Help me find my well?

[FamilyWiggs]

I'm convinced there must have been a well supplying the house somewhere. How do I find it?

To recap:

I live in a Welsh farmhouse, at about 750ft and on a slope. Rock is popping up all over the place and the soil is not particularly deep in many places. There are Victorian (or earlier) cattle sheds and I am surrounded by fields for livestock. There is no stream except in the bottom of the valley about half a mile away. There must have been a water supply for the house, because you don't build a large farmhouse halfway up a hill without water, surely.

There is a spring about three or four fields away and about 100ft below us. If this is the supply, why wasn't the house built closer to it?

I presume there must be a well sunk somewhere, and due to the rock around, I doubt it would need to be too deep.

How do I go about finding where it is/was? Would it have been far from the house?

 

[Jon Maine]

Have you tried dowsing?

Just bend a couple of steel coat hangers, welding rods whatever you have into an L shape hold them loosely, level and wander around. You can have hours of fun.

 

[JoceAndChris]

My great grandfather was a water diviner, I do believe I've inherited the gift so I'll pop over sometime with my forked stick.

Can springs and streams move and dry up? The whole of this hill is covered in springs, at certain times in winter they erupt and you can walk all the way into town through a stream. Keep an eye on your hill!

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Have you tried dowsing?

Just bend a couple of steel coat hangers, welding rods whatever you have into an L shape hold them loosely, level and wander around. You can have hours of fun.

But does it really work? I have a Corsican great-Aunt-in-law (stick with me here!) who has the "gift". Sadly, she totally failed to divine my lost wedding ring; despite being certain it was in a 1-ton bag of sand... it was fun shifting that back and forth! She's also failed to predict by crystal the gender of the last 4 babies born in the family - even on a 50:50 guess, you'd expect a better record!

So I'm not sure about this dowsing malarkey...

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Joce - thanks; might have to take you upon that!

As for streams - we've been here for 4 years now thorugh some pretty torrential weather, but no springsor streams have appeared,sadly.

I would just like an independent water supply - to go with my "stockpile guns, food and sandbags" approach to apocalyptic scenarios.

 

[MdB]

If anybody thinks that they can dowse fairly reliably (i.e. more than chance) then they can claim their $1,000,000 here:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/37-static/254-jref-challenge-faq.html
Yes, this is a legit offer, James Randi has been on the news many times.
Be warned though, various dowsers have tried the test and failed...

 

[Gareth Hughes]

On the other hand, Randi's almost as annoying a smug git as Dawkins. And if you read the small print, you'll see that he wants to set the rules of the challenge "by mutual agreement" - which means he can veto anything the other party suggests.

Dowsing works for water.

 

[MdB]

On the other hand, Randi's almost as annoying a smug git as Dawkins.

I think I would agree with you there.

Dowsing works for water.

He does have $1,000,000 though to say that you are wrong. Dowsing is bunk. Sorry.

 

[MdB]

And if you read the small print, you'll see that he wants to set the rules of the challenge "by mutual agreement" - which means he can veto anything the other party suggests.

The person making the claim decides on the method by which they are to be tested and the rules to go with it. The James Randi Educational Foundation will suggest changes that have to be agreed under mutual agreement however, this is done openly and most rational people with an open mind would consider them reasonable changes. I've not heard of JREF making any unreasonable demands.

2.1 Protocols must be “mutually agreed upon,” what does that mean?

Neither the Foundation nor the claimant can force a testing procedure without the approval of the other side. The testing procedure is a negotiation, and no one can put their foot down. If at any time it a deadlock is reached, the application process will be terminated, and neither side will be blamed or considered at fault.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

which, as I said, means he can veto anything the other party has suggested - by claiming "deadlock". I'm not sure how that situation arises without one party or the other putting their foot down, however, which apparently isn't allowed...

 

[Jon Maine]

Have you tried dowsing?

Just bend a couple of steel coat hangers, welding rods whatever you have into an L shape hold them loosely, level and wander around. You can have hours of fun.

But does it really work? I have a Corsican great-Aunt-in-law (stick with me here!) who has the "gift". Sadly, she totally failed to divine my lost wedding ring; despite being certain it was in a 1-ton bag of sand... it was fun shifting that back and forth! She's also failed to predict by crystal the gender of the last 4 babies born in the family - even on a 50:50 guess, you'd expect a better record!

So I'm not sure about this dowsing malarkey...

It can most certainly work in the right hands, interpretation is the skill, making the rods move can happen to many people. We found a major aquifer 36 metres down with it.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I've looked through the challenges posted on Randi.org's forum, where the pages MdB linked to lead to check that a challenge hasn't been made before, and find that the dowsers making the challenges are, with one exception, those who think they can find gold, coins, lost objects etc. The exception is an Australian who claimed to be able to dowse for power lines, and the James Randi Educational Foundation's representative replied - in part - as follows:

Based upon scientific advice I have received both here on the forum and elsewhere, JREF has rejected the power line claim (nothing paranormal there),

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=28111

So there you are, it's not bunk, according to Randi. Though the nature of the "scientific advice" isn't given. That's how "skeptics", or rather, out and out naysayers, work.

As far as I can tell, no-one has, as yet, claimed the million solely on the basis that they can find naturally-occuring water out in the real world by using a hazel twig or bent metal rods.

 

[MdB]

It can most certainly work in the right hands, interpretation is the skill, making the rods move can happen to many people. We found a major aquifer 36 metres down with it.

What where the odds of hitting water versus not hitting water? 10:1, 50:50. 1:10? If its 1:10 then do it twice in different locations and you would have only a 1% chance of success by chance alone. If you could do it by dowsing or any other method then that would easily pass the first stage test.

 

[MdB]

Putting wires next to power lines will cause electromagnetic coupling to occur. This isn't dowsing, it is basic physics. Differentiating between this effect and dowsing would be impossible (I guess) hence the reason for it being ruled out (I guess). To be honest, I'm not sure how a dowser would be able to detect power lines using bent wires. Can you do it?

Regarding water - Here is a test that was performed a while back. I've not watched it recently but I think part 3 is where it starts the test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpcFl23dmcQ

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Worth reading the whole of that thread I linked to. It doesn't seem to work in artificially-created situations. Besides which I wouldn't trust anything Randi was involved with as "proving" matters one way or t'other - he has an agenda of his own (like Dawkins) which has nothing to do with objective truth, even though I've no doubt he's convinced himself he's acting from the best of motives for the good of humanity.

But, for what little it's worth, dowsing is simply a scientifically-explicable means of finding water (and perhaps some other things), that happens not to have been fully scientifically explained yet. Just as rocks didn't scientifically fall from the sky until well into the nineteenth century (there's a good story about Lavoisier - or another member of the Academie Francaise, it's late and I can't be bothered to look it up - patronising the peasants who'd seen a meteorite come down, there are no rocks in the sky, therefore rocks can't fall out of the sky).

 

[Jon Maine]

I am certain it works, but there are people claiming extra powers than they have with it without a doubt.

 

[MdB]

I agree he has his own agenda and I'm not completely happy with the way some people with obvious mental problems are discussed. It doesn't seem quite right.

However, somebody is going to have to show some actual successful results in blind tests before I'm going to believe dowsing and other such stuff works. "It worked for me" isn't enough.

 

[Jon Maine]

It worked for me, the guy from the borehole company got the same readings in the same place I did and that's where we found water. We have found buried pipes with it before saving much work, give it a go surprise yourself

 

[Gareth Hughes]

How many times does it have to work in the field, without significant error, before the inability to reproduce the effect under lab conditions ceases to be relevant? That's the problem with "science" insisting on reproducibility in cases like dowsing. It definitely does work in real conditions, it doesn't work in lab ones.

I'm surprised by the buried pipes working though, but I can only suggest a sceptic (UK spelling) should try it themselves. And then not try to rationalise themselves out of their experience.

 

[Flyfisher]

'Lab conditions' doesn't necessarily mean an actual laboratory though. Plenty of good science can be done in the field, it just requires the use of repeatable conditions and control of variables. For example, ensuring the test subject isn't already familiar with the area being dowsed, has not previously researched the area, hasn't been told about an underground spring, blindfolded so they can't see the lie of the land perhaps, etc.