Your feedback wanted on dowsing.

[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]

Originally Posted by Dell Winders

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_...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