View Full Version : Does water conduct electricity?
Ernie
03-11-2010, 07:18 PM
I'm just wanting to try and start an explanation of L rod movement.
Most L rod uses claim that they can find water. Yes/No?
So assuming Yes then does water conduct electricity? Yes/No?
From chemistry i've learnt that pure water (H20) (rainwater) cannot conduct electricity and therefor will have no magnetic fields but will be acted upon by gravity and so will have a weight. Yes/No?
But pure H2O very rarely exists below the ground in nature? And so H2O will have other conductive elements held in it as a suspended solution? Yes/No?
So an underground stream carrying conductive minerals such as gold will act as a type of conductor that can have a potential difference along its course? Yes/No?.
If the underground stream has potential and current flow then it should also have a magnetic field. Yes/No.?
If a gold element with a potential (amount) of energy (ability to do work) and a weight caused by a gravity force, travels down a hill stream to the ocean does it still have the same potential energy and weight? Yes/No?.
If No where did the difference in energy go?
If it was transfered into a strong magnetic energy or strong gravity force / weight enrgy in the stream can I detect it?
happy prospecting
Ernie
Qiaozhi
03-11-2010, 09:33 PM
I'm just wanting to try and start an explanation of L rod movement.
Most L rod uses claim that they can find water. Yes/No?
The answer to your first question is "no" ... so the other questions are pointless. :nono:
The explanation of L-rod movement is the ideomotor effect. It's quite simply a trick of the mind.
Read it and weep ->
http://sites.google.com/site/dowsingtruth/ :cry:
The explanation of L-rod movement is the ideomotor effect. It's quite simply a trick of the mind.
Your statement is plain wrong, not to say it's a real stupidity.
Whenever you try to mislead people here on this subject, I will try to show up to avoid this might happen.
For those who want to know this info and others related to this subject, visit dowsing forums such as the dowsing section in the TNET forum. You will have plenty of material to learn about this subject. This forum does not cover dowsing.
The answer to your first question is "no" ... so the other questions are pointless. :nono:
The explanation of L-rod movement is the ideomotor effect. It's quite simply a trick of the mind.
Read it and weep ->
http://sites.google.com/site/dowsingtruth/ :cry:
Hi Qiaozhi.
Really you never saw any dowser user to find water with Lrods???? It is the only easy and there are million of persons that can locate water with 100% success!!!
For those who want to know this info and others related to this subject, visit dowsing forums such as the dowsing section in the TNET forum.
You will also need to be narrow-minded.
It´s just like going into church to learn the truth about a religion.
Hi Qiaozhi.
Really you never saw any dowser user to find water with Lrods???? It is the only easy and there are million of persons that can locate water with 100% success!!!
If i may, Qiaozhi is not saying someone with l-rods cannot find water, he is just saying that it is not the L-rods that are detecting the water.
Qiaozhi
03-11-2010, 10:41 PM
Your statement is plain wrong, not to say it's a real stupidity.
Whenever you try to mislead people here on this subject, I will try to show up to avoid this might happen.
For those who want to know this info and others related to this subject, visit dowsing forums such as the dowsing section in the TNET forum. You will have plenty of material to learn about this subject. This forum does not cover dowsing.
Is this what you call debunkering. :lol:
The ideomotor effect is so compelling to those with a pseudo-scientific mindset, that it's no wonder you are confused. :???:
Even with all the hard evidence against dowsing, you still persist in promoting this medieval nonsense. Please stay on the dowsing forums where you can blissfully remain unaware of the real world, and indulge your penchant for fairytales.
As you rightly said, "This forum does not cover dowsing."
This may be the only true fact you have ever posted here. :razz:
Qiaozhi
03-11-2010, 10:42 PM
Hi Qiaozhi.
Really you never saw any dowser user to find water with Lrods???? It is the only easy and there are million of persons that can locate water with 100% success!!!
If i may, Qiaozhi is not saying someone with l-rods cannot find water, he is just saying that it is not the L-rods that are detecting the water.
Thanks Fred. That's absolutely what I am saying. :thumb:
Qiaozhi
03-11-2010, 10:45 PM
Most L rod uses claim that they can find water. Yes/No?
In retrospect, I suppose I should have answered "yes" ... but they are deluded.
Ernie
03-12-2010, 03:39 AM
Thanks for the input so far. This is a bit like building a family tree. So far Hung wants to plant a seed but dislikes the ground we’re wanting to plant in. So has taken his seed elsewhere to grow and may possibly return at a later date with a cutting to show us, hopefully his tree won’t die and have to be recycled at a later date for firewood. Quiaozhi’s tree almost died from dehydration, “You can lead a camel to water but you can’t make it drink”, thank goodness he decided to accept a drink of water at the last minute and keep growing.
So far we can conclude that out of 100% of the population A% cannot use the dowsing method to find water, B% can use the dowsing method to find water and c% say dowsing what's that? I am interested in the B% that claim they can and what possible forces (gravity/magnetic, etc) could explain this so that i can concentrate on building a real life remote sensing machine, the subject of which, is covered in this forum/thread. Out of the B% I would also agree that 100% of the B% of the population can use the divining method for finding water and so now to question number 2 for my tree.
No.2 - Does water conduct electricity?
happy prospecting
Ernie
If i may, Qiaozhi is not saying someone with l-rods cannot find water, he is just saying that it is not the L-rods that are detecting the water.
Hi Fred.
Don't play with the words.
Ernie wrote "Most L rod uses claim that they can find water. Yes/No?"
and Qiaozhi answered
"The answer to your first question is "no"".
So, what Qiaozhi said?????
Regards:)
Qiaozhi
03-12-2010, 09:41 AM
Hi Fred.
Don't play with the words.
Ernie wrote "Most L rod uses claim that they can find water. Yes/No?"
and Qiaozhi answered
"The answer to your first question is "no"".
So, what Qiaozhi said?????
Regards:)
My meaning was simply that L-rods do not detect anything but gravity.
However, later I re-read the question, and answered as follows:
In retrospect, I suppose I should have answered "yes" ... but they are deluded.
The question was not asking whether L-rods work, just whether the L-rod users believed in their delusion or not. :rolleyes: Of course, the answer is that most L-rod users do have an unshakable belief in their dowsing abilities. Such is the power of self-delusion and selective memory. Target location using dowsing is linked to psychology, not physics.
J_Player
03-12-2010, 10:20 AM
Thanks for the input so far. This is a bit like building a family tree. So far Hung wants to plant a seed but dislikes the ground we’re wanting to plant in. So has taken his seed elsewhere to grow and may possibly return at a later date with a cutting to show us, hopefully his tree won’t die and have to be recycled at a later date for firewood. Quiaozhi’s tree almost died from dehydration, “You can lead a camel to water but you can’t make it drink”, thank goodness he decided to accept a drink of water at the last minute and keep growing.
So far we can conclude that out of 100% of the population A% cannot use the dowsing method to find water, B% can use the dowsing method to find water and c% say dowsing what's that? I am interested in the B% that claim they can and what possible forces (gravity/magnetic, etc) could explain this so that i can concentrate on building a real life remote sensing machine, the subject of which, is covered in this forum/thread. Out of the B% I would also agree that 100% of the B% of the population can use the divining method for finding water and so now to question number 2 for my tree.
No.2 - Does water conduct electricity?
happy prospecting
Ernie
Hmmm... Interesting point of view.
I think I would get on the camel and ride him away from where the trees are planted until I arrive at the local pub where I can quench my thirst without relying on digging a questionable hole.
To answer your question No.2, no... water does not conduct electricity. But things dissolved in water can. I suspect most ground water has a lot of stuff dissolved in it, and would be somewhat conductive, but not as conductive as copper wire.
:cheers:
Best wishes,
J_P
Qiaozhi
03-12-2010, 11:58 AM
So far we can conclude that out of 100% of the population A% cannot use the dowsing method to find water, B% can use the dowsing method to find water and c% say dowsing what's that?
In fact, you cannot arrive at such a conclusion ... unless you are also self-deluded. :rolleyes:
The reality is that 100% of the population are unable to use dowsing to locate water. Note that this is subtly different to saying that dowsers have never been successful, as even a blind man on a dark foggy night can sometimes find water.
You should really be saying that B% of the population believe they can use the dowsing method to find water. You are currently making an erroneous assumption. As I stated previously, the other questions are pointless.
The problem with all of this is that in the end you are going to make some giant leap to assuming that L-rods can detect magnetic or electrical fields which they cannot. Hung will no doubtedly come back on me and declare me to be an idiot and then throw a bunch of unfounded pseudoscience at me that simply doesn't make any sense. In the end we'll be right back where we started from.
So I applaud the effort, but the end result will be the same. The believers will continue believing and the skeptics will shake their heads in amazement.
Ernie
03-12-2010, 02:53 PM
In fact, you cannot arrive at such a conclusion ... unless you are also self-deluded.
The reality is that 100% of the population are unable to use dowsing to locate water. Note that this is subtly different to saying that dowsers have never been successful, as even a blind man on a dark foggy night can sometimes find water.
You should really be saying that B% of the population believe they can use the dowsing method to find water. You are currently making an erroneous assumption. As I stated previously, the other questions are pointless.
Qiaozki wan'ts to play the game - Is the glass HALF full or HALF empty?. You would have to be a HALFWIT to play that game. I wanted to start a type of family tree with this thread to find a science explanation for dowsing. So o.k. QIAOZKI can’t find water so unfortunately his tree in this tread has died of dehydration and anyone in the B% will hopefully be able to make conversation WITHOUT Qiaozki tree rising up from the ashes ever again. Maybe Qiaozki can better spend his time deciphering Estebans broken English explanations of how his FM works. ie As they say in the Australian mining industry - f off ya halfwit!!
Pheeww! I thought we wouldn’t get this far within 24 hrs.
Well I for one can say that I both believe and have physically found water via divining so I am in B% that can AND therefor the B% exists and should be alowed freedom of speach on this forum. Maybe with some more of the same positive communication we can all take the “pseudo” out of this “medieval evil pseudo science” and give it a righteous place and scientific explanation. The main reason it became medieval evil pseudo science was in the first place that scientist did not have the knowledge, tools , experience and manpower to answer how it works and they answered to their sponsors the churches, so the churches there for called it evil “the work of the devil”. A funny thing I find with the narrow minded Christian churches and dowsing is before the medieval times their bible was different. Modern day Luke5 describes how Jesus taught the masses how to divine schools of fish. But today’s post medieval bible has been edited by a medieval religious scholar thinking he was a greater messiah than Jesus and now does not describe that he ( Jesus ) used a fishes tail as a divining rod just as you would use a forked stick for water. Maybe before proceeding I should change my online name from Ernie to Satan 666.
Ionic solutions in water, why yes! I would think that it would depend on the elements that are leaching into the water flow to determine the overall charge of the stream, but it does sound logical that ionic solutions flow underground. y/n? Then it may be a thought that these spare electrons or lack of spare electrons in the ionic solns cause a type of current flow similar to that in copper wire but at a speed of the stream speed y/n? If so then a very slow changing voltage difference would occur down the path of a stream and also a magnetic field would be present y/n?
O.k. so the L rods aren’t detecting the water (y/n)? But they may be part of a circuit that is, similar to an antenna in a receiver, or glasses for seeing, a type of extension of the main detector. y/n? My main question still remains. Which forces are involved? Gravity? y/n? The water flows down hill due to gravity until it gets to its (onion type) layer in the planet. (I think everyone will say yes) When I divine with L rods is my brain sensing this via balance in the ear drums or senses elsewhere, and stimulating my muscles (internal body current flow) on one side of my body in an attempt to regain balance, which in turn charges one rod and causes them to come together? Y/n? Sounds reasonable to me, if I was using metal rods.
An interesting experiment I did once was after detecting the center of a known underground stream I then placed one rod into the ground (a type of electrical earth) the other rod swung quickly towards the direction of the current flow underneath me. Maybe it was acting as a type of gravity field compass? Y/n or possibly the magnetic field of the stream underneath caused this to happen?? Y/n?
I still can’t get my head around a forked tree branch though, a known and tested 30,000 year old method for finding water. O.k. one hand will be charged a bit more than the other (like two plates in a capacitor) and the tree branch contains water and possibly an ionic solution, but this to me does not explain the force that twists the fork down to the underground water.
Happy prospecting
Ernie
Hi Ernie, you are hidding your arguments so well, that they can not be opposed.
Theseus
03-12-2010, 03:32 PM
<< other stuff snipped >>
....but this to me does not explain the force that twists the fork down to the underground water.
Happy prospecting
Ernie
If you are truly looking for the "real" explanation, and not just trolling; the answer may be found in the ideomotor effect. Holding the fork under tension, and at the ready position, will easily twist the bark off the fork when the ideomotor response fires and the tip of the fork moves violently down towards the ground. There is nothing electric or magnetic or electronic happening to cause this action - and if you think there is, you have been fooled by an illusion. ;)
Qiaozhi
03-12-2010, 05:06 PM
I wanted to start a type of family tree with this thread to find a science explanation for dowsing.
You've already found it ... but you're not listening! :stars:
Your posts are similar to a child who doesn't like the response to his question, so he keeps repeating it in the hope of getting a different answer. :rolleyes:
J_Player
03-12-2010, 05:22 PM
You've already found it ... but you're not listening! :stars:
Your posts are similar to a child who doesn't like the response to his question, so he keeps repeating it in the hope of getting a different answer. :rolleyes:Do you suppose that anyone who keeps looking for the answer they have in mind will eventually find it? :rolleyes:
Best wishes,
J_P
Qiaozhi
03-12-2010, 05:25 PM
Do you suppose that anyone who keeps looking for the answer they have in mind will eventually find it? :rolleyes:
Best wishes,
J_P
Maybe on a dowsing forum, but not here. :lol:
goldfinder
03-12-2010, 05:49 PM
Q ans: PURE Water is non-conductive. In fact water purity is measured by its conductivity- the purer the water the less it conducts. I have a water purity meter. They are standard equipment for testing water purity.
I agree w/ Earnie. Water can be found with dowsing. I have a friend in Calif. who makes a nice living dowsing/witching water wells. He is about 98% accurate.
The mechanism of dowsing is another question. the ideo motor effects is just another mental gimmick to name it something else. It solves nothing. People who cling to this are to be discounted.
I do believe and know that there is some type of physics going on with all matter that once we understand the physics we will be able to do long range (a least much further than current EM methods) detection of minerals like we do spectral analysis and metal detector stuff. I don't believe that the method will be an EM effect. There are non-hertzian (i.e. non-EM) fields, forces, energy emanations and this is well proven. For those who don't believe in them, they are simply those who haven't kept up with some really advanced physics that is being proven in the lab and nature and don't want to admit anything outside their little domain of "knowledge".
So Earnie,Hung,Esteban - keep at it - there is gold in them thar hills.http://www.geotech1.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif
Goldfinder
J_Player
03-12-2010, 07:52 PM
Ionic solutions in water, why yes! I would think that it would depend on the elements that are leaching into the water flow to determine the overall charge of the stream, but it does sound logical that ionic solutions flow underground. y/n? There are many elements and compounds that leach into streams above ground and underground. These are mostly salts which become ions of oppositely charged molecules or atoms after they dissolve. The net charge is zero, as there are an equal number of anions as cations from salts. However, there are sometimes imbalances in the net charge caused by subatomic disturbances as well as electrical and chemical influences in the vicinity of the stream. The amount of imbalanced charge of the dissolved ions is infinitessimal in comparison to the total amount of anions an cations that are dissolved in any body of water. A few rare exceptions can occur for short durations. For example, if a lightning bolt strikes a stream, it could be possible to find a local area of water with a large imbalance of charge, and resulting chemical and mechanical disruptions for some short period of time. Shortly after the imbalance, the charges will seek paths to neutralize to zero, with the voltage behind the charge imbalance as the driving force to find equilibrium. Unless the imbalanced charge is located in a good insulator, it will quickly discharge through the most convienient conductive paths, leaving no net voltage difference. This tells us the stream has zero net charge except in the instants when there is a disturbance that causes an imbalance. Also, take note that this zero charge is in relation to the surrounding soil. If you were to talk about the difference in charge between the stream and a plane flying by, there would probably be a measureable difference.
Then it may be a thought that these spare electrons or lack of spare electrons in the ionic solns cause a type of current flow similar to that in copper wire but at a speed of the stream speed y/n? The positive and negative ions are homogenously mixed in the water with a net charge of zero or close to it. If we think of these equally distributed charges as flowing, we could say there are negative ions moving at the speed of the stream that constitute amperage moving downstream. Then we would also need to count the equal number of positive ions also flowing downstream alongside the negative ones, which constitute an equal amperage moving upstream. The net current flow is zero. It is the same current flow you can find from carrying a short length of copper wire in your hand with nothing connected to it while walking along the bank of the stream. A meter will show there is no measurable current flowing in the wire due to it's movement in the downstream direction. And we know the copper wire has negatively charged electrons as well as positively charged protons moving in the downstream direction.
If so then a very slow changing voltage difference would occur down the path of a stream and also a magnetic field would be present y/n?Voltage difference? What do you suppose would cause a voltage difference down the path of the stream? Maybe earth resistance to telluric currents under the ground?
O.k. so the L rods aren’t detecting the water (y/n)?According to some people L rods aren't detecting anything. But if they are detecting something, I doubt it is water. When geologists use instruments to detect water and other anomalies under the ground, they actually detect other things than the water. For example, they detect the capacitance or resistance across a distance of the earth from several locations, or they detect radio frequency penetration properties, or listen for echoes, etc. After studying the results they observe from their instruments, they form their conclusions of what they think is under the ground. In most cases, geologists are pretty good at figuring out what is hidden under the ground.
But they may be part of a circuit that is, similar to an antenna in a receiver, or glasses for seeing, a type of extension of the main detector. y/n?I have no idea what L rods are part of. The only answers I have heard are opinions that have a wide array of explanations.
My main question still remains. Which forces are involved? Gravity? y/n?Also more opinions are the only answers I ever heard. You will probably never find any scientifically tested answers, because no scientific evidence has ever produced any electronic test data to suggest any force is at work with the exception of gravity pulling the rods downward, and a person's arm muscles causing them to move. However there is no shortage of opinions and even claims of tests to prove the opinions are correct. I doubt you will see any real tests results that you can use to repeat the claims you hear other than gravity helps to pull the rods down, and your arm muscles can help to move them any other direction.
The water flows down hill due to gravity until it gets to its (onion type) layer in the planet. (I think everyone will say yes) When I divine with L rods is my brain sensing this via balance in the ear drums or senses elsewhere, and stimulating my muscles (internal body current flow) on one side of my body in an attempt to regain balance, which in turn charges one rod and causes them to come together? Y/n?First, in the case of underground water, these streams can also flow upward when the surrounding strata dictates it must. But it generally seeks a downward direction due to the force of gravity. I have no clue how this relates to your ear drums or balance when you are holding dowsing rods.
Sounds reasonable to me, if I was using metal rods.
An interesting experiment I did once was after detecting the center of a known underground stream I then placed one rod into the ground (a type of electrical earth) the other rod swung quickly towards the direction of the current flow underneath me. Maybe it was acting as a type of gravity field compass? Y/n or possibly the magnetic field of the stream underneath caused this to happen?? Y/n?I have no idea.
I still can’t get my head around a forked tree branch though, a known and tested 30,000 year old method for finding water. O.k. one hand will be charged a bit more than the other (like two plates in a capacitor) and the tree branch contains water and possibly an ionic solution, but this to me does not explain the force that twists the fork down to the underground water.I have no idea.
If you have narrowed down the force under question to be magnetic, electric, or gravitational, then there are some tests you can make to see which if any of these forces is at work:
You will need sensitive instruments to make these tests... the kind that geologists use. Here is how you can find the answers:
To test for a gravity force, you will need to use a gravimeter. If you don't own one, you could rent one or borrow one from a geologist in between field surveys.
Simply log the gravity readings and compare them to your dowsing response. It would be helpful if you recorded all your dowsing response before taking any gravity readings so you can be sure your response was not influenced by what you know the gravimeter reports.
You can repeat the same test with a magnetometer and with an electric field meter and any other instruments you want. If you are using calibrated instruments, then you will get some good data that shows what forces actually exist in the locations where you are seeing dowsing response, not opinions or anecdotal stories. Maybe this kind of testing can help eliminate some of the mystery about dowsing for you.
Best wishes,
J_P
I think J_Player has this under control. Excellent answers.
detectoman
03-13-2010, 12:10 AM
geo: may be is been easy find water whit l'rod, due what water is in movement and is conductive and has salt, these induce superficial magnetic field lines difference on iron, so due change of ground polarization, but on medium and little object this other story
tambien una rama verde en forma de y, y presionada a tension se dobla hacia abajo debido a la humedad que comprime sus fibras por el lado de abajo debido a la diferencia de exposicion del vapor de humedad, y arriba de esa rama el calor del sol, esto aunado a la alcalinidad interna y atraccion de hambre de sed de esa rama verde
detectoman
03-13-2010, 12:13 AM
me han dicho que puede ser mejor una rama en y' del sauz lloron", ya que es muy elastica y le da mas sed, may be if may be no, im not wh
geo: may be is been easy find water whit l'rod, due what water is in movement and is conductive and has salt, these induce superficial magnetic field lines difference on iron, so due change of ground polarization, but on medium and little object this other story
tambien una rama verde en forma de y, y presionada a tension se dobla hacia abajo debido a la humedad que comprime sus fibras por el lado de abajo debido a la diferencia de exposicion del vapor de humedad, y arriba de esa rama el calor del sol, esto aunado a la alcalinidad interna y atraccion de hambre de sed de esa rama verde
Hi detectoman.
I know about it, i can find water very easy (and at who depth it flows).
The problem is the other people, who they can't find anything.... and they says that it is ideometor, electromotor, fantasticmotor .... and any type of motor they imagine:lol:.
Especially some people never tried to learn to work with dowsing, but they like to have opinion about the dowsing ..... and especial that it don't work
:lol::lol::angry::angry:
Regards
Qiaozhi
03-13-2010, 09:00 AM
Hi detectoman.
I know about it, i can find water very easy (and at who depth it flows).
The problem is the other people, who they can't find anything.... and they says that it is ideometor, electromotor, fantasticmotor .... and any type of motor they imagine:lol:.
Especially some people never tried to learn to work with dowsing, but they like to have opinion about the dowsing ..... and especial that it don't work
:lol::lol::angry::angry:
Regards
http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/
Especially some people never tried to learn to work with dowsing, but they like to have opinion about the dowsing ..... and especial that it don't work
:lol::lol::angry::angry:
Regards
Hey Geo, your statement is so true that right after, one skepthic posted something to quickly prove it correct.
Mr. Administrator aside from his ideomotor definitions from 1812, being an armchair THunter and thinking acumpuncture is voodoo, yet posts a link to the GREATEST FRAUD in the internet. The cracked ex-magician who only survives trough the money of a few TV comercials. Well, at least this is what some dowsers say, but when I was in USA, I did not see a single of these comercials. Maybe Uri Geller has made it disappear for good?:lol::lol:
Qiaozhi
03-13-2010, 11:04 AM
Hey Geo, your statement is so true that right after, one skepthic posted something to quickly prove it correct.
Mr. Administrator aside from his ideomotor definitions from 1812, being an armchair THunter and thinking acumpuncture is voodoo, yet posts a link to the GREATEST FRAUD in the internet. The cracked ex-magician who only survives trough the money of a few TV comercials. Well, at least this is what some dowsers say, but when I was in USA, I did not see a single of these comercials. Maybe Uri Geller has made it disappear for good?:lol::lol:
James Randi's Dowsing Fund: $1M
Hung's Dowsing Fund: $0
Wonder why that is? :rolleyes:
James Randi's Dowsing Fund: $1M
Hung's Dowsing Fund: $0
Wonder why that is? :rolleyes:
Do you have his banking records to claim the above? I bet a lot of zeroes already scaped from this number, specially after the little USA crisis...:lol:
But, oh well, as with many frauds and inescrupulous creatures who abound in the world, the naive and the gullible such as yourself, are also easy prey for them. And money is the natural 'fuel' to keep them alive.
Here's one of the many evidences which debuNKS his 'challenge'..:lol::lol:
http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm
The Equatorial Guinea Dictator for instance, President of a miserable Country in which poverty and pain abound everywhere has just bought a 2 million dollars apartment in a beach in Brazil...
And no, I don't have any fund. You must have confused me with someone else...
Hi detectoman.
I know about it, i can find water very easy (and at who depth it flows).
The problem is the other people, who they can't find anything.... and they says that it is ideometor, electromotor, fantasticmotor .... and any type of motor they imagine:lol:.
Especially some people never tried to learn to work with dowsing, but they like to have opinion about the dowsing ..... and especial that it don't work
:lol::lol::angry::angry:
Regards
Hi Geo,
The problem with dowsing is that no one has ever been able to prove that it really works.
Everything that i have learnt as real science has been proven in some way, by theory or serious experiments.
For dowsing unfortunately it has still to be done.
Qiaozhi
03-13-2010, 02:59 PM
Here's one of the many evidences which debuNKS his 'challenge'..:lol::lol:
http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm
There is no debunking in the link you supplied, just a lot of supposition. Of course to someone, who undoubtedly believes Uri Geller's assertion that he can bend spoons with the power of his mind, it may seem reasonable.
There was a time when you had a scrap of credibility on this forum ... not much, but it was there. Nowadays your credibility is nudging into negative territory. Especially with your ability to believe any and all crackpot ideas without a shred of evidence.
You continue to be both gullible and naive when it comes to pseudo-science. :razz:
Hi Geo,
The problem with dowsing is that no one has ever been able to prove that it really works.
Everything that i have learnt as real science has been proven in some way, by theory or serious experiments.
For dowsing unfortunately it has still to be done.
Hi Fred.
I agree that "o one has ever been able to prove that it really works", but there are a lot of people who make the rods to work. I have good results with the dowsing but i can't prove how it works. What does it mean??? that don't work!!!!! , and if don't work what about the objects that i found with the dowsing method????
Regards:)
http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/
Hi Qiaozhi
I don't know Mr randi!!!
Some people says that he is very good man and some other that he is charlatane.
I know only what i see from my hands when i dowsing with Lrods.
Qiaozhi
03-13-2010, 05:51 PM
Hi Qiaozhi
I don't know Mr randi!!!
Some people says that he is very good man and some other that he is charlatane.
I know only what i see from my hands when i dowsing with Lrods.
Hi Geo,
Have you tried testing your dowsing ability with a double-blind test? Most dowsers do not like taking such a test, and there are always many excuses at the end when the results are revealed. As an engineer I would think you would be interested to try such a test, if only to satisfy your curiosity. If the test results show that dowsing is no better than guessing, then you need to ask yourself why your subjective experience is different to objective testing.
How about it?
There is no debunking in the link you supplied, just a lot of supposition. Of course to someone, who undoubtedly believes Uri Geller's assertion that he can bend spoons with the power of his mind, it may seem reasonable.
There was a time when you had a scrap of credibility on this forum ... not much, but it was there. Nowadays your credibility is nudging into negative territory. Especially with your ability to believe any and all crackpot ideas without a shred of evidence.
You continue to be both gullible and naive when it comes to pseudo-science. :razz:
Actually, this forum has NO credibility at all when it comes to dowsing and LRL subjects. So, just don't be silly pretending this kind of discussion will ever take place here.
Also, YOU have NO (never did) credibility at all to even hint something about it.
That's why a closed forum was required to discuss LRLs and the science involved.
You will hardly see me and probably Esteban feeling like discussing this here anymore.
LRL discussions are null and rotten here since a long time. And don't blame us for this. Blame yourself and the Mambo boys who always made fun of everything.
Ivconic has left because of attitudes like yours.
I consider YOUR fault and not actually Carl's for things getting to this point. I already posted what I think of your role as Administrator.
As I said sometimes I might post here just to avoid that you mislead the gullible and the naive with stupidities.
Talking credibility... yes, yours is so good that long time members just left and others just don't feel like being here anymore.
EXCLUSIVELY because of your attitudes.
Think about it.
Qiaozhi
03-13-2010, 06:46 PM
Actually, this forum has NO credibility at all when it comes to dowsing and LRL subjects. So, just don't be silly pretending this kind of discussion will ever take place here.
Also, YOU have NO (never did) any credibility at all to even hint something about it.
While you wish to promote dowsing and and other pseudo-scientific nonsense, then I can agree this is not the place for such activity. You will have much more success on dowsing-friendly forums. This is the place for real science, not fairytales. However, anyone who finds the ideomotor effect to be compelling are welcome to participate in open-minded discussions on the subject. For those, such as yourself, who have permanently closed their minds to the real world, you are better off somewhere else.
You will hardly see me and probably Esteban feeling like discussing this here anymore.
The only reason that Esteban posts less often nowadays, is because you have constantly hijacked any information he has posted, in an attempt to censor the content. Apparently you are paranoid that he may reveal some LRL "secrets" to the skeptics.
LRL discussions are null and rotten here since a long time. And don't blame us for this. Blame yourself and the Mambo boys who always made fun of everything.
On the contrary, LRL discussions are welcome, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or did you forget to read the intro at the beginning of this forum? Quote: "If you make an extraordinary claim, be prepared to get challenged."
Ivconic has left because of attitudes like yours.
I consider YOUR fault and not actually Carl's for things getting to this point. I already posted what I think of your role as Administrator.
As usual, you are making incorrect assumptions. Ivconic and I are still in communication via email, and the reasons for his departure should be obvious to a blind bat.
As I said sometimes I might post here just to avoid that you mislead the gullible and the naive with stupidities.
Goodness ... you are confused!
Hi Geo,
Have you tried testing your dowsing ability with a double-blind test? Most dowsers do not like taking such a test, and there are always many excuses at the end when the results are revealed. As an engineer I would think you would be interested to try such a test, if only to satisfy your curiosity. If the test results show that dowsing is no better than guessing, then you need to ask yourself why your subjective experience is different to objective testing.
How about it?
Hi Qiaozhi:).
No, i never tried a double-blind test.
All the objects that i found with the dowsing method, was with mono visible method
Regards:)
Qiaozhi
03-13-2010, 11:52 PM
Hi Qiaozhi:).
No, i never tried a double-blind test.
All the objects that i found with the dowsing method, was with mono visible method
Regards:)
Hi Geo,
OK - but doesn't your engineering background make you inquisitive? Will a double-blind test make the dowsing effect go away? Go on ... you must want to know the answer. ;)
Theseus
03-13-2010, 11:53 PM
Goodness ... you (Hung) are confused!
True enough, but nothing new. :lol:
Goodness ... you are confused!
It is becoming pathologic now
I know about it, i can find water very easy (and at who depth it flows).
Hi Geo, there is no problem to find water in nature. I can easily find it without any dowsing rod only by some knowledge of geology, surface markers and logical conclusion. But only in nature, not in controlled test condition (where dowser cannot be supported by geological information and surface markers of underground water).
Most proved dowser years ago claim the same as you, but read this:
A 1948 study tested 58 dowsers' ability to detect water. None of them was more reliable than chance.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_note-14) A 1979 review examined many controlled studies of dowsing for water, and found that none of them showed better than chance results. [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_note-15)
In a study in Munich 1987-1988 by Hans-Dieter Betz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Dieter_Betz) and other scientists, 500 dowsers were initially tested for their "skill" and the experimenters selected the best 43 among them for further tests. Water was pumped through a pipe on the ground floor of a two-storey barn. Before each test the pipe was moved in a direction perpendicular to the water flow. On the upper floor each dowser was asked to determine the position of the pipe. Over two years the dowsers performed 843 such tests. Of the 43 pre-selected and extensively tested candidates at least 37 showed no dowsing ability. The results from the remaining 6 were said to be better than chance, resulting in the experimenters' conclusion that some dowsers "in particular tasks, showed an extraordinarily high rate of success, which can scarcely if at all be explained as due to chance ... a real core of dowser-phenomena can be regarded as empirically proven."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_note-munich_study_quote-16)
Five years after the Munich study was published, Jim T. Enright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_T._Enright), a professor of physiology and a leading skeptic who emphasised correct data analysis procedure, contended that the study's results are merely consistent with statistical fluctuations and not significant. He believed the experiments provided "the most convincing disproof imaginable that dowsers can do what they claim,"[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_note-enright-17) stating that the data analysis was "special, unconventional and customized." Replacing it with "more ordinary analyses,"[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_note-enright1995-18) he noted that the best dowser was on average 4 millimeters out of 10 meters closer to a mid-line guess, an advantage of 0.0004%. The study's authors responded, saying "on what grounds could Enright come to entirely different conclusions? Apparently his data analysis was too crude, even illegitimate."[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_note-betz1995-19) The findings of the Munich study were also confirmed in a paper by Dr. S. Ertel,[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_note-20) a German psychologist who had previously intervened in the statistical controversy surrounding the "Mars effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_effect)", but Enright remained unconvinced.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_note-enright1996-21)
More recently a study[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_note-22) was undertaken in Kassel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kassel), Germany under the direction of the Gesellschaft zur Wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) [Society for the Scientific Investigation of the Parasciences]. The three-day test of some 30 dowsers involved plastic pipes through which water flow could be controlled and directed. The pipes were buried 50 centimeters under a level field, the position of each marked on the surface with a colored strip. The dowsers had to tell whether water was running through each pipe. All the dowsers signed a statement agreeing this was a fair test of their abilities and that they expected a 100 percent success rate, however the results were no better than chance.
Some researchers have investigated possible physical or geophysical explanations for alleged dowsing abilities. One study concluded that dowsers "respond" to a 60 Hz electromagnetic field, but this response does not occur if the kidney area or head are shielded.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_note-23)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_ref-14) Ongley, P. (1948). "New Zealand Diviners". New Zealand Journal of Science and Technology 30: 38–54. via Hines, Terence (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (Second ed.). Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. p. 420. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 9781573929790 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781573929790).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_ref-15) Vogt, Evon Z.; Ray Hyman (1979). Water Witching U.S.A. (2ned.). Chicago: Chicago University Press. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 9780226862972 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780226862972). via Hines, Terence (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (Second ed.). Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. p. 420. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 9781573929790 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781573929790).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_ref-munich_study_quote_16-0) Wagner, H., H.-D. Betz (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H.-D._Betz&action=edit&redlink=1), and H. L. König, 1990. Schlußbericht 01 KB8602, Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie. As quoted by Enright in Skeptical Enquirer
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_ref-enright_17-0) Enright, Jim T. (Jan/Feb 1999). "The Failure of the Munich Experiments" (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/testing_dowsing_the_failure_of_the_munich_experime nts). Skeptical Inquirer. Paul Kurtz. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/testing_dowsing_the_failure_of_the_munich_experime nts. Retrieved 2006-11-14. "The researchers themselves concluded that the outcome unquestionably demonstrated successful dowsing abilities, but a thoughtful re-examination of the data indicates that such an interpretation can only be regarded as the result of wishful thinking."
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_ref-enright1995_18-0) Enright, J. T. 1995. Water dowsing: The Scheunen experiments (http://www.springerlink.com/content/n43h56431w17j5v7/?p=87fa35b761de4e7dbf1cdcd4d317f48b&pi=4). Naturwissenschaften 82: 360-369.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_ref-betz1995_19-0) Betz, H.-D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Betz,_H.-D.&action=edit&redlink=1), H. L. König, R. Kulzer, R. Trischler, and J. Wagner. 1996. Dowsing reviewed — the effect persists (http://www.springerlink.com/content/x5p4458g31777814/?p=87fa35b761de4e7dbf1cdcd4d317f48b&pi=5). Naturwissenschaften 83: 272-275.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_ref-20) Ertel, S. (May, 1996). "The dowsing data defy Enright's unfavorable verdict" (http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7577m1087734mlh/). Naturwissenschaften (Springer Berlin / Heidelberg) 83 (5): 232–235. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1007/BF01143332 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01143332). ISSN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Serial_Number) 1432-1904 (http://www.worldcat.org/issn/1432-1904). http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7577m1087734mlh/. Retrieved 2009-09-26.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_ref-enright1996_21-0) Enright, J. T. (June, 1996). "Dowsers lost in a Barn" (http://www.springerlink.com/content/km4q44357k557w90/). Naturwissenschaften (Springer Berlin / Heidelberg) 83 (6): 275–277. doi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1007/BF01149601 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01149601). ISSN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Serial_Number) 1432-1904 (http://www.worldcat.org/issn/1432-1904). http://www.springerlink.com/content/km4q44357k557w90/. Retrieved 2009-09-26.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_ref-22) GWUP-Psi-Tests 2004: Keine Million Dollar für PSI-Fähigkeiten (http://www.gwup.org/psitest/) (in German) and English version (http://www.phact.org/e/z/kassel.htm).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing#cite_ref-23) Harvalik, Z. V. (1978). "Anatomical localization of human detection of weak electromagnetic radiation: experiments with dowsers.". Physiol Chem Phys 10 (6): 525–34.
Or some more extensive:
Does dowsing work?
Some people are less interested in why the rods move than in whether dowsing works. Obviously, many people believe it does. Dowsing and other forms of divination have been around for thousands of years. There are large societies of dowsers in America and Europe and dowsers practice their art every day in all parts of the world. There have even been scientists in recent years who have offered proof that dowsing works. There must be something to it, then, or so it seems.
Testing has been sparse, however. For one thing, it is difficult to establish a "baseline against which a diviner's performance may be compared" (Zusne and Jones 1989: 108). In 1949, an experiment was conducted in Maine by the American Society for Psychical Research. Twenty-seven dowsers "failed completely to estimate either the depth or the amount of water to be found in a field free of surface clues to water, whereas a geologist and an engineer successfully predicted the depth at which water would be found in 16 sites in the same field...." (Zusne and Jones 1989: 108; reported in Vogt and Hyman: 1967). There have been a few other controlled tests of dowsing and all produced only chance results (ibid.). Nature, 229, pp.163-168); M. Martin (1983-1984). "A new controlled dowsing experiment." Skeptical Inquirer. 8(2), 138-140; J. Randi(1979). "A controlled test of dowsing abilities." Skeptical Inquirer. 4(1). 16-20; and D. Smith (1982). "Two tests of divining in Australia." Skeptical Inquirer. 4(4). 34-37.]
The testimonials (http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html) of dowsers and those who observe them provide the main evidence for dowsing. The evidence is simple: dowsers find what they are dowsing for and they do this many times. What more proof of dowsing is needed? The fact that this pattern of dowsing and finding something occurs repeatedly leads many dowsers and their advocates to make the causal connection between dowsing and finding water, oil, minerals, golf balls, etc. This type of fallacious reasoning is known as post hoc (http://www.skepdic.com/posthoc.html) reasoning and is a very common basis for belief in paranormal powers. It is essentially unscientific and invalid. Scientific thinking includes being constantly vigilant against self-deception and being careful not to rely upon insight or intuition in place of rigorous and precise empirical testing of theoretical and causal claims. Every controlled study of dowsers has shown that dowsers do no better than chance in finding what they are looking for.
Most dowsers do not consider it important to doubt their dowsing powers or to wonder if they are self-deceived. They never consider doing a controlled scientific test (http://www.skepdic.com/control.html) of their powers. They think that the fact that they have been successful over the years at dowsing is proof enough. When dowsers are scientifically tested and fail, they generally react with genuine surprise. Typical is what happened when James Randi tested some dowsers using a protocol they all agreed upon. If they could locate water in underground pipes at an 80% success rate they would get $10,000 (now the prize is over $1,000,000 (http://www.skepdic.com/randi.html)). All the dowsers failed the test, though each claimed to be highly successful in finding water using a variety of non-scientific instruments, including a pendulum. Says Randi, "the sad fact is that dowsers are no better at finding water than anyone else. Drill a well almost anywhere in an area where water is geologically possible, and you will find it."
Some of the strongest evidence for dowsing comes from Germany. Tests were done in a barn (Scheune is the German word for barn) and are referred to by J. T. Enright (http://www.phact.org/e/dowsing.htm) as the "Scheunen" experiments. In 1987 and 1988, more than 500 dowsers participated in more than 10,000 double-blind tests set up by physicists in a barn near Munich. The researchers claim they empirically proved "a real dowsing phenomenon." Jim Enright of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography evaluated the data (http://www.phact.org/e/z/enright.txt) and concluded that the so-called "real dowsing phenomenon" can reasonably be attributed to chance (http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/B34487.html). His argument is rather lengthy, but here is a taste of it:
The long and the short of it is that dowsing performance in the Scheunen experiments was not reproducible. It was not reproducible inter-individually: from a pool of some 500 self-proclaimed dowsers, the researchers selected for their critical experiments 43 candidates whom they considered most promising on the basis of preliminary testing; but the investigators themselves ended up being impressed with only a few of the performances of only a small handful from that select group. And, even more troublesome for the hypothesis, dowsing performance was not reproducible intra-individually: those few dowsers, who on one occasion or another seemed to do relatively well, were in their other comparable test series usually no more successful than the rest of the "unskilled" dowsers (Enright “Water Dowsing: the Scheunen Experiments,” Naturwissenschaften, vol. 82 1995).
The barn study itself is curious. It seems clearly to have been repudiated by another German study done in 1992 by a group of German scientists and skeptics. The Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) (http://www.gwup.org/) [Society for the Scientific Investigation of the Parasciences] set up a three-day controlled test of some thirty dowsers, mostly from Germany. The test was done at Kassel, north of Frankfurt, and televised by a local television station. The test involved plastic pipe buried 50 centimeters in a level field through which a large flow of water could be controlled and directed. On the surface, the position of the pipe was marked with a colored stripe, so all the dowsers had to do was tell whether there was water running through the pipe. All the dowsers signed a statement that they agreed the test was a fair test of their abilities and that they expected a 100% success rate. The results were what one would expect by chance (Randi 1995 (http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/dowsing.html)). Defenders of dowsing do not care for these results, and continue to claim that the barn study provides scientific proof of dowsing.
another German study
Further evidence for dowsing has been presented by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) [the German Society for Technical Co-operation] sponsored by the German government. They claim, for example, that in some of their water dowsing efforts they had success rates above 80% "results which, according to responsible experts, could not be reached by means of classical methods, except with disproportionate input." Of particular interest is a report by University of Munich physicist Hans-Dieter Betz, "Unconventional Water Detection: Field Test of the Dowsing Technique in Dry Zones (http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/betz/betz_toc.html)," published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 1995. (This is the same Betz who, with J. L. König, authored a book in 1989 on German government tests proving the ability of dowsers to detect E-rays (http://www.skepdic.com/erays.html).) The report covers a ten-year period and over 2000 drillings in Sri Lanka, Zaire, Kenya, Namibia, Yemen and other countries. Especially impressive was an overall success rate of 96 percent achieved in 691 drillings in Sri Lanka (http://www.jetwingeco.com/web_pages/media_briefs/rainforest.html). "Based on geological experience in that area, a success rate of 30-50 percent would be expected from conventional techniques alone," according to Betz. How he arrived at that statistic is unknown, especially since Sri Lanka gets 100-200 inches (2,500-5,000 mm) of rain a year.* (http://www.mysrilanka.com/travel/theland/rainfall.htm) "What is both puzzling yet enormously useful is that in hundreds of cases the dowsers were able to predict the depth of the water source and the yield of the well to within 10 or 20 percent. We carefully considered the statistics of these correlations, and they far exceeded lucky guesses."
Betz ruled out chance and the use of landscape and geological features by dowsers as explanations for their success. He also ruled out "some unknown biological sensitivity to water." Betz thinks that there may be "subtle electromagnetic gradients" resulting from fissures and water flows which create changes in the electrical properties of rock and soil. Dowsers, he thinks, somehow sense these gradients in a hypersensitive state. "I'm a scientist," says Betz, "and those are my best plausible scientific hypotheses at this point....we have established that dowsing works, but have no idea how or why." Of course, it is possible that his dowsers are smarter than Betz and look for obvious signs of water like places where the grass is greener and lowest points in the terrain.* (http://www.randi.org/jr/062802.html)
There are some puzzling elements to Betz's conclusions, however. Most of his claims concern a single dowser named Schröter. Who observed this dowser or what conditions he worked under remain unknown. Betz is a physicist and what knowledge he has of hydrogeology is unknown. Furthermore, Betz's speculation that dowsers are hypersensitive to subtle electromagnetic gradients does not seem to be based upon scientific data. In any case, the hypothesis was not tested and I am not sure how one would go about testing such a claim. At the very least, one would expect that geological instruments would be able to detect such "electromagnetic gradients."
When others have done controlled tests of dowsers, the dowsers do no better than chance and no better than non-dowsers (Vogt and Hyman; Hyman; Enright 1995, 1996; Randi 1995). Some of Betz's data are certainly not scientific, e.g., the subjective evaluations of Schröter (http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/betz/16.html) regarding his own dowsing activities. Much of the data is little more than a report that dowsing was used by Schröter and he was successful in locating water. Betz assumes that chance or scientific hydrogeological procedures would not have produced the same or better results. It may be true that in one area they had a 96% success rate using dowsing techniques and that "no prospecting area with comparable sub-soil conditions is known where such outstanding results have ever been attained." However, this means nothing for establishing that dowsing had anything to do with the success. Analogous sub-soil condition seems to be an insufficient similarity to justify concluding that dowsing, rather than chance, or use of landscape or geological features, must account for the success rate.
Betz seems to have realized that without some sort of testing, reasonable people would not accept that it had been established that dowsing is a real phenomenon based upon the above types of data. He then presents what he calls "tests" to establish that dowsing is real. The first test involves Schröter again. A Norwegian drilling team dug two wells and each failed to hit water. The dowser came in and allegedly not only hit water but predicted the depth and flow. Apparently, we have the dowser's own word on this. In any case, this is not a test of dowsing, however impressive it might seem.
In the second test, Betz asserts that dowsers can tell how deep water is because "the relevant biological sensations during dowsing are sufficiently different to allow for the required process of distinction and elimination." He has no evidence for this claim. In any case, in this "test" Schröter again is asked to pick a place to dig a well and again he is successful. This time his well is near a well already dug and known to be a good site. Betz claims that there were some geological formations that would have made the dowser's predictions difficult, but again this was not a scientific test of dowsing.
The third test was a kind of contest between the dowser and a team of hydrogeologists. The scientific team, about whom we are told nothing significant, studied an area and picked 14 places to drill. The dowser then went over the same area after the scientific team had made their choices and he picked 7 sites to drill. (Why they did not both pick the same number of sites is not explained.) A site yielding 100 liters per minute was considered good. The hydrogeologists hit three good sources; the dowser hit six. Clearly, the dowser won the contest. This test does not prove anything about dowsing, however. Nevertheless, I think Herr Schröter should knock on James Randi's (http://www.skepdic.com/randi.html) door and be allowed to prove his paranormal powers under controlled conditions. If he is as good as he and Betz say he is, he should walk away a very rich man.
Betz has written a very long report, which is little more than a testimonial to the paranormal dowsing powers of Herr Schröter and a reiteration of the claims made for the barn study. He would have done better to have set up a controlled, double-blind experiment with the dowser, one which does not allow the dowser himself to determine the conditions of the experiment and one which did not have as many uncontrollable variables as those rampant in the ten-year project.
J_Player
03-14-2010, 12:39 PM
Hi Qiaozhi:).
No, i never tried a double-blind test.
All the objects that i found with the dowsing method, was with mono visible method
Regards:)Hi Geo,
When you say the objects that you found with the dowsing method, was with mono visible method, this is not a method I have heard of before.
Does this method mean that only the person holding the dowsing rod can see where the object is located when it is found?
Best wishes,
J_P
Hi Geo,
OK - but doesn't your engineering background make you inquisitive? Will a double-blind test make the dowsing effect go away? Go on ... you must want to know the answer. ;)
Hi Qiaozhi.
Again the same!!! Some times you answer as than you don't want to understand what i say!!!.
Why to play with double or triple or.... -blind test!!!!. The things are very simple. I have a success degree of 40%...70% (i am not so good) and it is Ok for me. Some times i dig without results and some times with good results. Ask Morgan to tell you how i located the gold mental with his Lrod!!!.
Now about double- blind test.... i saw my "teacher" to do it with copper coins and he had 100% success. But really this don't mean anything
Regards:)
Hi Geo, there is no problem to find water in nature. I can easily find it without any dowsing rod only by some knowledge of geology, surface markers and logical conclusion. But only in nature, not in controlled test condition (where dowser cannot be supported by geological information and surface markers of underground water).
Most proved dowser years ago claim the same as you, but read this:
Hi WM6.
I will try to read your so big thread tommorrow. I need much time to read it (my bad english).
:)
Hi Geo,
When you say the objects that you found with the dowsing method, was with mono visible method, this is not a method I have heard of before.
Does this method mean that only the person holding the dowsing rod can see where the object is located when it is found?
Best wishes,
J_P
Hi J_P:)
Hahaha... no "mono visible" method.
I tried to tell the opposite of the "double-blind" test.
I suppose that the term was bad:lol:
Regards
Qiaozhi
03-15-2010, 12:17 AM
Hi Qiaozhi.
Again the same!!! Some times you answer as than you don't want to understand what i say!!!.
Why to play with double or triple or.... -blind test!!!!. The things are very simple. I have a success degree of 40%...70% (i am not so good) and it is Ok for me. Some times i dig without results and some times with good results. Ask Morgan to tell you how i located the gold mental with his Lrod!!!.
Now about double- blind test.... i saw my "teacher" to do it with copper coins and he had 100% success. But really this don't mean anything
Regards:)
Well ... if you think it's working for you, then use it.
Maybe you don't have an inquisitive mind. ;)
J_Player
03-15-2010, 12:47 AM
Hi J_P:)
Hahaha... no "mono visible" method.
I tried to tell the opposite of the "double-blind" test.
I suppose that the term was bad:lol:
RegardsHi Geo,
I received an email from the Mr. Stick company.
They say they are working on a prototype for a new "Mark-2" model that they will be selling for the same unbelievable low price of $99.99 US.
They say the Mr. Stick is not dowsing, because it uses physics principles to work.
And it is also guaranteed to work every time at least as good as Mineoro, Rangertell, and Omnitron in a real double blind test, or money refunded.
I look at the photo they sent me and I can see this is real physics, because sample chamber is using the same gold like for the target, and must be resonance of the signal line.
Best wishes,
J_P
Theseus
03-15-2010, 01:26 AM
Hi Geo,
I received an email from the Mr. Stick company.
They say they are working on a prototype for a new "Mark-2" model that they will be selling for the same unbelievable low price of $99.99 US.
They say the Mr. Stick is not dowsing, because it uses physics principles to work.
And it is also guaranteed to work every time at least as good as Mineoro, Rangertell, and Omnitron in a real double blind test, or money refunded.
I look at the photo they sent me and I can see this is real physics, because sample chamber is using the same gold like for the target, and must be resonance of the signal line.
Best wishes,
J_P
Cool! Looks like your basic paint roller with a piece of egg carton rubber-banded to it.
Yes... real physics and Earth Science involved here... certainly no dowsing.
I hope the Mr. Stick Company has it Patented because if not, Dell will be copying it and trying to sell it for $695.00 (plus shipping).
J_Player
03-15-2010, 02:59 AM
Cool! Looks like your basic paint roller with a piece of egg carton rubber-banded to it.
Yes... real physics and Earth Science involved here... certainly no dowsing.
I hope the Mr. Stick Company has it Patented because if not, Dell will be copying it and trying to sell it for $695.00 (plus shipping).I don't think they can patent it on account of some painting tool manufacturer probably owns the patents. But I think there may be trade secrets involved here.
They hinted about implanting a power load of the most stable isotope of dihydrogen monoxide they could find in the hole at the tip of the locator.
It's a wonder they can keep the price so low while including all this earth science physics and the only double blind test guarantee in the LRL industry.
Best wishes,
J_P
Well ... if you think it's working for you, then use it.
Maybe you don't have an inquisitive mind. ;)
Haha. You never tried the dowsing method and say me for "inquisitive mind"
OK, i will tell to all you!!!!
You seem that you don't know anything for dowsing!!!!
You say so simple.... make a double-blind test. And what with this????
Test at who material???? From what material will be the box where must be inside the hidden object??? How many times?????
Look, every dowser is good at one kind, for example water or caves or copper or gold or....... , but not at all together.
My "teacher" is specialist at small copper and silver coins, he has located them from distance 1 and 2 Km far!!!!!.
Also i knew a very old man (he don't live now) that had a very good abillity to detect only gold (and he was very rich). Another known man is very good at water but very bad at everything else.
So, if you will tell to my "teacher" to make a double-blind test at a golden coin he will not hany any success and you will say that Dowsing don't work.
If i understood well at the text that WM6 posted here, there are some occasions where the dowsers had very good results.
Regards:)
Hi Geo,
I received an email from the Mr. Stick company.
They say they are working on a prototype for a new "Mark-2" model that they will be selling for the same unbelievable low price of $99.99 US.
They say the Mr. Stick is not dowsing, because it uses physics principles to work.
And it is also guaranteed to work every time at least as good as Mineoro, Rangertell, and Omnitron in a real double blind test, or money refunded.
I look at the photo they sent me and I can see this is real physics, because sample chamber is using the same gold like for the target, and must be resonance of the signal line.
Best wishes,
J_P
Hi J_P.
Special detector :lol::lol::lol::lol:
Regards:)
My "teacher" is specialist at small copper and silver coins, he has located them from distance 1 and 2 Km far!!!!!.
Regards:)
Dear Geo, I am not dowsing teacher nor specialist, but can detect small silver coin at distance of 100 or 200 and even more kilometers in case that I hide it by myself.
Why you dont take your teacher with on mountain huntig, so you solve all detecting problems?
I look at the photo they sent me and I can see this is real physics, because sample chamber is using the same gold like for the target, and must be resonance of the signal line.
Best wishes,
J_P
Hi J_P what of science is here implemented, backward Gauss or forward Gauss?
Does you thinking about implementation of dextrorotatory and levorotatory testicular dissociation constant too?
Qiaozhi
03-15-2010, 11:10 AM
Haha. You never tried the dowsing method and say me for "inquisitive mind"
OK, i will tell to all you!!!!
You seem that you don't know anything for dowsing!!!!
You say so simple.... make a double-blind test. And what with this????
Test at who material???? From what material will be the box where must be inside the hidden object??? How many times?????
Look, every dowser is good at one kind, for example water or caves or copper or gold or....... , but not at all together.
My "teacher" is specialist at small copper and silver coins, he has located them from distance 1 and 2 Km far!!!!!.
Also i knew a very old man (he don't live now) that had a very good abillity to detect only gold (and he was very rich). Another known man is very good at water but very bad at everything else.
So, if you will tell to my "teacher" to make a double-blind test at a golden coin he will not hany any success and you will say that Dowsing don't work.
If i understood well at the text that WM6 posted here, there are some occasions where the dowsers had very good results.
Regards:)
Hi Geo,
I am trying to keep this as a rational discussion, but you saying, "Haha. You never tried the dowsing method ...", etc., etc., does not help.
If you (for example) think you are only capable of detecting silver coins by dowsing, then perform the test using silver coins. The test doesn't even have to be very rigorous. Simply get a friend to hide a silver coin under 1 of 10 plastic cups and then get him/her to leave the area while you perform the dowsing test. Since the test is only intended for you to confirm or deny to yourself that dowsing is real, it is not necessary to have multiple observers, or to keep the hidden location written down in a sealed envelope. It is not a criticism of anyone if they believe that dowsing works in the field, as the ideomotor effect is very compelling, and the double-blind test helps to remove any unconscious bias by the tester.
If the testing shows that detection of the coin is no more accurate than guessing, then what does that tell you? Perhaps you might conclude that the dowsing effect is somehow compromised by the test procedure, thus causing it to fail. Or you might conclude that dowsing doesn't actually work and is just a trick of the mind.
I know which is the correct answer. Do you?
J_Player
03-15-2010, 03:45 PM
Hi J_P what of science is here implemented, backward Gauss or forward Gauss?
Does you thinking about implementation of dextrorotatory and levorotatory testicular dissociation constant too?Hi WM6,
I don't think that LRL uses gauss, because I don't see any coils or circuits in the photo. I only see gold, painting equipment and an egg container. The only explanation for this kind of detection I ever read in the Geotech forum is "earth sciences" and "physics principles". But maybe it has something to do with the substance produced by gold DNA as explained by Dr. hung. I can't think of any other way.
http://geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=84058&postcount=41
Best wishes,
J_P
Morgan
03-15-2010, 05:08 PM
Haha. You never tried the dowsing method and say me for "inquisitive mind"
OK, i will tell to all you!!!!
You seem that you don't know anything for dowsing!!!!
You say so simple.... make a double-blind test. And what with this????
Test at who material???? From what material will be the box where must be inside the hidden object??? How many times?????
Look, every dowser is good at one kind, for example water or caves or copper or gold or....... , but not at all together.
My "teacher" is specialist at small copper and silver coins, he has located them from distance 1 and 2 Km far!!!!!.
Also i knew a very old man (he don't live now) that had a very good abillity to detect only gold (and he was very rich). Another known man is very good at water but very bad at everything else.
So, if you will tell to my "teacher" to make a double-blind test at a golden coin he will not hany any success and you will say that Dowsing don't work.
If i understood well at the text that WM6 posted here, there are some occasions where the dowsers had very good results.
Regards:)
I saw in Portugal your hability when you found the gold medalion in the field test,i can say you are lucky with L rods,but remember this Rods can work fine just when big practice and concentration and most are becouse of good intuition produce good results,but it fails when ideomotor works in wrong direction...
Actualy the best L rod is electronic, the Ram-KA,sorry i forget to show to you in your holydays...
Morgan
03-15-2010, 05:17 PM
I saw in Portugal your hability when you found the gold medalion in the field test,i can say you are lucky with L rods,but remember this Rods can work fine just when big practice and concentration and most are becouse of good intuition produce good results,but it fails when ideomotor works in wrong direction...
Actualy the best L rod is electronic, the Ram-KA,sorry i forget to show to you in your holydays...
Anyway this LRL device is not 100% accurate,but the low price is reasonable for this hand made L rod,nothing compare with L rod scam in the market.
This is Rod for test,only for people who believe in this dowsing activities .
11603
Anyway this LRL device is not 100% accurate,but the low price is reasonable for this hand made L rod,nothing compare with L rod scam in the market.
This is Rod for test,only for people who believe in this dowsing activities .
11603
Hi Morgan
Congratulation for design, better than Pinninfarina. Are there secret inside or you can post some schematic?
detectoman
03-15-2010, 06:22 PM
morgan, what weight has these stuff, may be need an fortchless man whit hig muscule arm, the heavyiron box is for balance?, or is for input lines of 440 volt?
al final del dia solo tendra un brazo exausto morgan usted va a la deriva, cada dia sus lrl van en reversa, but pretty painted my congratulations, any new version for compass? whit tires? llantas?
esteban deception jaja
Morgan
03-15-2010, 06:53 PM
Hi Morgan
Congratulation for design, better than Pinninfarina. Are there secret inside or you can post some schematic?
This Dowsing rod its not my design,it as inside the box one possible circuit,but sealed with epoxy,guess why...
Its not heavy,and the distance hand to antenna is big for some reason.
Its only another dowsing rod,not a miracle for TH.
For those who forget(Detectoman) i remember to post here this Ram-KA photo and information maybe one year ago.
J_Player
03-15-2010, 09:49 PM
This Dowsing rod its not my design,it as inside the box one possible circuit,but sealed with epoxy,guess why...
Its not heavy,and the distance hand to antenna is big for some reason.
Its only another dowsing rod,not a miracle for TH.
For those who forget(Detectoman) i remember to post here this Ram-KA photo and information maybe one year ago.Hi Morgan,
I remember it was here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=86965&postcount=39
"This electronic Rod is interesting,its not pure Dowsing,the antenna only moves if locate metal target. Until now i found with this device a few coins and silver jewlry,no iron,no empty holes.
At the first looking it looks simple but inside the electronic box exist one PCB(inside resine)one 9v battery, manny wires,a LED and one Potentiometer for GAIN.From the box it goes one wire to Antenna.
This is not expensive Rod ,name is Ramka,its hand made,no internet information".
And here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15262
Another interesting electronic MFD dowsing rod: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=82655&postcount=29
Best wishes,
J_P
Dear Geo, I am not dowsing teacher nor specialist, but can detect small silver coin at distance of 100 or 200 and even more kilometers in case that I hide it by myself.
Why you dont take your teacher with on mountain huntig, so you solve all detecting problems?
Hi WM6.
Sure, you read only what you want.
I wrote "My "teacher" is specialist at small copper and silver coins, he has located them from distance 1 and 2 Km far". Yes he can locate only copper and silver coins, no gold coins and not big objects:angry:. I don't like to run to the mountains to find a few copper or silver coins.
Hi Geo,
I am trying to keep this as a rational discussion, but you saying, "Haha. You never tried the dowsing method ...", etc., etc., does not help.
If you (for example) think you are only capable of detecting silver coins by dowsing, then perform the test using silver coins. The test doesn't even have to be very rigorous. Simply get a friend to hide a silver coin under 1 of 10 plastic cups and then get him/her to leave the area while you perform the dowsing test. Since the test is only intended for you to confirm or deny to yourself that dowsing is real, it is not necessary to have multiple observers, or to keep the hidden location written down in a sealed envelope. It is not a criticism of anyone if they believe that dowsing works in the field, as the ideomotor effect is very compelling, and the double-blind test helps to remove any unconscious bias by the tester.
If the testing shows that detection of the coin is no more accurate than guessing, then what does that tell you? Perhaps you might conclude that the dowsing effect is somehow compromised by the test procedure, thus causing it to fail. Or you might conclude that dowsing doesn't actually work and is just a trick of the mind.
I know which is the correct answer. Do you?
Even if it do not mean something for me, i will try it and i"ll inform you.
You don't know the correct answer. You think it and maybe you have wrong
I saw in Portugal your hability when you found the gold medalion in the field test,i can say you are lucky with L rods,but remember this Rods can work fine just when big practice and concentration and most are becouse of good intuition produce good results,but it fails when ideomotor works in wrong direction...
Actualy the best L rod is electronic, the Ram-KA,sorry i forget to show to you in your holydays...
It is not lucky, it is capability
Hi WM6.
Sure, you read only what you want.
I wrote "My "teacher" is specialist at small copper and silver coins, he has located them from distance 1 and 2 Km far". Yes he can locate only copper and silver coins, no gold coins and not big objects:angry:. I don't like to run to the mountains to find a few copper or silver coins.
Hi Geo
Maybe your teacher can be tunned on gold and bigger items too, or his vital battery is low?
If one is not properly grunded may lead to lost particullar sensibilities. This can overcome by attempts to hunting completely barefoot.
It is worth to do something to refine his sensitivity.
My "teacher" is specialist at small copper and silver coins, he has located them from distance 1 and 2 Km far!!!!!.
Hi geo,
It is important to know how many holes he dig on those 2km distance before he found the target.
J_Player
03-17-2010, 02:44 PM
Hi geo,
It is important to know how many holes he dig on those 2km distance before he found the target.Nobody can know how many holes he digs unless they follow him and watch everything he does.
How can anyone do that? Why would anyone want to?
If he thinks dowsing helps him find coins, then he should be happy to go dowsing.
For me, I don't think dowsing helps me find coins, so I don't use dowsing.
But if I hear stories of dowsing easily finding large diamonds from 1km at every attempt, then I will spend the time to follow and watch the dowser to see if it is true. :D
Best wishes,
J_P
Hi Geo
Maybe your teacher can be tunned on gold and bigger items too, or his vital battery is low?
If one is not properly grunded may lead to lost particullar sensibilities. This can overcome by attempts to hunting completely barefoot.
It is worth to do something to refine his sensitivity.
Hi WM6.
I don't speak ironicaly to you:frown:
Hi geo,
It is important to know how many holes he dig on those 2km distance before he found the target.
Hi Fred.
You can't fantasy it. He dowsed from inside the car, he showed me a place and told "go there". When we arrived near the place he went down from the car, and the rods led him to a place of the mountain where it appearred that old existed some building. He continued with the rods and i with the XLT. We found certain coins there. And it was not the only time.
Nobody can know how many holes he digs unless they follow him and watch everything he does.
How can anyone do that? Why would anyone want to?
If he thinks dowsing helps him find coins, then he should be happy to go dowsing.
For me, I don't think dowsing helps me find coins, so I don't use dowsing.
But if I hear stories of dowsing easily finding large diamonds from 1km at every attempt, then I will spend the time to follow and watch the dowser to see if it is true. :D
Best wishes,
J_P
Hi J_P.
You are welcome to Greece, so my "teacher" to learn you how you to locate copper and silver coins from very very long distance. The same for Qiaozhi, Fred and WM6.
Sorry but my teacher is not good to diamonds:lol:
Regards:)
J_Player
03-17-2010, 10:51 PM
Hi J_P.
You are welcome to Greece, so my "teacher" to learn you how you to locate copper and silver coins from very very long distance. The same for Qiaozhi, Fred and WM6.
Sorry but my teacher is not good to diamonds:lol:
Regards:)Hi Geo,
Thank you for the nice invitation to Greece.
I don't want to learn to locate copper and silver coins at long distance.
But if you find a teacher who shows how to locate large natural diamonds from a very long distance, then I will be coming to learn. :D
Best wishes,
J_P
Hi Geo,
Thank you for the nice invitation to Greece.
I don't want to learn to locate copper and silver coins at long distance.
But if you find a teacher who shows how to locate large natural diamonds from a very long distance, then I will be coming to learn. :D
Best wishes,
J_P
Hahahaha.... :lol:
Hi J_P.
I am sure that you know that at Greece there are not objects from Diamnds..
SO, there are not dowsing teachers to teach you.
But if you will learn very good to locate copper or silver, then i believe that it is easy to locate diamonds or what other you want.
But for first, you must believe it
Regards:)
How can anyone do that? Why would anyone want to?
If he thinks dowsing helps him find coins, then he should be happy to go dowsing.
Best wishes,
J_P
Obviously, simply to find out how well dowsing works, and counting holes should be fairly simple with some help if needed :
11619
It is fine if he thinks dowsing works for him, I just want to know if it works ...for all :)
Hi Fred.
You can't fantasy it. He dowsed from inside the car, he showed me a place and told "go there". When we arrived near the place he went down from the car, and the rods led him to a place of the mountain where it appearred that old existed some building. He continued with the rods and i with the XLT. We found certain coins there. And it was not the only time.
hi Geo,
Thanks for your answer and invitation. After you find a big treasures i hope you will buy the tickets :D (cruise ship is OK too :razz: )
I am sceptic, so i understand what you said like this :
You drive a car 2km until you see a ruin (obviously a good place to search) and found coins with your XLT ;)
:lol: don´t get angry
Hi WM6.
I don't speak ironicaly to you:frown:
Hi Geo
is not ironically. There was dowsing experiment with Aborigine water dowser, probably only accurate water dowser in the world. When they putting barefooted Aborigine dowser in a modern shoes they are no longer being able accurate dowsing water.
Probably this can be effective to west dowsers too.
Hi J_P.
You are welcome to Greece, so my "teacher" to learn you how you to locate copper and silver coins from very very long distance. The same for Qiaozhi, Fred and WM6.
Sorry but my teacher is not good to diamonds:lol:
Regards:)
Thanks Geo. I don't want to miss this workshop.
We will coordinate when and how.
J_Player
03-18-2010, 04:10 AM
Obviously, simply to find out how well dowsing works, and counting holes should be fairly simple with some help if needed :
11619
It is fine if he thinks dowsing works for him, I just want to know if it works ...for all :)Hi Fred,
If you just want to know if it works, then you can go to Greece and Geo will show you where his teacher is. You can follow him with your counter and count holes. Then you will know like you want to. :cool:
For me, I don't want to know very much for finding coins at long distance. But to easily find large natural diamonds at long distance seems like a worthwhile thing to investigate to me. Maybe it would also be good to find a teacher who can easily find large buried gold statues at long distance too. Maybe I would go to learn how to do this.
Best wishes,
J_P
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.