Your feedback wanted on dowsing.

[Travlin_Dan]

I dowse occasionally, and I can tell you its an amazing thing to see the rods cross over metal objects and other stuff,I ve dowsed now for about 20 years now but never seriously.I would like to hear from anyone who has an opinion on the operation of what I call mineral rods.Thes are 16 inch lengths of 12 awg copper bent at a third of its length and tipped with 21 kt natural Black Hills gold beads formed by a master jeweler and soldered to the ends of my mineral rods.I hope I have described them accurately. They are held loosely in each hand ,tips leaned down at maybe 10 -15 degrees from horizontal, they will cross, over crystals of minerals ,and metals as well as point to hollows in the Earth,, really weird stuff I want to know about... how does it work?????

[Ed in SoDak]

Hi Dan,

Well, it all depends, after all's said and done, if the money's in the jeweler's pocket or yours!

I've read all you need do is focus your thoughts on what you are seeking. It may help to have a small sample of what is sought. A nugget in the pocket may perform as well as custom rod-mounted ones. Water-dowsers can't have a little droplet on the tip, for example, but who knows, it just might help to wet the the rods!

I've a friend who swears by it. We tried it together in my yard. I made a pair or rods from house wiring and drilled dowels for handles so the rods turn real easily. We both got crossed rods in the same spot, very wierd! I never dug it though. Right by a tree stump and in a slate outcrop. Supposedly, we were dowsing for water, anyway, and that's usually 100 to 180 feet deep here.

My former boss tried it once to witch for a dinosaur skull. He found something, they dug it up. It was a giant iron concretion. At least there was something there, I bet he was imagining a large, whole skull! In reality, no skull was ever found for this dino.

Lots of good info out there on the subject. Ever try map dowsing?
Have fun!

-Ed

[Rattlesnake Jim]

TD in all my years of prospecting and treasure hunting the only thing I've noticed about dowsing is that the fellows that make and sell the LRLs and dowsing rods are the only ones who make any money. I have never seen a rich dowser. Most of it is "BUNK". There seems to be some success with water dowsing to drill water wells, But for prospecting and treasure hunting it's a whole different world. If you believe in dowsing you can make your own tools, but I wouldn't give you a plug nickel for any of that crap! Just my 2 cents!
I know where there is a lot of gold! If you can dowse it you can have it!
No one has found it yet! LOL

Rattlesnake Jim

[Travlin_Dan]

Well Jim, Sorry you arent able to use mineral rods, pregnant redheads have trouble too with them. I never sell these , they are a giveaway and create hours of fun and excitement for lots of people for free.Anyone can make these rods outta nothin and find stuff, old fashioned family fun, thtas what it is.
And if you are truly serious about your gold story, put it writing and have it notorized, you're on mister, I happen to be a sport and I will take your gold, I might even feel a little sympathetic towards you and give you something back for your trouble.Kinda lame to talk smack on something youre not well acquainted with.Im sorry you feel that way.Now where do you want me to start dowsing......? Travlin Dan

[willy]

There was a guy hunting the Lagunas that had a transistor glued to the end of his witching wand. Claimed it amplified the signal something fierce. ...Willy.

[diggerbarns]

I think dowsing is a load of bollocks myself

[Ed in SoDak]

Well, I dunno. As I say, I've tried it and danged if the rods don't pull or move, despite my best efforts to keep them still. I walk around, they cross, I back up, they open. Move forwards again, cross. Grip tighter, more level. Still they move. There, in just that spot. What it means I can't say, as I've never dug these mystery spots. But I can go there right now, about 50 feet from here, and repeat it.

-Ed

[Rattlesnake Jim]

Well Jim, Sorry you arent able to use mineral rods, pregnant redheads have trouble too with them. I never sell these , they are a giveaway and create hours of fun and excitement for lots of people for free.Anyone can make these rods outta nothin and find stuff, old fashioned family fun, thtas what it is.
And if you are truly serious about your gold story, put it writing and have it notorized, you're on mister, I happen to be a sport and I will take your gold, I might even feel a little sympathetic towards you and give you something back for your trouble.Kinda lame to talk smack on something youre not well acquainted with.Im sorry you feel that way.Now where do you want me to start dowsing......? Travlin Dan
I don't have to put anything in writing! The gold is in every mining district and other places not known. Go get some and show it too me! Only with your dowsing. If it worked for me I'd be sipping magaritas under palm trees and kicking back not stirring up crap on a forum like this.
RSJ

[willy]

Shhhh! Keep it down! The more LRL's out there, the less metal detectors; the less metal detectors, the better the chances for the remaing detectorists to get fat. Soooo... VIVE LA LRL's!! Dowsing rules! Free yourself from the tyranny of the transistor! Science suks! ...Willy.

[MojaveRed]

This is all very interesting but there are now nine posts on dousing with zero technical content -- this is, after all, the Tech Forum, eh?

(Well, OK; maybe putting a transistor on the end of your shaft might qualify as "technical" to some, but I don't see it.)

This thread doesn't really fit in the LRL Forum either, since those are machines (using the term loosly).

Parhaps a new forum is in order for this kind of stuff. And you just know I'd love to be the first to suggest a name for such a forum, but I'm kinda new here and don't want get too offensive right off the bat!

[diggerbarns]

What I have always wondered about Dowsing is this.

If you get two of these L shaped rods.
Then you get a lenght of wood or metal say 30 inches long
and drill 2 holes in the wood or metal say 3 inches in from each end
and then put your rods in these holes, so that they can't be tilted
will they still cross over

[Carl-NC]

This thread doesn't really fit in the LRL Forum either, since those are machines (using the term loosly).

I don't have a forum for LRLs per se, but a more general "Remote Sensing" forum, which is more appropriate.

If you get two of these L shaped rods.
Then you get a lenght of wood or metal say 30 inches long
and drill 2 holes in the wood or metal say 3 inches in from each end
and then put your rods in these holes, so that they can't be tilted
will they still cross over

You mean... like the pic below? I built a rigid frame that holds 2 L-rods with the handles exactly parallel. It effectively kills the response of the rods.

If you get the rods exactly level or slightly tilted upwards, with some effort you can get them to cross, but it's very erratic and inconsistent. If the frame does not make the handles exactly parallel, then it gets a bit easier to make them cross.

But with the handles parallel, and the rods ever so slightly tilted downwards, they never ever cross.

- Carl

[diggerbarns]

Well that's funny because I was thinking of a similar test, and I am a few thousand miles away. Could there be an ionic connection between our brains.

What I didn't think of was that if the operator of such a setup waited until the rods pointed inwards slightly, and then tilted the frame backwards the rods would appear to cross.

[Carl-NC]

If you make the jig such that the tops of the handles are slightly tilted in, then you will find the rods will cross inward as you raise them to level. If the tops of the handles are slightly tilted out, then you will find the rods will cross outward as you raise them to level. It's a fun experiment, because it shows how easily you can prove dowsing is all wrist action.

- Carl

[MojaveRed]

Carl's instrument shown in the photo above can serve as a launching point for the serious experimenter who would establish both a firm technical grounding for dowsing and a place for himself in the annals of science:

The experimenter will need to equip himself with a shirt sporting epaulets.

Next, the experimenter will need to wrap 40 yards of 28 AWG 19/40 stranded tinned copper wire encased in a bright orange polyvinyl chloride insulation around his head, just at the top of the ears and across the eyebrows, so that the plane of the coil thus formed contains the temporal lobes of his brain -- this is very important.

The coil must then be secured to the head by applying a dab of epoxy between the eyes, taking care that about 2 feet if "pigtail" remains free.

The two pigtail leads are then to be passed, one under each of the epaulets which serve to hold the leads in place, taped to the forearms and then soldered, one lead to each of the two rods at their 90 degree bends.

Having thus established a connection between the Earth, the rods (as intermediary), and the mind of Man, entirely new vistas of discovery will be opened to the experimenter.

Well, whatever: let us know how this works out fer ya.

Red

PS And don't ferget ya heard it from ol' Red.

[okantex]

hi carl

why do not you fill your rods with negative ions?when a person holds it with bare hand (there must not be holding pipes on it (because it is nonconductive))static electricity flows to end of rods.one of static electric rules.
and Cu in soil is positive +2 (inner parts of matterial does not oxidies ,outer is notr)
why not to cross?
is this a good puzzle?

[J_Player]

Dowsing is one of the least understood phenomena in treasure hunting. I am an engineer who thought it was a bunch of bunk until I made a search to find the most promising methods of finding treasure. I still believe a lot of the lore about dowsing is bunk, but the practice of dowsing does work for some people. It seems that some people are better able to dowse and discriminate what they have located than others.

During my search for a way to locate gold, I came across a book called "the divining hand" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0924608161/102-8073888-4772136?n=283155 , which had some very revealing information about the technical details of dowsing. This book also has a chapter about a German rocket scientist who built an electronic machine that works on the same principle that dowsers use. When I contacted the inventor of this machine, he demonstrated it, and he also showed me his own dowsing rods, which were identical to yours, except no gold soldered on the ends. He made them himself from copper wire and wooden dowels drilled through in the middle. He told me he used them as backup in cases whern his machine was malfunctioning.

The principle he described is the same as what is explained in the book "The Divining Hand". He says there are weak traces of gamma radiation that come up from the earth's surface. Where there is an anomoly such as a stream of water, a cave, an ore deposit or other object that is dissimilar to the surrounding earth, these gamma emanations are concentrated at the edges. ie: at the edges of an underground stream, there is a wall of concentrated gamma energy rising up in a vertical plane. Some people are more sensitive to these areas of strong gamma energy. According to the theeory, these emanations cause a sensitive person's muscles to twitch, and their heaert beat to increase. This in turn causes the muscles in the arms to tighten and make the rods tilt. There may be some component of autosuggestion involved, but according to the theory, this principle of tightening muscles works in locations where the dowser does not know what is under the ground. It should be also noted that in areas where there is strong gamma energy emanating up from the ground, it is considered very unhealthy to spend a lot of time there, as these areas are where researchers have found very high incidence of diseases and people feeling generally uncomfortable (this means you dont want your bed to be located over a place where 3 underground streams cross).

Here is a web page that explains some of the details in a little more depth, based mostly on the information from the book "The Divining Hand": http://www.sunherb.com/geopathic_stress.htm

All of what I described above is theory, and has no basis in fact, except the data that was collected by researchers, and the machine that the German scientist built on this principle, which can locate gold under the earth. I describe this machine in more detail in a neighboring forum: http://thunting.com/geotech/forums/showthread.php4?t=11342

Hope my reply helped.

[Jim]

Why do you suppose this “phenomena” only affects the arm muscles? In theory, this “phenomena” could cause the leg muscles to tighten, and cause one to walk around in circles, or possibly make the eye muscles tighten to the point of seeing cross-eyed.

Utilizing the theory you have presented us with, everyone living within a quarter-mile of buried treasure would be walking around in circles, cross-eyed.

Jim

[Qiaozhi]

If you type "dowsing" in the google search engine, the first hit is a site called http://www.mystical-www.co.uk/dowsing.htm - not exactly what you might call "scientific".

According to this site "dowsing" is scientifically known as radioesthesia, and is the interaction of the mind of the dowser and the energy of the object of interest.

There is even a masters course in Radioesthesia, put on by the American Society of Dowsers, of Danville, Connecticut. Plus a reference to specialized training in intuitive detection, and the method of psychometry.

Following this intriguing piece of information, I then found that in parapsychology, psychometry is a psi (or psychic) ability in which the user is able to relate details about the past condition of an object or area, usually by being in close contact with it.

My goodness! There's a whole new world out there I've heard about!

[J_Player]

"Why Why do you suppose this “phenomena” only affects the arm muscles?"

It is my understanding that the phenomenon does not affect only the arm muscles. When a sensitive person passes over an area of higher-than-average gamma radiation, his whole body is stressed, and there are probably numerous muscles tensing as a stress reaction. But the rods in his hands tend to amplify the small movement of the hands to make it more easily discernable. According to the theories, this stress reaction occurs because these are generally harmful emmisions coming from the earth, and I suppose this is a natural response, much like muscles tensing when you get too close to a fire. I read that there are metals that can act as a shield so the dowser is no longer affected by the emanations from the ground. Read "The Divining hand" for lots of details about this, as well as objects above the ground that tend to concentrate and re-direct these emmisions.

I know very little about radiosthesia, map dowsing and that sort of thing. It may have some scientific basis in fact, but I can't imagine what basis. What I do know is what Dr. Bickel taught me when he described how his long distance locating machine worked. I have to believe him to some degree, because his machines are in the satellites that NASA uses to map the earth's mineral deposits.

[Bojidar]

Hi foxs :)) Thit "unit" realy work,but only for find underground water streams!
Two sticks are made from Cu wire.Man must to have strong bio-field,in other case don't work!I use it to find water before dig well.

[Elie]

What I do know is what Dr. Bickel taught me when he described how his long distance locating machine worked.
So tell us what Dr. Bickel taught you.

[J_Player]

He taught me about the nature of matter and how gold and other elements came to be formed from the stage of a nebula to the solid materials under the surface of the earth. He told me from the point of view of a German astrophysicist what characteristics we can expect to find in the minerals under the earth. He went into some detail about radioisotopes and sub-atomic particles and energies. From there he explained how his long range locating machine worked. The explanation I posted in the forum is a simplified version of what his LRL machines measured. They did detect the presence of gamma radiation, but they did a lot more. His detectors were fitted with small computers that performed the function of gamma spectroscopy in conjunction with the sensor to identify what elements the probe was picking up. This was at a time before desktop computers were common. Most of the sampling circuitry was analog, with a digital section that did the computing. He also taught me the difference between what his machine was measuring and what dowsers are sensing when they "locate anomolies" in the ground. According to Dr. Bickel, the dowsers are not (in his opinion) sensing gamma radiation directly, but the effects it has on a number of naturally occurring fields that can be sensed on the surface of the earth. He explained the effects of underground streams in masking other anomolies below them, and how many of these naturally occuring fields are concentrated around the edges of an underground stream or other anomaly. He also explained that these naturally occuring fields are greatly influenced by physical objects aboove the ground (buildings, cars, etc.) as well as space energies (sunspots, ionosphere, cosmic radiation activities, etc.)

From what he taught me I concluded there is no simple science to dowsing, and if a person wanted to have a good grasp on how it works, then he would be well advised to learn more about the geophysics involved. For those who are not scientifically inclined, I would suggest that if they are sensitive to these fiields, they can still become quite sucessful at dowsing as long as they keep in mind that their results are not always repeatable, and subject to variations in the fields around them. Also I would caution that when they get a reaction in their dowsing instrument, they have no real way to know what exactly is causing that reaction until they excavate and find out for themselves. Perhaps it is not even something from below the ground.

The electronic machine that Dr. Bickel built was not subject to the natural fields at the surface of the earth nearly so much as a dowser is, because his machine was measuring gamma waves, not the fields they traveled through. Dr. Bickel was also a dowser, but he did not use any LRL dowsing machines. He preferred a simple pair of L rods he made from wire and 2 dowels.

If you want to know more of what Dr. Bickel taught me, you can read "The Divining Hand". It is a dated book, but the theories and explanations in that book are in fairly good agreement with what Dr. Bickel told me.

[Alexismex]

Hello forum,
Thank you J player for your explanation, many years ago i look for some info on the Dr.Bikel and now I know you who know personaly him , very interesting ... I read the book 15 years ago also very good book on the subject of radiesthesia ....to all the people who are saying : dowser is a joke I recommend always this book .In the internet you can see professional gamma ray geophysical analyser but it is very difficult to understand exactly How it work , the specification are very difficult to understand for a non geophysical man....but the question is :
These gamma detectors can detect gold ore at some distance in the soil for exemple 1 or 2 meters ???? I did not know and for the Bikel apparatus he tell in the book seven meters away but he did not say HOW DEEP ????
see: http://www.llnl.gov/str/September03/Becker.html
And for the mineoro : no-comments........
Alex

[J_Player]

Hahahahaaa...

I asked Dr. Bickel that same question. He put his 2 oz gold nugget on the ground and it did not register on his machine. I can tell you his machine is not good for finding a gold coin 2 meters away. It is best used to locate large gold or other ore deposits under the earth that is measured by the tons. By placing the gold a few meters from the machine, the gamma energy does not increase to a noticable amount because the machine is sensing gamma waves very deep under the ground in a cone-shaped pattern. The nugget is only one small part of the tons if materials that the machine sees. What the machine can see the most easily is when a large deposit of mineral is below the ground. This machine is best used when flying in a grid pattern over a large area of earth, then look at the areas of the land that gave higher readings. This is where you will likely find ore deposits. It is also good to have an understanding of how the anomolies under the ground can interfere with the reading so you know to compensate for bodies of underground water etc when looking for gold or oil or other minerals.

If this machine could be used as a nugget locator, then those who owned the machine would all be rich. http://thunting.com/geotech/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

[J_Player]

Your link shows a gamma/photon sensing device that will discriminate what the different elements it is looking at. This is exactly how Dr. Bickel's machine worked. He was a pioneer in this field. I havent really elaborated on the details of Dr. Bickels machine. Ok... here is how the machine that Dr. Bickel built works:

The sensor contains a special crystal that is sensative to gamma waves, called a scintillator. His scintillator crystals are not the average type used for medical instruments. They are extremely sensitive and not generally available to the industrial/commercial users. Because of his work with NASA, he had a direct link with the suppliers who sold him some of these crystals to use in his machines for locating oil fields and mineral deposits.

How his machine worked? When a gamma wave passes into the crytstal, a very small light (a photon) is emmited. The energy of the gamma wave will determine the characteristics of the light, or the photon energy. By measuring the light that is emitted with a photomultiplier tube, the energy of the gamma wave can be determined. This energy can be compared to a known list of energies that will tell where the isotope that sent the gamma wave came from. This is a simplified version of the actual method, but the electronics are able to identify exactly what element is below the probe that sent the gamma waves. By looking at the enery in the photons before they disintigrate into positrons, the exact element that sent the gamma wave and caused the photon can be determined as accurately as a fingerprint can be measured. These gamma waves come from a very few radio isotopes of that element that exist in the natural deposits under the earth. It is only when there is a large deposit of an element that we will see a large reading on the probe. When we are looking for gold, it does not matter if the gold is in a solid metal form, or a telluride or sulfide. Any compound of gold or matallic gold will send gamma waves from the very few traces of gold isotopes. What the machine is looking for is an area of the earth that shows a relatively larger concentration of gold (or other element) than the surrounding areas. It is looking for an area that has a heavy deposit of a mineral. This is what the detecror does best. It is not able to find a small coin or nugget in the near proximity. it is specialized in sensing trace anounts of gamma rays from large deposits of minerals.

This machine can sense the gamma waves from isotopes of other elements like silver, copper and carbon (oil). By comparing the light energy sensed to the known energies of isotopes of these elements, the element can be identified. This is how the discrimination is accomplished. This method is known as gamma spectroscopy. It is commonnly used in the laboratory to identify unknown substances which have been irradiated to caues the substance to emit gamma waves. The difference with Dr. Bickel's machine that it senses gammma waves in very small amounts, which came from naturally occuring isotopes, not from pounding the target with a high dose of radiation. This is why the sensor in his machine must be of the highest quality and extremely sensitive to these faint gamma waves. The advantage of Dr. Bickel's LRL over the conventional LRLs is that it will work even when there is heavy sunspot activity and the conventional LRLs are not able to get a signal from the near ground fields. Dr. Bickel's sensors are not dependent on these fields because he is measuring the gamma waves, not the fields near the surface of the earth. If you check with the oil companies and mining companies you will find that Dr. Bickels detectors are very highly respected. These companies pay a premium price to have a survey done whith his machines.

Before ending this discussion, I shoud tell you that Dr. Bickel was a very nice man. He had a heavy German accent and white hair, and he was very accommodating. He showed me a handful of gold nuggets he found on his expeditions making surveys for the oil companies. He showed me several other projects he was working on including a 2-cylinder aluminum hydrogen-fueled engine. All this happened when he was in his 80's, and he was still lecturing to the NASA scientists and others in his spare time when not looking for oil and gold.

Dang, I hope I am that active in my 80s http://thunting.com/geotech/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Alexismex]

Thank you J player for your answer , now I have a main vision of the Dr. Bikel detector , I understand it is geophysical , yes with ton of mineral ....OK Thanks again
Alex

[Alexismex]

Hello J.Player, very good explanation of the gamma ray detector , I print it to show to my friends and thank you again for your time and amability to explain well .
Another question , do you really believe in this full of farse publicity like the famous KOCHRAN , for the mineoro ......of some infamous selling people...
I hope to have in my hand one off these to show the kind of machine is this , one of these day and complete reverse ing..with photos....for the Forum
many people here in Mexico was trapped in internet and pay cash these funny detector for to find NOTHING , not gold not silver not a small piece of iron.... nothing only the big laughing of Mineoro "inventor"....with the cash in his pocket.....Ah...Ah...Ah...
Have a nice day J.player ,
Alex.

[J_Player]

I have never seen anyone find gold using a LRL like the Mineoro. If they work then I know nothing about it. My understanding is that they work exactly as well as dowsing. But I may be wrong.

If I had $8000 to spend on a Mineoro deteector, then I would spend the money on an Eric Foster Goldscan 5 PI detector instead, and I would spen the remaining money traveling from Arizona to Mexico looking for nuggets and buried treasures.

[Alexismex]

Hello J.player,
One 100% thinking the same for the 8000$ and like I said when I have one (mineoro ) in my hand I will do the work I think soon....
And for the phenomenum of Radiesthesia For me it exist , I know a very good dowser who discover water very deep 80-200 meters with accuracy in difficult soil where water is difficult to find with traditional geophysical instruments ....he say me for water is easy for him but for something without movement he do not have result ( metal treasure etc...) ...it is physical a flux of water generate a flux of something this something detected by the dowser....
Have a good day
Saludos Alex

[hung]

I have never seen anyone find gold using a LRL like the Mineoro. If they work then I know nothing about it. My understanding is that they work exactly as well as dowsing. But I may be wrong.


Come to Brazil and I can introduce you to a bunch of them who just don't have the time (also don't want) to stick around in forums. Always busy in the field.

You really don't know anything about them. Mineoro dectetors are TOTALLY electronic. No dowsing involved.

[Dell Winders]

And for the phenomenum of Radiesthesia For me it exist , I know a very good dowser who discover water very deep 80-200 meters with accuracy in difficult soil where water is difficult to find with traditional geophysical instruments ....he say me for water is easy for him but for something without movement he do not have result ( metal treasure etc...) ...it is physical a flux of water generate a flux of something this something detected by the dowser....

According to science, water is a strong concentrator of the earth's magnetic "field" and will follow even slightly moving water.

Iron is another chemical element that the earth's magnetic field concentrates around quite strong making it's "field" detectable and measurable.

"Physical Dowsing" detects the stronger emenating "fields" at the surface of the earth which are layered over weaker "fields", over weaker "fields" etc, etc.

Discrimination of the "field" concentrated around a chemical element, can be accompolished with the mind via "Mental Dowsing", or with the use of frequency, and/or electronics. Dell

[J_Player]

Hung says: "You really don't know anything about them".

You are right. I admit it. I don't know anything about them except I have never seen anyone find gold using a LRL like the Mineoro.
This is why I would spend my money on a high-end PI detector that I know works instead.

Hung also says: "Mineoro dectetors are TOTALLY electronic. No dowsing involved".

There are real TOTALLY electronic LRL detectors located in satellites that send back information telling where real underground ore deposits are to geologists. If the Mineoro detectors are TOTALLY electronic, then they should work just as well whether you hold the machine in your hand, or if you mount it on the back of a tractor, or in a plane and watch the electronics tell you where the treasures are. If they are TOTALLY electronic, then you should be able to adjust the controls and send it of in a remotely piloted vehicle to search a large area of land for all the hidden treasures. I never heard of anybody having any success with a Mineoro type LRL mounted in a remotely piloted vehicle to locate treasures. But I have heard a lot about true electronic locators that find ore deposits and oil by using Gamma spectroscopy methods. In fact mining and oil companies pay big money to have surveys done using these machines. I am sure they will pay the same big money to anyone who brings a Mineoro detector and shows them where there are large mineral deposits that they didn't know about as well. Are the LRL people in Brazil so rich from the treasures they found that they don't have time to pick up an extra $50,000 or more for a couple week's work showing a mining company where to find a large deposit of copper or gold?

Second: Regardless of what principle the LRLs work on, I still have not seen anyone find gold using a LRL like the Mineoro. Maybe somebody has, but I just haven't seen them. I live in a well known area where there are abandoned gold mines and silver mines nearby. I even found a few small nuggets in these areas. There is still some gold there, because nobody really worked these areas much after the 1900s. There may even be burried treasures and church ornaments left behind by the Jesuit priests who were told to return to Spain, thinking they would return in a couple of years to dig up their caches. If your LRLs work then you should certainly find more than the few small nuggets I found.

Yes, I know nothing about these machines, and I will continue to know nothing until somebody shows me some results. Then I will be able to honestly post here in the forum about the treasures that I saw the LRLs find. But that hasn't happened yet.

Here is an open invitation to anyone who has a LRL that works: Come on over and I will show you where the old gold mines and silver mines are. Then you will have the chance to dig in the same place where the Jesuit priests got their gold and silver to make church ornaments. Click on my profile and send me an email so we can make arrangements.

[Elie]

He taught me about the nature of matter and how gold and other elements came to be formed from the stage of a nebula to the solid materials under the surface of the earth. He told me from the point of view of a German astrophysicist what characteristics we can expect to find in the minerals under the earth. He went into some detail about radioisotopes and sub-atomic particles and energies. From there he explained how his long range locating machine worked. The explanation I posted in the forum is a simplified version of what his LRL machines measured. They did detect the presence of gamma radiation, but they did a lot more. His detectors were fitted with small computers that performed the function of gamma spectroscopy in conjunction with the sensor to identify what elements the probe was picking up. This was at a time before desktop computers were common. Most of the sampling circuitry was analog, with a digital section that did the computing. He also taught me the difference between what his machine was measuring and what dowsers are sensing when they "locate anomolies" in the ground. According to Dr. Bickel, the dowsers are not (in his opinion) sensing gamma radiation directly, but the effects it has on a number of naturally occurring fields that can be sensed on the surface of the earth. He explained the effects of underground streams in masking other anomolies below them, and how many of these naturally occuring fields are concentrated around the edges of an underground stream or other anomaly. He also explained that these naturally occuring fields are greatly influenced by physical objects aboove the ground (buildings, cars, etc.) as well as space energies (sunspots, ionosphere, cosmic radiation activities, etc.)

From what he taught me I concluded there is no simple science to dowsing, and if a person wanted to have a good grasp on how it works, then he would be well advised to learn more about the geophysics involved. For those who are not scientifically inclined, I would suggest that if they are sensitive to these fiields, they can still become quite sucessful at dowsing as long as they keep in mind that their results are not always repeatable, and subject to variations in the fields around them. Also I would caution that when they get a reaction in their dowsing instrument, they have no real way to know what exactly is causing that reaction until they excavate and find out for themselves. Perhaps it is not even something from below the ground.

The electronic machine that Dr. Bickel built was not subject to the natural fields at the surface of the earth nearly so much as a dowser is, because his machine was measuring gamma waves, not the fields they traveled through. Dr. Bickel was also a dowser, but he did not use any LRL dowsing machines. He preferred a simple pair of L rods he made from wire and 2 dowels.

If you want to know more of what Dr. Bickel taught me, you can read "The Divining Hand". It is a dated book, but the theories and explanations in that book are in fairly good agreement with what Dr. Bickel told me.
Another post after a night with no sleep...
I asked what Dr. Bickel taught you because you stated that he was a dowser. Even if his machine is as good as you claim, it does not mean that we have to accept his ideas about related matters. Someone might invent or discover something very important, and then come up with a crazy idea related to it. Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA, thought that it was brought to Earth by aliens. And so with Dr. Bickel's idea that dowsing actually worked, using the same principle as his machine.

[J_Player]

You are saying: "And so with Dr. Bickel's idea that dowsing actually worked, using the same principle as his machine." ??

Did you actually read my post? Neither I nor Dr. Bickel ever said dowsing worked on the same principle as his machine that detected mineral deposits. If you go back and carefully read, you will see where I explained that he "taught me the difference between what his machine was measuring and what dowsers are sensing". Dr. Bickel told me in no uncertain terms that his machines had nothing to do with dowsing.

You will also find another post at the top of this page where I explain the workings of his machine in a little more detail. His machines are not capable of measuring any near-earth fields, only light. By processing the signal recieved by very tiny, dim flashes of light, the identity of the material under the probe can be determined. How does that sound in any way similar to the principles of dowsing?

You are right. You do not have to accept his ideas obout these related matters. You do not have to accept the explanation that his machines are measuring photons flashing in a crystal, or even accept that these devices exist in satellites. You are free to accept whatever theories you like the best.

[Carl-NC]

According to science, water is a strong concentrator of the earth's magnetic "field" and will follow even slightly moving water.

No, water it diamagnetic. It is not a "strong concentrator" of magnetic fields.

- Carl

[hung]

If the Mineoro detectors are TOTALLY electronic, then they should work just as well whether you hold the machine in your hand, or if you mount it on the back of a tractor, or in a plane and watch the electronics tell you where the treasures are.

That's correct. But...


If they are TOTALLY electronic, then you should be able to adjust the controls and send it of in a remotely piloted vehicle to search a large area of land for all the hidden treasures. I never heard of anybody having any success with a Mineoro type LRL mounted in a remotely piloted vehicle to locate treasures.

They were made for human use. There are occasions in which the ionic field ot target is weak and you have to adjust the knobs accordingly, besides, what's the point of sending the PDC 210 for instance attached to a plane??!



In fact mining and oil companies pay big money to have surveys done using these machines. I am sure they will pay the same big money to anyone who brings a Mineoro detector and shows them where there are large mineral deposits that they didn't know about as well. Are the LRL people in Brazil so rich from the treasures they found that they don't have time to pick up an extra $50,000 or more for a couple week's work showing a mining company where to find a large deposit of copper or gold?

If those are the values people in US are paying, I'll tell my friend who's got a job like this here and owns a PDC 210 right away. He only get 500 bucks daily for telling the contractors were the gold veins are.. Thanks a lot for this info.

Here is an open invitation to anyone who has a LRL that works: Come on over and I will show you where the old gold mines and silver mines are. Then you will have the chance to dig in the same place where the Jesuit priests got their gold and silver to make church ornaments. Click on my profile and send me an email so we can make arrangements.

JPLAYER, I for myself would love to. But we got so many gold here in Brazil still to be recovered. Thanks for the invitation anyway.

[hung]

No, water it diamagnetic. It is not a "strong concentrator" of magnetic fields.


Yes, water is indeed a magnetic field 'concentrator'. Check electrogravitic laws regarding the earth and you'll find this confirmation among others such as gravity being resonant.

[Carl-NC]

Yes, water is indeed a magnetic field 'concentrator'. Check electrogravitic laws regarding the earth....

Any references to this?

[hung]

Unfortunately the references I have are on books and reports.
You however will find plenty of this on 'magnetohydrodynamics'. About ten years ago I had a research team who studied deeply and acomplished projects on magnetohydrodynamics.
Here are a couple of links which I found quickly as I don't have the time now. One coincidentally is Dell's explanation.
Have fun.

http://www.nmsr.org/magnetic.htm

http://www.omnitron.net/success.htm

[Dell Winders]

Did you actually read my post? Neither I nor Dr. Bickel ever said dowsing worked on the same principle as his machine that detected mineral deposits. If you go back and carefully read, you will see where I explained that he "taught me the difference between what his machine was measuring and what dowsers are sensing". Dr. Bickel told me in no uncertain terms that his machines had nothing to do with dowsing.


For several years I had the opportunity to work with the operator of an instrument that appears very similar to Dr. Bickel's, instrument, and it was refered to as a Gamma Scan. I have been told a later version actually displays shadowy images of it's distant targets.

You are correct in saying it does not work very well at close range, or detect the "field" of small targets unless they are clustered in a large group of small targets such as concentrations of Gold particles.

The Gold in the Denver, Co mint was one of the test targets used in determining the remote Sensing ability of the Gamma Scan, to detect that amount from an aircraft, up to 350 miles away, and navigate the aircraft according to the Gamma Scan's, point of reference.

Much as the same with Frequency Discrimination (MFD) it is geographicly difficult to isolate and pinpoint the exact location of targets on the ground that are detected from high speed aircraft. To help in this determination, we would bury 25-30 pounds of low grade Uranium ore in the vicinity of the airborne location and wait 20-30 days and redo the scan. By detecting the concentrated "field" of the Uranium ore and it's relation to the airborne Gold location, we could isolate and pinpoint the Gold location.

This discussion started about the Meta-Physical art of Mental Dowsing, has once again evolved to the skeptic cult interpretation of Long Range Locators.
From years of being attacked for my support and practice of both methods as aids for Treasure hunting, I don't think the closed mind set of self proclaimed skeptics will ever be open to truth , or facts that are a challenge to the intelligence of their belief system.

[Carl-NC]

Unfortunately the references I have are on books and reports.
You however will find plenty of this on 'magnetohydrodynamics'. About ten years ago I had a research team who studied deeply and acomplished projects on magnetohydrodynamics.
Here are a couple of links which I found quickly as I don't have the time now. One coincidentally is Dell's explanation.
Have fun.

http://www.nmsr.org/magnetic.htm

http://www.omnitron.net/success.htm

Magnetohydrodynamics requires a conductive fluid, such as seawater, and really has nothing to do with whether water is a magnetic field concentrator.

Your two links were interesting though... one from Dell who initiated the claim, so I wouldn't count his web page as supporting evidence, especially when that same page has so many other gross errors of fact... and one from a group who thoroughly debunked the claims of magnetic water treatment, and includes a statement that supports my position: "unless it's made conductive and is moving really fast in a strong magnetic field, water has very little magnetic response."

There is a simple experiment to determine whether water is a magnetic field concentrator... simply wind an open-core inductor, and see if the value of the inductance changes when water is inserted as the core material. It does not.

- Carl

[Elie]

You are saying: "And so with Dr. Bickel's idea that dowsing actually worked, using the same principle as his machine." ??

Did you actually read my post? Neither I nor Dr. Bickel ever said dowsing worked on the same principle as his machine that detected mineral deposits. If you go back and carefully read, you will see where I explained that he "taught me the difference between what his machine was measuring and what dowsers are sensing". Dr. Bickel told me in no uncertain terms that his machines had nothing to do with dowsing.

You will also find another post at the top of this page where I explain the workings of his machine in a little more detail. His machines are not capable of measuring any near-earth fields, only light. By processing the signal recieved by very tiny, dim flashes of light, the identity of the material under the probe can be determined. How does that sound in any way similar to the principles of dowsing?

You are right. You do not have to accept his ideas obout these related matters. You do not have to accept the explanation that his machines are measuring photons flashing in a crystal, or even accept that these devices exist in satellites. You are free to accept whatever theories you like the best.
"This book also has a chapter about a German rocket scientist who built an electronic machine that works on the same principle that dowsers use. When I contacted the inventor of this machine, he demonstrated it, and he also showed me his own dowsing rods..."

[Elie]

No, water it diamagnetic. It is not a "strong concentrator" of magnetic fields.

- Carl
I am now glad that I was too tired to reply to Dell's post before, because I just came up with a great scientific discovery. Water cures arthritis! Just put it on your body! Everyone knows that it is a "proven scientific fact" that magnets cure arthritis (hence those stupid magnetic bracelets, etc.). Also, as Dell has informed us, "According to science, water is a strong concentrator of the earth's magnetic 'field'..." Therefore, simply take water, put it on your body, and it will cure what ails you! Am I a genius, or what?

[Carl-NC]

"This book also has a chapter about a German rocket scientist who built an electronic machine that works on the same principle that dowsers use. When I contacted the inventor of this machine, he demonstrated it, and he also showed me his own dowsing rods..."

Without re-reading everything that has been discussed on this, it appears that the device in question works on scientific principles, that being the detection of gamma radiation. I believe that it was assumed the principle of operation of his device was the same as dowsing, i.e., dowsers also detect radiation. I don't think there was an intention to imply the device utilyzed dowsing rods.

Even dowsers can invent useful non-dowsing devices!

- Carl

[J_Player]

I don't know much about the how dowsing works except a few theories I have heard. But one thing seems evident is there are quite a number of dowsers who can find water. It seems a lot more dowsers are able to find water than those who can find other buried objects. Just from the numbers, it would seem that if none of the water-finding dowsers could perform, then nobody would pay them to show where to drill their wells. From what I have seen it seems that water is much easier for a dowser to locate than other objects. When I try to figure what makes water different, the main differences that come to mind is that it is liquid and often flowing underground, unlike other targets that a dowser would try to locate.

One of the theories I have heard is that dowsers are sensitive to changes in the patterns of electromagnetic fields at the surface of the earth. What electormagnetic fields are at the surface of the earth? A lot of them, starting with broadcast radio waves from under 600 khz to the ghx range, in all different signal strengths. These are easily picked up with a commomn radio antenna and heard on a suitable listening device after demodulation. There are also many man-made stray electromagnetic waves caused from power transmission and telemetry, even from friction of man-made vehicles rolling on the ground. We can detect stray signals from high voltage power lines by holding a 4-ft fluorescent light tube in the air under the lines in some locations. There are a number of other naturally occurring fields that can be measured at the earth's surface including electrostatic fields and the earth's magnetic field. There are also other seldom considered eneregies that exist at the surface of the earth like radioactive emissions from within the earth, cosmic rays and and other space energies caused by sunspots, ionosphere, etc.

With all these measurable fields at the surface of the earth, is it not possible that some dowsers are more sensitive to sense their presence? I have heard of no known organ in the human body devoted to sensing any of these energies, but is it not possible? One theory of the principles of dowsing says that a dowser is indeed sensing some kind of fields at the surface of the earth. If this theory is correct, then we are talking about a few people who are more sensitive than average at sensing very weak fields existing at the surface of the earth. I suspect that what they are sensicg would be a very small change in the pattern of these fields as they walk around an area.

According to this theory, these fields change their pattern where there is an anomoly. For example, we know that radio waves can be reflected by buildings, or they can allign their nodes around buildings or other protruberancecs at the surface of the earth, depending on the frequencies involved. We can easily demonstrate this by tuning a radio to a weak station and moving it through a downtown area to find the weak and strong locations, and multipath distortions. We also can see these weak and strong locations change at different times of the day. Radio transmission engineers routinely change the antenna patterns late in the day to compensate for this effect.

But what about the effect of anomolies under the ground? can they influence these fields on the surface? According to some theories they can. The presence of solid matallic objects buried near the surface is considered to be one anomoly that has a local inluence on the patterns of these electromagnetic fields at the surface. Also, according to the proponents of this theory, underground water has a much larger influence. How this works I have no idea. Presumably even the purest water found underground has dissolved minerals and ions in small concentrations. In addition, natural gamma emmisions from deep within the earth are absorbed by water molecules which readily ionize as the result of the absorption. The net effect of this action is that the body of water becomes more ionized, while the surrounding solid materials do not. Thus a body of underground water could concievably be considered an absorber of neutrons and gamma waves and producer of ions in comparison to its surroundings. Even if this is happening in very small concentrations, we have established it is an anomoly which has properties of different ionization, different background radiation, and different chemical composition. Now if this stream is moving, it can be expected to interact with any weak electromagnetic fields it is passing through.

In My opinion, the strength of all these fields and ion levels is very weak at best, and hard to measure. It is no where near the power levels of MHD generators. And I have no Idea if dowsers are actually able to sense these weak fields using their bodies and dowsing rods. But I must admit there is a possibility that the electromagnetic fields that exist on the surface of the earth are influenced by underground water. For reference, here are links from another post that shows a hobbyist who built an electronic field detector and was amazed at the strange signals he found around the surface of the ground:

http://www.vlf.it/kurt/elf.html http://www.vlf.it/kurt/elf.html http://www.vlf.it/kurt/elf.html http://www.vlf.it/kurt/elf.html

[Elie]

Without re-reading everything that has been discussed on this, it appears that the device in question works on scientific principles, that being the detection of gamma radiation. I believe that it was assumed the principle of operation of his device was the same as dowsing, i.e., dowsers also detect radiation. I don't think there was an intention to imply the device utilyzed dowsing rods.

Even dowsers can invent useful non-dowsing devices!

- Carl
This book also has a chapter about a German rocket scientist who built an electronic machine that works on the same principle that dowsers use. When I contacted the inventor of this machine, he demonstrated it, and he also showed me his own dowsing rods...
Neither I nor Dr. Bickel ever said dowsing worked on the same principle as his machine that detected mineral deposits.
I did not claim that the machine did not work, and I did not claim that it utilized dowsing rods.

Even if his machine is as good as you claim, it does not mean that we have to accept his ideas about related matters. Someone might invent or discover something very important, and then come up with a crazy idea related to it. Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA, thought that it was brought to Earth by aliens. And so with Dr. Bickel's idea that dowsing actually worked, using the same principle as his machine.
Your last line is classic!

[J_Player]

I am having a hard time understanding your point Elie. Your train of thought is hard to follow.

After I made several long pages of detailed explanations, you should have been able to grasp what I said about my understanding of dowsing and of a working long range mineral deposit locator. However, you continue to post out of context exerpts that prove no point that I can discern. As near as I can tell you are trying to prove that I am saying gamma spectroscopy is the principle of dowsing, using an out-of context exerpt from an early post I made, while ignoring all the detailed explanations that show otherwise. Is this the case? Is your only point to prove that what I posted can't be correct?
The fact is that the book I refer to does represent Dr. Bickel's machine as an electronic dowsing machne, just as I stated. If you ever bother to read the book, you will find that this is true. Neither Dr. Bickel or I ever made a statement that we agree with the representation put forward in this book about his machine being an electronic dowsing machine. I suppose his speciallized scintillator could be called a "dowsing machine" in the loose sense of the word, in that it locates underground anomolies, just as dowsers claim to do.

Do you have any real proof that this machine cannot locate underground ore deposits? Do you have any real proof that no dowser has never found underground water more often than a non-dowser would find it with random attempts?

If your only proof is to show that some people make fraudulent claims about LRLs this does not prove anything about whether LRLs work or not. If you show that some people sell LRLs, this does not prove that nothing they say has truth in it. Have you considered that Carl sells circuit boards to build PI detectors? By your own style insinuations, does this prove that we can't trust what Carl tells us about metal detectors or electronics? There have been cases of people making fraudulant claims about conventional metal detectors. Does this prove that all metal detectors are worthless and none of them work based on the style "proof" that you use?

So far, all I have heard from you are attempts to discredit anyone who has a different opinion than you. I would like to see what proof you have for your apparent opinion that dowsing does not work for finding water. I personally have never seen any dowser or LRL detector locate buried treasures. But I have seen a number of dowsers show people where to drill water wells with a good success rate, much better than random drilling, and better than I would figure on my own.

I have 3 specific questions for you:

1. Can you show any proof that dowsers have ablolutely no success at locating water? Can you bring any scientific knowledge to the forum about this without discrediting somebody? Do you actually have any knowledge about this?

2. Do you have any real proof that the machine Dr. Bickel built cannot locate underground ore deposits? Can you prove that he ever said it works on dowsing principles? Or must you rely on that out-of-context exerpt from my post to try to discredit him?

3. Do you actually have any knowledge about dowsing or LRLs that could be used in a constructive manner in this forum? If so please elaborate. I am particularly interested in the scientific proofs that you may have, not attacks on peoples motives or charachters.

[Elie]

I am having a hard time understanding your point Elie.
My point is that long range locators are hoaxes, and that no one should waste their money on them.
After I made several long pages of detailed explanations, you should have been able to grasp what I said about my understanding of dowsing and of a working long range mineral deposit locator.

I grasped it just fine.
However, you continue to post out of context exerpts...

BE SPECIFIC!
(And spell "excerpts" correctly.)
As near as I can tell you are trying to prove that I am saying gamma spectroscopy is the principle of dowsing, using an out-of context exerpt from an early post I made, while ignoring all the detailed explanations that show otherwise.

You have it backwards! I did not say that you said that gamma spectroscopy was like dowsing; I said that you said that Dr. Bickel "built an electronic machine that works on the same principle that dowsers use." If that is taken out of context, then it is YOUR fault.
You also wrote, "According to Dr. Bickel, the dowsers are not (in his opinion) sensing gamma radiation directly, but the effects it has on a number of naturally occurring fields that can be sensed on the surface of the earth."
This excerpt CLEARLY shows that your assertion that "Neither I nor Dr. Bickel ever said dowsing worked on the same principle as his machine that detected mineral deposits" is FALSE.
Do you have any real proof that this machine cannot locate underground ore deposits?

Did you actually read my post, RIGHT ABOVE YOURS?
"I did not claim that the machine did not work..."
Do you have any real proof that no dowser has never found underground water more often than a non-dowser would find it with random attempts?

You ask this question in an interesting manner. You write, "Do you have any real proof that no dowser has NEVER found underground water more often than a non-dowser would find it with random attempts?" I assume that you meant to write, "Do you have any real proof that no dowser has EVER found underground water more often than a non-dowser would find it with random attempts?"
This question shows what a hoax dowsing is. You did not write, "Do you have any real proof that a dowser REGULARLY finds underground water more often than a non-dowser would find it with random attempts?" Based on your actual question, if a dowser had a "good day," then that would "prove" that there was something to dowsing. You are grasping at straws! If a type of search is not REGULARY better than a random search, then to claim that there is (or might be) anything to that type of search is to perpetrate a HOAX!
Have you considered that Carl sells circuit boards to build PI detectors? By your own style insinuations, does this prove that we can't trust what Carl tells us about metal detectors or electronics?

Carl sells those boards practically at cost. Also:
"I liked the Hammerhead shark image that I found on the web, far better than any other shark image, and I wanted a sorta "official" logo for the project. So, I contacted the illustrator for permission to use the image.

Well, it cost a little $$$ to license the image, but it's all legal. I can use the image on the web site, and in articles that I write for the project. I can also use it on the control panel layout, or for other box decals.

The illustrator also gives permission for individuals to use the image in their own custom panel designs, or decals, for this project only. If you want to use the image for anything else, please get permission!"
In other words, Carl paid out of his own pocket for everyone else to be able to use the logo, for free.
Does THAT answer your question?
By the way, some of you guys really make me SICK. Carl does more for treasure hunters than just about anyone in the whole world. He runs a treasure hunting website, which he pays for himself, he answers questions about treasure hunting technology, free of charge (and he is a professional electrical engineer), he keeps people (if they LISTEN to him) from spending TONS of money on outright HOAXES (and he does this at great personal expense), he has invested a great deal of time and money in a metal detector project from which he does not make any money (see above), in order to help those who are interested in learning about metal detector technology, and he probably does other things which I do not know about. And what is the result of all this? He is villified (here and elsewhere), and accused of lying, ignorance, stupidity, and having sinister motives for trying to help people. You guys should be ASHAMED of yourselves.
I would like to see what proof you have for your apparent opinion that dowsing does not work for finding water.

I did not state that dowsing does not work for finding water, but I am stating it now!
See above and below.
I personally have never seen any dowser or LRL detector locate buried treasures.

Neither have I!
But I have seen a number of dowsers show people where to drill water wells with a good success rate, much better than random drilling, and better than I would figure on my own.

There is water all over the place, including underground. You keep talking about PROOF. You have no proof that dowsers do better than random searchers.

1. Can you show any proof that dowsers have ablolutely no success at locating water? Can you bring any scientific knowledge to the forum about this without discrediting somebody? Do you actually have any knowledge about this?

See above; Carl has already explained the science involved. What is it with you and discrediting people? If they insist on spouting fallacies, THEY SHOULD BE DISCREDITED; Again with the knowledge? You are being very specific already!
2. Do you have any real proof that the machine Dr. Bickel built cannot locate underground ore deposits? Can you prove that he ever said it works on dowsing principles? Or must you rely on that out-of-context exerpt from my post to try to discredit him?

See above; See above; See above. I tried to discredit him? Learn to read!
3. Do you actually have any knowledge about dowsing or LRLs that could be used in a constructive manner in this forum? If so please elaborate. I am particularly interested in the scientific proofs that you may have, not attacks on peoples motives or charachters.
Yes: They do not work! I have not attacked motives or character, except where it was warrated. Face the facts: you are not interested in science.

[J_Player]

Hey Elie,
You have made a really long post which seems like another example of your trying to prove that only you are right and those with a different opinion are wrong. You are repeating your "out of context" quote conerning what principle Dr. Bickel's machine works on. Again you cleverly fail to include the later part of my post where my final statement was

"All of what I described above is theory, and has no basis in fact, except the data that was collected by researchers, and the machine that the German scientist built on this principle, which can locate gold under the earth."

Rather than taking responsibility for your error you try to blame your misconstrued interpretations on me? "It is my fault"?
And at thae same time your are asserting you grasped what I said about my understanding of dowsing and a working long range locator? It seems to me that the point of your post is to prove that you ar right, and those whe have a differing opinion are wrong, using whatever means you can muster, including focusing on spelling errors. If your main point is that long range locators are hoaxes, I couldn't find it in your last post.

I agree that Carl is one of the best assets that the treasure hunters have anywhere on the internet. And I am also a skeptic when it comes to spending money for LRLs. But the funny thing is I have never seen anyone show that LRLs don't work with hard evidence except Carl who disected some of these machines, and pointed out an individual whose LRL was analyzed by Sandia Labs. What Carl and others proved is that there are individuals selling paraphanalia that has non-functional electronic circuits, and that the particular devices tested did not function as their manufacturers specified. I have heard no concrete explanations that prove the general principle of LRLs can't work.

Unlike Carl, you have focused your efforts on discrediting people who dare to have a different opinion than you. Apparently you have no interenst in learning what the LRL proponents have to say. This is of no concern to me. But in all your last lengthy post, I can't find any concise answers to the questions I asked, except the question about water dowsing, and it seems you are now saying you don't disagree that Dr. Bickel's machine can locate ore deposits.

I am still wondering what "scientific" facts you have to substantiate these opinions you have advanced. I have only two questions. I Am not looking for any more of your clever methods of mis-quoting me or non-answers in the form of more questions. I am loking only the answers to these 2 questions:

1. If you can offer some scientific evidence that water dowsing does not work, then let's hear it.

2. Can you offer any scientific evidence that LRL detection cannot work? Lets hear the science you have to prove it.

[hung]

Magnetohydrodynamics requires a conductive fluid, such as seawater, and really has nothing to do with whether water is a magnetic field concentrator.

???????????


There is a simple experiment to determine whether water is a magnetic field concentrator... simply wind an open-core inductor, and see if the value of the inductance changes when water is inserted as the core material. It does not.

Sure not. You are trying to replicate a huge and complex teluric phenomena inside the earth doing a small scale conversion. No way it will work. No one needs to use tap water in the above experiment to know it won't raise induction. This experiment does not prove anyting.
I say again, check magnetohydrodynamics and you will find the answer.
Also check gird pattern harmonic equations and how they relate to the earths magnetic lines and waterfalls.. You will find those in Bruce Cathie's books.

You see, many of the magnetic concepts taught in the school are wrong. If people are still not aware of the nulling point in the center of a bar magnet, then it's hard to discuss magnetism... But this is another story..

[J_Player]

I can agree that iron concentrates a magnetic field. I have seen evidence that it is true from simple experiments of placing a piece of iron in a field and watching a pattern of iron filings move due to the presence of the iron. But I have never seen this happen due to the presence of a body of water. If water concentrates a magnetic field, then I have never seen this demonstrated or taught in any school.

The principle of MHD concerns a charge moving through a magnetic field. If we have a stream of water that contain ions moving through a magnetic field, then the ions will interact with that field in a way that can be measured. Most ground water is not pure distilled water, but has some mineralization and some degree of ionization as a result. even if it is only a slight amount, when the water is moving through a magnetic field such as the earth's magnetic field, I would expect the ions in the water to to be influenced by the field, and perhaps influence the field at the same time. I can't imagine that the amount of charge or power in such a stream would be anywhere near as strong as man made MHD generators, but I would still have to agree that there is some MHD action happening at a much weaker level. In the case of natural occuring streams, underground or above, It seems that any movement of ions caused by the earth's magnetic field would be minimal, and hard to detect. Furthermore, the amount of MHD effect would be limited by the allignment of the stream in relation to the earth's magnetic field. Because there are both positive and negative ions moving in the field with no connecting wires to complete a circuit that would harness any of this weak power, I would expect the net effect to be nil. However, I wonder if there are local effects detectable within the stream that could be measured, for example the two sides of the steam becoming polarized with oppositely charged ions? Just a thought.

[Dell Winders]

According to the Science article I read years ago the earth's magnetic field "follows" even slightly moving water. It could very well be soluble chemical elements such as Iron in the water that causes this "appears as if" it's a magnetic field disturbance the water Dowser is sensitive to. Any number of theories might apply. I don't know. I have had very little experience locating water. Dell

[Elie]

Hey Elie,
You have made a really long post which seems like another example of your trying to prove that only you are right and those with a different opinion are wrong. You are repeating your "out of context" quote conerning what principle Dr. Bickel's machine works on. Again you cleverly fail to include the later part of my post where my final statement was

"All of what I described above is theory, and has no basis in fact, except the data that was collected by researchers, and the machine that the German scientist built on this principle, which can locate gold under the earth."

Rather than taking responsibility for your error you try to blame your misconstrued interpretations on me? "It is my fault"?
And at thae same time your are asserting you grasped what I said about my understanding of dowsing and a working long range locator? It seems to me that the point of your post is to prove that you ar right, and those whe have a differing opinion are wrong, using whatever means you can muster, including focusing on spelling errors. If your main point is that long range locators are hoaxes, I couldn't find it in your last post.

I agree that Carl is one of the best assets that the treasure hunters have anywhere on the internet. And I am also a skeptic when it comes to spending money for LRLs. But the funny thing is I have never seen anyone show that LRLs don't work with hard evidence except Carl who disected some of these machines, and pointed out an individual whose LRL was analyzed by Sandia Labs. What Carl and others proved is that there are individuals selling paraphanalia that has non-functional electronic circuits, and that the particular devices tested did not function as their manufacturers specified. I have heard no concrete explanations that prove the general principle of LRLs can't work.

Unlike Carl, you have focused your efforts on discrediting people who dare to have a different opinion than you. Apparently you have no interenst in learning what the LRL proponents have to say. This is of no concern to me. But in all your last lengthy post, I can't find any concise answers to the questions I asked, except the question about water dowsing, and it seems you are now saying you don't disagree that Dr. Bickel's machine can locate ore deposits.

I am still wondering what "scientific" facts you have to substantiate these opinions you have advanced. I have only two questions. I Am not looking for any more of your clever methods of mis-quoting me or non-answers in the form of more questions. I am loking only the answers to these 2 questions:

1. If you can offer some scientific evidence that water dowsing does not work, then let's hear it.

2. Can you offer any scientific evidence that LRL detection cannot work? Lets hear the science you have to prove it.
What is it with you and that one quote about Bickel? Forget that quote. What about the other quote?
"'According to Dr. Bickel, the dowsers are not (in his opinion) sensing gamma radiation directly, but the effects it has on a number of naturally occurring fields that can be sensed on the surface of the earth.'
This excerpt CLEARLY shows that your assertion that 'Neither I nor Dr. Bickel ever said dowsing worked on the same principle as his machine that detected mineral deposits' is FALSE."
And you wrote that I "continue to post out of context exerpts," but, despite my request, did not provide even ONE other example.
"It seems to me that the point of your post is to prove that you ar right, and those whe have a differing opinion are wrong, using whatever means you can muster, including focusing on spelling errors."
What should I try to show? That I am wrong? As for the ONE spelling error which I pointed out, if it really hurts your feelings that much that I pointed it out, then I will not do it again.
The evidence against against water dowsing is twofold:
Firstly, there is no scientific principle that I can think of which would make it possible. Also, Carl, who has made a thorough study of dowsing, and who has an extensive scientific background, has not come up with any such scientific principle.
Secondly, examining the claims made for water dowsing, I find that they are incredibly insane. For example, Dell, whom you respect greatly, wrote, "According to science, water is a strong concentrator of the earth's magnetic 'field.'"
The same thing goes for long range locators.
Carl on one of Dell's machines:
"In summary, the VR-800 is an extremely poor design with amateurish construction. The transmitter outputs a signal which radically changes with soil conditions and does not have the capacity to drive the signal to anywhere near the claimed distance of 1 mile. Even adding an output power amp and matching the output impedance to the ground will only result in signal transmitted for maybe tens of feet, not miles. The frequency setting is arbitrary and has no meaning. The Weight Chek unit is of similar poor design and does not even come close to doing what is claimed of it. The Magnetic Wave Guide Receiver is just a shorting switch and serves no apparent useful function. In the end, most, if not all, of the technical and performance claims of this unit are blatantly false."
I am tired of your immature, nonsensical arguments, on which I have wasted a great deal of time in response. If you make one more post in this vein, I will stop resonding to you.

[Dell Winders]

Elie, let me try to clarify.

DOWSING is classified within the;

NON- Scientific, estoric realm of META-PHYSICS. Meaning, that real Science has not yet determined how, or why DOWSING does, or might work.

META-PHYSICAL DOWSING, is considered to b a NON-technical, NON-Scientificly established subject.

THE SOURCE OF CONFUSION; Carl, has referred to the devices written about in his Scientific, technical engineering reports as being META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES.

With no Scientific criteria ever being established for determining NON-TECHNICAL META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES, the question arises how Carl, alone has made that determination and can factually, and truthfully proclaim the devices he writes his technical reports on are truly META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES? How do you write a factual scientific technical report on a NON-scientific, NON-technical subject?

With regard to the VR-800, you quoted, if it is indeed a NON-TECHNICAL, META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICE, as Carl, claims, then in order for it to work META-PHYSICLY. it would not even matter how it was made, or what the componnents were. Right?

For the record, I had nothing to do with the manufacturing of the VR-800. Their website is http://www.vernellelectronics.com (http://www.vernellelectronics.com/)

I hope this helps you to understand that META-PHYSICAL DOWSING is NOT a technical discussion. Dell

[J_Player]

Hey Elie,
Sorry you don't see a difference between sensing fields on the ground and sensing gamma waves. If you think they are the same I see no point in discussing it any further.

I am aware of Carl's excellent work in disecting several LRLs and reporting what he found. However this is not a scientific proof that the principle of LRLs cannot work. It is a proof that an individual is selling a poorly made electronic device that does not meet the specifications listed in the advertizing. I have little doubt that If I were to try to use this device I would probably detect nothing except gravity. I will never know until I try.

I asked you only two questions:

1. If you can offer some scientific evidence that water dowsing does not work, then let's hear it.
2. Can you offer any scientific evidence that LRL detection cannot work? Lets hear the science you have to prove it.

Your first answer is "..there is no scientific principle that I can think of which would make it possible", and "Carl... has not come up with any such scientific principle". This is your scientific proof? Guess what? I don't believe that is scientific proof.

I think there are a lot of geophysics that nobody has discovered the mechanics of yet. It seems to me that scientists are learning more details how the earth works every year. If I hadn't elaborated on how satellites are able to locate ore deposits from long distances, then would you have said "..there is no scientific principle that I can think of which would make it possible"? Would you have used that same logic to prove that the scintillators don't work either? Are you aware that there are other electronic methods to detect anomolies under the earth from long distances with repeatable results? Will you use the same logic for your "scientific proof" that other instruments in the satellites can't work?

Apparently there is no real scientific proof that a LRL couldn't work. All we have is circumstantial evidence, in that no LRL user is willing to demonstrate to us how to find gold with their LRL, and a number LRL machines disected by Carl and others which have circuitry that is not comprehensible as being functional to anyone familiar with electronics. This is evidence against the manufacturers of those particular devices. Not evidence against the theory that underground objects can be detected by sensing fields on the surface of the earth.

The underlying principle of sensing fields at the surface of the earth and detecting anomolies in these fields linked to underground objects has never been proven to be impossible. In fact there are a number of wholly electronmic devices that measure near earth-fields and are capable of mapping out an area without any user intervention. Are any of these fields measured on the surface linked to underground anomolies? I think so. There are instruments that measure anomolies and even running water from the surface. If someone were to build a hand-held LRL that could actually locate buried objects from a distance say 100 ft, with 80% repeatability regardless of any atmospheric conditions, then I would think they built a useful tool. So far I haven't seen anyone demonstrate such a machine. But I have a feeling it is only a matter of time till someone does. I suppose it is a matter of a lot more time before any such device would be able to discriminate what it located with any kind of accuracy.

For the record, I have respect for all the members of this forum whose main focus is not to discredit the people who they disagree with. I prefer to read the posts that show ideas to investigate rather than posts that only focus on the negative sarcasm. What Dell has that nobody else here has is years of experience, and the knowledge that goes with it. I have never seen him focus on any individual with the intent of derision. This is the same degree of respect that I find with most of the people who post in this forum. The fact is I don't agree with some of the science principles and references Dell quotes. But I still would like to see what his has to say about LRLs.

[J_Player]

I may have spoken too soon. I see Dell posted just before I made my post.

According to Dell, the apparently "defective" LRL devices require the use of personal metaphysical powers in order to function correctly. If this is the case, then maybe we scientifically minded people are not able to adequately test or use these devices. It seems to me that these devices are only usefuul to people who have special metaphysical powers, and cannot be depended on by an average consumer who wants to buy one to locate treasures. Only those people who have developed matabhysical abilities would have success with them as I understand it. I guess that leaves me out.

From here on in my discussions of LRL will pertain only to those devices that work on geophysical properties and measuring techniques. It would be very helpful if Dell could give us a list of those LRL detectors that require metaphysical abilities and those that can be used by average people with no special metaphysical abilities. Can you help us out Dell?

[Elie]

Elie, let me try to clarify.

DOWSING is classified within the;

NON- Scientific, estoric realm of META-PHYSICS. Meaning, that real Science has not yet determined how, or why DOWSING does, or might work.

META-PHYSICAL DOWSING, is considered to b a NON-technical, NON-Scientificly established subject.

THE SOURCE OF CONFUSION; Carl, has referred to the devices written about in his Scientific, technical engineering reports as being META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES.

With no Scientific criteria ever being established for determining NON-TECHNICAL META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES, the question arises how Carl, alone has made that determination and can factually, and truthfully proclaim the devices he writes his technical reports on are truly META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES? How do you write a factual scientific technical report on a NON-scientific, NON-technical subject?

With regard to the VR-800, you quoted, if it is indeed a NON-TECHNICAL, META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICE, as Carl, claims, then in order for it to work META-PHYSICLY. it would not even matter how it was made, or what the componnents were. Right?

For the record, I had nothing to do with the manufacturing of the VR-800. Their website is http://www.vernellelectronics.com (http://www.vernellelectronics.com/)

I hope this helps you to understand that META-PHYSICAL DOWSING is NOT a technical discussion. Dell
"Polka dots" is not a refutation of the argument "Stripes are evil."
I did not write that you manufactured it, and it does not really matter who manufactured it. YOU SOLD IT.
As for your claim that dowsing is metaphysical, fine.
Dowsing is a METAPHYSICAL method of finding METAPHYSICAL treasure.

[Esteban]

"I know very well that many scientists consider dowsing as they do astrology, as a type of ancient superstition. According to my conviction this is, however, unjustified. The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time."


Albert Einstein

[J_Player]

I have a question for Dell:

Are all the LRLs that you have experience with classed as meta-physical devices? Or are there some that are purely geophysical? If so, which ones are geophysical and don't require any meta-physical techniques?

Thanks in advance

[J_Player]

That's an interesting quote, Esteban.

Dr. Bickel told me that he knew Einstein when he was studying astrophysics at the university. The quote by Einstein is consistent with what Dr. Bickel told me about his understanding of dowsing.

[Carl-NC]

I say again, check magnetohydrodynamics and you will find the answer.

Magnetohydrodynamics has nothing to do with the medium (water) being a strong concentrator of magnetic fields. MHD was part of a graduate Emag course I took in college.

Also check gird pattern harmonic equations and how they relate to the earths magnetic lines and waterfalls.. You will find those in Bruce Cathie's books.

This got me all curious and such, as I've never heard of Cathie, so I looked him up. I found not only has he constructed a rather bizzarre alternate science to call his own, but that he also quoted:

"One of the most startling facts that I discovered by application of grid mathematics was that an atomic bomb is a device based on the geometrics of space and time. To be successfully detonated, the bomb MUST be geometrically constructed, placed on, under, or over a geometric position in relation to the Earth’s surface, and activated at a SPECIFIC TIME in relation to the geometrics of the solar system. I found that it was possible to precalculate the time of various bomb tests, and the locations where it was possible to explode a bomb.......I realised that an all-out atomic war was an impossibility. Both sides could precalculate well in advance the time and positions of atomic attack. Plus the fact that only certain geometric locations could be detonated anyhow. A logical war cannot be considered under these circumstances. This could be the explanation for the proliferation of conventional weapons in modern warfare."----Bruce Cathie

This level of ignorance is rather scary.

You see, many of the magnetic concepts taught in the school are wrong.

Errrr.... all of science is wrong, and Cathie is right? Really? Are you serious?

- Carl

[Esteban]

J Player

Einstein had reason or not? This is my question: why his mind is opened to unexplained or controversial theories and our minds is closed?:)

[Jim]

"I know very well that many scientists consider dowsing as they do astrology, as a type of ancient superstition. According to my conviction this is, however, unjustified. The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time."


Albert Einstein



Esteban,
I have looked all over the internet, and have not been able to find where the above quote originated from. Could you be so kind as to let us know just when, and where Albert Einstein made this quote?



Thanks in advance, Jim

[Carl-NC]

I know very well that many scientists consider dowsing as they do astrology, as a type of ancient superstition. According to my conviction this is, however, unjustified. The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time. That the same circumstances can bring forth nervous difficulties in breathing appears entirely plausible. However, I do not think there is any connection with the occurrence of cancer. This latter connection, if true, would not be easy to prove with supporting statistics. -- A. Einstein


Einstein was not involved in dowsing. He had been asked if dowsing might have caused someone's cancer. Taken out-of-context, as it usually is, it might appear as if Einstein had an interest in dowsing.

His statement--The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time--was, in fact, incorrect, as the factors that control dowsing were known almost 100 years prior to his letter. But, I would not expect him to know that, unless he had studied the practice.

- Carl

[Dell Winders]

THE SOURCE OF CONFUSION; Carl, has referred to the devices written about in his Scientific, technical engineering reports as being META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES. Dell

Let me make it clear, I have NEVER claimed, or believed for a moment, that any electronic configurations, and even some non-electronic configurations can be used effeciently as a Meta-Physical Dowsing tool. A simple needle & thread is suffice to me for that purpose.

I clearly stated that it is Carl Morland, who is claiming in his scientific reports the LRL's he has disected are Meta-Physics Dowsing devices. It is a Skeptic cult mentality. Start your argument with Carl, if you wish. Dell

[Dell Winders]

Einstein was not involved in dowsing. He had been asked if dowsing might have caused someone's cancer. Taken out-of-context, as it usually is, it might appear as if Einstein had an interest in dowsing.

His statement--The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time--was, in fact, incorrect, as the factors that control dowsing were known almost 100 years prior to his letter. But, I would not expect him to know that, unless he had studied the practice.

Carl, are you saying Einstein, was incorrect as being your personal opinion based on assumption, or is there a basis in fact? It seems to me that we are still questioning the intracacies that make meta-physics dowsing work, or not work. I didn't know that modern Science had proclaimed a decisive clear cut explanation.

If that is what Einstein, actually stated, my experience with meta-physics Dowsing concurs with his correctness. I have no problem with the addition of "Ideomoter response" to the equation. Dell

[J_Player]

Hey Dell,

I don't have an argument about meta-physical dowsing tools or purerly geophysical tools. I only want to know which are which, in your opiinion. I have never had any success with the metaphysical tools so far, so I want to see what you consider to be the best of the geophysical tools. I am not looking for an argument, just the facts. Can you help?

Thanks, J_P

[J_Player]

Hi Carl,
Thanks for posting the rest of Einstein's quote.

I wonder why he made that incorrect statement. Do you suppose he just didn't know the accepted theory of the factors that cause the nervous system to react? Or do you suppose he considered the consensus of what these factors were to be incorrect, thinking that there must be a better explation still unknown to him?

[Carl-NC]

Carl, are you saying Einstein, was incorrect as being your personal opinion based on assumption, or is there a basis in fact? It seems to me that we are still questioning the intracacies that make meta-physics dowsing work, or not work. I didn't know that modern Science had proclaimed a decisive clear cut explanation.

If that is what Einstein, actually stated, my experience with meta-physics Dowsing concurs with his correctness. I have no problem with the addition of "Ideomoter response" to the equation. Dell

I doubt Einstein had any dealings with dowsing, and probably was not aware of prior research. I'm just pointing out that there is more to the popular quote than dowsers would like us to know, and when taken in it's proper context, really says nothing. And, as I recall, there have been wholly fabricated quotes as well... I recall one that went something like, "Dowsing is an established scientific fact" -- Einstein.

I'm not even sure why anyone would quote Einstein, or anyone else for that matter, in attempting to support dowsing, or anything else for that matter. The mechanics of our natural world do not operate according to anyone's authority. Newton was not the final word on gravity, and Einstein may not be, either.

One of my all-time favorite quotes is, in fact, from Einstein:

"There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." - Albert Einstein, 1932.

I like it, because it shows just how wrong a prominent scientist can be, and how science builds upon itself and self-corrects towards higher accuracy.

- Carl

[Alexismex]

Hello Forum,
I respond to your question...For the geophysical detector, I can give my own experience with a very good GPR , the Ramac/x3M
http://www.malags.com/ (http://www.malags.com)with antenna shielded of 250MHz , it is easy to use, to learn also because it is very "friendly", in about 10 hours of use you know with a good precision what you "see" underground , deep from zero meters to about six meters in a very bad clay soil (electrical conductor) here in our region of Mexico (Guanajuato).
you have a good definition with 250 MHZ you can see easily a one foot target with the Ramac .
We have discovered in old Hacienda ;tunnel, human bones,etc... but at this time ,not the big treasure........the more important is the investigating part , old maps, old documents, etc.... without this, you can work with the gpr without result : it is so extending the search you need many lifes!!!!!
For the precision it is very good , for exemple we see a target at two meters and the reality is + - 20centimenters when it is well calibrated.
For the kind of your target , more you search ,more you know why it is , but when you encounter for exemple a tunnel 4 meters deeps , you never forget your enjoy , you never forget the signature because you have your search image in memory , you can analyse in your home after .
If you have some field target , your practice a little to know when it is a good target , a metallic target...OK
For the weight it is not the old apparatus of ton of stuff and cable,no ,it is light and very easy to move with the wheels in the field also with rocks etc... no problem , you must clear sometimes the place when you have many rocks because it is very important for the coil to close to the soil ....two inch max.
We enjoy the gpr technology , you need time , historic infos, maps etc...to discover "the treasure of your dream".....we hope one day....
have a good time ,
Alex.

[Dell Winders]

The problem appears that folks anymore can't seem to envision a tool as being multi-purpose. Heck, I use my favorite meta-physics Dowsing tool, a needle & thread to sometimes make locations on a map or photo of targets thousands of miles from where I am. I've used it to stich wounds, pick splinters, sew clothing, and sweeten water melons.

I use L-Rods for mental Dowsing (meta-physics), physical Dowsing (applied to physics) they work just as good for metering the SOF above the earth as my electronic meter does. I use L-rods to meter and trace natural, and generated harmonic signal lines to their sources, stick a rod in the ground as a marker, tape a magnet on the end and retrieve fastners dropped in tight places, and they are great for unclogging the scuppers on my boat.

I can't advise on the best geophysical tool to use. It all depends on the circumstances, the target, and the tool's limitations.

In conducting my own geophysical survey's, I don't leave home before mentally dowsing an aerial photo of the area to determine the starting points for my search.

On site, I start my search with a Frequency Discriminator, and a directional locator as the fastest method of obtaining preliminary geological information about the area and plot potential targets. If the preliminary data shows possible targets, and feasibility for recovery, then I will use conventional Geophysical instruments to try to obtain graphic imaging to confirm my locations and provide more data.

I posted the Conneticut newspaper article to demonstrate documented, Professional use and effeciency of utilizing these methods in combination.

But the bottom line is, all of these methods and instruments are only going to be as good as the knowledge and experience of the persons operating them. It's up to the person, whether they want to take the time and expense to gain the experience to learn for themselves, or hire a knowledgeable Professional with field experience. Either way there are financial risks, and critics. I know! For the money I have spent for my practical field education, I could have been a scientist, or an electronics engineer, several times . Dell

[Elie]

As a gesture of civility (see the other thread), I am posting a link related to my previous statement about water dowsing:
"Firstly, there is no scientific principle that I can think of which would make it possible. Also, Carl, who has made a thorough study of dowsing, and who has an extensive scientific background, has not come up with any such scientific principle."

http://www.thunting.com/cgi-bin/geotech/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=/info/question.dat

This report, with its list of sources at the end, should suffice for anyone who is interested in the scientific evidence against water dowsing (and other kinds of dowsing and "long range locating"), and if they are not convinced, then they can perform their own tests, as outlined in the article.

[J_Player]

Interesting post Carl,

It reminds me that the physical laws are what they are, regardless of what anyone has to say about them.

In fact all of our understanding of the physical universe is based on theories of energy and matter. Even the electronics experts work with circuitry based on electron theory. As we learn more, the theories seem to keep changing and adapting to our newer understanding. I doubt that even 100 years from now any person will have a definitive unmutable knowledge of the laws of physics, only a different interpretation.

[Carl-NC]

According to Dell, the apparently "defective" LRL devices require the use of personal metaphysical powers in order to function correctly. If this is the case, then maybe we scientifically minded people are not able to adequately test or use these devices. It seems to me that these devices are only usefuul to people who have special metaphysical powers, and cannot be depended on by an average consumer who wants to buy one to locate treasures. Only those people who have developed matabhysical abilities would have success with them as I understand it. I guess that leaves me out.

In my $25,000 LRL challenge, an average Joe who fails the test will surely bring about the excuse that they didn't have the necessary skills to use the device. That's why I try to focus on the LRL manufacturer, with them running the LRL in the test--who is more qualified than them to run the device?

So do LRL manufacturers have whatever abilities are necessary to demonstrate their own device, in an objective, randomized blind test? So far, no.

- Carl

[FrancoItaly]

HI All

I think there is not doubt that dowsing is a real phenomenon, in all countries many persons can find water by dowsing, in many universities it’s a matter of study. I personally have experienced the dowsing’ reaction in open fields with electric and magnetic generators of various frequencies. It’s not a scientific argument to refuse evidence only why there is no scientific proof…

[Dell Winders]

Carl, the J player post has already been replied to, and the answer is it requires no special gifts, or talents from God to operate an LRL, unless you are attempting to use it in a manner beyond it's limitations or which it was not intended. What's your point in bringing it up again?

If you were really interested in doing scientific research, I've told you that I would serve as the operator/ consultant of any type of LRL, or field tests you wish to conduct, for a fee and expenses . When are you ready? Dell

[hung]

Magnetohydrodynamics has nothing to do with the medium (water) being a strong concentrator of magnetic fields. MHD was part of a graduate Emag course I took in college.

Maybe you need update some new facts/knowledge?



This got me all curious and such, as I've never heard of Cathie, so I looked him up.

I knew you did not know him, you see, you seem to be locked inside orthodox science. This science is not interested in releasing new findings due to causes I will not coment here.
Orthodox science stated that dragons did not exist.
If you are aware of current scientific discoveries wich I doubt now since you knew nothing about Cathie, you are aware of this discovery.
If a scientist was to only operate at school level, almost no inventions would be made. You seem to be one of those estabilishment's favorite 'agents' who they use to avoid spreading of discoveries which literally destroys previous believed scientific facts. And the rediscovery of the truth now happens almost everyday despite of that.

This level of ignorance is rather scary.

It's amazing how right this sentence sometimes applies to science I refered above...



Errrr.... all of science is wrong, and Cathie is right? Really? Are you serious?

I'm serious when I say 'real science' knows that Cathie, an ex-Australian Air Force officer who was able to map the world grid patterns through harmonic mathematics is of extremely value to them to the point of not being good for this kind of knowlegde be divulged.

Cathie has several books written, most about the world grid and his equations which determine the magnetic lines of earth. It was a huge contribution in geophysics and advanced eletromag.

Please before saying the kind of things you said above, AT LEAST, read one of his books and try to understand his equations.

For this, I'd rather be here discussing with you if the Mineoro detector works or not....

[hung]

ex-Australian Air Force officer


Sorry, should read 'ex-New Zealand Air Force Offier'

[hung]

Sorry, should read 'ex-New Zealand Air Force Offier'

Appologies again. 'ex-New Zealand comercial pilot'... For some reason I had air force officer in my mind...

[hung]

And for those who still think that water can't be magnetized.

Read bellow and think what effect could the magnetic field of the earth have on 'nature's' water... Duhh..

Magnetized Water

Some decades ago, Russian scientists faced a major industrial problem. When water flows through pipelines of a boiler or an engine machinery, some deposits from the water cling to the walls of the pipes. Over time, the lumen becomes narrower and the delivery of water to the machinery is reduced. The efficiency, fuel consumption and mechanical strength of the machine is therefore reduced.

While researching on this problem, scientists noticed that such undesirable deposits did not occur in those pipes with water that was magnetized. This started the magnetization of water for industrial use in countries where water source is less than desirable

Scientists became highly interested in studying magnetism. Water is a transparent fluid that has no color, odor, shape or taste of its own. It takes the shape of its container and the color, odor and taste of other things mixed with it. It is a near-universal solvent. It has the property of being able to assimilate the properties of other things. Researchers found when a permanent magnet is kept in contact with water for a considerable time; the water gets magnetically charged and acquires magnetic properties. Such magnetized water has its effect even on the human body when taken internally and regularly for a considerable period.

[J_Player]

Hi Hung,

That's an interesting post you made about water aquiring magnetic properties. I would like to see what magnetic properties the researchers measured in water, but I can't find the source of this information. Can you tell me who did this research and published their findings?

Thanks in advance

[Qiaozhi]

Anyone who thinks that water is a strong concentrator of magnetic fields should read this -> http://www.chem1.com/CQ/magscams.html

[Carl-NC]

Hung,

Magnetic water treatment has been thoroughly researched, and found to be completely bogus. See http://www.chem1.com/CQ/magscams.html. Magnets also do not improve gas mileage, nor do they clean injectors. This is all classic pseudoscience, propagated by folks who make money off of it.

Around here, you'll make a far better argument if you stick with demostrable science, and avoid referring to claims that have already been thoroughly debunked by others.

- Carl

Ooops.... I see while I was typing, Q beat me to the link.

[J_Player]

Thanks Qiaozhi and Carl.

I am familiar with these magnets that are attached to pipes. There are some industries who use them because they feel they get less scale buildup in their piping. But the reports are pretty inconclusive about how good a job they do.

I found another website article written by a chemical engineer that shows reference to the actual research that was done. Apparently a few reseachers found measurable changes in the surface charge of disolved minerals in a stream of water passing through pipes in a magnetic field. Measured results were often inconsistent, but a few did measure changes in the way hard water salts behaved in a stream. NONE OF THE RESEARCHERS REPORTED THAT THE WATER AQUIRED ANY MAGNETIC PROPERTIES. At best, a few reported changes in electric charge properties of dissolved minerals. There are many tests referenced that show embarrassing results for the manufacturers of these magnets.

Check this link: http://www.heall.com/healingnews/may/magnetic_treatment.html

[J_Player]

Hi Dell,

It is true you have replied to my post. But you never answered the question. I asked which LRL devices require the use of met-physical abilities and which don't? Your reply was:

"I can't advise on the best geophysical tool to use. It all depends on the circumstances, the target, and the tool's limitations".

This reply does not answer the question of which LRL devices do not require meta-physical abilities.

The reason I asked you is because of the long years of experience you talked about and first-hand knowledge. I don't believe anyone else is qualified to provide the facts as well as you are. I am not asking what limitations these devices have or what application they are best suited. I am only asking what LRL devices don't require the use of meta-physical abilities.

I am asking for a list of makes and models of LRLs that fall in that category. Can you help?

Thanks in advance

[Dell Winders]

I'm sorry, JP this is the post I was replying to which I wrongly interpreted as meaning All Geophysical tools which would include EM, GRM, GPR, SP, metal detectors, etc.

Hey Dell,
I don't have an argument about meta-physical dowsing tools or purerly geophysical tools. I only want to know which are which, in your opiinion. I have never had any success with the metaphysical tools so far, so I want to see what you consider to be the best of the geophysical tools. I am not looking for an argument, just the facts. Can you help?



http://treasureamerica.netfirms.com/phpbb/xx/gallery/data/503/LRL_tested.jpg

This photo is of the LRL's that members of the TA team, and myself, test compared on a potential Treasure site in Kentucky. One is an Anderson Dowsing Rod, but it is constructed of Physical Elements, and therefore it, and all the other so called LRL tools in the photo are subject to the laws of physics, known and unknown, and must conform accordingly, when they are applied to interact within those laws. Least, if that were not true, they would not work at all. I would not be testing and using them, and there would be no discussion on this subject.

On the other hand, with several of the tools in the photo, you can also use as a Mental Dowsing tool (meta-Physics) and exclude the application of external physics, merely by using the muscles in the hands and arms to override and physically control any interactions that might cause reaction as a result of any external forces., electrical, magnetic, radio waves, gamma, wind, motion, etc, etc.

Some folks, not all, might use some of the same physical tools in their mental practice of meta-physics. It's a matter of personal choice as to how you apply these physical tools, whether as a method of visually metering internal meta-physics, or visually metering external physics, or you can combine the methods. Your application, your choice.

Your question, which in my opinion, is the best LRL for geophysical use?

I'll repeat myself by saying, any of these products are only going to be as successful in their use as the knowledge, and experience of the operator.

Personally, If I knew of any LRL manufactured , regardless of price, that are more profecient than the ones I build for myself, I would definitely be using theirs for conducting all my preliminary Geophysical surveys. My own simple homemade LRL's make the the same target locations, and have practical
features that are not included in LRL's priced more than 10 times as much.

Most any one can build their own simple Frequency discriminator, with little cost. Learning to use, and correctly interpret the reactions of the Rods does require practice.

If it is any help to Geotech viewers, I have posted my own basic instructions for using the Rods with an LRL on my website,
LINK:http://treasureamerica.netfirms.com/phpbb/xx/nfphpbb/viewtopic.php?t=286

JP, I hope I got it right this time. Dell

[J_Player]

Dang....!

That's a cool looking collection of tools. Can you tell us what makes and models of tools those are?

As I understand, the use of many of these tools is enhanced by mental dowsing (meta-physics). I have never been able to obtain results using mental dowsing or physical dowsing. Which of these tools would I be able to use and still get adequate results?

I found plans for a low cost frequency discriminator in the dowsing section of Carl's main page. Will his design work ok for practicing to see if I can develop dowsing skills? And will his basic dowsing rod design work ok too?

Thanks for the great post, Dell,

[hung]

Unfortunately we got to the point of empty discussions and not getting anywhere as long as the proclaimers of 'real science' keep insisting on citing the lack of scientific basis to confirm a phenomena.

For me it will be a waste of time and I'd rather quit this discussion from my part as I said will not take anybody to anywhere. If the purpose of this forum is to share knowledge, it will be impossible then to be acomplished since regular and orthodox science fails badly in explaining most phenomena. That's why I took off from it about twelve years ago.
Sorry.
But before I go, I would like to present some links bellow which describe and shows the 'Hutchison Effect', which I and an american physicist researched some time ago. I won't mention his name tough. There are more links , even a complete video which shows metal and wood fusing into one...
This is a classic example how 'real science' is destroyed completely when it faces an experiment which defies the laws of physics. KNOWN PHYSICS should I say.
As this effect was not not understood using regular physics, the researchers had to trail another path, another 'type of physics' , (the 'pseudo physics' ...) to explain this and only when they did it, they are starting to understand, altough the phenomena is not reproduceable in a regular basis.
This effect among other tings, will levitate any heavy iron or whatever object as it was a piece of paper. Also will fuse any material into another eg. wood in iron or steel...

So as you are about to see, keeping the discussion of LRL locating, dowsing, etc. 'locked' inside orthodox science is meaningless and a waste of time.
Best regards to all.
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8863/HEffect1.html

http://www.americanantigravity.com/hutchison.html

[J_Player]

Hmmm...
A new science that causes the "jellification of metals" and "spontaneous levitation of common substances" by using high voltage sources, usually a Van de Graff generator, and two or more Tesla coils.

This is amazing! I wonder if it could be used to improve a LRL?

[hung]

...And this is what I mean when I say 'estabilishment's favorite agents' above in my previous post...

http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8863/index.html#UPDATE

Now you know why those kind of discoveries are always put 'under the carpet'...

The choice is yours. Either wake up or .. keep on sleeping...

Just a final remark.

[Dell Winders]

Unfortunately we got to the point of empty discussions and not getting anywhere as long as the proclaimers of 'real science' keep insisting on citing the lack of scientific basis to confirm a phenomena.

My sentiments also. Some folks just want to argue about anything that is in conflict with their belief system. For those folks that believe they already know everything there is nothing more to learn. Sad, but no doubt there are also Scientific pretenders.
http://treasureamerica.netfirms.com/phpbb/xx/gallery/data/503/medium/levitation.jpg

[J_Player]

Hey Dell,
Thats an interesting picture. Is he causing that magnet to float in mid air with his fingers alone, or is there another magnet involved?

[Esteban]

More deviation. Themes don't ends.

Cooking coins and nuts:D :D :D


http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/indheat.html

[Dell Winders]

Hey Dell,
Thats an interesting picture. Is he causing that magnet to float in mid air with his fingers alone, or is there another magnet involved?
According to the article, an electromagnet is located 2.5 meters above.

"Scientists have now shown that forces from everyday materials---wood, plants, even a person's fingers---can help levitate small magnets placed in a magnetic field, causing them to hover motionless in space.

Physcist's had never before acheived stationary levitation without using superconductors. A 157 year-old theorm stipulates that no arrangement of magnets can make them stay in a stable equilibrium."

Although not directly related, about 12 years ago, I was visited by two Scientist, one from France, and the other from Canada, who had an Independent test laboratory in Canada. They showed me a video of a two foot aluminum model Ferris wheel with strategically placed magnetics. The wheel appeared to be operating contininously on it's own generated power with out any attached conventional power source. They had a belt driven windmill connecting to the wheel which demonstrated that the wheel produced more energy than it consumed. (perpetual motion?)

For whatever it is worth to anyone, The Scientist informed me that there was a yet untapped energy source that lies between electricity, and static electricity. Food for thought? Dell

[hung]

For whatever it is worth to anyone, The Scientist informed me that there was a yet untapped energy source that lies between electricity, and static electricity. Food for thought? Dell

One aspect of Vector Zero Energy.
Tesla built transmitters which tapped this vector back in 1943 for the 'Philadelphia Experiment'.

[J_Player]

Interesting, Dell,
If there is an electromagnet above, and there is no trick photography involved, then this is a demonstration of diamagnetic properties in the guys fingers. The properties of common wood, plants and a person's fingers have never been shown to develop magnetic properties that can attract a piece of iron. But they can demonstrate weak diamanetic properties under certain conditions. I would think that if his fingers play a role in what we are looking at in the picture, they are acting against the magnetic field. That is to say, his fingers are not drawing the little magnet up in the air, but acting against the magnetic field to keep the magnet from "losing it's balance" so to speak.

I speculated a little on the concept of water streams ionizing and even possibly having polarized local effects in an earlier post. But these are in minute amounts that are hard to measure. This is because we are talking about weak forces that work on a molecular level. The same is true of any diamagnetic properties to be found in non-magnetic materials. If this picture you posted is not a stop-action photo, then that little magnet and the man's hand are in a VERY strong magnetic field. Otherwise we should expect the magnet to either swing up to try to attach to the electromagnet, or fall down away from it.

This is why I question any diamagnetic fields having a measurable effect on LRLs or dowsing. Because, with the exception of superconductors, the diamagnetic properties of non-magnetic materials is so weak that you would have to use a magnetic field hundreds of times stronger than the earth's magnetic field to detect any sizable force. Keep in mind that there is a big difference between diamagnetic properties and magnetic properties. We are talking about a property that repels a magnetic field, not a property that will cling to iron filings.

Very interesting photo.

[Dell Winders]

I have heard that there is a variety of different types of Magnetic "fields" so apparently one type of application would not fit all, or result with the same effects.

The repelling force that seems to affect the LRL Rod(s) appears "As If" it is more magnetic, than electrical. In that context, I built an experimental magnetic/harmonics prototype based on a theory I developed in the field study of MFD, of what I think could be classified as a method of Magnetic ressonance.

The DB field test results and development potential seem almost magical to my limited ability of fully understanding the physics that are being employed. The use of Remote sensing Discrimination in my Treasure Searches continues to be a great learning experience for me. Dell

[hung]

The repelling force that seems to affect the LRL Rod(s) appears "As If" it is more magnetic, than electrical. In that context, I built an experimental magnetic/harmonics prototype based on a theory I developed in the field study of MFD, of what I think could be classified as a method of Magnetic ressonance.


This is the principle in which the Rangertell Examiner works. Resonance to the elements subatomic levels when a carrier signal line is shot and returned.

[J_Player]

Hi Dell,
If there is a magnetic repelling force strong enough to move the weight of a LRL rod, then that magnetic field in the vicinity of the rod can be easily measured with a simple fluxgate sensor. You are talking about force from a magnetic field stronger than the earth's magnetic field. By testing with a standard fluxgate sensor you could easily verify whether it is indeed a magnetic field moving the LRL rod. However, the rods would have to be made of some material that is influenced by a magnet in order for this magnetic force to move it. The exception is if the rod is held in the operator's hand, where the force moving the rod might come from the operator rather than a magnetic field pushing the rod aside.

It is hard to imagine that the force moving the rod is caused by a diamagnetic field. A diamagnetic force can be felt by magnetic materials only when they are in close proximity to the substance exerting the diamagnetic force. In addition, both the magnetic sensor and the diamagnetic material sensed must be in a VERY strong secondary magnetic field, several hundred times stronger than the earth's magnetic field. This is to say that the sensor for a diamagnetic field will not feel any force acting on it until it is within less than an inch of the diamagnetic material it is searching for and there is also a huge magnetic field induced through both the sensor and the diamagnetic material. If the force of a diamagnetic material is to be felt over a distance of several feet, we would need to be enveloped in a magnetic field millions of times stronger than the earth's magnetic field. Such a field would be certainly strong enough to up-root every magnetic object and debris from the ground in the vicinity as well as all the magnetic materials worn or carried on the experimenters.

If your experimental prototype is classified as a magnetic resonance sensor, then it is by its classification measuring the magnetic properties of the nucleus of atoms. Magnetic resonance is used in industry to obtain physical, chemical, electronic and structural information about a molecule, and is also well-known in the medical field for generating MRI images. The magnetic resonant sensors in these machines generaly require huge magnetic field generating equipment and special shielding at the sample. If you built a prototype that can be carried in a person's hand, I would be most interested to learn more about it.

[Dell Winders]

I've seen a lot of different principles and theories advanced by LRL manufacturers, and users, over the past 25 years but in my own use and testing of these products I have evidenced no variation in the physics, just differences of opinion, and mis-leading advertising ploys.

In the final analysis, we all might be wrong. Dell

[J_Player]

Well, Dell,
Can you think of any reason why the advertizer of a LRL would not tell the consumer that the user must use meta-physical skills in order for the machine to function?

I noticed on your products page you come close to that by telling the consumer to do a simple experiment with home-made dowsing rods before deciding to buy.

But most LRL advertizing says nothing about the user needing to have dowsing abilities or meta-physical knowledge in order for the machines to work. I have read posts by a number of people who say they bought different LRLs and can't get them to work. None of the manufacturers seem to provide any test demonstrations before they buy, and they don't generally give refunds, from what I heard.

Do you know why most don't do business like the average conventional metal detector shops?

[Dell Winders]

Can you think of any reason why the advertizer of a LRL would not tell the consumer that the user must use meta-physical skills in order for the machine to function? Perhaps I am not understanding the logic of your question? If the LRL was not intended, or designed to be operated as a Mental Dowsing tool, I would not understand why the advertiser would lie by telling the consumer it was a mental Dowsing tool? That doesn't make sense.

I noticed on your products page you come close to that by telling the consumer to do a simple experiment with home-made dowsing rods before deciding to buy.
No not at all. A "Field" is generated by the water running through the hose, or an electric current running through a wire to a an operating appliance. With out travelling, and little expense a consumer can test for themself if they will have any problem with the Rods reacting to the "field" of a frequency generated LRL Signal line.

It's pretty straight forward. there is no mental programming or concentrated thought goes into this exercise. The rods will either react as they walk across the running water hose, or power cord, or they won't. I want folks to understand the limitations, before they decide to buy. I try to share my own experience, if it will help folks learn to use their LRL nore effeciently. It doesn't matter to me what manufacturer, or who they purchased their LRL from. So by definition, it is a dowsing exercise, but an exercise in physics, NOT meta-physics.

Although I created the term "Physical Dowsing" to distinguish and catergorize the results of tests conducted on thousands of people during my field research, I consider "Physical" or "physics" when assosciated with the word "Dowsing" to be some what mis-leading.

I use the term "Physical" to make a distinction between two different aspects, incorporated into the broad definition and general description of "Dowsing" which encompasses ANY method where Rod(s) or pendulums are used, whether for the practice of Meta-Physics, or the utilization of physics, or both. The parameters that would clearly define Dowsing, have not been established.

But most LRL advertizing says nothing about the user needing to have dowsing abilities or meta-physical knowledge in order for the machines to work. I have read posts by a number of people who say they bought different LRLs and can't get them to work. None of the manufacturers seem to provide any test demonstrations before they buy, and they don't generally give refunds, from what I heard.

Do you know why most don't do business like the average conventional metal detector shops? I can't speak for other manufacturers, only myself. Dell

[Dell Winders]

Sorry, I missed this post on the previous page.


Hi Dell,
If there is a magnetic repelling force strong enough to move the weight of a LRL rod, then that magnetic field in the vicinity of the rod can be easily measured with a simple fluxgate sensor. You are talking about force from a magnetic field stronger than the earth's magnetic field. By testing with a standard fluxgate sensor you could easily verify whether it is indeed a magnetic field moving the LRL rod. However, the rods would have to be made of some material that is influenced by a magnet in order for this magnetic force to move it. The exception is if the rod is held in the operator's hand, where the force moving the rod might come from the operator rather than a magnetic field pushing the rod aside.
I have never tried a fluxgate sensor.

The exception has been considered, but it is the less likely occurence. The power of the broadcast transmitter can be regulated, as well as the sensitivity of the receiver Rod, expanding, or reducing the detectable size of the "target field".

Under optimum operating conditions, I can "Feel" the strength of the target "Field" repel against the Rod. I have traced to the location of test targets from 60 feet away while blindfolded.

It is hard to imagine that the force moving the rod is caused by a diamagnetic field. A diamagnetic force can be felt by magnetic materials only when they are in close proximity to the substance exerting the diamagnetic force. In addition, both the magnetic sensor and the diamagnetic material sensed must be in a VERY strong secondary magnetic field, several hundred times stronger than the earth's magnetic field. This is to say that the sensor for a diamagnetic field will not feel any force acting on it until it is within less than an inch of the diamagnetic material it is searching for and there is also a huge magnetic field induced through both the sensor and the diamagnetic material. If the force of a diamagnetic material is to be felt over a distance of several feet, we would need to be enveloped in a magnetic field millions of times stronger than the earth's magnetic field. Such a field would be certainly strong enough to up-root every magnetic object and debris from the ground in the vicinity as well as all the magnetic materials worn or carried on the experimenters. I don't know. I have never been dis-advantaged by knowing what cannot be done.

If your experimental prototype is classified as a magnetic resonance sensor, then it is by its classification measuring the magnetic properties of the nucleus of atoms. Magnetic resonance is used in industry to obtain physical, chemical, electronic and structural information about a molecule, and is also well-known in the medical field for generating MRI images. The magnetic resonant sensors in these machines generaly require huge magnetic field generating equipment and special shielding at the sample. If you built a prototype that can be carried in a person's hand, I would be most interested to learn more about it. Again, I don't know. A natural form of Magnetic Resonance is merely a guess. It's an experiment based on a theory so simple the test results amaze me. I wish I had time to devote to more experiments with it. Dell

[Elie]

The deal with the fingers is more balderdash. The fingers are not magnetic; they are diamagnetic. The fingers do not levitate the object; they stabilize it. Someone using a metal detector does not sense metal himself (through the metal detector into his arms, for example). He is able to find metal because he hears the metal detector beep.
Saying that someone can sense something with a dowsing rod or long range locator (because of some property of the human body) is like saying that the fingers are levitating the object. If something is suspended between two magnets and it starts moving toward one, it is, AMAZINGLY enough, possible to stop the object from going toward the magnet by putting your hand in the way. If the object then remains stationary, it does not mean that your hand is levitating it. It means the the property of solidity of your hand keeps the object from moving toward the magnet.

[Dell Winders]

The deal with the fingers is more balderdash. The fingers are not magnetic; they are diamagnetic. The fingers do not levitate the object; they stabilize it. Someone using a metal detector does not sense metal himself (through the metal detector into his arms, for example). He is able to find metal because he hears the metal detector beep.
Saying that someone can sense something with a dowsing rod or long range locator (because of some property of the human body) is like saying that the fingers are levitating the object. If something is suspended between two magnets and it starts moving toward one, it is, AMAZINGLY enough, possible to stop the object from going toward the magnet by putting your hand in the way. If the object then remains stationary, it does not mean that your hand is levitating it. It means the the property of solidity of your hand keeps the object from moving toward the magnet. Elie

It appears I read the article the same as you, but without the criticism.


"Scientists have now shown that forces from everyday materials---wood, plants, even a person's fingers---can help levitate small magnets placed in a magnetic field, causing them to hover motionless in space.

Physcist's had never before acheived stationary levitation without using superconductors. A 157 year-old theorm stipulates that no arrangement of magnets can make them stay in a stable equilibrium.

Gelm and his colleagues, however, learned that certain materials can stabilize a magnet that is being levitated by another. The so-called diamagnetic materials have no permanent magnetic character but generate magnetism that opposes an applied magnetic field.-----------------The real surprise is that such weak repulsive forces are still enough to stabilize the magnetic, preventing it from falling down, or moving upward.
I think bio-science already agrees that the human body generates an electrical field, a magnetic field, and frequency.

The quoted scientific article merely confirms that the existent of a non-permanent magnetic "field" is being generated, and observed by phycist, who are surprised by the repelling force of such a weak non-permanent magnetic field.

I see no evidence in this article where science contridicts my simple informal theory, or criticizes the utilization of Harmonics, Frequency, and Magnetic "field" in my experiements and prototypes. My own field tests concur with their example.

"WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, CAN BE DONE" Dell

[J_Player]

Actually you are right, Dell.

The scientist in that article is surprised because the researcher's fingers are demonstrating a way to stablize the little magnet using his fingers instead of a cyrogenically cooled superconductor. The importance of this demonstration is in the implication that the principle can be used for stable magnetic bearings without using a superconductor or the equipment needed to run it. This is also a demonstration that the diamagnetic force felt by the little magnet is only strong enough to be felt at very close proximity to the diamagnetic material (fingers). If the researcher were to spread his fingers apart about an inch, then the little magnet would becoome unstable again and fall down or else "fall up" against the electromagnet above his hand.

According to the original article, the little magnet and the researcher's fingers are in a 500 gauss magnetic field created by a powerful supercondecting magnet 2.5 meters above. They are not in a magnetic field strength similar to the earth's magnetic field. Thus the effect of the diamagnetic properties is multiplied hundreds of times in this demonstration.

Further reading on the subject will tell you that fingers, other biological tissue and water have fairly low diamagnetic properties compared to other non-magnetic materials. Graphite, for example has 20 times stronger diamegnetic properties. Read the original article publlished in Nature Magazine July, 1999 here: http://www.hfml.ru.nl/nature-july22v400.pdf

[Elie]

It appears I read the article the same as you, but without the criticism.



I think bio-science already agrees that the human body generates an electrical field, a magnetic field, and frequency.

The quoted scientific article merely confirms that the existent of a non-permanent magnetic "field" is being generated, and observed by phycist, who are surprised by the repelling force of such a weak non-permanent magnetic field.

I see no evidence in this article where science contridicts my simple informal theory, or criticizes the utilization of Harmonics, Frequency, and Magnetic "field" in my experiements and prototypes. My own field tests concur with their example.

"WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, CAN BE DONE" Dell
Here we get get to the truth of the matter:
In order to avoid emphasizing that the human body is DIAMAGNETIC, you conveniently CUT OFF the bottom of the article, which can be found at http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc99/7_24_99/fob6.htm
In case anything happens to the link, the following includes the part which Dell removed:
"Superconductors are the strongest diamagnets, and many ordinary materials are weakly diamagnetic (SN: 12/6/97, p. 362).
A pair of well-placed fingers—made up of diamagnetic water, proteins, and organic molecules—is enough to do the trick."
Leaving out part of the article is an awfully amateurish attempt to bolster your "theory."
Also, saying that the amount of magnetic material in the human body is significant is like saying that the gravitational pull of a planet attracts the sun.

[Dell Winders]

I'm sorry, it wasn't intentional, and there was no reason for it to be. It doesn't change the results of my experiments. Thanks for adding the link. Dell