Jump to content

All About Long Range Locators

Recommended Posts

There are some that say the LRL is just to get you in the general area, then you switch to a normal metal detector to make the actual find. I actually have a few of those devices myself - I call them books.

If I was not an honest person I could be a remarkably effective LRL salesperson, and could easily "prove" to people they work. Playing on people's greed is one of the easiest sales gigs ever. Look what it has done for the Nigerian economy!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, verifies what I have always thought, except when I was a beginner, it could very well save someone on this forum from falling into this trap. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

I personally refuse to purchase anything from a company selling long range locators. It says something about the management of the company that makes me prefer to do business elsewhere.

I agree.  It either says they are dishonest or intentionally ignorant.  If you sell a product, you owe it to the customer to know if it's worthwhile or not.  Period.  BTW, I tried to search for LRL's at Kellyco and didn't find any.  Was starting to think they cleaned up their ways.  Then I went to Google and found this:


Hey, what's a $13,500 investment when it will find you a fortune?!

Dowsing is in the same boat.  I've met some nice people who are proponents of that and it pains me.  I've never been good at politely and diplomatically making a case against believers....  Here's a good video by Chris Ralph where (IMO) he does a nice job of telling-it-like-it-is while still maintaining some diplomacy:


  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dowsing does not bother me because it’s honest about what it is. As long as people stick with homemade or very inexpensive dowsing tools no harm done really. Spending big bucks for dowsing gear I personally think is ill advised. LRL devices are dowsing devices pretending to work on scientific principles, and therein lies the deception. Dowsing is a belief system that has never passed the barest thresholds of scientific testing. There are on the other hand plenty of people who have anecdotal evidence about dowsing that causes them to believe in dowsing. The same can be said of ghosts and over a third of Americans believe in ghosts. Being a science nerd type I don’t believe in either dowsing or ghosts. I also acknowledge it is impossible to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that things like that can’t exist. I would be foolish to think there are not things currently outside the reach of known science. Those kinds of questions I am therefore more than willing to toss in that vast category where I simply don’t know, and the truth is I know almost nothing. It’s not my job to prove people wrong when in fact I cannot. I maintain it’s the other way around... prove to me it works, and then we can talk. And just in case anyone thinks I am close-minded about something I have never tried, I have a set of dowsing rods and have tried it.

For me it’s all a truth in advertising thing, and if people want to think dowsing works and buy something advertised as a dowsing device... that’s fine by me. They know what they are being sold. LRL not only crosses that line but inevitably seems to come with insane price tags attached. That is where I object and where silence is being complicit by not taking a stand.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Dowsing does not bother me because it’s honest about what it is.

Maybe we're veering too far off topic (but I guess the Site Admin will decide that 😉 ).  IMO, dowsing is dishonest because its followers claim it does something that it doesn't.  You link to scientific testing results (thanks for that) which tallied evidence consistent with dowsing being no better than random chance.  The onus is on the dowsers to show that it works under scientific scrutiny.  Apparently they haven't.

Ghosts (as you mention), paranormal activity, astrology and unfortunately a lot of even more widely accepted practices and claims fall in the same boat.  If we allow those to go unchecked then they infiltrate policy, as we've seen repeatedly and embarassingly occur in our congresses and parliaments, and it continues into the present.

'Belief' is a word I've tried hard to remove from my vocabulary.  Evidence, honestly gathered, scrutinized, and publicized is what matters.  It's ok not to know something and particularly to have the courage to say so.  But it doesn't give 'believers' a pass into pushing an agenda which has no basis in evidence.

(Now please pardon me as I step down from my soapbox and we resume previously scheduled programming.)


  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As admin I would say the rules here basically say keep it respectful, and no politics. So beware the line between saying dowsing as a methodology is "dishonest" and saying that those who believe in dowsing are dishonest. If a person believes dowsing works they are not being dishonest in that belief. The perception of such things causes discussion to stray into people defending their ethics and intelligence instead of staying dispassionate about a subject. Tread carefully on these forums when it come to respecting other peoples "beliefs".

What constitutes allowable public policy or not is merely an opinion when it comes to politics. Some people (not me) approve of theocracy. They are not "wrong" and you are not "right" in your opinion that public policy should be based on science, proof, etc. It is all opinion based on personal preference as to how to structure government. I do not allow politics on this forum as it is the realm of endless argument over such opinions, and so that's the end of that part of the discussion. If you want to do battle in that realm there are better venues.

LRL threads have a way of going south and so this one may get locked at any instant that it appears to be heading that way. To reiterate, my concern in starting the thread was to warn people about LRL devices, not prove whether or not dowsing works. Nobody here will ever be able to prove it does not to people that think otherwise and attempting to do so will just needlessly ruffle feathers. If anyone wants to state an opinion one way or the other about whether they think it works or not, that's fine. Trying to prove other people wrong... let's not go there.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hey there Steve, thanx for letting me join your site.   Got prompted , from a fellow on another forum, to come read what you'd written about LRL's.  Because that person know I was a rabid skeptic on that subject, haha. 😇    I Enjoyed GB-amateur's video link.

To comment on what you've written on the subject, I've lifted the following quotes from you.   And wonder if you could take-a-crack at the common "push-backs", that the believers offer, to what you're saying .   My comments, following each of your quotes, is their  typical responses .  So I'm just playing the devil's advocate, to see how you'd respond :

 "... For me these devices have always failed the most basic test... the experience of hundreds of thousands of prospectors and treasure hunters around the world...."

"Huh ?  What do you mean they 'fail the tests' ?  There's scores of testimonials of success.  I mean, gee, haven't you see the advertisements of guys posing next to the jars of coins that they found ?  Photos don't lie after all, eh ?   

And no, it's not random eventual luck.  They will say they've found goodies without a "detector to pinpoint", thus ruling out eventual random odds.    

And if you point them to staged double-blind tests that have been done, they will dismiss those too.  For very simple reasons:  
A) Those dowsing/LRL test subject persons weren't qualified or experienced enough.    B) The tests were rigged to make-certain that the dowsers/LRL failed.   C) Durned those sun-spots or lunar burps or EMI after all, that must've been present that day.   D) You can't count an isolated singular test.  I mean, after all, do MD'rs find a gold ring or gold coin every day they go out ?  No, of course not.  Then why the double-standard expectation for dowsing and LRL ?  

 "... If it works, the use soon spreads to other prospectors....."

 IT MOST CERTAINLY HAS "spread to other prospectors".   Why do you think that there is historical mentions of dowsing that goes all the way back to ancient times ?   If it didn't work, then .... by golly .... they wouldn't have been doing it and spreading the word to others.  And people wouldn't have continued the practice .  Thus the word, and usage, did indeed "spread".   There's scores of people doing it in present times.  So how can you say it hasn't "spread" ?

 "... Except for a few obvious promotionals, the success stories of people using LRL devices are glaringly absent....."

That's got a bullet proof rationale :  The reason you don't hear of too many caches and treasures and riches being found by the LRL/dowser gang, is easy:  Because they're after "big game".  Not a few individual nuggets here  and there.  Not singular coins like the lowly md'rs.   Heck no.  They're after the big-ticket caches !   

And as such, they therefore keep mum and secret about their finds. Because, since they're so big, then ... gee ... they don't want to open themselves up for the chance that thieves might target their home.  And the IRS would come knocking on their door for  taxes.  So they keep mum and aren't boasting.   Loose lips sink ships after all.  But rest assured:  It works, and treasures are being found.    

 "... And just in case anyone thinks I am close-minded about something I have never tried, I have a set of dowsing rods and have tried it. ...."

And you know what that means, don't you ?  It simply means you weren't doing it right.  And/or didn't practice long enough.  For example :  If you took a newbie md'r and a skilled md'r, out to an old park , who is most likely to find old silver with their detector ?   Obviously the skilled md'r, who has years of experience.  Right ?  So why the double-standard for LRL/dowsing ?  

Thus the fact of someone testing /trying it, and coming away with no results ... NEVER means:  "It doesn't work".  Instead, it always/only means:  a) You need more practice, and b) you were doing it wrong.   See ?


  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"... Being a science nerd type I don’t believe in either dowsing or ghosts....."

This is where it almost gets comical with them.   Because a lot of them distance themselves from any sort of supernatural explanation, lest it get lumped into a category of spooks, occult, mystical, religion, etc....    And .... no no no, we can't go THERE, right ?  Because, gee, what's next ouija boards ? seances ?    Thus ... no no no,  we can't go there.     So what they will say is :  That the explanation is totally scientific in nature.  Nothing to do with spooks, or spirits, etc....

And, in the effort to show that it's scientifically based, they will even offer various explanations.  With $20 high-sounding words.  About the attractions of objects, etc.....   If someone with a scientific background goes to try to dismantle the explanations (showing that they hold no merit), then they resort to this :

That dowsing is:  Un-discovered science.   After all, science once thought the earth was flat.  Right ?   And science once said that heavier-than-air flight was impossible.  Right ?   Well so too is dowsing simply "Un-discovered" science.    And some day, science will come along,  and be able to explain how it works.  But .... rest assured, it's totally scientific.

But then, in the same discussion threads/blogs/forums :   OTHER dowsers will start rambling on about things that .... border on the mystical and occult explanations.   Ie.: that it takes "faith" and "belief", "auras" and other such buzzwords that start to sound almost new-age, or religious  .   And when you point out to them that their peers have said it's "totally scientific" (So as-to-point-out their internal contradictions within their camps), then they have the following wonderful compromise agreement within their ranks :

"Who cares HOW it works?"  It doesn't matter whether this side of the aisle (the "science" explanation camp) is right, or the other side of the aisle (the supernatural explanation camp) is right. The bottom line is:  That it works.  And thus they see no internal consistency problem with the multitude of conflicting explanations , that pop up within their ranks.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Similar Content

    • By Tony
      From what I can gather, higher frequency VLF detectors are more suited for smaller gold but ground mineralisation may be something to factor in. Would there be a “better” frequency for nuggets 1 gram and above in heavy ground?
      I’m not too concerned if I miss sub gram nuggets if there is a better suited frequency.
      The old Garrett Groundhog circuitry was legendary in this country…..I think it was around the 15 kHz mark. Is this frequency range a good starting point or do I need to consider other things such as better ground balancing capabilities or Garrett’s extra coil voltage. 
      My Minelab PI units will be mainstay detectors but as mentioned in another post, I have ground littered in man made iron junk and the ground mineralisation is severe. There are plenty of nuggets in the 1 gram to 5 gram range (maybe bigger) but the iron signals are as dense as 5 per square metre 🤬
       Thanks for any ideas.
    • By water spider
      maybe we could have a multi frequency coil, that recieves a single frequency or selectable single frequency and effectively distorts and amplifies the single frequency resulting in frequency variants up and down, mimicking or creating smf
    • By Skullgolddiver
      After the good new I realized when tested a few days ago my machine after It drowned and I've succesfully reanimated It....
      Now the horrible gasket Is fighting to stay out of the housing against any kind of attempt😒.
      So I'm in the middle of a headache manutention session with scarce results.
      That's the Mood guys😑

    • By Tnsharpshooter
      See NASA-Tom’s comments
    • By Tnsharpshooter
      Don’t know any other better subforum to place this.
      When manufacturers design make sure platform can allow at least 2 software versions or at the very least allow what I call both newer version update (whole) and a older subset (portion of older version) to be used.  
      Makes testing easier if and when a newer version is designed and requires pre release testing in the field for validation.   Would allow users after version release to use different versions and gain first hand feedback of the benefits or lack thereof of different versions or version subset(s).  Case in point.  Notice Minelab left old iron bias to be user selected when they released newer version with iron bias F2 option.  
      So in a nutshell this allows the detector versions ( or version subset) to be compared to the themselves in the field by the user.
      Xp should have done this too.  They should have designed Deus imo where at least  2 complete version allowed to be uploaded to unit.
      Notice the later released Ace Apex.  Garrett should have allowed on it too.  
      Don’t know what added production cost this would cause.  Hopefully not much.
    • By Northeast
      This was mentioned by geof_junk in another thread and had a little Google.  
      Found this  https://www.phys.k-state.edu/reu2011/nnorvell/Metal_Detector_Research.html
      I don’t really understand the technical side of metal detectors.  Does this have any application to current day detectors?  Will it help cancel out ground noise more?  Will the current crossing/not crossing the ‘bridge’ tell you something about what is under one of the receive coils.  
      Although I don’t understand it, I am amazed and a little in awe of those that do  👍
  • Create New...