The Wine Clip

[sammy]

Agreed and thank you for letting the post stand. I wasn't trying to provide evidence to prove anything, I just thought the Magnet Guy made sense and deserved to be heard by the members.

[hollywood]

I just thought the Magnet Guy made sense and deserved to be heard by the members.

If only the Magnet Guy would show his face, perhaps I'd be mesmerized.

[vengroff]

I just thought the Magnet Guy made sense and deserved to be heard by the members.

I read what he wrote, and unfortunately, I can't say that I see the same sense that you do.

To begin with, consider his statement, "when a conductor or conductive fluid (in this case wine) passes through a magnetic field, an electrical charge is created." I would suggest that if you wrote that on a high-school physics exam, you would not get much credit at all. The movement of a conductor through a magnetic field does not create charge. It just doesn't.

What our anonymous magnet guy may be referring to is the behavior of charged particles moving through magnetic fields. This is well understood, and has been for quite a long time. Charged particles moving through magnetic fields experience a force perpendicular to the plane containing the direction of motion and the direction of the magnetic field through which the charged particle is moving.

The magnitude of this force is proportional to, among other things, the sine of angle between the direction of motion and the magnetic field. This actually brings up another interesting point, which is that in the wine clip design, 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. This means that the angle between the direction of motion of the wine and the direction of the magnetic field is zero, thus its sine is zero, thus there is no force on any charged particle in the wine, or dipolar molecule (one with a different concentration of charge at each end) the wine might contain. If you wanted the maximum induced force, you would put a horseshoe-shaped magnet around the spout of the bottle so that the wine would flow in a direction perpendicular to the magnetic field.

I have more comments on what he said, but I'm going to leave it at that for now.

[slkinsey]

Thank you vengroff... always interesting to see what happens to certain claims when someone shows up who really knows what he is talking about.

To others who currently have one of the test clips, I would like to restate my request: if two people can send wine clips to Fat Guy and me in NYC, we will conduct a blind ABX test with full controls and statistical analysis -- hopefully with equipment and assistance from some NYC wine shops and local wine experts. After conducting the test, we would return the clip to whomever the lender preferred (either the lender or Mr. Clip).

[vengroff]

Before I go through more of the confused science in our anonymous guest's remarks, I'd like to focus on one of his conclusions.

Any product can be held up to the scrutiny of science and be made to look like a placebo.

I almost don't know where to begin on this. It all but denies the relevence of science in society. No, it goes farther than that; it characterizes science as actively detrimental. It boggles the mind that anyone could seriously make such a broadly indefensible statement.

I ask you, for the sake of argument, to consider pharmacuticals. There are millions of people alive today because they have been given drugs that careful scientific scrutiny has shown behave radically differently than placebos.

Here's another one: gasoline. If our friend is right then surely science can show that it's a placebo and I can run my car just as well by putting water in the tank. But it's simply not true. No scientific inquiry would ever lead you to believe that gasoline and water combust in similar ways.

Finally, closer to home, compare an high-falutin' organic free-range pork chop to a modern genetic hybrid factory-farmed pork chop. The difference in taste perception that people have can be explained almost entirely by the fact that one has a lot more fat in it than the other. Any serious scientific inquiry into the difference between the two would notice the fat difference. It couldn't be missed.

If people want to buy a wine clip, that's up to them, and fine with me. But if they want to ridicule the scientific method in order to feel better about the vendor's inability to explain how it works, that's just farcical.

[DonRocks]

I look forward to the other test results so we work towards agreement that The Wine Clip does have some sort of effect on the wine. That said, there's at least one person on this forum (me) who doesn't need any statistical data, because I done seen it with my own eyes.

The reason I look forward to this confirmation is so I can hurry up and begin dismissing this thing as a gimmick. I am, have been, and will continue to be unimpressed with man's ability to manipulate food products. But until that time, it's sort of fun to see this develop.

Also, let's not fool ourselves about being overly scientific about this. All we're going to get here (barring funding from the FDA) is additional anecdotal evidence. (Were your wine glasses clean? Did you have a burrito for lunch before the tasting? Do you smoke cigarettes? Can you tell that a Riesling is different from a Sauvignon Blanc?)

But anecdotal evidence is probably sufficient - this is novel and interesting, but really not that big a deal - and of course some test conditions will be more rigorous and controlled than others.

Just some thoughts of the moment,

Rocks.

[Human Bean]

Could the mysterious Mr. Magnet perhaps, by pure chance, be a supplier of magnets to Mr. Clip?

Merely a rhetorical question; no way to know, since Mr. Magnet chooses to remain hidden.

[Mark Sommelier]

I am currently trying to arrange the double blind tests with a friend of mine who is not only a world famous microbiologist, but a well known winemaker as well. I'll let everyone know what happens.

Edited October 16, 2003 by Mark Sommelier (log)

[Craig Camp]

I am currently trying to arrange the double blind tests with a friend of mine who is not only a world famous microbiologist, but a well known winemaker as well. Frankly, I'm getting tired of this.

Hang in there Mark. I thought your first report was useful and look forward to your next results. Thanks for the effort.

[balex]

Some us are professionals with extensive scientific backgrounds and investigation histories.

snip

I stand by my original assertion that objective testing of the 'Wine Clip' is impossible. Not only from a perception aspect but from control of variables i.e. the wine changes with time.

Rather than just standing by your assertion, could you please justify it? In particular why is it different from perceptual testing of audio or optical products? And why is it different from testing pharmaceutical products on humans where there are many uncontrolled variables? Or do you feel that objective testing of these things is also impossible? I think perhaps there is a confusion between the subjective question: does it improve the taste ?, and the objective question: does it make a detectable change?

[ctgm]

(a) does it matter if it works? If people are happy with what they have bought all well and good. The power of the mind to convince might lead to someone enjoying their wine more - which is a good thing.

(b) just because science can't prove or disporve the Wine Clip's claims doesn't mean that they are untrue.

© you are all a bunch of sceptics

[vengroff]

just because science can't prove or disporve the Wine Clip's claims doesn't mean that they are untrue.

I guess I just don't understand this implication that science lacks the tools to analyze the wine clip's effect on wine. It's quite pervasive in this thread, and I'm not sure why. We're not talking about the deepest darkest secrets of the universe here. It's some straightforward organic chemistry.

With the aid of Mark's report on tasters' perceptions, we have long since established a working hypothesis that wine which passes through the clip gets a big initial boost of oxidation. We know the primary reactions that take place as wine oxidizes in a glass. We know how to measure the concentrations of the substances involved in these reactions and related substances that contribute to flavor and aroma--things like tannins, gallic acid, esters, phenols, and so on. So why is it so far fetched to think that we could conduct experiments to determine if their concentrations vary in clipped vs. unclipped wine?

There are many people who believe that God intervenes in their daily lives. That's their business. But I have to wonder why someone would extend this kind of blind faith to some magnets around a bottle of wine.

[Msk]

Mark,

I thought your tests were great, both well thought out and well described. It was just the type of information I was looking for relative to the pages and pages of this story which I have been following.

"What would well-seasoned skeptical wine-professionals say after a test."

Scientific or not, you gave a great account of it and I am looking forward to any additional informaition/testing you may provide.

You have already gone above and beyond IMHO.

There is alot of Food and Wine information on the web, but there is only one eG.

Msk

[Alex]

To others who currently have one of the test clips, I would like to restate my request:  if two people can send wine clips to Fat Guy and me in NYC, we will conduct a blind ABX test with full controls and statistical analysis -- hopefully with equipment and assistance from some NYC wine shops and local wine experts.  After conducting the test, we would return the clip to whomever the lender preferred (either the lender or Mr. Clip).

Sent me a PM with your address.

[hannnah]

It appears that there has been some independent research done on the extent to which glass shape influences wine chemistry and taste.  Here is a summary of some work done last year.  Unfortunately, I think the only way to get the full report is to get your hands on a printed back issue of New Scientist.

Here's an abstract from one of the conferences where it was presented. The New Scientist article doesn't go into specifics - it's pretty similar to what was posted on decanter.com.

[hollywood]

There are many people who believe that God intervenes in their daily lives.  That's their business.  But I have to wonder why someone would extend this kind of blind faith to some magnets around a bottle of wine.

What's the Frequency, Kenneth?

[slkinsey]

I am currently trying to arrange the double blind tests with a friend of mine who is not only a world famous microbiologist, but a well known winemaker as well. Frankly, I'm getting tired of this.

Hang in there Mark. I thought your first report was useful and look forward to your next results. Thanks for the effort.

I echo all of Craig's sentiment.

If you are going to go to the trouble to set up a more stringent test, you might consider doing so in consultation with someone who knows about research methods and experimental design for perceptual psychology -- I believe there are several on these boards who would be willing to help. I also hope to conduct a study of my own design here, ideally with a fairly large sample.

[Carolyn Tillie]

I've been following all this but now have a stupid question -- IF the clip actually does what it says it does, and makes the wine smoother during its initial pour, then is it actually just forcing the wine open more quickly? I mean, if a wine were decanted for, say, and hour, would it achieve the smoothness that the Clip can produce immediately?

I ask because the great joy I receive from wine is experiencing the physical act of it opening. I enjoy tasting a wine "closed" when first a bottle is opened, but then a half-hour and then an hour or perhaps two later, when the wine has opened.

I'm sorry if I am so lame about this, but am I missing the point of what the Clip does? If all it does is force a wine to open early, than I can't see why a true wine geek would want it, prefering the experience of the wait...

[Mark Sommelier]

I've been following all this but now have a stupid question -- IF the clip actually does what it says it does, and makes the wine smoother during its initial pour, then is it actually just forcing the wine open more quickly? I mean, if a wine were decanted for, say, and hour, would it achieve the smoothness that the Clip can produce immediately?

I ask because the great joy I receive from wine is experiencing the physical act of it opening. I enjoy tasting a wine "closed" when first a bottle is opened, but then a half-hour and then an hour or perhaps two later, when the wine has opened.

I'm sorry if I am so lame about this, but am I missing the point of what the Clip does? If all it does is force a wine to open early, than I can't see why a true wine geek would want it, prefering the experience of the wait...

Carolyn,

You hit the nail on the head.

[John W.]

I tried this device in a totally unscientific setting with Mark last night. Present were several importers, a winemaker from Bordeaux, chefs, wine geeks, lots of cigarette smoke etc.

We tasted a 1996 Medoc and a 1999 Gevrey Chambertin. The wines were poured in front of us, so we knew which was which.

For my palate, the wines were subtly different. Say what you want about scientific method, they were different. But the difference was so slight in terms of mouth feel, fragrance etc. that some thought there was no difference. My opinion on the changes were consistent with the normal course of wine breathing. I've contacted a friend of mine from Napa who is a winemaker (I've asked him to be quoted but have not heard back yet so I will not) and a great teacher of chemistry of wine. The jist of his thoughts on this were that it alters the charge of the wine to allow oxygen to be more rapidly absorbed, thereby speeding up the opening process. After 5 minutes the wines were identical again.

The comments ranged from quite different to not at all. The group as a whole was not impressed. My take on this is just open the bottle earlier to have the same effect.

[Carolyn Tillie]

Carolyn,

You hit the nail on the head.

Thank god -- I thought I was seriously missing some vital piece of data making me incorrectly judge the critical point of this thread.

[Craig Camp]

No you got it right away. It just took the rest of us a couple of hundred posts to say it.

[slkinsey]

I tried this device in a totally unscientific setting with Mark last night. Present were several importers, a winemaker from Bordeaux, chefs, wine geeks, lots of cigarette smoke etc.

...

For my palate, the wines were subtly different. Say what you want about scientific method, they were different...

Just for the sake of clarity... no one is necessarily saying that they aren't different -- although they are suggesting that they haven't been proven to be different from a scientific standpoint (to the extent that one believes that perceptual studies can "prove" anything).

But, assuming there is a difference for the moment, some question remains as to whether the difference is attributable to the magnetic device or other factors. One of the reasons to use a "placebo clip" in a controlled experiment is that it is possible the presence of significant chunk of metal around the neck of the bottle is subtly influencing the temperature of the wine or the way the wine is poured, etc. in ways that might influence the oxidation of the wine, etc. What this means is that one might be able to get an equivalent or similar effect by going to a hardware store, buying a two dollar length of black pipe and sliding that onto the neck of the bottle instead of an eighty dollar Wine Clip.

[John W.]

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

I don't have the means to do a serious test of this, nor the desire. I was interested because of Mark's comments, I tried it, made my comments and that's about it.

I guess I'm a traditionalist - Open the bottle, pour it into a glass and drink it.

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

[sammy]

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.