Magnets are not just for refrigerators any more. In fact, according to some magnet vendors, magnets can be used to improve blood circulation, cure and prevent diseases, increase automobile mileage, improve plant growth, soften water, prevent tooth decay, and even increase the strength of concrete. Some of these claims are backed by experimental evidence. Many are not. This article focuses specifically on the claimed benefits of magnetically treated fuel and water.

Most magnetic water and fuel treatment systems appear to be marketed through independent distributors who sell out of their homes. An Internet search using the keywords magnetic treatment reveals dozens of independent distributor home pages. Very few such devices are offered by national chain stores or advertised in mail-order catalogs. Possibly, the magnetic-device manufacturers sell through independent distributors to insulate themselves from some of the more exotic claimed benefits of magnetic treatment, or perhaps consumer and wholesaler skepticism has kept magnetic treatment out of mainstream retail. Regardless of the reasons, magnetic water and fuel treatment devices are not usually available at the local hardware or automobile parts supply store. This lack of wide availability has given magnetic water and fuel treatment a sort of fringe-science status in the minds of many consumers. Whether this label is deserved is the subject of this article.

Claimed Benefits and Effects

Magnetic fuel treatment devices are constructed similarly. One or more magnets are clamped around or installed inside an automobile’s engine fuel line between the gas tank and the carburetor (or fuel injectors). Claims for these devices include decreased hazardous gas emissions, more complete combustion, improved engine power, longer-lasting engine components, and a 10 percent to 20 percent increase in gas mileage. Prices for automotive fuel treatment magnets range from about $50 to $300.

The distributors of these devices rarely can cite any documented test results that validate these claims. Instead, they rely on numerous testimonials, lists of corporations and municipalities that purportedly use the devices, and scientific-sounding explanations of magnetic water and fuel treatment. However, just because distributors do not cite the literature does not mean that no relevant literature exists. Published test reports and journal articles that investigate magnetic treatment are available. This article reviews the available experimental evidence for magnetic water and fuel treatment.

Magnets and Magnetism

Magnetic fields are produced by the motion of charged particles. For example, electrons flowing in a wire will produce a magnetic field surrounding the wire. The magnetic fields generated by moving electrons are used in many household appliances, automobiles, and industrial machines. One basic example is the electromagnet, which is constructed from many coils of wire wrapped around a central iron core. The magnetic field is present only when electrical current is passed through the wire coils.

Permanent magnets do not use an applied electrical current. Instead, the magnetic field of a permanent magnet results from the mutual alignment of the very small magnetic fields produced by each of the atoms in the magnet. These atomic-level magnetic fields result mostly from the spin and orbital movements of electrons. While many substances undergo alignment of the atomic-level fields in response to an applied magnetic field, only ferromagnetic materials retain the atomic-level alignment when the applied field is removed. Thus, all permanent magnets are composed of ferromagnetic materials. The most commonly used ferromagnetic elements are iron, cobalt, and nickel.

The strength of a magnet is given by its magnetic flux density, which is measured in units of gauss. The earth’s magnetic field is on the order of 0.5 gauss (Marshall and Skitek 1987). Typical household refrigerator magnets have field strengths of about 1,000 gauss. According to the distributors, the magnets sold for water and fuel treatment have magnetic flux densities in the 2,000 to 4,000 gauss range, which is not unusually strong. Permanent magnets with flux densities in the 8,000 gauss range are readily available. The magnets sold for magnetic fuel and water treatment are nothing special; they are just ordinary magnets.

Water Hardness

Water “hardness” is a measure of dissolved mineral content. As water seeps through soil and aquifers, it often contacts minerals such as limestone and dolomite. Under the right conditions, small amounts of these minerals will dissolve in the ground water and the water will become “hard.” Water hardness is quantified by the concentration of dissolved hardness minerals. The most common hardness minerals are carbonates and sulfates of magnesium and calcium. Water with a total hardness mineral concentration of less than about 17 parts per million (ppm) is categorized as “soft” by the Water Quality Association (Harrison 1993). “Moderately hard” water has a concentration of 60 to 120 ppm. “Very hard” water exceeds 180 ppm.

Hard water is often undesirable because the dissolved minerals can form scale. Scale is simply the solid phase of the dissolved minerals. Some hardness minerals become less soluble in water as temperature is increased. These minerals tend to form deposits on the surfaces of water heating elements, bathtubs, and inside hot water pipes. Scale deposits can shorten the useful life of appliances such as dishwashers. Hard water also increases soap consumption and the amount of “soap scum” formed on dishes.

Many homeowners and businesses use water softeners to avoid the problems that result from hard water. Most water softeners remove problematic dissolved magnesium and calcium by passing water through a bed of “ion-exchange” beads. The beads are initially contacted with a concentrated salt (sodium chloride) solution to saturate the bead exchange sites with sodium ions. These ion-exchange sites have a greater affinity for calcium and magnesium, so when hard water is passed through the beads the calcium and magnesium ions are captured and sodium is released. The end result is that the calcium and magnesium ions in the hard water are replaced by sodium ions. Sodium salts do not readily form scale or soap scum, so the problems associated with hard water are avoided.

A 1960 survey of municipal water supplies in one hundred U.S. cities revealed that water hardness ranged from 0 to 738 ppm with a median of 90 ppm (see Singley 1984). Ion-exchange water softeners are capable of reducing the hardness of the incoming water supply to between 0 and 2 ppm, which is well below the levels where scale and soap precipitation are significant.

One of the principal drawbacks of ion-exchange water softeners is the need to periodically recharge the ion exchange beads with sodium ions. Rock salt is added to a reservoir in the softener for this purpose.

Magnetic Water Treatment

Purveyors of magnetic water treatment devices claim that exposing water to a magnetic field will decrease the water’s “effective” hardness. Typical claims include the elimination of scale deposits, lower water-heating bills, extended life of water heaters and household appliances, and more efficient use of soaps and detergents. Thus, it is claimed, magnetic water treatment gives all the benefits of water softened by ion-exchange without the expense and hassle of rock-salt additions.

Note that only the “effective” or “subjective” hardness is claimed to be reduced through magnetic treatment. No magnesium or calcium is removed from the water by magnetic treatment. Instead, the claim is that the magnetic field decreases the tendency of the dissolved minerals to form scale. Even though the dissolved mineral concentration indicates the water is still hard, magnetically treated water supposedly behaves like soft water.

According to some vendors, magnetically softened water is healthier than water softened by ion exchange. Ion-exchange softeners increase the water’s sodium concentration, and this, they claim, is unhealthy for people with high blood pressure. While it is true that ion-exchange softening increases the sodium concentration, the amount of sodium typically found even in softened water is too low to be of significance for the majority of people with high blood pressure. Only those who are on a severely sodium-restricted diet should be concerned about the amount of sodium in water, regardless of whether it is softened (Yarows et al. 1997). Such individuals are often advised to consume demineralized water along with low-salt foods.

There is apparently no consensus among magnet vendors regarding the mechanisms by which magnetic water treatment occurs. A variety of explanations are offered, most of which involve plenty of jargon but little substance. Few vendors, if any, offer reasonable technical explanations of how magnetic water treatment is supposed to work.

The important question here, though, is whether magnetic water treatment works. In an effort to find the answer, I conducted a search for relevant scientific and engineering journal articles. I describe the results of this search below.

More than one hundred relevant articles and reports are available in the open literature, so clearly magnetic water treatment has received some attention from the scientific community (e.g., see reference list in Duffy 1977). The reported effects of magnetic water treatment, however, are varied and often contradictory. In many cases, researchers report finding no significant magnetic treatment effect. In other cases, however, reasonable evidence for an effect is provided.

Liburkin et al. (1986) found that magnetic treatment affected the structure of gypsum (calcium sulfate). Gypsum particles formed in magnetically treated water were found to be larger and “more regularly oriented” than those formed in ordinary water. Similarly, Kronenberg (1985) reported that magnetic treatment changed the mode of calcium carbonate precipitation such that circular disc-shaped particles are formed rather than the dendritic (branching or tree-like) particles observed in nontreated water. Others (e.g., Chechel and Annenkova 1972; Martynova et al. 1967) also have found that magnetic treatment affects the structure of subsequently precipitated solids. Because scale formation involves precipitation and crystallization, these studies imply that magnetic water treatment is likely to have an effect on the formation of scale.

Some researchers hypothesize that magnetic treatment affects the nature of hydrogen bonds between water molecules. They report changes in water properties such as light absorbance, surface tension, and pH (e.g., Joshi and Kamat 1966; Bruns et al. 1966; Klassen 1981). However, these effects have not always been found by later investigators (Mirumyants et al. 1972). Further, the characteristic relaxation time of hydrogen bonds between water molecules is estimated to be much too fast and the applied magnetic field strengths much too small for any such lasting effects, so it is unlikely that magnetic water treatment affects water molecules (Lipus et al. 1994).

Duffy (1977) provides experimental evidence that scale suppression in magnetic water treatment devices is due not to magnetic effects on the fluid, but to the dissolution of small amounts of iron from the magnet or surrounding pipe into the fluid. Iron ions can suppress the rate of scale formation and encourage the growth of a softer scale deposit. Busch et al. (1986) measured the voltages produced by fluids flowing through a commercial magnetic treatment device. Their data support the hypothesis that a chemical reaction driven by the induced electrical currents may be responsible for generating the iron ions shown by Duffy to affect scale formation.

Among those who report some type of direct magnetic-water-treatment effect, a consensus seems to be emerging that the effect results from the interaction of the applied magnetic field with surface charges of suspended particles (Donaldson 1988; Lipus et al. 1994). Krylov et al. (1985) found that the electrical charges on calcium carbonate particles are significantly affected by the application of a magnetic field. Further, the magnitude of the change in particle charge increased as the strength of the applied magnetic field increased.

Gehr et al. (1995) found that magnetic treatment affects the quantity of suspended and dissolved calcium sulfate. A very strong magnetic field (47,500 gauss) generated by a nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer was used to test identical calcium sulfate suspensions with very high hardness (1,700 ppm on a CaCO3 basis). Two minutes of magnetic treatment decreased the dissolved calcium concentration by about 10 percent. The magnetic field also decreased the average particle charge by about 23 percent. These results, along with those of many others (e.g., Parsons et al. 1997; Higashitani and Oshitani 1997), imply that application of a magnetic field can affect the dissolution and crystallization of at least some compounds.

Whether or not some magnetic water treatment effect actually exists, the further question, and the most important for consumers, is whether the magnetic water treatment devices perform as advertised.

Numerous anecdotal accounts of the successes and failures of magnetic water treatment devices can be found in the literature (Lin and Yotvat 1989; Raisen 1984; Wilkes and Baum 1979; Welder and Partridge 1954). However, because of the varied conditions under which these field trials are conducted it is unclear whether the positive reports are due solely to magnetic treatment or to other conditions that were not controlled during the trial.

Some commercial devices have been subjected to tests under controlled conditions. Unfortunately, the results are mixed. Duffy (1977) tested a commercial device with an internal magnet and found that it had no significant effect on the precipitation of calcium carbonate scale in a heat exchanger. According to Lipus et al. (1994), however, the scale prevention capability of their ELMAG device is proven, although they do not supply much supporting test data.

Busch et al. (1997) measured the scale formed by the distillation of hard water with and without magnetic treatment. Using laboratory-prepared hard water, a 22 percent reduction in scale formation was observed when the magnetic treatment device was used instead of a straight pipe section. However, a 17 percent reduction in scaling was found when an unmagnetized, but otherwise identical, device was installed. Busch et al. (1997) speculate that fluid turbulence inside the device may be the cause of the 17 percent reduction, with the magnetic field effect responsible for the additional 5 percent. River water was subjected to similar tests, but no difference in scale formation was found with and without the magnetic treatment device installed. An explanation for this negative result was not found.

Another study of a commercial magnetic water treatment device was conducted by Hasson and Bramson (1985). Under the technical supervision of the device supplier, they tested the device to determine its ability to prevent the accumulation of calcium carbonate scale in a pipe. Very hard water (300 to 340 ppm) was pumped through a cast-iron pipe, and the rate of scale accumulation inside the pipe was determined by periodically inspecting the pipe’s interior. Magnetic exposure was found to have no effect on either the rate of scale accumulation or on the adhesive nature of the scale deposits.

Consumer Reports magazine (Denver 1996) tested a $535 magnetic water treatment device from Descal-A-Matic Corporation. Two electric water heaters were installed in the home of one of the Consumer Reports staffers. The hard water (200 ppm) entering one of the heaters was first passed through the magnetic treatment device. The second water heater received untreated water. The water heaters were cut open after more than two years and after more than 10,000 gallons of water were heated by each heater. The tanks were found to contain the same quantity and texture of scale. Consumer Reports concluded that the Descal-A-Matic unit was ineffective.

Much of the available laboratory test data imply that magnetic water treatment devices are largely ineffective, yet reports of positive results in industrial settings persist (e.g., Spear 1992; Donaldson 1988). The contradictory reports imply that if a magnetic water treatment effect for scale prevention exists, then it only is effective under some of the conditions encountered in industry. At present, there does not seem to be a defensible guideline for determining when the desired effect can be expected and when it cannot.

One of the claims made for residential magnetic treatment devices is that less soap and detergent will be required for washing. Compared to the claim to suppress scale formation, this claim has received little direct attention in the literature. To decrease soap and detergent consumption, the concentration of dissolved hardness minerals must be decreased. The tests by Gehr et al. (1995), described earlier, demonstrated a decrease in dissolved mineral concentration of about 10 percent. If this fractional decrease in dissolved mineral concentration is representative of that obtained by magnetic treatment, then it is unlikely that soap and detergent use will be significantly reduced. For example, given a water supply with 100 ppm dissolved hardness, magnetic treatment would only be expected to reduce the hardness to 90 ppm, assuming the results of Gehr et al. can be applied at this hardness concentration.

Is there a beneficial effect of magnetic water treatment? Perhaps.

Is there sufficient evidence of a beneficial effect to warrant spending hundreds of dollars on a residential magnetic water treatment unit? Unlikely. The understanding of magnetic water treatment must first be developed to the point where the effects of magnetic treatment can be reliably predicted and shown to be economically attractive.

Does magnetic water treatment perform as well as ion-exchange treatment? Definitely not. At present, the conventional water softening technologies are clearly much more reliable and effective. Further, the initial cost of an ion-exchange water softener (around $500) is comparable to that of many magnetic treatment systems.

Magnetic Fuel Treatment

Typically, vendors claim that either mileage or horsepower will be improved by about 10 to 20 percent. They also claim that if no improvement in mileage is noted, then the improvement must have come in the form of more horsepower. This, of course, makes it difficult for consumers to determine whether their magnetic fuel treatment devices really are working.

A literature search for magnetic fuel treatment studies revealed that such studies are practically nonexistent. I found a total of three references. Two of these (Daly 1995; McNeely 1994) were anecdotal accounts describing the use of a magnetic treatment device to kill microorganisms in diesel fuel, a fuel treatment application not usually mentioned by magnetic fuel treatment vendors.

The third reference (Tretyakov et al. 1985) describes tests conducted in which the electrical resistance and dielectric properties of a hydrocarbon fuel were found to change in response to an applied magnetic field. This report does not address whether the observed physical property changes might affect fuel performance in an engine, but it references two research reports that may contain performance data (Skripka et al. 1975; Tretyakov et al. 1975). Unfortunately, I could obtain neither report, and both are written in Russian.

My literature search search found no other credible research reports pertaining to magnetic fuel treatment.

The utter lack of published test data is revealing. According to the vendors, magnetic fuel treatment has been around for at least fifty years. If it actually worked as claimed, it seems likely that it would by now be commonplace. It is not.

Vendors of magnetic fuel treatment sometimes respond to this reasoning with hints that the automobile manufacturers and big oil companies are conspiring to suppress magnetic fuel treatment to maintain demand for gasoline. Such a conspiracy seems quite improbable. This supposed conspiracy has not managed to suppress other fuel-saving innovations such as fuel injection and computerized control.

In summary, I found no test data that support the claims for improved engine performance made by vendors of magnetic fuel treatment devices. Until such data become available, considerable skepticism is justified. At present, it seems quite unlikely that any of the claimed benefits of magnetic fuel treatment are real.

References

• Bruns, S. A., V. I. Klassen, and A. K. Konshina. 1966. Change in the extinction of light by water after treatment in a magnetic field. Kolloidn. Zh. 28: 153-155.
• Busch, K. W., M. A. Busch, D. H. Parker, R. E. Darling, and J. L. McAtee, Jr. 1986. Studies of a water treatment device that uses magnetic fields. Corrosion 42 (4): 211-221.
• Busch, K. W., M. A. Busch, R. E. Darling, S. Maggard, and S. W. Kubala. 1997. Design of a test loop for the evaluation of magnetic water treatment devices. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 75 (Part B): 105-114.
• Chechel, P. S., and G. V. Annenkova. 1972. Influence of magnetic treatment on solubility of calcium sulphate. Coke Chem. USSR. 8: 60-61.
• Daly, J. 1995. Miracle cure. Motor Boating and Sailing. October, p. 36.
• Denver, E., executive ed. 1996. Magnets that don't do much to soften water. Consumer Reports. February, p. 8.
• Donaldson, J. D. 1988. Magnetic treatment of fluids -- preventing scale.” Finishing. 12: 22-32.
• Duffy, E. A. 1977. Investigation of Magnetic Water Treatment Devices. Ph.D. dissertation, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.
• Gehr, R., Z. A. Zhai, J. A. Finch, and S. R. Rao. 1995. Reduction of soluble mineral concentrations in CaSO₄ saturated water using a magnetic field. Wat. Res. 29 (3): 933-940.
• Harrison, J. 1993. WQA Glossary of Terms. Water Quality Association. Lisle, Ill.
• Hasson, D., and D. Bramson. 1985. Effectiveness of magnetic water treatment in suppressing CaCO3 scale deposition. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 24: 588-592.
• Higashitani, K., and J. Oshitani. 1997. Measurements of magnetic effects on electrolyte solutions by atomic force microscope. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 75 (Part B): 115-119.
• Joshi, K. M., and P. V. Kamat. 1966. Effect of magnetic field on the physical properties of water. J. Ind. Chem. Soc. 43: 620-622.
• Klassen, V. I. 1981. Magnetic treatment of water in mineral processing. In Developments in Mineral Processing, Part B, Mineral Processing. Elsevier, N.Y., pp. 1077-1097.
• Kronenberg, K. J. 1985. Experimental evidence for effects of magnetic fields on moving water. IEEE Trans. on Magnetics, vol. Mag-21, no. 5: 2059-2061.
• Krylov, O. T., I. K. Vikulova, V. V. Eletskii, N. A. Rozno, and V. I. Klassen. 1985. Influence of magnetic treatment on the electro-kinetic potential of a suspension of CaCO3. Colloid J. USSR 47: 820-824.
• Liburkin, V. G., B. S. Kondratev, and T. S. Pavlyukova. 1986. Action of magnetic treatment of water on the structure formation of gypsum. Glass and Ceramics (English translation of Steklo I Keramika) 1: 101-105.
• Lin, I., and Y. Yotvat. 1989. Electro-magnetic treatment of drinking and irrigation water. Water and Irrigation Rev. 8:16-18.
• Lipus, L., J. Krope, and L. Garbai. 1994. Magnetic water treatment for scale prevention. Hungarian J. Ind. Chem. 22: 239-242.
• Marshall, S. V,. and G. G. Skitek 1987. Electromagnetic Concepts and Applications. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Martynova, O. I., E. F. Tebenekhin, and B. T. Gusev. 1967. Conditions and mechanism of deposition of the solid calcium carbonate phase from aqeuous [sic] solutions under the influence of a magnetic field. Colloid J. USSR 29: 512-514.
• McNeely, M. 1994. Magnetic fuel treatment system designed to attack fuel-borne microbes. Diesel Progress Engines and Drives. November, p. 16.
• Mirumyants, S. O., E. A. Vandyukov, and R. S. Tukhvatullin. 1972. The effect of a constant magnetic field on the infrared absorption spectrum of liquid water. Russ. J. Phys. Chem. 46: 124.
• Parsons, S. A., S. J. Judd, T. Stephenson, S. Udol, and B.-L. Wang. 1997. Magnetically augmented water treatment. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 75 (Part B): 98-104.
• Raisen, E. 1984. The control of scale and corrosion in water systems using magnetic fields. Corrosion 84. Conference proceedings, Nat. Assoc. of Corrosion Engineers, Houston, paper no. 117.
• Singley, J. E. 1984. Municipal water treatment. In Kirk-Othmer Encyl. of Chemical Technology. 3rd ed. Edited by Martin Grayson. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Vol. 24, pp. 385-406.
• Skripka, N. I., A. A. Litvinov, and I. G. Tretyakov. 1975. Influence of operational factors on oxidizability of liquid hydrocarbons. Operational Properties of Fuels, Lubricants and Technical Liquids Used in Civil Aviation [Kiev] 1: 11-14. [In Russian.]
• Spear, M. 1992. The growing attraction of magnetic treatment. Process Engineering. May, p. 143.
• Tretyakov, I. G., M. A., Rybak, and E. Yu. Stepanenko. 1985. Method of monitoring the effectiveness of magnetic treatment for liquid hydrocarbons. Sov. Surf. Eng. Appl. Electrochem. 6: 80-83.
• Tretyakov, I. G., E. S. Denisov, and A. N. Solovev. 1975. Effects of magnetic field treatment on electrophysical properties of aviation fuels. Operational Properties of Fuels, Lubricants and Technical Liquids Used in Civil Aviation [Kiev] 1: 41-42. [In Russian.]
• Welder, B. Q., and E. P. Partridge. 1954. Practical performance of water-conditioning gadgets. Ind. Eng. Chem. 46: 954-960.
• Wilkes, J. F., and R. Baum. 1979. Water conditioning devices -- an update. Int. Water Conf.: 40th Annual Meeting, paper no. IWC-79-20.
• Yarows, S. A., W. E. Fusilier, and A. B. Weder. 1997. Sodium concentration of water from softeners. Arch. Intern. Med. 157: 218-222.

The story actually starts in 1781 with the discovery by William Herschel of the planet Uranus. It soon became clear to astronomers that Uranus was behaving badly — it wasn't moving along the orbit predicted for it by Newtonian physics. What could be the matter? Was Newton wrong? Impossible! If Newton wasn't wrong, then he had to be right, and something else had to be causing the odd orbit of Uranus — something doing so in obedience to Newton’s laws. The obvious answer was that there was another planet beyond Uranus, the gravitational influence of which was causing Uranus to orbit as it did.

Finding this hypothetical planet was a huge challenge. In the early 1840s, two mathematicians, John C. Adams of England and Urbain Jean Joseph LeVerrier of France (shown above on a 1958 French postage stamp — England has never so honored Adams), both started working on the problem independently. It was incredibly complex, for it required taking into account the gravitational influences of the Moon, the Sun, and the known planets on the orbit of Uranus and then using the nature of the unexplained Uranian movement to predict the orbit of the new planet. Adams and LeVerrier solved the problem almost simultaneously. On September 23, 1846, German astro-nomers in Berlin, using LeVerrier’s predictions (Adams had been somewhat shy about publishing his work) discovered Neptune.

The discovery was hailed, quite properly, as a great victory for Newtonian theory. LeVerrier and Adams went on to great fame. The discovery of Neptune was, it should be noted, a great embarrassment to astrology, which had never even hinted at the existence of such a planet. The same was true of the earlier discovery of Uranus and the later discovery of Pluto. Not to be phased, however, astrologers attributed influences to the planets following their discoveries. Linda Goodman, in her 1968 Love Signs, stated that planets have no astrological effects until discovered by astronomers!

Impressive as the discovery of Neptune was, another challenge to the Newtonian view of the solar system remained. Mercury was also orbiting in a fashion that was not predicted by Newton’s laws. It was natural to try the same approach to the problem of Mercury’s orbit as had been applied so successfully to the case of Uranus. And try LeVerrier did. He spent much time and effort throughout the rest of his productive life calculating where the planet Vulcan, interior to Mercury’s orbit, should be. He was occasionally buoyed by supposed reports of sightings of Vulcan where the calculations, sort of, said it should be.

LeVerrier died in 1877 and so never knew the solution to the mystery of Mercury’s orbit. It’s orbital deviations were shown by Einstein in 1915 to be due to relativistic effects of the Sun’s huge mass bending space-time. These effects are utterly trivial for planets further away from the Sun.

The authors trace the entire story of Vulcan from the time of Herschel to the resolution of the problem by Einstein. They cover some of the same ground as Grosser did in his wonderful 1962 Discovery of Neptune but add substantially to the post-1846 events. They include much on the personalities (often, but not always, charmingly eccentric) of the major players in the story and the difficulties of doing astronomical observation in, say, the South Seas or American Indian Territory in the late 1800s. It is an exciting and adventurous scientific mystery, very well told.

Skeptics will be especially interested to note that while Vulcan was abandoned by astronomers by the early twentieth century, astrologers, no doubt stung by being caught out when Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were discovered, have refused to give up on Vulcan. Thus, Goodman, again in her 1968 Love Signs, assigned astrological influence to Vulcan, calling it the “true ruler of Virgo” and stating that it “will become visible through telescopes in a few years.”

At the start of the jury’s deliberations in the 1957 film Twelve Angry Men, a straw poll yields eleven “guilty” votes and one “not guilty” vote. The lone juror, played by Henry Fonda, concerned that conviction on a murder charge not be hasty, says defensively, “Supposing we're wrong . . . ,” to which another juror responds indignantly, “Supposing we're wrong? Suppose this building should fall down on my head! You can suppose anything.”

My sympathies are with the second juror. In fact, throughout the first third of the movie Fonda’s character repeatedly appeals to mere suppositions and possibilities, typically without the least attempt, as he often admits, to back them up as at all probable.

The character’s reasoning conforms to the argument from ignorance, standardly classified as a fallacy. Admittedly, Fonda’s character is the hero. He eventually convinces his co-jurors, and rightly so we are led to think, that their initial quick and prejudicial judgment of guilt was wrong. But the result is only a minor embarrassment. If good reasoning can be put to ill use, bad reasoning can be put to good. The argument from ignorance is one of the most prevalent in defending beliefs that starkly conflict with scientific findings.

As many readers will know, in 1992 a conference on alien abduction was held at MIT. The conference was covered by a well-regarded journalist, C. D. B. Bryan, who avows nonbelief in alien abduction, and the resulting work was published by one of the best publishing houses (Bryan 1995). After the Abduction Study Conference, Bryan conducted extensive interviews. At the end of a chapter reporting his interviews with two of the most credible “experiencers,” he reasons:

During the days immediately following the conference, I am struck by how my perception of the abduction phenomenon has changed: I no longer think it a joke. This is not to say I now believe UFOs and alien abduction are real -- “real” in the sense of a reality subject to the physical laws of the universe as we know them -- but rather that I feel something very mysterious is going on. And based as much on what has been presented at the conference as on the intelligence, dedication, and sanity of the majority of the presenters, I cannot reject out-of-hand the possibility that what is taking place isn't exactly what the abductees are saying is happening to them. And if that is so, the fact that no one has been able to pick up a tailpipe from a UFO does not mean UFOs do not exist. It means only that UFOs might not have tailpipes. As Boston University astronomer Michael Papagiannis insisted, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” (Bryan 1995, 230)

Bryan explicitly denies concluding that alien UFOs are real. In effect, then, Bryan is denying that his reasoning even constitutes argument. Moreover, if there is a conclusion, it is only for the “possibility” that the abductees’ stories are correct, and that appears so weak a judgment that argument hardly seems called for.

Elsewhere, Bryan asks an investigator “why he thinks there is such resistance within the psychiatric and scientific community to even the possibility that the source of the trauma is what the abductees are saying” (Bryan 1995, 268). By contrast to those communities, Bryan characterizes his position as one of open-mindedness. He ends his book:

Still, until someone comes forward with proof that such beings don't exist, I intend to continue keeping an eye out for their “bobbers” [a metaphor for any solid indicator of alien presence] — and, yes, an open mind. (Bryan 1995, 448-449)

So Bryan’s conclusion, if such it be, is extremely weak. He is not arguing that the alien abduction stories should be believed or accepted or even thought probable.

Nevertheless, Bryan is offering an argument -- an argument from ignorance -- broadly of the following kind:

1. No one has disproved p (where p stands for any hypothesis, e.g., psychics are able to communicate with the dead; some alien abduction accounts are true).
2. So it is possible that p is true.
3. If it is possible that p is true, then we should keep our minds open to the investigation of p's truth.

Conclusion: We should keep our minds open to the investigation of p's truth.

Premises 1 and 3 are implicitly assumed by Bryan and are typical of arguments from ignorance. Premise 2 Bryan explicitly states. The conclusion is implied by the premises, as well as stated by Bryan elsewhere. Bryan appeals as well to the credibility of the reports, which does not enter the structure I present, but I'll return to it later.

Others draw much bolder conclusions. Specifically, on similar grounds, it is sometimes inferred that it is reasonable to believe p. However, there will be many cases in which if no one has disproved p, then no one has disproved its contradictory, not-p (e.g., no alien abduction accounts are true). But then the argument would license the inconsistent belief that both p and not-p are true.

The crucial term in the reasoning is possible. My main criticism is this: The sense in which premise 2 is true, or can at least be granted, is far too weak for the conclusion.

In one usage, to hold that it is “possible” that the reports of alien abductions are correct is to hold that the reports are compatible with our evidence (i.e., “not impossible”). This is very weak. In this usage, as the second juror appreciates, it is possible that if I jump off the World Trade Center, I will be saved by a freak wind that lands me safely on the ground. In another usage, to hold that it is “possible” that the reports of alien abductions are correct is to hold that their truth is a serious possibility -- that we shouldn't disbelieve them and their study is worthwhile.

The plausibility of the reasoning trades on this ambiguity. When we are inclined to think it unreasonable to reject the possibility that alien abduction reports are correct, we are treating it as bare possibility. After all, we think, it isn't impossible. Consistent with our evidence, the reports could be true, even if vastly improbable.

But in order to claim that we should keep an open mind, we need the stronger notion of serious possibility. For only then do we have reason not to disbelieve alien abduction reports and to take the reports as even prima facie credible. Though my being saved by a freak wind after jumping from the World Trade Center is possible in the weak sense, it is not at all credible. We reject it out of hand.

The conclusion of open-mindedness also is meant to have the strong implication that we should not treat the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. In fact, the phrase “absence of evidence” is a misnomer. For absent evidence is real evidence. It is the evidence of a failure to detect expected effects of a hypothesis, and so it is evidence against the hypothesis.

In Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes story ”Silver Blaze,” the absence of evidence of the dog’s barking is the clue that someone who knows the dog well, like its trainer or master, is the culprit. Since the expected effects (the dog’s barking) of the hypothesis (that the criminal is a stranger) are not detected, there is genuine undermining evidence against it.

Still, the undermining import of the absence of evidence can be overriden. If there is evidence (not the mere possibility) of the dog’s being drugged, that would override the inference. Defenders of the alien abduction reports do seem to offer overriding evidence or reasons of two kinds. First, they rely on the reports of the alleged abductees; second, they offer conjectures for why the expected effects are undetected.

The first kind of reason is indicative that we never find a pure argument from ignorance. To so label an argument is not only pejorative, but tendentious. But I stand by it. The label involves a simplification of a complex presentation, but it will pay off in illuminating an important strand of reasoning.

As is typical, there are always some phenomena, some disturbing reports, some mysteries that cry out for explanation. But if we are to treat these as credible evidence, they must survive confrontation with other available, relevant evidence. Otherwise, to rely on the puzzling observations and reports alone may be unrepresentative or biased, and so misleading.

Very briefly, standing against the reports of alleged alien abductees is the vast evidence of the established physical laws that would have to be violated or strained. The criterion goes back to David Hume (Hume 1977 [1748]). Aside from the most obvious failure of extensive scientific studies to detect any intelligent organisms outside Earth, regular visits of aliens assume possibilities for space travel at speeds close to, if not exceeding, the speed of light. We also have credible alternative (psychological) explanations for the reports.

In fact, in the passage cited earlier (Bryan 1995, 230), Bryan makes no real attempt to balance the credibility of the reports against the massive weight of standard evidence and alternative explanations. In the remainder of his book, he does make attempts to do so, though of a very scattershot sort. The main suggestion, instead, is that we be moved by the credibility of the "experiencers” alone.

However, the second tack is to offer explanations that lend credence to the abductee accounts. Following the lead of the investigators, Bryan offers a simple speculation:

. . . just because UFOs and their occupants defy our laws of physics does not mean there are not further laws of physics we have not as yet discovered or do not as yet comprehend. . .

(Bryan 1995, 422)

Additionally, he attempts to explain away the absence of evidence by positing vast, unprecedented conspiracies to suppress reports of sightings on the part of otherwise highly competitive and diverse reporters, government officials, and scientists.

These sweeping assumptions are themselves at one with the argument from ignorance. When we grant ourselves blank-check assumptions, we move away from serious possibility to bare possibility. For the more we assume against what is already believed or accepted or well confirmed, the less plausible is our hypothesis. The plausibility that aliens have visited Earth, however low, is still much higher than that they do so regularly, virtually undetected, by means that involve the violation of our laws of nature and a conspiracy to silence a story of immense interest.

We should not set these assumptions aside as a heuristic whose only purpose is to facilitate a fair hearing for the abductee reports. They are essential to whether an open mind on the hypothesis is deserved. For, recall, these assumptions are pivotal for overriding the powerful evidence for rejecting alien abduction stories as false, including evidence of absence.

The request to keep an open mind appears mild, but it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. “Open-minded” trades upon the same ambiguity we found in the use of "possible.”

The open mind being called for is an openness to any hypothesis that has the bare possibility of truth. Why shouldn't we be so open? Why do we need the notion of serious possibility in the first place? Wouldn't our search for the truth only be improved by not restricting in advance what hypotheses we consider?

The answer is that our time and resources are limited. There are vastly more hypotheses possible (consistent with our evidence) than can be studied. Closed-mindedness, in the sense of ruling out vast numbers of hypotheses prior to examination, is a precondition of any serious empirical inquiry.

Yet, no hypothesis is forever banned. We may subsequently reconsider, as has often occurred in science, a hypothesis once thought ridiculous. But when we do, there will be a preliminary stage in which we find it minimally plausible.

Of course, we each put aside time for hobbies and idle pursuits. In these terms, one may keep up with the literature on UFOs, the paranormal, and related subjects, and even investigate them on one’s own. The interest and pursuit does not require any positive attitude, not even an open mind, in the strong sense that the argument from ignorance requires. (Indeed, it is just because there are a few devoted “fringe-watchers” that the rest of us can, in all intellectual honesty, both ignore new fringe claims and still be sure that our dismissal is warranted. For the lack of reports by reputable researchers favoring these claims is continuing, profound evidence against them. Once again the absence of evidence for is powerful evidence against.)

How is my objection to the relevance of bare possibility to be squared with the banality that the findings of science are fallible? Actually, the fallibility of science is greatly exaggerated. But without going out on that limb (and tangent), let me focus on a premise directly relevant to my criticism. There is a difference between admitting that one may be wrong, which is to acknowledge one’s fallibility, and treating that possibility of error as a genuine reason to doubt. If one does treat fallibility as a genuine reason, one is arguing from ignorance. Our ignorance that we are certainly correct is taken as a reason to withdraw from belief.

Obviously, no one normally so reasons. I could possibly be mistaken that my sister lives in Long Island. But it is not the slightest reason to believe that she doesn't live there.

An exception is when one is engaged in discussion of radical skepticism, the venerable philosophical view that no one knows or has any reason to believe anything. My final three claims about arguing from ignorance are these: First, arguing from ignorance is a disguised radical skepticism; second, when one so reasons, one falsely represents what one believes; and third, arguing from ignorance appears plausible, aside from the ambiguous uses of “possible” and "open mind,” because we fail to appreciate the intimate connection between belief, truth, and evidence. These are large claims and space is limited, so argument will be abbreviated and somewhat dogmatic.

First, it is a disguised radical skepticism. We appear to be talking of a specific hypothesis, such as that the alien abduction tales should not be dismissed. However, the underlying reasoning casts doubts far wider. We do not appreciate that the flip side of this positive conclusion to keep an open mind is a severe negative result. If the mere possibility that a hypothesis is correct is a reason not to dismiss it, then, by parity of reasoning, the mere possibility of error is a reason to doubt. The latter is, effectively, radical skepticism. For anything we believe, we have reason to doubt it simply by virtue of our fallibility.

Second, given these radical implications, arguments from ignorance are in conflict with what people truly believe. But these implications are not always apparent. Consequently, it is not always evident that the conclusions of an argument from ignorance conflict with what everyone, the arguer included, generally believes. No one truly doubts that they are sitting in front of their fireplace simply because it is possible that they may be dreaming it. (Descartes introduced this famous doubt in the appropriate context of his radical inquiry. But even he immediately worried. These doubts, genuine though he takes them to be at this stage of his inquiry, remain helpless to prevent his continued belief in all that is evident to him.)

Third, arguments from ignorance treat beliefs as attitudes that we can adjust to human interests, hopes, and aspirations. If a hypothesis is not proven false, then it is permissible to believe it. But the result cannot be a belief. For a belief is an attitude toward a hypothesis as a correct representation. In a slogan: Beliefs aim at truth. (For a good discussion see Williams 1973.) It is because our beliefs are our attitudes toward truth that they guide action. If we want to quickly get to a destination by train, we rely on our memories (beliefs) as to the train schedules and station locations. Our action succeeds if, and usually only if, the guiding beliefs are correct.

Our beliefs are likely to be correct if they arise from reliable sources. For hypotheses, the main source is evidence. What counts as evidence for a hypothesis are those observed phenomena whose existence depends upon the truth of the hypothesis and so attest to it.

Once I recognize the evidence for a hypothesis as adequate to establish it, I believe it; and conversely, if the evidence refutes the belief. When neither occurs, I suspend judgment.

A medieval challenge is to try to believe the proposition “The number of stars is even” (Burnyeat 1983). It is a challenge we must fail, though it is surely possible that the statement is true. We can only suspend judgment, exactly in accord with the evidence being manifestly indecisive. No choice or option to believe is available, self-deception aside.

What truly marks an open-minded person is the willingness to follow where evidence leads. The open-minded person is willing to defer to impartial investigations rather than to his or her own predilections. It is here that the nineteenth-century American pragmatist Charles Peirce finds the scientific method an advance over other methods for determining (fixing) belief, such as appeal to authority, tenacity, or a priori reasoning. Scientific method is attunement to the world, not to ourselves:

To satisfy our doubts, therefore, it is necessary that a method should be found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human, but by some external permanency. . .

(Peirce 1957, 24)

If the evidence against alien abductions and many other supernatural and paranormal speculations is overwhelming, then an open-minded person must reject them.

References

• Bryan, C. D. B. 1995. Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind: Alien Abduction, UFOs, and the Conference at M.I.T. New York: Knopf.
• Burnyeat, Myles F. 1983. Can the skeptic live his skepticism? In The Skeptical Tradition, edited by Myles Burneat. Berkeley: University of California Press, 117-148.
• Hume, David. 1977 (original 1748). Of miracles. Section X in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, edited by E. Steinberg. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.
• Peirce, Charles S. 1957 (original 1877). The fixation of belief. In Essays in the Philosophy of Science, edited by V. Thomas. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., 3-30.
• Williams, B. A. O. 1973. Deciding to believe. In Problems of the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 136-151.

But far from admitting defeat, a defiant Benveniste recently challenged the skeptics in a large Internet mailing. In it he boasts, “In our lab, this research has now reached a point way beyond the ‘memory of water.’ We have, we believe, unveiled the hitherto neglected physical nature of the molecular signal, which consists of waves in the kilohertz range, which we have recorded on computers, and sent to any destination of our choice via the Internet network.” Yes, he is claiming that water not only has a “memory,” but that he can store this memory in his computer, and even send it out over the Internet. By way of proof, Benveniste provides the following:

Abstract to the Congress of the American Association of Immunologists (San Francisco, February 1997)

TRANSATLANTIC TRANSFER OF DIGITIZED ANTIGEN SIGNAL BY TELEPHONE LINK.

J. Aefssa, P. Jurgens, W. Hsueh and J. Benveniste. Digital Biology Lab-oratory (DBL), 32 rue des Carnets, 92140 Clamart, France, and North-western University Medical School, Chicago, IL 60614, USA.

Ligands so dilute that no molecule remained still retained biological activity which could be abolished by magnetic fields [1-3], suggesting the electromagnetic (EM) nature of the molecular signal. This was confirmed by the electronic transfer to water (W) of molecular activity, directly or after computer storage [4-7]. Here, we report its telephonic transfer. Ovalbumin (Ova), or W as control, was recorded (1 sec, 16 bits, 22 kHz) in Chicago using a transducer and computer with soundcard. Coded files were transferred to DBL’s computer as e-mail “attached documents.” Digitally amplified, they were replayed for 20 min to W (dOva, dW), which was then perfused to isolated hearts from Ova-immunized guinea-pigs. . . .

Benveniste claims that physiological effects of the diluted substance were manifested in those organisms receiving his homeopathy-at-a-distance. If he is correct, in the future your doctor, roused from bed, won't tell you to “take two aspirins and call me in the morning,” but will instead send you e-mail, with the appropriate antigen as an attached document, which gets played through your sound card to work its vibrational miracles. Benveniste complained in his mail missive, “Clearly, the shortsightedness of two high priests of Orthodox Science [John Maddox and Walter Stewart] and a prestidigitator [Randi] have delayed this advance in chemistry and biology by ten years.”

Another advance in science receiving belated recognition involves Professor John Bockris of Texas A&M University, who was recently awarded the celebrated Ig Nobel Prize for Physics by the Annals of Improbable Research at Harvard. Bockris is a leading researcher in the field of cold fusion whose accomplishments have been prominently featured in Infinite Energy magazine. However, the prize was actually awarded for his experiments demonstrating the chemical transmutation of base metals into silver and gold. Bockris did not travel to Cambridge to pick up his prize.

The money to fund Texas A&M University’s 1993 ventures into alchemical research was donated by William Telander. The Houston Chronicle reported last April 3 that Telander was recently released from prison after serving two years for securities fraud. The university still holds $45,000 of his original $200,000 donation, and Telander wants it back unless it is used for its intended purpose -- funding Bockris’s experiments. The university, however, has frozen the funds, apparently as nervous about funding more alchemy as it is about returning the money.

Almost immediately, amateur satellite watchers began reporting remarkable things. While the Iridium satellites are not particularly large and are normally visible only with the aid of binoculars, satellite watchers were astonished to see one or more of the Iridiums suddenly flare up to be as bright as the brightest stars, then fade back to invisibility. Additional skywatching revealed that the Iridium satellites would often flare so brightly as to actually outshine Jupiter, or even Venus. Indeed, experienced satellite watchers have occasionally reported flares from the Iridium satellites so bright as to rival the first-quarter moon, and some have even been observed during daylight.

Mathematical analysis by Rob Matson and Randy John, both authors of satellite-tracking software, quickly yielded an answer to the mystery. The four Main Mission Antennas of an Iridium satellite, developed by Raytheon, are oriented at 90 degrees to each other. While they are not especially large (188 by 86 cm), they consist of highly reflective aluminum flat plates, treated with silver-coated Teflon for thermal control. Each being maintained at an angle of 50 degrees from Earth toward the satellite’s zenith, one always facing in the direction of the satellite’s travel, they probably represent the best flat reflecting surfaces ever to orbit Earth. When the angle is just right between the satellite, the observer, and the sun, sunlight reflecting off the silvered panels results in the sudden appearance of a dazzlingly bright, slow-moving, unexpected object that disappears in about twenty seconds or less -- the perfect culprit to cause UFO sightings. The flare-up lasts just long enough for someone to shout “Look! Up there!", giving the crowd a few seconds of dazzling brilliance, then fading completely from view. (For more information on the Iridium flares and to download software to predict them, see plasma.mpe-garching.mpg.de.)

Flares from the thirty-four Iridium satellites now in orbit are visible sporadically in most locations around the globe, typically occurring during the time of evening or morning twilight. When the Iridium program is fully deployed, it will consist of sixty-six satellites. Hence, the flares can be expected to increase in frequency and continue indefinitely.

While we are on the subject of satellites that mimic UFOs, we should mention Superbird A, a dead Japanese communications satellite now adrift in the satellite graveyard just outside the Clarke belt of geosynchronous orbit, many times more distant than the Iridium satellites. It, too, sometimes reflects the sun from both the front and back side of its huge solar panels as it tumbles approximately once every twenty-three seconds. When the satellite is favorably placed in the sky, for a period of about six minutes per evening observers can see millisecond-duration pulses of light every 11.6 seconds, looking for all the world like a strobe flash hanging in the heavens.

While not nearly as bright as the Iridium reflections because of its great distance, Superbird A is the only object in or near geosynchronous orbit regularly visible to the naked eye. Because of its distance from Earth, Superbird A can be expected to remain in orbit for intervals measured in "eras,” not “millennia.” The night sky will continue to glitter with space junk long after we're all dead.

Snowboarding continues where Surfing left off -- the young Lenz continues in Nepal to engage his guru, Master Fwap, who represents a mysterious Tantric Buddhist order. Fwap is a character in the neo-occult tradition of spiritual-adventure novels popularized by Carlos Castaneda. Fwap is to Lenz what don Juan is to Castaneda -- a literary creation who may or may not represent actual shamans whom the author may or may not have actually met. In both cases, the mystical masters are fantastic alter egos of the authors, who seem to delight in fooling some of the people (their devotees) all of the time.

Although I have read dozens of books in this genre, it is not something I do for enlightenment. My job requires it. With that in mind, you might understand why I chose a trans-Atlantic trip to read Snowboarding and annotate it on empty back pages, as is my habit. I finished this task in four hours or less and fell asleep. I may have had a dream that all of Lenz’s devotees left him out of sheer embarrassment after they read Snowboarding. If you follow Lenz’s logic in his books, dreams can come true.

In the story, young Lenz is snowboarding alone again in Nepal at “extreme” heights (14,000 to 19,000 feet) when he hears a strange “voice” speak to him about hidden “dimensions.” We later learn that this voice was from another magical teacher, the Oracle, whom Fwap introduces to our intrepid trekker. Seers among Tibetans are sometimes called oracles. Through-out the story, Fwap and the Oracle guide their student into new insights and experiences, especially at the Oracle’s Thunderbolt Monastery hidden deep in the “Anapurna [sic] Himalayas.” They give Lenz a Handbook for Enlightenment, conveniently written in English. Passages from the handbook are interspersed throughout Snowboarding, shaded in gray for easy reference. The Oracle and Fwap have an uncanny resemblance to the shamanic duo of don Genaro and don Juan of the Castaneda series in their capricious manner of teaching. They often laugh at their befuddled student after playing tricks on him. They also offer premonitions of whom and what the young Lenz will encounter next. And, of course, it all happens as they predict.

Lenz reiterates some of the insights he gained in the first book -- he and his snowboard are one (p. 15), enlightened masters are funny and have brilliant auras (Oracle glows “electric azure blue” on p. 28), and Earth’s crowded humanity has psychically polluted the astral planes, thus making it difficult to meditate (pp. 32 and 214). Meditation is the key to enlightenment, and Lenz’s peculiar meditation views are spelled out in the second chapter of the Handbook: meditate twice daily without fail and connect with your “Tantric root guru” (pp. 85-86) -- for Lenz devotees, that means him. The prescribed meditation technique is replete with hypnotic inductions that can create suggestible states in the practitioner. The detailed instructions guide the meditator to visualize (a rose, the ocean, joy) through guided imagery, to breath, to imagine, and to use yantras (sacred pictures or objects) and mantras. Lenz suggests the traditional Buddhist mantra, OM [sic] mani padme hum. The Handbook resembles lectures given by Lenz in which he fuses and confuses Buddhism with New Age pop spirituality.

Early in the story, Fwap and the Oracle predict that Lenz will meet a woman who will teach him something he needs to learn. Then they laugh at him, somewhat leerily. They also inform him that he is a tulku: “. . . an advanced soul that has practiced yoga and meditation in many former lives” (p. 33). Fwap informs Lenz that he has attained enlightenment “many times” but needs to “regain” it in this one as a tulku. Now tulku, according to my dictionary, is Tibetan Buddhist parlance for “a person who, after certain tests, is recognized as the reincarnation of a previously deceased person” (Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion, Shambhala, 1989). The most famous tulku today is the Dalai Lama, who was chosen after certain tests as a child as the incarnation of a previous lama of the Tibetan Gelukpa tradition. “Tulku” Lenz has no objective references outside of his book that he was tested by legitimate monks in any way. But he gives us a key as to why: “The Oracle and I [Fwap], and other enlightened masters, are generally ignored” (p. 149). Later, Fwap predicts that when our snowboarder begins to preach in America, “. . . most of the people there [in the West] will think that you are a charlatan” (p. 203). Hello! The oldest trick in the book by charlatans is to complain that people will call them one. It is a defensive way to disarm a suspicious person. This transparent technique does not work well here.

Lenz comes off defensively in places throughout his story. From the first pages, he seems to believe that he must respond to criticisms of his first novel, Surfing. In fact, I had a suspicion as I read Snowboarding that he had read my critique (SI, July/August 1996) and took it seriously. Lenz explains in his introduction that he took the liberty to alter distances and time periods, but maintains that the “accounts . . . are based on real-life occurrences” (p. xii). That much is understandable -- authors have a right to embellish or restrict a story -- but in many instances within the story, he goes on at length to retort to criticisms. Lenz makes a point of explaining that he snowboarded at altitudes of 14,000 to 19,000 feet, when he seemed to claim in Surfing that he was as high as 24,000 feet. He no longer mentions a “yak-drawn cart” because, as some critics pointed out, yaks do not live at low altitudes around Katmandu. Perhaps he meant a water buffalo -- I saw those around Katmandu, but no yaks.

In one peculiar passage, Lenz lectures Fwap about the history, techniques, and development of snowboarding. Fwap seems content to listen politely to his student brag about his knowledge of snowboards and his snowboarding accomplishments: “I'm into extreme vertical and off-piste boarding. I like to ride alone. . . .” (p. 76). Read: no one ever sees Lenz perform “extreme” boarding. He does not answer the criticism that he could hardly have been using a snowboard during the time sequence of his first novel.

In another chapter, Fwap discourses about the “second attention” (a Castaneda/don Juan concept that corresponds to psychic intuition and power). The second attention is enhanced during “power” moments at sunrise and sunset according to both don Juan and Fwap. It helps to use the second attention to gain consciousness of the “half-life of time.” This is Fwap’s teaching about “the awareness that time doesn't have either mass or energy . . . it doesn't really exist at all. . . . Nothing is ever born, nothing grows, nothing matures, and nothing decays or dies, nor is anything really reborn. . . . The self itself is an illusion” (p. 209). Although Buddhist philosophy bears out these pithy comments by Fwap, in the context of Snowboarding the statements are meaningless. Lenz misrepresents the cultures that give Buddhism meaning or validity, much as Castaneda does with Mexican Indian shamanism.

Fwap and the Oracle welcome their prodigal student with new, more powerful teachings. Lenz is introduced to “skyboarding” in a higher dimension after learning a most powerful mantra. “Phat! Phat! Phat! Phat!” chant the masters to “clear” the atmosphere of astral interference -- all that people-pollution I mentioned before, and nasty astral beings who attack meditators. The masters tell Lenz that “Phat! . . . when uttered loudly by a person with occult power,” causes destructive beings and forces “to flee. . . . Always use `Phat!' when you find yourself in an impure or aurically negative physical location. . . . [It] can purify astral spaces” (pp. 181-182). At the Oracle’s retreat, the three meditate on “Blue Sky” and proceed to “skyboard” through colored dimensions until they reach the violet one. “The air in this dimension was textured with what looked like some kind of undecipherable hieroglyphic writing. Beings like huge American Indians began flying past us . . . [they] didn't seem to be aware of the three of us” (p. 179).

There are some occult happenings, like the psychic teleportation of three human beings, a snowboard, and backpack at the end of this sequel that I won't go into. The key passages of this book are on pages 202 and 203. Lenz tells us through his alter ego, Fwap, that he must gain his Ph.D. and become “wealthy and famous” because the West will only “bother to listen to what you have to say about enlightenment” after that occurs. If Lenz has a purpose, it is to convince us, not necessarily to prove to us, that he is a misunderstood mystic in a universe that is conspiring to thwart his mission.

But what about his wealth and fame? It became clear to the general public who saw an exposë on Lenz by Dateline (NBC TV, August 1996) that Lenz gains most of his “wealth” by convincing a core group of devotees to find high-paying computer industry jobs, sell software for his businesses, and “donate” thousands of dollars a month each to support his mission. One wonders where the young Lenz in the books gets his money to travel, snowboard, and hang out in exotic places. He does not talk about work. Try mind control. Lenz has managed to influence dozens of intelligent, young “students” to believe in him and support him in a way that could only make mind control enthusiasts, like the Central Intelligence Agency, wonder.

On my return from Paris -- the trans-Atlantic trip mentioned earlier -- I reread The Search for the “Manchurian Candidate": The CIA and Mind Control, by John Marks (Dell, 1988), for another project. This book took me longer to finish than Snowboarding, as it is dense with useful information and interesting facts. It occurred to me that, as flawed and silly (and dangerous) as much of the CIA experimentation on “mind control” was, the government’s search for a method to “control” the thoughts and behaviors of a deployable agent turned up only one undeniable fact: “By the time the MKULTRA program ended in 1963, Agency researchers had found no foolproof way to brainwash another person” (Marks, p. 154).

The best agents, it seems, are those who exhibit deep devotion to the cause and a willingness to avoid doubts about their mission. “Brainwashing” worked best when it mimicked “religious conversion” (Marks, p. 138), and the Chinese had the most effective system to accomplish this, if only temporarily, with their targets. They relied mostly on “group pressure, ideology, and repetition” (Marks, p. 139). Fwap asks for as much from Lenz, who complies with the pressure from his masters, absorbs the ideology irrationally, and follows the meditation rituals repeatedly. And if you read the Handbook, you can surmise what Lenz might ask of his students.

As for “fame,” Lenz reportedly advertises himself and his projects with the “donations” from devotees. One might say that he is a self-made man. But is he enlightened, as he claims, in a Buddhist sense? Phat chance he is not. “Phat” is inner city jargon for “cool” or “great” or “excellent,” depending when and where you lived your life as a youth. Maybe “Master Fwap” has appropriated a trendy Western word in an effort to impress trendy Western readers. Out of curiosity, I interviewed a Tibetan national at Project Tibet in Santa Fe, New Mexico. He never heard of “Phat,” and it means nothing to him in his native language.