Opinions on these LRLs?

[woof!]

Olfacere, what you're describing is Turam Apparatus. Normally used for geophysical prospecting. In principle, one could design Turam Apparatus for finding coin-size objects and small caches over "an area" (many square meters), but to my knowledge nobody's ever actually done it.

Of course, the moment you demonstrate that it works no matter who is watching, and deliver a non-pseudoscience explanation of its operation (simply explaining that it is Turam Apparatus will suffice), then it's not an LRL. The term "LRL" is reserved for frauds.

--Dave J.

 

[goldfinder]

How does meditation interact with a device that is supposed to be purely electronic? Why don't I need meditation, clairvoyance, or some sort of special dowsing ability to use a calculator, computer, DVR, cell phone, metal detector, or any other electronic device?

The answer to that is simple - there are higher senses than the physical - Perhaps you have just never had experience on that level.
Goldfinder

 

[Carl-NC]

So, please, does anyone have any serious ideas on how the construction of such a device might be plausible?

Sorry, this ain't the forum for serious ideas. Make up some gobbledygook about sympathetic resonance, add a heaping helping of dowsing rods, a little meditation, and an appeal to Jesus Christ, and you'll have these guys eating out of your hand.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Wow…I am sure learning a lot about LRL’s reading this thread…I am learning that my methods of using them may be all wrong..The 7 LRL’s that I have used I tested them the wrong way..I read the instructions them took them out to the mountains…I set them up and then followed the signal and recovered some gold…Now I am told that is impossible because they do not work..I think I will just keep on enjoying my methods and let the rest of you wondering how I can use these devices…Art

 

[signal_line]

Art, don't you think you should come clean on this and explain that MFD's have not worked for you for several years?

 

[aarthrj3811]

~signal line~

Art, don't you think you should come clean on this and explain that MFD's have not worked for you for several years?

Where did you come up with that idea?....Art

 

[olfacere]

As far as I'm aware, LRL means "long range locator." Even if no real device currently exists that matches that description, that doesn't mean that all future devices should be denied that description because some folks have already tainted the name. Any device that can locate a target item at a considerable distance might be called a "long range locator."

I had an idea that sort of works in that direction, but a working model wouldn't really fit the description of an LRL. Basically, it's a metal detector split in two halves. The first half (transmitter) could be replaced by a ground rod that is charged by a small, stationary machine. The receiving half of the detector could then be carried. The arrangement should work the same way as an ordinary metal detector within a certain distance of the ground rod. The more juice you put into the ground, the bigger your "effective radius of detection" and the stronger your signals will be at any given radius.

In order to adapt this kind of idea to become something like a "long range locator," two further advancements would be necessary. Firstly, there would need to be some way to make the receiver directional, rather than just a coil. Parabolics seem like an option, but then there's the problem of making it work with the fields in the ground, rather than photonic radiation. The second task would be to adapt the receiver so that it doesn't need a carrier signal. This would require somehow (automagically) eliminating all above-ground interference in order to read the natural currents in the ground (and something other than a normal phase discriminator to tell what you're looking at). In theory, if you could do that, you should be able to free yourself of the transmitter.

So, I want a directional receiver that reads natural currents in the ground over long distances and produces none of its own. That sounds like a goal. Now I just need a workshop full of magic elves.

 

[aarthrj3811]

 

[Eric Wilson]

Go to geocache- they have extensive articles and have tested LRL's. also they have a standing offer to anyone who can pass a double blind test proving they work- easy 25 g's if you can do it. Also amazing RAndi has standing offer to anyone who can prove they can dowse- another double blind test- they consider LRL's to be dowsing instruments. Win a cool million there. I myself am not completely convinced that there is nothing there at all. That being said I do lknow that most manufacturer's claims are the height of hooey. I went to see one of the very first ones- drove to Bowling Green Kentucky over 25 years ago and knew real quick that P. T. Barnum had met his match. I think that it is very telling that people liked the late David Fasold who was held up as a master operator of the thing in actual field conditions, admitted that it doesn't always work and they don't know why. I think they are probably on to something but they don't really know what or why. I think it may be a quantum effect or consequence of tapping into universal field etc. etc. however bottom line is that for even the best of the best, it's not wholly replicable. Therefore certainly not worth a King's ransom to buy one. That doesn't mean you shouldn't give one.a shot,Geo cache has something about how to build one and years ago Larry Williams told how to build one in treasure hunter confidential. I asked him about them back then and he said sometimes they work sometimes not but don't buy one as his do it yourself was as good. I have heard it said by others that results improve with operator practice and experience. That you learn little nuances etc. and your results improve- which only makes sense. I have the directions from Larry Williams somewhere and might give building one a shot- just for fun but I have little hope that it will be of much good. If you still want to try one and I certainly wouldn't blame you if you did- ( I probably would if I were younger) and you don't want to build one, see if you can get one of those master's with a ranger-tel or whatever kind of machine- to come check out your site for minimum expenses- gas and food, maybe lodging- and a percentage of the gross that is found. If I had one and was confident in my ability to use it- I'd take that deal- if you could convince me of the quality potential of the site. If you were just taking a shot in the dark to see if anything were there- they can do that on their own anytime so why join up with you. Well that's my 2 cents- good luck.

 

[olfacere]

Yes, I see the similarities in the picture you posted. My intent, though, was to get away from using the operator as part of the machine. I think that's the factor that makes it dowsing and what makes it require so much operator skill. The hypothesised magic receiver would take the place of the operator and rods, and wouldn't require a power source beyond what is required to drive the input-process-output functions. I personally believe that dowsing can work and that some are more adept at it than others, though there is learning and experience involved. If your machine works with your methods for your goals, then more power to you. If you care at all for academics, then please document everything you can as thoroughly as possible (though I might choose a pen name for publishing the results and leave only an anonymous email address for correspondence). Dowsing has its place too.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~olfarere~

Yes, I see the similarities in the picture you posted. My intent, though, was to get away from using the operator as part of the machine. I think that's the factor that makes it dowsing and what makes it require so much operator skill.

The first LRL’s were made 35 years ago..They used electronics to follow the signals..Then Dell winders found that the signals could be followed with a set of rods...Cut the cost of the units by around 90 %

The hypothesised magic receiver would take the place of the operator and rods, and wouldn't require a power source beyond what is required to drive the input-process-output functions.

Most of the newer designed LRL’s do not use rods..

I personally believe that dowsing can work and that some are more adept at it than others, though there is learning and experience involved. If your machine works with your methods for your goals, then more power to you.

I purchased a Rod type LRL in 1998..In 2002 I became interested in Dowsing..My main objective was not to screw up the use of it while learning to Dowse...To me people who can not tell the difference in a dump set of rods no nothing about their usage...Art

 

[signal_line]

olf years ago an LRL skeptic made the mistake of stating he "could not dowse any better than random chance". Since then he continues to hide behind alias identities so he can make his bogus claims. And yes, there are many gullible people who believe him. He's not the only one who does this. He really wishes he could have that one back because he can't claim LRL's are just dowsing because he doesn't know. And it appears you don't either. I don't think you understand how disturbed these LRL skeptics really are. They've pissed off LRL users so bad no one wants anything to do with them and for sure not show them how to do it. Dowsing is much more difficult than using an LRL. In my experience, using an electronic receiver is more difficult than L-rods. I don't know how you can make the claims you do without any experience. I suspect you are being coached by the LRL skeptics. You don't know how wrong you are. I understand the LRL skeptics want something you just turn on and go. You can buy them but it ain't that easy as you might think. They don't pinpoint very well at all. I really get the feeling you don't want to hear this. If that's the case you are in denial just like every other LRL skeptic. And yes, you are one.

 

[aarthrj3811]

When I dowse I find a signal using baited rods..I can then use a weight chex which is seldom accurate..I then follow the signal that may be miles long...When I get to the target I can then determine the depth..
With my RT when I find a signal line I can stand at that spot and determine the distance, the depth and the size...I can determine if it is worth the effort to follow it...I don’t enjoy walking a few miles to find that the target is 30 feet deep
The more signals I can find and disregard adds up to more recoveries in the long run...Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

Yes I admit I had a little trouble using the rods for a while after I had a stroke..If you want to read how I adjusted my arm position and length of rods you can find it in the Dowsing forum..and yes I have not used the Omni Ranger Master in a while..My son has had it at his gold mining claim in Alaska for a few years...As far as being a Skeptic you can think all you want as it will not bother me a bit...Art

Good to see that you are using the skeptics method of deleting your posts when you don’t like the answer that you received signal line..Art