Designing a test for the magnetic coasters...

[Tez]

Ok folks, I have received the magnetic coasters for testing, courtesy of Roger Coghill.

The product was offered for sale from Cogreslabs' site, with the following advertisement

About the size of a CD, this powerful coaster has powerful magnets hidden within an attractive wipe clean plastic shell. Use it to 'magnetise' drinking water, or even improve the taste of red wine (!) Every kitchen should have at least one.

I maintain that there will be no discernible difference between magnetized water/wine etc and the un-magnetized variety. If I find out that I am wrong on the basis of the tests I'll perform this week, then I'll fork over 500 pounds to be given to the charity of Roger's choice.

So, in what is surely in line with the JREF mission, I'm starting this thread so that you can give me ideas on constructing a simple double-blind test.

There are two half-cream, half-brown coasters, and one smaller "CD like" coaster.

The instructions that came with the cream/brown coasters are


Simply place your glass or jug of water to be magnetised on your AMGNO-COASTER, with the cream side upwards. Your powerful magnetic coaster will make your water healthier and fresher-tasting after approx. 20 minutes.
Always chill bottled water before treatment and not after.


The instructions for the smaller coaster, courtesy of Norstar Biomagnetics, are


The Norstar Magnetic Coaster

For general Health and well-being
Magnetised water is carried through the body more effectively than regular water. It has a lower surface tension and is therefore taken up more readily by the cells.
We recommend magnetised water for many skin and digestive disorders and to improve general health and skin.

How to magnetise your water
Simply place your glass or jug on top of the coaster and leave for an hour - your water is now magnetised!
Your glass or jug may be left on the coaster indefinitely.
Best to drink magnetised water directly fro the coaster or from the refrigerator - if you have placed the coaster in there.
Drink the water within a day of magnetisation.

NORTH POLE WATER Calming and Relaxing
Used for most conditions. Place container on the coaster with the North Pole facing towards the jug/bottle.

SOUTH POLE WATER For Stimulation and Energy
Place the container on the coaster with the South Pole facing upwards.

[i]Handy tip Ripen tomatoes, strawberries or any fruit by placing them on the south pole of the coaster.



You can see the three coasters in the pictures below. Note that the cream/brown ones are quite thick.

One thing to bear in mind is that I dont really care if the liquid tastes better or worse, I believe there will simply be no difference. Thus a test which asks for "picking the odd man out" is better than a "which tastes better" kind of thing.

I intend to test water and wine, and possibly beer since I have the third coaster. And who can pass up an excuse for a beer at work?

Finally, as far as doing the test goes, I'd like to invite anyone in the London area to come by and help me with it. Otherwise I'll have to "volunteer" some students into it. After we do the test, we can head to the Queens Arms, where I promise the beer tastes good regardless of its level of magnetisation.

http://www.physicsnerd.com/coasters002.jpg
http://www.physicsnerd.com/coasters003.jpg
http://www.physicsnerd.com/coasters004.jpg

[scotth]

Well, at least one claim is readily testable in a quantifible way.

Magnetised water is carried through the body more effectively than regular water. It has a lower surface tension and is therefore taken up more readily by the cells.

Here's a start on measuring the surface tension.

http://www.science-projects.com/SurfTension.htm

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Tez


I maintain that there will be no discernible difference between magnetized water/wine etc and the un-magnetized variety. If I find out that I am wrong on the basis of the tests I'll perform this week, then I'll fork over 500 pounds to be given to the charity of Roger's choice. [I will then be offering two of the coasters for sale to JREF members for the very special price of 250 pounds each ) ]



I recommend a "triangle test" as a test methodology. Get three identical bottles of water, chill them identically, take the out of the fridge, open them, and "magnetize" one. Pour three samples into three identical labelled glasses (cheap plastic is probably sufficient), then have the subjects determine which of the three "tastes different."

Probably a good idea to have water biscuits or something available as a palate cleanser.

Obviously, you need to do the pouring and labelling in a different area from where the people are being served, and you want a confederate to serve and tabulate the results.

Expected results are that 1/3 (0.3333) of the participants would correctly identify the magnetized water by chance; anything "significantly" better than 1/3 is evidence that Coghill is onto something. I can crunch some numbers quickly if you want cookbook stats.

[geni]

Originally posted by drkitten

Obviously, you need to do the pouring and labelling in a different area from where the people are being served, and you want a confederate to serve and tabulate the results.


To emoersise no one who know which is which should be in the room during testing.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by geni


To emoersise no one who know which is which should be in the room during testing.

Was the word you were looking for "emphasise"?

But, yes, you are absolutely correct. You need to label/pour the drinks, THEN have your confederate walk in to the already labelled drinks to distribute them, so that s/he has no idea whether the blue label is the magnetized water or not.

You might also want to have a few people around just to serve as procedural witnesses.

I look forward to seeing the results.

[scotth]

For the taste test, I recommend using wine.

Finding volunteers will be much easier. As a matter of fact... where are you at exactly?

Edited to add: dang... London, I see. That's not very convenient.

[Tez]

Good suggestions already.

I'm at Imperial College, London, which is in South Kensington, opposite the Royal Albert Hall (about a 5 min walk from Gloucester Road tube station).

[JPK]

I would also suggest randomizing the position/order/lable for which target water/wine is in. Also make sure your non-mag water/wine is kept far enough away as to not accidently effect the samples.

JPK

[scotth]

And another quantifiable claim in the tips section.

Handy tip Ripen tomatoes, strawberries or any fruit by placing them on the south pole of the coaster.

This should be an easy claim to test in a non subjective way.

Buy a bunch of underripe bananas, split the bunch. Place half on the coaster, and half on the counter near by. Which group ripen faster. (Would be even better with two coaster, so you could do a north and south pole comparision against the plain ol' counter top.) Repeat several times.

You could get into some subjectivity about which bananas ripened fastest.... but, if the tip is really worth much, the effect would necessarily be pretty pronounced. In other words, if it isn't quite noticable which ripen faster, might as just leave them on the counter.

[Cleopatra]

Setting a protocol for wine is not easy. I have been thinking about that on Tez's request for a couple of days now.

The product claims that the coaster can make your wine taste better. It's difficult to define what constitutes a better taste in a beverage like wine. It's very subjective. The nature of wine requires more time Tez.

I would suggest to use two bottles of wine not more than one year old each and leave the one bottle open for one week and then perform a blind test in the way wine experts do( details can be provided upon request).

Tez there is a code you can find in the help forum to adjust the size of the photos to the size of the window.Or ask a mod to do it. Lux knows. Congreslad must be notified about this thread.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Anything you use to cleanse the palate might affect the taste of the subsequent liquids, so you have to make sure the three glasses are consumed in random order. If you label them 1, 2, and 3, someone could place them in front of the subject in random order and ask that they be consumed from left to right.

You might want to use distilled water as the palate cleanser.

Make sure that the coasters do not leave anything on the bottom of the glasses, including any odor. If they are magnetic, you could place a piece of paper on top, then the glass. Shouldn't make any difference.

The person who carries the glasses out to the subjects should not know which is which, only that s/he is to place them in a certain order from left to right.

I would use plastic cups and discard them after every trial.

~~ Paul

[roger]

Originally posted by drkitten


I recommend a "triangle test" as a test methodology. Get three identical bottles of water, chill them identically, take the out of the fridge, open them, and "magnetize" one. Pour three samples into three identical labelled glasses (cheap plastic is probably sufficient), then have the subjects determine which of the three "tastes different." I suggest refining this by starting by putting the water and the magnet coaster in the fridge for at least 24 hours. Then, when ready to magnetize, put the magnet under one of the water bottles, and do the magnetization inside the fridge. The intent is to minimize any temperature differential that may occur either due to air currents, different heat conduction rates of the magnet vs table top, etc.

Finally, measure the water temperature with a calibrated thermocouple prior to serving to ensure that all 3 samples are within close tolerances to each other.

Volume of the 3 samples should be exactly the same, partly to minimize difference in temp gradients, partly to avoid providing some "difference" that the test subject unconsciously cues on.

Randomize which glass has the magnetized water. I.e., if labelled A,B,C make sure the magnetized water is evenly distributed among the three. Always serve in the same order, ABC, and order glasses the same way, ABC, left to right.

Test may be easier if all liquids are served at room temp. This will simplify serving all 3 beverages at identical temp.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Setting a protocol for wine is not easy. I have been thinking about that on Tez's request for a couple of days now.

The product claims that the coaster can make your wine taste better. It's difficult to define what constitutes a better taste in a beverage like wine. It's very subjective. The nature of wine requires more time Tez.


I think the triangle test I proposed above would suffice to show that magnetized wine tastes (or does not taste) "different," which would be enough for a start. As you point out, "better" is extremely subjective --- but if there's no detectable difference in taste, it certainly can't "taste better."

[CFLarsen]

Tez,

I don't suppose I could persuade you to write it up for SR? :)

[JPK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Setting a protocol for wine is not easy. I have been thinking about that on Tez's request for a couple of days now.

The product claims that the coaster can make your wine taste better. It's difficult to define what constitutes a better taste in a beverage like wine. It's very subjective. The nature of wine requires more time Tez.

[/i]

Tasting "better" would be tough. Tasting differant is another story. I like the idea of the three samples. Randomize between 1 mag and 2 unmag and visa versa. I also would suggest that the three samples be poured from the same bottle and magnitize it in the glass. Wine can be differant from bottle to bottle depending on how it's handled.

JPK

drkitten beat me to the punch :)

[drkitten]

Originally posted by JPK




drkitten beat me to the punch :)

Nyeah nyeah Pbththththththththth!

[drkitten]

Originally posted by JPK


Tasting "better" would be tough. Tasting differant is another story. I like the idea of the three samples. Randomize between 1 mag and 2 unmag and visa versa. I also would suggest that the three samples be poured from the same bottle and magnitize it in the glass. Wine can be differant from bottle to bottle depending on how it's handled.


All very good suggestions.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by JPK


Tasting "better" would be tough. Tasting differant is another story. I like the idea of the three samples. Randomize between 1 mag and 2 unmag and visa versa. I also would suggest that the three samples be poured from the same bottle and magnitize it in the glass. Wine can be differant from bottle to bottle depending on how it's handled.

JPK


Well let's be realistic here. Let's see what the product promises and how we can check if it can do what it promises indeed.

Use it to 'magnetise' drinking water, or even improve the taste of red wine (!)
http://www.galonja.co.uk/galonja_shop/product.asp?g_s_n=crlshop&g_u_no=0&g_u_nam=&g_tim=&pid=98&v_det=1&full=1&c_id=0

Now we are talking for a medium red table wine. There is nothing to improve in a fine Merlot :)

This is why I suggested to use two bottles of the same common red wine, leave the one open for a week . Make four samples, two of each bottle and magnetize the two one from each bottle.

As for Paul's concerns the test is brief but in order to keep the protocol the tester should spit the sip he is testing and after each sample must eat a piece of bread.

Claus Tez told me in private that he will write the article, I have evidence. :p

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Claus Tez told me in private that he will write the article, I have evidence. :p

Excellent! :)

[JPK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



This is why I suggested to use two bottles of the same common red wine, leave the one open for a week . Make four samples, two of each bottle and magnetize the two one from each bottle.



I would be suprised if anything could improve the taste or a bottle of red wine that has been left open for a week. I would also be suprised to fine anything left in a bottle that has been opened for an hour or so. At least at my house :)

JPK

[cogreslab]

Wow, you guys are really having fun! Hope a good protocol emergies from the deliberations, but meanwhile all this talk of wine is making me thirsty!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by JPK


I would be suprised if anything could improve the taste or a bottle of red wine that has been left open for a week. I would also be suprised to fine anything left in a bottle that has been opened for an hour or so. At least at my house :)
PK

A week might seem long but it' not really long considering that we are not talking about an organic wine although those devils hold suspiciously well sometimes. Your second fear is really legitimate :D

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by JPK
[....] I like the idea of the three samples. Randomize between 1 mag and 2 unmag and visa versa. C'mon...some trials with 0 mag as well, and if all three coasters can be used, some trials with 3 mag.

yeah, I know it is sufficient with just 1 and 2, but any excuse to increase the number of trials in a wine-tasting is ok in my book...

edited to add... I also volunteer to replicate the experiment, on the condition that Cleopatra, in person, serves as my lab assistant.

Reginald, could you make a lab-coat version of her avatar?

[roger]

Originally posted by Mercutio
C'mon...some trials with 0 mag as wellThat's good, and necessary, to help ensure there is no bias in the test (temp flucs, drinker unconsciously chooses the glass with a scratch on it more often, etc)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Wow, you guys are really having fun! Skeptics are really playful types especially when we test claims that they are not related with the public health it's a really pleasant procedure to pose questions and test claims. :)

[roger]

It would certainly be illuminating if cogreslab shared the protocol his company used to prove their claims.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by roger
That's good, and necessary, to help ensure there is no bias in the test (temp flucs, drinker unconsciously chooses the glass with a scratch on it more often, etc)

I don't see how this will be useful. Could you expound?

I just ran some numbers "off the cuff" about how I would interpret results. Assuming a pool of twenty independent trials, if ten of the twenty can correctly identify the odd flavor out, then that just misses the standard 5% cutoff for significance. (Obviously, the more tests, the more reliable the statistics, but that might cost you a lot, esp. if you're buying decent wine.) The potential bias in the test is more or less controlled for by randomizing presentations (and not reusing glasses).

[Tez]

Ahem Cleopatra. As Claus, various Research Councils and all my collaborators already know, getting some written report out of me is like getting blood out of a stone. It happens, but very slowly. So I doubt I promised I would write it up - I hopefully suggested that someone would write it up.

On a different topic: I REALLY REALLY need some other JREFers to come help with these tests.

Especially ones good at writing reports...

Could someone give me the actual commands for resizing the pictures? I realise that if I had any sense at all I would have made them the right size in the first place...

[Nigel]

I hope to see this written up in SR. This will be awfully interesting to read the results. :)

[Cleopatra]

I have been involved in more difficult tasks than getting blood our of a stone my dear...

Now we have to notify some people we know they live in the London area for the test. Jon in London is one , Reginald is another one , Tim?

[JPK]

Originally posted by Tez


On a different topic: I REALLY REALLY need some other JREFers to come help with these tests.


Well I'm a bit far from London. Once a protocal has been set, I would be more then happy to attempt to duplicate the test here in New Jersey, USA. I would have no problem finding test subjects. Let me know where to order the same coasters and I will.

JPK

[JPK]

Sorry, don't know how the multiple posts happened...
JPK

[SGT]

The double blind test proposed will not be fair. The producers of the coasters say that the liquid is to be consumed directly from the coaster, so the time taken for transportation of the liquids from one room to another could be used as an excuse for bad results.
About opening the wine bottles one week previously, it is a mortal sin.
Our tongue only recognize four tastes: sweet, sour, acid and salty. What makes the difference between a good and a bad wine is the aroma. A bottle open for a week will have no aroma at all.
If a magnetic coaster can provide aroma to the wine of an open bottle I am the first candidate to buy one of yours for the proposed 250 pounds.

[CFLarsen]

Tez,

Ve haff vays to make you vrite...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by SGT

About opening the wine bottles one week previously, it is a mortal sin.
Our tongue only recognize four tastes: sweet, sour, acid and salty. What makes the difference between a good and a bad wine is the aroma. A bottle open for a week will have no aroma at all.
If a magnetic coaster can provide aroma to the wine of an open bottle I am the first candidate to buy one of yours for the proposed 250 pounds

I said from start to Tez that setting a protocol for wine won't be easy espcially because the product promises vague and subjective results.

Leaving the bottle of wine open for sometime is the only fair but legitimate test I managed to find for the wine.What are your thoughts?

Knowing the way mediocre table red wines are produced and bottled one week on the air sounds reasonable to me.If you leave them open for three days nothing happens to them, trust me.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by SGT
The double blind test proposed will not be fair. The producers of the coasters say that the liquid is to be consumed directly from the coaster, so the time taken for transportation of the liquids from one room to another could be used as an excuse for bad results.
Hmm, could get some coasters with the same look and without the magnetic properties to eliminate this, I suppose.
About opening the wine bottles one week previously, it is a mortal sin.
Our tongue only recognize four tastes: sweet, sour, acid and salty. What makes the difference between a good and a bad wine is the aroma. A bottle open for a week will have no aroma at all.
There is a chemical reaction with air that occurs with open wine, wich will actually move it towards a vinegary taste; it is not just the loss of aroma.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Knowing the way mediocre table red wines are produced and bottled one week on the air sounds reasonable to me.If you leave them open for three days nothing happens to them, trust me.

I can't speak for the mediocre table wines, but I have noticed a change in taste (tending towards vinegary) in some red wines (that were lightly recorked) in the span of three days.

[JPK]

Originally posted by SGT
The double blind test proposed will not be fair. The producers of the coasters say that the liquid is to be consumed directly from the coaster, so the time taken for transportation of the liquids from one room to another could be used as an excuse for bad results.
About opening the wine bottles one week previously, it is a mortal sin.
Our tongue only recognize four tastes: sweet, sour, acid and salty. What makes the difference between a good and a bad wine is the aroma. A bottle open for a week will have no aroma at all.
If a magnetic coaster can provide aroma to the wine of an open bottle I am the first candidate to buy one of yours for the proposed 250 pounds.

Perhaps the coasters can be placed under a table cloth and the glasses placed on top of that. Of course non magnetic coasters of the same size would be needed so the taster would not know the difference.

I still don't understand how any wine can exist in an open bottle for more then an hour.


JPK

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DaveW


I can't speak for the mediocre table wines, but I have noticed a change in taste (tending towards vinegary) in some red wines (that were lightly recorked) in the span of three days. Yes this is what happens but mediocre table wines are bottled with the addition of artificial aromas apart from other things. The category "table wine" allows those things.

As Roger pointed out I wonder what protocol congreslab used in order to test the wine.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by SGT
. . . the time taken for transportation of the liquids from one room to another could be used as an excuse for bad results.

Easy enough - you could just blindfold your testers and stand them in front of the fridge. But really, a few minutes off the coaster and they're demagnetized? Why, static electricity?


About opening the wine bottles one week previously, it is a mortal sin.

I think Cleo may have been thinking of much a older, very tannic wine? Some of those, I'm sure, can be decanted for a few days to soften and improve the taste. Not sure about a week. And besides, I say try it with a nice $3 la Boca, or Chuck Shaw. That way you can do it with a whole case and not worry about the cost.

[CFLarsen]

Not wine. Way, way too unpredictable. Wine can change in minutes.

Use bottled water instead.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by rebecca
I think Cleo may have been thinking of much a older, very tannic wine? This is the reason why I said that in my opinion the wine should be at least one year old. The nouveau category becomes vinegar overnight literaly speaking. Also, table red wines are pure chemistry in order to hold more.

Claus I agree with you but this is what congreslab promises that his coasters do!

[rebecca]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Not wine. Way, way too unpredictable. Wine can change in minutes.

Use bottled water instead.

I agree. I think the preceding wine discussion supports this :).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Claus I agree with you but this is what congreslab promises that his coasters do!

And:

Your powerful magnetic coaster will make your water healthier and fresher-tasting after approx. 20 minutes.

[Cleopatra]

So what? I saw the product I want to purchase it , if in the process of testing the claim I realize that I cannot actually do it, I will ask for Coghill to provide me his protocol, if he refuses I will call BS on him if he accepts I will buy a couple of those coasters. My maternal family consists of wine producers they will enjoy even to have those things regardless if they work or not.

Simple things.

[roger]

Originally posted by drkitten
I don't see how this will be useful. Could you expound?I probably posted too hastily. My thoughts were that if the null experiment demonstrated bias (say, the A drink gets chosen at 35%) then you know the experiment has not controlled for all variables. But I think you are right that randomization of the ordering will account for this.

[patnray]

You have two easily testable and measurable claims: that they reduce surface tension and that they cause fruit to ripen faster.

Surface tension can be measured, as noted in an earlier post.

You can measure the ripening of fruit by placing them in sealed bags and measuring the rate of ethylene production.

Nothing subjective about it.

[tim]

You called, my queen?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by patnray
You have two easily testable and measurable claims: that they reduce surface tension and that they cause fruit to ripen faster.

Surface tension can be measured, as noted in an earlier post.

You can measure the ripening of fruit by placing them in sealed bags and measuring the rate of ethylene production.

Nothing subjective about it.

This would be perfect.

[JPK]

Originally posted by patnray
You have two easily testable and measurable claims: that they reduce surface tension and that they cause fruit to ripen faster.

Surface tension can be measured, as noted in an earlier post.

You can measure the ripening of fruit by placing them in sealed bags and measuring the rate of ethylene production.

Nothing subjective about it.

Ahhh, this would be measuring something something tangible. We all know that these thing work in a far more scientific way. It uses magnets!!! You can't measure this! You just have to believe. :)

Still willing to try though.

JPK

[Cleopatra]

I am sorry gentlemen but let's say that I am housewife that I have barely finished school and I do not know what magnetism is. I want to check this product and I intend to invite my equally ignorant neighbour to test the wine in a blind experiment.

What will I have to do in order to know that those things work?

Bring skepticism to the common people. I hate it when you force me to sound like a eurocommunist :p


Tim would you like to help Tez to perform the experiment? You must contact him.

[JPK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am sorry gentlemen but let's say that I am housewife that I have barely finished school and I do not know what magnetism is. I want to check this product and I intend to invite my equally ignorant neighbour to test the wine in a blind experiment.

What will I have to do in order to know that those things work?

Bring skepticism to the common people. I hate it when you force me to sound like a eurocommunist :p


Tim would you like to help Tez to perform the experiment? You must contact him.

Test is simple. Drink a bottle of magnatised wine. Then drink a bottle on nonmagnitised wine. The reverse the order and Drink two more bottles. About now you won't be able to tell the difference. :)

JPK

[SGT]

Originally posted by JPK


Perhaps the coasters can be placed under a table cloth and the glasses placed on top of that. Of course non magnetic coasters of the same size would be needed so the taster would not know the difference.

I still don't understand how any wine can exist in an open bottle for more then an hour.


JPK

The proposal of using magnetic and non magnetic coasters of the same size seems good. Of course it is more difficult than bringing the water from another room, but it leaves no place for excuses in case of failure.
Very old wines can have some unpleasant aromas, like mercaptans. They can also have solid particles in suspension. Because of this it is usual to pour them in decanters, trying to let most of the solid particles in the bottle. The ones that pass into the decanter will fall to the bottom. In the same time most of the umpleasant odours, being more volatile, will disperse in the air.
If you leave the wine long enough in an open recipient, all aromas will disperse. Besides this, acidifing bacteria, present in the air, can turn the alcool into vinegar.
The proposal of using a cheap wine in the test is not fair. Nothing in the world can turn palatable a cheap wine. You must use at least a medium quality wine.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by SGT

Very old wines can have some unpleasant aromas, like mercaptans. They can also have solid particles in suspension. Because of this it is usual to pour them in decanters, trying to let most of the solid particles in the bottle. The ones that pass into the decanter will fall to the bottom. In the same time most of the umpleasant odours, being more volatile, will disperse in the air.
If you leave the wine long enough in an open recipient, all aromas will disperse. Besides this, acidifing bacteria, present in the air, can turn the alcool into vinegar.
The proposal of using a cheap wine in the test is not fair. Nothing in the world can turn palatable a cheap wine. You must use at least a medium quality wine.

Um, I'm pretty sure JPK was joking when he said:

I still don't understand how any wine can exist in an open bottle for more then an hour.


Glug glug glug......get it?

[scotth]

A decent wine protocol.

To be valid comparisons, the wine in each glass being compare MUST be from the same bottle. Even in bottles from the same case, there are frequently noticable differences from bottle to bottle.

Neither of magnetic coasters suggest that the time to get their benefits exceeds an hour.

An hour isn't an unreasonable amount of time for a red wine to decant.

Keeping all the above statements in mind......

For each bottle of wine, decant it into 2 identical decanters. Sit one decanter on a magnetic coaster and the other on the counter. On each subsequent bottle, alternate whether the magnetically treated decanter gets filled first or second, to eliminate any small chance of preference for the top or bottom of the bottle. Do this for at least 4 bottles, the more the better.

Pour a small glass from each decanter for multiple tasters. Eight tasters should do pretty well. When I say, a small glass, I really mean not much more than a good swallow for each taste. You should be able to get 2 or more tasting rounds out of each bottle. Have the glasses simply marked 1 and 2. Which glass that gets the magnetically treated wine for each taster and each round of tasting is picked at random and recorded. Have a 3rd party (who isn't aware of how the wine was distributed between the glasses) present the wine to the tasters. After the tasters have done their tasting, they answer the following multiple choice question.

"Comparing your glass of wine 1 to glass of wine 2...."
"a) You could not tell any difference between the two."
"b) Glass 1 was better than glass 2"
"c) Glass 2 was better than glass 3"

Then compare the tasters' answers to the dispersing records. Do the results line up better than would be expected by chance? Even if they consistently choose the magnetically treated wine as inferior, that would be a surprising result. It would indicate that the magnet at least did something. Or, even consider that one taster would pick the magnetically treated wine consistantly better, and another picked it as worse, that would be worth further study as well.

Then, it would probably be a good idea to rerun the test in the same manner, but eliminate choice "a" (could tell any difference) and see if forcing them to pick one or the other gives any better results.

It would a good idea to try to use the same tasters from one session to the next. By collecting more test results from each taster, you could find that if there was a difference, only one or two of the tasters had a good enough palet to discern the difference.

Run as many sessions of this as you can afford. If even 1 taster in 8 could seperate the wine by taste even 75% percent of the time over 6 or 7 runs, that would worth further investigation. Perhaps if you get one or two tasters that show promise, do additional testing rounds only with them to see if their tasting accuracy can remain statistically significant over the long haul.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Are y'all sure we want to use wine, not water?

~~ Paul

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by roger
It would certainly be illuminating if cogreslab shared the protocol his company used to prove their claims.

That's what I was thinking.

Why does magnetized water taste better? Is there a physical effect on the water (Like surface tension from earlier in the thread...) then test for that.

Taste is too subjective.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by patnray
You have two easily testable and measurable claims: that they reduce surface tension and that they cause fruit to ripen faster.

Surface tension can be measured, as noted in an earlier post.



I don't believe that either of these were
actually Coghill's claims. I think we owe
him the courtesy of testing him on the claims
he made, and not necessarily on the claims
made by some other nutcase who makes
a similar product.

[patnray]

Originally posted by JPK


Ahhh, this would be measuring something something tangible. We all know that these thing work in a far more scientific way. It uses magnets!!! You can't measure this! You just have to believe. :)

Still willing to try though.


You're right. Any objective test that fails to prove the claims will undoubtedly be countered by "moving the goal post". Can't detect any greater production of ethylene in the magnetically treated fruit? Why that's because magnets ripen fruit without producing ethylene! Can't measure the lowered surface tension? That's because it only lowers the surface tension between the water and cells!

Still the tests would be worthwhile...

[patnray]

Originally posted by drkitten


I don't believe that either of these were
actually Coghill's claims. I think we owe
him the courtesy of testing him on the claims
he made, and not necessarily on the claims
made by some other nutcase who makes
a similar product.

You are right. It was Norstar that made the claims about surface tension and ripening fruit. Coghill wisely doesn't make any claims that can be tested without subjective interpretation, leaving plenty of wiggle room.

Perhaps the taste test should include a round in which everyone knows which sample they are tasting, similar to the protocol in which dowsers first demonstrate their technique on open containers of water, to prevent claims that other factors "interfered" with the magnets...

[drkitten]

Originally posted by scotth
After the tasters have done their tasting, they answer the following multiple choice question.

"Comparing your glass of wine 1 to glass of wine 2...."
"a) You could not tell any difference between the two."
"b) Glass 1 was better than glass 2"
"c) Glass 2 was better than glass 3"

Then compare the tasters' answers to the dispersing records. Do the results line up better than would be expected by chance? Even if they consistently choose the magnetically treated wine as inferior, that would be a surprising result. It would indicate that the magnet at least did something. Or, even consider that one taster would pick the magnetically treated wine consistantly better, and another picked it as worse, that would be worth further study as well.

Then, it would probably be a good idea to rerun the test in the same manner, but eliminate choice "a" (could tell any difference) and see if forcing them to pick one or the other gives any better results.

.

What would be the advantage of this test over the triangle test as proposed earlier? As far as I can tell, it will simply make the analysis more difficult (you need to break results down by each subject), increase the amount of data required (each subject needs to drink enough to make analysis of their individual results meaningful), and reduce the overall power of the statistics.

I think it's silly to check for tasting "better" if there's no evidence even to support "different."

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by patnray

Perhaps the taste test should include a round in which everyone knows which sample they are tasting, similar to the protocol in which dowsers first demonstrate their technique on open containers of water, to prevent claims that other factors "interfered" with the magnets... Agreed. In Randi's workshop at TAM2, they emphasized this part of the challenge.

[SGT]

Originally posted by drkitten


I don't believe that either of these were
actually Coghill's claims. I think we owe
him the courtesy of testing him on the claims
he made, and not necessarily on the claims
made by some other nutcase who makes
a similar product.

You have a good point. For Coghill's coasters we should limit the test to water and wine.
For water, it should be chosen a tasteless, low mineralized one. The french Volvic would be well suited. I don't know if it is available in London, but there should be others in the market that fill the requirements.
For the wine, we should discard both cheap and very good products.
Nothing can improve a cheap wine. For a very good wine, a small improvement would not be detectable. So we shoul focus in medium quality, low bodied wines, like Valpolicella or Beaujolais Villages.
Two non magnetized coasters of the same dimensions of the products under test should be provided. The four coasters should be put into opaque numbered envelopes.
A person that does not know what is in each envelope chooses two of them. We have 50% of chance of a 'real' and a fake coaster and 25% each of two reals or two fakes.
Liquid from the same bottle is to be poured in two jugs and each jug put over one coaster. After one hour liquid of each jug is put in two separate glasses for each tester. Do not use plastic goblets, wich have smell that could mask the taste and aroma of the beverage.
Each tester records his/her impressions over the existent or inexistent differences in the two glasses.
After that, another set of two coasters is to be chosen and the experiment repeated.
Of course, the inhability to detect differences could be blamed in the poor senses of taste and smell of the testers, so the ideal test should have people from Coghill or at least some believers among the testers.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by SGT



A person that does not know what is in each envelope chooses two of them. We have 50% of chance of a 'real' and a fake coaster and 25% each of two reals or two fakes.
Liquid from the same bottle is to be poured in two jugs and each jug put over one coaster. After one hour liquid of each jug is put in two separate glasses for each tester. Do not use plastic goblets, wich have smell that could mask the taste and aroma of the beverage.
Each tester records his/her impressions over the existent or inexistent differences in the two glasses.


What advantage does this have over the much simpler and more powerful triangle test?

[SGT]

Originally posted by drkitten


What advantage does this have over the much simpler and more powerful triangle test?

If people find differences from beverages that have both been submited to the magnetic treatment (or both not submited), we can suppose that all findings are subjective.
If people know that one of the coasters is 'real' and the other not, they may be influenced in finding differences in taste. Even if they think the liquid from the fake coaster tastes better, this can be attributed to personal likings.

[scotth]

Originally posted by drkitten


What would be the advantage of this test over the triangle test as proposed earlier? As far as I can tell, it will simply make the analysis more difficult (you need to break results down by each subject), increase the amount of data required (each subject needs to drink enough to make analysis of their individual results meaningful), and reduce the overall power of the statistics.

I think it's silly to check for tasting "better" if there's no evidence even to support "different."

No real advantage. The analysis wouldn't be really any more difficult. You should still break it down for each subject, the possibility that one subject would perform better than others would be of interest regardless of testing method.

The test also aligns well with the actual claims. The claims say that it will make water and wine taste better. I still agree with you, that there is no evidence to support even "different".

However, a triangle test would work just as well.

Controlling for possible top pour, middle pour, bottom pour bias gets a little more difficult when splitting the bottle three ways. It also requires 3 identical decanters rather than just 2.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by SGT


If people find differences from beverages that have both been submited to the magnetic treatment (or both not submited), we can suppose that all findings are subjective.
If people know that one of the coasters is 'real' and the other not, they may be influenced in finding differences in taste.


I don't think I understand you. Could you be more explicit, please?

One of the advantages of the triangle test is that it's a forced-choice test, so people will be "compelled" to identify subtle differences in taste. That's an advantage in this context, since it prevents shilly-shallying. But the structure of the test controls for nonexistent differences by comparison to a 1/3 baseline accuracy. If they find differences in taste that aren't there, then they'll randomly select a "different" sample and the statistics will filter it out.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by patnray



Perhaps the taste test should include a round in which everyone knows which sample they are tasting, similar to the protocol in which dowsers first demonstrate their technique on open containers of water, to prevent claims that other factors "interfered" with the magnets...

I don't think that this is appropriate in this instance. In the event that there is, in fact, no discernable effect, then an honest panel of tasters will report that on the open test. More likely, a gathering of skeptics would specifically report "no discernable difference," even in the event that there was (confirmation bias works both ways). In the case of the Randi tests, you can usually count on a participant being sufficiently secure in his own powers to agree that his powers work in an open test; that assumption doesn't hold here.

Furthermore, this is a commercial product. If it doesn't, in fact, have any effect in controlled testing, then issues of "interference" are at least partially irrelevant. As long as there are no contraindications in the instructions, a commercial product should work as advertised.

[patnray]

Originally posted by drkitten
Furthermore, this is a commercial product. If it doesn't, in fact, have any effect in controlled testing, then issues of "interference" are at least partially irrelevant. As long as there are no contraindications in the instructions, a commercial product should work as advertised.

Agreed, it should. But advertisers/promoters have no obligation to point out the shortcomings of their products. Recall that the sellers of bogus audiophile products, such as cable that cost 10 times as much as ordinary coopper wire, when confronted with tests that prove people cannot hear any difference using their product and ordinary products, resort to claims that the listeners do not have sensitive enough ears to hear the difference. But do they tell you, in any of their sales material, that they believe only 1 in 100 people can hear the difference?

The point is to eliminate that kind of wiggle room.

[SGT]

Originally posted by drkitten


I don't think I understand you. Could you be more explicit, please?

One of the advantages of the triangle test is that it's a forced-choice test, so people will be "compelled" to identify subtle differences in taste. That's an advantage in this context, since it prevents shilly-shallying. But the structure of the test controls for nonexistent differences by comparison to a 1/3 baseline accuracy. If they find differences in taste that aren't there, then they'll randomly select a "different" sample and the statistics will filter it out.

As you said in your answer to patnray , skeptics would be biased and report no difference in taste with two or three samples. We should limit the panel of testers to believers in the power of magnets, homeopathy etc.
If these people know that one of the recipients contains the magnetized liquid, they will naturally choose one of them, even if they don't feel any difference.
In the test I proposed they don't know if there is one, two or no magnetized liquids, so they possibly will more honestly find no difference.

[roger]

Originally posted by SGT


As you said in your answer to patnray , skeptics would be biased and report no difference in taste with two or three samples. We should limit the panel of testers to believers in the power of magnets, homeopathy etc.Testee shouldn't what is being tested. Tell 'em your testing different waters. Or different mineral additives in the water. Or something.

[Soapy Sam]

This should involve people who have no idea of what is being tested.
There ought to be double blind protocols.
It should be done with bottled water- perhaps several brands.
(Making experimental subjects drink London tap water would be unethical).
Don't use wine- some folk like cheap wines. (I'm one). Tastes differ.
There should be a dummy disc - non magnetic- , possibly several, to confuse the issue and all the discs should be hidden from testees.
In fact better they don't know the discs even exist.
Testees should not drink between tests- a pub is emphatically the wrong place for this. Your results would not be taken seriously , no matter what they showed.

Whoever records the data should have no idea what disc is where.

This may all be obvious. If so, sorry.
I will be happy to help out with any costs you incur. Sorry, I live 400 miles from London and I'm a great deal farther right now.
Have you tried Athon?

[scotth]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
This should involve people who have no idea of what is being tested.
There ought to be double blind protocols.
It should be done with bottled water- perhaps several brands.
(Making experimental subjects drink London tap water would be unethical).
Don't use wine- some folk like cheap wines. (I'm one). Tastes differ.
There should be a dummy disc - non magnetic- , possibly several, to confuse the issue and all the discs should be hidden from testees.
In fact better they don't know the discs even exist.
Testees should not drink between tests- a pub is emphatically the wrong place for this. Your results would not be taken seriously , no matter what they showed.

Whoever records the data should have no idea what disc is where.

This may all be obvious. If so, sorry.
I will be happy to help out with any costs you incur. Sorry, I live 400 miles from London and I'm a great deal farther right now.
Have you tried Athon?

Pretty good points, but it kinda takes some of the fun out of it. You might want a believer to witness/participate in the running of your experiment. Make sure you can't be called for cheating.

[richardm]

Originally posted by scotth

Controlling for possible top pour, middle pour, bottom pour bias gets a little more difficult when splitting the bottle three ways. It also requires 3 identical decanters rather than just 2.

You could always buy three bottles, mix the contents in a pan and then redecant back into the bottles. It doesn't really matter what happens to the wine, since it's whether the magic coaster changes the taste that is the important thing.

[scotth]

Originally posted by richardm


You could always buy three bottles, mix the contents in a pan and then redecant back into the bottles. It doesn't really matter what happens to the wine, since it's whether the magic coaster changes the taste that is the important thing.

That sounds workable.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by drkitten


I don't believe that either of these were
actually Coghill's claims. I think we owe
him the courtesy of testing him on the claims
he made, and not necessarily on the claims
made by some other nutcase who makes
a similar product.

A further claim that they make is for the Pet Coaster.
<http://www.galonja.co.uk/galonja_shop/product.asp?g_s_n=crlshop&g_u_no=0&g_u_nam=&g_tim=&pid=92&v_det=1&full=1&c_id=0>
"Given the choice your pet will always choose to drink magnetic water, they can tell the difference. Magnetic water is more natural. Using a pet coaster ensures that your pet receives maximum benefit from their drinking water. They will love the taste. "

Here at least you have test subjects that are won't even know that they are being tested.

Off the top of my head, you could set up two identical bowls, one with a coaster in it and one without, behind "cat flaps". You could then fix a counter to the flap and monitor the count daily.

You'd probably want to change the location of the magnets to account in case things like proximity to doors or hours in sunlight, or just your pets habit may affect the numbers.

As a further control, I'd run the same experiment with NO magnets in either dish and correlate the numbers against the numbers where magnets were present.

Note that there is a simple failure case. The claim is that

"your pet will *always* choose to drink magnetic water"

So statistical significance is practically ruled out - it's 100% or a failure.

Oh, and I'm London based if there is Red Ned in the offing.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by SGT


As you said in your answer to patnray , skeptics would be biased and report no difference in taste with two or three samples.

Not an option in a forced-choice situation.

[scotth]

Originally posted by drkitten


Not an option in a forced-choice situation.

Sure it is, just report the the odd man out without regard to taste.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by drkitten

I recommend a "triangle test" as a test methodology. Get three identical bottles of water, chill them identically, take the out of the fridge, open them, and "magnetize" one. Pour three samples into three identical labelled glasses (cheap plastic is probably sufficient), then have the subjects determine which of the three "tastes different."

Probably a good idea to have water biscuits or something available as a palate cleanser.

Obviously, you need to do the pouring and labelling in a different area from where the people are being served, and you want a confederate to serve and tabulate the results.

Expected results are that 1/3 (0.3333) of the participants would correctly identify the magnetized water by chance; anything "significantly" better than 1/3 is evidence that Coghill is onto something. I can crunch some numbers quickly if you want cookbook stats.

This is basically identical to a test I set up and supervised as a teaching assistant in grad school with 3 different sources of water (2 were expensive bottled waters, 1 was just water from the tap down).

Yeah, it was just a test of proportions, testing if p = 1/3 or if p is different from 1/3.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by scotth
For the taste test, I recommend using wine.


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

[TheBoyPaj]

Anyone thought of the possible Coghill "out", which would be "you didn't use it properly"?

What if, for example, you can't even discern a difference in the open test? This is why Randi always makes the claimant demonstrate the effect.

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
This is basically identical to a test I set up and supervised as a teaching assistant in grad school with 3 different sources of water (2 were expensive bottled waters, 1 was just water from the tap down).

Yeah, it was just a test of proportions, testing if p = 1/3 or if p is different from 1/3.
Was it?

[Tez]

Many thanks to y'all for your suggestions.

Heres a mini-summary of what I'm thinking so far.

I'll test both water and wine - people can do the water first just in case ;)

I dont see a way to really keep secret what is being tested, and unless I can do so perfectly its not a useful control.

I will test the claims on Roger's website as far as possible. I considered seriously the surface tension experiment, but its somewhat of a pain with respect to equipment and a quickish protocol.

It is hard to know about the question of carrying in glasses from a separate room, versus hidden/similar coasters etc under flasks in plain view. Especially since there seem to be no studies on the half-life of magnetised water or wine! The one set of instructions suggests you keep it in the fridge, and presumably you dont have to drink it while enclosed in the fridge yourself. The advantage of not having the jugs of liquid under hidden coasters in the same room as the testees, is that they then will not know whether their liquid came from the same jug or not. So I am leaning towards a separate room, with rapid dissemination to the testing area.

For the wine I think I will pour a couple of bottles of a medium quality Aussie wine into the one flask, then split them just before magnetisation.

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

Roger sent me the coasters so I could try them myself before rashly taking on such a bet, I've decided to go a little bit further than testing them on my morning cup of coffee (which I have been doing with varying degrees of success...) but I realise that the test will not necessarliy satisy hardcore naysayers.

So heres an overview of the specifics:

I imagine producing a string of randomly ordered triples like this:

1 M
2 N2
3 N1

4 N1
5 N2
6 M

7 N2
8 M
9 N1

etc

where M=magnetised, N1,N2 mean "not magnetised 1 and 2"

Then I imagine labelling glasses (or plastic cups in the case of water) with a number. One student will be conscripted to pour the liquid according to the above schema. A second student will retrieve them from the room, the testees each take their three glasses and try to find the odd man out, which I really think is the simplest test as to whether there is any effect whatsoever. "Better" is too subjective. If there is no difference, as I suspect, then it cannot be better!

I will try and have some folks there who understand wine tasting, but since I dont know many people here yet, plebian physics grad students are my primary resource!

To motivate folks (well, students in particular) I am thinking I will offer a case of beer or a good bottle of wine to any person who CAN find a difference in 4 of an "odd man out of three" tastings. i.e. anyone who gets it correct for both water and wine can have another go at each and if theyre correct again both times, they win.

After all this we head for the pub (no, the testing will not be done in the pub!)

Any further thoughts?

[roger]

Well, not to be harsh, but if you don't blind the participants, a negative result is meaningless, motivation for winning a case of beer nonwithstanding.

Just pour the water in the other room, bring it out, and ask if any of the three tastes different. I'm not sure I understand your objection to blinding the taste testers.

[JPK]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Anyone thought of the possible Coghill "out", which would be "you didn't use it properly"?

What if, for example, you can't even discern a difference in the open test? This is why Randi always makes the claimant demonstrate the effect.

Coghill will always have an out. That's just the way these guys work. I've been reading his posts for weeks now. He is a master at avoiding answering any questions with clear answers. I was able to get one straight answer from him. In another thread I asked him...

Mr. Coghill,

I have read all of you posts on several differant threads. I have visited your website as well. Since you are and expert on magnetism, I would like to ask you a question. Do you think that my food stays fresher longer in my refridgerator because it's cold, or is it the magnets stuck to the front of it doing the trick? I mean why risk endangering myself, and others with dangerous electric fields when magnets will do the job?

JPK

To this he replied...
To JPK: Because it's cold in there. The fridge magnets have no biological effects. Goodnight.

Well at least he is capable of answering a question. Next I need to ask him if any magnet will work or only his special super magnets will make wine/water better.


JPK

[Tez]

Originally posted by roger
Well, not to be harsh, but if you don't blind the participants, a negative result is meaningless, motivation for winning a case of beer nonwithstanding.

Just pour the water in the other room, bring it out, and ask if any of the three tastes different. I'm not sure I understand your objection to blinding the taste testers.

where the heck did I state that the participants wont be blinded?

I only feel I cannot prevent them from knowing that its magnets being tested (as someone had suggested).

[Soapy Sam]

Do the coasters act as fridge magnets? I mean can they support their own weight? If so, how much force does it take to lift them off a metal surface?
I bet the force required is negligible.
Why not get a real magnet (such as from a deceased hard drive, and try using that to magnetise water? If the coasters work, that should work better, no?

[JPK]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Do the coasters act as fridge magnets? I mean can they support their own weight? If so, how much force does it take to lift them off a metal surface?
I bet the force required is negligible.
Why not get a real magnet (such as from a deceased hard drive, and try using that to magnetise water? If the coasters work, that should work better, no?

I have asked MR. Coghill in another thread if any magnet will do or does only his "special magnets" that he sells work.
No response yet.


JPK

[SGT]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Do the coasters act as fridge magnets? I mean can they support their own weight? If so, how much force does it take to lift them off a metal surface?
I bet the force required is negligible.
Why not get a real magnet (such as from a deceased hard drive, and try using that to magnetise water? If the coasters work, that should work better, no?

Of course only these magnets work, otherwise why would the coasters be so expensive?
These magnets are made from rare earths, mined in the mountains of Tibet and blessed by Tibetan holy men. Oligoelements are added to the material by succussion.
Finally, the magnetization is imposed to the material through ancient cabalistic means, when Mars and Neptune are in quadrature.

[JPK]

Originally posted by SGT


Of course only these magnets work, otherwise why would the coasters be so expensive?
These magnets are made from rare earths, mined in the mountains of Tibet and blessed by Tibetan holy men. Oligoelements are added to the material by succussion.
Finally, the magnetization is imposed to the material through ancient cabalistic means, when Mars and Neptune are in quadrature.

Now how much would you pay? Don't answer yet!!! Because if you order in the next 5 minutes you will also recieve a Spiral Slicer free of charge. Millions have paid $100'S of dollars for these. Even if you are unsatisfied with the magnets and return them, keep the Spiral Slicer as a gift.

JPK

[Beancounter]

I think this testing prorocol is getting far too complex.

Surely all you have to do is stand the jug of water on the coaster for 10 minutes and then, if it sticks to your fridge you know that the coasters work!

Simple.

[JPK]

This just in from MR. Coghill,

To JPK: No there is nothing special about our magnets except the way we configure them Other manufaturers use different configurations and we sell theirs too if we find they are effective. Some distributors are offering magnets with field strengths too low to be biologically effective, however (<300G). We use a magnetometer to test all products before we sell them. Incidentally though the neodymium magnet producers claim that these do not lose magnetism with heat, in practice we have found they do, and we had to take special insulating precautions with our fuel economisers which were getting hot through proximity to the car engines.

Makes you wonder what he means by "configurations".

JPK

[SFB]

Originally posted by JPK


Makes you wonder what he means by "configurations".



Let alone "special insulating precautions," "fuel economizers," and car engine proximity........

[Soapy Sam]

:D

Let's play fair though. Mr C is after all, putting his mouth where his money is, which is more than some would. I think he may be in danger of being voted "official" JREF Supplier of Improbable Equipment- but would his mission be tarred by the association or ours?

Now I'm pretty sure Imperial College has at least one magnetometer squirreled away.

And don't use hot tea. What is the Curie Temperature of these things anyway?









Edit for typo.

[roger]

Originally posted by Tez
where the heck did I state that the participants wont be blinded?

I only feel I cannot prevent them from knowing that its magnets being tested (as someone had suggested). I must be misreading you somehow, or using 'blind' in a different way. This paragraph implies to me that the participants won't be blind:
I dont see a way to really keep secret what is being tested, and unless I can do so perfectly its not a useful control.

If you magnetize and pour in another room, then you can blind the testees to the knowledge that you are testing magnets. You can tell them that you are testing a chemical filtration process, or something, so their woo-woo radar won't prejudice their evaluations.

[Tez]

Originally posted by roger
I must be misreading you somehow, or using 'blind' in a different way. This paragraph implies to me that the participants won't be blind:


If you magnetize and pour in another room, then you can blind the testees to the knowledge that you are testing magnets. You can tell them that you are testing a chemical filtration process, or something, so their woo-woo radar won't prejudice their evaluations.

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

[Loki]

SGT,

...when Mars and Neptune are in quadrature.
You are incorrect - Mars and Venus need to to be in Hexrature. I expect a formal apology and retraction shortly...

[Loki]

Tez,

Seems to me that you should - if possible - use the same testing protocol that Coghill has used to determine the correct "configuration" and the exact "biologically effective field strength" of the magnets.

These comments ARE claims - importantly he is implicitly saying that magnets can be too weak and (presumably) too strong to have the desired effect on water/wine. It follows then that he must have a method for determining, testing, and refining such limits. What is that method? Can we see some data gathered using this method? Surely you are more likely to generate "valid" results if you use the same protocol? So, first step would seem to be to get your hands on THAT information, and reproduce those initial results. Assuming yoiu succeed, then perhaps look at whether the protocol needs to be improved/replaced?

[SGT]

Originally posted by Loki
SGT,


You are incorrect - Mars and Venus need to to be in Hexrature. I expect a formal apology and retraction shortly...

Nope, the planetary configuration you proposed does not take in acount the correct configuration (see your next post). The correct configuration is based in the principles of Feng Shui, thus balancing the cosmic energies with the electromagnetic fields generated by the magnets.

[Loki]

SGT,

Ahhh ... my apologies, you are correct. I will seek enlightment in punishment for my errors. You are truly wise - can you explain to me again how duck's bladders can be used in the prevention of earthquakes? Homoeopathic Feng Shui magnets - let's see Tez explain that and stay fashionable!

[SGT]

Loki

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

[richardm]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


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

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

[EHocking]

Originally posted by richardm


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

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

[richardm]

Originally posted by EHocking

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

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

[EHocking]

Originally posted by richardm


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

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

Double vision, then blind drunk? :D You would only need a small sample of the wine for sipping purposes. Then you could horse the rest over your neck at leisure ;)
Did the France number a few months back - never quite got the hang of the spitting the wine out bit. My wife thought it a disgusting thing to do - so ages of vintner history and tradition go hang - can't offend Linda (my life would not be worth living - for a number of reasons).

[EHocking]

Originally posted by Tez


It may be marginally preferable if the testees dont know the hypothesis being tested, especially since many will be physicists with a somewhat skeptical standpoint, but this is not a prerequisite of double-blind testing. As I said, its not something I feel confident I can keep secret (e.g. they've been sitting in my office a week, and my PhD student certainly has a vague idea of what I'm up to). It is an interesting question as to when blinding participants about the hypothesis is actually necessary, I disagree that this is one such situation.
I don't believe in this set up that having the subjects knowing the purpose of the test is all that relevant to the outcome. The outcome of successfully choosing the "magnetised" wine merely on chance can be calculated pretty easily.

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

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

[Tez]

Originally posted by EHocking

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

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

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

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

[EHocking]

Originally posted by Tez


Ok, how about this friday afternoon/evening? Tim, Tanja? It'll need to be an evening of a weekday so that the college is open...
I should be up for that. The Social Secretary of the household is out with a girlfriend (unfortunately reducing the test subjects by one) but not doubt I could get a release for the evening.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by Tez
<snip>
I will test the claims on Roger's website as far as possible...
<snip>
I have no pets, nor do I have ready access to someone who believes wholeheartedly there will be a difference. The one undergraduate mentoree I have who believes in homeopathy etc says he wouldnt be surprised if it worked, but didnt feel strongly about it. He unfortunately has his third year comprehensive exams week after next, and will not be amenable to being part of this test.
A thought just struck me. I seem to recall over on another thread that Mr.Coghill stated that he does not test nor condone testing his or other products on animals (especially those with eyes or that are mammals).

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

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

[roger]

Originally posted by EHocking
I don't believe in this set up that having the subjects knowing the purpose of the test is all that relevant to the outcome. The outcome of successfully choosing the "magnetised" wine merely on chance can be calculated pretty easily. But what about the converse? A testee who really doesn't want the thing to work, and thus doesn't choose the glass that tastes different (assuming one actually tastes different).

That can occur subconsciously - willful lying is not required.

[EHocking]

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

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

That can occur subconsciously - willful lying is not required

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[roger]

Originally posted by EHocking

For the record, what was the experimental protocol that your laboratory used for the Counter, and are the results available anywhere on your site, or written up in a paper? Err, I am not Mr. Coghill, we just share a first name.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by roger
Err, I am not Mr. Coghill, we just share a first name.
Sorry about that. Too bad Mr.Coghill hasn't provided the protocol he used so that we can attempt to replicate his results though.
Also hope it was a little more rigourous that the "study" he perfomed on the Pet Counter.

[EvilBiker]

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

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

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

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

[EHocking]

Originally posted by EvilBiker
Um, Shiraz is Syrah, mate. Same grape. Syrah is just the French word for Shiraz.
Oh the grape is the same granted, but the wines are not!
I was delighted when sampling Moselle in Germany and was astounded as to the difference between it and some of the ghastly stuff the Aussies used to produce.

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

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

Release of the results of the International Wine Challenge - a competition of more than 9 000 different wines, covering every type of grape, winemaking style and country, tasted blind by a top jury - is one of the key moments at the annual London International Wine & Spirit Fair.” (Read more on wine.co.za, 19 May 2004). [/B]
Must be my Antipodean palate, I prefer the more robust New World Shiraz', whereas the light house reds that emerge on a French or Italian cafe tables are emminently quaffable as well.

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

[SGT]

Originally posted by EvilBiker


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

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

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

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

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Vorticity

Was it?

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

[cogreslab]

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

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

Best to all,

[EHocking]

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

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

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

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

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

[richardm]

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

[steve74]

I thought I'd try and knock up a quick draft protocol based on everyone's comments. I'm sure that changes will need to be made but I thought it might be useful to have something concrete to work with.

Draft protocol

The claim to be tested is that the magnetic coasters will improve the taste of water or red wine.

From the advertisement:
About the size of a CD, this powerful coaster has powerful magnets hidden within an attractive wipe clean plastic shell. Use it to 'magnetise' drinking water, or even improve the taste of red wine (!) Every kitchen should have at least one.

Participants

Participants are volunteers and the only stipulation is that they should enjoy the taste of red wine. This protocol is designed with an assumption of using 6 participants. If any of the participants are smokers they should refrain from smoking for a period of one hour before the test (as a smoker myself, smoking does make a difference to the taste of food and wine).

Whilst ideally the participants should be unaware of the nature of the claim being tested this seems impractical given that the participants will either be Tez's students or forum users.

Materials

In order to minimise the amount of variables only the two cream AMGNO-COASTERs should be used. The instructions say:
Simply place your glass or jug of water to be magnetised on your AMGNO-COASTER, with the cream side upwards. Your powerful magnetic coaster will make your water healthier and fresher-tasting after approx. 20 minutes.
Always chill bottled water before treatment and not after.

All drinks should be served in identical plastic cups which should be used only once.

Two 1 litre bottles of Volvic mineral water should be placed in a fridge (on the same shelf) at least 12 hours before the test is due to begin.

Two bottles of identical medium quality red wine ( £6-£7 purchase price) should be stored in a cool, dark cupboard at least 12 hours before the test is due to begin.

Procedure

General outline

This is a forced choice test in which participants pick one out of three drinks in each trial that they think is different from the other two. In each trial one of the drinks will have been prepared using the magnetic coasters in accordance with the instructions provided with them.

Preparation of the drinks and testing should take place in different rooms. An observer who has no part in the preparation should oversee that the drinks are being prepared in accordance with the protocol. Once each trial of drinks is prepared this should be signaled to a volunteer who will then enter the room and take the drinks through to the participants in another room.

Participants will make their choice by making a mark in pen on the label attached to the cup. At the end of each trial two volunteer scorers should independently code the participants choices on a scoring sheet. Once all the trials are complete the scorers would then be allowed to see the details of which drinks were which. They should then independently code the total number of correct responses (ie identifying the magnetised drink as different) given and then compare their scores. In the event of a disagreement the scorers should independently re-code the responses using the marks on the labels and repeat the scoring procedure until they have agreement.

The number of correct responses needed to achieve a significant result should be decided in advance with the agreement of Tez and Mr. Coghill.

Detailed outline

- The two bottles of water should be removed from the fridge 30 minutes prior to testing beginning. One should be placed on the magnetic coaster and the other should be placed a distance of at least 2 meters away.

- The two bottles of wine should be mixed together and then decanted into two identical, clean decanters. One decanter should be placed on the magnetic coaster and the other should be placed a distance of at least 2 meters away. This should take place 30 minutes before the start of the testing.

- The drinks should be prepared according to a schema of the following kind assuming 6 participants (P1-P6) and six trials (A-F) where M is a magnetised drink and N is a non-magnetised drink.

http://premium.uploadit.org/steve74/ex.JPG

- This schema balances the position of the magnetised drink across all trials so that position should have no effect on the results.

- Drinks should be served in identical plastic cups in a standard measure (eg 25ml). Each drink would be labeled with the participant number, trial and position of the drink within the trial (e. P3 B 3)

- Once the drinks for each trial are prepared this should be signaled to a volunteer who would then take the drinks through to another room for the participants to taste. The volunteer who is serving the drinks should at no time have access to details of which drink is which.

- The drinks should be presented to the participants presented left to right according to the number within the trial, ie 1 (left), 2 (middle), 3 (right).

- Participants should receive written instructions which instruct them to taste each drink within a trial left to right. They should be instructed to make a mark on one and only one drink in each trial indicating which drink they feel is most different from the other two. Participants should not be allowed to communicate with each other during the testing.

- After each trial two volunteers should independently code the choices made.

- Once all the trials are complete the two volunteer scorers should then be given the schema and independently score the total number of correct responses. In the event of a disagreement the scorers should independently re-code the responses using the marks on the labels and repeat the scoring procedure until they have agreement. At no time until the two scorers have a figure for the total number of correct choices should they communicate with each other.

- The total number of correct responses (out of 36 presentations) needed to achieve a positive result should be agreed in advance by Tez and Mr Coghill.

- All aspects of a protocol should be agreed in advance by Tez and Mr. Coghill

I'm sure I've left something blindingly obvious out. Any comments?

[drkitten]

For what it's worth regarding the statistics of the proposed protocol :

The expected number of "hits" due to chance would be 12 (36/3), as each independent trial has one chance in three of correctly identifying the magnetized liquid.

The standard alpha cutoff of 5% for significance would require 18 hits (p < 0.031). A "highly significant" 1% cutoff would require 20 hits, and Randi's 1/10000 would require twenty-five.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by drkitten
For what it's worth regarding the statistics of the proposed protocol :

The expected number of "hits" due to chance would be 12 (36/3), as each independent trial has one chance in three of correctly identifying the magnetized liquid.

The standard alpha cutoff of 5% for significance would require 18 hits (p < 0.031). A "highly significant" 1% cutoff would require 20 hits, and Randi's 1/10000 would require twenty-five.
For those of you who need help with the probability workings above, here's a handy site that explains the numbers quoted above. <http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html>

A useful reference if Tez and Mr.Coghill need to find an independent source to determine a success threshold for this experiment, perhaps.

[Pragmatist]

Just my opinion, but I think this is a big mistake.

The problem when dealing with any woo woo claim is not to get drawn into sacrificing objectivity. The whole point of any test of an improbable claim is to set clear, objectively verifyable criteria and then to stick to them rigidly. If you don't, then in my opinion the result is meaningless.

In this case I see many problems with a "taste test". Taste testing may POSSIBLY be somewhat objective if there is some clear criterion i.e. tastes bitter or tastes sweet for example. But how do you possibly define "tastes BETTER"?

Secondly, even if that were somehow testable, the test should be performed with the simplest conditions possible - the more complex it is, the more sources of possible error. In this case that would at least dictate that water should be used and not wine - and high purity distilled water at that.

On the bioelectromagnetics thread, Roger (Coghill) has made numerous statements to the effect that there is some quantifiable physical difference between "normal" and "magnetized" water. In which case he should be required to define at least one objectively measurable criterion - something which can be verified with an instrument whose operation does not rely on human judgement, and the simpler the better.

If he is unable to come up with any objective criterion then the conclusion should properly be that the claim is FALSE by default. Something cannot "taste better" if there is no measurable difference between it and something else which "tastes worse".

Once that is done, the nature of that measurement should be scrutinized to identify any possible sources of error and measures should be implemented in the protocol to eliminate those errors. And finally, all parties should agree that the proposed protocol is valid and they will agree to be bound by its result, one way or the other.

I don't know how Randi develops his protocols but I imagine it would be more along these lines.

The reason WHY this is so important is that it is essential not to give ammunition to a woo woo claim. If the taste test proceeds and the result is positive (i.e. someone thinks it tastes better) Roger COULD (I don't say he will) then claim that he has "proven" his claim which was verified by the JREF. I know that we don't constitute the JREF, but that doesn't stop guilt by association. If the result comes out negative, in the absence of verifiable criteria, he COULD (again I don't say he will) then claim that it DID taste better but the evil skeptics conspired to cover up the truth. Either claim will add ammunition plausible to believers and will leave sufficient doubt for even the undecided (but ignorant) to be swayed.

And why should we care about this? Well, the answer to that is simple. The problem with most woo woo claims is that they are used to deceive people who for one reason or other don't have the skill, expertise or experience to deconstruct the improbable. These people then become "victims" of a fraud. Worse still, "victims" like to persuade friends, neighbours etc., that they have found something wonderful and the problem spreads like a cancer. The deceivers get richer, and society gets poorer in that education is replaced by superstition.

In my opinion, the problem is even worse if any fancy statistics are going to be used. Because that will also add a veneer of "science" to the whole affair which is anything but scientific. This is precisely how pseudoscience usually arises. Something that LOOKS scientific to the lay person (but is not) is represented as such by the APPEARANCE of "science".

At the very least, I think it would be essential in this case, if the taste test is to proceed, to obtain from Roger a signed agreement, preferably legally notarized, to the effect that the proposed "test" is just for fun. The agreement should explicitly state that the test is in no way scientific, nor that it constitutes proof of anything. Roger should also agree that he will not use the result of this test in any way to promote any product or to make any claims based upon it.

My fear is that anything less just plays right into the hands of potential deceivers.

The first and foremost question we should all be asking is, what do we hope to achieve with this test, and why is it being performed?

I'm not trying to preach here, just trying to explain clearly why this proposed test worries me personally.

[thaiboxerken]

I was on a magnetic coaster in Virginia at the King's Dominion theme park. It accelerated from 0-70 in about 3 seconds. Best coaster I've ever been on.

[thaiboxerken]

Seriously, though. As far as the test goes. Why not just test to see if the water has, indeed, become magnetized. There are magnetic flux meters you can test it with.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Seriously, though. As far as the test goes. Why not just test to see if the water has, indeed, become magnetized. There are magnetic flux meters you can test it with.

Water can't be "magnetized" as such. There are three types of magnetism, diagmagnetic, paramagnetic and ferromagnetic.

Water is diamagnetic. A diamagnetic material is repelled by a magnetic field and will always move naturally toward the weakest part of a mag field.

A paramagnetic material will become magnetized (like a magnet) but will only STAY magnetized as long as there is an external magnetic field to hold it. The moment the external field is removed it will revert to normal. Oxygen MOLECULES (i.e O2), interestingly enough are paramagnetic.

A ferromagnetic material will retain magnetism and will become a true magnet.

The question in this instance is: does leaving water in a magnetic field cause some sort of physical change or molecular reorientation? And a second valid question would be: does it RETAIN that property when the external field is removed?

Water consists of molecular dipoles (imagine two ping pong balls on each end of a cocktail stick for a very crude representation) each end has a different charge. A magnetic field will have no direct effect on these charges. However, if the dipole is spinning or moving (as it will be in the case of water) then the field WILL make those dipoles move differently. Although it won't be anything simple like making all of them line up.

Theoretically, I can see no rationale for assuming there would be any significant effect. Sure, you'd bounce some water molecules (dipoles) around, but I can't see how it would lead to any significant organisation.

Of course there is always the possibility of some effect I haven't thought of. But then that's what the experiment is all about.

But if anyone were to ask me, what could be measured? My response would be: haven't a clue! But then again it's Roger who is making the fancy claims, so it's really up to him to propose a measurement, well, that's my opinion at least! :)

[Loki]

Pragmatist,

But if anyone were to ask me, what could be measured? My response would be: haven't a clue! But then again it's Roger who is making the fancy claims, so it's really up to him to propose a measurement, well, that's my opinion at least!
But it's even more straight forward - Roger is claiming to know the boundaries of this 'effect' - just exactly how much or how little magnetic field is required. How could this have possibly been determined without a testing protocol and data from trials? So assuming these protocols and data exist, why can't we see them?

[thaiboxerken]

Well, the only effect magnets have on water that I know of is to de-ionize the water. It's part of water purification. I don't think the actual properties of the water is changed though.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
In this case I see many problems with a "taste test". Taste testing may POSSIBLY be somewhat objective if there is some clear criterion i.e. tastes bitter or tastes sweet for example. But how do you possibly define "tastes BETTER"?


You don't need to have any criterion like that. You just need to be able to tell if there is any difference between the samples. The skeptical viewpoint is that there won't be any difference. Mr. Coghill says there will be.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Loki
Pragmatist,


But it's even more straight forward - Roger is claiming to know the boundaries of this 'effect' - just exactly how much or how little magnetic field is required. How could this have possibly been determined without a testing protocol and data from trials? So assuming these protocols and data exist, why can't we see them?

I agree. Exactly. And we don't even need to see the whole procedure, just ONE objective measurement derived from it would be sufficient.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by richardm


You don't need to have any criterion like that. You just need to be able to tell if there is any difference between the samples. The skeptical viewpoint is that there won't be any difference. Mr. Coghill says there will be.

True enough, but I still don't like the idea of testing taste. It's just too subjective. The problem is that even if there IS some difference in taste, we have to trust totally that each person involved will report honestly what they perceive. We have no objective way of determining what somebody else "tastes".

Now of course that's not to imply that there would be any intentional dishonesty, but an ACCUSATION of dishonesty would be almost impossible to refute.

I think it's much better to have something which gives an unambiguous result which all parties/participants can each see together, objectively. Like a readout on the screen of some instrument. It's hard to support an accusation that the instrument is intentionally lying because it has a skeptical bias! :)

And imagine what can be done with some clever wording if anyone does taste some difference (not necessarily better), here is some possible advertising blurb:

"Our super duper mega magnet will make your wine taste better! In independent tests, even hardened skeptics associated with the James Randi Educational Foundation were forced to admit that they could taste the difference!"

[Lothian]

Tez,

Lots of posts in this thread and I haven’t read them all but.

I note on the website the Pet coaster. It appears to be the thick one in your picture.

The Claim Given the choice your pet will ALWAYS choose to drink magnetic water, they can tell the difference. Magnetic water is more natural. Using a pet coaster ensures that your pet receives maximum benefit from their drinking water. They will love the taste. is easy to test. You pet will always…..

Interesting that you start with a product, mess around with it (or do nothing depending on your perception as to what happens when you magnetise water) and the water becomes more natural. Surely you do less to make it more natural not more. !!!

[Rolfe]

Pets can have weird preferences for drinking water. My cat never drinks from his own bowl, but will yomp across my head in bed to drink from the glass of water on my bedside table. But showing that a pet could reliably distinguish magnetised from unmagnetised water while controlling for other variables such as the container or its position would be a valid test.

Rolfe.

[SGT]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Pets can have weird preferences for drinking water. My cat never drinks from his own bowl, but will yomp across my head in bed to drink from the glass of water on my bedside table. But showing that a pet could reliably distinguish magnetised from unmagnetised water while controlling for other variables such as the container or its position would be a valid test.

Rolfe.
You're right! My cat only drinks running water. She jumps to the wash basin and meows until someone opens the fawcet for her.
Anyway, since pets can't give deposition, a test would only be valid if witnessed by a team composed of skeptics and believers.
Photos would not be proof, since it could be allegged that the bowls contained different liquids.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Pragmatist


True enough, but I still don't like the idea of testing taste. It's just too subjective. The problem is that even if there IS some difference in taste, we have to trust totally that each person involved will report honestly what they perceive. We have no objective way of determining what somebody else "tastes".

I think it's much better to have something which gives an unambiguous result which all parties/participants can each see together, objectively. Like a readout on the screen of some instrument. It's hard to support an accusation that the instrument is intentionally lying because it has a skeptical bias! :)

And imagine what can be done with some clever wording if anyone does taste some difference (not necessarily better), here is some possible advertising blurb:

"Our super duper mega magnet will make your wine taste better! In independent tests, even hardened skeptics associated with the James Randi Educational Foundation were forced to admit that they could taste the difference!"

Well, first, I have no objection to them advertising that a bunch of hardened skeptics managed to find a difference in taste if we/they actually did. That's one of the things about science, you see, is that you don't get to pick and choose among your results.

I understand your concern about the possibilities of subjects' lying, but the only reasonable way to control for that would involve blinding the subjects to the hypothesis being tested, which is impractical given the pool of subject volunteers. The idea of only testing "objective" things is completely off-the-rails, especially since the claim to be tested, that the water tastes better, is inherently subjective. Testing to see "whether the water is magnetized," for example, is completely and totally irrelevant.

One possible fix -- which I do NOT recommend unless there are far too many volunteers -- is to put in a control group.Use six subjects to test the magnetic hypothesis. Use another six subjects, under identical (and simultaneous) conditions, except that instead of magnetizing a vial of water/wine, the experimentor adds a few drops of lemon juice, vanilla extract, cinnamon oil, or something. Another six subjects are exposed to the same triangle regime and asked to detect whether or not there is any difference in taste.

The null hypothesis, of course, is that adding lemon juice (etc.) would result in a more noticeable difference (a higher percentage of hits) than magnetizing. Having said this : this fix won't work, for several reasons. First, because you will have to blind the subjects to the substance used in the blinding experiment (lest they be tempted to lie when they taste lemon but not when they taste "magnetism," whatever that tastes like), and they'd probably be likely to recognize most of the flavors you could use as adulterants and thus be able to tell whether they were in the control or experimental group. Beyond that, because the experimentors will have no idea how much lemon juice to add to get a "comparable" effect, and it would be very easy to bias by adding "too much" lemon juice, enough that any fool can taste it, and thus mask potentially real-but-subtle effects of magnetism.

Of course, the "triangle test" was my original proposal up-thread, so naturally I support it. But I don't think that anything better has been proposed. And I specifically reject the idea of testing to see if "the water has, indeed, become magnetized," because that's not Coghill's claim. The only appropriate way to test a purely subjective claim is via panel judgements.

[TheBoyPaj]

I like the test as it stands. It's just a shame I hate wine or else I would volunteer.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by drkitten


Well, first, I have no objection to them advertising that a bunch of hardened skeptics managed to find a difference in taste if we/they actually did. That's one of the things about science, you see, is that you don't get to pick and choose among your results.

You misunderstood my point. I certainly did NOT suggest that anyone pick and choose amongst results.

My concern was this: imagine, for the sake of argument that there IS a difference. In fact, let's make it an EXTREME difference. Let's assume that "magnetized wine/water" tastes REVOLTING. That is then detected during the test and reported.

Subsequently, the wording I gave above appears in the advertizing of the product. It's TRUE isn't it? Nobody is lying here. The problem is the IMPLICATION of the wording to someone not familiar with the real situation - the obvious assumption that any lay person would make is that the magnet makes the wine taste BETTER.

THAT is my point in mentioning it. Measures need to be taken to make sure the results, good or bad as they may be, are not used for advertizing in any way that would reasonably cause people to be MISLED about what those results actually were. That's all.

Originally posted by drkitten
And I specifically reject the idea of testing to see if "the water has, indeed, become magnetized," because that's not Coghill's claim.

Isn't it? (his claim). Here is the actual advertizing text taken directly from Coghill's website:

About the size of a CD, this powerful coaster has powerful magnets hidden within an attractive wipe clean plastic shell. Use it to 'magnetise' drinking water, or even improve the taste of red wine (!) Every kitchen should have at least one.

That looks to me like a pretty clear claim that it can "magnetize water". And I repeat, why should we only test the more subjective of the two distinct claims?

[TheBoyPaj]

What's to stop them now advertising them with the phrase: "As tested by the JREF forum"?

Well, once the tests are done. You know what I mean.

The point is that anyone can make a claim sound good to those who cannot be bothered to question the implication.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Pragmatist


My concern was this: imagine, for the sake of argument that there IS a difference. In fact, let's make it an EXTREME difference. Let's assume that "magnetized wine/water" tastes REVOLTING. That is then detected during the test and reported.

Subsequently, the wording I gave above appears in the advertizing of the product. It's TRUE isn't it?

However, even if we test (and report) that the water tastes revolting, the exact same
advertising blurb : "even hardened skeptics associated with the James Randi Educational Foundation were forced to admit that they could taste the difference!" is still TRUE and could still be used. We admit that we could taste the difference. Even if we tested the water to look for magnetism, they can still advertise "Our claims have been tested by hardened skeptics!," without mentioning that no results were found in our tests.


THAT is my point in mentioning it. Measures need to be taken to make sure the results, good or bad as they may be, are not used for advertizing in any way that would reasonably cause people to be MISLED about what those results actually were. That's all.


Simply not possible, I'm afraid.



Here is the actual advertizing text taken directly from Coghill's website:

About the size of a CD, this powerful coaster has powerful magnets hidden within an attractive wipe clean plastic shell. Use it to 'magnetise' drinking water, or even improve the taste of red wine (!) Every kitchen should have at least one.

That looks to me like a pretty clear claim that it can "magnetize water". And I repeat, why should we only test the more subjective of the two distinct claims?

Note the scare quotes around the word 'magnetize.' In the same way that I can autoclave a scalpel (expose it to an autoclave), I can also magnetize something by exposing it to a strong magnetic field. This is, in fact, one of the standard uses when one talks about electromagnets; one 'magnetizes' them by turning them on, and when the current is turned off, they no longer display magnetic properties.

Mr. Coghill's claim is not that he can cause water to become magnetic. It is that by exposing wine to a magnet, it will taste better.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
What's to stop them now advertising them with the phrase: "As tested by the JREF forum"?

Well, once the tests are done. You know what I mean.

The point is that anyone can make a claim sound good to those who cannot be bothered to question the implication.

A simple contract. Drawn up and signed and agreed by both parties BEFORE the test.

Suggested wording: "Both parties agree that the results of this test shall not be used for any form of sales advertising unless the wording of any such advertisement is approved in writing by both parties prior to said advertisement being made"

A lawyer could do better, but you get the point.

And I agree with your second point. But all of us, for one reason or another tend to occasionally accept something improbable at face value, it doesn't make anybody particularly lazy or stupid, it's just that we're all human and fallible. I tend to feel that those who are NOT lazy or stupid have at least some responsibility to protect their err..."less energetic" brethren shall we say! :)

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by drkitten
However, even if we test (and report) that the water tastes revolting, the exact same
advertising blurb : "even hardened skeptics associated with the James Randi Educational Foundation were forced to admit that they could taste the difference!" is still TRUE and could still be used. We admit that we could taste the difference. Even if we tested the water to look for magnetism, they can still advertise "Our claims have been tested by hardened skeptics!," without mentioning that no results were found in our tests.

But a pre contract could avoid all of this by simply stating that no reference to the test is to be used in advertising without prior agreement of the contents by all concerned. It doesn't have to be anything complex or fancy.


Originally posted by drkitten
Note the scare quotes around the word 'magnetize.' In the same way that I can autoclave a scalpel (expose it to an autoclave), I can also magnetize something by exposing it to a strong magnetic field. This is, in fact, one of the standard uses when one talks about electromagnets; one 'magnetizes' them by turning them on, and when the current is turned off, they no longer display magnetic properties.

Mr. Coghill's claim is not that he can cause water to become magnetic. It is that by exposing wine to a magnet, it will taste better.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

On the bioelectromagnetics thread, when specifically asked a direct question about whether this "magnetising water" was unique to HIS magnet or could be performed by ANY magnet, he claimed that it WAS unique to his magnet because he had some scientifically objective way of measuring the alleged effect and thereby "tuning" the magnet for optimum effect.

The quotes around the word "magnetize" clearly indicates that the word is not to be taken literally, that one cannot simply assume that it is ordinary magnetization. And of course as I have previously explained, water is diamagnetic and cannot be "magnetized" in the ordinary sense of the word anyway.

Therefore, in response to a simple enquiry he made a related claim. And I don't see why OUR enquiries are any less valid than those of an ordinary buyer.

I maintain that it is up to Roger to clearly define what he means by the word "magnetize" in this context and to reveal the objective test that he insists will prove the claim he makes.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Pragmatist



I maintain that it is up to Roger to clearly define what he means by the word "magnetize" in this context and to reveal the objective test that he insists will prove the claim he makes.

You are assuming a degree of cooperation that may not be forthcoming. If he does not provide such a definition and such tests, what then?

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by drkitten


You are assuming a degree of cooperation that may not be forthcoming. If he does not provide such a definition and such tests, what then?

Well then the only possible conclusion is that the claim is not proved because the claimant has failed to provide sufficient information to enable it to be tested.

It comes back the earlier question I mentioned, why are we doing this? The answer as far as I am aware is that Roger offered these things and said, "if you don't believe my claims, test them yourselves and you'll see that they're true".

If he then frustrates any reasonable attempt to actually DO a test, then what are we supposed to conclude? It's in his own interest therefore to cooperate, after all it was HIM who suggested the test in the first place.

[steve74]

Originally posted by Pragmatist

It comes back the earlier question I mentioned, why are we doing this? The answer as far as I am aware is that Roger offered these things and said, "if you don't believe my claims, test them yourselves and you'll see that they're true".


In this case it was Tez who proposed the test of the coasters. The problem with Coghill providing his protocols and results is that if the tests were replicated and showed negative results (as I believe they almost certainly would) is that there would then be two conflicting sets of results.
Coghill is advertising these products as being fit for a particular purpose - namely that they will improve the taste of water and wine. If a protocol can be devised that tests this claim and is acceptable to Tez and Roger (who are putting their money on the line) then this is the claim that should be tested. Yes, the claim is subjective which means the testing will also be subjective to a certain degree, but drkitten's suggestion of a forced choice triangular test minimises this problem.

I agree that both parties should have agreement on the protocol of the test, its scientific 'validity' and what claims can subsequently be made about the results.

The reason I think this test is worth doing is that Coghill is using pseudoscience (as you have so ably demonstrated in the Bioelectromagnetics thread, Pragmatist) to sell worthless junk to the public.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by steve74


In this case it was Tez who proposed the test of the coasters. The problem with Coghill providing his protocols and results is that if the tests were replicated and showed negative results (as I believe they almost certainly would) is that there would then be two conflicting sets of results.
Coghill is advertising these products as being fit for a particular purpose - namely that they will improve the taste of water and wine. If a protocol can be devised that tests this claim and is acceptable to Tez and Roger (who are putting their money on the line) then this is the claim that should be tested. Yes, the claim is subjective which means the testing will also be subjective to a certain degree, but drkitten's suggestion of a forced choice triangular test minimises this problem.

I agree that both parties should have agreement on the protocol of the test, its scientific 'validity' and what claims can subsequently be made about the results.

The reason I think this test is worth doing is that Coghill is using pseudoscience (as you have so ably demonstrated in the Bioelectromagnetics thread, Pragmatist) to sell worthless junk to the public.

Oops, yes, you're absolutely right. My apologies, faulty recollection. I also forgot that Tez had money on this.

My biggest worry is simply that this could backfire if someone tricky wanted to take advantage of it. If you've been following biolectromagnetics you'll probably understand why I think that! :)

[EHocking]

Originally posted by Pragmatist

True enough, but I still don't like the idea of testing taste. It's just too subjective. The problem is that even if there IS some difference in taste, we have to trust totally that each person involved will report honestly what they perceive. We have no objective way of determining what somebody else "tastes".
Perhaps we could complement the subjective test with some degree of objective measurement?
There are a number of testing equipment and methods listed here;
<http://www.homebrewheaven.com/professional-wine-testing-kit.htm>
A fair number of them would appear to be fairly straightforward chemical tests (ie pH, specific gravity). Rather than purchasing any tools, such as the the Brix refractive device, might Tez have access to simple testing equipment such as that listed on this page?

For a wine to taste "better" or even different, you'd have to expect to see a chemical difference in the wine(?). Analysis of the results could merely be a determination of whether any chemical differences are beyond experimental error and are statistically significant.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by EHocking

Perhaps we could complement the subjective test with some degree of objective measurement? There are a number of testing equipment and methods listed here;


For a wine to taste "better" or even different, you'd have to expect to see a chemical difference in the wine(?). Analysis of the results could merely be a determination of whether any chemical differences are beyond experimental error and are statistically significant.

Unfortunately, the number of ways in which two substances could differ exceeds the number of chemical tests it's practical to run. Basically, chemical assay is really only reliable if you know what you're looking for, and otherwise it's simply a hit-or-miss proposition.

That's the problem with these "objective" tests. They are quite likely to be measuring the wrong thing. That's why I keep repeating that we should focus on Mr. Coghill's claim that it improves the taste....

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Pragmatist


Well then the only possible conclusion is that the claim is not proved because the claimant has failed to provide sufficient information to enable it to be tested.

Then, how did we manage to develop a protocol that tests the claim?

There's an even easier testing protocol if we had enough subjects : give five hundred people blinded samples of both and ask which tastes "better," then score. But we don't have those resources to hand, so the triangle test is more appropriate in this instance.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by drkitten


Unfortunately, the number of ways in which two substances could differ exceeds the number of chemical tests it's practical to run. Basically, chemical assay is really only reliable if you know what you're looking for, and otherwise it's simply a hit-or-miss proposition.

That's the problem with these "objective" tests. They are quite likely to be measuring the wrong thing. That's why I keep repeating that we should focus on Mr. Coghill's claim that it improves the taste....
Point taken. Perhaps then, there is someone on the Forum that may know someone in a wine club or similar. With their cooperation the test could be run with wine "experts" as the subjects and they would not need to be informed as to *what* was being tested. You could just tell them that we wanted to conduct a taste test between two red wines.

[cogreslab]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Just my opinion, but I think this is a big mistake.




At the very least, I think it would be essential in this case, if the taste test is to proceed, to obtain from Roger a signed agreement, preferably legally notarized, to the effect that the proposed "test" is just for fun. The agreement should explicitly state that the test is in no way scientific, nor that it constitutes proof of anything. Roger should also agree that he will not use the result of this test in any way to promote any product or to make any claims based upon it.

My fear is that anything less just plays right into the hands of potential deceivers.

The first and foremost question we should all be asking is, what do we hope to achieve with this test, and why is it being performed?

I'm not trying to preach here, just trying to explain clearly why this proposed test worries me personally.

I am putting on record that I, Roger Coghill, will not exploit in any way for commercial gain or for any other purpose the findings of your testing of these magnetic coasters, whether postive or negative, and I will disclaim publicly any similar exploitation by the manufacturers/distributors of the said coasters.

I hope you will accept this recordable statement since going to the trouble of having it notarized is overkill, imho.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by EHocking

Point taken. Perhaps then, there is someone on the Forum that may know someone in a wine club or similar. With their cooperation the test could be run with wine "experts" as the subjects and they would not need to be informed as to *what* was being tested. You could just tell them that we wanted to conduct a taste test between two red wines.

Using a hypothesis-blinded subject pool would be one way (probably the best way) of controlling for potential bias in the tasters. As such I think this would be a good idea. Of course, this also introduces issues of representativeness -- the tastes of the wine "experts" may not be representative of the tastes of the general public. But more generally, I'm not sure it's practical, because Tez, the man with the coasters, may not know such a club.

One of the unfortunate realities of experimental science is that you work with what you can get.

[cogreslab]

Originally posted by drkitten



There's an even easier testing protocol if we had enough subjects : give five hundred people blinded samples of both and ask which tastes "better," then score. But we don't have those resources to hand, so the triangle test is more appropriate in this instance.

Do not forget my offer to supply more coasters if that helps, e.g. to test them in more than one geographical location.

[TheBoyPaj]

Would you be willing to supply some to me, so I can run the same test in the North of England?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pragmatist

In my opinion, the problem is even worse if any fancy statistics are going to be used.


A test of proportions and basic experimental design is "fancy"?


Because that will also add a veneer of "science" to the whole affair which is anything but scientific.


If you have another way of analyzing data besides using statistical theory and methods, please, let me know. :)


The first and foremost question we should all be asking is, what do we hope to achieve with this test, and why is it being performed?


We're seeing if there is a statistically significant departure from the expected p = 1/3 proportion. ie, to see if there is evidence for the claims for the coasters' efficacy.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by SGT

You're right! My cat only drinks running water. She jumps to the wash basin and meows until someone opens the fawcet for her.
Anyway, since pets can't give deposition, a test would only be valid if witnessed by a team composed of skeptics and believers.
Photos would not be proof, since it could be allegged that the bowls contained different liquids.
Well there is only so much you can do - obviously the subject animal would need to have fairly "normal" feeding habits, which would need to be observed prior to testing the "magnetised" water.

You would wish to do this as a control anyway by emulating the test conditions and to determine if there is a feeding preference by the animal. You can then compare the test results against that of the control.

It should not be too difficult to determine the "randomness" of the control and the threshold that the experimental results would need to achieve that of significance over the control preferences of the animal.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by drkitten
Using a hypothesis-blinded subject pool would be one way (probably the best way) of controlling for potential bias in the tasters. As such I think this would be a good idea. Of course, this also introduces issues of representativeness -- the tastes of the wine "experts" may not be representative of the tastes of the general public.
Since suggesting it, I've been trying to figure how you might be able to approach a club. As it happens, I do know a couple that are in a wine appreciation club and are learning the finer points of tasting from this club.

Perhaps we could present the test through the club, as an exercise for honing the tasting skills of a group of novices in the club? The score sheet would have to be changed to add in, perhaps, a column for the subjects to add in tasting notes? Or even to reproduce a standard that the club uses, but with the triangular protocol worked into it.

I'd suggest a novice group primarily because they are more likely to be representative of a wine drinking general publice. The problem with using expert tasters, in my mind, is that if a less than premium wine is used it is more probable that an expert taster would pick that the wine samples are the same wine.

An alternative, less controlled experiment, or precursor experiment, might be to merely set up a table at one of their regular tastings and invite the group to test the three samples at their leisure. A screened off "servery" could be set up behind the table where the samples were prepared randomly for each "volunteer" as they approached. Later in the evening we could present to group the purpose of the sampling table and the preliminary results.

It's not as ideal as having the same volunteers score multiple trials, but might be useful for generating a larger population of scores.

But more generally, I'm not sure it's practical, because Tez, the man with the coasters, may not know such a club.

One of the unfortunate realities of experimental science is that you work with what you can get.
True, but there are a number of clubs in London, it may be possible through my contacts to find a club that is "initiating" some novices that is convenient to Tez's location and calendar.

Also, wine clubs are not ignorant of the claims of these devices. I found a couple of editorials by website correspondents that are informally testing a device called a "Wine Clip" (from memory). I'll try to find time to drop them an email to see how they've approached it.

By dint of this post, I guess I'm volunteering to help him out where possible!

[Tez]

Ok, I think we have a pretty workable protocol based around steve's post (thanks for putting the time in for that), which is of course a product of many of your much appreciated inputs.

I'm pretty much prepared to do it any weekday afternoon/evening this week or next. EHocking, I am glad you've agreed to volunteer!

FWIW I agree with Pragmatist in many of his suggestions, in as much as were we simply scientists setting out to explore the realm of the effects of magnetisation on various liquids, this is certainly not the sort of test we'd be doing! However, the nature of this test is partly due to the history of Roger's and my interactions...

(BTW, what "sort" of Pragmatist are you? When forced to make a statement on my philosophical tendencies I generally claim to ascribe to some version of "old" pragmatism. Personally I find Rorty goes too far for me. Davidson I like a lot, and indirectly he has influenced the way I think about quantum mechanics and realism in general. Rorty has as well to be truthful ;) )

[cogreslab]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Would you be willing to supply some to me, so I can run the same test in the North of England?

Sorry to be slow in responding. I didnt see your question until now. Yes, of course. How many do you want me to send to you?

[EHocking]

Originally posted by Tez
Ok, I think we have a pretty workable protocol based around steve's post (thanks for putting the time in for that), which is of course a product of many of your much appreciated inputs.

I'm pretty much prepared to do it any weekday afternoon/evening this week or next. EHocking, I am glad you've agreed to volunteer! *snip*
Just need a few day's notice to organise myself - evenings only I'm afraid. I guess, also, I'd only be of use as a lab "tech", since my responses as a lab "rat" could possibly be coloured by my participation here.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Sorry to be slow in responding. I didnt see your question until now. Yes, of course. How many do you want me to send to you?

Just one. I have sent a PM with the details. Thanks in advance.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Tez
Ok, I think we have a pretty workable protocol based around steve's post (thanks for putting the time in for that), which is of course a product of many of your much appreciated inputs.

I'm pretty much prepared to do it any weekday afternoon/evening this week or next. EHocking, I am glad you've agreed to volunteer!

FWIW I agree with Pragmatist in many of his suggestions, in as much as were we simply scientists setting out to explore the realm of the effects of magnetisation on various liquids, this is certainly not the sort of test we'd be doing! However, the nature of this test is partly due to the history of Roger's and my interactions...

(BTW, what "sort" of Pragmatist are you? When forced to make a statement on my philosophical tendencies I generally claim to ascribe to some version of "old" pragmatism. Personally I find Rorty goes too far for me. Davidson I like a lot, and indirectly he has influenced the way I think about quantum mechanics and realism in general. Rorty has as well to be truthful ;) )

I've never bothered to study the philosophy too much - too much of a pragmatist! Philosophy? Bah! Give me the schematic! :)

But I have some affinity for Peirce's view. I would say that I am extremely attached to the belief that everything is a model, no model is "truth", and that one model is no better than another, except to the extent that it allows me to do something practical with it. So I guess I wouldn't object to a quantum mechanical description of how an engine works - provided you could show me the engine you built with it and that it actually runs! :)

[TheBoyPaj]

And news on this? I haven't got my coasters yet, but is the original experiment still planned?

[michaellee]

Originally posted by Tez
I'm at Imperial College, London, which is in South Kensington, opposite the Royal Albert Hall (about a 5 min walk from Gloucester Road tube station I have not read the entire thread, but one thing to look out for is your location in relation to the south and north poles! You are at 51.4991/-0.1773. I am no geographer, but the north pole will surely affect the test more so than the south pole. Oh just ask Roger beforehand for the computations, he must have a chart or something to help out.;)

[TheBoyPaj]

Have the original experimenters decided that this is a waste of time? It has all gone a bit quiet.

By the way Roger, I still have not received the coaster. Have you got your stock yet?

[Lucianarchy]

Thanks for the coasters Roger. They work just great with wine. and my experiment with plants using the coaster to charge the feeding water is showing quite interesting results!

[Lucianarchy]

in fact, the results are so good, I recommend other open-minded sceptics buy some and try their own experiments.

http://www.galonja.co.uk/galonja_shop/catalog.asp?g_s_n=crlshop

[TheBoyPaj]

Ah, OK. No need to test them now. Luci says they work. :rolleyes:
(Did you use the double blind protocol, Luci?)

[Lucianarchy]

Lol! Not if that's what you used in your *ahem* 'guess the book I have put on my head' quiz/experiment/thing.!!

Quad-blinding.

But it can be dangerous without protective headgear.

[TheBoyPaj]

Well, if you wish to make comparisons, my experience from the book test is that you will claim victory when the results show nothing of the sort. On the basis of this, I question your ability to test the coasters effectively.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Well, if you wish to make comparisons, my experience from the book test is that you will claim victory when the results show nothing of the sort. On the basis of this, I question your ability to test the coasters effectively.

That's cool.

Now, since you asked about double-blind experiments. Was yours?

[TheBoyPaj]

I asked first.

[TheBoyPaj]

And so, faced with no way forward but to answer a direct question, Luci clams up.

[TheBoyPaj]

A note for the unwary:

In case anyone happens upon this thread at a later date and decides to take Luci's endorsement at face value (though IMHO you'd be mad if you did), you should know that his reports of experiments are "a joke".

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870534550#post1870534550

So, the coasters remain untested. Roger still has not supplied my sample for examination.

[cogreslab]

Sorry for the delay in supplying the free coaster for testing, Paj, but we are still awaiting it from the suppliers.

[cogreslab]

Just to say that we have now supplied all the coasters requested, at no charge, and some a good while ago. It seems you have all abandoned any attempt to test the magnetic coasters I supplied free for that purpose against your promise to do so.

Bit disappointing really. Or is the dialogue continuing somewhere else?

[EHocking]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Just to say that we have now supplied all the coasters requested, at no charge, and some a good while ago. It seems you have all abandoned any attempt to test the magnetic coasters I supplied free for that purpose against your promise to do so.

Bit disappointing really. Or is the dialogue continuing somewhere else? You also promised to forward intelligible data for your own Harmoniser experiements.

But hey - the last time you promised that was only 1st July...

[TheBoyPaj]

The coaster supplied to me was sent (after some delay) to my work address, which is a school. It arrived during the summer holiday, when no one was around to perform tests.

We have recently arrived back at school, and the tests are planned in the next week or so.

Results when we have them, of course...

[cogreslab]

Hock: I have now responded to the Harmoniser question on the bioelectromagnetics page, q.v. Thanks Paj, I look forward to seeing the protocol and results in due course.

Btw I abbreviate others' pseudonyms for parsimony only, and not in any way as an intended pejorative. Hope you can live with these shortforms.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
The coaster supplied to me was sent (after some delay) to my work address, which is a school. It arrived during the summer holiday, when no one was around to perform tests.

We have recently arrived back at school, and the tests are planned in the next week or so.

Results when we have them, of course...

People will want to read the article on SkepticReport.

[EHocking]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Hock: I have now responded to the Harmoniser question on the bioelectromagnetics page,
Actually, no you haven't - you've merely denied knowledge of your own "experiments".
q.v. Thanks Paj, I look forward to seeing the protocol and results in due course.

Btw I abbreviate others' pseudonyms for parsimony only, and not in any way as an intended pejorative. Hope you can live with these shortforms.
No, Cogs, I can't. YOU can refer to the bioelectromagnetics pages for that response.

[TheBoyPaj]

I intend to use the protocol designed by the members on this thread. Blinded, randomised plastic cups. Groups of 2 normal and 1 treated water. Participants won't know what it is they are testing. They will seek to identify the "different" water, regardless of whether they think it is better or worse. They will not have contact with anyone who knows which cup is which.

[cogreslab]

How many people and what age groups/sex/socioecon status?in your sample Paj? You mentioned school. Are they school children?

Don't get distracted by Hock's typically rude invasion of this thread!

[TheBoyPaj]

I'm planning to use the staff, actually Roger.

Why is it a concern? Do your coasters have better success with people from a certain demographic? :confused:

[EHocking]

Originally posted by cogreslab
How many people and what age groups/sex/socioecon status?in your sample Paj? You mentioned school. Are they school children?

Don't get distracted by Hock's typically rude invasion of this thread!
The name is Hocking, Mr.Coghill. Who's being rude here? Oh, and as for "invasion" of the thread.
1. This is a public thread - anyone can participate
2. I have been participating on this thread much earlier than yourself and have been inputting to discussions of test protocols as well as volunteering to participate in the actual test.
3. Quit with the ad homs. If you have objections to repeated demolitions of your "experiments" (your dog bowl "experiment" on this thread, from memory), why don't you address the criticisms.

Play the ball, Mr.Coghill, not the man.

[TheBoyPaj]

A quick question, for anyone who has a view.

In the detailed protocol outlined on this thread, a method of randomisation was used which balanced the position of the magnetised water across all the trials. Participants were encouraged to taste the drinks in strict order, to remove the effects of position. But is this strictly necessary?

Surely, if a participant suspects that the magnetised drink will be evenly spread across their own trials, they may alter the results to suit. People tend to do this all the time anyway, when facing multiple choice options. "Well, the last one was B, so it can't be that again"

So, what's wrong with having TRULY randomised positions? Especially if the participants were encouraged to go back and taste each of the three samples several times before making a decision. Wouldn't that eliminate a possible "first cup tastes always freshest" bias?

Also, because of the nature of the environment when I plan to conduct the trial, I may get extra participants joining in half way. I would like to be able to add participants and automatically randomise their positions on the fly.


Any thoughts on this?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


So, what's wrong with having TRULY randomised positions? Especially if the participants were encouraged to go back and taste each of the three samples several times before making a decision. Wouldn't that eliminate a possible "first cup tastes always freshest" bias?


In a word, no. The reason is, it's possible for the random numbers to conspire against you so that the first cup always happens to be the magnetized water. If you really think that the first cup will always taste the freshest, then you need to control for it by making sure that there isn't a correlation between the first cup and the magnetized water.

Of course, it's unlikely that the random numbers will conspire against you. But even unlikely things happen from time to time (by definition) unless you explicitly exclude them. And if you don't expect it to be a big issue, you can cross your fingers and ignore the effect.

[cogreslab]

No special reason, Paj, for any concerns about the group demographics. I wondered whether an adult sample might take the test more seriously, that was all. I think you might need to do a few calculations to ensure that the sample is big enough to detect a 15 to 20 percent difference. It might be wotrh asking a professional statisitician for his views on the study design too. Any nearby University should have someone with that expertise.

Maybe I should give you more than one coaster? If that helps, just let me know, (since the other group I supplied don't seem to be very active just now), and I will supply you with some more.

We are going to run our own trial with a dozen coasters and a few hundred subjects, but we're so busy right now that I can't see it happening this year.

One other thought: plastic cups might impart a taste to the water while glass would not. Have you thought of that?

Best, Roger

[TheBoyPaj]

New Dr Kitten:

Thanks. In that case I think I will prepare a randomised set where the frequency of each position is equal overall , but they are not quite as evenly distributed as in Steve's proposed scheme, to prevent a participant guessing the pattern. An individual may still get lots of A's, for example. But across the set it should even out.


Roger:

I'm planning to use paper cups, for that reason.

[Prester John]

Maybe you should flavour the water with lemons, i've got a few kicking around :p

[EHocking]

Originally posted by cogreslab
No special reason, Paj, for any concerns about the group demographics. I wondered whether an adult sample might take the test more seriously, that was all. I think you might need to do a few calculations to ensure that the sample is big enough to detect a 15 to 20 percent difference. It might be wotrh asking a professional statisitician for his views on the study design too. Any nearby University should have someone with that expertise.

Maybe I should give you more than one coaster? If that helps, just let me know, (since the other group I supplied don't seem to be very active just now), and I will supply you with some more.

We are going to run our own trial with a dozen coasters and a few hundred subjects, but we're so busy right now that I can't see it happening this year.

One other thought: plastic cups might impart a taste to the water while glass would not. Have you thought of that?

Best, Roger
Care to share your methodology for this experiment with us. If you scan this thread you will see a number of interested parties that could tighten up any procedures or advise on statistical analyses etc.

As you say - we have months to iron out a protocol before you perform this experiment on over 300 people. BTW - how do you intend to manage to test such a vast number?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by cogreslab
No special reason, Paj, for any concerns about the group demographics. I wondered whether an adult sample might take the test more seriously, that was all. I think you might need to do a few calculations to ensure that the sample is big enough to detect a 15 to 20 percent difference. It might be wotrh asking a professional statisitician for his views on the study design too. Any nearby University should have someone with that expertise.


Um, a 15-20 percent difference in what? Meaning you expect
48% of the people (33%+15%) to pick the magnetized water, and 26% (each) to pick one of the other two in the triangle format? The way the triangle is test is set up, it's not going to be able to measure stuff like "the water tastes 15% better," even if it were true.

Of course, Paj, Roger is correct that you might want to reality check to make sure that the power of your test is sufficient to pick up the expected effect size. Given how many subjects you plan to run, how many correct identifications would be necessary for a "significant" result?

Also : some of your issues with randomization might be addressable by a drawing-without-replacement scheme. Make a deck of thirty or so cards, with equal numbers of "mag. water first," "mag. water middle," and "mag. water last." Each time you run a single trial, draw a card to determine the order to present, but don't reshuffle until you get to the end of the deck. This will limit how out of line the distribution can possibly get,... and the only way for someone to guess the pattern is by card-counting. If they're good enough to do this, to heck with the woo-woo water -- take them to the casino and get some real money.

[TheBoyPaj]

That's a good idea. I'll give it a shot, though probably substituting a computerised "deck" for a physical one. I don't fancy the paper-cuts from all the shuffling that would be necessary!

Regarding the trial size, I anticipate getting at least ten participants, taking 6 tests each. I may have to split this over a couple of lunchtimes due to different people's work commitments, but I can't imagine this would affect the outcome so long as the protocols were the same on each sitting.

After all, the instructions don't say anything about it working only on certain days!

[cogreslab]

Paj, Im not sure ten subjects would give you enough statistical power. If I send you another couple of coasters would that help you increase the number of testers?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by new drkitten
In a word, no. The reason is, it's possible for the random numbers to conspire against you so that the first cup always happens to be the magnetized water.


Yes, it is possible. But if, when you go through a randomization procedure and dislike the random arrangements that result from it, you really need to question your randomization procedure.

[TheBoyPaj]

How many participants did you use, Roger?

[EHocking]

Originally posted by cogreslab
Paj, Im not sure ten subjects would give you enough statistical power. If I send you another couple of coasters would that help you increase the number of testers?
Why are you not sure ten subjects would be sufficient?

How many do you suggest.

And why?

What was the deciding factor in selecting 300+ test subjects?

And what is the methodology you intend to apply to this test?

C'mon, you're the scientist with the £1MM lab. You should be advising us on best protocols to test your device.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jzs


Yes, it is possible. But if, when you go through a randomization procedure and dislike the random arrangements that result from it, you really need to question your randomization procedure. [/B]

Of course. But I prefer to question the randomization procedure before running the test, as it saves me the trouble of running the experiment twice.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Of course. But I prefer to question the randomization procedure before running the test, as it saves me the trouble of running the experiment twice.

Yup. I agree.

I think that it is doubtful that the randomization would make it so "that the first cup always happens to be the magnetized water" however.
(underline mine)

As you say, it is unlikely.

[TheBoyPaj]

Update:

I'm having trouble finding a source of cheap paper cups!

Plastic would be no problem. Foam is a possibility. But paper? No way.

I could get a packet of about 5 party cups (with Shrek or Spiderman or some such character) for about a quid, but that would make for a rather expensive experiment.

So, I apologise for the delay and I'll continue looking.

[Dr Adequate]

I like the original claim:

About the size of a CD, this powerful coaster has powerful magnets hidden within an attractive wipe clean plastic shell. Use it to 'magnetise' drinking water, or even improve the taste of red wine (!) Every kitchen should have at least one.
The word 'magnetise' has to go in quotes because of course you cannot magnetise water. For one thing, it's a bleedin' fluid. So if the quotes weren't round it, to say 'not really though', it would be a downright lie. But what's this...?

Magnetised water is carried through the body more effectively than regular water. It has a lower surface tension and is therefore taken up more readily by the cells.
We recommend magnetised water for many skin and digestive disorders and to improve general health and skin.

How to magnetise your water
Simply place your glass or jug on top of the coaster and leave for an hour - your water is now magnetised!
Well, no it isn't. This is simply untrue. You cannot magnetise water. I like the bit about "lower surface tension", though. So funny. Pseudoscience at its best. Yes, folks, if you leave water near a magnet long enough, you will change the nature of the hydrogen bond...

This bit's good too:
Ripen tomatoes, strawberries or any fruit by placing them on the south pole of the coaster.
Yup, not only can it make a glass of water refreshing, it also causes fruit to ripen. This man can perform the Miracle Of The Bleeding Obvious.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by cogreslab
We are going to run our own trial with a dozen coasters and a few hundred subjects, but we're so busy right now that I can't see it happening this year.
You are "too busy" to find out whether the supposedly medicinal product you're selling actually works? How very convenient for you. But I think you'll find that real laboratories do manage to find the time. They do this thing we call "research". You might like to try it.

[Stitch]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Update:

I'm having trouble finding a source of cheap paper cups!

Plastic would be no problem. Foam is a possibility. But paper? No way.

I could get a packet of about 5 party cups (with Shrek or Spiderman or some such character) for about a quid, but that would make for a rather expensive experiment.

So, I apologise for the delay and I'll continue looking.

Try somebody like Autobar or King UK (www.king-uk.com) (Yes I know King are part of Autobar :) )

[Rolfe]

Did any of this ever get done? What sort of results?

Rolfe.

[TheBoyPaj]

Nope, still looking for those paper cups. I could just use plastic, but Roger implies it won't work with those.

I wonder if he puts that in the instructions, BTW?