cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819) (06/27/85)
There has been some discussion of Geller's interaction with the metal nitinol.
Nitinol is a metal which can be "set" to some shape and then rebent. When
exposed to moderate heat (e.g., boiling water or a match), however, it returns
to its set shape. It has a "memory". All traditional descriptions I have seen
of nitinol (and I've done a little reading up on it) suggest that "setting"
nitinol requires high heat and a fair amount of tension.
First Jim Balter (ima!jim) suggested that Geller might use nitinol forks to
produce the "bending" while not touched effect.
Then Dave Trissel ({ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet) wrote:
> Your statement about Nitinol is interesting. Uri was once requested to bend
> a Nitonol bar (this is shortly after the alloy's discovery if I remember
> correctly.) Nitonol can be bent but will resume its shape once heated to a
> certain temperature. Uri bent the metal allright, but when heated instead of
> reverting to its normal straight shape it actually contorted into a far
> more complicated shape instead - something the investigators could not
> duplicate. (I may be able to look this up in my files if there is more
> interest in this experiment.) Thus Nitonol seemed to indicate something
> unusual indeed was going on. Again, this is a test you won't see a magician
> pass. The bar was specially marked so Randi would be helpless to replace the
> it with a surrogate (as was Uri.)
Finally ukc!ptb suggests that we read the chapter on nitinol in Martin Gardner's
"Science, Good, Bad and Bogus" (reference [2]).
I would definitely agree with ukc!ptb that Gardner's article be read. However,
I would further specify that it only be read in conjunction with the article
it is a review of. Although Gardner succeeds, in my opinion, in showing that
the experiments with nitinol are inconclusive, he spends a lot of his article
making misleading statements about the original article. He also uses a number
of other improper arguments.
I won't attempt to give a complete description of the two articles but I will
summarize the high (and the low) points.
The first article, which describes some experiments with Geller's ability to
effect the properties of nitinol is by Eldon Byrd [1]. Gardner originally
wrote his article, which was reprinted in his book, for the Humanist [2]. Byrd
responded in a letter in a later issue, which also contained Gardner's reply.
These two letters also appeared in Gardner's book [3].
The basic facts from the Byrd article are as follows:
Byrd met with Geller in October of 1973 "in the laboratory at the Isis Center."
At that time he had a block of nitinol which "was approximately an inch by
three-eights of an inch square", and two wires, one 1.5 mm in diameter and
the other .5 mm in diameter.
First Byrd asked Geller to either magnetize the block or to change its hardness.
After playing with it for awhile, Geller admitted failure. He then similarly
failed to effect the larger diameter wire. Byrd then "took out the smaller
diameter wire, cut it into three pieces, each approximately five inches in
length, and told him that if he could not influence this, he probably could not
influence nitinol at all."
Geller then asked Byrd to hold the wire. Byrd did this (at both ends) while
Geller rubbed it. (It is unclear from the article whether Geller handled
the wire after it was cut, or not). The wire "developed" a small hump in the
middle. When Byrd dropped it into boiling water, the wire (whose "set" shape
was straight) bent into approximately a right angle. Byrd describes the
unsuccessful efforts of "several metallurgists at the Naval Surface Weapons
Center" to reset the wire to a straight configuration by heating it under
tension in a vacuum chamber.
A year later Byrd conducted some more experiments with Geller. These took
place "at the home of writer John Fuller in Connecticut." Present were Fuller,
Ronald Hawke "a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory", Byrd's wife
and two friends of "Geller and John Fuller."
Byrd again used wire .5 mm in diameter. This time he checked in advance that
the wires were "set" straight. Geller effected three pieces of the wire much
as he had effected the one a year before.
At the end of the article he discusses some wire which Geller had bent "but
not under controlled conditions". The two pieces of wire were bent into quite
elaborate shapes. Byrd makes it clear that he does not consider these
particularly good evidence of Geller's abilities, but that granting, on the
basis of the other experiments, those abilities he finds them worthy of study.
Byrd's sureness that "the possibility of fraud on Geller's part can be virtually
ruled out" rests on two suppositions. First that nitinol would not have been
available to Geller before the tests, thus eliminating the possibility of
pre-kinked wires being substituted. And second, that nitinol could only be
reset with high heat, thus making it impossible for Geller to have kinked the
wire during the experiment. Personally, when I read the article, I had grave
doubts about the first. Even given that "at that time, nitinol was generally
not available to the public. It was produced in very small quantities at the
Naval Ordnance Laboratory ... where it had been developed ..." how hard would
it be for Geller, or a friend, to reproduce it in, say, a college metallurgy
lab, or to obtain a sample from the NOL.
In any case Gardner successfully demolishes both suppositions. Nitinol was
available, at the time, from Edmund Scientific Company, and was also passed
out by NOL during tours or in response to written requests. Furthermore,
Gardner, experimenting with some nitinol wire, discovered that sharp enough
kinks in the wire became "set" without the use of heat. These could easily
be produced using pliers or even with two coins.
Gardner also claims that the "several metallurgists" Byrd refers to were
"Dr. Frederick E. Wang, the navy's top nitinol expert." Furthermore,
Wang claims that he does not remember making the test. A test was made,
according to Gardner, but by Ronald Hawke at Lawrence Livermore. Contrary
to Byrd's report, the wire became unkinked. Waiving for the moment the
distinct possibility that Wang conveniently forgot doing the test because of
ridicule, and that Gardner does not explain where he got his information about
the Hawke test; this seems to be a serious inconsistency which Gardner rightly
discusses.
The rest of Gardner's article is, I would say, flawed. His tactics seem to
be those of a prosecuting attorney rather than an impartial investigator. For
example, Gardner spends a part of the article ridiculing Byrd because of who he
has associated with in the past, because he once held an opinion about some
data which Gardner finds ridiculous, because he changed his mind when further
data became available, and because of errors made by the editor of the "Geller
Papers." It is not that I disagree with Gardner's opinions about these things
(for example: I, along with, I think, most of the traditional parapsycho-
logical community, never gave much credence to the Baxter effect, or rather the
interpretation of it that Byrd held: that plants exhibit low level
consciousness). It is the inappropriate tone of ridicule to which I take
issue. Of course tone is subjective, one can claim that the tone is not there,
or was not intended.
More serious are the details of Byrd's article which Gardner chose to ignore.
If Gardner's article had been published in conjunction with Byrd's this might be
excused. As it stands, one must either know Byrd's article very well, or read
the articles together to spot the inconsistencies.
Byrd naively depended on the properties of nitinol for his controls. After
Gardner disposed of these he should have been finished. Instead he goes to
great length to illustrate the weaknesses of Byrd's other controls. There were
none claimed by Byrd, except such minor things as not letting go of the piece of
wire. Even these Gardner dismisses since Byrd is a nonmagician. Gardner
conveniently fails to mention Byrd's claim to have been an amateur magician.
Gardner could, correctly, have pointed out that many self-proclaimed amateur
magicians really don't know much about magic. He preferred not to mention it at
all.
I could go on, but this posting is already too long. There is much more in
Gardner's article in a similar vein. Please read it and Byrd's article
together. As you do so, try to forget your admiration for Gardner (not that
he hasn't earned it). Try also to forget that, in this case at least, Gardner
is right. Try to see if he is also IN the right. I dare say that if Gardner
had been a creationist criticizing a flawed experiment supporting evolution his
tactics would be, rightly, scorned.
REFERENCES:
[1] Byrd, Eldon; "Uri Geller's Influence on the Metal Alloy Nitinol" in Panati,
C. (ed.); _The Geller Papers: Scientific Observations on the Paranormal
Powers of Uri Geller_; Houghton Mifflin Company; Boston, 1976; p67-73.
[2] Gardner, Martin; "Geller, Gulls, and Nitinol" in The Humanist, May/June
1977. Reprinted in Gardner, Martin; _Science Good, Bad and Bogus_; Avon
Books; New York, 1983; p159-175.
[3] Byrd, Eldon and Gardner, Martin; Two letters in response to [2] in The
Humanist, September/October 1977. Reprinted as in [2] p175-178
Topher Cooper
USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper
ARPA/CSNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl
Disclaimer: This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for
them.