Water springs and underground pipes

[j6891]

Looking to trace the source of the spring for my house. It's on someone elses land so not too keen to dig back to source and potential to lose spring. Wanting a more concrete answer than divining as hoping to "prove" where the source is. Can you geo-phys like on time team for a clear underground picture? Any other non invasive ideas? Tia

 

[Brisel]

Divining/dowsing is more accurate than most think. Some are better at it than others. I haven't got the "gift"

It would be a good start but really you'll need a trace wire inserted up the pipe and a cat to detect it above ground if you want to be more technical about it. I don't suppose it's a galvanised or cast iron pipe you could detect more easily? Do you have an easement or right of supply on the other land? Have you asked your neighbour?

 

[Farfrae]

Divining/dowsing is more accurate than most think.

As I posted in another thread yesterday there is not one single bit of scientific evidence that I know of (if you know of any valid studies that show otherwise please do post the links) that water divining performs any better than chance

How does water dowsing work?

In the sense that it finds underground water, water dowsing does not work. Water dowsing involves the claim that a person can locate underground so...

wtamu.edu

Various controlled scientific studies over the last hundred years have repeatedly found that water dowsing does not work. For instance, 30 "expert" dowsers were invited to Kassel, Germany in 1990 to have their abilities tested in a study organized by James Randi. Pipes carrying flowing water were buried underground at known locations and the dowsers were tested as to their ability to determine if water was flowing through the pipes. All failed to do better than random guessing. In the book Carl Sagan's Universe, edited by Yervant Terzian and Elizabeth Bilson, James Randi describes the tests:

While we were there we designed a series of tests, as I have done in many countries around the world, to test the forked stick or the pendulum or the coat hanger wires or whatever. Some people do it with their hands. And we did it in Kassel, Germany, two years ago, a very definitive set of tests, and, of course, it proved that the law of averages works quite well, but dowsing doesn't.

 

[tepapa]

As I posted in another thread yesterday there is not one single bit of scientific evidence that I know of (if you know of any valid studies that show otherwise please do post the links) that water divining performs any better than chance

How does water dowsing work?

In the sense that it finds underground water, water dowsing does not work. Water dowsing involves the claim that a person can locate underground so...

wtamu.edu

Various controlled scientific studies over the last hundred years have repeatedly found that water dowsing does not work. For instance, 30 "expert" dowsers were invited to Kassel, Germany in 1990 to have their abilities tested in a study organized by James Randi. Pipes carrying flowing water were buried underground at known locations and the dowsers were tested as to their ability to determine if water was flowing through the pipes. All failed to do better than random guessing. In the book Carl Sagan's Universe, edited by Yervant Terzian and Elizabeth Bilson, James Randi describes the tests:

While we were there we designed a series of tests, as I have done in many countries around the world, to test the forked stick or the pendulum or the coat hanger wires or whatever. Some people do it with their hands. And we did it in Kassel, Germany, two years ago, a very definitive set of tests, and, of course, it proved that the law of averages works quite well, but dowsing doesn't.

Change the record.

 

[renewablejohn]

As I posted in another thread yesterday there is not one single bit of scientific evidence that I know of (if you know of any valid studies that show otherwise please do post the links) that water divining performs any better than chance

How does water dowsing work?

In the sense that it finds underground water, water dowsing does not work. Water dowsing involves the claim that a person can locate underground so...

wtamu.edu

Various controlled scientific studies over the last hundred years have repeatedly found that water dowsing does not work. For instance, 30 "expert" dowsers were invited to Kassel, Germany in 1990 to have their abilities tested in a study organized by James Randi. Pipes carrying flowing water were buried underground at known locations and the dowsers were tested as to their ability to determine if water was flowing through the pipes. All failed to do better than random guessing. In the book Carl Sagan's Universe, edited by Yervant Terzian and Elizabeth Bilson, James Randi describes the tests:

While we were there we designed a series of tests, as I have done in many countries around the world, to test the forked stick or the pendulum or the coat hanger wires or whatever. Some people do it with their hands. And we did it in Kassel, Germany, two years ago, a very definitive set of tests, and, of course, it proved that the law of averages works quite well, but dowsing doesn't.

Here we go again. Rather than keep posting this garbage why dont you actually learn from what has been posted before about the science behind dipoles. It really is not rocket science.

 

[renewablejohn]

Looking to trace the source of the spring for my house. It's on someone elses land so not too keen to dig back to source and potential to lose spring. Wanting a more concrete answer than divining as hoping to "prove" where the source is. Can you geo-phys like on time team for a clear underground picture? Any other non invasive ideas? Tia

Normal method would be using multiple dipoles see below.

Dipole-Dipole Array: Electrical Resistivity Methods, Part 3

Electrode arrays are different arrangements of electrodes used to perform geophysical resistivity measurements. Electrode arrays were developed in order to make field measurements more efficient and data interpretation easier. Today, we’re discussing the dipole-dipole array—this is the third...

www.agiusa.com

 

[Brisel]

As I posted in another thread yesterday there is not one single bit of scientific evidence that I know of (if you know of any valid studies that show otherwise please do post the links) that water divining performs any better than chance

How does water dowsing work?

In the sense that it finds underground water, water dowsing does not work. Water dowsing involves the claim that a person can locate underground so...

wtamu.edu

Various controlled scientific studies over the last hundred years have repeatedly found that water dowsing does not work. For instance, 30 "expert" dowsers were invited to Kassel, Germany in 1990 to have their abilities tested in a study organized by James Randi. Pipes carrying flowing water were buried underground at known locations and the dowsers were tested as to their ability to determine if water was flowing through the pipes. All failed to do better than random guessing. In the book Carl Sagan's Universe, edited by Yervant Terzian and Elizabeth Bilson, James Randi describes the tests:

While we were there we designed a series of tests, as I have done in many countries around the world, to test the forked stick or the pendulum or the coat hanger wires or whatever. Some people do it with their hands. And we did it in Kassel, Germany, two years ago, a very definitive set of tests, and, of course, it proved that the law of averages works quite well, but dowsing doesn't.

Yes, I saw your post. I don’t care what the science says. Some people can do it successfully. One contractor wanted to keep digging until he hit the water pipe so I found another one who said he could find water by dowsing. He is 90% accurate which has saved a lot of unnecessary digging.

You can find a scientific paper to prove or disprove just about anything. Open your eyes to reality occasionally.

 

[farmerm]

Is it a spring or just a land drain as ours used to be... I am pretty sure there is a device you can push up a pipe and track from above ground but you need to get it into the pipe which may not be practical given you cant block off the source, you would soon be standing in a flooded hole!

I would certainly try divining it, it does work and there is science behind it.... If all else fails mapping with ground penetrating radar may work. I think it depends on the nature of the soil, if the pipe was put in a dug trench the disturbed soil in trench line may show up?

 

[Exfarmer]

I have posted before, when I lived in Buckinghamshire, I was convinced I had the knack and did happily find pipes on a regular basis. However moving to Norfolk, I was totally lost.
I wonder if it is due to the fact in Norfolk , you are literally living over a vast lake. I found the rods twitching constantly. Anyone dowsing for water in Norfolk will find it, and I suspect this is true for many parts of the countryside.
those old boys who work over maps are I am certain mistaken in their belief!

 

[Exfarmer]

Is it a spring or just a land drain as ours used to be... I am pretty sure there is a device you can push up a pipe and track from above ground but you need to get it into the pipe which may not be practical given you cant block off the source, you would soon be standing in a flooded hole!

I would certainly try divining it, it does work and there is science behind it.... If all else fails mapping with ground penetrating radar may work. I think it depends on the nature of the soil, if the pipe was put in a dug trench the disturbed soil in trench line may show up?

Another good trick which will certainly work for land drains, is an aerial photo in a dry time. It is best taken when the sun is low to emphasise shadows. A drone may be a friend here

 

[Danllan]

Divining/dowsing is more accurate than most think. Some are better at it than others. I haven't got the "gift"

Apparently, if you stick your finger up a sheep's bottom on Shrove Tuesday it cures baldness.

(And homeopathy works too. )

As I posted in another thread yesterday there is not one single bit of scientific evidence that I know of (if you know of any valid studies that show otherwise please do post the links) that water divining performs any better than chance...

Well, I suppose that we had to agree about something...

 

[Farfrae]

You can find a scientific paper to prove or disprove just about anything. Open your eyes to reality occasionally.

Show me the science then, that's all I ask. Otherwise it's bunkum, magic, hocus pocus

In 2017, UK water companies still rely on “magic”

UK water companies openly admit to using divination rods to find underground water pipes, despite no evidence they work.

medium.com

 

[Gong Farmer]

Show me the science then, that's all I ask. Otherwise it's bunkum, magic, hocus pocus

In 2017, UK water companies still rely on “magic”

UK water companies openly admit to using divination rods to find underground water pipes, despite no evidence they work.

medium.com

Does everything have to be proven by science to be believable? (though proof and belief are mutually exclusive)

 

[Farfrae]

It really is not rocket science.

It certainly isn't.

Dowsing studies from the early 20th century were examined by geologist John Walter Gregory in a report for the Smithsonian Institution. Gregory concluded that the results were a matter of chance or explained by observations from ground surface clues.

Geologist W. A. MacFadyen tested three dowsers during 1943-1944 in Algeria. The results were entirely negative.

A 1948 study in New Zealand by P. A. Ongley tested 75 dowsers' ability to detect water. None of them was more reliable than chance. According to Ongley "not one showed the slightest accuracy."

Archaeometrist Martin Aitken tested British dowser P. A. Raine in 1959. Raine failed to dowse the location of a buried kiln that had been identified by a magnetometer.

In 1971, dowsing experiments were organized by British engineer R. A. Foulkes on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. The results were "no more reliable than a series of guesses".

Physicists John Taylor and Eduardo Balanovski reported in 1978 a series of experiments they conducted that searched for unusual electromagnetic fields emitted by dowsing subjects, they did not detect any.

A 1979 review by Evon Z. Vogt and Ray Hyman examined many controlled studies of dowsing for water, and found that none of them showed better than chance results.

Three British academics Richard N Bailey, Eric Cambridge and H. Denis Briggs carried out dowsing experiments at the grounds of various churches. They reported successful results in their book Dowsing and Church Archaeology (1988).[59] Their experiments were critically examined by archaeologist Martijn Van Leusen who suggested they were badly designed and the authors had redefined the test parameters on what was classified as a "hit" or "miss" to obtain positive results.

A 2006 study of grave dowsing in Iowa reviewed 14 published studies and determined that none of them correctly predicted the location of human burials, and simple scientific experiments demonstrated that the fundamental principles commonly used to explain grave dowsing were incorrect.

A randomized double-blind trial in 2012 was carried out to determine whether homeopaths were able to distinguish between Bryonia and placebo by use of a dowsing method. The results were negative.

Kassel 1991 study
A 1990 double-blind study was undertaken in Kassel, Germany, under the direction of the Gesellschaft zur Wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (Society for the Scientific Investigation of the Parasciences). James Randi offered a US$10,000 prize to any successful dowser. The three-day test of some 30 dowsers involved plastic pipes through which water flow could be controlled and directed. The pipes were buried 50 centimeters (19.7 in) under a level field, the position of each marked on the surface with a colored strip. The dowsers had to tell whether water was running through each pipe. All the dowsers signed a statement agreeing this was a fair test of their abilities and that they expected a 100 percent success rate.

However, the results were no better than chance, thus no one was awarded the prize.


Betz 1990 study

In a 1987–88 study in Munich by Hans-Dieter Betz and other scientists, 500 dowsers were initially tested for their skill, and the experimenters selected the best 43 among them for further tests. Water was pumped through a pipe on the ground floor of a two-storey barn. Before each test, the pipe was moved in a direction perpendicular to the water flow. On the upper floor, each dowser was asked to determine the position of the pipe. Over two years, the dowsers performed 843 such tests and, of the 43 pre-selected and extensively tested candidates, at least 37 showed no dowsing ability. The results from the remaining 6 were said to be better than chance, resulting in the experimenters' conclusion that some dowsers "in particular tasks, showed an extraordinarily high rate of success, which can scarcely if at all be explained as due to chance ... a real core of dowser-phenomena can be regarded as empirically proven."

Five years after the Munich study was published, Jim T. Enright, a professor of physiology who emphasised correct data analysis procedure, contended that the study's results are merely consistent with statistical fluctuations and not significant. He believed the experiments provided "the most convincing disproof imaginable that dowsers can do what they claim", stating that the data analysis was "special, unconventional and customized". Replacing it with "more ordinary analyses", he noted that the best dowser was on average 4 millimeters (0.16 in) out of 10 meters (32.81 ft) closer to a mid-line guess, an advantage of 0.04%, and that the five other "good" dowsers were on average farther than a mid-line guess. Enright emphasized that the experimenters should have decided beforehand how to statistically analyze the results; if they only afterward chose the statistical analysis that showed the greatest success, then their conclusions would not be valid until replicated by another test analyzed by the same method. He further pointed out that the six "good" dowsers did not perform any better than chance in separate tests.

 

[Farfrae]

Does everything have to be proven by science to be believable?

The amazing Carl Sagan predicted back in 1995 the loss of scientific reason and what the outcome would be. It has come scarily true and the dumbing down now extends all the way to the White House.

"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness."

All I am asking for is for anyone who believes in the dowsing mumbo jumbo to show me the science. If it works how hard should that be?

 

[renewablejohn]

Show me the science then, that's all I ask. Otherwise it's bunkum, magic, hocus pocus

In 2017, UK water companies still rely on “magic”

UK water companies openly admit to using divination rods to find underground water pipes, despite no evidence they work.

medium.com

And the reason why the water workers have the rods is because it works. end of why dont you get it.

 

[yellow belly]

a Travel lodge near us had a drain blockage
they had a system that they pushed up the pipe and tracked the pipe on the surface
i presume similar tech to a ferret finder

 

[renewablejohn]

The amazing Carl Sagan predicted back in 1995 the loss of scientific reason and what the outcome would be. It has come scarily true and the dumbing down now extends all the way to the White House.

"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness."

All I am asking for is for anyone who believes in the dowsing mumbo jumbo to show me the science. If it works how hard should that be?

How many times do we have to show you. Why cannot you understand the science of dipoles. Have already given an example of the resitivity tool above that has been developed from the simple use of two metal rods. If you look on there web site you will see the diverse applications where dipole technology has been used.

 

[Red Fred]

I started divining 40 years ago when I was a kid and have a very strong reaction on the wires, so there is no doubt that something is going on, but I no longer believe that I am able to detect anything in the way that a metal detector finds coins. I believe that what is happening is that the wires, twig or whatever are providing us with a means of expressing forgotten memories, hunches, imagination, etc from our minds and projecting it in a visible form.

We did a bit of work at the Archaeological society alongside the local dowsing group, which was founded by several highly respected diviners, and they had some amazing discoveries. They even produced a booklet containing their findings. Over the years, though, further research has shown that most of it simply wasn't correct. As geophysics has advanced, a clearer picture is emerging showing that they completely missed some of the most interesting sites while many of their deductions are unlikely to say the least.

In the case of water pipes, I reckon that we are tapping into forgotten memory (many diviners are old boys who have been on the estate for years),clues (digger drivers and farmers can read the land subconsciously) and maybe even an inbuilt animal sense for finding water. This isn't a bad thing and helps stack the odds in our favour better than 50/50.

 

[Brisel]

Show me the science then, that's all I ask. Otherwise it's bunkum, magic, hocus pocus

In 2017, UK water companies still rely on “magic”

UK water companies openly admit to using divination rods to find underground water pipes, despite no evidence they work.

medium.com

Whatever. Come to Dorset when my digger contractor is next here & I'll show him at work. I don't know what the actual science is but IT WORKS.