Starting in 1980, I have been conducting PK experiments using a system called the «Tychoscope», which was originally invented by the French engineer, Pierre Janin (1977). It is a small, self-propelled « vehicle », or robot, which integrates a random event generator (REG). The tychoscope movements are thus determined by the REG output, which makes it move in successive segments of random length and orients it according to random angles. A plotter attached to the robot traces a record of the
Using this first tychoscope we were able to show that both animals – chicks in this case –and humans are capable of influencing the normally random movement of the device. While in the absence of a human or animal observer, the trajectories traced by the Tychoscope did not differ from those which would have occurred by chance, when a human subject wished to attract the robot in his direction, the difference compared to controls, was significant. The results with chick experiments were highly significant. In this case, we used the « imprinting » instinct, established by Konrad Lorentz, to condition baby chicks to adopt the Tychoscope as their mother. The results showed that the device would approach a cage full of conditioned chicks two and half times more often than an empty cage. By contrast, the movements remained purely random when the chicks were not conditioned to take the robot as their mother.
Following these successful experiments, we decided to extend the research with a second-generation Tychoscope, which separated the robot from the REG. In this later work, the REG was integrated into a computer, and the tychoscope’s movements were determined by remote-controlled signals from the computer.
Using this system, we tested the possible psychokinetic influence of 80 groups of 15 chicks on a randomly moving robot carrying a lit candle in an otherwise darkened room. In 71% of the cases, the robot spent excessive time in the vicinity of the chicks. In the absence of the chicks, the robot followed random trajectories. The overall results were statistically significant at p<0.01.
We then tested human psychokinetic action on the robot. A male subject attempted to attract the robot towards the left for thirty trials of 20 minutes each. The difference between these and control trials is significant (p<0.005). The same subject then attempted to push away the robot towards the right, over the course of 50 trials. Here too, we obtained a significant difference between experimental and control trials (p<0.04), but in the direction opposite the stated intention.