Warning: Parameter 2 to wp_hide_post_Public::query_posts_join() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/customer/www/camcheck.co.za/public_html/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php on line 307
Tri-Vortex, small fry, big scam - CAMcheck

Warning: Illegal string offset 'singular_post_taxonomy' in /home/customer/www/camcheck.co.za/public_html/wp-content/themes/canvas/functions/admin-functions.php on line 2803

Warning: Illegal string offset 'singular_portfolio_taxonomy' in /home/customer/www/camcheck.co.za/public_html/wp-content/themes/canvas/includes/theme-functions.php on line 819

Tri-Vortex, small fry, big scam

, ,

Warning: Parameter 2 to wp_hide_post_Public::query_posts_join() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/customer/www/camcheck.co.za/public_html/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php on line 307

Posted 28 August 2014

Readers may remember our postings of the Tri-Vortex “technology”:

Tri-Vortex™ claims that by treating water with a hi-end computer, professional audio software & hardware, amplifiers and a set of domed cylindrical chambers, that they can change the molecular structure of water and give it additional properties, resulting in a product that among other, can result in natural pain relief – with no chemicals.


Cover2-PortraitThis has resulted in a protracted debate with the “inventor”,  Brian David Anderson, a self-styled “scientist”.

Mr Anderson’s theories (beliefs) do not fit in with any known scientific principle or theory. Mr Anderson argues “[A]re you arrogant enough to think that current academia has discovered and knows all the ‘motions’ of our dimension?” Seems like Mr Anderson made a major slip, for he did not realise that he was therefore ‘arrogantly’ claiming to have discovered one or more of the ‘motions’ of our dimension! This is no small feat. Problem, no other scientists believes or supports him.

Mr Anderson is practices pseudoscience: it may sound plausible at times, but is in fact what he claims is baloney.

So thanks to Mr Anderson, we thought we would look over some more of his very strange claims in order to highlight these for consumers who may be duped by this individual.

Perfect-Power Today we focus on the Tri-Vortex ‘Perfect Power’, an electrical plug/adapter that Mr Anderson claims  that ‘traditional, non-traditional and metaphysical communities agree that the spin orientation of healthy molecules in the cells of humans, animals and plants is a left-hand turn’.

Huh? What? Yes, you did read this – it is taken word for word from his website.

Tri-Vortex ‘Perfect Power’ promises to “transform the electricity in your home, office, school or workshop into a beneficial left-hand turn energies that are biologically friendly, safe, health and energizing”.

Yes, you read that correctly. The word balderdash comes to mind.  Mr Anderson claims that “when the light beam from any light bulb connected to any kind of lamp plugged into a superb Tri-Vortex Perfect Power product is pointed at a glass of grape juice, inexpensive wine or tart cheese, the smell and taste of the grape juice, wine and cheese are dramatically improved in 30-60 seconds’. And it only costs a mere $199!

The word, balderdash, is too mild a word. Fruit-loopery may be more appropriate. Bovine excrement maybe too rude.

Mr Anderson is offended that I have pointed out that his beliefs are ‘out of this world’ and has placed on his website, a ‘deconstruction’ of myself and CamCheck. I have no issue with this, rational people may find it amusing. But I raise this for in defense of his belief that one day he will be shown to be correct, he has placed on his website the following “key statement” (his phrase) : ” “Tri-Vortex Technology violates numerous laws of Physics and also the Quantum Electron Theory therefore according to Steinman Tri-Vortex Technology products cannot work as advertised. But keep in mind that in 2014 the National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) tested and proved a revolutionary space based engine that violates all laws of Physics and the Quantum Electron Theory. Because the space engine violates all laws of Physics yet still works, all the “laws” of Physics have been reduced to the THEORIES of Physics.”

One problem though, this statement  is baloney!  No, NASA has not verified an impossible space drive” and Did NASA Validate an “Impossible” Space Drive? In a Word, No.

[note note_color=”#f2fdfa”]Updated 28 August 2014: Some salient points from the second reference, from DiscoverMagazine:

“Calling this group “NASA”—as almost every popular news story has done—is a gross oversimplification.”

“Still, science is science: What matters are data, not motivations or semantics.”

The abstract of their paper, . . ., is freely available online.”  “Reading it raises a number of red flags.” “Worst of all is this statement from the paper: “Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust.” In other words, the Cannae Drive worked when it was set up correctly—but it worked just as well when it was intentionally (disabled) set up incorrectly. Somehow the NASA researchers report this as a validation, rather than invalidation, of the device.” [/note]

And if you would like to read more:
How to fool the world with bad science – Did you hear about the EmDrive, the “impossible space engine?” Here are the red flags you should have looked for.”

‘Oops’, Mr Anderson, comes to mind. I make this point to simply illustrate that evidence and proof is supportable by others, pseudo-scientists take thing out of contexts and use logical fallacies, e.g., “because Galileo was ostracized and turned out to be correct, so will I”, when in fact, the majority of nonsense theories are discarded to a scrapheap because these theories were simply not supported by evidence, as with Mr Anderson’s.

This has led me to conclude, and state to Mr Anderson:

These facts remain:

  1. You have no training in science, you were a journalist.
  2. Yet you arrogantly claim to have found a missing dimension to physics and chemistry, something that no-other scientist on earth has “discovered”.
  3. You are unable to mention a single credible scientist on earth that supports your contentions
  4. You are unable to supply any evidence to support your beliefs, it is simply based on anecdotal belief or “I say so”
  5. In over a decade, you have avoided approaching a university in your vicinity to investigate your product, even following my lead to who yuo could approach
  6. You claim that Oxford University investigated your claims but refuse to publicly name these  scientists in order for us to verify your claim
  7. One has to conclude that you have absolutely no insight into your beliefs  – or you are knowingly scamming consumers

Of course, this summation made no difference to Mr Anderson’s claim. But we are aware, that despite CAMCheck’s exposure of many scams, only one has ever acknowledged that their claims were unsupportable by evidence and that they would amend the products claims.

All Tri-Vortex postings:
(Link opens in new browser window)

, ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.