Steve Firth wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:09:24 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

I don't care whether you believe in it or not, but it has actually
*worked* for me, making the job of locating underground services on
construction sites immeasurably easier. It is not a question of
belief, it is a simple, effective practical technique that you could
easily perform yourself, but for the fact that your mind is closed.

Every objective test of dowsing shows that it is no better than random
chance [1]. It doesn't work, it has never been proven to work and stares
into crystal ball the odds are that the state of affairs will continue for
ever.

All you have to offer is an anecdote.

[1] If done as you describe by a nobody armed with a pair of metal rods. If
one hires a water diviner they *may* have better luck than a dowser however
they use local knowledge of the lie of the land, the location of aquifers
and simple observation such as popping out early in the morning to see the
water vapour rising as the sun comes up.


I have never used it to find water and remain very sceptical that you
can find water using this method. However it finds underground cables
and pipes with surprising accuracy and ease. That is an objective
report based on my own experience, and from a background of personal
scepticism.

If you choose to believe it doesn't work, that is up to you. I don't
believe or disbelieve anything about why it should or shouldn't work;
I judge it on the evidence that it *does* work, and very well too.

Steve Firth wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:14:54 GMT, Jason wrote:

Perhaps another test would provide some further evidence: connect the two
rods together at the base, to ensure that no amount of hand movement could
tip them towards each other. That would prove they were pushed together
without any force from the person holding the rods. On the other hand, if
the rods did not move, then I guess the explanation would be that the
connection would be 'short-circuiting' the effect...?

FWIW, I've played with metal dowsing rods. A statement that they cannot me
moved by the person holding them is umm, bull****. I could get them to
cross and uncross at will, however even when crossing a known aquifer they
gave no result at all.

As expected in fact.


Funny how you started with a preconceived idea, then set out to
"prove" it. No surprise that you got *exactly* the results you wished
for, by moving the rods deliberately!

Very "scientific"!

;-)

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

This is completely unbelievable, and if dowsing actually works, completely
untrue. You are crossing the rods, even if unconciously.


Your arrogance and presumption know no bounds, sir.

You must have known that before ... it's a well known fact.

"Guy King" wrote in message
...

... all the lost services the utility firms keep digging up the
roads in search of?

Are they?

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

It may indeed in some sense work, but the only thing moving the rods
is you.


Complete and utter nonsense. But thanks for making me laugh!

;-)
So what moves the rods then?

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:24:06 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:59:39 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

They do not move themselves.

Correct, the person holding them moves them.


Where did you learn to talk such complete and utter nonsense?

(Rhetorical question - reply neither needed or sought)

What stops the person holding the rods from moving them?

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:29:31 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

I judge it on the evidence that it *does* work, and very well too.

Yet all you have is anecdote.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:54:32 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:14:54 GMT, Jason wrote:

Perhaps another test would provide some further evidence: connect the two
rods together at the base, to ensure that no amount of hand movement could
tip them towards each other. That would prove they were pushed together
without any force from the person holding the rods. On the other hand, if
the rods did not move, then I guess the explanation would be that the
connection would be 'short-circuiting' the effect...?

FWIW, I've played with metal dowsing rods. A statement that they cannot me
moved by the person holding them is umm, bull****. I could get them to
cross and uncross at will, however even when crossing a known aquifer they
gave no result at all.

As expected in fact.


Funny how you started with a preconceived idea, then set out to
"prove" it.

No, I started with a prior claim and tried to disprove it.

The claims we

That the rods cannot be moved by the operator. This was disproved
immediately. In fact it's a pice of cake to move the rods manually all it
takes is a fraction of a rotation of the wrist to cause the rods to cross.
This with the rods held in the recommended grip or ven when the rods were
supported in sleeve bearings in order to stop them being rotated by
movements of the fingers.

That the rods cross when crossing an aquifer. Also shown to be untrue.
When crossing over a known aquifer there was no response. I did not ow know
where the aquifer was, so not much opportunity for me to cheat.

That the rods would cross over unknown metallic objects such as (in this
case) a 4in cast iron pipe. Again I had no idea where it was.


No surprise that you got *exactly* the results you wished
for, by moving the rods deliberately!

Very "scientific"!

;-)

Are you really the dumbass you wish to appear to be?

"Mary Fisher" wrote:

You must have known that before ... it's a well known fact.


I had forgotten. It is several years since I visited uk.d-i-y.

But I have now restored the idjit to my kill file.

;-)

"Mary Fisher" wrote:


"Guy King" wrote in message
...

... all the lost services the utility firms keep digging up the
roads in search of?

Are they?


Actually, they aren't. But the truth wouldn't be a good basis for an
ignorant rant, so a lie will have to do instead.

;-)

The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

... all the lost services the utility firms keep digging up the
roads in search of?

Are they?

Quite often. Though they're getting better at using ground-radar and the
like to find them again. Old survey and installation data is often of
dubious quality even if it exists at all.

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

The message
from Steve Firth contains these words:

Are you really the dumbass you wish to appear to be?

I'm beginning to suspect he's not only very dim but also a troll.

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

"none" wrote:

So what moves the rods then?


You will never know.

Tony Polson wrote:

They do not move themselves. The fact that almost anyone can get
results using metal rods suggests that some form of electromagnetic
force makes the rods cross.

Where is the force emitted from ?

If you, and other sceptics, just tried it, you would soon stop
bleating about how it doesn't work.

In a double blind testing scenario it can't be demonstrated. Therefore
it does not work.

I was a complete sceptic but gave
it a try because a respected colleague suggested I should. Not only
did it work, but I found it very useful in my job as a civil engineer.

I am degree educated and professionally qualified. I would not
suggest that dowsing works if I did not have personal experience that
proved it does, overcoming my strong scepticism in the process.

Efforts to argue by qualification suggest you've lost your way. Even so,
even extremely clever people can be misled. Arthur Conan Doyle and the
fairies at the bottom of the garden springs to mind ?

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

It may indeed in some sense work, but the only thing moving the rods
is you.


Complete and utter nonsense. But thanks for making me laugh!

If it is nonsense, then prove it. Fix the rods in some way that prevents
your hands from moving them, and try divining with that.

-- JJ

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

So you could devise an experiment that, if successful, would disprove the
'move by some form of electromagnetic force' theory?


I'm not interested in "proving" anything one way or the other. The
technique worked well for me. It made finding buried services faster
and cheaper than any alternative method, and that is all that matters.

Right, that is my point: why make up pie-in-sky explanations that use some
psuedo scientific terms that sound plausible to anyone who does not know the
first thing about 'electromagnetic forces'? If it works for you, fine, but
trust me - at the end of the day *you* are moving those rods because *you*
are holding them and *you* are balancing them and *you* are in full control
of them. You may think that is funny, but I can prove it (though you have
already stated you are not interested in learning more of the truth about
it, so we will have to leave it there).

If there was some external force pushing these things, then don't you think
it would have been exploited by now? Free energy and all that. Would someone
not have made a device for measuring this force and using it to tell what is
underground? Yes, electromagnetic waves *are* exploited to look
underground - radar is, as we speak, looking deep into Venus and other moons
in the solar system. The mechanisms are very different though. They don't
involve forces strong enough to push a pair of bent metal coat hangers
(unlike, say, muscles in an arm).

-- JJ

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
news
Steve Firth wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:59:39 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

They do not move themselves.

Correct, the person holding them moves them.


Where did you learn to talk such complete and utter nonsense?

You keep saying this, and yet your statements are based on faith, while the
opposite view is based on real science with real experiments that can be
used to prove it one way or another. I really don't see how a faith-based
belief (one that the believer has stated he has no interested in proving)
can be used to call a science-based approach 'utter nonsense'.

-- JJ

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:14:54 GMT, Jason wrote:

Perhaps another test would provide some further evidence: connect the two
rods together at the base, to ensure that no amount of hand movement
could
tip them towards each other. That would prove they were pushed together
without any force from the person holding the rods. On the other hand, if
the rods did not move, then I guess the explanation would be that the
connection would be 'short-circuiting' the effect...?

FWIW, I've played with metal dowsing rods. A statement that they cannot me
moved by the person holding them is umm, bull****. I could get them to
cross and uncross at will, however even when crossing a known aquifer they
gave no result at all.

As expected in fact.

I used to play with a couple I made when I was very young. They always
crossed without fail when approaching a certain line across the kitchen. It
was years later that I found out a lead gas pipe crossed along that line.
How that worked, I don't know, but I can make a few guesses. Perhaps I knew
more than I thought I knew. Perhaps I was somehow detecting something (and
crossing the wires myself). Perhaps the orientation of the kitchen had some
other effect - I just don't know how many cues I was picking up. What I do
know though, is that it could only have been my own hands moving them.

The idea of the rods is that it forms a positive feedback loop at a critical
bistable state. What that means in English, is that they are balanced in
such a way that they could move either way with very little effort. It is a
bit like balancing a ping-pong ball on a razer - it is not very stable, and
the slightest breeze with make it fall to one side. The feedback comes in
because of the fact that the holder can a) see the rods moving, and b) feel
the rods moving. If you see or feel it happening, probably just through
random muscle movements, and you believe (even subconsiously) that the
movement is positive or significant, then it does not take much further
movement to swing them further with your own hands. Once they do swing
inward, the balance has shifted, and your arms or wrists twist slightly,
just enough to keep them there.

-- JJ

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

So what moves the rods then?

You will never know.

lol! It's magic. Whoooooooo!

The message
from "Jason" contains these words:

So what moves the rods then?

You will never know.

lol! It's magic. Whoooooooo!

Look into the eyes, just the eyes, only the eyes......

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

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

So what moves the rods then?


You will never know.

There's no point in answering them, Tony.

"Jason" wrote in message
.. .



Right, that is my point: why make up pie-in-sky explanations that use some
psuedo scientific terms that sound plausible to anyone who does not know
the first thing about 'electromagnetic forces'? If it works for you, fine,
but trust me - at the end of the day *you* are moving those rods because
*you* are holding them and *you* are balancing them and *you* are in full
control of them. You may think that is funny, but I can prove it (though
you have already stated you are not interested in learning more of the
truth about it, so we will have to leave it there).

If there was some external force pushing these things, then don't you
think it would have been exploited by now? Free energy and all that. Would
someone not have made a device for measuring this force and using it to
tell what is underground? Yes, electromagnetic waves *are* exploited to
look underground - radar is, as we speak, looking deep into Venus and
other moons in the solar system. The mechanisms are very different though.
They don't involve forces strong enough to push a pair of bent metal coat
hangers (unlike, say, muscles in an arm).

Do you feel better having got that off your chest?

"Jason" wrote in message
. ..


You keep saying this, and yet your statements are based on faith, while
the opposite view is based on real science with real experiments that can
be used to prove it one way or another. I really don't see how a
faith-based belief (one that the believer has stated he has no interested
in proving) can be used to call a science-based approach 'utter nonsense'.

You keep spouting on about your lack of faith yet can't prove anything.

Why bother?

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


"Guy King" wrote in message
.. .

... all the lost services the utility firms keep digging up the
roads in search of?

Are they?


Actually, they aren't.

I didn't think they were either.

But the truth wouldn't be a good basis for an
ignorant rant, so a lie will have to do instead.

:-)

Mary

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

... all the lost services the utility firms keep digging up the
roads in search of?

Are they?

Quite often.

How often?

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

You must have known that before ... it's a well known fact.


I had forgotten. It is several years since I visited uk.d-i-y.

But I have now restored the idjit to my kill file.

;-)

Poor chap, having to mix with the rabble in yours. And mine.

The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

... all the lost services the utility firms keep digging up the
roads in search of?

Are they?

Quite often.

How often?

How the hell do I know, but there were blokes in yellow jackets running
a thing looking like a lawnmower with a TV screen over the ground near
here a few weeks ago. I asked 'em what they were doing - they were
looking for the water main for part of the estate (1970s) which they'd
lost. They reckoned they were busy pretty much all the time looking for
old services and suchlike.

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

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:46:05 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Jason" wrote in message
...


You keep saying this, and yet your statements are based on faith, while
the opposite view is based on real science with real experiments that can
be used to prove it one way or another. I really don't see how a
faith-based belief (one that the believer has stated he has no interested
in proving) can be used to call a science-based approach 'utter nonsense'.

You keep spouting on about your lack of faith yet can't prove anything.

Why bother?

I'm as sceptical as anybody about occult-type phenomena - really.

For many years I've been involved as a trustee in the preservation of
a waterworks at www.ryhopeengines.org.uk/ . Although it's a
waterworks it didn't actually have its own water supply (obvious when
you think about it!), but it has a large standpipe from another
pumping station a few miles away.
Out of interest a while ago a few of us wondered about the source of
this supply, which appeared as a cast iron pipe around 3 or 4 inch
diameter directly from the floor in the "museum" area. We took a
couple of brazing rods as dowsing tools just for fun and were able to
"guestimate" the direction from which the supply originated. Later
this was confirmed by Northumbrian Water, who own the site.

--
Frank Erskine
Sunderland

"Mary Fisher" wrote:


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

So what moves the rods then?


You will never know.

There's no point in answering them, Tony.


I know. They are all making themselves at home in my kill file.

I wonder how it was that, on a site that was about 140 metres by 40
metres, my hands "knew" to cross the rods *exactly* over where the
buried services were located, but *nowhere else*? It could only have
been my imagination.

;-)

Geronimo W. Christ Esq wrote:
Tony Polson wrote:

I was a complete sceptic until I tried it. Until then, I believed it
was hokum.


It's total hokum, and here's how you prove it.

Get a friend to bury ten pipes in a piece of ground, and then run water
through one of them, without telling you which one. Then try to use your
magick dowsing techniques to find out which one it is.

You've done this, have you? Please could you point us to some published
results?

Geronimo W. Christ Esq wrote:
such things aren't provable in "scientific" tests (which really means
they aren't provable at all).

Nonsense, it may simply indicate you've chosen the wrong scientific model.


Geronimo W. Christ Esq wrote:
A lot of dowsing (like in Tony Polson's case) is down to luck. The rest
of it is down to certainty.

You seem to know an awful lot more than "science" can provide...

Geronimo W. Christ Esq wrote:
Mary, I saw this article and thought of you:

....And when you descend to cheap gibes one suspects you are aware of the
weakness of your position.

It would be really interesting to have a serious discussion of dowsing;
it's a pity that those who oppose the idea here seem to have such a poor
grasp of the concept of scientific method. Just in case anyone would
like to provide thoughtful comments I've changed the subject to help the
s/n ratio.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:59:11 +0100, Tony Polson
wrote:

"Mary Fisher" wrote:


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

So what moves the rods then?


You will never know.

There's no point in answering them, Tony.


I know. They are all making themselves at home in my kill file.

I wonder how it was that, on a site that was about 140 metres by 40
metres, my hands "knew" to cross the rods *exactly* over where the
buried services were located, but *nowhere else*? It could only have
been my imagination.

;-)



Does dowsing only work when you actually hold the rods in your hands?
Would it still work if you rigged up some sort of holder? Imagine you
are holding a couple of tubes with the dowsing rods sitting in them
(able to rotate freely). Would that work?

If the answer is "yes" to the first question and "no" to the second,
there might *possibly* be something to it. I don't have any problem
accepting the subconscious might be able to transmit electrical
impulses to the muscles of the hands causing rods to move.

If the answer to the second question is "yes" then all I can say in
response is "woof".
--
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...

I wonder how it was that, on a site that was about 140 metres by 40
metres, my hands "knew" to cross the rods *exactly* over where the
buried services were located, but *nowhere else*? It could only have
been my imagination.

We're very special people.

Mary

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:46:05 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Jason" wrote in message
k...


You keep saying this, and yet your statements are based on faith, while
the opposite view is based on real science with real experiments that
can
be used to prove it one way or another. I really don't see how a
faith-based belief (one that the believer has stated he has no
interested
in proving) can be used to call a science-based approach 'utter
nonsense'.

You keep spouting on about your lack of faith yet can't prove anything.

Why bother?

I'm as sceptical as anybody about occult-type phenomena - really.

So am I.

For many years I've been involved as a trustee in the preservation of
a waterworks at www.ryhopeengines.org.uk/ .

Nice site - and what a beautiful building! It's now on my list of Places to
Visit.

Although it's a
waterworks it didn't actually have its own water supply (obvious when
you think about it!), but it has a large standpipe from another
pumping station a few miles away.
Out of interest a while ago a few of us wondered about the source of
this supply, which appeared as a cast iron pipe around 3 or 4 inch
diameter directly from the floor in the "museum" area. We took a
couple of brazing rods as dowsing tools just for fun and were able to
"guestimate" the direction from which the supply originated. Later
this was confirmed by Northumbrian Water, who own the site.

It's quite surprising how many people do have their first experience of
dowsing 'for fun' or similar reasons - even scepticism. Suddenly it becomes
a wonder ...

Mary

"Douglas de Lacey" wrote in message
...

snip lots

I haven't seen any posts from Mr Christ so he can't exist.

Mary

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:57:40 +0100, Douglas de Lacey wrote:

it's a pity that those who oppose the idea here seem to have such a poor
grasp of the concept of scientific method.

It's a pity that those who believe in dowsing have no grasp at all of
scientific method and prefer to rely on anecdote and belief, absent of
evidence.

Here's a clue, those who propose that dowsing works need to provide
evidence to support their claim. It is not a case of a "dowsing works
unless proven not to work".

If you could produce some credible evidence that dowsing works, I'll pay it
attention. If you had the slightest clue about scientific method, I'd pay
you some attention. But a blanket claim that those stating that there is no
credible basis for dowsing to work know nothing about scientific method, is
the sound of an empty vessel making a loud noise.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:54:39 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

I haven't seen any posts from Mr Christ so he can't exist.

He's dead, if he ever existed. So correct, he can't exist, he may have
existed.

You appear to spend so much time dealing with fantasy that you have
problems dealing with reality. HTH.

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 00:24:29 +0100, Tony Polson
wrote:

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

Then I'm curious why you were looking for them at that particular
location, Tony.

After a working lifetime on building sites one must get a pretty good
intuition as to where services are likely to run.

One of my friends did work experience building the (still only part
used) roundabout on the end of the M606 in Bradford. His first task
set by the site foreman was to "Get down there and give me a rough
estimate in gallons per minute of sewage coming out of that broken
pipe"

DG

Gully Foyle wrote:

If the answer to the second question is "yes" then all I can say in
response is "woof".


You're barking. But we already knew that.

Welcome to my kill file. You will enjoy the company of several
like-minded people. Go ahead and bark!

;-)

wrote:

I found it odd that it rose well inside the building, rather than adjacent to
the exterior wall. Where did it come into the building? how did it get across
the site?


So you "found it odd", did you?

Here we go again ...

.... another "expert" joins the rest of the idiots in my kill file.

;-)

"Mary Fisher" wrote:

It's quite surprising how many people do have their first experience of
dowsing 'for fun' or similar reasons - even scepticism. Suddenly it becomes
a wonder ...


I was very sceptical and was reluctantly coaxed into giving it a try
by a colleague.

After a few minutes' training, within a few minutes I located several
buried services. We set a JCB to dig for them and they were located
*precisely* where the rods indicated. As a sceptic, I was astonished.

There must be many hundreds, maybe thousands of people in the
construction industry who routinely use dowsing to locate buried
services. The skill required is minimal. They do it without fuss. To
them, dowsing is just a simple, practical and effective tool.

The people who make the fuss about dowsing always appear to be those
who would not do it, could not do it, or (mostly) those who have not
even tried. They always have absolute, total "faith" that it doesn't
work, based on their strongly negative preconceived ideas and - the
one essential component - zero experience.

;-)