Question for dowsers

[Carl-NC]

This is more for dowsers...

If you dowse a location, then use a metal detector to check the location, how far out from the dowsed spot would you metal detect and still consider it a successful dowse? That is, would a 1-foot radius be acceptable? 2 feet? I'm sure different dowsers have different standards.

Although I've always been curious about this, I am asking because of a particular conversation I'm having with a new dowser.

- Carl

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Miner49er]

Carl,
One foot would be about right. Once the map dowsing puts me in an area, a rod sweep would give a triangulation. Then going in on one leg of the triangulation would come close enough for some type of boxing search. Now using two rods should give the exact location. Being off one foot would be acceptable to me, nothing much more.
Bill

 

[aarthrj3811]

Thanks Bill…That is my thoughts also…As a two rod user, I try not to comment about what one rod users may do….Art

 

[hetty]

Depends on the atmospheric assistance you are obtaining as a dowser. No power, no dowsing. Weak power , it could be somewhere close , and the next time you dowse there under the same circumstances it could be somewhere else again.

Good dowsing conditions mean that you are standing right over the target and it will always be there. My sister purchased a new metal detector a few years ago and lives only yards from old gold digs. My rod was working well that day and I selected two patches of surface aurifous top soil, each about the size of half a kitchen table.

Her new detector sang over those two patches. , when I used to go gold hunting with my dowsing rod if I got a gold signal at say 2 feet about a foot across or less, I would switch across to a solid heavy mental gold target and the gold signal would always drop off to zero. Near surface gold dust in patches is very common. So your answer Carl is that the strength of the signal can vary that much that your question can become meaningless.Max

 

[aarthrj3811]

A similar situation would be if you went to a known gold-producing area, dowsed the area, got a location and then panned the gravel from that location and claimed dowsing success if you found some flour gold in the pan. It doesn't prove dowsing did anything for you... about all it would prove is that you don't understand how dowsing works

Jerry….The only thing your statement proves is that you don’t know anything about how gold is distributed in the gold fields. Stick to a subject that you at least know a little about….Art

 

[Tom_in_CA]

"...you don’t know anything about how gold is distributed in the gold fields". Hi Art, yes there are some folks who, after years of panning and nugget detecting, know more than the next guy, about gold distribution in gold-producing regions. I know a guy personally (one of Whites poster-boys for their nugget machine ads) who is so skilled at it, that he can look at any given canyon, stream bed, or tailings pile, in the Sierra Nevadas of CA, and instantly walk out to the most likely spots.

I think what Jerry is getting at, is NOT that he is one of those persons necessarily. He is only saying that there are entire geographic areas where a person, even walking a hundred yards in any direction, will likely hit on some gold, to some degree. The only way to prove whether that one spot you stopped on, is more or less productive than any other spot in that same geographic vicinity, is to stage some tests to sample the surrounding ground. But even this gets muddied, because obviously, unless you had a blindfold on at the start, it's likely you were picking up subconscious clues as to where the rods pointed you when you first started. With a little understanding of the gravity of nuggets (how they catch in bends, etc...) any person, be they a dowser or not, can tend to walk (excuse me "dowse") to more likely spots.

 

[aarthrj3811]

With a little understanding of the gravity of nuggets (how they catch in bends, etc...) any person, be they a dowser or not, can tend to walk (excuse me "dowse") to more likely spots.

Hey Tom….Is that not how every body looks for gold. That is the way everyone looks for treasure. No matter what tools you are using…Guess what ..That’s how Treasure Hunting works. Why do people spend a lot of money on tools if all you have to do is walk over and pick it up Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

"...you don’t know anything about how gold is distributed in the gold fields". Hi Art, yes there are some folks who, after years of panning and nugget detecting, know more than the next guy, about gold distribution in gold-producing regions. I know a guy personally (one of Whites poster-boys for their nugget machine ads) who is so skilled at it, that he can look at any given canyon, stream bed, or tailings pile, in the Sierra Nevadas of CA, and instantly walk out to the most likely spots.

So Dowsing doesn’t work because of what we know. Sorry Tom…but it does not make sense….If I was to locate a sunken Spanish Galleon in the middle of Kansas would that be proof? ……No –--it would just prove I was stupid to look there in the first place…Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey Dell….What they are trying to say is that all those statements apply to Dowsers. What they don’t realize is that these statements would also apply to anyone who is seeking treasure. Every treasure hunter will go to the most likely place to find what he is looking for….Art

 

[aarthrj3811]

Hey Dell…I know what you are saying….The closest gold fields to me are about 150 miles. There are a few old mine sites closer but I have found nothing in these areas. I have found a few small silver deposits. I talked to a guy this week that looks for dinosaur bones. I may give that a try this winter….Art

 

[Carl-NC]

Didn't think my relatively simple question would generate yet another debate. But I appreciate the answers.

A new dowser contacted me and explained that in his first real dowsing attempt, he dowsed his back yard and in 7 dowsed locations, he was successful 5 times. Success was determined by using a metal detector at each dowsed spot and verifying the presence of metal. He also dug up the items. For the 5 successes, he told me the actual detected target was between 4 inches and 14 inches from the dowsed spot, which I thought was a fair radius, and correlates to the replies in this thread.

So, with 7 attempts and 5 of them having a metal target within 14 inches, do these results indicate an ability to dowse? Or was it luck?

I suggested that he try a second experiment, whereby he randomly toss 7 tennis balls into his yard, and metal detect each spot in the same manner as the dowsed spots. Out of curiosity, I tried this very experiment myself. Anyone want to guess my results?

- Carl

 

[aarthrj3811]

So, with 7 attempts and 5 of them having a metal target within 14 inches, do these results indicate an ability to dowse? Or was it luck?

I suggested that he try a second experiment, whereby he randomly toss 7 tennis balls into his yard, and metal detect each spot in the same manner as the dowsed spots. Out of curiosity, I tried this very experiment myself. Anyone want to guess my results?

Carl as always….We don’t have enough information to determine any thing…Was he using two rods or one? Was he mental dowsing or physical dowsing. I don’t have 7 tennis balls but I tried 7 tic-tacs and found all 7. By the way …If you are dowsing for metal you will find nothing as the last time I checked a tennis ball contain no metal….Art

 

[Carl-NC]

Carl as always….We don’t have enough information to determine any thing…Was he using two rods or one? Was he mental dowsing or physical dowsing.

Beats me. He was dowsing. He found something buried at 5-out-of-7 spots he dowsed. Pretty good, eh?

The purpose of the tennis balls is just to randomly toss them out, and see if anything is buried at the spots where they land. It's a way of comparing his dowsing to random selection.

- Carl

 

[Carl-NC]

So What's your point?

It's just an experiment. I thought it was interesting.

- Carl

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI Carl , so do I

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Carl-NC]

No guesses, so here are my results. I randomly tossed 7 tennis balls in my back yard, then used a metal detector to determine how far from each tennis ball a piece of metal was buried. Results were:

3.5" 5.5" 10" 13" 13.5" 21.5" 52.5"

The dowser I've been talking to had dowsed 7 spots in his yard, and 5 of them had buried metal between 4" and 14" from the spots. I thought it very bizarre that my tennis ball toss gave essentially identical results.

Obviously, his dowsing and my ball-tossing can't really be compared, because the locations are completely different. My yard might be saturated with trash, while his yard might have had only 5 buried metal objects. But it does illustrate that what appears at first to be an impressive dowsing result might not be so impressive after all. I've urged him to add random selections to his testing in order to establish a comparative baseline.

- Carl

 

[aarthrj3811]

The purpose of the tennis balls is just to randomly toss them out, and see if anything is buried at the spots where they land. It's a way of comparing his dowsing to random selection. No guesses, so here are my results. I randomly tossed 7 tennis balls in my back yard, then used a metal detector to determine how far from each tennis ball a piece of metal was buried. Results were:

3.5" 5.5" 10" 13" 13.5" 21.5" 52.5"

The dowser I've been talking to had dowsed 7 spots in his yard, and 5 of them had buried metal between 4" and 14" from the spots. I thought it very bizarre that my tennis ball toss gave essentially identical results.

Obviously, his dowsing and my ball-tossing can't really be compared, because the locations are completely different. My yard might be saturated with trash, while his yard might have had only 5 buried metal objects. But it does illustrate that what appears at first to be an impressive dowsing result might not be so impressive after all. I've urged him to add random selections to his testing in order to establish a comparative baseline.

- Carl

I just want everyone to remember how a so called scientist really thinks…Art

 

[ClonedSIM]

The purpose of the tennis balls is just to randomly toss them out, and see if anything is buried at the spots where they land. It's a way of comparing his dowsing to random selection. No guesses, so here are my results. I randomly tossed 7 tennis balls in my back yard, then used a metal detector to determine how far from each tennis ball a piece of metal was buried. Results were:

3.5" 5.5" 10" 13" 13.5" 21.5" 52.5"

The dowser I've been talking to had dowsed 7 spots in his yard, and 5 of them had buried metal between 4" and 14" from the spots. I thought it very bizarre that my tennis ball toss gave essentially identical results.

Obviously, his dowsing and my ball-tossing can't really be compared, because the locations are completely different. My yard might be saturated with trash, while his yard might have had only 5 buried metal objects. But it does illustrate that what appears at first to be an impressive dowsing result might not be so impressive after all. I've urged him to add random selections to his testing in order to establish a comparative baseline.

- Carl

I just want everyone to remember how a so called scientist really thinks…Art

Let's see here. Carl's post is directly above yours on this board, Art.

Do you really think that the readers are going to completely forget one post when they move on to the next one?

Well, maybe the dowsers reading.....

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI Carl, cute psychology, You are getting much better, I like this new Carl, even ifyou haven't actually changed your view on dowsing. Drop the other shoe.


Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Carl-NC]

Drop the other shoe.

Sorry, no other shoe to drop. End of experiment. Perhaps the dowser I'm talking with will try some of my suggestions, and I'll have more to post later. Probably not.

- Carl