They tested the wrong guy

Fortunately, I found out about the "Beat the Lie Detector" secondary story in the most recent episode of MythBusters before I watched it. So I knew to fast-forward through the lie detector story and just watch the other one.

This was entirely for the sake of my health. There's no way I could watch someone claiming that polygraphs are "80% to about 99% accurate", and then see a screen shot of software saying "Probability of Deception is Greater Than .99", without dangerously elevating my own metabolic markers.

(But yes, I've skimmed through the lie detector story now, just to make sure the complaints are valid. They are.)

The icing on the cake is the fact that the person making the "80 to 99%" claim, and later administering the polygraph tests, was "Doctor" Michael Martin. Who, apparently, bought his doctorate from a diploma mill.

You certainly don't need university qualifications to be knowledgeable about a subject, but fake degrees are anti-qualifications. Nobody who bought a diploma to make themselves look qualified in an area should be believed about anything, until they say they're sorry and take the unearned honorifics off their business card.

In reality, it is arguable that the polygraph is not entirely useless. (This may set some sort of record for damning with faint praise.)

The polygraph looks especially good if you, unfairly, count the cases in which it's used merely as an intimidation device to trick a guilty person into confessing. Wen Ho Lee, for instance, passed his polygraph test with flying colours - but that was no problem for the Feds, who just said he'd failed. It's like police interrogators telling a suspect that their buddy has already confessed, when no such thing has actually happened.

Contrary to not-a-real-doctor Michael Martin's statement, the polygraph's history is one big losing streak. Nobody's ever actually been able to demonstrate, in proper controlled tests, that the darn thing is actually worth using. Not that many governments or corporations seem to listen when the National Academies of Science tell them as much.

The NAS actually concluded that, although the polygraph is the best lie-detection device created so far, it's still worse than useless, thanks to its high false-positive rate. The essential randomness of the polygraphic process means that although it certainly is possible to "beat" a polygraph test, there are no guarantees; no matter how innocent you look (because you know the tricks, or because you really are innocent), the polygraph operator may still decide you're guilty.

The popular conception that a polygraph actually does "detect lies" in any straightforward sense is entirely wrong. An honest TV show should make this clear, and not give air time to someone who proudly states the opposite, whether or not that person has valid qualifications.

As psycho-quackery goes, the polygraph is a long way behind the real horror stories (like the lobotomy craze, for instance). But it still very royally deserves an "anti" Web site.

MythBusters genuinely does make an effort to get things right, which makes them almost unique in the "reality TV" field, and quite unlike certain other shows in their own niche.

This time, though, they appear to have dropped the ball very seriously indeed.

This isn't just a procedural error, oversimplification or scientific mistake on the level of getting the shape of a raindrop or the principles of operation of a wing wrong. It's a big ol' slab of prime-time bullshit.

Rivalrous and commercioganic for Christ Ma'x!

I get a lot of commercial spam from Chinese manufacturers who're under the impression that I'm a "reseller" of just about anything I've ever reviewed. And then some.

These e-mails are usually not very literate, but sometimes they break through into unintentional poetry.

I just got two copies of this one:

From: "RISING TRADING CO"
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:45:22 -0800
To: <cs@110220volts.com> [I presume my address was way down in the BCCs somewhere]
Subject: Christ Ma'x Promotion MP4

Dear Friend,

How are you doing? I hope that everything is good!
Are you searching the rivalrous and commercioganic products? Please have a look our this new model mp4 player, it has some rivalrous features in market:
1 : 1.8" TFT display + card reader function .
2 : Built in outside speaker
3 : Built in RF function(optional).
4 : With the good handle housing which use the flash metal facture.
Its picture and details information is as below,please reference:

[A picture of a Keepin' It Real Fake version of an iPod Nano was meant to be included here - but I had to dig the file out of my embedded directory and rename it to be able to see what the heck it was. It was originally called "ui=1&amp;attid=0.1&amp;disp=emb&amp;view=att&amp;th=1168aff0f2e8de23".]

Main Function and features:

* Exquisite & fashionable flash metal and thin design;
* 1.8" TFT screen, 260K TRUE color display;
* Built-in FM radio & With FM recording function (optional) ;
* RF(Radio Frequency) transmit function ,the sigBnal can be accepted by your car FM, etc.(optional)
* Built-in outside speaker (optional);
* Support card reader function;
* Support DRM(digital right management)(optional).
* Built-in lithium battery .
* Capacity supported: 128MB to 4GB;
* Supports MP3, MP4, WMA, WAV, etc;
* Supports TXT electronic text reading ;
* Supports WAV recorder format;
* 7 EQ modes: moral , rock, pop, classic, soft, jazz, bass;
* Supports ID3 synchronous lyrics display;
* Support Multi-languages.(more than 20 kinds).

It went on, but that's the end of the funny stuff.

What do you imagine "moral" EQ does? I wasn't aware that you could make NWA sound like Perry Como just by changing a frequency response curve.

See-through aviation

After I saw this episode of Boing Boing TV...

...I of course had to check out Carl Rankin's Web site.

Wherein is prominently displayed The Mama Bear...

..."the largest radio-controlled plane constructed from plastic-wrap, drinking straws and tape ever built".

Super-light spindly radio controlled planes are not new. Gossamer concoctions of balsa, carbon fibre and Mylar film have been buzzing peacefully around in high-school halls for ages, and they're now even leaking into the commercial market.

Those indomitable little foam living-room planes and twin-motor helicopters (the original Picoo Z and its numerous, often inferior, knock-offs) are cheaper even than a plane made from take-out containers. But they're not actually very controllable - you can only kind of suggest where you'd like them to go, after which luck takes over.

Carl Rankin's creations, in contrast, are proper controllable aircraft made on a near-zero budget for everything except the electronics.

Humankind's Endless Quest for a Substitute Plugpack

I've been asked variations of this question often enough that I thought I'd give it its very own blog post. I hope it's suitably grateful.

I have a Canon Powershot A95, a wonderful little digicam - smart enough that I can take decent pictures with it, cheap enough that I can afford it, small enough I can carry it everywhere. Moreover, I just found out I can actually remote-control it with gphoto2. Huge vistas of time-lapse photography opened up before me. Only, it's hard to take a 7-hour time-lapse on one set of AAs.

Canon sells the "ACK600", an AC power adapter rated at 4.3 VDC and 1.5 A; but they sell it for $50.

On the other hand, just around the corner is a junk shop with a big cardboard box full of wall warts that have become separated from their widgets. Last time I went the guy sold me 5 for $4. Am I safe (assuming I get the polarity right) feeding my camera from a wall-wart rated at 4.3 VDC and 1.5 A? Or is the ACK600 especially well-regulated or something? Is the ACK600 likely to be supplying 4.3 VDC exactly, or something higher? Am I going to damage my camera if I feed it 4.3 VDC from my lab power supply?

Anne

I would not be surprised if none of the plugpacks in the junk shop's box are suitable for powering your camera. But it shouldn't be difficult to power the camera from some other plugpack.

(Note: This is another of my famous "all care, no responsibility" answers. No smoking wrecks which once were cameras will be replaced by the management.)

The great danger of old plugpacks is that they may be unregulated. A regulated power supply will (to a first approximation) always output its rated voltage(s). This means it's fine to plug a big "12V 10A regulated" power supply into a little "12V 75mA" device; a regulated power supply may behave oddly if it's extremely lightly loaded, but that's very seldom a problem.

An unregulated plugpack, on the other hand, will only output its rated voltage when it's fully loaded. If it's completely unloaded, it'll deliver precisely root-two (1.414...) times its rated voltage.

If an old heavyweight linear plugpack (as opposed to the modern lightweight switchmode type, which are almost always regulated and usually accept a range of input mains voltages) isn't specifically labelled "REGULATED", you should assume that it isn't.

(The other trap waiting for you in the old-plugpack box, apart from breaking out the multimeter to make sure which output wire is the positive, is power supplies that have no positive output wire. Some plugpacks output alternating current, instead of the direct current that most small devices expect. An AC power supply for an old modem or something may have voltage and current specs that look fine, but if you plug it into a DC-expecting device and that device doesn't have rather robust reverse-polarity protection, a small noise and a funny smell will soon occur.)

It's reasonable to assume that most gadgets will accept their rated input voltage plus or minus ten per cent, but lightly loaded unregulated power supplies can easily be outputting more than 1.3 times their rated voltage. That can blow stuff up.

It's good that input a bit above or below the rated input voltage for a given device is generally fine, because the official power supplies for some devices have weird voltages. Yours is one such; "4.3VDC" is an oddball voltage that you're almost certain to be unable to find an a box o' power supplies. Your camera will probably run perfectly well from a 4.5V regulated plugpack, though, as long as that plugpack can deliver enough current. 1.5 amps is a bit on the high side (and the camera won't need it most of the time - only charging the flash is likely to push it above an amp), but current ratings that high are easy enough to find in off-brand switchmode plugpacks from electronics stores these days.

And yes, a bench power supply set to the same voltage and with enough current capacity will also power your camera just fine. This sort of setup, with an inline ammeter (don't trust the current meter on an inexpensive bench supply for more than approximate readings), can make it easy to figure out exactly what the acceptable voltage range for a given device is.

The camera may, for instance, still work but with obviously slower zoom speed at 3.7V, and it may not draw any more current (or actually draw less) at 4.8V than at 4.3V. In that case, you know you're pretty safe with the higher voltage. If a device starts drawing more current as you raise its input voltage, it's a good idea to stop raising the input voltage.

Even without such investigations, I'd be very surprised if you couldn't also rig up an old-style external battery pack wired to an appropriate DC input plug. Three alkaline D cells in a holder (for 4.5V nominal, and something in the order of 12 amp-hours of capacity even at a constant half-amp drain!) would probably be fine, and give you impressive run time. I'm also about 90% sure that four 1.2V NiMH cells in series (for 4.8V nominal) would be fine, even though they'd be rather more than 1.2V per cell when freshly charged.

Getting back to old plugpacks: The final problem with them is that they can be dangerous.

Plugpacks have been built down to a price for many years, and it's common to find a gadget that's passed lots of electrical safety tests being powered by a very dodgy plugpack indeed. It's not easy for a gadget importer to change the power supplies in devices that take mains input, but it's very simple to get a device safety-certified with a top-quality plugpack, then increase profits by putting ten-cent assembled-by-peasants plugpacks in with the actual retail gadgets.

A sensible design for a plugpack should include some kind of overcurrent and overheating protection. Some have simple fuses, but those are difficult to replace if they pop; a self-resetting overcurrent and thermal circuit breaker is much better.

Those sorts of things cost the manufacturers, oh, maybe even a dollar each, though. So it's perfectly normal to find linear plugpacks, old and new, that have no emergency cut-out features at all.

I remember one line of cheap multi-voltage one-amp plugpacks of which I bought a few on Super Clearance Special, years ago.

I ended up having to carry two of those plugpacks out into the garden, dangling them gingerly by the cable as the smoking interior made noises reminiscent of an angry rat.

The vast majority of plugpacks, even ancient ones with appallingly poor efficiency, will behave themselves perfectly well pretty much forever. If they die, they die harmlessly, with an open-circuit transformer or something.

But it's still not a bad idea, whenever you plug in an AC adapter, to think about what might happen if that plugpack decided to catch fire while you were out of the house.

If it's plugged into a powerboard that's sitting on your wool carpet: Not so bad.

If it's between a pile of old clothes and a box of tissues: Consider a change.

A link request from Spider-Man

Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:28:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Link Exchange Request
From: webmaster@creditreportkey.com
To: [my domain-registration contact address]

Hello buddy ,

Quality sites need to link together.. don’t you agree? I can give you a
high quality content page link from my site
(http://www.creditreportkey.com). In addition both our sites are
vertically related. I am sure you are aware of content page link plays a
major role in SEO.

Kindly add my link in your content pages other than the links page.your
site is a quality site hence I need a content link from your website.

If you said yes, then I need your link text and URL to get this started.If
no,I am really sorry to have been a disturbance.I promise,this will not
repeat.

We also offer free download of xp icons in our website. I hope this will
also be useful to you.

Link Title : Credit Report Key
Link Url : http://www.creditreportkey.com/

Awaiting for your word,
Peter parker

Wow - "free download of xp icons" from a site that also offers you the never-to-be-repeated opportunity to pay money for free credit reports and bogus credit repair services?

Why would anybody in the world ever need to visit any OTHER site?!

I'll link to nobody else, from now on!

(And don't worry, Peter - your super-secret's safe with me!)

And what's the deal with the "vertically related" part, anyway? The business-jargon usage of "vertical" is supposed to mean every stage of a business from production to distribution, hence the concept of vertical integration; "vertically related" businesses would be, say, a flour factory and a bakery. The word seems to have turned into cant, though; now it just means "stuff that's related to other stuff". So you get ad agencies spouting things like "high bidded content in your vertical", as if their purpose were not to actually communicate an idea but just to win a game of Scrabble.

The above missive arrived right next to this other magnificent creation:

From: Stephen <hotescortreviews@gmail.com>
To: dan@dansdata.com
Subject: I would like to exchange links with your site
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 0:38:42 -0800

Dansdata, [I do love that personal touch!]

I visited your site today, and I enjoy the information your provide. I
run an adult site similar to yours, and I was wondering if you would
like to trade links with me? You can see my site at
"http://www.hotescortreviews.com". I ask for this link exchange because
I feel our sites are closely related in topic, and a link exchange
would benefit us both. My website also has a page rank of 2.

If you exchange links with me, I will list you on my site. I can put
your banner/link on my directory page
here:http://www.hotescortreviews.com/HERDirectory.html, and I can put
you in a category which is related to your site. Our site is gaining
more visitors by the week, and getting your link on my site guarantees
you future traffic and customers, which increases your bottom line.

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. If you wish
to add my link, you can add the HTML code below to your site:

[link code redacted]

If you would prefer to exchange banners, you can find my banner on this
page:http://www.hotescortreviews.com/Links.html. You can just right
click on it and download.

Best regards,

Stephen

Posted in Scams, Spam. 9 Comments »

Lichtenbergia

The other day I was shining a dangerously bright green laser through a Lichtenberg figure, as I'm sure all of you have done from time to time, and I discovered something interesting.

What?

Oh, all right. I'll explain.

Lichtenberg figure

This is a Lichtenberg figure.

Well, technically, the Lichtenberg figure is the feathery ferny shape inside the block of clear acrylic. The shape is a void burned into the plastic by a powerful electric discharge.

A Lichtenberg figure is, in brief, the shape of an electrical discharge. Specifically, it's the shape of an electrical discharge from an area to a point - sometimes over time, but usually all at once.

The acrylic-block type of Lichtenberg ornament is definitely of the all-at-once variety. To make one, you have to shoot your acrylic with a fairly high powered electron beam, also known as a cathode ray.

The electron beam in a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) television or computer monitor - which, yes, actually is a kind of particle accelerator - delivers electrons with maybe 20,000 or 25,000 electron volts (20 to 25keV) of energy.

That's quite enough to produce considerable X-ray radiation when the electrons strike the inside of the tube - which is why CRTs are made from leaded, radiation-blocking glass - but it's only 1%, at best, of the energy you need to drive electrons even a centimetre or so into a plastic target.

If your electron beam is powerful enough to do that, several seconds of exposure will cause the plastic to acquire a absolutely terrific level of charge. Up in the low megavolts, and with total stored energy ranging from that of a tiny to that of a quite large pistol cartridge.

Then you bring an earthed contact close to one side of the block.

And bang, there's your Lichtenberg figure.

Lichtenberg figure detail

Close-up of Lichtenberg figure

It's been speculated that the feathery tips of the figure are present all the way down to the molecular level.

The world's premiere - actually, pretty close to the world's only - supplier of Lichtenberg figures burned into clear acrylic blocks is Bert Hickman's Stoneridge Engineering. That's one of Bert's in the video above, and I've bought a total of three smaller figures from him over the years, from his eBay store here. This equilateral triangle figure is four inches on a side, and cost me $US24.95 plus postage.

As acrylic Lichtenberg figures get bigger, the energy needed to make them rises, and is soon well beyond what your common-or-garden medical LINAC can manage. This sort of accelerator is not something you can make at home; it's very difficult to get even 1MeV out of a homebuilt unit, even if you're the kind of kid who is only bullied by the members of the football team who didn't know about all the jocks at your old school whose hair and teeth fell out before they died.

You need something like one of the big blighters used to irradiate food. This is why Bert's real monsters are rather expensive.

When high energy electrons hit acrylic, they don't just settle peacefully into the polymer matrix. They actually hit hard enough to discolour the plastic on the side on which the beam enters. This effect is known as "solarisation", because it looks not unlike the discolouration caused by long exposure to ultraviolet radiation (which only has energy of about ten electron-volts).

The electrons actually end up charging the plastic a bit beyond the discoloured deceleration zone. So if you look at an acrylic Lichtenberg figure from the side...

Solarisation of Lichtenberg figure acrylic

...you can quite clearly see the discoloration and the Lichtenberg figure itself as separate layers.

The solarisation nestles around the Lichtenberg figure like a little bathtub. It fades out around the edges, but those edges rise up around the lightning-shape on all sides.

And this is what I noticed when I was fooling around with my laser.

Shining the laser through the un-solarised part of the figure...

Laser beam through Lichtenberg figure

...produced pretty much the effect you'd expect.

But shining it through the solarised portion...

Laser beam through Lichtenberg figure

...gave a, much brighter, amber diffusion glow. You can see the beam turning amber as it hits the solarised portion of the plastic.

There's no great mystery about why the beam looks brighter in the solarised area. That seems to simply be because it's travelling through damaged polymer that scatters more of the light.

Laser beam through Lichtenberg figure

But the distinct amber colour was a surprise.

Only the scattered light is amber; the main beam's the same colour coming out of the block as it was going in.

Laser beam through Lichtenberg figure

Here's the unsolarised side, again.

Another interesting thing about solarisation is that it heals. Over a few years, if you don't expose the acrylic to any more high-energy insults, the orange tint goes away.

The first Lichtenberg figure I bought from Bert was a little two-incher, which I purchased back in 2004. I can't remember whether it had visible solarisation when I got it, but it doesn't now - and a green laser beam stays green all the way through it.

UPDATE: Find some high-res video of acrylic Lichtenberg figures being made in this post!

God damn it

You know that DirectX problem, that I thought I'd fixed by buying a whole new video card?

Well, it looks as if what I actually need is a whole new computer. Isn't that great!

Yes, the problem is back again. Last night I watched a movie just fine; today I open a video file and as soon as I switch to fullscreen I've got three frames per second again, because DirectDraw acceleration has just turned its own self off again for no damn reason at all, and cannot be turned back on.

This is the way it always happens. It doesn't happen after I reboot, or after I install some particular piece of software, or in response to any actual change in the system configuration that I can see. DirectX acceleration just works one minute, and it doesn't work the next, and that's it.

From past experience, I am confident that rolling back to a previous system restore point, removing and reinstalling all video drivers, or even reinstalling Windows from scratch, will solve the problem for only a little while, at best.

I presume it's something wrong with the motherboard. Or something.

I don't need a new computer, I don't much want a new computer (more speed nice, lost day setting everything up again not), and I sure as hell don't want to pay for a new computer.

But since the memory and CPU in this computer won't work in a new one, I might as well get a whole new PC, lacking only a video card. Clearly, nothing else is going to fix this problem.

I feel stupid, contemplating a whole new computer just because a couple of graphics acceleration modes don't work on this one. Everything else works fine, and I can even cheat Direct3D into working, so I can play games if I want to. If I get a new computer, I'll be doing it just so I don't have to use crunchyvision low-res modes when I watch TV on my enormous monitor. How spoiled is that?

Kids are starving in Africa, et cetera.

God damn it.

Fake amp ratings never go out of style

A reader brought to my attention the Pioneer HTS-GS1 surround sound system for Xbox 360. It is, apparently, a passable but not fantastic speaker system. But fun is to be found in its specifications.

As I've explored before, consumer speaker systems often have highly inflated power numbers, becuase Joe Average reckons a "500W" system must be better than a "50W" one.

It doesn't actually really matter much what the power rating of a given speaker system is, since most listening even with inefficient speakers is done at only a few watts per channel, and ten times the power only sounds twice as loud. But the marketability of big power numbers has produced various perversions of this reasonably straightforward concept.

The Federal Trade Commission tried to apply the brakes at one point, giving rise to the interesting notion of "FTC watts". The honest wattage description - which the FTC tried to get people to use - was the root-mean-square or "RMS" watt. And then there are others, of variable reliability.

This old chestnut was brought to my attention again by the specs for the HTS-GS1. It's got front, centre and surround speakers which each, as is normal for cheap "home theatre in a box" setups, contain a single small widerange driver - a three incher, in this case. There's also a single subwoofer driver, about six inches in diameter.

The drivers together, if they were unusually beefy with big heavy magnet assemblies, might all together be able to handle a total of 150 watts (with a frequency response of maybe 70Hz to 14kHz). Realistically, something like 50 watts is as much amplifier as you'd be likely to ever need for such a setup.

Pioneer, shamelessly, say the system delivers "600 watts RMS".

(...and 25Hz to 20kHz, of course.)

Then they say OK, we know you wouldn't believe that, and go on to give an "FTC Output Rating" of "155 Watts Total System Power".

(They don't actually have that on the pioneerelectronics.com specs page, which is chiefly notable for its complete lack of any real specifications. But you can find it in the specs on various other pages, like here.)

I, being just plain mean, downloaded the manual (if you'd like to do the same then you'll need to "register", but nonsense data is fine; you don't even need a live e-mail address).

Within, I found this:

Dodgy specifications

There are those two power ratings again, broken down by channel... but what's that below, under "Power requirements"?

Only 41 watts?!

Glory be, it's a miracle! This speaker system can output 3.78 times as many absolutely genuine FTC-certified Super Muscular All-American Watts as it takes to run it!

Quick, someone hook up arrays of HTS-GS1s to the power grid! The world's energy problems are solved!

Don't reward this kind of crap by buying these products.

No system-in-a-box with small single-driver main speakers and a six-inch sub is ever going to sound very good. It may be easy to set up, but you're paying for a bunch of portable radio speakers plus one tuned-for-muddy-thumps mid-bass driver.

Far better to buy a modest stereo amplifier and a couple of decent bookshelf speakers. That'll give you reasonable sound from in front of you, which in my opinion is far better than crap coming at you from all directions.

I don't mean to single out Pioneer in particular here, either. Every system-in-a-box that looks like this, whether it's made for a game console or for a home theatre, is going to be just about as bad.

If you only pay $US75 or something for the whole setup then it may be tolerable, for games at least. But even then, I'd rather spend the same money on stereo gear from a garage sale.

Even if that gear doesn't promise to make power out of nothing.