I too have a little experience with dyno testers, a mere fact is that a 1% difference in any test would be discarded by anybody whom wouldnt be paid for prooving something that isnt there. I would go as far as saying that all the way up to 3-4% would normally be discarded as a "null" result.
Magura
Magura
serengetiplains said:
Close, but there is an important part missing. The refutation of established theories by new ones requires that not only the new theory covers the known phenomena as well as the old theory, but it should also cover some phenomena that were not or badly covered by the old theory. That is the way of progress, and as you say it requires a lot of hard work and no guarantee of results. I personally think that the difference between a great scientist and an average one is that the great one is able to choose and focus on theories that in the end will bring results.
And, of course, the 'scientific way' requires that the new theory can be tested by independent researchers, that they can duplicate the results. That again requires that the original discoverers painstakingly describe their original experiment, the test setup, the results, the uncertainties in the results and indeed anything that could be used to refute their results. And it is often in this last part that the 'open mindedness' is lacking.
Now, if you compare this with the way those Shakti stones or their purported effect is presented, do you see a connection? Neither do I. It is, my dear friend, the basic difference between science and the scientific method, which I believe is what you favour, and the old ''trust me, would I lie to you?" routine.
You don't to have to believe me on my blue eyes that the above is the generally accepted process of discovering and securing progress. Their is enough material on the net or I can recommend several books on it. The one who most eloquently explained this was Richard Feynman. In fact, in his later life he made a point of instilling in his students the intellectual honesty required to give shape to progress as described. Quite the opposite of your example.
Jan Didden
PS Speaking of Richard Feynman, you should read his razor-sharp analysis on the Challenger shuttle disaster, years ago. I chuckle if people still try to impress me with 'this guy is a hotshot at NASA'. If I was that hotshot, after reading said report, I would quietly remove it from my CV. That's a liability if anything. There is a lot of parallells between the decision making on those shuttle flights and the decision making that BPs and STs work. Except that in the former case, people died, violently.
Is this a Shakti stone in your pocket, or are you just...
Zappa would have certainly liked the stones too
As for me, I haven't had the pleasure to hear Shakti, but am keeping an open mind. If they do have an audible effect, which is probably the case, it is purely coincidental and not based on any theories whatsoever.
I wonder if they've been tested on asthma patients.
Zappa would have certainly liked the stones too
As for me, I haven't had the pleasure to hear Shakti, but am keeping an open mind. If they do have an audible effect, which is probably the case, it is purely coincidental and not based on any theories whatsoever.
I wonder if they've been tested on asthma patients.
There is some interesting test material on the Shakti effect on car engine performance at:
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/dynotests.htm .
I must say, the differences are really small, in the order of less than 1% in torque and horsepower. I am no expert in this type of test, but I am aware that in most if not all scientific tests, be they automotive, audio electronics or what have you, it is difficult to repeat a specific test with better than 1% accuracy. For instance, doing a few THD vs FREQ runs on an amp witout changing anything will give you curves that do not overlap, but show some small deviations similar as in the grapghs in the link above. Again, I'm no expert, but I noted that TNT in an earlier post already mentioned that such small deviations may well be test noise and would be present even in two runs without any Shakti's present.
There is however a disturbing error in the graphs shown at the linked page. For example, a cursory examination shows that the curves in graphs 2 and 3 are indentical. Yet, they are shown as from two different cars.
That being the case, I do not have the confidence to judge this system by these curves. Do you?
Jan Didden
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/dynotests.htm .
I must say, the differences are really small, in the order of less than 1% in torque and horsepower. I am no expert in this type of test, but I am aware that in most if not all scientific tests, be they automotive, audio electronics or what have you, it is difficult to repeat a specific test with better than 1% accuracy. For instance, doing a few THD vs FREQ runs on an amp witout changing anything will give you curves that do not overlap, but show some small deviations similar as in the grapghs in the link above. Again, I'm no expert, but I noted that TNT in an earlier post already mentioned that such small deviations may well be test noise and would be present even in two runs without any Shakti's present.
There is however a disturbing error in the graphs shown at the linked page. For example, a cursory examination shows that the curves in graphs 2 and 3 are indentical. Yet, they are shown as from two different cars.
That being the case, I do not have the confidence to judge this system by these curves. Do you?
Jan Didden
Please read:
http://www.bdp.it/circolo3fi/dovesiamo/en/pinocchio.html
I just discovered to live nearby The Field of Miracles
Surely I go there and bury my (few) euro.
If anybody wishes to send me euro or $ I surely bury them for him as well.
http://www.bdp.it/circolo3fi/dovesiamo/en/pinocchio.html
I just discovered to live nearby The Field of Miracles
Surely I go there and bury my (few) euro.
If anybody wishes to send me euro or $ I surely bury them for him as well.
To close the circle, I have the following requests:
1. For those who believe in the arcane powers of Shakti stones or Brilliant Pebbles or Quantum Purifiers or whatever, run a few controlled tests at home.
2. If you think the differences are major and unmistakeable, apply for the $1MM Challenge. Randi will negociate the protocol with the important proviso that it be truly blind.
3. Pass the Randi Challenge.
4. Collect the million bucks.
5. Donate a tenth of it to diyAudio.com .
6. When the purveyor of the device wins his Nobel, request that 10% of that be donated to diyAudio.com .
1. For those who believe in the arcane powers of Shakti stones or Brilliant Pebbles or Quantum Purifiers or whatever, run a few controlled tests at home.
2. If you think the differences are major and unmistakeable, apply for the $1MM Challenge. Randi will negociate the protocol with the important proviso that it be truly blind.
3. Pass the Randi Challenge.
4. Collect the million bucks.
5. Donate a tenth of it to diyAudio.com .
6. When the purveyor of the device wins his Nobel, request that 10% of that be donated to diyAudio.com .
Konnichiwa,
I suspect they already have.
What is the differences are subtle, but important to the individual? And how do you define "truely blind" and can we make sure to use a sensible and apropriate value of significance for a small sample and a small but perceptible difference?
I somehow suspect this will fail during the negotiation stage and I for one have no interest to invest time and money into something where the party supposed to pay me will assure itself to be able to get out on technicalities. And I do not have the interest to pay lawyers a lot of money to get sensible conditions only to have them rejected.
So, unless someone offers serious legal services for free to whoever is to take up the challenge (BTW, I am not convinced Shakti Stones or Brilliant Pebbles work or do not work, I have no experience and currently lack the time, will and spare cash to find out) and is willing to accept that the negotions will simply fail I suspect few people will be even bothered.
Sayonara
SY said:
I suspect they already have.
SY said:
What is the differences are subtle, but important to the individual? And how do you define "truely blind" and can we make sure to use a sensible and apropriate value of significance for a small sample and a small but perceptible difference?
SY said:
I somehow suspect this will fail during the negotiation stage and I for one have no interest to invest time and money into something where the party supposed to pay me will assure itself to be able to get out on technicalities. And I do not have the interest to pay lawyers a lot of money to get sensible conditions only to have them rejected.
So, unless someone offers serious legal services for free to whoever is to take up the challenge (BTW, I am not convinced Shakti Stones or Brilliant Pebbles work or do not work, I have no experience and currently lack the time, will and spare cash to find out) and is willing to accept that the negotions will simply fail I suspect few people will be even bothered.
Sayonara
Many years ago when I used to thumb rides to Watkins Glenn (or when especialy lucky Nurbergring) I devoured all manner of auto mags. I seem to recall that multiple runs were used when possible to establish 0-60 figures simply because greater differences than these could be attributed to varrying tire and track temperatures, slight differences in clutch release, winds, etc. etc.
janneman said:
Jan, your civil post is a breath of fresh air, and I agree with everything you say. And, yes, I favour the scientific method which, to me, requires a difficult combination of open-mindedness and skepticism. To be clear, I was not and did not intend to convey that I was defending Shakti stones or their website or presentation or patent or the persons behind the so-called invention etc, but rather was speaking to what I saw to be unscientific attitudes hiding in the guise of a certain "skeptical scientism" in certain posts on this thread, and against which John Curl was butting his head.
I would like to know other peoples' understandings about the basis on which a person might validly assess a product, but it seems to me that anyone who has not actually tried this product---or whatever product---has no basis, at least so far as scientific experimentation is concerned, to say this or whatever product does or does not work. Nor have I seen any actual discussion about what the Shakti originator suggests are the reasons why the product works, which discussion might substitute, to some extent, for actual experiment with the product. On the other hand, enough people, including magazine and audio industry types, have endorsed the product to suggest, at least to my mind, it probably does work. I see a form of veiled skepticism in peoples' attitudes, but a kind of skepticism based on the unskeptical, "I know ..." That type of skepticism is unscientific and not really skepticism at all, just closed-mindedness. Tell me how you know, is my response.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
I'm not buying that.
Whatever the merits of the arguments, I have complete faith that Randi will pay if proven wrong.
The man has been in the public eye for many years, he is the head of some famous magicians' organization, and has a national and even international reputation.
If somebody passes this test and Randi doesn't pay up, I gurantee you every tabloid paper in America, at least, willl have a picture of Randi on the front cover with the words "Magic Wuss" or some such written across it in four inch high letters.
Whatever the merits of the arguments presented here, I feel the utmost confidence Randi will pay. He has far, far too much at stake not to. I believe his career, based on his credibility, has given him far more than a million dollars.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.