0 like 0 dislike
ago in General Factchecking by (180 points)

This claim is true, somewhat misleading because it makes you think the volcano is active. The article from SciTechDaily describes how two students recreated a mechanical artwork originally imagined by Sir William Hamilton, a British ambassador and vulcanologist. The H i resort of Melbourne released an official statement, confirming the claim. There are direct quotes in the Melbourne statement and SciTechDay article from the students and staff. The recreation of the volcanic explosion is currently on display. 

1 Answer

0 like 0 dislike
ago by Newbie (300 points)

This article is claiming that after 250 years, an 18th century mechanical volcano was brought to life. The original source is from the University of Melbourne, and the project was initiated by Dr. Richard Gillespie. Similar articles about the topic were done by Gizmodo.com, popsci.com, and msm.com. The source is legitimate, as the original article had the University of Melbourne listed as the main author; there was also a video describing the same events within the article which was posted on YouTube by the official University of Melbourne account. The primary source of the information would ultimately be the University of Melbourne; the project was initiated by the Senior Curator in the Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, the two students who built the project were Xinyu (Jasmine) Xu and Yuji (Andy) Zeng. The evidence provided by the university supports the contents of the article and the main claim to be true, however the title/main claim can be misleading to some as it could be thought of as an actual dormant volcano rather than a historical project.

After 250 years, Mount Vesuvius artwork erupts into life

Engineers bring a 250-year-old mechanical painting of Mount Vesuvius to fiery life | Popular Science

Watch a Reconstructed 250-Year-Old Robotic Painting Bring a Fiery Mount Vesuvius Back to Life

Exaggerated/ Misleading

Community Rules


• Be respectful
• Always list your sources and include links so readers can check them for themselves.
• Use primary sources when you can, and only go to credible secondary sources if necessary.
• Try to rely on more than one source, especially for big claims.
• Point out if sources you quote have interests that could affect how accurate their evidence is.
• Watch for bias in sources and let readers know if you find anything that might influence their perspective.
• Show all the important evidence, whether it supports or goes against the claim.
...