cameras see gold

[Carl-NC]

Do I have to remind you of IR cameras again? They are photographing 'other energies'.

No, it's the same as a normal camera; they just go down to a slightly lower frequency.

Anyway, I've seen lots of claims of photographable gold auras, usually centered around bad Polaroid film or homemade infrared-modified cameras. Never seen anything that looked even remotely real, or anything that was even remotely properly tested. Does anyone ever study and apply any RealScience to this stuff? It always seems to be done by kitchen-sink tinkerers who don't have a good grasp of physics, who don't know how to perform a decent scientific experiment, and who end up self-deceived by bad lab work.

Like long-range, I guess I can hope for a breakthrough, but I'll doubt and question everything I see.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Yeah, right swr. snicker

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Bk, have been on the road: Carl, you posted --> No, it's the same as a normal camera; they just go down to a slightly lower frequency.
-------------------------------------

So? so they go down a bit or up a bit? As for a normal camera, I would enjoy seeng a normal camera photograph the IR footprint several hrs after it was made.
*******************************************************************************************************************
You also posted -->it always seems to be done by kitchen-sink tinkerers who don't have a good grasp of physics,
--------------------------------------

First) would you be willing to finance a free lance scientist to investigate this phenom.? No money, no scientists , only amateurs, many who just as qualified to follow this line of thought.

Second) As for understanding the present line of science, may I remind you of a couple of amateurs that taught themselves the new line of physics to successfully build the ´first Aircraft´, something that the ablest minds in Science couldn´t do or even come up with the correct answers.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Carl, swr, Can an ordinary camera photograph materiel and show if it is Mercury contaminated or not?

Don Josed e La Mancha

 

[Carl-NC]

Second) As for understanding the present line of science, may I remind you of a couple of amateurs that taught themselves the new line of physics to successfully build the ´first Aircraft´, something that the ablest minds in Science couldn´t do or even come up with the correct answers.

Nope, they used the same physics everyone else was using. They just paid more attention to the details.

Carl, swr, Can an ordinary camera photograph materiel and show if it is Mercury contaminated or not?

Dunno... maybe.

 

[hung]

Several months ago, I have used a small sony cybershot with IR filters and took a picture of the gold buried in my test target.
After employing the right filters in a photo program I was able to clearly see a blueish halo field around the location where the object is buried.
I have since then employing this technique on the field as a one more accessory for target confirmation.
Actually what the picture with appropriate filters show is a spectrum, although weak of the expected ionic activity with magnetic anomaly in that particular wavelength which is invisible to the naked eye.
My 2 cents.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Good morning Carl: You posted --> Can an ordinary camera photograph materiel and show if it is Mercury contaminated or not?


Dunno... maybe.
===================
Yes, it can, and is easily done. Repeatable and touchable swr.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI HUNG¨ MORE DETAILS PLEASE.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[hung]

HI HUNG¨ MORE DETAILS PLEASE.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Hi Tayopa,
It's simple.
I have used a piece of a C-41 processed ordinary roll of film. I cut it in the part where there are no pictures,usually in the end. Made it as a double layer. Actually in the case of this camera, a single layer even worked, but a double layer made it well more visible. Some in the net say it's better use unprocessed film, specific types of IR filters, etc. I don't know. Still have not tried another option.
Then I hooked my camera to the computer trough USB and used a picture editor to do it. Don't remember now which was it. I know that some are better than others. You just hit the enhance button depending the type of app you have. This makes the algorithms look for the the most bad parts in the pictures and they apply filters which end up revealing where this 'halo' is.
I just could not get the redish type of halo David Villanueva usually gets with his Cannon SLR type. Mine is a CCD type. And due to this I seem not to get the discrimination colors he talks about. I'm sure SLR cameras are the best option for his intent.

I'm thinking about a procedure to make in the future if I have enough spare time. This would be mapping what kind of algorithms the photo editor is using and replicating them in real time in a type of googles. So no reprocessing would be required and it would be possible to spot the halo in loco.
Regards.

 

[bildon]

Hung Did you remove the internal filter in your camera? bildon

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI HUNG¨: It occurs to me that you are working the IR range- If so, you may actually be showing the ir signature of the Gold. Since it is so dense, it can absorb much more IR energy during the day, than the surrounding ground and relasing it long after the soil has given up it´s reserve of absorbed IR. This could account for the hazy appearance above the gold in many pictures.

Don Jose d eLa Mancha

 

[Carl-NC]

Since it is so dense, it can absorb much more IR energy during the day, than the surrounding ground and relasing it long after the soil has given up it´s reserve of absorbed IR.

This is a commonly held belief that may be completely wrong. Buried gold is a high thermal conductor surrounded by a really poor thermal conductor. The gold will not get hotter than the surrounding soil, nor will it heat up or cool off any slower than the rate of the soil, assuming the gold is buried at a reasonable depth. The gold, being the higher thermal conductor, will exactly and instantaneously follow the temperature of the soil.

However, a buried void might do what you suggest.

 

[hung]

Hung Did you remove the internal filter in your camera? bildon

No.

 

[hung]

HI HUNG¨: It occurs to me that you are working the IR range- If so, you may actually be showing the ir signature of the Gold. Since it is so dense, it can absorb much more IR energy during the day, than the surrounding ground and relasing it long after the soil has given up it´s reserve of absorbed IR. This could account for the hazy appearance above the gold in many pictures.

Don Jose d eLa Mancha

Tayopa,

From all the sun energy reaching earth, about 30% does not even arrive at the surface and are reflected back in the atmosphere and back to space. About 47-50% only is absorbed. So from this incoming energy, some portion drives the winds, powers the water cycle, tidal systems, contributes to photosynthesis, etc. All this system searches is for the thermal balance with transporting energy.
Earth surface is refreshing 24 hours a day and in this process, the surface reflects back long waves, IR in this case in the cooling process. When these IR waves interact with ionic activity, telluric currents, magnetic fields, etc. from the buried metals, this 'mix' of fields appear in the IR spectrum as an anomaly captured by the IR images in cameras with right filters.
That's my conclusion.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Carl, You posted -->This is a commonly held belief that may be completely wrong. Buried gold is a high thermal conductor surrounded by a really poor thermal conductor. The gold will not get hotter than the surrounding soil, nor will it heat up or cool off any slower than the rate of the soil, assuming the gold is buried at a reasonable depth. The gold, being the higher thermal conductor, will exactly and instantaneously follow the temperature of the soil.
==================

Very interesting and a basically true statement. Gold is one of the hightest reflectors of IR, yet is capable of storing a tremendous amount of absorbed IR. On an instantaneous point you are correct, but over a sustained period of being exposed by the soil passed Ir? Wouldn't it be simply the larger amount of stored IR energy in the Gold being released over time being more evident than in the surrounding soil which is basically barren of such and so loses it´s IR energy quicker after the stimulating IR energy is removed - night. This effectively leads to a soil temp difference due to the Gold which fits nicely into our experiment.

I don´t remember the rate that gold loses it´s IR energy, do you ?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Carl-NC]

Gold is one of the hightest reflectors of IR, yet is capable of storing a tremendous amount of absorbed IR.

I don't know what you mean by "absorbed IR." Normally, IR radiation is converted to heat when it strikes an object. Do you mean conversion to heat?

On an instantaneous point you are correct, but over a sustained period of being exposed by the soil passed Ir?

Soil doesn't transmit ("pass") IR. IR radiation strikes the surface of the soil, is converted to heat, which thermally conducts (poorly) through the soil.

It appears you are under the impression that IR radiation penetrates the soil, all the way down to a buried object, and the buried object absorbs more IR than the surrounding soil. Then, late in the day, the buried object re-radiates the IR at a higher rate than the surrounding soil, making itself "visible" to an IR detector. It doesn't work this way, at all. There are some simple experiments that would easily prove this.

 

[lamar]

Dear group;
My question is, why would anyone wish to modify or try and make an IR or UV camera when they exist on the commerical market Also, if you own a dSLR camera, you can purchase an entier array of UV & IR filters, in all sizes and shades. Here's a cool link about foresnic sciences going digital:
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp?pid=122
Just get a cheap dSLR camera and some lens filters and experiment away!
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Carl-NC]

Dear group;
My question is, why would anyone wish to modify or try and make an IR or UV camera when they exist on the commerical market Also, if you own a dSLR camera, you can purchase an entier array of UV & IR filters, in all sizes and shades. Here's a cool link about foresnic sciences going digital:
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp?pid=122
Just get a cheap dSLR camera and some lens filters and experiment away!
Your friend;
LAMAR

Ordinary digital cameras are cheap, and many of the sensors are already sensitive to IR, but have a fixed IR filter installed. If you remove the internal IR filter, then you have a very cheap IR-sensitive digital camera. If you don't remove the internal IR filter, then additional external filters won't improve IR sensitivity.

This modification is popular in astrophotography. I'm thinking about doing it to my Minolta dSLR to mount on my Meade telescope. However, while IR can travel millions of miles across the universe and end up in my telescope, it only penetrates the ground about an inch.

 

[lamar]

Dear Carl-NC;
I also use Minolta glass my friend, except I have a cheapie telescope instead of a Meade. I mostly enjoy planetary observing although I can see some decent nebula when the seeing is good. Is your Meade an SCT? Right now, I am using a Sony A-350 camera body, which I don't like as well as the Minolta 7D or my prior A-100. I think the ergonomics of the newer generation of cameras is worse than before.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Dear group;
My question is, why would anyone wish to modify or try and make an IR or UV camera when they exist on the commerical market Also, if you own a dSLR camera, you can purchase an entier array of UV & IR filters, in all sizes and shades. Here's a cool link about foresnic sciences going digital:
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp?pid=122
Just get a cheap dSLR camera and some lens filters and experiment away!
Your friend;
LAMAR

Ordinary digital cameras are cheap, and many of the sensors are already sensitive to IR, but have a fixed IR filter installed. If you remove the internal IR filter, then you have a very cheap IR-sensitive digital camera. If you don't remove the internal IR filter, then additional external filters won't improve IR sensitivity.

This modification is popular in astrophotography. I'm thinking about doing it to my Minolta dSLR to mount on my Meade telescope. However, while IR can travel millions of miles across the universe and end up in my telescope, it only penetrates the ground about an inch.

Dear Carl-NC;
Why not just buy a foresnic camera which does not have an IR filter covering the sensor? This is what I was referring to. Adorama had them not long ago and they were very attractively priced. In other words, you then have a camera without an internal IR filter and then you can get a bunch of IR filters and play around with them! Of course, the experimenter won't find a single piece of gold, but it's far cheaper than destroying a regular camera and it keeps them off of the streets.
Your friend;
LAMAR