DKL LifeGuard:

After all the skeptical views have been voiced, we still all needed someone with the funding to conduct a scientific, official evaluation to prove what we have all known all along. That came last April from Sandia National Laboratories. DKL has been doing a lot of traveling, pitching their DKL LifeGuard to everyone, from local search and rescue organizations and law enforcement agencies, to federal and military agencies. The Department of Energy finally funded Sandia to perform a scientific "double-blind" test (neither the operator nor the tester know where the targets are during the test). And the result was a beauty!

The Sandia team did more than proven that the DKL LifeGuard is worthless. They also proved something else.... Before the actual double-blind test, which showed that the LifeGuard did no better than random guessing, Sandia let the DKL operator (a high-ranking member of the DKL staff) perform another test where he knew where the test subjects were. The result: 100% correct! What does that suggest? Need any hint?

The test set up was very carefully done. Every parameter was well within the limits claimed in DKL brochures. The operator was supplied by DKL and was a high-ranking official at DKL. The setup typified a well-designed double-blind test. The results were conclusive and unchallengeable. The complete test report is available in Acrobat PDF format below:

If you do not already have the Acrobat Viewer installed, you can get it here. I will not summarize it, because the report itself is very educational, entertaining, and worth reading.

I will only note that even though DKL claims "no effective electronic or other countermeasures," the typical excuses given after every failed demonstration, here as elsewhere, was invariably: "sharp edges of the crates," "static charges nearby," or even that the low position of the test target "was causing the field to spread and reducing the horizontal accuracy of the device." (If you are in need of being rescued, please do not lie down.) I would be very interested in hearing from DKL why those factors did not enter the picture during the first test, when they could see the targets, and scored 100% correct. The only difference between the first test and the subsequent tests was the prior knowledge of the target locations.

Non-technical writeups of the results can be found at:

• Sandia Lab News: "Double-Blind Evaluation of the DKL LifeGuard Model 2"
• Press Release: "'Human presence detector' fails controlled tests conducted by Sandia National Laboratories"
• JUSTNET: A short note from the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center

The Sandia report basically stopped all DKL efforts to penetrate the military/federal government markets. DKL now turned their effort to the local law-enforcement and search and rescue organizations--easier victims with fewer resources to scrutinize their operation.

Comments on the DKL sponsored tests

DKL tried to counter this report with a couple of tests performed for them (posted at their web site). There was not enough information regarding the set up of the Law test, so I cannot offer any comment (a response to this report can be found at the Skeptic's Dictionary--see article of October 31, 1998). However, the Advanced Material Technologies test was an attempt to divert attention from the real issues. It did not test the claims of the LifeGuard at all:

1. "The standard commercial LifeGuard Model 2.0 was mounted on a tripod and.... Based on the coin flip, the target subject would then go to one of two pre-selected locations either within the range of the sensor or outside the range of the sensor. The in-range location was approximately 2 to 3 feet from the sensor which was located facing the other side of the wall. The out-of range position was approximately 45 feet away from the location of the 'DKL LifeGuard Model 2.0'". We can clearly see from this information that this was a test of a proximity sensor. The device was static, mounted on a tripod, and the test subject only moved between two locations that differed in distance. The "in-range" distance is basically right up near the LifeGuard, and I suspect that the out-of-range distance did not need to be 45 feet, but much shorter.

   This test did not verify the DKL claim of being able to locate a person in the distance, giving the direction through a scanning motion of the device. In fact, it looked like DKL was up to its old tricks again. According to Dr. Conover's article: That circuit that performs the electrostatic charge perturbation sensing has always been part of the devices. On the earlier models this has performed the function of driving the red LED on the back of the unit. The indicator light was supposed to help the user discriminate between real and imagined detections of the DEP (dielectrophoresis) part of the device. The two distinctly different parts of the device are connected at only one point, they are both connected to the same antenna. DKL has often presented this as "proof" that the device works as a whole using inductive reasoning that because this part of the device works, the entire device works.

   Electrostatic detectors have a very short working range (a few yards at most) and can in no way distinguish a person from a pig (or various other large bodies with statics build-up). But one way that DKL may be using this circuit to help them sell the LifeGuard is as follows: They could have you stand to one side as they sweep the LifeGuard back and forth. The indicator light would blink on and off (on the model with the indicator light), and DKL would attribute the action of this light to a detection of your heartbeat. If this happens to you, just ask them to repeat the scanning with you standing 20 feet away. Or better yet, comb your hair with a dry comb, then wave it around and see the light really go berserk. (Talk about "no effective countermeasures"!)

2. Regarding the claim of being a "double-blind" test: "The movement of the test subject was monitored by a time-marked video camera.... The motion of the target, as detected by the DKL LifeGuard Model 2.0 circuit, was displayed on the computer screen as a low frequency signal in a strip chart recording format.... After the test was over, the data on the supervisor's sheet was compared to the test subject's data sheet to determine whether the LifeGuard Model 2.0 being used as an autonomous device had correctly determined the human target subject's location for these test conditions." They were not clear cut true/false or even multiple choice tests, like the Sandia tests, but required matching of continuous data to discrete data by humans--another convenient avenue for the biased "fudge factor" to enter. This was hardly "double-blind," even for a meaningless test.

3. Lastly, "The test was performed in the DKL development labs using a prearranged test configuration put in place by DKL." For goodness' sake, you don't let the fox guard the henhouse. Any well-designed test should start with DKL's claims, then be designed to test those claims. DKL may be given the option of verifying that the test configurations are within the limits claimed, but they should not be allowed to set up the test. If they had needed to, how hard would it have been for DKL to tap off the video signal from the camera, have a hidden operator watch the live video in another room, and adjust a knob that controlled the signal to the recorder, creating whatever effects they wished? The Sandia test was an example of a well-designed controlled test, this DKL sponsored test was not.