Just when I thought my opinion of humanity could not get any lower:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651
http://www.ade651.com/ade651in.html

On a lighter note:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/apple_claims_new_iphone_only

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Just when I thought my opinion of humanity could not get any lower:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651
> http://www.ade651.com/ade651in.html

  You wouldn't believe how easily scientists themselves are fooled by
magicians and tricksters because they, for whatever reason, don't understand
the importance of some of the most basic scientifical testing, such as
double-blind controlled tests.

  The "double" there is quite important. Many scientists are way too
confident on their own capacity to not to influence the test results and
to interpret the results impartially.

  A "blind test" is when the subjects don't know the nature of the objects
being tested. For example, some people might be given real medicine while
others are given placebos, and these people don't know who is getting what.
But the testers know.

  A "double-blind test" is when the testers themselves don't know either
(only people who are completely detached from the testing procedure know,
or in some cases where it's possible, the objects are randomized so that
nobody knows before they are later revealed by examination). This way the
testers themselves cannot affect the outcome or have subconscious bias in
their interpretation of the results because they don't know either.

  As an example, James Randi went once to Russia (I think it was still the
Soviet Union back then) to test many so-called supernatural phenomena claimed
to being happening there. In one case some medical professionals were convinced
that a psychic was able to influence the blood pressure and other vital signs
of other people: They had made numerous tests and confirmed that people's
vital signs changed according to what the psychic claimed.

  James Randi was a bit sceptic about it and wanted to perform something that
they clearly hadn't been doing: A *double* blind test. Surprisingly, suddenly
the test results and what the psychic claimed became completely contradictory.

  The problem became clear: By knowing what to expect, the medical doctors
were interpreting the test results which was output by the machines to
conform the expectations. Even minor random variations seemingly confirming
the expected result were taken as confirmation, while opposing minor random
variations were simply discarded as minor and random. But of course
immediately when they didn't know what to expect, the interpretation became
equally random and didn't match what the psychic said at all.

  The doctors were clearly not malicious. They were simply subconsciously
biased and too confident on their own capacity to interpret the results
impartially.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html

I read half way through this thing, and all I saw was people shouting 
that the device works or that the device doesn't work. It honestly looks 
like they're arguing about a device which might work, but not very well.

And then, half way through, you see the manufacturer's claims. And it 
suddenly snaps into painfully sharp focus that this is pure fairy dust.

'The device can find guns, ammunition, drugs, truffles, human bodies and 
even contraband ivory at distances up to a kilometer, underground, 
through walls, underwater or even from airplanes three miles high. The 


Hah. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Seriously. If they printed this nearer the top of the article, it would 
become more immediately clear that we're talking about utter nonesense.

"You need more training."

My God... The human race is doomed.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651

"Many skeptics doubt its effectiveness."

WTF? On which planet?! Because I'm pretty sure on *this* planet most 
rational people would be able to determine pretty quickly that this is a 
trivial Get Rich Quick scam.

> http://www.theonion.com/content/news/apple_claims_new_iphone_only

Hahahahaha... Oh, that's nice.

Post a reply to this message

The guys should be granted the Nobel Price, for sure.

To be able to create an electrical field strong enough to attract ions over 
a distance of 5000 m from a plane: respect!

Of course - I would not recommend using a device this highly charged near 
any combutible or instable substances, especially when one is doing the 
detecting from a few meters away. I am pretty sure if such a device could be 
built, it would detect explosives from a few meters distance for sure. Once. 
And in a very terminal way.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   You wouldn't believe how easily scientists themselves are fooled by
> magicians and tricksters because they, for whatever reason, don't understand
> the importance of some of the most basic scientifical testing, such as
> double-blind controlled tests.
> 
>   The "double" there is quite important. Many scientists are way too
> confident on their own capacity to not to influence the test results and
> to interpret the results impartially.

It does happen. For example, some scientist designs a chemical that's 
supposed to interact with a naturally occuring molecule in the human 
body. They mix the chemicals in the lab, and it does what it's supposed 
to. They pour the chemical onto a cell culture, and it does what it's 
supposed to. They inject it into a mouse and it does what it's supposed 
to. They inject the stuff into a human and... well, the effect smaller 
than we expected, but it is still there.

Except that no, no it isn't. You're just *expecting* it to be there. 
Confirmation bais.

In this instance, however, it seems unavoidable that the creators are 
fully aware that their device is completely useless, and are simply out 
to make a quick buck. The device has no remotely plausible mechanism of 
action, and a trivial test quickly demonstrates that it is ineffective.

As an aside, I saw some physicist has built a flying machine that defies 
current understanding. The device really does fly. And the scientists 
really have no clue why it flies. (As best as I can tell, the device is 
some sticks of wood with wires strapped to it, and you pump very high 
voltage, high frequency electricity through it, and this makes it 
levitate for some reason...)

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4b0e6a77@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> And then, half way through, you see the manufacturer's claims. And it
> suddenly snaps into painfully sharp focus that this is pure fairy dust.
>
> 'The device can find guns, ammunition, drugs, truffles, human bodies and
> even contraband ivory at distances up to a kilometer, underground,
> through walls, underwater or even from airplanes three miles high. The

>
> Hah. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
>
> Seriously. If they printed this nearer the top of the article, it would
> become more immediately clear that we're talking about utter nonesense.

One has to but marvel at the gutsiness of the scammers, not just at the
claims, but at the price tag of $15,000 to $60,000. But maybe that's the
trick, the more outlandish the claims and the higher the price, the easier
it's to reel in the suckers.

Post a reply to this message

"TC" <do-not-reply@i-do get-enough-spam-already-2498.com> wrote in message
news:4b0e75a2@news.povray.org...

> The guys should be granted the Nobel Price, for sure.
>
> To be able to create an electrical field strong enough to attract ions
over
> a distance of 5000 m from a plane: respect!

And it doesn't even need batteries.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> As an aside, I saw some physicist has built a flying machine that defies
> current understanding. The device really does fly. And the scientists
> really have no clue why it flies. (As best as I can tell, the device is
> some sticks of wood with wires strapped to it, and you pump very high
> voltage, high frequency electricity through it, and this makes it
> levitate for some reason...)

I think I have seen that. Doesn't seem too difficult, if the wire and
sticks are light weight. A high voltage  would create some ionization
which would direct the air to flow around the wires. If everything is
small enough then that air flow, and the turbulence from the air hitting
the surface under the device, should be enough to lift it.

Look up negative ion generators, or build one yourself they are rather
easy. A bunch of capacitors and diodes in a ladder like arrangement.
"Capacitor diode ladder" being a good phrase to start googling from. Or
to just see it in action, and explained, check the Mythbusters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk2GGoMJ7NU

Post a reply to this message

>> 'The device can find guns, ammunition, drugs, truffles, human bodies and
>> even contraband ivory at distances up to a kilometer, underground,
>> through walls, underwater or even from airplanes three miles high. The

>>
>> Hah. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
> 
> One has to but marvel at the gutsiness of the scammers, not just at the
> claims, but at the price tag of $15,000 to $60,000. But maybe that's the
> trick, the more outlandish the claims and the higher the price, the easier
> it's to reel in the suckers.

Indeed. Price it high enough and people will believe that it *must* 
work, otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell it for that price.

It's a bit like the way MS sells Office for several hundred pounds, 
convincing people that "it must be good if it's that expensive. Nobody 
would buy it otherwise."

Post a reply to this message

>> As an aside, I saw some physicist has built a flying machine that defies
>> current understanding. The device really does fly. And the scientists
>> really have no clue why it flies. (As best as I can tell, the device is
>> some sticks of wood with wires strapped to it, and you pump very high
>> voltage, high frequency electricity through it, and this makes it
>> levitate for some reason...)
> 
> I think I have seen that. Doesn't seem too difficult, if the wire and
> sticks are light weight. A high voltage  would create some ionization
> which would direct the air to flow around the wires. If everything is
> small enough then that air flow, and the turbulence from the air hitting
> the surface under the device, should be enough to lift it.

Well, the PhD who built it said he had no idea how it works, and none of 
hsi collegues could figure it out either.

(One wonders though... If you don't know how it works, how did you make 
it??)

Then again, this was on TV, so...

Post a reply to this message