EE THr
Silver Member
LRL stands for "Long Range Locator."
Why do LRL users and advocates use that particular term, rather than "Long Range Metal Detector"? I mean, they are supposed to detect gold and silver, and other metals, so why not simply call them metal detectors? Maybe someone who knows the answer to that will post it.
There are different types of LRLs, which are supposed to work on different principles. Some have a swivel pointer, and are supposed to point in the direction of gold or silver. Others are supposed to emit a radio signal, and then dowsing rods are used to follow that signal to the gold. Others are said to detect ions, and thus direct the user to gold.
The use of LRLs is sometimes said to depend on one's ability to use dowsing rods. Other times it is said that no dowsing ability is needed. And yet other times it is claimed that in order to use one, a person must have, or develop, certain "sensitivity" which is "kind of like dowsing, but it's not."
When attempts to explain exactly why LRLs "work," there has never been any real Scientific principles used. But rather some key electronics and physics terms, plus some buzz words, are pulled from actual known principles, then scrambled up into incomprehensible pseudoscience mumbo-jumbo. But, totally disregarding any necessity to explain how they supposedly work, the most important thing is, naturally, whether they really do work.
In reality, many things which are will known by all, to actually work, have defied full explanations. But, practically speaking, if something works, it works, and when something is proved to the World to work, then no explanation of how or why is necessary, in order for it to be accepted as really working. So an explanation of how or why LRLs work is really secondary.
The primary question, for solving the controversy of whether LRLs work or not, then, is actual, real, Scientific proof that they really work. This makes merely claiming they work, or relating stories of them working, or explanations of how they work, unacceptable as "proof."
That leaves the question of, "What is acceptable proof"? The answer, in such a debated issue, must be: Absolute, repeatable, Scientific proof. To qualify for this proof, the testing must be fairly done or administered by, unbiased, Science professionals.
Many LRL advocates have stated, from time-to-time, that not all LRLs work, or at least some don't work as well as others. Some LRL advocates have even said that most LRLs are fakes, and only certain ones really work.
Logic, and simple common sense, indicates that if an LRL manufacturer had a device which actually did work, they would jump at the chance to have their device tested by the very best methods! That is a basic, un-debatable truth of nature. Any business tries to promote their products in the best possible manner affordable. It would be very cost effective to have a product proven-out by real, Scientific testing. There are many ways to do this in an affordable manner! However, I don't know of any who have. If someone knows of an LRL maker who has had their equipment tested in a random double-blind test, professionally administered by a recognized scientific organization, please post the documents of the test results.
It is also widely known that scam artists make lots of claims of large and wonderful benefits of their schemes, but absolutely don't like to be asked for proof. And adamantly refuse to try and provide any real proof at all. They will, in fact, make various and voluminous excuses for not providing adequate proof. "Coincidentally," this appears to be exactly the same behavior and response which all LRL makers and advocates exhibit! If anyone knows of any behavior by them, other than this, please post the documents showing it.
Surely this is not too much to ask.
Obviously, without solid, realistic, answers to these important questions, nobody can ever expect to know "All About LRLs."
Why do LRL users and advocates use that particular term, rather than "Long Range Metal Detector"? I mean, they are supposed to detect gold and silver, and other metals, so why not simply call them metal detectors? Maybe someone who knows the answer to that will post it.
There are different types of LRLs, which are supposed to work on different principles. Some have a swivel pointer, and are supposed to point in the direction of gold or silver. Others are supposed to emit a radio signal, and then dowsing rods are used to follow that signal to the gold. Others are said to detect ions, and thus direct the user to gold.
The use of LRLs is sometimes said to depend on one's ability to use dowsing rods. Other times it is said that no dowsing ability is needed. And yet other times it is claimed that in order to use one, a person must have, or develop, certain "sensitivity" which is "kind of like dowsing, but it's not."
When attempts to explain exactly why LRLs "work," there has never been any real Scientific principles used. But rather some key electronics and physics terms, plus some buzz words, are pulled from actual known principles, then scrambled up into incomprehensible pseudoscience mumbo-jumbo. But, totally disregarding any necessity to explain how they supposedly work, the most important thing is, naturally, whether they really do work.
In reality, many things which are will known by all, to actually work, have defied full explanations. But, practically speaking, if something works, it works, and when something is proved to the World to work, then no explanation of how or why is necessary, in order for it to be accepted as really working. So an explanation of how or why LRLs work is really secondary.
The primary question, for solving the controversy of whether LRLs work or not, then, is actual, real, Scientific proof that they really work. This makes merely claiming they work, or relating stories of them working, or explanations of how they work, unacceptable as "proof."
That leaves the question of, "What is acceptable proof"? The answer, in such a debated issue, must be: Absolute, repeatable, Scientific proof. To qualify for this proof, the testing must be fairly done or administered by, unbiased, Science professionals.
Many LRL advocates have stated, from time-to-time, that not all LRLs work, or at least some don't work as well as others. Some LRL advocates have even said that most LRLs are fakes, and only certain ones really work.
Logic, and simple common sense, indicates that if an LRL manufacturer had a device which actually did work, they would jump at the chance to have their device tested by the very best methods! That is a basic, un-debatable truth of nature. Any business tries to promote their products in the best possible manner affordable. It would be very cost effective to have a product proven-out by real, Scientific testing. There are many ways to do this in an affordable manner! However, I don't know of any who have. If someone knows of an LRL maker who has had their equipment tested in a random double-blind test, professionally administered by a recognized scientific organization, please post the documents of the test results.
It is also widely known that scam artists make lots of claims of large and wonderful benefits of their schemes, but absolutely don't like to be asked for proof. And adamantly refuse to try and provide any real proof at all. They will, in fact, make various and voluminous excuses for not providing adequate proof. "Coincidentally," this appears to be exactly the same behavior and response which all LRL makers and advocates exhibit! If anyone knows of any behavior by them, other than this, please post the documents showing it.
Surely this is not too much to ask.
Obviously, without solid, realistic, answers to these important questions, nobody can ever expect to know "All About LRLs."
