Some Interesting Experimental REsults

[Beth]

A few months ago, I promised to post any interesting experiment results I had. Earlier this week, I was able to purchase a relatively inexpensvie temperature sensor and have started trying to set up experiments with it.

These results are not conclusive as I do not yet have a rigorous protocol worked out with this new sensor. I'm still just fooling around to see what I can do with it and this procedure does not eliminate other possible explanations. I did not have an observer for this test.

I can reject the null hypothesis that nothing was different between the control and the test period. They are definitely not the same. The p-value of an ANOVA test on this data is 0.0000. But I cannot state that I was the cause of that difference. Other explanations are possible, including the possibility that I'm simply seeing a trend over time that has nothing to do with me. As I continue to experiment, I will revise and refine the procedure to eliminate other possible explanations.

Beth


Time Effort Temp
8:11 None 83
8:19 None 90
8:20 None 101
8:21 None 92
8:22 None 89
8:23 None 93
8:24 None 91
8:25 None 94
8:26 None 108
8:27 None 107
8:28 None 132
8:29 None 108
8:30 None 117
8:31 None 112
8:32 None 111
8:33 None 108
8:35 None 102
8:37 None 108
8:39 None 102
8:40 None 102
8:41 None 120
8:50 Aim for sensor 140
8:51 Aim for sensor 141
8:52 Aim for sensor 152
8:53 Aim for sensor 129
8:54 Aim for sensor 139
8:55 Aim for sensor 133
8:56 Aim for sensor 129
8:57 Aim for sensor 146
8:58 Aim for sensor 160
8:59 Aim for sensor 171
9:00 Aim for sensor 185
9:01 Aim for sensor 169

 

[chillzero]

Can you give a bit more information about the experiments? You have given no details about what you are doing, and what you are trying to achieve. I don't understand these numbers without any other information.

Thanks.

 

[Beth]

I am attempting to direct a candle flame towards a target. In this experiment, the sensor was the target. What other details do you want to know?

Beth Clarkson

Edited to add:

You may find it helpful to read over my original claim thread in the challenge applications section.

 

[Genesius]

Seems to me the above effect could be created by having the candle between you and the sensor and lightly blowing on the candle flame, thereby directing heated air towards the sensor.

Can you give more details about the physical setup of your test equipment? The more details you can provide the better we can critique your design and discover if there truly is a paranormal effect here.

 

[Beth]

Seems to me the above effect could be created by having the candle between you and the sensor and lightly blowing on the candle flame, thereby directing heated air towards the sensor.

Can you give more details about the physical setup of your test equipment? The more details you can provide the better we can critique your design and discover if there truly is a paranormal effect here.

I place the candle in a glass to prevent my inadvertantly affecting it with my breath. The tip of the sensor was placed inside the glass about 2 inches below the rim. I did not alter it's position during the course of the experiment.

If you want more details on the set-up, please check the original thread on my claim. THe only change I made from that original setup for this experiment was using the temperature sensor rather than wax rings to measure the effect.

Thank you for your offer to critique my design, but until I have a set-up that corrects for the problems I am already aware of, I don't think posting details that will be changing is of much value. I posted these results in order to fulfill my promise to post interesting results if I had some. I consider these results to be interesting and feel that I have honored that promise.

Beth

 

[Genesius]

Other explanations are possible, including the possibility that I'm simply seeing a trend over time that has nothing to do with me.

Should be fairly simple to rule out: light the candle and let it burn for 30 minutes or so, which should be enough time for the temperature in the jar to stabilize. Alternate trying to and not trying to influence the flame. See if the temperature changes in step with your attempts. Given enough trials if you are influencing the flame the effect should show up, even given the ranges in observed temperatures on your earlier trial.

 

[Ashles]

Hmmm, there does seem to be a rather obvious glaring problem with this set up.

Putting a flame by a sensor might possibly heat the sensor over time.

It would be far better to either do the aiming either at the start, or better still at random periods, alternating with the control non-aiming types.

This is really a terrible way to do the experiment Beth.

It is how someone would set up the experiment to give themselves a much greater chance that the temperature would be higher during their aiming period.

Try doing the aiming first, then the non-aiming second and let us know the results of that.

Also the nine minute gap between non-aiming and aiming makes the temperature increase appear far greater a jump compared to the other readings than it really is.

And if the aiming was done at 8:50 then the biggest increase in temperature actually happened before any aiming was attempted.

Here is a graph of temperature increase against time. (I have added a linear trend line).

 

[Beth]

Should be fairly simple to rule out: light the candle and let it burn for 30 minutes or so, which should be enough time for the temperature in the jar to stabilize. Alternate trying to and not trying to influence the flame. See if the temperature changes in step with your attempts. Given enough trials if you are influencing the flame the effect should show up, even given the ranges in observed temperatures on your earlier trial.

Those are good suggestions. I plan to try a number of things along those lines in the future. Thank you.

Beth

 

[Beth]

Hmmm, there does seem to be a rather obvious glaring problem with this set up.

Yes, I am aware that there are a number of problems with this set up. That is why I said the results were not conclusive. I will be correcting the problems to the best of my ability in the future. This was not meant to be a rigorous trial, but rather one in which I am familarizing myself with the new sensor. Still, I found the results interesting and posted them as I had said I would. Thank you for your input.

 

[Ashles]

Beth - one quick question:

You said you would post any interesting results you had.

Does this mean you won't post any results you get that show nothing interesting?

Will you even tell us about any trials that show no effect?

If not then surely you can't realistically run any statistical analysis on your results as you would only be cherry picking already significant trials to run analyses on.

 

[Beth]

Beth - one quick question:

You said you would post any interesting results you had.

Does this mean you won't post any results you get that show nothing interesting?

Will you even tell us about any trials that show no effect?

If not then surely you can't realistically run any statistical analysis on your results as you would only be cherry picking already significant trials to run analyses on.

Actually, I regret making the original promise to post interesting results. I have found this forum a bit too hostile for my taste. From the Angela Patel thread, it's clear that those who share my views regarding the general tone of this forum are in a minority. Most people here enjoy the heated exchanges and seem to be of the opinion that if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. That's fair, but since I don't like the heat here I'm planning on going to a more temperate kitchen to discuss my results, both positive and negative.

However, I had promised to post interesting results here and I do try to keep my word. I now feel that I have fulfilled that promise.

Beth

 

[roger]

Thank you for taking the time to make and post that chart, Ashles. It makes things much clearer.

 

[Reno]

Go to that TVshows place where they all coo and ahhh and fawn over each other. You'll be safe from harm over there...and they will believe anything you say without you having to go to the trouble of actually providing any proof at all.

GL and GB

 

[Unnamed]

Also the nine minute gap between non-aiming and aiming makes the temperature increase appear far greater a jump compared to the other readings than it really is.

And if the aiming was done at 8:50 then the biggest increase in temperature actually happened before any aiming was attempted.

Here is a graph of temperature increase against time. (I have added a linear trend line).

Ashles, you make a good point about the 9 min. gap, but your graph does not reflect it properly. I made another graph that shows it more clearly.

Also, since we are trying to distinguish between before and after trying to induce a change, I've put separate linear trends. The increase in the second region is not completely predicted by extrapolating from the first one. But I guess that the ANOVA result would be much higher (i.e. higher probability for the null hypothesis) after correcting for this trend.

 

[Ashles]

Actually, I regret making the original promise to post interesting results. I have found this forum a bit too hostile for my taste. From the Angela Patel thread, it's clear that those who share my views regarding the general tone of this forum are in a minority. Most people here enjoy the heated exchanges and seem to be of the opinion that if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. That's fair, but since I don't like the heat here I'm planning on going to a more temperate kitchen to discuss my results, both positive and negative.

However, I had promised to post interesting results here and I do try to keep my word. I now feel that I have fulfilled that promise.

Beth

Beth we honestly would appreciate your posting all the data you have. Positive and negative. But this is a sceptical website so it would really be unrealistic of you to expect people not to comment on problems with your experimental set up.

And surely your results should stand by themselves.

But if you are merely looking for agreement with your claims, and no serious analysis of your results then this forum certainly isn't the right place for you.

It would be genuinely sad for several reasons if you felt you could only show your results to like-minded people.

You are an intelligent poster and as several people have said before we value your input, presence and comments, even if we don't agree with you.

If you are really serious about finding out whether you have this ability or not then posting your results here is absolutely the best thing to do.
If they can survive our criticisms and suggestions, then they are obviously robust and significant results.

I ask because I want to know if you are genuine about finding the truth about these abilities, or whether you merely want to hear that you have them, regardless of whether you really do or not.
Because there are plenty of other forums that will tell you that you do.
Is that what you want?

 

[roger]

Unnamed, do you feel that it is valid to compute 2 different linear regressions like that, given that these are not independent trials. So far as I can tell, Beth's use of the term "control" is a canard, as it is anything but.

A proper control would establish the thermo properties of the apparatus.

I feel that Ashes chart shows that what we are seeing may very well be nothing more than the thermal behavior of the apparatus. Your's gives a strong pschological bias to thinking that there is an effect other than normal thermo behavior.

Of course this will not be decided by drawing graphs of her presented data, but by running true controls. In any case, both of your graphs are interesting and thought provoking.

 

[Beth]

Ashles, you make a good point about the 9 min. gap.

The 9 minute gap is the period during which I was trying to influence the flame. I was working by myself and cannot work with the flame and record data at the same time. However, the time effect is confounded with the attempt and the change in temp may simply be due the candle burning hotter over time. I plan on switching to an oil lamp and taking control data to assess normal behavior.

Beth

 

[Ashles]

I know this is really obvious, but I'd feel bad if I didn't at least say it.

Beth please do be careful with all these naked flames.

 

[Beth]

Ashley,

I appreciate what you are saying and I do value critical input. I am not looking for like-minded people in my discussions, but kindness. This is a very personal thing and I find it difficult to talk about certain aspects of it. What I cannot tolerate are unkind comments. Nor can I expect people here to refrain from making such comments.

I have a small group of people, including some skeptics that I have met here, that I feel I can be honest with who have agreed to advise me on my experiments and results. They are all people whose opinions I value and they have all promised to be kind as well as honest.

I simply don't think this forum is the place, sensitive as I am on this subject, for me to post all details about my experiments and their results.

Thank you for your interest and your comments.

Beth

 

[mummymonkey]

Hey that's not fair! I did a graph too, but I'm so slow and useless everybody got their's done first. Well I'm posting it anyway 'cos it took me ages so there!