Finding water with dowsing rods.

Post Reply New Topic

Instinct, perhaps.

Look for sub-surface water in low places where vegetation is especially thick and abundant. Insects will also congregate there, and the birds that eat them. Surface rocks may accumulate dew from water vapor arising out of the ground and condensing on the rocks, especially on the surface in contact with the ground. Grubs and similar creatures prefer such damp environments, and are a ready source of protein for someone lost or stranded in the wilderness.

To increase your chances of finding water, look for the following:

• Valleys and low areas are places where water naturally drains.
  
• Dry creek beds where water has flowed recently.
  
• Rock crevices. Rainwater may have been collected.
  
• Muddy or damp ground.
  
• Patches of green vegetation indicate water underneath.
  
• Insects, as they often stay close to water.
  
• Birds, as they will often circle a watering hole.
  
• Places where animal tracks converge.
  
• Rodent burrows clustered together.

An old trick is to dig a hole in a suspected area, place a container at the bottom of a hole, place a sheet of plastic over the hole, and "seal" the edges of the sheet with dirt from the hole. A small rock placed on the sheet over the container in the hole will force any condensation on the bottom of the plastic to drip into the container.

^^^
that is very informative

but I wonder how my oldest brother [taught the dowsing technique as a marine during Vietnam conflict] used a dowsing rod to find a septic tank he knew not the location of? it was in my parents' backyard, a place he'd never lived in [as they bought it decades after he grew up and left the house].

Grass is always greener over the septic tank.

hmmmmm... where have I heard that before?

^^^Erma Bombeck said that.
when I lived in South Ark,a well driller I knew never drilled without getting this old man to witch it.He only missed once.My well driller witched my well,it's about 350 ft deep so no moisture on the ground here.Most people use peach or willow.But if you want to test it,get two ball point pens,take out the ink cartridge,get two clothes hangers and cut and fit to make two rods,the bent portion goes in the hollow pen.Then your hands can't effect it.You can put silver or other minerals on it and look for treasure.I can't explain it,but it does work.Maybe just blind luck,who knows.

in theory [with the pen case expedient] you could still affect it, but that sidesteps the question of how the body automatically responds to the water or minerals or whatever beneath the surface, in the first place. IOW it is still a mystery.

Actually there are heaps of clues on the surface, about what's under the ground.
When I went on Geo mapping trips, I would keep an eye on the colour of the termite mounds. If they changed, then I'd know the underlying rock changed. In that area it was either basalt which would give very red termite mounds, or a silty sandstone which were noticeably less red.
Cities are built with geology in mind. Wherever there are big skyscrapers, you now there must strong rock underneath to support them. Plus, city buildings, especially older ones, are often built of rocks mined in the area. You can sometimes guess when it was built because of this. Some cities are known among geologists because of a distinctive building material. In Brisbane, a specific sandstone was used for some of the heritage buildings, which is not found anywhere else.
In one place in central Queensland, near Rockhampton, you knew that the dark foliage plants were associated with the limestone deposits, because the soil in the area had a different pH.
And trees grew more near creeks, which helped with planning excursions from a Google earth image.
In one case, you could see worm-like rows of trees from the satellite image, and after you mapped, you could see that every time you came across rhyolite, it was under these trees, and only under these trees, so you could conclude that the rhyolite dykes could be mapped reasonably well by assuming the trees were associated with them.
There is a fair bit of guess work in geology, but they really have a lot of good clues to go by.

Just because you can't explain it doesn't mean there isn't one.

Humans (and most everything else) influences EM fields. Dowsing probably is sensitive to it. Why some are better about their results than others simply means we don't know exactly how or why it works.

^ Argument from Ignorance. You have assumed that because there is no evidence against your claim, it must be true.

The probability that Dowsing has any validity is so vanishingly small that to call Dowsing "bogus" is closest to the actual truth.

The burden of proof concerning dowsing is strictly on those who claim dowsing works.

So far every experiment contrived to prove that dowsing works has been empirically falsified or shown to be ill designed (mostly through lack of controls).

ruveyn

as you asked.....

There are scientists including physicists and hydrogeologists who believe in dowsing, apparently because of their own experiences and tests, but it is generally seen to be unproven.

At least one study has shown miniscule muscle movement in people's arms just before the response of the rods was seen. Various other investigations also proved nothing, because, for example, even a successful dowser may have conceivably used surface cues to increase their chances of successfully detecting water so experiment was inconclusive.

Also the New South Wales Government has kept relevant records of thousands of wells and found that the dowsed wells(70%) actually had a LOWER success rate than the non-dowsed wells (83%).
As I mentioned, the primary reason that a controlled experiment can't be conducted is that the cost of drilling is prohibitive.
So this is not really settled, and this is by no means a comprehensive or thorough evaluation, but it does not look good for dowsing.

The most common rock to yield useful flowing, potable water is porous sandstone, which by its very nature tends to be in extensive layers. Yes, it can be folded or tilted, but it is often also in flat layers, so you could probably drill almost anywhere in that layer to get water. Finding the 'perfect spot' could be worked out by the eeny-meeny-miney-moe method. And groundwater is present in most places, so really, you'll probably find it if you drill deep enough.

So what made the rods move? Well, the most likely explanation which has some support is that the rods move when there is a magnetic gradient in the area. The rods I had were metallic. I have never tried a non-metallic one, so don't have a reason to question this. I have not looked at whether there is any kind of correlation between groundwater presence or movement or quality, and magnetic field variation. If I do, and find anything, I will let you know.

But I am now wondering about the NSW well data. It could be the result of the geology peculiar to the area, but I am wondering if the magnetic field variation which captures the interest of dowsers is in fact due to rocks that might interfere with the presence of useful underground water.
A large sandstone body is probably mainly quartz. If it was near an igneous body that was formed when, say, the Earth's magnetic field was reversed, then you would not only get a magnetic gradient, you would actually get less water in the vicinity because the igneous rock would be less porous, thereby making the chances of finding a failed well greater. (by randomly drilling then hitting igneous rock instead of sedimentary)
Igneous rock of a suitable composition could capture the magnetic field of the Earth at the time it solidified. Subsequent geological activity could result in almost any configuration of rock underground, but the fact remains that this type of rock is less likely to yield a useful well so could explain those results.

Just speculating...

as you asked.....

There are scientists including physicists and hydrogeologists who believe in dowsing, apparently because of their own experiences and tests, but it is generally seen to be unproven.

At least one study has shown miniscule muscle movement in people's arms just before the response of the rods was seen. Various other investigations also proved nothing, because, for example, even a successful dowser may have conceivably used surface cues to increase their chances of successfully detecting water so experiment was inconclusive.

Also the New South Wales Government has kept relevant records of thousands of wells and found that the dowsed wells(70%) actually had a LOWER success rate than the non-dowsed wells (83%).
As I mentioned, the primary reason that a controlled experiment can't be conducted is that the cost of drilling is prohibitive.
So this is not really settled, and this is by no means a comprehensive or thorough evaluation, but it does not look good for dowsing.

The most common rock to yield useful flowing, potable water is porous sandstone, which by its very nature tends to be in extensive layers. Yes, it can be folded or tilted, but it is often also in flat layers, so you could probably drill almost anywhere in that layer to get water. Finding the 'perfect spot' could be worked out by the eeny-meeny-miney-moe method. And groundwater is present in most places, so really, you'll probably find it if you drill deep enough.

So what made the rods move? Well, the most likely explanation which has some support is that the rods move when there is a magnetic gradient in the area. The rods I had were metallic. I have never tried a non-metallic one, so don't have a reason to question this. I have not looked at whether there is any kind of correlation between groundwater presence or movement or quality, and magnetic field variation. If I do, and find anything, I will let you know.

But I am now wondering about the NSW well data. It could be the result of the geology peculiar to the area, but I am wondering if the magnetic field variation which captures the interest of dowsers is in fact due to rocks that might interfere with the presence of useful underground water.
A large sandstone body is probably mainly quartz. If it was near an igneous body that was formed when, say, the Earth's magnetic field was reversed, then you would not only get a magnetic gradient, you would actually get less water in the vicinity because the igneous rock would be less porous, thereby making the chances of finding a failed well greater. (by randomly drilling then hitting igneous rock instead of sedimentary)
Igneous rock of a suitable composition could capture the magnetic field of the Earth at the time it solidified. Subsequent geological activity could result in almost any configuration of rock underground, but the fact remains that this type of rock is less likely to yield a useful well so could explain those results.

Just speculating...

If they ran experiments that supported dowsing nonsense, then the experiments they ran were probably not well designed and did not have proper controls.

It's actually a fair remark, taken in isolation. Plenty of observable phenomena are as yet unexplained. But I don't believe in dowsing.

From the articles I read, the hydrogeologists were just going by their observations over time, which does not qualify as science but it was their firm informal opinion.
The physicist was doing a limited experiment which supported an aspect of the claim, but still did not actually address dowsing itself. As I said, there are some measurable phenomena which originate underground, and I am guessing he worked on one of these and jumped to a conclusion or two.

I don't think any geophysicist would do that.

In science, one's "informal" opinion does not add up to a pile of sh*t.

Only properly designed and -reproduced- experiments count. That is how the physical sciences exclude nonsense from their doings.

ruveyn