Those that have been scammed..

[EE THr]

Art---

The problem with your idea is that the transmitting and receiving field pattern for a whip antenna (which is what you are referring to) is shaped something like a doughnut, if you put it on the antenna all the way down to the base.

For example, a vertical whip antenna, has a horizontal field, shaped similar to a doughnut.

But the LRLs have the whip antenna mounted horizontally, which would result in a vertical field. That these LRLs have their antennas "pointed" at the target, puts the non-sensitive direction of the antenna toward the target. This won't fly. Sorry.

You can calculate all you want, but with the tip of the "antenna" pointed at the target, the actual field of effectiveness is point away from it. In other words, it does nothing involving radio waves.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pattern

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[EE THr]

Art---

Speaking of "Those that have been scammed," which is the title of your topic here, let me give you the following example.

People have been scammed by LRL advertisements which indicate that the pointer portion of the machine moves, by itself, to point at the target; yet apparently it does not.

So, do the pointer mechanisms move by themselves? Or is the operator required to move them on his own?

 

[fenixdigger]

Carl;

Sorry for the vague question. I was looking for how this was advertised. I'm curious about how far they went to sell these.

 

[Rudy(CA)]

Art---

The problem with your idea is that the transmitting and receiving field pattern for a whip antenna (which is what you are referring to) is shaped something like a doughnut, if you put it on the antenna all the way down to the base.

For example, a vertical whip antenna, has a horizontal field, shaped similar to a doughnut.

But the LRLs have the whip antenna mounted horizontally, which would result in a vertical field. That these LRLs have their antennas "pointed" at the target, puts the non-sensitive direction of the antenna toward the target. This won't fly. Sorry.

You can calculate all you want, but with the tip of the "antenna" pointed at the target, the actual field of effectiveness is point away from it. In other words, it does nothing involving radio waves.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pattern

This has been pointed out many times before but it seems to go over their heads, or the claim is made that there is something else going on that is not presently comprehended by current science.

 

[EE THr]

Rydy---

Thanks. I'm new to the fray, so I don't know about past conversations.

Do they have any explanation as to why they would want to use scientific formulas to calculate para-scientific phenomenon?

 

[woof!]

Rudy: the major manufacturers understand the science quite well. That's what makes them major manufacturers.

Art: here's a monkey wrench, be careful not to drop it on your foot! "The rod (antenna) orients itself to the null, not to the maximum, just like an RDF."

EE: watch Art drop it on his foot.

Any newbies: since what characterizes LRL's is the "electronic stuff", among the forum denizens are several competent electronic engineers to whom antennas are not majickal stuff because we've studied them from a scientific perspective. Most of us have engineered them according to scientific principles and then tested them to see if see if they did more or less what we expected. If they didn't, we eventually figured out that the antenna was right and we'd misapplied the scientific principles. ......Then there are the people to whom an antenna is a complete mystery (as it is to most people, no biggie there). .....But here on the LRL forum there are people who when presented with something that's a complete mystery, they cannot acknowledge that they don't understand it and that there are other people who not only understand it but have proven they understand it by engineering things that work according to underlying principles. In the case of antennas, principles which are more or less universally accepted among those who design them successfully. Rather, the clueless solve the mystery by deciding that an antenna is whatever their imagination wants it should be, and works however they think it should work, regarding all the antennas they deal with in everyday life on radios and TV's and wireless gadgets which were engineered to work, as irrelevant anomalies. Thus do they regain control over their own definition of reality, but it's achieved by denying the reality which the Universe makes available to those willing to learn and accepts its disciplines. They get what they want out of the deal, but at a price that most folks would rather not pay themselves.

EE & Rudy: they're just jerking us around, they reject the same science that they invoke. Art in particular likes to load up his posts now and then with a whole slew of links to stuff that are either irrelevant to the conversation, or which contradict him. After being burned by this several times, I generally ignore all links in an Art post unless there's only one link, and even then I usually ignore it.

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

woof!---

Art also seems to like to simply ignore posts that ask a key question.

Maybe he figures it will work it's way up so high that nobody will notice it? Then come back in a few days and just start all over again, pretending that it was never asked?

Or maybe he's calling headquarters to get the proper gobbledygook answer?





Oh well.

 

[woof!]

Art picks and chooses which questions he wants to answer, just like the rest of us.

That question about "will it follow the gold in a fixed installation?", I thought that was in another thread, did it get buried so far back so quick in this thread that it already seems like another thread in less than 24 yours? What the heck, I'll comment on it here while I'm at it.

I've seen questions of that same sort asked several times here over the years (inclusive of the old Tnet forum) and the outcome is always agreement between the LRL apologists and the so-called "skeptics": it won't work. Usually the apologists are quite certain it won't work without need for any evidence (read that advertisement!), but on rare occasions a dowsing or LRL fan thought it an interesting question they weren't already sure about, and actually set up a look-ma-no-hands arrangement and experimentally found out what everyone else on both sides of the aisle already knew: that dog won't dowse, not even with Amazing Randy thousands of miles away.

I liked the old Tnet forum better, it included dowsers, and on the average they understood this stuff a lot better than the LRL'ers.

--Toto

 

[aarthrj3811]

"Hail, Hail, the Gang's All Here",

 

[woof!]

Party with Artie!

 

[EE THr]

Art picks and chooses which questions he wants to answer, just like the rest of us.

OK, but right in the middle of a conversation?

 

[woof!]

He doesn't remember what the question was.

 

[EE THr]

I'll bet!

 

[aarthrj3811]

Thanks guys for all the help..The dealers are enjoying your post .Later today I will have the new sales report and also who was last years salesman of the year..Don’t get excited SWR your sales have slipped from the top two..Of course I have not compiles all the e-mails yet so it may change but I don’t think so,,,Art

 

[Carl-NC]

Carl;

Sorry for the vague question. I was looking for how this was advertised. I'm curious about how far they went to sell these.

Dunno, it's a Ranger-Tell Goldscrew, so you would have to ask Mr. Blanes.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Where are they Skeptics?

 

[EE THr]

Where are they Skeptics?

You seem to always leave out one category, in this respect, by claiming that there are only two categories: LRLers and skeptics.

But there are actually three---

1. LRL Believers.
2. LRL Skeptics, who doubt that they really work.
3. People knowledgeable in electronics who have researched the so-called LRL category of devices, and determined, without a doubt, that they are all a fraudulent hoax.

There can be skeptics about any subject. Sometimes they research, and discover that they were wrong, and whatever they were skeptical about is really true. Sometimes they find out that they were right, and move into group #3, above. And sometimes no amount of proof will convince them that something is true, even when it actually is---this is the hard core skeptic.

Once in awhile people in #2, above, come on here and ask some questions.

But 99% of those posting are either in #1 or #3, above.

The people in #1 have a disposition similar to those "hard core" skeptics previously mentioned, because their minds will not be changed, regardless of being proven wrong time after time. These people also adamantly profess that they don't need to prove their claims, but rather that everyone should just believe them, and they insult anyone who doesn't (which is the hallmark of all con artists everywhere).

The reason there are "skeptics," as defined in #2, above, is answered by the paragraph directly above this one.

 

[aarthrj3811]

The question is Those that have been scammed..not what is a no nothing skeptic...From the response to this thread we have to assume that most of the thousands of LRL owners do not feel that they were scammed. We also know that the only ones complaining are skeptics who have never purchased a LRL, used a LRL and most have never saw a LRL..Art

 

[EE THr]

The question is Those that have been scammed..not what is a no nothing skeptic...From the response to this thread we have to assume that most of the thousands of LRL owners do not feel that they were scammed. We also know that the only ones complaining are skeptics who have never purchased a LRL, used a LRL and most have never saw a LRL..Art

1. You have tried to state the number of LRL owners before, yet you can never back up your claims of those numbers. Worse yet, the numbers you post change, up and down, from week to week.

2. You have tried to state that your imaginary LRL owners are happy with them, but you have never backed that up, besides quoting faked "testimonials" from LRL manufacturers' Web sites.

3. You continue to refer to group #3 as "skeptics," even after having it clearly explained to you.

4. You continue to follow the pattern of all con artists everywhere.

5. By your statement quoted above, you are admitting that people have been scammed. That is the one thing that you have ever said that can be believed.

 

[aarthrj3811]

The question is Those that have been scammed..not what is a no nothing skeptic