I dunno, but speculating, maybe the reason Mr. Kait can't or won't explain the make-up of the CLC is from a marketing standpoint. Just the tiniest bit of information might have a slew of manufacturers coming out with their own versions of the clock and take some of his pie.
449 responses Add your response
It may surprise many that I prefer to have some insight into why a product works, but if something works in my opinion within reason I will spring for it. In the case of the IC, I heard a demonstration and bought immediately. In the case of the RealityCheck, I took a chance and was rewarded. In the case of the Brilliant Pebbles, I again took a chance and got some reward. In most of these, it troubles me somewhat that I do not really understand why or how they work, but they clearly have varying impact. The CLC clearly defies any reasonable explanation, but does it work? Wellfed says definitely and there is a 30 grace period. Does the lack of an explanation convince me that it cannot and does not work? No, but it does give me pause. |
Joeylawn and Guido: I don't believe Mr. Belt's hypotheses can be peer-reviewed for the most part, any more than the existence of a God can be. This is a 'benefit' to going beyond the known and even the unknown, into the unknowable. Mr. Belt would for practical purposes appear to be a mystic philosopher at best, a charlatan at worst -- not a scientist (he certainly offers no evidence for his claims invoking evolution) -- and not a persuasive, challenging, interesting or enlightening philosopher at that IMO. But that's a personal aesthetic and moral judgement, and to me the realm of audiophilia seems a suitably trivial and bogus arena in which to apply such cheap postulating, whether he actually believes any of it himself or not. Perhaps more fundamentally, everything I've read on his site so far (all written by May, FWIW) has been far too vague and/or meaningless, and riddled with semantic and/or logical flaws in the reasoning given, for anyone to devise testable predictions based on the 'arguments' presented. Mr. Sheldrake may be more formal with his propositions, and his site does seem to indicate some serious debate and dissent which could flow from testable hypotheses, but I haven't had the chance yet to read any of it beyond the headlines. I'd be a bit curious to know whether and what Mr. Sheldrake might think of Mr. Belt's extrapolations allegedly 'based' on his 'theory' of "Morphic Resonance" (which to me sounds blandly like "The Force" of Star Wars fame, not that such ideas began there). I wouldn't be half surprised if Sheldrake found Belt's nonsensical shtick as incorrect and dishonest as I do, even if for quite different reasons... |
Actually Guidocorona, the alleged 'explanation' offered by Mr. Kait for how the Chip is supposed to work is essentially mechanistic with 'quantum' invocations, and not apparently related to the Beltian 'theories' (such as they are) purportedly behind the Clock -- except for of course the literally incredible nature of both. Which I'm sure matters not a whit, since each device is no doubt exactly what it appears to be and nothing more. |
I did email one of the scientists whose work was cited by Mr. Kait in the M.D. article on how he purports the "Intelligent Chip" may work, but so far no response, which although slightly disappointing, does not exactly surprise me. Maybe I will try again with another name from his citation list. But as far as I can tell, Mr. Kait has offered no equivalent explanation for how the CLC is supposed to work, so presumably there is no paper, scholarly or otherwise, to submit for the time being... |
That's reasonable Norm. . here it is: "Not at all Wellfed, merely that the CLC does not operate on the equipment in the domain of physics as I understand it, but on the user in the psychosomatic domain." Yet, as I said in other places, my personal opinion is hardly relevant. Thus, I do invite Geoff Kait to submit his scholarly paper on CLC theory of operations to Nature, Science, New Scientist, and even Science News for peer review and eventual publication. When the paper is accepted for publication in any of these journals, I shall bow my head to such obviously misunderstood greatness. . . until such time, I will hold to what still appears to me to be the canonical mainstream, which is by the way quite weird enough all by itself. |
Well Tbg, I think we can safely assume, not within *your* understanding of known physics, to judge by your take on the effects of gravity on weighty planets and such. But don't feel alone, the CLC etc. doesn't fall within *anybody's* (including Mr. Kait's) understanding of physics, known or unknown. This device, like a great many other things in this world, works on deception (both of the self and by others) and belief. To me, belief is the antithesis of the pursuit of knowledge. For skeptics like myself, the CLC would merely function as a 20X-overpriced travel alarm, fully explainable by the known principles of physics, psychology and irrational economics. |
Guidocorona, we are not trying to set the world on fire, only start a flame in a few minds or hearts. I don't think it's productive for Machina Dynamica to focus much on trying to change people's opinions - to convert them, so to speak, as you suggest I try to do with you. I'm quite used to the idea that people are attached to what they call mainstream science and reject anything that is a little too far outside the norm for comfort. I say, be Comfortable, be Happy! :-) |
Entirely your choice Geoffkait, I have no problem putting out good money for reasonably priced products based on mainstream science and technology, and whose principles of operation conform to it. I am even willing to stretch my credulity a little where pragmatic implementation seems to be preceeding sound theoretical frameworks, such as in many PCs, ICs and the like. Unfortunately, the CLC and various other related devices are stretching my admittedly secular humanistic mental strictures far beyond the bursting point. They claim to operate under principles that--while utilizing some of the raw words of science--bind these freely out of context in clauses, sentences, paragraphs and rambling explanations which have all the obscure semantic trappings of the magic of old, and defy commonly accepted norms of inductive and deductive logic. Not denying the effects of CLC on its proponents and fans, I strongly suggest such undeniable effect has merely psychological causes. . . illusion, self delusion and mass hysteria on which the tenuous world of the miraculous is based. If you wished to prove me wrong. . . you know what to do. |
Guidocorona - while I am pleased you're considering evaluating the CLC, I respectfully decline your terms on the principle that it would be unfair to my customers who did agree to my terms, which are quite reasonable as they stand. We also do not wish to get into the habit of loaning out the CLC or any other of our other products. Hope you understand and that you will agree to the following: I am perfectly willing to provide one clock - or two clocks - for the usual 30-day period, with the proviso that payment be made up front as per usual. We have found that, in reality, the 30-day evaluation period is quite unnecessary, and a bit ridiculous, as the effects of placing the clock in the room are quite audible within 5 seconds, in almost all cases. What have you got to lose (except your mind)? ha ha ha ha Geoff Kait, Machina Dynamica |
Theaudiotweak , the beauty of endpins--Titanium Carbon Fiber, steel, metal ceramics, cardboard, or prestressed anchovies--is that their effect is largely measurable. One may like the effect they have on the sound of an instrument, one may not. Their behavior can be modelled, or at least approximated, through some complex function derived from acoustic and mechanics. Not so the CLC, or my WMC, which to be explained and appreciated--require a substantial suspension of disbelief. Yet, as I am a reasonable man, I do invite Mr. Kait to supply me an evaluation unit of his marvellous CLC for me to test for 45 days--of course at no charge. I would post all my findings here--positive, negative, or inconclusive--as they may be. At the end of the test period I will purchase the unit if I deem its sonic effect to warrant its price, and would otherwise return it to Mr. Kait. |
Guidocorona the sound of Titanium and carbon fiber end pins are detrimental to the transmission of vibrational energy..Really all of this comes down to having an open mind to ideas that maybe on the fringe...I am not saying I believe or understand that the clock works. A lot of people think that Jack Bybee's filters work..I don't know because I never tried one or many. I haven't tried the clock either and I never got to speak with Tesla though I wish I was around back then to do so.Tom |
Theaudiotweak, I believe you about the wood of the cello having a temporary mechanical memory. Yet I do not believe we need to invoke the 4th dymention and the pangalactic sisterhood of Mother Gaya and all living planets quite yet. The poor cello is subjected to considerable mechanical stresses when played, prodded, protected, subjected to pressure, balanced over a nasty end-pin, compressed longitudinally from pegs to tailpiece. . . auch that nasty Yargar C string Forte, all connected to the latest ultra-dense Granadilla tail-piece. Oh but wait, while its toes are being pushed into its nose, that cruel soundpost is trying to burst its belly, simultaneously fighting with the bridge that is trying to bash the very same belly in. And the littlest change in stresses is going to modify the cello's balance of internal tensions. . . quite a feat it can survive being played at all! But the cello is not a 'perfectly elastic' object, being made from wood, a little metal and just a bit of boiled cow bones. . . so the poor thing does remember for a few minutes each time it is brutalized. Can you blame it? Would you behave differently if it were yourself being balanced on a razor-sharp Titanium end-pin, while all trussed up in an unnatural and unspeakable fashion? I would scream for unionization! A little mechanical memory is the least we can expect from the old tramp! |
| Post removed |
Guidocorona you are a man of science. Yes I know all of the statements you have made above as to musical instruments are factual. I also know by my own observation and that of others present that the wood of the cello under comparitive use had an active memory, while stored could also be erased over a 10 minute period of time. Something I would have never thought possible until I heard it myself. So with that said I am open to other ideas, the possibilty of Scaller waves and Orgone energy. One or both if they truly exist may be at work in the Clock.So I will check it out. Tom |
Theaudiotweak, no musical instrument I know of has ever been influenced by something I can stick in my pocket. Acoustic grounding of a string instrument through tail pieces, end pins, chin rests of differing designs and materials is another kettle of fish all together. Even modifying instrument resonance by the application internal/external of any material, or altering the composition / shape / etc. . . of any component will alter the sound. . . but putting a 'lucky charm' in your pocket will not be noticeably helpful, even with cryo-treated batteries, that would be dead by definition. |
Looking over quickly their web page..well they do have some radical ideas..some which I have an open mind to..I have been working on the mechanical grounding of some musical instruments. I have found that these, in some cases several hundred year old instruments have a memory all their own. That you can also influence this memory with the introduction of a new material or grounding technique and that this newly introduced memory will disappear slowly after you reintroduce the old material and regress to the former grounding method. You can hear this change occurr over a playing period of 20 minutes or so. The wood has a vibrational pattern which can be altered and redirected by a change in coupling and grounding. Tom |
Seems Mrs. PWB, May Belt, is already steps ahead of currs like me: "Yes, I know what you mean about the 'strands' in some of the discussion groups. The 'non-thinkers' react at being asked to 'think' by mockery, ridicule and insults. Intelligent people are then reluctant to 'put their heads above the parapet' because no one likes being mocked, ridiculed and insulted - so the 'non-thinkers' win !!! and nothing progresses forward. Even when a sensible, intelligent discussion is started, the 'ridiculers' take over and the sensible ones retire and the 'ridiculers' win again!!" See? Accept what the Belts put forth, you're sensible and intelligent. Take exception and you're a "non-thinker". Ouch, that really adversely affected my energy patterns. Check out the PWB price list with links to product descriptions -- I quite like the "Quantum Clip", an alligator clip with a short wire hanging off the end that has a nut on it, and sells for $875. Think I'll get two, one for each nipple. |
Back in the day I spent more than 200 bucks pissing the nite away or or so I was told. I don't time travel as far into the past as I use too. Those who like to gamble at the tables or on the ponies ...well ya here when they have won but what about all the loses. The debate mostly in the past about vibration control or resonace control methods those controversial and intense disputes were recorded here. All that racket that was written made many people aware of new methods. I'm willing to take a chance. Tom |
More amusement/punishment for those who may not have followed all the links within previously listed articles: PFO article by Roger Gordon (yet another) PFO article by Carol Clark MusicWeb article by Bill Kenney, Pt. 1 MusicWeb article by Bill Kenney, Pt. 2 SoundStage article by Greg Weaver, Pt. 1 SoundStage article by Greg Weaver, Pt. 2 SoundStage article by Greg Weaver, Pt. 3 Rupert Sheldrake's "Morphic Resonance" hypothesis, with link to his homepage All are linked one way or another on the PWB website, but apparently I've got nothing better to do than save the lazy some clicks :-) Further commentary seems superfluous at this point, other than for me to thank Audioari1 for his troll, without which I may have missed a few additional reasons why I am ashamed to call myself an audiophile... |
| Post removed |
Zaikesman, the stuff you posted from PFO strains my credulity. I think of myself as empirical in the best sense of the word and that hearing a difference in an A/B demonstration is sufficient. Peter Belt's stuff, however, has never been available to me to complete such tests, so I have never tried any. I cringe when I read some reviews which ask for leaps of faith and merely trying the products. I heard the very positive impact of the IC in a demo at CES and have been using these since. I assume there is a scientific benefit to why they work and have made no great effort to keep up with the interplay between mystic explanations, scientific explanations, and simplistic criticisms of both by pseudo-scientists. But the pen is just going too far. The CLC, is somewhere in between. I had hoped for a demo at CES and understand why there was none. With the number of credible people embarrassing it, however, I may venture forth. With the Bent pen, however, there is little chance. |
