Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Dr. Frosch responds to my criticisms

Expand Messages
  • Glen MacPherson
    Recently I made a post regarding what I thought was an impressive German study, which I thought was also possibly flawed because of insufficiently thick copper
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 19, 2014
    • 0 Attachment

      Recently I made a post regarding what I thought was an impressive German study, which I thought was also possibly flawed because of insufficiently thick copper shielding. Dr. Frosch wrote to my blog, pointing out that I neglected to pay attention to the building itself in which the experiment was housed.

      And he is correct in that, and my regrets over my oversight. 

      But EM sources of the Hum are still the main suspect. A single anecdotal report, no matter how rigorous, does not make for a formal study. What is needed is a controlled, double-blind experiment that points to the source, whether it be electromagnetic, acoustic, both, or neither. Moreover, the experiment must be replicated across multiple sites and multiple hearers. The Deming Box experiment is still the gold-standard for this, and fund-raising continues.

      Thanks to Dr. Frosch for correcting the record.

    • engineidler
      Glen that is good to know. You mention fund raising for the Deming experiment, how can we donate? Paypal is the easiest method. Regards John
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 19, 2014
      • 0 Attachment


        Glen that is good to know. You mention fund raising for the Deming experiment, how can we donate? Paypal is the easiest method.

         

        Regards

        John

         

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.