Ben Goldacre’s boast of a £30 power lead was quickly trumped by a jar of magic pebbles ($129), a clock that boosts your sound and video systems ($199), and, best of all, a £500 crocodile clip. Bear in mind though, that this is a Quantum (crocodile) Clip, which has the power to instantly convert any object pressed against it to a state of “compatible morphic resonance” via a complex quantum particle energy stream.
Continue Reading 3 comments October 31st, 2006
Masaru Emoto is a Japanese pseudoscientist who claims that by directing positive or negative thoughts at water we can affect the shape of the crystals that form when it is frozen.
Continue Reading Add comment October 31st, 2006
Taking inspiration from the award winning OK Go! music video, “shrimp on a treadmill” is a research video that’s proved to be a big hit on YouTube and other video forums. When I first watched this, I assumed the scientists involved were studying locomotion in marine arthropods - I remember a university lecture about gluing sea monkeys to Petri dishes and flowing water over them to try and simulate the currents they set up. As usual, I was wrong.
The true origin of the video is the lab of David Scholnick at Pacific University, Oregon, where he is studying how disease and adverse conditions affect the performance of panaeid shrimp. The shrimp were made to run on the treadmill in a variety of oxygen levels and temperatures for several hours and their performance was recorded. Then, presumably because scientists have a sick sense of humour, the team stuck wads of gaffa tape to the shrimp and made them run some more.
Future research plans to shed light on the performance of shrimp in temperatures of around 100 degrees C, whilst coated in lemon, garlic and breadcrumbs.
Add comment October 29th, 2006
And now to the humourously titled “White Paper on Brilliant Pebbles”, which isn’t a White Paper, and sells pebbles that are only brilliant in the sense that make Geoff Kait a lot of money. As you can see from the image, it’s a small jar of pebbles, the kind mums buy on holiday as cheap souvenirs. If you mum was smart, she’d put them in a vial and charge them at $129 a piece. But why would anyone spend $129 on a small vial of polished gravel?
To answer that, here’s one of those ‘magic eye’ images, from the MD website.
Not convinced? Hmm.. Well, how about this: they’ll make your stereo sound better! Real good, like one of those Super Audio systems with the 5.1 channel surround sound. Just place them on your speaker, or in the corner of the room, or next to your clock and be amazed by the instant improvement in sound. The idea runs something like this: rocks are made of crystals. The molecules in a crystal vibrate. Sound waves are vibrations. Place these in your listening room and they’ll absorb unwanted sound reflections. Yes, that’s right. Rocks absorb sound. Remember how libraries filled with soft furnishings don’t have many echoes, and car parks with concrete floors and walls do? Well, you’re wrong. Rocks absorb sound really well, especially unwanted sound, which can somehow be distinguished from the sound you do want. Perhaps that’s where the brilliant part comes in. Small vials of polished rock are very good at absorbing sound. Still not convinced? OK then, here are some atoms:
See, they’re oscillating. Machina Dynamica would have us believe that proves everything.
Did I mention they have glowing testimonials on the website? If I’d just spent $129 on a jar of rocks, I’d be telling myself it was worth it, too. Perhaps my favourite line in the “White Paper” is this:
Brilliant Pebbles is capable of dramatically lowering audio noise and distortion - perhaps especially in systems where great pains have been taken to ensure the highest possible performance.
In other words, Brilliant Pebbles work best when you’re the type of chump who just spent £5000 on a hi-fi, $199 on a clock, £500 on a crocodile clip, £30 on a power cable, and would gladly pay £10 for a punch in the face if you were told it would make your stereo sound better.
See the Original Site
iLikeJam’s collection of Audiophile nonsense
3 comments October 28th, 2006
Dear Mr Scott,
I recently passed my practical driving test and, as a result, received my copy of Drive On, the magazine for new drivers. I read it, and thoroughly enjoyed it.
However, I have a question regarding the article entitled “Don’t Risk It” (p37). In this, the VASCAR is introduced, a handy device that relieves policemen and women from the tiresome chore of dividing distance by time, by calculating a vehicle’s speed from the time it takes to travel a known distance.
Given that the VASCAR is little more than a pocket calculator, do you believe that it is not picked up by radar-detecting devices because:
a) it has advanced micro-processors (as Drive On states)
OR:
b) it does not use radar technology.
Also, I would be indebted to you if you could tell me whether you would consider this glaring error:
a) a minor fault
b) a serious fault
c) a dangerous fault
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Regards,
Frank Swain
After being held up to the excruciatingly high standards of the DSA, I felt I was more than justified in pointing this error out. Surely the men and women at the DSA would be grateful (after all, they didn’t even have to pay me £35 to point this out). Nope. No reply, and they’re suspiciously difficult to contact. In the absence of a rebuttal I’ll have to assume they couldn’t back up this pseudoscientific crap. (Me, 1. DSA, 0.)
Add comment October 27th, 2006
Rene-Prosper Blondlot was a French physicist working at the turn of the century at the University of Nancy, France. In 1903, he announced the discovery of N rays, a form of radiation which turned out to be non-existent.
Continue Reading Add comment October 27th, 2006
Everyone knows that the coolest kind of science involves setting fire to things. So what could be better than a video that involves science, fire and music? The combined result is a Ruben’s Tube - a device which not only cooks sausages at your barbeque, but plays music and provides a light show too.
Thanks to SpallationFiend at the Bad Science Forums
Add comment October 26th, 2006
I admit it, my aversion to flaky women’s magazines and the Daily Mail means I don’t get a steady supply of bad science. Sometimes I just type pseudo-scientific nonsense into Google and see what comes up. Which isn’t all that different to buying the Daily Mail. A lot of companies claimed “chemical-free” products, but SWISS WATER win the award for basing an entire PR campaign on bad science.
Continue Reading 2 comments October 25th, 2006
I recently stumbled onto a site intriguingly titled Everyman’s Weapon Against Tyranny, which features a step-by-step guide to constructing a Power Wand with built-in “Succor Punch” technology, using “orgonite”, pipe and, of course, crystals.
This is worth reading as post-construction it rapidly departs from mainstream hippy nonsense into hyper-paranoid ravings. These are at first funny.
It’s sufficient to say now that all of the vengeful military psychics, Montauk Wonks, Men in Black, dark masters, Satanists, etc., who took exception to our efforts by trying to disable us in the past few days got it all back in appropriate measure without us having to transgress the Law.
And steadily become deeply worrying.
There are probably Satanists on your town council and in your police force. It goes without saying that most of the judges are practicing baby killers.
Elsewhere on the site they claim to be able to cure AIDS using “zappers” (a 9V battery connected to two coins). It’s depressing stuff.
1 comment October 22nd, 2006
Now, those of you who are regular War On Error readers probably remember the sad case of Dr Niko Tiliopoulos and his crazy formulas. So imagine my joy when Dr Nathan Efron foolishly released the “results” of his “research” on the Beer Goggle Effect to BBC News Online. An equation to calculate the effect of a colloquialism? Surely not….
Continue Reading 7 comments October 19th, 2006
For a long time, I’ve been incensed at the garbage trucks that rattle about my neighbourhood. Not because they’re loud and smell bad - what irks me is the giant advert emblazoned across the side which reads, “Liverpool: 100% Commitment to Recycling”. This annoys me because I suspect that Liverpool has one of the worst recycling rates in Europe.
Their 100% commitment doesn’t extend to providing me with glass recycling, and moreso, the Council won’t provide recycling boxes to apartment blocks (that’ll be most the city centre residents then). Neither do they provide me with doorstep recycling - it’s up to me to haul my cans and paper down the road each week.
I felt the need to put this up after reading the Echo yesterday. Apparently, not only is Liverpool fairly uncommitted to the collection of recyclable waste, it’s also completely adverse to actually recycling it. Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority yesterday admitted that rubbish collected from 18,500 homes on the Wirral for “recycling” is in fact being put into landfill.
The compost, made of garden and food waste, has not been approved by the State Veterinary Service as safe to be put on land. It would be, had it been made from pure garden waste, and over 2,500 tonnes of garden waste collected from 75,000 homes _is_ producing usable compost. Consider though, that a mere 18,500 homes produced nearly the same amount of combined food and garden waste - 2,175 tonnes in under four months.
This means each house is producing about two and a half times as much food waste as garden waste. This food waste is either thrown in the bin and sent to landfill, or, collected for recycling and.. err… sent to landfill. Consider also that there is no recycling facility at all for the 6000 tonnes of food waste produced by the homes given “garden waste only” sacks.
I can think of many things to describe this “commitment to recycling”, but “100%” isn’t one of them.
Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority
Add comment October 18th, 2006
An interesting video via the Bad Science fourms - we see the progression from Plain Jane to billboard model in 60 short seconds. Is what we desire really that abstracted from reality, or is this simply what we’ve come to accept as normal?
See the video: Dove Advert.
Thanks to Stever at the Bad Science Forums
Add comment October 17th, 2006
Charles Redheffer appeared in Philadelphia in 1812, exhibiting a machine of his invention at $1 per person admission. He claimed that the device produced enough energy that it could power itself and still have some left over (making it a perpetuum mobile), and lobbied for funds to build a larger version.
Continue Reading Add comment October 17th, 2006
Dear Roberton’s,
I recently purchased a 454g jar of your Strawberry Jam, which is as delicious now as I remember it was as a child. I noticed that on the front of the label was a banner informing me that there was 63g of sugar per 100g of jam in Robertson’s Strawberry Jam.
Continue Reading Add comment October 6th, 2006
It might look like your average beekeeper’s hat, but this pretty lady is actually wearing £25.50 worth of cutting-edge anti-EMF headgear as sold by chief alarmist and Daily Mail correspondent Alasdair Philips. Simply place said hat on your head, and you are protected against mobile phone signals, electricity pylons, household wiring, and anything else remotely electrical that could possibly be sending an invisible “electrosmog” of death your way (efficacy against mind-control waves and psychic attacks has yet to be determined). I think this makes the EMF Hat a strong contender as a successor technology to those first-generation Tin Foil Hats.
Just like heat rays and space travel, headgear to protect against invisible debilitating death waves have been the staple of science fiction for a long time now. Strong advocates include Magneto, who sports a stylish Greek Olympian-inspired number to protect him against those pesky X-Men. Likewise, big-man Juggernaut isn’t too proud to admit even he needs to look after his head. That’s nonce-sense, I like to say.
In case any of you would pooh-pooh the protection offered by Tin Foil Hats, let’s remember that graduate students at MIT carried out a study demonstrating the attenuating power of an aluminium foil hat. That must count for something. After all, it’s not like students to carry out some kind of tongue-in-cheek experiment just for laughs, is it?
All of which goes to show, you don’t have to be crazy to invest in a decent anti-EMF helmet. However, crazy is exactly what you’ll look as you potter about Primark in one of these, unless you can somehow convince everyone it’s a safeguard against bees. Which, funnily enough, is the only real protection this device offers.
1 comment October 6th, 2006
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Sep | Nov » | |||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||