Serious question; no offense meant

[Kentucky Kache]

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/k...e-emits-electromagnetic-radiation-energy.html

Carl, here's that thread, in case you've forgotten.

 

[Carl-NC]

I haven't changed my mind about anything. I've said for 14 years that LRLs are scams, and I still say the same thing.

Art, I don't even know what the heck you're talking about. But that's nothing new.

- Carl

 

[Kentucky Kache]

I haven't changed my mind about anything. I've said for 14 years that LRLs are scams, and I still say the same thing.

Art, I don't even know what the heck you're talking about. But that's nothing new.

- Carl

I wasn't referring so much to the machines, but to the theory behind them. You didn't disagree with the theory, because you knew it was right. You were simply saying that the theory Isn't practicable and cannot be developed into an actual LRL.

 

[bevo]

geotech forums will give you the kind of info you seek.very technical.

 

[Treasure finder]

Stoney,
There are many things that aren't well known, but don't have to be understood to be used. Aspirin, antibiotics, radios, cell phones
etc. aren't well understood by the majority of people, but if they work for you, you can be a user or opertator. When I first used
L-rods (dowsing rods) and got a reaction while walking over a hose with water flowing through it, I was intrigued. I still haven't figured
out how it works, but I have figured out that I can locate water, gold, silver and many other items. Using a long range locator makes it
easier, so I do that too. I am certainly not going to stop doing something that works for me. So, if you get results, you may want to
continue and see if you really need to understand it. I know an aerospace engineer who uses long range locators because they work
for him without an explanation. Come join us, the water's fine.
Rich

 

[Carl-NC]

I wasn't referring so much to the machines, but to the theory behind them. You didn't disagree with the theory, because you knew it was right. You were simply saying that the theory Isn't practicable and cannot be developed into an actual LRL.

I suggest you re-read the entire thread, and what I actually said in it. The RealPhysics we discussed simply don't apply to LRLs. As in ZERO. Claiming any of it as a "theory behind LRLs" is bogus. Claiming that I agree any of it was a possibility as a "theory behind LRLs" is disingenuous at best. In fact, throughout the thread I was explaining why NONE of it applies to LRLs.

For the vast majority of LRLs, the only "theory" behind them is dowsing. And dowsing is just self-delusion. So the best you can say is I absolutely agree that these LRLs rely on the theory of dowsing self-delusion.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

I suggest you re-read the entire thread, and what I actually said in it. The RealPhysics we discussed simply don't apply to LRLs. As in ZERO. Claiming any of it as a "theory behind LRLs" is bogus. Claiming that I agree any of it was a possibility as a "theory behind LRLs" is disingenuous at best. In fact, throughout the thread I was explaining why NONE of it applies to LRLs.

For the vast majority of LRLs, the only "theory" behind them is dowsing. And dowsing is just self-delusion. So the best you can say is I absolutely agree that these LRLs rely on the theory of dowsing self-delusion.

Don't look now doc, but that thread was about the theory behind long range detection. And anyone who would deny the principle of resonant frequencies should never say anything in the name of science. The fact is, you DID believe in that principal when we discussed it on that thread, you just said that it wouldn't be practical, due to the power requirement. What you believe now is anyone's guess.

 

[Carl-NC]

Sure, there is such a thing as resonance, but it has absolutely nothing to do with LRLs, other than in some peoples' fantasies. Induction, hydraulics, and refrigeration are also real, but also have zilch to do with LRLs. So are you still fantasizing that LRLs use resonant frequencies? If so, I can't help you with that.

 

[hung]

I know an aerospace engineer who uses long range locators because they work
for him without an explanation.
Rich

If he is an aerospace engineer, then he should at least know the concept and the working principle by research. Of course there are the ones who use LRLs and don't care. Those are mainly laymen operators who do not need to wonder about anything as long as it works.

The scientific principle of locating substances from long range is factual, real, sound and achieved by applying simple concepts of physics.
But before one investigates the principles, he needs to correctly interpret scientific evidences which might have been incorrectly taught at school and even oppose what his 'high school physics' preach.
Take magnetism for instance.
Do you think that only metallic objects are subject to magnetic attraction? When you stumble upon quite several people demonstrating their ability of stick metals, ceramics, plastic, etc. to their bodies, what do you do? Discard them as trick just because Mr.'Doc', your high school physics teacher did not tell you about it or you start wondering that science might be much, much more vast than you had first thought?

Real and genuine scientists, and I mean by scientist everyone who has in inquiring mind and study phenomena they do not comprehend by employing experimental work and by collecting data to substantiate the evidence, do not act like that.
'Scientists' who simply rush to tag phenomena who seem alien to their knowledge as 'non scientific' are simply poor idiots. Those will be doomed to remain in the dark for a long time.

My point that several and several aspects of scientific concepts are wrong, even today, has already been covered in the past in a few threads in this forum with factual evidences I offered.
A few months ago, I have built a LRL for my own use in which the sensor I developed contradicts standard electromagnetic theory proving Hertz was wrong. What's the big deal? Everyday a new scientific concept is revised. But only those that the Academia think will not become too 'traumatic' for the establishment.

This forum will still remain populated for some time by a few folks who insist in making fools of themselves fighting LRLs working. But 'perfect idiots' or 'self imposed naives' also have their time span to enter reality.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Sure, there is such a thing as resonance, but it has absolutely nothing to do with LRLs, other than in some peoples' fantasies. Induction, hydraulics, and refrigeration are also real, but also have zilch to do with LRLs. So are you still fantasizing that LRLs use resonant frequencies? If so, I can't help you with that.

That's like saying vacuum had nothing to do with light bulbs. But it played a part in the bulb's invention. And once again, you admit that the theory is good.

I wasn't asking you to help me, but thanks.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~Rich
There are many things that aren't well known, but don't have to be understood to be used. Aspirin, antibiotics, radios, cell phones
etc. aren't well understood by the majority of people, but if they work for you, you can be a user or opertator. When I first used
L-rods (dowsing rods) and got a reaction while walking over a hose with water flowing through it, I was intrigued. I still haven't figured
out how it works, but I have figured out that I can locate water, gold, silver and many other items. Using a long range locator makes it
easier, so I do that too. I am certainly not going to stop doing something that works for me. So, if you get results, you may want to
continue and see if you really need to understand it. I know an aerospace engineer who uses long range locators because they work
for him without an explanation. Come join us, the water's fine.

About 56 years ago I purchase a learners permit and 6 months later I was tested so I could prove that I understood how to operate it...Over all these years I have kept up with the new rules...there are many people who have all the testing equipment and tools to make sure it is running properly. I have learned a lot about the basic operation of a Automobile but most of it is not necessary to use it...Art

 

[Carl-NC]

KK, while resonant frequencies ain't got squat to do with LRLs, swivelies and gravity do, and I'll absolutely agree that the theory of swivelies and gravity are a very sound theory on which to design LRLs. The vast majority of LRL manufacturers agree with me.

The wonderful thing about LRLs is that you can deny the theory of swivelies and gravity and substitute, say, resonant frequencies if you like, and then pretend that the whole thing operates on resonant frequencies. And since resonant frequencies really exist in RealScience, you can further pretend that science backs you up! Ain't pretending wonderful?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

KK, while resonant frequencies ain't got squat to do with LRLs, swivelies and gravity do, and I'll absolutely agree that the theory of swivelies and gravity are a very sound theory on which to design LRLs. The vast majority of LRL manufacturers agree with me.

The wonderful thing about LRLs is that you can deny the theory of swivelies and gravity and substitute, say, resonant frequencies if you like, and then pretend that the whole thing operates on resonant frequencies. And since resonant frequencies really exist in RealScience, you can further pretend that science backs you up! Ain't pretending wonderful?

The problem with you argument is that I "ain't" pretending anything. I'm not saying that LRLs work, or don't work. Edison didn't start out saying the light bulb existed before he invented it. Again, if THE SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPAL is good, why would anyone who believes in science call it an impossibility? Edison didn't. No real man of science ever did.

 

[Carl-NC]

Of course you're pretending! How's that H3Tec working for ya?

(Pssst... Edison didn't invent the light bulb.)

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Of course you're pretending! How's that H3Tec working for ya?

(Pssst... Edison didn't invent the light bulb.)

You've got the wrong guy, both with me, and with the light bulb. But don't let that stop you.

 

[Treasure finder]

I have my own understanding on how LRL's work, but I don't think I need to waste time or energy typing out a reply for naysayers to jump all
over. I think some of them just want an explanation that they can make work. Kind of like a detective trying to get you to slip up and give
him the information that he can then show to the world as his original information. He will spend every day (and you see them on this blog)
instead of investigating on their own. Their punishment is not finding treasures because they spend too much time here whining.
Rich

 

[aarthrj3811]

Carl claims to own 30 LRL’s that he has taken apart and tested..After doing that none of them worked...It must be terrible to have all those great devices and not know how to operate them..Art

 

[hung]

Carl claims to own 30 LRL’s that he has taken apart and tested..After doing that none of them worked...It must be terrible to have all those great devices and not know how to operate them..Art

Mind boggling...
As he usually states himself.

Art:
If I find some time from now to the end of next year, I will try to accomplish a project I have been postponing for some time. To build an all electronic version of the Rangertell with the same features we have in the swivel unit. Only this one will not swing at all.
My main difficulties at present is to employ proper algorithms and create a feedback circuit to allow amplification. Nothing that cannot be overcome.
I will let you know.

 

[Treasure finder]

Art,
Why would someone take apart 30 units that he believes don't work. He must want them to work pretty badly.
Rich

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Carl doesn't believe in the theory behind LRLs, yet he built one (maybe more). Carl?