This article was written at the time the forked\nY-shaped rod was universally used in dowsing. Here the author lists some of the\nvirtues or otherwise of this device, for instance noting that it is\nparticularly valuable when dowsing in a car! But when dowsing for long periods\nof time, it seems the Y rod is tiring to use. Today L-rods have become the main\ndevice for field dowsing, but before their \u201cdiscovery\u201d, other methods were\nadopted. One such is introduced here as the \u201csinge handed rod\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Essentially this is a traditional walking stick with\ncurved handle. The stick is held in a state of unstable equilibrium. When the\ndowsing reaction occurs, the stick rotates around its long axis, thereby\nproviding two possible reactions, just as with a forked Y rod. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The author also describes briefly how he conducts his\ndowsing. To begin he often using a sample of the object sought, a method\ncharacteristic of this period. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
He was obviously a dowser experienced in locating\nwater and minerals and describes how he estimates the properties of what he\nseeks. For the flow rate of underground\nwater, he asks whether the stream is the width of something familiar to him, eg\nthe width of a finger or arm. And for coal seams he counts upwards in some unit\nof length, until a reaction occurs, yielding an estimate of the seam thickness.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For estimating the depth of water, he uses two\nmethods. One is counting, imaging increasing depth, until a reaction occurs.\nFor the other, he uses the \u201cBishop\u2019s rule\u201d, but with a difference. First, he\nfinds centre of stream, then walks out to the \u201cfirst parallel\u201d reaction. (see\nblog post 03-04-2020). For most dowsers the distance between the two is a\ndirect estimate of the stream depth, but for the author it represents only half\nthe depth. This is a small but very interesting observation. In my reading of\nthe BSD journals I have only encountered one other dowser who has reported this,\nDr Arthur Bailey, writing 50 years later. But the implication of this exception\nto the rule, seems to be that the dowsing is not reacting to a something\nphysical at the parallels, but to something else, more like an unconscious\npresumption about the significance of the parallel reaction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is just another example of how the dowsing\nreaction to what is sought can be \u201cprogrammed\u201d, by with respect to its meaning.\nThis filtering may be attuned either consciously, or unconsciously, with the\ndowser being unaware they are influencing the results. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The article is: \u201cThe single-handed rod\u201d by Hans\nFalkinger<\/p>\n\n\n\n