Moderated Dowsing By Edge

[SezMe]

They are giving me ten minutes in-between each set of ten tries.
That's good.

"good" is OK in this informal thread, but in the protocol you're going to have to state that fatigue will not be a factor (at least I hope so).

I need a target that does what SezMe witnessed at the creek a quick hard response.
In this way there is no mistaking the response.
And that was at the end of the day.
That’s the kind of target I need to dig up and look at, and then factor in the many possibilities of why that happened according to weight and placement.
If it were a baseball size nugget then it would be cut and dry.

I made a somewhat facitious suggestion up thread along this line but it really is the solution to many problems. edge, you claim (correct me if I am wrong) that you can detect metals, not just gold. What if the target were, say a lump of lead weighing 20-40 (or even more) pounds. You can get such a target cheaply at any SCUBA store.

One of the factors is that dowsing on the creek doesn’t take that long and is not very fatiguing, because I’m not fighting the resistance of the scale.
I can hold it looser than with the scales.

This is a big concern of mine also.

Aw, c'mon edge. That scale measured ounces, not pounds. What you were fighting was the need to stand rigidly still, not moving your arms one bit while still getting the dowsing rod to react. I fully acknowledge that that is stressful and tiring. The scale has nothing to do with it.

 

[EHocking]

The one solution is to control my scans of the rest of the empties when they come up to conserve energy, after I know the target has shown up or has passed the spot.
My first instinct is usually correct.

One more comment on doing them one at a time edge.

You are at a disadvantage if you do it this way.

For example - if you have all ten lined up and dowse up and down the row and get a "twinge" on can 4 and also 7. In this case you have the opportunity to compare your perceived reaction on 4 and 7 with each other.

If you do it one at a time and get a twinge on 4 and call it the target - you will NOT be able to change your mind if, when you dowse no.7 you also get a twinge.

Fair enough that you have confidence with your first instinct, but you can see that you are placing yourself at a disadvantage in doing them one at a time - even more so if you then, for time saving's sake, you want to stop that trial at no.4.

Another reason - to your advantage- to try to find a spot or a protocol that accomodates placing all 10 canisters all at once.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Okay, here's my peanut-butter-and-jelly understanding of the protocol, slightly adjusted for proper double-blindness:

Materials:
Ten 11-ounce opaque plastic Folger's Coffee containers, numbered 1-10
One target (a x-ounce bolus of y) (where x is a weight and y is the type of metal)
One dummy of the same size and weight as the target
One dowsing rod, prepared by edge
One celing hook
One length of wire
One string
One hanging postal scale
A small folding table
A location ("The Area"), as yet unspecified, determined by edge to be free of interference, and outfitted with some kind of overhead (such as a celing)
Three "holding areas" (holding area A, B, C, to correspond with the teams) out of sight of the above location and of each other.
A sufficiency of video cameras to record from multiple angles and guard against shenanigans.

Teams:
Team "A" -- consisting of edge and a JREF rep
Team "B" -- consisting of at least one JREF rep and a representative chosen by edge
Team "C" -- consisting of at least one JREF rep and one other person (either another JREF person or a representative of edge's)

Protocol:
The Area will be set up as follows: edge will determine where the testing location within The Area will be (i.e., the spot with the least interference). A hook will be installed in the celing or overhead over the testing location, and the wire will be trimmed to length and its ends bent into hooks. One hook of the wire will go through the celing/overhead hook; the hanging postal scale will be attached to the other. A string will be tied to the bottom of the scale so that edge can attach it to his dowsing rod. A small folding table will be set off to the side of The Area, as far away from the testing location as is practical, but still under the view of at least two video cameras.
For the purposes of this protocol, an "attempt set" consists of ten separate attempts, lettered a-j. There will be ten attempt sets in the test, overall, each numbered 1-10.
An attempt will consist of Team "A"'s attempt to determine whether the container does or does not contain the target. Only one attempt within a set will consist of the target in the container; the other nine attempts within that set will consist of the dummy in the container.
For each attempt set, Team "C" will randomly determine which attempt within that set will contain the target. At the beginning of each attempt, Team "C" will randomly determine which of the 10 containers will be used, then place either the dummy or the target, as indicated, in the indicated container and will place the container on the table in The Area, making sure to record the attempt number (1a), the canister number, and whether the container has the dummy in it or not. They will retreat to their holding area, taking the unused containers and object (either dummy or target) with them, and signal to Team "B". Team "B" will go to The Area and set up the first attempt: they will place the container in the specified testing location within The Area, then leave The Area and signal to Team "A" that setup is complete.

Team "A" will leave their holding area, go to The Area, and edge will make his attempt to determine whether the container is holding the target, without touching the target. The other member of Team "A" will record edge's result. Team "A" will then leave The Area, return to their own holding area, and signal to Team "C" that they are done.

Team "C" will return to The Area and retrieve the container. They will once again randomly determine which of the ten containers will be used, and then insert whatever object (dummy or target) is indicated by their initial random determination of which attempt in the series will contain the target. They will place either the dummy or the target in the container and replace the container on the table. Again, they will record this next attempt (1b, in this case), the container number, and whether or not the target or dummy is present. Then they will leave the scene (taking all unused canisters and object with them) and signal to Team "B" that The Area is ready for Team "B"'s next attempt.
This process will continue until all attempts within the first attempt set are complete. At this point, there will be a ten-minute break.
After the break, the next attempt set (set 2) will begin. Same protocol as for set 1. Again, after this attempt set is complete, there will be a ten-minute break, after which attempt set 3 will commence, and so forth until ten attempt sets are complete.
When all 10 attempt sets are complete, all participants will get together to compare results.

-=-=-=-=-
Again, I'm concerned at the probable length of this test. Edited to add: I really agree with EHocking's suggestion to find a spot that accomodates all 10 containers, for the reasons stated. If edge is fatigued after five single attempts, this is really going to slow things down.

 

[RemieV]

Bolding mine...

They are giving me ten minutes in-between each set of ten tries.
That's good.

Once I scan and find the target what I suggested was, to end that set of ten that would help.
But that probably won't happen and that would shorten up the test time.

Those two things together would help immensely. I might be able to do the whole test in one day.

When I did the test with SezMe I had already did, I believe 40 scans at the house.
I did many more days before that.

It was very fatiguing the first time in the office too with all of them on the ground at once.

That is why I said to be fair I should scan 30 a day for two days and then a 40 scan day for the last, but then time is involved.
They may see it that way once we begin the test and make that suggestion themselves to continue the next day.
I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

I need a target that does what SezMe witnessed at the creek a quick hard response.
In this way there is no mistaking the response.
And that was at the end of the day.
That’s the kind of target I need to dig up and look at, and then factor in the many possibilities of why that happened according to weight and placement.
If it were a baseball size nugget then it would be cut and dry.
Many factors are involved.

I will do more experiments to find the solution to that problem.

The one solution is to control my scans of the rest of the empties when they come up to conserve energy, after I know the target has shown up or has passed the spot.
My first instinct is usually correct.


I guess it’s going to my problem because they don’t want to do it as a scientific research experiment really would, to take in all the factors.

One of the factors is that dowsing on the creek doesn’t take that long and is not very fatiguing, because I’m not fighting the resistance of the scale.
I can hold it looser than with the scales.

This is a big concern of mine also.

I did not realize this was a "might". The protocol states a reasonable amount of time. I suppose we need to clarify what that is. The maximum amount of time I was thinking we could ask our volunteers to handle was eight hours, and that is not crossing the span of days. As in, four hours one day and four hours another would not be acceptable. The suggested time, however, would not include breaks.

About how long does it take for you to dowse a single cannister?

 

[RemieV]

One more comment on doing them one at a time edge.

You are at a disadvantage if you do it this way.

For example - if you have all ten lined up and dowse up and down the row and get a "twinge" on can 4 and also 7. In this case you have the opportunity to compare your perceived reaction on 4 and 7 with each other.

If you do it one at a time and get a twinge on 4 and call it the target - you will NOT be able to change your mind if, when you dowse no.7 you also get a twinge.

Fair enough that you have confidence with your first instinct, but you can see that you are placing yourself at a disadvantage in doing them one at a time - even more so if you then, for time saving's sake, you want to stop that trial at no.4.

Another reason - to your advantage- to try to find a spot or a protocol that accomodates placing all 10 canisters all at once.

This would not be acceptable. Mr. Guska should not call which one is the metal when he arrives at it. He should only say which one he absolutely believes it is after the set is complete.

That way there would be no waffling afterward that he had originally picked two, but then switched to four because of negative vibrations or something of that nature. Only one response to which cannister contains the target will be recorded. If he is getting readings off other ones that confuse the issue, then obviously dowsing doesn't work particularly well.

 

[edge]

Remie,
About how long does it take for you to dowse a single canister?

Me,
About one minute average, maybe two.
Dan and I did 40 in about two to three hours.

This would not be acceptable. Mr. Guska should not call which one is the metal when he arrives at it. He should only say which one he absolutely believes it is after the set is complete.

I can do that. That is exactly what I intend if you want it that way.

If he is getting readings off other ones that confuse the issue, then obviously dowsing doesn't work particularly well.

This is my problem, but keep thinking that way.
I'll fix that with a target of sufficient weight.
I do know that the greater the amount of target in weight the better it will work towards my benefit.
I will make sure that my target grabs the stick with a force that’s sufficient to make this unmistakably recognizable.
I have one Idea that should be fool proof it involves the use of two metals together,
I’ll give you a hint, what is attracted to gold and is liquid?

I think, Jackalgirls got it it’s late here and I’ll have to read it again tomorrow though..
I can set up a tripod anywhere to hang the scale though.
No need for a structure.

If I get to a certain point in 8 hours and I'm close to winning they are going to want to see the out come, don't you think?
I would.

I'll be well practiced by the time we do this and I might have a better speed, confidence is everything.
Remie don’t read past here.




EHockings way maybe possible if I find the right spot,
But I haven't yet. We’ll see.
There are fewer variables with one spot and less confusion.
To remember how all the ten spots are different just by feel in a test this way is way different when mining and looking.
To remember how all ten feel is hard, but to be able to compare with the scale in one spot is most advantages.
Dan suggested we try the scales in the field but we are pressed for time and in the field that would take more time than the way I do it now.
I have been correct in the field and faster the way I do it now in the field.
180% faster.
I could do 1000 more experiments and still learn more.

 

[edge]

The flaw was at 8 and 9, because I was inpatient.
This was my38th and 39th try for that day after traveling 40 miles.
The metal appears one after the other. I remember that pick, And what I thought.
This is something I will have to control.

 

[SezMe]

edge, you still have not answered my question posed in #1601. Your dowsing rod clearly reacted to the metal tray we used in the demo. Thus, the target does not have to be gold. So please answer this question:

What target material in what amount could be used that would give an unequivical response in 2-3 seconds like happened next to Coffee Creek.

Answering that question will allow us to simplify the protocol enormously. Failure to answer that question calls into question your whole claim.

 

[EHocking]

Okay, here's my peanut-butter-and-jelly understanding of the protocol, slightly adjusted for proper double-blindness:

One small quibble on my part. It's not properly double-blind if any of the participants know where the target is.
i.e.,

...Team "C" will randomly determine which of the 10 containers will be used, then place either the dummy or the target, as indicated, in the indicated container and will place the container on the table in The Area,

Better to have 9 dummies and randomly select the order in which the 10 containers are sent to the test area. This way the recorders will not know the location of the target during testing.

...
-=-=-=-=-
Again, I'm concerned at the probable length of this test. Edited to add: I really agree with EHocking's suggestion to find a spot that accomodates all 10 containers, for the reasons stated. If edge is fatigued after five single attempts, this is really going to slow things down.

Let's review.

1. edge wants the containers not being used to be stored 30ft away from the test site.
2. edge wants the test site to be clear of ANY canister for 3 mins while the next one is being prepared/selected
3. edge is now claiming 2-3mins to dowse each canister (previously 5mins)

1. 30 secs each way for container to be placed and team to retire. 30 secs each way for edge to go to test site and retire. : 2 mins minimum
2. 3 mins
3. 2 mins minimum, 3mins avg, 5 mins max.

That's 7 mins minimum for each pass : 70mins for each trial
That's 8 mins average for each pass : 80mins for each trial
That's 10 mins maximum for each pass : 100mins for each trial

Even run with everyone at their most efficient, edge's preferred protocol would take 11.6 hours MINIMUM, without a break, to complete.

Impractical in so many ways.

 

[EHocking]

This would not be acceptable. Mr. Guska should not call which one is the metal when he arrives at it. He should only say which one he absolutely believes it is after the set is complete.

That way there would be no waffling afterward that he had originally picked two, but then switched to four because of negative vibrations or something of that nature. Only one response to which cannister contains the target will be recorded. If he is getting readings off other ones that confuse the issue, then obviously dowsing doesn't work particularly well.

I'm in total agreement with you, that's why I was pointing out that the manner in which edge wants to go about this is to his disadvantage. All 10 in front of him gives him an advantage to compare the entire set and JREF the advantage that there is no quibbling over the canister he selects.

Good luck sorting it out with him.

 

[EHocking]

The flaw was at 8 and 9, because I was inpatient.

Excuses - you got it wrong.

This was my38th and 39th try for that day after traveling 40 miles.

For the MDC you will be doing 100.
Excuses, you got it wrong.

The metal appears one after the other. I remember that pick, And what I thought.
This is something I will have to control.

Better start working on it - that test was at odds of 1:100 and you failed.

The odds of passing the Preliminary stage of the MDC is at 100 TIMES that, 1:10,000.

The Final stage is at 10,000 times your failed demonstration for SezMe.

 

[EHocking]

...My first instinct is usually correct...

Unfortunately, to win the MDC your first instinct has to be UNusually correct.

 

[Jackalgirl]

One small quibble on my part. It's not properly double-blind if any of the participants know where the target is.

I might not have been clear, but only the person who prepares the container knows whether it contains the target or the dummy. SOMEone has to know. But the people who place the container don't know (so they can't consciously or subconsciously give a cue in the way they place the container) and, of course, edge and his observer don't know.

i.e.,Better to have 9 dummies and randomly select the order in which the 10 containers are sent to the test area. This way the recorders will not know the location of the target during testing.

But this would work too -- and probably would be faster. But I still would think it would be important to completely reset the test (i.e., redetermine which of the 10 has the target in it and place the dummies in the other containers) for each attempt set.

Let's review.

1. edge wants the containers not being used to be stored 30ft away from the test site.
2. edge wants the test site to be clear of ANY canister for 3 mins while the next one is being prepared/selected
3. edge is now claiming 2-3mins to dowse each canister (previously 5mins)

Urk, I didn't know about these distance limitations. And the time limitations. And if the prep team has to reset the 10 containers (i.e., their contents) between tests, it'll probably take more than 10 minutes to do so properly.

So I think your estimate of 11.1 hours is actually pretty conservative (especially because I'll bet edge will get tired and slow down) -- but then again, I'm no math whiz.

 

[EHocking]

...If I get to a certain point in 8 hours and I'm close to winning they are going to want to see the out come, don't you think?
I would...

If you get to a certain point and someone knows you are close to winning - the test is not double-blind.

Double-blind testing requires that no one involved in the test knows the results until the entire test is complete.

I'll also repeat my suggestion that you have all 10 targets in front of you to dowse.

It will speed the testing process up.

Advantage to you, you will not be as fatigued and will have a better chance of concentrating on the job.
Advantage to you will be that you will not be pressed for time and will not make mistakes by being impatient (as you claimed for the misses in your demonstration to Sezme).

You will have the opportunity to dowse and compare each canister in a trial.

Advantage to you, since you claim your first instinct is usually correct - you can verify that instinct by comparing it directly against the other targets.

I suggest you find a target area that will take 10 canisters at a time. As you say, you can set a tripod up anywhere. If fact, you *could* prepare 10. Dowse each target site and write on the tripod the background reading, or whatever it is you are benchmarking to. Then simply, move the scale/balance from tripod to tripod.

 

[EHocking]

I might not have been clear, but only the person who prepares the container knows whether it contains the target or the dummy. SOMEone has to know.

I disagree. If someone knows which is which - it is no longer double-blind. By definition. But this can be simply solved by randomly numbering 10 canisters at the outset. It's not a biggie.

But the people who place the container don't know (so they can't consciously or subconsciously give a cue in the way they place the container) and, of course, edge and his observer don't know.

I agree. But by randomly numbering 10 canisters, the person who prepares the canisters can't inadvertently indicate which is the target and which is a dummy. As has been pointed out before - I'm quite, er, pedantic about making sure this is a double-blind test.

But this would work too -- and probably would be faster. But I still would think it would be important to completely reset the test (i.e., redetermine which of the 10 has the target in it and place the dummies in the other containers) for each attempt set.

If doing it one by one - you only need one coffee "tin" as transport. The dummies/target are in 10 numbered film canisters.

Urk, I didn't know about these distance limitations. And the time limitations. And if the prep team has to reset the 10 containers (i.e., their contents) between tests, it'll probably take more than 10 minutes to do so properly.

So I think your estimate of 11.1 hours is actually pretty conservative (especially because I'll bet edge will get tired and slow down) -- but then again, I'm no math whiz.

At least you gave me the opportunity to reiterate my position that the current one at a time protocol is a. impractical for time and b. a disadvantage to edge.

 

[EHocking]

EHockings way maybe possible if I find the right spot,
But I haven't yet. We’ll see.
There are fewer variables with one spot and less confusion.
To remember how all the ten spots are different just by feel in a test this way is way different when mining and looking.
To remember how all ten feel is hard, but to be able to compare with the scale in one spot is most advantages.

Edge, what is your tripod constructed of? If simple (such as garden canes tied together) - why not construct 10? Go out into the field and find a prospective site. Dowse it for 10 separate areas and mark. Set up a tripod over each marked site and determine your benchmark/background reading with your scales. Mark that benchmark reading clearly on that tripod location.

Now each time you return to that location there is no need for you to remember - you determined the benchmark previously and recorded it clearly on that location.

Granted you'll have to find an area where 10 tripods can be set up so that the people involved can move between them without tripping over them or moving them - but it gives you the opportunity to space out the targets so that there is no interference between them anyway.

Think seriously about the above - it could be a breakthrough on the time constraint that makes your one-at-a-time protocol nearly impractical to run. You *could* reduce the time required to only a few hours for the ENTIRE 10 tests.

An advantage to you as far as fatigue goes and an advantage to JREF in that they'll be more willing to pursue a test that does not require 11+ hours to perform.

 

[Cuddles]

I disagree. If someone knows which is which - it is no longer double-blind. By definition.

Not quite. Double-blind means that neither the tester or testee knows which is which. There will always be someone who knows which is which because someone has to actually put the target in the container. The double-blind standard is kept by ensuring that this third party cannot communicate the target's location with anyone involved with the actual test.

 

[EHocking]

Not quite. Double-blind means that neither the tester or testee knows which is which. There will always be someone who knows which is which because someone has to actually put the target in the container. The double-blind standard is kept by ensuring that this third party cannot communicate the target's location with anyone involved with the actual test.

I have to disagree.
The Wikipedia description best describes my position.

In this definition, neither the researcher (in our case the randomiser) the tester (recorders, canister placers) nor the testee (edge) should know where the target is at any one time.

A number of posters have identified why the above would be best - it removes the (admittedly) remote possibility that anyone involved can indicate where the target canister may be at any time during the test.

And it is a simple matter to resolve.

By randomly numbering 10 identical canisters at the outset of the test, you can reduce the possibility of anyone knowing. Since it is a simple process, it's in everyone's interest to try to achieve it.

 

[edge]

It doesn't matter who knows as long as I don't.

The weight of the target will be a give away.
The placebo target will not be dense enough to simulate gold or silver.

I won't know as long as they are on the ground when I get to scan.

The problem is that everything is affected by gravity so if placebos are used then they all need to weigh the same except the target.

2. edge wants the test site to be clear of ANY canister for 3 mins while the next one is being prepared/selected

Just the one with the target.

What target material in what amount could be used that would give an unequivical response in 2-3 seconds like happened next to Coffee Creek.

Several ounces of silver or gold, 2 to 4 I would think that should do it.
be back later.

 

[Spektator]

(snip) I’ll give you a hint, what is attracted to gold and is liquid? (snip)

Cuervo Gold!

No, I know it's mercury.

Edge, what if the placebo targets were lead? Could you distinguish between lead and silver/gold?