rnd2,
I have already done a little looking for the paper, but so far without success. I have had a couple of employment changes and/or office moves since I would have gotten it, so it might be difficult. I can't picture having destroyed it based on the nature of the ribbing I have taken over time for putting any credence in it (all the while being a degreed licensed engineer). I'll keep looking.
As I remember it, once in the early '70's, when I was starting up a power plant shortly after I got out of the university, a start up engineer for Byron Jackson Pump Co there to fix a BFW pump problem and I were chatting and somehow the topic came up. He mentioned that some high level technical person for BJ, a chief engineer, or a chief research type person had done some work on it, and had some technical information on it. Nothing more came of that conversation other than the knowledge that there was at least one degreed technical person in the world besides myself that put some credence in it. He knew enough to know that the researchers work involved the interactions of magnetic fields, which I had long suspected was what was involved.
I seem to remember that when my former college professor sent the article, I think it was by the individual that the pump service person had mentioned to me. But it has been a long time ago. The paper was about the influence of the fields between the buried lines, and the rods.
The thing that has been enjoyable about it is that my supposed "education" and "training" would debunk such a thing, but in real life, it has worked for me repeatedly, and I would not hesitate to use it in a heartbeat if I neeeded to look for a buried line.
ScottI2R, I am not into finding water wells, water witching, dousing, etc. And, frankly, except for the fact that I hold a strong belief in something that others with my background are highly skeptical to downright incredulous about, and have been the recipient of some serious abuse over the topic, and don't want to treat folks that believe in their thing the same way, I am among the skeptics regarding "peach tree bifrucated branches."
So, if the rod method works for finding water wells, I will leave that for others to do. Buried lines is my thing. I guess I am not a candidate for the big bucks.
rnd2, I suggest trying the method on a variety of buried lines. Surely you have some other type lines, water, telephone, cable, gas, etc., that you know the general vicinity of to try it on. As you get the feel for it, you will know it is not your influence that is turning the rods.
If you need to, do what we did in the ME lab, and make a cart (we used a childs wagon) and attach a couple of vertical tubes (we used the type wooden handles like buckets used to have) to hold the rods, and then drag the wagon with the rods pointing rearward, so that the swing of the rods is counter to the direction of motion. Alternatively, walk backwards through the zone where you are testing. You really get a feel for it when the rods have to overcome inertia in order to turn.
I'll keep looking for the paper. I am getting more curious all the time.
rmw