Hello everyone. I was hoping that someone here could trace the origin of the switching procedure used in Alain Nu's "Nu Sense." Alain comments that it's an old procedure, but doesn't directly credit its source. I'm working on a new routine that utilizes this procedure, and I'd like to have an accurate crediting reference. It's similar to a somewhat well-known Bob Hummer principle, but is definitely not the same thing. If anyone knows, the info would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Ben Blau

Can you elaborate a bit more on this principle. an example will help for those of us who are not familiar with the Alain Nu routine

I'll have to disagree with Ben on this one. I no longer have the Hummer book, but if I'm not mistaken the exact same procedure that Nu uses, is in there. The presentation may be a bit different but I believe the MO is the same.

Best thoughts,
John Smetana

John:

Unless we're thinking of different Hummer principles, they definitely seem different to me. The Hummer procedure does bear a strong procedural resemblance, though, due to the switching of the items behind the performer's back.

In the Hummer procedure, they switch the items and tell you which ones they switch until the last exchange, which is kept secret.

In the Nu-Sense procedure, the parameters are different. In fact, the performer doesn't necessarily know if and/or when switches were made at all.

Also, the outcomes of the procedures are different. The Hummer procedure allows for a divination of a thought-of object, while the Nu-Sense procedure guarantees a specific resultant arrangement of three objects -- something the Hummer procedure does not accomplish.

Were you thinking of something else perhaps?

Ben Blau

Hi Nir:

The Nu-Sense effect, as described in his book, involves three borrowed objects: a ring, a watch and a key.

These are mixed while the performer's back is turned, and the performer has the spectator make some switches according to a certain procedure.

In the end, the arrangement of the three objects corresponds to a prediction the performer has made, in a way that seems to greatly defy the odds.

If you are intimately familiar with Bob Hummers 3 Object Divination principle, you'll surely see a similarity, but when you compare both procedures carefully, you will probably find (as I have) that they really are quite different - not only in procedure, but in what they actually accomplish.

Ben Blau

Hi Ben,
Thanks for your response. Since I don't have access to the book (It's on it's way to Nir) I can't confirm my statements above. If I'm not mistaken, I may have written a note in the book itself referencing the Nu effect. Perhaps when Nir gets it in his hands he can take a look and let me know. Then again,perhaps I'm way off base with this one.

Best thoughts,
John Smetana

This thread has been dormant for a while, and I have found a little more information on the source of this procedure.

Apparently, there is an effect by Jack Yates in Martin Gardner's "Mathematics, Magic and Mystery" which utilizes the principle. He states that it was "inspired by" the Hummer principle. That makes sense to me. I read about the Yates effect indirectly, in Paul Curry's "Worlds Beyond" book. Does anyone have more information on the Yates effect?

Ben Blau

Doug Conn has some work on the Yates method in his current lecture. Contact Doug for more info.

Jeff