Water dowsers

[CheeseDonkey]

@indian

Unca Cecil’s take on dowsing for water.

That guy has literally covered everything.

[Telemark]

@bardos

what the guy told me was that he could sense the veins but NOT the depth.

Since water is pretty much everywhere if you dig deep enough this claim is completely useless.

[Gary_Robson]

@Mangetout

With respect, I think you’re wrong - not about dowsing, but about what the GQ question is here. The question is (in my understanding, paraphrased): “What is the claimed mechanism by which dowsing (supposedly) works)” - how do dowsers say it works, not 'does it work?"

Unfortunately, I have seen no attempt to answer that question, and the thread has already moved out of GQ territory. I’m shipping it off to Great Debates.

[Czarcasm]

I have seen many different explanations from many different True Believers-magic, psychic energy, magnetism, electricity, gravity(!), other unnameable and unmeasurable “energies”. Some say the ability will work with any sticklike object, while others insist that only a branch from a particular plant or tree will work, and others still will say they need to hold nothing at all.

[kanicbird]

To the OP, you may want to peak into geophysics a bit. Though it doesn’t explain how dowsing works it, the subject of dousing does come up in a few places (mostly as a aside as in often dousing is used for this commercially though we don’t really know how it works), and it does go into how from the surface you can get a idea of the subsurface so it can give one a bit more understanding of some factors at play.

[Czarcasm]

@kanicbird

To the OP, you may want to peak into geophysics a bit. Though it doesn’t explain how dowsing works it, the subject of dousing does come up in a few places (mostly as a aside as in often dousing is used for this commercially though we don’t really know how it works), and it does go into how from the surface you can get a idea of the subsurface so it can give one a bit more understanding of some factors at play.

Please tell us which geophysics textbook mentions water dowsing. This claim screams for a cite.

[jharvey963]

Here are a couple of links to dowsing tests:

Testing Dowsing: The Failure of the Munich Experiments | Skeptical Inquirer

http://www.skepdic.com/dowsing.html

J.

[Great_Antibob]

@kanicbird

To the OP, you may want to peak into geophysics a bit. Though it doesn’t explain how dowsing works it, the subject of dousing does come up in a few places (mostly as a aside as in often dousing is used for this commercially though we don’t really know how it works), and it does go into how from the surface you can get a idea of the subsurface so it can give one a bit more understanding of some factors at play.

Geophysicist here. And um, no, you’re not going to see dowsing brought up in serious geophysical education or training. At least not anything done in the last 60 years or so.

It is true, however, that you can use the surface to get an idea of the subsurface. In fact, variations of this type of technique were used to find some of the initial oil fields in Texas (along with dry hole after dry hole after dry hole).

But that’s different from finding a single vein of water across a large property.

The way it works for oil (and probably for water), if you happen to find a large enough field, just dig anywhere, and you’ll hit something eventually. When you use the surface geology, you are usually trying to find a relatively large patch of oil. These patches are big enough that you can dig anywhere within tens or hundreds of feet of your best guess and still hit something.

And, in fact, when some of the first wildcatters used surface geology for oil prospecting, they often followed up by digging additional wells nearby to hit the same reservoir.

So, if you are looking for something BIG, like a large ancient river bed or lake, you might be able to use surface geology to guess at subsurface conditions. But that’s a far cry from dowsing or finding water trapped against impermeable trap rock.

[XT]

I’ve always heard the magnetic (or magical) fields explanation of how it supposedly works. I don’t believe there is really a consensus from dowsers about how it’s supposed to work…most will just say that it works and leave it at that.

For a more skeptical view, and to break with the near lock step conformity of this board in favor of dowsing (;)), this is a pretty good post:

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: 108). 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.163-168); 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, including the “Scheunen” or Barn study [see below], 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 and the so-called “Scheunen” or “Barn” experiment. 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. (Scheune is the German word for barn.) 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.

Read more: How does a water dowser work? - Answers

-XT

[kanicbird]

@Great_Antibob

Geophysicist here. And um, no, you’re not going to see dowsing brought up in serious geophysical education or training. At least not anything done in the last 60 years or so

Perhaps you were not looking for it, or perhaps the geophysics text book I got in college was unusual in that respect (IIRC titled ‘Modern Geophysics’ in about 1996). The book seemed to have gotten lost in some move over they years, it did have a illustration with comments of a utility worker using dowsing, a brief talk about it in the intro section as dowsing is part of the predecessor and history of geophysics, man wanting to know what is under the ground, I do believe there were other mentions of it also, though never in a scientific sense.

I would be amazed if some mention of dowsing is not in every serious educational series of books on geophysics.

[boytyperanma]

As someone who has worked in the well water industry most my life, my opinion is water dowsing is BS.

The concepts people get in their heads of underground rivers and veins of unlimited water simple don’t line up with the geology. Water collects to form aquifers. The aquifer covers a huge area. 50 feet one way or another isn’t going to make a difference.

Looking for the ‘water’ on ones property is almost comical to me. Dig a hole anywhere and you’ll find water.

Dowsing is just confirmation bias.

Instances like the one explained above where one guy dowsed and got a good well where a neighbor close by got a low yielding well can happen but you’re crediting the better well to a dowser finding it simply leaves out all the other scientific factors that could have come into play.

Such as, if you drill too fast for your mud pump it effectively cements in the sides of the borehole, preventing water from flowing into the well. Two wells ten feet from one another can have very different yields if one was drilled correctly and one wasn’t.
Experience matters. Some of the dowsers have the experience from years of finding pipes and such. They may credit their ability to find things underground to magic or magnetic fields but what really gets them there is subconsciously knowing what to look for.

I can walk onto many peoples properties and tell them where their well pit is or where their water line runs through the yard, information they’ve been completely unable to find, it isn’t because I have some mystic ability, it’s because I know the industry, the history, and the mechanics of the processes. Occasionally having the original records on file helps a lot too.

If I’m having a new well drilled the first step is to determine where I can legally drill it. That’s going to depend on the laws of the town, state and sometimes the feds. 25 feet away from the road, 150 feet away from a septic, 100 feet away from wetland etc. By the time you apply the law the places on the property are significantly more limited, I suppose a dowser magically avoids conflicts rather then using a measuring tape.

Once you’ve determined where you can’t drill you move into where would be best to drill, factors like where you can physically get the drill rig, where you can avoid the most devastation of landscaping and where is going to be the least costly to get the water from the well to the house.

The concept of hitting water or not, never really comes into the equations, it’s guaranteed. I’m going to hit water and I’m going to drill till I get the yield they want or the budget they set.

If someone wants to plan their well based off mumbo jumbo they are welcome too, for me and my customers I’ll stick to what’s proven to work.

[Telemark]

@kanicbird

I would be amazed if some mention of dowsing is not in every serious educational series of books on geophysics.

In the same manner that the earth-centric solar system is mentioned in a every serious educational series of books on astronomy. It’s a fairytale from history, that’s all.

[Musicat]

To answer the OP directly: Some theories involve magnetic fields, electrical emanations or some kind of coupling between humans or the human mind and a geological force, possibly an undiscovered one.

But all these theories are out the window if a dowser claims to map dowse, or find water by holding a forked stick over a crude map of the actual region. Then we have moved into the realm of psychic forces, which is to say, unprovable ones. Doesn’t deter the true believer.

[Gary_Robson]

@jharvey963

Here are a couple of links to dowsing tests:

Testing Dowsing: The Failure of the Munich Experiments | Skeptical Inquirer

dowsing (a.k.a. water witching) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Those articles should be required reading for anyone interested in dowsing.

@kanicbird

I would be amazed if some mention of dowsing is not in every serious educational series of books on geophysics.

Would someone care to provide a list of “serious educational series of books on geophysics”? I’d love to confirm your hypothesis. I would actually be mildly surprised if a majority mentioned dowsing at all (much less “every” series), and I would be blown away if any of them painted dowsing in a positive light.

[kanicbird]

[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:34, topic:592141”]

I would actually be mildly surprised if a majority mentioned dowsing at all (much less “every” series), and I would be blown away if any of them painted dowsing in a positive light.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think there was any negative association mentioned, at least I didn’t get that, and really that would be inappropriate in such a text. IIRC It just stated what it was and how it is still used in industry today (again a aside illustration with comments, no real details).

It didn’t go into trying to prove it, but in a class that gets you a degree to work in that field it is something you will probably run into and some background on it’s existence and origins seems appropriate.

[Musicat]

@kanicbird

It didn’t go into trying to prove it, but in a class that gets you a degree to work in that field it is something you will probably run into and some background on it’s existence and origins seems appropriate.

And it would be equally appropriate to include a chapter on magic spells, incantations and voodoo in college medical classes, too, because everyone knows they are used by the ignorant public.

[Snnipe_70E]

@Son_of_a_Rich

A well can be too deep?

On the ranch there were areas where a layer of clay followed by a layer of soil and another layer of clay. Water can be trapped in the layer between the two clay layers. We would dig down to where a lot of water would be comming into the well. go down another foot and the water level would begin to drop and end up we could see the water come in one side of the box and go out the bottom.

[Snnipe_70E]

@Telemark

Since water is pretty much everywhere if you dig deep enough this claim is completely useless.

Can you explain why well diggers can come up with dry well if it is every where?

[Telemark]

@kanicbird

It didn’t go into trying to prove it, but in a class that gets you a degree to work in that field it is something you will probably run into and some background on it’s existence and origins seems appropriate.

No, it doesn’t seem appropriate. It would be like learning about witch doctors in medical school. It’s not useful, and it’s not going to be taught in any reputable school.

[boytyperanma]

@Snnipe_70E

On the ranch there were areas where a layer of clay followed by a layer of soil and another layer of clay. Water can be trapped in the layer between the two clay layers. We would dig down to where a lot of water would be comming into the well. go down another foot and the water level would begin to drop and end up we could see the water come in one side of the box and go out the bottom.

@Snnipe_70E

Can you explain why well diggers can come up with dry well if it is every where?

If they stopped using 2000 year old technology and went with a modern drilled well these things are a non issue.

Yeah if you’re going to stick with dug wells, you might as well go for pseudo science to decide where to dig. Ones more useless then the other and neither have much place in a modern society.

Dug wells I guess still have their place for those without economic means or available technology. Selling such people on ‘dowsing’ at that point is rather mean spirited.