticking to his sweater.

Here is one example, not exactly what we are looking for: Lightning tends to strike in some prefered places. It may strike a tree more often than flat ground. if you measure the atmospheric field in the air about 30 feet above flat ground you will find it is in the 1000 volts range. But above a 15 foot tall tree it is in the 500 volt range. So we have a 500 volt difference... not too much considering the total voltage drop between thunder clouds and the ground is hundreds of thousands of volts, and the voltage drop from the ionosphere is millions of volts. Yet a very high voltage lightning bolt will more often choose to strike the tree than another spot you might select on the ground.

That's a simple example where a relatively small variation found in nature can influence a much larger force of nature which is easier for us to observe than observing the smaller voltage change directly. I think this kind of conditon of a big force being influenced by a smaller force exists a lot in nature, maybe more than we know. Maybe there are mechanisms that are not so simple, involving several natural forces which can be enhanced with using man made forces from machines we can design to help find them.


Best wishes,
J_P

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

It could be a man made stimulator, or amplifier, or sensor. Or some combination thereof.

 

[J__P]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

It could be a man made stimulator, or amplifier, or sensor. Or some combination thereof.

Hi EE THr,

Yes, I suppose it could be just as you say.
As long as we are only taking stabs at it, here is something some experimenters have been trying similar to what you are describing:
There is a group of treasure hunter experimenters who have been building VLF transmitter/receiver sets in a single enclosure (or close to it) to survey the ground where they go treasure hunting. These VLF machines resemble the VLF survey equipment that geologists use, except the transmitter is portable and mounted with the receiver so it is easy to carry in one hand. Some of them have reported they can sometimes locate metals with these VLF machines they build. After looking at what they are doing, it seems like their equipment is a cross between a geologist's VLF gear and a VLF metal detector operating in the 50 KHz to 150 KHz range.

Just from what I saw, and the skill level of the experimenters, I would consider any of them lucky to find anything with what they built. But if they are careful about the details of how they build and use their gear, it is possible they can locate something at long range. After all, geologists routinely map out a lot of things harder to detect and deeper under the ground than some treasure hunters would feel like digging.

Looking into the theory of VLF detection, we know it depends on RF penetrating the ground, and recording how much of the VLF is absorbed and/or reflected back to where we sense the RF strength. What the survey crews are actually detecting is the ground conductivity anomalies, as measured by the varying RF absorption they see happening at different locations. Of course, the geologist uses a lot of data he looks up in tables and takes samples to make some sense of the variations he sees, so he will have a good idea if he is seeing granite formations, or ore bodies.

What is different about the experimenters is they don't know much about geology compared to a geologist. Most of them don't even know so much about electronics. But when I see what they are doing, it looks like there are some real science principles at work, rather than a do-nothing box of un-connected wires and switches.

Basically they are operating in a range of VLF which I expect to penetrate the ground up to 5 feet in an average soil condition we might find in a field. This could be double, or much less than 5 feet, depending on the soil, the frequency and the power level they are broadcasting. But I figure a useful depth to be about 3 feet, maybe to 5 feet before the ground penetration drop any signal to unusable in the ambient noise levels. But these experimenters are not using some remote megawatt transmitter hundreds of miles away, or even setting up their own quarter mile diameter loop on the ground to make a uniform VLF transmission. They have a small loop maybe 4-6 inch diameter they carry around pointing horizontally. This is a transmitter sending RF which we expect exhibit near-field wave propagation for a magnetic dipole. Considering the loop is held horizontally, they are broadcasting a ground wave more than anything else in the distance out in front of them where they search for treasure. So we see their circumstance is much different than a geologist who has a relatively uniform field to map a large plot of land.

But this is ok for these hobbyists. They don't need to turn in any VLF survey map for a client. They only need to find some direction where their TX/RX set shows something is buried. Or more precicely, where they see a difference in something about how the VLF is interacting with the ground in front of them. In order to understand how this could happen (how it could happen for a lucky experimenter who took some care in how he went about it), we need to look closer at the details of their hunting scenario.

They are sending a RF from a magnetic dipole which has lobes at the sides, and the null point along the axis of the loop, or directly in front of where they point the loop. These experimenters say they usually hold these loops pointing ahead, but tilted a few degrees down. This sounds similar to searching the ground with a flashlight. You may point it a few degrees down so the light will be illuminate a large ellipse of ground in front of you. And apparently, they scan slowly back and forth as they walk forward, much as you might do while searching with a flashlight. When considering what happens to this "illuminated" area in front with a VLF coil, we expect it to be a dark area where the null point is for the coil. And the strong broadcast areas are to the sides. In order for this scheme to work, they are looking for a negative signal, similar to how you use a radio direction finder to locate a transmitter by finding the weakest signal direction. Looking back at the transmitter loop, we see it is held maybe 4 feet above the ground, which tells us we don't expect to see what looks like ground waves until we move a few feet away to the front and sides to lose the vertical vector influences. Coincidentally, experimenters report very poor pinpointing ability using these loop detectors, which seems understandable to me). So it appears they are operating as radio direction finders to locate some buried stuff in the distance, more than a few feet away. The question comes: how does it work?

We already have a pretty good theory of how it works from the previous discussion. But there are some missing details. For example, how does a buried piece of metal in the distance register a VLF RX signal? There is no eddy current detection happening at more than a few feet, so they must find a different way. Accprding to experimenters who claim to be successfull at sometimes locating metals, they say it took a long time to balance and null their RX coil so the TX (which is broadcasting during a continuous monitoring with the RX) does not interfere and swamp the RX signal. The RX coil took many forms and configurations, and was moved around until a good positioning and circuit tuning allowed them to pick up some signals at a distance. Too bad no tuning details were given beyond that, and that it needs to be tuned in a field away from all metal and power sources.

From this clue, we can speculate they are detecting a signal that returns from the ground in front of them, or they are detecting a the signal that is being sent from the TX coil. Or it could be a combination of both, ie: detecting a small portion of the TX coil plus whatever reflects back from the ground mixed with it.

From this point, we have a few workable possibilities. If the RX is detecting the TX plus a reflected signal, the two signals are nearly in phase, and will look like additive signals. When something comes along to reflect more back to the RX, then we expect the signal strength to increase. Of course electronic methods can be used to make slight variations easy to detect like are used in metal detectors such as IB, BFO, etc. by making an electronic signal strength conversion. And even the small phase shift might be noticable with the suitable electronic method to detect it.

But there is something else going on besides only the reflected RF. A ground wave is vertically polarized because of the conductivity of the ground. So the electric waves are moving horizontally along the ground. Lets look at what happens to this wave when it comes to some ground that has buried metal under it. If the metal has been buried a long time, it will have developed a column of metal ions that form a more conductive pipe from the surface to the metal. This conductive area usually has much more ions in it if a piece of copper or silver is buried instead of gold or platinum. So we expect a stronger anomaly if it is a less noble metal. The ground wave moves along in fairly uniform ground, then comes to a more conductive ground. At that conductive location, we know the ground will absorb more of the RF. So where does this energy go? Does it help ions to neutralize, the same as a jolt of voltage in the ground would do? Does the RF energy get sucked down the cylinder shape and think it found a passive antenna element to help reflect back some of it's energy? Nobody measured this yet to my knowledge to find any answers.

In this diagram, the ground wave is shown on the surface. But at around 100 KHz, the wave does penetrate some depth into the soil where I expect around 25% is absorbed, depending on the conductivity of the soil.



But there is something else to look at. What about the RX coil. Suppose it is watching the power level at the TX coil, and notices when the load increases and decreases in the TX circuit. This could be another way it can tell when the TX is pointed at something that is sucking power. But then rememer, we are talking a negative signal, so we would expect it would find less disturbance when the "treasure" is in front of the detector. I suppose this may be unknown to many experimenters because it is electronically inverted so they don't see that problem, just as our vision is mentally inverted so we don't see the problem of upside-down images.


It could be there is nothing to these hobbyist VLF detectors other than imagination, but I think it is fun to follow their progress, because at least they have circuits that make some sort of sense. Who knows, maybe one of them will get it working well enough to show consistent results.

Best wishes,
J_P

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Hey JP….I perform my version of a double blind test this morning..I did the test three times..The first test was using my right hand to hold the device. The second test was holding the device with my left hand. The results were the same but the device was harder to control with my left. The third test was holding the device with both hands. The results were zero. The device did not swing at all. I know that my right hand is positive and my left hand is a negative. I know that I have over 100 milli volts between my hands..I hope this will help you with some of your thieories..Art

 

[J__P]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Hey JP….I perform my version of a double blind test this morning..I did the test three times..The first test was using my right hand to hold the device. The second test was holding the device with my left hand. The results were the same but the device was harder to control with my left. The third test was holding the device with both hands. The results were zero. The device did not swing at all. I know that my right hand is positive and my left hand is a negative. I know that I have over 100 milli volts between my hands..I hope this will help you with some of your thieories..Art

Hi Art,
What makes you think this information helps?

Best wishes,
J_P

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Hi Art,

What makes you think this information helps?

Are you not on a quest for knowledge ?..Art

 

[J__P]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Hi Art,

What makes you think this information helps?

Are you not on a quest for knowledge ?..Art

Hi Art,
Of course I am.
This is the reason why I asked what makes you think your information about your double blind test helps in this discussion of possible theories that may be applicable to LRLs.
So far I noticed you have not provided any information to answer the questions I asked you. You seem to be coming around here only to antagonize some of your forum rivals and to post information which nobody can figure out how how it applies to detection theory. Unless you intend to show how your recent information is somehow pertinent, I am again wondering what you are doing here.

Are you here to cause disruptions to this topic again?
Or do you plan to provide an answer to my question, or provide some test results for the book-stroking test that Mr. Don asked for?

Best wishes,
J_P

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

No..Just providing information that maybe important to people who are trying to explain how LRL’s work..Art

 

[J__P]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

No..Just providing information that maybe important to people who are trying to explain how LRL’s work..Art

No?
You have no interest in helping with the topic Mr. Don opened?
No book-stroking test results like he requested?
No answers of any kind for how your version of testing helps to explain theories?

Instead you want to post false information for us to read?
I think what you posted is wrong.
I think you posted information that is taken out of context, and cannot be expected to be correct in an outdoor test condition.
I doubt you ever measured the millivolt reading between your hands. I think you are simply taking someone else's word for it, and imagining we might believe you actually know it.

Any person experienced in field testing where they measure small signals outdoors knows you don't find a 100 mv difference between a person's hands. They know you are standing in the middle of a large static electric field and grounded to some degree as well, which causes any voltage to wander all over the place depending on where you stand, what kind of shoes you wear, and what airborne noise happens to come along at the time.

In the proper context of a laboratory where instruments are grounded and shielding is arranged to keep stray electrical noise away, you might find somewhere near the 100 mv you posted "you know" you have in your hands, during your version of a double blind test. And you might not find it in the laboratory.... But I haven't seen it happen when a person is standing in a field with a dowsing rod or LRL in his hand. Especially not when there is power nearby and radio reception within range.

I think you are posting wrong information here,
And I think you are doing it intentionally instead of providing the information that Mr. Don and I asked you for.

I can only speculate why you would do this.
As near as I can guess, you are trying to disrupt the discussion of theories that may be applicable to LRLs.
If I tried to guess why you would want to do that, I might guess you don't like science, and you think it is important to do what you can to make it hard for others to have a discussion about it.

Maybe you would feel more comfortable arguing in other threads where people don't talk much about science or theories that could actually mean something in detection.


Best wishes,
J_P

 

[Rudy(CA)]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Hey JP….I perform my version of a double blind test this morning..I did the test three times..The first test was using my right hand to hold the device. The second test was holding the device with my left hand. The results were the same but the device was harder to control with my left. The third test was holding the device with both hands. The results were zero. The device did not swing at all. I know that my right hand is positive and my left hand is a negative. I know that I have over 100 milli volts between my hands..I hope this will help you with some of your thieories..Art

This proves two things Artie.

1.- You are right handed.

2.- You have absolutely no idea on how to measure a potential gradient across your body, or you have a seriously defective
cardiac pacemaker and should go to the nearest hospital emergency room ASAP!

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

JP---

My only knowledge of geologists using the equipment you mentioned is from a couple of posts on TNet, many months ago. They had receiving rods, that they put into the ground at various places around the survey area, hooked up to measuring receivers. The signal they received was either ELF or VLF I think. They said the government transmitted it, and they had a schedule of their transmit times. I think the guy who posted, also mentioned that they had a means of generating their own signal, also, but it cost more for the customer. He even showed some survey charts. He was saying that they just completed that particular job.

It was, as you said, indicating ground conductivity. This worked to plot the differences, over a large area, and could be used to chart various formations.

There are some THing devices that measure ground conductivity, using DC, already on the market. You have to move the electrodes and form a grid pattern, in order to locate the anomaly, though. And I don't think the distance is that great, anyway.

For a walk-along, long range device, my knee jerk response is some kind of Star Trek scanning sensor. But I think that it would need to sense several types of phenomenon at the same time, and indicate when all the likely indications, of various types, are present at the same time, in the same place.

The major problem is the ground, itself. Unless it can be reliably penetrated to a practical depth for the purpose, a portable TR device won't really be useful.

Even a sub chaser helicopter has to go down and dunk it's sonar head under water for it to work.

I'm not sure that there is enough of any type of indicator, above ground, to be able to sense it from "Long Distance." I think that should be determined first. Then, how long of a distance is required, in order for such a device to be worthwhile to the user? Then it could be known if it is possible to detect whatever it is, at that distance.

If nothing can be found above ground that can be detected at the required distance, then that would leave either ground wave transmitting and sensing with a grid, or some new technology.

 

[J__P]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

JP---

My only knowledge of geologists using the equipment you mentioned is from a couple of posts on TNet, many months ago. They had receiving rods, that they put into the ground at various places around the survey area, hooked up to measuring receivers. The signal they received was either ELF or VLF I think. They said the government transmitted it, and they had a schedule of their transmit times. I think the guy who posted, also mentioned that they had a means of generating their own signal, also, but it cost more for the customer. He even showed some survey charts. He was saying that they just completed that particular job.

It was, as you said, indicating ground conductivity. This worked to plot the differences, over a large area, and could be used to chart various formations.

There are some THing devices that measure ground conductivity, using DC, already on the market. You have to move the electrodes and form a grid pattern, in order to locate the anomaly, though. And I don't think the distance is that great, anyway.

For a walk-along, long range device, my knee jerk response is some kind of Star Trek scanning sensor. But I think that it would need to sense several types of phenomenon at the same time, and indicate when all the likely indications, of various types, are present at the same time, in the same place.

The major problem is the ground, itself. Unless it can be reliably penetrated to a practical depth for the purpose, a portable TR device won't really be useful.

Even a sub chaser helicopter has to go down and dunk it's sonar head under water for it to work.

I'm not sure that there is enough of any type of indicator, above ground, to be able to sense it from "Long Distance." I think that should be determined first. Then, how long of a distance is required, in order for such a device to be worthwhile to the user? Then it could be known if it is possible to detect whatever it is, at that distance.

If nothing can be found above ground that can be detected at the required distance, then that would leave either ground wave transmitting and sensing with a grid, or some new technology.

Hi EE THr,

I have never ceased to be amazed by the knowledge geologists possess. These guys are the kings of knowing how things really work for geotechnical sciences. The geologists I know spend most of their spare time reading and keeping up with cutting edge information about stuff under the dirt. They take their work seriously. The cheapest equipment they buy for field use typically starts at $60,000 and up. Why? For precision. These guys want to be sure they are right first time when they turn in a report with maps that show where minerals can be found, and soil conditions change. I suppose if you really wanted to find buried stuff, you would be wise to become friends with a geologist.

The ground probes you described sound like ground resistivity probes often used in geological surveys. The good ones cost a lot of money, but you can build a cheap version with a car battery and some cables connected to some metal rods that you drive into the ground. Your version may not have the 99.999% accuracy as a geologist's instrument, but hey.... does 90% accuracy work for a treasure hunter or what?
Who needs to spend thousands when the treasure is only a mayonnaise jar fullo coins?
I vote for the Wallmart jumper cables and deep cycle battery.

About Star Trek detectors...
We already have one on the market:
There is the "Treasure Tricorder" taken directly from the Star Trek series with Captain Kirk and Spock, who would invariably determine everything important with his tricorder.
The modern-day version is produced by H3 Tec. The only problem I can see is they cost way too much, and nobody has been able to demonstrate that they have any use in long range detection. Ok, I may be a little wrong... These "Treasure Tricorders" did locate a lot of valuable money from locations all over the world which was transferred to the account of the manufacturer. But this hardly seems like finding buried treasures.

Moving on to important stuff like dirt...
You say "The major problem is the ground, itself. Unless it can be reliably penetrated to a practical depth for the purpose, a portable TR device won't really be useful".

You are correct.
We need to penetrate the ground in order to have a useful device for finding buried metal.
The example I gave is VLF radio transmission.
VLF spans from a few KHz to a few hundred KHz.
We know that in this range of RF, the VLF energy can penetrate the ground at different amounts depending on the power we broadcast at, and the frequency we use within the VLF band. The lower frequencies penetrate the ground farther than the higher frequencies. There are mining sites which use a 5 KHz transmitter to send communication signals down to tunnels that are dug more than a mile deep in the ground. The operators of these mines sometimes complain about problems of getting a good connection to the workers below. The problems usually have something to do with troublesome mineral deposits in the way, or rain cycles and water tables. We can also take note that there are some very low frequency transmitters that are used to communicate with submarines which are traveling deep under the ocean, in places where we expect radio waves don't generally propagate. These examples serve to show that at low frequencies, RF does penetrate the kind of ground that we expect to find in a treasure hunting scenario, and can even penetrate salt water to a considerable depth if we arrange our transmitting equipment appropriately.

As we begin to raise the frequency of our VLF transmitter, we notice the RF does not penetrate the ground so far. By the time we are up to 100 KHz, we see our 100 mw handheld transmitter only penetrates about 20 feet into the ground... (as far as our cousin Jed, the radio engineer with his instruments can determine). And, as soon as cousin Jed goes home, we find we can only detect a depth of maybe 3-5 feet with our cruder detection instruments. Ok... maybe we don't have instruments... maybe they are using some coil we wound and an amplifier with a local oscillator. At least we detected something. And we know the 100 KHz from a TX loop is penetrating the ground.

The rest of the problem is academic. Detect an anomaly from buried metal at a distance from this VLF broadcast. The clues are hidden in previous posts. Maybe we need to think outside the box.


<-- trying to do the Spock Star Trek greeting with 4 fingers split to the sides... but this seems difficult.

Best wishes,
J_P

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

JP---

OK, I'm all ears....