Eco-Aqualizer Testing

[MattM]

Matt, setting up two seperate tanks as comparisons or controls creates another problem. You are actually going to have to run pre-experiments to see if you can actually get two tanks to have coincidental ORP levels.

Actually, I never said I was going to monitor ORP on these tanks. Merely test whatever water quality parameters we can to see if any changes in water chemistry can be observed. As I said, the results of the first test will help to guide what we do next and if no effect on ORP is found, then it certainly would not be neccasary to monitor it for subsequent tests.

If you don't cover all your bases, and make assumptions, you set yourself up for being accused of poor experimental design.... This is a common flaw with bona-fide scientific experimentation in the field.

I think you are flawed in your basic assumption that this qualifies as "bona-fide scientific experimentation." I have sufficient investigative skills and scientific knowledge (degree in Astrophysics) to generally state that magnetic devices of this genre are a fraud. I understand the science, I can read their web site, and I can tell you is it B.S. All I am doing with these tests is attempting to remove the complete lack of any control or objectivity in what we have so far: "I bought one and my tank looks great!" It is a well documented phenomena for almost any product where the results are subjective that anyone who spends money will be subconsciously predisposed to see positive effects. I simply want to remove that element.

This is never intended to be held to the same standard as genuine peer review scientific investigation. Even if somehow we were able to do that, do you think it would make a difference to the manufacturer? Or for that matter, to the people who have already bought one? The claims for what this device does, and about how and why it functions already fly in the face of any rational or scientific principle -- I have no illusion that anything I can do will change that.

All I want to do is put some sort of objective analysis in front of those who have not yet made a decision, or who might be interested in the product but possess a healthy skepticism of its claims.

 

[PeeJ]

I agree...just hook the thing up and see what happens...NOT A DAMN THING.

 

[Money Pit]

"I have sufficient investigative skills and scientific knowledge (degree in Astrophysics) to generally state that magnetic devices of this genre are a fraud......I understand the science, I can read their web site, and I can tell you it is B.S."

That being said we all look forward to an unbiased objective report...LOL

 

[PeeJ]

You can be give an unbiased report while still holding your own opinion.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks Matt!

 

[Money Pit]

It's possible but improbable. For this experiment to be objective and unbiased it would have to be based on observable phenomena and presented factually. However the bias of the person doing the test can effect the outcome by him systematically favoring some outcomes or testing procedures over others resulting in a conclusion favoring his bias. This bias makes the outcome anything but objective.

 

[kim]

I think you are flawed in your basic assumption that this qualifies as "bona-fide scientific experimentation." I have sufficient investigative skills and scientific knowledge (degree in Astrophysics) to generally state that magnetic devices of this genre are a fraud. I understand the science, I can read their web site, and I can tell you is it B.S.

I agree that we don't have the resources.

Except anyone can read the papers cited on the EcoA website (I bought a few of these) whereupon they will find that the science of "taking out of context" has been raised to a new level. It is quite wicked. I just wouldn't have the cojones !

Btw, you can trace the authors of these papers and EMail them.....

Unfortunately, there are many people whose confidence in "science" or "rational thought" is very low, some of whom are in fact strongly predisposed to oppose it. I have managed to convince a few that the claims of the EcoA are total rubbish....and then quite a few of these will say..."well, maybe it's a con, but even if the makers don't understand what it does it seems to me that it might help anyway, so I am getting one".

At which point, I give up !

kim

 

[cdeakle]

All I want to do is put some sort of objective analysis in front of those who have not yet made a decision, or who might be interested in the product but possess a healthy skepticism of its claims.

Thanks MattM, If you save just one person from wasting there money on scams like this then it's all worth it in the end.

 

[Anonymous]

"It's possible but improbable. For this experiment to be objective and unbiased it would have to be based on observable phenomena and presented factually. However the bias of the person doing the test can effect the outcome by him systematically favoring some outcomes or testing procedures over others resulting in a conclusion favoring his bias. This bias makes the outcome anything but objective."

Well said. If you were to hide the EA and the control closed loop, and have someone read the ORP values who didn't know which tank was which, it would be a little more unbiased. I also agree with John. It's nearly impossible to achieve identical tanks with identical results, even when you're trying to. This is why there have to be several repeats in any scientific investigation.

Like Matt said, though, this is not scientific. As with any hobbyist info, you have to take it with a grain of salt. It's a lot more effort than most retailers or hobbyists are willing to give to the hobby, however.

 

[PeeJ]

Yup.

 

[John_Brandt]

MattM, I'm really sorry because I think I may have gotten a little too excited about your project and started to act like I was running the show. Forgive me.

I confused the multiple tank test with the test for ORP. It's that childlike excitement again; I get carried away.

I'm sure you read my postings in the other EcoAqualizer thread. I'm as skeptical as anyone about this thing. I'm glad you are taking a closer look at the functionality of this device. It deserves a road test.

 

[Anonymous]

Look what it did for my friends teeth
His Miracle Beam laser lights even helped him breed :lol: !!

I agree, a scientist's or researchers passion for the experiment can lead to a biased result. I don't think in this case though, that Matt would cook the books, so to say, on this expirement.

 

[MattM]

You can be give an unbiased report while still holding your own opinion.

I don't think in this case though, that Matt would cook the books, so to say, on this expirement.

Thank you, I appreciate that!

If you were to hide the EA and the control closed loop, and have someone read the ORP values who didn't know which tank was which, it would be a little more unbiased.

On this point, everyone should be aware that the ORP values are being logged automatically by a Neptune controller every 30 minutes. Even though it's been running for several days, even I don't know what the values are. Not until I download them from the controller. The only thing I have been doing is periodically switching the Eco-Aqualizer into or out of the system and logging the date/time that I did so.

On the issue of unbiased testing... Yes, I do have an opinion about this product. Let's face it, if I didn't I wouldn't go through the time and trouble of this testing. And, if I was ruled entirely by my opinions, again, why bother to test?

The fact is that it would be very interesting to see an effect from the device. Oddly enough, I think it would be interesting for the very reason that my opinion is that it doesn't work. If I see an effect, and my knowledge of sound scientific and engineering principles tells me there should be no effect, then we have a mystery to solve -- and it's hard to find someone with scientific curiosity who doesn't love a mystery!

Bottom line: I have nothing invested in this and I have no reason to "cook the books." The product will succeed for fail on its own merits. I think the other product testing that Inland Reef Aquaria has done speaks more than I can about our integrity.

 

[Money Pit]

Like Matt said, though, this is not scientific.

For that very reason the results are even more vulnerable to testing errors. It's one thing to have a skeptical opinion, quite another to have an unyielding adherence to a fixed conviction.

 

[John_Brandt]

...degree in Astrophysics

Wow. An Astrophysicist that runs an aquarium shop. Matt, you are like a real-life Buckaroo Banzai

 

[Anonymous]

"Where ever you are, there you are"

How come they never made Buckaroo Bonzia #2? I wanted to see him battle the mafia!

 

[Anonymous]

"Where ever you are, there you are"

How come they never made Buckaroo Bonzia #2? I wanted to see him battle the mafia!

Remember, no matter where you go...there you are.

You stinking black Lectron. :mrgreen:

It seems BB vs The World Crime League was never made for a couple of reasons. Earl Mac Rouch never wrote it, and there were production disputes and it seems like the project was activly blocked. And, the original didn't make much money, if any.

A sequel was written and you can to read it here

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/3917/bbawcl.txt

 

[clarionreef]

Woah, I forgot the ultimate quote, damn!! Thanks for the reminder Righty!!

Thanks for the sequel link, I'll give it a browse when time allows.

 

[Anonymous]

Woops, I used my bosses computer and forgot to log in as me, darn it.

 

[MattM]

Wow. An Astrophysicist that runs an aquarium shop. Matt, you are like a real-life Buckaroo Banzai

Unfortunately, I strike out completely on the both the neurosurgeon and rock musician qualifications...