Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 48 replies
  • Subscribers 34 subscribers
  • Views 5312 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Underground Cable Tracing.

Zoomup

An P.V.C./P.V.C.  cable is run in steel conduit underground from a farm barn to another location. It may run underground to some nearby concrete slabs previously used as a base for wooden sheds, or it may run for about 80 metres to some distant  derelict outbuildings.

I am not too familiar with all of the types of underground cable tracers available.

Which would be the best type of cable tracer to use to determine its run? There may be other buried metal to confuse some tracers. Will a signal injected into the cable be able to be detected by a cable tracer as the cable in inside steel conduit?

The cable is currently dead.

Thanks,

Z.

 

Parents
  • 0

    Sparkingchip: 
     

    @wallywombat it is accepted that when using a cat and genny to survey a site a third of the possible targets may not be detected, such as plastic pipes.

    I do not believe that in the experiment that you referred to with plastic pipes buried in a pit that there is any totally reliable means of detection from above ground without actually digging holes to find out

     

    Either you have completely misunderstood my description of the experiment, or I am misunderstanding you now. The experiment wasn't about plastic pipes - the plastic is irrelevant. I'm not claiming that dowsers can or can't detect plastic.

     The experiment was to test the claim which some dowsers were making: that they could detect running water underground. To rule out as many variables as possible, the test involved building a “standardised” layout where an area of ground was divided into 10 strips, and it could be well controlled that water was running along under one strip and not under the other 9 at any one point, and that no water was running diagonally across, or any other such confounder.

    The way chosen to construct this rig was to lay plastic waste pipes underground, then run (or not) water through them. All the dowsers taking part in the experiment agreed that the presence of the plastic wouldn't interfere with their ability to detect water (nor not) in the pipes.

Reply
  • 0

    Sparkingchip: 
     

    @wallywombat it is accepted that when using a cat and genny to survey a site a third of the possible targets may not be detected, such as plastic pipes.

    I do not believe that in the experiment that you referred to with plastic pipes buried in a pit that there is any totally reliable means of detection from above ground without actually digging holes to find out

     

    Either you have completely misunderstood my description of the experiment, or I am misunderstanding you now. The experiment wasn't about plastic pipes - the plastic is irrelevant. I'm not claiming that dowsers can or can't detect plastic.

     The experiment was to test the claim which some dowsers were making: that they could detect running water underground. To rule out as many variables as possible, the test involved building a “standardised” layout where an area of ground was divided into 10 strips, and it could be well controlled that water was running along under one strip and not under the other 9 at any one point, and that no water was running diagonally across, or any other such confounder.

    The way chosen to construct this rig was to lay plastic waste pipes underground, then run (or not) water through them. All the dowsers taking part in the experiment agreed that the presence of the plastic wouldn't interfere with their ability to detect water (nor not) in the pipes.

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines