Designing a test for the magnetic coasters...

[SGT]

Loki

I am glad you have seen the light, grasshopper!
I am sorry to tell you that I am not aware of the proper use of duck's bladders to prevent earthquakes. Since in Brazil earthquakes are rare and of feeble intensities, our witchdoctors have never developed the technology. I think a promissing field of research is Earth acupuncture (see 7 May 2004 Commentary). The proper use of bamboo sticks and boulders can operate marvels on Gaia.
Of course, in high risk areas like San Andreas Fault, ordinary boulders would not do. We would need real menhirs, brought from Carnac or Stonehenge. The magic energies imparted on these rocks by Celtic druids, would ressonate with the bad vibrations of the planet, damping them.
I know those damn skeptics will say that ressonance causes enhancement and not damping of vibrations, but I am talking metaphysics and not physics, duh!

 

[richardm]

I'd personally use water, given that after drinking wine ones judgements can be distorted.

Only if you swallow it. Professional wine tasters tend to spit most of the wine out after tasting, and there's no reason our testers couldn't do the same.

 

[EHocking]

Only if you swallow it. Professional wine tasters tend to spit most of the wine out after tasting, and there's no reason our testers couldn't do the same.

I hereby withraw my vounteering to participate if this is a condition of the experiment. I fully intended to achieve "double-blind" test conditions.

 

[richardm]

I fully intended to achieve "double-blind" test conditions.

Double vision, then blind drunk? You would only need a small sample of the wine for sipping purposes. Then you could horse the rest over your neck at leisure

 

[EHocking]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by EHocking

I fully intended to achieve "double-blind" test conditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Double vision, then blind drunk? You would only need a small sample of the wine for sipping purposes. Then you could horse the rest over your neck at leisure

Did the France number a few months back - never quite got the hang of the spitting the wine out bit. My wife thought it a disgusting thing to do - so ages of vintner history and tradition go hang - can't offend Linda (my life would not be worth living - for a number of reasons).

 

[EHocking]

It may be marginally preferable if the testees dont know the hypothesis being tested, especially since many will be physicists with a somewhat skeptical standpoint, but this is not a prerequisite of double-blind testing. As I said, its not something I feel confident I can keep secret (e.g. they've been sitting in my office a week, and my PhD student certainly has a vague idea of what I'm up to). It is an interesting question as to when blinding participants about the hypothesis is actually necessary, I disagree that this is one such situation.

I don't believe in this set up that having the subjects knowing the purpose of the test is all that relevant to the outcome. The outcome of successfully choosing the "magnetised" wine merely on chance can be calculated pretty easily.

Also, I don't think it's that necessary that the test subjects are wine officionados - just that they don't mind the variety you use as a test bottle.

Oh, and I'm still up for volunteering. Work in Victoria and live in the East, but am always willing to travel for a glass of Shiraz (not that ghastly Syrah though).

 

[Tez]

I don't believe in this set up that having the subjects knowing the purpose of the test is all that relevant to the outcome. The outcome of successfully choosing the "magnetised" wine merely on chance can be calculated pretty easily.

Also, I don't think it's that necessary that the test subjects are wine officionados - just that they don't mind the variety you use as a test bottle.

Oh, and I'm still up for volunteering. Work in Victoria and live in the East, but am always willing to travel for a glass of Shiraz (not that ghastly Syrah though).

Ok, how about this friday afternoon/evening? Tim, Tanja? It'll need to be an evening of a weekday so that the college is open...

 

[EHocking]

Ok, how about this friday afternoon/evening? Tim, Tanja? It'll need to be an evening of a weekday so that the college is open...

I should be up for that. The Social Secretary of the household is out with a girlfriend (unfortunately reducing the test subjects by one) but not doubt I could get a release for the evening.

 

[EHocking]

<snip>
I will test the claims on Roger's website as far as possible...
<snip>
I have no pets, nor do I have ready access to someone who believes wholeheartedly there will be a difference. The one undergraduate mentoree I have who believes in homeopathy etc says he wouldnt be surprised if it worked, but didnt feel strongly about it. He unfortunately has his third year comprehensive exams week after next, and will not be amenable to being part of this test.

A thought just struck me. I seem to recall over on another thread that Mr.Coghill stated that he does not test nor condone testing his or other products on animals (especially those with eyes or that are mammals).

Yet he claims that with his Pet Coaster the pet will always drink magnetised water in preference to non-magnetised water.

One of his statements is either inaccurate or is misleading as far as I can see.

 

[roger]

I don't believe in this set up that having the subjects knowing the purpose of the test is all that relevant to the outcome. The outcome of successfully choosing the "magnetised" wine merely on chance can be calculated pretty easily.

But what about the converse? A testee who really doesn't want the thing to work, and thus doesn't choose the glass that tastes different (assuming one actually tastes different).

That can occur subconsciously - willful lying is not required.

 

[EHocking]

Originally posted by roger
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by EHocking
I don't believe in this set up that having the subjects knowing the purpose of the test is all that relevant to the outcome. The outcome of successfully choosing the "magnetised" wine merely on chance can be calculated pretty easily.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But what about the converse? A testee who really doesn't want the thing to work, and thus doesn't choose the glass that tastes different (assuming one actually tastes different).

That can occur subconsciously - willful lying is not required

But what about the converse? A testee who really doesn't want the thing to work, and thus doesn't choose the glass that tastes different (assuming one actually tastes different).

That can occur subconsciously - willful lying is not required.

This can still be catered for using probability. I am assuming that we wish to test that the difference can be noticed and that to show a positive we would want to see these results to be better than that expected if the glass of wine were chosen merely randomly. Using table II from this site <http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html> (merely a handy reference - not definitive), a successfull result greater than random chance and indicating odds of 1:10,000, a successful result would require 10 out of 10 correct selections per participant.

Even if someone wanted to play with the results, any "success" from zero to nine is still within the bounds of expectations. So all wrong is still within these bounds and of no statistical importance.

It's not until you attempt 30 trials that a zero success rate would be significant - 21 being the "success" target.

Even then a smart person (who has looked at the table for instance and read this post) might still try to beat the system by deliberately indicating the "incorrect" glass. But this could also be countered by not telling the subjects how many trials you would be performing so that the subjects would not be able to determine the odds they are trying to beat.

Another protocol could and perhaps should include controls. That is intersperse the 2:1 non-mag:magnetic water samples with all "magnetised" and/or all plain water. In this way the subjects would blinded to which samples are being presented so would not know when to cheat - consciously or otherwise.

I've little doubt there are a few on this forum that could sort out the maths on a protocol of that nature.

For the record, what was the experimental protocol that your laboratory used for the Counter, and are the results available anywhere on your site, or written up in a paper?

 

[roger]

For the record, what was the experimental protocol that your laboratory used for the Counter, and are the results available anywhere on your site, or written up in a paper?

Err, I am not Mr. Coghill, we just share a first name.

 

[EHocking]

Err, I am not Mr. Coghill, we just share a first name.

Sorry about that. Too bad Mr.Coghill hasn't provided the protocol he used so that we can attempt to replicate his results though.
Also hope it was a little more rigourous that the "study" he perfomed on the Pet Counter.

 

[EvilBiker]

...but am always willing to travel for a glass of Shiraz (not that ghastly Syrah though).

Um, Shiraz is Syrah, mate. Same grape. Syrah is just the French word for Shiraz.

And Syrah being bad, or necessarily French only? Nope. This just in - Stellenzicht Syrah 2001 won a gold medal at this year’s International Wine and Spirit Competition held in London - one of only 10 South African wines to win gold.

“Release of the results of the International Wine Challenge - a competition of more than 9 000 different wines, covering every type of grape, winemaking style and country, tasted blind by a top jury - is one of the key moments at the annual London International Wine & Spirit Fair.” (Read more on wine.co.za, 19 May 2004).

 

[EHocking]

Um, Shiraz is Syrah, mate. Same grape. Syrah is just the French word for Shiraz.

Oh the grape is the same granted, but the wines are not!
I was delighted when sampling Moselle in Germany and was astounded as to the difference between it and some of the ghastly stuff the Aussies used to produce.

.. and I apologise to the group for fishing without a licence..

And Syrah being bad, or necessarily French only? Nope. This just in - Stellenzicht Syrah 2001 won a gold medal at this year’s International Wine and Spirit Competition held in London - one of only 10 South African wines to win gold.

Release of the results of the International Wine Challenge - a competition of more than 9 000 different wines, covering every type of grape, winemaking style and country, tasted blind by a top jury - is one of the key moments at the annual London International Wine & Spirit Fair.” (Read more on wine.co.za, 19 May 2004). [/B]

Must be my Antipodean palate, I prefer the more robust New World Shiraz', whereas the light house reds that emerge on a French or Italian cafe tables are emminently quaffable as well.

Oh, and I like the quote above "tasted blind by a top jury". I wonder if the correspondent was aware of it?

 

[SGT]

Um, Shiraz is Syrah, mate. Same grape. Syrah is just the French word for Shiraz.

And Syrah being bad, or necessarily French only? Nope. This just in - Stellenzicht Syrah 2001 won a gold medal at this year’s International Wine and Spirit Competition held in London - one of only 10 South African wines to win gold.

“Release of the results of the International Wine Challenge - a competition of more than 9 000 different wines, covering every type of grape, winemaking style and country, tasted blind by a top jury - is one of the key moments at the annual London International Wine & Spirit Fair.” (Read more on wine.co.za, 19 May 2004).

Syrah is the main grape of the wines from Côtes du Rhône, including the renowned Hermitage and Crozes-Hermitage and is one of the main grapes for Châteauneuf-du-Pape.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Was it?

The hypothesis of p = 1/3 was not rejected.

 

[cogreslab]

Hope the deliberations are going OK! If it turns out you need another coaster or two in order to improve the protocol, let me know, and i will donate them at our lab cost (the first three were donated by the manufacturers/distributors).

I noted the idea of my suggesting a protocol, but it might be construed as biased, and it really is better if you come up with the study design independently.

Best to all,

 

[EHocking]

Hope the deliberations are going OK! If it turns out you need another coaster or two in order to improve the protocol, let me know, and i will donate them at our lab cost (the first three were donated by the manufacturers/distributors).

I noted the idea of my suggesting a protocol, but it might be construed as biased, and it really is better if you come up with the study design independently.

Best to all,

I disagree. The time-worn approach to scientific method is to test a theory/hypothesis by replication of the experimental conditions in order to support the results.

It would be much better if Tez (and others involved) were to attempt to replicate your experimental protocol in an effort to replicate and reinforce your results.

A detailed description of your experimental protocols would be greatly appreciated, I'm sure.

 

[richardm]

Come on chaps, have you got a workable protocol yet? Set a date?