Serious question; no offense meant

[Mackaydon]

Too bad Edison didn't think like Tesla. Stoney, you beat me to it.
Don.....

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Hi, KK,

No, my only bias is a need to understand. I, too, am a fan of the unusual. Even Tesla, whose ideas were far detached from those of his peers, intrigued me enough to warrant the research I have done. His close affiliation with Edison was interesting, and many of Edison's patents are actually the seminal work of Tesla. He did, indeed, work with resonant frequencies. His work mostly involved mechanically inducing vibration into materials, particularly steel, to start a wave in the material under test. These tests showed that at the material's "resonant frequency" the induced wave could become destructive. Open mind? Indeed!

Regarding resonant frequencies; what you say if very likely possible. I have just not heard of a way to measure them. Why does this make me a "LRL downer?" All I am looking for is an explanation of how LRL devices detect and measure these resonant frequencies if this is actually the way they work. Why is that offensive?

You asked, "What MIGHT (sic) we be able to do with that?" Having watched technology blossom in the past 50 years I am not such a fool as to rule out any possibilities. I am simply asking, "What CAN we do with that with our current knowledge, and how?"

Sorry if you feel offended. This kind of dialogue is precisely what I want to avoid. Forgive me for any perceived offense.

Peace, and best of luck with all your endeavors.

Stoney

What I'm talking about is Edison's determination, even in the face of "you can't do that." "It will never work, because it's never worked before." If you think about it, and this is what Mackaydon obviously don't get, every single person that has ever actually DONE anything on this earth has been a person who was willing to look beyond what was, and see what was possible. And they all were ridiculed by those who claimed to be the experts. Tesla is a perfect example. Edison is another. Edison not only stood firm in the face of ridicule, but in failures, as well. And I'm sure you know what he said about that. He didn't give up. Even when NOTHING worked, he believed so much in what he was doing that he finally found a way to make it work. Edison modernized the world. Tesla was a little ahead of his time, it would seem. But both men were what some would call dreamers, and no doubt many called them crazy. But these are the type of men who get things done.

You haven't offended me. I was just telling you, because you asked, why LRL users are so defensive.

The theory is, the LRL produces the resonant frequency of gold/silver/coin, and broadcasts that signal. The receiver picks up on that frequency and zeros in on it. That's the theory, and it sounds good to me. Does it work in any machine that currently exists? I don't know. But I believe in the theory. And many swear they can find things this way, so I don't feel the need to call them wrong.

Did I misspell the word, "might"?

 

[Terry Soloman]

Thanks for the responses. However, I am seeking information about the technology behind any of these long range units. What physical processes are applied to enable the device to react to specific materials? What radiating fields are being detected? If some remarkably low amplitude energies are being detected how are they amplified and processed?

One thing in particular intrigues me. Some reports I have seen say that people have found items that are non-conductive and non-ferrous. I have to admit some level of skepticism on this but will be very happy to be convinced by science.

Thanks again.

Stoney

Your wallet is being detected by modern day snake oil salesmen. You say you have 30-years of experience - Use it.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Getting the answerer you want could be real simple...I have purchased 4 LRL’s or MFD’s...The first three I traveled to the manufacturers place of business. I ask questions and did a hands on test with the units....The fourth one I used a friends device before I purchased it...I did not do this before I purchased my one and only conventional Metal Detector...I did not use it again after I dug my 200[SUP]th[/SUP] pull tab in a row...My 4 devices and the 3 others I have used all found and recovered gold...

One of my old MFD’s is simple to use...You set the unit up and connect it to a battery. You wait about 5 minutes for the signal lines to be established..You walk a circle around the unit at least 50 feet from it with a set of rods. When the rods cross you mark the line. After you complete your circle you determine which signal you want to follow. You follow that signal to the target....

A simple household dimmer switch with a small magnet attached to the green wire can be hung from your belt and it will match the strength of the signal to your rods. This will give you a ball park idea of the size of the target.....Art

 

[Carl-NC]

I guess there are no answers, so it's now time to drop it. I don't understand why people are so defensive!

Stoney, there are answers, but a lot of folks don't like the answers. In fact, they downright hate the answers. That's why they get so defensive when someone asks for the answers.

...but the folks who claim to have it never want to demonstrate it or explain it in ways that fit in the known realm of science and physics.

You'll find that LRLs fit in quite nicely with anti-gravity devices. And free energy devices. And lots of other pseudoscience.

If you want answers, try here:

http://www.geotech1.com/lrl_reports.html

- Carl

 

[hung]

I have to admit some level of skepticism on this but will be very happy to be convinced by science.

If you know science enough, than it will be very easy for you to understand the basis of LRLs working. Go to Mineoro, OKM and Rangertell sites for instance. Read the scientific information provided.

Now, if you think magnetism for instance is just for ferrous metals, then forget all the scientific explanation in their sites, because you do not know science enough, sorry.

The bottom line is... The ones who use LRLs do find treasure with them. They do not need to be around telling others of scientific proofs, simply because they succeed in finding what they search. Why would they need to worry about convincing someone scientifically or even bother to do it? Then there are the ones who use the devices successfully and perfectly know the science behind it because they researched it and found the answers. This is my case.

Before you use the link provided by the individual above to try to find some answers in this subject, first research about who this person is and does in the discussions throughout this forum and how he's been exposed. Check his vested interests against any new technology that might threaten his business and the crap devices he sells.
Then go for it and read his, err... 'reports'. Amuse yourself.

One thing I can ask you from the start...
Who would be easier to trust... Someone like Art who used 4 devices and claims that all of them worked for him or an individual whose vested interests have been exposed and writes things pretending to be 'scientific'?
You decide.

Regards.

 

[stoney]

Greetings, and thanks to all who took time to respond to my questions.

I have done a great deal of searching and reading and have, indeed, come to a conclusion regarding LRL technology and the LRL market.

The diverse reasons people have for doing what they choose to do is a very interesting study, and I applaud anyone who truly looks beyond themselves to see what is truth and, based on that truth, follows a path to contentment. Hey, if a quantum particle can exist in two places simultaneously then there is room, I guess, for alternative realities.

Based on the available science and engineering materials I have seen I am quite content with my decision, too! I won't be taking that trip to Colorado any time soon.

Oh; Thanks, Terry Soloman, for the advice. My life has been very exciting and full of new things, so there was never any danger of anyone stealing my wallet. I've always been one to learn first, jump later; a lesson from my first Jump Master.

Peace.

Stoney

 

[Muddyhandz]

I got this hi-tech microchip implanted into my left index finger that works 3 times more efficient than a LRL.

I won't reveal the science behind it (top secret) or show any of my incredible finds.

All you need to know is that I do really well with it.

Coming soon to a retailer near you!

 

[Dixiegal]

Most people will not even discuss how their equipment works because everybody and their brother wants to get ahold of their equipment and take it apart to see how it works. My fiancee' keeps ours locked up and if anyone tries to take it apart it self destructs. My advice to you is to go to the websites of some of the people who are developing these systems and see what they have to say about the technology.

My philosophy is similar to Art's. I know how to set up our equipment and follow the signal and I'm really good at digging stuff up. How it works I leave to the genuis I'm engaged to.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Yes Dixiegal....we know how to use our devices..Over 60 other people have come here and stated how well their devices work..It seems that those who claim that our devices are fraudulent can not be found.. http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/long-range-locators/155345-those-have-been-scammed.html
Art

 

[Kentucky Kache]

We had a lengthy discussion on here back a few years ago on the theory behind LRLs. In this discussion, Carl pretty much admitted that the theory is a sound, scientific one, but the LRL could never be built, because it would take way too much energy. Maybe Carl is right, but I can't help wondering what would have happened if he'd said such things to Edison, Tesla, or Einstein. Actually I don't have to wonder. All I have to do is look back at what DID happen when people told these men things like that. They proved the "impossible" was possible. The light bulb was not possible, in fact it was foolish. And guess what, the naysayers were right. Edison tried to prove them wrong and failed. He tried many times and failed. So that was the end of it, right? Does anybody know how many times Edison tried and failed before he found what worked? How many naysayers ever invented anything? Look at the mindset of every single person who ever accomplished anything and see if you find words like "can't," and "impossible." Take a good look at these guys, and then take a good look at those "experts" who told them they were crazy. There are real men of science, and then there are those who write articles about things they can't believe in, and the majority follows their negativity. It's always been that way. If you choose to be a naysayer, then please don't claim to believe in the same science as men like Edison, Tesla, etc.

I ask again, how many naysayers ever invented anything? Also, how many real inventors didn't have other scientists telling them it couldn't be done?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey KK....the problem that Carl had was the FCC rules that do not allow a device to produce more than 5 Watts. They did make a working device but those pesky rules would not let them sell it... I have used a VHF-- MFD and I will tell you it is very good...Art

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Hey KK....the problem that Carl had was the FCC rules that do not allow a device to produce more than 5 Watts. They did make a working device but those pesky rules would not let them sell it... I have used a VHF-- MFD and I will tell you it is very good...Art

I was just bringing out the fact that Carl, who falls over himself to convince people of the folly of LRL technology, doesn't deny the scientific theory behind them.
I don't doubt for a minute that you're right about them building one.

 

[aarthrj3811]

I have also used 7 of the devices that Carl claims to have tested...they all worked..Art

 

[charlotte49er]

I had an Electroscope 301 by Thomas.


I can't tell you how it works, but it uncanny! I was using mine last year at our club's Gold Festival. Turned it on and it immediately pointed to the dumpster. So I "tuned" it out, and it hit on a golf cart about 100 yards away. More tuning and it hit on the cars about 200 yards away. Then a guy and his wife walked up and it "stuck" to her wedding ring. No matter where she moved her hand, the scope followed it. He accused me to doing that, so I handed the unit to him. It did the exact same thing. He asked me how much did I want for it, and I thought he was kidding. So I jokingly said $1000. He immediately said "SOLD!" And proceeded to hand me 10 $100 bills!

I really wanted to test it in an open field.

Some people say that Polaroid cameras will work, other say that you cna use your Cell phone. I have no idea. there's even that "stick" metal detector that I see advertised all over the place and one in your shoe!


So who knows.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey charlotte49er...Yes these devices can pick up a lot of things...Lots of cars have gold contacts in the airbag system..My GPS has some kind of gold in it...I have put gold in a pick up and had it drive off..I was able to track it for miles...Art

 

[Carl-NC]

We had a lengthy discussion on here back a few years ago on the theory behind LRLs. In this discussion, Carl pretty much admitted that the theory is a sound, scientific one, but the LRL could never be built, because it would take way too much energy.

Carl admits that quadrupole resonance is possible, and that it would take heaping gobs of power for even a few inches. But the theory behind LRLs ain't quadrupole resonance. The theory behind LRLs is outright fraud. Try again.

 

[hung]

Brute power, quadrupole resonance or even 'quintupole' resonance have nothing to do with the cause you pose in this discussion.
LRLs (the swivel types that I assume you refer) do not work like that.

In physics there is the 'sources and sinks' principle. So you really think that you need to disrupt the 'sources' to achieve the 'sinks'? Or... do you expect to tune to CNN setting your TV on MTV?
Try again.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey hung ...Carl gets confused often...Years ago there was a web site where you could download on a disk different frequencies. Put the disk into a boom box and use a set of rods to follow the signal to the target....Carl said he tested it...Of course when he hooked his test equipment to the antenna he got no reading so it didn’t work... No it was not a very good LRL but it worked...So much for all the scientific testing..Art

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Carl admits that quadrupole resonance is possible, and that it would take heaping gobs of power for even a few inches. But the theory behind LRLs ain't quadrupole resonance. The theory behind LRLs is outright fraud. Try again.

I don't need to "try" anything, you said it. And if I'm not mistaken, that thread can still be accessed. But this is America, you're allowed to change your mind.