From your cite: Few areas exist in Missouri where some water cannot be found at some depth with some quality
For a certain definition of “some.” You unsderstand that a single molecule of H2O is “some” water, right?
Your cite goes on to say:
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Geological Survey and Resource Assessment Division will assist homeowners and industry in finding an adequate water supply and in most cases can estimate where water may be obtained, its chemical composition, and generally, how much water is available. *
If underground water were truly ubiquitous, you wouldn’t need such advice.
Fact is, you might dig anywhere and find *some *water, a thimbleful maybe, but it won’t be an adequate supply. And the chemical composition might be bad. You cannot just pick a spot at random and expect to find water there, except for the most pedantic definition of water there.
Well, thanks for linking to your previous thread, Peter. It definitely helps me understand what you’re saying.
Which appears to be “I know that nobody can really demonstrate dowsing ability under scientifically valid conditions, so instead I’m going to argue that a particular one-sentence statement about hydrogeology is somewhat inaccurate.”:rolleyes:
As someone with at least some formal training in hydrology, I think in this context the main point of ‘you can find water anywhere’ is accurate. At least in eastern North America, almost anywhere that’s not clearly bedrock outcrop, you can drill and fine enough water to allow a dowser to claim they succeeded’
The well might not always produce enough flow to be a good water supply, but by the time we know that, the dowser’s long gone, of course.
Intellectually, I know that dowsing can’t work, but I will share my own annecdotal experience with you.
When I was in high school (1968-1971), a classmate of mine was the president of the archeology club. He showed me a book that had a section in it for finding metal objects by dowsing.
The method used wire cut from two metal coathangers, bent into an “L” shape. You held them out in front of you, one in each hand, the knuckles of your fist together. The long section of the wires were supposed to be held out parallel to each other and about three inches apart. You were supposed to hold them loosely so that they “pivoted” in your grasp.
You walk in the area you are looking at with the wires help parallel. When you started to walk over something metal in the ground, the wires would start to pivot and cross, the point of crossing directly over the metal object.
This was in an archeology book, used and recommended by the author, and even had diagrams. He did mention that it didn’t work for everyone and some people just can’t dowse this way. He said this system worked for finding metal in the ground - he said nothing about water or electricity or iron content.
I later tried this at home and it worked for me just as he described. I could use it to follow the exact path of the water lines from my house to the street.
In order to try something that couldn’t be easily guessed at, like the water lines, I asked a friend to drop a small piece of metal in a 50’x50’ section of my property when I wasn’t looking. Without looking at my friend or the ground (trying to keep the wires basically parallel), I walked back and forth in the area until the wires crossed. I looked down from the cross and could just make out a small pocket knife my friend had placed in the grass.
I know there is nothing scientific or conclusive about my little experiment years ago, but because of it, I have always wondered if some dowsing may be possible.
You’re aware you did something empirically meaningless, but wonder if it has meaning? Unsurprisingly, no it doesn’t.
Demonstrate a statistically significant ability to dowse in a double-blind, randomised, controlled study. Then it has meaning. Then you can legitimately post it in a factual discussion thread.
I don’t doubt for a moment that groundwater would be more plentiful and more easily reachable in one place than another. The issue here though is how dowsers appear to have such a high rate of success. I doubt that a dowser would find only some water but admit they had failed, or find water only at an inconvenient depth and say they had failed. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources say that the lack of areas in Missouri where some water cannot be found at some depth with some quality is the reason for the success of dowsers in Missouri. They’d know, I guess.
cite?
Please show some evidence that dowsers appear to have a high rate of success. I have never seen actual evidence of dowsers’ success. Please show me some.
As far as I know, dowsers don’t generally have much success. But if you know different, I’m willing to look at the evidence.
My post above was responding to **limegreen **who said his Grandpop was paid (in chickens and produce) for dowsing for water. I can only assume that this meant that the people who gave him chickens etc thought he could achieve a rate higher than what those people thought could be achieved by blind chance (otherwise why pay him?) By “high rate of success” I mean only a rate higher than will be perceived by some to be what would be achieved by blind chance.
I’m not aware of any. However, it appears from limegreen’s post that some people believed his Grandpop could achieve more than what would be achieved by blind chance.