Science Friction

[Brad Henderson]

I do not see anyone making the claim that Get Sharkey uses the same method as Max's effect. The problem resulted from Christian's unwillingness to acknowledge, let alone credit, any existence of ANY of those ideas prior to his own sale of the item. (In truth, he regularly passed the buck onto Christian Borer, the person who allegedly released the idea in a set of lecture notes - notes released shortly AFTER Max had performed the effect at FISM and another German magician (Santos) had published his unauthorized version in the Magie.) Not only did Christain make statements which innacurately reflected the historical record, he seemed to encourage others to do so as well. Even after a concise and congent history of the effect and its methods were presented to him, he refused to acknowledge it - he and his fans taking steps to have any mention of said history stricken from Steve "Wormtail" Brook's Cafe.

While I am happy that Max's confrontation has resulted in an acknowledgment that not all ideas were born with the inception of Cardshark's company, it saddens me that so many will put ego and money ahead of the history of our art.

[Max Maven]

Richard, given that you do not know my method, how the hell would you know whether or not it's easier than the Borer method?

[Richard Kaufman]

Max, I assume that your method is more difficult and requires skill on your part.

[Bob Cunningham]

I received my "Science Friction" order yesterday and I thought I would share my impressions.

I am quite pleased. The box contained 4 phoenix decks (2 red & 2 blues), a deck of gaffs, a wallet to hold prepared cards, 3 cardboard templates to control the application of the science friction spray, an instructional DVD and a large (11 oz) can of Science Friction spray. All the materials seemed well made and of high quality.

The spray itself enables a performer with a previously treated card (or cards) to naturally push off the deck and present one, two or three cards as one. The cards can be casually examined by a spectator. The deck can be shuffled. The cards are not at anytime "stuck" together.

The DVD is well produced and informative. It is clear to me that Christian Schenk has put a lot of thought into the techniques/best practices for using the Science Friction spray. Because I look at at this spray as a utility rather than an effect I found these insights most helpful.

He also presents a number of ways to perform some classic magic effects using Science Friction (ambitious card, collector, invisible palm, etc.). I was less impressed with this. That is probably because I generally try combine subtleties, gaffs and slights so as not to rely on any one exclusively. So to rework classics in magic by relying heavily on the science friction spray does not make sense to me. Never the less, his routines were instructive on ways to use this spray!


DOES CARD-SHARK OVER HYPE SCIENCE FRICTION?

I can not address any issues of of crediting as I frequently do not know the proper names and histories of some of the slights I perform :-(

As far as marketing hype, as a magic consumer and a magician I expect and tolerate a certain amount of hype from magic companies - as long as it does not go too far. In other words, I am not shock that there is gambling in "Ricks" casino. IMO Christian Schenk's marketing for "Science Friction" is as honest as most marketing for magic.

IS SCIENCE FRICTION NEW?

I DO think that in practice "Science Friction" is different than anything I have worked with before. Unlike roughing fluid, only one surface needs to be treated. Unlike double stick tape, or "tacky spray" the cards are not "stuck" together - they can be separated easily and naturally at any point. Two or three cards can also be shown as one just as naturally.

The buy in for Science Friction is about $100. For me it was worth it, I have already thought of a couple of changes to my color chaining deck routine.

[bagelsandlox]

Science Friction has very pretty packaging. They makes a pretty lure for the hobbyist that can't get the hang double lifts and Ghost Counts.

[Richard Kaufman]

Science Friction can be very handy for tricks in which you're spreading the deck either in your hands or on the table. Nothing to do with Double Lifts or Elmsley Counts.

[Bob Cunningham]

"Science Friction has very pretty packaging. They makes a pretty lure for the hobbyist that can't get the hang double lifts and Ghost Counts."

Maybe, but I perform a pretty good double lift & Elmsley count 6 to 10 times a week in front of audiences of about 20 people just about every week of the year and have done so for decades. I suppose that does not tell you if I perform them well, but I and my audiences are satisfied.

Having said that, I think this is an interesting new principle and I am enjoying experimenting with it :-)

[Brad Henderson]

Many participants at the cafe have specifically stated (or at least at one time did - you never know with posts disappearing constantly)that they were using SF to improve their double lifts and elmsley counts.

[Richard Kaufman]

Oh. Thanks for filling in the background, Brad. That's actually pretty sad!

[erdnasephile]

As an FYI, this text was reported as being on the Science Friction website as one of the selling points for the spray:

"Simplification of Classic Sleights
Just imagine doing Double or Triple lifts with ease. Pushing several cards over as one is just a breeze. With Science Friction you will never again telegraph these sleights"

Clearly one of the attractions of this spray to some is to bring these sleights within the reach of their current skill level.

While it would be nice for people to actually master the sleights in question, I guess it's better to use this stuff than to perform the sleights poorly and expose them.

[bagelsandlox]

If they don't like books, some guy named Coughingman or something like that, has a lovely video ( now on DVD ) called "Basic Basic Card Magic". It teaches the proper way to do the essential sleights, without using sprays.

Magic has a way of standing still, but it's sad when it goes backwards or in circles.

[Anthony Vinson]

Isn't it a sad state of affairs when someone is willing to shell out $100.00 for a product rather than investing the necessary to learn and properly use a sleight? Takes "self-working" and "no skill required" to new levels. What's next? Insta-Palm - The amazing new adhesive product that eliminates the stress of actually palming an object. After that, perhaps someone will develop personality and misdirection chips tucked inside a thumb tip...

[mrgoat]

Isn't it a sad state of affairs when someone is willing to shell out $100.00 for a product rather than investing the necessary to learn and properly use a sleight? Takes "self-working" and "no skill required" to new levels. What's next? Insta-Palm - The amazing new adhesive product that eliminates the stress of actually palming an object. After that, perhaps someone will develop personality and misdirection chips tucked inside a thumb tip...

Indeed. Yesterday a friend showed me the Any Card To Any Wallet gimmick. Oh god. :(

Just learn a palm.

[erdnasephile]

I don't disagree with you guys; however, there are some very legitimate reasons to develop alternatives to certain sleights.

For example, physical limitations: see the first 30 seconds of this David Regal video for Passport David Regal video for Passport

Another reason is one Michael Close has written about: faro alternative procedures for those whose dimming close-up vision makes perfect cuts for multiple faros a little dicey. (Yes, yes, I know--Richard Turner is blind and Rene Lavand has one hand, but most of us are neither Turner nor Lavand).

While method absolutely affects effect, I take the "by whatever means necessary" approach. If the best method is a sleight, perfect. If it's a gaff or subtlety, so be it. It doesn't matter as long as the it's the most optimal approach for me.

That's why marketing hype about making things easy doesn't really play into my purchasing decisions. (My current favorite dealer line is: "self-working so you can concentrate on your presentation" Huh?)

(OTOH the word "practical"...that's what gets my attention these days.)

[Anthony Vinson]

Point taken, erdnasephile. A bit of minor arthritis occasionally negates my use of the classic pass, but fortunately there are other controls. My rueful mini-rant was directed more toward those who would choose to purchase a "no skill" method rather than make an attempt to learn a sleight because of laziness, lack of discipline, etc.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Just a dab of wax (or substitute) can get you some impressive results. The old photo mounting ovals were quite useful. Updating the ovals to the post-it type adhesive is also useful.

Still not appealing as a crutch - but intriguing as "find the killer app" avenues of investigation.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Did they rename the Ascanio (snake) spread?

[Murray Hatfield]

Just watched Stephen Bargatze absolutely fry several magicians including some excellent card guys, using S.F. Thank (appropirate deity) that he let us in on the secret. We'll be ordering some.

[Brad Henderson]

Get some plasti dip. It does the exact same thing and it's only about 6 bucks. (and some well known card guys who have examined both have confirmed that plastidip works equally well).

[Bob Cunningham]

Get some plasti dip. It does the exact same thing and it's only about 6 bucks. (and some well known card guys who have examined both have confirmed that plastidip works equally well).

I bought a can of clear Plasti-Dip and compared it to Science Friction. IMO, Plasti-Dip does not just DO the same thing as Science Friction, but it is EXACTLY the same substance. I applied both substances as a horizontal strip on the back of two cards. The two cards are visually and functionally identical.

I like Science Friction and am using it a couple of effects, but I think that Brad is right. The smart thing to do is to purchase it as "Plasti-Dip" instead of the much more expensive Science Friction.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000LN ... 00_details

[Brad Henderson]

That's what I have heard too - but the Cardshark acolytes on the Cafe swear up and down, after rigorous side by side testing, that they are different. Good to know they are the same.

[Tom Gilbert]

It was quite amusing the number of people on TMC saying their double lifts and Elmsley Counts were so much better, with the $100 can of spray. Maybe just a little more time practicing would have saved them the money.

[Brad Henderson]

It makes me wonder that if their doubles and elmsleys were so bad before the spray, do they really posses the critical eye to tell if they have actually improved anything as a result of the spray.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Might make a cute setup for the Paul Harris solid deck routine.

[Bob Cunningham]

Good to know they are the same.

Thanks for the tip to point us that direction!

On a more general note, I think it would be a shame not to explore this stuff just because some idiots need help with their double lifts or Elmsley counts :-(

For myself, I am using Plasti-Dip/Science Friction in my color changing deck routine. I can show 4 different odd cards (which appears to be the whole deck), and have three individual cards change color before the deck changes color. The routine ends with the changed deck being ribbon spread and examinable (in a VERY limited way).

[Steven Keyl]

Call it what you will, but this is a new tool in the toolbox that some magicians may find to be of value. As far as the ECs and DLs, you could probably fool some knowledgable magicians by replacing your standard sleights for this in certain situations. That makes it worth it for some right there.

Personally, I think the greatest applications for this have yet to be unearthed. I'm working on a few routines now that make use of this and I look forwad to seeing what others can come up with.

Slagging off a product simply because its existing supporters are not using it in a way that you personally find redeeming does NOT mean it has no redeeming value.

[Brad Henderson]

I'm not convinced that anything has "worth" because it fools magicians, knowledgeable or otherwise.

[Steven Keyl]

Not to you perhaps, but there are plenty of magicians out there that seem to base worth on that sole criteria.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Not to you perhaps, but there are plenty of magicians out there that seem to base worth on that sole criteria.

The cure for that particular vain fantasy is to recall that all and sundry are aware of the product and few and far between are truly less well informed.

Taking the next few steps to be aware of what the audience expects and knows and then use that knowlege as part of your method is ... nontrivial.

Wasn't there a sone with lyrics like that??? "Science Friction, double lifting..." Picture an extreem closup of the Geico Gecco with green lips.

[Brad Henderson]

Good point JT

Steven, is the value system you reference good for the growth of magic as an art, or the perception of magic in the culture? If not, should we be encouraging it?

[mrgoat]

Slagging off a product simply because its existing supporters are not using it in a way that you personally find redeeming does NOT mean it has no redeeming value.

I think people are slagging it off because it is something that is cheap that is repackaged and sold to magicians at a vast mark up.

The slagging of idiots is just secondary. But fun.

[Steven Keyl]

Brad, I'm not casting a qualitative judgement, rather making an observation.

But since you asked...

Wanting to have effects that are capable of fooling fellow magicians is not something that I would classify as a "value system." Most magicians I know have a couple of effects reserved for those times they get together and session. To answer your question, it seems neither good nor bad for the growth of magic as an art form. If pressed for a hard answer, I would lean toward positive for no other reason than I'd rather have a tool I didn't need than need a tool I didn't have.

However, this (for me at least) was a minor point. The main point I was making is that you cannot judge a product's suitability for magical endeavors based solely on the initial applications of that product in its infancy. As it reaches a wider audience, more minds will come to bear on how this can be used to its full potential.

mrgoat, can I just call you Mr.? ;)
Seems that SF spray is taking a slagging from all sides. Regarding the repackaging and resale to magicians for a markup is certainly a fair point and one that I haven't formed an opinion on yet. Seems TMC is lavish in its praise; likewise it seems Genii Forum is equally lavish in its condemnation. My guess is that the difference between the two products may be more negligible than is reported on TMC but more profound than is reported here, simply due to experimenter bias.

But what the hell do I know, I've only got 6 posts!

[mrgoat]

mrgoat, can I just call you Mr.? ;)

Or Damian. Whatever you feel more comfortable with.

Seems TMC is lavish in its praise; likewise it seems Genii Forum is equally lavish in its condemnation.

The Green Place is full of idiots lavishing praise on teenagers for recreating other people's tricks and speaking in high pitched voices on video.

You do the math, girlfriend.

[clicks fingers in a cool black lady sort of manner]

[Steven Keyl]

Reminds me of a quote:

One of the problems the internet has introduced is that in this electronic village, all the village idiots have internet access.
--Peter Nelson

[Bob Cunningham]

My guess is that the difference between the two products may be more negligible than is reported on TMC but more profound than is reported here, simply due to experimenter bias.

Hi Steven, I think you asking good questions. My only observation is that as "the expairimenter in question, I am a fan of Science Friction and gave it an enthusiastic review. I frankly thought that Brad was full of s..t when he said He thought that Plasti-Dip was the same substance. I purchased a can to prove him wrong. My bias was in favor of Science Friction. I am confident enough in my conclusion that if we could both send an identical card to an unbiased 3rd party, one treated with Plasti-Dip and the other with Science Friction and that observer could tell them apart I would gladly buy you a can of Science Friction ;-)

I am still a fan of the concept, but honestly there is no observable difference between the two substances.

[mrgoat]

Reminds me of a quote:

One of the problems the internet has introduced is that in this electronic village, all the village idiots have internet access.
--Peter Nelson

and they all seem to post on TMC

:D

[Steven Keyl]

Fair enough, Bob. If you can acquire an identically performing product at a fraction of the price then I wouldn't deter anyone from going that route. As an owner of SF, I can attest that it performs as advertised. I knew exactly what I was getting when I ordered it and am happy with the purchase.

Damian, that seems unduly harsh, no? I guess I just don't understand the dynamic between the two forums yet. Of course, by your emoticon I also gather you're just having a spot of fun, which I wouldn't deter either. Carry on.

[Bob Cunningham]

Don't get me wrong. I too purchased SF and I am pleased with my purchase. I would not have come across this stuff if I had not bought it. I am not angry at the price, it behaves as advertised. However, in the future all my refills will be Plasti-Dip ;-)

[Jonathan Townsend]

How are the treated cards on picking up oils, dirt and collecting lint in the pocket?

[Bob Cunningham]

How are the treated cards on picking up oils, dirt and collecting lint in the pocket?

Not bad so far. There is nothing sticky - just a different coefficient of friction than that of two normal cards.