|
Unconventional
Water Prospection.
Experiment and Theory
Hans D.
Betz
Sektion
Physik, Universität München, 85748 Garching, Germany
e-mail: Hans-Dieter.Betz@Physik.Uni-Muenchen.de
ABSTRACT
Some ten
years ago an extensive research project has been carried
out at the University of Munich aimed at gaining insight
into the dowsing phenomenon. A great variety of
experiments have been designed to test some 100 dowsers
with respect to claimed abilities such as locating
hidden pipes, underground disturbances, or magnetic
field gradients. Measured on a case-by-case basis the
results were poor as expected from generally existing
evidence; yet it came as a surprise that nevertheless
dowsers performed with very high statistical
significance against chance success. For this reason we
performed subsequent studies especially on water-dowsing
where better single-event performances had been
frequently reported.
Careful
evaluation of existing, sufficiently complete and
comprehensive reports on ground water detection by
special dowsers showed that no satisfactory explanation
could be given for undoubted successes. In an effort to
substantiate this kind of evidence we set up a massive
program together with some two dozens scientists from
numerous universities and geo-science institutions, a
German government agency (GTZ) which executed water
drilling in many arid areas in the world, and specially
selected dowsers who had already impressive records in
ground water detection. About 2.000 drillings in Sri
Lanka and roughly 500 locations in 12 other countries
were scientifically monitored. All together unexpectedly
high success rates were observed, mostly above 90% –
and remained unexplained. An overview was presented
(Betz 1991; 2nd edition 1993) and the latest
results are presently compiled.
Despite
many intensive and competent efforts by experts to
attribute dowsers success to chance, unavoidable
success, and/or intelligent guessing no conventional
explanation could be pinned down. In view of the
obtained facts the vast majority of scientific experts
involved in the program were forced to convince
themselves of the reality of the phenomenon. However,
those persons not so closely attached continued to
ignore the programs results. Upon completion of our
studies we will have produced impressive data, but the
general situation will remain unchanged. Public,
journalists and scientists will continue to rate the
effect from full acceptance to total rejection. As in
the past, prejudice will dominate the facts, and despite
growing shortage of potable water in most areas of the
world extraordinary, proven chances to locate well sites
with high accuracy, at low cost and in short time will
be wasted.
The
present paper presents examples, which give good
evidence for the reality of dowsing. A number of
(unsuccessful) efforts are described to attribute
dowser's abilities to a physical-biological reaction
mechanism. Finally, modern concepts of theoretical
physics and information theory are scrutinized to find
possible solutions. Although dowsers performances do not
violate any rigorous physical laws the failure of the
biophysical concept leads to ask for radically
unconventional concepts; though no new theory can be
presented here it is argued that a number of accepted
phenomena in physics leave plenty of room for further
developments in the required direction. But at this
time, there is no justification for the illusion of a
near breakthrough; in the meantime we plead for an
objective handling of the matter.
INTRODUCTION
Water
detection by dowsers has at all times been well known
and heavily disputed. Many single cases are documented
where successful drillings were carried out thanks to
dowser’s indications. Of course, there has also been
much misuse giving ammunition to opponents. What about
the fundamental question whether a significant dowsing
phenomenon exists at all? Considering all the available
evidence my answer is definitely YES. This answer is not
an opinion but the result of scientific evaluations of
abundant and representative data. Why then do others
arrive at the opposite answer? In many conversations and
scientific co-operations it could be witnessed that the
opponents did not weigh or judge appropriately
conflicting evidence. In fact, those opponents who had a
chance to follow actual water Prospection by dowsing
techniques – such as it has been carried out, for
example, by the German GTZ (Betz 1991; 2nd
edition 1993) over a period of some 10 years – could
not avoid to admit that their original objections failed
and no conventional explanations of undisputable
experimental observations were at hand. Nevertheless,
real dowsing officially remains being considered
nonexistent.
Our
century and the past ones are termed scientific ones
where – at least within science and in contrast to
medieval ages – the power of experimental observations
dominates prejudice. Although much progress is evident
and remarkable breakthroughs in science are beyond
debate it is far from having become true that
unexplained but reasonably well observable phenomena
attain the attention they deserve. It is even worse:
many long-standing phenomena, not just dowsing, continue
to be ignored as long as they do not fit into current
understanding. There remains a remarkable discrepancy
between what may be termed private and official
understanding. For example, during the long time I dealt
with the subject of water dowsing it came as a great
surprise to realize that a large fraction of geologists
and hydrologists, especially from those who are involved
in water development in the field, had developed dowsing
expertise themselves – a fact widely known among
insiders but equally well kept secret towards the
outside.
Discussion
contributions by sceptics concentrate very often to
cases in which so-called dowsers have put forward
claims, which they definitely failed to fulfil. Of
course, no one can seriously deny that many persons
claim dowsing abilities, which are not present. In
Germany, for example, at least some 10.000 persons
ascribe the semi-profession "dowser" to
themselves. During extensive tests at the University of
Munich (König and Betz 1989) it became quite clear that
expert dowsers are exceedingly rare. However: the basic
scientific question of existence or non-existence of a
particular phenomenon is not how many individuals are
– by chance – known at a time who may exercise the
relevant feats, but whether there at least a few who can
give sufficient demonstrations. And truly, the latter is
the case. It may be noted that in absence of an
acceptable theory for a phenomenon a single observation
is generally not sufficient. The problem we deal with is
not the difficulty to find valid demonstrations but the
understanding of the observations. For strange reasons
even modern science has its problems with
border-line-effects. Although observations can be made
the data is discarded; already getting involved is
considered indecent. This is why few dare to deal with
these phenomena; to say the least it will not be
rewarding.
In this
contribution we focus on two remarkable and well-known
expert dowsers for water development. One of them is
already historic but valuable documentation exists,
while the other one was scrutinized in course of a joint
study between GTZ and a University research group. Both
cases are very instructive and proof definitely that we
face a problem: the capabilities of the dowsers with
respect to ground water Prospection are beyond
explanation. The reality is even more dramatic: the
dowsing abilities are virtually unbelievable. Highly
exceptional and specific predictions are far from what
one may expect or be willing to tolerate; this fact
raises the threshold towards acceptance to a level not
surmountable at present times.
EXPERT
DOWSER KITTEMANN
The lady
dowser Emmy Kittemann represents a rare case where
dowsing abilities seemed inherited. Her father George
was an engineer with the German Railway; in the period
from 1920 to 1940 he exercised not only his ordinary job
but was continuously asked by the Munich railway
authorities to deal with specific water problems – as
a dowser. Although he dowsed officially for more than
twenty years and treated some 1.000 cases for the
railway (and up to 1952 for other clients such as
highway authorities and large breweries) not a single
major failure was ever reported. As in our times there
were plenty of opponents in the twenties waiting for
fiasco – no chance. He solved very difficult cases and
– often enough – made predictions, which were
against the odds, and still he was right. Most frequent
tasks were to locate drilling points in geologically
difficult areas where dry drillings were already
present, or to locate subsurface groundwater streamlets,
which led to damage of rail tracks. In many instances
ample documentation is available as well as impressive
acknowledgements by authorities.
Emmy
Kittemann continued the remarkable tradition. During
1949 and 1983 at least 50 major cases have been
successfully handled and documented. Needless to say
that Kittemann was called in when conventional attempts
to find ground water had already failed. Since we are
limited in space I will describe one of the most
impressive predictions made, the Tegernsee case; this
event alone is so remarkable that any sceptic must rack
his brain. The following is not an anecdote or a ferry
tale; it is a case which has been well documented and
can be researched by anyone interested. Insofar the
report is a fact and must be taken serious.
The little
lake of Tegernsee is situated in the southeast of
Germany, close to the Alp Mountains. From 1905 to 1909
around the lake oil companies performed some dozen deep
drillings. In a depth of 700 meters it happened that one
drilling produced not oil but a strong sulphur spring.
Ever since the famous spa of the small town Bad Wiessee
prospered. To put the spa on a safe basis in course of
time two more deep drillings were put down, both
yielding sulphurous water as well. All together, the
subterranean structure in the area seemed to be known
quite well.
In a
distance of only 3 kilometres from Bad Wiessee Kittemann
happened to inspect the little village Tegernsee and
claimed to have found an underground streamlet of
mineralised water. Besides giving a precise location of
the underground streamlet, the most important two
predictions were:
è a
depth of close to but no more than 200 meters;
è no
sulphur but iodine contents.
Taken as a
fact a successful drilling would have turned the place
into a spa. In particular, the absence of sulphur would
avoid any quarrel with the spatially very close
neighbour village as regards priorities on local sulphur
springs. No wonder that the city authorities tried to
get state money for the drilling. Since such support
requires expert evaluations the opinion of geologists
and the Geological State Office were called in. Based on
ample evidence the verdict was clear: no chance for
either of the two claims by Kittemann. No money was
granted.
Since
Kittemann was well known in the area for excellent
expertise on ground water problems one trusted the
predictions and a private investor group provided the
required funds. The drilling was designed accordingly
and carried out. The final result of an actually much
longer sequence of events: iodine-salt water was
encountered in a depth of some 200 meters. There was no
connection to the nearby sulphur springs. All the
predictions of the dowsers had come true, notably
against the odds.
There is
an interesting continuation of the case. The drilling
technique employed was – as is often the case, still
in our days – not customized to the requirements. Near
200 meters the borehole tended to collapse and cement
stabilization was employed. This caused a very low input
flow of the desired mineral water. For this reason a
second drilling was planned. At that time geologists had
to acknowledge the appearance of mineral water in only
200 meters; however, the theory was that the water
originated from much deeper faults, just as in the Bad
Wiessee drillings. To optimise the output geological
authorities suggested a new drilling depth of at least
700 meters. The dowser, however, insisted that the
mineral water intruded horizontally and was not
ascending from the depth; consequently there should be
no reason to drill deeper than some 200 meters. As must
be expected the dowsers opinion was ignored and the more
expensive deep drilling was ordered and executed.
To
summarize the entire sequence of further events, the
second drilling near the first hole yielded again the
expected iodine-salt water at 200 meters, but absolutely
no yield increase occurred during further drilling. At
752 meters the action was finally closed and the dowser’s
prediction had again surpassed scientific know-how. It
is important to point out, that iodine mineral water is
far from abundant in the area. In fact, no other iodine
spring has ever been found in the area. Under these
circumstances the quoted predictions of the dowser
cannot come true by chance; in fact, considering all the
data known these are highly unlikely predictions. Even
nowadays, 40 years later, no geological surveying
technique would be able to provide such precise
predictions. I have discussed the case with many
experts, but obviously not the slightest idea of an
explanation could be put forward.
The
hopelessness of the situation increases even more when
we take into account the many other similarly
spectacular predictions made by the two Kittemann over
some 50 years. Whatever the complication of the case in
question they were successful to a degree, which is
indeed unbelievable. Over a long time many persons
including scientist have evidenced and witnessed the
dowser’s actions and results, but not the slightest
degree of official recognition of the pure facts
emerged.
GTZ WATER
DEVELOPMENT IN ARID AREAS
During
scientific dowsing experiments at the University of
Munich one participant (H. Schröter) showed
particularly astonishing results. It turned out further
that he was employed as civil engineer by the German
state agency GTZ and lead a water development program in
Sri Lanka. There, despite difficult geological
conditions, he had already achieved unexpected success
by dowsing techniques. Since the project was still
continuing university cooperation with GTZ was arranged
in order to monitor subsequent water Prospection. In
order to attain credibility some two dozen of scientists
became involved who discussed the matters and procedures
in various meetings. During the following years a large
body of data was acquired and finally published (Betz
1991/1993). Again, convincing evidence for the reality
of dowsing was collected and none of the experts was
able to present conventional explanations. Here we
summarize the results because of space limitations
especially for Sri Lanka and refer the reader to the
original paper for more details. Besides in Sri Lanka,
drillings took place in nine other countries. The
results from an additional dowsing exploration in the
West Bank are not yet complete and – for political
reasons – are not expected in the near future.
From a
hydro-geological point of view, the target areas in Sri
Lanka must be considered as being difficult as larger
aquifers are exceptions. Ground water reserves, which
are usable throughout the year, can be recognized only
in some single cases, but not in general, through
terrain characteristics and an analysis of data related
to the surface cover. Locally significant water reserves
cannot be expected anywhere in the undisturbed
crystalline rock basement formation (deeper than 20 - 30
m). In crystalline zones, successful drillings must
reach fractures associated with water-bearing strata; as
the fracture intensity may be locally very variable, the
choice of the drilling point, even on a small scale,
will generally determine the success or failure of the
drilling. GTZ knew from experiences with classic methods
that, particularly in moderately fractured crystalline
rock basement, the rate of dry drillings must be
considered as being relatively high. Using dowsing
techniques, though, Schröter surpassed all realistic
expectations and – on a day-by-day basis – worked up
three different types of tasks, in every case with the
specifically required success:
High yield water supply for a town;
Small yield supplies for rural communities;
Potable water along shore lines (avoiding salinity).
Results:
691 drillings were completed within a record time of 3
years. Only 27 wells failed in having too low yields or
bad water quality. This 96% success rate is unparalleled
by conventionally operating teams; we note that plenty
of data is available from other conventionally operating
companies having worked in the same and in similar areas
with significantly lower success.
During the
subsequent field exploration three special tests could
be conducted:
è
Search for a successful well point near an existing
dry drilling;
è
Search for a point giving a dry drilling near an
existing productive well;
è
Systematic comparison between the performance of
Schröter and experts in the same area.
Results:
all three tests succeeded in terms of dowsing efficiency
and demonstrated the usefulness of the unconventional
procedure. Although the first two tests were single
events the outcome underlines the continuity of
successful dowsing performance independent of the
geological task. The third test was relatively extensive
and its outcome impressive (Table 1). It should be added
that Schröter had no information about the area and was
flown in for only a few days while the geological team
was familiarized with the area, had all available
geological information at its disposal, conducted
geo-electrical measurements and worked for many months.
This demonstrates again, like the entire program, that
dowsing may be faster, cheaper and more successful than
conventional exploration. Incidentally, the three tests
also served to substantiate the justification for
application of the dowsing techniques in an official
program funded by Federal Government of a modern,
technically oriented nation. As a consequence, GTZ
officials had to concede the advantages of dowsing and
supported it for many years.
Later on
in other areas of Sri Lanka more than 1.000 further
drillings were performed by different dowsers; their
success rate was around 80 %, somewhat less than with
Schröter, but still exceptional.
Number
Litter/Minute Number Litter/Minute
________________________________________________
1 400 * 1
400 *
2 400 * 2
200 *
3 300 * 3
188 *
4 80 4 150
*
5 60 5 150
*
6 45 6 150
*
7 25 7 30
8 22
9 17
10 10
11 7
12 6
13 1
_________________________
14 1 *
target quota reached
Table 1:
Comparison between the yields of 21 exploration wells
situated in the same area and located by means of
conventional techniques (14; left column) and the
dowsing procedure (7; right column). The required yield
of 100 l/min was reached, according to usual pump tests,
in 3 of 14, and 6 of 7 cases, respectively. Altogether,
with a success rate of 86% Schröter significantly
surpassed the 21%-result obtained with the conventional
method.
Due to his
surprising performance Schröter was sent to 10 other
countries to solve difficult tasks. Most spectacular was
the unprecedented location of wells in the Sinai. The
question arises whether these findings can be used to
counteract objections, which are often promoted against
dowsing. Let us examine these arguments in detail.
CLASSICAL
OBJECTIONS AGAINST WATER DOWSING
Sceptics
and opponents of the dowsing scene generally assert,
based on four types of objections, that a real dowsing
phenomenon does not exist at all. Of course, the
arguments used by critics are to be taken seriously also
by the "supporters" as they are often
justified. A generalization of these counter-positions,
however, cannot be established with respect to all cases
of dowsing success, especially when cases like the ones
shown in this report are intensively checked and
analysed. On the contrary, one finds that critics – at
least with respect to matters concerning water
Prospection – ignore, play down or misinterpret
significant experiments with traditional persistence.
The 4 arguments can be described as follows:
1.
Debating the facts: the reported successes of dowsers
not really exist; a thorough research of the
corroborated incidence reveals false or misleading
reporting.
2.
Probability hypothesis: the incontestable successes of
dowsers represent isolated, single cases and have been
achieved by accident.
3.
Trivial success: successes are unavoidable, because
water can be found anywhere in the area of interest,
due to an extended groundwater table.
4.
Expert thesis: the dowsers are endowed with perfect
hydro-geological knowledge and, thus, are enabled to
identify appropriate drilling points on account of
topography, morphology, flora and fauna.
As regards
1, the preceding parts of this report, for example, have
demonstrated that this kind of argument is unfounded.
As regards
objection 2 it is certain that, on the one hand, the
described situation occurs indeed with a certain
probability. On the other hand, however, high success
rates for large prospecting programs, as reported here,
cannot be explained this way. It is accepted that a
single drilling success of a dowser does not permit
conclusions regarding his general reliability or the
validity of the dowsing technique. A reliable judgement
requires a vast database and its statistical evaluation.
This is by no means a simple task. For example, there
may be areas where, due to the prevailing underground
conditions, the chance for finding water at an arbitrary
point and within a certain depth lies near 30%. To prove
reliably an above-chance performance of the dowser, a
success rate exceeding 30% is necessary. To ascertain
this proof on a statistically safe basis, a considerable
experimental effort is required (see preceding part). It
may be noted, though, that numerous spectacular
individual results have become known which invalidate
the chance hypothesis, especially when the respective
predictions by the dowser had first to be considered as
highly improbable according to initial assessments by
experts. Moreover, objection 2 becomes increasingly
doubtful when one considers the numerous observations
that the same dowser achieves routine success on
occasions when other expert parties had produced nothing
but dry holes.
With
respect to objection 3, it must be conceded that such
regions undoubtedly exist; however, dry drillings are
then excluded in whatever way they are organized. If
drillings are to be carried out in areas where these
hydro-geological conditions are known to prevail, a
dowser will hardly be appointed. On the other hand, if
the underground conditions are not yet known, chance
success cannot, of course, be totally excluded. However,
none of the drilling projects described in this report
has been carried out in areas where a success rate of
almost 100% would have been unavoidable; on the
contrary, the Prospection areas have all been recognized
as arid areas where conventionally arranged drillings
produced rather low success rates.
Objection
4 is more intricate to handle, because it may be
justified in certain cases. In most single events its
refutation is not possible or requires tremendous
argumentative efforts, because with this objection
nearly unlimited capacities and intuitions can be
imputed to the dowser. The problem is rendered even more
difficult, because according to the technical standard
(state of art) it is not possible to establish beyond
doubt whether a selected drilling point, determined by
whatever criteria, will really be appropriate with
respect to the relevant requirements. Prior to the
drilling, different experts will probably have different
opinions, and after a drilling a variety of different
interpretations, arguments and suppositions regarding
the success or the failure of the concerned drilling
will be possible. Furthermore, one should not overlook
the fact that, in contradiction to objection 4,
superficial layers, soil formations and vegetation may
even hinder the evaluation of the geological structure
in the underground, especially when the water-bearing
strata lie deep and are covered with dry and
inhomogeneous layers.
Particularly
competent dowsers and extensive prospecting results are
needed to refute the "expert thesis" as an
ultimate and necessarily valid explanation, after
objections 1 - 3 have been dropped. To arrive at a
reasonable and safe conclusion in such a difficult
situation, extended test series or spectacular
individual successes are necessary, like those, which
have been frequently described in this report. For
example, when the details of the dowsing predictions are
as precise as they are improbable, their practical
verification renders the counter-argument in acceptable.
In this respect, the reader is referred to the
experiments carried out in Sri Lanka, the dug wells on
Verde Island, or the identification of drilling points
in the plain desert of Sinai (Betz 1993).
A final
argument against the expert-thesis arises from observed
cases where apparently very narrow fissures exist and
have to be hit in order to be successful. The necessary
accuracy of point location may be in the range of 1 m or
even below. When these cases are accepted – there is
overwhelming evidence for them –, it must be stated
that even the best experts, making use of all
conventionally applicable knowledge, are in general not
able to pinpoint a drilling site with the quoted
precision. Along these lines, it is well known that
conventional Prospection does not aim at all at such
precision. In addition, it is accepted that in the cases
under discussion (apart from very special and
appropriately extensive research programs) not even the
application of all available measuring techniques,
reflecting the present state of art, allows such a
refined spatial solution. The described successful
pinpointing by dowsing procedures, therefore, must still
be viewed as a very special particularity.
THEORETICAL
ARGUMENTS
First of
all one must scan the observations of dowsing actions
and search for bio-physical explanations. Not too long
ago it was considered unrealistic to attribute magnetic
sensing abilities to biological subjects; now one knows
better. Likewise it may be conceivable that humans
detect weak physical fields and attain the desired
information about the earth’s subsurface. In fact, the
Munich group has worked along these lines together with
GTZ, yet no success whatsoever could be achieved. Note
that an expert water dowser can produce as follows:
è
Pinpointing of drilling sites even when small
fractures are to be hit;
è
Prediction of drilling depth and approximate yields;
è
Assignment of qualities (salty, mineral contents).
It is very
important to realize that pinpointing of a drilling
location requires the dowser to be on the spot. However,
and this is an extremely crucial point, the mere
existence of the drilling site and all the other
relevant information can obtained from distance. Within
our program distances in the km-range have been
verified, even with blocking of the direct line of sight
to the target point. This may surprise, but it is the
only way a dowser can quickly scan a large area. If a
promising site had to be crossed on the spot in order to
detect it reliably, the dowser could never cover large
areas – as they factually do. In view of this, all
attempts to assume biological sensitivity to a known
physical field do fail.
To say it
clearly, no dowsing theory exists. Nevertheless, from a
physicist’s point of view it is legitimate to ask
whether there may be any chance for a non-classical
dowsing phenomenon. There are two lines of
argumentation. First, one should consider that there are
a number of other exotic phenomena at the borders of
science, which have been made plausible to exist but
remain unexplained. Second, there is substantial
potential in physics and its future extensions. This
point may be illuminated further.
One of the
most intricate features of nature is non-locality. In
simple terms, this means a connection between two
physical objects which are located at a distance from
each other, yet "know" from each other
spontaneously (e.g. gravitational interaction) – and
no one can explain how the action or interaction
proceeds from one object to the other spontaneously,
without time delay, whatever the distance. Introduction
of the force concept is a purely mathematical construct,
highly successful, but not understandable by
"common- sense". For almost a century quantum
theory is well known and successfully exercised although
there is no way to understand its foundations. Recently,
entangled photons have received much attention since
long-standing quantum-mechanical predictions can now be
experimentally verified: two photons, specially prepared
as twins, fly away from each other with the speed of
light. Their state remains undetermined as long as there
is no detection. When a detector measures one photon it
assumes a certain state out of a number of different
possibilities. At the very same instant, the other
photon – far away – suddenly assumes the
corresponding state; when it becomes detected this state
can be verified. When we ask, how the information gets
from the first photon instantaneously to the second one,
there is no common-sense answer. It has to be accepted
that certain information is non-local and can be
retrieved without being at the same place.
Along
these lines the phenomenon of distant viewing is not at
all something one could rule out from first principles.
Admittedly, no one can yet present a quantitative
concept, but the working hypothesis must be allowed
which assumes that humans have the capability to pick up
information from the distance. It remains to be
clarified what kind of conditions and limitations are
characteristic, and how the lock-in to the envisaged
target is achieved. Any progress in the enlightening of
dowsing and similarly impossible phenomena will require
much more objectivity and scientific creativity than is
hitherto observed.
REFERENCES
König, H.
L. und Betz, H.-D. (1989): Der Wünschelruten-Report –
Wissenschaftlicher Untersuchungsbericht. Herold Druck
& Verlag, München; ISBN 3-923819-05-6.
Betz,
H.-D. (1990): Geheimnis Wünschelrute – Aberglaube und
Wahrheit über Rutengänger und Erdstrahlen. Umschau
Verlag Frankfurt; ISBN 3-524-69086-6.
Betz,
H.-D. (1991/1993): Unconventional Water Detection –
Field test of the Dowsing Technique in Dry Zones; Report
by GTZ (Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit),
Eschborn, Germany, ISBN 3-88085-489-0.
|
