New Free Energy Conferences in Hamburg and Chicago

[jonfrommanahawkin1]

well i have a normalizer it works great but i read the directions

[TinselKoala]

There is no bluff...

I will send you one of my used units, but you must also perform the actual listening tests, I would like to know what audio system you can test the Clarifier on. I would like you to do the blind tests also. And you pay for shipping back to me USPS Priority Mail International. Can we agree on this?

-Dave Wing

No! What part of "The easiest person to fool is yourself" do you have a problem understanding?

Subjective tests are just that: subjective. I have offered you several _objective_ means of testing, including using YOUR ears as the sensors in YOUR listening room on YOUR audiophile equipment, giving YOU the best possible chance of demonstrating the truth of your claims, in a real objective protocol using Signal Detection theory and analysis, and you have rejected them.  Why should I pay anything at all to test your claims? YOU are the claimant, YOU pay the shipping both ways if you want me to test anything, and I will _donate_ my time and expertise to do the OBJECTIVE tests on the actual data coming off the discs. You are getting by far the better deal out of this. Do you think it's easy or trivial to get to the raw data encoded on a CD and run a reasonable comparison? I will not be using an audio system at all, I will be looking at the actual data on the disc with electronic, visual and mathematical means. All you have to do is box something up and send it off. I not only have to do that to return it, but I also have to set up equipment, extract data, run comparisons, analyze the comparisons, test again after a time interval to see if this "decay" you claim is real.... write up a report.... and you want ME to pay for shipping too? Get real, Dave.

What you want is for me to "confirm" the existence of a _placebo_ effect: a well known phenomenon where, for example, merely _thinking_ that you are getting a real remedy makes your illness go away sooner. This is a psychological effect and the only way to weed it out, separate it from actual physical effects as you and Bedini claim are happening, is to use _objective_ testing in a _blinded_ test protocol. Asking me to do some kind of subjective listening test does two things: it actually reduces your chance of a positive result, since I am skeptical that there is an effect at all, and it gives you Yet Another out, as you can claim that my audio equipment or my ears aren't up to the task.

You can easily set up and run the SDT protocol yourself, with an honest assistant to do the treatments out of your sight, if you dare. You make 20 discs and mark them so that they can be distinguished visually. You listen to the discs first, knowing they are untreated. Your honest assistant takes them into a closed room out of your sight. She flips a coin, if heads, she treats the first disc, if tails she does not. She records the result (Disc A: Treated, Disc B: Untreated, etc.)  and slips the disc to you under the door, so that you can't get any clues from her expression or posture or speech or other sounds etc. Obviously the same amount of time must be used per disc by the assistant, whether the disc is actually treated or not. You listen to the disc enough to make your determination, say ten minutes of listening: Yes, treated, or no, not treated, and you write down your result. You must respond yes or no to each disk, no "not sure" or "pass" responses are allowed. You do them one at a time to avoid the "decay" effect, so you listen to the disc within minutes of the treatment. Repeat the process for all 20 discs. Remember, you are not allowed to exchange any information _at all_ with your assistant during the test. In fact she should even run the Clarifier each time, with the discs not to be treated far away from the machine, so that any sound from the machine that you might be able to hear, even subliminally, won't clue you in. Once you are done, you can send me the two lists:  the actual state of treatment from the assistant, and your evaluation of each disk on listening. I will compute the SDT matrix (the Hit, miss, false alarm, correct rejection percentages) and I'll complete the analysis for you and write it up. Here I am trusting you and your assistant to be 100 percent perfectly honest in running this SDT blinded protocol and assuring that no "leaks" occur ... something that no sane parapsychologist would consent to in a remote viewing or ESP test, but here we are. For your assistant, you can call up the local university and get them to "loan" you a psychology student with some familiarity with double-blind experimental designs. Or you can use a friend, but you have to be rigorously  honest with yourself and with me in preserving the blinding of the test.

I am offering this self-run protocol to you out of respect. It is not formally acceptable to do it this way since there is no assurance that you will run it properly, having no prior experience with double-blind testing or SDT, and because you have a financial stake in the matter. But I'm interested in seeing what kind of results you get and your experiences with attempting to do it right. We both might learn something valuable from the experience. Different things no doubt... but valuable nevertheless. If it turns out to be a placebo rather than a real physical effect, that doesn't take away from your _experience_.  You can still enjoy your own treated discs even though you may know intellectually that there is no real physical effect. This may cause you to have to re-evaluate the basis upon which you conduct your sales, though.

[Dave Wing]

Here is a nice if old video on how audio CDs work.  They have extensive redundant coding that tolerates even bursts of errors.  The example given is radial slots cut through the CD. Because of the distributed block error coding (Reed-Solomon), all kinds of bit errors can occur, even in contiguous groups and the original datastream is faithfully reproduced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYO6vm9PTsI

This gives rise to the first problem with Bedini's fraudulent claims that you promote:  CDs are highly tolerant of:  smudges, scratches and other surface defects. 

Then there is the second problem with Bedini's fraudulent claims that you promote:  Spinning what amounts to an aluminum and plastic platter around magnets can at most induce heat into the aluminum from eddy currents.  That won't do anything unless the plastic gets soft enough to flow.  It it does then there would be an asymmetric distortion of the plastic at the outside radius if the disc versus the center.  If the distortion is severe enough, the disc will be ruined.  If the disc does not heat up enough to distort then the magnets have done nothing.

Then there is the third problem with Bedini's fraudulent claims that you promote:  frequency signal components occur over the length of track spirals, but they are not linear due to the block error coding.  There is no simple way to get at some frequency band of the source audio material without decoding the disc.  Bedini's fraudulent "Clarifier" has no way to identify different frequency components of the source audio, nor does it have any way to operate on them.

The most basic and complete proof that the "Clarifier" is a worthless piece of junk is to compare the source PCM streams before and after a treatment by the device.  They will be identical.  Bedini has gooped up a motor and some magnets in a box, and you sell it for $200. - $300.  Although looking at your low transaction rate, there are very few people buying this completely bogus snake oil that you offer.

Yes people have bought them and never complained... Because it works, plain and simple.

-Dave Wing

[MileHigh]

Yes people have bought them and never complained... Because it works, plain and simple.

-Dave Wing

Clever Hans (in German, der Kluge Hans) was an Orlov Trotter horse that was claimed to have been able to perform arithmetic and other intellectual tasks.

After a formal investigation in 1907, psychologist Oskar Pfungst demonstrated that the horse was not actually performing these mental tasks, but was watching the reaction of his human observers. Pfungst discovered this artifact in the research methodology, wherein the horse was responding directly to involuntary cues in the body language of the human trainer, who had the faculties to solve each problem. The trainer was entirely unaware that he was providing such cues.[1] In honour of Pfungst's study, the anomalous artifact has since been referred to as the Clever Hans effect and has continued to be important knowledge in the observer-expectancy effect and later studies in animal cognition. Hans was studied by the famous German philosopher and psychologist Carl Stumpf in the early 20th century. Stumpf was observing the sensational phenomena of the horse, which also added to his impact on phenomenology.

The observer-expectancy effect (also called the experimenter-expectancy effect, expectancy bias, observer effect, or experimenter effect) is a form of reactivity in which a researcher's cognitive bias causes them to unconsciously influence the participants of an experiment. Confirmation bias can lead to the experimenter interpreting results incorrectly because of the tendency to look for information that conforms to their hypothesis, and overlook information that argues against it.[1] It is a significant threat to a study's internal validity, and is therefore typically controlled using a double-blind experimental design.

An example of the observer-expectancy effect is demonstrated in music backmasking,[citation needed] in which hidden verbal messages are said to be audible when a recording is played backwards. Some people expect to hear hidden messages when reversing songs, and therefore hear the messages, but to others it sounds like nothing more than random sounds. Often when a song is played backwards, a listener will fail to notice the "hidden" lyrics until they are explicitly pointed out, after which they are obvious. Other prominent examples include facilitated communication and dowsing.

[Dave Wing]

No! What part of "The easiest person to fool is yourself" do you have a problem understanding?

Subjective tests are just that: subjective. I have offered you several _objective_ means of testing, including using YOUR ears as the sensors in YOUR listening room on YOUR audiophile equipment, giving YOU the best possible chance of demonstrating the truth of your claims, in a real objective protocol using Signal Detection theory and analysis, and you have rejected them.  Why should I pay anything at all to test your claims? YOU are the claimant, YOU pay the shipping both ways if you want me to test anything, and I will _donate_ my time and expertise to do the OBJECTIVE tests on the actual data coming off the discs. You are getting by far the better deal out of this. Do you think it's easy or trivial to get to the raw data encoded on a CD and run a reasonable comparison? I will not be using an audio system at all, I will be looking at the actual data on the disc with electronic, visual and mathematical means. All you have to do is box something up and send it off. I not only have to do that to return it, but I also have to set up equipment, extract data, run comparisons, analyze the comparisons, test again after a time interval to see if this "decay" you claim is real.... write up a report.... and you want ME to pay for shipping too? Get real, Dave.

What you want is for me to "confirm" the existence of a _placebo_ effect: a well known phenomenon where, for example, merely _thinking_ that you are getting a real remedy makes your illness go away sooner. This is a psychological effect and the only way to weed it out, separate it from actual physical effects as you and Bedini claim are happening, is to use _objective_ testing in a _blinded_ test protocol. Asking me to do some kind of subjective listening test does two things: it actually reduces your chance of a positive result, since I am skeptical that there is an effect at all, and it gives you Yet Another out, as you can claim that my audio equipment or my ears aren't up to the task.

You can easily set up and run the SDT protocol yourself, with an honest assistant to do the treatments out of your sight, if you dare. You make 20 discs and mark them so that they can be distinguished visually. You listen to the discs first, knowing they are untreated. Your honest assistant takes them into a closed room out of your sight. She flips a coin, if heads, she treats the first disc, if tails she does not. She records the result (Disc A: Treated, Disc B: Untreated, etc.)  and slips the disc to you under the door, so that you can't get any clues from her expression or posture or speech or other sounds etc. Obviously the same amount of time must be used per disc by the assistant, whether the disc is actually treated or not. You listen to the disc enough to make your determination, say ten minutes of listening: Yes, treated, or no, not treated, and you write down your result. You must respond yes or no to each disk, no "not sure" or "pass" responses are allowed. You do them one at a time to avoid the "decay" effect, so you listen to the disc within minutes of the treatment. Repeat the process for all 20 discs. Remember, you are not allowed to exchange any information _at all_ with your assistant during the test. In fact she should even run the Clarifier each time, with the discs not to be treated far away from the machine, so that any sound from the machine that you might be able to hear, even subliminally, won't clue you in. Once you are done, you can send me the two lists:  the actual state of treatment from the assistant, and your evaluation of each disk on listening. I will compute the SDT matrix (the Hit, miss, false alarm, correct rejection percentages) and I'll complete the analysis for you and write it up. Here I am trusting you and your assistant to be 100 percent perfectly honest in running this SDT blinded protocol and assuring that no "leaks" occur ... something that no sane parapsychologist would consent to in a remote viewing or ESP test, but here we are. For your assistant, you can call up the local university and get them to "loan" you a psychology student with some familiarity with double-blind experimental designs. Or you can use a friend, but you have to be rigorously  honest with yourself and with me in preserving the blinding of the test.

I am offering this self-run protocol to you out of respect. It is not formally acceptable to do it this way since there is no assurance that you will run it properly, having no prior experience with double-blind testing or SDT, and because you have a financial stake in the matter. But I'm interested in seeing what kind of results you get and your experiences with attempting to do it right. We both might learn something valuable from the experience. Different things no doubt... but valuable nevertheless. If it turns out to be a placebo rather than a real physical effect, that doesn't take away from your _experience_.  You can still enjoy your own treated discs even though you may know intellectually that there is no real physical effect. This may cause you to have to re-evaluate the basis upon which you conduct your sales, though.

I do not understand your position and your refusal. You will perform your scientific tests but will not also do a simple listening test. Do you even enjoy music? Do you appreciate a nice sound system? Part of the reason why I wanted you to perform both tests was to see if you would actually report the truth on the sound enhancement your ears actually would witness... Because I know there can be a noticeable difference in base tightness as actually felt and seen in the driver itself, plus the added clarity as I mentioned earlier. You see i have good judgment and have honestly evaluated the performance of the device before I decided to sell it. I have not been the only one to notice a difference, I have friends that can also easily hear a difference in the material after treatment. In most cases it is not a subtlety.

I never asked you for a report, that was your own inclusion. All I offered was the truth that the machine worked and improved sound quality, because you and your friend bad mouthed a product you never tried to actually see if it worked. That is how we have gotten here. So that said I do not feel like wasting $100.00 shipping the machine to you and back for your supposed report. If you were to do the scientific testing and also commit to some simple honest listening tests and pay for return shipping I may spend the $50.00 to get the device in question to you. But it appears you are not interested in this particular agreement as described above and here so we have no deal... At this point in time and I am really not sure of your integrity either.

-Dave Wing