artie---
You have admitted that Carl's test is the same as your test, below.
aarthrj3811 said:
...I have posted a test for the owner/operators that will prove to them that their devices will pass the test or not. It proves the same thing that Carl’s test would accomplish..So please tell us why this test is not the same?
This is my version of a Blind test. I use halves of 6 Plastic Easter eggs and a coin. I give my son the coin and he goes out the back door and I stay inside while he places the coin under one of the egg halves. He then goes around the house and knocks on the front door. I go out, not having any contact with him.
...I locate the coin, go in the house and give it to the him and start over again. I make 10 to 15 passes and then take a break. My results are all ways the same. I find the coin every time.
If you are telling the truth, above, then why would you turn down an easy profit of $20K, after expenses, for passing Carl's test?
If you don't trust Carl, he says you can get an unbiased proctor to administer the test. And he is legally committed to paying the reward, as in the link below.
If you don't need the $20K, then do the test at your local metal detector club. I'm sure that they would appreciate your knowledge, if you succeed.
Or, you could even do it at your local high school science department. It would be a great benefit for the kids to observe a random double-blind test, in person.
You are always saying that you tell about your LRLs here, because you want to help people. The club and school would both be helped by your performance.
Either of the three would certainly prove that LRLs work, and thus stop the controversy, which is what all of the LRL promoters on here are continually complaining about. And that would be helping people, too.
Since you are such a helpful person, I imagine that you will be anxious to step up, and do one of the above three, right away.
Which will it be?
Please let me know if you feel that any part of this post is, in any way, an insult---and why.
