The Wine Clip

[sammy]

I'd add that if any "expert" in perceptual psychology read thru this thread they'd suggest we all be institutionalized.

[tommy]

In the interest of  science, they cost $49.95, not $80. Mr. Wine Clip made a joke about the price going up, which I imagine it will after FG and Sam's experiment, but it is still $49.95 according their website.

I recieved my clip yesterday and can think of at least one additional use if it doesn't make the wine more enjoyable.

mr. clip might want to brush up on his marketing. i didn't read that as a joke, and i'm pretty sure others didn't either.

[Al_Dente]

In the interest of  science, they cost $49.95, not $80. Mr. Wine Clip made a joke about the price going up, which I imagine it will after FG and Sam's experiment, but it is still $49.95 according their website.

I recieved my clip yesterday and can think of at least one additional use if it doesn't make the wine more enjoyable.

mr. clip might want to brush up on his marketing. i didn't read that as a joke, and i'm pretty sure others didn't either.

errrr... i don't get it...

[NeroW]

Too bad some people can never say Beethoven was a great composer.

Beethoven was a great composer.

[hjshorter]

Too bad some people can never say Beethoven was a great composer.

Beethoven was a great composer.

Prove it.

[Al_Dente]

Too bad some people can never say Beethoven was a great composer.

Beethoven was a great composer.

Prove it.

Easy. Just put the decomposed composer through a mass in C major spectrometer.

[slkinsey]

I understand the need for scientific proof on this for obvious reasons, especially if it prevents some unlucky rube from blowing $80.

Right. That's the exact point. The only reason I think it is important to test is because the claims as to how it works (i.e., the "power of magnets") does not make much sense to me from a scientific standpoint. If a company were marketing a special pourspout for wine that was designed to quickly aerate the wine as it was poured, and if that company claimed that their device made the wine taste different, I wouldn't give it the slightest thought. This is because the effect of aeration on wine is well understood. Furthermore, it would be quite easy for the company selling such a device to run an analysis and demonstrate conclusively that wine run through their device contained more dissolved oxygen than wine from a normal pour.

I do have one question though... Are you proposing to chemically analyze the test wines, or via tasting?

To test it via tasting, but using the standard controls and experimental design employed in studies involving qualitative perception. Again, the point of using a "placebo clip" on the non-clipped bottle is to establish as closely as possible that, if there is a statistically significant finding of a perceived difference in taste between clipped and non-clipped wine, it is due to an effect created by the magnets in the Wine Clip.

If the perceptual experiment comes out in favor of the Wine Clip, then one can perhaps move on to attempting some kind of physical analysis... but at least it would be established that the magnets were doing something that effected the taste. Of course, another logical step would be to do evaluate the value of the Wine Clip by running another perceptual study looking at clipped wine versus regular wine swirled in the glass for 2 minutes.

In the interest of  science, they cost $49.95, not $80. Mr. Wine Clip made a joke about the price going up, which I imagine it will after FG and Sam's experiment, but it is still $49.95 according their website.

I didn't get the impression he was joking at all. Quite to the contrary, I got the impression he was dead serious.

[tighe]

To test it via tasting, but using the standard controls and experimental  design employed in studies involving qualitative perception.  Again, the point of using a "placebo clip" on the non-clipped bottle is to establish as closely as possible that, if there is a statistically significant finding of a perceived difference in taste between clipped and non-clipped wine, it is due to an effect created by the magnets in the Wine Clip.

Just to throw my methodological $0.02 in....

If you were going to really control for perception problems, some of your subjects should taste wines that both have a 'false' clip on them and some should taste wines that were both 'clipped' and you should let all of you subjects know ahead of time that all of these treatments are possible. Otherwise subjects will seek a difference between the two wines that you may incorrectly attribute to the clip, when it may be due to some other factor, or completely nonexistant.

[hollywood]

If the perceptual experiment comes out in favor of the Wine Clip, then one can perhaps move on to attempting some kind of physical analysis... but at least it would be established that the magnets were doing something that effected the taste.

Right. And if you think about it, if the magnets do have an effect on the wine, Mr. Clip would presumably want to explore the way that it works further to make refinements in the product, e.g., bigger or smaller magnets, the angle at which they are placed relative to the bottle, etc. And perhaps there would be differing applications for red and white wines. The fact that there isn't interest in this on his part runs contrary to the notion that it actually works.

[Craig Camp]

Can we clip this in the bud and talk just about the clip, getting clipped and testing the clip and not about Mr. Clip or potential clipees.

[slkinsey]

To test it via tasting, but using the standard controls and experimental  design employed in studies involving qualitative perception.  Again, the point of using a "placebo clip" on the non-clipped bottle is to establish as closely as possible that, if there is a statistically significant finding of a perceived difference in taste between clipped and non-clipped wine, it is due to an effect created by the magnets in the Wine Clip.

If you were going to really control for perception problems, some of your subjects should taste wines that both have a 'false' clip on them and some should taste wines that were both 'clipped' and you should let all of you subjects know ahead of time that all of these treatments are possible. Otherwise subjects will seek a difference between the two wines that you may incorrectly attribute to the clip, when it may be due to some other factor, or completely nonexistant.

Indeed. Hence the words "standard controls and experimental design employed in studies involving qualitative perception." Part of a good study, BTW, would be that each subject would compare multiple test pairs -- i.e., do 30 blind comparisons all with the same wine rather than using 3 wines and doing 1 comparison each.

[budrichard]

I quote, "Here is the science: When a conductor or conductive fluid (in this case

wine) passes through a magnetic field, an electrical charge is created.

That charge can have an effect on molecules that are suspended in the

fluid - loosely bonded molecules can have those bonds broken, resulting in

smaller molecules. We can hypothesize that the taste of many small

molecules is smoother than the taste of fewer large molecules. There is no

proof of this, however. There is no scientific data that stipulates that

smaller tannin molecules taste better than larger ones."

The first part of the above statement is absolutely incorrect. When a conducter or conductive fluid passes through a magnetic field, a current consisting of the movement of electrical particles is created. If that didn't happen, then you wouldn't have the electricity to read this post, as that is how electricity is generated, by moving a conducter in a magnetic field. Electrical charges are not created, just like matter or energy is not created in normal circomstances.( We won't talk about Quantum Mechanics where it is possible to create matter and energy just as long as the net effect is zero!)

The rest of the statement is pure junk! Who said wine is a conductive fluid?

In terms of optical and audio testing. There are quantitative methods available to test each area. The use of subjective testing is left to the 'FanZines' where all products are great and the more one pays for an item, the better it sounds or looks. You can go to BestBuy and purchase 100' rolls of 'Monster' HP cable and install your 7.1 system yourself(I plan for the future) or you can purchase esoteric cable with all sorts of unjustifiable claims at outrageous prices. The choice is yours. Those of us that believe in science choose to believe rigerous quantitative testing.

I do believe in the subjective when visual perception(art) is the subject and yes, you can't quantify it but know it when you see, hear, feel or taste it. But when I see, hear, feel or taste something I don't like, I have no problem in saying so. We walked out of the Chicago Lyric Opera's performance of 'Gatsby' because we didn't like it. If we believed the critics, we would have stayed. I believe many individuals are not confident in thier perceptions (wine being a prominent area) and don't want to contradict what the experts say.

BTW, did you ever wonder why they use placebo's in testing?

I certainly appreciate the efforts some of you are going to for this product and I am not ridiculing you. I simply am trying to point out that your testing is nonconsequential. In fact when you come right down to it, wine tasting is nonconsequential. Wine tasting makes an enjoyable product into a contest or trial wherein one loses sight of just enjoying wine.

Definition: Wine Tasting, where one tastes a wine with the objective of giving it a numerical rating and describing the flavors.

Now I'm beat. I need to have a glass of Domdechant Werner's 2001 Hochheimer Domdechaney Spatlese.

http://www.domdechantwerner.com/dwwine.htm Not the Trocken Spatlese but the sweet Spatlese. Try to find that at your local wine store!-Dick

Edited October 16, 2003 by budrichard (log)

[Craig Camp]

I need to have a glass of Domdechant Werner's 2001 Hochhiemer Domechaney Spatlese.

Gee... that other stuff was real interesting - honest.

But now this, this line really got my interest. Well, how does it taste? We're waiting.

At last - something really interesting! Wine.

[slkinsey]

I certainly appreciate the efforts some of you are going to for this product and I am not ridiculing you. I simply am trying to point out that your testing is nonconsequential. In fact when you come right down to it, wine tasting is nonconsequential.

I think it depends on what you mean by "testing." I would argue that a well-designed, controlled and analyzed test as to whether or not tasters can tell the difference between clipped wine and non clipped wine is not inconsequential or scientifically invalid -- some "hard" scientists' bias against perceptual psychology research notwithstanding.

[Boris_A]

1) Wrt. moving conductive fluids through a magnetic field:

Who said wine is a conductive fluid?

Even pure (destilled) water contains ionisized particles (contcentration balance of dissoziating H0+ and. HO- ions) and is a conductive fluid therefore.

Normal (tap) water is a better conductor because it's a solution of pure water and some salt. (= additional ionisized particles)

I'd expect wine to be (hopefully) even more concentrated than tap water.

"when a conductor or conductive fluid (in this case wine) passes through a magnetic field, an electrical charge is created."

Electrical current is created. (function of generators by induction).

I'd expect this current creating alteration of ionisation of particles, but, hmm, frankly I don't know.

"the sine of angle between the direction of motion and the magnetic field ... it appears that the direction of travel of the wine as it is poured is parallel to the flux lines of the magnetic fields from the rod-shaped magnets that surround it."

The assumption that the wine pours in a laminar way and not turbulent is an improbable hypothesis considering the way the fluid looks when poured out of a bottle. And when we find turbulent fluid dynamics and variable angles consequently, it gets very complicated.

So I think we can't exclude physical interdependence a priori and hence an influence is to be expected (at least not excluded). As for the order of magnitude .... this is subject to speculation for me.

2) Wrt. glas shape and wine quality

The found effect with different oxydation surface of a Flute and a Bordeaux glas seems obvious. But to conclude from this fact to the assumption that a shape of the glases by a certain brand has sensible influence compared with the very similar shape of glases by another brand (say Riedel vs. Spiegelau Bordeaux type glas) is not supported by the quoted research.

For me it's hard to imagine that Riedels are a priori "better suited" for all those different imaginables mouth holes than say, Spiegelau. ( I like my Stoelzles, BTW)

3) Wrt to testing/tasting arrangement:

I'd go with the tasting/ test procedure suggested by balex (Oct 13 2003, 10:41 AM) , where you have in every flight three glases and two of them are from the same bottle. The taster has to determine the pair poured out of the same bottle.

This particular testing system ("triangle" test) is quite popular among wine producers in my surrounding to determine sensoric threshold when they alter the wine (by acid, other wine (assemblage) or similar).

Edited October 17, 2003 by Boris_A (log)

[vengroff]

"the sine of angle between the direction of motion and the magnetic field ... it appears that the direction of travel of the wine as it is poured is parallel to the flux lines of the magnetic fields from the rod-shaped magnets that surround it."

The assumption that the wine pours in a laminar way and not turbulent is an improbable hypothesis considering the way the fluid looks when poured out of a bottle. And when we find turbulent fluid dynamics and variable angles consequently, it gets very complicated.

So I think we can't exclude physical interdependence a priori and hence an influence is to be expected (at least not excluded). As for the order of magnitude .... this is subject to speculation for me.

I'll admit I idealized the flow. There's also some slight curvature to the flux lines in the neck of the bottle, so we could take that into account too. Would you be happier if I had said that the first order effect is minimized?

The point is that if you wanted to minimize the effect of the magnets on any charged particles passing through the neck of the bottle, you would put them parallel to the neck, exactly as the clip does. If you wanted to maximize it, you would arrange them so the field cut across the neck, perpendicular to the bottle's axis. That way you would be sure to induce force on any charged particles leaving the bottle whether the flow was smooth or not.

[Boris_A]

(vengroff@ Oct 17 2003, 05:25 AM)

If you wanted to maximize it, you would arrange them so the field cut across the neck, perpendicular to the bottle's axis.

Seems logical to me.

Would you be happier if I had said that the first order effect is minimized?

Yes.

But an invitation for a Win Clip test with bottles Viader Napa, Léoville Barton, Cailloux Châteauneuf Cuvée Centenaire, Coche Dury an some others - then I would be very happy. Very, very happy.

With or without the Clip.

[vengroff]

(vengroff@ Oct 17 2003, 05:25 AM)

If you wanted to maximize it, you would arrange them so the field cut across the neck, perpendicular to the bottle's axis.

Seems logical to me.

Excellent. If you don't hear any more from me in this forum today it's because I'm busy filling out forms and waiting in the queue at the patent office. I've just devised a radically innovative new breakthrough in the field of magnetic enhancement of wine, and I need to protect it.

[Mark Sommelier]

Here's the update. My friend, the Noted UC Berkeley Professor ( I asked if I could reveal his name and he said "not yet") was in town this weekend. Over dinner at Citronelle, I brought out the Wine Clip. There were 3 people at the table, all wine professionals. My friend the NUCBP has read through some of the previous goings on here at eG about the Wine Clip. I told him that if anyone was qualified to research and test the Clip, it was him. I opened a bottle of wine, poured each person one glass without the clip, one with. Naturally, they were skeptical. The looks on their faces as they tasted made my night. They noticed a difference in the two glasses. NOT BETTER OR WORSE, JUST A DIFFERENCE. I then asked him if he thought double blind ABX tests and ANOVA were called for, and he said "hell no". We agreed that science can not quantify personal taste (sorry Member #1). I gave him the clip to take back to California where he said he would have it evaluated at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. I will keep you all posted on the developments.

[Mayhaw Man]

I gave him the clip to take back to California where he said he would have it evaluated at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. I will keep you all posted on the developments.

If the scientists there spend enough time and effort testing out the gizmo, perhaps they will have to change the name of the institution to "The Lawrence Liverless Laboratory"

[budrichard]

Mark, I am not trying to disparage you or your friend but Professor (of what?) at UC and Lawrence Livermore Laboratory does not impress me. Just remember the physicists who brought you 'Cold Fusion'! I'll stand by my assertion that the 'Wine Clip' is junk by all known laws of physics and that it cannot be objectively tested, blind, double blind or whatever.

I'm incredulous that we (I) are still wasting time on this post. -Dick

[DonRocks]

I'll stand by my assertion that the 'Wine Clip' is junk by all known laws of physics and that it cannot be objectively tested, blind, double blind or whatever.

And I'll stand by my assertion that it changed the wine.

Anything that can't be proven mathematically can be dismissed as such.

Michael Jordan is overrated.

Michel Bras is no better than McDonalds.

Albert Einstein lacked intuition.

The Wine Clip may be junk, but not for the reason you say it is.

Cheers,

Rocks.

[Mark Sommelier]

Mark, I am not trying to disparage you or your friend but Professor (of what?) at UC and Lawrence Livermore Laboratory does not impress me. Just remember the physicists who brought you 'Cold Fusion'! I'll stand by my assertion that the 'Wine Clip' is junk by all known laws of physics and that it cannot be objectively tested, blind, double blind or whatever.

I'm incredulous that  we (I) are still wasting time on this post. -Dick

Well, Dick, but you are disparaging me. My friend is a noted winemaker and a world known microbiologist. The thing does have an effect on wine, and whether you believe it or not matters little to me. I saw it first hand. Other people saw it first hand. Please don't make assertions that you can't attest to from personal experience. And yes, I'm getting tired of this too.

Edited October 27, 2003 by Mark Sommelier (log)

[Schneier]

Hey! You gave your clip away?

I was hoping you could trot it out when I visited next month. I was curious.

Oh well.

Bruce

[Alex]

...and this, I hope, also will be my last post on this thread.

First, an apology. We were having way too much fun at the Heartland Gathering to do a "serious" blind tasting. I did do several tastings on my own with <$15 reds. The results were consistent with my previous tastings and with Mark's. There consistently was a difference between the treated and untreated wines, with the difference disappearing after 5-10 minutes. I often found that the "softness" of the treated wine also meant that it had less bouquet and was less interesting in the mouth than the treated wine.

On the other hand, the Hello Kitty vibrator (scroll down the page a bit) appeared a little happier with the clip than without.