http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4

As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz
claims, Randi goes this time for the :

Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier

http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4

If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:

http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8

In a follow up we find him saying:

No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.

wrote:
http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4

As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz
claims, Randi goes this time for the :

Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier

http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4

This reminds me that I recently encountered Bedini's name also on a
website devoted to 'free energy' (aka perpetual motion)
quackery...seems it's another dubious technology he's involved in.



--



-S.
What am I, some kind of a _can't take a quote_, *poor sport of a f_ck*,
who's whizzing out in flameless shame?

wrote in message ...
http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4

As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz
claims, Randi goes this time for the :

Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier

http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4

If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:

http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8

In a follow up we find him saying:

No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.


The only surprise in all of this is that it has taken so long for someone to
expose this sort of snake oil by someone with a fairly high profile.

When will people get the reality of if you expect to hear it you will, even
if it's not there.

The notion that somebody would even TRY to sell a device that demagnetizes a
non-magnetic medium is only slightly less astounding than the idea that
someone would actually buy one.

wrote in message ...
http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4


snip...snip

If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:

http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8

In a follow up we find him saying:

No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.

Bedini did have 10 measurements to back up his claim. But at the same time
it could be misleading. In one of the test done by them using spectrum
analyser the "improvement" they got was a 1 or 2 decibel louder in all
frequencies except for 200 to 400hz. To have that effect all you need to do
is to crank up the volume.

But at the same time if you look at the the graphs shown in his page, it
would be quite a risk if you want to take up the challenge. Anyone with some
experience with burning CDs can do the same comparison and to see how
difficult to get accurate results. Though eventually you will prefer one
over the other over a long period of time.

Next, one of the measurement was a graphic file size reduced by 5% bits
(total over 50000bits) after "clarifying"using bedini. I do scan photos in
to my computer and 5% would not make any difference to my eyes that I can
tell from the screen.

Now let's look at Randi's terms and condition:-

1. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than
helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a
test will take place. (keyword = approving the conditions)

2. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will
agree upon,...(keyword = JREF will agree upon)

3. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the
agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous events
are not accepted or considered. We consult competent statisticians when an
evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required. We have no
interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work;
if you provide us with such material, it will be ignored and discarded.

4.Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.)
gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way
that Mr. Randi may choose. ( keyword =maybe used freely)

5. In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary
test...... (and read the next line)

6.This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to
perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed
the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in
those cases.

7 There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply, but
re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed since the
preliminary test. (keyword=12 months)

8. and his clause 7 -disclaimer .
When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all
rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally
involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this
may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or
any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial, or
professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way
affects the awarding of the prize.

9. All expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials,
assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in
pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither
the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs.

Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge?

Rgds.

From:
Date: 9/9/2004 8:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4

As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz
claims, Randi goes this time for the :

Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier

http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4

If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:

http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8

In a follow up we find him saying:

No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.







Why would anyone waste their time with this challenge? unless you can provide
proof of paranormal activity you won't collect any money.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he
could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million dollars?
Bottom line. No one is making claims of paranormal activity in audio that I
know of. If any tweak works it works because it affects the signal. Of course
Randi will never have to pay a million dollars to anyone with this challenge.

"Chelvam" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4


snip...snip

If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:

http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8

In a follow up we find him saying:

No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.

Bedini did have 10 measurements to back up his claim. But at the same time
it could be misleading. In one of the test done by them using spectrum
analyser the "improvement" they got was a 1 or 2 decibel louder in all
frequencies except for 200 to 400hz. To have that effect all you need to
do
is to crank up the volume.

But at the same time if you look at the the graphs shown in his page, it
would be quite a risk if you want to take up the challenge. Anyone with
some
experience with burning CDs can do the same comparison and to see how
difficult to get accurate results. Though eventually you will prefer one
over the other over a long period of time.

Next, one of the measurement was a graphic file size reduced by 5% bits
(total over 50000bits) after "clarifying"using bedini. I do scan photos in
to my computer and 5% would not make any difference to my eyes that I can
tell from the screen.

Now let's look at Randi's terms and condition:-

1. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than
helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a
test will take place. (keyword = approving the conditions)

2. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will
agree upon,...(keyword = JREF will agree upon)

3. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the
agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous
events
are not accepted or considered. We consult competent statisticians when an
evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required. We have no
interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work;
if you provide us with such material, it will be ignored and discarded.

4.Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.)
gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way
that Mr. Randi may choose. ( keyword =maybe used freely)

5. In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary
test...... (and read the next line)

6.This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to
perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed
the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing
in
those cases.

7 There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply, but
re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed since the
preliminary test. (keyword=12 months)

8. and his clause 7 -disclaimer .
When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all
rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally
involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as
this
may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or
any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial, or
professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way
affects the awarding of the prize.

9. All expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials,
assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred
in
pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant.
Neither
the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs.

Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge?

Rgds.

If I had a legitimate product, yes. If I were Bedini, or Shakti, no.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From:
Date: 9/9/2004 8:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4

As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz
claims, Randi goes this time for the :

Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier

http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4

If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:

http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8

In a follow up we find him saying:

No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.







Why would anyone waste their time with this challenge? unless you can
provide
proof of paranormal activity you won't collect any money.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed
he
could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million
dollars?

Please supply some documentation on this.

Bottom line. No one is making claims of paranormal activity in audio that
I
know of. If any tweak works it works because it affects the signal. Of
course
Randi will never have to pay a million dollars to anyone with this
challenge.

Nothing in the challenge regarding Shakti stones or the Bedini clarifier
requires proof of paranormal activity, only that in an ABX DBT their effect
can be reliably detected.

Chelvam wrote:
wrote in message ...
http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4


snip...snip

If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:

http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8

In a follow up we find him saying:

No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.

Bedini did have 10 measurements to back up his claim. But at the same time
it could be misleading. In one of the test done by them using spectrum
analyser the "improvement" they got was a 1 or 2 decibel louder in all
frequencies except for 200 to 400hz. To have that effect all you need to do
is to crank up the volume.

But at the same time if you look at the the graphs shown in his page, it
would be quite a risk if you want to take up the challenge. Anyone with some
experience with burning CDs can do the same comparison and to see how
difficult to get accurate results. Though eventually you will prefer one
over the other over a long period of time.

Next, one of the measurement was a graphic file size reduced by 5% bits
(total over 50000bits) after "clarifying"using bedini. I do scan photos in
to my computer and 5% would not make any difference to my eyes that I can
tell from the screen.

Now let's look at Randi's terms and condition:-

1. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than
helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a
test will take place. (keyword = approving the conditions)

2. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will
agree upon,...(keyword = JREF will agree upon)


Why on earth would you expect anything else, with JREF's money at stake?
Are you suggesting that they *shouldn't* have approval of the
testing conditions etc?


Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge?

For $1 million, if I was sure that my claim was true, certainly.

Btw, people *have* taken up the challenge, in other areas of quackery.
So far, no one ahs claimed the prize.



--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.

S888Wheel wrote:
From:
Date: 9/9/2004 8:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4

As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz
claims, Randi goes this time for the :

Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier

http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4

If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:

http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8

In a follow up we find him saying:

No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.







Why would anyone waste their time with this challenge? unless you can provide
proof of paranormal activity you won't collect any money.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he
could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million dollars?

Gee, this sounds awfully like a hazily-recalled anecdote. Care to confirm?

Bottom line. No one is making claims of paranormal activity in audio that I
know of.

The line between 'pseudoscientific' and 'paranormal' is
apparently thin enough not to bother Randi. Why should it?
His website banner proclaims the site as 'an educational
resource on the paranormal, pseudoscientific, and supernatural.

If any tweak works it works because it affects the signal. Of course
Randi will never have to pay a million dollars to anyone with this challenge.

But of course, not all differences from measurement ot measurement
are audible...or even due to the device under test.
"I assured Mike that such a device certainly comes under the JREF Challenge,"
says Mr. Randi regarding the Bedini Clarifier. So it appears the field
is open for you or anyone to prove that you can hear a difference that's
due to application of the Bedini Clarifier. In other wordd, to prove the
tweak *works*. (Mr. Bedini, after all, doesn't claim that the Clarifier
changes a CD in a way that is inaudible -- very much to the contrary).




--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.

He wants to test them on the claimed effects of their gear only,
paranormal is not involved, read the links again. In the previous one he
makes reference to blind audio testing in a listening test. The only
paranormal connection is that the tweeky audio crowd use exactly the same
set of reasons why their effects dissappear when testing is done, the
exact same ones; now ain't that intresting. They demonstrate there is a
difference made in the sound and they get a million dollars, very simple.


Why would anyone waste their time with this challenge? unless you can provide
proof of paranormal activity you won't collect any money.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he
could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million dollars?
Bottom line. No one is making claims of paranormal activity in audio that I
know of. If any tweak works it works because it affects the signal. Of course
Randi will never have to pay a million dollars to anyone with this challenge.

What part of his requirements bothers you, what part would not make it
possible for the applicant to show his proported audio gear to it's best
advantage? Look at some of the actual attempts made in other areas, the
actual test is fair in every respect and if the claimed effect exists it
should be clearly seen. For example if a water dowser claims to be able
to find running water underground he is taken to an area with buried water
pipes with running water in them; all have failed to find the pipes. The
person making the claim is a part of the process, they agree to the test
setup beforehand that it will make possible the claimed effect. Blind
listening alone audio testing is so normal and widely used in such
instances nothing exotic or otherwise faked or setup up to force a failure
need even be considered. As mentioned here before, it can be as simple as
putting a cloth over the connections of the gear under test. I can
understand why some audio biz folk will not do it, their whole claim to
exist is based on "I hear it, I really really do, don't you hear it also,
don't you believe me?". A failure to confirm the claimed effect would
mean a whole pr and marketing approach down the drain. Many might do it
if Randi said he would keep the results silent, there is always the chance
that they can somehow demonstrate the audibility of the gear and then
proclaim it to high heaven and get the million bucks. If you had the
million to use in such testing how would you proceed differently?


In a follow up we find him saying:

No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.

Bedini did have 10 measurements to back up his claim. But at the same time
it could be misleading. In one of the test done by them using spectrum
analyser the "improvement" they got was a 1 or 2 decibel louder in all
frequencies except for 200 to 400hz. To have that effect all you need to do
is to crank up the volume.

But at the same time if you look at the the graphs shown in his page, it
would be quite a risk if you want to take up the challenge. Anyone with some
experience with burning CDs can do the same comparison and to see how
difficult to get accurate results. Though eventually you will prefer one
over the other over a long period of time.

Next, one of the measurement was a graphic file size reduced by 5% bits
(total over 50000bits) after "clarifying"using bedini. I do scan photos in
to my computer and 5% would not make any difference to my eyes that I can
tell from the screen.

Now let's look at Randi's terms and condition:-

1. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than
helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a
test will take place. (keyword = approving the conditions)

2. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will
agree upon,...(keyword = JREF will agree upon)

3. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the
agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous events
are not accepted or considered. We consult competent statisticians when an
evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required. We have no
interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work;
if you provide us with such material, it will be ignored and discarded.

4.Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.)
gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way
that Mr. Randi may choose. ( keyword =maybe used freely)

5. In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary
test...... (and read the next line)

6.This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to
perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed
the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in
those cases.

7 There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply, but
re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed since the
preliminary test. (keyword=12 months)

8. and his clause 7 -disclaimer .
When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all
rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally
involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this
may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or
any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial, or
professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way
affects the awarding of the prize.

9. All expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials,
assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in
pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither
the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs.

Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge?

Rgds.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

S888Wheel wrote:

I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he
could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million
dollars?

Gee, this sounds awfully like a hazily-recalled anecdote. Care to confirm?

http://skepdic.com/comments/psydet.html

According to this, the money wasn't collected because the 'vinyl
reader,' Arthur G. Lintgen, didn't claim "paranormal ability."

Stephen

"Chelvam" wrote in
:

wrote in message
...
http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4


snip...snip

If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky
crowd can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their
claims:

http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8

In a follow up we find him saying:

No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge
weeks They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible
quacks, and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes
have retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys!
And move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.

Bedini did have 10 measurements to back up his claim. But at the same
time it could be misleading. In one of the test done by them using
spectrum analyser the "improvement" they got was a 1 or 2 decibel louder
in all frequencies except for 200 to 400hz. To have that effect all you
need to do is to crank up the volume.

But at the same time if you look at the the graphs shown in his page, it
would be quite a risk if you want to take up the challenge. Anyone with
some experience with burning CDs can do the same comparison and to see
how difficult to get accurate results. Though eventually you will prefer
one over the other over a long period of time.

Next, one of the measurement was a graphic file size reduced by 5% bits
(total over 50000bits) after "clarifying"using bedini. I do scan photos
in to my computer and 5% would not make any difference to my eyes that I
can tell from the screen.

Now let's look at Randi's terms and condition:-

1. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than
helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which
a test will take place. (keyword = approving the conditions)

Keyword: helping. Would you permit someone to hand out $1mil of your cash
and you had no say in the matter what-so-ever? I certainly would want to
have some say in the matter.



2. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will
agree upon,...(keyword = JREF will agree upon)

Keywords: applicant *and* JREF


3. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the
agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous
events are not accepted or considered. We consult competent
statisticians when an evaluation of the results, or experiment design,
is required. We have no interest in theories or explanations of how the
claimed powers might work; if you provide us with such material, it will
be ignored and discarded.

4.Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.)
gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any
way that Mr. Randi may choose. ( keyword =maybe used freely)

Why would it matter. Randi wants to makes sure that failures are
published.



5. In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary
test...... (and read the next line)

6.This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to
perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has
passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal
testing in those cases.

7 There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply,
but re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed
since the preliminary test. (keyword=12 months)

Why would Randi allow someone to repeatedly waste his time and the time of
his staff? I certainly would not want my time wasted.


8. and his clause 7 -disclaimer .
When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all
rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons
peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational
Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This
applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or
emotional nature, and/or financial, or professional, loss or damage of
any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the
prize.

9. All expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials,
assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures
incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the
applicant. Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs.

Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge?

Rgds.


Sure. Why not? It is a fair test and if the effect is real, there should
be no problem in duplicating it over and over again.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

On 11 Sep 2004 00:41:17 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he
could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million
dollars?

According to this, the money wasn't collected because the 'vinyl
reader,' Arthur G. Lintgen, didn't claim "paranormal ability."

Indeed - I was around at the time of the claims and reading the
magazines, and I saw this in a couple of them including, if my memory
serves me, Stereo Review. So far as I could see Mr. Lintgen never at
any time claimed anything like a paranormal ability. He merely
claimed that the easily visible variations in the grooves of an LP
record gave him enough information to reliably identify the recordings
based on his previous knowlege. His passing the test was not
therefore a demonstration of any "paranormal" ability nor did he ever
make any claim that it was.

On 11 Sep 2004 00:37:19 GMT, wrote:

He wants to test them on the claimed effects of their gear only,
paranormal is not involved, read the links again. In the previous one he
makes reference to blind audio testing in a listening test. The only
paranormal connection is that the tweeky audio crowd use exactly the same
set of reasons why their effects dissappear when testing is done, the
exact same ones; now ain't that intresting. They demonstrate there is a
difference made in the sound and they get a million dollars, very simple.

Well, not really. Since there is no known physical mechanism by which
such an "effect" could occur, any demonstration that it did in fact
occur would be proof of some mechanism unknown to present day science,
just as proof of telepathy (for instance) would be. In other words it
would be a "paranormal" phenomenon.

Ed

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

S888Wheel wrote:

I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he
could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million
dollars?

Gee, this sounds awfully like a hazily-recalled anecdote. Care to confirm?

http://skepdic.com/comments/psydet.html

According to this, the money wasn't collected because the 'vinyl
reader,' Arthur G. Lintgen, didn't claim "paranormal ability."

The prize was never sought by Dr. Lintgen, nor offered by Randi to him if
he could demonstrate his talent.

According to newpaper accounts, it was Time magazine that asked Randi to
investigate Lintgen's claim...essentially to make sure that a controlled
test was used, and as a guard against fraud or 'magic'.

for Randi's own response, see

http://www.randi.org/jr/110102.html


--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.

wrote in message ...
What part of his requirements bothers you, what part would not make it
possible for the applicant to show his proported audio gear to it's best
advantage? Look at some of the actual attempts made in other areas, the
actual test is fair in every respect and if the claimed effect exists it
should be clearly seen. For example if a water dowser claims to be able
to find running water underground he is taken to an area with buried water
pipes with running water in them; all have failed to find the pipes. The
person making the claim is a part of the process, they agree to the test
setup beforehand that it will make possible the claimed effect. Blind
listening alone audio testing is so normal and widely used in such
instances nothing exotic or otherwise faked or setup up to force a failure
need even be considered. As mentioned here before, it can be as simple as
putting a cloth over the connections of the gear under test. I can
understand why some audio biz folk will not do it, their whole claim to
exist is based on "I hear it, I really really do, don't you hear it also,
don't you believe me?". A failure to confirm the claimed effect would
mean a whole pr and marketing approach down the drain. Many might do it
if Randi said he would keep the results silent, there is always the chance
that they can somehow demonstrate the audibility of the gear and then
proclaim it to high heaven and get the million bucks. If you had the
million to use in such testing how would you proceed differently?


I am not sure whether he intentionally picked the number 13 but under the 3
letter word test ( can't mention the word, otherwise moderators might reject
the post due to the moratarium on certain topics) all the unlucky 13 would
fail. The immediate audible difference Bedini product would show is music
being louder by 1 or 2 decible except for frequencies within 200 to 400khz.
And ABX will do level matching, right?


Rgds,
p.s I don't use Bedini nor can I hear any diff using color pen.

On 9/10/04 8:37 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

He wants to test them on the claimed effects of their gear only,
paranormal is not involved, read the links again. In the previous one he
makes reference to blind audio testing in a listening test. The only
paranormal connection is that the tweeky audio crowd use exactly the same
set of reasons why their effects dissappear when testing is done, the
exact same ones; now ain't that intresting. They demonstrate there is a
difference made in the sound and they get a million dollars, very simple.

Makes sense - the Skeptical Inquirer has a go at audiophiles (the goofy
ones, anyway) once in awhile.

"Chelvam" wrote in message
...

Now let's look at Randi's terms and condition:-

1. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other
than
helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under
which a
test will take place. (keyword = approving the conditions)

2. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF
will
agree upon,...(keyword = JREF will agree upon)

3. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within
the
agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous
events
are not accepted or considered. We consult competent statisticians
when an
evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required. We
have no
interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might
work;
if you provide us with such material, it will be ignored and
discarded.

4.Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written,
etc.)
gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in
any way
that Mr. Randi may choose. ( keyword =maybe used freely)

5. In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the
preliminary
test...... (and read the next line)

6.This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely
to
perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has
passed
the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal
testing in
those cases.

7 There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may
re-apply, but
re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed
since the
preliminary test. (keyword=12 months)

8. and his clause 7 -disclaimer .
When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and
all
rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons
peripherally
involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far
as this
may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury,
accident, or
any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or
financial, or
professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no
way
affects the awarding of the prize.

9. All expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials,
assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures
incurred in
pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant.
Neither
the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs.

Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge?

You bet! If I was confident of my ability to detect improvements from
my device, yes--I most certainly would apply for the prize. Indeed,
the only downside of the JREF agreement is that I would have to pay
the costs of running the test. Believe me, the publicity advantage of
passing even the preliminary test is easily worth the cost.

Norm Strong

On 11 Sep 2004 14:51:17 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote:

I am not sure whether he intentionally picked the number 13 but under the 3
letter word test ( can't mention the word, otherwise moderators might reject
the post due to the moratarium on certain topics) all the unlucky 13 would
fail. The immediate audible difference Bedini product would show is music
being louder by 1 or 2 decible except for frequencies within 200 to 400khz.
And ABX will do level matching, right?

More importantly, ABX would reveal that the Bedini device did
absolutely nothing at all. Do you really believe that there is *any*
mechanism which would cause a treated CD to be louder except in one
octave? All stuff and nonsense.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 9/10/2004 3:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From:
Date: 9/9/2004 8:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4

As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz
claims, Randi goes this time for the :

Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier

http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4

If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:

http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8

In a follow up we find him saying:

No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.







Why would anyone waste their time with this challenge? unless you can
provide
proof of paranormal activity you won't collect any money.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he
could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million
dollars?

Gee, this sounds awfully like a hazily-recalled anecdote.

Anecdote, yes. Hazily- recalled, no. My father, a hard core Randi fan told me
about it. I remember it because of who the guy was.

Care to confirm?

Not really.



Bottom line. No one is making claims of paranormal activity in audio that I
know of.

The line between 'pseudoscientific' and 'paranormal' is
apparently thin enough not to bother Randi.

Irrelevant. If a tweak works it affects the signal. If it affects the signal it
isn't a paranormal phenomenon. If it isn't a paranormal phenomenon it doesn't
meet the requirements of the challenge. Hence, any attempt to take this
challenge will ultimately be a waste of time regardless of the effectiveness or
ineffectiveness of any given tweek.

Why should it?
His website banner proclaims the site as 'an educational
resource on the paranormal, pseudoscientific, and supernatural.

If any tweak works it works because it affects the signal. Of course
Randi will never have to pay a million dollars to anyone with this
challenge.

But of course, not all differences from measurement ot measurement
are audible...or even due to the device under test.

That does not matter. No audible differences are unmeasurable. Randi is not
taking up issues of audibility as much as he is taking up issues that must
appear to him as claims of paranormal.


"I assured Mike that such a device certainly comes under the JREF Challenge,"
says Mr. Randi regarding the Bedini Clarifier. So it appears the field
is open for you or anyone to prove that you can hear a difference that's
due to application of the Bedini Clarifier. In other wordd, to prove the
tweak *works*. (Mr. Bedini, after all, doesn't claim that the Clarifier
changes a CD in a way that is inaudible -- very much to the contrary).




--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath
elsewhere.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 9/10/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From:
Date: 9/9/2004 8:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4

As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz
claims, Randi goes this time for the :

Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier

http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4

If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd
can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims:

http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8

In a follow up we find him saying:

No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks
They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks,
and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have
retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And
move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly.







Why would anyone waste their time with this challenge? unless you can
provide
proof of paranormal activity you won't collect any money.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed
he
could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million
dollars?

Please supply some documentation on this.


I don't have any. My father told me about it years ago. He was a hard core fan
of Randi. I have no reason to doubt what he said.

Bottom line. No one is making claims of paranormal activity in audio that
I
know of. If any tweak works it works because it affects the signal. Of
course
Randi will never have to pay a million dollars to anyone with this
challenge.

Nothing in the challenge regarding Shakti stones or the Bedini clarifier
requires proof of paranormal activity, only that in an ABX DBT their effect
can be reliably detected.


Perhaps you missed this.http://www.randi.org/research/index.html It is a
general requirement that it be a test of paranormal activity. That is why the
money remains safe and any attempt to take this challenge is a waste of time,
unless you do believe in magic.

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed
he
could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million
dollars?

Please supply some documentation on this.

You might look at:

http://www.snopes2.com/music/info/reader3.htm

The claim that Dr. Arthur Lintgen could identify all non-obscure
post-Beetoven orchestral music from looking at LP groove patterns
is extraordinary, but does not involve any paranormal claim.

Arthur Lintgen was able to identify all recordings in the test
with the exception of an Alice Cooper record and a spoken word
record which were used as controls.

Peter.
--

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
snip..snip..


More importantly, ABX would reveal that the Bedini device did
absolutely nothing at all. Do you really believe that there is *any*
mechanism which would cause a treated CD to be louder except in one
octave? All stuff and nonsense.

The guy is producing some 'reliable" reference and measurements. And I am
just one the potential gullible souls who may fall for it.

His references:-
H. C. Ohanian, "On The Aproach of Electro-Magneto-Static Equilibrium", Am.
Journal of Physics, vol. 51, Nov., 1983, pp. 1020-1022.
Erik J. Bochove and John Walkup, "A Communication on Electrical Charge
Relaxation in Metals", Am. Journal of Physics, vol. 58, pp. 131-134, Feb.
1990.
Electronics Engineer's Reference Book, 5th Edn., Ed. by F. Mazda, 1983, p.
50/3.
B. Yavorsky and A. Detlaf, Handbook of Physics, MIR Publishers, Moscow,
revised from the Russian 1977 edition, p. 178.
Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, 1984, p. 992.
H. S. Min and Doyeol Ahn, "Lengevin Noise Sources for the Boltzmann
Transport Equations with the Relaxation-time Approximation in Nondegenerate
Semiconductors", J. ofApplied Physics, vol. 58 (6), Sep. 15, 1985, pp.
2262-2265.
S. Vitale et. al., "Magnetic Viscosity, Thermal Relaxation, and Thermal
Equilibrium Noise in Co-based Amorphous Alloys at MilliKelvin Temperatures",
J. of Applied Physics, vol. 72 (10), Nov. 15, 1992, pp. 4820-4825.
K. G. Moh, et. at., "Equivalent Noise Source for Boltzmann Transport
Equation with Relaxation-time Approximation in Nondegenerate
Semiconductors", J. of Applied Physics, vol. 74 (10), Nov., 15, 1993, pp.
6217-6221.

and his measurements

An analysis of an audio compact disc was carried out with the test completed
using a Schlumberger 1510 Audio Spectrum Analyzer to display real-time fast
fourier transform (FFT) spectra of the sound, a Tektronix 465B dual-trace
oscilloscope to display phase differences between left and right stereo
channels as well as waveform shapes, and a Leader LMV-185A 2 channel AC
Millivoltmeter to simultaneously read the amplitude of the left and right
stereo channels. The spectrum analyzer has a frequency range of up to 25
khz, a dynamic range of 70 db, and an absolute range of 100 db using
attenuators, and an accuracy of 0.1 db and 1/256 of the frequency range
selected. All measurements were made using the 25 khz range. The
oscilloscope has an upper frequency range of 100 mhz. The test CD was played
on the Denon DCD-1500 II compact disk player connected directly to the above
instrumentation.

The test CD, CDP 7 46446 2, DIDX 2249 Stereo, UK: CD-PCS 7078, manufactured
by Capitol Records, otherwise known as the Beatles: Abbey Road album
originally recorded in 1969 and digitally re-mastered in 1987 for CD, was
subjected to the above equipment and technique. Spectral measurements at a
00:24 interval was made on track #7, a selection known as "Here Comes the
Sun".

Track #7, at a 24 second interval, is exhibited in Example I as a series of
bar graphs in diagrams 1-8. The bar graphs simultaneously show the relative
loudness in decibels "before" and "after" clarifying of the device. Each
pair of bars represents the relative loudness of frequencies between 100
hertz and 25600 hertz of Track #7 time 24 seconds of the audio CD analyzed.

Diagram 1 shows the entire spectrum from 100 to 25600 hertz in 8 frequency
bands as labeled at the bottom of the diagram. It is noted that each
frequency range except for 200 to 400 hertz is about 1 or 2 decibels louder
after processing by the device.

Diagrams 2-8 display the same data in more detail showing a larger number of
smaller frequency ranges in intervals of only 100 hertz each. Because
frequency ranges are smaller there are more variations in the data, however,
the readings show the trend of being 1 to 2 decibels louder after
processing.

It is noted that each of the spectral differences as well as the average
spectrum difference follow a profile demonstrates the effect that clarifying
by the instant device has on the CD.

(Source
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...OFF&p=1&u=/net
ahtml/search-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=bedini&s2 =electro&OS=b
edini+AND+electro&RS=bedini+AND+electro)

Is the above measurement/experiment so difficult to replicate?

On 9/11/04 9:51 PM, in article , "Peter Irwin"
wrote:

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed
he
could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million
dollars?

Please supply some documentation on this.

You might look at:

http://www.snopes2.com/music/info/reader3.htm

The claim that Dr. Arthur Lintgen could identify all non-obscure
post-Beetoven orchestral music from looking at LP groove patterns
is extraordinary, but does not involve any paranormal claim.

Given that there are both laser turntables and optical/camera based computer
programs that can "look" at a groove and then "play" the sound of the groove
this claim is improbable, but not completely outrageous, either.

The computer programs written were done so so that very delicate cylindrical
and earlier disk based records were able to be archived without the wear and
damage they would suffer (some were unplayable they were so delicate!)

Arthur Lintgen was able to identify all recordings in the test
with the exception of an Alice Cooper record and a spoken word
record which were used as controls.

If it is decipherable by a computer with a camera, I can see how a person
might be able to do it if properly trained...?

Seems kind of like Ripley;s Believe it or Not - but if the guy can do it - I
hope he got his $1M from Randi. As someone who is a self styled
representative of intellectual honesty - it would be a very bad thing if he
didn't pay off after accepting a challenge.

On 12 Sep 2004 14:41:34 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
snip..snip..


More importantly, ABX would reveal that the Bedini device did
absolutely nothing at all. Do you really believe that there is *any*
mechanism which would cause a treated CD to be louder except in one
octave? All stuff and nonsense.

The guy is producing some 'reliable" reference and measurements. And I am
just one the potential gullible souls who may fall for it.

Do you actually understand how CD works? If you do, do you understand
that such a claim would imply that the Clarifier *seriously damaged*
the CD? Do you also realise that it's *impossible* for one octave to
be differently affected from the others? All stuff and nonsense. At
the very best possible interpretation, incompetent use of the
measuring equipment.

His references:-
H. C. Ohanian, "On The Aproach of Electro-Magneto-Static Equilibrium", Am.
Journal of Physics, vol. 51, Nov., 1983, pp. 1020-1022.
Erik J. Bochove and John Walkup, "A Communication on Electrical Charge
Relaxation in Metals", Am. Journal of Physics, vol. 58, pp. 131-134, Feb.
1990.
Electronics Engineer's Reference Book, 5th Edn., Ed. by F. Mazda, 1983, p.
50/3.
B. Yavorsky and A. Detlaf, Handbook of Physics, MIR Publishers, Moscow,
revised from the Russian 1977 edition, p. 178.
Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, 1984, p. 992.
H. S. Min and Doyeol Ahn, "Lengevin Noise Sources for the Boltzmann
Transport Equations with the Relaxation-time Approximation in Nondegenerate
Semiconductors", J. ofApplied Physics, vol. 58 (6), Sep. 15, 1985, pp.
2262-2265.
S. Vitale et. al., "Magnetic Viscosity, Thermal Relaxation, and Thermal
Equilibrium Noise in Co-based Amorphous Alloys at MilliKelvin Temperatures",
J. of Applied Physics, vol. 72 (10), Nov. 15, 1992, pp. 4820-4825.
K. G. Moh, et. at., "Equivalent Noise Source for Boltzmann Transport
Equation with Relaxation-time Approximation in Nondegenerate
Semiconductors", J. of Applied Physics, vol. 74 (10), Nov., 15, 1993, pp.
6217-6221.

and his measurements

An analysis of an audio compact disc was carried out with the test completed
using a Schlumberger 1510 Audio Spectrum Analyzer to display real-time fast
fourier transform (FFT) spectra of the sound, a Tektronix 465B dual-trace
oscilloscope to display phase differences between left and right stereo
channels as well as waveform shapes, and a Leader LMV-185A 2 channel AC
Millivoltmeter to simultaneously read the amplitude of the left and right
stereo channels. The spectrum analyzer has a frequency range of up to 25
khz, a dynamic range of 70 db, and an absolute range of 100 db using
attenuators, and an accuracy of 0.1 db and 1/256 of the frequency range
selected. All measurements were made using the 25 khz range. The
oscilloscope has an upper frequency range of 100 mhz. The test CD was played
on the Denon DCD-1500 II compact disk player connected directly to the above
instrumentation.

The test CD, CDP 7 46446 2, DIDX 2249 Stereo, UK: CD-PCS 7078, manufactured
by Capitol Records, otherwise known as the Beatles: Abbey Road album
originally recorded in 1969 and digitally re-mastered in 1987 for CD, was
subjected to the above equipment and technique. Spectral measurements at a
00:24 interval was made on track #7, a selection known as "Here Comes the
Sun".

Track #7, at a 24 second interval, is exhibited in Example I as a series of
bar graphs in diagrams 1-8. The bar graphs simultaneously show the relative
loudness in decibels "before" and "after" clarifying of the device. Each
pair of bars represents the relative loudness of frequencies between 100
hertz and 25600 hertz of Track #7 time 24 seconds of the audio CD analyzed.

Diagram 1 shows the entire spectrum from 100 to 25600 hertz in 8 frequency
bands as labeled at the bottom of the diagram. It is noted that each
frequency range except for 200 to 400 hertz is about 1 or 2 decibels louder
after processing by the device.

Diagrams 2-8 display the same data in more detail showing a larger number of
smaller frequency ranges in intervals of only 100 hertz each. Because
frequency ranges are smaller there are more variations in the data, however,
the readings show the trend of being 1 to 2 decibels louder after
processing.

It is noted that each of the spectral differences as well as the average
spectrum difference follow a profile demonstrates the effect that clarifying
by the instant device has on the CD.

(Source
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...OFF&p=1&u=/net
ahtml/search-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=bedini&s2 =electro&OS=b
edini+AND+electro&RS=bedini+AND+electro)

Is the above measurement/experiment so difficult to replicate?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Peter Irwin wrote:



Michael McKelvy wrote:
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed
he
could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My
understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million
dollars?

Please supply some documentation on this.

You might look at:

http://www.snopes2.com/music/info/reader3.htm

The claim that Dr. Arthur Lintgen could identify all non-obscure
post-Beetoven orchestral music from looking at LP groove patterns
is extraordinary, but does not involve any paranormal claim.

Arthur Lintgen was able to identify all recordings in the test
with the exception of an Alice Cooper record and a spoken word
record which were used as controls.

Peter.
--


Cool; but this is/was not a "listening" test either.

In article , B&D
wrote:

Seems kind of like Ripley;s Believe it or Not - but if the guy can do it - I
hope he got his $1M from Randi. As someone who is a self styled
representative of intellectual honesty - it would be a very bad thing if he
didn't pay off after accepting a challenge.

Randi did not pay, and is not obligated to. There are several reasons
why.

First, the test was conducted in 1982, at which time the $1M Challenge
did not exist. Its precursor, the $10,000 Challenge (*) probably did
exist at that time, but that brings us to:

Second, it wasn't a Challenge test. That requires an applicant to go
through a somewhat formal process. Randi was involved only because Time
Magazine asked him to test whether the man could do what he said he
could do.

Third, the man at no time claimed any paranormal powers. He explained
exactly how he did it, and it was quite mundane. The prize isn't
intended to be won by people with amazing but ordinary abilities. If
somebody had applied for the prize on the basis that they could do the
same thing, I expect that Randi's charity would reject the application
since there isn't even a claim of paranormal abilities, much less a
reason to think such would be involved.

(In the case of the Bedini Clarifier, one might argue that the company
behind it isn't making paranormal claims, but from Randi's point of view
-- and mine -- such a device would have to have true paranormal aspects
to actually do anything other than lighten buyers' wallets, and
therefore it is appropriate for Randi to make noise about the $1M being
available to anybody who can actually demonstrate that the gadget works.)



(*) Originally, Randi simply carried around a blank personal check for
$10,000 and advertised that he would sign it over to anybody who could
prove to his satisfaction the existence of paranormal powers, etc.
During the 1990s, this was superseded by a system of pledges;
individuals pledged to award $100, $1000, or more. In the late 1990s,
as the total pledge amount rose towards $1M, one or more unknown donors
gave $1M in real money to use for the challenge, after which the
pledgers were released from their obligations. Randi's personal $10K is
still at stake, however.

The $1M is not Randi's money to do with as he wishes. It is held in a
special trust account, and, if I recall correctly, cannot be paid out in
any circumstance other than a Challenge win, though Randi's nonprofit
(the James Randi Educational Foundation) does get to skim off the
interest on the account to help run itself. (This is quite appropriate
since part of the JREF's expenses include administering the Challenge.)

The Challenge mechanisms are set up such that passing the final formal
test will automatically result in payout no matter what Randi (or the
JREF) thinks. So far, however, no applicant has ever been able to pass
even the preliminary screening test in which no prize money is at stake.

--
Tim

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...


Do you actually understand how CD works?

No. I don't. Otherwise, I would spending time asking Bedini the
question to back up his claim before I part my money.

If you do, do you understand
that such a claim would imply that the Clarifier *seriously damaged*
the CD? Do you also realise that it's *impossible* for one octave to
be differently affected from the others? All stuff and nonsense. At
the very best possible interpretation, incompetent use of the
measuring equipment.

No, I don't again. that's why I am asking and I repeat "Is the above
measurement/experiment so difficult to replicate?"

From, what I gather they are some basic equipments that are accessible
by any EE department.

"Chelvam" wrote in message ...

Diagram 1 shows the entire spectrum from 100 to 25600 hertz in 8 frequency
bands as labeled at the bottom of the diagram. It is noted that each
frequency range except for 200 to 400 hertz is about 1 or 2 decibels louder
after processing by the device.

Diagrams 2-8 display the same data in more detail showing a larger number of
smaller frequency ranges in intervals of only 100 hertz each. Because
frequency ranges are smaller there are more variations in the data, however,
the readings show the trend of being 1 to 2 decibels louder after
processing.

Frequency response anomalies like this ought to be detectable in DBTs.
So, to answer a question you posed the other day, Yes, Bedini should
absolutely take up Randi's offer.

That is, assuming he believes his own numbers.

bob

On 9/12/04 5:45 PM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

The guy is producing some 'reliable" reference and measurements. And I am
just one the potential gullible souls who may fall for it.

Do you actually understand how CD works? If you do, do you understand
that such a claim would imply that the Clarifier *seriously damaged*
the CD? Do you also realise that it's *impossible* for one octave to
be differently affected from the others? All stuff and nonsense. At
the very best possible interpretation, incompetent use of the
measuring equipment.

Absolutely true!

If the person made honest measurements, and saw the difference he claimed -
it probably meant he measured incorrectly. Stewart is absolutely right.

I think one can see it in the light of the attitude of the patent office
toward perpetual motion machines, don't bother us with the obvious that
can have no basis in reality.
Regarding "measurements of changes in the digital content to a cd disk:

"No, I don't again. that's why I am asking and I repeat "Is the above
measurement/experiment so difficult to replicate?""

On 9/13/04 7:23 PM, in article , "Timothy A.
Seufert" wrote:

In article , B&D
wrote:

Seems kind of like Ripley;s Believe it or Not - but if the guy can do it - I
hope he got his $1M from Randi. As someone who is a self styled
representative of intellectual honesty - it would be a very bad thing if he
didn't pay off after accepting a challenge.

Randi did not pay, and is not obligated to. There are several reasons
why.
[snip]

No problem - it was not the challenge - and so the rules in place still
apply!



First, the test was conducted in 1982, at which time the $1M Challenge
did not exist. Its precursor, the $10,000 Challenge (*) probably did
exist at that time, but that brings us to:

Second, it wasn't a Challenge test. That requires an applicant to go
through a somewhat formal process. Randi was involved only because Time
Magazine asked him to test whether the man could do what he said he
could do.

Third, the man at no time claimed any paranormal powers. He explained
exactly how he did it, and it was quite mundane. The prize isn't
intended to be won by people with amazing but ordinary abilities. If
somebody had applied for the prize on the basis that they could do the
same thing, I expect that Randi's charity would reject the application
since there isn't even a claim of paranormal abilities, much less a
reason to think such would be involved.

(In the case of the Bedini Clarifier, one might argue that the company
behind it isn't making paranormal claims, but from Randi's point of view
-- and mine -- such a device would have to have true paranormal aspects
to actually do anything other than lighten buyers' wallets, and
therefore it is appropriate for Randi to make noise about the $1M being
available to anybody who can actually demonstrate that the gadget works.)



(*) Originally, Randi simply carried around a blank personal check for
$10,000 and advertised that he would sign it over to anybody who could
prove to his satisfaction the existence of paranormal powers, etc.
During the 1990s, this was superseded by a system of pledges;
individuals pledged to award $100, $1000, or more. In the late 1990s,
as the total pledge amount rose towards $1M, one or more unknown donors
gave $1M in real money to use for the challenge, after which the
pledgers were released from their obligations. Randi's personal $10K is
still at stake, however.

The $1M is not Randi's money to do with as he wishes. It is held in a
special trust account, and, if I recall correctly, cannot be paid out in
any circumstance other than a Challenge win, though Randi's nonprofit
(the James Randi Educational Foundation) does get to skim off the
interest on the account to help run itself. (This is quite appropriate
since part of the JREF's expenses include administering the Challenge.)

The Challenge mechanisms are set up such that passing the final formal
test will automatically result in payout no matter what Randi (or the
JREF) thinks. So far, however, no applicant has ever been able to pass
even the preliminary screening test in which no prize money is at stake.

TChelvam wrote:

Do you actually understand how CD works?

No. I don't. Otherwise, I would spending time asking Bedini the
question to back up his claim before I part my money.

"Is the above
measurement/experiment so difficult to replicate?"

From, what I gather they are some basic equipments that are accessible
by any EE department.

Any manufacturer/university/lab will have the required instruments, a
network-analyzer, some generator, oszilloscop etc. to perform this kind of
measurement, you could even do it with your sound card and Adobe Audition at
home.
But no one cares, because the claim is hilarious and anybody with scientific
training can already recognize this before.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

On 13 Sep 2004 23:25:54 GMT, (TChelvam) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...

Do you actually understand how CD works?

No. I don't. Otherwise, I would spending time asking Bedini the
question to back up his claim before I part my money.

So, having been told that the Clarifier is bogus by several people who
*do* understand how CD works, why are you persisting?

If you do, do you understand
that such a claim would imply that the Clarifier *seriously damaged*
the CD? Do you also realise that it's *impossible* for one octave to
be differently affected from the others? All stuff and nonsense. At
the very best possible interpretation, incompetent use of the
measuring equipment.

No, I don't again. that's why I am asking and I repeat "Is the above
measurement/experiment so difficult to replicate?"

No, it's a piece of cake, especially for those of us who can actually
use a spectrum analyser - or indeed have designed them.........

From, what I gather they are some basic equipments that are accessible
by any EE department.

Sure, and anyone employed in that department will be able to explain
to you that Bedini's measurements are bogus, for two reasons:

a) The Clarifier cannot possibly work as claimed, since no such
physical mechanism exists in a CD

b) If the measurements *were* accurate, then the Clarifier would have
caused *serious* damage, since the levels on a CD are represented by a
digital code, and an increase of 1-2dB in output SPL would indicate
that the Clarifier had *grossly* modified the data held on the disc.
According to Bedini's own claims, he's also wrecked the balance by not
achieviung this increase in one octave. Would you actually pay money
for something which the designer claims can *wreck* your CDs? :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote in message ...
I think one can see it in the light of the attitude of the patent office
toward perpetual motion machines, don't bother us with the obvious that
can have no basis in reality.
Regarding "measurements of changes in the digital content to a cd disk:


"No, I don't again. that's why I am asking and I repeat "Is the above
measurement/experiment so difficult to replicate?""

I am not sure if I understand you. Bedini stuffs got no basis in reality?
Oh...no wonder none want to rebut them. most likely E1 and E2 errors of
Plextor black tray.

(TChelvam) wrote in message ...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...


Do you actually understand how CD works?

No. I don't.

Well, there's your problem then. You need to learn how CD works before
you read any more fanciful ads. Then you'll be able to judge which
claims are plausible, and which are not.

Actually, I suspect you are selling yourself short here. It does not
take much technical knowledge at all to see through this crap. What it
takes is a willingness to stop and ask yourself if it makes any sense.
If a laser can read the data off a CD just about perfectly, how can
treating the CD in any way improve things?

bob

Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge?


Yes! If I was certain of my claim.

"(In the case of the Bedini Clarifier, one might argue that the company
behind it isn't making paranormal claims, but from Randi's point of view
-- and mine -- such a device would have to have true paranormal aspects
to actually do anything other than lighten buyers' wallets, and
therefore it is appropriate for Randi to make noise about the $1M being
available to anybody who can actually demonstrate that the gadget works.)"

Which is also the case with various expressions of perpetual motion
machines with which he applies the pledge also, no paranormal claims, only
pseudoscientific claims as to mechanism of explanation.

In another of his pieces, stereophile was said to have entered into talks
to test the claims for the Tice clock for which they had reviewed it as
having made a positive audible effect. They abruptly withdrew from the
process. The pseudoscientific claims as to mechanism of explanation were
likewise at issue there also, not paranormal powers.

On 9/14/04 7:43 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

"(In the case of the Bedini Clarifier, one might argue that the company
behind it isn't making paranormal claims, but from Randi's point of view
-- and mine -- such a device would have to have true paranormal aspects
to actually do anything other than lighten buyers' wallets, and
therefore it is appropriate for Randi to make noise about the $1M being
available to anybody who can actually demonstrate that the gadget works.)"

Which is also the case with various expressions of perpetual motion
machines with which he applies the pledge also, no paranormal claims, only
pseudoscientific claims as to mechanism of explanation.

So, if you were to say "boy 'item X' seems to work but I have no idea how"
Randi's callenge would not apply to you?



In another of his pieces, stereophile was said to have entered into talks
to test the claims for the Tice clock for which they had reviewed it as
having made a positive audible effect. They abruptly withdrew from the
process. The pseudoscientific claims as to mechanism of explanation were
likewise at issue there also, not paranormal powers.