(2 topics merged - GG)
When dowsing for borehole sites, I often experience the first indication at quite a shallow depth, however, when drilling this sometimes proves to be dry and the first cut may be deeper, verifying the second indication. On many occasions, when visiting the site the following day, the first indication proves to be the semi or sub-artesian recovery rest water level.
Has anyone else experienced this?. If so, I would be interested in your comments.
Depth indications
-
martin campbell-smith
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:43 am
- Location: southern spain
hello everybody
I am new to this site.
I live in southern spain and have been dowsing for about two years. I started with a pendulum given to me by a friend. Until recently i have been dowsing things where i could prove the answer correct or not. I would get a friend to put various glasses of water on a table eg tap water, bottled water, salty water etc, then i would dowse to see which was which. This i find quite easy and normally i get it right. I live on a peice of land and need at some point to make a well, so i´ve been dowsing with a rod and my pendulum, i´ve found various places where the rod says there is water and then i´ve been using the bishops rule and other methods to determine the depth and quantity of water there. I realised that this cannot be proven without making a well and just the other day i had the opportunity to prove my skills at a site where they were about to make a borehole. The site had already been dowsed by a local man and i went along with my tools to see what i could find. I got a strong indication from my rod of a water vein and went ahead to find out the depth and quanitiy etc. With my answers i waited until they started the borehole. It turned out that although we both found what we thought to be a water vein in the same place, there was hardly any water, and they drilled until 108metres, and finally gave up.
When i talked to the local man about dowsing, he said that he couldn´t find out the depth or quantity of water on a site and i was wondering how is one supposed to practice this without actually making a borehole each time. The other thing is when i get a wrong answer, is it me misinterpreting the answer because surely the pendulum or other tool cannot lie.
Any suggestions will be gladly recieved
hasta luego
martin
I am new to this site.
I live in southern spain and have been dowsing for about two years. I started with a pendulum given to me by a friend. Until recently i have been dowsing things where i could prove the answer correct or not. I would get a friend to put various glasses of water on a table eg tap water, bottled water, salty water etc, then i would dowse to see which was which. This i find quite easy and normally i get it right. I live on a peice of land and need at some point to make a well, so i´ve been dowsing with a rod and my pendulum, i´ve found various places where the rod says there is water and then i´ve been using the bishops rule and other methods to determine the depth and quantity of water there. I realised that this cannot be proven without making a well and just the other day i had the opportunity to prove my skills at a site where they were about to make a borehole. The site had already been dowsed by a local man and i went along with my tools to see what i could find. I got a strong indication from my rod of a water vein and went ahead to find out the depth and quanitiy etc. With my answers i waited until they started the borehole. It turned out that although we both found what we thought to be a water vein in the same place, there was hardly any water, and they drilled until 108metres, and finally gave up.
When i talked to the local man about dowsing, he said that he couldn´t find out the depth or quantity of water on a site and i was wondering how is one supposed to practice this without actually making a borehole each time. The other thing is when i get a wrong answer, is it me misinterpreting the answer because surely the pendulum or other tool cannot lie.
Any suggestions will be gladly recieved
hasta luego
martin
-
Grahame
- Site Admin
-
Proficient
- Posts: 1478
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 5:52 pm
- Location: Glasgow, Scotland
- Contact:
Hi Martin, and welcome.
I've moved your question into the water dowsing section of the forum as you are more likely to find answers in here.
I've moved your question into the water dowsing section of the forum as you are more likely to find answers in here.
The only way to improve your estimates for depth and flow are through practice, and that means a lot of boreholes. Although many people estimate these using methods like Bishop's Rule or counting with the pendulum, many water dowsers say that certain geological conditions like clay will affect the count. In these cases they usually add or subtract a percentage to their dowsed estimate. But this is something only experience can teach.martin campbell-smith wrote:When i talked to the local man about dowsing, he said that he couldn't find out the depth or quantity of water on a site and I was wondering how is one supposed to practice this without actually making a borehole each time
The short answer is that yes, it's you. The tool is only that, a tool. The answers you get depend on the questions you ask. It's like that old computer saying - Garbage In, Garbage Out.martin campbell-smith wrote:when I get a wrong answer, is it me misinterpreting the answer because surely the pendulum or other tool cannot lie?
Grahame
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it - Terry Pratchett.
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it - Terry Pratchett.
-
martin campbell-smith
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:43 am
- Location: southern spain
Re: Depth indications
I try to find the top and bottom of the water strata and quote water may be at X ft taking the average then go on to say bore will need to go a bit deeper to pressure the water into the bore casing. A driller can block off a stream with the bore mud so a bit deeper gives the water some where to go. Some streams are in shale, broken rock or gravel which can be any thickness. I dowsed one bore that had 70 ft of solid granite which raised a few eye brows only to break through to beautiful water. Some times the water will be under some pressure and come up the bore many meters, which is some thing unknown to me. My hand ache when the water quality is poor, does anyone else get that?
Re: Depth indications
Hi Bob
A similar situation occurred when, dowsing for a bore in the Lower Devonian, Meadfoot Slates, Torcross Series the first course indication was at 10 feet and the only other indication at 90 feet and the aggregate indicated yield over 300 gall/hr. The client owned a small area of woodland of approx. 1 acre surrounding his house and a further acre of woodland where a second drilling site was selected on the other side of the road passing the property. On the second site, trees would need to be felled to allow access for the rig and equipment and the road crossing for cables and delivery pipe would be subject to local government approval.
Although the second site indicated three courses and over 400 gall/hr, the client wished to trial bore the first site nearer the house. I agreed to this, having given a No Water, No Fee warranty on the quote. The drillers duly arrived, at 12 feet the risings were slightly damp for a foot or so and then dust until 90 feet. The drillers wanted to abandon the bore and go home but I persuaded them to return in the morning. Next day they continued drilling and about five gallons of water was blown out. At 95 feet, a large quantity of water clearing rapidly was encountered.and a 20 foot sump drilled. The hammer was lifted some 3 feet and air blowing yielded a bucket-measured 800 gall/hr for an hour and a half. On withdrawing steels, the water level overtook the drillers. Casings were inserted and grouted and the water level was at 20feet from GL when we left. The following morning the recovery water level was 11 feet below GL.
Regards Griff.
A similar situation occurred when, dowsing for a bore in the Lower Devonian, Meadfoot Slates, Torcross Series the first course indication was at 10 feet and the only other indication at 90 feet and the aggregate indicated yield over 300 gall/hr. The client owned a small area of woodland of approx. 1 acre surrounding his house and a further acre of woodland where a second drilling site was selected on the other side of the road passing the property. On the second site, trees would need to be felled to allow access for the rig and equipment and the road crossing for cables and delivery pipe would be subject to local government approval.
Although the second site indicated three courses and over 400 gall/hr, the client wished to trial bore the first site nearer the house. I agreed to this, having given a No Water, No Fee warranty on the quote. The drillers duly arrived, at 12 feet the risings were slightly damp for a foot or so and then dust until 90 feet. The drillers wanted to abandon the bore and go home but I persuaded them to return in the morning. Next day they continued drilling and about five gallons of water was blown out. At 95 feet, a large quantity of water clearing rapidly was encountered.and a 20 foot sump drilled. The hammer was lifted some 3 feet and air blowing yielded a bucket-measured 800 gall/hr for an hour and a half. On withdrawing steels, the water level overtook the drillers. Casings were inserted and grouted and the water level was at 20feet from GL when we left. The following morning the recovery water level was 11 feet below GL.
Regards Griff.
Re: Depth indications
Hi,
I need to keep records for longer to analyse my own findings, but, I've been advised that; using the Bishop's rule; different geology affects how accurate depth indications are. For instance I was told to expect the depth to be greater than where I get a signal if in a shale area. Has any one found similar differences in different rock? I'm still practicing, trying to get to dowse the site before going out again with the experienced dowser, to see if our results match without the worry of my conformation of what he finds being because of some sort of auto-suggestion.
Harri
I need to keep records for longer to analyse my own findings, but, I've been advised that; using the Bishop's rule; different geology affects how accurate depth indications are. For instance I was told to expect the depth to be greater than where I get a signal if in a shale area. Has any one found similar differences in different rock? I'm still practicing, trying to get to dowse the site before going out again with the experienced dowser, to see if our results match without the worry of my conformation of what he finds being because of some sort of auto-suggestion.
Harri
Harri
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science.
(Einstein)
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science.
(Einstein)
Re: Depth indications
Hi Griff I don't use the shadow method for depth, as I have worked in building it is easy to use just ft. or meters. Just chant in my mind the depth and imagine the distant (eg 40 meter 41-- 42 or what ever till a response of the rods. Have been able to get close each time, then add extra for water reserve. Of cause I do it a number of times as a check before I open my big mouth. As I said before I have not been able to work out if the stream is under pressure as to how far it will come up the bore, think it's because our rain fall varies so much across the year. One bore the water seemed to dowse as ok but it had a coal taste, (didn't ask that question.) The client was happy and it was safe for stock. That bore was way below sea level and only about 300 meters from a sea water lake. My biggest worry was salt and didn't expect a coal seam.