LRLs

Info

Projects

Patents

Reports

Industry

Links

References

$25,000 Reward

Request for Help

These are questions that pertain to the operation of, and the claims surrounding, LRLs and dowsing in general. They are answered from a skeptical point of view, and are useful to those who are just starting to look at dowsing, as well as those who want to know why I am skeptical of the practice and the devices being used in spite of some reported successes. Many of these questions are derived from discussions I've had on dowsing, some are from discussions between other people. I welcome any additional input or questions.

Q: I've read that dowsing goes way back, even to Biblical times. If it's been around this long, there must be something to it, right?

A: Fortune telling also goes way back, but that doesn't make it so. I've also read reports that state dowsing is mentioned in the Bible, but having read the entire Bible I did not find it. The Bible does mention divination, but the context clearly refers to fortune telling, not dowsing as it is practiced today. Some people point to Moses using a stick to find water, but the story in no way suggests he dowsed for the water and, in fact, clearly states that he did not.

Q: OK, what about other ancient uses? The Egyptians were dowsers, and there are ancient cave paintings of dowsers.

A: Some people believe the Ankh was used for dowsing, but there is also no evidence of this. It was basically just a good luck charm. As for cave art that depicts dowsers, I have yet to see a single published instance of this claim accompanied by a photograph of the supposed art. Cave paintings are notoriously crude and subject to misinterpretation, and one possibility is shown to the right. Click on the image for further information. If anyone can point me to other candidates, please let me know. There are many other references in history to the use of devices for divination but they are vague and more likely refer to fortune telling, not dowsing in the sense that it is used today. See the USGS report by Ellis.

Q: So when did dowsing start?

A: The first documented use of dowsing (that I've found) as it is currently practiced is in Agricola's De Re Metallica, 1556. In this he depicts German miners using forked sticks to locate gold deposits. There are supposedly earlier references, including mention by Martin Luther King in 1518, and perhaps slightly earlier. Most likely, modern dowsing originated in Germany in the late 15th century. However, it is an extension of divination (fortune telling) that goes back thousands of years.

Q: Didn't the Spanish use dowsing to locate gold and silver when they came to the New World?

A: I've read that the Spanish dowsed for silver in the Andes, and possibly for silver and gold elsewhere, but these claims were in treasure books, with no historical references. Keep in mind that early explorers (not just Spanish) mostly plundered the Aztec and Incan nations and took over their existing mining operations. I've yet to see any real historical descriptions of Spanish explorers (or any others) successfully using dowsing in the Americas. I'm still researching this and would appreciate any information, especially good references.

Q: Is it true that Albert Einstein stated that dowsing is an established scientific fact, and that he was an avid dowser?

A: There is no way to know everything that Einstein said or did, but one thing about him is sadly true: since his death, people have attributed all sorts of quotes to him in an effort to legitimize their particular fringe beliefs. There is absolutely no evidence that Einstein ever made any comments about dowsing, or that he ever had any interest in dowsing. As far as I can tell, this is one of those "a friend-of-a-friend told me" stories, and is probably not true. More importantly, the validity of dowsing (or anything else) is not at all affected by what anyone - even Einstein - believes about it. Einstein was wrong on more than one occasion: "There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." - Albert Einstein, 1932. Dowsing stands or falls based on the scientific evidence, not someone's authority.

Q: What about Nobel Laureate Charles Richet?

A: From what I've read, Richet was interested in the supernatural. He supposedly said that dowsing is a fact (perhaps this is where the Einstein mis-quote originated), although I've seen Richet quoted on this in various ways which usually indicates a problem with the source of the quote. Again, there have been, and probably still are, many well-educated people who believe in dowsing. But it is the evidence that matters, not what someone believes.

Q: Does dowsing really work?

A: In my opinion, no. The science community has investigated dowsing many times over the years (actually, centuries) and has failed to find any credible evidence that it works. Science has reached the (always) tentative conclusion that dowsing reactions are caused by a physiological phenomenon known as ideomotor action. The basis for the ideomotor action is usually autosuggestion.

Q: What is ideomotor action? What is autosuggestion?

A: Basically ideomotor action describes an involuntary muscular response. In dowsing, it is the minute, imperceptable movements of the arms and wrist that actually cause the rods to turn, or the pendulum to swing. Closely watch another dowser, and you can see this movement just before the rods move. Ideomotor action is also in effect when we write, and when we drive a car. Autosuggestion describes ideas or suggestions that cause a subconscious reaction. In the case of dowsing, the idea is that the rods will swing and align with a target line, and the subconscious reaction is the ideomotor action that makes the rods swing as a target line is crossed. Researchers have demonstrated autosuggestion in dowsers by suggesting opposite effects in two groups of dowsers and observing that each group obtained the effect that was suggested to them.

Q: Isn't it possible that something besides ideomotor action is responsible for the motion of the rods? Perhaps a force unknown to science?

A: It is highly unlikely that there are forces unknown to science that can cause something as heavy as a dowsing rod or a pendulum to move. Dowsing devices are inherently unstable and respond to even the slightest movement of the hand, in conjunction with gravity. Dowsing devices that are placed in a fixture (especially pendulums and L-rods) will never move on their own, even if a pound of gold is waved next to them. Some dowsers say that the body is part of the system and cannot be removed. In this case, a perfectly counter-balanced L-rod will demonstrate a complete failure to respond even when held by the dowser. Such experiments can easily prove that the devices are reacting to the dowser's movement, and not an unknown force.

Q: Isn't it true that people have successfully dowsed for treasure?

A: It's absolutely true that people who use dowsing devices have found things, including water, treasure, missing people, and even golf balls. It's also true that people who use nothing at all have found water, treasure, missing people, and golf balls, among other things. This is the most fundamental of all questions regarding dowsing, and cannot be answered in a reasonably short paragraph. Please read my (upcoming) article "Why Dowsing Works."

Q: Maybe dowsing is like playing the piano, it's a skill that requires a lot of practice. Some people can play the piano and some people cannot. Are you saying that just because you can't dowse, that no one else can either?

A: Playing a piano is a skill, but it's a skill that almost anyone can learn to a varying degree. Furthermore, it's a skill that anyone who has learned it can easily demonstrate, even under rigorous controls. Dowsing appears to work for most who try it, but no one is able to demonstrate any dowsing ability in a controlled test. Unlike piano playing, it only seems to work when no one is watching.

Q: There are a lot of mysteries in life, and science can't explain everything. Perhaps dowsing is one of those mysteries. Instead of trying to figure out why dowsing works, why not just use it?

A: Before trying to figure out why dowsing works, it's important to first show that it really does work. So far, this has not been done. In fact, tests have shown that it does not work, and that it is really a result of ideomotor action. Thus science has explained dowsing and this explanation has been retested and verified many times. In general, science provides the best methods of determining the veracity of claims.

Q: Why do you accept reports of recoveries using a metal detector, but dismiss reports of recoveries using an LRL?

A: The fundamental question is: does dowsing (or LRLs) work? Reports of recoveries using an LRL provide some interesting case studies but, in and of themselves, they are not acceptable as scientific evidence. They are referred to as "anecdotal evidence", and if science accepted such stories as real evidence then there would be no question as to whether aliens are among us, or whether psychics are for real. There is no question about the efficacy of metal detectors (they really do detect metal), but if there was then the recoveries made with them would be treated the same way, and proper scientific procedures would be used to evaluate operational claims.

Q: If people recover items with an LRL, and you say that LRLs don't work, then how did they succeed?

A: This is another complicated question, and is best answered in my (upcoming) article "Why Dowsing Works."

Q: If success stories are not good evidence, how can you scientifically show that it works or does not work?

A: By employing the same method that is used to determine the effectiveness of new drugs, namely double-blind testing. This is a fairly rigorous test method in which a dowser would attempt to locate a particular target hidden (or buried) in controlled manner.

Q: What is a double-blind test?

A: A blind test is where a person hides the target in the absence of the dowser but remains during the dowse to observe. The risk in this case is that the observer knows the location of the target and can unintentionally transmit clues (via body language) during the dowse. In a double-blind test, the person who hides the target and the dowser (who is looking for the target) are completely isolated from one another for the duration of the test. Both are "blind" to what the other is doing. A third person would typically observe the dowsing and record the results, but would also be isolated from the person hiding the target. The key component in a double-blind test is complete isolation between the concealment phase and the searching phase. There are usually additional controls to preclude cheating or inadvertant information leakage by either side.

Q: What do you mean by "information leakage"?

A: Suppose the person who hid the target is in full view of the dowser even though they don't communicate. As the dowser is searching for the target, the other person might inadvertantly give visual cues, such as fidgeting when the dowser is close to the target. This effect has been documented in tests.

Q: You have a double-blind test procedure on your web site -- is this the only valid test for LRLs/dowsing?

A: No. The real purpose of the test description is to provide an example of a proper double-blind protocol. There is no "one size fits all" test, in any investigation. As with any evaluation, you first determine what is to be tested, then design a test for it. Two important qualities of a test are that it should actually test a specific claim, and it should eliminate influences that can taint the results.

Q: Why do many dowsers and LRL users object to double-blind testing?

A: Basically, when they are subjected to controlled testing they fail (statistically) every time, and this is strong evidence that dowsing does not work. It is only in uncontrolled (or very loosly controlled) situations that dowsing sometimes seems to work.

Q: You said "statistically." What do you mean?

A: If you flip a coin once and correctly guess how it will land, are you psychic? No, because statistically you have a 50-50 chance of guessing correctly. If you are successful twice in a row, you have only beat 25-75 (1-in-4) odds. Do so 3 times, and you beat 1-in-8 odds. This is still not statistically significant, and can easily be done by anyone who has a few minutes to waste. What if you correctly predict 10 coin tosses? The raw odds of that are 1-in-1024 which seems pretty unlikely. But if you ask 1000 people to guess 10 coin flips, it's likely that one person in the group will guess all 10 correctly, while a majority will guess around half correctly. A good test will clearly differentiate claimed results, from success based on chance alone.

Q: If double blind tests do not replicate real field conditions, what good are they?

A: "Field conditions" translates into innumerable variables affecting operation. To properly develop and evaluate a technology, you would normally use test conditions whereby you can control as many variables as possible. This allows you to narrow down the scope of the test and focus on individual problems with minimal unknowns. Until an LRL (and dowsing in general) can succeed in controlled testing there is no point in adding more variables associated with field use. The additional variables won't make the LRL suddenly start working, when it did not before.

Q: Why can't I just practice with targets I place myself?

A: If you know where the targets are, that knowledge can affect your results. You cannot say whether your dowsing success is a result of that knowledge, or a result of a dowsing talent.

Q: Can I just get a friend to hide the targets?

A: Unless you are very familiar with the pitfalls of testing methodologies, you can easily miss something that will affect the results (information leakage). However, if you strictly follow a good test procedure that is prepared by someone familiar with the problems, then you can probably get meaningful results. The best test is a properly conducted double-blind test; second best is a pseudo-double-blind test involving one other person; a last resort is performing a self-test using strict controls on target randomization. See my (upcoming) "Testing Methods" page.

Q: Has anyone done any large-scale dowsing studies?

A: There have been several. One is called the Scheunen test (Germany) where several hundred dowsers were tested, the largest study to my knowledge. Another is the Kassel test, also in Germany.

Q: Did anyone succeed in those tests?

A: No, although the person conducting the Scheunen test, Dr. Betz, attempted to show success by using improper statistics. There were 10 possible locations, and basically he argued that if someone selected "2" but the answer was "9" it was a "hit" because 2 is the "mirror" location for 9.

Q: Has anyone ever passed a valid dowsing test?

A: Hard to say, because there is no real definition of a valid test. Different tests are developed to evaluate certain claims, and the quality of the tests vary according to the testing skills of the people developing them. Those who are not aware of the importance of double-blind protocol might inadvertantly leave a path of information leakage that taints the results. Tests that don't provide for a meaningful baseline also don't result in meaningful information. And many tests are not designed to give statistically meaningful results. So you can probably find plenty of dowsers who claim to have passed a dowsing test but, to my knowledge, no one has passed a professionally administered, statistically meaningful dowsing test.

Q: What about the Betz' report on dowsing in arid regions? Doesn't it conclusively show that dowsing works?

A: I've read the entire report and it focuses on a single dowser named Hans Schroeder. While the results seem to show success, there are two problems that subsequently have been identified by other researchers: a lack of proper controls in the tests, and a lack of a baseline with which to compare Schroeder's results. Also, Schroeder has since refused to be tested by another group, making this particular set of result unreproducible. A major tenet of science is that experimental results must be reproducible to attain verification.

Q: If no one has passed a "valid" dowsing test, couldn't you just as easily say that the tests were invalid?

A: No. Tests are usually developed to allow dowsing success if the phenomena exists, and to prevent other unrelated factors from causing the success. The tests are also usually developed with the help, and ultimate consensus, of the dowser, and should provide a baseline that shows success under wide-open conditions. It is easy to blame the test procedure when the dowser fails, but if the dowser was successful in the baseline test and failed in the normal test, then the dowser probably cannot dowse. However, the dowser should review the test to identify possible problems. Conversly, if the dowser passes a well-designed test then the test method should be reviewed for problems as well.

Q: Who is offering a $1 million prize for a successful demonstration of dowsing?

A: James Randi (and his organization, JREF) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Randi is a professional magician and is aware of the tricks used by frauds, as well as the psychological effects that trick the honest believers. He contends that dowsing is a trick of the mind and does not really work. He includes electronic-assisted LRLs in his definition of dowsing devices, so anyone who uses any type of dowsing device or LRL can qualify, regardless of their own personal beliefs about what they are doing. Tests are designed by both the contestant and JREF or its representative and must be considered fair by both sides to proceed. In theory, it should be an easy way to win a million dollars.

Q: Does a contestant have to travel to Florida? And how can Randi accommodate every dowser that wants to be tested?

A: He can't. Randi relies on a pre-test, where a contestant demonstrates his ability to someone who loosely represents JREF. Usually, a representive can be found near the contestant so the contestant does not have to travel at all. If the contestant passes the pre-test, then Randi will show up for a final test for the $1 million.

Q: I've heard the $1 million prize is not really there. Is that true?

A: In the early years the prize existed as pledges from individuals and, if someone won the challenge, Randi would pay $10,000 cash and would then have to collect the remainder from the pledgers to pay off. Now, the entire $1 million resides in a Goldman-Sachs account and can be verified. Contact JREF for further information.

Q: I've heard that James Randi cheats and will never award the prize. True?

A: A few people have accused Randi of cheating. In cases where Randi's honesty was legally challenged, he proved them wrong. Other claims of cheating are possibly cases of "sour grapes" as many people who really, honestly believe they have a psychic gift have failed, and quite a few frauds have been exposed. In any case, a prudent contestant should have a lawyer (and probably a statistician) review the rules and conditions of the contest and should also employ his own observer to ensure fairness. Before the test, both sides sign a legally binding contract, so if you succeed, you will get the million.

Q: I live in Australia and would like to take Randi's challenge. Will he come down under?

A: The Australian Skeptics is offering basically the same challenge, with a prize of $100,000.

Q: What does MFD mean?

A: "Molecular Frequency Discrimination." The concept is that all elements have a "natural frequency" and can be made to resonate with a signal generator tuned to the same frequency. By injecting the signal into the ground, a resonance "signal line" is established between the generator and the target, and this signal line can then be traced using dowsing rods.

Q: What is the nature of the signal line?

A: Different people believe it to be different things. Some say it's an electromagnetic signal, some say a magnetic signal, or even electrostatic. One dealer calls it "electrical magnetic," though I'm not sure what that means, and another dealer believes it is an audiowave phenomena. If it were any of these things, then there are conventional instruments that can detect them and could be used for tracing the signal rather than using dowsing rods. Also, each of the mentioned possibilities follow a well-known physical law that would preclude them from reaching a target even a few 10's of feet away, much less the oft-claimed mile range, and still be detectable.

Q: Has anyone been able to trace the signal line electronically?

A: One MFD manufacturer claims that he was witness to a group who successfully built and tested an all-electronic MFD, and has posted pictures of the device. No one has been able to independently verify his claim.

Q: What physical law limits the range?

A: Signals decay in strength as they propagate through a medium unless they are constrained to a narrow path. Sometimes signals are transmitted in a highly directional manner to maintain strength as much as possible (such as with a parabolic dish), and sometimes signals are more-or-less omnidirectional and rapidly decay (as with a dipole antenna). The reason that omnidirectional signals loose strength is that, as the energy propagates outward from the source, the same amount of energy gets spread out over a larger area. It's similar to blowing up a balloon - as the balloon gets bigger, the latex gets thinner. In electromagnetics, an omnidirectional signal strength decays with the square of the distance from the source, known as square-law decay. Thus a signal at 2 meters has 1/4 the strength as at 1 meter, and at 4 meters has 1/16 the strength. This is the reason metal detectors have a very limited depth.

Q: I thought that signals can travel infinite distances. For example, I can see stars that are billions of miles away. Why can't the MFD signal reach a distant target, even though it might be weak?

A: Because in most cases of signal propagation, there is a "noise floor" that limits how weak of a signal you can detect, and even how weak of a signal can exist. Stars are a good example. In remote, dark areas you can see a tremendous number of stars, but in the city you can see very few because the "light noise" from the city washes out the weaker stars. The same is true with electromagnetic signals, except that "thermal noise" limits the minimum detectable signal. Ultimately, signals below the noise floor are indistinguishable from the noise and therefore become part of the noise.

Q: What is an "audiowave" signal line?

A: One dealer believes that signal lines might be audio in nature and has experimented with piezo audio transmitters. His theory is that the audio signal induces a mechanical resonance in the target. Although audio tones can resonate certain objects (like in shattering a crystal goblet), this concept is untenable for LRLs because the target's shape has more to do with the resonant frequency and not it's substance (i.e., gold). Also, being in contact with soil will severely dampen any mechanical vibrations.

Q: Aren't there photos of signal lines?

A: A certain MFD manufacturer claims that the signal lines generated by his MFD have been photographed, and he show photos that have big orange lines across the ground. There are several problems here. First, the manufacturer refuses to disclose any information about how the photos were taken, or to allow anyone to see the prints (only poor-quality graphic images). The images that have been shown could have easily been made by touching up normal photographs and, in fact, a keen observer studied the photos and pointed out some characteristics consistent with "doctoring." Second, the photos supposedly show huge energy lines that extend for at least a mile. The source energy needed to create this would have been phenomenal. Third, cameras cannot photograph low-frequency electromagnetic energy, and if the energy line shown was infrared it would have caused visible burn damage. Fourth, if the photos were genuine then there would exist a technique for visually tracing a signal line straight to the target, obviating the need for dowsing rods, yet the manufacturer in question continues to use dowsing rods.

Q: Why do people believe signal lines exist?

A: MFDs are dowsing devices. As such, people who use them often experience the "dowsing response", which is usually a sensation that the device (or rods) is doing something on its own, such as moving or hesitating. Even though the real source of this sensation comes from the movement of the user's own hand, people assume that it is caused by an external influence. The appearance that the MFD responds as if there is an external influence, has manifested itself into a belief that the MFD is responding to an external influence. The belief of choice is the signal line.

Q: Is MFD based on real science?

A: It seems to be based on Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging, where a strong alternating magnetic field is used to resonate hydrogen isotopes for 3D imaging. While it's true that each element has an atomic frequency signature, it requires enormous amounts of magnetic energy to force the atoms to resonate, the frequencies are way higher than what MFD manufacturers are currently using, and it requires incredibly sensitive instruments to measure the results, not likely to be accomplished with dowsing rods. But this is atomic resonance, not molecular. An example of molecular resonance is water - microwave ovens vibrate water molecules at 2.4 GHz, but the actual resonance is closer to 25 GHz. So, yes, there is real science back there (way back there), but MFD is not even close to reality.

Q: So each element has an atomic frequency signature; why can't this be used to detect the element?

A: Each element has what is called an "NMR" frequency. This is the element's precession frequency under certain conditions, namely the strength of the ambient magnetic field. Hydrogen, for example, has an NMR frequency of 42.576 MHz/Tesla. For Earth's magnetic field of 50uT (typical), the precession frequency is a little over 2kHz. This fact is used in proton magnetometers, where water (the source of hydrogen atoms) is magnetically energized and allowed to precess at 2kHz. But this only works when the water is placed inside a very strong pulsed magnetic field; it would not work remotely. Medical NMR works the same way; the patient has to be inside the super-magnet. Elements that are just sitting around do not broadcast these frequencies on their own, they must be strongly energized.

Q: What is inside the MFD transmitter?

A: Usually an oscillator of some sort. Some MFDs use an off-the-shelf function generator, but many have very simple (and incredibly inexpensive) oscillators using an "8038", "XR2206", or "555" chip, or use a crystal oscillator. The frequency can often be set to one of several values (corresponding to the element you want to detect) and the output waveform is connected to the ground probes. Frequencies used are almost always hundreds of Hertz to a few kiloHertz which, interstingly, places the transmitter below the frequencies regulated by the FCC.

Q: Why can't this circuitry energize remote targets?

A: NMR requires extremely high magnetic field strengths that completely envelope the target. These circuits are not capable of doing that. Even allowing for some other kind of field stimulation, MFD signals won't travel beyond a few feet.

Q: Are crystal-controlled MFD transmitters better than others?

A: No. A crystal oscillator has a very precise frequency, usually specified with an error in "parts-per-million" (PPM), with 20 PPM being a high quality figure. This means a 1MHz crystal can be off up to +/- 20 Hz. This level of precision is necessary in many applications, notably wireless communications where you need to accurately capture a narrow band of frequencies that reside on a very high frequency carrier. Hypothetically, MFD supposedly relies on molecular resonance and any resonance, whether electrical or mechanical, has a certain "quality factor" which describes the tightness of the resonance. Most systems have a quality factor that allows for some variation, thus molecular resonance should be achievable even if the frequency is not highly precise. Also, if you assume that the quality factor of molecular resonance is so high that only a crystal oscillator can be used, then if the crystal MFD is not set to the exact frequency it will not work at all. And if this is the case, how would you ever determine the proper frequencies in the first place? You would have to test literally millions of individual frequencies, to find the right ones.

Q: So what does the MFD transmitter really do?

A: Nothing at all. As mentioned, MFDs don't transmit sufficient energy to reach targets beyond a few feet, and the whole notion of molecular resonance is flatly wrong. Actually, the MFD transmitter does have a psychological purpose: it has a high-tech look to it, and makes the dowser feel better about paying a high price for dowsing rods.

Q: So is MFD just dowsing?

A: Yes. Regardless of what other gadgets are employed, if a dowsing device is used to track a "signal line", then that is dowsing. There is no real physical effect of the transmitted signal on the dowsing rods, just the effect the user holding the rods exerts on them.

Q: But aren't there LRL devices that don't use dowsing rods?

A: Yes. One brand is Mineoro, made in Brazil, which supposedly beeps when it detects gold. I tested one, and found that it would not respond to gold. Upon dissecting it and tracing out the circuitry, I discovered that it contained a circuit that likely can be triggered by a remote transmitter, which would make it seem to work in a demonstration attended by a Mineoro representative who had such a transmitter. I also own a Vernell VR-2000 and an Accurate Locators Gold Gun, both non-dowsing LRLs. Reports will be forthcoming. Finally, I have talked to several people that have used these devices and other non-dowsing LRLs, but so far have not found anything promising.

Q: What phenomena can affect LRL performance?

A: From what I've read, everything... a partial list includes solar storms, polar fields, meteoritic dust, microscopic gold, positive ions, negative ions, satellites, weather, target reflections, ghost signals, radio signals, Earth sickness, power lines, Lunar forces, noise, mental stress, poor body conductivity, and even the "bad vibes" of spectators.

Q: How do solar storms affect LRL's?

A: Solar storms (sunspots) create large surges in the solar wind which then interacts with the earth's magnetic field to produce surges in atmospheric electrical charges. This is normally seen as an unusually bright Aurora Borealis. The disturbances in the atmosphere can affect electrical equipment on the ground to varying degrees, and is even blamed on a partial failure in Canada's electric grid. Some LRL users blame their failures on this effect, but there is nothing at all to support this.

Q: What is "Earth sickness"?

A: One dowser has proposed the theory that when a non-natural item is buried (a gold cache, for example) the Earth attempts to "reject" the item much like the human body rejects certain things. He has even coined a name: NERS, for Natural Earth Rejection Syndrome. This rejection somehow negates the effect of dowsing, especially at close range. This dowser claims to have located most all of the major buried treasures in the United States, each to within a broad area, but cannot pinpoint any of them because of NERS. Of course, without any recoveries there is no way to evaluate this claim.

Q: I've read that some LRLs can only detect long-time buried objects. Is there any difference between freshly buried targets and long-time buried targets?

A: Sure, in most cases. Clearly, iron oxidizes, and the iron oxide that leaches into the soil surrounding the object can create a "halo" effect when using a metal detector, and make the object easier to detect. To a lesser effect, copper also oxidizes and even lesser, silver. Gold does not react with much of anything in the soil, so there is really no difference between a fresh gold target, and one that has been buried for 1000 years. Gold alloys can react with the soil, but it is the allow metal that reacts, and not the gold. Low carat jewelry can be green (copper) or black (silver). Interestingly, US gold coins (90% gold and 10% copper) which are dug up are usually in perfect condition. Even the coins from the SS Central America suffered no effect from 140 years of salt water.

Q: Is it possible that an LRL will only work on long-time buried targets?

A: No. At least a couple of dealers make this claim, but it doesn't wash. First, as mentioned above, different metals react differently with the soil, down to gold which does not react at all. Therefore, if LRLs only work on LTB targets then gold would be ruled out by default, and iron would be the easiest target to find. Second, treasures have been found hidden in walls, shoved in rock crevices, and buried in glass jars where the halo effect is impossible to develop. Again, the LTB claim would eliminate these types of treasures as well. Third, if this were true then it would be extremely difficult to evaluate the LRL during the design phase. If the LRL indicates a buried target and you don't dig it up (to keep it undisturbed) then you don't know if it's really there. If you dig it up to verify performance then it is no longer a long-time buried target and cannot be used for subsequent testing. If it was intentionally buried years ago, then prior knowledge of its location taints the test results.

Q: I've seen photos of Philippine gold found using an LRL. Isn't this proof that it works?

A: There are some photos of Philippine treasure recoveries being used by an LRL dealer in his web pages, but I am told by a professional treasure salvor operating in the far east that the pictured treasure was definitely not found with an LRL of any kind. Strictly speaking, the dealer does not actually claim the pictured gold was found with one of his devices, but the placement of the photos is highly suggestive of that.

Q: Wasn't Noah's Ark discovered using an LRL?

A: This claim is made by one or two manufacturers and is false. An early "prototype" LRL was used in Turkey at a site suspected to be the Ark (the "Durupinar" site) and it is claimed that an amateur archaeologist used the LRL to map iron anomolies, which themselves were claimed to be iron fittings. It is also claimed that the LRL survey was backed up by a magnetometer survey and they matched. However, I contacted a professional archaeologist who personally re-surveyed the site with both a magnetometer and a GPR and found no correlation with the LRL survey whatsoever. The entire site turned out to be a natural geological formation, basically a mud flow around a rock outcropping. The amateur archaeologist who performed the LRL survey eventually agreed with the final analysis of the site, and dropped his claim that it was the Ark.

Q: But the Turkish government built a visitor's center there. Why would they do that if it was not the Ark?

A: I contacted a Turkish Archaelologist who does research through the University. Basically, the visitor's center is an effort to draw tourism to the cash-strapped eastern region, and the proceeds go to fund research at the university. The archaeologist agrees that the site is definitely natural, and not the Ark.

Q: I know someone who has found a large gold cache by dowsing but it's on government property. If dowsing doesn't work, how did he manage to find this cache?

A: I've heard quite a few stories of people finding treasure but couldn't recover it because it was on government property, or otherwise out-of-reach. I've heard cases where the dowser claims he actually stood on top of the treasure location, but walked away without digging because it was on government property. In some cases, people claim to have found treasure in a cave and actually saw the treasure but did not retrieve any, or even take a photo. They later drew a sketch of what they saw, and that was the end of the treasure hunt. In all these cases, no recovery has been made, and in most cases the dowser will admit to never having seen any treasure. Without a recovery, there is nothing to base success on and all we have is an interesting story.

Q: Metal detector manufacturers also make claims about performance, and surely all of those claims can't be true. Why not insist that they subject their detectors to double-blind testing?

A: You could, and in fact, some detectorists do comparison testing on unknown buried targets to determine depth and target ID performance. But with metal detectors, there is no question about the basic validity of operation: they will detect metal, and operate according to demonstrable scientific principles. With LRLs, there is a question as to whether they do anything at all, and there is no use in testing performance claims -- such as distance or the ability to ignore ghost signals -- until the LRL is shown to work at a very fundamental level. This has not been done.

Q: What is the Polaroid method?

A: There are two. Some people claim to be able to dowse a Polaroid photo, probably using a pendulum. If there is something buried in the area photographed, they can supposedly tell what it is and where it is located, much like map dowsing. Another method of using Polaroids is to look for "auras". Polaroid cameras are known for producing photos with all sorts of streaks and flares, resulting from their use of self-developing film. When the film is ejected from the camera, it passes between two squeegie rollers that spread the developer across the film. If the developer is not spread evenly (due to dirt on the rollers, for example), the picture can have streaks and flares that vary in color, often orange or red. Old or defective film can produce similar results. I've easily duplicated these effects. Some people believe these oddities are actually the result of hidden treasure in the photo, an "aura" of sorts.

Q: But I've read that treasure has been found where indicated by a Polaroid aura. Isn't this good evidence?

A: These so-called "auras" happen all the time with Polaroid photos (I've personally had it happen with 2 complete packs of film, plus a few other individual pictures) in which there is no treasure. One treasure hunter took Polaroids of a house that showed flares and recovered a cache from a brick fireplace. He then attempted to perform a controlled test that reasonably duplicated the conditions, but the results were negative. When the effect can be produced under controlled conditions and with reasonable consistency it will be good evidence, and maybe even a useful method. Until then, it is a random effect most likely caused by bad film, bad camera, or bad photographer.

Q: Some dealers/manufacturers offer testimonials from satisfied customers. Why do they only list their initials and not full names?

A: I'm told that people who find things with LRLs are extremely secretive about what they've found, especially if it is highly valuable. Compare that to metal detectorists, who proudly show off everything they find, or to the true large-scale salvor like Mel Fisher who reported discoveries worth many millions of dollars. In my opinion, there will be a few secretive people but most will have trouble keeping a good recovery quiet.

Q: I checked the Better Business Bureau on a few LRL dealers and they have no reports of complaints. If no one has filed complaints, then doesn't that suggest good customer satisfaction?

A: Not necessarily. Regardless of the quality of their products, any business that wants to stay viable for the long run will do whatever it takes to keep up a good image. That means resolving any and all customer complaints. This works to the consumer's advantage as it gives him at least some leverage when he feels the product does not work as advertised, especially when the manufacturer has a weak, confusing, or non-existent return policy. In an interesting case, one MFD dealer bought an LRL from another dealer who was running an obvious scam. When he never received the LRL and was unable to get a refund, he checked the BBB and found no complaints on the dealer, so this is not a good indicator.

Q: Does that mean that everyone who has bought an LRL is satisfied with it?

A: I seriously doubt it. The dowsing response is very convincing, so most people probably believe it works in principle even if they cannot locate anything with it. The almost universal motto of LRL dealers is "you need more practice" which keeps people on the hook. Because it almost always takes longer than the "money-back guarantee" period to learn that the LRL is not a practical device, many people probably assume there is nothing they can do and toss the device in the back of the closet.

Q: If LRLs don't work, then what method will allow me to detect treasure from a distance?

A: There's nothing available that does what people want LRLs to do. There is no instrument that will point to treasure buried a mile away, or even 100 feet away. Magnetometers can detect large iron targets at up to 10's or 100's of feet, and aerial infrared photos are a good aide for treasure hunting. The best long-range technique is good research. There is no Free Lunch.

Q: I still want to try out an LRL. How should I go about it?

A: The cheapest way is to try to borrow one. Finding someone with an LRL is the hard part; try asking your local metal detector dealer, or post a query on one of the internet forums. If you cannot find one to borrow, consider making one. Anyone with even basic construction skills (including soldering) can make an LRL as good as anything that can be bought. On my web site are plans for L-rods and an MFD transmitter. Finally, post want ads on treasure-related internet sites. I've occasionally seen LRLs sell for under $100.

Q: What if I want to buy a new one?

A: If you can, visit the dealer for a demonstration. Ask for at least a blind test, where you hide the target and they find it. Be aware of unintentional cues as well as intentional trickery. If they refuse, walk away. Do not accept a demonstration on visible targets, or even ones where the location is known by the dowser. Request, in writing, a money-back guarantee period that is sufficient for you to learn the unit and have an opportunity for success. Beware of a high "restocking" fee, don't accept this. If the unit does not work as claimed then the seller should bear the full financial burden. If they refuse, walk away. Ask for references of other customers. Beware of them giving names of other dealers as references. If they refuse, walk away. Keep in mind that new LRLs are very expensive, and that used LRLs have very low resale values, typically 10-20%, so you will probably never be able to recoup your investment if the LRL does not work.

Q: Even if dowsing doesn't work, what's the harm in believing in it?

A: At first glance, none whatsoever. But looking more deeply, acceptance of a process with no rational explanation and no scientific evidence to back it up is indicative of a lack of critical thinking skills. People who tend to believe in dowsing are probably more likely to accept other highly questionable claims, such as "alternative" health treatments. Reliance on these practices are life threatening because many have been shown not to work, and people who use them often forego proper medical treatment - indeed, many people have died this way. I know specifically of one unflappable dowser who substituted heart bypass surgery with Chelatian treatments. He died a few weeks after the treatments. With the preponderance of scams going on today, it is crucial for one to maintain a maximum level of critical reasoning to separate reality from wishful thinking. Also, dowsing rod scams have moved into explosive detection, drug detection, and search & rescue where lives are on the line.

Q: Has anyone ever been killed as a result of dowsing?

A: Very likely. Iraqi security forces are using a so-called "explosive detector" which is nothing but a dowsing rod scam. It was reported (25 Oct 2009) that 155 people were killed by a suicide bomber who passed through checkpoints manned with this scam device.

I am always looking for new information on this subject, whether pro or con, historical or current. If you have something to share, or have a question that should be added to this list, please contact me. And while I am highly skeptical of dowsing and related claims, I will be quick to change my views if reasonably strong evidence becomes available. It would be exciting to find a real mechanism behind this phenomena which, in turn, would allow development of truly capable long-range detectors. I doubt it will ever happen.

Copyright © 2001-2009 Carl W. Moreland, all rights reserved.