Because of increasing demand on my time from school and family, I can no longer continue with my paranormal hobby. That time must now be used for things such as taking care of elderly family members, and must also be focused on getting more funds flowing to survive.

Because all of this, I am sorry that I must announce the closing of TIPS and Darkrealm Labs. The TIPS forum will be closed to posting after the end of February. It will remain online, and members may still use the PM function until March 31st, 2010, at which time TIPS Forum, TIPS Blog, and Darkrealm’s Paranormal Blog will go off-line and be taken down.

I am sorry that I must do this, but as many know I have had a very challenging year. These challenges and my deteriorating health condition have forced me to abandon anything that is not key to survival.

I would like to thank everyone who has participated in this endeavor, and I hope to keep in contact with many of you as best I can.

Sincerely,

Dreamsinger

Selecting the right equipment for the right job is key to any endeavor, whether it be driving a nail, trying to figure out if there’s fish in the water below the boat you’re in, or trying to establish any truth to the paranormal when it comes to the dogma or simply what is. You certainly wouldn’t play baseball by using a golf club, and you certainly won’t find the temperature of the air by using a non-contact IR thermometer or thermal imaging camera.

So the first thing that must be done is to figure out what you are trying to establish. In this case we are going to look at magnetic fields and test the dogma of whether or not magnetic fields are related to paranormal experiences. Typically I would stress the need to shield from RF propagation (Radio Waves), but in this case it is not necessary since we are simply asking the question, “Do magnetic fields relate to paranormal experiences?” And since we want to study the environment in the conditions that occur during the reported events, shielding would actually be detrimental in this case since it would screen out a source that is there when past reports were made. Now if we collect data that suggest this is the case and we want to get to the bottom of what type of magnetic field influences our test then we would need to start screening out man made influences. But for new we want to see if there is a correlation and to screen any magnetic influence would be counter productive at this time.

In our case we need a way to measure magnetic fields. Many investigators will suggest various devices to measure EMF (varying magnetic fields), but in our case we are looking at magnetic fields as a whole; both varying and static. In this case an EMF detector is worthless since it does not measure static magnetic fields. In our case we need a magnetometer. This will not only record varying magnetic fields (EMF) but natural or static fields as well. To do so, we could choose from a number of commercial products available on the market, but the cost would be huge since we need more than one meter. In our case we will be using a custom design and build (schematics to follow soon).

Cost is most often the issue when it comes to equipment, and is often why investigators are often inadequately equipped to do much in the way of providing meaningful data. In the case of EMF, investigators often have a meter or two, and usually a single pole/field meter at that. The main reason for this is cost, though several Para-TV shows have also made one of the worst meters on the market the most popular: the K-II.

While we’ll save the rest of this discussion for another article, the point with what has been discussed is to show how to go about selecting equipment, and that you don’t want to simply buy a piece of equipment because that is what everyone else is using, or you just want to play around with it. Equipment selection should be based upon what you plan to achieve with the equipment. In the case we discuss above the plan is to establish whether or not magnetic fields have anything to do with paranormal experiences. Notice how we don’t simply grab an EMF detector and rush to our chosen location and simply wave it around looking for spikes in EMF that could be caused by a number of sources. We actually look at what we want to prove/disprove and examine equipment to suite our needs.

Let’s look at another topic real quick, just to re-enforce this concept. Let’s say we want to examine the concept of cold spots. First off, we’ll need to measure air temperature since that’s what we want to examine. To do this we first look at non-contact surface thermometers, but in doing so we find out that they are not capable of measuring air temperature and can only measure the temperature of solid object. Well, that’s not going to help us out one bit. We want to measure air temperature. So, we look at digital thermometers that employ a fast acting thermal couple and find that it will suit our needs as it will measure air temperature and it can provide a relatively quick response in doing so. We could have gone on with a trend that I hope is dying and gone with the crowd and bought the non-contact IR thermometer, which would have been a total waste of money if our goal is to measure air temperature, but since we first examined the capabilities of those devices we found that they were in-adequate and found a device that would perform as our needs dictated. By doing so we not only kept from wasting money on equipment that didn’t suit our needs, but we also found the right equipment to do the job.

One of the first things people who are interested in investigating haunted houses ask is, “What equipment do I need?”  I’ve seen a lot of different answers to that and most of the suggestions as well as the recommended use are pretty much useless for capturing credible evidence.  Let’s take a look at some of these.

The Non-Contact Infrared Thermometer

It’s hard to believe but there are many groups who think that these will detect “cold spots”.   The fact is that these devices cannot read air temperature, in fact if they could they would be useless for what they are designed to do: Read the surface temperature of a solid object.  Think about it, if one of these devices could read the air temperature then the only temperature they would read is that which is directly in front of the device, which defeats the purpose of being able to read the temperature of an object at a distance.  The very thing these devices are made to do; read the thermal radiation that comes from the direction they point. Thermal radiation that is emanating from a solid object.   Air is invisible to these devices.   For those who don’t believe or want to believe this fact, I suggest you contact a manufacturer of these devices and ask them.

Since these cannot measure air temperature, forget them.  Otherwise you’re only wasting money and resources.

The Thermal Imaging Camera (TIC)

These have been made popular by Para TV shows and are just as useless as the Non-Contact Infrared Thermometer.  In fact, a TIC is simply thousands of thermometers set side by side, but instead of a single readout you get a graphic display of each thermometer.  In other words, each pixel displayed on the screen represents one thermometer.  Just as a Non-Contact IR Thermometer cannot read air temperature, neither can a TIC.  In fact, a TIC cannot even detect smoke, which is why fire departments love them for locating people in smoky buildings.

Now I know some will still argue that they’ve seen fantastic images on Para TV shows, the truth is that they cannot, and when examining the science behind the devices and physics they work on the truth becomes clear.  Physics doesn’t lie, people do.

Ambient Air Thermometer

If you’re going to measure air temperature, this is the best rout to go.  As explained above, IR type thermometers cannot do the job, therefore this is the only way to measure air temperature whether it be your typical thermometer or electronic.

Digital Voice Recorders

These seem to be the typical type of recorders that are being used by many investigators these days.  They are also worthless.  Because of the frequency response, sampling rate, and poor compression, these devices are apt to create anomalies from everyday sounds.  That means that they fabricate erroneous sounds out of everyday, normal sounds.  Don’t even bother with these.

Digital Audio Recorders

Though these are much more expensive than a Digital Voice Recorder, the extra expense is well worth it.  With these devices frequency response is good, sound can be recorded in an uncompressed format, and a minimum sampling rate of 128kbs can easily be achieved.   For recording audio, these are the devices to use.

EMF Detectors

This is a tricky one for most people.  The best magnetic field detectors are the tri-field detectors that not only detect varying fields, but ones that also detect static fields.  Meters such as the K-II are pretty much worthless for data collection and shouldn’t even be considered.  The best meter for data collection should be a tri-field that measures and logs any magnetic field, and records data from each field/pole independent from one another.

Camera

The best cameras to use are ones with a quality lens, preferably a camera with interchangeable lenses.  Disposable and typical digital cameras have such poor lenses that light anomalies are more likely to occur and pollute evidence.

Some people prefer to use Polaroid cameras because tampering with the image is much harder.  But there is still an issue with the lens, and the quality of the image is also reduced because of the film process that is involved.

For lenses, I would recommend Nikkor or Leica brands.  Both those companies have excellent reputations and produce some of the clearest lenses made.

Gas Detectors

Something rarely used by investigators, but something that should also be looked into are gasses.  There are a variety of gasses that can be measured, and the devices range in price.  One that data logs would be the best.  As for the exact list of gasses, I’d measure what I could, especially those that can cause hallucinations.

Hygrometer

Measuring relative humidity is something that is not usually done by many groups.  Considering moisture can affect structure settling, monitoring this would be a good idea, in fact I would employ a few of these at a location.  Again, data logging capabilities is a big plus.

Barometer

Definitely something worth measuring, and even though it should be consistent throughout a location, taking several measurements throughout a location could show how air pressure may be causing certain things to happen, such as doors moving on their own.  Another device where data logging is essential if you’re going to check for what’s mentioned above.

This is our starting point for equipment.  More is sure to be examined, and some will be expanded upon but at this point we’ll move on to equipment selection, placement and use.

This is something that is long overdue in the realm of paranormal investigation, and is just about the most important piece of establishing a foundation that it’s hard to understand why it’s so long in coming to light.  Now some will argue that this has already been done and start citing paranormal dogma or ’schools of thought’, but none of that has a basis in fact.  Paranormal dogma is simply the theories that are popular and have been espoused over time, and ’schools of thought’ are simply more theories that groups feel to be true.

In order for the paranormal community to begin to make any progress in discovering the truth of the paranormal they must first establish facts.  So far I have seen nothing established as fact when it comes to the paranormal, with the exception of a few PSI related experiments.  But as for establishing facts in hauntings, I have seen zero evidence of proper data collection to support any of the theories or dogma that are championed by the community.

Part of the problem here seems to be the paranormal community is much like a herd of cats; with each individual or group going about their investigating their own way.  Yes, many follow a lot of similar methods, but one thing that they do not do is to collect data in consistent manners, or the manner in which they collect and interpret data goes down the path of pseudoscience, making it all for naught.  Without having a sound foundation that is clearly laid out and does not follow the path of pseudoscience, how can the paranormal community expect to make any progress in discovering the truth behind a haunting?

Sometimes I have to wonder if finding the truth is what the paranormal community is really interested in.  Much of what I see is more about validating the beliefs of the investigators, or in the case of Para-Celebs, it looks to be more about keeping people believing so they can sell books, gadgets, souvenirs, and hold conventions to sell said products.  If this is not the case then why not establish methods that actually produce credible evidence?  I know some of it has to do with lack of knowledge in how to do so, but that’s what books are for.  And not books from Para-Celebs on how to hunt ghosts (save your money), but books on how to collect proper evidence from sources such as science textbooks and forensic practices, as well as how to setup experiments to determine what is fact.

Over time, I will share what I know of these things as well as how my investigations will be conducted.  Unlike the Para-Celebs whom I’ve seen turn a blind eye to logic, I will be open and receptive to comments on how to better my methods, and will definitely not reject logical arguments to change methods, but adapt them into the process.  I seek the truth and will follow it down whatever path it leads, wherever that may be.

So, if you’re interested in learning what we have in store, stay tuned.  Our first subject will be on testing to see if magnetism is a component of the paranormal.

I’ve discussed and debated this issue for years, and as large part of the paranormal community has shifted from confirming a haunting to debunking, psychological contamination still remains prevalent in paranormal investigation.  The main form of psychological contamination comes from telling investigators what might be expected.  For the investigators that are still running under the premise of confirming a haunting this is important because they are trying to confirm the reports so they can confirm the haunting.  For those who go into debunk the reports, telling investigators what has been reported to happen is important so they can test to see if there is worldly explanation for whatever has been reported.  Neither of these scenarios is good investigation and both are biased before the investigation gets off the ground.  These types of investigating are bound to produce biased results and not necessarily biased towards the method they are using.  But telling investigators what to expect can often lead to them experiencing something, or I should say perceiving they experienced something when they didn’t, and then drawing false conclusions from that perceived experience.

This I experienced first hand when I conducted a little experiment to see if telling investigators stories associated with a location that wasn’t haunted.  But this wasn’t the first time I’ve witnessed psychological contamination at work, nor is this the only way for psychological contamination to enter into an investigation.

Not only can investigators be influenced by the initial stories about a locations history of paranormal activity, but there’s also the contamination that occurs during an investigation with excited statements like, “Did you see that?!”   Anytime emotion is interjected into a statement those listening will often begin to share in that emotion.   In the above example other investigators become preconditioned that there is something to see regardless of whether or not there is.

Investigators need to be very careful about what they say and how they react when investigating.   It is very easy to influence others with not only words, but with body language conveyed in their communications.   This is primarily what teenagers feed on when they’re checking out a cemetery or local haunt.   Usually there’s one excitable person in the group and their excitement becomes contagious, causing the others to loose control of their emotions and begin to distort events around them into paranormal encounters.  Investigators can fall prey to this same thing, and is why they should always remain calm so as not to fall victim to such a scenario.  To do so simply turns what might be a reasonable investigation into a ’spook hunt’.

I’ve observed how several groups employ the use of EMF detectors, as well as how they are used on a few television shows and they always make me ask, “Do these guys not understand how these things work?”

Much of the time what I see is they employ them like they are “paranormal detectors,” and at other times they seem to use them to search out EMF sources that may be causing people to experience paranormal type symptoms.  While the first use is highly questionable, especially since nobody has done the diligence to establish a connection between the paranormal and EMF, the second still raises questions.  In both cases I have seen leaps to conclusions without true justification.  With those employing them as “paranormal detectors”, the leap is apparent since as already mentioned the ground work of establishing a relationship between EMF and the paranormal has yet to be done, but in the second case there seems to be another leap being made, and that is that just because a high EMF source has been located that experiences were a direct result of that source.  I’m not arguing that this is not the case, but when I see an investigator locate a high EMF source, let’s say 100mg, and that source is 15 feet from the location where “paranormal feelings” have occurred and EMF readings are measuring one to two mg, I’d have to say a leap was made.

Another thing I’ve noticed is how many investigators hold and rotate the detector while taking measurements.  This may or may not be an issue depending on the EMF detector.  If it’s a single pole detector then it becomes a major issue, which the majority of EMF detectors being employed are of this type.  The reason it’s such an issue is that single pole detectors are polarized, therefore changing orientation of the meter can change it’s ability to accurately measure the strength of an EM field. &;This can lead to the false conclusion that a field has died off when in reality the field hasn’t changed strength at all.  I would say this is the biggest problem that investigators run into without even knowing there is an issue.

Another thing that many investigators fail to realize is that typical EMF detectors are designed to measure alternating or varying magnetic fields.  They do not measure static magnetic fields, if the meter is stationary.  They will see a static field if the meter is moved around, simulating a varying field, which can also lead to a false conclusion on the part of the investigator.  This is something that an investigator needs to be aware of when they wave their EMF detector around searching for fields.

One last thing that investigators should take note of is the effect that appliances can have on EMF detectors.  Things like refrigerators, hot water tanks, or other appliances that cycle power can create temporary increases in the fields they generate.  I once watched an investigator who became excited as he watched a magnetic field appear, disappear, then appear again at the same time an EVP was recorded.  To me, the EVP didn’t even sound like a voice, but because it coincided with the EMF meter producing a ten milligauss spike, they were certain that it was paranormal activity.  After looking at the map of the location, I could see that what he was measuring on the EMF detector was being created by the refrigerator on the other side of the wall, and was later confirmed on a follow up investigation as well as the EVP, which was nothing more than the sound of the refrigerator turning on and distorted by the cheap recorder involved.  So, to all the investigators out there who are using EMF detectors, I highly encourage you to throw the main breaker in the house to help avoid this type of thing happening to you.

Here’s a site that has some very good videos on how some evidence may be hoaxed: http://www.hauntedhoax.net.  I really like the questions he brings up at the end of his videos: did it really happen? Did you just want it to happen? Or did someone make it happen? Those are questions that investigators should ask themselves when reviewing evidence of any kind.

My hat’s off to Patrick Doyle and the videos he’s produced.

So far, I have yet to see anyone truly put these devices to any sort of test that has any type of control.  Personally, from what details I can gather, they are nothing more that an electronic Ouija board that uses random EMF spikes to generate a message instead of the ideomotor effect of a person.  Many claim to have had good results, but since nobody posts an entire episode it is hard to tell if they indeed are having success or not, since there isn’t any way to get an accurate hit or miss ratio.

One experiment I’d like to see is to take five devices, let’s say Speakjet, and see if they all come up with the same thing.  Now this won’t prove anything as far as spirits go, but the result should be they all come up with the same thing if they are all exposed to the same stimulus.  If they don’t then there becomes an even greater issue with the device and the device then shows how polluted it can be when it comes to presenting data.  Funny how nobody ever seems to do the littlest things that can shed light onto the reliability of a device, but there are times that I think investigators want to be fooled, and devices such as these are good at deception.

Another thing that investigators seem to ignore is the science, or I should say pseudoscience that many of these devices are based upon.  Why on earth would an investigator even consider a device that is based upon false science/logic?  To me it makes absolutely no sense and further becomes compounded when they don’t construct any tests that have any sort of control in them, and then simply go about deluding themselves with such devices.

While it does disappoint me to see logic thrown out the window, it does not surprise me.  While reading a message board of a group on the east coast I stumbled across a couple of experiments/investigations they were discussing.  One of these experiments involved Olivus in which they were trying to document the hit/miss ratio.  While looking at their numbers it did seem somewhat impressive until I dug further.  Instead of counting a non-reply as a miss they simply ignored it, which greatly skewed the numbers.  If they had indeed counted those valid misses, the device had a 13% success rate.  That’s not very impressive at all, and when I question them on it they replied that it was not a miss and that it was because the ghost did not have enough energy to respond at that time.  Hmmm… and they know that for fact?  Not wanting to get wrapped up in that debate because I had other questions, I then asked them about a couple of other responses that didn’t add up; the most prevalent being ones that didn’t seem to fit.  Here’s a few examples:

Do you know you’re dead? Response:  Upstairs
  Believe it or not this was counted as a hit because the person they believe to haunt the house had died upstairs and this was they’re way of telling them yes.
Did you live in this house?  Response:  chair, female, room
  This too was counted as a hit because it mentioned room and the investigators associated that with the upstairs hit they claimed just before this and associated the “room” response by saying that room referred to the upstairs bedroom.  Funny thing is even if room could have been considered a hit, they completely ignored the two misses of “chair” and “female”.

This is the only question that seemed to be a hit:

Are you a man or a woman?  Response:  female.

Here’s how they were looking at their numbers. First, they only counted those questions where the device responded (sorry, it doesn’t work that way).  Second, some of their “hits” were quite a stretch and should have been misses.  So, according to them out of the seven responses they had only two were misses, which computes out to about a 71% hit rate.  Not bad if the numbers were good, but even when using the seven responses their numbers fall apart if you dismiss the “leap of faith” hits they counted, and it computes out to 14%.  Now when you look at the total picture like they should have it comes out far worse and they only had a 3% success rate.

I think the worse thing about the whole discussion I had with them is that they did they usual calling of names, saying I didn’t know what I was talking about, banned me from their board and deleted the thread, once again demonstrating that the “open minded” crowd are not as open minded as they think they are.

One other experiment that they were discussing is doing a baseline experiment with EVPs.  In this experiment they took two recorders and placed one in a bedroom at one investigators house and the other in a bedroom of the second investigators house.  They then began recording at the same time and vacated both premises.  Now what they were trying to establish by doing this I’m not certain at all considering the acoustic differences between the two location were not mentioned, and can only be considered to be quite different.  But this is not where the experiment ended.  They then set up one recorder in one of the bedrooms as before, but they also set one up in a ‘haunted’ location and ran both of them.  For some reason the investigators felt that if the recorder at the haunted location recorded an EVP and the one at the house didn’t then that gave the EVP more credibility.  That leap of logic still has me confused and I’m not sure how they figure that, especially since it could be heard that the two locations were vastly different as far as acoustics went.  But that is the leap that was being made and when questioned about it they once again said that I didn’t have a clue as to what I was talking about because they had a friend who was a soundman in a band and he was amazed by their experiment and the EVPs they collected.  Well who could argue with logic like that?    Nobody, to tell the truth.  You can’t argue logically when the rules of logic have been replaced with unrelated subject and the normal rules of logic are replaced with the fantasy world of unsubstantiated theories and dogma.

But back to the devices.  With those I urge investigators to do the diligence of properly testing them and to make sure that they count ALL the misses and make sure to be objective with the hits and not follow the example I told of above.  Doing anything other than that is once more heading down the trail of self delusion, which will never help in discovering the paranormal but will do more damage by perpetuating the cloak of obscurity that shrouds so much of what is suppose to be know as paranormal investigation; and that just make the field more ripe for all the con men that feed from it.

As someone who’s been a technician in the electronic industry for roughly thirty years, I often find myself hanging my head in disbelief when someone equates equipment failure to any sort of paranormal phenomena.  So many times I’ve witnessed equipment failure, and some of those failures are truly bizarre.  From units that powered off and wouldn’t turn back on for minutes or hours later, to units that would only fail under a specific sequence of events and function perfectly if those events didn’t happen in the exact order and within certain time restraints.  Basically failures that don’t make sense yet occur because of all the variables that are in play whenever any electronic device is powered up.

Yet these failures are often linked to the paranormal as evidence that the paranormal was the cause.  I have to say that those that are making such assumptions lack the experience and knowledge about electronics to realize how ridiculous that assumption is, and once again they are using coincidental evidence to base their premise on.  Electronic devices are definitely fallible.  This I know all too well since I made a living of it for decades, and while I surely haven’t seen every type of failure, I have seen more freak failures than you can shake a stick at.

Here’s a prime example of a piece of equipment that failed and how it was at first thought to be related to the paranormal: A friend of mine was doing some investigation work at a house where the owners had called in his team to see if the reason they were having problems renting one of their houses was related to the house being haunted.  The last tenant reported a menacing shadow figure, which had been witnessed in the master bedroom, which is also where one of the former owners was found dead.  Apparently that owner had died in their sleep of natural causes.  The house had been vacant for about two months and the owners had kept the thermostat set to 45 degrees in order to keep pipes from freezing.  That all having been said, my friend began to investigate the house one night.  The next day I got an excited call from him telling me he had a hot location and some pretty convincing evidence.

Well, as much as I wanted to believe him since we had been looking for an ‘active’ location, I had my doubts since he was still convinced that orbs were significant evidence of paranormal activity.  After having arrived at his house he began telling me about the place and how he had begun provoking the spirit as he made his way towards the back bedroom.  Then, just as he approached the threshold to the bedroom and was demanding the spirit appear so he could record it, his camera went dead.  I of course asked him about the battery and such to which he told me that he tried another battery and no matter what he did he could not get the camera to come back on until he got back home and tried it.  I then examined the camera and found no apparent faults, but having seen so many bizarre failures of electronic equipment I was still skeptical.  So, after finding out we still had access to the location, we arranged to both go back with his team and see if we couldn’t retrace their steps, only this time I was going to be nothing more than an observer.

Well it wasn’t long before they had unpacked and setup their equipment when he once again began provoking the spirit only this time his camera went dead before he even approached the bedroom.  His excitement level jumped as he became even more convinced, but that didn’t last as I noted that the other two cameras they had been using were still functioning.  Handing him one of those cameras I asked that he continue.  This time he made it to the bedroom and was in there a good 30 minutes without so much as a glitch.  Disappointed he moodily ordered the end of the investigation and we returned to his place where once again the camera began to function.

Still not convinced that his camera was the issue, it had finally dawned on me to try a little experiment with his camera.  Knowing that temperature can influence intermittent defects, I took his camera out on his back deck and turned it on, playing back the tape that he had just recorded on.  Granted it was a little cooler outside than in that house, but it was within five degrees so I let the tape continue to play and then the camera powered down, just as it did in the house.  It wasn’t at the same exact spot on the tape but it was within six minutes, and now the camera wouldn’t power back up.  Still not convinced, or I should say not wanting to believe the truth, he argued that my experiment was invalid and proved nothing.  That being said and since the camera was still under warranty, I finally convinced him to send it in for repair and wrote a note to the technician about the defect.

Well, several weeks later he received the camera back, and there in the technicians notes was what I had suspected.  A cold solder joint on one of the connectors.  Ever since then he’s used the camera (at least last I heard), and he’s never had another issue with it ever since then.

This is just one example of the thousand upon thousands of other equipment failures that can happen with electronic devices.  So, if you’re one of those that’s had an unusual equipment failure and believe it to be evidence of the paranormal I ask this, “are you sure it wasn’t simply a malfunction?”

In part three we will look at what people often perceive about batteries, or I should say what false perceptions people have of batteries and how they function.

Batteries are like little fuel tanks

This is how many people think of batteries.  While in a sense this is true, it’s not that cut and dry.  Batteries do go dead, but it’s not like a tank of gasoline where when the tank has run dry there is no more fuel to burn.  Batteries are deceiving in when they are “out of fuel”.  Often a battery has lost it’s capacity to push an adequate amount of current and the device it’s powering will stop functioning.  But this does not mean the battery is “empty”, and often if a device is powered off for a bit of time the device will start functioning again if it is turned back on.  ”Why is that?” you may ask and the reason is simple; it is because the chemical reaction that creates the charge/current in the first place has continued and has built up more electrical charge.  This is where fuel tanks and batteries differ.  While it can be easily witnessed if a fuel tank is empty or not, a battery cannot be examined and it’s current capacity cannot be so easily determined.

Voltage can tell whether or not a battery is charged

This is another big misconception about batteries.  A battery that is not in a device and has no load on it can show the appropriate voltage, yet not have enough current capacity to even power up a device momentarily.  In order to tell if a battery has a sufficient charge to power a device it must be placed under a load.  Even then, there’s no guarantees as to how long it can power a device since other variables that were mention in Part II come into play.

Voltage can tell if there is a drain on a battery

This is only partially true, and without a discharge curve is near impossible to accomplish.  Many batteries are good at producing a consistent voltage over a broad range of loads which make measuring the voltage across the battery useless in establishing an accurate current draw.  The best and only way to measure current draw on a battery is to measure the flow of electrons with an ammeter, or to put a low value resistor between the battery and the load/device that the current will flow through, measure the voltage drop across the resistor and then calculate the current flow through that resistor (Ohm’s Law).

Electronic devices draw a consistent amount of current

This is only partially true with things like flashlights.  For devices such as radios, cellphones, voice recorders, video cameras, and most other devices, current draw changes dramatically during the use of the device.  This is especially false with any device that has a micro-controller in it, which includes all of the devices I just listed.  Micro-controller current requirements vary from clock cycle to clock cycle, and also vary depending on the other devices they are connected to and control.  Take for instance a video camera.  While recording, the current requirements are higher than when idle.  In fact, the current requirements change as the image the camera sees changes.  This is true with most other devices as well.  A radio transmitter uses more current when someone is transmitting a voice over the transmission than it does if there is no voice transmitting; and even then, the variations in the sound as the voice conveys a message vary the current requirements.