Would you use this to increase the efficiency of your power delivery?

[amirm]

Did some of you have watched this video?

I did, and the guy sounds believable. But I'm not sure 100%...until I see the real valid science with measurements to confirm one side or the other.
For now I'm remaining open minded and won't invest $15 to check it out. I let someone else do it for themselves, and if they can come up with real proof scientific evidence, supported by concrete measurements that all can read graphically, then and only then I will succumb to the new truth in believing real performed electron science.

Dave Jones in that video is from the southern hemisphere. The magnetic field there is different than northern hemisphere for which this product is designed.

 

[NorthStar]

An electron is an electron, irregardless of the planet's location...Amir. :b

 

[amirm]

An electron is an electron, irregardless of the planet's location...Amir. :b

That's what they say about shrimp:

 

[NorthStar]

What do you want me to reply to this?

 

[Don Hills]

... What's ironic is that he rejects any suggestion of a scientific test.

Why is that ironic? It's entirely consistent with the story he's telling.

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

I can't help wondering if Amir isn't playing some sort of a joke on us or am I being unfairly suspicious?

I don't think there is any need to wonder. It's been patently obvious since the very first post. The only objection I have is that Amir continues to show a consistent pattern of behaviour over the 8 months I have been here, using his own personal critieria to establish official WBF product gradings, viz:

(a) a product is pure snake oil. Because Amir says so

(b) a product is inferior and obviously does not require measurement. Because Amir says so.

(c) a product has no basis for being superior unless it is measured. Because Amir says so.

(d) If it can't be measured it is inferior. Because Amir says so.

(e) If it can be measured it is superior. Because Amir says so.

(f) If it can be measured but the measurements are below human hearing threshold then it doesn't matter - or, well, you are "golden" . Because Amir says so.

(g) Precise, accurate measurement down to -144 dBFS is extremely important, because Amir says so.


I could go on but I have chores to attend to and were I to ask Amir for permission to do them, he may not deem them necessary

So, yes, this just yet another crafty outlet of Amir's to denigrate the subjectivists, since he needs his weekly fix. By chosing to showcase a product such as this, he continues to push an agenda for the pro-objectivist league and the poor subjectivists have no leg to stand on. Because to denigrate the product would be hypercritical on the part of a subjectivist, 99.9% of whom I am certain consider it to be complete and utter nonsense.

 

[Barry2013]

Thanks Jonathan
I can't imagine many people being bothered should Steve decide to close this thread.

 

[MtnHam]

I can't help wondering if Amir isn't playing some sort of a joke on us or am I being unfairly suspicious?

Sick joke?

 

[amirm]

Sick joke?

Sick joke? Me? No.

I post this to see if I can solve a puzzle in my mind. I wanted to know if the people who defend audio tweaks in general are less critical than some of us who see them unlikely to be effective. This product especially fit the bill because in my book it is no different than many audio tweaks. It has a "believable" technical theory. It has nice marketing to "prove" the same. And it has testimonials. It is no different than say, the conductor in an audiophile AC receptacle.

As you all saw, the reaction to this product was "normal." Everyone quickly said no way. It can't work. It is not even worth the time or energy to investigate. And if we were going to investigate, we were going to use pretty simple instrumentation to see if it worked.

In other words, in other domains than audio, we are the same as a group. We are skeptical of claims even if some technical theory is put in front of us. Who was it that said they can sell me a bridge if I believe in this?

It is reassuring to know that what some of us do with respect to unlikely claims in audio, is universally performed by everyone in other domains. In some sense then we are not as sick and crazy as we look .

Anyway it was an experiment and generated some useful data for me. I hope in reverse it has produced a moment of self reflection for others. That what we do in audio is what they would do in other domains. That we as consumers, need to have our guard up in believing whatever we are being told, damn the theory of supposed operation, testimonials, etc.

My apology to you MtnHam because you both played along and were a gentleman .

 

[microstrip]

Sick joke?

But Bob is the winner - post #15 of member NorthStar in this obscure thread when transposed to photons was brilliant. Just noticed that I have applied it in another thread about cleaning cd transport lenses.

I use isopropyl alcohol and a cotton ball and it works the same. ...Up to 30% on savings, with perfect alignment of the electrical signal flow (electrons).

Considering the price of the laser mechanism of my cd player - Philips LF12Pro - I also use only pure 98% isopropyl alcohol. If its good for quality microscopes, it should be OK for the cd transport laser lens. Quoted from a microscope cleaning site:

Isopropyl alcohol is one of the best solvents but it must be at least 90%+ pure (do not use rubbing alcohol, 30% water).

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

In other words, in other domains than audio, we are the same as a group. We are skeptical of claims even if some technical theory is put in front of us.

That is all well and good, but it is vitally important to understand that even healthy sceptics may avail themselves of particular products that others consider dubious or even useless unless the effects can be objectively measured. There have been so many things in audio that I have been completely sceptical about in the past that I am no longer sceptical about even though I struggle to find an objective and scientific way to evaluate them that is consistent with their actual behaviour. Everyone here has a different sceptical "threshold". I suspect yours is a lot more stringent than mine but a product like the subject of this thread just happens to go way below both of our thresholds. That is why we both agree in this particular case that it is a load of utter nonsense and perhaps critically, we can both agree that there is a very simple and irrefutable way to measure it and that the resulting measurements will absolutely correlate to both it's objective and subjective performance. There will be other products, however - now and in the future where such products "pass" my threshold but do not pass yours. And so on for almost every member here. And we won't agree on subjective and objective ways to appraise them either.

I don't think you are making a more salient point in this thread that trying to argue that a Ferrari is a sprightly performing road car or that filling your car engine oil sump with petrol instead of oil is a bad thing.