| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Konnichiwa,
Would they? The products sell (probably well enough) despite all debunkers, on the strength of the majority of people who care about music and care zip about the science that dictates why such items should not make a difference. The believers are already convinced, so all it would do is to possibly convince the debunkers to go out and buy the product. I for one would not expect many sales ever which way.
Funny, quite a few years someone announced at a AES convention he had proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, in small scale and sample size double blind tests that speaker cables had audibly different properties. The poor sod who had actually gone and done his homework made the mistake to choose a significance level apropriate to the sample size (.2) and was promply savaged by the audio nazis for using such a low significance level and was forced to re-run his experiemnts with a significance level of .05 which (predictably BTW, after all, this is science and statistiscs) failed to show positive results.
It was this what I referred to when I pointed out that the Audio Pelicanists (I like that term, especially when used as a pejorative expression) had changed the goal posts every time when presented with a reasonable study that suggest that there was stinking to the heavens in the kingdom of denmark.
So no, EVEN IF a suitable test would be published (enough cases where, actually) which would suggest that Audio Pelicanists are WRONG (which any sensible human already knows they are, not on the basis of any specific instance, but based on their iditio insistance that everything knowable is already known about audio) they will move the goalposts again and simply pelicanise the whole event.
The actual problem is that (most of) the debunkers are actually fanatical adherents of a religion, not the openminded sceptics (eg ones who do not believe either that something is so or not and instead look for proof) they make themselves out to be, but agressive defenders of the orthodox true faith, who will stop at nothing lawfull and practical (including the deliberate production of severely flawed evidence then presented as fact) to ensure their faith is defended and imposed on others who do not share it.
If they could,they would ban subjectivist audio magazines, sales of high end audio and "esotheric" acessories (they have repeated actually tried through trand standards agencies etc.). You will no more convice such people of anything they object to as you culd convine the pope that catholic doctrine is wrong, Nag Hamadi, the death sea scrolls and other recent finds of authentic material that would support you substantially nonwithstanding.
If you wish to stand on the side of such charlatans, suit yourself. I find either brand of believer repulsive and prefer actual first hand knowledge over making other peoples opinions my own facts. I know much and believ nothing and I shall keep it that way.
Sayonara |
Well, I'm not an audio nazi (at least I don't consider myself that way, YMMV, that's your prerogative of course), but I think that I am open enough to accept that those stones change the sound reproduction, if there was a blind test that looked reasonably competent and that did show so. The explanation given by John that they absorb RF or microwaves COULD theoretically have an effect.
So, why do those people keep on moaning, 'oh, they don't understand us' etc? You cannot expect everybody to immediately exhaustively test anything that comes on the market, and the stones effect doesn't at first sight look valid, so it gets to the bottom of the heap. So guys stop complaining and show us!
And John C, sorry, but so far the only supporting evidence you gave was that (1) you know the designer, (2) he's a big shot at NASA or something, and (3) you phone each other within the hour. That, I'm afraid, isn't what I would consider a reasonable competent blind test.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
Just read the BP whitepaper at http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina17.htm . I must say that the explanation sounds quite reasonable. Mechanical absorbtion is of course the conversion of mechanical vibrations into heat. We do that all the time with speaker cabinet damping. I cannot relate to those pebbles absorbing RF/microwave, but that is my limited knowledge in this area. But sure, why not.
So, I put a jar on top of my speaker, as suggested. What does that do? Damp the vibrations of the speaker top, where it can transmit its vibrations to the jar? How does the jar then transmit the vibrations to the pebbles? What about the vibrations of the speaker sides, which is orders of magnitude bigger than that top?
Questions, questions.
Now, KYW, do these questions make me an audio pelican? I hope not. These are IMHO all reasonable, engineering related questions which I would ask of ANY new wizardry that claimed such an effect. And, if the effect is there, it would be childs work for those hi-strung designers to explain it, put in a few numbers, maybe a graph. Like show vibration vs frequency before and after. Accelerometers are cheap these days. IOW make just a tiny effort towards credibility.
Why don't they do that? Why do they ramble on about standard physical observations as if these are specifically the realm of BP (which they are not), and then go on to list how to use them.
I really get angry you know. They do (f) ****** all to come up with a couple of measurement, blind tests, anything that shows some serious results. But they have their mouth full of 'oh, they don't understand us', implying that I (and others) am stupid, prejudiced, fanatical, what have you. I don't merit that. They want me to do a serious effort to understand and accept their product. Why don't THEY do a serious effort? How come I end up defending myself for not buying their stuff?
John C, you remember the times you developed the JC-2 and JC-3? When you methodically researched things, measuring, proving to yourself at any step what was going on? Do you realise what you wrote these few last posts? What happened between then and now, John?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| john curl |
Jan, it is a sad moment, to have you misunderstand my position so greatly.
I am an audio design consultant, have been for more than 30 years, and I design several new or improved products every year. I KNOW HOW to develop the topology and get the basic performance from audio circuits. However, this is NOT enough, IF I want to make something other than a mid-fi product. I have proven this to myself by allowing others, in the past, to make the 'minor decisions' such as connectors, layout, wiring, etc and have paid the price of poor sales, and a diminishment of my design reputation. I could NOT MEASURE any problems, with previous decisions, just lost sales and less enthusiastic reviews.
IF I had to prove every design technique that I use by a blind test first, I would never make any progress, and my competitors would evolve past me by trying different things, without regard to the 'scientific method' or somesuch, as they have, often enough before.
When I bring up the background of some designer, it is not just that they are qualified, and educated, but that they actually can teach me a few things when I do communicate with them. What have I learned from you? That I am not the same person that I was 30 years ago, when I developed the JC-1 ,2, and 3? Of course I am, except that I use my physics background more these days, compared with the past. |
|
|
| diy_audio_fo |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Diy, why don't you do a Google search and find out for yourself. Just go to Google, the put in 'shakti audio'. For the 'brilliant pebbles' maybe the same technique will work also. |
John,
thank you for your kind reply.
I think that because you know and personally talk to the nice guy you can give us first hand information.
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
many here are IGNORANT of what is being offered in the audio marketplace as 'improvers'
|
Google - due the low signal to noise ratio of Internet - is a poor primer so I hope you can steer us pointing out the documents that worth reading
Thanx |
|
|
| john curl |
Jan, it is a sad moment, to have you misunderstand my position so greatly.
I am an audio design consultant, have been for more than 30 years, and I design several new or improved products every year. I KNOW HOW to develop the topology and get the basic performance from audio circuits. However, this is NOT enough, IF I want to make something other than a mid-fi product. I have proven this to myself by allowing others, in the past, to make the 'minor decisions' such as connectors, layout, wiring, etc and have paid the price of poor sales, and a diminishment of my design reputation. I could NOT MEASURE any problems, with previous decisions, just lost sales and less enthusiastic reviews.
IF I had to prove every design technique that I use by a blind test first, I would never make any progress, and my competitors would evolve past me by trying different things, without regard to the 'scientific method' or somesuch, as they have, often enough before.
When I bring up the background of some designer, it is not just that they are qualified, and educated, but that they actually can teach me a few things when I do communicate with them. What have I learned from you? That I am not the same person that I was 30 years ago, when I developed the JC-1 ,2, and 3? Of course I am, except that I use my physics background more these days, compared with the past. |
|
|
| runebivrin |
Is it just my imagination, or does John Curl's posts have a tendency to reappear with some inbetween?
Rune |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | Originally posted by runebivrin
Is it just my imagination, or does John Curl's posts have a tendency to reappear with some inbetween?
Rune |
A fluke of software. When you get to our age, it seems to happen with some regularity. |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Why is it that every time there's something out there that's a little beyond what's readily available in schoolbooks for all to fall back on it either gets dismissed out of hand or invariably qualifies as voodoo? |
Here goes.....
"I once overheard two botanists arguing over a Damned Thing that had blasphemously sprouted in a college yard. One claimed that the Damned Thing was a tree and the other claimed that it was a shrub. They each had good scholary arguments, and they were still debating when I left them.
The world is forever spawning Damned Things- things that are neither tree nor shrub, fish nor fowl, black nor white- and the categorical thinker can only regard the spiky and buzzing world of sensory fact as a profound insult to his card-index system of classifications.
Worst of all are the facts which violate "common sense", that dreary bog of sullen prejudice and muddy inertia. The whole history of science is the odyssey of a pixilated card- indexer perpetually sailing between such Damned Things and desperately juggling his classifications to fit them in, just as the history of politics is the futile epic of a long series of attempts to line up the Damned Things and cajole them to march in regiment."
From Robert Anthony Wilson / Hagbard Celine "Never Whistle While Your ****ing"
http://www.rawilson.com/whistle****.html
Sayonara |
|
|
| john curl |
Kuei, much of the 'mental position' represented here on this thread is shown in books by Robert Alton Wilson. I get much insight from them.
For the record, for everyone, and back to the Shakti Stones and the Randi challenge: The 'challenge' does not hold legal water with regard to the Shakti Stones, because the device uses measurable qualities, ie reduction of RFI and microwave energy, rather than any extraordinary source to work. This is in the 'fine print' of the 'challenge'. This has been explored by legal people from Shakti. Heck, 1 Million dollars? Worth a shot. ;-)
Another misunderstanding: Shakti Stones and Brilliant Pebbles are just cute names for 2 very different products. The Brilliant Pebbles are designed to absorb mechanical vibration. The Shakti Stones are designed to reduce RFI from about 1Meg Hz into microwave frequencies. This is also why they did NOT work for my application of reducing low RFI from 5KHz to 50KHz. Aluminum foil did work, however, in that range, very well. Thanks, SY.
I hope that many of you have come to see that you were criticizing specific tweaks, and the individuals who represent them, without any real evidence. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
[snip]I hope that many of you have come to see that you were criticizing specific tweaks, and the individuals who represent them, without any real evidence. |
Maybe many have, but not me, unfortunately (not that that needs to bother you, of course, but just for the record).
Also for the record: I was not criticising specific tweaks and/or the representative individuals as such. I and several others just asked for SOME real evidence that the gadgets do as advertised. Nobody seems to bother with that, not you, not their inventor, for whom it would be childs play to present that 'real evidence'. We can only guess at your collective reasons to abstain, and apparently being content with lamenting ' they don't understand us', 'they are prejudiced' etc, or words to that effect. I honestly regret that, being left up in the air.
BTW, Your last scentence sums it up nicely, although you may not have meant it that way: "..you were criticizing specific tweaks, and the individuals who represent them, without any real evidence". Exactly.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| TNT |
Work and work. Every item has some effect on it's surrounding ! The case here is wheter it improves/changes the sound !
/ |
|
|
| john curl |
Jan, you did NOT follow my advice that I gave Diy to Google search 'Shakti audio' in order to find real, independent measurements on one of the websites on this subject. NOW, will it work for YOU? Who knows, BUT I might try one on my new DVD player on the main processing chip. I also might put one or two in my cars, as they appear to have a measurable improvement in getting more HP out out the engine. In any case, this is a REAL device that does something that can be measured in different ways.
As far as the 'Brilliant Pebbles' are concerned. I know that Geoff Kait, the 'bottler' of 'Brilliant Pebbles' has been in the vibration damping business for years. It may be, or may not be, difficult to get measured info on what they do, just because of the test set-up necessary. For example, I would have a difficult time, myself, even though do I own an accelerometer.
Personally, I just don't have to have 'proof' in order to be satisfied with a tweak or a mod, or just leave it alone. |
|
|
| SY |
John, if you put four Shakti stones and six Brilliant Pebbles in your trunk, you'll find a measurable improvement in traction. Remember that the next time there's a snowstorm down in Berkeley. You'll thank me!
BTW, when I drove down to Berkeley Bowl with my mother (in town for a visit), she spotted some signs declaring Berkeley to be a "Nuclear-Free Zone." She asked me how the hell that could be, they needed to have the same atoms and molecules as anybody else. |
|
|
| fcel |
SY
You should move your 2nd paragraph to an existing thread called something like "more engineering humour" ;) |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Jan, you did NOT follow my advice that I gave Diy to Google search 'Shakti audio' in order to find real, independent measurements on one of the websites on this subject. [snip] |
You're right, I didn't. I looked at the white paper for the BPs though. That was enough for one day, I'm only human you know, can stand only so much!;). A friend of mine remarked that cigars also absorb vibration (I mean, what doesn't) but smell better than BPs (allow me this little humor, OK?).
I'll look into the Shakti stuff tomorrow, seriously.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| TNT |
OK - I read the Shakti pages and I must say that they are not convincing. If You followed any car forum and dyno threads, there is as much complexity and ways to make errors as in any business. These 2,7 hp difference in a 300 hp emgine is just plain silly and surely within the error margin with respect to handling and preparation of the test object. I don't doubt the accuracy of the test equipment.
What bothers me the most is in which frequency band that these items is supposed to operate in. Yes , I used the term "supposed" because I'm sure of that if You replaced the shakti stone with Your hand, it would give at least the same effect. I work with RF and know that when birds or snow end up on GSM antennas, it affects the performance of the system. So the scam lies in the wanted dollars for this stone. It is a rip-off, it's is a clever way of making money.
I feel sorry for the people spending money on these things, not because of their lack of experienced improvement, placebo fixes that, but for their lack of putting things into perspective and spending money on things that matter.
Also the way the stone seems to "suck" in RF from any direction is just plain silly and has none what soever foundation in any known physics.
Verdict: Claimed function satisfies Randis challenge !
/ |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Personally, I just don't have to have 'proof' in order to be satisfied with a tweak or a mod, or just leave it alone. |
John, I think you're losing a losing battle arguing these points in this forum. Actually, your battle is lost perhaps mostly, and most consistently, with those who apparently remain unaware about the means by which knowledge progresses on this planet. Progress in knowledge necessarily involves experimentation---in the doomed-to-fail and statistically less probable successful varieties---and open-mindedness. It takes a great deal of mental discipline to develop these traits and to step out of the currently-known to question what might be the shape of the next-to-be-known. It perhaps goes without saying that the required mental discipline is not well regarded or developed in the mentally risk averse in which category is found not a small number of scientists. These latter seem almost exclusively to prefer the currently known, perhaps because the currently known lends a certain repeatable predictability to life and what. But don't expect from them a discussion about subtleties of things that might provide some or another key to what could or might come next, for you will be seen not to follow "the rule" (ABX, whatever and ever). But the exception always proves the rule, and ironically, scientists who helped put in place the regime of the currently known, that thing so favoured by the risk averse, were of the experimental mindset I mention, and were persons who could understand the message of the exception as it then presented itself to them. I think it was Sir James Jeans who in the late 19th century told an incoming class of physics students that physics had pretty much sewn things up except for two little clouds on the horizon, and that the discipline had accordingly been reduced to an unglamorous fine tuning to the next decimal place. Those "two clouds" led directly to the discoveries of quantum physics and relativity. I personally don't think the "Great" Randi has much in common with such as Einstein who can't be bothered, if I might so guess, pecking pebbles in some chicken coup the residents of which call The Universe. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| Actually, the 19th century physicist was Lord .... excuse me, Baron .... Kelvin, not James Jeans. |
|
|
| john curl |
Do some research, TNT. Condemnation without examination is prejudice.
It just so happens that the guy from Shakti told me that several of the measurements were made with extremely advanced dynamometers, both here and in Japan. Some were VERY accurate. In autos, as well as audio, it is the small changes that can accumulate to extra-ordinary performance.
Sere... I agree with you.
Just last night I saw a repeat TV program on NOVA that related the story of a clockmaker in the 18th century who made a VERY ACCURATE clock. In fact, it was so accurate, that no one from the educated class or nobility wanted to believe it was possible, even though they put it through YEARS of trials. After 40 years, finally, King George of England heard the story and awarded the clockmaker his due reward.
It is the same here. SY, by suggesting that Shatki stones are worthless, except as rocks, and others by demanding 'proof' without even believing, researching, or independently testing the proof put forth. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Condemnation without examination is prejudice. |
Assume for a moment a person having some, even small presumptive authority in discerning audible differences between devices or components says, "this Thing improves the sound because of factor X." It seems to me a scientist assessing such statement might be heard to say, "the Thing very well could change the sound as stated as the person behind the statement has experience noting such changes (or has a business selling such changes, hoaxes being difficult to sell), the change could be an improvement and perhaps probably is, and the improvement might or might not result solely or at all from factor X." Far cry from what is heard from The Naysayers. |
|
|
| SY |
I'd be happy to independently test them, but as with the kilobuck hatracks and the $100 vial of universal goop, they actually want people to pay serious money for them. Thanks, but no. Any free samples will be happily examined.
Just remember who was the first to tout the orange Home Depot cables. |
|
|
| TNT |
JC, I did my homework and as much I do respect You, words from "the guy from Shakti" does not "impress" me. Regarding the hussle of dynoing cars I refere to these links ...
"Engine dyno testing has become something of a black art. "
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/986/
"I have a nice little side business repairing SuperFlow dynomometers, the
overwhelmingly dominant dyno in the US. ....... I personally attribute no credibility to differences less than 10 hp."
http://yarchive.net/car/dyno_accuracy.html
I have also some experiance in acredited measuring and the presented data and circumstances is in no way convincing.
I did examine, call me ignorant but not prejudice, please !
Best regards / |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Just remember who was the first to tout the orange Home Depot cables. |
Geee....Just when I thought that was just an April fool....
Anyhow, there are plenty of "tweaks" around that do not cost an arm and a leg and can still make for an audible and worthwhile improvement.
For me personally, those that stayed in the system are the ones worth having....Not that I ever tried everything of course.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
Any free samples will be happily examined. |
You mean like those free tasting samples from which Napa wineries?
Soundstring cable will give you a free sample (they did me). John Curl probably will not give you a free sample. The difference between the two seems an important matter of economics? |
|
|
| SY |
| Actually, John probably would give me a free sample; we're pretty good friends and he has been quite generous with time and equipment. But what he makes are solid, well-engineered, reliable amplifiers. He doesn't make coat-racks or goop or magic rocks. Those guys haven't offered me anything to try yet. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| Sy, what are you doing looking at coat racks and goop? |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
I'd be happy to independently test them, |
But ARE YOU QUALIFIED to be an Audio Tester, in the same way you are (or not) for testing Wine? Surely we cannot have just anybody blind test Audio. I think that IF we employ such tests it should use testers of clearly established creditentials, who, at least when not having an "off day" can hear small differences in unfamilar audio systems reliably. I would suspect BTW that you may very well be required to remunerate such testers accordingly.
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
Just remember who was the first to tout the orange Home Depot cables. |
And at least the UK equivalent of the cable still sound like the junkiest cheap and nasty "speaker" cable sold at the same place. Of course, maybe the black printed stripe together with ton's of hype got people into believing it is actually a good sounding cable (which in at least any of the versions I can get and which lack the black stripe and are just orange it is not), what I do know is that it clashes with any decor I can think of and reliably makes my whole system sound rather pedestrian, with much of what makes the music come alive removed.
But of course unlike most people I MAY actually be qualified (by experience as sound engineer) to relatively quickly and reliably identify small sonic changes as well as their nature (improvement and in which area) and to not fall victim to the "new gear" syndrom (it sounds different and different is always "good")....
Sayonara |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
I would suspect BTW that you may very well be required to remunerate such testers accordingly. |
Not an unimportant point! I'd like to know, but I suspect most sellers of tweak items are not suffering the weight of mounds of money from their sales.
Another factor to note in considering tweak products, among other sorts of products, is these products probably normally rely on easily copied innovations, so of course the manufacturer will not disclose the actual properties accounting for the way the item works, lending an artificial, but necessary, "mystique" to any descriptions of the item. Any such mystique, being unavoidable for obvious reasons, is perhaps unintended. |
|
|
| TNT |
A patent now and then would maybe make them appear more seldom in discussion threads like this. And we haven't started on the hallographs yet ;-)
this is fun !
/
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
Not an unimportant point! I'd like to know, but I suspect most sellers of tweak items are not suffering the weight of mounds of money from their sales.
Another factor to note in considering tweak products, among other sorts of products, is these products probably normally rely on easily copied innovations, so of course the manufacturer will not disclose the actual properties accounting for the way the item works, lending an artificial, but necessary, "mystique" to any descriptions of the item. Any such mystique, being unavoidable for obvious reasons, is perhaps unintended. |
|
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by TNT
A patent now and then would maybe make them appear more seldom in discussion threads like this. |
Have you read the
Shakti patent?
Quite apart from that, if Doug Sax uses Shakti stones, who am I to argue? I mean, really. |
|
|
| SY |
Yes, I read that patent. Would you care to see Stan Pons's patent on cold fusion? Or that goofy one for a faster-than-light antenna? Patents don't mean ****, and I've got enough of them to be able to say that with some confidence.
See, the thing about keeping an open mind is being able to let go when your cherished beliefs don't stand up to experimental verification. That's what distinguishes guys like Einstein from guys like Blondlot. Or Pons. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
Sy, Einstein's cherished beliefs, if that's a proper name for his speculations, did not stand up to experimental verification for decades for reason that the scientific community lacked proper verification tools for earlier times in question. A glance at the history of efforts to verify non-local effects --- perhaps the more outlandish of Einstein's speculations --- illustrates this process.
Patents don't prove anything. Nothing, actually, proves anything if Kant has anything to say on these matters. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
Yes, I read that patent. Would you care to see Stan Pons's patent on cold fusion? Or that goofy one for a faster-than-light antenna? Patents don't mean **** |
| quote: | Originally posted by TNT
WOW !
"If we can shatter the gravitic emission, we might be able to modulate the modular parallax and stabilize the magnetic particle!" |
Guys, if you look carefully at my post, by saying Shakti has a patent I was merely responding to TNT's suggestion that if more companies patented their products their names would appear less in these pages. The implication of my post, which holds the meaning of my posting a reference to the patent, is that having a patent evidently doesn't preclude one's name from appearing in these pages. Need I also post a reference to a dictionary definition of implication? |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
I don't know about others, but I particularly like:
\Im`pli*ca"tion\, n. [L. implicatio: cf. F. implication.]
2. An implying, or that which is implied, but not expressed; an inference, or something which may fairly be understood, though not expressed in words. |
|
|
| SY |
sp: My response was directed more at TNT than to you. Sorry for the confusion.
Don't get too narrow on Einstein; his work on Brownian motion and the photoelectric effect did not need to wait for verification; the stuff that did had the virtue of recognizing the correspondence principle. Same goes for his work on the statistical properties of bosons. If you like, substitute "Feynman" for Einstein- the late, great RF loved taking the steam out of science fakers. |
|
|
| john curl |
Yes, and my friend and associate, Jack Bybee worked as a consultant to the late Richard Feynman, and knew him personally. I want SY and Jack to have lunch together sometime. Might help. You never know. ;-)
Here we go again: First, someone wants measurements, then the independent measurements are discounted. Then, someone wants patents, and patents are discounted. This is a no win situation for anyone. Wake up everyone! |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Here we go again: First, someone wants measurements, then the independent measurements are discounted. |
Much like how you discounted Bruno's independent measurements, yes?
se |
|
|
| Variac |
Actually it was quite a wakeup to hear that Shakti Stones claim to increase gas mileage. Until now I kind of thought "there might be just something about them that works"
.... and now to hear the gas thing just makes me give up on them
I guess all people selling miracle milage increasers (and miracle manhood increasers) that you just bolt or attach to whatever (!), are not frauds, almost all are... It's just areas fraught with dubius claims. Of course they have dynomometer charts "proving it" Of course believers trot out the story about the Fish carb and how the oil companies bought out the patent/ruined the inventor.. Of course there are no dishonest dyno guys or garbage in/ garbage out dynos.
Any indication why the stone makes amps better AND increase fuel milage? It seems that the two fields would have little in common. I'l go check out the site again.
The fact the auto companies are spending BILLIONS on improving gas milage (being forced to by the governments- not that they would do it on their own) ;) and they don't seem to be using this technology, is a pretty strong indication it is worthless...
Now there is a company that sells magnets that you tie onto your fuel lines to increase mileage. I wonder if they would work tied onto speaker cables- I'll bet I'd hear an improvement- but I'm a human and easily fooled.
Hm...... I think I'll keep a Shakti stone in my pocket and zip tie that magnet- oh never mind...
:D
On the other hand, I DO believe that amps sound different and that JC makes good ones....
BUT, I think that if you are an electronics designer, and DON'T assume that you are sometimes being fooled, then you are making your job a lot harder... |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | It seems that the two fields would have little in common. |
Little...yes. Yet they do have something in common nonetheless.
| quote: | | Of course they have dynomometer charts "proving it" Of course believers trot out the story about the Fish carb and how the oil companies bought out the patent/ruined the inventor.. |
It happened more than just once that oil companies bought engine systems that threatened their business in the past.
Once we do run out of fossile fuel they'll quite likely pull those out of the freezer...
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| Magura |
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:) |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| I guess the audio reviewers who feel the product works are likewise misguided. But the reviewers are not to be trusted, in any event, because they are part of the magazine conspiracy blah blah. Yawn. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
[snip] Actually, your battle is lost perhaps mostly, and most consistently, with those who apparently remain unaware about the means by which knowledge progresses on this planet. Progress in knowledge necessarily involves experimentation---in the doomed-to-fail and statistically less probable successful varieties---and open-mindedness. [snip] |
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. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
[snip]Quite apart from that, if Doug Sax uses Shakti stones, who am I to argue? I mean, really. |
Doug who?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| phase_accurate |
Doug Sax: Noone important just one of the most famous sound engineers in the recording business. ;)
Regards
Charles |
|
|
| janneman |
''trust me, would I lie to you?"
Jan Didden |
|
|
| analog_sa |
Zappa would have certainly liked the stones too
| quote: | The mystery man got nervous
And he fidget around a bit
He reached in the pocket of his mystery robe
And he whipped out a shaving kit
Now I thought it was a razor
And a can of foaming goo
But he told me right then when the top popped open
There was nothin' his box won't do
With the oil of Aphrodite, and the dust of the Grand Wazoo
He said "You might not believe this, little fella
But it'll cure your asthma 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. |
|
|
| TNT |
cosmic debree - anyone ?
/ |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
Nothing against any tweak of any kind and with all due respect to the work of mr. Sax but:
To my ears and no doubt others all the Sheffield Lab recordings I heard are suffering from severe colouration....
I doubt a ton of bricks would change that.
Cheers, ;) |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by analog_sa
[snip]If they do have an audible effect, which is probably the case, it is purely coincidental and not based on any theories whatsoever.[snip] |
How the hell do you know? I wish I had your insight.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
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 |
|
|
| SY |
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 . |
|
|
| janneman |
Stuart, I wonder what came first today for you, your breakfast or this post??
Nice motto though.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
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. |
I suspect they already have.
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
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. |
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?
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
3. Pass the Randi Challenge.
4. Collect the million bucks. |
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 |
|
|
| sam9 |
| quote: | | 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. |
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. |
|
|
| SY |
Gee, Thorsten, you haven't even tried, yet you're dismissing the whole thing out of hand. One might consider that a closed-minded attitude if one were to be ungenerous.
$1MM.
Don't you think it's worth a little bit of effort? |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
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. |
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. |
|
|
| kelticwizard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Konnichiwa,
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. |
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. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
[snip]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. [snip] |
In the final analysis, I agree with you. On the practical side, however, you cannot expect interested audiophiles to test each and every product or gimmick that is marketed. It is incumbent on the designer or inventor to provide reasonable explanation or proof if he wants us to take his product seriously, and I guess he wants that. If he doesn't do that, he cannot hide behind the slogan: "try it before you judge it", IMHO.
Now I promised JC to actually look into those Shakti stones. I checked into those 'dymo'-tests. The differences in 'before-after' were way less than what you would expect as normal test noise. Also, as noted in my earlier post, I found that two of the graphs showed exactly the same curves, although they were presented as two diferent tests. I called it an error, because fraud is such a heavvy word, and, hey, why not give them the benefit of the doubt. But it doesn't really compel me to shell out my hard-earned euri to buy the stuff.
So for me, the case is closed. They had their chance for my money, and failed miserably. Life goes on.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
In the final analysis, I agree with you. On the practical side, however, you cannot expect interested audiophiles to test each and every product or gimmick that is marketed. It is incumbent on the designer or inventor to provide reasonable explanation or proof if he wants us to take his product seriously, and I guess he wants that. If he doesn't do that, he cannot hide behind the slogan: "try it before you judge it", IMHO. |
Fair enough. For my part, I'm saving my money to actually buy a singer/songwriter. Forget this electronics stuff. |
|
|
| TNT |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
<snip> 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. |
A pausable explanation is that there lies some sort of advantage or status in understanding things that others don't or have not had a chance of trying yet. If all gear sounded and measured the same, there where no room for audio magazines or reviewers. Again, the god ol placebo (combined with the urge to find something "new") and an other well known effect, the "Emperors new clothes" (does Mag A reviewer have less erars than Mag, B) both make joint force to fuel the business. Manufactuer happy, Mag. happy, (some) and maybe customer happy.
/ |
|
|
| roddyama |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magura
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:) |
Just for the record, dynamometers are what i've done for the past 20 odd years. If your speaking of auto garage dynos and measurements, errors in the 2% to 5% range are probably typical. The auto manufactures (largest dyno users) will demand torque measurements to an accuracy of 0.1% of full scale, and often ask for 0.05%. Speed accuracy is "controlled" to +-1rpm with 16bit measurement accuracy (1/65,000).
Superflow dynos are nowhere near the state of the art. |
|
|
| TNT |
Roddyama: Are You describing the test equipment or the test result and repeatability ?
/ |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by TNT
Again, the god ol placebo (combined with the urge to find something "new") and an other well known effect, the "Emperors new clothes" (does Mag A reviewer have less erars than Mag, B) both make joint force to fuel the business. Manufactuer happy, Mag. happy, (some) and maybe customer happy./ |
In other words, that old bug-bear called The Magazine Conspiracy. Am I speculating to say an audio reviewer who has spent a good part of his life energies developing his skill probably has a real skill and something real to say? |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
Am I speculating to say an audio reviewer who has spent a good part of his life energies developing his skill probably has a real skill and something real to say? |
Yes, you are speculating. Audio reviewers are people who can write entertainingly and help sell magazines and advertising. If they don't do that, they don't have a job. Within the group of successful reviewers, some are very good writers and very competent, others are entertaining and not very competent. And some are so horribly awful that I wonder why anyone would read their stuff. |
|
|
| TNT |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
In other words, that old bug-bear called The Magazine Conspiracy. Am I speculating to say an audio reviewer who has spent a good part of his life energies developing his skill probably has a real skill and something real to say? |
No - it's a fact in most cases !
/ |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
Within the group of successful reviewers, some are very good writers and very competent ... |
So in what manner was I speculating by saying "probably"? |
|
|
| SY |
| "Probably" implies a majority. IME (and my history goes back to the old typewriter-style Stereophiles coming out of Philadelphia), writers who are entertaining, competent, and honest represent a very small minority. Sturgeon's Rule applies everywhere, including audio writing. |
|
|
| TNT |
<speculation>
Reviewing "outskirt" gadgets may not mobilze the same thorughness and focus as when scrutinizing the hevy gard (amps/speakers).
</speculation> |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| You guys are indeed a tough crowd. |
|
|
| roddyama |
| quote: | Originally posted by TNT
Roddyama: Are You describing the test equipment or the test result and repeatability ?
/ |
Actually neither. I described control and measurement accuracy. However, the equipment and measurement instruments used today in industry are fully capable of repeatability and results with the same level of precision.
The area where these types of accuracies are most prevailent is in the area of emissions and emissions regulations. If a auto or diesel manufacture fails to pass emissions, they are either fined huge sums of money or not allowed to sell the offending vehicles or engines.
These instuments measure down to the parts per million. Of course these are gas measurements, but the speed and torque (load) can affect these measurements drastically. GM or Daimler would be very upset if they couldn't sell their new cars because the dyno they bought from us would only hold accuracies of 1%. |
|
|
| john curl |
SY "JE ACCUSE!" ;-) This million dollar thing is a set up in the case of the Shakti Stone. It has AlREADY been checked out legally. Talk to Ben at Shakti, if you want further specific information. Folks, the Shakti stones are fabricated RFI absorbers that work on a transformer principle to convert a passing through RF field into heat.
Is this so hard to understand? Is this in the domain of the 'supernatural' or 'metaphysical'? IF not, I am told that it does not meet the challange criterion put forth by the 'Randi Challange'. This was explained to me, in detail, by Ben, chief designer, at Shakti. He had a lawyer colleague look into it.
Work it out for yourselves, folks. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| I wonder if Randi isn't Peter Aczel? Pass the power cord. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by roddyama
[snip]GM or Daimler would be very upset if they couldn't sell their new cars because the dyno they bought from us would only hold accuracies of 1%. |
Rodd, what do make of this then:
/quote
I have a nice little side business repairing SuperFlow dynomometers, the overwhelmingly dominant dyno in the US. Every magazine article I've ever read used a SuperFlow. The standard SuperFlow is rated at 1000 HP, 10,000 rpm and 800 ft-lbs of torque. The RPM signal is converted to a voltage by a tach chip before being submitted to an A/D converter. The
torque signal is derived from a strain gauge attached to the absorber. This signal is also applied to the same A/D converter through an analog mux. Horsepower before SAE correction is the simple calculation: (torque (ft-lb) * RPM ) / 5252 . This computation is done in an analog multiplier for the analog readout
and by the CPU for the digital readout. So good, so far. But here's the kicker. The A/D converter is an 8 bit unit. That is, it digitizes the incoming signal into one of 256 binary values. For torque, that is 800 ft-lbs / 256 = 3.13 ft-lbs per bit. For RPM, 10,000/256 = 39 rpm per bit. At a constant 6000 RPM, the best HP resolution is 3.5 hp. At a constant 500 ft-lbs of torque, the best HP resolution is 3.7 HP. This lack of precision results in the best theoretical HP measurement at 6000 RPM being +- 3.5 hp. Worst case is 3.5 + 3.7 = 7.2 hp. The root-sum-square (much more representative of the real world) is 5.0 hp. The precision varies, of course, with RPM. The important point is any
horsepower variation less than about 5 hp is meaningless and is more likely attributable to quantitizing error in the electronics. Understand that this does NOT include other systematic error terms such as the errors associated with the analog electronics or the torque sensor calibration. I personally attribute no credibility to differences less than 10 hp.
[snip]
Bottom line - take any claims of small increases in HP due to "tricks" with a LARGE grain of salt.
/unquote
Jan Didden |
|
|
| sam9 |
| quote: | In the final analysis, I agree with you. On the practical side, however, you cannot expect interested audiophiles to test each and every product or gimmick that is marketed. It is incumbent on the designer or inventor to provide reasonable explanation or proof if he wants us to take his product seriously, and I guess he wants that. If he doesn't do that, he cannot hide behind the slogan: "try it before you judge it", IMHO.
|
I don't have any problem with "try it before you judge it" if you can return it after 30 days for a full refund, no hassle. At least two companies, Magnepan and Ohm do this with loudspeakers. This requires considerable confidence on the part of the seller that their product delivers in full measure. Such an approach would much easier and inexpensive for Shakti to use. |
|
|
| SY |
John, je te reponds!
Shakti Stones are claimed to be devices that improve the sound of hifi systems. This claim is made on their website, in their promotional material, in their patent, and by various audio reviewers. The microwave absorption is the claimed mechanism, not the claimed effect. Randi's challenge is NOT to prove that they absorb microwaves (a roast chicken absorbs microwaves!), but to prove that they alter the sound of a system by placing them as recommended. That's a paranormal claim and that's what should be tested.
It's an easy test to set up.
It's a million bucks.
What are you waiting for? You could use a new Porsche.
If you win, it's dinner at Slanted Door, your treat. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
If you win, it's dinner at Slanted Door, your treat. |
John, I've eaten there, and Randi is Peter Aczel. Don't take the challenge. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| ... and Randi will probably switch power cords on you in the middle of the test just to throw you off. |
|
|
| sam9 |
| I can't imagine any lawyer who has his client's best interests at heart who would advise anyone to accept a Randi challenge! |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| ... I mean, Peter. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by sam9
Such an approach would much easier and inexpensive for Shakti to use. |
That is their approach, I believe. |
|
|
| roddyama |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Rodd, what do make of this then:
/quote
I have a nice little side business repairing SuperFlow dynomometers, the overwhelmingly dominant dyno in the US. Every magazine article I've ever read used a SuperFlow. The standard SuperFlow is rated at 1000 HP, 10,000 rpm and 800 ft-lbs of torque. The RPM signal is converted to a voltage by a tach chip before being submitted to an A/D converter. The
torque signal is derived from a strain gauge attached to the absorber. This signal is also applied to the same A/D converter through an analog mux. Horsepower before SAE correction is the simple calculation: (torque (ft-lb) * RPM ) / 5252 . This computation is done in an analog multiplier for the analog readout
and by the CPU for the digital readout. So good, so far. But here's the kicker. The A/D converter is an 8 bit unit. That is, it digitizes the incoming signal into one of 256 binary values. For torque, that is 800 ft-lbs / 256 = 3.13 ft-lbs per bit. For RPM, 10,000/256 = 39 rpm per bit. At a constant 6000 RPM, the best HP resolution is 3.5 hp. At a constant 500 ft-lbs of torque, the best HP resolution is 3.7 HP. This lack of precision results in the best theoretical HP measurement at 6000 RPM being +- 3.5 hp. Worst case is 3.5 + 3.7 = 7.2 hp. The root-sum-square (much more representative of the real world) is 5.0 hp. The precision varies, of course, with RPM. The important point is any
horsepower variation less than about 5 hp is meaningless and is more likely attributable to quantitizing error in the electronics. Understand that this does NOT include other systematic error terms such as the errors associated with the analog electronics or the torque sensor calibration. I personally attribute no credibility to differences less than 10 hp.
[snip]
Bottom line - take any claims of small increases in HP due to "tricks" with a LARGE grain of salt.
/unquote
Jan Didden |
Hi Jan,
You or I can purchase a Superflow dyno system (dyno, control, data acquisition) for about $50,000 new. This will be the top performer in their line and have acuracies as described above. OTOH, we are now bidding on GM's new test lab project which includes 118 test systems. They will pay ~$100M just for the equipment for this lab, or about $850,000/system, on the average. The technology of this equipment will be so far beyond that of the Superflow equipment, it is embarassing.:blush: I can assure you that GM will not be buying any Superflow equipment. |
|
|
| sam9 |
| quote: | quote:
Originally posted by sam9
Such an approach would much easier and inexpensive for Shakti to use.
That is their approach, I believe.
|
All I found was a standard 30 day warranty against manufacturing defects. That's not the same. Of course I could be blind so could you supply the exact UPL within the site? |
|
|
| john curl |
I just talked again with Ben Piazza of Shakti. You, who have little faith, should give him a call at: (310)459-5704 I told him already about the thread. He told me that the Dyno used on his website is a Mustang and it has perhaps a 1/10 HP rating. He has also been tested with a Dyno Dynamics made in Japan, which I think he said cost $350,000 new. It is even MORE accurate.
SY, have you read the actual LEGAL document that is associated with this test. Where does PARANORMAL come in with regards to Shakti Stones? |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by sam9
All I found was a standard 30 day warranty against manufacturing defects. |
I see references on their site to a 30 day money back guarantee, but no reference to a 30 day warranty against manufacturing defects. Come again? |
|
|
| SY |
I have read Randi's legal document. I also read his legally binding offer to test the Shakti devices for their intended use- not microwave absorbers, but stereo system enhancers. If I were Ben, I'd go for the million clams.
EDIT: Randi's offer: http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8
I have requested permission to repost his offer here. |
|
|
| sam9 |
| quote: | quote:
Originally posted by sam9
All I found was a standard 30 day warranty against manufacturing defects.
I see references on their site to a 30 day money back guarantee, but no reference to a 30 day warranty against manufacturing defects. Come again?
|
Pasted from the website:
"Warranty
In addition to a 30-day money back guarantee, all SHAKTI products are covered by a 5-year warranty against manufacturing defects. They should last a lifetime under normal conditions and can be easily transferred to future cars or components you may own."
Looks like you are right. |
|
|
| TNT |
Hear, hear !
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
John, je te reponds!
Shakti Stones are claimed to be devices that improve the sound of hifi systems. This claim is made on their website, in their promotional material, in their patent, and by various audio reviewers. The microwave absorption is the claimed mechanism, not the claimed effect. Randi's challenge is NOT to prove that they absorb microwaves (a roast chicken absorbs microwaves!), but to prove that they alter the sound of a system by placing them as recommended. That's a paranormal claim and that's what should be tested.
It's an easy test to set up.
It's a million bucks.
What are you waiting for? You could use a new Porsche.
If you win, it's dinner at Slanted Door, your treat. |
|
|
|
| TNT |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
I just talked again with Ben Piazza of Shakti. You, who have little faith, should give him a call at: (310)459-5704 I told him already about the thread. He told me that the Dyno used on his website is a Mustang and it has perhaps a 1/10 HP rating. He has also been tested with a Dyno Dynamics made in Japan, which I think he said cost $350,000 new. It is even MORE accurate.
SY, have you read the actual LEGAL document that is associated with this test. Where does PARANORMAL come in with regards to Shakti Stones? |
As mentioned before, the test system is not questioned, it is the object under test that is the problem. The problem is to repeat the test where the only difference in the tetsed object and it's environment is the existance of a shakti stone or not. That is even within 15 minutes or 45 minutes or 12 hours. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by TNT
As mentioned before, the test system is not questioned, it is the object under test that is the problem. |
I disagree. To win Randi's $1M, a person must "demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability." The Demonstrant must agree with Randi-dandi in advance which such "powers or abilities will be demonstrated." Can anyone tell me how a listening test using Shakti stones will succeed in demonstrating supernatural powers? |
|
|
| SY |
| I'd suggest you read the letter from Randi that I linked to. Similar challenges have been issued for other products making "unusual" claims, like those wacky electronic dowsing devices. |
|
|
| TNT |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
I disagree. To win Randi's $1M, a person must "demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability." The Demonstrant must agree with Randi-dandi in advance which such "powers or abilities will be demonstrated." Can anyone tell me how a listening test using Shakti stones will succeed in demonstrating supernatural powers? |
My post was only in regards to the dyno! I almost are more interested in the dyno thing than the audio aspect. It's somehow "easyer" as measurements seems to be more accepted in the car arena than in audio. But apperantly not easy to perform. S, what do I want from Shakti to find the results trustworthy.
Measurements from both with and without runs including:
Oil temp
Motor block temp
Humidity
Air pressure
Cat temp
Tire temp
etc .etc.
/ |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
I'd suggest you read the letter from Randi that I linked to. |
I read that letter. The letter references Dandi Randi's Application for Status as Claimant, found
here. This "Application," from which I quoted in my previous post, unequivocally requires a demonstration of paranormal powers etc. Allow me to put my lawyer hat on: those are important words legally circumscribing Dandi Randi's challenge, and must be met for a payout. Here's the fuller text:
| quote: | | I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these rules and limitations. |
I don't doubt that Shakti reps told John Curl that Shakti's lawyers say the test cannot be met by auditioning an audio component. That would be my considered advice also. |
|
|
| Paul Ranson |
James Randi's specific offer to the endorsers of Shakti includes,
| quote: | | Should any of these products prove to work as advertised, the first person who is able to demonstrate the efficacy of any of them, will be the winner of the JREF prize as described in the rules and details to be found at the above references. |
Which is pretty unequivocal.
The lawyerly objections are bogus and circular, if anybody wins the prize their ability will immediately cease to be 'paranormal' or 'supernatural' since it has proven to be real. Shakti's refusal to explore controlled testing while happily posting rolling road 'dyno' sheets is rather contradictory. Perhaps the JREF would accept a challenge based on engine power measurements? These could be arranged for much les | | | |
