cameras see gold

Well Eveybody, I can see it was a hot topic. I guess it didn't pan out. Is that it? Jimmygoat

Jimmy,
 I'm new to this forum, but not to this endeavor. It seems to me that it depends on who you talk to. Some people are citing personal experience that is extremely negative. On the other hand auras of varying descriptions have been cited as well. I've got a couple of decades+ of building things that have never been built before under my belt, and this concept has the earmarks of working towards resolution.

1. Gold is a good conductor of heat and electricity and reflects infrared radiation strongly.

2. The most stable isotope of gold, 195Au, is also the only gold isotope to decay by electron capture.

Electron capture (sometimes called inverse beta decay) is a decay mode for isotopes that will occur when there are too many protons in the nucleus of an atom and insufficient energy to emit a positron; however, it continues to be a viable decay mode for isotopes that can decay by positron emission.

3. The sensitivity of almost all ranges of electromagnetic sensors available on the commercial market has grown exponentially over the last few years, and devices (such as digital cameras) are being applied in a cross-utilization of technologies by common men for uncommon purposes.

In my humble opinion, it's simply a matter of fine tuning, and I would be extremely surprised if somewhere on this planet someone hasn't stumbled onto, or applied in a scientific manner these principles with a fair degree of success.

Berk

HI swr, Actually conventional science is in reality the pseudo science as it is being addressed in here.


 No allowance is being given for the exponential advances in the study of the Brain and nano technology in the past few years.

 We now have the brain waves controlling devices remotely and with direct contact via electrodes.  Using nano tech, even creating elementary sight for the blind.    

The 'past' studies on this phase of science fall into the same rapidly being discarded statements against dowsing.

If we consider quantum physics as science, then we do not even need a camera to detect these waves, just sensitivity training.  The same as is rapidly being proven for dowsing and other formerly discounted human senses.

We are on the verge of a revolution on the abilities of the human brain, but in the mean while, we will develop mechanical devices as a temporary substitute.

We have been using Atomic Absorption devices to photograph and measure elemental emissions for years.  Now it is just a simple matter to develop a portable device, camera, that is sensitive enough to pick up the waves emitted from a normally excited element in the ground subjected to ground waves. All have a characteristic basic frequency in their uncontaminated states.

After all, everything 'is' basically electrical no?

Don Jose de  La Mancha

good afternoon Rando:  Just what are the limits of receptive sensitivity in any medium ?

What are the limits of electronic camera frequency sensitivity?

Can you visually see the IR spectrum?  I am sure that you can feel it, and use it to photograph with. no? I use it to measure Ir differentations in my experiments, yet??

Sooo  where does the limit of sensitivity response stand?

Don Jose de La Mancha  

This kind of glass half empty, glass half full dialogue has always surrounded any topic about mechanisms that can't be bought off some local shelf. Belief or Disbelief in something that isn't readily accessible for scrutiny, is simply a part of the process of learning and adapting in an ever changing environment.
 If you would have told me in the late 60s that the most respected names in subatomic physics would start talking like Hindu mystics, I'd probably have had a hard time wrapping my mind around that concept, but that is exactly what is happening today. Maybe it's just that I've had a ringside seat on watching the impossible become part of my job description, but about the only thing I know that is constant in this universe is change. Personally, I'm going to keep my mind open to all the possibilities and rejoice in whatever advances are made.
                                                                                                                                Berk

SAd to see there are so many closed minds in the world.

Hmm...... There's a few of us here that can probably remember Black & White cameras that required the huge (by todays standards) blue flashbulbs just to take a picture in indoor light. Then they had to be developed and filtered to get a halfway decent photo. I'm sure if you had told us back then that we'd be taking indoor pictures without flash or pictures after dark, or not even requiring a darkroom, we probably would've had a week or two of good laughs. Cameras that were part of a telephone that had no cords?!?! balderdash! Cameras that were small enough to be inserted into the human body and showing organs functioning on a COLOR TV ?!?!

Telescopes on satellites in space sending back pictures through the air without wires?

Maybe using a camera with a couple wratten filters taped on the front isn't so far fetched eh? Sorry to see so many closed minds out there. I've asked a ton of people to show me some sort of evidence that dowsing doesn't work. So far all the closed minded skeptic can come up with is, a pseudo science, it can't work. Most I've talked to have never even tried dowsing or "special camera techniques" themselves Whether you're skeptical or a believer doesn't matter, how can you say it doesn't work or is a bunch of woo woo if you've never tried, and I mean wholeheartedly in a positive way tried.

Everyday we see the Archies have gotten it wrong, The Medical people have gotten it wrong, (A few of us here know just how wrong the Doctors are).

Yup, we all should close our minds, quit learning and lay or bets on science! At least until they change their minds & tell us "A new study has shown........................"

Gold evidenced by a camera is about as successful as pinning Jello to a wall

Gold evidenced by a camera is about as successful as pinning Jello to a wall

You've never had Jello from a Marine chow hall

SAd to see there are so many closed minds in the world.

Not trying to be rude...but, there is a huge difference between being closed minded and the ability to use rational observation and scientific protocol.

Buried treasure does not give off an aura that can be photographed.

Do you have any scientific documentation on this? I'd be interested.

There is no special "glow" or "aura" that with enough tweaking cannot be made to emanate from ANYTHING.

You can tweak it all you want to make a certain picture appear that way, however trying to duplicate is where it will fail.

I'm not a scientist, nor do I claim to be.

How can you be so sure?

There is no special "glow" or "aura" that with enough tweaking cannot be made to emanate from ANYTHING.

You can tweak it all you want to make a certain picture appear that way, however trying to duplicate is where it will fail.

I'm not a scientist, nor do I claim to be.

How can you be so sure?

I'm not.

I AM sure that I haven't seen it.

Show me.

I wasn't the one talking like I knew it all.

Show me the wind.

Rando: you posted ->Show me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Frankly, I am not in the least interested in showing either you or swr what could be considered proof by you. 

I 'am' interested in supplying data, examples of associated science, results of some of my experiments, etc.  to those that ARE experimenting. I 'know' that theoretically it is quite possible from present science, confirmed data,  and personal observations. 

It only remains for some imaginative  experimenter to put the pieces together in a working model, then of course, all will exclaim "what's so great about that? heck, that was obvious".

The prove it to me ones will then go on to another such program. There they again can satisfy their ego by insisting upon proof of the end result, while the experiment is 'in progress',  something that that no genuine scientist would, until it was over with and presented for review by ones peers.

Don Jose de La Mancha













 

well said thanks

Thank you Sir!

I don't think it could've been said better!

Let's see.  They make goggles that you can wear that detect heat emissions, what is to prevent those from eventually being modified to detect isotopic decay emissions?  Doesn't sound like it would be that much harder.

Time will tell and i do not it will be very long and the sceptics will want one.   Bildon

Gentlemen: back to work !

Don Jose de La Mancha

If you do not try you surely will not learn.  Bildon

What have you tried with your camera to find gold and what was the results?  Both good and bad.    Bildon

Gentlemen: back to work !

Don Jose de La Mancha

Breaks not over I still got 8 minutes

Well I don't know exactly what you mean by "aura", but gold does have 5 isotope decay properties that are easily measurable in the laboratory.

Due to the difficulty in punching in the latin characters for these properties, I'm defining my own abbreviations as I use a term so I don't have to keep typing them out.

195AU with an electron capture decay mode (EC) and a 186.1 day half life (HL) and a decay energy (DE) of .227 electron volts (EV).
196AU with two decay properties, an EC with a DE of 1.506 EV, and a Beta- (B-) DE of .686 EV, both with a 6.183 HL
198AU EC, 2.695 HL, B-, 1.372 EV
199AU EC, 3.169 HL ,B-, 0.453 EV
197AU is the only stable isotope in gold.

So if by "aura" you mean measurable emissions from the element, then it is by no means pretend.  No more pretend than the isotopes emitted by radioactive material that can easily be detected by a geiger counter.  As technology advances, there's no reason these gold isotope decays could not be detected as easily as uranium isotopes can be.

big water  excellent post.


Don Jose de La  Mancha

Swr, I would like to see your 'proof' that gold does not emit a characteristic aura, or identifiable field.  Will you please list the scientific sources that are readily accessible that prove this.  Wiki P is not acceptable.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Well I don't know exactly what you mean by "aura", but gold does have 5 isotope decay properties that are easily measurable in the laboratory.

So if by "aura" you mean measurable emissions from the element, then it is by no means pretend.  No more pretend than the isotopes emitted by radioactive material that can easily be detected by a geiger counter.  As technology advances, there's no reason these gold isotope decays could not be detected as easily as uranium isotopes can be.

All of the radioisotopes of gold are man-made and have short half-lives. So we would never be looking for radioisotopes of gold, but rather non-isotopic gold, which would have zero decay emissions. Therefore, this is irrelevant.

why is is ,
when somone dosn't believe something

They can't Just say so Once & Leave it Alone ?

Why do non-Believers get so Upset
that Somone who Does Believe... Does ?

I Don't believe in Spirits,
except in Whiskey, But I Don't argue with
those who Do believe,
 Because I Have No Doubts I'm Right.

good morning my friend Carl:"  Agreed, but the fact that the decay CAN be measured and 'photographs' taken of the measurements is the critical factor here,  I seriously doubt that anyone in here is suggesting that the camera will show a pretty picture of a gold bar as such.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Rando: you posted -->If this is so "possible" WHY ARE YOU NOT DOING IT?~~~~~~~~~

That was a rather silly post, as you well knew.   Is cold fusion possible ?  Most Scientists agree that it is and is inevitable.  If so, why hasn't  it  replaced all of our present nuclear Plants, since it is theoretically fool proof and far cheaper?

Don Jose de La Mancha

Agreed, but the fact that the decay CAN be measured and 'photographs' taken of the measurements is the critical factor here,

But it's not. It's not a factor at all in the discussion, because decay emissions simply don't exist with buried gold. We cannot say, "Since radioisotopes of gold have detectable emissions, photographable auras of non-radioisotopic gold might therefore be possible." That's a completely bogus argument.

Is cold fusion possible ?  Most Scientists agree that it is and is inevitable.

Actually. most scientists agree that cold fusion is not possible. It is considered pathological science.

HI Carl ; You posted->

 because decay emissions simply don't exist with buried gold. That's a completely bogus argument
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Odd, but I don't remember suggesting that they were ??
**********************************************************

you also posted -->
most scientists agree that cold fusion is not possible
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Curious, since the Chinese are doing a form of just that.  They are setting up cold nuclear power plants.  They are impossible to go out of control or runaway, left alone they are self quenching.    hmmmm

Don Jose de La Mancha

Swr you are at your usual nothing.   One of the basic proofs of science is to prove that something can't happen.  Many times it is just as important, or even more so, than proving that it can happen.

So bring on the proof that gold doesn't have a signature that can be measured and photographed.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Odd, but I don't remember suggesting that they were ??

OK, maybe I misread... it appeared to me that isotope emissions were being proffered as an argument for the viability of photographable gold auras.

you also posted -->
most scientists agree that cold fusion is not possible
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Curious, since the Chinese are doing a form of just that.  They are setting up cold nuclear power plants.  

Hot fusion, not cold fusion.

Carl  to a point  I agree with you, however --->

.  But now U.S. Navy scientists say they do have them. They claim to have verifiable, irrefutable proof cold fusion is real, despite critics who say it's simply impossible


Don Jose d eLa Mancha

Swr, sigh k, one --- while they were working on nuclear energy to be used in an Atomic bomb, they also had a group working on it's possible effects world wise.  They didn't know if it would start a world wide chain reaction or not.

In many projected plans, the consequences of it must be considered if it was successful. The classic Chicken or the Egg thingie.

Incidentally, I only have to prove some thing to my peers. It certainly doesn't require a Mensa intelligence to ask ---why? Prove it to me?  or what ever, without contributing a single  intelligent constructive remark otherwise.  Most little children can do this, as do the low IQ's who apparently have very little imaginative or learned abilities.

 I will always try to explain my train of thought to Carl.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Carl  to a point  I agree with you, however --->

To what point? The point that the Chinese are building hot fusion reactors, not cold fusion? You should agree with me completely!

The US Navy claim is a completely separate matter, and we may disagree on this one. So far, 100% of cold fusion claims have turned out to be incredibly bad lab work. We'll see if the USN bucks the trend. I wouldn't bet on it.

In any case, all of this is irrelevant to the concept of gold auras. I detect a hint of "science doesn't know everything," which is a really weak argument to base a belief on. Also, some people claim to be able to photograph gold auras. Right now, not in the future. Like cold fusion, every case I've ever seen is the result of incredibly bad lab work. In this case, incredibly bad photography.

Carl  You posted -->

You should agree with me completely!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why?  you were 1/2 wrong also.

*********************************************************

You also posted -->The US Navy claim is a completely separate matter, and we may disagree on this one. So far, 100% of cold fusion claims have turned out to be incredibly bad lab work. We'll see if the USN bucks the trend. I wouldn't bet on it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This remains to be seen, it also qualifies 'all' technical work until finally put into practical usage.  For example, it remains to be seen if You and White will actually produce a superior, or new type of  detector, or merely refine and tune up the existing ones.  We need new types of detection abilities, methods, not just peaking / tweaking  the same old basic TR or pulse systems.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You also posted -->   I detect a hint of "science doesn't know everything,"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Unfortunately, that is all too true, it certainly doesn't. .  As for the statement  -- " In this case, incredibly bad photography'. -- while that may be true, it in no way nullifies the basic premise. Cameras may be modified to photograph elements and other energies, that is what we are are working on now, just as you are working on new detectors.

Simply because you haven't perfected your instrument yet, certainly doesn't classify it a pseudo science, wishful thinking,  or impossible..  We have devices that will sniff out odors, see through clothing, inspect inside of vehicle panels for contraband,  and, of course, I need not mention the IR foot print on modified cameras do I ? after all, all are just different frequencies no?

To say that it can not, or never will happen, is  rather   err, ahhh,  hmmm, oh well.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Swr:  You posted -->

"ain't got nothing to validate what I say" seems to be right on target.
~~~~~~~~~~

 absolutely a brilliant repartee', just about what I would expect from you.

Ho hum

Don Jose de La Mancha

Why?  you were 1/2 wrong also.

Eh? On the Chinese fusion reactors, I was completely right.

This remains to be seen, it also qualifies 'all' technical work until finally put into practical usage.  For example, it remains to be seen if You and White will actually produce a superior, or new type of  detector, or merely refine and tune up the existing ones.  We need new types of detection abilities, methods, not just peaking / tweaking  the same old basic TR or pulse systems.

True, but all of this still has zero to do with photographable gold auras.

As for the statement  -- " In this case, incredibly bad photography'. -- while that may be true, it in no way nullifies the basic premise. Cameras may be modified to photograph elements and other energies, that is what we are are working on now...

OK, and I certainly support the exploration of new ideas. But being able to photograph "other energies" is a long-standing claim that just hasn't held up. Nor has the fundamental existence of gold auras, using any kind of instrumentation. No different than the claim of resonant signal lines.

Simply because you haven't perfected your instrument yet, certainly doesn't classify it a pseudo science, wishful thinking,  or impossible..

Like I've said, I've yet to see anything working, at any level. The aura photography I've seen so far definitely falls into the "wishful thinking" category.

good morning Carl:  You posted -->On the Chinese fusion reactors, I was completely right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the other, 100% wrong. hmmmm
**********************************************************
You also posted--->True, but all of this still has zero to do with photographable gold auras
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Negative, all progress is interrelated.  Known as the spin off science advancement, of which you are very aware of.
***********************************************************

You also posted -->But being able to photograph "other energies" is a long-standing claim that just hasn't held up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do I have to remind you of IR cameras again?  They  are photographing 'other energies'.
*********************************************************
You also posted -->I've yet to see anything working, at any level.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Welcome to the crowd!  for example, There are soo many advancements in Med science, both physical and psychological, that I would love to be kept up with, but the fact that I haven't seen or read of them does not negate them.  I haven't seen your prototype metal detector yet either ??

Don Jose de La Mancha

swr: sigh.  You  keep filling in my psychological profile on you. I only wish that I had had it for my Psychology class. sheesh

Don Jose de la Mancha

Hi swr:  You posted -->and expect not to be challenged
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Certainly, but in an intelligent manner, not just cut and paste something from wiki. which is very questionable and not neccessarily up to date. . 

In that light, 'prove to me' that you are technically qualified to logically question  this subject other then just resorting to childish  cut and paste from someone else's far outdated data..

The past line of investigations hit a brick wall due to using past data.  This is not taking advantage of a new age where new things and valid ideas are being proven  exponentially, so fast that the net sources simply cannot keep up with the latest data.

Post 'Your' personal thoughts based upon  your interpretation of the latest data, not text books many of which are outdated even before they are printed.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Do I have to remind you of IR cameras again?  They  are photographing 'other energies'.

No, it's the same as a normal camera; they just go down to a slightly lower frequency.

Anyway, I've seen lots of claims of photographable gold auras, usually centered around bad Polaroid film or homemade infrared-modified cameras. Never seen anything that looked even remotely real, or anything that was even remotely properly tested. Does anyone ever study and apply any RealScience to this stuff? It always seems to be done by kitchen-sink tinkerers who don't have a good grasp of physics, who don't know how to perform a decent scientific experiment, and who end up self-deceived by bad lab work.

Like long-range, I guess I can hope for a breakthrough, but I'll doubt and question everything I see.

Yeah, right swr.  snicker 

Don Jose de La Mancha

Bk, have been on the road:  Carl, you posted --> No, it's the same as a normal camera; they just go down to a slightly lower frequency.
-------------------------------------

So?   so they go down a bit or up a bit?  As for a  normal camera, I would enjoy seeng a normal camera photograph the IR footprint several hrs after it was made.
*******************************************************************************************************************
You also posted -->it always seems to be done by kitchen-sink tinkerers who don't have a good grasp of physics,
--------------------------------------

First)   would you be willing to finance a free lance scientist to investigate this phenom.?  No money, no scientists , only amateurs, many who just as  qualified to follow this line of thought.

Second)  As for understanding the present line of science, may I remind you of a couple of amateurs that taught themselves the new line of physics to successfully build the ´first Aircraft´, something that the ablest minds in Science couldn´t do or even come up with the  correct answers.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Carl, swr,  Can an ordinary  camera photograph  materiel and show if it is Mercury contaminated or not?

Don Josed e La Mancha

Second)  As for understanding the present line of science, may I remind you of a couple of amateurs that taught themselves the new line of physics to successfully build the ´first Aircraft´, something that the ablest minds in Science couldn´t do or even come up with the  correct answers.

Nope, they used the same physics everyone else was using. They just paid more attention to the details.

Carl, swr,  Can an ordinary  camera photograph  materiel and show if it is Mercury contaminated or not?

Dunno... maybe.

Several months ago, I have used a small sony cybershot with IR filters and took a picture of the gold buried in my test target.
After employing the right filters in a photo program I was able to clearly see a blueish halo field around the location where the object is buried.
I have since then employing this technique on the field  as a one more accessory for target confirmation.
Actually what the picture with appropriate filters show is a spectrum, although weak of the expected ionic activity with magnetic anomaly in that particular wavelength which is invisible to the naked eye.
My 2 cents.

Good morning Carl:   You posted --> Can an ordinary  camera photograph  materiel and show if it is Mercury contaminated or not?


Dunno... maybe.
===================
  Yes, it can, and is easily done.     Repeatable  and touchable swr.

Don Jose de La Mancha

HI HUNG¨ MORE DETAILS PLEASE.

Don Jose de La Mancha

HI HUNG¨ MORE DETAILS PLEASE.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Hi Tayopa,
It's simple.
I have used a piece of a C-41 processed ordinary roll of film. I cut it in the part where there are no pictures,usually in the end. Made it as a double layer. Actually in the case of this camera, a single layer even worked, but a double layer made it well more visible. Some in the net say it's better use unprocessed film, specific types of IR filters, etc. I don't know. Still have not tried another option.
Then I hooked my camera to the computer trough USB and used a picture editor to do it. Don't remember now which was it. I know that some are better than others. You just hit the enhance button depending the type of app you have. This makes the algorithms look for the the most bad parts in the pictures and they apply filters which end up revealing where this 'halo' is.
I just could not get the redish type of halo David Villanueva usually gets with his Cannon SLR type. Mine is a CCD type. And due to this I seem not to get the discrimination colors he talks about. I'm sure SLR cameras are the best option for his intent.

I'm thinking about a procedure to make in the future if I have enough spare time. This would be mapping what kind of algorithms the photo editor is  using and replicating them in real time in a type of googles. So no reprocessing would be required and it would be possible to spot the halo in loco.
Regards.

 

Hung     Did you remove the internal filter in your camera?     bildon

HI HUNG¨:  It occurs to me that you are working the IR range-  If so, you may actually be showing the ir signature of the Gold.  Since it is so dense, it can absorb much more IR energy during the day, than the surrounding ground and relasing it  long after the soil has given up it´s reserve of absorbed IR. This could account for the hazy appearance above the gold in many pictures.

Don Jose d eLa Mancha

Since it is so dense, it can absorb much more IR energy during the day, than the surrounding ground and relasing it  long after the soil has given up it´s reserve of absorbed IR.

This is a commonly held belief that may be completely wrong. Buried gold is a high thermal conductor surrounded by a really poor thermal conductor. The gold will not get hotter than the surrounding soil, nor will it heat up or cool off any slower than the rate of the soil, assuming the gold is buried at a reasonable depth. The gold, being the higher thermal conductor, will exactly and instantaneously follow the temperature of the soil.

However, a buried void might do what you suggest.

Hung     Did you remove the internal filter in your camera?     bildon

No.

HI HUNG¨:  It occurs to me that you are working the IR range-  If so, you may actually be showing the ir signature of the Gold.  Since it is so dense, it can absorb much more IR energy during the day, than the surrounding ground and relasing it  long after the soil has given up it´s reserve of absorbed IR. This could account for the hazy appearance above the gold in many pictures.

Don Jose d eLa Mancha

Tayopa,

From all the sun energy reaching earth, about 30% does not even arrive at the surface and are reflected back in the atmosphere and back to space. About 47-50% only is absorbed. So from this incoming energy, some portion drives the winds, powers the water cycle, tidal systems, contributes to photosynthesis, etc. All this system searches is for the thermal balance with transporting energy.
Earth surface is refreshing 24 hours a day and in this process, the surface reflects back long waves, IR in this case in the cooling process. When these IR waves interact with ionic activity, telluric currents, magnetic fields, etc. from the buried metals, this 'mix' of fields appear in the IR spectrum as an anomaly captured by the IR images in cameras with right filters.
That's my conclusion.

Carl,  You posted -->This is a commonly held belief that may be completely wrong. Buried gold is a high thermal conductor surrounded by a really poor thermal conductor. The gold will not get hotter than the surrounding soil, nor will it heat up or cool off any slower than the rate of the soil, assuming the gold is buried at a reasonable depth. The gold, being the higher thermal conductor, will exactly and instantaneously follow the temperature of the soil.
==================

Very interesting and a basically true statement.  Gold is one of the hightest reflectors of IR, yet is capable of storing  a tremendous amount of absorbed IR.  On an instantaneous point you are correct, but over a sustained period of being exposed by the soil passed Ir?  Wouldn't it be simply the larger amount of stored IR energy in the Gold being released over time  being more evident than in the surrounding soil which is basically barren of such and so loses it´s IR energy quicker after the stimulating IR energy is removed - night.  This effectively leads to a soil temp difference due to the Gold which fits nicely into our experiment. 

I don´t remember the rate that gold loses it´s IR energy, do you ?

Don Jose de La Mancha

Gold is one of the hightest reflectors of IR, yet is capable of storing  a tremendous amount of absorbed IR.

I don't know what you mean by "absorbed IR." Normally, IR radiation is converted to heat when it strikes an object. Do you mean conversion to heat?

On an instantaneous point you are correct, but over a sustained period of being exposed by the soil passed Ir?

 

Soil doesn't transmit ("pass") IR. IR radiation strikes the surface of the soil, is converted to heat, which thermally conducts (poorly) through the soil.

It appears you are under the impression that IR radiation penetrates the soil, all the way down to a buried object, and the buried object absorbs more IR than the surrounding soil. Then, late in the day, the buried object re-radiates the IR at a higher rate than the surrounding soil, making itself "visible" to an IR detector. It doesn't work this way, at all. There are some simple experiments that would easily prove this.

Dear group;
My question is, why would anyone wish to modify or try and make an IR or UV camera when they exist on the commerical market??? Also, if you own a dSLR camera, you can purchase an entier array of UV & IR filters, in all sizes and shades. Here's a cool link about foresnic sciences going digital:
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp?pid=122
Just get a cheap dSLR camera and some lens filters and experiment away!
Your friend;
LAMAR

Dear group;
My question is, why would anyone wish to modify or try and make an IR or UV camera when they exist on the commerical market??? Also, if you own a dSLR camera, you can purchase an entier array of UV & IR filters, in all sizes and shades. Here's a cool link about foresnic sciences going digital:
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp?pid=122
Just get a cheap dSLR camera and some lens filters and experiment away!
Your friend;
LAMAR

Ordinary digital cameras are cheap, and many of the sensors are already sensitive to IR, but have a fixed IR filter installed. If you remove the internal IR filter, then you have a very cheap IR-sensitive digital camera. If you don't remove the internal IR filter, then additional external filters won't improve IR sensitivity.

This modification is popular in astrophotography. I'm thinking about doing it to my Minolta dSLR to mount on my Meade telescope. However, while IR can travel millions of miles across the universe and end up in my telescope, it only penetrates the ground about an inch.

Dear Carl-NC;
I also use Minolta glass my friend, except I have a cheapie telescope instead of a Meade. I mostly enjoy planetary observing although I can see some decent nebula when the seeing is good. Is your Meade an SCT? Right now, I am using a Sony A-350 camera body, which I don't like as well as the Minolta 7D or my prior A-100. I think the ergonomics of the newer generation of cameras is worse than before.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Dear group;
My question is, why would anyone wish to modify or try and make an IR or UV camera when they exist on the commerical market??? Also, if you own a dSLR camera, you can purchase an entier array of UV & IR filters, in all sizes and shades. Here's a cool link about foresnic sciences going digital:
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp?pid=122
Just get a cheap dSLR camera and some lens filters and experiment away!
Your friend;
LAMAR

Ordinary digital cameras are cheap, and many of the sensors are already sensitive to IR, but have a fixed IR filter installed. If you remove the internal IR filter, then you have a very cheap IR-sensitive digital camera. If you don't remove the internal IR filter, then additional external filters won't improve IR sensitivity.

This modification is popular in astrophotography. I'm thinking about doing it to my Minolta dSLR to mount on my Meade telescope. However, while IR can travel millions of miles across the universe and end up in my telescope, it only penetrates the ground about an inch.

Dear Carl-NC;
Why not just buy a foresnic camera which does not have an IR filter covering the sensor? This is what I was referring to. Adorama had them not long ago and they were very attractively priced. In other words, you then have a camera without an internal IR filter and then you can get a bunch of IR filters and play around with them! Of course, the experimenter won't find a single piece of gold, but it's far cheaper than destroying a regular camera and it keeps them off of the streets.
Your friend;
LAMAR

I have a Minolta 7D, and a Meade LX200. Thinking about using the Minolta on the Meade, and buying a newer Sony for regular photography. I haven't priced IR cameras in a while, so maybe the prices have come down. No, they won't find gold, but at least when you discover that fact you will be left holding a camera which is worth something.

Very interesting and a basically true statement.  Gold is one of the hightest reflectors of IR, yet is capable of storing  a tremendous amount of absorbed IR.  On an instantaneous point you are correct, but over a sustained period of being exposed by the soil passed Ir?  Wouldn't it be simply the larger amount of stored IR energy in the Gold being released over time  being more evident than in the surrounding soil which is basically barren of such and so loses it´s IR energy quicker after the stimulating IR energy is removed - night.  This effectively leads to a soil temp difference due to the Gold which fits nicely into our experiment. 


Don Jose de La Mancha

Tayopa,

With the simple procedure I described I was able to spot the halo. But with the right IR filters, not the double layer processed film I have used and with a SLR type camera, this halo gets much more definite. If you have ever seen Villanueva's pictures shot with a CCD and a SLR type, you know what I mean.

My home test target is buried for about a year now in my garden. It's shallow. About 4 inches deep. It's also close to powerlines.  All of this was done on purpose. This was to simulate the worst conditions for my Mineoro to detect it so that I know how the ionic/electrostatic fields are behaving that particular day or time of day. I also usually try my self made detectors on it.
I don't know what kind of camera you have, but it's quite easy to test it. You definetely should try. For me, it could not have been simpler. I just grabbed the camera with the double layer film and took a shot. Did not care about the time of day.
Later it appeared in the photo editor. A double layer film will help filter all visible light, so only the remaining IR is kept after the processing stage. I think it does not need to have a long time buried gold for this. A couple of days to a week period will suffice.

If you make a detailed study on subjects such as the IR (long waves), how it reflects back from earth surface in the cooling process, telluric currents, etc. you will have a better understanding on how this halo is formed.
Best...

Good morning Carl: You posted --> don't know what you mean by "absorbed IR." Normally, IR radiation is converted to heat when it strikes an object. Do you mean conversion to heat?
=============================
what exactly IS IR radiation frankly, except for heat?  I was taught that it is one and the same?
******************************************************************************************************************

You `posted -->IR radiation strikes the surface of the soil, is converted to heat, which thermally conducts (poorly) through the soil
=============================

First you needn´t have to tell me  that, hehe.    I live in a home with almost 4´ (47") adobe walls for that very reason.  But they also store a tremendous amount of heat,  then release it slowly at night  to maintain a fairly effective level of heat.  How do they do that ? simply because they have a much more effective mass than the surrounding air.   

The mass of Metal in the ground absorbs more energy over the day than the surrounding medium.   Then as the surrounding area drops in temp,  it releases it  - as you know heat flows to the cold side.  So despìte being exposed to the same level of stimulation,  the superior mass / density of the metal allows it to store more energy. 

When the stimulating energy activity / decreases to below the level of the stored energy there is a reversed effective flow. Obviously the mass of metal has stored much more energy than the soil, so it will continue to emit it long after the soil has effectively lost it´s heat , the measure of which, for our purposes, is the differential, not actual heat / IR.   

This is what we are attempting to measure, the differential.

B bk shortly

Don Jose de La Mancha

The mass of Metal in the ground absorbs more energy over the day than the surrounding medium.   Then as the surrounding area drops in temp,  it releases it  - as you know heat flows to the cold side.  So despìte being exposed to the same level of stimulation,  the superior mass / density of the metal allows it to store more energy. 

When the stimulating energy activity / decreases to below the level of the stored energy there is a reversed effective flow. Obviously the mass of metal has stored much more energy than the soil, so it will continue to emit it long after the soil has effectively lost it´s heat , the measure of which, for our purposes, is the differential, not actual heat / IR.   

You're assuming that the surrounding soil will lose its heat faster than the gold, leaving warm gold in cold ground. To do so, the soil would need to have a higher thermal conductivity than the gold, or more appropriately, a higher thermal diffusion. This is not the case.

There are some simple experiments that would easily prove this.

SWR I did not get the copy of the book where did you send it to? bildon

If you consider that the Earth is constantly being bombarded by cosmic rays of every sort including those that can penetrate up to a mile deep then you may consider that such rays/energy input may cause gold to resonate at several of its atomic/molecular resonance frequencies thus making it emit 'feedback' from cosmic ray stimulation that can be detected by modern electronic receivers.        The fact that you can bombard coins in the ground with energy and detect the effect makes metal detections what they are, some more sensitive to gold.  If you understand detectors you will realize that with a little proper tuning there can be detectors that will definitively pick out various elements.

 
Carl N-C wrote:

IR radiation strikes the surface of the soil, is converted to heat, which thermally conducts (poorly) through the soil.

This is wrong.
What strikes the earth are short waves. UVA,UVB and C.
But before they hit the earth's suface, a good portion is reflected back in the atmosphere.

Long waves in form of IR are released back FROM EARTH's surface 24 hours a day during the cooling process. So, there's no such thing as IR penetrating the soil or IR striking the surface of the earth.

So, there's no such thing as IR penetrating the soil or IR striking the surface of the earth.

Umm... OK... Don Jose, do you agree with this?

So, there's no such thing as IR penetrating the soil or IR striking the surface of the earth.

Umm... OK... Don Jose, do you agree with this?

It's not a matter of belief. It's not a matter of agreeing or not. This is a scientific fact.
Any meteorology book will teach you this.
Yes, I took a meteorology course for a specific government job last year.
As always, study the subject so that you know exactly what you are talking about.

It's not a matter of belief. It's not a matter of agreeing or not. This is a scientific fact.
Any meteorology book will teach you this.
Yes, I took a meteorology course for a specific government job last year.
As always, study the subject so that you know exactly what you are talking about.

Apparently your class didn't cover this. I agree, it's not a matter of belief. There is a simple experiment that would easily prove this.

Ignoring the experiment that would prove the point, can you provide any references that state natural sunlight contains no IR?

Apparently your class didn't cover this.

You don't even know what you are saying...
It covered much more than this, all specifically IR related which you do not even dream about.

I agree, it's not a matter of belief. There is a simple experiment that would easily prove this.

Ignoring the experiment that would prove the point, can you provide any references that state natural sunlight contains no IR?

Don't be stupid. Stop trying to infer things I did not say.

Again:
The UV , short wave radiation portion, also called 'radiant' energy which is not reflected back to space, is absorbed by the surface of the earth. This parcel which is absorbed is THE ONLY souce of heat for our planet and it occurs during the sunlight period. Earth is subject to cooling 24 hours a day, in a daily basis, EMITTING LONG WAVES those being IR. This involves the thermal balance of our planet.
So, IT'S NOT the IR from the sun which is responsible for the heating process , but the UV short radiation absorbed which causes IR to be released by the earth's surface.

Several years and you still don't understand how a LRL work. How long will it take for you to understand this simple process now?

[or IR striking the surface of the earth]

Don't be stupid. Stop trying to infer things I did not say.

I didn't infer anything... you made a very clear statement:

So, there's no such thing as IR penetrating the soil or IR striking the surface of the earth.

I don't mind people saying, "Oops, I was wrong." But I do mind when they instead blame me for their error.

Again:
The UV , short wave radiation portion, also called 'radiant' energy which is not reflected back to space, is absorbed by the surface of the earth. This parcel which is absorbed is THE ONLY souce of heat for our planet and it occurs during the sunlight period.

Again, you leave no room for misinterpretation... you are saying that UV radiation striking the ground is THE ONLY mechanism by which the ground is heated. And, again, this is wrong. All sunlight -- IR, visible, and UV -- contribute to ground heating. Of the entire spectrum of sunlight hitting the ground, most is IR, a lot is visible, and very little is UV. A simple experiment would easily prove this.

Yes, I agree that re-radiation from the ground is IR.

Again, you leave no room for misinterpretation... you are saying that UV radiation striking the ground is THE ONLY mechanism by which the ground is heated. And, again, this is wrong. All sunlight -- IR, visible, and UV -- contribute to ground heating. Of the entire spectrum of sunlight hitting the ground, most is IR, a lot is visible, and very little is UV. A simple experiment would easily prove this.

Yes, I agree that re-radiation from the ground is IR.

I see you have more mistaken concepts...
You need to understand what sensible heat is and its role. Knowing the difference from latent heat also will help you.
You sound like you've been getting your points from wikipedia...You obviously does not know much about meteorology matters. That's ok. I was not expecting you did anyway.

I don't like to repeat myself over and over. I already did ... twice. You do what you want with that info.

If you happen to understand how this all works, you will see how natural and simple the explanation on why the IR pic will show that halo is, instead of thinking it's a blurr turned into a bad photo.

Best wishes.

Folks,

I received a call from one of my team members and he got a new sony camera. He took some test pictures of a gold sample he has buried close to his house using the same aproach I told here. He will send me the pics this week , so that I can process them in my app.
If the camera did ok and the halo does appear in the pics, I will ask him permission to show them here.

Regards.

Good afternoon Carl¨: You pòsted -->you're assuming that the surrounding soil will lose its heat faster than the gold, leaving warm gold in cold ground.
============

Yep, since it has far less absorbed / retained energy than the Metallic  mass would have over the days exposure.  Also, as the metallic mass later emits it´s energy, it would tend to be restricted in it´s rate of dissipation by the semi insulation factor of the soil in contact with it, yet raising, or replacing the temp. loss of that soil in comparison with further outlying soil.  Hence a  temp variation which can theoretically be measured or even photographed with a suitably IR sensitive system.
Don Jose de La Mancha

DJ,

I think that thermal diffusion will get you on this one. I'm not convinced that gold has any higher volumetric heat capacity than soil (and volumetric, not specific, is what counts), and it certainly has a much higher thermal conductivity, guaranteeing that the temperature of the buried gold will merely follow, not lag, that of the soil. As I've mentioned, there are simple experiments that would prove this one way or the other, and I may pursue this once the rainy season passes.

BTW, what is your opinion on Hung's declarations? Do you personally agree that "there's no such thing as IR penetrating the soil or IR striking the surface of the earth?" Do you agree that "UV , short wave radiation portion, also called 'radiant' energy which is not reflected back to space, is absorbed by the surface of the earth. This parcel which is absorbed is THE ONLY souce of heat for our planet and it occurs during the sunlight period?" Just curious. I found those claims absolutely bizarre.

Hi Bill,

Answering your questions.
First you need to know the differences in UV radiations. There are basically three types: close, distant and extreme UVs.
Each one with a specific wavelength. The close type in the 200-380nm region and the extreme being the 1-31nm one.
Some substances when exposed to UV radiations behave differently than when they are at the visible light. They become fluorescent due to electrons excitation in the atoms and molecules of those said substances when they are abosorbing the 'invisible' light energy.
UV radiation has signifcantly more 'energy' than IR. UV-A accounts for almost 99% of the total UV radiation that strikes earth. Its incidence don't change much be winter time or summer, but it's a little more intense from 10 AM to 16 PM. They are also called 'long' UV. This is the UV highly responsible for the aging process by the way.
UV-B is most intense during summer time and is partialy absorbed by the ozone in the atmosphere. It's also called 'medium' UV and is the one type responsible for skin cancer.
And finally, UV-C. This one is totally absorbed by the oxygen and ozone in the atmosphere. It measures about 200nm and it's called 'short' UV and it's not much relevant to our detection case.

So, as you see, the most occuring UV is UV-A and since all these years, I have been getting more results in ionic/electrostatic detection of gold in the summer time, the sum of intensity of those UVsn (A+B), contribute for an increase in the releasing rate of IR waves from the surface in the cooling process.
Also notice that in the summer, the relative humidity of air is very low, since this is directly proportional to the temperature. And when relative humidity is low, electrostatics manifest better, so this favors your detector's range and stability.

Regarding pressure, low zones favor convection of hot air creating convergence at low and divergence at high levels of this air. In high zones the opposite happens. Convergence at high and divergence at low levels. From this you can also deduce that when the pressure is low, the air which is rising, is favoring the called 'direct circulation', that forces the cold air in the upper levels to descend in another region. This is the pre-rain moment and the surface of earth is negatively charged. Detection from your device then is much favored, altough there's the drawback of flashlights at distance cause false beepings. This however is not hard to be realized as the correct target beeps will only come from one direction.

Hope this helps.
Regards.

good morning Carl:  As you may have noticed, my trend of thought has been / is evolving as we go on.  Some thoughts have been discarded, others improved. Some I have you, my sounding board ,  to thank for.  You forced me to research further, and in many cases revise my thoughts.

I recognize that some of my origional thoughts were in error, while others were quite correct, but then isn´t that what this talk is all about ?

A) IR has very limited effective penetration in the soil , quite true, but it does heat up the soil, which in turn tends to spread to areas of lower thermal energy until it hits the buried metallic mass , where it is stored in larger amounts than in the surrounding soil..  This metallic mass later releases this thermal energy back into the soil as the soil loses it´s store, which can make the secondarily thermal energized soil near it discernibly  warmer and can so theoretically be measured or indicated by a sensitive measuring / visual  recording device.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Good mornin  hung:  You posted -->  UV-B is most intense during summer time
=========

¿May I ask your interpretation as to why?

Don Jose de La Mancha

Folks,

I received a call from one of my team members and he got a new sony camera. He took some test pictures of a gold sample he has buried close to his house using the same aproach I told here. He will send me the pics this week , so that I can process them in my app.
If the camera did ok and the halo does appear in the pics, I will ask him permission to show them here.

Regards.

Don't bother. People have been posting pictures of "auras" here for quite a long time. All are pictures of known targets that are centered in the image and have been post processed to heck to the point where it finally shows something. This is not a true test. The true test is taking a picture where the target is not known and then doing as much post processing as you see fit to finally decide whether or not it is worth digging for the target. If you can't find the unknown target then your solution is not workable in the real world.

Anyone can take a picture of the ground where they know a coin is buried and start messing with photoshop until that spot looks different on the picture. This does NOT equate to gold having an aura or the ability to find hidden gold with a camera. It only equates to wishful thinking.

Finally, I will say that digital cameras and photography could potentially alert you to different ground compositions due to drainage differences. If these drainage differences are caused by ground disturbance or caches then you could potentially find hidden gold through photography. But it would not be related to auras or other such nonsense.

Gee... haven't we already done this topic to death in another thread?

Good mornin  hung:  You posted -->  UV-B is most intense during summer time
=========

¿May I ask your interpretation as to why?

Don Jose de La Mancha

Hi Tayopa.
This is a very good question.
We have most UV-A hitting Earth (about 99%). Which means only a very small amount is UVB.
Considering that winter time in the north hemisphere contains a lot of snow, I believe the albedo is the responsible agent for that.

North hemisphere presents a high albedo causing a high amount of UV radiation reflection. During the summertime, on the other hand, this albedo lowers and allows for an increase of UV penetration, UV-B included. This UV-B as you know, is highly nocive for skin.

I see you are from Mexico. Countries generally in lattitudes closer to the Equator, have much lower and noticeable differences among winter and summer seasons for instance. In Brazil, specially the northeast region, winter and summer almost do not differ, as opposed to what happens in the NH.
Due to the position of Earth in relation to the Sun regarding the Equator, the incidence of solar rays are direct and much more concentrated.

Regards.

Don't bother. People have been posting pictures of "auras" here for quite a long time. All are pictures of known targets that are centered in the image and have been post processed to heck to the point where it finally shows something. This is not a true test. The true test is taking a picture where the target is not known and then doing as much post processing as you see fit to finally decide whether or not it is worth digging for the target. If you can't find the unknown target then your solution is not workable in the real world.

Agreed. An unknown target is the natural way to prove the point.
But, you have to consider that it appears this phemomena already manifests itself quite soon and you actually need not to wait years to be able to pick up this on film. It was David Villanueva himself who stated this. He said that a couple of days only would be enough to produce some results.
I could confirm that when with  a gold sample only some months buried at the time I could perform the process I told in previous posts above and the hallo appeared.
But you are mistaken thinking some hardcore processing is necessary. Absolutely not. The original picture is obvisouly darker and the photo editor just enhance it. It just requres you hit a button. Of course there are programs which are better for this than others, probably due to the type of algorithms involved. But all of the editors I believe will work to show this halo in a better or worse way, because the 'halo' is caused by the 'anomaly' and not by the editor itself.

Anyone can take a picture of the ground where they know a coin is buried and start messing with photoshop until that spot looks different on the picture. This does NOT equate to gold having an aura or the ability to find hidden gold with a camera. It only equates to wishful thinking.

Again this is caused by an anomaly field produced by the buried metal in conjunction with some factors that becomes visible trough IR and in proper conditions.

Finally, I will say that digital cameras and photography could potentially alert you to different ground compositions due to drainage differences. If these drainage differences are caused by ground disturbance or caches then you could potentially find hidden gold through photography. But it would not be related to auras or other such nonsense.

Probably 'aura' is not the appropriate term. And probably it is just the right term to apply. This depends on what a person understands by its meaning.
I have my own thoughts about it which I will reserve myself from not comenting on.
Anyway, Villanueva's pictures are really great and he clearly shows the difference in colors from different metals. This is more than possible as each metal has a different composition. My gold halo picture appeared different in color than his SLR camera but perfectly matched the one he showed being taken by a CCD type. So, the cameras used DO produce a noticeable difference.

Don't bother. People have been posting pictures of "auras" here for quite a long time. All are pictures of known targets that are centered in the image and have been post processed to heck to the point where it finally shows something. This is not a true test. The true test is taking a picture where the target is not known and then doing as much post processing as you see fit to finally decide whether or not it is worth digging for the target. If you can't find the unknown target then your solution is not workable in the real world.

Agreed. An unknown target is the natural way to prove the point.
But, you have to consider that it appears this phemomena already manifests itself quite soon and you actually need not to wait years to be able to pick up this on film. It was David Villanueva himself who stated this. He said, a couple of days only would be enough to produce some results.
And I could confirm that when with only some months buried at the time I could perform the process I told in previous posts above and the hallo appeared.
But you are mistaken thinking some hardcore processing is necessary. Absolutely not. The original picture is obvisouly darker and the photo editor just enhance it. It just requres you hit a button. Of course there are programs which are better for this than others, probably due to the type of algorithms involved. But all of the editors I believe will work to show this halo in a better or worse way, because the 'halo' is caused by the 'anomaly' and not by the editor itself.

Anyone can take a picture of the ground where they know a coin is buried and start messing with photoshop until that spot looks different on the picture. This does NOT equate to gold having an aura or the ability to find hidden gold with a camera. It only equates to wishful thinking.

Again this is caused by an anomaly field produced by the buried metal in conjunction with some factors that becomes visible trough IR and in proper conditions.

Finally, I will say that digital cameras and photography could potentially alert you to different ground compositions due to drainage differences. If these drainage differences are caused by ground disturbance or caches then you could potentially find hidden gold through photography. But it would not be related to auras or other such nonsense.

Probably 'aura' is not the appropriate term. And probably it is just the right term to apply. This depends on what a person understands by its meaning.
I have my own thoughts about it which I will reserve myself from not comenting on.

Again, the only way to prove this to yourself is to do an unknown target. Heck, even taking a picture of the target off center is likely to show you that the aura is not where you expect it to be. Many people have tried this and have failed to get anything useful out of it. You put an IR filter over top of the lens to block visible light. The camera has an internal filter to block IR light. Therefore, the camera has very little light available to do any sort of internal processing of the image. You are also probably letting the camera control exposure and other key elements of the picture. What usually happens is that the internal firmware of the camera will start from the core element of the picture (in this case, the middle) and will vary the exposure accordingly. What you get out of the camera is a noisy picture that has a slightly brighter spot in the middle because this was the assumed point of automatic focus given that there was virtually no light entering the sensor to assume otherwise. In other words, the camera does its best given that there is virtually no information to "guess" from. So when you click that button in Photoshop it naturally highlights this area as being the brightest spot which makes it look like an aura. We've seen it dozens of times.

Take a picture of the same target multiple times with the target in different places in the shot. My guess will be that the aura does not follow the target at all. This topic has been done to death and the result was that no one was able to accurately reproduce any auras other than ones that were either post-processed to heck or were directly centered in the picture each time. And no one was ever able to produce a picture of an aura from an unknown target that was later retrieved and proven to be real.

good morning Carl:  As you may have noticed, my trend of thought has been / is evolving as we go on.  Some thoughts have been discarded, others improved. Some I have you, my sounding board ,  to thank for.  You forced me to research further, and in many cases revise my thoughts.

I recognize that some of my origional thoughts were in error, while others were quite correct, but then isn´t that what this talk is all about ?

Agreed!

...until it hits the buried metallic mass , where it is stored in larger amounts than in the surrounding soil.

This is a key area of doubt for me. The question is whether a buried e.g. gold bar has more or less volumetric heat capacity than the soil it replaces.

This metallic mass later releases this thermal energy back into the soil as the soil loses it´s store, which can make the secondarily thermal energized soil near it discernibly  warmer and can so theoretically be measured or indicated by a sensitive measuring / visual  recording device.

This is another area of doubt... whether the nearly-instantaneous thermal conductivity of the gold bar will allow it to lag the thermal diffusion of the surrounding soil, to the point where you can actually detect it.

Again, simple experiments can prove this one way or the other. I am convinced that I want to do those experiments and will start looking for suitable targets to bury.

- Carl

Good morning my friend CARL:  You pòsted -->

The question is whether a buried e.g. gold bar has more or less volumetric heat capacity than the soil it replaces
============

I believe that it definitely has more.  I suppose that a crude example of my thinking is that if you melt gold in a furnace, pour it into a mould, then shut off the heating element,  the fire brick lining the furnace will quickly cool off, even though it had a far higher surface exposure to the heating element. but you certainly had better keep your fingers off of the Gold in the mould for quite while.

This, to me, is a crude example of volumetric capacity.  In our case, merely substitute the soil for the Fire brick.
*********************************************************************************************************************
 You also posted -->    whether the nearly-instantaneous thermal conductivity of the gold bar will allow it to lag the thermal diffusion of the surrounding soil, to the point where you can actually detect it.
===================

Interesting question, and a complex one.  My belief is that while the heated Gold will readily give up it´s heat, it is also in this case surrounded by an effective insulator, the soil, which will control that rate of transference,  delaying it´s release.  Naturally this heat will be concentrated more strongly in the soil in closest contact with the heated Gold, thus effectively having a differential heat factor in comparison with the soil further away.

The question is not that it exists, but can we find as simple, effective way to indicate  this ? Is a modification of an inexpensive Electronic Camera within our abilities and finances. ?

Don Jose de La Mancha

[Goldfinger]

. . . cameras see gold . . .

I thought even the cheapest digital cameras could see gold.  Check out the banner at the top of the forum.  Pictures of gold abound.

My HP does . . . see?   

Hi Charlie, ¿Doesn´t it?  ¿Is it possibly that because you / we aren´t advanced enough to visually bring out what it is recording?  ¿Whose fault would that be?

Don Jose de La Mancha

[Goldfinger]

  But I was agreeing with you.  My camera "sees" gold in every image I ask it to take of gold.

But it doesn't "see" gold or any alleged etherial effect gold posses that the naked eye can't.  That would be silly.  I couldn't see it in the image if I couldn't see it in "real life".   

HI: I presume that you have read the above 2 posts with illustrations of pictures of data that you can't see   Simple IR  sensative cameras.  first step.

Don Jose de La Mancha

[Goldfinger]

Thermal imaging has nothing to do with gold or visual wavelengths.  They are "cameras" sensitive to wavelengths below visual that interpret the image into visual light registers.  Before digital camersa there was hack science that claimed tungsten film and such had the same "magic" properties to see buried gold. 

Sure, A big chunk of gold will retain heat longer than the soil matrix.  As will a rock, chunk of plow iron, pocket of water or sleeping woodchuck.

Good evening Charlie,  reread your post, Just what in the world are we talking about in here if not that?  Frequency sensitive imaging.  In the posted case, it is IR.

As for your wood chuck, certainly he might be giving off more heat, but of a different frequency.  We are not interested in that freq. obviously. and the thermal imaging camera prob would show him in his entirety in any event.

The posted pictures were of cameras that 'have' been utilized to photograph / record frequencies of a range that is not normally visible to human sensitivity. Precisely the purpose / reason that we are experimenting for in here.   Now to narrow it down to the ones that we are interested in by experimentation.

When I passed through the border the other day, I saw a huge scanning device which penetrated semi trailers to look for contraband.  What frequency are they using to penetrate the Aluminum body cover? More important, how are they differentially presenting the received data visually?

Also what frequency are they now using for full body scans at some airports that show a person as being naked?

Sorry swr, find something else to chortle about..

Don Jose de La Mancha

Dear group;
There is a simple test to prove or disprove the theory that a camera can *see* gold. Take a piece of gold, such as a wedding band, and place it on a table at night, then turn off all the lights, disable the flash feature on the camera and take several images, then examine the images.

Now, if a camera is able to * see* gold above the ground, then it should certainly be able to see it when it's lying in plain sight, shouldn't it? This would also hold true for photos taken of people wearing jewelry in dim lighting conditions, yet it doesn't happen. Why doesn't this happen? Simple, because cameras cannot * see* gold, my friends. In short, it's a psuedo-science and one which can be easily disproven.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Dear group;
There is a simple test to prove or disprove the theory that a camera can *see* gold. Take a piece of gold, such as a wedding band, and place it on a table at night, then turn off all the lights, disable the flash feature on the camera and take several images, then examine the images.

Now, if a camera is able to * see* gold above the ground, then it should certainly be able to see it when it's lying in plain sight, shouldn't it? This would also hold true for photos taken of people wearing jewelry in dim lighting conditions, yet it doesn't happen. Why doesn't this happen? Simple, because cameras cannot * see* gold, my friends. In short, it's a psuedo-science and one which can be easily disproven.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Lamar, I totally agree. The only thing I would change in your test is that your camera should have the internal IR filter removed and you should also use a normal light blocking filter on the outside. That would make it a "true" IR camera. But the net result will undoubtedly be the same. The picture will be entirely black. Or at the very least, the gold will not be any brighter than anything else in the image. Thus, all of this talk about IR reflecting, differences in temperatures, and other such pseudo science is just nonsense.

Lamar & Jb: Unfortunately you are completely wrong Lamar, all that your suggested thingie does is to simply verify that we are in exactly the same state of affairs as we were in standard photography that we were in, shall we say, 1800.  We couldn't reproduce what was there all of the time, but finally did develop something that we now take as obviously evident, the silver salts reaction to Photons.

 They were sensitive to the visible light spectrum and a bit more.  As for reproducing  the visible spectrum with just a few units of electricity, sheehs , who'd a thunk?   TV?  Illuminating a room that was in total darkness with only a flip of a contolling device, a switch

If we can reproduce or duplicate 'any' frequency so that it can be seen visibly,  which we have done for many,  there is no law of physics that flatly states that we cannot do the same of any other frequency.  If the need was obvious at the moment, and the financing was available, I am quite sure that it would be accomplished readily. it is just a matter of time.  Unfortunately neither that need, nor financing,  has materialized, so we are dependent upon home experiments, similar to the Wright Brothers.

Have you ever seen an electron? I haven't either, yet I daily measure and use it with the appropriate instruments.  In fact just using this site to post, requires using any things that are not seen visually in themselves, but are made so by instrumentation.

We are trying to reproduce visually, the frequency of Gold, through an inexpensive modification of an
electronic frequency reproduction device.  This falls completely within normal accepted Scientific rules and procedures.  Just that simple.

Don Jose de La Mancha 

[Goldfinger]

As for your wood chuck, certainly he might be giving off more heat, but of a different frequency.  We are not interested in that freq. obviously. and the thermal imaging camera prob would show him in his entirety in any event.

The posted pictures were of cameras that 'have' been utilized to photograph / record frequencies of a range that is not normally visible to human sensitivity. Precisely the purpose / reason that we are experimenting for in here.   Now to narrow it down to the ones that we are interested in by experimentation.

Certainly.  Infra Red is a specific range of frequencies that we recognize as heat signatures with the proper recording instruments. 

The term "infrared" refers to a broad range of frequencies, beginning at the top end of those frequencies used for communication and extending up the the low frequency (red) end of the visible spectrum. The wavelength range is from about 1 millimeter down to 750 nm. The range adjacent to the visible spectrum is called the "near infrared" and the longer wavelength part is called "far infrared".

Gold does not "radiate" a specific frequency that a digital camera can detect.  You're into the micro waves and radio waves at about 20 zeros removed (smaller) on the Hertz scale from visual or infra-red wavelengths.  I presume you are referring to the sub-atomic rates at which the molecules resonate?  That is not infra red and occurs at frequencise so far off the visual or infra-red or ultra violet scale.  Or is there some "aura" gold is supposed to generate that is unknown to science as yet?  I suppose all you need for that is a cardboard box with a pinhole in one end and an aluminum foil helmet. 

Does a digital camera see the VHF electromagnetic field generated by metal detectors?  That is BILLIONS of times more powerful (at 100 milliAmps) than a five pound brick of gold can produce.

We see a dog as yellow not because he gives off "yellow wavelengths" but because his pigment absorbs all but yellow wavelengts of visible light and the yellow is perceived by our eyes.  The source of the original full spectrum light is the sun (or a lightbulb, whatever).  The dog emits no light of his own production.  Neither does gold produce any energy on its own.  Heat is different.  The dog's metabolism produces heat, so he is a point source of infra red emission.  Gold has no metabolism and relies on the ambient temperature.  Set a bowling ball beside a lump of gold and view them in IR and they would be identically invisible if the surrounding soil is at the same temperature.  Gold, being a great conductor, probably loses heat FASTER than the bowling ball, in fact.

good morning Charles:  You posted -->Certainly.  Infra Red is a specific range of frequencies that we recognize as heat signatures with the proper recording instruments.
************
Agreed my friend.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You also posted --> Gold does not "radiate" a specific frequency that a digital camera can detect
*************
You know, and can produce scientific data  for this of course???
_________________________________________________ ________________________________
You posted -->.  You're into the micro waves and radio waves at about 20 zeros removed (smaller) on the Hertz scale from visual or infra-red wavelengths.
*************

Agreed, but??   Why this fixation on the IR?  At this point we have no idea what we might find that is actually reproducible, which may be indicative of the presence of Gold, whether directly in the frequency sought , or as a harmonic /sub harmonic of the desired one. 
_________________________________________________ ______________________________
You also posted -->  Does a digital camera see the VHF electromagnetic field generated by metal detectors?  That is BILLIONS of times more powerful (at 100 milliAmps) than a five pound brick of gold can produce.
**************

Quit true, but we successfully measure the caloric factor, chemical make up, and other things  on distant planets using sensitive detectors. These are infinitely far weaker than any similar factor that might be associated with Gold.

 As for measuring  VHF  fields from Gold, who says that we need that high a frequency at this state of experimentation, or that we can't adapt an indirect measurement through one of the harmonics??
_________________________________________________ _______________________________

You also posted -->We see a dog as yellow not because he gives off "yellow wavelengths" but because his pigment absorbs all but yellow wavelengts of visible light and the yellow is perceived by our eyes
*****************
True, but what happens if we bath the dog with a 'pure' frequency of say blue, or green??
_________________________________________________ _____________________________
You also posted -->Gold has no metabolism and relies on the ambient temperature
************

No argument here, but why has metabolism been brought up?  This is not what we normally consider a living entity.
_________________________________________________ _______________________________

You posted -->Gold, being a great conductor, probably loses heat FASTER than the bowling ball, in fact.
**********
Again quite true, but you are forgetting the ability of the gold to absorb and retain a far far greater amount of heat, so even if it is realeasing it at a higher rate, it will continue to do so for a far longer period.

The original example of using IR, was merely to show that there are an infinite no of ways to detect Buried gold both directly or indirectly through an associated frequency.

I enjoy seeing your posts Charlie, you do good thinking.  Keep it up please.

Don Jose de La Mancha

good morning Charles:  You posted -->Certainly.  Infra Red is a specific range of frequencies that we recognize as heat signatures with the proper recording instruments.
************
Agreed my friend.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You also posted --> Gold does not "radiate" a specific frequency that a digital camera can detect
*************
You know, and can produce scientific data  for this of course???
_________________________________________________ ________________________________
You posted -->.  You're into the micro waves and radio waves at about 20 zeros removed (smaller) on the Hertz scale from visual or infra-red wavelengths.
*************

Agreed, but??   Why this fixation on the IR?  At this point we have no idea what we might find that is actually reproducible, which may be indicative of the presence of Gold, whether directly in the frequency sought , or as a harmonic /sub harmonic of the desired one. 
_________________________________________________ ______________________________
You also posted -->  Does a digital camera see the VHF electromagnetic field generated by metal detectors?  That is BILLIONS of times more powerful (at 100 milliAmps) than a five pound brick of gold can produce.
**************

Quit true, but we successfully measure the caloric factor, chemical make up, and other things  on distant planets using sensitive detectors. These are infinitely far weaker than any similar factor that might be associated with Gold.

 As for measuring  VHF  fields from Gold, who says that we need that high a frequency at this state of experimentation, or that we can't adapt an indirect measurement through one of the harmonics??
_________________________________________________ _______________________________

You also posted -->We see a dog as yellow not because he gives off "yellow wavelengths" but because his pigment absorbs all but yellow wavelengts of visible light and the yellow is perceived by our eyes
*****************
True, but what happens if we bath the dog with a 'pure' frequency of say blue, or green??
_________________________________________________ _____________________________
You also posted -->Gold has no metabolism and relies on the ambient temperature
************

No argument here, but why has metabolism been brought up?  This is not what we normally consider a living entity.
_________________________________________________ _______________________________

You posted -->Gold, being a great conductor, probably loses heat FASTER than the bowling ball, in fact.
**********
Again quite true, but you are forgetting the ability of the gold to absorb and retain a far far greater amount of heat, so even if it is realeasing it at a higher rate, it will continue to do so for a far longer period.

The original example of using IR, was merely to show that there are an infinite no of ways to detect Buried gold both directly or indirectly through an associated frequency.

I enjoy seeing your posts Charlie, you do good thinking.  Keep it up please.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Don Jose de La Mancha, I really don't see the point of you continuing to argue anymore. You've now gotten to the point where you are trying to argue semantics as to whether or not it is even possible to create SOME type of detector that could detect gold. What is the point of that? This thread is about normal digital cameras seeing gold through IR. If you don't want to argue that anymore then start a new thread. But at least have the common courtesy to stop this maddening charade.

It is true that some day we may have some sort of detector that can detect gold using some physical property that is completely unknown to us now. But that physical property is not IR. And that detector is not a standard digital camera. 

Do you or do you not believe that a digital camera can see buried gold? Not a camera or special detector of the future, a camera of today. If you believe it, test it and prove it to yourself. If you don't, then let's move on with life and quit playing the "science does not know everything and someday we may all be surprised" game. As I've recently stated in another thread, scientists have better ways to find gold for hundreds if not thousands of years. There is no reason to believe that they haven't tried seeing gold with digital cameras of all shapes and sizes. And yes, even non-scientists have tried this and failed.

I have seen Pictures of a certain dig that show a mist above the dig.
As the dig progressed the mist (most detectable in the early morning) is much thicker.
there were pictures taken everyday.

I also know that a recovery was made and the gold found was tested to have been retorted using mercury.
so a certain percent of the mercury was still present.
As I am led to understand the mercury decays and the gas given off isn't visible to the eye,
but the camera sees it right away.

JB:  I am merely responding to posted questions and remarks.  Yes, the entire matter is still open ended.  We may probably end up, if successful, in other regions than IR, so 'all' should be discussed.

Inciidentally, the site is "Can Cameras see Gold".

Ghost dog , you are correct.  The Mercury fumes tend to block light and other freq.   A normal prospecting example is the reactive screen bathed with an UV source with the emitting or suspected object between the screen and the emitting source.  The result is similar to what you describe, a hazy, moving shadow.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Good morning Mi Amigo Jose,

One small thing of note that must be provided here.
When the mist is present, adequate ventilation MUST be provided.
That gas is very poisonous.

Thom

[Goldfinger]

good morning Charles:  You posted -->Certainly.  Infra Red is a specific range of frequencies that we recognize as heat signatures with the proper recording instruments.
************
Agreed my friend.
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

You also posted --> Gold does not "radiate" a specific frequency that a digital camera can detect
*************
You know, and can produce scientific data  for this of course???
_________________________________________________ ________________________________

Well . . . yes.  Those elements that are capable of producing electromagnetic radiation on their own along any portion of the spectrum (radio, microwave, IR, visable, UV or VHF, etc.) are called . . . radioactive.  To detect them is easy - set a receiver to the proper frequency - al la Geiger Counter - and have at it.  No camera needed.

You posted -->.  You're into the micro waves and radio waves at about 20 zeros removed (smaller) on the Hertz scale from visual or infra-red wavelengths.
*************

Agreed, but??   Why this fixation on the IR?  At this point we have no idea what we might find that is actually reproducible, which may be indicative of the presence of Gold, whether directly in the frequency sought , or as a harmonic /sub harmonic of the desired one.  
_________________________________________________ ______________________________
You also posted -->  Does a digital camera see the VHF electromagnetic field generated by metal detectors?  That is BILLIONS of times more powerful (at 100 milliAmps) than a five pound brick of gold can produce.
**************

Quit true, but we successfully measure the caloric factor, chemical make up, and other things  on distant planets using sensitive detectors. These are infinitely far weaker than any similar factor that might be associated with Gold.

 As for measuring  VHF  fields from Gold, who says that we need that high a frequency at this state of experimentation, or that we can't adapt an indirect measurement through one of the harmonics??

Harmonics?  It has been my finding that harmonics are more related to shape/morphology than material composition.  You want a higher note you use a thinner guitar string - same composition.  I haven't seen any science on certain substances of various shapes or buried in contact with rock and soil being able to resonate particularly well.

_________________________________________________ _______________________________

You also posted -->We see a dog as yellow not because he gives off "yellow wavelengths" but because his pigment absorbs all but yellow wavelengts of visible light and the yellow is perceived by our eyes
*****************
True, but what happens if we bath the dog with a 'pure' frequency of say blue, or green??
_________________________________________________ _____________________________
You also posted -->Gold has no metabolism and relies on the ambient temperature
************

No argument here, but why has metabolism been brought up?  This is not what we normally consider a living entity.
_________________________________________________ _______________________________

You posted -->Gold, being a great conductor, probably loses heat FASTER than the bowling ball, in fact.
**********
Again quite true, but you are forgetting the ability of the gold to absorb and retain a far far greater amount of heat, so even if it is realeasing it at a higher rate, it will continue to do so for a far longer period.

Why would gold absorb or retain any more ambient heat than say, zinc, barium, aluminum, or any other metalic element in the vicinity?  Why do you isolate gold when it is actually a pretty boring element compared to others?  Just because mankind puts great value on it doesn't mean Nature does.

The original example of using IR, was merely to show that there are an infinite no of ways to detect Buried gold both directly or indirectly through an associated frequency.

I enjoy seeing your posts Charlie, you do good thinking.  Keep it up please.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Enjoy your posts, too.  Actually, science is open ended and will adopt to any findings of substance.  Keep at it.

[Why do you isolate gold when it is actually a pretty boring element compared to others? Just because mankind puts great value on it doesn't mean Nature does]

Why would gold absorb or retain any more ambient heat than say, zinc, barium, aluminum, or any other metalic element in the vicinity?  Why do you isolate gold when it is actually a pretty boring element compared to others?  Just because mankind puts great value on it doesn't mean Nature does

Amen!  I really don't understand why so many people on this forum fail to see the fact that they are grasping at straws simply because they truly want to believe it is possible. If I told people that a buried twinkie could be detected with a digital camera they'd say that I was absolutely insane. Yet they will hold out hope for any possible explanation that will lead to the conclusion that buried gold can be seen with a camera. As Charlie pointed out, why would gold be any different from rocks, alluminum, steel, pennies, gum wrappers, or anything else buried in the ground? Why would cameras be able to see gold yet fail to see any of these other things? Since when did digital cameras aquire the ability to discriminate between metals better than the best metal detectors known to man?

It's wishful thinking is all it is. People spend hours on end out here debating and theorizing as to how cameras could see gold, how treasure gases could be produced, and whether or not a crooked tree can lead them to a hidden Spanish cache. Yet science has been trying to prove these things over and over again for centuries and has failed to. Oh well. What can you do? You really can't convince them that they are wasting their time. They just don't want to hear it.

"Wishful thinking" is not a bad answer, however we have to remember that this is a hobby for most of us, and if it weren't for wishful thinking we wouldn't be doing it in the first place.  Do you go swing a coil just because you have spare time and can't figure out anything else to do with it, or do you go out with wishful thinking of finding jewelry/coins/nugget, whatever it you like to hunt for?

Wishful thinking and grasping at straws have led to some of the most innovative and useful things in our everyday lives.  Just because it probably won't ever work doesn't mean that people can't try to make it work, and if nobody tries to make it work, then it definitely won't ever work.

"Wishful thinking" is not a bad answer, however we have to remember that this is a hobby for most of us, and if it weren't for wishful thinking we wouldn't be doing it in the first place.  Do you go swing a coil just because you have spare time and can't figure out anything else to do with it, or do you go out with wishful thinking of finding jewelry/coins/nugget, whatever it you like to hunt for?

Wishful thinking and grasping at straws have led to some of the most innovative and useful things in our everyday lives.  Just because it probably won't ever work doesn't mean that people can't try to make it work, and if nobody tries to make it work, then it definitely won't ever work.

It may be wishful thinking to believe that I'll pull a gold coin out of the ground on my next hunt. But at least it is scientifically possible.

It's wishful thinking is all it is. People spend hours on end out here debating and theorizing as to how cameras could see gold, how treasure gases could be produced, and whether or not a crooked tree can lead them to a hidden Spanish cache. Yet science has been trying to prove these things over and over again for centuries and has failed to. Oh well. What can you do? You really can't convince them that they are wasting their time. They just don't want to hear it.

The winner(s) here are the ones writing the books promoting wishful thinking. Now that is a money making gimmick!

It doesn't have to be necessarily true....nor does the context of the text have to be validated. Write it...sell it...and move on to another $$ making gimmick.

Next book: Find Gold and Treasure Using Paint Splatters

Amen! 

HI: I have been hacking and coughing for a few days and so neglected this site.

First, show me why it isn't possible? Scientifically or other wise. Just because of our still very primitive level of knowledge that we can't do it at the moment, doesn't mean that it is impossible. On the contrary,  theoretical physics says  'yes' anything is possible. 

A mere 'prove it to me' is as unacceptable now, as it was to prove that manned flight to the moon and shortly Mars was in the time of Abraham, or Adam.

 How can one say that anything such as this is impossible unless they know absolutely 'everything' there is to know about the Universe and it's intimate  parts, from pure energy to the latest wiki for swr?   

I am afraid that we are still uncountable centuries from this level of knowledge.

Don Jose de La Mancha

[can]

HI: I have been hacking and coughing for a few days and so neglected this site.

First, show me why it isn't possible? Scientifically or other wise. Just because of our still very primitive level of knowledge that we can't do it at the moment, doesn't mean that it is impossible. On the contrary,  theoretical physics says  'yes' anything is possible. 

A mere 'prove it to me' is as unacceptable now, as it was to prove that manned flight to the moon and shortly Mars was in the time of Abraham, or Adam.

 How can one say that anything such as this is impossible unless they know absolutely 'everything' there is to know about the Universe and it's intimate  parts, from pure energy to the latest wiki for swr?   

I am afraid that we are still uncountable centuries from this level of knowledge.

Don Jose de La Mancha

On the contrary,  theoretical physics says  'yes' anything is possible.

Theoretical physicists spend a lot of time talking about Schroedinger's Cat being both alive and dead at the same time and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle on the increasing inaccuracy of more precise measurement; or whether the Big Bang is a one-time event or a cycle.  They are just as likely to tell you nothing is possible and we are recording time backwards. 

I can not prove a digital camera can not photograph an "unexplainable gold effect"; or a ghost, mermaid, or Yeti.  Just as there is no way I can prove that it is not possible for a hamster to spontaneously turn into a radish.  We could gather all the hamsters and monitor them indefinately but that still would not be proof.  You cannot prove a negative.  You can only prove a positive.  So, it is up to you to prove a camera can detect gold.  Extrordinary claims demand extrordinary proof.

We know gold is not radioactive and therefore does not emit on the known electromagnetic spectrum from Gamma or X-rays down to ELF waves (as probably no other element has been studied as hard or for as long).  So it's a pretty good argument that since it cannot be detected with any receiving instrument known to science without first being exposed to an outside energy source (i.e. metal detector field, flashlight, sonar, radar, etc.), and digital cameras are known to science and their only emitter is a flash of visible light (with some UV and IR thrown in), then it follows digital cameras cannot detect gold obscured by any other object or other physical matter capable of blocking the view of the camera's lens.  I have proven a digital camera can detect visible gold.  But buried gold?  No.  Or tin, copper, aluminum, iron, manganese, etc., etc.

Perhaps about the time we have the technology of cold fusion to rearrange molecules we'll have a long-distance gold detector.  But then everyone will be searching for silicon as that's plentiful and if you can make gold from smaller molecules why bother looking for it?   

Good morning Charlie, good to hear from you again;

You posted -->You cannot prove a negative.  You can only prove a positive
**************

Interesting concept, but first we have to define what is 'proof'.  Is it merely something that we accept as absolute, given our still primitive level of knowledge?  Sooo many proofs have been overturned through the centuries, that one legitimateley wonders what 'is' absolute proof, or if there is even such a thing.
_________________________________________________ _______________________________

You posted -->So it's a pretty good argument that since it cannot be detected with any receiving instrument known to science without first being exposed to an outside energy source
*****************

Ah, but isn't that exactly what we have been talking about in here?  An external source of energy, be it solar or natural earth currents?? Our problem is to devise a means of capturing this new frequency / energy in a camera by one means or another.  A hetrodyning effect that may actually reach / lower this result to the visual fields, or at least the camera's ability to capture it.
_________________________________________________ _______________________________.

Don Jose de La Mancha 

Maybe I should have read all the posts….after 15 minutes of reading really good stuff, I skipped to the last...didn't see any references to that fact they (government) is already doing it. Yes, they are using heat sensitive (IR related?) to map out mineral locations TODAY. Since they use digital photography to relate the finds so that our eyes can correlate the data so we can understand what it represents, why is such a stretch to imagine you can do it too?
SWR and Lamar are very, very, critical of almost everything (and they are on a lot of different threads)….we need that, we do have to prove things, be challenged, taken to task, so that we do something with our ideas and make them become reality. Otherwise they are only ideas, some of us have to Prove something and thus a idea comes to fruition and a device developed that otherwise would have been just an idea. Things are great in these discussions, the thing I see improving is most are trying to keep the name calling and insults out!  If you insult or names call you instantly lose your creditability and loose the argument/discussion. Tayopa is a good example of restraint and sticking to the issues.
If we put you guys in a room (SWR would of course have to be there) with unlimited resources I have no doubt that you guys/gals would come up with the exact device to do this in the form of a detector. By the way, there is already a computerized element detector out there that works very well, I have used it.  It does not have any photographic characteristics, but it probably wouldn’t take much to change that if you wanted that kind of sensor input. I can envision swinging a hand held device that has a small monitor with (digital) output and as you swing this thing the images on the screen changes color when gold is located. Doesn’t take much to go from digital photos to digital video, with the onboard computer working the images over for the display.
If you would have told someone that was a treasure hunter in the late 1800s the idea of a metal detector they would have laughed at you…been interested, but laughed. That is where we are right now, someone is the pioneer and doing it but we are laughing…well some are.

Curtis good post,...yes  i know a camera can do all this,capturing energy field ,from gold,silver,exc ,what was impossible is now possible,i don't use  a camera,for this,but i know it there...because, i do use the film,picture to find gold and silver,because the camera has capture this on the film,and yes it there,and detected it, you can,i have use this for a year now,worked great,i have not posted it because nobody,would belive it,so i use it myself, because of,insults,argument,challenged,proof,i'am not trying to win a argument,and not going to start one.   i  have gold,i got to  get ,before every body find out, hey ,this  ,really worked.....  i feel in the next few years, the camera will be the #1 tool for treasure hunter's.( TIME WILL TELL)

i feel in the next few years, the camera will be the #1 tool for treasure hunter's.( TIME WILL TELL)

For some of us it has been for a long time.
And a very good confirmation tool.

[Goldfinger]

I'd put an old map state survey map from the early 1800's or even 1900's way above a digital camera for site selection.  My prey is dropped coins or interesting relics in cellar holes from homes that were but ain't.  I drive along 'till I spot a black square on the map where there is no structure now, or compare a new topographical section map with an old one.

But then I don't hunt treasure - just old coins.     The camera will never replace the detector and shovel for me, I'm afraid.

But if optimism generates a ray that gold responds to and photovoltaic cells can capture you may be well on the way to success.  Good to have a dream.   

Go go my friends !

Don Jose de La Mancha

Buenos noches senor Tayopa,

I think two things concern me:


1. (the more metaphysical of the two) is an ongoing argument here. Clint and I and others, seem to be stuck on the fact that for all practical and relevant purposes, seeing a gold "aura" is ridiculous.

you however, being of the opposing camp, say "WHY NOT?"  and after thinking about this for some time I realize that you are probably right. Provided enough time and money are spent on one particular area of advancement, almost anything is possible. All objects interact with their environment; All interactions involve transfers of energy and must therefore be recordable in some way or another. I suppose, if enough energy was spent, a camera could be developed that could see farts (probably not so difficult).  

---> actually that is a really bad example because there are cameras that can see farts, but you get the idea <------

If all of earth devoted a hundred years and all the money and labor contained therein, we could probably devise a pair of socks that, when worn, could fly you to the moon. For now though, who cares !?  It is not feasible.  Give it a thousands years and even maybe you could buy those socks at walmart, along with a gold detecting camera.

and yes, these posibilities are important to scientific process, but for god sakes, don't spend $40 dollars on a book that claims it can teach you how to detect "gold auras."

2. The issue of gold acquiring and retaining more energy than the soil surrounding it (during the day), and emitting it into the soil later at night, is causing me some consternation. I'm a little sleepy and a little drunky, so I'll think on it tomorrow. Would you please in the meantime consider it.....

PLANK WALKER    where are you     SNIFF

Don Jose de La Mancha

the sceptics may be useful up to a point but they really need to sit back and listen for a while. i wonder where they were when i was reading comic books showing dick tracey talking on his wrist radio, ( check out the i-phone here ), where were they when the movies  were placing man on other planets? i saw in 1940's my first tv in a store window with so much snow on it that you could barely make out the people's face's. look at tv now-- now instead of argueing they are the first one's out the chute to grab those things. so the moral to this is keep on the trail of pictures of gold and brush the sceptics aside like the the tailings at the mine.

Best to run a detector over those tailings as you brush them aside.

do you guys remember back in the sixties when the blacks and the doctors were so arrogant and obnoxious about
 sickle cell anemia was not true? they were ready to crucify anyone who even mentioned it. now they want to crucify
anyone who denies it.  anybody listening? remember the air force pilots who crashed and died after having
blood transfusions tainted with sickle cell anemia? and what about fibromyalgia? were you laughed at by your doctor
when you mentioned it? huh?? i'll bet  these jokesters on here think like those folks did back then. now look at
them, the first out the gate to make a pot full of money on both of those things. the moral to this?
 don't give them the time of day, just keep going and ignore them like the sickle cell tyey are.

Hi 10 Claw
There are also marvelous machines that can sniff out metal underground
when it is out of sight, the 49ers may not have believed it possible.
Also there were no such things as UFOs and spacecraft, now we have been
to the moon in spacecraft.
On the digital camera angle, it may not be possible now, but I never expected
we could replace film with electrons and SD cards.  So if everybody keeps
investigating, we may get somewhere.
Cheers
Rich

Ladies, Gentlemen, in basic theory it is possible.  Since the mainstream investors will not finance the investigation with the regular scientists,  it is up to the small home  researcher to do the development and proving of it,  Once done, the establishment will pounce upon it and then be perfected by the scientific quarter, just as the Wright Bros.  had to do.  There is no doubt that it will eventually be perfected.

Don Jose de La Mancha