The "metal detector mfrs are afraid of LRLs" delusion

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: The "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion

swr you of course have reliable, independent, competent proof of this statement? Does he aa?

Don Jose de La Mancha,

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[architecad]

Re: The "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion

I imagine Woof won't sleep tonight thinking what he going to write tomorrow.

Arch

Do you still imagine that metal detector manufacturers are worried that LRL's will make metal detectors obsolete?

The Metal detector never will be obsolete because MFD and Metal detecting are two differences way to search. With metal detector, you can search a small area, however a MFD or LRL can sweep a large area in minutes, with a Metal detector you could take hours or days. With a MFD like I used, you can trace out a signal, check target weight and determine whether is worthless or not to dig. In cache hunting, I took with me my metal detector and my MFD.

Arch in TRnet

"Educating the non-educated skeptics"

 

[woof!]

Re: The "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion

Fenix says the LRL's take hours or days.

But, your delusion about metal detector manufacturers seems to have been disspelled. That's amazing!

--Toto

 

[architecad]

Re: The "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion

Fenix says the LRL's take hours or days.

But, your delusion about metal detector manufacturers seems to have been disspelled. That's amazing!

--Toto

Takes hour if there are bushes, trees and rocks in the middle. Yes, could take days, but if I'm search in a flat terrains, only minutes!! so simple.

Art in TRnet

"Educating the non-educated skeptics"

 

[woof!]

Re: The "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion

So you're a lot better at LRL'ing than Fenix, whose concern was not terrain obstacles, but the basic dysfunctionality of LRL's when faced with the task of locating a gold object.

--Toto

 

[architecad]

Re: The "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion

So you're a lot better at LRL'ing than Fenix, whose concern was not terrain obstacles, but the basic dysfunctionality of LRL's when faced with the task of locating a gold object.

--Toto

I didn't say that.

Arch in TRnet

"Educating the non-educated skeptics"

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: The "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion

~woof~

So you're a lot better at LRL'ing than Fenix, whose concern was not terrain obstacles, but the basic dysfunctionality of LRL's when faced with the task of locating a gold object.

--Toto
Have you ever hunted gold in swamp land? Have you ever hunted gold in the high desert? Have you ever hunted gold in the steep tree covered areas of California? Each takes a different method of locating..By the way..the only people I ever see using a beep beep machine are usually in parks and school yards…Art

 

[fenixdigger]

Re: The "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion

WOOF: I see now that you are right You have fun with it

 

[woof!]

Re: The "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion

Fixing the "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion turned out to be a lot easier than I expected. Unless someone wants to jump in and reclaim the delusion, this thread may prove to have been a pretty short one.

--Toto

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: The "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion

I think that we have put a dent in the market forcing them to make a better product..I see all kinds of new coils to give them more depth..Over the past 11 years I have saw the technology of our devices get better and better..I also see the sales keep going up…Art

 

[architecad]

Re: The "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion

Fixing the "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion turned out to be a lot easier than I expected. Unless someone wants to jump in and reclaim the delusion, this thread may prove to have been a pretty short one.

--Toto

May be you want to say "Fixing your thought about the use of LRL and MFD's user". That's sound better.

Arch

 

[architecad]

Re: The "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion

I think that we have put a dent in the market forcing them to make a better product..I see all kinds of new coils to give them more depth..Over the past 11 years I have saw the technology of our devices get better and better..I also see the sales keep going up…Art

I believe near in the future, I new and modern MFD will be in the market to find targets using a laptop that combine deep metal detecting with graphic and a long search as LRL without L-rod. Instead to use L-rod, it would use a sort of sensitive optic device which can read the magnetism around some targets and minerals buried.

Meanwhile, I'm happy with MFD

Arch

 

[woof!]

Re: The "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion

Combined detection of VLF magnetic fields ("metal detector") and DC magnetic fields (magnetometer) combined with mapping software is probably already on the market, and if not, it will be soon. Of course this has nothing to do with "MFD". Detection of electric fields (other than that implicit in circular electric field induction by an alternating magnetic near-field) with apparatus not in contact with the ground is irrelevant to detection of buried objects because the voltages induced in the buried objects are extremely low, and the electrical conductivity of the ground effectively "grounds out" any electric field emanating from the object.

An exception to what I said about electric fields, is if you add VHF-UHF detection capability like some mine detectors use for detecting plastic mines. These are radiation field apparatus, not near field. When it comes to detecting metal, however, they are vastly inferior to an ordinary metal detector. It is probable that VLF-VHF sensor fusion mine detectors already exist. In principle magnetometry and mapping capability could be added. Of course none of this has anything to do with "MFD".

The frequency of gold is a rather broad band in the region of reciprocal 600+ nanometers. This has been verified many times in scientific laboratories. I have two detectors (sensitive optic devices) that can identify that frequency band even remotely through the Internet. They're not for sale. A while back I gave Art a demo, and he wasn't happy with the fact they worked.

--Toto

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: The "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion

~SWR~

oops... ya forgot how to spell your own name! There's education for ya!

Congrats SWR..You finally said something that you can prove…Art

 

[Saturna]

Re: The "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion

~SWR~

oops... ya forgot how to spell your own name! There's education for ya!

Congrats SWR..You finally said something that you can prove…Art

We're still waiting for you to the same Arthur.

 

[woof!]

Delusions are hard to get rid of

Why do Skeptics realize this challenge?

Because many of them are: Merchandiser, businessman, metal detectors dealer, people that feel their "Spirit of Capitalism", their greed for money is in risk. Many of them sell metal detector for $4,000, 5,000., therefore, they invented this challenge with the excuse of "help you to know the true about MFD" and the reality behind is to save their business. In America, nobody give away $25,000 (Carl M) and Randi with $1,000,000.00 just to see if a MFD really find gold. There are economical interests behind this challenge, and they set up already a "Trap" to see who is the next victim to fall.

Notice how quickly the delusion about metal detector manufacturers came back?

--Toto

 

[Saturna]

Re: The "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion

Architecad does seem especially delusional.

 

[woof!]

How to understand conspiracy theories

Classifying conspiracy theories


TYPE I: Conspiracy theories that have evidence in their favor, and reflect actual conspiracies.

TYPE II: Conspiracy theories have evidence in their favor, but the theory happens to be wrong: the supposed conspiracy doesn't actually exist.

TYPE III: Conspiracy theories have no evidence at all in their favor, they're complete figments of imagination.

The wonderful thing about no-evidence-in-favor theories is that to create the theory requires no use of reason. I suppose we've all known "conspiracy theorists" who had all kinds of conspiracy theories which were completely baseless, and none that actually had some facts to lend credibility to the theory. The reason for such behavior is that Type III conspiracies require no reasoning: pure fantasy is fully adequate, and has the advantage of not being constrained by any facts.

The "metal detector manufacturers are conspiring to get rid of LRL's because they're afraid that LRL's will take away their market" theory is a Type III conspiracy-- one with no evidence whatsoever that can be reasoned about to lead to the theory. It's pure wishful fantasy. All the evidence, every last bit of it, refutes that theory.

The funny thing is that for the theory to be true, metal detector engineers would have to believe that the things actually work, and anyone who frequents this forum (for example Archie) knows without the slightest doubt that we do not think that LRL's "work" other than as dowsing rods. And whatever it is that dowsing rods do, it's no threat to the metal detector industry.

--Toto

 

[fenixdigger]

Re: The "metal detector mfr's are afraid of LRL's" delusion

Oh Lord, not more useless lists.

Consider this. I hunt with 8 people on an almost regular basis. ALL have at least 2 detectors. How does this play into your list?

 

[architecad]

Re: How to understand conspiracy theories

Classifying conspiracy theories


TYPE I: Conspiracy theories that have evidence in their favor, and reflect actual conspiracies.

TYPE II: Conspiracy theories have evidence in their favor, but the theory happens to be wrong: the supposed conspiracy doesn't actually exist.

TYPE III: Conspiracy theories have no evidence at all in their favor, they're complete figments of imagination.

The wonderful thing about no-evidence-in-favor theories is that to create the theory requires no use of reason. I suppose we've all known "conspiracy theorists" who had all kinds of conspiracy theories which were completely baseless, and none that actually had some facts to lend credibility to the theory. The reason for such behavior is that Type III conspiracies require no reasoning: pure fantasy is fully adequate, and has the advantage of not being constrained by any facts.

The "metal detector manufacturers are conspiring to get rid of LRL's because they're afraid that LRL's will take away their market" theory is a Type III conspiracy-- one with no evidence whatsoever that can be reasoned about to lead to the theory. It's pure wishful fantasy. All the evidence, every last bit of it, refutes that theory.

The funny thing is that for the theory to be true, metal detector engineers would have to believe that the things actually work, and anyone who frequents this forum (for example Archie) knows without the slightest doubt that we do not think that LRL's "work" other than as dowsing rods. And whatever it is that dowsing rods do, it's no threat to the metal detector industry.

--Toto

How did you say? Conspiracy theories?

How do you call to this mental disturbing? Paranoia?



Next for this Forum;

"Under the hood: Evaluating SWR's electrical engineering capabilities".

Mr. SWR say he is Electrical Engineer. He's spent time pointing out many equipment that many members in this forum are using. Now we want to validate his knowledge in "Electrical Engineering". Nothing wrong with that.

Note: No insult, with all respect, no personal attack. Just a simple evaluation. Get ready SWR!! Study the NEC.

Arch