D0wsery / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

D0wsery

previous 1 2 3

Move Thread

LAN_403

Tue Apr 03 2007, 06:22PM

Banned on April 7, 2007
Registered Member #277 Joined: Fri Mar 03 2006, 10:15AM
Location: Florida
Posts: 157

Firkragg:

I work with electrostatics almost every day for the last couple of years and have observed electrostatic action-at-a distance toward grounded objects in varying degrees depending on 1) mass of the underground object 2) depth of the buried object, can't be buried too deeply, 3) during times of low-moisture in the soil, 4) during peak sky voltage periods, 5) during times of low humidity. I respect your opinion, truly do, and believe what you say is generally correct, however, when these 5 environmental factors occur simultaneously, electrostatics have been observed to behave as previously described. Unfortunately, my posted viewpoint was deleted due to "lack of a double-blind test". The casual observer will note that eventho you haven't presented a double-blind test to support your stated viewpoint concerning why electrostatic dowsing won't work, your post hasn't be deleted. Selective application of the rules? Nah, not a chance. CM

Eric

Tue Apr 03 2007, 06:42PM

Registered Member #69 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 07:42AM
Location:
Posts: 116

I think you have to present some kind of theory CM that has something to do with real science. You know, actually create a model that incorporates your ideas and quantifies the charges, voltages, currents, and forces at work. This force isn't magic (if it exists) it has got to be a force due to real currents or charges and the math to quantify all of this is not hard. THAT would be acceptable science, to me anyway, to propose a good model. Such a model would be very useful for either proving, disproving or testing your theory.

Saying you've experienced certain unquantified things under certain unspecified conditions without such a model is really worse than vague. People swear that they have experienced forces using a Ouija board and I'm sure they feel just as real as D0wsing(hint). I'm not against you, just my humble opinion.

WaveRider

Tue Apr 03 2007, 08:04PM

Registered Member #29 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 09:00AM
Location: Hasselt, Belgium
Posts: 500

I am not sure how much longer this thread is going to last. D0wsing generally falls in the realm of pathological science. Tests of the method generally produce the null result (statistically random results).

CM: Saying that you work with electrostatics is not enough to give you "cred". You have not explained how electricity is at all remotely connected with finding hidden water. Please present some evidence that you understand what it is you are talking about or prepare, not to be censored, but taken to task on unsubstantiated points. There are a number of experts in electromagnetism who participate in this forum who will gladly pick apart unscientific claims!

If the next post does not have some content relating to the scientific method or some scientific discussion on

1. the theory of electrostatics relating to finding hidden water or other materials
2. testing methodologies
3. actual experiments carried out
4. psychological connections, etc

the lock will be applied!

Conundrum

Tue Apr 03 2007, 09:34PM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4061

Actually, there is a plausible mechanism whereby electrostatic fields (themselves being easily detected by $0.02 worth of JFETs) can be used to detect conductors buried in a semiconductor (ie slightly damp soil)

If you imagine as an example the case of a coin under many, many sheets of paper, each sheet reduces the detectable deflection by a set amount (in all likelihood the inverse square law or some variant). However the actual deflection will never be zero even if you put 100 sheets, though it will spread out and become "blurred".

The resultant tiny changes in field in a uniform environment may well be detectable therefore.

Comments?

In addition, *moving* water should be even easier to detect, as the small variable field will be detectable using a simple common mode amplifier and two or more sense plates a short distance apart, as one plate is over the region and the other is not.

-A

Tue Apr 03 2007, 11:29PM

Banned on April 7, 2007
Registered Member #277 Joined: Fri Mar 03 2006, 10:15AM
Location: Florida
Posts: 157

Wave and Eric:

I already authored a paper and posted it on this forum explaining it, but it was deleted, something to do with I didn't include a double-blind test along with the paper... no joking.
I like this site, honest injun, I do, but sometimes the delete and/or mod button is used too readily by certain moderators. At some point, too much moderating... becomes dominate censorship. But I am just one lone voice in the crowd, seems my suggestions do nothing more than irriate those in power. It will take other members to respectfully speak up who might be tired of moderator hanky/panky behind the scenes if the censorship is to be lessened. Maybe not too many members are even aware of it, yet alone tired of it. Apparently you didn't know that my paper explaining peak sky voltage induced electro-static induction and its relationship to enhanced ground planes (with regard to the dowsing topic) had been deleted. Maybe I'm one of only a handful that even care. I've said my piece, probably too many times, so from now on, I'm just along for the ride. It looks like this thread, which could have been the source of stimulating intellectual conversation and exchange, is about to be closed anyway

HV Enthusiast

Wed Apr 04 2007, 01:14AM

Registered Member #15 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 01:11PM
Location:
Posts: 3068

This thread is going nowhere fast and the same arguments are just getting repeated over and over, so looks like time to lock it. . .

previous 1 2 3

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob