Talk:Hutchison effect/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Ice cream video

[1]

hehe. ice cream in a cup held to the ceiling by a magnet and an upside-down camera! - Omegatron 07:06, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

That is a debunker claim. Since you obviously hold the scientific method to such high esteem, how about showing a little scientific objectivity in reviewing what "evidence" exists. For that matter, what would you consider compelling enough to convince you? You appear to be entrenched in your idealogy. That's fine, but not scientific at all. If you consider the subject matter to be too lunatic fringe to even consider seriously than I suggest you refer to the recent accomplishment of the ESA to produce gravitomagnetic fields in a lab. That's replicable and soon to be published. You can get the paper on the Los Alamos preprint server.
I think it would be appropriate to mention Boyd Bushman who claims to have replicated some of the effects purported by Hutchison. (you can verify his connection with Lockheed Martin by the many USPTO patents attributed to him and faciliated by his employer)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.118.29.3 (talk • contribs). 11:38, 3 April 2006 (apparently geolocated near London, England; some link to UUNET Technologies, Inc.)
sorry man that doesnt work, the plate moves around before shooting upwards , so no magnets. Also some of the other stuff such as the plyers , bowling ball and circular saw levitating could not be done with magnets or chicken wire, watch the rest of the films. i do beleive however :after watching this http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/realplayer/Hutchison.rm
that it was a real phenomena but has not worked since 1984 so any videos made after that are probably attempts by hutchison to reenter the limelight. watch the video before deleting this please. it was played on the discovery channel i think.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.137.28.21 (talk • contribs). 04:52, 18 May 2005 (NTL Internet Ltd; apparently geolocated near Reading, England, about 40 miles from London)

No one's going to delete your comment, silly. Can you provide some references for the info you added to the article? - Omegatron 01:05, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Just watch the video link i provided, watch the interview with nick cook on hutchisons site and search for nick cook on the internet and see how respected he is in the scientific community. Plus the link above i gave was played on many channels and it talks to industrial and goverment scientists. who say that they are certain john hutshisons work isnt a fake.
watch this video to see what i mean it is the nick cook interview plus a reference to lockheed martin interest. Plus a levitating circular saw! http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/Videos/NickCookInterview.wmv
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.137.28.23 (talk • contribs). 04:35, 19 May 2005 (ntli.net anon from NTL Internet Ltd; apparently geolocated near Reading, England)

yeah i watched that a while ago. you can't really get references on a subject from the subject itself. i'll check out nick cook. - Omegatron 12:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Nigel Cook

Added more info i gained on the hutchison effect for you guys. 14:15, May 19, 2005 GMT

Nick Cook is an award-winning defense and aerospace journalist, who for the past 15 years has been Aviation Editor and Aerospace Consultant of the world-renowned trade publication Jane's Defense Weekly. Nick is a regular contributor to The Financial Times and has also written for numerous newspapers in the United Kingdom. His analysis was sought by UK, US and other world news media during the 1991 Gulf War and 1999 Kosovo conflict. In his 18 year career, he has visited the world's leading defense establishments and has gained access to numerous top secret military facilities and bases in the US and former Soviet Union. In addition, Cook's two hour documentary for the Discovery Channel, “Billion Dollar Secret,” detailed for the first time the secret inner workings of America's classified weapons establishment.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.255.64.9 (talk • contribs). 19 May 2005 (three edits, various times) (NTL Internet; apparently geolocated in London, England) (paragraph immediately above is apparently an unattributed quotation from someone else)

Suspect claims of alleged "interest" from giant corporations

Without commenting on Mr. Hutchison's claims, I do work for Lockheed as an engineer with a background in microwaves and electromagnetics and run into weird claims occasionaly. Since we are a very large organization and interested in exotic technology and physics, various divisions are often approached by people with...um, "alternative" phenomenon and machines. From time to time I am asked to examine thier claims. One common theme in all of these interactions is a vague claim "the government is interested" or "Raytheon is interested" or similar. What seems to happen is these guys get a name and number, and call and say "Hey, I've got this gizmo that does blah blah, would you like to see it?" Sure, why not? So maybe they bring it in, or we visit, and it's nothing, or a misinterpretation of known phenomenon. BUT, now our alternative freind can call Boeing, and hint darkly "Well, Lockheed is very interested." Well, INTERESTED doesn't mean THINKS IT WORKS. After all, a sincere believer in his own perpetual machine can be quite entertaining, and sometimes you have to think very hard to figure out Mr. Alternative's error.

SO, when someone claims "Some Big Organization" is interested, unless a name, division, agency or what ever is included, it's almost certainly a bogus claim. And if they claim they can't reveal the name because it's Ultra Souper Douper Don't Tell Mama secret, then it's probably bogus since once something is classifeid, you aren't supposed to talk about it.If you do, thay can and do send you to jail. And if it's real, and classified, and important, there's a good chance our favorite uncle is funding it somehow.

But the real claim to truth, as with all science, is independent reproducabilty. OK, if it works and you don't know why, that's cool, write down the details and publish them. If someone else makes the same stuff happen, your real, and you have established your claim by publishing. If it's irreproducable, it's Cold Fusion.

Al Pergande, orlando Fla.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.142.131.243 (talk • contribs). 11:01, 9 July 2005 (Wikimedia Foundation)

Hutchison promotion results from ignorance

Most of the claims made by proponents of Hutchison are the result of scientific ignorance. The effects Hutchison believes he produced in the 80s are mundane and any credible material physicist can explain them to you, or even reproduce them if he felt like wasting his time.

Notice that the camera always cuts away from 'levitating' objects after they leave the top of the screen. This is most likely because they come crashing back down a moment later. This is not unifying gravity with electromagnetism. This is creating a repulsive/attractive electromagnetic force that exceeds g. As for fusion of materials, try putting a high voltage through objects with high resistance.

Furthermore, when scientists talk about the unification of forces, they are NOT talking about boring stuff like levitation. The fact that people like Hutchison get attention instead of the amazing results published by Fermilab and CERN makes me want to cry. I mourn for thee, SSC.

Hutchison is a backyard scientist at best and a charlatan at worst. His experiments lack hypotheses, controls, and documentation. If he really did discover this 'effect' in the manner described, I'm surprised he hasn't blown himself up by now. There is no theory here to even evaluate, just a bunch of grainy videos.

Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. I see none. Keep this one filed under Pseudoscience. 129.12.228.161 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (a student at the University of Kent; apparently geolocated near Canterbury, England)

They don't come crashing back down, since they were never going up in the first place. They are falling, and the camera is just upside down. — Omegatron 00:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, but I'm at least giving him the benefit of the doubt. It's easy to say that something is faked, but in this case, it's more important to point out that even if it ISN'T faked, it's still pointless.

129.12.228.161 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (a student at the University of Kent; apparently geolocated near Canterbury, England)

Are you kidding? If someone really came up with working antigravity (not that anyone has), it would be pointless? — Omegatron 06:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Proof?

The effect was reproduced ... at least for the transmutation of metal ... he turned hard lead into soft lead (in a controlled environment). J. D. Redding

Proof? Circumstantial evidence? Even a reference? — Omegatron 19:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yea, hard proof and solid evidence ... several references out there, such as theverylastpageoftheinternet site. J. D. Redding (PS., have you read anything about the effect? or watched/listened to any of the associated material?)

I've read tons. I've watched all the videos I can find and it's terribly amusing that people actually fall for this stuff. Anyway, you can't put things like "he turned hard lead into soft lead (in a controlled environment)" into the article without at least an attribution of who says he did it. — Omegatron 20:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's terribly amusing that people actually ignore evidence and history. Anyways, I will have attribution for most of the content. J. D. Redding 20:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah none of this is real man. He makes a good living prolly selling those videos for hundreds of dollars. And the discovery channel bought it. Man that's dumb of them... NO ONE can reproduce his work.

Moved from article

Below will be some things removed from the article. J. D. Redding 18:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by 63.26.24.223 (talk • contribs):

This page was tagged for cleanup on the basis of 'claming miraculous effects such as antigravity'. First of all, antigravity is not miraculous - it may very well be a real phenomenon, and Einstein believed in it. Secondly, this article nowhere claims antigravity, only of *levitation,* which can and has been done with magnets (even on nonferrous materials). Thirdly, there is indeed video of these effects, and I have seen it, although of course video is not conclusive proof of something.

Bold edit?

Sorry, in hurry: Reddi's last edit [2] (actually more than 30 edits, can you please try to use preview instead of save more often) boldly asserts three points, for which I don't find references:

  1. The study of the effect was through Stanford Research Institute...
  2. ...and the Central Intelligence Agency
  3. The research group found the effect to be real, but unexplainable by conventional physics.
my bolding

If I decipher the badly working endnote mechanism correctles, that was given as reference {1]:

Huh? I don't read it that way and it is a only Blog entry.

Pjacobi 20:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

See Tim Ventura's endnote @ reference at that blog. Tim Ventura has written extensively on the effect. J. D. Redding (PS., I also put in Ventura's full paper as a ref "The Ultimate Hutchison". )

This isn't a referemce which would allow factual assertions. --Pjacobi 20:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The PDF outlines the factual assertions. This has been done in various other mediums also. J. D. Redding 21:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, due to the imperfections of the diff algorithm, it's probably better to use preview only sometimes. I try to keep section/paragraph moves to an edit of their own, for instance. Much easier to follow the diffs than if all 30 edits were in one. 5 edits or so is better than either 1 or 30. — Omegatron 20:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Just to note, "tag" in the accuracy (just for reference). J. D. Redding

Accuracy violations?

Omegatron, please list the accuracy violations. Otherwise the tag should be removed. J. D. Redding 21:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Pretty much the entire article. I'll work on it later. — Omegatron 22:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not a list ... that a general statement. Please list the violations. J. D. Redding 22:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC) (PS., I'm replacing the acciuracy tag with dubious|section)

John Alexander

John Alexander was written up by wired magazine (but on a completely different subject). J. D. Redding (PS., gonna find out more on him.)

Coast-to-Coast[3] has this bio of him:

For more than a decade Dr. John Alexander has been a leading advocate for the development of non-lethal weapons. He entered the US Army as a private in 1956 and by the time he retired in 1988, he was a colonel of Infantry. During his varied career, he held many key positions in special operations, intelligence, as well as research and development. From 1966 through early 1969 he commanded Special Forces “A” Teams in Vietnam and Thailand.
Dr. Alexander organized and chaired the five major conferences on non-lethal weapons, served as a US delegate to four NATO studies on the topic, and was a member of the first Council on Foreign Relations study that led to creation of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate. Currently he is executive vice president of LEADS, Inc., and serves as a consultant to US Special Operations Command.

J. D. Redding

Found a company with his Bio at platinumstudios.com. J. D. Redding 21:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Centre for the Study of Human Rights has a Bio too. J. D. Redding 21:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this is his company website ... but I cannot find a CEO listing ... Corporate Leads.com. J. D. Redding 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Totally disputed

Reddi, please list the accuracy and neutrality violations. Otherwise the tag should be removed. — Omegatron 20:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, I admit to being a bit confused here. Reddi thinks this is all cr*p. So do I. Does *anyone* like this article? For the meantime, I've redirected it. Apologies if I'm stepping on anyones toes. William M. Connolley 21:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC).

Uh... How do you figure? It's only somewhat expanded from the version you reverted to. — Omegatron 22:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. May have got a bit carried away... :-) William M. Connolley 22:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC).

Comment pasted verbatim from PNA/Physics

(Note: the following comment was pasted in verbatim by User:Alba from a project page, as part of the PNA/Physics reorganization) ---CH 09:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

*Hutchison effect - claims of anti-gravity and other miracolous effects. --Pjacobi 08:40, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

User:Alba, you pasted in something verbatim from another talk page. Please don't ever do that without clarifying the sigs and timestamps! For example, Pjacobi never edited this page to leave the quoted comment, so you are misrepresenting his actions here at WP by doing this. Among other things, this makes it much harder for anyone trying to figure out who wrote what in this page. Pjacobi didn't comment here; you quoted his comment in another page--- see the distinction?
I am aware that you did this as part of the PNA reorganization, but the way you did it was very objectionable. Please don't ever do this again! TIA---CH 09:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Electromagnets?

Can electromagnetics actually move stuff around like in the hutchison effect videos, not float stuff just fling it about, coz we never see anything land. Is the movement of any material possible by electromagnetic radiation pressure? robin

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.6.42.220 (talk • contribs). 17:53, 10 April 2006 (NTL Internet; apparently geolocated near Farnham, England)

They can't actually move stuff around like that unless you had really huge magnets, since the force drops off very quickly the farther you move away from it. Try bringing one magnet towards another. They don't grab each other until they are pretty close.
You could use a plain electromagnet to hold an object up to a piece of wood and then let it drop by turning off the electricity, though. It would never fall back up. Now if only there were a way to make up look like down and down look like up...  :-) — Omegatron 03:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up Discussion

Needs cleanup

this really needs cleaning up before it's put in the article. work on it here, first, please:

However anomolous these results many scientists which scientists? beleive the results are not fabricated. High amounts of interest have been shown by scientists concerned with energy research such as Nick Cook, who also claims high interest in the effect by Lockheed Martin the international jet propulsion plane company. There has also been astounding evidence in the form of a bar of metal that is softer than lead on one side and harder than steel on the other that is still a mystery to scientists what scientists? quotes? that hutchison claims was created via the hutchison effect. And the New Journal of Physics claims that a machine of incredible similarity has been created in the United Kingdom what machine? who made it?, that and i quate " can cause coins, heavy stones and peices of material to float and be propelled through the air. where is this quote from?
There are two main controversies within the field of the hutchison effect. The first being that a man named Mel Winfield spell his name right claims to have invented the hutchison effect before john hutchison himself. While hutchison credits whinfield with research he does not give him credit for the discovery. The second is the connection to psychokinesis and poltergeist effects the machine causes. Many beleive who believes? that the human energy field what is that? can produce the same amount of energy needed for the effect to occur[ 70 watts according to whinefield] where is this claimed? others claim the effects are after effects of the tesla-coils in hutchisons laborotory.

The article had a lot of this kind of info in the past but it was removed after an accuracy dispute and a votes for deletion. It was decided to keep the article after most of that info was removed: history. It already has some info about the anomalous effects observed, though maybe you can add a little more detail. Any additions like the New Journal of Physics quote need references. - Omegatron 13:39, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

how would you like me to reference it, and how come the nick cook stuff has been cut, that has been referenced by an interview with nick cook and a history of nick cook?? i give up with my contributions to this place i think, because it only seems to put across what most poeple think is right and not the actual truth. oh well
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.137.28.61 (talk • contribs). 10:44, 19 May 2005 (NTL Internet; apparently geolocated near Reading, England)

I didn't delete anything. I moved it here until it is finished. We don't only cover mainstream views, but we try to cover everything from a neutral point of view. Whenever possible, we try to print only things that are absolutely true. For instance, writing "this theory is a hoax" or "this theory is true and mainstream science is a hoax" would be bad statements. Instead we say "this guy claims that it's true but most people think it's a hoax", which is a true statement, no? By the way, can you sign your comments? There are two anonymous IP addresses which I assume are both you, but I have no way of knowing. - Omegatron 18:53, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

made some of the changes you asked for, and i will sign my work when something i write stays on the page, how about that?

And can i put the stuff bout the british experiments on after you read this, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1481009,00.html

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.137.28.5 (talk • contribs). 13:42, 19 May 2005 (NTL Internet; apparently geolocated near Reading, England)

I don't think Hutchison ever claimed that his magnetic levitation was based on diamagnetism. We already have articles about those. He claims that many different effects are observed in the area around his "equipment". Levitation of ferromagnetic objects, levitation of non-magnetic objects, fusion of objects into one, changing their chemical structure, etc. That article isn't related at all. - Omegatron 21:47, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

And if you had read the article the article talkes obout levitating non magnetic objects as well!! didnt you read it. It talk about stones levitating and stones are non-magnetic, as is plastic and levitating frogs that are shown at this site about dai-magnetism http://www.hfml.ru.nl/levitation-movies.html. As for the phenomena hutchison claims this could be related to some of it, perhaps a milder more controled version. but i never said they were the same thing. i claimed that they had some of the same effect which is the levitation and propulsion of non-magnetic objects.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.255.64.9 (talk • contribs). 17:12, 19 May 2005 (NTL Internet; apparently geolocated near London, England)

Yes. There are three types of magnetism. Ferromagnetism, diamagnetism, and paramagnetism. Ferro is the type you're used to; iron and horseshoe magnets and such. Para is a much weaker version of the same, but comes from a different source. Diamagnetism is also very weak, but repels magnetic fields. This is what is used in the levitation that you are talking about. The magnetic levitation article talks about this. Frogs and such float because they have lots of water in them, which is very slightly diamagnetic. In order to levitate a frog, you need a HUGE magnetic field. This is all normal, widely accepted, completely demonstratable science. There are videos of this online. I'll try to find them for you. Hutchinson claims many more "effects" than just levitation, though. Do you have a quote of him saying his levitation might be related to diamagnetism? - Omegatron 00:29, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Videos of frogs and other diamagnets levitated in a strong magnetic field
I thinks so, but it was posted in his forum by him which is currently down, i will get the quate for you if you like. And the other research is it all backed up enought etc
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.255.64.9 (talk • contribs). 18:04, 19 May 2005 (NTL Internet; apparently geolocated near London, England)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/t/Talk%7EHutchison_effect_Archive_1_ea5c.html"