architecad
Hero Member
- #1
Thread Owner
Facts about those Skeptics' reports
Fact 1. VR-800 Report: Addendum
This article shows a report about the VR-800 and the "Geo Surveyor". Both equipment are no longer on the market. However, reading this article I don't find any evidence of some exhausted research conducted by some engineer to confirm some fact. The Skeptics in this forum argue the LRL's user should be accept the Carl's challenge $25K, however in this article there are not any evidence of some research. Should I accept a challenge of $25K for who doesn't conduit a true research as is described in this article? If you read only you can find pure opinion. For example:
Paragraph #7, last sentence state;
"However, considering the paltry transmitter circuitry, I don't believe the signal is detectable beyond a few feet at most."
This is pure opinion, not a fact proved by test, so what is the skeptics position? The Skeptics demand evidence of our finds in front other skeptics but here in this article there are not any kind of evidence that this equipment didn't work. The Author wrote "I don't believe". What does he mean? MFD and LRL don't work because somebody doesn't believe?. Is this the challenge that Skeptics want we take? No way!!. I used the Geo Surveyor for years and I never had complain against to it. Let's take a look the whole article.
by Carl Moreland
Shortly after I posted the VR-800 Report I ran across an interesting equipment review in an older issue of Treasure magazine (June, 1991). The review is on the Dell Geo-Surveyor, another long-range device very similar (if not identical) in design to the VR-800. The major difference apprears to be that the Geo-Surveyor is a 2-element unit (gold & silver only) whereas the VR-800 is a 6-element unit. The description of the Geo-Surveyor is virtually identical to the VR-800, which leads me to believe that it is virtually the same design. Besides a photographed unit that is almost identical to the VR-800, the report claims "the Geo-Surveyor's micro-processor transmits several synchronized, encoded signals simultaneously" and "The Geo-Surveyor comes factory programmed to identify and locate gold or silver, but it can be custom programmed to find more than 58 other elements."
The most enlightening parts of the Geo-Surveyor report were the description of the "Magnetic Wave Guide Receiver" of which I had no other information on, and the instructions on using the transmitter's built-in AQC. In the Geo-Surveyor report, the belt unit is called a "Magna-Wave receiver". According to the report, the Magna-Wave receiver is used to "smooth distortions of the magnetic field, providing more definable responses from the receiver antenna rods." Another claim is made in the report: "The returning signals are received through an analyzer which rejects frequencies other than those that it is programmed to accept." It is not clear from the text if the "analyzer" refers to the Magna-Wave receiver but, since the supposed "returning signals" are received by the L-rods which are plugged into the Magna-Wave receiver, there is nothing else in the receive path to call an "analyzer". Keep in mind that the "Magnetic Wave Guide Receiver" that came with the VR-800 contained nothing but a switch to short the rods together, plus a small permanent magnet glued inside the box, not connected to anything.
It is also interesting to note that what I called the "fine-adjustment knob" on the face of the VR-800 transmitter is called the "anomaly qualifier knob" on the Geo-Surveyor. The subsequent description of it makes it clear that it serves the same function as the "AQC" belt unit that I included in the VR-800 report: "Turning the knob counter-clockwise identifies the quantity [of precious metal] in ounces. Turning it clockwise identifies the quantity in pounds, up to five pounds." It goes on to say that the search should begin with the knob set to zero, and when a target is found "the operator can then adjust a rotating anomaly qualifier knob ... in order to identify the quantity of precious metal present."
As I pointed out in the VR-800 report, the adjustment knob referred to merely changes the output frequency of the transmitter. It was also noted that there is significant overlap in the frequency adjustment ranges. If this knob is used as described in the Geo-Surveyor article, then it would be very likely that the user will adjust the frequency into the range of another element - pretending, of course, that the whole concept of resonant target frequencies is even valid. For example, if searching for silver, the user might turn the knob slightly clockwise and quickly hit the "center frequency" for tin. At this point, theoretically, the transmitter will be sending the frequency for tin and the user will have no idea what he is supposedly receiving. So even if there was a signal line being generated, the whole concept of changing the transmit frequency to determine weight is grossly flawed.
A final omission in the original report was that the "AQC" belt unit has a frequency range of 744-3606 Hz. This range does not correspond well to the transmitted frequencies, which have a range of 275-1169 Hz. If the AQC belt unit is supposed to serve the same purpose as the built-in adjustment knob, then it should be adjustable over the same frequencies. It is inconsistent to have the built-in AQC adjustable over the transmit frequency range, but the add-on AQC adjustable over a different frequency range.
Dell Winders of Dell Systems posted some feedback concerning the original report. He stated that the report was nothing new, as he had been showing people the contents of these units at treasure shows. He later stated that he had no idea what was inside the "VR" units, and went on to say that he was unqualified to discuss the technical aspects of electronics. Mr. Winders has also stated that he has only a 6th grade education.
In the original report I stated that "The transmitter... does not have the capacity to drive the signal to anywhere near the claimed distance of 2 miles." Mr. Winders complained that he never claimed it could detect a target at 2 miles, which is true - the ads only claimed one mile for maximum target distance. However, Mr. Winders has also stated that the signal is transmitted to the target and then returns to the transmitter, which requires a maximum round-trip distance of two miles, hence the transmitter must have enough signal drive for this distance (the same basic principle is true for metal detectors). I should have either included this statement, or used the 1 mile number. Mr. Winders also states that the VR-800 is really only practical in scanning a radius up to 100 yards or so. However, considering the paltry transmitter circuitry, I don't believe the signal is detectable beyond a few feet at most.
Mr. Winders primary response is that he was merely a dealer for another party who manufactured the device, and blamed the other party for all of the advertising claims that were shown to be false. I cannot confirm this because I don't have contact information for the other person - I have asked Mr. Winders and others for a phone number but have been refused. However, in reviewing everything I have, I find only the name "Dell Systems" on the components, the manuals, and the advertisements. In my opinion, it is prudent for anyone who labels something as their own to thoroughly understand what it is and does, and to make sure all claims are factual. Mr. Winders should take full responsibility for the products he sold under his label.
http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=reports/vr800/addendum.dat
Arch
Note: Nothing personal against this article's author, just opinions and evaluations.
Fact 1. VR-800 Report: Addendum
This article shows a report about the VR-800 and the "Geo Surveyor". Both equipment are no longer on the market. However, reading this article I don't find any evidence of some exhausted research conducted by some engineer to confirm some fact. The Skeptics in this forum argue the LRL's user should be accept the Carl's challenge $25K, however in this article there are not any evidence of some research. Should I accept a challenge of $25K for who doesn't conduit a true research as is described in this article? If you read only you can find pure opinion. For example:
Paragraph #7, last sentence state;
"However, considering the paltry transmitter circuitry, I don't believe the signal is detectable beyond a few feet at most."
This is pure opinion, not a fact proved by test, so what is the skeptics position? The Skeptics demand evidence of our finds in front other skeptics but here in this article there are not any kind of evidence that this equipment didn't work. The Author wrote "I don't believe". What does he mean? MFD and LRL don't work because somebody doesn't believe?. Is this the challenge that Skeptics want we take? No way!!. I used the Geo Surveyor for years and I never had complain against to it. Let's take a look the whole article.
by Carl Moreland
Shortly after I posted the VR-800 Report I ran across an interesting equipment review in an older issue of Treasure magazine (June, 1991). The review is on the Dell Geo-Surveyor, another long-range device very similar (if not identical) in design to the VR-800. The major difference apprears to be that the Geo-Surveyor is a 2-element unit (gold & silver only) whereas the VR-800 is a 6-element unit. The description of the Geo-Surveyor is virtually identical to the VR-800, which leads me to believe that it is virtually the same design. Besides a photographed unit that is almost identical to the VR-800, the report claims "the Geo-Surveyor's micro-processor transmits several synchronized, encoded signals simultaneously" and "The Geo-Surveyor comes factory programmed to identify and locate gold or silver, but it can be custom programmed to find more than 58 other elements."
The most enlightening parts of the Geo-Surveyor report were the description of the "Magnetic Wave Guide Receiver" of which I had no other information on, and the instructions on using the transmitter's built-in AQC. In the Geo-Surveyor report, the belt unit is called a "Magna-Wave receiver". According to the report, the Magna-Wave receiver is used to "smooth distortions of the magnetic field, providing more definable responses from the receiver antenna rods." Another claim is made in the report: "The returning signals are received through an analyzer which rejects frequencies other than those that it is programmed to accept." It is not clear from the text if the "analyzer" refers to the Magna-Wave receiver but, since the supposed "returning signals" are received by the L-rods which are plugged into the Magna-Wave receiver, there is nothing else in the receive path to call an "analyzer". Keep in mind that the "Magnetic Wave Guide Receiver" that came with the VR-800 contained nothing but a switch to short the rods together, plus a small permanent magnet glued inside the box, not connected to anything.
It is also interesting to note that what I called the "fine-adjustment knob" on the face of the VR-800 transmitter is called the "anomaly qualifier knob" on the Geo-Surveyor. The subsequent description of it makes it clear that it serves the same function as the "AQC" belt unit that I included in the VR-800 report: "Turning the knob counter-clockwise identifies the quantity [of precious metal] in ounces. Turning it clockwise identifies the quantity in pounds, up to five pounds." It goes on to say that the search should begin with the knob set to zero, and when a target is found "the operator can then adjust a rotating anomaly qualifier knob ... in order to identify the quantity of precious metal present."
As I pointed out in the VR-800 report, the adjustment knob referred to merely changes the output frequency of the transmitter. It was also noted that there is significant overlap in the frequency adjustment ranges. If this knob is used as described in the Geo-Surveyor article, then it would be very likely that the user will adjust the frequency into the range of another element - pretending, of course, that the whole concept of resonant target frequencies is even valid. For example, if searching for silver, the user might turn the knob slightly clockwise and quickly hit the "center frequency" for tin. At this point, theoretically, the transmitter will be sending the frequency for tin and the user will have no idea what he is supposedly receiving. So even if there was a signal line being generated, the whole concept of changing the transmit frequency to determine weight is grossly flawed.
A final omission in the original report was that the "AQC" belt unit has a frequency range of 744-3606 Hz. This range does not correspond well to the transmitted frequencies, which have a range of 275-1169 Hz. If the AQC belt unit is supposed to serve the same purpose as the built-in adjustment knob, then it should be adjustable over the same frequencies. It is inconsistent to have the built-in AQC adjustable over the transmit frequency range, but the add-on AQC adjustable over a different frequency range.
Dell Winders of Dell Systems posted some feedback concerning the original report. He stated that the report was nothing new, as he had been showing people the contents of these units at treasure shows. He later stated that he had no idea what was inside the "VR" units, and went on to say that he was unqualified to discuss the technical aspects of electronics. Mr. Winders has also stated that he has only a 6th grade education.
In the original report I stated that "The transmitter... does not have the capacity to drive the signal to anywhere near the claimed distance of 2 miles." Mr. Winders complained that he never claimed it could detect a target at 2 miles, which is true - the ads only claimed one mile for maximum target distance. However, Mr. Winders has also stated that the signal is transmitted to the target and then returns to the transmitter, which requires a maximum round-trip distance of two miles, hence the transmitter must have enough signal drive for this distance (the same basic principle is true for metal detectors). I should have either included this statement, or used the 1 mile number. Mr. Winders also states that the VR-800 is really only practical in scanning a radius up to 100 yards or so. However, considering the paltry transmitter circuitry, I don't believe the signal is detectable beyond a few feet at most.
Mr. Winders primary response is that he was merely a dealer for another party who manufactured the device, and blamed the other party for all of the advertising claims that were shown to be false. I cannot confirm this because I don't have contact information for the other person - I have asked Mr. Winders and others for a phone number but have been refused. However, in reviewing everything I have, I find only the name "Dell Systems" on the components, the manuals, and the advertisements. In my opinion, it is prudent for anyone who labels something as their own to thoroughly understand what it is and does, and to make sure all claims are factual. Mr. Winders should take full responsibility for the products he sold under his label.
http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=reports/vr800/addendum.dat
Arch
Note: Nothing personal against this article's author, just opinions and evaluations.
