[sally_in_wales]

But a lot of fun can be had wandering round the garden with two bent coat hangers trying various 'scientific experiments' to work that out I used to while away many an hour as a kid attempting to dowse for lost toys (never found them) but it kept me out from underfoot.

I have seen some fairly convincing dowsers at work over the years who get pretty good results, but as Jema says, in tightly controlled tests it doesnt seem to hold up, which is a pity. I suppose in the cases of the water dowsers who have a good success rate they must be subconciously spotting lots of other little bits of evidence for water and translating all that into the dip of the wand, but it just doesnt seem to hold up under more controlled conditions. Wish it did work properly though

[jema]

I have not heard of tests done in these what you might call "uncontrolled" conditions, but it does make a certian amount of sense that a dowser would be successful, in that water in the naturual environment does not exist in sealed containers and therefore is both effecting things and effected by things.

[cab]

The thing about dowsing is that your success rate is pretty high if you just pick lower ground and places where slopes change. Such changes in topography usually reflect a change underground. And its amazing watching a dowser, they'll pick out such places time and time again, and if one of them turns out to be a water source they'll claim success (despite the three earlier drillings that came back cry). Give me a good A-level geography student and I'll teach them to spot such changes in topology within an hour, and get a similar success rate to that of a doswer.

The common way of testing, usually accepted by dowsers as an easy one to pass, is to get six upturned bins and put a cup of water under one of them. Time and time again dowsers enthusiastically try to demonstrate that their system works better than pure chance, and time and time again they fail. Invariably, after doing it, they start finding reasons why it didn't work.

Thing that I find hardest here is that dowsers always seem to be really sincere, interesting people. Really good eggs, at least in my experience. So its such a shame that what they do doesn't really work any better than chance and topology

It isn't, of course, absolutely proven that it doesn't work (such absolutes are not what science is about, anyone who asks science for such absolutes needs a glass of perspective and tonic, and perhaps a lie down). It has merely been proven to the point where one can't make a ralistic case in favour of dowsing.

So for me, its filed away as one of those things I'd really love to believe, but don't.

[gil]

Re testing water : wonder if you could get info from the English equivalent of SEPA (Scottish Environmental Protection Agency). Also your local water board.

Behemoth - any suggestions ?
(I only know [a bit] about springs as off-mains water sources)

[gingerwelly]

Re testing water : wonder if you could get info from the English equivalent of SEPA (Scottish Environmental Protection Agency). Also your local water board.

Behemoth - any suggestions ?
(I only know [a bit] about springs as off-mains water sources)

[cab]

Double blind protocols aren't meant to be there for debunking, they're there as a way of making sure that what you get isn't biased. Thats the whole point, it prevents you from trying to debunk just as much as it prevents you from unknowingly favouring a positive result.

Dowsing is something you can claim the million dollars with. And if you rekon theres a dowser in your parts who can do it, I really urge you to get in touch with JREF, they'll sort out a prelim test (if you like, I'll help you design the experiment and we'll get in touch with them with a firm proposal for how to do a prelimiary test) and go from there. And if you win the million, buy me a pint

[cab]

The way you'd do it is by picking locations where subterranean water sources are mapped but not obvious; contact any good hydrologist and you can find that out (there are some good people at Lancaster University and some at UEA). They would give you the location (but not the precise spots of the water sources) and then you'd go out with your dowser(s) and see how well they do against a control, and against someone who merely takes environmental factors into account; you wouldn't know yourself where the water sources are, the dowser wouldn't know, and you'd be informed of the precise location afterwards.

Dead easy. If anyone rekons they can do it, claim the million dollars.
Simple and easy.

[Bugs]

I'd be surprised if there aren't others here who have given it a bash, but just in case, try this:

http://www.britishdowsers.org/

[cab]

Shame. It isn't an unhealthy obsession at all, but if there's a way that any one of our members here could win a million US dollars simply doing something they believe they can do (translates into less sterling, of course, but is still worth having) then I'd offer to lend a helping hand. I should think that if anyone here were to try such a thing, were they to ask for help they'd get a whole load of offers.

It strikes me that if it did work, one of the dowsers who has tried would have claimed the money by now. And if it does work, then I'd rather it was 'one of ours' that proves it.