Wednesday, 22 October 2008

Response to comments

Again, it seems that, you all know better than those entities that currently use our equipment.

I have ‘moderated’ some of your responses but if you recall, I have said; “if you have nothing to say, don’t say it” If you have some constructive criticism, then please explain yourself but for those of you who insist that we are just a ‘SCAM’ or ‘FRAUD’ without explaining yourself, you are wasting your time, (and certainly mine).

One ‘gentleman’, (Mr. Richard Saunders), seems to think he is the expert in this technology and has sent an email to all of our distributors stating that ‘we are being hunted down’ and that ‘we will be closed…..’

I would normally ignore these comments as they are being made by someone who has no experience in OUR equipment although he claims that he did a test with the Lebanese Army and that our equipment failed…..Well, Mr. Saunders……I would be very interested in who it was you were ‘conducting’ these tests with as, the Army do not recall any such test and do not appear to support your comments but have ‘endorsed’ our equipment; not condemned it.

I have also been questions as to why I haven’t taken up the JREF $1 Million challenge. Well, firstly, I have no need of the money. Although I am a businessman, I am not solely doing this for the money, (although it helps), but I first developed this product to save lives, (not take them Mr. Saunders), and that it is people just like yourself that are putting people (personnel) at risk by not promoting this product further and allowing developers to invest in this technology. If Mr James Randi wants to put his money to good use, then invest this $1 Million in trying to develop something better! The JREF ‘challenge’, (again as I mentioned in other ‘blogs’, is designed to ensure the equipment, (under their test conditions), will fail. I would be the first to admit that, if I were to take this challenge under their terms and conditions, I would not succeed…..However, I too could make many ‘other’ detector technologies fail by setting my own conditions….but I won’t, Why? Because this would unproductive and place more lives (as Saunders apparently likes to say) at risk……So my challenge is for Mr Randi’s organisation to develop something that THEY, believe works…..
My Question to those sceptics is the following; Do you believe that (and exclude my product and products like these) it is possible for the detection of either Explosives or Narcotic drugs, (or any other substance), to be detected at long-range? (Let us say for example, 100 metres or more). If the answer to this is NO, then I am afraid you are sadly mistaken and that it proves you are just unwilling to educate yourself or to be willing to invest in the technology that could. IF, however, you think it is possible, then explain why you think my product cannot possibly work? You have said it cannot but you do not explain why it cannot.
I, or my company, do not have to prove to you or anyone else in the Randi organisation, that my technology works as; there is nothing but controversy in everything you see as ‘unbelievable’. Additionally, although you have been around (and I refer now to the Randi Organisation) for quite sometime, you have spent the better part of more than 10 years trying to discredit such technology and have not (to date) given any categorical ‘technical’ evidence that discredits the ‘concept’ of such detection methods……..Yes, you have made tests, these tests have failed, (under your conditions), and, in some instances, discredited certain companies; (Sniffex apparently comes to mind), but that these ‘discredits’ had NOTHING to do with the technology.
I stand by my product and my proof is the large number of returning clients that purchase our product and know that the units work for them. If you are then saying that these people are also uneducated then you are criticising the very people that place their lives on the line that could benefit from this technology……so, if anyone is sick……..need I say more.
I would however like to make one comment of thanks…….I would like to thank Mr. Saunders (and the Randi Organisation) for raising the awareness of our product as, since their involvement in the conquest to crush me, they have encouraged several Government entities to contact me with an increased interest in obtaining our products and information and that our resulting sales have actually increased in the past 12 months rather than ‘hindered’ our progress. So, keep up the campaign. Oh, and as a final point…the person who mentioned that he (or she) would take more interest if they were to see me ‘attempt’ to clear a landmine field……I HAVE………in Lebanon after the last invasion a couple of summers ago……..we found over 83 unexploded cluster bombs in the South…… is documented…….


Anonymous said...

I understand your device works by electrostatics but several things puzzle me. For instance, there are many natural sources (such as radioactivity) and sinks (such as certain object surfaces) for atmospheric ions. And don't ions get mixed by air currents and nearby charged surfaces? Don't these factors interfere with your readings?

Also, how can you tell what substance or process created a particular atmospheric ion or ions? Surely that is vital if you are to differentiate between nearby substances.

ADE651 said...

Reply to Annon;

With all due respect.....I think you do not know what you are talking about.....come back when your question or comment makes sense....I haven't a clue what you are talking about?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for replying though I'm sorry if what I wrote wasn't clear. I'm talking about electrostatics. I understood from the explanation on YouTube ( that the ADE worked that way. Is that not correct? I am just trying to understand how it works.

Are you measuring static electric fields from the substance you are trying to detect? If so, how does the substance become charged to start with? Most surfaces are uncharged most of the time. This is because any accumulated charge (produced by triboelectrification, for instance) is rapidly neutralised by oppositely charged air ions (produced by radioactivity). Obviously, when the surface is not charged, it does not produce an electrostatic field.

Assuming you ARE measuring static electric fields, how do tell what substance produced the field? One static electric field looks much like another, whatever its source, when it is measured by conventional methods.

ADE651 said...

1. Yes, we can detect picric acid.
2. Dear Annon. Your statement is totlally away from what the basic concept of how the product works. You are over-complicating the simplicity of the devcie as it is not detecting the 'static-electric' fields of any of the substances.
Simply explained....the unit is acting like a pure passive receiver. It is emitting nothing but 'tuning' to the the substance being detected. However, because of the very low emitions given off by the substance, it is necessary to generate a very high voltage that can only be created by something lke static-electricity. It is the combination of both this and the units 'receive' to detecting these very low emitting signals.
I hope this may explain.