Telekinesis under a glass bowl

A couple of days ago I finally cracked the barrier of doing telekinesis in a sealed environment – under a glass bowl. The psi wheel was perfectly still for many minutes, then I achieved multiple spins for the best part of a minute. I am now nine months into my training. It’s a great feeling to finally put to rest a nagging sliver of scepticism that I’ve felt for so long. Whatever is behind telekinesis, it’s weirder than the sceptics claim, without a doubt.

For me, the real excitement behind telekinesis lies in the gathering of evidence that there’s more to a human being than western science has yet fathomed.

I didn’t record the breakthrough moment. However, I produced the following video earlier this evening. Not quite as dramatic, but the real deal nevertheless …

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , ,

31 thoughts on “Telekinesis under a glass bowl

  1. Mark says:

    Sorry for playing devil’s advocate again, but the “sealed environment” isn’t really anything of the sort.

    The pin wheel is still susceptible to micro air currents underneath the bowl — even more so given that the temperature within the bowl will be a little bit higher than the outside. The table will be giving off some degree of thermal energy that rises, hits the top of the bowl, recirculating down the sides and then up again. This is what causes the pinwheel to move.

    Because the pinwheel is asymmetrical, it will occasionally acquire a little bit of kinetic energy, which will cause it to sustain a spin for short periods of time, until the micro air currents conspire to offer resistance and slow it down again.

    If you truly believe that the laws of thermodynamics aren’t being demonstrated here, then replace the tin foil with thick cardboard, or something made out of Lego, which micro air currents and small differentials in releases of thermal energy won’t be able to easily move. (Maybe even a brick.) By using tin foil you’re not demonstrating anything above and beyond simple high school physics.

  2. Perhaps a way to improve on this experiment, and show that it isn’t just thermodynamics, etc, would be to put two pin wheels under the bowl, and move only one of them. Any heat, breeze or whatevers would affect both pin wheels so if you can get just one of them spinning, that would be pretty impressive.

  3. Darryl Sloan says:

    Mark,

    Don’t apologise for playing devil’s advocate. I totally respect the approach and I’ve been doing it with myself throughout this investigation, although that’s not always apparant because of my excitement.

    Cardboard is not likely to work and Lego is certainly not going to work. They’re just too heavy; I couldn’t move them inside or outside a bowl. But there’s one effective test we can do (which I’ve done).

    A few weeks ago I set up the psi wheel, switched on the camcorder, and walked away. Later reviewing an hour of tape on fast-forward revealed no movement whatsoever. In addition to this evidence is my experience of countless sessions over the past couple of months, where I’ve stared at the covered psi wheel for long periods and produced no movement.

    In the video I published, I wish the movement had been as dramatic as what I achieved earlier. I’ll try to record another video soon to show this.

    Ultimately, we can do the hour-long recording as often as we feel is necessary to prove that it’s not micro-currents. I’m confident it will always show the same thing. No movement.

    Another sceptic I’ve been talking to privately is equally convinced (without testing) that the heat from my hand is warming up the glass and affecting the air inside (incidentally, my hand isn’t touching the glass at all; it’s hard to tell in the video).

    What I’m demonstrating is an anomaly to the conventional explanations. That’s as scientifically as I can state it.

  4. Darryl Sloan says:

    Paul,

    Unfortunately, over the many months of my experimenting, it has proven difficult to gain strict focused control of a psi wheel. And this includes spinning multiple psi wheels. Whatever energy is behind this, conventional or otherwise, it isn’t entirely disciplined.

    A lengthy recording (repeated until satisfied) is, I think, the best test for air currents.

  5. But as lengthy as those recordings are, they prove nothing. It could just be that you being in the room, or being next to the object is what is causing the change in heat, airflow, etc. Your breathing, your body-heat, your static, etc.

    I realise it takes time, but the only way to really prove the case, is to show control. Uri Geller himself struggled with this, always being able to do things under his own circumstances, but completely powerless in laboratory conditions.

    People have been claiming such things for thousands of years, yet there isn’t one proven case. The one person who can prove it, under laboratory conditions, would be a very rich person indeed. The incentive is there, but as yet, there’s just no-one who can do it. It’s frustrating to someone like me, who wishes it was a genuine power.

  6. Darryl Sloan says:

    If we taking things one theory at a time, the recordings are perfectly valid for testing what Mark is claiming is behind the movement: natural thermals inside the glass.

    If we want to ascertain whether the heat of my hand is having an effect on the bowl, we can place a hot object beside the bowl. As I showed in a previous video, a boiling hot object placed beside an uncovered psi wheel doesn’t even move it.

    Is my breath a factor? I can blow hard on the bowl and the wheel won’t move a fraction.

    If it’s static on my hand, why did it wait four minutes before doing anything? And anyway, this doesn’t match the behaviour of static. From previous tests, static pulls the nearest arm of the wheel towards the source of the static and holds it there.

    It’s perfectly plain to me that something unconventional is going on.

    Here’s a less commonly known consideration: the human heart gives off a magnetic force that is measurable with instruments from up to six feet away. But again, the trouble with this theory is that the glass should pose no barrier, and clearly it does. TK works much more easily outside the glass, and didn’t work inside the glass at all without training over time.

  7. But this is the thing, thermodymanics work on such minute levels.

    The fact remains that the psi wheel does move when you’re not trying to move it.

    Because the tin foil is so light, and the surface area so big, it doesn’t take much at all to move it. And of course this is answered with the fact that you can’t move anything heavier. But surely that might mean that actually, you aren’t moving anything and thermodynamics aren’t strong enough to move heavier objects?

    For me the main obstacle in your experiment is, the same results can be found without using PK. Be it a breeze, heat, whatever it is. I’ve done it myself, and i’m sure many others have too.

    You can stand in your back garden all day long, and point at a leaf and say it will move by the power of your mind. But all it takes is a breeze and the leaf will move of its own accord.

    As i’ve said before, the only way to override this is, to better control it. Have the item move on demand, changing directions on demand, etc. Either that or to place the wheel within a vacuum.

    I think i’ve said this before: How about using little polystyrene balls? They have barely any weight. Put them in a shoebox, or something similar, and move them to certain places. Maybe into little pre-cut holes.

    Control really is the key. Without control, it’s too easy to explain away.

  8. Darryl Sloan says:

    Control is there, but it’s not 100% reliable. I’ve had far too many reliable instances of intention matching result to discount it.

    “I think i’ve said this before: How about using little polystyrene balls? They have barely any weight. Put them in a shoebox, or something similar, and move them to certain places. Maybe into little pre-cut holes.”

    I think that’s a great idea, actually. I’m working on ping-pong at the moment, which is a step up from that.

    “For me the main obstacle in your experiment is, the same results can be found without using PK. Be it a breeze, heat, whatever it is. I’ve done it myself, and i’m sure many others have too.”

    That’s an incredible generalisation that’s in complete denial of what’s in front of you here.

    Look at it this way. Months ago, I placed two glasses of boiling water placed right beside a foil wheel and that amount of heat wouldn’t budge it. On the other hand, you’re saying that a much cooler human hand held further from the wheel, with a thick glass barrier in between, can cause movement by thermodynamics.

    I haven’t got a thermometer to check, but I seriously doubt that that my presence is having a temperature effect on the inside of that glass bowl.

    Bottom line: If you think a covered psi wheel will spin for you, go try it.

  9. But as i’ve said before, there was a website where a guy set out to disprove PK, who actually ended up believing, because he couldn’t find out what did it. He found he could move things and after tons of experiments he couldn’t work out why the wheel moved, so he started to believe it was his mind.

    Then one day, by accident he realised it was all in the placing, and distances, etc. Like if you blow on a psi wheel, you’ll get a completely different reaction to that you’d get if it’s a really gentle little air-current. He then started to experiment with cups of hot water, placed around the wheel, and from that he was able to work out where to place his hands, to cause the same effect.

    I’m not saying that what you’re doing isn’t supernatural. I’m just saying it isn’t impressive enough for me to find it supernatural without doubt.

    Ping pong balls would be great. I’d still start off with polystyrene balls though, they’re much lighter, and therefore they’d be easier to move. The key to the experiment would be getting the ball to a certain place though. If you can move an object from one place to another (pre-agreed target), on demand, that would be pretty hard to argue against.

  10. Darryl Sloan says:

    I wonder is it Keith Mayes you’re referring to, and his TK article on his site: http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/

    His investigation into telekinesis involves only a couple of days of trials, but he goes through the process you describe, which is what make me think it’s him.

    I’ve been talking to Keith about my covered psi wheel. He is fiercely dogmatic (to the point of ridiculing me) about thermodynamics being the cause, despite him having done no testing of a covered wheel whatsoever.

    This is a trend I’ve noticed about sceptics. They will jump to nail their colours to any explanation for telekinesis, without testing – as long as it’s conventional and doesn’t challenge their reductionist belief system. Listen to the dogmatism that Mark spoke with above, having done nothing whatsoever to verify his claim (no offense, Mark): “The table will be giving off some degree of thermal energy that rises, hits the top of the bowl, recirculating down the sides and then up again. This is what causes the pinwheel to move. […] By using tin foil you’re not demonstrating anything above and beyond simple high school physics.”

    What I find with sceptics is exactly the same mentality as the “True Believer” syndrome. Both have a belief system that is resistant to change, and both are willing to ignore or twist challenging information. It’s two sides of the same coin.

    The truly rational position is to have a belief system that simply goes where the information leads without prejudice – without deciding beforehand what’s possible and impossible.

    The way that the sceptic gets around challenging information is to say, “Interesting, but show me this and then I will believe.” It’s the ever-moving goalpost. I understand the desire for greater evidence, but meanwhile the anomaly already presented gets consigned to the bottom drawer and conveniently ignored.

    “I’m not saying that what you’re doing isn’t supernatural. I’m just saying it isn’t impressive enough for me to find it supernatural without doubt.”

    Well, I don’t think it is supernatural. I think it’s perfectly natural. I suspect the issue is that science has left consciousness out of its theorising on the nature of reality. When you include consciousness, physical reality gets flipped on its head, as I discussed in my post “Unmasking the nature of reality.”

  11. Skeptic says:

    In response to Mark’s comments about the table giving off thermal energy, I disagee. The table is not a heat source, i.e., it is not generating its own heat, and would be in a high degree of thermal equilibrium with the air in the surrounding room. The only real way the table could cause air currents under the bowl is if there was a significant temperature differential between the air and the table, e.g., if Darryl had suddenly heated or cooled the room right before starting the experiment. To cause air currents that would be able to move with any degree of consistency something as large as a psi wheel, the temperature differential would need to be vast and sudden.

    I tried replicating Darryl’s experiment at home, and I saw no movement of the psi wheel under the bowl after watching it for maybe 20 minutes. Even when I put a dish of just-boiled water into the environment under the bowl, again, there was no movement after 10 or 15 minutes.

    At first, when I watched Darryl’s video, I thought maybe his hand being so close to the bowl would be a strong enough heat source to initiate more vigorous air currents under the bowl. However, after reflecting on this possibility, I think it highly unlikely because Darryl’s hand would be be a strong enough radiative heat emitter to affect the air molecules under the glass, and convective heat transfer from Darryl’s hand through the glass to the air under the bowl just does not seem feasible in the time frame of the video (or, really at all for that matter since there’s not a huge temperature differential between Darryl’s hand and the surrounding air in the room).

    Mark, I think if basic thermodynamics was at play here, then why did I not see any movement in my attempt to replicate Darryl’s experiment? If micro air currents are moving the wheel, then how come long periods of observation of a psi wheel shows no significant observation whatsoever, even in an open room, as Darryl has demonstrated in a previous video?

    I think your argument here is badly flawed and does not account for all the evidence. Something other than thermodynamic action is causing the movement of the psi-wheel.

  12. Skeptic:

    You’re forgetting things like body-heat, breathing, etc. All of these things will change the environment of the room. Add to that the fact that there are times when the wheel moves, when Darryl isn’t actually trying to move it, and the fact that sometimes it doesn’t move when he tries to. This for me points at a more natural reason for the wheel moving.

    The problem is, in a house, it’s very difficult to know what currents, heat-sources, and the like are at work. This is why it’s important for things like this to be tested in laboratory conditions. And when they have been tested in that manner, there was no impressive result.

    It’s funny that most people on the internet who claim to be able to do the most amazing things with PK, refuse to be tested properly. This itself points me to conclude that they have something to hide.

    Those that are genuine, and don’t have anything to hide, tend to be the people at the lower scale of things, able to move little psi-wheels, with little or no control. Either they don’t improve on their skills, or when they do (or at least claim they can), they suddenly find a problem in proving their case and won’t be tested.

    That guy isn’t the one i’d read, Darryl. I must have a look and see if i can find him. He was very low key, it was just some little basic homepage, old angelfire style, etc. And he was quite humble and provided tons of pictures, videos, etc.

  13. Skeptic says:

    GodIsWearingBlack:

    No, I’m not forgetting things like body-heat, breathing, etc.. I’m just not convinced that such heat sources are capable of generating air currents strong enough to move the psi wheel in anything other than small, random movements that may not even be discernable with the eye, Brownian motion being what it is.

    I can quite understand why people are so intent on pushing the theory of thermal air currents here when that would seem to be already debunked. Even if it was still a real possibility, its a tenuous theory at best, with nothing to back it up other than big words like “scientific” and “thermodynamics”. Do you really think that miniscule thermal currents are able to be strong enough and coherent enough to move the psi wheel in a highly non-random manner such as that demonstrated by Darryl’s experiments? If that’s the case, then why am I unable to replicate the motion of Darryl’s psi wheel videos simply by leaving a psi wheel exposed to the air in the room? What you’re hypothesizing here just does not fit with the observations.

    As for “laboratory conditions”, what you’re really talking about is conducting experiments within a controlled environment. Really, putting a psi-wheel under a glass bowl, with all objects being at room temperature, the environment under the glass bowl is pretty much as controlled as you can get since glass is a thermal insulator and a barrier to air currents and there are no significant radiative thermal emitters in the room.

    Insisting on thermal air currents as being a serious explanation behind the movement of Darryl’s psi wheel, especially under the glass bowl, is scientifically naive. Micro air currents would not be able to cause anything other than random, indiscernable (by the human eye) movements in the psi wheel, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong. The only time I’ve been able to observe a psi-wheel spin due to air durrents is to very very gently blow on it at a precise angle. Otherwise, I’ve stood a psi wheel in an open room for a significant period of time and observed zero movement. How do you explain this lack of movement through the theory of micro air currents? Quite simply, you can’t. I really don’t know for sure if Darryl is really effecting the movement in the psi-wheel or if it’s caused by something else, but I am highly convinced that micro air currents, and other thermodynamic effects, can be easily dismissed.

  14. Darryl Sloan says:

    Thanks for doing the test, Skeptic!

    Paul,

    “You’re forgetting things like body-heat, breathing, etc.”

    How so? You know I’ve worn a mask in my prior video, yet you talk about breathing. You know I let the tape run for an extra 25 mins, so that we could compare the natural air currents in the room to the results when I’m present. You talk about body heat, yet you know we’ve already tested massive heat sources very close to the wheel to no effect. And now, it works in a sealed environment. Start taking account of the results instead of generalising.

  15. Darryl, it’s not a sealed environment at all, as has already been pointed out, the bowl isn’t a perfect shape with absolutely no gaps between it and the table.

    Even in a mask, your breath is still escaping into the environment, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to breathe through it.

    In my own limited experimentation I found i could get movements from the wheel, just by warming my hands up beforehand, or having a candle about six inches from the wheel. I also found that different areas of the room gave different results.

    You personally may not have got results with the hot liquid. But i’ve definitely had results with heat. And i’ve seen videos of other people having results with it too.

    Skeptic:

    I haven’t said themodynamics are definitely the reason for the wheel moving. I’ve merely pointed out that while something as simple as that COULD be responsible, the results Darryl has been getting just aren’t good enough to prove that it is indeed PK.

    Darryl himself has stated other possible reasons, like magnetism that the heart gives off (which i didn’t even know about). There are many things we don’t quite know about.

    If Darryl was able to move the wheel on command, in any direction of his choosing, starting from when he said “go,” and ending when he said “stop,” i’d be only too willing to jump on the bandwagon.

    The problem here is, the movements ARE random. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes it moves when he’s not even trying to move it. It’s multi-directional, which again, sometimes is a result of Darryl wanting it to change direction (although, not instantly, meaning it could just be chance) , and sometimes isn’t.

    I don’t know what the answer is. It may well be PK, but it’s just as likely, if not more, that the movement is nothing more than a very light item being affected by the environment around it.

  16. Mark says:

    To be fair, I did try Darryl’s initial psi-wheel experiment and achieved more or less the same results. I posted about this in one of his earlier videos.

    I made sure my environment was as neutral as possible — no air conditioning or heating, I even wore a dust mask to minimize the effects of my breathing, etc.

    Over a period of five minutes, while sitting away from the pin-wheel, I noticed occasional, sporadic movements. For the most part these were gentle drifts in one direction or another, but a couple of times it would sustain a slightly faster spin for about 5-10 seconds.

    I then experimented with just how much I could control the environment to produce effects. Rubbing my hands together briskly and then bringing one into close proximity with the wheel would cause it to spin very rapidly. I could even modulate the speed of rotation by moving my hand closer and further away.

    By moving about ten meters away and turning on a small, handheld fan, I could cause the wheel to spin on command. Standing ten meters away from the fan myself, I couldn’t feel it, but it was doing enough to move the air around my environment to effect it. (I had the best results when aiming the fan to the side of the pinwheel rather than directly at it.)

    Admittedly, I haven’t tried the “sealed environment” approach. Alas, all the bowls I have at hand are opaque! I still contest that while plonking a bowl on top of the wheel will eliminate many outside influences, it still doesn’t prevent Brownian motion from occurring within the bowl itself. What it all boils down to is, is there enough to move the wheel? I still contend that there is. Every object in the known universe gives off some level of thermal energy, even a block of ice. While the table might not be warm in the conventional sense, it’s still radiating energy, and that energy is interacting with all sorts of other forms of electromagnetic radiation (many of which don’t care that there’s a plastic bowl in the way). It’s impossible to discount that as a possible cause, unless you conduct the test in a zero state vacuum (which is impossible in itself anyway).

  17. Darryl Sloan says:

    Mark,

    “It’s impossible to discount that [thermals] as a possible cause, unless you conduct the test in a zero state vacuum (which is impossible in itself anyway).”

    It’s perfectly possible to discount thermals as a cause if repeated recordings show it to have no effect – so long as we can call “beyond reasonable doubt” proof.

    Paul,

    “I haven’t said themodynamics are definitely the reason for the wheel moving. I’ve merely pointed out that while something as simple as that COULD be responsible, the results Darryl has been getting just aren’t good enough to prove that it is indeed PK.”

    The whole point of the glass bowl was the eliminate thermals as a cause. So, no, it’s not right to generalise and say, “something as simple as that COULD be responsible.” Thermals are not responsible. The data is in; the theory is debunked by any reasonable standard.

    No one is saying you have to believe it’s PK/TK. Science moves forward by disproving theories. We move towards what’s really going on gradually by eliminating what we think it may be, leaving us with less possibilities.

    Yes, minscule amounts of air get through due to the edge of the bowl not perfectly aligning with the table, but do you really believe that enough of a force is generated by this to cause movement? Even when we’ve got long recorded sessions that say this is not the case. Again, the data is in. Feel free to grab your camcorder and do your own test. Then, for goodness sake, move on.

    For instance, if you would stop flogging the dead horses, here is something interesting that we could be dicussing:

    The above video is self-delusional telekinesis under a cover. The effect is caused by the fact that the arms of the object are too close to the covering. I’m not sure of the science behind it, but I think it’s something to do with natural static fields (possibly relating to plastic glass?), and maybe the “Cheerio” effect:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheerio_effect

    I’ve had similar results myself when using an upturned plastic jug with a two-pronged psi wheel.

    This is one of the reasons why I favour a very large bowl. But I have also had no success in moving a psi wheel in a small glass bowl, either.

    Here is an extremely interesting example (if true) of a more advanced covered TK experiment – one that I am working towards achieving:

  18. Mark says:

    If you believe a plastic bowl blocks all forms of electromagnetic radiation then your understanding of physics is deeply flawed.

    You CAN’T discount thermal energy because no laboratory conditions exist in which that’s possible. So what we’re basically debating here is whether or not your wheel, your bowl and the environment either side of it is capable of generating ENOUGH electromagnetic radiation to effect them. I contend that they are.

    The burden of proof is on you to come up with a more effective demonstration that your psychic connection with the wheel is the most easily explained solution to its movement.

    It’s suspiciously convenient that the only objects so-called telekinetics are able to move are those with very little mass and a relatively huge surface area (ie, things that can be moved relatively easy with very little electromagnetic radiation). When I suggested cardboard or Lego, your response was, “That won’t work — they’re too heavy.” Too heavy for what? The power of your mind, or small amounts of electromagnetic radiation?

    If you want to discount thermals, devise a better experiment. Take a flat piece of foil — exactly the same size as you’d use to create a pin wheel — and lay it flat on a book, magazine or DVD case (we need to minimize the amount of air that can get UNDER the foil). Now put a bowl over them. Now try to move the foil.

    You’re trying to move exactly the same object, with the same mass and surface area. So, in theory, you should be able to use telekinesis to move it, correct?

  19. Darryl Sloan says:

    Mark,

    You don’t seem to understand the process of moving forward with this.

    Step 1. You start with various theories on what it might be. These include air, heat, static, magnetism, and yes, even some possible unknowns that we might label “psi” or “chi” (whatever such things might mean). We also acknowledge that our understanding of nature is incomplete, and we may not be able to say definitely what it is.

    Step 2. You perform experiments that are designed to limit the effects of some of theories above. The aim is to eliminate the possible causes, thus narrowing the possibilities and so moving closer to what the truth is.

    Now, I contend that my covered experiment eliminates thermals as a cause for movement. I back that up with data.

    You continue to contend that is thermals, in complete disregard of this data, and no testing of your own that debunks the data here. All you have to do is show me a covered psi wheel moving.

    I am not saying that I have proof for what the movement is, only what it is not. In that sense, the onus is firmly on you to show me that my test is flawed by doing one of your own.

    From what I can see, thermals and stray air currents are now off the table.

    “If you believe a plastic bowl blocks all forms of electromagnetic radiation then your understanding of physics is deeply flawed.”

    I think you must have read me wrong. I made no such claim.

  20. I have to say Darryl, you’re either just ignoring some of the points Mark makes, or you’re not understanding his points.

    He’s giving you reasons why thermodynamics and the such, ARE still at work, no matter what environment you have, including under the bowl. Neither Mark or myself are saying that PK definitely isn’t real, we’re just pointing out that the results you are getting, aren’t strong enough, or reliable enough, to make it the only explanation.

    Why not try Mark’s idea? The same piece of foil, with the same weight, placed flat on a book/DVD cover, and see if you can move it, without relying on the surface area and it being exposed to the elements, which can easily move it?

    I remember a while ago, I suggested putting a candle next to the wheel, as close as possible, without setting it alight, and making a note of when the wheel would move, whether the flame was moved too. And if the flame’s movement was different, when the wheel started to move, etc, to show if the environment was affecting it.

    Can I ask though, why does it have to be a wheel? What is it about the wheel, that makes it easier to move, in your mind? Would it be any more difficult to move a flat piece of foil of the same weight?

  21. Darryl Sloan says:

    I acknowledge that thermodyamics is at work, but what I demonstrated, and what Skeptic explained at length, is that the effects of thermodyanmics are too minor to account for the movement of the psi wheel. I don’t know how you can question that, when I have so much recorded footage that shows it.

    You seem to think that the minutest deviation from a 100% controlled environment can make all sorts of things possible, even when recorded evidence, reinforced by repetition, shows that not to be the case. It’s like claiming the candles on the Birthday cake were blown own by a puff of wind blowing in through the keyhole in a door thirty feet away. You don’t seem to have any appreciation of how much of a stretch your grip on thermodyamics is.

    You are simply in denial of the facts, and not prepared to follow a proper scientific process of elimination. Nobody’s asking you to jump to any conclusion about PK, just to consider the case for thermodynamics in particular, taking into account the evidence presented.

    “Why not try Mark’s idea? The same piece of foil, with the same weight, placed flat on a book/DVD cover, and see if you can move it, without relying on the surface area and it being exposed to the elements, which can easily move it?”

    Doesn’t work. At my level, I can’t yet move anything with more than a single point of friction. I’ve tried.

    Regardless of what I can’t do, I can produce anomalies to the conventional explanations, and these anomalies are repeatable. It’s only fair that these should be considered as valued results, despite what I can’t do when you move the goalpost.

    “I remember a while ago, I suggested putting a candle next to the wheel, as close as possible, without setting it alight, and making a note of when the wheel would move, whether the flame was moved too. And if the flame’s movement was different, when the wheel started to move, etc, to show if the environment was affecting it.”

    Nobody disputes that heat can move the psi wheel. The big question is, does the human body produce enough heat to move it? Since two glasses of boiling water aren’t enough, the answer is no.

  22. Darryl Sloan says:

    “Can I ask though, why does it have to be a wheel? What is it about the wheel, that makes it easier to move, in your mind? Would it be any more difficult to move a flat piece of foil of the same weight?”

    If you mean a flat piece of paper on a desk, it would be extremely difficult. If you mean a flat piece of paper carefully balanced on a needle, yes, it can be spun, although it’s more likely to fall off. The only significance to the pyramid design of the psi wheel is that it provides a convenient means of not allowing the object to fall.

    Weight and friction are the factors, particularly friction. Shape is unimportant, and I’ve experimented with various. We already know the psi wheel isn’t a propeller design (something that most body heat believers ignore or fail to notice), and as such it should only spin in one direction when a force is directed at one side of the wheel, at an angle. This is why heat sources, such as candles, and random air currents, cause the psi wheel to bounce back and forth randomly.

  23. You say I’m ignoring the facts, and that i’m not following a proper scientific set of reasoning, but I’m really not. You’re moving a very light piece of foil, which has a large surface area, and is aerodynamically shaped, so that it will spin. Yes, miniscule airflows and changes in environment will move it. That’s my whole point.

    You’re admitting yourself, that you can’t move anything heavier, or with a surface area to weight ratio, which doesn’t lend itself to movement as easily.

    Airflow in a room will have set paths. From one place to another, based on where the air is coming from and where it is going to. That could very easily move something as light as a piece of foil which is balancing on a pin point.

    As I’ve said a few times, if you were doing this on demand, able to control which direction the wheel turned, just by thinking it, it would mean a lot more. But it’s hit and miss, both as to whether it works at all, and as to what direction it turns in.

    I’ve experimented myself and my results pointed at the environment playing a huge part in the spinning of the wheel. Be it the heat of a candle, the heat of my hands, my breathing, etc.

    The most telling of my tests was, I set up the pin wheel, and using the time on my PC, i timed the event for 5 mins while trying to make it spin, then for the next 5 mins (without a break in the middle), I tried to tell it not to move. Both sets of 5 minutes saw the wheel stop and start, which in my mind proves it was nothing to do with me, causing the motion.

    Btw, the human body DOES create enough heat to move it, i’ve done it myself, just using my hands. It works best if you rub your hands together for a few seconds, but it does work without that friction too. I’ve also managed to make the wheel turn by placing hot objects next to it. And i’ve seen videos of cups of tea placed around the wheel, making it move very well, in steady movement, but a little faster than you’ve been able to make it move.

    My experimentation has led me to a different conclusion than yours.

  24. Darryl Sloan says:

    Hi, Paul.

    I feel we’re going round in circles now, so I didn’t respond earlier.

    However, I now have one new thing to share. You’ve prompted me to be as rigorous as I possibly can, so to that end, I’ve now laid a cloth on the table and placed the bowl over it so that the whole circumference of the bowl rests on the cloth. The weight of the bowl compresses the cloth and this forms a tight seal against the desk that prevents airflow. I tested it by blowing hard against the rim of the bowl from all sides. The psi wheel was perfectly still at all times.

    As before, I continue to be able to move the wheel with conscious intention. It’s not airflow, period.

  25. That’s certainly more impressive. I’ve not tried with a bowl yet, i’m not even sure i have a transparent bowl. But proving that there’s no air getting in is certainly a huge step in the right direction.

    It’d be interesting to test heat on and around the bowl. I’ll have to see if i can have a go at it.

    Have you had any results with the ping pong balls yet?

  26. Darryl Sloan says:

    No results with a ping-pong ball as yet. I’ll keep trying.

  27. Enigmahack says:

    Darryl – perhaps if it were possible… get a hold of one of those bell-shaped vacuums? I’ve seen science experiments where they would put an alarm clock in one and you couldn’t hear it, because of the lack of oxygen.

    I’m not a physicist, but I would suspect that if you were able to get a situation like that… coupled with some sort of pressure meter that would display a 0 pressure area, that you might have more scientific results to work with?

    Heck, it might even be easier for you, simply because of the lack of friction that air would have on the psi-wheel itself.

    I’m aware that thermal currents might still be a problem, but at least in a vacuum you can eliminate air/breeze.

    I do like the towel-under-the-bowl though – it helps clear it up a little anyway.

    So, perhaps a plausible step is to re-create a vacuum chamber with the psi-wheel in it, and then move it.

    I for one would LOVE to see that, but don’t know where you’d get started in getting access to a proper vacuum chamber.

  28. skykatt says:

    Hi Darryl, Since happening across your videos last January (2010) I became intrigued to try for myself. Also respecting of the arguments made by the others I have tried to do controlled work myself and have placed my glass vase on a soft thick cloth so that the rim of the vase ‘sinks’ a little and then have also blown hard around the base to see if the psi wheel rocks or rotates – no. I have also placed a hot water bottle on top of the vase and on another occasion at the side of the vase to see if heat played a part – no. But my hands do seem to have an effect. When I do not touch the sides of the glass it is harder to get the wheel to move but when I make contact with the glass the psi wheel will spin. However not guaranteed every time, eg I have just spent around 40 minutes trying and not much luck this evening. I have had results with my foil psi wheel not with my paper one. I have a needle mounted into a pencil eraser. Because of one of your correspondent’s suggestions I also tried two psi wheels today and used another needle and a cube of blue tack – zilch! Cup of tea I think.

  29. Darryl Sloan says:

    I hate to say this, but your experience with your hands on the bowl sounds very much like how static would behave, when static is attached to the inside of the bowl and becomes disturbed by the proximity of your hands. If you are using a plastic bowl, static very easily clings to this. If it’s glass, much less so.

    As a rule, I never put credence in any movement I generate that corresponds to movement of my hand.

  30. skykatt says:

    It’s been quite some time since I practised. My tin foil psi wheel has worn out and I have made a couple of small paper ones tonight. I’m finding it harder to get them to spin – maybe paper is heavier size for size and maybe floppier. I can get results uncovered but detect only the slightest movement under glass.

  31. Anoop says:

    thanks for this darryl! gives me hope. I have just started and doubted I have the patience to stick with it for long but if you can go eight months why not me? I am currently doing it lying on my bed(not much table space), without a glass bowl and covering my mouth with a scarf. I will be satisfied I can do it when I can make it move at will. I may not be able to stop it at will at first since that will be pulling in the opposite direction but if I can make it move whenever i want I will be convinced it’s me doing it.

    Just started today and it only moved when my hands moved near it so I’m pretty sure there are no random thermals in the room. I also don’t plan on sending energy through my hand but only visualizing the movement. I only plan on moving to a pen roll attempt once I can start and reverse the psiwheel at will.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: