Jump to content

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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 WhiteRabbit
      Hello, now here’s an opener that might just get me banned on my first post!
      Bear with me, my intentions are pure :)
      Does anyone know if it would be possible to jam an MD signal? The reason I ask is to combat the evident problem we have in the UK with “nighthawks”, illegal detectorists.
      Over here, any landowner can grant permission for detecting on their land (with caveats, known historic sites are protected by law). What often happens is that such a permission is granted and a detectorist innocently sets about his / her business. Someone less scrupulous spots this person and assumes there may be something important there, so shows up at night with a couple of friends and the landowner awakens to a field / lawn full of holes, then bans metal detecting.
      Historic sites are also looted.
      Just an off the wall question, how tricky would it be to build a device to block this on a piece of land? Anyone any ideas?
    • By ColonelDan
      99% of my detecting is done on central Florida beaches. Since it’s impossible to establish a well stocked test garden at a public beach, I sorta brought the beach home with me and developed my own private beach garden!
      I cut slots in two large empty chlorine tablet buckets at various depths as shown from 2 -16 inches. I then filled one with New Smyrna Beach sand and the other with soil...for the few times I land hunt around here.

      I embedded numerous examples of ferrous and non ferrous targets into paint stirring sticks. I also have several blank sticks I use for gold and silver jewelry as well as artifacts that I don’t want permanently attached to a stick.

      I then insert the target(s) in the slots, each at its desired depth, and start scanning.

      This allows me to rapidly change the targets, depth and relative position of each.  I can now test for sensitivity at depth as well as separation of ferrous and non-ferrous targets in a variety of scenarios using actual beach sand where I do my detecting.
      If I want to test in wet salt sand, I just soak the bucket sand with authentic sea water that I also brought home from New Smyrna Beach...and the Atlantic Ocean never even missed it.  😉
      Works for me.....
    • By Steve Herschbach
      I always have my ears perked up for something new in metal detectors and metal detecting technology. I’m not educated enough to really get deep into the technical side of it, but I have a general layman's knowledge of the subject.

      A couple years ago Carl Moreland, the Engineering Manager for White's Electronics, was interviewed on a radio show. I tripped over a reference to the interview on another forum and checked it out. It is very long, and near the end Carl dropped a bombshell. At least I thought so, but it went unnoticed and uncommented on in the metal detecting online world. I thought about posting it on a forum back then but decided to wait and see what developed. Here is the applicable portion of the interview:

      Relic Roundup Radio Show, January 17, 2012, Interview with Carl Moreland, Engineering Manager, White’s Electronics

      Transcript beginning at 50:57 mark:

      Carl Moreland - “I can mention one technology that we’re working on because the patent has already been published… or the application, not the patent hasn't gone through yet. We’re working on something called half sine technology, which has actually been around since the 1960’s in geophysical prospecting applications. This is where instead of transmitting a sinusoidal signal you actually just transmit half of the sine and you can do that at extremely high voltages and high ? rates and so on. It’s technically not pulse induction but it’s not VLF either and it is a time domain method. And with that we can get really good depth and we can even get target id information and do discrimination and so forth.”

      Can you see why I perked up at that? I am still amazed it did not get any notice at the time. Nothing happened for a long time. Then I got this PM from Rick Kempf recently:

      Sent 29 January 2014 - 09:04 AM

      Was looking for info on my new SD 2100 this AM when I sort of fell down a rabbit hole of old forum posts and emerged reading Whites new patent. About the first thing I noticed was that you were cited in "prior art".

      Here's what they cited: http://www.voy.com/76600/7/475.html

      The patent is here: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110316541

      Is this something you knew about? Just wondering.

      Rick Kempf

      I told Rick, yeah, heard about that. It was the patent finally being granted from the application Carl mentions in the interview. It was fun getting a mention in a patent though I think it was just the examiner studying up on the subject and finding my old post helpful in simplifying the subject.

      For a long time the Holy Grail in metal detecting has been something that combines the target identification of an Induction Balance (IB or more commonly known as VLF) detector with depth of a Pulse Induction (PI) detector. There have been many promises and false starts over the years, and that was one reason I kept the radio interview mention quiet the last couple years. Frankly, I had half forgot about it until Rick brought the patent being granted to my attention. Notice the title:

      Hybrid Induction Balance/Pulse Induction Metal Detector

      A new hybrid metal detector combines induction balance and pulse induction technologies. Target signals are generated from a transmitted wave that has both induction balance and pulse current inducing characteristics and uses pertinent sampling of the receive data. Combining the two data sources provides eddy current target identification while excluding ground permeability and remanence obscuration.

      Is it time to sing Hallelujah? Well, there is a big gap in between getting a patent and bringing a detector to market. Many patents get filed and you never even see something directly related to the patent. Maybe it looked good on paper but does not pan out well in reality for numerous reasons. So just because White's was granted this patent does not mean something is around the corner. However, they have been working on it for over two years already obviously. And it has been some time since White's put something new out. I do not count remakes of the MXT etc as new. So I think there is reason to be hopeful we may see something one of these days.

      John Earle is one of the unsung heros in the industry. He had a hand in many of the best products at Compass Electronics before moving over to White's after Compass went under. To this day I have never used a VLF that goes any deeper than my old Compass Gold Scanner Pro. John was one of the brains involved in that, as well as the White's Goldmaster 3, regarded by many as being the pinnacle of the analog development of that model line. I was fortunate to have met John at the factory some years ago. He is listed as the inventor on the new patent. Half sine technology is also mentioned in an earlier patent filed by White's, again with John listed as inventor at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7649356.pdf

      Looks like serious stuff brewing. Bruce Candy of Minelab makes mention of half sine technology in a patent application at http://patents.com/us-20130154649.html which makes me wonder about the new "Super Gold Detector" he is working on. But it is this most recent patent by White's that seems to put the finest point on it. Maybe the Holy Grail of detecting is soon to be a reality. The fact it is White's certainly gives me more hope than what we have seen in the past.
      Edit May 2015 - see also White's patent for Constant Current Metal Detector
    • By kac
      Found this patent that Whites filed and got a patent on in 2014 on a hybrid IB/PI machine.
      Curious if anyone heard anything about this. Maybe Garrett will take it on?
    • By NV-OR-ID-CAL-AU
      I know we have had some great advancements in VLF metal detector's over the recent past, but I am hoping that we can keep some of the older design features that seemed to work well. 
      My favorite new technological features being offered in VLF's are Multi-IQ and single frequencies options, fully programmable settings, waterproof, noise cancel, USB chargers, li-ion batteries, Bluetooth headphones, prospecting & coin/relic options, and lightweight. Really a great job by the inventors of these detectors.
      IMHO I hope we do not lose some of the past designs that worked well, such as the ergonomics of the balanced s rod that would separate in three places for backpacking, the hip mountable brain box, the detectors that would not fall over when put on a little bit of an uneven surface, the 6.5 inch elliptical concentric or double DD coils for great access in rocky areas, the 1/4 inch headphone jack, the spare interchangeable battery pack that takes regular batteries to serve as a back-up for the li-ion battery pack, and higher frequencies options.
      I would like to see what else had worked well with other detector user, seems like we are always buying aftermarket parts to retain some of these older features where possible. 
    • By schoolofhardNox
      Not sure where this belongs on the forum, (or if it even belongs here), but this seemed to be the best category to discuss this. Ever since information on the GPX 6000 started to trickle out, I had this nagging feeling something in detecting has changed for those of us who like the thrill of getting to know a new detector. I never would have envisioned the GPX line morphing into a simplified detector. After having the GPX 5000 for a bunch of years now, and using it for relic and beach hunting, I could not imagine relying on a machine that adjust everything for you. I get it that money talks, and when you are a publicly traded company, you go for profit first, and then deny it 😄 And now that there market has switched to an area that probably has very little experience with detectors, the GPX 5000 must have been daunting for them.  So they cater to that market. But I was hoping that a new GPX would fix some of the issues that the 5000 had. I was naive. Minelab has never kept the good parts of their previous machines and just added the the things that needed improvements. On the E trac, the best part of it was the depth it had in finding deep silver,  in long tones, multi. Also the bouncy numbers helped ID deep Indians. When the CTX came out, it lost some of that fluety tone and they tried to straighten out the numbers to a number 12 line. So a two dimensional screen that worked well was transformed into a 2 dimensional screen that bunched most targets on one line. The The EQ comes out and squashes out the numbers even further. So why I thought the 6000 would not do the same is beyond me. I guess I'm disappointing that the "trend" is to make machines where the manufacturer decides on how your machine is going to be set. I hope someone in my area gets a 6000 and is willing to bring it to the beach to compare settings on deep silver. If it wins, then I will eat my words. I know I will get some slack with people saying it's a gold machine, not a relic or beach machine, but to them I would say.... you should be worried when a company controls your ability to fine tune your machine. Thoughts?
  • Create New...