Grahame Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 Cable vendor slapped for unproven claims ? The Register Thousand pound kettle cable won't sound better The Advertising Standards Authority has slapped hi-kit supplier Russ Andrews for claiming its super-duper mains cables could reduce radio interference on the power line. According to the the company, its PowerKords reduce noise in the mains supply because they are wrapped up in woven conductors, enabling the company to charge more than a grand (
spritzer Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 I think that is the second time he's been cited for crap like this. Now he has an improved version with some crap on the cable which is naturally moar bettah but also moar money....
Pars Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 Seems like russ has spent the last few years getting bitch slapped for claims made...
DefectiveAudioComponent Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 It's also well-known that those tiny cables are worthelss compared to the virtual dynamics judge. (it appears Patrick82 is still unable to sell it, or rent it out. despite the hello-kitty blanket. maybe because it's got no proven effect either...) [ATTACH=CONFIG]4226[/ATTACH]
Knuckledragger Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 I, for one welcome out new obscene power cable overlords don't want a power cable that might cause me to BREAK A TOE ON IT.
Steve Eddy Posted January 14, 2011 Report Posted January 14, 2011 I, for one welcome out new obscene power cable overlords don't want a power cable that might cause me to BREAK A TOE ON IT. How 'bout one that will allow you to fulfill all your homoerotic fantasies like these two poofters at this year's CES? se
CD44hi Posted January 14, 2011 Report Posted January 14, 2011 Steve Eddy on head-case? Oh boy... Head-asylum anyone?
luvdunhill Posted January 14, 2011 Report Posted January 14, 2011 Maybe it's not that real "se"? I haven't heard any talk of transformers yet or three channel amp designs! Plus, I thought it was spelled "pooftah"
Grahame Posted January 14, 2011 Author Report Posted January 14, 2011 We'll just have to consult the faculty rules of the Philosophy Department of the University of Walamaloo for the answer.
mypasswordis Posted January 14, 2011 Report Posted January 14, 2011 PowerKord makes me think of Spinal Tap and the none moar black scene. Oh, and... needs moar ferrite beads!
episiarch Posted January 14, 2011 Report Posted January 14, 2011 Moral of the story: don't make overblown, unproven claims for your products. Get a rapper to do it for you instead.
bhjazz Posted January 15, 2011 Report Posted January 15, 2011 How 'bout one that will allow you to fulfill all your homoerotic fantasies like Not tasteful. Perhaps the fragrance of soil would be more suitable. :basement:
Fitz Posted January 15, 2011 Report Posted January 15, 2011 How 'bout one that will allow you to fulfill all your homoerotic fantasies like these two poofters at this year's CES? And what, exactly, is wrong with homoeroticism?
The Monkey Posted January 15, 2011 Report Posted January 15, 2011 Love this. Thanks Grahame. I've had some near run-ins with the Advertising Standards Authority. I wish FTC or at the very least NAD would go after these fuckers on this side of the pond.
guzziguy Posted January 15, 2011 Report Posted January 15, 2011 Why would the FTC go after homoeroticism? Though I can see why NADs might.
Steve Eddy Posted January 16, 2011 Report Posted January 16, 2011 Not tasteful. Perhaps the fragrance of soil would be more suitable. :basement: And what, exactly, is wrong with homoeroticism? Forgot one of these for SE... I feel like I just walked into the middle of that old Star Trek episode with the filthy little "Bonk! Bonk!" children. Jesus, grow up. se
guzziguy Posted January 16, 2011 Report Posted January 16, 2011 We kind of like the way it is here. It sounds like you don't. Maybe you should find another forum that's more to your taste.
Fitz Posted January 16, 2011 Report Posted January 16, 2011 I feel like I just walked into the middle of that old Star Trek episode with the filthy little "Bonk! Bonk!" children. Jesus, grow up. se It's not so much what you said; it's more a matter of, how should I put it... I just don't fucking like you.
Driftwood Posted January 16, 2011 Report Posted January 16, 2011 Indeed. One thing I've learned in my short time here is to take it or leave it as it is. I'm not sure asking for a change is going to end to your satisfaction, especially when you are the one who is exhibiting antisocial behavior.
Fitz Posted January 16, 2011 Report Posted January 16, 2011 'Bonk bonk!' I like, 'bonk bonk!' I prefer a single "Bonk!" It reminds me of running around as a scout in TF2 whacking snipers upside the head.
Dusty Chalk Posted January 16, 2011 Report Posted January 16, 2011 I believe the full is "Bonk bonk! On the head, bonk bonk!"
Steve Eddy Posted January 16, 2011 Report Posted January 16, 2011 Mr. Eddy, i'd be more than happy to delete your account if you find the forum distasteful but also find that you are unable to restrain yourself from visiting. Please do. se
Craig Sawyers Posted January 16, 2011 Report Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) Cable vendor slapped for unproven claims ? The Register Thousand pound kettle cable won't sound better The Advertising Standards Authority has slapped hi-kit supplier Russ Andrews for claiming its super-duper mains cables could reduce radio interference on the power line. According to the the company, its PowerKords reduce noise in the mains supply because they are wrapped up in woven conductors, enabling the company to charge more than a grand (�1,250) for what we would know as a kettle cable. The ASA disagreed, and upheld complaints that radio-induced interference in the mains supply isn't a perceptible problem, and that even if it was, the PowerKord couldn't reduce it. More details in the article. There are some quite amusing comments, as always : Cable vendor slapped for unproven claims Ah - I have to declare an interest here. I have both been working with Russ on his three year battle with the ASA, and also he markets one of my designs under license (The Superkord-SD range), where the S is for Sawyers). The problem is there is a lot of hyperbole about mains cables, one way or the other. But this particular tussle had its genesis with a guy called Ben Goldacre. He has a column in a UK daily newspaper called The Guardian called Bad Science. He's also published a book of the same name (which I have read and enjoyed), and has a website with a forum. Ben Goldacre is a practicing medical doctor, and makes an excellent contribution to debunking the Pharmaceuticals industry, homeopathy, and the media portrayal of health risks. However, he has neither the training or techical skill to pronounce on other topics. However, around four or five years ago, and (as above) based on no technical evidence whatever, attacked Russ in national media regarding claims about the attributes of his mains cables. A few months later, he phoned the sales people at Russ Andrews and bought one - after which it went kind of quiet, which could certainly be interpreted as Goldacre actually having heard a difference. The next thing that happened was a *single* complainant, who is listed as being a customer of Russ Andrews, raised three objections (All public domain - check the ASA's site). A response was made by Russ before I got involved, the ASA appointed their own expert - a Nottingham University academic, and in 2008 the complaints were upheld. Subsequently a second complaint was made, not dissimilar to the first. At this point I have to say that the ASA protects the anonymity of complainants - you have no right in law to get this information. The Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the ASA, since it is not a Government body. This puts the accused under significant pressure - for example if the complainant is a media figure, which might allegedly influence the ruling of the ASA decision - well tough luck, defendent. You also have no right to know whether the first and the second complainant are the same person (it is highly likely that they are). Russ then commissioned Ben Duncan to carry out a programme of work to demonstrate the RFI rejecting properties of the woven cables. I was asked to scrutinise Duncan's work to make sure that there were no technical flaws (I sought and received no pay for this; it was simply a cause worth the fight). Ben measured the attenuation of the Classic, Reference and Signature power cables as compared with a regular IEC cable and a reference RG58 cable from 100MHz to 1.8GHz using an HP spectrum analyzer). What came out was that there was a baseline attenuation and a comb-like filtering effect, both of wich improved as the number of cables in the weave increased. Technically this is a result of the very low characteristic impedance of the woven cables - in the range 11 to 30 ohms - and impedance mismatch at either end of the cable produces the attenuation effect. It is significantly higher attenuation as compared with a regular IEC cable. These measurements were performed in Differential Mode only, at this stage. The ASA appointed a second expert, this time in the field of EMC. He objected to Duncan's report on the basis that (i) DM rfi is not the main problem, CM (common mode) rfi is the dominant source of interference and (i) the 50-ohm environment is not representative of a real mains supply; he suggested using an ISN at 150 ohms (which is no more representative than 50 ohms). We subsequently measured CM RFI attenuation, and showed that this was also significant and had similar characteristics to DM. Eventually, after 15 months, the ASA upheld the secnd set of complaints. They cited the lack of CM measurements (which is clearly incorrect) and other major incorrect and inconsistent assertions that were all covered in the techical reports and measurements. Because of the failure of process and content, the ASA have (most unusually) granted an appeal post ruling, which is under preparation. The average time that the ASA takes to rule is 13 days after complaint. The Russ Andrews case is now in its third year. The ASA council, who eventually rule on cases, is predominantly humanities based (including Andrew Motion, the Poet Laureate), and ill equipped to rule on a highly technical case. Now two things are worth noting. First is that Russ Andrews is a micro-business. It employs less than ten staff. They work out of a unit in Kendal in the Enlish Lake District, which is an employment black spot. It is neither wealthy nor has significant financial reserves. In my experience, the staff are committed and highly professional. Russ has a 60 day no quibble returns policy - and currently returns of mains cable products are running at 3%. So there is actually zero customer risk - you don't hear a difference - send it back for a 100% refund. They have also had to take out bank loans to fund their activities againt the ASA. So there the matter rests. Candidly, and given the history of this case, going back to Goldacre's media attack, I suspect that the ASA will still uphold their decision. And at that point, there is nothing more to be done - a small, sub-million-pound turnover microbusiness with 8 employees will have lost. History aside - do these products work? Well, my system is wired with a selection of Russ's mains cable and signal cable products, and both systems (including the T2) are sitting on RA's torlyle racks. Which is all the evidence that I need. Edited January 16, 2011 by Craig Sawyers 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now