Tracing mains water pipe in ground ??
gray
ground on private property.
Is ther any thing I can buy, relatively cheaply ??
Andrew Mawson
"gray" <gvb...@balesfield.co.uk> wrote in message
news:v5vbs4pbi4dp52lf6...@4ax.com...
If plastic it's not easy - if lead or galv barrel then normal metal
detecting techniques.
If you set a mains tap to be running so it is just cracked open and
'hissing' it is possible, with a steel probe, to hear the hiss along
the pipe for quite a distance. The method is to press the probe into
the ground and rest your ear against the upper end - don't get carried
away and bang the probe through the pipe!
If you have access to one end of the pipe you can insert a stiff wire
and use a C-Scope or similar cable detector with the 33kHz genny
connected to the wire
AWEM
Vortex3
> ground on private property.
>
> Is ther any thing I can buy, relatively cheaply ??
>
>
Dowsing rods like ebay item 250390401499. Look it up, read the words.
[You may need to grow a beard first] :-)
Seriously my gut reaction is that dowsing is complete horseshit....but I
know a couple of people who swear by it. Perhaps you have a chance to
prove/disprove the technology.
D
Bruce
I do dowsing using copper brazing rods. I don't care whether it is
horseshit or not - it works.
It must be because I have a beard. ;-)
Lobster
> "gray" <gvb...@balesfield.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:v5vbs4pbi4dp52lf6...@4ax.com...
>> What the best (but cheapest) way of tracing a mains water pipe in the
>> ground on private property.
>>
>> Is ther any thing I can buy, relatively cheaply ??
>>
>>
>
>
> Dowsing rods like ebay item 250390401499. Look it up, read the words.
>
> [You may need to grow a beard first] :-)
>
> Seriously my gut reaction is that dowsing is complete horseshit....but I
> know a couple of people who swear by it.
They should go and take the James Randi Challenge then, and earn
themselves a cool million:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
So far nobody's managed to win it, curiously enough.
David
Bruce
>I do dowsing using copper brazing rods. I don't care whether it is
>horseshit or not - it works.
I should have added ... copper brazing rods *that cost pennies*.
Bruce
There's nothing remotely "paranormal" about dowsing. It's all about
detecting subtle changes in the earth's electro-magnetic fields caused
by buried services and underground flows.
Dowsing isn't well understood and there isn't, as yet, a demonstrable
scientific explanation. That may come in time. But even if it doesn't,
all that matters is that it is a useful, easily learnt, practical
technique that can help you find buried pipelines, cables and other
significant underground features.
There's no need to "believe" in it. It isn't something that depends on
"faith". There's nothing "paranormal". It just works.
.
Andy Dingley
> Dowsing rods like ebay item 250390401499. Look it up, read the words.
Fabulous! 8-)
Mind you:
"There is no tracking on this type of shipping"
Why would they need tracking through the postal system? Surely they
could just ask their crystal-powered spirit guide?
> [You may need to grow a beard first] :-)
Were beards the fashion in Atlantis, or did they favour flippers and
Bermuda shorts?
gray
use. Its yellow with a handle, doh doh its hard to describe.
I've got an old steel pipe that runs down my garden, its now got a
hole in it, with water coming out. Repair people say I should replace
all of the pipe as its old and perforated. The only proplem is, that
the main pipe feeds my house and 3 others, but this pipe carries on
down into my garden. But I do not know where it goes too.
Apart form turning the stop cock and seen if any one shouts. The only
way I can think of is to track it with some sort of detector.
Not even sure if you could hire them.
PCPaul
gray
>http://www.hss.com/g/49514/Detector.htm
Yes thats the thing. Not sure what I would need from the list of bits.
I take that these things are expensive to buy. Any idea who might
supply them ??
Frank Erskine
wrote:
Some (most?) plastic pipes are laid with a tracer wire wrapped loosely
around or close to them for this very purpose.
--
Frank Erskine
Phil L
The company featured in the link - HSS.
And almost all plant hire companies will have them too....according to the
link, they are about £40 for the first day.
--
Phil L
RSRL Tipster Of The Year 2008
Bob Minchin
ferrite rod internal antenna. Not it MUST be a medium/log wave AM radio
not FM not digital.
Tune to a signal
Turn the radio until the rod ariel is vertical and note that the signal
disappears or becomes very noisy.
Hold the radio in this position and walk over the area with the pipe or
cable in.
As you approach the pipe the signal will re-appear, then when you are
directly over the pipe it will disappear again and then when you walk
past the pip is will reappear for a short distance and then disappear
once more.
This effect will only be noticed for reasonably long pipes/wires and you
must cross the track of the pipe not just pass the end of it but it does
work and is the principle used but commercial detectors.
Bob
Andrew Mawson
Yep, and that's the C-Scope I referred to several posts earlier !!!!
AWEM
Old Git
<ne...@nospam.vortex.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>"gray" <gvb...@balesfield.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:v5vbs4pbi4dp52lf6...@4ax.com...
>> What the best (but cheapest) way of tracing a mains water pipe in the
>> ground on private property.
>>
>> Is ther any thing I can buy, relatively cheaply ??
>>
>>
>
>
>Dowsing rods like ebay item 250390401499. Look it up, read the words.
>
Whilst reading their blurb I swear I could hear banjos a playing in
the background.
Lobster
I can understand how there could well be some scientific basis for it,
but Randi certainly classes it as paranormal activity and apparently
dowsers are the largest group of applicants for the prize - but he
hasn't paid out yet, so go figure!
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/192-swift-may-9-2008.html
I heard him talking about it on TV once - ISTR he had a test consisting
of several buried pipes, through which water could be diverted at will -
genuine dowsers ought to be able to detect reproducibly which pipes had
water running through them - but they couldn't.
David
gilli
> Bruce wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi,
I will dowse it for you for free if you are near Bristol.
Or you could ring British Society of Dowsers and ask if there is a
dowser in
your area who would do it. They are online too.
You can find a local affiliated group on their web site.
You could dowse it yourself.
Email me off list and I can help you understand how to do it, probably
by phone.
Any kind of rods, like welding rod or just coathanger wire work for
me.
People have their favorites.
I have also used fibreglass or plastic rod effectively.
Mains water is one of the easiest things to dowse.
Contrary to much rumour, most people can dowse in some way.
Practice helps.
Not believing it does not stop it working.
I have never found anyone who could not "make the dowsing rods work"
(talking about "L shaped rods here)
Good Luck.
David
helps
The Medway Handyman
Simpler system
http://www.brandontoolhire.co.uk/directory/prodView.asp?idproduct=289 you
need both bits, hire them for £80 ish a day.
--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
The Medway Handyman
James Randi is a magician by background & well aware of unscientific claims.
The test you refer to is the Kassel Dowsing Test. Scientifically faultless
& conclusive. None of the dowsers could achieve results better than chance.
Its the ideomotor effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideomotor_effect
The money is still up for grabs
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/372-dowsing-for-everything.html
Bruce
>
>I can understand how there could well be some scientific basis for it,
>but Randi certainly classes it as paranormal activity and apparently
>dowsers are the largest group of applicants for the prize - but he
>hasn't paid out yet, so go figure!
I was very skeptical when I first tried it - under instruction - but
once I found it worked I just used it. It isn't necessary to believe in
it, you just follow a few simple steps and it does the job for you.
All kinds of people do it; it is very common to see people in the
construction and water industries dowsing for buried pipes and other
services. These people don't necessarily believe in it, or understand
why it works. They just do it.
I strongly dislike the implications some people make of a paranormal
involvement. I think that's just hokum. I detest people who try to
make money out of it, when it is a very straightforward and incredibly
cheap aid to finding buried services.
As a professional engineer I think there is probably a simple
explanation of how it works based on the law of physics, but the
electromagnetic forces involved are probably so small that they are very
difficult to measure. It is quite possible that the intrusion of
measuring equipment would completely overpower or negate the small
forces involved.
When you learn the technique, and it works for you, there is a real
sense of wonder when the crossed rods suddenly go parallel as you walk
over a buried pipeline or cable. Walk backwards and the rods cross
again. Walk forward, and keep walking, and they uncross and recross.
There's nothing you can do yourself to make this happen.
Something is doing it, but IMHO it almost certainly isn't paranormal. As
I said, I think it's probably just some physics that is not yet fully
understood.
To me, all that matters is that it works.
Bruce
And I will make the same offer if the OP is near Buckinghamshire.
dennis@home
"Bruce" <n...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:fgdds4lgc70tgr8aq...@4ax.com...
> Lobster <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>I can understand how there could well be some scientific basis for it,
>>but Randi certainly classes it as paranormal activity and apparently
>>dowsers are the largest group of applicants for the prize - but he
>>hasn't paid out yet, so go figure!
>
>
> I was very skeptical when I first tried it - under instruction - but
> once I found it worked I just used it. It isn't necessary to believe in
> it, you just follow a few simple steps and it does the job for you.
>
> All kinds of people do it; it is very common to see people in the
> construction and water industries dowsing for buried pipes and other
> services. These people don't necessarily believe in it, or understand
> why it works. They just do it.
>
> I strongly dislike the implications some people make of a paranormal
> involvement. I think that's just hokum. I detest people who try to
> make money out of it, when it is a very straightforward and incredibly
> cheap aid to finding buried services.
And very inaccurate.
> As a professional engineer I think there is probably a simple
> explanation of how it works based on the law of physics, but the
> electromagnetic forces involved are probably so small that they are very
> difficult to measure. It is quite possible that the intrusion of
> measuring equipment would completely overpower or negate the small
> forces involved.
If there is enough force to move a bit of bent metal it can be measured.
> When you learn the technique, and it works for you, there is a real
> sense of wonder when the crossed rods suddenly go parallel as you walk
> over a buried pipeline or cable. Walk backwards and the rods cross
> again. Walk forward, and keep walking, and they uncross and recross.
> There's nothing you can do yourself to make this happen.
Of course there is.. all you need to do is slightly tilt the wrist.
When I played (I was ten) at dousing they crossed when you thought there was
something there BTW.
> Something is doing it, but IMHO it almost certainly isn't paranormal. As
> I said, I think it's probably just some physics that is not yet fully
> understood.
Its is well understood.
There is no better chance of it working than guessing.
That means it doesn't work.
> To me, all that matters is that it works.
I bet that if I let you try and find some old cables you couldn't.
Lobster
> Lobster <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I can understand how there could well be some scientific basis for it,
>> but Randi certainly classes it as paranormal activity and apparently
>> dowsers are the largest group of applicants for the prize - but he
>> hasn't paid out yet, so go figure!
> To me, all that matters is that it works.
But apparently it only does so when not under rigorously controlled
scientific condtitions?
David
The Medway Handyman
Strange experience - I find myself agreeing with eveything Dennis has said.
RobertL
<andrew@no_spam_please_mawson.org.uk> wrote:
> The method is to press the probe 9metal rod) into
> the ground and rest your ear against the upper end - don't get carried
> away and bang the probe through the pipe!
or through your head!
Robert
TheScullster
> gilli <davidgi...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>>
>>I will dowse it for you for free if you are near Bristol.
>
>
> And I will make the same offer if the OP is near Buckinghamshire.
>
Hi Bruce
As a pro-dowsing participant in this thread, can you give an idea of how big
a pipe needs to be and how near to ground level for you to find it?
I have used dowsing rods years ago and believe from experience that they
work - but I don't know how small a pipe they can be used to locate (in the
hands of a regular user). From my experience, I would not have expected to
find a mains feed plastic 22mm pipe to a single house buried a foot down for
instance.
To the OP - I had some leak detection work done recently (insurance covered)
and the guy who did this explained how they find a leak such as yours.
Basically they hook up a pressurised cylinder to the mains somewhere and
wait for it to push the water out of the leak point. As soon as the gas
starts to leak, they can detect the exact spot using gas detection kit
(sniffing at ground level).
Phil
Tim Downie
Spendthrift! What's wrong with old coathangers? They breed in wardrobes
and cost nothing. ;-)
Tim
Bruce
>
>Hi Bruce
>
>As a pro-dowsing participant in this thread, can you give an idea of how big
>a pipe needs to be and how near to ground level for you to find it?
>I have plotted the line of a
>I have used dowsing rods years ago and believe from experience that they
>work - but I don't know how small a pipe they can be used to locate (in the
>hands of a regular user). From my experience, I would not have expected to
>find a mains feed plastic 22mm pipe to a single house buried a foot down for
>instance.
I have plotted the line of a 22mm alkathene water pipe that was buried
to a greater depth - it varied from 450 to 600mm approximately. It
wasn't too difficult except where it crossed other buried services.
My greatest successes were with buried live cables. They were
relatively easy to find. A buried telephone cable was beyond my ability
(or that of the technique) to find.
Bruce
>
>Strange experience - I find myself agreeing with eveything Dennis has said.
As far as dowsing is concerned, you're both armchair experts. It would
therefore be surprising if you didn't agree.
If I lived closer to the Medway towns I would gladly show you the
technique, then you could judge for yourself. It's not difficult to
learn, and I think the best dowsers are probably sceptics like me who
strenuously refuse to believe in the paranormal, but are objective
enough to recognise that it works.
Unfortunately, the people who try to give it a (non-existent) paranormal
dimension have given dowsing a bad name.
BigWallop
To find water underground, you can't beat a set of dowsing rods. I've
actually witnessed a bloke with a couple of bent welding rods, find an
underground piped burn and the track of a sewer pipe.
I don't know how it works, but after seeing it work with my own eyes, I was
amazed.
The Medway Handyman
> "The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Strange experience - I find myself agreeing with eveything Dennis
>> has said.
>
>
> As far as dowsing is concerned, you're both armchair experts. It
> would therefore be surprising if you didn't agree.
>
> If I lived closer to the Medway towns I would gladly show you the
> technique, then you could judge for yourself. It's not difficult to
> learn, and I think the best dowsers are probably sceptics like me who
> strenuously refuse to believe in the paranormal, but are objective
> enough to recognise that it works.
So why don't you take Randi's $1 million? Nearly as much in GBP as Fred
Goodwins pension.
> Unfortunately, the people who try to give it a (non-existent)
> paranormal dimension have given dowsing a bad name.
"Paranormal is a general term that describes unusual experiences that lack a
scientific explanation, or phenomena alleged to be outside of science's
current ability to explain or measure."
At least thats how I see it, nothing to do with ghosts, talking to dead
people etc.
Bruce
>Bruce wrote:
>> "The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Strange experience - I find myself agreeing with eveything Dennis
>>> has said.
>>
>>
>> As far as dowsing is concerned, you're both armchair experts. It
>> would therefore be surprising if you didn't agree.
>>
>> If I lived closer to the Medway towns I would gladly show you the
>> technique, then you could judge for yourself. It's not difficult to
>> learn, and I think the best dowsers are probably sceptics like me who
>> strenuously refuse to believe in the paranormal, but are objective
>> enough to recognise that it works.
>
>So why don't you take Randi's $1 million? Nearly as much in GBP as Fred
>Goodwins pension.
Because there is no paranormal content! Randi wants proof of the
paranormal, which I definitely don't believe in, so his money is under
no threat from me.
Besides, the proposed "challenge" looks to me as though it is completely
unsuited to dowsing. It's just a waste of everyone's time.
>> Unfortunately, the people who try to give it a (non-existent)
>> paranormal dimension have given dowsing a bad name.
>
>"Paranormal is a general term that describes unusual experiences that lack a
>scientific explanation, or phenomena alleged to be outside of science's
>current ability to explain or measure."
>
>At least thats how I see it, nothing to do with ghosts, talking to dead
>people etc.
Either way, I couldn't give a toss about how dowsing works. The only
thing that matters is that it does. End of.
The Medway Handyman
dennis@home
"BigWallop" <spam....@good-spam-guard.com> wrote in message
news:TjQxl.2843$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
I would be amazed as there is underground water everywhere (well almost in
the UK).
These rods can tell the difference between chlorinated water and fresh water
it would appear.
That's the trouble with dowsing..
along he comes and says drill there and someone drills down and guess what,
they find water.
I could come along and say drill 20 feet away and guess what, they would
find water.
>
>
The Medway Handyman
>>
>> So why don't you take Randi's $1 million? Nearly as much in GBP as
>> Fred Goodwins pension.
>
>
> Because there is no paranormal content! Randi wants proof of the
> paranormal, which I definitely don't believe in, so his money is under
> no threat from me.
You don't understand what the word means. Paranormal simply means any event
without scientific explanation. From 'para' which means beyond or past.
Dowsing is a paranormal event.
> Besides, the proposed "challenge" looks to me as though it is
> completely unsuited to dowsing. It's just a waste of everyone's time.
Sound like a cop out to me.
Bruce
>Bruce wrote:
>
>>>
>>> So why don't you take Randi's $1 million? Nearly as much in GBP as
>>> Fred Goodwins pension.
>>
>>
>> Because there is no paranormal content! Randi wants proof of the
>> paranormal, which I definitely don't believe in, so his money is under
>> no threat from me.
>
>You don't understand what the word means.
On the contrary, I use the standard definition in the Oxford dictionary:
paranormal
"supposedly beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding."
>Dowsing is a paranormal event.
Electromagnetic force is not beyond the scope of normal scientific
understanding.
How does your electric drill rotate? You mean you don't understand?
>> Besides, the proposed "challenge" looks to me as though it is
>> completely unsuited to dowsing. It's just a waste of everyone's time.
>
>Sound like a cop out to me.
Well it would, wouldn't it. After all, you don't believe in climate
change, as if it is a belief that you can choose to accept or not.
The Medway Handyman
> "The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Bruce wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> So why don't you take Randi's $1 million? Nearly as much in GBP as
>>>> Fred Goodwins pension.
>>>
>>>
>>> Because there is no paranormal content! Randi wants proof of the
>>> paranormal, which I definitely don't believe in, so his money is
>>> under no threat from me.
>>
>> You don't understand what the word means.
>
>
> On the contrary, I use the standard definition in the Oxford
> dictionary:
>
> paranormal
>
> "supposedly beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding."
>
>
>> Dowsing is a paranormal event.
>
>
> Electromagnetic force is not beyond the scope of normal scientific
> understanding.
IF dowsing works on that basis, then any electromagnetic force, no matter
how small could be measured. Since it can't the event is beyond the scope
of normal scientific understanding.
Unless dowsing works by some special, magic, electromagnetic forces that
can't be measured, because measuring it causes it to vanish?
> How does your electric drill rotate? You mean you don't understand?
The electromagnetic force used by a drill can easily be measured.
>>> Besides, the proposed "challenge" looks to me as though it is
>>> completely unsuited to dowsing. It's just a waste of everyone's
>>> time.
>>
>> Sound like a cop out to me.
>
>
> Well it would, wouldn't it. After all, you don't believe in climate
> change, as if it is a belief that you can choose to accept or not.
Wow! An ad hominem argument that is also completely irrelevent!
If you claim specific abilities, they should stand up to being examined.
The Randi Challenge is entirely fair "Applicant must state clearly in
advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers and/or
abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so
far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will
constitute both a positive and a negative result".
If you claim the ability to dowse you can take the money. If your supposed
abilities can't stand up to a simple test it's a cop out.
BTW. I do believe in climate change, its been going on for thousands of
years. I don't believe its man made.
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> saying something like:
>That's the trouble with dowsing..
>along he comes and says drill there and someone drills down and guess what,
>they find water.
>I could come along and say drill 20 feet away and guess what, they would
>find water.
My neighbour could have done with you.
The water table here is a mere yard below the surface, this time of
year. Two months ago the neighbour had a borehole drilled and managed to
find nothing, another bloke drilled a new hole twenty feet away and
found plenty.
I've got a fountainous borehole round the back that I never use - pity I
couldn't sell him it.
Lobster
> "The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Bruce wrote:
>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Strange experience - I find myself agreeing with eveything Dennis
>>>> has said.
>>>
>>> As far as dowsing is concerned, you're both armchair experts. It
>>> would therefore be surprising if you didn't agree.
>>>
>>> If I lived closer to the Medway towns I would gladly show you the
>>> technique, then you could judge for yourself. It's not difficult to
>>> learn, and I think the best dowsers are probably sceptics like me who
>>> strenuously refuse to believe in the paranormal, but are objective
>>> enough to recognise that it works.
>> So why don't you take Randi's $1 million? Nearly as much in GBP as Fred
>> Goodwins pension.
>
>
> Because there is no paranormal content! Randi wants proof of the
> paranormal, which I definitely don't believe in, so his money is under
> no threat from me.
Red herring - the term 'paranormal' is irrelevant. Randi will pay up to
anybody who can prove dowsing works.
> Besides, the proposed "challenge" looks to me as though it is completely
> unsuited to dowsing.
Why?
David
dennis@home
"Lobster" <davidlobs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7GVxl.177722$Bt3....@newsfe03.ams2...
> Bruce wrote:
8<
>> Besides, the proposed "challenge" looks to me as though it is completely
>> unsuited to dowsing.
>
> Why?
No visual clues to use if I were to hazard a guess.
Bruce
>
>If you claim specific abilities, they should stand up to being examined.
I don't claim anything, and certainly not any specific abilities. You
don't need any specific abilities to be able to use dowsing
successfully. It is a simple technique that anyone can learn in a few
minutes, even a sceptic like me.
I don't care why it works, or whether you (or anyone else) believes in
it, or not. It works for me, and for an awful lot of other people. They
probably don't care why it works any more than I do. It is simply
enough for me, and them, that it works.
It's only the armchair critics like you who demand explanations. Tough,
because I don't have any. But that doesn't mean that dowsing doesn't
work, because it does.
Bruce
>
>Red herring - the term 'paranormal' is irrelevant. Randi will pay up to
>anybody who can prove dowsing works.
But who would want to?
Picking your nose works. Does that need to be proved to someone in some
intricately contrived experiment with a carrot of money at the end?
Martin Bonner
> Lobster <davidlobsterpot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Red herring - the term 'paranormal' is irrelevant. Randi will pay up to
> >anybody who can prove dowsing works.
>
> But who would want to?
Someone who wants a million dollars. That is actually quite a lot of
people.
Bruce
>On Mar 24, 10:20=A0am, Bruce <n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> Lobster <davidlobsterpot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>to
>> >anybody who can prove dowsing works.
>>
>> But who would want to?
>
>Someone who wants a million dollars. That is actually quite a lot of
>people.
I think you meant "someone who wants a million dollars to do an
intricately contrived experiment that makes it impossible to prove
anything".
Not surprisingly, the number of takers for that is vanishingly small.
But my point is, who cares? Here's a technique that works quite
reliably, one that many people use successfully in their work. No-one
knows how or why it works, just that it does.
Who cares? Only the armchair critics. Ironically, some of those
critics might actually find it useful, but they let their prejudices get
in the way instead. ;-)
TheScullster
"Bruce" wrote
>
> I have plotted the line of a 22mm alkathene water pipe that was buried
> to a greater depth - it varied from 450 to 600mm approximately. It
> wasn't too difficult except where it crossed other buried services.
>
> My greatest successes were with buried live cables. They were
> relatively easy to find. A buried telephone cable was beyond my ability
> (or that of the technique) to find.
>
>
see how sensitive my "feel" at this can become.
Phil
Bruce
No, you can't do that!
First, you have to prove it scientifically to several people sitting in
armchairs, criticising. ;-)
Timothy Murphy
> Electromagnetic force is not beyond the scope of normal scientific
> understanding.
I take it that by "electromagnetic force" you mean the Lorentz force
F = q (E + v x B)
It is very easy to measure E and B.
> How does your electric drill rotate? You mean you don't understand?
Do you?
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
The Medway Handyman
> Martin Bonner <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mar 24, 10:20=A0am, Bruce <n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> Lobster <davidlobsterpot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Red herring - the term 'paranormal' is irrelevant. =A0Randi will
>>>> pay up = to anybody who can prove dowsing works.
>>>
>>> But who would want to?
>>
>> Someone who wants a million dollars. That is actually quite a lot of
>> people.
>
>
> I think you meant "someone who wants a million dollars to do an
> intricately contrived experiment that makes it impossible to prove
> anything".
Its simply a scientifically controlled test that will prove a claim one way
or another. It would conclusively prove or disprove a claim, not make it
impossible.
> Not surprisingly, the number of takers for that is vanishingly small.
Ferzacerly! Easy enough to claim you have certain abilities, very difficult
to prove that you have.
>
> But my point is, who cares? Here's a technique that works quite
> reliably, one that many people use successfully in their work. No-one
> knows how or why it works, just that it does.
It doesn't work reliably. The Kassel Dowsing Test showed conclusively that
the results are no better than chance.
>
> Who cares? Only the armchair critics. Ironically, some of those
> critics might actually find it useful, but they let their prejudices
> get in the way instead. ;-)
Give me a CAT scanner anyday thanks. We know how they work & can measure
results.
Bruce
I make no such claim.
The Medway Handyman
"I have plotted the line of a 22mm alkathene water pipe that was buried
to a greater depth - it varied from 450 to 600mm approximately. It
wasn't too difficult except where it crossed other buried services.
My greatest successes were with buried live cables. They were
relatively easy to find."
Sounds like a claim to me.
Bruce
>Bruce wrote:
>> "The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Easy enough to claim you have certain abilities
>>
>>
>> I make no such claim.
>
>"I have plotted the line of a 22mm alkathene water pipe that was buried
>to a greater depth - it varied from 450 to 600mm approximately. It
>wasn't too difficult except where it crossed other buried services.
>
>My greatest successes were with buried live cables. They were
>relatively easy to find."
>
>Sounds like a claim to me.
It's a statement of fact, not a claim of any kind.
The only person making claims is you. From your armchair, you claim
dowsing doesn't work.
Meanwhile, every day around Britain, people working for national
agencies, local authorities, major PLCs such as water companies,
consultants and contractors along with many smaller firms are routinely
using dowsing as a technique to help them find buried services. They
use other techniques too, but dowsing is a reliable and well established
method that has been shown to work very well in a wide range of
conditions.
Meanwhile, you claim it doesn't work. From an armchair!
You make me laugh. ;-)
PCPaul
> The only person making claims is you. From your armchair, you claim
> dowsing doesn't work.
>
> Meanwhile, every day around Britain, people working for national
> agencies, local authorities, major PLCs such as water companies,
> consultants and contractors along with many smaller firms are routinely
> using dowsing as a technique to help them find buried services. They
> use other techniques too, but dowsing is a reliable and well established
> method that has been shown to work very well in a wide range of
> conditions.
>
> Meanwhile, you claim it doesn't work. From an armchair!
>
> You make me laugh. ;-)
Go ahead, go claim your $million. Should be easy.
Or at least say why you think the experiment isn't a valid test?
Here's the details <http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/>
BTW, compared to all the ghosty-crap that my other half avidly watches,
dowsing does seem to be the most plausible and least deliberate rip-off
of all the varieties of unexplained phenomenon. I'd love it to work, I
really would.
Show me a true double blind test, and I'll believe it. Anything less, and
it didn't happen.
Bruce
>
>BTW, compared to all the ghosty-crap that my other half avidly watches,
>dowsing does seem to be the most plausible and least deliberate rip-off
>of all the varieties of unexplained phenomenon. I'd love it to work, I
>really would.
>
>Show me a true double blind test, and I'll believe it. Anything less, and
>it didn't happen.
Tell that to the thousands of people who do it, and to the major PLCs
and public bodies that they work for, who benefit from the results.
From the comfort of your armchair, of course. ;-)
Jules
> dowsing doesn't work.
Maybe there's no water under his armchair ;)
The Medway Handyman
> "The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Bruce wrote:
>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Easy enough to claim you have certain abilities
>>>
>>>
>>> I make no such claim.
>>
>> "I have plotted the line of a 22mm alkathene water pipe that was
>> buried to a greater depth - it varied from 450 to 600mm
>> approximately. It wasn't too difficult except where it crossed
>> other buried services.
>>
>> My greatest successes were with buried live cables. They were
>> relatively easy to find."
>>
>> Sounds like a claim to me.
>
>
> It's a statement of fact, not a claim of any kind.
????? You are clearly claiming the ability to find water pipes & cables.
If you can do that under controlled conditions you are in for a load of
money. But you can't. That you chose to delude yourself doesn't provide
any evidence that dowsing works.
>
> The only person making claims is you. From your armchair, you claim
> dowsing doesn't work.
Why would I use a PC from an armchair? I don't actually have an armchair.
> Meanwhile, every day around Britain, people working for national
> agencies, local authorities, major PLCs such as water companies,
> consultants and contractors along with many smaller firms are
> routinely using dowsing as a technique to help them find buried
> services. They use other techniques too, but dowsing is a reliable
> and well established method that has been shown to work very well in
> a wide range of conditions.
Dowsing has been subjected to scientific studies where the dowsers
themselves chose the conditions. They acheived results no better than
chance. It does not work reliably.
> Meanwhile, you claim it doesn't work. From an armchair!
>
> You make me laugh. ;-)
I'd rather make you think.
The Medway Handyman
Evidence? Other that apocryphal stories?
> From the comfort of your armchair, of course. ;-)
Ad hominem attack on an armchair. Very good. Are you willing to be
subjected to a double blind test or not?
The answer will be no, and you will justify that with weasel words about how
it can't be tested.
I have the ability to fly around the room a foot above the floor. Done it
loads of times. All my mates confirm I can do it. Do you believe me?
Grimly Curmudgeon
<jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> saying something like:
Fresh incontinence bag.
Grimly Curmudgeon
something like:
>Meanwhile, every day around Britain, people working for national
>agencies, local authorities, major PLCs such as water companies,
>consultants and contractors along with many smaller firms are routinely
>using dowsing as a technique to help them find buried services.
Yada yada yada.
Half the time the dowsers turn up and don't find what they're supposed
to. You never mentioned that.
Timothy Murphy
> BTW. I do believe in climate change, its been going on for thousands of
> years. I don't believe its man made.
Do you mean that you don't believe human activity has increased
the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
Or do you believe that it has, but that this has had no effect?
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College Dublin
The Medway Handyman
> The Medway Handyman wrote:
>
>> BTW. I do believe in climate change, its been going on for
>> thousands of years. I don't believe its man made.
>
> Do you mean that you don't believe human activity has increased
> the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
Not necessarily no.
> Or do you believe that it has, but that this has had no effect?
I think the climate is changing because it does so every now & then and
always has. The Thames used to freeze over regularly for example & we
didn't have 20+ million cars on the roads. Thats the black swan IMV.
If the carbon dioxide levels are increasing, that might be caused by climate
change, but I don't believe its causing climate change.
I'm highly skeptical of the environmental lobby which has now become an
industry.
Timothy Murphy
>>> BTW. I do believe in climate change, its been going on for
>>> thousands of years. I don't believe its man made.
>>
>> Do you mean that you don't believe human activity has increased
>> the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
>
> Not necessarily no.
There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels have been increasing
over the last 100 years
(see eg <http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm>)
The level has been increasing steadily at a little over 2ppm for 50 years
from February 2004 to February 2009 it increased from 376 to 386ppm:
<http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/
noaa-global-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-2008/>.
In my view there is no plausible explanation for this except human activity.
If the activity were periodic then the period must be much shorter
than any other plausible terrestrial or solar-system cause.
> I think the climate is changing because it does so every now & then and
> always has. The Thames used to freeze over regularly for example & we
> didn't have 20+ million cars on the roads.
Not really relevant, but I don't think the Thames used to freeze regularly
within historical records.
Pepys records it freezing over, but it seems pretty clear from his diary
that this was a very unusual event.
Having said that, there is obviously a periodic variation in temperature.
There are ice-ages roughly every 100,000 years,
with warm periods of about 10,000 years in between.
(See eg <http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf>
for a very interesting article by Freeman Dyson,
who is a well-known sceptic on the global warming issue,
but who accepts that human activity has made a big difference.
He points out incidentally that we are on the point of a new ice age.
His view - roughly - is that the effects of global warming are not as bad
as the pessimists say.)
The Medway Handyman
> The Medway Handyman wrote:
>
>>>> BTW. I do believe in climate change, its been going on for
>>>> thousands of years. I don't believe its man made.
>>>
>>> Do you mean that you don't believe human activity has increased
>>> the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
>>
>> Not necessarily no.
>
> There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels have been increasing
> over the last 100 years
> (see eg <http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm>)
> The level has been increasing steadily at a little over 2ppm for 50
> years from February 2004 to February 2009 it increased from 376 to
> 386ppm: <http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/
> noaa-global-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-2008/>.
>
> In my view there is no plausible explanation for this except human
> activity. If the activity were periodic then the period must be much
> shorter
> than any other plausible terrestrial or solar-system cause.
>
>> I think the climate is changing because it does so every now & then
>> and always has. The Thames used to freeze over regularly for
>> example & we didn't have 20+ million cars on the roads.
>
> Not really relevant, but I don't think the Thames used to freeze
> regularly within historical records.
AD250, 903, 1408, 1435, 1506, 1514, 1537, 1565, 1595, 1608, 1621, 1635,
1649, 1655, 1663, 1666, 1677, 1684, 1695, 1709, 1716, 1740, 1768, 1776,
1785, 1788, 1795, and 1814.
1666 drought which exacerbated great fire of London, 1697 hailstones 60 mm
in diameter, 1703
Britain's worst ever storm, 17,000 trees down in Kent, 1836 avalanche of
snow killed eight people at Lewes, 1902 - 56 hours of continuous rain.
UK population (approximate figures) in 1570 was around 4.8 million rising to
8.3 million in 1801. Certainly not enough human activity to make much
difference.
Mr Benz didn't invent the infernal combustion engine till 1885, so I don't
think we can blame vehicle polution.
Climate change is nothing new at all and occurs regardless of the size of
the human population.
This 'black swan' is of course inconvenient to those who earn their living
from Eco - FUD, so is ignored.
Timothy Murphy
>>>>> BTW. I do believe in climate change, its been going on for
>>>>> thousands of years. I don't believe its man made.
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean that you don't believe human activity has increased
>>>> the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
>>>
>>> Not necessarily no.
>>
>> There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels have been increasing
>> over the last 100 years
>> (see eg <http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm>)
>> The level has been increasing steadily at a little over 2ppm for 50
>> years from February 2004 to February 2009 it increased from 376 to
>> 386ppm: <http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/
>> noaa-global-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-2008/>.
>>
>> In my view there is no plausible explanation for this except human
>> activity. If the activity were periodic then the period must be much
>> shorter
>> than any other plausible terrestrial or solar-system cause.
You don't seem to me to have responded to this.
Do you or do you not agree that the proportion of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere has increased greatly during the last 100 years?
If you do agree, do you think that this increase is due to human activity?
> Climate change is nothing new at all and occurs regardless of the size of
> the human population.
Does anyone argue that the climate was not changing before 1850?
You have to analyse changes, if you can, into components
with different periods.
The Medway Handyman
> The Medway Handyman wrote:
>
>>>>>> BTW. I do believe in climate change, its been going on for
>>>>>> thousands of years. I don't believe its man made.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean that you don't believe human activity has increased
>>>>> the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily no.
>>>
>>> There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels have been increasing
>>> over the last 100 years
>>> (see eg <http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm>)
>>> The level has been increasing steadily at a little over 2ppm for 50
>>> years from February 2004 to February 2009 it increased from 376 to
>>> 386ppm: <http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/
>>> noaa-global-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-2008/>.
>>>
>>> In my view there is no plausible explanation for this except human
>>> activity. If the activity were periodic then the period must be much
>>> shorter
>>> than any other plausible terrestrial or solar-system cause.
>
> You don't seem to me to have responded to this.
I rather thought I had, but you appear to have ignored it.
> Do you or do you not agree that the proportion of carbon dioxide
> in the atmosphere has increased greatly during the last 100 years?
First of all, 100 years is far too short a period for a serious study. A
bit like those cosmetic adverts which claim that "79% of woman agreed",
which seems fine until the small print reveals the study was on 129 woman.
We simply don't have enough data. 100 years is a millisecond compared to
the existance of planet earth. Ice core samples fail to impress me.
Typicically you have ignored the black swan argument. Inconvenient I know,
but entirely relevant.
You don't seem to have responded to the data showing that violent climate
change is a natural occurance.
> If you do agree, do you think that this increase is due to human activity?
Not at all. As I have already pointed out, the climate change in the past
could not have been caused by human activity simply because there were not
enough humans about.
>> Climate change is nothing new at all and occurs regardless of the
>> size of the human population.
>
> Does anyone argue that the climate was not changing before 1850?
> You have to analyse changes, if you can, into components
> with different periods.
Climate is always changing, precisely my point. Now however we have 'new
puritans' claiming that we are all doomed because of our evil capitalist
ways. We have an ecofud industry who have a vested interest in promoting
doom & gloom.
We now have every university dependant on its funding into ecobollox, every
govmint quango having an environmental advisor, every local council having
an environmental team, every newspaper or media outlet having an
environmental correspondent. We have politicians eager to grasp political
advantage on environmental issues, dispite their zero knowledge of the basic
science.
Vested interests should be examined here.
Timothy Murphy
>>>> There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels have been increasing
>>>> over the last 100 years
>>>> (see eg <http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm>)
>>>> The level has been increasing steadily at a little over 2ppm for 50
>>>> years from February 2004 to February 2009 it increased from 376 to
>>>> 386ppm: <http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/
>>>> noaa-global-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-2008/>.
>>>>
>>>> In my view there is no plausible explanation for this except human
>>>> activity. If the activity were periodic then the period must be much
>>>> shorter
>>>> than any other plausible terrestrial or solar-system cause.
>>
>> You don't seem to me to have responded to this.
>
> I rather thought I had, but you appear to have ignored it.
The only response you seemed to make was:
------------------------------------------------
>>> Do you mean that you don't believe human activity has increased
>>> the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
>> Not necessarily no.
------------------------------------------------
which was ambiguous at best.
>> Do you or do you not agree that the proportion of carbon dioxide
>> in the atmosphere has increased greatly during the last 100 years?
>
> First of all, 100 years is far too short a period for a serious study. A
> bit like those cosmetic adverts which claim that "79% of woman agreed",
> which seems fine until the small print reveals the study was on 129 woman.
You are being silly.
100 years is a perfectly reasonable period to measure something
that is increasing by almost 1% each year.
I'm sure if someone told you that the level of a flood at your house
was rising by 10% an hour you would not reply that
10 hours was too short a time to consider.
> We simply don't have enough data. 100 years is a millisecond compared to
> the existance of planet earth. Ice core samples fail to impress me.
I didn't say anything about ice samples.
I was talking about the CO2 level.
>> If you do agree, do you think that this increase is due to human
activity?
>
> Not at all. As I have already pointed out, the climate change in the past
> could not have been caused by human activity simply because there were not
> enough humans about.
I didn't say anything about climate change.
I was talking about the CO2 level.
> Climate is always changing, precisely my point.
It may be your point, but it wasn't mine.
I was talking about the CO2 level.
> Now however we have 'new
> puritans' claiming that we are all doomed because of our evil capitalist
> ways. We have an ecofud industry who have a vested interest in promoting
> doom & gloom.
>
> We now have every university dependant on its funding into ecobollox,
every
> govmint quango having an environmental advisor, every local council having
> an environmental team, every newspaper or media outlet having an
> environmental correspondent. We have politicians eager to grasp political
> advantage on environmental issues, dispite their zero knowledge of the
basic
> science.
>
> Vested interests should be examined here.
You are losing track of yourself.
The Medway Handyman
> The Medway Handyman wrote:
>
>>>>> There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels have been
>>>>> increasing over the last 100 years
>>>>> (see eg <http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm>)
>>>>> The level has been increasing steadily at a little over 2ppm for
>>>>> 50 years from February 2004 to February 2009 it increased from
>>>>> 376 to 386ppm: <http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/
>>>>> noaa-global-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-2008/>.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my view there is no plausible explanation for this except human
>>>>> activity. If the activity were periodic then the period must be
>>>>> much shorter
>>>>> than any other plausible terrestrial or solar-system cause.
>>>
>>> You don't seem to me to have responded to this.
>>
>> I rather thought I had, but you appear to have ignored it.
>
> The only response you seemed to make was:
> ------------------------------------------------
>>>> Do you mean that you don't believe human activity has increased
>>>> the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
>
>>> Not necessarily no.
> ------------------------------------------------
> which was ambiguous at best.
If you choose to ignore the rest of the post I suppose it is.
>>> Do you or do you not agree that the proportion of carbon dioxide
>>> in the atmosphere has increased greatly during the last 100 years?
>>
>> First of all, 100 years is far too short a period for a serious
>> study. A bit like those cosmetic adverts which claim that "79% of
>> woman agreed", which seems fine until the small print reveals the
>> study was on 129 woman.
>
> You are being silly.
> 100 years is a perfectly reasonable period to measure something
> that is increasing by almost 1% each year.
How did they measure CO2 levels in 1909 then?
> I'm sure if someone told you that the level of a flood at your house
> was rising by 10% an hour you would not reply that
> 10 hours was too short a time to consider.
Entirely different scenario. Don't be ridiculous.
>> We simply don't have enough data. 100 years is a millisecond
>> compared to the existance of planet earth. Ice core samples fail to
>> impress me.
>
> I didn't say anything about ice samples.
> I was talking about the CO2 level.
>
>>> If you do agree, do you think that this increase is due to human
>>> activity?
>>
>> Not at all. As I have already pointed out, the climate change in
>> the past could not have been caused by human activity simply because
>> there were not enough humans about.
>
> I didn't say anything about climate change.
> I was talking about the CO2 level.
>
>> Climate is always changing, precisely my point.
>
> It may be your point, but it wasn't mine.
> I was talking about the CO2 level.
<Sigh> Go on then, make your point about CO2 levels again, I'm loosing
interest. But I would like to know how they measured CO2 levels 100 years
ago - and indeed why they would have bothered. You also claim they measured
them in 1959 - same question applies.
Timothy Murphy
>>> Climate is always changing, precisely my point.
>>
>> It may be your point, but it wasn't mine.
>> I was talking about the CO2 level.
>
> <Sigh> Go on then, make your point about CO2 levels again, I'm loosing
> interest. But I would like to know how they measured CO2 levels 100 years
> ago - and indeed why they would have bothered. You also claim they
measured
> them in 1959 - same question applies.
I'm afraid you are showing a lack of knowledge of scientific history.
100 years ago, ie in 1909, it would have been a classroom exercise
to determine the composition of the air.
Every chemistry schoolbook would have given the figures.
The NPL (National Physical Laboratory) was already analysing
every conceivable material to within parts per million.
If you look up Arrhenius, you will find he was already
considering global warming through carbon dioxide emissions
in the nineteenth century.
Old Git
Some fairly interesting stuff here.
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html
Of course, the ecobollox devotees will never give up on their half
baked theories and very guickly forget was they have previously
preached. When they started spouting forth with their ill thought
through mantras, they were informing us with 150% certainty that we
were heading to doomsville in very short order. Why? because we were
all using too many CFCs and this was the major cause of global
warming, because the CFCs had made a massive hole in the ozone layer.
This, they assured us in their usual feverish manner, would eventually
lead to the end of the earth because this hole in the ozone layer
would never heal but if we gave up using CFCs we could, at least, slow
the process down. Two or three years back now, the very scientists who
had at first supplied the figures to the ecoturds, released a low key
statement to the effect that the hole in the ozone layer had in fact
been repaired and was no longer a factor.
That wasn't going to mollifiy the terminally dim of the "Doom sayers"
was it? No, they very quietly dropped their previous assertions that
we were all going to hell on an aerosol and cast around for another
half cocked theory to replace it and they came up with carbon dioxide.
No scientific explanation to back up their theory, just bald
statements that, as usual, they know best.
Unfortunately, the average Joe in the modern street rarely has the
basic education to to question these theories, the youngsters of today
blithely soak up all of the misinformation pumped into them by todays
so called educators. Yes, those who were poorly educated since the
late sixties and are now teachers (Not all of them but many) also
believe every little theory proposed by the doomsayers and in turn,
force their propoganda on to the kids, who know no better at their
tender age and believe everything the teachers tell them.
The Medway Handyman
> The Medway Handyman wrote:
>
>>>> Climate is always changing, precisely my point.
>>>
>>> It may be your point, but it wasn't mine.
>>> I was talking about the CO2 level.
>>
>> <Sigh> Go on then, make your point about CO2 levels again, I'm
>> loosing interest. But I would like to know how they measured CO2
>> levels 100 years ago - and indeed why they would have bothered. You
>> also claim they measured them in 1959 - same question applies.
>
> I'm afraid you are showing a lack of knowledge of scientific history.
> 100 years ago, ie in 1909, it would have been a classroom exercise
> to determine the composition of the air.
> Every chemistry schoolbook would have given the figures.
I'm afraid you are showing a lack of knowledge of social history. Education
wasn't even compulsory until 1918, so I'm bloody sure they didn't have fully
equipped labs with air quality monitoring equipment.
> If you look up Arrhenius, you will find he was already
> considering global warming through carbon dioxide emissions
> in the nineteenth century.
I just have. Fourth rate degree, universaly disliked by his peers, involved
in bent Nobel Prizes for his mates and the inspiration for Nazi racial
hygiene. Sounds like a nice bloke.
Rod
<>
>
> I'm afraid you are showing a lack of knowledge of social history. Education
> wasn't even compulsory until 1918, so I'm bloody sure they didn't have fully
> equipped labs with air quality monitoring equipment.
<>
>
education compulsory from 1880, or at least that is wot my eddication
telled me. (With a bit of looking as the dates were not at my fingertips.)
--
Rod
Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
<www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsupportthyroid.org>
Timothy Murphy
>>>>> Climate is always changing, precisely my point.
>>>>
>>>> It may be your point, but it wasn't mine.
>>>> I was talking about the CO2 level.
>>>
>>> <Sigh> Go on then, make your point about CO2 levels again, I'm
>>> loosing interest. But I would like to know how they measured CO2
>>> levels 100 years ago - and indeed why they would have bothered. You
>>> also claim they measured them in 1959 - same question applies.
>>
>> I'm afraid you are showing a lack of knowledge of scientific history.
>> 100 years ago, ie in 1909, it would have been a classroom exercise
>> to determine the composition of the air.
>> Every chemistry schoolbook would have given the figures.
>
> I'm afraid you are showing a lack of knowledge of social history.
Education
> wasn't even compulsory until 1918, so I'm bloody sure they didn't have
fully
> equipped labs with air quality monitoring equipment.
I don't see what universal education has to do with it.
Your claim, as far as I can see, is that it would have been difficult
to measure CO2 levels in 1909.
I'm telling you that it would have been a trivial task
in the chemistry department of any university at the time.
Faraday was attending Davy's lectures on chemistry 100 years earlier.
It is not relevant to this point, but I believe most grammar schools
and major "public schools" in the UK would have had science laboratories
of some kind in 1909.
Timothy Murphy
>>>>> There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels have been increasing
>>>>> over the last 100 years
>>>>> (see eg <http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm>)
>>>>> The level has been increasing steadily at a little over 2ppm for 50
>>>>> years from February 2004 to February 2009 it increased from 376 to
>>>>> 386ppm: <http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/
>>>>> noaa-global-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-2008/>.
> Some fairly interesting stuff here.
>
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html
If you read this yourself, you would see that the crank
who wrote the article, far from disputing what I said,
namely that the CO2 level has been rising for 100 years,
took this as the starting point for his rant.
His argument, if you can call it that, is that
global warming is a good thing because we are entering an ice age -
a point (the imminent ice age) that I made myself earlier in this thread.
> Of course, the ecobollox devotees will never give up on their half
> baked theories and very guickly forget was they have previously
> preached. When they started spouting forth with their ill thought
> through mantras, they were informing us with 150% certainty that we
> were heading to doomsville in very short order.
...
> Unfortunately, the average Joe in the modern street rarely has the
> basic education to to question these theories, the youngsters of today
> blithely soak up all of the misinformation pumped into them by todays
> so called educators. Yes, those who were poorly educated since the
> late sixties and are now teachers (Not all of them but many) also
> believe every little theory proposed by the doomsayers and in turn,
> force their propoganda on to the kids, who know no better at their
> tender age and believe everything the teachers tell them.
As a matter of interest, since you are evidently
a person of superior intellect, do you believe that the CO2 level is rising?
That was the only point I made, in response to a poster who denied this.
I didn't say anything about the consequences, if any, of the increase.
The Medway Handyman
> The Medway Handyman wrote:
>
>>>>>> Climate is always changing, precisely my point.
>>>>>
>>>>> It may be your point, but it wasn't mine.
>>>>> I was talking about the CO2 level.
>>>>
>>>> <Sigh> Go on then, make your point about CO2 levels again, I'm
>>>> loosing interest. But I would like to know how they measured CO2
>>>> levels 100 years ago - and indeed why they would have bothered.
>>>> You also claim they measured them in 1959 - same question applies.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid you are showing a lack of knowledge of scientific
>>> history. 100 years ago, ie in 1909, it would have been a classroom
>>> exercise to determine the composition of the air.
>>> Every chemistry schoolbook would have given the figures.
>>
>> I'm afraid you are showing a lack of knowledge of social history.
>> Education wasn't even compulsory until 1918, so I'm bloody sure they
>> didn't have fully equipped labs with air quality monitoring
>> equipment.
>
> I don't see what universal education has to do with it.
>
> Your claim, as far as I can see, is that it would have been difficult
> to measure CO2 levels in 1909.
> I'm telling you that it would have been a trivial task
> in the chemistry department of any university at the time.
Oh? A while ago it was; "100 years ago, ie in 1909, it would have been a
classroom exercise
to determine the composition of the air. Every chemistry schoolbook would
have given the figures".
Now its " a trivial task in the chemistry department of any university at
the time".
Typical ecobollox. Change/ignore the facts if they don't support your
cause.
Exactly who measured & recorded the figures showing "There is overwhelming
evidence that CO2 levels have been increasing over the last 100 years"?
The Medway Handyman
> The Medway Handyman wrote:
> <>
>>
>> I'm afraid you are showing a lack of knowledge of social history.
>> Education wasn't even compulsory until 1918, so I'm bloody sure they
>> didn't have fully equipped labs with air quality monitoring
>> equipment.
> <>
>>
> Elementary Education Act 1870 (Forster's Education Act) was used to
> make education compulsory from 1880, or at least that is wot my
> eddication telled me. (With a bit of looking as the dates were not at
> my fingertips.)
The 1918 Education Act made attendance at school compulsory up to the age of
14 years.
The Medway Handyman
> Old Git wrote:
>
>>>>>> There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 levels have been
>>>>>> increasing over the last 100 years
>>>>>> (see eg <http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm>)
>>>>>> The level has been increasing steadily at a little over 2ppm for
>>>>>> 50 years from February 2004 to February 2009 it increased from
>>>>>> 376 to 386ppm: <http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/
>>>>>> noaa-global-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-2008/>.
>
>> Some fairly interesting stuff here.
>>
> http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html
>
> If you read this yourself, you would see that the crank
> who wrote the article, far from disputing what I said,
> namely that the CO2 level has been rising for 100 years,
> took this as the starting point for his rant.
Typical ecobollox again. Anyone not sharing your opinion is a crank.
<SNIP>
>
> As a matter of interest, since you are evidently
> a person of superior intellect, do you believe that the CO2 level is
> rising? That was the only point I made, in response to a poster who
> denied this.
> I didn't say anything about the consequences, if any, of the increase.
Its clearly a leading question though isnt it? You desperately want someone
to say that CO2 levels are rising so you can jump in with a clever point.
Twat.
Roger
from Old Git <mi...@NOMEAThocklesgate.freeserve.co.uk> contains these words:
> Some fairly interesting stuff here.
> http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html
Only trouble is it is little more than a pack of lies.
The lines below are an attempt to separate the content copied from the
cite above from my response.
------------------------------------------
"The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever since;
it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures
touched 1980 levels."
------------------------------------------
1998 was an extreme year out of keeping both with what went before and
what came after and remains the highest figure so far but 2005 is higher
than all the recent years bar 1998. Up until 2005 the trend was very
definitely up and those who would argue otherwise on the basis of the
1998 extreme are intellectually dishonest.
According to the Met Office figures the drop from 2006 to 2007 was
marginal and one of the smallest annual changes in a record stretching
back to 1850. While the drop from 2007 to 2008 was considerable it was
less than half the drop from 1998 to 1999 leaving 2008 still one of the
hottest years in the record with only 1997, 1998 and 2001 - 2007 hotter.
It is not clear what prompted the comment about the 1980s. Even 1990,
which (depending on viewpoint) may or may not be part of the 1980s, was
the local peak, was lower than 2008.
As I have said before when this topic came up there are a number of
occasions in the past were the average temperature declined for several
years and it will be several years more before we can be reasonably
certain whether or not the average temperature is on a downward trend
from the mid 2000s.
--------------------------------------
"Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center
released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to
1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that
its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.
In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming,
the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an aside, do you
remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica?
But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the nineties."
---------------------------------------
The Arctic ice has been thinning for years as well as receding in area
so I think this paragraph is just wishful thinking. Recent news reports
of the rapid recession of the Antarctic floating ice shelves would
reinforce that viewpoint.
One of the predictions for a warmer Antarctic is for greater
precipitation so Tomlinson could be basing this on a report of increased
depth of ground cover in some areas of the Antarctic continent but what
on earth has the ozone hole got to do with global warming. The scare was
all about the increased risk of skin cancer which as far as I know is
still a seasonal problem in the far South.
--
Roger Chapman
seanwi...@googlemail.com
> What the best (but cheapest) way of tracing a mains water pipe in the
> ground on private property.
>
> Is ther any thing I can buy, relatively cheaply ??
Anyone just reading this now, re plastic water pipe, if you an an idea were it is likely to be you can use fencing wire to gauge the length, curl the end of the wire round neatly and tape it so it does not chafe the pipe, disconect the mdpe pipe at a accessible point and feed the wire down, if there are no other services near such as cables you may with a good detector be able to find the wire, alternatively hire a 'CAT SCAN and GENNY' you connect the genny to the fencing wire or other wire you have put down the pipe, this generates a radio signal and the cat scan detects this very easily, playing with this i managed to locate a 32mm mdpe plastic pipe all the way from my house under the garage floor and across my paddock for about 50yds the pipe was burried 2 feet down, 3 feet under the paddock. you can also locate plastic drains this way. Where i drew my line maker paint when i dug the hole it was within 2" of my line
Tim+
incoming mains but no idea where the pipe runs as the house has been
extended many times.
Tim
--
Please don't feed the trolls
Brian Gaff
Brian
--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
<seanwi...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:df1bffdc-45c3-4d97...@googlegroups.com...
Brian Gaff
suddenly show up a wet spot near the leak if its been leaking for some time.
Unfortunately if it goes under buildings... ouch.
--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
news:2015534661.549666812.967140.tim.downie-gmail.com@news.individual.net...