Does water conduct electricity?

[hung]

James Randi's Dowsing Fund: $1M
Hung's Dowsing Fund: $0

Wonder why that is?

Do you have his banking records to claim the above? I bet a lot of zeroes already scaped from this number, specially after the little USA crisis...

But, oh well, as with many frauds and inescrupulous creatures who abound in the world, the naive and the gullible such as yourself, are also easy prey for them. And money is the natural 'fuel' to keep them alive.

Here's one of the many evidences which debuNKS his 'challenge'..

http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm

The Equatorial Guinea Dictator for instance, President of a miserable Country in which poverty and pain abound everywhere has just bought a 2 million dollars apartment in a beach in Brazil...

And no, I don't have any fund. You must have confused me with someone else...

[Fred]

Hi detectoman.
I know about it, i can find water very easy (and at who depth it flows).
The problem is the other people, who they can't find anything.... and they says that it is ideometor, electromotor, fantasticmotor .... and any type of motor they imagine.
Especially some people never tried to learn to work with dowsing, but they like to have opinion about the dowsing ..... and especial that it don't work


Regards

Hi Geo,
The problem with dowsing is that no one has ever been able to prove that it really works.
Everything that i have learnt as real science has been proven in some way, by theory or serious experiments.
For dowsing unfortunately it has still to be done.

[Qiaozhi]

Here's one of the many evidences which debuNKS his 'challenge'..
http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm

There is no debunking in the link you supplied, just a lot of supposition. Of course to someone, who undoubtedly believes Uri Geller's assertion that he can bend spoons with the power of his mind, it may seem reasonable.

There was a time when you had a scrap of credibility on this forum ... not much, but it was there. Nowadays your credibility is nudging into negative territory. Especially with your ability to believe any and all crackpot ideas without a shred of evidence.

You continue to be both gullible and naive when it comes to pseudo-science.

[Geo]

Hi Geo,
The problem with dowsing is that no one has ever been able to prove that it really works.
Everything that i have learnt as real science has been proven in some way, by theory or serious experiments.
For dowsing unfortunately it has still to be done.

Hi Fred.
I agree that "o one has ever been able to prove that it really works", but there are a lot of people who make the rods to work. I have good results with the dowsing but i can't prove how it works. What does it mean??? that don't work!!!!! , and if don't work what about the objects that i found with the dowsing method????

Regards

[Geo]

http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/

Hi Qiaozhi
I don't know Mr randi!!!
Some people says that he is very good man and some other that he is charlatane.
I know only what i see from my hands when i dowsing with Lrods.

[Qiaozhi]

Hi Qiaozhi
I don't know Mr randi!!!
Some people says that he is very good man and some other that he is charlatane.
I know only what i see from my hands when i dowsing with Lrods.

Hi Geo,

Have you tried testing your dowsing ability with a double-blind test? Most dowsers do not like taking such a test, and there are always many excuses at the end when the results are revealed. As an engineer I would think you would be interested to try such a test, if only to satisfy your curiosity. If the test results show that dowsing is no better than guessing, then you need to ask yourself why your subjective experience is different to objective testing.

How about it?

[hung]

There is no debunking in the link you supplied, just a lot of supposition. Of course to someone, who undoubtedly believes Uri Geller's assertion that he can bend spoons with the power of his mind, it may seem reasonable.

There was a time when you had a scrap of credibility on this forum ... not much, but it was there. Nowadays your credibility is nudging into negative territory. Especially with your ability to believe any and all crackpot ideas without a shred of evidence.

You continue to be both gullible and naive when it comes to pseudo-science.

Actually, this forum has NO credibility at all when it comes to dowsing and LRL subjects. So, just don't be silly pretending this kind of discussion will ever take place here.
Also, YOU have NO (never did) credibility at all to even hint something about it.

That's why a closed forum was required to discuss LRLs and the science involved.
You will hardly see me and probably Esteban feeling like discussing this here anymore.
LRL discussions are null and rotten here since a long time. And don't blame us for this. Blame yourself and the Mambo boys who always made fun of everything.
Ivconic has left because of attitudes like yours.
I consider YOUR fault and not actually Carl's for things getting to this point. I already posted what I think of your role as Administrator.

As I said sometimes I might post here just to avoid that you mislead the gullible and the naive with stupidities.
Talking credibility... yes, yours is so good that long time members just left and others just don't feel like being here anymore.
EXCLUSIVELY because of your attitudes.
Think about it.

[Qiaozhi]

Actually, this forum has NO credibility at all when it comes to dowsing and LRL subjects. So, just don't be silly pretending this kind of discussion will ever take place here.
Also, YOU have NO (never did) any credibility at all to even hint something about it.

While you wish to promote dowsing and and other pseudo-scientific nonsense, then I can agree this is not the place for such activity. You will have much more success on dowsing-friendly forums. This is the place for real science, not fairytales. However, anyone who finds the ideomotor effect to be compelling are welcome to participate in open-minded discussions on the subject. For those, such as yourself, who have permanently closed their minds to the real world, you are better off somewhere else.

You will hardly see me and probably Esteban feeling like discussing this here anymore.

The only reason that Esteban posts less often nowadays, is because you have constantly hijacked any information he has posted, in an attempt to censor the content. Apparently you are paranoid that he may reveal some LRL "secrets" to the skeptics.

LRL discussions are null and rotten here since a long time. And don't blame us for this. Blame yourself and the Mambo boys who always made fun of everything.

On the contrary, LRL discussions are welcome, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or did you forget to read the intro at the beginning of this forum? Quote: "If you make an extraordinary claim, be prepared to get challenged."

Ivconic has left because of attitudes like yours.
I consider YOUR fault and not actually Carl's for things getting to this point. I already posted what I think of your role as Administrator.

As usual, you are making incorrect assumptions. Ivconic and I are still in communication via email, and the reasons for his departure should be obvious to a blind bat.

As I said sometimes I might post here just to avoid that you mislead the gullible and the naive with stupidities.

Goodness ... you are confused!

[Geo]

Hi Geo,

Have you tried testing your dowsing ability with a double-blind test? Most dowsers do not like taking such a test, and there are always many excuses at the end when the results are revealed. As an engineer I would think you would be interested to try such a test, if only to satisfy your curiosity. If the test results show that dowsing is no better than guessing, then you need to ask yourself why your subjective experience is different to objective testing.

How about it?

Hi Qiaozhi.
No, i never tried a double-blind test.
All the objects that i found with the dowsing method, was with mono visible method

Regards

[Qiaozhi]

Hi Qiaozhi.
No, i never tried a double-blind test.
All the objects that i found with the dowsing method, was with mono visible method

Regards

Hi Geo,

OK - but doesn't your engineering background make you inquisitive? Will a double-blind test make the dowsing effect go away? Go on ... you must want to know the answer.

[Theseus]

Goodness ... you (Hung) are confused!

True enough, but nothing new.

[Fred]

Goodness ... you are confused!

It is becoming pathologic now

[WM6]

I know about it, i can find water very easy (and at who depth it flows).

Hi Geo, there is no problem to find water in nature. I can easily find it without any dowsing rod only by some knowledge of geology, surface markers and logical conclusion. But only in nature, not in controlled test condition (where dowser cannot be supported by geological information and surface markers of underground water).

Most proved dowser years ago claim the same as you, but read this:

A 1948 study tested 58 dowsers' ability to detect water. None of them was more reliable than chance.[1] A 1979 review examined many controlled studies of dowsing for water, and found that none of them showed better than chance results. [2]
In a study in Munich 1987-1988 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. 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."[3]
Five years after the Munich study was published, Jim T. Enright, a professor of physiology and a leading skeptic 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,"[4] stating that the data analysis was "special, unconventional and customized." Replacing it with "more ordinary analyses,"[5] he noted that the best dowser was on average 4 millimeters out of 10 meters closer to a mid-line guess, an advantage of 0.0004%. The study's authors responded, saying "on what grounds could Enright come to entirely different conclusions? Apparently his data analysis was too crude, even illegitimate."[6] The findings of the Munich study were also confirmed in a paper by Dr. S. Ertel,[7] a German psychologist who had previously intervened in the statistical controversy surrounding the "Mars effect", but Enright remained unconvinced.[8]
More recently a study[9] was undertaken in Kassel, Germany under the direction of the Gesellschaft zur Wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) [Society for the Scientific Investigation of the Parasciences]. 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 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.
Some researchers have investigated possible physical or geophysical explanations for alleged dowsing abilities. One study concluded that dowsers "respond" to a 60 Hz electromagnetic field, but this response does not occur if the kidney area or head are shielded.[10]

1. ^ Ongley, P. (194. "New Zealand Diviners". New Zealand Journal of Science and Technology 30: 38–54. via Hines, Terence (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (Second ed.). Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. p. 420. ISBN 9781573929790.
2. ^ Vogt, Evon Z.; Ray Hyman (1979). Water Witching U.S.A. (2ned.). Chicago: Chicago University Press. ISBN 9780226862972. via Hines, Terence (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (Second ed.). Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. p. 420. ISBN 9781573929790.
3. ^ Wagner, H., H.-D. Betz, and H. L. König, 1990. Schlußbericht 01 KB8602, Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie. As quoted by Enright in Skeptical Enquirer
4. ^ Enright, Jim T. (Jan/Feb 1999). "The Failure of the Munich Experiments". Skeptical Inquirer. Paul Kurtz. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/testin...ch_experiments. Retrieved 2006-11-14. "The researchers themselves concluded that the outcome unquestionably demonstrated successful dowsing abilities, but a thoughtful re-examination of the data indicates that such an interpretation can only be regarded as the result of wishful thinking."
5. ^ Enright, J. T. 1995. Water dowsing: The Scheunen experiments. Naturwissenschaften 82: 360-369.
6. ^ Betz, H.-D., H. L. König, R. Kulzer, R. Trischler, and J. Wagner. 1996. Dowsing reviewed — the effect persists. Naturwissenschaften 83: 272-275.
7. ^ Ertel, S. (May, 1996). "The dowsing data defy Enright's unfavorable verdict". Naturwissenschaften (Springer Berlin / Heidelberg) 83 (5): 232–235. doi:10.1007/BF01143332. ISSN 1432-1904. http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7577m1087734mlh/. Retrieved 2009-09-26.
8. ^ Enright, J. T. (June, 1996). "Dowsers lost in a Barn". Naturwissenschaften (Springer Berlin / Heidelberg) 83 (6): 275–277. doi:10.1007/BF01149601. ISSN 1432-1904. http://www.springerlink.com/content/km4q44357k557w90/. Retrieved 2009-09-26.
9. ^ GWUP-Psi-Tests 2004: Keine Million Dollar für PSI-Fähigkeiten (in German) and English version.
10. ^ Harvalik, Z. V. (197. "Anatomical localization of human detection of weak electromagnetic radiation: experiments with dowsers.". Physiol Chem Phys 10 (6): 525–34.

Or some more extensive:

Does dowsing work?

Some people are less interested in why the rods move than in whether dowsing works. Obviously, many people believe it does. Dowsing and other forms of divination have been around for thousands of years. There are large societies of dowsers in America and Europe and dowsers practice their art every day in all parts of the world. There have even been scientists in recent years who have offered proof that dowsing works. There must be something to it, then, or so it seems.

Testing has been sparse, however. For one thing, it is difficult to establish a "baseline against which a diviner's performance may be compared" (Zusne and Jones 1989: 10. In 1949, an experiment was conducted in Maine by the American Society for Psychical Research. Twenty-seven dowsers "failed completely to estimate either the depth or the amount of water to be found in a field free of surface clues to water, whereas a geologist and an engineer successfully predicted the depth at which water would be found in 16 sites in the same field...." (Zusne and Jones 1989: 108; reported in Vogt and Hyman: 1967). There have been a few other controlled tests of dowsing and all produced only chance results (ibid.). [In addition to Vogt and Hyman, see R. A. Foulkes (1971) "Dowsing experiments," Nature, 229, pp.163-16; M. Martin (1983-1984). "A new controlled dowsing experiment." Skeptical Inquirer. 8(2), 138-140; J. Randi(1979). "A controlled test of dowsing abilities." Skeptical Inquirer. 4(1). 16-20; and D. Smith (1982). "Two tests of divining in Australia." Skeptical Inquirer. 4(4). 34-37.]

The testimonials of dowsers and those who observe them provide the main evidence for dowsing. The evidence is simple: dowsers find what they are dowsing for and they do this many times. What more proof of dowsing is needed? The fact that this pattern of dowsing and finding something occurs repeatedly leads many dowsers and their advocates to make the causal connection between dowsing and finding water, oil, minerals, golf balls, etc. This type of fallacious reasoning is known as post hoc reasoning and is a very common basis for belief in paranormal powers. It is essentially unscientific and invalid. Scientific thinking includes being constantly vigilant against self-deception and being careful not to rely upon insight or intuition in place of rigorous and precise empirical testing of theoretical and causal claims. Every controlled study of dowsers has shown that dowsers do no better than chance in finding what they are looking for.

Most dowsers do not consider it important to doubt their dowsing powers or to wonder if they are self-deceived. They never consider doing a controlled scientific test of their powers. They think that the fact that they have been successful over the years at dowsing is proof enough. When dowsers are scientifically tested and fail, they generally react with genuine surprise. Typical is what happened when James Randi tested some dowsers using a protocol they all agreed upon. If they could locate water in underground pipes at an 80% success rate they would get $10,000 (now the prize is over $1,000,000). All the dowsers failed the test, though each claimed to be highly successful in finding water using a variety of non-scientific instruments, including a pendulum. Says Randi, "the sad fact is that dowsers are no better at finding water than anyone else. Drill a well almost anywhere in an area where water is geologically possible, and you will find it."

Some of the strongest evidence for dowsing comes from Germany. Tests were done in a barn (Scheune is the German word for barn) and are referred to by J. T. Enright as the "Scheunen" experiments. In 1987 and 1988, more than 500 dowsers participated in more than 10,000 double-blind tests set up by physicists in a barn near Munich. The researchers claim they empirically proved "a real dowsing phenomenon." Jim Enright of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography evaluated the data and concluded that the so-called "real dowsing phenomenon" can reasonably be attributed to chance. His argument is rather lengthy, but here is a taste of it:

The long and the short of it is that dowsing performance in the Scheunen experiments was not reproducible. It was not reproducible inter-individually: from a pool of some 500 self-proclaimed dowsers, the researchers selected for their critical experiments 43 candidates whom they considered most promising on the basis of preliminary testing; but the investigators themselves ended up being impressed with only a few of the performances of only a small handful from that select group. And, even more troublesome for the hypothesis, dowsing performance was not reproducible intra-individually: those few dowsers, who on one occasion or another seemed to do relatively well, were in their other comparable test series usually no more successful than the rest of the "unskilled" dowsers (Enright “Water Dowsing: the Scheunen Experiments,” Naturwissenschaften, vol. 82 1995).

The barn study itself is curious. It seems clearly to have been repudiated by another German study done in 1992 by a group of German scientists and skeptics. The Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) [Society for the Scientific Investigation of the Parasciences] set up a three-day controlled test of some thirty dowsers, mostly from Germany. The test was done at Kassel, north of Frankfurt, and televised by a local television station. The test involved plastic pipe buried 50 centimeters in a level field through which a large flow of water could be controlled and directed. On the surface, the position of the pipe was marked with a colored stripe, so all the dowsers had to do was tell whether there was water running through the pipe. All the dowsers signed a statement that they agreed the test was a fair test of their abilities and that they expected a 100% success rate. The results were what one would expect by chance (Randi 1995). Defenders of dowsing do not care for these results, and continue to claim that the barn study provides scientific proof of dowsing.

another German study

Further evidence for dowsing has been presented by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) [the German Society for Technical Co-operation] sponsored by the German government. They claim, for example, that in some of their water dowsing efforts they had success rates above 80% "results which, according to responsible experts, could not be reached by means of classical methods, except with disproportionate input." Of particular interest is a report by University of Munich physicist Hans-Dieter Betz, "Unconventional Water Detection: Field Test of the Dowsing Technique in Dry Zones," published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 1995. (This is the same Betz who, with J. L. König, authored a book in 1989 on German government tests proving the ability of dowsers to detect E-rays.) The report covers a ten-year period and over 2000 drillings in Sri Lanka, Zaire, Kenya, Namibia, Yemen and other countries. Especially impressive was an overall success rate of 96 percent achieved in 691 drillings in Sri Lanka. "Based on geological experience in that area, a success rate of 30-50 percent would be expected from conventional techniques alone," according to Betz. How he arrived at that statistic is unknown, especially since Sri Lanka gets 100-200 inches (2,500-5,000 mm) of rain a year.* "What is both puzzling yet enormously useful is that in hundreds of cases the dowsers were able to predict the depth of the water source and the yield of the well to within 10 or 20 percent. We carefully considered the statistics of these correlations, and they far exceeded lucky guesses."

Betz ruled out chance and the use of landscape and geological features by dowsers as explanations for their success. He also ruled out "some unknown biological sensitivity to water." Betz thinks that there may be "subtle electromagnetic gradients" resulting from fissures and water flows which create changes in the electrical properties of rock and soil. Dowsers, he thinks, somehow sense these gradients in a hypersensitive state. "I'm a scientist," says Betz, "and those are my best plausible scientific hypotheses at this point....we have established that dowsing works, but have no idea how or why." Of course, it is possible that his dowsers are smarter than Betz and look for obvious signs of water like places where the grass is greener and lowest points in the terrain.*

There are some puzzling elements to Betz's conclusions, however. Most of his claims concern a single dowser named Schröter. Who observed this dowser or what conditions he worked under remain unknown. Betz is a physicist and what knowledge he has of hydrogeology is unknown. Furthermore, Betz's speculation that dowsers are hypersensitive to subtle electromagnetic gradients does not seem to be based upon scientific data. In any case, the hypothesis was not tested and I am not sure how one would go about testing such a claim. At the very least, one would expect that geological instruments would be able to detect such "electromagnetic gradients."

When others have done controlled tests of dowsers, the dowsers do no better than chance and no better than non-dowsers (Vogt and Hyman; Hyman; Enright 1995, 1996; Randi 1995). Some of Betz's data are certainly not scientific, e.g., the subjective evaluations of Schröter regarding his own dowsing activities. Much of the data is little more than a report that dowsing was used by Schröter and he was successful in locating water. Betz assumes that chance or scientific hydrogeological procedures would not have produced the same or better results. It may be true that in one area they had a 96% success rate using dowsing techniques and that "no prospecting area with comparable sub-soil conditions is known where such outstanding results have ever been attained." However, this means nothing for establishing that dowsing had anything to do with the success. Analogous sub-soil condition seems to be an insufficient similarity to justify concluding that dowsing, rather than chance, or use of landscape or geological features, must account for the success rate.

Betz seems to have realized that without some sort of testing, reasonable people would not accept that it had been established that dowsing is a real phenomenon based upon the above types of data. He then presents what he calls "tests" to establish that dowsing is real. The first test involves Schröter again. A Norwegian drilling team dug two wells and each failed to hit water. The dowser came in and allegedly not only hit water but predicted the depth and flow. Apparently, we have the dowser's own word on this. In any case, this is not a test of dowsing, however impressive it might seem.

In the second test, Betz asserts that dowsers can tell how deep water is because "the relevant biological sensations during dowsing are sufficiently different to allow for the required process of distinction and elimination." He has no evidence for this claim. In any case, in this "test" Schröter again is asked to pick a place to dig a well and again he is successful. This time his well is near a well already dug and known to be a good site. Betz claims that there were some geological formations that would have made the dowser's predictions difficult, but again this was not a scientific test of dowsing.

The third test was a kind of contest between the dowser and a team of hydrogeologists. The scientific team, about whom we are told nothing significant, studied an area and picked 14 places to drill. The dowser then went over the same area after the scientific team had made their choices and he picked 7 sites to drill. (Why they did not both pick the same number of sites is not explained.) A site yielding 100 liters per minute was considered good. The hydrogeologists hit three good sources; the dowser hit six. Clearly, the dowser won the contest. This test does not prove anything about dowsing, however. Nevertheless, I think Herr Schröter should knock on James Randi's door and be allowed to prove his paranormal powers under controlled conditions. If he is as good as he and Betz say he is, he should walk away a very rich man.

Betz has written a very long report, which is little more than a testimonial to the paranormal dowsing powers of Herr Schröter and a reiteration of the claims made for the barn study. He would have done better to have set up a controlled, double-blind experiment with the dowser, one which does not allow the dowser himself to determine the conditions of the experiment and one which did not have as many uncontrollable variables as those rampant in the ten-year project.

[J_Player]

Hi Qiaozhi.
No, i never tried a double-blind test.
All the objects that i found with the dowsing method, was with mono visible method

Regards

Hi Geo,
When you say the objects that you found with the dowsing method, was with mono visible method, this is not a method I have heard of before.

Does this method mean that only the person holding the dowsing rod can see where the object is located when it is found?

Best wishes,
J_P

[Geo]

Hi Geo,

OK - but doesn't your engineering background make you inquisitive? Will a double-blind test make the dowsing effect go away? Go on ... you must want to know the answer.

Hi Qiaozhi.
Again the same!!! Some times you answer as than you don't want to understand what i say!!!.
Why to play with double or triple or.... -blind test!!!!. The things are very simple. I have a success degree of 40%...70% (i am not so good) and it is Ok for me. Some times i dig without results and some times with good results. Ask Morgan to tell you how i located the gold mental with his Lrod!!!.
Now about double- blind test.... i saw my "teacher" to do it with copper coins and he had 100% success. But really this don't mean anything

Regards