Your feedback wanted on dowsing.

[J_Player]

I don't know much about the how dowsing works except a few theories I have heard. But one thing seems evident is there are quite a number of dowsers who can find water. It seems a lot more dowsers are able to find water than those who can find other buried objects. Just from the numbers, it would seem that if none of the water-finding dowsers could perform, then nobody would pay them to show where to drill their wells. From what I have seen it seems that water is much easier for a dowser to locate than other objects. When I try to figure what makes water different, the main differences that come to mind is that it is liquid and often flowing underground, unlike other targets that a dowser would try to locate.

One of the theories I have heard is that dowsers are sensitive to changes in the patterns of electromagnetic fields at the surface of the earth. What electormagnetic fields are at the surface of the earth? A lot of them, starting with broadcast radio waves from under 600 khz to the ghx range, in all different signal strengths. These are easily picked up with a commomn radio antenna and heard on a suitable listening device after demodulation. There are also many man-made stray electromagnetic waves caused from power transmission and telemetry, even from friction of man-made vehicles rolling on the ground. We can detect stray signals from high voltage power lines by holding a 4-ft fluorescent light tube in the air under the lines in some locations. There are a number of other naturally occurring fields that can be measured at the earth's surface including electrostatic fields and the earth's magnetic field. There are also other seldom considered eneregies that exist at the surface of the earth like radioactive emissions from within the earth, cosmic rays and and other space energies caused by sunspots, ionosphere, etc.

With all these measurable fields at the surface of the earth, is it not possible that some dowsers are more sensitive to sense their presence? I have heard of no known organ in the human body devoted to sensing any of these energies, but is it not possible? One theory of the principles of dowsing says that a dowser is indeed sensing some kind of fields at the surface of the earth. If this theory is correct, then we are talking about a few people who are more sensitive than average at sensing very weak fields existing at the surface of the earth. I suspect that what they are sensicg would be a very small change in the pattern of these fields as they walk around an area.

According to this theory, these fields change their pattern where there is an anomoly. For example, we know that radio waves can be reflected by buildings, or they can allign their nodes around buildings or other protruberancecs at the surface of the earth, depending on the frequencies involved. We can easily demonstrate this by tuning a radio to a weak station and moving it through a downtown area to find the weak and strong locations, and multipath distortions. We also can see these weak and strong locations change at different times of the day. Radio transmission engineers routinely change the antenna patterns late in the day to compensate for this effect.

But what about the effect of anomolies under the ground? can they influence these fields on the surface? According to some theories they can. The presence of solid matallic objects buried near the surface is considered to be one anomoly that has a local inluence on the patterns of these electromagnetic fields at the surface. Also, according to the proponents of this theory, underground water has a much larger influence. How this works I have no idea. Presumably even the purest water found underground has dissolved minerals and ions in small concentrations. In addition, natural gamma emmisions from deep within the earth are absorbed by water molecules which readily ionize as the result of the absorption. The net effect of this action is that the body of water becomes more ionized, while the surrounding solid materials do not. Thus a body of underground water could concievably be considered an absorber of neutrons and gamma waves and producer of ions in comparison to its surroundings. Even if this is happening in very small concentrations, we have established it is an anomoly which has properties of different ionization, different background radiation, and different chemical composition. Now if this stream is moving, it can be expected to interact with any weak electromagnetic fields it is passing through.

In My opinion, the strength of all these fields and ion levels is very weak at best, and hard to measure. It is no where near the power levels of MHD generators. And I have no Idea if dowsers are actually able to sense these weak fields using their bodies and dowsing rods. But I must admit there is a possibility that the electromagnetic fields that exist on the surface of the earth are influenced by underground water. For reference, here are links from another post that shows a hobbyist who built an electronic field detector and was amazed at the strange signals he found around the surface of the ground:

http://www.vlf.it/kurt/elf.html http://www.vlf.it/kurt/elf.html http://www.vlf.it/kurt/elf.html http://www.vlf.it/kurt/elf.html

[Elie]

Without re-reading everything that has been discussed on this, it appears that the device in question works on scientific principles, that being the detection of gamma radiation. I believe that it was assumed the principle of operation of his device was the same as dowsing, i.e., dowsers also detect radiation. I don't think there was an intention to imply the device utilyzed dowsing rods.

Even dowsers can invent useful non-dowsing devices!

- Carl

This book also has a chapter about a German rocket scientist who built an electronic machine that works on the same principle that dowsers use. When I contacted the inventor of this machine, he demonstrated it, and he also showed me his own dowsing rods...

Neither I nor Dr. Bickel ever said dowsing worked on the same principle as his machine that detected mineral deposits.

I did not claim that the machine did not work, and I did not claim that it utilized dowsing rods.

Even if his machine is as good as you claim, it does not mean that we have to accept his ideas about related matters. Someone might invent or discover something very important, and then come up with a crazy idea related to it. Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA, thought that it was brought to Earth by aliens. And so with Dr. Bickel's idea that dowsing actually worked, using the same principle as his machine.

Your last line is classic!

[J_Player]

I am having a hard time understanding your point Elie. Your train of thought is hard to follow.

After I made several long pages of detailed explanations, you should have been able to grasp what I said about my understanding of dowsing and of a working long range mineral deposit locator. However, you continue to post out of context exerpts that prove no point that I can discern. As near as I can tell you are trying to prove that I am saying gamma spectroscopy is the principle of dowsing, using an out-of context exerpt from an early post I made, while ignoring all the detailed explanations that show otherwise. Is this the case? Is your only point to prove that what I posted can't be correct?
The fact is that the book I refer to does represent Dr. Bickel's machine as an electronic dowsing machne, just as I stated. If you ever bother to read the book, you will find that this is true. Neither Dr. Bickel or I ever made a statement that we agree with the representation put forward in this book about his machine being an electronic dowsing machine. I suppose his speciallized scintillator could be called a "dowsing machine" in the loose sense of the word, in that it locates underground anomolies, just as dowsers claim to do.

Do you have any real proof that this machine cannot locate underground ore deposits? Do you have any real proof that no dowser has never found underground water more often than a non-dowser would find it with random attempts?

If your only proof is to show that some people make fraudulent claims about LRLs this does not prove anything about whether LRLs work or not. If you show that some people sell LRLs, this does not prove that nothing they say has truth in it. Have you considered that Carl sells circuit boards to build PI detectors? By your own style insinuations, does this prove that we can't trust what Carl tells us about metal detectors or electronics? There have been cases of people making fraudulant claims about conventional metal detectors. Does this prove that all metal detectors are worthless and none of them work based on the style "proof" that you use?

So far, all I have heard from you are attempts to discredit anyone who has a different opinion than you. I would like to see what proof you have for your apparent opinion that dowsing does not work for finding water. I personally have never seen any dowser or LRL detector locate buried treasures. But I have seen a number of dowsers show people where to drill water wells with a good success rate, much better than random drilling, and better than I would figure on my own.

I have 3 specific questions for you:

1. Can you show any proof that dowsers have ablolutely no success at locating water? Can you bring any scientific knowledge to the forum about this without discrediting somebody? Do you actually have any knowledge about this?

2. Do you have any real proof that the machine Dr. Bickel built cannot locate underground ore deposits? Can you prove that he ever said it works on dowsing principles? Or must you rely on that out-of-context exerpt from my post to try to discredit him?

3. Do you actually have any knowledge about dowsing or LRLs that could be used in a constructive manner in this forum? If so please elaborate. I am particularly interested in the scientific proofs that you may have, not attacks on peoples motives or charachters.

[Elie]

I am having a hard time understanding your point Elie.

My point is that long range locators are hoaxes, and that no one should waste their money on them.

After I made several long pages of detailed explanations, you should have been able to grasp what I said about my understanding of dowsing and of a working long range mineral deposit locator.

I grasped it just fine.

However, you continue to post out of context exerpts...

BE SPECIFIC!
(And spell "excerpts" correctly.)

As near as I can tell you are trying to prove that I am saying gamma spectroscopy is the principle of dowsing, using an out-of context exerpt from an early post I made, while ignoring all the detailed explanations that show otherwise.

You have it backwards! I did not say that you said that gamma spectroscopy was like dowsing; I said that you said that Dr. Bickel "built an electronic machine that works on the same principle that dowsers use." If that is taken out of context, then it is YOUR fault.
You also wrote, "According to Dr. Bickel, the dowsers are not (in his opinion) sensing gamma radiation directly, but the effects it has on a number of naturally occurring fields that can be sensed on the surface of the earth."
This excerpt CLEARLY shows that your assertion that "Neither I nor Dr. Bickel ever said dowsing worked on the same principle as his machine that detected mineral deposits" is FALSE.

Do you have any real proof that this machine cannot locate underground ore deposits?

Did you actually read my post, RIGHT ABOVE YOURS?
"I did not claim that the machine did not work..."

Do you have any real proof that no dowser has never found underground water more often than a non-dowser would find it with random attempts?

You ask this question in an interesting manner. You write, "Do you have any real proof that no dowser has NEVER found underground water more often than a non-dowser would find it with random attempts?" I assume that you meant to write, "Do you have any real proof that no dowser has EVER found underground water more often than a non-dowser would find it with random attempts?"
This question shows what a hoax dowsing is. You did not write, "Do you have any real proof that a dowser REGULARLY finds underground water more often than a non-dowser would find it with random attempts?" Based on your actual question, if a dowser had a "good day," then that would "prove" that there was something to dowsing. You are grasping at straws! If a type of search is not REGULARY better than a random search, then to claim that there is (or might be) anything to that type of search is to perpetrate a HOAX!

Have you considered that Carl sells circuit boards to build PI detectors? By your own style insinuations, does this prove that we can't trust what Carl tells us about metal detectors or electronics?

Carl sells those boards practically at cost. Also:
"I liked the Hammerhead shark image that I found on the web, far better than any other shark image, and I wanted a sorta "official" logo for the project. So, I contacted the illustrator for permission to use the image.

Well, it cost a little $$$ to license the image, but it's all legal. I can use the image on the web site, and in articles that I write for the project. I can also use it on the control panel layout, or for other box decals.

The illustrator also gives permission for individuals to use the image in their own custom panel designs, or decals, for this project only. If you want to use the image for anything else, please get permission!"
In other words, Carl paid out of his own pocket for everyone else to be able to use the logo, for free.
Does THAT answer your question?
By the way, some of you guys really make me SICK. Carl does more for treasure hunters than just about anyone in the whole world. He runs a treasure hunting website, which he pays for himself, he answers questions about treasure hunting technology, free of charge (and he is a professional electrical engineer), he keeps people (if they LISTEN to him) from spending TONS of money on outright HOAXES (and he does this at great personal expense), he has invested a great deal of time and money in a metal detector project from which he does not make any money (see above), in order to help those who are interested in learning about metal detector technology, and he probably does other things which I do not know about. And what is the result of all this? He is villified (here and elsewhere), and accused of lying, ignorance, stupidity, and having sinister motives for trying to help people. You guys should be ASHAMED of yourselves.

I would like to see what proof you have for your apparent opinion that dowsing does not work for finding water.

I did not state that dowsing does not work for finding water, but I am stating it now!
See above and below.

I personally have never seen any dowser or LRL detector locate buried treasures.

Neither have I!

But I have seen a number of dowsers show people where to drill water wells with a good success rate, much better than random drilling, and better than I would figure on my own.

There is water all over the place, including underground. You keep talking about PROOF. You have no proof that dowsers do better than random searchers.

1. Can you show any proof that dowsers have ablolutely no success at locating water? Can you bring any scientific knowledge to the forum about this without discrediting somebody? Do you actually have any knowledge about this?

See above; Carl has already explained the science involved. What is it with you and discrediting people? If they insist on spouting fallacies, THEY SHOULD BE DISCREDITED; Again with the knowledge? You are being very specific already!

2. Do you have any real proof that the machine Dr. Bickel built cannot locate underground ore deposits? Can you prove that he ever said it works on dowsing principles? Or must you rely on that out-of-context exerpt from my post to try to discredit him?

See above; See above; See above. I tried to discredit him? Learn to read!

3. Do you actually have any knowledge about dowsing or LRLs that could be used in a constructive manner in this forum? If so please elaborate. I am particularly interested in the scientific proofs that you may have, not attacks on peoples motives or charachters.

Yes: They do not work! I have not attacked motives or character, except where it was warrated. Face the facts: you are not interested in science.

[J_Player]

Hey Elie,
You have made a really long post which seems like another example of your trying to prove that only you are right and those with a different opinion are wrong. You are repeating your "out of context" quote conerning what principle Dr. Bickel's machine works on. Again you cleverly fail to include the later part of my post where my final statement was

"All of what I described above is theory, and has no basis in fact, except the data that was collected by researchers, and the machine that the German scientist built on this principle, which can locate gold under the earth."

Rather than taking responsibility for your error you try to blame your misconstrued interpretations on me? "It is my fault"?
And at thae same time your are asserting you grasped what I said about my understanding of dowsing and a working long range locator? It seems to me that the point of your post is to prove that you ar right, and those whe have a differing opinion are wrong, using whatever means you can muster, including focusing on spelling errors. If your main point is that long range locators are hoaxes, I couldn't find it in your last post.

I agree that Carl is one of the best assets that the treasure hunters have anywhere on the internet. And I am also a skeptic when it comes to spending money for LRLs. But the funny thing is I have never seen anyone show that LRLs don't work with hard evidence except Carl who disected some of these machines, and pointed out an individual whose LRL was analyzed by Sandia Labs. What Carl and others proved is that there are individuals selling paraphanalia that has non-functional electronic circuits, and that the particular devices tested did not function as their manufacturers specified. I have heard no concrete explanations that prove the general principle of LRLs can't work.

Unlike Carl, you have focused your efforts on discrediting people who dare to have a different opinion than you. Apparently you have no interenst in learning what the LRL proponents have to say. This is of no concern to me. But in all your last lengthy post, I can't find any concise answers to the questions I asked, except the question about water dowsing, and it seems you are now saying you don't disagree that Dr. Bickel's machine can locate ore deposits.

I am still wondering what "scientific" facts you have to substantiate these opinions you have advanced. I have only two questions. I Am not looking for any more of your clever methods of mis-quoting me or non-answers in the form of more questions. I am loking only the answers to these 2 questions:

1. If you can offer some scientific evidence that water dowsing does not work, then let's hear it.

2. Can you offer any scientific evidence that LRL detection cannot work? Lets hear the science you have to prove it.

[hung]

Magnetohydrodynamics requires a conductive fluid, such as seawater, and really has nothing to do with whether water is a magnetic field concentrator.

???????????

There is a simple experiment to determine whether water is a magnetic field concentrator... simply wind an open-core inductor, and see if the value of the inductance changes when water is inserted as the core material. It does not.

Sure not. You are trying to replicate a huge and complex teluric phenomena inside the earth doing a small scale conversion. No way it will work. No one needs to use tap water in the above experiment to know it won't raise induction. This experiment does not prove anyting.
I say again, check magnetohydrodynamics and you will find the answer.
Also check gird pattern harmonic equations and how they relate to the earths magnetic lines and waterfalls.. You will find those in Bruce Cathie's books.

You see, many of the magnetic concepts taught in the school are wrong. If people are still not aware of the nulling point in the center of a bar magnet, then it's hard to discuss magnetism... But this is another story..

[J_Player]

I can agree that iron concentrates a magnetic field. I have seen evidence that it is true from simple experiments of placing a piece of iron in a field and watching a pattern of iron filings move due to the presence of the iron. But I have never seen this happen due to the presence of a body of water. If water concentrates a magnetic field, then I have never seen this demonstrated or taught in any school.

The principle of MHD concerns a charge moving through a magnetic field. If we have a stream of water that contain ions moving through a magnetic field, then the ions will interact with that field in a way that can be measured. Most ground water is not pure distilled water, but has some mineralization and some degree of ionization as a result. even if it is only a slight amount, when the water is moving through a magnetic field such as the earth's magnetic field, I would expect the ions in the water to to be influenced by the field, and perhaps influence the field at the same time. I can't imagine that the amount of charge or power in such a stream would be anywhere near as strong as man made MHD generators, but I would still have to agree that there is some MHD action happening at a much weaker level. In the case of natural occuring streams, underground or above, It seems that any movement of ions caused by the earth's magnetic field would be minimal, and hard to detect. Furthermore, the amount of MHD effect would be limited by the allignment of the stream in relation to the earth's magnetic field. Because there are both positive and negative ions moving in the field with no connecting wires to complete a circuit that would harness any of this weak power, I would expect the net effect to be nil. However, I wonder if there are local effects detectable within the stream that could be measured, for example the two sides of the steam becoming polarized with oppositely charged ions? Just a thought.

[Dell Winders]

According to the Science article I read years ago the earth's magnetic field "follows" even slightly moving water. It could very well be soluble chemical elements such as Iron in the water that causes this "appears as if" it's a magnetic field disturbance the water Dowser is sensitive to. Any number of theories might apply. I don't know. I have had very little experience locating water. Dell

[Elie]

Hey Elie,
You have made a really long post which seems like another example of your trying to prove that only you are right and those with a different opinion are wrong. You are repeating your "out of context" quote conerning what principle Dr. Bickel's machine works on. Again you cleverly fail to include the later part of my post where my final statement was

"All of what I described above is theory, and has no basis in fact, except the data that was collected by researchers, and the machine that the German scientist built on this principle, which can locate gold under the earth."

Rather than taking responsibility for your error you try to blame your misconstrued interpretations on me? "It is my fault"?
And at thae same time your are asserting you grasped what I said about my understanding of dowsing and a working long range locator? It seems to me that the point of your post is to prove that you ar right, and those whe have a differing opinion are wrong, using whatever means you can muster, including focusing on spelling errors. If your main point is that long range locators are hoaxes, I couldn't find it in your last post.

I agree that Carl is one of the best assets that the treasure hunters have anywhere on the internet. And I am also a skeptic when it comes to spending money for LRLs. But the funny thing is I have never seen anyone show that LRLs don't work with hard evidence except Carl who disected some of these machines, and pointed out an individual whose LRL was analyzed by Sandia Labs. What Carl and others proved is that there are individuals selling paraphanalia that has non-functional electronic circuits, and that the particular devices tested did not function as their manufacturers specified. I have heard no concrete explanations that prove the general principle of LRLs can't work.

Unlike Carl, you have focused your efforts on discrediting people who dare to have a different opinion than you. Apparently you have no interenst in learning what the LRL proponents have to say. This is of no concern to me. But in all your last lengthy post, I can't find any concise answers to the questions I asked, except the question about water dowsing, and it seems you are now saying you don't disagree that Dr. Bickel's machine can locate ore deposits.

I am still wondering what "scientific" facts you have to substantiate these opinions you have advanced. I have only two questions. I Am not looking for any more of your clever methods of mis-quoting me or non-answers in the form of more questions. I am loking only the answers to these 2 questions:

1. If you can offer some scientific evidence that water dowsing does not work, then let's hear it.

2. Can you offer any scientific evidence that LRL detection cannot work? Lets hear the science you have to prove it.

What is it with you and that one quote about Bickel? Forget that quote. What about the other quote?
"'According to Dr. Bickel, the dowsers are not (in his opinion) sensing gamma radiation directly, but the effects it has on a number of naturally occurring fields that can be sensed on the surface of the earth.'
This excerpt CLEARLY shows that your assertion that 'Neither I nor Dr. Bickel ever said dowsing worked on the same principle as his machine that detected mineral deposits' is FALSE."
And you wrote that I "continue to post out of context exerpts," but, despite my request, did not provide even ONE other example.
"It seems to me that the point of your post is to prove that you ar right, and those whe have a differing opinion are wrong, using whatever means you can muster, including focusing on spelling errors."
What should I try to show? That I am wrong? As for the ONE spelling error which I pointed out, if it really hurts your feelings that much that I pointed it out, then I will not do it again.
The evidence against against water dowsing is twofold:
Firstly, there is no scientific principle that I can think of which would make it possible. Also, Carl, who has made a thorough study of dowsing, and who has an extensive scientific background, has not come up with any such scientific principle.
Secondly, examining the claims made for water dowsing, I find that they are incredibly insane. For example, Dell, whom you respect greatly, wrote, "According to science, water is a strong concentrator of the earth's magnetic 'field.'"
The same thing goes for long range locators.
Carl on one of Dell's machines:
"In summary, the VR-800 is an extremely poor design with amateurish construction. The transmitter outputs a signal which radically changes with soil conditions and does not have the capacity to drive the signal to anywhere near the claimed distance of 1 mile. Even adding an output power amp and matching the output impedance to the ground will only result in signal transmitted for maybe tens of feet, not miles. The frequency setting is arbitrary and has no meaning. The Weight Chek unit is of similar poor design and does not even come close to doing what is claimed of it. The Magnetic Wave Guide Receiver is just a shorting switch and serves no apparent useful function. In the end, most, if not all, of the technical and performance claims of this unit are blatantly false."
I am tired of your immature, nonsensical arguments, on which I have wasted a great deal of time in response. If you make one more post in this vein, I will stop resonding to you.

[Dell Winders]

Elie, let me try to clarify.

DOWSING is classified within the;

NON- Scientific, estoric realm of META-PHYSICS. Meaning, that real Science has not yet determined how, or why DOWSING does, or might work.

META-PHYSICAL DOWSING, is considered to b a NON-technical, NON-Scientificly established subject.

THE SOURCE OF CONFUSION; Carl, has referred to the devices written about in his Scientific, technical engineering reports as being META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES.

With no Scientific criteria ever being established for determining NON-TECHNICAL META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES, the question arises how Carl, alone has made that determination and can factually, and truthfully proclaim the devices he writes his technical reports on are truly META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES? How do you write a factual scientific technical report on a NON-scientific, NON-technical subject?

With regard to the VR-800, you quoted, if it is indeed a NON-TECHNICAL, META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICE, as Carl, claims, then in order for it to work META-PHYSICLY. it would not even matter how it was made, or what the componnents were. Right?

For the record, I had nothing to do with the manufacturing of the VR-800. Their website is http://www.vernellelectronics.com

I hope this helps you to understand that META-PHYSICAL DOWSING is NOT a technical discussion. Dell

[J_Player]

Hey Elie,
Sorry you don't see a difference between sensing fields on the ground and sensing gamma waves. If you think they are the same I see no point in discussing it any further.

I am aware of Carl's excellent work in disecting several LRLs and reporting what he found. However this is not a scientific proof that the principle of LRLs cannot work. It is a proof that an individual is selling a poorly made electronic device that does not meet the specifications listed in the advertizing. I have little doubt that If I were to try to use this device I would probably detect nothing except gravity. I will never know until I try.

I asked you only two questions:

1. If you can offer some scientific evidence that water dowsing does not work, then let's hear it.
2. Can you offer any scientific evidence that LRL detection cannot work? Lets hear the science you have to prove it.

Your first answer is "..there is no scientific principle that I can think of which would make it possible", and "Carl... has not come up with any such scientific principle". This is your scientific proof? Guess what? I don't believe that is scientific proof.

I think there are a lot of geophysics that nobody has discovered the mechanics of yet. It seems to me that scientists are learning more details how the earth works every year. If I hadn't elaborated on how satellites are able to locate ore deposits from long distances, then would you have said "..there is no scientific principle that I can think of which would make it possible"? Would you have used that same logic to prove that the scintillators don't work either? Are you aware that there are other electronic methods to detect anomolies under the earth from long distances with repeatable results? Will you use the same logic for your "scientific proof" that other instruments in the satellites can't work?

Apparently there is no real scientific proof that a LRL couldn't work. All we have is circumstantial evidence, in that no LRL user is willing to demonstrate to us how to find gold with their LRL, and a number LRL machines disected by Carl and others which have circuitry that is not comprehensible as being functional to anyone familiar with electronics. This is evidence against the manufacturers of those particular devices. Not evidence against the theory that underground objects can be detected by sensing fields on the surface of the earth.

The underlying principle of sensing fields at the surface of the earth and detecting anomolies in these fields linked to underground objects has never been proven to be impossible. In fact there are a number of wholly electronmic devices that measure near earth-fields and are capable of mapping out an area without any user intervention. Are any of these fields measured on the surface linked to underground anomolies? I think so. There are instruments that measure anomolies and even running water from the surface. If someone were to build a hand-held LRL that could actually locate buried objects from a distance say 100 ft, with 80% repeatability regardless of any atmospheric conditions, then I would think they built a useful tool. So far I haven't seen anyone demonstrate such a machine. But I have a feeling it is only a matter of time till someone does. I suppose it is a matter of a lot more time before any such device would be able to discriminate what it located with any kind of accuracy.

For the record, I have respect for all the members of this forum whose main focus is not to discredit the people who they disagree with. I prefer to read the posts that show ideas to investigate rather than posts that only focus on the negative sarcasm. What Dell has that nobody else here has is years of experience, and the knowledge that goes with it. I have never seen him focus on any individual with the intent of derision. This is the same degree of respect that I find with most of the people who post in this forum. The fact is I don't agree with some of the science principles and references Dell quotes. But I still would like to see what his has to say about LRLs.

[J_Player]

I may have spoken too soon. I see Dell posted just before I made my post.

According to Dell, the apparently "defective" LRL devices require the use of personal metaphysical powers in order to function correctly. If this is the case, then maybe we scientifically minded people are not able to adequately test or use these devices. It seems to me that these devices are only usefuul to people who have special metaphysical powers, and cannot be depended on by an average consumer who wants to buy one to locate treasures. Only those people who have developed matabhysical abilities would have success with them as I understand it. I guess that leaves me out.

From here on in my discussions of LRL will pertain only to those devices that work on geophysical properties and measuring techniques. It would be very helpful if Dell could give us a list of those LRL detectors that require metaphysical abilities and those that can be used by average people with no special metaphysical abilities. Can you help us out Dell?

[Elie]

Elie, let me try to clarify.

DOWSING is classified within the;

NON- Scientific, estoric realm of META-PHYSICS. Meaning, that real Science has not yet determined how, or why DOWSING does, or might work.

META-PHYSICAL DOWSING, is considered to b a NON-technical, NON-Scientificly established subject.

THE SOURCE OF CONFUSION; Carl, has referred to the devices written about in his Scientific, technical engineering reports as being META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES.

With no Scientific criteria ever being established for determining NON-TECHNICAL META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES, the question arises how Carl, alone has made that determination and can factually, and truthfully proclaim the devices he writes his technical reports on are truly META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICES? How do you write a factual scientific technical report on a NON-scientific, NON-technical subject?

With regard to the VR-800, you quoted, if it is indeed a NON-TECHNICAL, META-PHYSICAL DOWSING DEVICE, as Carl, claims, then in order for it to work META-PHYSICLY. it would not even matter how it was made, or what the componnents were. Right?

For the record, I had nothing to do with the manufacturing of the VR-800. Their website is http://www.vernellelectronics.com

I hope this helps you to understand that META-PHYSICAL DOWSING is NOT a technical discussion. Dell

"Polka dots" is not a refutation of the argument "Stripes are evil."
I did not write that you manufactured it, and it does not really matter who manufactured it. YOU SOLD IT.
As for your claim that dowsing is metaphysical, fine.
Dowsing is a METAPHYSICAL method of finding METAPHYSICAL treasure.

[Esteban]

"I know very well that many scientists consider dowsing as they do astrology, as a type of ancient superstition. According to my conviction this is, however, unjustified. The dowsing rod is a simple instrument which shows the reaction of the human nervous system to certain factors which are unknown to us at this time."


Albert Einstein

[J_Player]

I have a question for Dell:

Are all the LRLs that you have experience with classed as meta-physical devices? Or are there some that are purely geophysical? If so, which ones are geophysical and don't require any meta-physical techniques?

Thanks in advance