Dowsing for water?

[flyingcheesehead]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Keep spinning it. Every time you get someone with "mysterious" abilities and try to do a real test, there's nothing but excuses. "I won't go to Michigan for anything!" Yeah, right. No doubt there'll be too much water in the air or something in Michigan when you fail.

Michael,

I never believed in this crap either - But there are people in this thread who I've met and who I trust who are saying that it has worked for them, so I'm willing to believe that there may be some effect whose cause I simply don't know.

I don't think that it's necessarily going to work in every set of conditions, but the people here aren't raving idiots. Lay off.

 

[steingar]

Michael,

I never believed in this crap either - But there are people in this thread who I've met and who I trust who are saying that it has worked for them, so I'm willing to believe that there may be some effect whose cause I simply don't know.

I don't think that it's necessarily going to work in every set of conditions, but the people here aren't raving idiots. Lay off.

I've already said I would put my academic credentials on the line to those who want to prove their art is genuine. "Doesn't work in every set of conditions" is the usual excuse.

 

[EdFred]

What does that mean? You will resign from instructing if it works and you witness it?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I've already said I would put my academic credentials on the line to those who want to prove their art is genuine. "Doesn't work in every set of conditions" is the usual excuse.

Damn near everything doesn't work in every set of conditions. If I put your car on an icy lake with slick tires, it ain't gonna go. If you try to lift off in your airplane in the middle of a thunderstorm, or loaded full of gold bricks, it ain't gonna fly. That doesn't mean it DOESN'T work under every set of conditions.

Besides, the whole "prove it" thing is reminding me of an elementary school playground. There's more than one person who says it has worked for them, so there's probably something to it - And they must have encountered the conditions where it works. Your assertion is that it never works - Why don't YOU "prove it"?

 

[write-stuff]

There's more than one person who says it has worked for them, so there's probably something to it

You could say the same thing about astrology or palm reading or Ouija boards.

Your assertion is that it never works - Why don't YOU "prove it"?

I believe his contention is that it doesn't work enough times to be statistically relevant (unless it's a parlor trick). You could find water by throwing dice sometimes, but this would be simply random chance. So yes, you can find water by dowsing sometimes. But it's not the dowsing that did it, it's the statistics of chance.

The burden of proof isn't on steingar anyway. The assertion was made that dowsing works. The burden falls on the person making the statement.

 

[BudRiggs]

And for you folks who are successful at dowsing, how about trying this experiment. Instead of holding the tubes in your hands where they can be independently tipped, insert them in a flat board, in holes that are precisely drilled parallel to each other and perpendicular to the wood surface. This will require a drill press.

Next, attach a level to the board. Walk around holding the board (keeping the bubble centered) and see of the rods still swing in opposite directions (i.e. cross each other) when you find the water. Since you have removed the ability to independently tip the holders, this would be a very interesting piece of evidence to support the claim.

I had thought about this test way back, but never tried it. Today I tried it using a bashed together holding jig.

I tried it out by hand holding the thing and walking across a known water line. I got no indication at all.

Then I tried it again in the same wind conditions just a few minutes later using the normal hold. You can see the way I hold the handle so that I'm not touching the rod. Holding this way the rods crossed over the water line.

 

[BudRiggs]

The Upper Peninsula is actually quite nice.

I'm sure it is, and there are people everywhere who absolutely love the place they live. I said what I did to avoid saying what I really felt about the invitation. Sorry for the lie.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

You bring out the idiot, er, dowser, and let him have at it. If you like you can have your buddy bury several water sources, lets see if the dowser can divine them all.

Steingar's right; he didn't call anybody a liar.

 

[tonycondon]

nice looking sky...

 

[TangoWhiskey]

I had thought about this test way back, but never tried it. Today I tried it using a bashed together holding jig.

I tried it out by hand holding the thing and walking across a known water line. I got no indication at all.

Then I tried it again in the same wind conditions just a few minutes later using the normal hold. You can see the way I hold the handle so that I'm not touching the rod. Holding this way the rods crossed over the water line.

When I made pivot sleeves / holders that insulated the wires from my body (bic pen barrels, cut in half), I got no indication either, even though they were held in my hands and thus just as prone to being 'tilted' if I subconsciously wanted to, as some have asserted.

When the metal of the rod is in contact with my body, it does work. Now, granted, I was wearing shoes, so MY BODY was still insulated from the ground...

 

[jesse]

How about making some way to connect your body to the rods that doesn't allow you to turn them with your hands. Shouldn't be too hard to come up with some way to provide a pretty electrically sound connection.

 

[steingar]

Damn near everything doesn't work in every set of conditions. If I put your car on an icy lake with slick tires, it ain't gonna go.

If you put your tires on dry pavement, they will have good traction every time. If you put them on wet pavement or ice, they will have less or no traction, again every time.

If you try to lift off in your airplane in the middle of a thunderstorm, or loaded full of gold bricks, it ain't gonna fly. That doesn't mean it DOESN'T work under every set of conditions.

However, if you load your airplane sufficiently above gross, it will fail to take off every time. Perhaps you are coming to a smallish understanding. Its called reproducibility, and it is the cornerstone of just about everything we understand about the world around us. Of course there are conditions that affect the properties of energy and matter. These conditions are observable and, if understood, predictable.

Besides, the whole "prove it" thing is reminding me of an elementary school playground. There's more than one person who says it has worked for them, so there's probably something to it - And they must have encountered the conditions where it works. Your assertion is that it never works - Why don't YOU "prove it"?

No, you are mistaken. My assertion is that it works at the same rate as random chance, because that has been the result of every controlled experiment that has ever examined the phenomenon.

Now, if you tell me that your friends are really astute, and can see the effect that underground water has on the vegetation or geology above it, I would believe you implicitly. Those looking for the water might not even explicitly know what they're looking for. But if underground water can effect what's above it, I have no doubt human beings could deduce that pattern.

If you tell me you think people can locate water, oil, gold, the lost city of the Incas or anything else by watching a couple sticks, rods or whatever, then I have a nice bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. I have no doubt this method is as effective at finding these things as random chance. And as the saying goes, even the blind squirrel gets a nut. It's an old saying, lots of people have said it, so there must be some truth in it.

What I meant by "prove it" is really quite simple. There's a million dollars out there for anyone who can prove they can really find water with just the sticks. I doubt Randi will ever have to pay for dowsing or anything else, but because there have been so many yahoos and charlatans calling, you now need some credentials to give it a try. The kind of credentials I have. I will design the experiment so that other scientists will believe its result. I will stand by the result whatever it is; if the experiment is properly designed and executed, you get the truth. And if it turns out these guys can really do this, I will do my UTMOST to make certain they become known in the scientific community, and that they have a fair chance at that million dollars.

Sorry, if I had that much confidence in my ability and an offer like that, I would go anywhere, even Michigan itself, to do the demonstration. But I could use a million dollars. I guess all these dowsers are independently wealthy or something.

 

[ajstoner21]

I'd like to witness some of this in person....

I don't know if this is science, paranormal, whatever, but I have trouble believing this one without personally seeing it.

 

[write-stuff]

I had thought about this test way back, but never tried it. Today I tried it using a bashed together holding jig.

I tried it out by hand holding the thing and walking across a known water line. I got no indication at all.

Excellent, Bud. This shows that when you cannot independently tip the rods, they don't exhibit any extraordinary behaviour at all. When you're holding them in your hands, you are either raising/lowering your arms, accelerating them forward and backward, or tipping your hands in the x and y axes. Those are the movements that are translated into the rods.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

I'd like to witness some of this in person....

I don't know if this is science, paranormal, whatever, but I have trouble believing this one without personally seeing it.

You're close by... PM me, come over.

 

[mikea]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing

Check out the Evidence section.

Just sayin. :wink2:

I wonder about the accuracy of scientific study of essentially witchcraft.

...

If I go back to a friends land, I'm planning on using dowsing to find the septic tank cleanout with it. No one can find it by digging random holes or following the map that says it's where it should be.

*sigh* Troy, you should know better.

Two things make dowsing work: 1) the dowser knows where it's supposed to hit (and makes the rods work subconsciously), and 2) if you dig far enough about anywhere on the planet you'll hit water eventually.

Every real double blind test results in failure.

Consider that Randi offered his $1,000,000 prize to anybody who could prove it works and got to keep his money.

 

[mikea]

...Besides, the whole "prove it" thing is reminding me of an elementary school playground. There's more than one person who says it has worked for them, so there's probably something to it - And they must have encountered the conditions where it works. Your assertion is that it never works - Why don't YOU "prove it"?

BECAUSE YOU CAN"T PROVE A NEGATIVE. Prove that I can't teleport with my mind to your bedroom closet when I feel like it.

When you make a claim, you state what you can do and then you have to do it.

What these ALWAYS do is fail and then, "The sun was in my eyes" "it wont' work when your negative vibes interfere" Reality: It wont' work when you know what trick to look for.

 

[BudRiggs]

Excellent, Bud. This shows that when you cannot independently tip the rods, they don't exhibit any extraordinary behaviour at all. When you're holding them in your hands, you are either raising/lowering your arms, accelerating them forward and backward, or tipping your hands in the x and y axes. Those are the movements that are translated into the rods.

On one of the trips across the pipe while using the jig, I tried to make the rods cross. Couldn't do it.

When hand holding, I walk at a normal pace and try to keep my hands still so there is no tipping. It's hard to hold steady while walking. The rods cross at the pipe only. Yes, I know where that particular pipe is exactly.

Jesse suggested using the jig but making an electrical connection. Wonder if a TENS unit patch would provide a body contact? Other end fastened to the handles?

 

[ajstoner21]

If someone wants to bring divining rods, I know a good spot we can go out and try it. (a decent sized sandy area just west of town) I have never done it, so I'm interested to see if I even feel anything. We can bury a 5 gallon pail of water in the sand, rake the crap out of the area so we can't tell where and we will see what happens. Maybe even have a few people take a shot at it and see what turns out.

Something like that sounds like a good way to test it. Have someone ELSE bury it, and rake it, so the people trying to use the divining rods have zero clue except for they know its in a 100 foot by 100 foot area.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

nice looking sky...

With a windsock in the background!

 

[write-stuff]

On one of the trips across the pipe while using the jig, I tried to make the rods cross. Couldn't do it.

When hand holding, I walk at a normal pace and try to keep my hands still so there is no tipping. It's hard to hold steady while walking. The rods cross at the pipe only. Yes, I know where that particular pipe is exactly.

Jesse suggested using the jig but making an electrical connection. Wonder if a TENS unit patch would provide a body contact? Other end fastened to the handles?

Well heck, just put some aluminum foil on the top so that it touches the copper thingees then make sure you touch the foil with your hands. But divining rods have been made of wood and plastic for years so I don't think any type of electrical continuity with the human body is an issue. It is much more likely that you are unconsciously moving your hands/wrists/arms to swing the rods. That explains why they wouldn't swing in the wooden jig.

 

[steingar]

BECAUSE YOU CAN"T PROVE A NEGATIVE. Prove that I can't teleport with my mind to your bedroom closet when I feel like it.

When you make a claim, you state what you can do and then you have to do it.

What these ALWAYS do is fail and then, "The sun was in my eyes" "it wont' work when your negative vibes interfere" Reality: It wont' work when you know what trick to look for.

I've never tried to prove a negative, and did not offer to do so with divining. The experiment is to test a positive hypothesis, that dowsers can find water with divining rods at a rate significantly better than random chance.

 

[EdFred]

I've never tried to prove a negative, and did not offer to do so with divining. The experiment is to test a positive hypothesis, that dowsers can find water with divining rods at a rate significantly better than random chance.

I guess what it comes down to is what rate is considered random chance, and by what rate do you have to exceed that?

 

[write-stuff]

I guess what it comes down to is what rate is considered random chance, and by what rate do you have to exceed that?

If you bury four bottles, one of which contains water, the water will be found over a series of trials one quarter of the time due to random chance.

If a dowser claims he can find hidden water, he should know what his success rate is from his history. So, he does the test several times and his success rate is recorded. It's really pretty simple. Did he perform as he predicted, or was his performance close to random chance?

 

[steingar]

If you bury four bottles, one of which contains water, the water will be found over a series of trials one quarter of the time due to random chance.

If a dowser claims he can find hidden water, he should know what his success rate is from his history. So, he does the test several times and his success rate is recorded. It's really pretty simple. Did he perform as he predicted, or was his performance close to random chance?

That is correct. Moreover, with sufficient trials the results can be given statistical weight.

What bollocks the whole thing is that on failure, the dowser will make some excuse, and will claim that the "conditions weren't right".

 

[EdFred]

If you bury four bottles, one of which contains water, the water will be found over a series of trials one quarter of the time due to random chance.

If a dowser claims he can find hidden water, he should know what his success rate is from his history. So, he does the test several times and his success rate is recorded. It's really pretty simple. Did he perform as he predicted, or was his performance close to random chance?

Should be 25% success rate in theory. What if he gets it half the time? Would that be enough proof, or would that be still considered within the bounds of dumb luck? Or is 100% the only acceptable number?

 

[steingar]

Should be 25% success rate in theory. What if he gets it half the time? Would that be enough proof, or would that be still considered within the bounds of dumb luck? Or is 100% the only acceptable number?

With sufficient trials a statistical weight can be given the result, i.e. we are 95% certain that the dowser located the water more frequently than random chance.

 

[write-stuff]

Should be 25% success rate in theory. What if he gets it half the time? Would that be enough proof, or would that be still considered within the bounds of dumb luck? Or is 100% the only acceptable number?

If he got it 25% of the time, we could reasonably deduce that dowsing does not work (assuming 1 out of 4 hidden containers that contains water). That is what would be expected from blind chance.

If he got it 50% of the time over a statistically significant number of trials (with 1 out of 4 containing hidden water), that would indicate some minimal evidense supporting the claim. Scientists would almost certainly want to study the phenomenon further.

100% would only be an acceptable number if the dowser made the claim that he could find it every time. If he claimed he could find it 75% of the time and did so, that would be compelling evidence that something interesting was going on. The scientific community would be all over it, the dowser would find himself on the cover of Time magazine, make appearances on Letterman, Leno, and The View, would be the subject of a television documentary produced by National Geographic, and would become internationally popular overnight.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I had thought about this test way back, but never tried it. Today I tried it using a bashed together holding jig.

I tried it out by hand holding the thing and walking across a known water line. I got no indication at all.

Then I tried it again in the same wind conditions just a few minutes later using the normal hold. You can see the way I hold the handle so that I'm not touching the rod. Holding this way the rods crossed over the water line.

Hmmm. Getting somewhere here. How about building an electrically conductive holding jig?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

However, if you load your airplane sufficiently above gross, it will fail to take off every time. Perhaps you are coming to a smallish understanding. Its called reproducibility, and it is the cornerstone of just about everything we understand about the world around us. Of course there are conditions that affect the properties of energy and matter. These conditions are observable and, if understood, predictable.

But that's just the thing. We don't have any clue why this appears to work sometimes, and not work other times. That's what testing is for. Eventually, hopefully we'll discover why it works some times and not other times, and if we're right, THEN it'll be reproducible.

 

[write-stuff]

But that's just the thing. We don't have any clue why this appears to work sometimes, and not work other times. That's what testing is for.

I suspect this phenomenon has been tested hundreds if not thousands of times using controlled conditions. The dowsers always fail and find water at the statistical rate of blind chance. It NEVER works in controlled conditions. It only works when you allow the dowser to manipulate the test.

 

[gkainz]

I suspect this phenomenon has been tested hundreds if not thousands of times using controlled conditions. The dowsers always fail and find water at the statistical rate of blind chance. It NEVER works in controlled conditions. It only works when you allow the dowser to manipulate the test.

But how does the dowser manipulate the test when he can't see where the water is, does not know where to manually cause the rods, staffs, wires, willow sticks, et al to move? In order to manipulate the test, he has to have some knowledge of where to indicate water. How can that be?

 

[steingar]

But how does the dowser manipulate the test when he can't see where the water is, does not know where to manually cause the rods, staffs, wires, willow sticks, et al to move? In order to manipulate the test, he has to have some knowledge of where to indicate water. How can that be?

The dowser can easily know local conditions, and probably knows the depth at which people find water. He might even know the rate at which the most predominate pumps move water, to determine a flow rate. He therefore "finds" a spot, which may or not be on top of an aquifer. He either "finds" water, in which case he's a savant, or he doesn't, in which case the conditions weren't right for some bizarre reason. Someone on this thread said, drill anywhere and you'll find water.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Hmmm. Getting somewhere here. How about building an electrically conductive holding jig?

When I get back from Osh, I'm going to build level RAILS (out of rigid PVC or something) to run a 'rod rig' on, parallel to the ground, and run some tests.

This whole thread has been quite interesting. Steingar's theory about "unintentionally or subliminally tilting the rods" has as much merit as any other. In fact, before this whole event, I would have poo-poo'd the entire concept myself.

I appreciate and value the scientific method, and would myself like to validate, or disprove, what I experienced. All I know is.... it found the pipe we were looking for.

But that's just the thing. We don't have any clue why this appears to work sometimes, and not work other times. That's what testing is for. Eventually, hopefully we'll discover why it works some times and not other times, and if we're right, THEN it'll be reproducible.

What he said.

 

[write-stuff]

But how does the dowser manipulate the test when he can't see where the water is, does not know where to manually cause the rods, staffs, wires, willow sticks, et al to move?

And that is the whole point. When you run a test that ensures the dowser has no knowledge and no cues, he will only find the water at the rate of blind statistical chance. Throwing dice to select grids will have the same rate of success.

 

[steingar]

When I get back from Osh, I'm going to build level RAILS (out of rigid PVC or something) to run a 'rod rig' on, parallel to the ground, and run some tests.

This whole thread has been quite interesting. Steingar's theory about "unintentionally or subliminally tilting the rods" has as much merit as any other. In fact, before this whole event, I would have poo-poo'd the entire concept myself.

I appreciate and value the scientific method, and would myself like to validate, or disprove, what I experienced. All I know is.... it found the pipe we were looking for.



What he said.

Not my theory, I heard it long ago. I am truly impressed by your open-minded attitude, you are far more so than I. Like I said, I would be happy to design an experiment with the appropriate controls that would give statistical values. I am not willing to do it in Texas, not because its a bad place or anything, just far away.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Not my theory, I heard it long ago. I am truly impressed by your open-minded attitude, you are far more so than I. Like I said, I would be happy to design an experiment with the appropriate controls that would give statistical values. I am not willing to do it in Texas, not because its a bad place or anything, just far away.

I welcome your input on how to properly design an experiment that would pass muster! I'll take lots of pictures and video of what I do, so it can be tweaked as necessary.

 

[steingar]

I welcome your input on how to properly design an experiment that would pass muster! I'll take lots of pictures and video of what I do, so it can be tweaked as necessary.

You will need trustworthy accomplices. First, determine how much water you need present to "detect". This is easily done with your rods and containers of known volume full of water. Determine the minimum volume of water that sets off your rods, if you'll forgive the phrasing. While you're at it, you can use these control experiments to determine your range, i.e. how close you have to be to get a "hit".

The next part can be done in a number of ways. In the first, you have accomplice number one bury a unit of water that is well above the detection limit, and bury it shallower than the range. Bury a few other empty containers as well. The accomplice marks the location of the water measured by some independent means (e.g. 5 meters from a particular tree). That is written down, put in an envelope, and sealed.

You then show up with accomplice number two, who handles the recording equipment. You can even bring some non-dowsers to give you a baseline, i.e. how often do they "hit" the target just by random chance. Then the dowser goes to work. At the end of the trial the dowsers performance is compared to the non dowsers using the known location of the water. That is one trial. To do another trial you dig up the water and empty containers, relocate them, and try again. It would take at least three to gain statistical significance, and possibly more. Lots of digging.

Another way to do the trial is to have your container of water hidden, but not buried. At 6Y9 I might hide the water in an aircraft or tent, just out of sight. You could have a series of 20 overturned buckets, with only three covering containers of water, for example. Just so long as it wasn't visible. In this method, I would apply a "score". I would send in a series of non dowsers and ask them to pick at random, perhaps 20 points for a correct identification, minus 10 for an incorrect one. Then in comes the dowser. The advantage of this is you can run multiple trials without digging your field to death. You get a mean and standard deviation for the non dowsers, and compare the dowser. Using simple statistical methods you can determine to what degree these are similar or different.

Those are possible experimental scenarios. What they have in common, besides hidden water, is the guy who hides the water writes it down, seals it, and is not present during the experiment. The guy recording the results doesn't know where the water is. Thus the trial is double blind. The other is multiple trials to generate statistically relevant data. Be prepared to do another set of trials if you turn out really be able to do this, reproducibility is everything. If you can, you will be the first ever. You will be famous.

 

[Gary]

The dowser can easily know local conditions, and probably knows the depth at which people find water. He might even know the rate at which the most predominate pumps move water, to determine a flow rate. He therefore "finds" a spot, which may or not be on top of an aquifer. He either "finds" water, in which case he's a savant, or he doesn't, in which case the conditions weren't right for some bizarre reason. Someone on this thread said, drill anywhere and you'll find water.

Well... I've probably installed maybe 500 wells over the last 20 years in maybe a dozen different states. Don't use dowsing, do use geological data and past history. Had one (1) well come up dry.

Gary

 

[EdFred]

You will need trustworthy accomplices. First, determine how much water you need present to "detect". This is easily done with your rods and containers of known volume full of water. Determine the minimum volume of water that sets off your rods, if you'll forgive the phrasing. While you're at it, you can use these control experiments to determine your range, i.e. how close you have to be to get a "hit".

The next part can be done in a number of ways. In the first, you have accomplice number one bury a unit of water that is well above the detection limit, and bury it shallower than the range. Bury a few other empty containers as well. The accomplice marks the location of the water measured by some independent means (e.g. 5 meters from a particular tree). That is written down, put in an envelope, and sealed.

You then show up with accomplice number two, who handles the recording equipment. You can even bring some non-dowsers to give you a baseline, i.e. how often do they "hit" the target just by random chance. Then the dowser goes to work. At the end of the trial the dowsers performance is compared to the non dowsers using the known location of the water. That is one trial. To do another trial you dig up the water and empty containers, relocate them, and try again. It would take at least three to gain statistical significance, and possibly more. Lots of digging.

Another way to do the trial is to have your container of water hidden, but not buried. At 6Y9 I might hide the water in an aircraft or tent, just out of sight. You could have a series of 20 overturned buckets, with only three covering containers of water, for example. Just so long as it wasn't visible. In this method, I would apply a "score". I would send in a series of non dowsers and ask them to pick at random, perhaps 20 points for a correct identification, minus 10 for an incorrect one. Then in comes the dowser. The advantage of this is you can run multiple trials without digging your field to death. You get a mean and standard deviation for the non dowsers, and compare the dowser. Using simple statistical methods you can determine to what degree these are similar or different.

Those are possible experimental scenarios. What they have in common, besides hidden water, is the guy who hides the water writes it down, seals it, and is not present during the experiment. The guy recording the results doesn't know where the water is. Thus the trial is double blind. The other is multiple trials to generate statistically relevant data. Be prepared to do another set of trials if you turn out really be able to do this, reproducibility is everything. If you can, you will be the first ever. You will be famous.

How do I walk over the top of an airplane or a tent?