Moderated Dowsing By Edge

[Tricky]

So what do you think they are made of?

[Calcium and silicon are in fact metal. Their compounds make up most of the Earth's crust, along with a lot of iron, aluminium, magnesium, sodium and pottasium. Admittedly, silicon is technically a metaloid and not a true metal, but even counting this if you manage to find a single place where rocks don't contain metals I will happily eat someone's hat.

Calcium is. Silicon is specifically a non-metal, and silicon is the most abundant element in the earth's crust.

In common speech though, when we say "metal" we normally mean the pure metal, which has quite different properties than compounds which contain metal elements. After all, you wouldn't call hemoglobin a metal just because it contains iron.

Consider: Will a metal detector detect basalt, which is composed mostly of mafic (magnesium-iron based) crystals? If not, why do they call it a metal detector?

 

[Tricky]

It has to be a natural setting that is void of metals so that I can get it the first time according to their test concept.

After carefully thinking of that problem I have figured that a lime stone quarry would be a perfect place possibly.

The best place would be a beach, preferably in north Florida. It is almost pure quartz (a non-metal) plus it is a hell of a long way from the bedrock.

Something I was told by my teacher was wrong.
That is that dowsing for gold will only pick up the gold, my knowledge pre 1999.
What I have learned now is it picks up all metals and magnetic fields.

If your teacher was wrong about that, perhaps he was wrong about other things. Perhaps he was wrong about everything.

Oh, BTW, many metals, especially precious metals, are not ferromagnetic. Gold is among them. Even ferromagnetic metals which are in compounds (like ore) are not usually ferromagnetic. Magnetite is one notable exception.

BTW, what pure metals do you find in your area other than gold? There are very few of them. Native copper is fairly common and lodestone occasionally. What else? Even silver is almost never found in pure form. It is almost always in ore form.

If you are talking about rocks which contain metallic elements, then, as has been pointed out, you're talking about almost every rock in your area, including limestone.

Why it’s better than a metal detector is the detector is limited in depth again refer to the picture with the wheelbarrow next to me.

You'd better hope your dowsing rod is limited in depth too, or you're going to be picking up the earth's iron core everywhere you dowse.

Has anyone ever explained the inverse square law to you?

They are one and the same if they are the same grade and size.

Then use as a target something with similar grade and size to what you are finding there.

But what is the relationship of size and purity to the signal? One would think that the greater the size and purity, the stronger the signal. Can you give us a good reason why this wouldn't be the case?

You want theory?

I'm sure you don't have any. Theories are based on evidence. However, I would be interested in hearing your wild hypotheses.

This is exactly what I told you I did and can do in the field.

It does not even remotely resemble my suggestions. You'd be better off expense-wise if you flew down to meet Randi in Ft. Lauderdale and tested on a nearby beach.

Better hurry though. After April 1, you're not eligible anymore.

 

[ObscureReferenceMan]

edge - I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts about your original test (as per Paulhoff's link). Thanks!

 

[Spektator]

Edge's views on the original test seem to change from time to time. At the time of the test, he was given the opportunity to dowse open containers in which he could see the targets to make sure everything was working properly. He said it was -- at that time, that is -- and then failed when he tried to dowse closed containers in the double-blind portion of the test. At first he said he failed, no excuses. Then he said the gold in the lettering on the covers of a set of books fouled up his divining rod; then when it was pointed out that the gold coloring on the books wasn't gold, he blamed a copy machine in another room; then later he blamed the ballast in a fluorescent light fixture, and so on. A couple of years ago he explained things in a slightly different way in the "Seeing is believing" thread. There may be other variants now.

As for dowsing a Florida beach, years ago Edge said that the whole peninsula of Florida, with a couple of small exceptions, interfered with his abilities because -- well, he said we ought to know why, and left it at that.

 

[Cuddles]

Calcium is. Silicon is specifically a non-metal, and silicon is the most abundant element in the earth's crust.

Wrong. As I said, silicon is a metaloid, also known as a semi-metal. Since we don't know any details about how dowsing is supposed to work I can't say if it would be detected or not.

In common speech though, when we say "metal" we normally mean the pure metal, which has quite different properties than compounds which contain metal elements. After all, you wouldn't call hemoglobin a metal just because it contains iron.

Consider: Will a metal detector detect basalt, which is composed mostly of mafic (magnesium-iron based) crystals? If not, why do they call it a metal detector?

People have claimed that the gold coloured paint on books in the same room can interfere with dowsing for gold. Edge seems to have difficulty putting forward a coherent theory, but it would be interesting to know if there is a cut-off size below which metal crystals can't be detected, and if so, where it is. Since dowsing apparently works by magic rather than inducing a current in the metal I wouldn't think the limit would be the same, and Edge does say that his technique is much more sensitive than a metal detector.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Calcium is. Silicon is specifically a non-metal, and silicon is the most abundant element in the earth's crust.

According to Physical Geology by Monroe and Wicander,

Element, Symbol, Percent of Crust by Weight, Percent of Crust by Atoms
Oxygen, O, 46.6%, 62.6%
Silicon, Si, 27.7%, 21.2%
Aluminum, Al, 8.1%, 6.5%
Iron, Fe, 5.0%, 1.9%
Calcium, Ca, 3.6%, 1.9%
Sodium, Na, 2.8%, 2.6%
Potassium, K, 2.6%, 1.4%
Magnesium, Mg, 2.1%, 1.8%
All Others, , 1.5%, 0.1%

Oxygen is by far the most abundant element in the Earth's crust. It is usually bound up in carbonates, oxides, silicates, etc. Silicon is a distant second, but still far more abundant than all the other elements. Oxygen and Silicon together account for approximately 74.3% of the earth's crust by weight and they are both non-metals.

 

[Tricky]

Wrong. As I said, silicon is a metaloid, also known as a semi-metal. Since we don't know any details about how dowsing is supposed to work I can't say if it would be detected or not.

I've seen it classified as a non-metal and as a metalloid, but never as a metal. But in any case, I don't think Edge is referring to bound metals such as oxides.

Dowsers (if they knew anything about geology) would not classify silicon compounds as "targets" simply because it is impossible to avoid them no matter where you dowse.

However, it should be noted that among the targets that Edge brought for his first test was a crystal of quartz. He had some theory that quartz contained "energy" (I'm pretty sure he was talking about the piezoelectric effect.) So there's really no telling what dowsers think they can dowse. All we know is what they have successfully dowsed in properly run tests.

According to Physical Geology by Monroe and Wicander,

Element, Symbol, Percent of Crust by Weight, Percent of Crust by Atoms
Oxygen, O, 46.6%, 62.6%
Silicon, Si, 27.7%, 21.2%

Yeah, dammit. I forgot about oxygen. And of course, quartz is the most common mineral, composed of silicon and oxygen.

 

[ObscureReferenceMan]

Edge's views on the original test seem to change from time to time. At the time of the test, he was given the opportunity to dowse open containers in which he could see the targets to make sure everything was working properly. He said it was -- at that time, that is -- and then failed when he tried to dowse closed containers in the double-blind portion of the test. At first he said he failed, no excuses. Then he said the gold in the lettering on the covers of a set of books fouled up his divining rod; then when it was pointed out that the gold coloring on the books wasn't gold, he blamed a copy machine in another room; then later he blamed the ballast in a fluorescent light fixture, and so on. A couple of years ago he explained things in a slightly different way in the "Seeing is believing" thread. There may be other variants now.

Thanks, Spek. I know there is a lot of info on/by edge. And perhaps it has changed a bit over time. I'm hoping edge would be kind enough to let us know (in this or another thread) what his current thoughts/feelings are to the article as it was written (included here, just in case - http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html). In other words; was the description of events accurate? Did he think the test was fair? What does he think of the huge discrepancy between the "open" test (100%) and the "blind" test (10%)?

edge - Please respond, if/when you get a chance. Thanks!

 

[edge]

Thanks, Spek. I know there is a lot of info on/by edge. And perhaps it has changed a bit over time. I'm hoping edge would be kind enough to let us know (in this or another thread) what his current thoughts/feelings are to the article as it was written (included here, just in case - http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html). In other words; was the description of events accurate? Did he think the test was fair? What does he think of the huge discrepancy between the "open" test (100%) and the "blind" test (10%)?

edge - Please respond, if/when you get a chance. Thanks!

It's what I accepted at the time.
It was as scientific for JREF as they needed to keep the status quoi.

Even if I explained all this you would still say that I am making excuses so lets say that I have spent many more years trying to figure out what went wrong and how to make another proper attempt.

What they require is accuracy in the double blind part of the test which I can prove in the field and now I have to see if I can make it simpler to show it the way they ran it in the office.
I think I know how to do that now in the field with the containers and a different form of dowsing than what I used back then. This means that the JREF team will only have to stay one day in the field, however I have no idea what the formal test will consist of except it should be back in the field on the only spot that I might be able to prove it on.
If so then we are on.
If you are following this thread you have picked up on what I am saying.

Now on Monday I will make sure that I can do that up here on a specific bank on the Hayfork creek.
Right now my problem is finding the right bearings to make the other form of dowsing sticks as I described in my previous post.

That means I will have to travel 56 miles to do that and I will.
I have got the application notarized today and am proceeding.
I still have to rewrite the addendum to the protocols and will do that soon.
But first I have to see if I can bring my computer up to speed today by adding more ram to it.

 

[BillyJoe]

edge,

I agree with you that the JREF must test what you say you can do. This means going out into the field and allowing you to follow your protocols. A skill as fickle as dowsing must require conditions to be just right in order for it to work. If you say you can do it one way, the JREF can't then test you another way because the power of dowsing doesn't work that way. That makes sense to me. Also I don't think we need to harp back on your past failure. Sure a lot can be said about that, but we have a new challenge so let's move on. The remaining problem is whether you can actually be tested using your new protocol. I don't mean to say that you are working it to come out that way, but it's possible that your powers cannot be tested.

curls.

 

[ObscureReferenceMan]

It's what I accepted at the time.
It was as scientific for JREF as they needed to keep the status quoi.

Even if I explained all this you would still say that I am making excuses so lets say that I have spent many more years trying to figure out what went wrong and how to make another proper attempt.

No offense but, how do you know what I would say? To be fair, I could see how you might think that. A few people have been less than charitable toward you. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt. But thanks for responding.

One thing interests/puzzles me... You failed the test that was agreed on. Did you ever think it might be an indication that your dowsing abilities were inaccurate or maybe even non-existent?

 

[petre]

No offense but, how do you know what I would say? To be fair, I could see how you might think that. A few people have been less than charitable toward you. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt. But thanks for responding.

One thing interests/puzzles me... You failed the test that was agreed on. Did you ever think it might be an indication that your dowsing abilities were inaccurate or maybe even non-existent?

I believe he has noted that his knowledge of dowsing has changed significantly since the date of his test. It seems to me he is now diligantly working on trying to find one thing about it that is testable and repeatable. I don't think anyone can estimate how much time that will take.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
What they require is accuracy in the double blind part of the test which I can prove in the field and now I have to see if I can make it simpler to show it the way they ran it in the office.
I think I know how to do that now in the field with the containers and a different form of dowsing than what I used back then. This means that the JREF team will only have to stay one day in the field, however I have no idea what the formal test will consist of except it should be back in the field on the only spot that I might be able to prove it on.
...

You're getting closer, edge: Accuracy, proper double-blinding and repeatability are three cornerstones of the JREF Challenge protocols.

That being said, the formal test uses the exact same protocol as the preliminary test. The only difference might be stricter controls against cheating or false positives.
However, edge, since you seem a mostly straightforward guy, I do not imply that you want to cheat; and a false positive seems impossible with the use of containers - either you find it or you don't.

I recommend again you post your claim and protocol proposal in this thread before you send it off to JREF.
A field test might find JREF's approval if you keep it simple enough. Your last protocol proposal, along with other demands, seemed aimed at getting disqualified because of the oft-discussed unreasonable demands. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1659051#post1659051

I also suggest you only reply to forum members who help working towards a test, or have reasonable inquiries.

 

[edge]

One thing interests/puzzles me... You failed the test that was agreed on. Did you ever think it might be an indication that your dowsing abilities were inaccurate or maybe even non-existent?

For a while it had me baffled.

Yes one has to think that way too.

This is why I had to come back to the field to test while mining and do the tests the way they do.


I let them say what the protocols would be the first time and now they will or should use my protocols if acceptable.
My score before I went to the Jref was 60% at my sisters house in central Florida and the ones in Fort Lauderdale were a lot less plus while testing there at her house I found 5 silver trays on the other side of the house buried in her yard from the other side of the house.
At first I thought of it as interference from within the house kind of like the infamous printer behind the wall.

Petre said,

I believe he has noted that his knowledge of dowsing has changed significantly since the date of his test. It seems to me he is now diligently working on trying to find one thing about it that is testable and repeatable. I don't think anyone can estimate how much time that will take.

Mining is defiantly repeatable with the method.
I have one more experiment to do and that will tell me weather or not
I can do it their way or if the only way that it is possible to test is actually mining and uncovering it.
I have found bearings that I need for the L dowsing sticks and have rebuilt a computer with 250 mega bits of ram with the original hard driver that I had when I first talked to you all in 1999, and parts from my old one.


When I know that you will see my protocols because I will have sent them to Jref and they will be the ones to post them.
We will then also be in challenge applications thread with this line of discussion.
My word 2000 has to be repaired something’s up with it, so Lets see how this comes out to you.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
When I know that you will see my protocols because I will have sent them to Jref and they will be the ones to post them.
We will then also be in challenge applications thread with this line of discussion.
My word 2000 has to be repaired something’s up with it, so Lets see how this comes out to you.

Please post the protocol anyway, edge. Given Jeff Wagg's workload, it could take a while for your application to be processed.

I assume you will send a proper application along with your protocol proposal, right?

 

[edge]

Please post the protocol anyway, edge. Given Jeff Wagg's workload, it could take a while for your application to be processed.

I assume you will send a proper application along with your protocol proposal, right?

When I send it to Jeff I'll put it in here.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

When I send it to Jeff I'll put it in here.

"It" includes a proper application, edge, does it?

 

[edge]

It's from their site and it's just the signature sheet. It is also what I write as protocols. Two paragraphs of protocols, you know this.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

It's from their site and it's just the signature sheet. It is also what I write as protocols. Two paragraphs of protocols, you know this.

Pardon my insisting, edge: Have you filled out a proper application form, had it notarized and enclosed the protocol proposal?

 

[edge]

This computer is fast now.
Don’t know....