"Douglas de Lacey" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:


We don't need a scientific explanation for how concrete sets or
why water doesn't run uphill, we accept it. the explanation might be
interesting ut isn't essential to the working of the system.

How many of us know exactly how all parts of our bodies work?

ahem a contemporary of mine did a PhD on how concrete sets: I believe
his results had an impact on the industry.

That's one :-)


I wonder why James Randi (never heard of him) is doing it? What point is
there?

C'mon, Mary, keep up. He was mentioned in both the earlier threads on
Dowsing (one of which you started). OTOH considering the huge number of
silly posts, you might have got tired of reading, and who can blame you.
There might be a point if the experiment could actually be done, but I
suspect it can't (since "doing an experiment" entails a specific mind-set
which is likely to be inimical to whatever-it-is that achieves dowsing (if
it does)).

Douglas de Lacey

"Douglas de Lacey" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

Sorry for unfinished post, my personal person from Porlock interrupted ...

We don't need a scientific explanation for how concrete sets or
why water doesn't run uphill, we accept it. the explanation might be
interesting ut isn't essential to the working of the system.

How many of us know exactly how all parts of our bodies work?

ahem a contemporary of mine did a PhD on how concrete sets: I believe
his results had an impact on the industry.

As I said, that's one. But we all accept that concrete does set without
thinking about it. Well, some of us might think we know, I used to, but it's
always more complicated and less easily proved than we think.


I wonder why James Randi (never heard of him) is doing it? What point is
there?

C'mon, Mary, keep up. He was mentioned in both the earlier threads on
Dowsing (one of which you started). OTOH considering the huge number of
silly posts, you might have got tired of reading, and who can blame you.

Indeed.

There might be a point if the experiment could actually be done, but I
suspect it can't (since "doing an experiment" entails a specific mind-set
which is likely to be inimical to whatever-it-is that achieves dowsing (if
it does)).

I'm sure you're right ...

Mary

Douglas de Lacey

Mary Fisher wrote:
In fact
there is already such a bet available, I think you can win $1000000 if
you can show that you really can dowse. James Randi has had an offer
of this amount outstanding for many years and no one has won it.

Is it worth a bit of your time for $100000?

It wouldn't attract me.

I wonder why James Randi (never heard of him) is doing it? What point is
there?

The point he is making is that it doesn't work.

--
Chris Green

Mary Fisher wrote:

"Douglas de Lacey" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

Sorry for unfinished post, my personal person from Porlock interrupted ...

We don't need a scientific explanation for how concrete sets or
why water doesn't run uphill, we accept it. the explanation might be
interesting ut isn't essential to the working of the system.

How many of us know exactly how all parts of our bodies work?

ahem a contemporary of mine did a PhD on how concrete sets: I believe
his results had an impact on the industry.

As I said, that's one. But we all accept that concrete does set without
thinking about it. Well, some of us might think we know, I used to, but it's
always more complicated and less easily proved than we think.

Yes, but there *is* an explanation that experts on concrete know about
and can use to analyse why/how it sets and also make the setting
better etc.

The same does *not* apply to dowsing.

--
Chris Green

wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

"Douglas de Lacey" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

Sorry for unfinished post, my personal person from Porlock interrupted
...

We don't need a scientific explanation for how concrete sets or
why water doesn't run uphill, we accept it. the explanation might be
interesting ut isn't essential to the working of the system.

How many of us know exactly how all parts of our bodies work?

ahem a contemporary of mine did a PhD on how concrete sets: I believe
his results had an impact on the industry.

As I said, that's one. But we all accept that concrete does set without
thinking about it. Well, some of us might think we know, I used to, but
it's
always more complicated and less easily proved than we think.

Yes, but there *is* an explanation that experts on concrete know about
and can use to analyse why/how it sets and also make the setting
better etc.

The same does *not* apply to dowsing.


How do you know ? :-)

Mary
--
Chris Green

T i m wrote:

I wonder if there is a 'driving' sense we don't know about ... the one
that tells you that the person you are following is likely to do
something unpredictable and dangerous ...?


You see a hat being worn inside a car...

wrote:

I bet if you did a proper double-blind test it wouldn't work. In fact
there is already such a bet available, I think you can win $1000000 if
you can show that you really can dowse. James Randi has had an offer
of this amount outstanding for many years and no one has won it.

Is it worth a bit of your time for $100000?


I have taught several people to do it for nothing. ;-)

I don't see what your problem is. It works for me. If you don't
believe in it, that's fine.

It isn't a matter of belief, or faith, or anything like that. It is a
simple practical technique that works in certain situations, that's
all. You could do it. Almost anyone can.

Douglas de Lacey wrote:

ahem a contemporary of mine did a PhD on how concrete sets: I believe
his results had an impact on the industry.


If you want to know how concrete sets, ask a civil engineer. It was
an essential part of my education and training over 30 years ago, and,
I expect, of all civil engineers'.

Heck, even the Romans knew how it worked!

Try this link:
http://www.cement.org/tech/cct_concrete_prod.asp

Or do a Google search on "cement hydration".

wrote:

Mary Fisher wrote:
In fact
there is already such a bet available, I think you can win $1000000 if
you can show that you really can dowse. James Randi has had an offer
of this amount outstanding for many years and no one has won it.

Is it worth a bit of your time for $100000?

It wouldn't attract me.

I wonder why James Randi (never heard of him) is doing it? What point is
there?

The point he is making is that it doesn't work.


So what experience do *you* have?

Or do you just take at face value one man's blandishments "that it
doesn't work"?

Almost anyone - even you - can be taught in a few minutes to locate
underground cables and other services with two pieces of metal rod.

It's easy. It's quick to learn. And it works.

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Mary Fisher wrote:
In fact
there is already such a bet available, I think you can win $1000000 if
you can show that you really can dowse. James Randi has had an offer
of this amount outstanding for many years and no one has won it.

Is it worth a bit of your time for $100000?

It wouldn't attract me.

I wonder why James Randi (never heard of him) is doing it? What point is
there?

The point he is making is that it doesn't work.


So what experience do *you* have?

Or do you just take at face value one man's blandishments "that it
doesn't work"?

Almost anyone - even you - can be taught in a few minutes to locate
underground cables and other services with two pieces of metal rod.

It's easy. It's quick to learn. And it works.

Easy $1000000 for you then, or maybe it just is tapping into the
sub-councious part of the brain as discussed above.

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:39:55 +0100, "none" wrote:


Easy $1000000 for you then, or maybe it just is tapping into the
sub-councious part of the brain as discussed above.

I read that as:- "the couscous part of the brain"

--
Frank

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
Douglas de Lacey wrote:

ahem a contemporary of mine did a PhD on how concrete sets: I believe
his results had an impact on the industry.


If you want to know how concrete sets, ask a civil engineer. It was
an essential part of my education and training over 30 years ago, and,
I expect, of all civil engineers'.

Heck, even the Romans knew how it worked!

Perhaps, my point was that we don't need to know HOW it works :-)

Mary

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...

....


The point he is making is that it doesn't work.


So what experience do *you* have?

Or do you just take at face value one man's blandishments "that it
doesn't work"?

Quite. That would be just the same as taking at face value one man's
blandishments that it DOES work.

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:39:55 +0100, "none" wrote:


Easy $1000000 for you then, or maybe it just is tapping into the
sub-councious part of the brain as discussed above.

I read that as:- "the couscous part of the brain"

I wondered if it were some part of the brain I didn't know about but didn't
challenge because someone somewhere has probably set up a dollar fund to
prove it exists.

--
Frank

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
wrote:

I bet if you did a proper double-blind test it wouldn't work. In fact
there is already such a bet available, I think you can win $1000000 if
you can show that you really can dowse. James Randi has had an offer
of this amount outstanding for many years and no one has won it.

Is it worth a bit of your time for $100000?


I have taught several people to do it for nothing. ;-)

I don't see what your problem is. It works for me. If you don't
believe in it, that's fine.

It isn't a matter of belief, or faith, or anything like that. It is a
simple practical technique that works in certain situations, that's
all. You could do it. Almost anyone can.

I've done it with a thread over a map but I'd like to learn how to do it
with rods. Are you anywhere near Yorkshire?

Mary

The message
from Frank Erskine contains these words:

I read that as:- "the couscous part of the brain"

That's thought transferrence from the other Shed, innit.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

"Mary Fisher" wrote:


"Tony Polson" wrote in message
.. .
Douglas de Lacey wrote:

ahem a contemporary of mine did a PhD on how concrete sets: I believe
his results had an impact on the industry.


If you want to know how concrete sets, ask a civil engineer. It was
an essential part of my education and training over 30 years ago, and,
I expect, of all civil engineers'.

Heck, even the Romans knew how it worked!

Perhaps, my point was that we don't need to know HOW it works :-)


I realised that, Mary. I posted the link because some among the
throng might actually be interested to know.

;-)

Frank Erskine wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:39:55 +0100, "none" wrote:


Easy $1000000 for you then, or maybe it just is tapping into the
sub-councious part of the brain as discussed above.

I read that as:- "the couscous part of the brain"


That's probably because you have a well developed sense of humous.

;-)

"Mary Fisher" wrote:


"Tony Polson" wrote in message
.. .

...


The point he is making is that it doesn't work.


So what experience do *you* have?

Or do you just take at face value one man's blandishments "that it
doesn't work"?

Quite. That would be just the same as taking at face value one man's
blandishments that it DOES work.


I'm not making blandishments. I have no need to prove anything to
anyone, whether for free or for some large sum of money. Whether it
works to someone else's satisfaction, or not, is immaterial here.

All I know is that, even as a sceptic, I have successfully found
underground services with the technique, with a surprising degree of
accuracy.

Perhaps I was just lucky.

;-)

"Mary Fisher" wrote:

I've done it with a thread over a map but I'd like to learn how to do it
with rods. Are you anywhere near Yorkshire?


Not any more, alas. I'm based in Somerset.

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
Frank Erskine wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:39:55 +0100, "none" wrote:


Easy $1000000 for you then, or maybe it just is tapping into the
sub-councious part of the brain as discussed above.

I read that as:- "the couscous part of the brain"


That's probably because you have a well developed sense of humous.

I love it when you tallk dirty ...

;-)

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Mary Fisher" wrote:


"Tony Polson" wrote in message
. ..

...


The point he is making is that it doesn't work.


So what experience do *you* have?

Or do you just take at face value one man's blandishments "that it
doesn't work"?

Quite. That would be just the same as taking at face value one man's
blandishments that it DOES work.


I'm not making blandishments. I have no need to prove anything to
anyone, whether for free or for some large sum of money. Whether it
works to someone else's satisfaction, or not, is immaterial here.

All I know is that, even as a sceptic, I have successfully found
underground services with the technique, with a surprising degree of
accuracy.

Perhaps I was just lucky.

;-)

I also have done this on sites, after initally being sceptical, then having
it demonstarted and having a go myself with success, unsuprsingly upon
retrying under controlled conditions with no visual clues it did not work.
This does not lessen its usefulness but I suggest it does not nothing but
tap into a number of visual and other clues that you may not consider
directly. Be interested to hear if anyone has researched this. That is my
hyopthesis anyway, if anyone has anything beyond 'it is magic and therefore
cannot be tested' i would be interested.

On 2006-07-28 23:17:12 +0100, Tony Polson said:

Frank Erskine wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:39:55 +0100, "none" wrote:


Easy $1000000 for you then, or maybe it just is tapping into the
sub-councious part of the brain as discussed above.

I read that as:- "the couscous part of the brain"


That's probably because you have a well developed sense of humous.
;-)

O-live for today.

"none" wrote:

I also have done this on sites, after initally being sceptical, then having
it demonstarted and having a go myself with success, unsuprsingly upon
retrying under controlled conditions with no visual clues it did not work.


I was a sceptic until I found underground services that no-one knew
existed and of which there were no clues of any kind.

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"none" wrote:

I also have done this on sites, after initally being sceptical, then
having
it demonstarted and having a go myself with success, unsuprsingly upon
retrying under controlled conditions with no visual clues it did not work.


I was a sceptic until I found underground services that no-one knew
existed and of which there were no clues of any kind.

If you are so certain there were no clues of any kind then you could repeat
it under controlled conditions and gain yourself $1000000. What you say you
do not need that money, surely a charity that would benefit greatly from
that sum of money raised by at most a few days work by you, it would be the
decent thing to do surely?

"none" wrote:


"Tony Polson" wrote in message
.. .
"none" wrote:

I also have done this on sites, after initally being sceptical, then
having
it demonstarted and having a go myself with success, unsuprsingly upon
retrying under controlled conditions with no visual clues it did not work.


I was a sceptic until I found underground services that no-one knew
existed and of which there were no clues of any kind.

If you are so certain there were no clues of any kind then you could repeat
it under controlled conditions and gain yourself $1000000. What you say you
do not need that money, surely a charity that would benefit greatly from
that sum of money raised by at most a few days work by you, it would be the
decent thing to do surely?


Dowsing is not something I do for a living. It was something very
peripheral to what I used to do - a very minor but surprisingly useful
enhancement to my former job, from which I have now retired.

I see no need to prove anything to anyone - not you, nor anyone else
on here, nor the man who you claim is offering a huge sum of money.

Whether any of you believe me, or not, is of no consequence. It will
not affect my life either way. The only thing that matters is whether
or not it worked for me when it would have been useful, and it did.

Joe wrote:
T i m wrote:

I wonder if there is a 'driving' sense we don't know about ... the one
that tells you that the person you are following is likely to do
something unpredictable and dangerous ...?


You see a hat being worn inside a car...

Thats one cue.

another one is wandering..yet another one is someone who isn't obviously
responding to the same cues that you are.

An excellent one is a reflection in a shop window that lets you see
round a blind corner..

Birds flying upo on a country road tells you there is another car there..

Millions of little cues.

Plus, a sixth sense...which may be no more than a generalised feeling of
a wrong pattern..or not.

There is an apocryphal story of some racing driver, who slowed down for
an unseen accident, because he noticed that as a popular driver, this
time instead of faces, all he could see in the crowd was the backs of
peoples heads staring at the accident...

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Mary Fisher" wrote:


"Tony Polson" wrote in message
. ..

...


The point he is making is that it doesn't work.


So what experience do *you* have?

Or do you just take at face value one man's blandishments "that it
doesn't work"?

Quite. That would be just the same as taking at face value one man's
blandishments that it DOES work.


I'm not making blandishments. I have no need to prove anything to
anyone, whether for free or for some large sum of money. Whether it
works to someone else's satisfaction, or not, is immaterial here.

Hey, Tony, I'm on your side ;-)

All I know is that, even as a sceptic, I have successfully found
underground services with the technique, with a surprising degree of
accuracy.

And I believe you.

Perhaps I was just lucky.

I don't believe in luck!

Mary

"none" wrote in message
...

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"none" wrote:

I also have done this on sites, after initally being sceptical, then
having
it demonstarted and having a go myself with success, unsuprsingly upon
retrying under controlled conditions with no visual clues it did not
work.


I was a sceptic until I found underground services that no-one knew
existed and of which there were no clues of any kind.

If you are so certain there were no clues of any kind then you could
repeat it under controlled conditions and gain yourself $1000000. What you
say you do not need that money, surely a charity that would benefit
greatly from that sum of money raised by at most a few days work by you,
it would be the decent thing to do surely?

If it's a decent thing to do why doesn't the challenger give it straight to
charity and cut out the middle man?

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Mary Fisher" wrote:

I've done it with a thread over a map but I'd like to learn how to do it
with rods. Are you anywhere near Yorkshire?


Not any more, alas. I'm based in Somerset.

Ah well ... if I remember I'll look for someone else :-)

Mary

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

Plus, a sixth sense...which may be no more than a generalised feeling of
a wrong pattern..or not.

When I was a driving instructor it was noticeable that there came a time
with most learners[1] when they'd say something like "I knew he was
going to do that". I'd known it too, but it was satisfying when the
pupil started to develop that "sixth sense" about what was going to
happen and when.
Then you had to teach them that though it's a useful skill you can't use
it as your only source of safety!

It's hard to prove because it's difficult to do controlled experiments
on such things, but I suspect that this dawning of perception happened
sooner as I got better at the job.

[1] Some never did it. There appeared to be a correlation[2] with not
having ridden a bicycle as a kid.

[2] Why does that have a double r?

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Mary Fisher wrote:

wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

"Douglas de Lacey" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

Sorry for unfinished post, my personal person from Porlock interrupted
...

We don't need a scientific explanation for how concrete sets or
why water doesn't run uphill, we accept it. the explanation might be
interesting ut isn't essential to the working of the system.

How many of us know exactly how all parts of our bodies work?

ahem a contemporary of mine did a PhD on how concrete sets: I believe
his results had an impact on the industry.

As I said, that's one. But we all accept that concrete does set without
thinking about it. Well, some of us might think we know, I used to, but
it's
always more complicated and less easily proved than we think.

Yes, but there *is* an explanation that experts on concrete know about
and can use to analyse why/how it sets and also make the setting
better etc.

The same does *not* apply to dowsing.


How do you know ? :-)

You tell me where to find the explanation of dowsing and I'll tell you
where to find the one about concrete - deal?

--
Chris Green

Mary Fisher wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
Douglas de Lacey wrote:

ahem a contemporary of mine did a PhD on how concrete sets: I believe
his results had an impact on the industry.


If you want to know how concrete sets, ask a civil engineer. It was
an essential part of my education and training over 30 years ago, and,
I expect, of all civil engineers'.

Heck, even the Romans knew how it worked!

Perhaps, my point was that we don't need to know HOW it works :-)

.... but that doesn't answer my criticism of dowsing does it!

As the above shows there *are* explanations of how concret works but
there *aren't* explanations of how dowsing works.

--
Chris Green

Tony Polson wrote:
wrote:

Mary Fisher wrote:
In fact
there is already such a bet available, I think you can win $1000000 if
you can show that you really can dowse. James Randi has had an offer
of this amount outstanding for many years and no one has won it.

Is it worth a bit of your time for $100000?

It wouldn't attract me.

I wonder why James Randi (never heard of him) is doing it? What point is
there?

The point he is making is that it doesn't work.


So what experience do *you* have?

Or do you just take at face value one man's blandishments "that it
doesn't work"?

Almost anyone - even you - can be taught in a few minutes to locate
underground cables and other services with two pieces of metal rod.

It's easy. It's quick to learn. And it works.

.... and when tested under proper conditions it *doesn't* work.

I remember playing at dowsing at school in the sixth form once. (Wow,
that was a few years ago). We quite quickly convinced ourselves that
we could do it and played at demonstrating it to each other for quite
a while.

The someone actually came up with a proper testing mechanism and it
turned out that we couldn't do it.

It's very, very, very easy indeed to fool yourself and others around
you about things like this. The tests you need to do to decide
whether dowsing (or similar things) are real are quite subtle.

--
Chris Green

none wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Mary Fisher" wrote:


"Tony Polson" wrote in message
. ..

...


The point he is making is that it doesn't work.


So what experience do *you* have?

Or do you just take at face value one man's blandishments "that it
doesn't work"?

Quite. That would be just the same as taking at face value one man's
blandishments that it DOES work.


I'm not making blandishments. I have no need to prove anything to
anyone, whether for free or for some large sum of money. Whether it
works to someone else's satisfaction, or not, is immaterial here.

All I know is that, even as a sceptic, I have successfully found
underground services with the technique, with a surprising degree of
accuracy.

Perhaps I was just lucky.

;-)

I also have done this on sites, after initally being sceptical, then having
it demonstarted and having a go myself with success, unsuprsingly upon
retrying under controlled conditions with no visual clues it did not work.
This does not lessen its usefulness but I suggest it does not nothing but
tap into a number of visual and other clues that you may not consider
directly. Be interested to hear if anyone has researched this. That is my
hyopthesis anyway, if anyone has anything beyond 'it is magic and therefore
cannot be tested' i would be interested.

This I think is almost certainly the explanation.

Tests done where all other clues are carefully removed *and* the
dowser has no previous knowledge of the site show the results of the
dowser are the same as a random guesser would get. If, on the other
hand, the dowser knows the site and/or there are lots of visual clues
then someone with experience who can (consciously or subconsciously)
use those cluse will do better than chance.

--
Chris Green

On 2006-07-29 11:53:31 +0100, said:

It's very, very, very easy indeed to fool yourself and others around
you about things like this. The tests you need to do to decide
whether dowsing (or similar things) are real are quite subtle.

I wonder if that's how magnetic water conditioners work?

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

I wonder if that's how magnetic water conditioners work?

Would you like a wooden spoon with which to do your stirring? (insert
smiley here)

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
Douglas de Lacey wrote:
ahem a contemporary of mine did a PhD on how concrete sets: I believe
his results had an impact on the industry.

If you want to know how concrete sets, ask a civil engineer. It was
an essential part of my education and training over 30 years ago, and,
I expect, of all civil engineers'.

Heck, even the Romans knew how it worked!
Perhaps, my point was that we don't need to know HOW it works :-)

... but that doesn't answer my criticism of dowsing does it!

As the above shows there *are* explanations of how concret works but
there *aren't* explanations of how dowsing works.

Oh there are, but none of them fit within the current worldview of science.

wrote:
none wrote:
"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Mary Fisher" wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...

...

The point he is making is that it doesn't work.

So what experience do *you* have?

Or do you just take at face value one man's blandishments "that it
doesn't work"?
Quite. That would be just the same as taking at face value one man's
blandishments that it DOES work.

I'm not making blandishments. I have no need to prove anything to
anyone, whether for free or for some large sum of money. Whether it
works to someone else's satisfaction, or not, is immaterial here.

All I know is that, even as a sceptic, I have successfully found
underground services with the technique, with a surprising degree of
accuracy.

Perhaps I was just lucky.

;-)

I also have done this on sites, after initally being sceptical, then having
it demonstarted and having a go myself with success, unsuprsingly upon
retrying under controlled conditions with no visual clues it did not work.
This does not lessen its usefulness but I suggest it does not nothing but
tap into a number of visual and other clues that you may not consider
directly. Be interested to hear if anyone has researched this. That is my
hyopthesis anyway, if anyone has anything beyond 'it is magic and therefore
cannot be tested' i would be interested.

This I think is almost certainly the explanation.

Tests done where all other clues are carefully removed *and* the
dowser has no previous knowledge of the site show the results of the
dowser are the same as a random guesser would get. If, on the other
hand, the dowser knows the site and/or there are lots of visual clues
then someone with experience who can (consciously or subconsciously)
use those cluse will do better than chance.


Which is not, of itself, and argument against dowsing.

If you regard it as a technique to make conscious what the subconscious
already knows.

Ditto palm reading, tarot cards and the like.

If you can concede that the human mind screens out most of what it
doesn't need to deal with and that techniques can make some of this
information available to the conscious mind, then whether it's from the
'normal' senses or some that haven't quite been defined yet, it is
certainly an explanation for most, if not all, forms of 'magic' and
divination..

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:24:30 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
Douglas de Lacey wrote:

ahem a contemporary of mine did a PhD on how concrete sets: I believe
his results had an impact on the industry.


If you want to know how concrete sets, ask a civil engineer. It was
an essential part of my education and training over 30 years ago, and,
I expect, of all civil engineers'.

Heck, even the Romans knew how it worked!

Perhaps, my point was that we don't need to know HOW it works :-)

Your "point" was vacuous, we do need to know how the setting of concrete
works.

Dowsing however doesn't work so the question of how it works is irrelevant.
Water divining can work, but water divination is more of case of knowledge
of local aquifers and of the surface signs of subsurface water.