Ahhh, statistics. I remember the First Rule of Applied Mathematics in
college: Ninety-eight percent of all statistics are made up!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Harmon" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "Kevin Normoyle" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Divining rods
You are correct Kevin, nothing has been presented to establish that divining
has better results than random hole drilling.
We have provided information based on our personal experiences and
discussions with others. That is all you should expect
from a Ham Radio forum, hi,hi. You are not going to receive a detailed
engineering analysis here.
Anecdotal stuff as you say is what we do!
Your implication that these discussions indicate that we do not understand
statistics is also flawed.
Lot of users here, many are engineering professionals like myself and yes
Lighten up and enjoy the QSO !
On Aug 31, 2010, at 7:16 PM, Kevin Normoyle wrote:
> There has been nothing presented that says the results of divining are
> better than the results of random hole drilling
> for a given location. If 80% of random holes drilled hit water, than
> anyone can appear good. I like these stories about
> how the dowser was the last try after previous trys... Of course you
> always get water in your last try, because you stop
> after that.
> If this anecdotal stuff means stuff to people, well they just don't
> understand statistics and distributions or how to
> verify such a claim.
> Now if I said I could divine band openings with 18" rods held in my
> hands....would you argue with that?
> I've seen it done.
> I also can turn my rotor to improve my received signal strength, without
> knowing where the signal is coming from.
> On 8/31/2010 6:37 PM, Robert Harmon wrote:
>> It works for me also. I was a very big skeptic until after two
>> unsuccessful attempts to reach
>> water at a reasonable depth on my property a ham friend that has
>> experience in dowsing came over and located a location to drill.
>> He is a welder (and dowser on the side) uses two brazing rods 2 feet long
>> with a 6" hook in one end. I was amused at his walking back
>> and forth from different directions and the rods would cross over this
>> area. To make a long story short, we hit water at 47 feet and
>> our well maintains a steady output year round. I became fascinated with
>> Hugh's dowsing and gladly tagged along to two later
>> dowsing sessions he invited me to. He successfully located the water
>> well locations in both of these cases also. I live in Napa Valley, CA
>> and we have an abundance of vineyards in our area. The wineries rely on
>> a good water supply for irrigating their vineyards. In discussions
>> with winery owners I learned that dowsing has become a normal method to
>> use in locating well locations for our wine country.
>> On Aug 31, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Mike Fatchett W0MU wrote:
>>> I know a guy here in Montana that drilled a well, went over 500 ft got
>>> next to no water. After tiring of hauling water for a few years he
>>> calls out an Old Dowser, who comes highly recommended, and the dowser
>>> finds a spot about 20 ft away from the well. They drilled and hit water
>>> at 87ft 10 gallons per minute.
>>> Just luck? I don't think so.
>>> On 8/31/2010 2:44 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>>>> In all of these posts, there's an implicit claim that the location of
>>>> the desired object is fully random.
>>>> It's not, right?
>>>> For instance, in the pvc case below, the installer has probably seen
>>>> the full range of possible locations from similar houses in
>>>> the area? I'm assuming it's the main water line, and there are no
>>>> visible outside shutoff valves.
>>>> Obviously if there are visible shutoff valves either in the lawn or on
>>>> the house, it's almost trivial.
>>>> Before describing the amazing solution, doesn't there need to be a
>>>> better explanation of why the target was fully random?
>>>> And on the cable location problem: I don't get it. All our cables are
>>>> copper. How come people can't inject a signal of some sort
>>>> and detect it themselves? I mean, isn't this trivial compared to other
>>>> stuff we discuss? Were people talking about some kind of
>>>> cable that they couldn't inject a signal on? (can't you inject on the
>>>> coax ground braid?)
>>>> I would think it would be easy to detect something of sufficient
>>>> strength, down to 18" or so (that's what chaser wires do?)
>>>> ------- Original Message -------
>>>> From : Mickey Baker[mailto:email@example.com]
>>>> Sent : 8/31/2010 12:54:28 PM
>>>> To : firstname.lastname@example.org
>>>> Cc : TowerTalk@contesting.com
>>>> Subject : RE: Re: [TowerTalk] Divining rods
>>>> No matter the claims of many logical thinking, well meaning people on
>>>> this list, there has evidently never ever been any scientific evidence
>>>> that this works. Sorry, I suspect the physicists here aren't going to
>>>> be much help. Known science doesn't explain everything.
>>>> For more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing
>>>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Bob Good<email@example.com> wrote:
>>>>> Gents, I too am a bit of a skeptic BUT last month in my front yard
>>>>> the contractor burying Fiber showed up to mark existing
>>>> lines. I was totally taken back when he breaks out two steel rods to
>>>> locate my pvc water line. He chose this method over
>>>> anything technical. The rods swung and he pointed to the spot on the
>>>> ground and the spade hit its mark about 10 inches down, the
>>>> water line. Had I not witnessed this I would have put it in the
>>>> category of the moon phases determining how much dirt it takes to
>>>> refill a hole. Okay, it's been around for ages. Now why doesn't
>>>> someone tell us how it works? Is this another area 51? Physics
>>>> profs, Please step up to the plate. It's your turn, yes? Bob K4BG
>>>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk mailing list