[x] Welcome at THunting.com!

A fun place to talk about Metal Detecting, Treasure Hunting & Prospecting. Here you can share finds and experience with thousands of members from all over the world

Join us and Register Now - Its FREE & EASY

THunting.com
Treasure Hunting & Metal Detecting Community
   
Advanced Search
*
Welcome, Guest! Please login or register HERE - It is FREE and easy.
Only registered users can post and view images on our message boards.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
Or Login Using Social Network Account
2
News:
Pages: 1    Go Down
Print
Share this topic on FacebookShare this topic on Del.icio.usShare this topic on DiggShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on Twitter
Tags:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Offline ChrisTopic starter
Copper Member
*

Sometimes the truth hurts but it's still the truth
Join Date: Jul, 2006
Thank you0

Activity
0%
Male
Posts: 72
Referrals: 0

0.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards
« on: August 06, 2006, 01:32:50 pm »
Go Up Go Down

Popular among the many ?belief systems? seems to be the idea that TANGIBLE ?fields? of one type or another are surrounding all sought after targets.  Apparently, these ?fields? are thought to be electromagnetic by some proponents, magnetic by other proponents (yes, there is a distinct technical difference), while others suppose they are charged fields of some type of ionic structure.  

In order to be useful to the dowser, and to ultimately be responsible for the proper ideomotor response, thus directing the dowser to said location, it would seem that these ?fields? would have to possess at least one very important characteristic.  That characteristic would be INTENSITY.  Further, before the INTENSITY of these fields could at all be recognizable by senses the dowser is employing, the INTENSITY of this received field would need to be greater than the INTENSITY of whatever (ambient) ?background environment? the field existed within.  Ergo, the delta-Intensity level would be sufficient to cause the sensing-mechanism of the dowser to register as a valid anomaly.  This anomaly subsequently touches-off (triggers) the ideomotor response and thus alerts the dowser through the dowsing instrument, producing a conscious indication.

Even though this is only a popular hypothesis, and may seem to occasionally fit the observed data from specific sources, --let?s assume for the moment that it is entirely true.

If we assume the observed data actually supports this hypothesis, thus lending a measure of substantiation and credibility, then logically we must also be able to observe certain other attributes surrounding this theory (otherwise the first part is wrong).

Given that our LRL/dowser is sensing a ?field? anomaly, and given that in order to do so, this field MUST by default be stronger than any ambient field strength, it is also obvious that this field must have an intensity that is measurable.  By measurable, I mean with some form of ?conventional? instrumentation.

Here is where we meet the first of our problems.  IF we are to believe that these ?fields? are real (tangible), why is it do you suppose that with all the instrumentation that we have for reading subtle (tiny) magnetic fields, we still can?t read these so-called fields with conventional instrumentation, but instead, can only sense them with bent coat hangers?

We just established that the delta-Intensity of these supposed fields would need to be distinguishable from the Earth?s geomagnetic field before it would produce an anomaly significant enough for a dowser/LRL to sense.  With a delta-Intensity of this magnitude (however, small it might be), any conventional instrument that could accurately discern the Earth?s geomagnetic field would absolutely be able to measure these supposed fields as well.  This instrumentation exists today, and it is not all that revolutionary.  By utilizing very common Hall-effect technology, High Sensitivity Hall Generators exist capable of providing nearly linear response from DC to 60 Hz in ranges of 0-2, 20, 200, 2000 mG (yes milliGauss!).  (Cost? less than $700)  This is not new technology, it?s commonplace in the world of conventional instrumentation.

With this kind of measurement instrumentation available, how is it do you suppose that someone hasn?t utilized it to measure these ?supposed fields?, and thereby get rid of the error-prone bent coat hangers, which are powered by the highly subjective ideomotor response?

...continued...


Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,92.msg340.html#msg340




Logged

---Chris

"WHAT CAN'T BE DONE, CAN BE LIED ABOUT"

Offline ChrisTopic starter
Copper Member
*

Sometimes the truth hurts but it's still the truth
Join Date: Jul, 2006
Thank you0

Activity
0%
Male
Posts: 72
Referrals: 0

0.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2006, 01:35:07 pm »
Go Up Go Down

Here is something else to consider.  Probably everyone here has at least one Charge Card, or perhaps a Debit Card (yes, there is a difference).  We all know that the little brown strip on the back of the card contains magnetic encoded information about our card.  Now the ?field? that would be generated by this strip could probably be considered as pretty small, yet this same card can be swiped through a card reader (worth about $15 on the surplus market) and the reader will not only sense this tiny field, but it will decode the ones and zeros for us.  The Intensity of the field strength from that card would probably be many times smaller than the ?supposed? field strength that a dowser/LRL would be sensing from a sought-after target, --especially in light of the fact that many proponents conclude this field is totally responsible for moving their LRL.  That being the case, how is it do you suppose that a card reader costing about $15 can read the information from the tiny field on the Charge Card, but no one has spent the same $15 to create a device to measure these ?supposed? fields that are ?emanating from all bodies? (which by the way should be magnitudes stronger)?

The second major problem with the ?fields? theory has to do with proximity of the target to the dowser/LRL.  You see, ?fields? decay as they travel through space.  The amount of electromagnetic energy passing through any given unit area decreases with the square of the distance from the source. This relationship is known as the inverse-square law of (electromagnetic) propagation. It accounts for loss of signal strength over space, called space loss.  I mention this only because there are those who vehemently claim that testing an LRL at very short target distances (say 3 to 10 feet) is ludicrous.  Immediately I would have to counter that statement with the following:  ?If the manufacturer of the LRL was comfortable having his device tested in that environment, why would it be ludicrous??  Shouldn?t the manufacturer know his product well enough to comment accurately on how it could be tested?  One would certainly hope so!

Then, of course there are others who maintain that their particular LRL instrument can only be expected to work accurately on pre-buried targets (targets that have aged for some time period in the ground).

In regards to both of these conditions, 1) the fresh targets at short distances and 2) the pre-buried targets, I would make the following comments.

Remember, the hypothesis is that ?fields? are emanating from all targets (and everything else for that matter).  Also, ?fields? decay as they travel through space.  In testing any particular LRL, wouldn?t it seem logical that if it DOES NOT respond to these ?fields? at very short distances, why would we expect it to respond differently (better or more accurately) at much greater distances?

What about the pre-buried target requirement?  (First of all, rather elaborate and suitable protocol for fairly testing LRLs that will only work on pre-buried targets, has been written, but that?s another topic.)  Let?s look at this from a slightly different angle.  Say a target must be buried for a period of time before it will produce the necessary detectable ?field?.  This ?field? now exhibits INTENSITY so that this particular type of LRL can detect it.  Let?s now digress for a moment to a time when this particular LRL was being designed and tested by the manufacturer.  Is it not logical to assume that the designer must have had some way to produce, for test purposes only, a ?field? INTENSITY level that would accurately mimic the characteristics of the ?field? which supposedly is emanating from pre-buried targets?  Then, for the purposes of testing and verification only, this same pseudo-field could be generated and hidden at short distances and at impromptu environments.  Again, if a particular LRL is supposed to be capable of responding to distant ?fields? from pre-buried targets, why is it not logical to expect that it would respond that much better on short distance pseudo-fields, which accurately mimic the pre-buried target fields?


Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,92.msg341.html#msg341




« Last Edit: August 06, 2006, 01:41:55 pm by Chris »
Logged

---Chris

"WHAT CAN'T BE DONE, CAN BE LIED ABOUT"

Offline ChrisTopic starter
Copper Member
*

Sometimes the truth hurts but it's still the truth
Join Date: Jul, 2006
Thank you0

Activity
0%
Male
Posts: 72
Referrals: 0

0.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2006, 01:37:33 pm »
Go Up Go Down

I?ve assumed the ?field? hypothesis is a valid one.  But then, if it is, the other characteristics of this hypothesis must also be observable and provable and substantiate the basic theory.  

As you can obviously see, there are a great many holes (questions) in the theory and really no way to get around them.  These questions will haunt this ?field hypothesis? for the natural life of the hypothesis, and without some semblance of logical answers, it likely can never be advanced beyond the status of ?just another wild claim?.  (Akin to the one about the US government hiding the little green space invaders that crashed near Roswell? ----oh, no, I can?t believe I said that? here come the cards and letters?.)

Therefore, the ?supposed field? theory seems destined to remain strictly an unsubstantiated hypothesis? and if I could borrow once again a quote from Abbe? Mermet, wherein he was attempting to provide his readers with a ?belief system? to hang onto? ??Everything takes place as if: All bodies without exception are constantly emitting undulations or radiations??

Mermet never once produced tangible proof that objects were ACTUALLY emitting undulations and/or radiations; --he merely explained his observations AS IF they were.

Clearly, if the instrumentation I described above had been available to him, as it is today, no doubt Mermet would not have been able to make the same assumptions, and would have needed a different fundamental hypothesis.


Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,92.msg342.html#msg342




Logged

---Chris

"WHAT CAN'T BE DONE, CAN BE LIED ABOUT"

Offline dowserbill
Bronze Member
*

I love THunting
Join Date: Jul, 2006
Thank you0

Activity
0%
Posts: 101
Referrals: 0

306.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2006, 03:27:18 pm »
Go Up Go Down

Chris, I can't remember the name of the unit or the guy who made them (taking strong pain pills for hip fracture) But he had a handheld unit and another part of the unit was attached to a whites metal detector. Well the unit (hand held) had a gauge and made a sound when pointed at say gold target. I believe the principle was based on a EMF detector. Glen Biship I believe had one or has one. So I hope Glenn looks in to this site.  Bill

Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,92.msg343.html#msg343




Logged
Offline ChrisTopic starter
Copper Member
*

Sometimes the truth hurts but it's still the truth
Join Date: Jul, 2006
Thank you0

Activity
0%
Male
Posts: 72
Referrals: 0

0.00 Gold
View Inventory

Awards
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2006, 03:50:04 pm »
Go Up Go Down

Quote:Posted by {author}
Chris, I can't remember the name of the unit or the guy who made them (taking strong pain pills for hip fracture) But he had a handheld unit and another part of the unit was attached to a whites metal detector. Well the unit (hand held) had a gauge and made a sound when pointed at say gold target. I believe the principle was based on a EMF detector. Glen Biship I believe had one or has one. So I hope Glenn looks in to this site.  Bill


That sounds a little like the gadget Ralph Shull made a few of.

Sorry to hear about the busted up hip.  Hope you get better real soon.


Linkback:

You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login

http://www.thunting.com/smf/index.php/topic,92.msg344.html#msg344




Logged

---Chris

"WHAT CAN'T BE DONE, CAN BE LIED ABOUT"

Print
Pages: 1    Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2005, Simple Machines | Sitemap
Copyright THunting.com