Dowsing for water

[Toddy]

Indoors, outdoors, it doesn't seem to matter.
Our old home had underfloor central heating set in concrete, while this one has wooden planks. The soil around me here is heavy clay, but I've done it on sandy loam, on granite rich stuff and even on machair covered shingle to trace a spring.
Old field drains are a speciality

Okay, I'm done on this one: I'm neither nuts nor susceptible, but I'd like to hear other folks input too.
If I can take the scepticism, so can they

cheers,
Toddy

p.s. CL....I know it *has* be something like that, maybe ? but how the hang can a dowser find water fifty feet down, and tell the farmer the flow rate he'll get ?...and be right !
How can they find a pipe that was never recorded in a field so ploughed out that it's not even showing anything on aerial photography in a dry summer ?


T'is a puzzle. Go and try it for yourselves
atb,
M

 

[Zingmo]

Ok. There's two issues that need clearing up. First is groundwater. It is pretty much everywhere in this country. It doesn't matter where you put the well, if it is deep enough then you will find water. The flowrate from a borehole has a lot to do with the construction and will be very similar across the area.
"Finding" a source of water below ground is like finding grass in a field.
Second is statistics. Dowsing does work- sometimes. But then so does guessing. In fact guessing works exactly as well as dowsing because that is what you are doing. What doesn't get reported is all the times that dowsing, or guessing doesn't work. It is the same as why people think air travel is dangerous; all the safe flights don't make the news.
If you think you can prove dowsing works statistically better than guessing, then James Randi's team will come to you if you want and you can be well rewarded. Otherwise stop saying it works.
Z

 

[Toddy]

James Randi makes his living from setting a scientific experiment..........that means that it has to fulfill the criteria, the premise, the theory that he sets, and be reproducable and then debunking supposed 'miraculous' or 'magical' phenomena.
I have clearly said, that no, this technique is not *proven*, I have no idea how it works, but by statistical rules of chance, it beats them, time after time. It's not guesswork, if it were I'd be a millionaire

I dispute your water abundancy claim........that takes no account of the pipes, or the water and gas companies who employ dowsing techniques...........and that's despite all the scepticism, they do employ dowsing on a fairly routine basis....or the accuracy of the depth and best situation for good flow that dowsers recommend.

So, on that basis, I have every right to say that, sometimes, this works, Zingmo.

Now, you go and try it, and then come and tell me to be quiet

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Jaan]

And what might us skeptics trying it prove? Even if the stick moves it proves nothing other than the fact that I'm susceptible to magical thinking.
There are a lot of things we can't explain. Dreams for example. Or weird stuff you see when you take psychedelic drugs. It does not make it any more real than Santa Claus in children's minds. I can accept dowsers as a phenomenon - that there are people who BELIEVE they can find water that way, no denying that. But there's just no proper evidence to prove that dowsing works.

I don't need to pick up a stick to try and find water. There are other proper ways of finding and collecting water. Like digging for it in random places, following birds and animals, collecting rain or stumbling on a lake or river. The same way I don't need to believe in Santa Claus to have a nice family dinner once a year, or believe in astrology to know that there are people with different personalities. Those are remnants of a misinformed past, nothing more.

 

[palace]

James Randi makes his living from setting a scientific experiment..........that means that it has to fulfill the criteria, the premise, the theory that he sets, and be reproducable and then debunking supposed 'miraculous' or 'magical' phenomena.
I have clearly said, that no, this technique is not *proven*, I have no idea how it works, but by statistical rules of chance, it beats them, time after time. It's not guesswork, if it were I'd be a millionaire

I dispute your water abundancy claim........that takes no account of the pipes, or the water and gas companies who employ dowsing techniques...........and that's despite all the scepticism, they do employ dowsing on a fairly routine basis....or the accuracy of the depth and best situation for good flow that dowsers recommend.

So, on that basis, I have every right to say that, sometimes, this works, Zingmo.

Now, you go and try it, and then come and tell me to be quiet

cheers,
Toddy

I remember seeing a TV program 10 or 15 years ago where James Randi a brilliant magician/illusionist and "pseudo science" sceptic; debunked dowsing, some time later it was mentioned that they (Randi team) had screwed up the maths and that there was a better than statistical chance that dowsing worked in some cases. I have an open mind

 

[Toddy]

Response to Jaan;

You are mistaken and being unnecessarilly antgonistic.
It's very simple. It's just two bent bits of wire that move, seemingly without the holder doing anything but being there, and better than probability indicating water, pipes, cables.....
Santa Claus is a tale that folks dress up to create a happy memory for children.
This is an interesting way to spend a little time outdoors (usually) & a bit of a puzzle for most of us

Bet there'll be a lot of forked hazel twigs being surreptitiously tried out now and odd bits of fencewire being scranned for a play

cheers,
M

 

[palace]

I Bet there'll be a lot of forked hazel twigs being surreptitiously tried out now and odd bits of fencewire being scranned for a play, as well

 

[charleslockerbie]

Finding pipes is no mystery either, pipes are always laid in a predictable fashion, water pipes always flow from source to user, sewage from user to river(normal for old pipes). All want to follow the shortest route, all want to be at the shallowest depth and all will follow contour lines to some extent. Cables are also laid from source to user, following the shortest path at the shallowest depth.

Finding them is therefore more about making educated guesses, even if they dont know it. And the more times they get it right the more they will trust themselves to be right making them more likely to be right. But whatever criteria they use it has nothing to do with the sticks. that is just ideomotor movement.

 

[Toddy]

CL; if it were educated guesses, then it could be taught as a technical course in something like Geology or landscape archaeology, because it'd be incredibly useful.
How come it's not ?

I'm a serious sceptic of dowsing and any other kind of weird excrement stuff. This one's a puzzle that's *interesting*

Think I'll change my sig line

atb,
M

 

[charleslockerbie]

I think it could be taught, but there are many reasons why things are and are not taught. For the same kinds of reason that we do not teach that god does not exist and that homeopathic medicine (not the herbal) is still allowed.

 

[susi]

Dowsing is like religion, something based on individual belief and little scientific fact. Let's allow the believers to continue believing in peace, and those that don't believe are not forced to dowse

 

[woodspirits]

funny how this same debate has gone on through the centurys, and even now in this enlightened age the scientists dont understant it, therefore it doesnt exist and as for pipes or anything come to that being laid in a predictable fashion, ha! you obviously dont work in construction

 

[Urban X]

funny how this same debate has gone on through the centurys, and even now in this enlightened age the scientists dont understant it, therefore it doesnt exist and as for pipes or anything come to that being laid in a predictable fashion, ha! you obviously dont work in construction

And if he's including sewers and drains in that comment there's nothing predictable about them at all either, I've explored enough victorian and up of both to almost get lost down in that other spectacular world a few times lol.

Dowsing for whatever reason, works, get over it, I don't understand quantum physics either but apparently it's real, and that was all speculation not that long ago, I think dowsing was something we never needed to be taught but as with many other 'olde' skills and traditions, the modern world negated the need for it to be practised by many people.

If you don't need a dowser as your water conveniently comes outta your tap or you already have a well, great stuff, digging wells is an expensive business, so yep you'll probably hit water sooner or later, but I'd rather hit it sooner than later, so if someone can tell me where I can dig 30ft rather than 60ft I'll have it and thank them very much. If you call it bunkum that's cool, the dowsers don't care and neither do the people who use them, works for them.


Si

 

[charleslockerbie]

You are correct i have not ever worked in construction, Which of my statements about pipes is a fallacy? Except where you say its not predictable?, i know that there are other influences on pipes i did not list but if iv listed one thats not true please tell me.

Why if dowsing works does it stop working in double blind tests?

 

[Urban X]

Got plenty of mates working for vaious companies doing either street furniture, jointing and gas main repairs up in the city (London), and even with drawings and blueprints, and industrial detection equipment they often have trouble locating pipes and conduits and have to test bore all over before finding what they're looking for, they just are NOT predicatable or as close to the surface or on the shortest route, you can call it sods law, Murphy's, bad planning, whatever you like, they just don't always follow the rules.

I'd love to take you beneath the streets of London into the labyrinth of drains and sewers, they are a lore unto themselves, some follow neither rhyme nor reason, some just end, some disappear, some flow uphill, some drop vertically into gawd knows what, when I get the necessary equipment maybe I'll find out until then I'll never know, I also work from plans when I can get them, it's a very dangerous world down there but the amount of times something should be there and isn't is amazing and common sense goes out of the window. Victorian eccentricity, who knows, I do know that nothing is always as it seems.

I'm sure that waterspirits will give you plenty more examples to dispute your broad statement of fact. Why does cold fusion sometimes give the results expected and then not, at exactly the same settings, I dunno, 'doo-doo' does happen though. I've always accepted the fact that there are lots of things in this world of ours I'll never understand but work anyway regardless of whether someone says they won't or not.


Si

 

[woodspirits]

ok charles, going off OP a moment, its difficult to condense many years of civil engineering into a few sentences. re my unpredictability comment, suffice to say rarely is a service where you would expect it to be. and when you do find it, it very often follows no logical course or depth. contours rarely influence the final destination ive seen some services at unbelievable depths looping all over the place in virgin ground. its really isnt as simple as A to B at a known depth, generations of workers will add their bit onto it too just for good measure!

modern installations will differ from this, any contractor has to comply with building regs (part H) these will or should be installed according to their use. but once off the public highway, it can be a free for all!... confusion reigns again.

so no you cant use an educated guess, it is where it is. and my use of dowsing on almost a daily basis has saved my men and company a lot of hard work and money. for me it works and i really dont care what you or anybody else may think, why dont you try it? oh and by the way, its nothing to do with branches, rods, pendulums etc they are purely indicaters, have you never heard if deviceless dowsing?

like any fringe activity dowsing has its share of nutters, geeks and wannabees. but for a real insight into this ancient skill take a look at the BSD website, there are some very professional and prominent members on there who will happily debate with you, im done

 

[nuggets]

does dowsing work in the rain ??

 

[Harvestman]

Away and try it.
I cannot guarantee it'll work, as I said, 3 or 4 out of 5........that's better than statistics would give, but not a 'proven' in the eyes of the folks who're out to 'debunk'.

Actually, I'd have thought that someone interested in the natural world would have been prepared to try a bent stick 'technology' instead of clinging with religious fervour to scientific hard science.
Takes all kinds I suppose.

I think of it along the lines of birds migrating across the world, butterflies travelling thousands of miles to reach traditional over wintering roosts, ladybirds congregating in their millions in places like the Alva Glen, salmon and elvers returning to the rivers to spawn.
Maybe it's an inbuilt geology recogniser in us or maybe the water 'can' somehow be felt
It just happens to kind of work but that's how natural it feels

cheers,
Toddy

Got to take issue with this post I'm afraid.

Birds and butterflies migrating have been studied, and the science behind the processes is well understood. Landmarks, sensitivity to magnetic fields (using organs clearly identified as such in the brain), etc. Look it up. Don't attribute it to mysterious 'instincts'

As for 'away and try it', that's been done too, many times, and under testable conditions, it doesn't work.

And please, please, don't accuse people of sticking to science with 'religious fervour'. This is insulting. Science is believed because it has been tested and found to work, repeatedly. It isn't about belief. It works. Religious belief is about belief in the absence of evidence - faith.

This isn't about religion, its about different sorts of belief. Belief in facts, or belief in claims that have been tested and failed.

I'll go with the facts.

Sorry for the tone of this but it peeves me when a moderator (or anyone) puts up a post that essentially criticises people for going with the facts and not the mumbo-jumbo.

 

[charleslockerbie]

Urban X, I do believe you and woodspirits that the pipe/sewer network is a lot more complicated than my posts make out, that is my fault. I do still believe that there is still many reasons, a lot of them as yet unexplained into why pipes go where they go. I was thinking on far to simple an example, of finding a pipe in a field. The sewer/pipe network is im sure very very more complicated in more built up areas.

Woodspirits were you as good at dowsing when you first started your carer as a civil engineer or have you got better?
I defenetly argree with you about it not being about "branches, rods, pendulums etc" they only reflect the actions of the user, and deviceless dowsing is not something iv heard of but i would hold it in the same regard as normal dowsing.

 

[Toddy]

I seem to persistantly offend you Harvestman
My tone doesn't compute clearly with you.

I am a scientist. BScHons even. I understand science.
What I clearly failed to state clearly enough was that dowsing feels as natural as the flight of the birds, or the return of the fish or the insects to tradtional roosts. That was it.

Religious fervour .......oh yes, I meant that Not quite as vitriolic as British Red does when he compares the two, but the fervour for science is every bit as devoutly held.

Funny how the supposedly ultimate test, James Randi, turned out to be a total mathematical mess, on his team's part ...........but that didn't prove his point did it ? so that's quietly hushed.
Wikipedia claims that it's an invention of the late medieval and then throws in the comments about the tragedy of the Norwegians .....not really mentioning that it was the avalanche that killed them, not the attempt at dowsing when everything else had failed to find them.......not first, but the last chance.
The bias isn't in favour of dowsing, but somehow, that doesn't convince those who know it works.
I only know of water and some pipeage as a success, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have tried for bodies.

I have said clearly that I am a hearty sceptic.
I'd love to know how it works; my scientifically rational mind would really, really love to have some clear guidelines, have clearly defined boundaries to use, best practice and it's limitations.

We don't have them. Similarly we have no 'facts' that it doesn't work. re Randi's statistical screw up

I tell folks to away and try it for themselves. It's not going to hurt anything, it's not going to damage anything, it's not even going to make you have to recant in public if you don't want to.
It's a puzzle, an interesting conundrum

It would be appreciated if you wouldn't bring the Moderator bit up in this; I'm a member too, and this thread has needed no modding. In truth until your rather intemperate post the thread was mostly a campfire type conversation. Two sides to every argument; most of us were getting on fine with that

Toddy