Beautiful, I'm in! I'll write more soon when I have the time.

And I was going to the liquer store anyway to get a single bottle of dry white wine for my upcoming video workshop (next weekend), we can leave that one untampered :-)

I'll have to figure out whom to get to do the tasting, since I don't want to bother my spouse (anyhow, having several people would be better) and the people in the video workshop could be argued to be biased (expecting a difference in taste - of course, that would matter less if I'd arrange a randomized double-blind setting). But perhaps, most of all, I don't want to mess up the video workshop schedule. As there will be translation involved, the schedule is already stretched.

Hmm, sorry for thinking aloud. But as said, I'm in and I'll figure the arrangements out somehow!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SeaLion,

Oh, one more thing: how to control for the possibility that the two bottles could even originally taste different? For example, one of the bottles could have a defective cork - that's not too uncommon.

One idea could be to get a larger canister and pour the contents into two separate bottles. Any other suggestions?

I guess gatorade or the like would be likely to be more homogenous (or at least it would be cheaper to get several bottles)...

It seems that this thread made it to the most recent QT newsletter. However, it only featured my first post, and not the subsequent results, making me slightly uneasy.

So, I replied to genevieve@quantumtouch.com as follows:

quote:

> 9. Blind Taste Testing Charged Wine
> – A Personal Experiment


Hello!

Being the originator of this thread (SeaLion), I have to comment on this; If you read further down the thread in question, you'll find, that the taste differences reported may simply be due to the liquid warming up when doing hands-on healing.

Towards the end of the same thread, we are currently in the process of figuring out how to conduct the experiment so that we can rule out the effects of possible temperature change.

have greatly enjoyed the newsletters, but this incident somewhat makes me wonder on the possible selection process of the stories... so, a correction might perhaps be in order.

Or what do you think?

Best regards,

XXX

EDIT: Genevieve's reply on the following day:

quote:

I appreciate the update on your experiment and your concern for accuracy. I am not sure what I will do concerning this yet, however, but I am investigating...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SeaLion,

Hai Sealion

Thanks for this, I had noticed the exact same thing on the Newsletter and was wondering why only the first part was mentioned. (I had been following your progress reports with interest..) Curious to hear the reply from Genevieve.

Groet
Herma

Hi SeaLion,
Okay, so you're in. That's great! I agree that probably pouring the contents of a bottle into two separate, identical containers is a solution: let's try it that way.

To be honest, I'm pretty surprised you've noticed so little difference so far. I've done this kind of thing for years, and the difference has always been stark.

For future reference, cheap champaigne and carbonated drinks are good to experiment with, because you can also SEE the difference in the carbonation levels when the energy is being run into one glass.

I'll stand by for word from you about how you'd like to proceed. You might need to pm me if I miss your post.
Blessings,
Alfred

Yesterday, I got myself a three-liter container of the "worst / most bitter dry white wine (at room temperature)" - according to the salesperson.

The wine should stay good for at least several weeks after opening the tap, so there'll be both plenty of time as well as raw materials to do the tasting experiments.

While thinking of the possible experiment(s), it has occurred to me that doing a proper design for them is not a trivial task; one will have to rule out several confounding factors, some of which are more subtle than others.

Below are some of my initial thoughts on such factors, as well possible approaches to deal with them; comments are welcome from everyone!

1) Temperature bias

In my previous experiments I (using a thermometer) found that holding a regular 2dl glass in hand warms the contents up pretty quickly; about 1'C per minute. I also noticed, that at least with water, I can pretty reliably taste a temperature difference of 0.2'C, perhaps even 0.1'C.

To me it seems likely that in a setting such as that featured in the QT basic course video workshop, a discernible temperature difference will result, which will affect the tasting experience. However, the degree to which the temp diff actually affects the tasting experience in the case of white wine is unknown to me. Is it just the several degrees' temp diff that makes the glasses taste so different, or is there also something else (i.e. the charging) involved?

In a hands-on setting this is problematic, because even if you wait for the glasses' temperature to even out (the waiting for which is rather boring), the criticism that the different heating conditions in the middle could account for a taste difference can be stated.

Distant charging may also in some cases suffer from the temperature confound. I noticed in my earlier experiments, that when the glasses are in different parts of the apartment (i.e. one in kitchen and the other one on living room table), a temp difference of some 0.1-0.5'C may develop surprisingly fast. If the glasses are next to each other, their temperature has remained within 0.1'C (or less) from each other.

However, my conclusion so far is that regardless of the setting in terms of hands-on or distant charing, the temperature will have to be controlled for.

In the upcoming experiments, I am currently planning to control for the temperature by using a fast digital thermometer that has a 0.1'C accuracy to measuring the temperature of the liquids to be tasted both before and after each tasting session.

2) Expectation and suggestion bias

If the tastee thinks that he will taste two identical liquids (for example, having been told that the glasses contain exactly the same stuff, or if he just does not believe that the charging would have any effects), he in my view is less likely to report a taste difference, whether one could be found or not.

On the other hand, if the tastee does expect a taste difference (for example, through being told that there different wines in the glasses to-be-tasted, or that the charging operation will change the taste), it is possible that an "imagined" difference will be reported in any case.

I plan to control for bias mentioned first so that the tastees will be told that the tasting is about a debate at our office on which is the worst local dry white wine, and that we have agreed on two finalists.

The second bias is to be controlled for by conducting a large enough number of randomized single-blind tastings so that a reasonable statistical significance could be reached (of at least P < 0.05, I think... any guidelines on this, anyone?). For this to succeed, an "imagined taste difference" must have to be reported correctly for many times more often than not. A potential problem that arises here is that if there are only a few tastees, their taste buds may get numb during the process (I don't know how fast; my guess is that after 2-4 trials, more subtle differences are likely to be missed). This can be alleviated to some degree by having something to eat (e.g. crackers, etc.) between tastings.

3) Unconscious experimenter bias

Problem: Quasi-randomization by the experimenter, unconsciously steering towards the wanted result

Solution: A Double-blind setting; the two containers will be labeled differently, with the party doing the charging choosing which one is targeted; the person conducting the experiment(s) is told which one was charged until the data has been collected.

4) Undesired paranormal confounds

In a quantum reality where the properties of water can be affected by running life force energy into it, all sorts of biases may be possible. Below are just first ones that came to mind, more similar issues can probably be quite easily envisioned...

Problem: experimenter effects that (seem to) disregard controls. In this case, the experimenter gets the results he expects/wishes, despite of a (seemingly) rigorous design and/or controls applied. There is some evidence that this may indeed be a concern, for example, Schiltz, M., Wiseman, R., Watt, C. & Radin, D. I. (2006). Of two minds: Skeptic-proponent collaboration within parapsychology. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 313-322. An example could be the experimenter's unconscious psychic penetration of the double-blind design.

Problem: Somebody foiling the entire experiment by a distant uniform charge for "all of SeaLion's white wine, now and forever" => no taste differences in any experiment, since everything is charged.

Problem: If the containers (one of which is charged) are next to each other, the non-charged one could in principle entrain to the charged one, thus possibly eliminating the taste difference. If the containers are not next to each other, we are back with the problem of temperature differences (see the respective point above).

Phew. Any insights at this point regarding the experiment(s') design, Alfred or others?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SeaLion,

I envision that, despite its problems regarding controls, we might start off with a small scale experiment.

I'd pour the wine into two identical containers, label them as Alpha and Omega (that is, the respective greek letters), and leave them sitting next to each other for others to charge (please agree on the target so that I don't know which one has been treated).

In principle, you could take as long a time to do the charging as you need, you can PM me or post to this thread when you are done. Then, I'd do the tasting myself, with my usual set-up (i.e. temperature control and blind testing with randomization)

Such a design would be controlled for
- the temperature
- (most of the) expectation / suggestion biases (due to randomization and double-blinding)

What's still missing would be
- controls for entrainment (see earlier post)
- controls for undesired paranormal confounds
- the problem of my taste buds possibly getting (too) numb before a statistically significant number of trials can be conducted
- controls for my (possible) expectation that if the temperature is identical, so will the taste be; although I would be absolutely thrilled for this to work, the skeptic in me that seems to have taken a hold of this thread may have his own say in the matter
- ... what else?

But, this would be just to get us started; more complex designs involving other people later on.

How about it? If ok, I'll do the set-up and post a picture of the filled containers with the labels to this thread.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SeaLion,

Hi SeaLion,
Yes, that sounds, good, though I'd recommend these changes:
Keep them at least 10 feet apart;

only send the picture of the one you want us to energize;

mark the bottle you don't want energized with a character from some other system, and don't tell anybody what that character is.

Bottom line: the less we know about the color/ markings of the control bottle, the better.

Blessings,
Alfred

What would be compromised in your proposal (compared to the initial setting) would be
- controls for the environment of the containers, since they are not going to benext to each other. I have to figure out how they can be in a similar enough heating & lighting conditions though they are physically apart. I'm doing a 'test run' right now to find suitable spots in my apartment; this also serves to test the containers
- the double-blind setting; there's room for unconscious expectation bias, since I'd know which container you will be charging. We can still do the double-blinds, if we get somebody to serve as an escrow. I'd send pictures of both of the containers to this person, he'd pick one of them, and send it to you. This way, you'd know nothing of the control container, while I'd remain unaware (psi-bias not included, of course) of which one you will be charging.

Thus, we'd in this initial experiment have controls for
- entrainment (the '10 feet apart' you referred to, I guess?)
- more control for avoiding undesired paranormal confounds than in the the initial design (i.e. the people doing the charging knowing less about the control container)
- the temperature (both during the charging as well as before and after tasting)

Just for the record, the setting would not be controlled for
- my expectation bias that the tastes may (not) be different (not sure what to expect, actually however, the statistics should take care of this
- some of the possible paranormal confounds
- the most significant weakness of the design is probably the potential problem of my taste buds possibly getting (too) numb before a statistically significant number of trials (~10+) can be conducted. Of course, I could take a break and chew some crackers if I sense this happening; do you think the containers be physically separated during such a break to keep them from entraining to each other?


SeaLion

P.S. The first video workshop day (which was today) went well, everybody seemed to get a hang of QT

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SeaLion,

Hi SeaLion,
This sounds good. If you think the distance is too much of a problem, perhaps shielding the control in aluminum foil would be another way to attempt to control for paranormal confounding variables. Of course, this might change the temperature uniformity...
I think we can get carried away with this. I think 3rd party to keep it doubleblind and a second taster (2nd opinion) before you know the results would be good.

Best to just get on with it as best you think we can manage. It can always be adjusted later. If you have pH strips, this would be great and help distinguish other objective changes apart from temperature.

Just let me know when you are happy with the design, and lets get down to it.

Blessings and fun,
Alfred

Got pH strips, with accuracy of 0.2.

However, still searching for the two spots in my apartment that would both be out of the way, at least 10' apart, and have a uniform temperature to the accuracy of 0.1'C... :-) Surprisingly difficult!

The part about the aluminum foil was a joke, I presume?

Good news is that I believe I may have come up with a simpler design that would both keep the double-blinds as well as alleviate the expectation bias on my part. More on that soon, stay tuned,

SeaLion

In the second day of our video workshop yesterday, we (in my opinion) had some encouraging experiences.

Three out of the four people present then (including myself) tasted a difference in the dry white wine after charging (basic seminar setting, no blinds, etc. controls)

The temperature differences (immediately after the tasting and some discussion) were not huge, around 0.2-0.3'C. The ones who had identified a taste difference were quite convinced of the phenomenon, even after I expressed my concerns about the setting.

One of the participants offered to make me a blinded sampling of her cups of wine at the end of the workshop, when the temp differences would have evened out (glasses sat next to each other).

Out of the three trials I could do before I noticed a weight difference (i.e. different amount of wine left), I recognized the charged wine correctly three times (P < 0.125, I guess). Also, no temp diff (to the accuracy of 0.1'C) was present.

So, nothing really conclusive, but it was nice to have this kind of experience after a while.

SeaLion

The easiest thing to do is to get a dry white wine. (The cheaper the better) Open it the night before so it starts going bad. Pour samples in polystyrene cups so temperature change is not a factor. Have the bottom of the cups marked so you can tell which are test and controls. Mix up the cups and have people taste the wine and see if they are correct. The charged one should not have the stinging after bite. If done properly, the differences are radical.

Why not have a bunch of people running energy for 5 or 10 minutes into one large polystyrene cup, then pour some of that into many test cups to be tested by a large group.

enjoy

This can be a good starting point.

The aluminum foil was a bit of an exaggeration, but metallic (usually copper) or insulating shielding has often been used in such experiments to prevent influence of a control substance or person. I don't suppose you have a Faraday cage lying around unused in your place? Just my dry sense of humor reminding you not to get too carried away.

Take Richard's advice and keep it relatively simple. Let's go when you're ready!

Blessings,
Alfred

Thanks, Richard & Alfred, you're both quite right; it's easy to get carried away here.

I'm trying to make it simple, but not too simple. My goal is to come up with a robust design a single person can in principle do by himself and then make up his own mind about this issue, something akin to Rupert Sheldrake in his book 'the Seven Experiments that Could Change the World' (however, those experiments are difficult to do on your own).

As said, there's no such thing as convincing a skeptic of intentional direction of life force energy; likewise, for those who know that charging water produces a taste difference (that is not due to a change in temperature, suggestion, expectation, or the like), my inquiry into the topic may seem a bit of an overkill.

Unfortunately, ‘simple’ is often not the same as ‘trivial’; for example:

quote:

still searching for the two spots in my apartment that would both be out of the way (i.e. in a closet), at least 10' apart, and have a uniform temperature to the accuracy of 0.1'C...

Five days later, I'm still searching for such spots; the closest to which I've found so far have a temp diff of some 0.5'C apart. Which I, at least with tap water, can taste quite easily.

If we decide to skip the control about the containers being 10’ apart, we can proceed; I’ll then write more on my current idea about the design (simpler, repeatable, and better in terms controls for expectation & suggestion).

My best regards and thanks for your patience and comments,

SeaLion

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SeaLion,