NON-ELECTRONIC LRL

[TerryC]

sheesk, and to think airports go through ALL THIS TROUBLE of having all of us walk through scanners, x-ray our luggage, take off our shoes, etc.. When in reality, all they have to do is have these "wands" and just wave them at the line of people getting ready to board a plane. You'd find the guns, explosives, etc..... without all the trouble.

Sheesk our airport people are sseeooo naive not to avail themselves of these much simpler faster devices ! Is that right Terry ?

Tom, try this. I did. And see what it'll get ya. By-pass the regular line and try to go through a TSA check in that (pay-to-go-ahead) line. How about sniffer dog, explosive "swipe" test on computer, full body pat down, and personal interview? Come early.... and bring a lunch! ╦╦Ç

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom, try this. I did. And see what it'll get ya. By-pass the regular line and try to go through a TSA check in that (pay-to-go-ahead) line. How about sniffer dog, explosive "swipe" test on computer, full body pat down, and personal interview? Come early.... and bring a lunch! ╦╦Ç

No sniffer dogs needed (think of all the taxpayer money saved on dog food?). No more swipe tests. No more personnel to pat people down ($$ saved on payroll). It's all-so-simple: they just wave the device over crowds of people all-at once.

And in order to verify whether or not it works as well as the old methods, all they need to do is ask the promoters and/or inventors: "Who did you scuba dive with?" "Who was your college buddies that you exchanged mail with ?" Those credential proofs alone stop any further need to scrutinize the devices.

I'll pass this letter on to you guys to sign too, so that it's like a petition. Eh ?

 

[TerryC]

NOTE: I have no Academic credentials to support me, so it makes it easy for those with a formal education to discredit me. I am a Kentucky Hillbilly, with a 6th grade country education. I make no pretense.

For what it is worth, I am privileged to have been friends with Dr. Werner Von Braun, a prominent NASA Scientist We SCUBA dived together on numerous occasions.

Also, Dr. James Stanger, a retired NASA Earth Scientist, was my mentor regarding my experimenting with MFD. We communicated by mail. Dell

I know who Von Braun is! He worked on those Nevada project(s) that culminated with the atom bombs dropped on Japan. So did Einstein. I believe they authored a paper pleading with the U S Government not to drop "the bomb" on Japan as it would cause a chain reaction lighting up all the oxygen in the atmosphere. It didn't. I guess that makes Einstein a "pretend scientist".... eh? ╦╦Ç

 

[TerryC]

NOTE: I have no Academic credentials to support me, so it makes it easy for those with a formal education to discredit, or mock me. I am a Kentucky Hillbilly, with a 6th grade country education. I make no pretense.

For what it is worth some of Academia, has given me respect. I am privileged to have been friends with Dr. Werner Von Braun, a prominent NASA Scientist We SCUBA dived together on numerous occasions.

Also, Dr. James Stanger, a retired NASA Earth Scientist, was my mentor regarding my experimenting with MFD. We communicated regularly by mail. I still have his letters.

Sientist, I consulted with on MFD, at Oak Ridge, were very respectful, and helpful. Dell

Hey, Dell, don't worry 'bout it. I'm a high school drop out. I'm an NASDS and NAUI certified diver since '72. I dove with some of the Mel Fisher group until they caught up to me and said,... "Get out and don't come back!" ╦╦Ç

 

[Carl-NC]

May I present the 2004 version of the same report, by the same third party "experts" who did the testing in the original, again paid for with DoJ funds.......but with substantial changes to verbiage:

Dit, this is not a revision of 100-99, rather an entirely different report. It's a survey of technologies and has no official "NIJ number", whereas 100-99 is an official NIJ selection guide. It doesn't appear that 100-99 has ever been revised as they typically would give it a revision number. For example, in designing security detectors I regularly use NIJ 0601.02; the ".02" means revision 2.

 

[Ditlihi]

Dit, this is not a revision of 100-99, rather an entirely different report. It's a survey of technologies and has no official "NIJ number", whereas 100-99 is an official NIJ selection guide. It doesn't appear that 100-99 has ever been revised as they typically would give it a revision number. For example, in designing security detectors I regularly use NIJ 0601.02; the ".02" means revision 2.

Of course not, Mr. NC, I never said it was. It is the revised edition of the report that the 100-99 was based upon. Perhaps Reading Comprehension should be added to the curriculum for electronics engineers as well?

The NIJ 100-99 was based on the original report compiled by these same "experts". This Revised Final Report was never published by the NIJ/DoJ.

Curious, eh?

Of course, they made sure to include the standard boilerplate disclaimers, insuring that neither the NIJ/DoJ, nor associated agencies, including the U.S. Government, could be held accountable.....


This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

NCJ
The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center is supported by Cooperative Agreement #96—MU—MU—K011 awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Analyses of test results do not represent product approval or endorsement by the National Institute of Justice, the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce; or Aspen System Corporation. Points of view or opinions contained within this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and Office for Victims of Crime.

NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by tradename, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors.



Of course, this might help dispel any confusion you may be experiencing....


This work was supported by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) through the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC), Rocky Mountain Region, which is located at the University of Denver in Denver, Colorado. The authors extend special thanks to Chris Tillery of NIJ, and to James Keller and Donald New of the NLECTC for their advice and support.

This document is an updated version of a document originally published in 1998. The objective of the original document was to help the law enforcement community understand the many options in commercially available explosives detection methods and technologies. In the intervening six years, the explosives detection field has seen enormous growth, fueled by the threat of terrorism and the emphasis on homeland security. Since the document was originally published, some of the commercial companies no longer exist, new companies have entered the field, product lines have changed, and technology has advanced.


All from the same document I submitted for your perusal, tu entiendes?

Sprinkles, anyone?

 

[Carl-NC]

Of course not, Mr. NC, I never said it was.

Well, what you said was, "May I present the 2004 version of the same report..." which certainly sounds as if you are claiming it to be a revision of 100-99.

If you read 100-99, and read 208861, they are not at all the same, even in the least. They have the similar topics (explosives detection) but are otherwise entirely different.

100-99 is an official NIJ document; I see no precedence for it; it is still in effect and has not been replaced with anything. 208861 is an "FYI" document, and appears to be an update of a previous (1998) FYI document. I'm not sure what you find wrong with this.

The NIJ 100-99 was based on the original report compiled by these same "experts". This Revised Final Report was never published by the NIJ/DoJ.

I think you've misread something along the way. What original report? What revised final report?

In any case, both documents include warnings against fraudulent claims and/or bogus explosives detectors. Did you find that unethical?

 

[TerryC]

Dit, this is not a revision of 100-99, rather an entirely different report. It's a survey of technologies and has no official "NIJ number", whereas 100-99 is an official NIJ selection guide. It doesn't appear that 100-99 has ever been revised as they typically would give it a revision number. For example, in designing security detectors I regularly use NIJ 0601.02; the ".02" means revision 2.

As in ..... NIJ Standard-0601.02. Supersedes NIJ Standard-0601.01 ╦╦Ç

 

[Ditlihi]

You are, as always, free to spin it in any way you choose, Gentlemen.

It does not change the writing on the wall.

Good day and Good luck to you.


Best Wishes,

Dit

 

[Ditlihi]

And before I forget, Thank You Mr. Winders....for a VERY interesting post.

I'm very much looking forward to learning more about your device.

Let's bump it, shall we?

View attachment 1438786

NOT FOR SALE
X-SCAN (Experimental) Remote sensing, multi discriminating Long Range Locator (LRL)prototype, with Laser attachment and wireless" Weight Chek"

100% Pure Physics No batteries, No wires, No electronics

Hand held, lightweight, highly directional, and non visual. You actually "Feel" when the X-Scan locks on the " Field" of a discriminated target, even blindfolded.

Range: Up to 60 + meters

Depth: X-Scan does not measure target depth It detects the emamating "Field" of a target above the ground, or water surface. The target can be at any depth as long as the Emanating "Field" is not blocked and rises to and above the surface. The "Field" of a freshly buried target on the surface, or a couple of inches in depth can usually be detected immediately. A target buried 1 foot in depth may take up to a week for the "Field" to reach the surface and be detectable. Deeper buried targets take much longer to be detectable. Weeks, months, or years, depending on the depth, soil, and atmospheric conditions. Both MFD and HID discriminating LRL's are applications to the same physics and subject to the same limitations whether they are electronic, or non-electronic.

The deepest I have detected with the X-Scan, or MFD devices, and recorded with electronic Geophysical instruments is a Silver Vein, 20 meters below the ground surface.
There are a couple of simple methods to determine the approximate target depth that can be learned.

Simple, Easy to use, hand held, light weight, highly directional, multi target element discrimination. It works according to a proven theory of MAGNETIC RESONANCE (MR) and HARMONIC INDUCTION DISCRIMINATION (HID)

X-SCAN, prototypes are nothing new. I have been experimenting, conducting scientific double blind tests, and field tests with this concept for more than 10 years. I placed the first Frequency Discriminating LRL (MFD) concept on the market in 1986 after 6 years of experimenting, testing, and personal use. There are now manufacturers of this proven basic concept (with Treasure finds) throughout the world, so I have a precedented comparison to guide me. A few Treasure Hunters have purchased my earlier X-Scan, prototypes to conduct their own experiments and provided me their personal feedback and suggestions. Their feedback has proven to be very beneficial.

Vindictive critics have attacked me viciously for the past 27 years with determined effort to put me out of business, ruin a lifelong reputation of honesty, and silence my voice. This post may give a few cause to renew their efforts. So be it.

Admittedly, in my own mind, I am amazed and logically what myself, and others have experienced with the multi-element Discrimination abilities of the X-Scan concept do not seem possible. For example. detecting and tracing buried PVC water pipe, or discriminating between the ink and dyes of modern US currency, and 1800's vintage Confederate currency, from a distance. Because of my own skepticism of this possibility I don't intend to make any advertising claims of the X-Scan's abilities, if any, but I will post in the future what appears to be happening.

It is my strong belief that with the addition of electronics and imaging software this concept will be the future of all Geophysical instruments

X-SCAN, Explanation (photo)
The Black object in the photo is an attachable Laser Pointer. (optional) It serves to point a Red beam pointing to within 5 inches of the target
It also appears that it may act as a carrier wave and better defines the target

The module near the handle is the Resonance chamber. Samples of the searched for target is placed in this chamber. Unlike electronic Frequency Discrimination (MFD) that only discriminates onr element at a time, HID appears to have the ability to detect and discriminate to specific combined elements that may be contained in a target. For example, Pharmaceuticals.

The White box pictured below the X-Scan, is the "WEIGHT CHEK". It doesn't actually measure the weight of the target, but serves to help measure the volume of the emanating magnetic field that surrounds the target and can be nulled out in increments of volume with the dial. By comparing with an object of known weight, the weight of the unseen target can be estimated. This is an extremely helpful tool in the field when analyzing the potential of a target and eliminating digging unnecessary holes. It has been used for years with the PRO-4 model, and by Dowsers, which required a connecting wire from the L-Rods to the WC. It would remotely null out up to 5 lbs, of solid target weight, or up to 2 ounces of Micron particles, sulphide and oxidation which resonates strongly.
The WC, I am working on now requires no batteries or attached wires and the present model nulls out by volume, up to 20 lbs of solid target weight, and about 2 ounces of Micron particles, Sulphide, or Oxidation.

Thanks for reading. Dell

 

[Dell Winders]

WHERE IS THE CRIME? What did I do wrong?

I merely posted an article I wrote depicting a device I have been experimenting with, and aiding a researcher by posting a DOJ article he was looking for.

The subject that appears to being discussed here is the use of devices being sold for the detection of explosives, using the descriptive terminology "Molecular Frequency Discrimination (MFD), and Harmonic Induction Discrimination (HID) WHY?

Will the Skeptic/Critics, or anyone , show me an explosive detection device that has been on the market, or is on the market, that claims the use of MFD, or HID technology?

Since these terminologies were originated, and used, and promoted by Dell Winders, Dell Systems Omnitron, as a descriptive term for my products, and I don't manufacture explosive detection devices, and never have, Where is the crime? Why is there even a discussion?

It seems to me like you are allowing yourself to be deceived by a DOJ article written by a vindictive author, and copied to a DOJ article. Unless there is some evidence against me, I would contend the DOJ owes apologies for their continual deception. Dell

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

There is no crime Dell.

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

 

[Carl-NC]

Will the Skeptic/Critics, or anyone , show me an explosive detection device that has been on the market, or is on the market, that claims the use of MFD, or HID technology?

Unless there is some evidence against me, I would contend the DOJ owes apologies for their continual deception.

Did you read the NIJ paper? Does it say what you think it says?

 

[Ditlihi]

Oh darn, one more teensy weensy little bit before I leave.....

Title: Guide for the Selection of Commercial Explosives Detection Systems for Law Enforcement Applications: NIJ Guide 100-99

NCJ Number: 178913

Date Published: December 1999

Author(s): Charles L. Rhykerd, David W. Hannum, Dale W. Murray, John E. Parmeter

Document Type: NIJ Guide


Annotation: This document presents information for use by police agencies in selecting explosives detection techniques and equipment for different applications, based on research conducted by the Office of Law Enforcement Standards of the National Institute of Standards and Technology under NIJ sponsorship.


Abstract: The research included a market survey of all trace and x-ray-based commercial detection systems known to the authors as of October 1998, including company contact information and data on each system's cost, size, and uses. The survey focused on portability, the type of item being screened, the cost range, and the throughput rate. The report also includes information on some additional novel detection technologies and on standard techniques such as canine and physical search. Brief technical discussions are presented that consider the principles of operation of the various technologies as well. These include suggested technologies for portable, semi-portable, and fixed-site applications; the desirable characteristics for different types of explosives detection equipment for police work; and the calibration of explosives detection systems. A protocol is also presented for the evaluation of commercial trace detection systems. Readers are warned not to buy bogus explosives detection equipment. They are advised to determine their intended applications, consult the document's tables related to systems for each level of portability, examine choices the table presents for potential systems for each situation, and contact the vendor or the document authors for additional information. It concludes by noting that explosives detection technologies are constantly being improved and expanded. Therefore, it is important to consult with product vendors and outside experts before making a major procurement decision. Tables; photographs; and appended glossary, discussion of the nature and effects of different types of explosives, and list of 62 suggested reading.


NIJ Guide 100-99. - Check √

Date published. - Check √

Authors. - Check √

Based on research performed by same authors in 1998. - Check √

Chocolate Sprinkles. - Check √√√√√


And now, Mr. NC, Mr. inCA, and Mr. ╦╦Ç ( The LEO cum laude, turned NASA Scientist; formerly known as TerryC ).....I must beg your pardon, as all this √ing has resulted in a broken nail and I must rush off to my nail salon for a repair. Ah, the hazards of field duty.

As always....

Best Wishes,

Dit

 

[Carl-NC]

Dit, you continue to look for a scandal where no scandal exists. The authors wrote what they wrote, there's no secret missing documents, or nefarious revisions to cover up misdeeds. Everything is there for anyone to read it, all at face value.

You did prompt me to revisit this topic and refresh my interest. I'm in the process of writing a book on dowsing/LRLs, a significant expansion of both the chapter I removed from ITMD (and not for nefarious reasons, I should note) and all the material and reports I've written over the years. I had intended to include a passing mention of the expansion of dowsing into drug & explosives detection, but I've now decided it really needs more than a passing mention.

 

[Ditlihi]

Well, I'm happy to see we can agree on one thing, at least.

The Authors wrote what they wrote.

And thank you for the heads up ( shameless plug that it was ) on your upcoming book. I look forward to reviewing it in depth.


Would it be too forward of me to request an inscribed copy when it reaches the shelves?

 

[TerryC]

WHERE IS THE CRIME? What did I do wrong?

I merely posted an article I wrote depicting a device I have been experimenting with, and aiding a researcher by posting a DOJ article he was looking for.

The subject that appears to being discussed here is the use of devices being sold for the detection of explosives, using the descriptive terminology "Molecular Frequency Discrimination (MFD), and Harmonic Induction Discrimination (HID) WHY?

Will the Skeptic/Critics, or anyone , show me an explosive detection device that has been on the market, or is on the market, that claims the use of MFD, or HID technology?

Since these terminologies were originated, and used, and promoted by Dell Winders, Dell Systems Omnitron, as a descriptive term for my products, and I don't manufacture explosive detection devices, and never have, Where is the crime? Why is there even a discussion?

It seems to me like you are allowing yourself to be deceived by a DOJ article written by a vindictive author, and copied to a DOJ article. Unless there is some evidence against me, I would contend the DOJ owes apologies for their continual deception. Dell

Deception? Where is the deception? "these terminologies were originated, and used, and promoted by Dell Winders..... descriptive term for my products" Molecular frequency discrimination and Harmonic Induction Description are terms invented by you to describe your products but you've NEVER, in the many years you promoted your products using these terms ever defined WHAT these terms mean. There is NO scientific definition of these terms. THAT is the deception. ╦╦Ç

 

[TerryC]

Oh darn, one more teensy weensy little bit before I leave.....

Title: Guide for the Selection of Commercial Explosives Detection Systems for Law Enforcement Applications: NIJ Guide 100-99

NCJ Number: 178913

Date Published: December 1999

Author(s): Charles L. Rhykerd, David W. Hannum, Dale W. Murray, John E. Parmeter

Document Type: NIJ Guide


Annotation: This document presents information for use by police agencies in selecting explosives detection techniques and equipment for different applications, based on research conducted by the Office of Law Enforcement Standards of the National Institute of Standards and Technology under NIJ sponsorship.


Abstract: The research included a market survey of all trace and x-ray-based commercial detection systems known to the authors as of October 1998, including company contact information and data on each system's cost, size, and uses. The survey focused on portability, the type of item being screened, the cost range, and the throughput rate. The report also includes information on some additional novel detection technologies and on standard techniques such as canine and physical search. Brief technical discussions are presented that consider the principles of operation of the various technologies as well. These include suggested technologies for portable, semi-portable, and fixed-site applications; the desirable characteristics for different types of explosives detection equipment for police work; and the calibration of explosives detection systems. A protocol is also presented for the evaluation of commercial trace detection systems. Readers are warned not to buy bogus explosives detection equipment. They are advised to determine their intended applications, consult the document's tables related to systems for each level of portability, examine choices the table presents for potential systems for each situation, and contact the vendor or the document authors for additional information. It concludes by noting that explosives detection technologies are constantly being improved and expanded. Therefore, it is important to consult with product vendors and outside experts before making a major procurement decision. Tables; photographs; and appended glossary, discussion of the nature and effects of different types of explosives, and list of 62 suggested reading.


NIJ Guide 100-99. - Check √

Date published. - Check √

Authors. - Check √

Based on research performed by same authors in 1998. - Check √

Chocolate Sprinkles. - Check √√√√√


And now, Mr. NC, Mr. inCA, and Mr. ╦╦Ç ( The LEO cum laude, turned NASA Scientist; formerly known as TerryC ).....I must beg your pardon, as all this √ing has resulted in a broken nail and I must rush off to my nail salon for a repair. Ah, the hazards of field duty.

As always....

Best Wishes,

Dit

Très bien mon ami! ╦╦Ç

 

[TerryC]

Dit, you forgot highly decorated combat Marine. Kinda proud of that. ╦╦Ç

 

[Ditlihi]

Dit, you forgot highly decorated combat Marine. Kinda proud of that. ╦╦Ç

I'll be happy to add that to your title, for the attorneys filing the defamation lawsuit.