Duane Chadwick and Larry Jensen, electrical engineers from Utah State University, produced one of the most detailed reports of a preliminary investigation concerning magnetic fields and dowsing. In a series of experiments (Chadwick and Jensen, 1971), a number of subjects, most without previous dowsing experience, separately walked along several pre-assigned paths with dowsing rods (mainly L-rods). They were given a set of wooden blocks and asked to place a block at each location where they obtained a dowsing reaction. After the dowsers had traversed the path, a magnetic survey was carried out.
A statistical analysis was made to determine whether there was any patterning of the dowsers’ responses. Chadwick and Jensen found that on certain portions of the path, dowsers were much more likely to experience dowsing reactions. The probabilities of this patterning (more reactions in some areas than others) occurring by chance ranged from p = 0.06 to p < 0.0005. If this were a parapsychological experiment, one might conclude that a very strong stacking effect was observed.
Chadwick and Jensen gave a graphical representation of the relation between the dowsers’ responses and the magnetic field but did not present a full statistical evaluation of these data; so it is not clear whether the correlation would be statistically significant (though it well may be). In areas with a gradient of 0.5 gamma per foot (0.000016 gauss per metre), more reactions were obtained than when the gradient was less.
In some experiments an iron bar was buried along the test path and there was reportedly no visual indication of its presence. The iron bar produced a distinct magnetic anomaly. From the graphical data presented it seems unlikely that the number of dowsing reactions near the bar was due to chance.
In another experiment the subjects were given 30 wooden blocks and were asked to drop them wherever they felt like it while on an assigned path. The patterning of responses among the subjects was more consistent than would be expected by chance at the 10 per cent level. When compared with the magnetic survey, on the average there were as many reactions in areas with the gradient greater than 0.5 gamma per foot (0.000016 gauss per metre) as in cases with a smaller gradient. It appears that this method which requires some conscious involvement to achieve a dowsing response was not effective. The apparently unconscious movement of the dowsing rods seems to make for greater accuracy.
Chadwick and Jensen did present calculations to show that the expected change in the magnetic field due to an aquifer (an underground formation containing water) could be as high as 0.0043 gauss. From previous data it seems that a dowser might be able to detect this. However, Chadwick and Jensen did not conclude that dowsing was necessarily an efficacious method of locating underground water. They noted that no wells had been dug in their study, that the type of information actually used by the dowsers was undefined, and that the patterning of the dowsers’ responses was not necessarily due to magnetic anomalies. Although they did not conclude that dowsers were sensitive to magnetic anomalies, they did conclude that further research was warranted and recommended that extraterrestial radiation be monitored during testing, or that tests be conducted in an environment shielded from all extraneous magnetic influences. They also noted that it is not clear which (if any) magnetic field the dowser might be detecting (e.g. field at ground level, at head level, gradients in vertical or horizontal plane, etc.).
I don't doubt the experiment was performed exactly as mentioned, but it seems like a more definitive test would have included incorporating the double-blind factor (it was not mentioned here) and less of a "shotgun" criteria for their results.
In essence, they had mostly non-dowsers putting blocks where they thought the dowsing rods had reacted. The problem is that anything at all that caused the rods to cross was considered a "hit." This, combined with the fact that they were walking predetermined paths, might have caused something like this:
Path "A" ran between a stand of trees, across a creek bed, down a hill and beside a house.
X number of dowsers placed blocks at the beginning of the trees, at the top of the hill, just after the river, and near the corner of the house. Maybe it was 50% or 80%, but what has to be looked at is the conditions of those locations during the test. Was it windy? Was it cold, or maybe getting dark? Did the terrain rise and fall with rocky soil? Could there be a reason other than some dowsing phenomenon that caused the blocks to be placed there?
It just seems like there are too many variables to offer a conclusion, but it could be the basis for fruiter, perhaps similar tests.
![:-\](https://www.treasurenet.com/smilies/undecided.gif "Undecided :-\")
