tDCS

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

http://theweek.com/article/index/226196/how-electrical-brain-stimulation-can-change-the-way-we-think/


I'm currently (pun intended!) doing some expts in this area.
They are pretty simple if you know a bit of electronics.

"U.S. military researchers have had great success using "transcranial
direct current stimulation" (tDCS) — in which they hook you up to what's
essentially a 9-volt battery and let the current flow through your
brain. After a few years of lab testing, they've found that tDCS can
more than double the rate at which people learn a wide range of tasks,
such as object recognition, math skills, and marksmanship.
...
THE 20 MINUTES I spent hitting targets while electricity coursed through
my brain were far from transcendent. I only remember feeling like I'd
just had an excellent cup of coffee, but without the caffeine jitters. I
felt clear-headed and like myself, just sharper. Calmer. Without fear
and without doubt. From there on, I just spent the time waiting for a
problem to appear so that I could solve it.

It was only when they turned off the current that I grasped what had
just happened. Relieved of the minefield of self-doubt that constitutes
my basic personality, I was a hell of a shot. And I can't tell you how
stunning it was to suddenly understand just how much of a drag that
inner cacophony is on my ability to navigate life and basic tasks.
..."

--
FFF
Dirk

Full Spectrum Praxis : ZERO STATE : http://zerostate.net

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 4, 8:00 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> http://theweek.com/article/index/226196/how-electrical-brain-stimulat...

>
> I'm currently (pun intended!) doing some expts in this area.

Sure, cuz what could possibly go wrong when passing electricity
through your brain? No down side! Crank it up to 11!

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Between one and two milliamps.
I suggest you take it up with DARPA

[rbowman]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Sure, cuz what could possibly go wrong when passing electricity
> through your brain? No down side! Crank it up to 11!

I played around with that for one of my school projects. Amazing what a rat
will do when you trickle charge his brain. The idea was to implant the
electrode in a pleasure center so he'd press a lever for the reward but I
think we missed. My lab partner and I were more interested in building up a
hot Cosworth engine for a Lotus Super Seven.

The brain damaged lab cat appreciated the rat after it stopped twitching.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 4, 11:49 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 05/04/2012 05:02, scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 8:00 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>http://theweek.com/article/index/226196/how-electrical-brain-stimulat...
>
> >> I'm currently (pun intended!) doing some expts in this area.
>
> > Sure, cuz what could possibly go wrong when passing electricity
> > through your brain? No down side! Crank it up to 11!
>
> Between one and two milliamps.
> I suggest you take it up with DARPA

I imagine DARPA has better lab practices than you do. I laugh, sadly,
whenever I read some schmoe who says he's "experimenting" with some
potentially dangerous something - typically drugs. I always wonder if
they are keeping proper notes, what they objective metrics are,
whether it's double-blind, if they even have a lab coat.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Well since I'm a professional electronics engineer you don't need to
worry overly about me getting the equipment correct. As for the notes, I
doubt they will be for public consumption.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 6, 12:25 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 06/04/2012 05:29, scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 11:49 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 05/04/2012 05:02, scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 4, 8:00 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>http://theweek.com/article/index/226196/how-electrical-brain-stimulat...
>
> >>>> I'm currently (pun intended!) doing some expts in this area.
>
> >>> Sure, cuz what could possibly go wrong when passing electricity
> >>> through your brain? No down side! Crank it up to 11!
>
> >> Between one and two milliamps.
> >> I suggest you take it up with DARPA
>
> > I imagine DARPA has better lab practices than you do. I laugh, sadly,
> > whenever I read some schmoe who says he's "experimenting" with some
> > potentially dangerous something - typically drugs. I always wonder if
> > they are keeping proper notes, what they objective metrics are,
> > whether it's double-blind, if they even have a lab coat.
>
> Well since I'm a professional electronics engineer you don't need to
> worry overly about me getting the equipment correct.

Since an important part of the "equipment" is a human brain, I'm glad
to hear that electronics engineers are qualified to tinker with brain
matter.

> As for the notes, I
> doubt they will be for public consumption.

Or even exist.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

If you are really curious, there are over 600 peer reviewed published
papers on the subject. No reports of any harmful effects.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 7, 12:51 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >>>>>> I'm currently (pun intended!) doing some expts in this area.

...

> If you are really curious, there are over 600 peer reviewed published
> papers on the subject. No reports of any harmful effects.

I imagine those were generally authored by people who use the word
"experiment" in a stricter sense than someone doing the rough
equivalent of licking a 9-volt battery.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

They will be using the same circuits as I use, and applying it to the
same areas of the head. The problem is that different people respond
differently. So you only know how well it will work if you actually try it.

So Scott, you better wait for the official FDA approved tDCS therapy and
certified machinery in around... a decade maybe?

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

here's another bunch of irresponsible amateurs taking shortcuts with
other people's brains:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=amping-up-brain-function

"So Air Force researchers were delighted recently to learn that they
could cut training time in half by delivering a mild electrical current
(two milliamperes of direct current for 30 minutes) to pilot's brains
during training sessions on video simulators. The current is delivered
through EEG (electroencephalographic) electrodes placed on the scalp.
Biomedical engineer Andy McKinley and colleagues at the Air Force
Research Laboratory at Wright–Patterson Air Force Base, reported their
finding on this so-called transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS)
here at the Society for Neuroscience annual meeting on November 13.

"I don't know of anything that would be comparable," McKinley said,
contrasting the cognitive boost of TDCS with, for example, caffeine or
other stimulants that have been tested as enhancements to learning. TDCS
not only accelerated learning, pilot accuracy was sustained in trials
lasting up to 40 minutes. Typically accuracy in identifying threats
declines steadily after 20 minutes. Beyond accelerating pilot training,
TDCS could have many medical applications in the military and beyond by
accelerating retraining and recovery after brain injury or disease."

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 9, 9:37 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 09/04/2012 01:42, scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > On Apr 7, 12:51 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> I'm currently (pun intended!) doing some expts in this area.
> > ...
>
> >> If you are really curious, there are over 600 peer reviewed published
> >> papers on the subject. No reports of any harmful effects.
>
> > I imagine those were generally authored by people who use the word
> > "experiment" in a stricter sense than someone doing the rough
> > equivalent of licking a  9-volt battery.
>
> They will be using the same circuits as I use

Really? they're copying *YOU*?

> So Scott, you better wait for the official FDA approved tDCS therapy and
> certified machinery in around... a decade maybe?

As opposed to what?

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 9, 12:18 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> here's another bunch of irresponsible amateurs taking shortcuts with

> other people's brains:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=amping-up-brain-func...
>
> "So Air Force researchers ...

You're comparing yourself to the USAF? Impressive. Where do you get
your funding?

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Well, given that the tech can be put together for around $5, and I don't
have to pay any wages, it's not too much of a strain on my budget.
Nevertheless, do you doubt that the US military is spending millions
where thousands would suffice? Probably using solid gold electrodes :-)

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

On 09/04/2012 23:41, scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> On Apr 9, 9:37 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 09/04/2012 01:42, scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 7, 12:51 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm currently (pun intended!) doing some expts in this area.
>>> ...
>>
>>>> If you are really curious, there are over 600 peer reviewed published
>>>> papers on the subject. No reports of any harmful effects.
>>
>>> I imagine those were generally authored by people who use the word
>>> "experiment" in a stricter sense than someone doing the rough
>>> equivalent of licking a 9-volt battery.
>>
>> They will be using the same circuits as I use
>
> Really? they're copying *YOU*?

A constant current circuit is one of the simplest in the known universe.
We are both copying whoever designed it early last century.

>> So Scott, you better wait for the official FDA approved tDCS therapy and
>> certified machinery in around... a decade maybe?
>
> As opposed to what?

DIY
Of course, in the meantime you might be facing some professional
competition from wireheads, same as you probably are from engineers and
scientists who use modafinil and similar nootropics.

[Hey - just like USAF B2 pilots on long missions!]
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123007615

But I bet you would not do anything so reckless eh?

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 9, 5:56 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> [Hey - just like USAF B2 pilots on long missions!]http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123007615
>
> But I bet you would not do anything so reckless eh?

Gosh, you're right, the military would never do anything dubious. Off
to the methamphetamine store!

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 9, 5:50 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 23:43, scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:> On Apr 9, 12:18 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >> here's another bunch of irresponsible amateurs taking shortcuts with
> >> other people's brains:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=amping-up-brain-func...
>
> >> "So Air Force researchers ...
>
> > You're comparing yourself to the USAF? Impressive. Where do you get
> > your funding?
>
> Well, given that the tech can be put together for around $5, and I don't
> have to pay any wages, it's not too much of a strain on my budget.

And the FMRI fits into that budget? Wow. NHS must be a spectacular
success.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

You might like this
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/video/2kTRyA

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 10, 3:41 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 10/04/2012 05:14, scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > On Apr 9, 5:56 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> [Hey - just like USAF B2 pilots on long missions!]http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123007615
>
> >> But I bet you would not do anything so reckless eh?
>
> > Gosh, you're right, the military would never do anything dubious. Off
> > to the methamphetamine store!
>
> You might like thishttp://www.stumbleupon.com/su/video/2kTRyA

Meh. The US Colonial Marines have a better system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQDy-5IQvuU

[Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

>

> I'm currently (pun intended!) doing some expts in this area.
> They are pretty simple if you know a bit of electronics.
>
> "U.S. military researchers have had great success using "transcranial
> direct current stimulation" (tDCS) — in which they hook you up to what's
> essentially a 9-volt battery and let the current flow through your
> brain.

I am doing research on the Xtal Generation Process of FROST, especially in the Early and Late Terms, when
it is Most Active between the Liquid and Gas State.
Piezoelectric's all winter long!

[Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

> On 05/04/2012 05:02, scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 8:00 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm currently (pun intended!) doing some expts in this area.
> >
> > Sure, cuz what could possibly go wrong when passing electricity
> > through your brain? No down side! Crank it up to 11!
>
> Between one and two milliamps.
> I suggest you take it up with DARPA

Flow with a Tessla Coil running through ya some time!

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Except of course, that's a movie.
Do you often mix up movies and real life?

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 12, 3:53 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 12/04/2012 02:41, scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> > On Apr 10, 3:41 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:

> >> You might like thishttp://www.stumbleupon.com/su/video/2kTRyA
>
> > Meh. The US Colonial Marines have a better system.
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQDy-5IQvuU
>
> Except of course, that's a movie.
> Do you often mix up movies and real life?

Do you often mix up internet snark and real life? What with all the
drugs and the messing with your brain, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.
You might want to look into getting tested for schizophrenia.

[Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

> On 12/04/2012 02:41, scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 3:41 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 10/04/2012 05:14, scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Gosh, you're right, the military would never do anything dubious. Off
> >>> to the methamphetamine store!
> >>
> >> You might like thishttp://www.stumbleupon.com/su/video/2kTRyA
> >
> > Meh. The US Colonial Marines have a better system.
>

> Except of course, that's a movie.
> Do you often mix up movies and real life?
>
> --
> FFF
> Dirk

What do you expect Hollywood to do?

[Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole]

"scottl...@ix.netcom.com" wrote:

> On Apr 12, 3:53 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 12/04/2012 02:41, scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 10, 3:41 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> You might like thishttp://www.stumbleupon.com/su/video/2kTRyA
> >
> >

> > Except of course, that's a movie.
> > Do you often mix up movies and real life?
>
> Do you often mix up internet snark and real life? What with all the
> drugs and the messing with your brain, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.
> You might want to look into getting tested for schizophrenia.

I take it by your First Hand Conceptions of it, You, were!

[Doug Freyburger]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>

> http://theweek.com/article/index/226196/how-electrical-brain-stimulation-can-change-the-way-we-think/
> ...

> It was only when they turned off the current that I grasped what had
> just happened. Relieved of the minefield of self-doubt that constitutes
> my basic personality, I was a hell of a shot. And I can't tell you how
> stunning it was to suddenly understand just how much of a drag that
> inner cacophony is on my ability to navigate life and basic tasks.
> ..."

Magnets are supposed to improve health so why not low levels of current?
As long as it is below the level of nerve pulses might be okay. I am
not ready to jump on the bandwagon but I am tempted.

Here's the part that caught my attention -

"After trying it myself, I have different questions. To make you
understand, I am going to tell you how it felt. The experience wasn't
simply about the easy pleasure of undeserved expertise. For me, it was
a near-spiritual experience. When a nice neuroscientist named Michael
Weisend put the electrodes on me, what defined the experience was not
feeling smarter or learning faster: The thing that made the earth drop
out from under my feet was that for the first time in my life,
everything in my head finally shut up."

It sounds like it cured ADHD as long as the current was turned on. That
would make an enormous difference to me. Want to quiet the chorus of
voices ever present in my head that work at distracting me? And do it
without getting drunk or without months of intense meditation? Now it
might be doable with a electrical hat. I do okay at work even with the
ADHD chorus.

"My brain without self-doubt was a revelation. There was suddenly this
incredible silence in my head; I've experienced something close to it
during two-hour Iyengar yoga classes, or at the end of a 10k, but the
fragile peace in my head would be shattered almost the second I set
foot outside the calm of the studio. I had certainly never experienced
instant Zen in the frustrating middle of something I was terrible at."

I wonder if the fact that one of my grandfathers drank himself to death
is he had undiagnosed ADHD and he drank to calm the chorus. I have read
that a lot of ADHD folks take illegal drugs to do that. Too tempting
given that I know a close ancestor killed himself on legal ones.

The other times I've had the "in the zone" focus as described there is
low. Some work marathons that I've gotten more done in a day than in a
typical week or two. After a couple of months of intense meditation.
Not after long runs that I remember.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

The thing is that 20 minutes of application lasts for hours, if not days.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 17, 4:32 pm, Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Magnets are supposed to improve health ...

The only claims of such that I've seen have come from hucksters
selling "magnetic bracelets" and such to the gullible. But then
someone else will claims that magnetic fields from powerlines will
cause cancer.

> It sounds like it cured ADHD as long as the current was turned on.  That
> would make an enormous difference to me.  Want to quiet the chorus of
> voices ever present in my head that work at distracting me?

Might even quiet those voices that tell you to not do stupid things,
or give you good creative ideas.

 And do it
> without getting drunk or without months of intense meditation?  Now it
> might be doable with a electrical hat.

You could probably find an electrical hat in a good quack medicine
museum.

> "My brain without self-doubt was a revelation.

No doubt.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

On 18/04/2012 08:40, scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> On Apr 17, 4:32 pm, Doug Freyburger<dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Magnets are supposed to improve health ...
>
> The only claims of such that I've seen have come from hucksters
> selling "magnetic bracelets" and such to the gullible. But then
> someone else will claims that magnetic fields from powerlines will
> cause cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11588753

[rbowman]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> The only claims of such that I've seen have come from hucksters
> selling "magnetic bracelets" and such to the gullible. But then
> someone else will claims that magnetic fields from powerlines will
> cause cancer.

The first company I worked for made industrial preheaters. They were
basically a 15 KW Hartley oscillator operating at about 100 MHz, and the
material to be heated was placed in the RF cavity, sort of like a mircowave
oven before those were a household item. The rumors were exposure to the RF
either made you sterile or abnormally fertile, take your pick.

The best part was we used 6" fluorescent tubes in the RF cavity that were
just snapped into battery clips. The RF would light them up but some of the
slower maintenace guys had a hard time grasping how the tubes would light up
with no wiring.

Technology + The Great Unwashed == Magic

[Doug Freyburger]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It sounds like it cured ADHD as long as the current was turned on.  That
>> would make an enormous difference to me.  Want to quiet the chorus of
>> voices ever present in my head that work at distracting me?
>
> Might even quiet those voices that tell you to not do stupid things,
> or give you good creative ideas.

Yep. Picking one thread and holding it the way non-ADHD people seem to
all of the time does not come with any mandate that the right thread is
picked.

Usually the times I've ended up "in flow" oblivious to the rest of the
world doing a work marathon it's been for a good creative idea. With
mechanical assistance that might not be the case.

ADHD with hyperfocus is rather like the photo-electric effect. There
are jobs that get done by working hard aka the red photons. There are
jobs that are immune to hard work that get a breakthrough by working
intensely aka the blue photon. I'm the blue photon.

Much of the time I fire randomly doing good tasks at work and I overcome
my lack of organization through hitting harder on any issue than
others. I'm good at doing a long term preaning to reduce the rate that
tickets but not good at project work. The result is my systems start
out chaotic and troublesome longer I'm on them the smoother they run.

Some of the time I fire a coherent beam and solve a problem that others
have been unable to solve. The larger the team the more my value is
expressed because a larger team has more of the difficult problems.
Treat me as a roving troubleshooter or like a turbocharger for the rest
of the team and the total productivity is increased.

My concept is the hat might help me stay on the smaller problems longer.
There is a far larger number of small problems than big ones.

That or I could use it on wekends doing my own hobbyist research to
finish taks that have been in my to-do queue for years.

If it works. If it's safe enough to use.

[Doug Freyburger]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

> scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger<dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Magnets are supposed to improve health ...
>
>> The only claims of such that I've seen have come from hucksters
>> selling "magnetic bracelets" and such to the gullible. But then
>> someone else will claims that magnetic fields from powerlines will
>> cause cancer.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11588753

That study compares magnets that are strong compared to the Earth's
magnetic field with magnets that are strong compared to the other
magnets. It's too much like a study that compares Wonder Bread with
hand made whole wheat bread and uses the resulting data to conclude that
grain is good for health. As it says in the conclusion they need to
compare the stronger magnets against placebo braces not against other
magnets.

So the current thing. Any need to shave the head? I may be able to
wait 20 years and let nature do that for me.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

The area that interests me at present is left pre frontal cortex.
For that my bald patch suffices!
http://www.neopax.com/dcbatlantis1.jpg

I intend to write up my expts at some point with details of circuit and
electrode material. I'll post here when it's available.

[Doug Freyburger]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> So the current thing. Any need to shave the head? I may be able to
>> wait 20 years and let nature do that for me.
>
> The area that interests me at present is left pre frontal cortex.
> For that my bald patch suffices!
> http://www.neopax.com/dcbatlantis1.jpg

Rather than post a picture separately I'll use the one on my linkedin
profile http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=23054584

I my hairline is a bit lower than yours but it should be close enough.

> I intend to write up my expts at some point with details of circuit and
> electrode material. I'll post here when it's available.

Thanks. I've cobbled up projects from you before. Might do so again.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Bear in mind that we might want different things.
I want to increase left frontal activity, while you OTOH might want to
decrease it over left and right.

[1X2Willows]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> But then someone else will claims that magnetic fields from powerlines
> will cause cancer.

Perhaps not causing cancer but the best way to determine whether there is
some kind of effect or not, is to observe the behaviour of non-humans in
these environments. Beings, who couldn't possibly fool themselves if they
wanted to.

Well let me tell you the story about this patch of land directly under one
of those high-power pylons. Green grass on the ground, cleanothing else.
Flanked by woods and corn fields. Beautiful setting. Cheap rent.

Not one but several different doggie schools try to train there; one of them
my Ex. Obedience, Agility, Service Dogs, you name it. Result: Absolute
mayhem for every one of them. Cases of violent freak-outs in pets, who
usually cuddle the baby and the bunny, too. General disorientation in the
rest of them.

So naturally, every one of them doggie schools moves on to an other
location... same dogs, same owners, same teachers... as fas away from
those power lines as possible... smiles and sunshine from then on.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

Same with homoeopathic remedies by the way. Give 'em to cats and dogs who
don't have a concept of placebo (especially if you sneak it in their food)
and they respond to it, you have a winner.

[1X2Willows]

LOL!

sorry, could not resist

[rbowman]

1X2Willows wrote:

> Perhaps not causing cancer but the best way to determine whether there is
> some kind of effect or not, is to observe the behaviour of non-humans in
> these environments. Beings, who couldn't possibly fool themselves if they
> wanted to.

Deer don't seem to have a problem grazing under power lines. As for dogs, it
would be interesting to know what the full range of the hum is. I can hear
quite a loud hum with the occassional crackle. I wonder what the dogs are
picking up.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

More likely something to do with the high electric fields.
Maybe they can feel it.

[1X2Willows]

The audio alone... definitely a candidate. Then on certain days with certain
weather conditions - exceptionally warm and dry - I noticed even my own hair
on my lower arm standing up. Tickling sensation. There's no telling how
annoying this may be to a furry critter.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 18, 6:24 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 18/04/2012 08:40, scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 4:32 pm, Doug Freyburger<dfrey...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> >> Magnets are supposed to improve health ...
>
> > The only claims of such that I've seen have come from hucksters
> > selling "magnetic bracelets" and such to the gullible. But then
> > someone else will claims that magnetic fields from powerlines will
> > cause cancer.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11588753

Interesting. I'm sold! Just so long as I don't bother to do any
further research...

Ooops. Too late.
http://www.ghc.org/all-sites/clinical/criteria/pdf/magnabloc.pdf;jsessionid=BHQ30OCCUOKFDJCISQ3SHPQ
"There is insufficient evidence of efficacy and the committee did not
recommend it for coverage."
"There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of
Magna Bloc Technology for the treatment of low-back pain."
"The use of Magna Bloc Technology in the treatment of low-back pain
does not meet the Group Health Medical Technology Assessment
Criteria."
"Magna Bloc was not found to be more effective than a sham device."

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 18, 9:08 pm, "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:

> So naturally, every one of them doggie schools moves on to an other
> location... same dogs, same owners, same teachers... as fas away from
> those power lines as possible... smiles and sunshine from then on.
>
> Coincidence? I don't think so.

Also not even remotely convincing that the critters are being effected
by magnetic fields. Have you ever stood under high tension lines? I
have. Power lines running along mountains far from other noise, with
no wind. Absolute dead silence. Except for the annoying whine, hum and
crackle produced by the power lines themselves. Non-friggen' stop.
Now, while it may be fair to suggest that dogs can pick up electrical
effects that a human wouldn't... I'm pretty damn sure that anything a
human can hear a dog can *really* hear. Put some wind noise in there,
some cars, pumps, TV's, radios, etc. and the human won't hear doodly
squat from the powerlines... but the dogs probably will.

Plus, there can be some pretty substantial whistling from just plain
wind noise over powerlines.

There's no need to assume the unusual when the mundane covers it just
fine.

[1X2Willows]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

Well, I do call the induction based effect of such power lines on the brain
mundane and not unusual. Any kind of brain. Marking it all up on audio input
alone, seems kind of frivolous to me, after all I've witnessed myself.

[1X2Willows]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Since I still can, with my old decrepit borderline functional body these
days, why sure they can. Probably several times over.

Then again, I also passed the ultimate dowser test with flying colours.
Mebbe there's something funky genetic going on, which does not deteriorate
with age. I'm not claiming, just pointing out that your guess is as good as
mine.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 19, 8:07 pm, "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:

> Then again, I also passed the ultimate dowser test ...


A double-blind study using multiple zig-zagging PVC pipes buried a
foot or more underground?

[Doug Freyburger]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Also not even remotely convincing that the critters are being effected
> by magnetic fields. Have you ever stood under high tension lines? I
> have. Power lines running along mountains far from other noise, with
> no wind. Absolute dead silence. Except for the annoying whine, hum and
> crackle produced by the power lines themselves. Non-friggen' stop.
> Now, while it may be fair to suggest that dogs can pick up electrical
> effects that a human wouldn't... I'm pretty damn sure that anything a
> human can hear a dog can *really* hear. Put some wind noise in there,
> some cars, pumps, TV's, radios, etc. and the human won't hear doodly
> squat from the powerlines... but the dogs probably will.
>
> Plus, there can be some pretty substantial whistling from just plain
> wind noise over powerlines.

New lines are twisted. Same deal and the twisted antennas on cars to
reduc ethe whistle. I bet crittersn can hear it anyways.

> There's no need to assume the unusual when the mundane covers it just
> fine.

Plus the electric fields are significant.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

http://www.arthritistoday.org/community/expert-q--a/osteoarthritis/arthritis-magnets.php


--

[1X2Willows]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> On Apr 19, 8:07 pm, "1X2Willows" wrote:
>
>> Then again, I also passed the ultimate dowser test ...
>
> A double-blind study using multiple zig-zagging PVC pipes buried a
> foot or more underground?

Not really, since it's more a talent than a science, like finding shapes
which are aestethically pleasing or extracting that perfect tune from all
the noise which constantly surrounds us. Hard to describe.

I for one was impressed anyway, when my 'master' gave me the definition
(which he only gave after my performance, however, and not before). He said
"Dowsing is the High Art of finding Nothing", implying that it's all about
false positive readings. This was the test. He had tried to sucker me and
said "So, do you feel it? eh? eh? Do you feel the line right here?" and I
had to be honest and said "Nope." Well, there wasn't anything there and he
knew it.

Tough to judge and I'm aware it doesn't hold up very well in scientific
tests in a laboratory environment, if you will. Then again, I have to ask
myself what bloated ego would even want to try to prove it this way and why.
It works, period.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 20, 6:31 pm, "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:

> Tough to judge and I'm aware it doesn't hold up very well in scientific
> tests in a laboratory environment, if you will.

It doesn't hold up *at* *all.*

Then again, I have to ask
> myself what bloated ego would even want to try to prove it this way and why.

What kind of bloated ego would want the FDA to test new drugs. Go
ahead and take 'em!

> It works, period.

It fails, period.

James Randi will give you $1,000,000 if you can demonstrate dowsing
works. Why not collect?

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 20, 1:47 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 20/04/2012 01:37, scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 6:24 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 18/04/2012 08:40, scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 17, 4:32 pm, Doug Freyburger<dfrey...@yahoo.com>    wrote:
>
> >>>> Magnets are supposed to improve health ...
>
> >>> The only claims of such that I've seen have come from hucksters
> >>> selling "magnetic bracelets" and such to the gullible. But then
> >>> someone else will claims that magnetic fields from powerlines will
> >>> cause cancer.
>
> >>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11588753
>
> > Interesting. I'm sold! Just so long as I don't bother to do any
> > further research...
>
> > Ooops. Too late.

> >http://www.ghc.org/all-sites/clinical/criteria/pdf/magnabloc.pdf;jses...

> > "There is insufficient evidence of efficacy and the committee did not
> > recommend it for coverage."
> > "There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of
> > Magna Bloc Technology for the treatment of low-back pain."
> > "The use of Magna Bloc Technology in the treatment of low-back pain
> > does not meet the Group Health Medical Technology Assessment
> > Criteria."
> > "Magna Bloc was not found to be more effective than a sham device."
>

> http://www.arthritistoday.org/community/expert-q--a/osteoarthritis/ar...

Thanks for the link that backs up my point:
"For the most part, however, studies of arthritis magnets or “healing
magnets” for osteoarthritis pain have been inconclusive. In 2007, an
analysis by British researchers of 29 studies of static magnets
suggested there was no significant difference in pain reduction
between people using magnets and placebo. "

[1X2Willows]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> On Apr 20, 6:31 pm, "1X2Willows" wrote:
>
>> Tough to judge and I'm aware it doesn't hold up very well in
>> scientific tests in a laboratory environment, if you will.
>
> It doesn't hold up *at* *all.*

So how many times have tou tried and how many times have you failed?

>> Then again, I have to ask myself what bloated ego would even want to try
>> to prove it this way and why.
>
> What kind of bloated ego would want the FDA to test new drugs. Go
> ahead and take 'em!

You're not seriously suggesting the USFDA is some kind of authority which
deserves to be trusted by default - or are you.

>> It works, period.
>
> It fails, period.

I'm not trying to convince you of the opposite of something you believe in.
Faith by an individual is something which cannot possibly be overcome
from the outside, without the person able or at least willing to accept an
outcome different from the expected one, based on their own precognition.
So either you try and come to your own conclusion(s), or refrain from any
further conversation about a subject which is foreign to you. That's how we
do it in the real world. Mere hearsay won't cut it in these matters, sorry.

> James Randi will give you $1,000,000 if you can demonstrate dowsing
> works. Why not collect?

Because reimbursement of expenses is okay, but greed and silly ego are
definite talent-killers. Everyone with the slightest personal connection
knows, so I assume you know it too.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 20, 9:27 pm, "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:

> >> Then again, I have to ask myself what bloated ego would even want to try
> >> to prove it this way and why.
>
> > What kind of bloated ego would want the FDA to test new drugs. Go
> > ahead and take 'em!
>
> You're not seriously suggesting the USFDA is some kind of authority which
> deserves to be trusted by default - or are you.

Ah. So should I assume that you believe that no testing should be done
on any experimental medicine or drug? just go ahead and use it!

> So either you try and come to your own conclusion(s), or refrain from any
> further conversation about a subject which is foreign to you. That's how we
> do it in the real world.

So can I assume that you have no opinion on the use of nuclear
explosives to clear treestumps?

> Mere hearsay won't cut it in these matters, sorry.

Indeed. So, while published scientific studies of dowsing show that
it's bunk, I invite you to replicate said studies to prove the
opposite.

>
> > James Randi will give you $1,000,000 if you can demonstrate dowsing
> > works. Why not collect?
>
> Because reimbursement of expenses is okay, but greed and silly ego are
> definite talent-killers.

Yes, that's one of the usual excuses trotted out by crackpots to
explain why they refuse to engage in even the lightest test. Of
course, such "talented" people could of course win the prize and
donate it to charity, or even refuse to accept it. But somehow, they
never do.

[1X2Willows]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> On Apr 20, 9:27 pm, "1X2Willows" wrote:
>
> Ah. So should I assume that you believe that no testing should be done
> on any experimental medicine or drug? just go ahead and use it!

Aaah don't be silly and quit the absolutisms, Scott.
This was about the USFDA not always being right; no less, no more.

>> So either you try and come to your own conclusion(s), or refrain
>> from any further conversation about a subject which is foreign to
>> you. That's how we do it in the real world.
>
> So can I assume that you have no opinion on the use of nuclear
> explosives to clear treestumps?

Never tried it so yes, I have no educated opinion on it.

>> Mere hearsay won't cut it in these matters, sorry.
>
> Indeed. So, while published scientific studies of dowsing show that
> it's bunk, I invite you to replicate said studies to prove the opposite.

- which would imply that I'm willing to play by someone else's rules.
How about the other way around? Let's say, science proves how dogs
are able to sense an oncoming earthquake before you get the slightest
reading on the Richter-Scale at the lab.

>>> James Randi will give you $1,000,000 if you can demonstrate dowsing
>>> works. Why not collect?
>>
>> Because reimbursement of expenses is okay, but greed and silly ego
>> are definite talent-killers.
>
> Yes, that's one of the usual excuses trotted out by crackpots to
> explain why they refuse to engage in even the lightest test. Of
> course, such "talented" people could of course win the prize and
> donate it to charity, or even refuse to accept it. But somehow, they
> never do.

You just answered your own question and if you don't realize how, I don't
know what to say. Has it ever occurred to you, that there are people living
in this world, for whom performance according to your standards is not the
highest priority in the world?

So you want dowsing proven, before you believe in it. Nothing wrong with
that. So fine, I'll take the challenge. You and me on a pasture of your
choice, or whatever terrain you pick. Just don't give me this Randi bullshit
and keep your million Dollars if it works. Or donate it yourself.

Deal?

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 22, 11:44 pm, "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:

> >> So either you try and come to your own conclusion(s), or refrain
> >> from any further conversation about a subject which is foreign to
> >> you. That's how we do it in the real world.
>
> > So can I assume that you have no opinion on the use of nuclear
> > explosives to clear treestumps?
>
> Never tried it so yes, I have no educated opinion on it.

Then you're an idiot.

>
> >> Mere hearsay won't cut it in these matters, sorry.
>
> > Indeed. So, while published scientific studies of dowsing show that
> > it's bunk, I invite you to replicate said studies to prove the opposite.
>
> - which would imply that I'm willing to play by someone else's rules.

Basic scientific protocols. Useful for weeding out the deceptions.

> How about the other way around? Let's say, science proves how dogs
> are able to sense an oncoming earthquake before you get the slightest
> reading on the Richter-Scale at the lab.

How would 'science prove that' without science using, you know,
"science?"

>
> >>> James Randi will give you $1,000,000 if you can demonstrate dowsing
> >>> works. Why not collect?
>
> >> Because reimbursement of expenses is okay, but greed and silly ego
> >> are definite talent-killers.
>
> > Yes, that's one of the usual excuses trotted out by crackpots to
> > explain why they refuse to engage in even the lightest test. Of
> > course, such "talented" people could of course win the prize and
> > donate it to charity, or even refuse to accept it. But somehow, they
> > never do.
>
> You just answered your own question and if you don't realize how, I don't
> know what to say.

How about you challenge the proposition with reason... if you can?

> Has it ever occurred to you, that there are people living
> in this world, for whom performance according to your standards is not the
> highest priority in the world?

Yes. These people are known as "frauds."

Dowsers seem to be perfectly willing to take money from rubes to find
places for them to dig wells or whatever. Why would they be unwilling
to take money from scientists to do the same thing? Oh, yes, the
magical Force-dampening power of skepticism.

> So you want dowsing proven, before you believe in it. Nothing wrong with
> that. So fine, I'll take the challenge. You and me on a pasture of your
> choice, or whatever terrain you pick. Just don't give me this Randi bullshit

"Randi bullshit?" You mean, actually put you to the test?

An acre of random PVC pipes, valves, pumps and enough dirt to cover it
all is a fairly expensive proposition, beyond my ability to afford
based on my interest level. Fortunately, such a setup has *already*
been built, tested, and shown dowsers to be cranks.

A common sentiment is that "insanity is doing the same thing over and
over and expecting a different result." Things like dowsing have been
tested over and over, and when basic protocols are put into place,
suddenly the magical abilities evaporate. So, it is now up to the
believers in bunk to prove their case.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Yes, that's right - "inconclusive".
OTOH, you seem to have made up your mind

--
FFF

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 23, 2:44 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >>http://www.arthritistoday.org/community/expert-q--a/osteoarthritis/ar...
>
> > Thanks for the link that backs up my point:
> > "For the most part, however, studies of arthritis magnets or “healing
> > magnets” for osteoarthritis pain have been inconclusive. In 2007, an
> > analysis by British researchers of 29 studies of static magnets
> > suggested there was no significant difference in pain reduction
> > between people using magnets and placebo. "
>
> Yes, that's right - "inconclusive".
> OTOH, you seem to have made up your mind

Yup. The rational response to an extraordinary claim is skepticism
until the evidence backs it up. When tests show no significant
difference between the claim and placebo... then there is *no*
rational reason to believe the extraordinary claim, and ample reason
to specifically disbelieve. Thus, it is rational to "make up your
mind." If further evidence comes in, then the conclusion can be
revised.

I never cease to be amazed at the tenacity of the credulous. Y'all can
hold onto a hopeful delusion with a death grip that would be admirable
were it not so friggen' sad and pathetic.

[1X2Willows]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> On Apr 22, 11:44 pm, "1X2Willows" wrote:
>
>>>> So either you try and come to your own conclusion(s), or refrain
>>>> from any further conversation about a subject which is foreign to
>>>> you. That's how we do it in the real world.
>>
>>> So can I assume that you have no opinion on the use of nuclear
>>> explosives to clear treestumps?
>>
>> Never tried it so yes, I have no educated opinion on it.
>
> Then you're an idiot.

An idiot who can tell sincerity from obvious facetiousness.
And polemics. Talents which you obviously lack.

>>>> Mere hearsay won't cut it in these matters, sorry.
>>
>>> Indeed. So, while published scientific studies of dowsing show that
>>> it's bunk, I invite you to replicate said studies to prove the
>>> opposite.
>>
>> - which would imply that I'm willing to play by someone else's rules.
>
> Basic scientific protocols. Useful for weeding out the deceptions.

Still waiting for the protocol to determine, for example, how birds know
where to migrate to. Or Monarch Butterflies.

>> How about the other way around? Let's say, science proves how dogs
>> are able to sense an oncoming earthquake before you get the slightest
>> reading on the Richter-Scale at the lab.
>
> How would 'science prove that' without science using, you know,
> "science?"

By George, he's got it!
I would have never thought a Broadway Tune would be the key to it all.

> How about you challenge the proposition with reason... if you can?

I tried, but you didn't bite. So okay, let me put it differently. We'll meet
on a pasture of your choice. I do my walkabout while you have coffee or
something, not observing me and what I do and that's the point. I'll record
my readings on a map. Then I'll give you my sticks, tell you what to do with
them and you walk the same pasture, taking your own notes. With an open
mind, that is. And when we're done, we'll compare readings. Pretty simple.

> Dowsers seem to be perfectly willing to take money from rubes to find
> places for them to dig wells or whatever. Why would they be unwilling
> to take money from scientists to do the same thing? Oh, yes, the
> magical Force-dampening power of skepticism.

Dowsing is infested with the same amount of frauds as any other border
science as we call them. I tried to look up a translation to English but
there isn't one. Border sciences are considered fields of scientific
expertise, which root in obvious fact (such as Salmons finding their spawn
place) without human science knowing how. We still have a lot to figure out.

Let me know when you're willing to accept the challenge.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

The problem is that Scott has a very specific idea of what Dowsing
"really" is.
If you are detecting water by subconsciously using sensory cues such as
smell, vision (topography), sound or even magnetic field sensing, then
it's not REAL dowsing. For him its all about the supernatural.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 29, 8:14 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The problem is that Scott has a very specific idea of what Dowsing
> "really" is.
> If you are detecting water by subconsciously using sensory cues such as
> smell, vision (topography), sound or even magnetic field sensing, then
> it's not REAL dowsing.

If you can find water using such cues, then clearly you can
demonstrate that ability in a laboratory setting. The fact that actual
tests have shown no such ability tends to knock out *those* cues as
well.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 29, 12:58 am, "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:

> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 11:44 pm, "1X2Willows" wrote:
>
> >>>> So either you try and come to your own conclusion(s), or refrain
> >>>> from any further conversation about a subject which is foreign to
> >>>> you. That's how we do it in the real world.
>
> >>> So can I assume that you have no opinion on the use of nuclear
> >>> explosives to clear treestumps?
>
> >> Never tried it so yes, I have no educated opinion on it.
>
> > Then you're an idiot.
>
> An idiot who can tell sincerity from obvious facetiousness.

An assertion not backed up by the evidence.

> > Basic scientific protocols. Useful for weeding out the deceptions.
>
> Still waiting for the protocol to determine, for example, how birds know
> where to migrate to. Or Monarch Butterflies.

Non sequitur.

> > How about you challenge the proposition with reason... if you can?
>
> I tried, but you didn't bite. So okay, let me put it differently. We'll meet
> on a pasture of your choice. I do my walkabout while you have coffee or
> something, not observing me and what I do and that's the point. I'll record
> my readings on a map. Then I'll give you my sticks, tell you what to do with
> them and you walk the same pasture, taking your own notes. With an open
> mind, that is.  And when we're done, we'll compare readings. Pretty simple.

Now THAT is a badly constructed test.

If you wish to demonstrate dowsing ability, the way to do is is a
double-bl;ind study over not some random field, but a field that has
been prepared specifically for the test.

Take the four acres in back of my house: no matter where you say
"there be water *here,*" there'll be water there, since there's water
*everywhere* underground around here.

That's the beauty of dowsing for the deceivers: no matter where you
are, chances are good you'll find water if you simply dig or drill
deep enough. A great way to scam money out of chuckleheads... or to
convince yourself of your own special powers.

> Let me know when you're willing to accept the challenge.

I guesstimate $20,000 at a minimum to set up the test, probably closer
to $50K or even $100K. A location would need to be found that is
demonstratably *not* sitting atop water, and then an acre or so of
randomized PVC plumbing would need to be set up and several feet of
fill dirt placed atop. If you have the funds to set up this test,
great. If not, then the prior tests which showed nothing to dowsing
will have to stand.

I have no greater need to re-test dowsing than I have need to re-test
the non-flatness of the Earth, the heliocentric nature of the solar
system or Darwinian natural selection. The testing to date has been
more than adequate to prove the point.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 29, 1:57 pm, "scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com"

Additionally: Once again, you project your own flawed worldview on
everyone else. If someone was truly capable of dowsing, demonstrating
that ability would not matter if that ability was "natural" or
"supernatural." Similarly, if someone claimed to know the future in a
real sense, like having the ability to predict lottery numbers and
weather specifics a month in advance, testing that should be easy. It
wouldn't matter the *source* of the foreknowledge... be it divine
messages from the gods, supernatural clairvoyance, mysterious emails
from beyond or you have your own time machine... a test to see if you
actually have the ability to predict the future could be devised, and
it'd be the same test no matter the source.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

No, because such tests are usually designed to eliminate all sensory cues.

[1X2Willows]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> On Apr 29, 1:57 pm, "scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com"
> <scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> On Apr 29, 8:14 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is that Scott has a very specific idea of what Dowsing
>>> "really" is.
>>> If you are detecting water by subconsciously using sensory cues
>>> such as smell, vision (topography), sound or even magnetic field
>>> sensing, then it's not REAL dowsing.
>>
>> If you can find water using such cues, then clearly you can
>> demonstrate that ability in a laboratory setting. The fact that
>> actual tests have shown no such ability tends to knock out *those*
>> cues as well.
>
> Additionally: Once again, you project your own flawed worldview on
> everyone else. If someone was truly capable of dowsing, demonstrating
> that ability would not matter if that ability was "natural" or
> "supernatural." Similarly, if someone claimed to know the future in a
> real sense, like having the ability to predict lottery numbers and
> weather specifics a month in advance, testing that should be easy. It
> wouldn't matter the *source* of the foreknowledge... be it divine
> messages from the gods, supernatural clairvoyance, mysterious emails
> from beyond or you have your own time machine... a test to see if you
> actually have the ability to predict the future could be devised, and
> it'd be the same test no matter the source.

Any educated opinion on Cayce?

[1X2Willows]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

> On 29/04/2012 20:57, scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>> On Apr 29, 8:14 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is that Scott has a very specific idea of what Dowsing
>>> "really" is.
>>> If you are detecting water by subconsciously using sensory cues
>>> such as smell, vision (topography), sound or even magnetic field
>>> sensing, then it's not REAL dowsing.
>>
>> If you can find water using such cues, then clearly you can
>> demonstrate that ability in a laboratory setting. The fact that
>> actual tests have shown no such ability tends to knock out *those*
>> cues as well.
>
> No, because such tests are usually designed to eliminate all sensory
> cues.

From what I read so far, these tests were clearly designed to evoke an air
of scientific objectivity, while setting up contestants for failure. After
all, the challenger is not seeking to part with his money, so it's quite
clear the process is skewed to disprove and not prove.

Honestly, these suckers who signed up so far are complete idiots, even
remotely considering they could walk away with the prize offered by a
seasoned stage magician.

[1X2Willows]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> On Apr 29, 12:58 am, "1X2Willows" wrote:

>> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>>> Then you're an idiot.
>>
>> An idiot who can tell sincerity from obvious facetiousness.
>
> An assertion not backed up by the evidence.

LOL! okay, let's call it a Touché
- and please, do not - I repeat: NOT! - nuke tree stumps. Bad idea.

> Now THAT is a badly constructed test.
>
> If you wish to demonstrate dowsing ability, the way to do is is a
> double-bl;ind study over not some random field, but a field that has
> been prepared specifically for the test.

I do not claim to be able to find any other water than naturally occurring
underground flows in a natural setting. Others do, but that's their own
business, not mine. I do consider the possibility that with experience comes
confidence. Which I don't have, so I'm aware of my limitations. It's about
finding water where it is hard to find. If you've got pipes buried in the
ground for a test, you have obviously found all the water you need and the
point becomes moot.

The outline of my proposed test was not to prove my abilities but rather the
fact that anyone can do it, including you. Like it or not. It's a naturally
occurring ability. Some have it more, some have it less, but everyone's got
it.

> Take the four acres in back of my house: no matter where you say
> "there be water *here,*" there'll be water there, since there's water
> *everywhere* underground around here.

I which case you would be an idiot to employ the services of a dowser,
correct.

> That's the beauty of dowsing for the deceivers: no matter where you
> are, chances are good you'll find water if you simply dig or drill
> deep enough. A great way to scam money out of chuckleheads... or to
> convince yourself of your own special powers.

Trust me, you don't need to voice your disbelief any longer or phrase it
differently. So you think it's a scam; got it. I would just like to see the
look on your face when those sticks are pulling down and you, Scott, know
for certain that you didn't do it. Matter of fact you're trying to fight it
and do all kinds of tricks to keep them from pulling down, but they do
anyway. It's quite a kick, this experience. Had to have been there.

>> Let me know when you're willing to accept the challenge.
>
> I guesstimate $20,000 at a minimum to set up the test, probably closer
> to $50K or even $100K. A location would need to be found that is
> demonstratably *not* sitting atop water, and then an acre or so of
> randomized PVC plumbing would need to be set up and several feet of
> fill dirt placed atop. If you have the funds to set up this test,
> great. If not, then the prior tests which showed nothing to dowsing
> will have to stand.
>
> I have no greater need to re-test dowsing than I have need to re-test
> the non-flatness of the Earth, the heliocentric nature of the solar
> system or Darwinian natural selection. The testing to date has been
> more than adequate to prove the point.

Yep, so you have.
Shall we retire?

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 29, 4:26 pm, "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:

> Any educated opinion on Cayce?

What, the guy who claimed Atlantis would rise in 1968?

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 29, 6:07 pm, "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:

> > Now THAT is a badly constructed test.
>
> > If you wish to demonstrate dowsing ability, the way to do is is a
> > double-bl;ind study over not some random field, but a field that has
> > been prepared specifically for the test.
>
> I do not claim to be able to find any other water than naturally occurring
> underground flows in a natural setting.

And what would separate that water from an artificial stream of water?

> The outline of my proposed test was not to prove my abilities but rather the
> fact that anyone can do it, including you.

And yet, when experts are put to the test, they either fail, or
magically find water where water is everywhere.

Here's a better test: use your dowsing ability to find carbonaceous
chondrite meteorites out in the woods (where the ground hasn't been
dug up and churned and paved over by people, but left un-dug-up). A
dandy way to make buckets of money, and a great way to prove your
skills: find a spot of land you've never been to before. Chanc es are
pretty good that such meteorites fairly evenly cover the ground, to
the tune of several kilos per acre within the top few feet of soil. Do
your searching, and then dig your top two "hits." You should get
around ten bucks per gram. A few acres should net you a years worth of
salary. When you factor in that the same skill will net you nickel-
iron meteorites, flakes and nuggets of gold, bits of silver, gemstones
and archeological artifacts... why, you should be rich in no time!

> Trust me, you don't need to voice your disbelief any longer or phrase it
> differently. So you think it's a scam; got it.

No, I think it's a fairy tale that people believe for no rationale
reason, and that other people use to bilk the gullible.

I would just like to see the
> look on your face when those sticks are pulling down and you, Scott, know
> for certain that you didn't do it.

I hear the same thing from Christianists. " I would just like to see
the look on your face when you come face to face with Jesus and you,
Scott, know for certain that you are bound for Hell for not believing
in him."

Trust me, I'm long since past being impressed by such arguments.

> > I have no greater need to re-test dowsing than I have need to re-test
> > the non-flatness of the Earth, the heliocentric nature of the solar
> > system or Darwinian natural selection. The testing to date has been
> > more than adequate to prove the point.
>
> Yep, so you have.
> Shall we retire?

Well, since I've given you the key to using your super-dowsing skills
to rake in serious cash in your spare time, I guess you'll be retiring
pretty soon.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 29, 3:33 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> No, because such tests are usually designed to eliminate all sensory cues.

What sensory cues would be available for a natural subsurface stream
of water that would not be available for an artificial one?

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

The smell of water, topography, vegetation, variation in magnetic field,
soil consistency, insects. Will those do?

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 29, 8:03 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 30/04/2012 02:04, scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > On Apr 29, 3:33 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> No, because such tests are usually designed to eliminate all sensory cues.
>
> > What sensory cues would be available for a natural subsurface stream
> > of water that would not be available for an artificial one?
>
> The smell of water, topography, vegetation, variation in magnetic field,
> soil consistency, insects. Will those do?

Will those do? Prove it.

To be of value, water dowsers would have to be able to show with
statistically valid precision that "there is water here" and "there is
not water here." When over terrain where water is *everywhere,* their
skills, if any, are of course useless. Thus they would need to work
somewhere where water basically *isn't,* such as desert regions.
"topography" is often "completely flat." Vegetation is sparse at best;
insects are mobile and thus would seem an odd metric. "Smell of water
seems unlikely to be very precise through many meters of rock and
dirt. Magnetic fields vary through many more factors than just water.

Put them all together and *maybe* a trained human with sufficiently
tuned senses might be able to detect water. But here's the thing: how
often do dowsers get *real* training... as in training places where
water isn't? Getting their experience where water is everywhere will
not train them to use their skills. It would be akin to learning to
throw darts by being blindfolded and throwing darts not at a target,
but at the floor.

[1X2Willows]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> On Apr 29, 3:33 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>
>> No, because such tests are usually designed to eliminate all sensory
>> cues.
>
> What sensory cues would be available for a natural subsurface stream
> of water that would not be available for an artificial one?

No PVC or other insulation layer for a start; plastic, metal, cement, each
with its own physical properties.

Also, the unnaturally dense and most often perfectly straight containment,
again entirely unnatural. I don't know if the analogy holds, but you cannot
light up a room with a laser pointer either, while the same wattage (or lux)
in dispersion are well enough to be sensed all around.

[1X2Willows]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Here's a better test: use your dowsing ability to find carbonaceous
> chondrite meteorites out in the woods (where the ground hasn't been
> dug up and churned and paved over by people, but left un-dug-up). A
> dandy way to make buckets of money, and a great way to prove your
> skills: find a spot of land you've never been to before. Chanc es are
> pretty good that such meteorites fairly evenly cover the ground, to
> the tune of several kilos per acre within the top few feet of soil. Do
> your searching, and then dig your top two "hits." You should get
> around ten bucks per gram. A few acres should net you a years worth of
> salary. When you factor in that the same skill will net you nickel-
> iron meteorites, flakes and nuggets of gold, bits of silver, gemstones
> and archeological artifacts... why, you should be rich in no time!

Actually, I'm looking for a good reason to be out in the woods more often
anyway, I had no idea about all this stuff and thanks for the suggestion.
Sounds so much more enticing than "hike for fitness"...

Are these spread evenly around the globe or how do I find out if I should
bother to look where I live? Are there 'known occurrence' maps?

Now the only thing I would need to figure out, is how to use basic water
witching techniques to find those goodies you mention. Right now, it sounds
to me like trying to tune in to a specific radio station by using a compass
if you know what I mean. "dowsing" is way too broad a term to be useful.
Wouldn't I be better served in this case with a common metal detector?
(...which I also already considered in the past...)

>> I would just like to see the look on your face when those sticks are
>> pulling down and you, Scott, know for certain that you didn't do it.
>
> I hear the same thing from Christianists. " I would just like to see
> the look on your face when you come face to face with Jesus and you,
> Scott, know for certain that you are bound for Hell for not believing
> in him."
>
> Trust me, I'm long since past being impressed by such arguments.

Humor appreciated. Thanks for the laugh.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 30, 3:52 pm, "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:

> Are these spread evenly around the globe or how do I find out if I should
> bother to look where I live?

Statistically, one square meter of Earth should receive the same
meteoroid bombardment as any other square meter. There may be a
slight increase the close you get to the plane of the ecliptic (plus/
minus 28 degrees or so), since the asteroids, comets and meteoroids
are somewhat more likely to be in the plane of the ecliptic, and
plowing straight into the atmosphere is slightly more likely to
capture smaller bits than coming in on a shallow angle, where they
could skip off or burn up before impact.

If you live near lakes that freeze over in winter, that's where to
look. A black rock on the ground can be anything. A black rock on top
of ice on top of a body of water is kinda tricky to explain outside of
"it fell here."

But for a dowser, it should be easy for you to find them anywhere.

> Wouldn't I be better served in this case with a common metal detector?
> (...which I also already considered in the past...)

If you wanted a nickle-iron meteorite, sure. But the big money is the
stony meteorites. There are a lot more of the stones, but a space rock
is difficult to distinguish from a terrestrial rock. Big, big money in
meteorites blasted off of the moon and especially Mars. Find a Mars
rock, and you could retire on the proceeds. So just tune ypr sticks to
Mars frequency, and away you go.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 30, 2:42 pm, "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:

> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 3:33 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>
> >> No, because such tests are usually designed to eliminate all sensory
> >> cues.
>
> > What sensory cues would be available for a natural subsurface stream
> > of water that would not be available for an artificial one?
>
> No PVC or other insulation layer for a start

Does an eighth of an inch of PVC provide more insulation than twenty
feet of dirt and rock???

> Also, the unnaturally dense and most often perfectly straight containment,
> again entirely unnatural.

It's amazing how easily defeated Amazing Super Powers are. In the
comic books, you need a crystal blasted off an alien world hundreds of
lightyears away. In reality, all you need is a bit of plastic and an
analytical mind to cause special abilities to utterly fail.

[1X2Willows]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> On Apr 30, 2:42 pm, "1X2Willows" wrote:
>> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>> On Apr 29, 3:33 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>
>>>> No, because such tests are usually designed to eliminate all
>>>> sensory cues.
>>
>>> What sensory cues would be available for a natural subsurface stream
>>> of water that would not be available for an artificial one?
>>
>> No PVC or other insulation layer for a start
>
> Does an eighth of an inch of PVC provide more insulation than twenty
> feet of dirt and rock???

Apparently so, in whichever way appliccable. 0.2 mils of Aluminum also
knock out my stud finder, while two inches of plaster are not a problem.

Then there's the issue with static electricity in PVC, while metal collects
and transfers even creeping current over considerable distances. All in all,
I cannot tell you exactly why it screws with measurements but it not only
does, but it also makes scientific sense that it would.

>> Also, the unnaturally dense and most often perfectly straight
>> containment, again entirely unnatural.
>
> It's amazing how easily defeated Amazing Super Powers are. In the
> comic books, you need a crystal blasted off an alien world hundreds of
> lightyears away. In reality, all you need is a bit of plastic and an
> analytical mind to cause special abilities to utterly fail.

Point is, natural flows tend to spread out horizontally and slow down on the
edges, so what you get is a bell curve with the strongest flow marking the
top, although the peak doesn't necessarily have to be the middle of the band
or strip. This incline/decline is essential, at least for me. Pipes are like
an on/off switch if you cross them at 90 degrees. Now it's here, now it's
gone, within inches. Easy to miss and equally easy to get a false positive
nearby, perhaps through wave induction or wave overlap with something else.
I do not know.

[1X2Willows]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> But for a dowser, it should be easy for you to find them anywhere.

Only water-witcher so far, but there's always room for improvement.

> So just tune ypr sticks to Mars frequency, and away you go.

By Grabthar's Hammer, I just might.
Thanks for the advice and if I get a hit, I'll buy you dinner.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 30, 7:30 pm, "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:

> Thanks for the advice and if I get a hit, I'll buy you dinner.

If you get a hit, do it again. And again. And again. Until you get the
process nailed down, and can do it more or less at will, then go
public and get the JREF's $1,000,000. Prove your ability and change
the world.

If you can do this with stony meteorites, then you can do it with
gems, precious metals, oil, natural gas, lost children, Jimmy Hoffa
and cancer. Many have made the claim and then failed on the
followthrough. Proving such an ability would be the greatest frakkin'
thing ever. *Claiming* the ability but not proving it would be just
one more example of hard-core lameassery.

[rbowman]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> If you wanted a nickle-iron meteorite, sure. But the big money is the
> stony meteorites.

Can't forge a stone into a decent blade though.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Apr 30, 9:08 pm, rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote:

No, but you can sell the stone for *money* and use that money to buy a
nickel iron meteorite. Or an ingot of a preferred alloy. Or a finished
sword.

[Doug Freyburger]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:
>
>> Are these spread evenly around the globe or how do I find out if I should
>> bother to look where I live?
>
> Statistically, one square meter of Earth should receive the same
> meteoroid bombardment as any other square meter. There may be a
> slight increase the close you get to the plane of the ecliptic (plus/
> minus 28 degrees or so), since the asteroids, comets and meteoroids
> are somewhat more likely to be in the plane of the ecliptic, and
> plowing straight into the atmosphere is slightly more likely to
> capture smaller bits than coming in on a shallow angle, where they
> could skip off or burn up before impact.

Meteorites are literally everywhere. They make up maybe one part in ten
million of rocks on the surface or within easy digging distance in the
soil. The problem is in both locating them and identifying them.
That's why they can be sold for cash even though they are everywhere.

> If you live near lakes that freeze over in winter, that's where to
> look. A black rock on the ground can be anything. A black rock on top
> of ice on top of a body of water is kinda tricky to explain outside of
> "it fell here."

Meteorites build up over billions of years and they remain identifiable
for thousands of years. With a lake that thaws every year you only see
the ones that fell this year. To learn to identify meteorites that's a
good approach. Once you've learned how to identify them it is a
terrible approach. They are a thousand times more common on dry land
because dry land does not thaw every year. Dry land only thaws once the
time it flows out of the volcano.

The place on ice to look is on extremely ancient glaciers. That's
Antarctica. Over a lot of Antarctica any rock you find on the surface
will be a meteorite.

> But for a dowser, it should be easy for you to find them anywhere.

If a dowser really could find meteorites she really could make a living
at it. Meteorites sell to collectors.

>> Wouldn't I be better served in this case with a common metal detector?
>> (...which I also already considered in the past...)
>
> If you wanted a nickle-iron meteorite, sure. But the big money is the
> stony meteorites. There are a lot more of the stones, but a space rock
> is difficult to distinguish from a terrestrial rock. Big, big money in
> meteorites blasted off of the moon and especially Mars. Find a Mars
> rock, and you could retire on the proceeds. So just tune ypr sticks to
> Mars frequency, and away you go.

It takes a lot of expertise to conclude that a rock is a tektite from
the Moon. Even more to conclude it's from Mars. There are only a few
known meteorites known to be from Mars.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On May 1, 9:58 am, Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It takes a lot of expertise to conclude that a rock is a tektite from
> the Moon.  Even more to conclude it's from Mars.  There are only a few
> known meteorites known to be from Mars.

That's why they're worth the big bucks. And they are a good test for
those who claim to be able to dows for such things.

[1X2Willows]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> On May 1, 9:58 am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> It takes a lot of expertise to conclude that a rock is a tektite from
>> the Moon. Even more to conclude it's from Mars. There are only a few
>> known meteorites known to be from Mars.
>
> That's why they're worth the big bucks. And they are a good test for
> those who claim to be able to dows for such things.

Assumptions are a dime three dozen.
Know of any who make said claim?

[Doug Freyburger]

1X2Willows wrote:

> scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>
>>> It takes a lot of expertise to conclude that a rock is a tektite from
>>> the Moon. Even more to conclude it's from Mars. There are only a few
>>> known meteorites known to be from Mars.
>>
>> That's why they're worth the big bucks. And they are a good test for
>> those who claim to be able to dows for such things.
>
> Assumptions are a dime three dozen.

Scott likes to define the words of the game. It's part of his shtick.
It's called the make-wrong-game in pop psychology. It's a transparent
strategem.

> Know of any who make said claim?

Zero. If dowsing works and is explained as an intuitive grasp of
the landscape to recognize signs that water or oil is underneath such
intuition would be of no help to find meteorites too small to have made
an impact crater. That's a huge if.

Has anyone ever heard of anyone who can dowse for meteorites? I have
not. No hand waving explanation I've ever heard of for dowsing would
be able to tell meteorites by point of origin. Few would explain how
or if anyone can dowse for meteorites.

[1X2Willows]

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> 1X2Willows wrote:
>> scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>>
>>>> It takes a lot of expertise to conclude that a rock is a tektite
>>>> from the Moon. Even more to conclude it's from Mars. There are
>>>> only a few known meteorites known to be from Mars.
>>>
>>> That's why they're worth the big bucks. And they are a good test for
>>> those who claim to be able to dows for such things.
>>
>> Assumptions are a dime three dozen.
>
> Scott likes to define the words of the game. It's part of his shtick.
> It's called the make-wrong-game in pop psychology. It's a transparent
> strategem.

Aaaah we like him anyway. Life would not be as excitingly challenging
without him out and about.

>> Know of any who make said claim?
>
> Zero. If dowsing works and is explained as an intuitive grasp of
> the landscape to recognize signs that water or oil is underneath such
> intuition would be of no help to find meteorites too small to have
> made an impact crater. That's a huge if.
>
> Has anyone ever heard of anyone who can dowse for meteorites? I have
> not. No hand waving explanation I've ever heard of for dowsing would
> be able to tell meteorites by point of origin. Few would explain how
> or if anyone can dowse for meteorites.

I've already learned that a lot of them will respond to a magnet on a string
(or the other way around, as you wish).

http://epswww.unm.edu/iom/ident/index.html says so; good enough for me.

There are people who would call this a "pendulum", although I won't.

However, let's suppose I find a meteorite with one of these gadgets.
Is it science? Is it the other thing? (silly acronym I forgot)

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On May 1, 12:23 pm, "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:

For every substance, there are a planeload of dowsers who claim they
can find it.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On May 1, 2:29 pm, "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:

> I've already learned that a lot of them will respond to a magnet on a string

Only the metal ones. The big money is in the stony one... for the
simple reason that they *don't* respond magnetically, and thus cannot
be easily detected. A ten-kilo nickel-iron meteorite under a yard of
dirt will light up a metal detector. A stony meteorite massing ten
tons one inch under the dirt will go unnoticed.

> However, let's suppose I find a meteorite with one of these gadgets.

Gadgets? A magnet? Hardly surprising.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On May 1, 2:11 pm, Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 1X2Willows wrote:

> > scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> >>> It takes a lot of expertise to conclude that a rock is a tektite from
> >>> the Moon. Even more to conclude it's from Mars. There are only a few
> >>> known meteorites known to be from Mars.
>
> >> That's why they're worth the big bucks. And they are a good test for
> >> those who claim to be able to dows for such things.
>
> > Assumptions are a dime three dozen.
>
> Scott likes to define the words of the game.

Somebody has to. When you're dealing with crackpottery, the crackpots
will redefine words on a whim, rather than using established
definitions. Jabber about "vortexes" and "higher planes" without any
actual understand of what the words even mean.

> Has anyone ever heard of anyone who can dowse for meteorites? I have
> not.

I have: http://www.mentby.com/Group/meteorite-list/dowsing-for-meteorites-had-to-try-it.html

I've heard it all before.There's a Poe's Law for every damn thing.

> No hand waving explanation I've ever heard of for dowsing would
> be able to tell meteorites by point of origin.

No hand waving explanation I've ever heard of would explain *any*
dowsing capability. As I pointed out, even the relatively dull concept
of dowsing for water is so fraught with exponentially increasing noise
levels in the training phase that it seems essentially impossible to
even tell if you have any ability or not.

[1X2Willows]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> On May 1, 2:29 pm, "1X2Willows" wrote:
>
>> I've already learned that a lot of them will respond to a magnet on
>> a string
>
> Only the metal ones. The big money is in the stony one... for the
> simple reason that they *don't* respond magnetically, and thus cannot
> be easily detected. A ten-kilo nickel-iron meteorite under a yard of
> dirt will light up a metal detector. A stony meteorite massing ten
> tons one inch under the dirt will go unnoticed.

Yes thank you, the site made it quite clear, stony ones are different.
I intend to find them based on visual clues alone for a start.

Oddly enough, the most promising candidate I've come up with so far are the
lava fields close by, above the timber line. While surface color will be a
challenge to say the least, shape will be the clue. If it's spongy, bubbly,
too wild a texture on the outside, it's a dud. I've always been very good at
finding the flaw in the perfect grid if you know what I mean.

>> However, let's suppose I find a meteorite with one of these gadgets.
>
> Gadgets? A magnet? Hardly surprising.

Now what is that supposed to mean?
Science or not?

[1X2Willows]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

Yes, and Adonai Elohim YHWH G*d or whatever they call that critter promised
land to some select few, while others claim you need the Power of Jeyzas
[Tm.] to become enlighened and others yet worship...

Wait a sec. Isn't that a Meteorite over there in the Kaaba?

Which brings us back to the subject, so please, would you be so kind and
spare us your disenchantment with esoteric recovering church-goer woo-woo
stuff and keep with the productive conversation.

I do think we're on to something, so I wouldn't want to see this precious
moment spoiled.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On May 1, 9:13 pm, "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:

> Which brings us back to the subject, so please, would you be so kind and
> spare us your disenchantment with esoteric recovering church-goer woo-woo
> stuff and keep with the productive conversation.

Non sequitur.

> I do think we're on to something, so I wouldn't want to see this precious
> moment spoiled.

Then avoid gibberish.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On May 1, 8:53 pm, "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:

> >> However, let's suppose I find a meteorite with one of these gadgets.
>
> > Gadgets? A magnet? Hardly surprising.
>
> Now what is that supposed to mean?
> Science or not?

Are magnets science?

[1X2Willows]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> On May 1, 8:53 pm, "1X2Willows" wrote:
>
>>>> However, let's suppose I find a meteorite with one of these
>>>> gadgets.
>>
>>> Gadgets? A magnet? Hardly surprising.
>>
>> Now what is that supposed to mean?
>> Science or not?
>
> Are magnets science?

Yes?

So if I find meteorites based on the principle of electromagnetic
properties, I won't get the million bucks. Smell something?

[1X2Willows]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> On May 1, 9:13 pm, "1X2Willows" wrote:
>
>> Which brings us back to the subject, so please, would you be so kind
>> and spare us your disenchantment with esoteric recovering
>> church-goer woo-woo stuff and keep with the productive conversation.
>
> Non sequitur.

Supprime tuum stultiloquium.
You brought it up.

>> I do think we're on to something, so I wouldn't want to see this
>> precious moment spoiled.
>
> Then avoid gibberish.

Chasch mer au am Ranze hange wenn der das besser passt.

:)

[Doug Freyburger]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:
>
>> I've already learned that a lot of them will respond to a magnet on a string
>
> Only the metal ones. The big money is in the stony one... for the
> simple reason that they *don't* respond magnetically, and thus cannot
> be easily detected. A ten-kilo nickel-iron meteorite under a yard of
> dirt will light up a metal detector. A stony meteorite massing ten
> tons one inch under the dirt will go unnoticed.

Equally true -

The money is in the stoney meteorites because there are so few of the
nickle iron ones. Stoney meteorites are worth money for the same reason
edible mushrooms are worth money. There are plenty around but most
people lack the ability to distinguish them out of the background noise.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On May 2, 1:47 am, "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:

I smell you not understanding the world. Nickel-iron meteorites are
easily detected magnetically. That's why they are relatively cheap,
even though they are relatively rare. Stony meteorites are no more
magnetic than a chunk of sandstone or granite.

[1X2Willows]

scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> On May 2, 1:47 am, "1X2Willows" wrote:
>>
>>>>>> However, let's suppose I find a meteorite with one of these
>>>>>> gadgets.
>>
>>>>> Gadgets? A magnet? Hardly surprising.
>>
>>>> Now what is that supposed to mean?
>>>> Science or not?
>>
>>> Are magnets science?
>>
>> Yes?
>>
>> So if I find meteorites based on the principle of electromagnetic
>> properties, I won't get the million bucks. Smell something?
>
> I smell you not understanding the world. Nickel-iron meteorites are
> easily detected magnetically. That's why they are relatively cheap,
> even though they are relatively rare. Stony meteorites are no more
> magnetic than a chunk of sandstone or granite.

Well, it was sort of a set-up, the question, and I apologize for it.

I'm still trying to find a scientific reason for why dowsing for water
works, which it does in my experience, and disturbance in the
electromagnetic field by a naturally occurring underground flow of water
seems to be a candidate. Looking at the negative shape in other words.

Again, I do not know but there must be a reason.

[Doug Freyburger]

1X2Willows wrote:
>
> I'm still trying to find a scientific reason for why dowsing for water
> works, which it does in my experience, and disturbance in the
> electromagnetic field by a naturally occurring underground flow of water
> seems to be a candidate. Looking at the negative shape in other words.
>
> Again, I do not know but there must be a reason.

Probably because there is underground water almost everywhere combined
with subconscious clues about the landscape.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On May 4, 9:41 am, Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 1X2Willows wrote:
>
> > I'm still trying to find a scientific reason for why dowsing for water
> > works, which it does in my experience, and disturbance in the
> > electromagnetic field by a naturally occurring underground flow of water
> > seems to be a candidate. Looking at the negative shape in other words.
>
> > Again, I do not know but there must be a reason.
>

> Probably because there is underground water almost everywhere ...

Indeed. This is why dowsing for water is such a bullcrap "ability."
This is why I suggested dowsing for things that *aren't* omnipresent.
Dowsing for water is only slightly more impressive than dowsing for
dirt.

[1X2Willows]

We'll see. Still doesn't explain the pulling force though, which militant
skeptics swear doesn't exist. All the while refusing to experience it first
hand. Could be so easy.

[scottl...@ix.netcom.com]

On May 4, 2:40 pm, "1X2Willows" <nos...@this.addy> wrote:

> We'll see. Still doesn't explain the pulling force though, which militant
> skeptics swear doesn't exist. All the while refusing to experience it first
> hand. Could be so easy.

Could be so easy for you to use instruments to *measure* said
hypothetical force.

"Militant skeptic" = "Sumbitch won't take me at my word, just because
I'm usually wrong"