Hi Gang,

While searching for something else on an ancient computer tonight I ran across something I whipped up a couple decades ago. You might find it amusing.

This is a print-and-cut plan for Royal Vale Heath's "Magic Cube." Full instructions and the book reference are on the plan. Just print it out on card stock, cut it out, and glue together.

The magic number is 194. Heath recommends it for a book test which seems a bit dicey to me. I would rather consider it as an interesting curio, for in fact no numbers are repeated throughout.

I'll put the artwork up for a limited time only, so get it now if you're at all interested. It may vanish at any time without warning!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WJdgkBL......=sharing

Thomas Henry

Thanks for making that available.

Not only are no numbers repeated, but also there are no missing numbers - Every number from 1 to 96 is present on the cube.

(No, I didn't check every number on the cube to discover this. Instead, I noted that 16 x 6 = 96, and 96 is the highest number anywhere on the cube, so if there are no duplicate numbers, then all numbers from 1 to 96 must be present.)

There might be ways to exploit this. For starters: "Just think of any number from 1 to 96, don't tell me. Locate the number you're merely thinking of on the cube. To further randomize this, add up the four numbers in either the row or column where you found your thought-of number." Either reveal 194, or show you predicted 194.

Again, that's just for starters - Maybe there's a better idea waiting to be found. (Hmm... if your spectator was born in the 1940s, just force one more digit with a different method to magically arrive at their birth year.) But I suspect you're right that this is better as a curio than an effect, unless your audience would have some particular interest in mathematical magic.

"...seems a bit dicey to me." I see what you did there.

Whoa, Emory!

Thanks so much for your cogent comments!

That there are no missing numbers, as you pointed out, is not only a further curiosity for those of us on this side of the curtain, but I love the way you've exploited that fact in an actual proposed presentation. Having the participant look for her number on the cube is brilliant! Without any words, the performer is driving home the fact that the entries are unique and scattered about. After all, she can handle and rotate the cube any which way. And a number oriented effect is definitely enhanced by letting the participant get involved by actually handling a physical prop, I think.

I'd go so far as to say "Just think of any number less than 100." I have a hunch no one will ever choose 97, 98 or 99. But even if he or she did, just continue with, "Now find it on the hexahedron." If they can't, then you know it's one of those three, which could be exploited! If not, just continue with, "Well, find one 'of those 100' that is on the cube."

You know Emory, I was prepared to file this away in the dead letter file until you chimed in! I think I'll actually work this up into something to perform now as an "in-betweener." So, thanks!

Thomas Henry