Steel frames and le Tour

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Paul M. Hobson" wrote in message
...

Much to my surprise, he ranked all twelve vodkas correctly.

And REAL(tm) wine tasters can get incredibly accurate as well. It's just
that people with that fine a taste aren't common and people with fairly
good taste try to pass themselves off as better.


Oh certainly. I just thought it was fun/amazing story.

Singling out the top-shelf from the bottom shelf is no big deal. But to
get all iterations of the filtrations of the *same* vodka in the correct
order is simply incredible.

--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:04:04 -0700, "Paul M. Hobson"
wrote:

wrote:
Dear Andres,

Actually, "sophisticated" wine tasters may be just as happy as you,
but they're mostly fooling themselves. The same is probably true for
many of our more indignant posters, who believe (in good faith) that
their bicycling shorts can detect speed and acceleration differences
in the range of ~2%.

Wine tasting lends itself to much easier testing than adding weight to
bicycles. (Luckily, Newton can tell us what happens with the weights,
so it's no big deal in the bicycle world.)

Wine-tasting claims have never survived real testing:
[snip]

Carl,

I don't imagine you to be much of television watcher (neither am I), but
I think you'll get a kick out of this nonetheless. There was an episode
of Myth-Busters where they tested the claim that running cheap vodka
through a water filter would improve it and that 10 runs through the
filter would bring it up to top shelf quality.

So they ran batches of vodka through store bought Brita filters
1,2,3,...,and 10 times. They then had a renowned vodka critic come in a
rate the 10 filtered batches along with the unfiltered cheap vodka and
the unfiltered top shelf vodka.

Much to my surprise, he ranked all twelve vodkas correctly.

\\paul

Dear Paul,

Here's a different take on tasting vodkas that hadn't been filtered:

"Vodka is a neutral spirit, distilled, according to the U.S government
definition, 'as to be without distinctive character, aroma, taste or
color.' Most American vodkas originate, therefore, not with
passionate, flannel-shirted men like those who create whines, but with
corporatte giants like the agrochemical supplier Archer Daniels
Midland. And the job of the vodka distiller is to take the 190-proof
industrial swill such suppliers provide, add water, and _subtract_ as
much of the taste as possible. Through massive image-building
campains, however, vodka producers have managed to create very strong
expectations of difference."

[Almost like bicycles in the TDF--which one would you prefer and why?]

"As a result, people believe that this liquor, which by its very
_definition_ is without a distinctive character, actually varies from
brand to brand. Moreover, they are willing to pay large amounts of
money based on those differecnes. Lest I be dismissed as a tasteless
boor, I wish to point out that there is a way to test my ravings. You
could line upu a series of vodkas and a series of vodka sophisticates
and perform a blind tasting. As it happens, 'The New York Times' did
just that. And without their labels, fancy vodkas like Grey Goose and
Ketel One didn't fare so well. Compared with conventional wisom, in
fact, the results appeared random. Moreveover, of the twenty-one
vodkas tasted, it was the cheap bar brand, Smirnoff, that came out at
the top of the list. Our assessment of the world would be quite
different if all our judgments could be insulated from expectation and
based only on relevant data."

--"Drunkard's Walk," Mlodinow, p. 214-5

The NYT article explains the different bases in vodkas:

"In the United States almost all vodka producers buy neutral spirits
that have already been distilled from grain by one of several big
Midwestern companies like Archer Daniels Midland. The neutral spirits,
which are 95 percent alcohol or more, are trucked to the producers,
where they are filtered, diluted and bottled. In our tasting only one
brand, Teton Glacier Potato vodka, was distilled by the producer.
Another producer, Hangar 1, distills a portion of its spirits and buys
the rest."

"What sets vodkas apart from one another are essentially the base
ingredients used in the distillation and the water. Most spirits can
be made only from certain prescribed ingredients, but vodka can be
distilled from just about anything that can be fermented into alcohol:
grains, vegetables, even fruits."


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/di...=2&oref=slogin

As for the mythbusters show, here's a summary:

Myth: You can turn low-end vodka into top-shelf vodka with six
filtrations of a domestic charcoal water filter (i.e. Brita filters)

They set up the experiment so that the vodka testers would each get 8
shots of vodka: 6 from the filtration stations (single filtered, twice
filtered, etc...), 1 top-shelf vodka, and 1 unfiltered low-end shot.
The tasters were asked to rank the shots.

The tasters we

Anthony Dias Blue, vodka expert, executive director San Francisco
World Spirits Competion
Jamie, degree in Russian literature
Kari, former undercover martini tester

Kari: "I'm wondering if you might have contaminated your experiment by
mixing on the mustache"

Jamie: "either that or they're actually very sensitive and able to
pick up on subtle variations in the chemistry in the vodka"

Kari was a terrible judge, giving a much higher score to the
unfiltered cheap vodka than the top-shelf vodka:

Kari's worst: 3rd filtration
Kari's second worst: top shelf
Kari's third best: the cheap, unfiltered vodka

Jamie was a better judge:

Jamie's second worst: the cheap, unfiltered vodka
Jamie's second best: fifth filtration
Jamie's best: top shelf

Anthony showed off his tasting skills: his ranking corresponded
exactly to the number of filtrations, with the top-shelf vodka picked
as the best.

Anthony: "Passing a low-end vodka through a filter will make it
better, but it won't make it a top shelf vodka"

They analyzed the vodka samples and found that there was no difference
in chemical composition between the filtered vodka and the unfiltered
vodka. You're better off buying the top-shelf stuff than wasting a
bunch of water filters.

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/e...red_up_vo.html

Judging by the summary, Anthony Blue did quite well in detecting
filtration.

But it also sounds as if he knew in advance what he was looking for
and as if the protocol was not exactly up to what James Randi's
standards.

The difference between vodka and wine tasting is that one is often
detecting the difference between peaches, grain, potatoes, and so
forth, while the other is trying to distinguish between grapes.

Using a black glass in poor light has a terrible effect on the
abilities of wine experts.

Cheers (hic!),

Carl Fogel

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:15:14 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:04:04 -0700, "Paul M. Hobson"
wrote:

wrote:
Dear Andres,

Actually, "sophisticated" wine tasters may be just as happy as you,
but they're mostly fooling themselves. The same is probably true for
many of our more indignant posters, who believe (in good faith) that
their bicycling shorts can detect speed and acceleration differences
in the range of ~2%.

Wine tasting lends itself to much easier testing than adding weight to
bicycles. (Luckily, Newton can tell us what happens with the weights,
so it's no big deal in the bicycle world.)

Wine-tasting claims have never survived real testing:
[snip]

Carl,

I don't imagine you to be much of television watcher (neither am I), but
I think you'll get a kick out of this nonetheless. There was an episode
of Myth-Busters where they tested the claim that running cheap vodka
through a water filter would improve it and that 10 runs through the
filter would bring it up to top shelf quality.

So they ran batches of vodka through store bought Brita filters
1,2,3,...,and 10 times. They then had a renowned vodka critic come in a
rate the 10 filtered batches along with the unfiltered cheap vodka and
the unfiltered top shelf vodka.

Much to my surprise, he ranked all twelve vodkas correctly.

\\paul

Dear Paul,

Here's a different take on tasting vodkas that hadn't been filtered:

"Vodka is a neutral spirit, distilled, according to the U.S government
definition, 'as to be without distinctive character, aroma, taste or
color.' Most American vodkas originate, therefore, not with
passionate, flannel-shirted men like those who create whines, but with
corporatte giants like the agrochemical supplier Archer Daniels
Midland. And the job of the vodka distiller is to take the 190-proof
industrial swill such suppliers provide, add water, and _subtract_ as
much of the taste as possible. Through massive image-building
campains, however, vodka producers have managed to create very strong
expectations of difference."

[Almost like bicycles in the TDF--which one would you prefer and why?]

"As a result, people believe that this liquor, which by its very
_definition_ is without a distinctive character, actually varies from
brand to brand. Moreover, they are willing to pay large amounts of
money based on those differecnes. Lest I be dismissed as a tasteless
boor, I wish to point out that there is a way to test my ravings. You
could line upu a series of vodkas and a series of vodka sophisticates
and perform a blind tasting. As it happens, 'The New York Times' did
just that. And without their labels, fancy vodkas like Grey Goose and
Ketel One didn't fare so well. Compared with conventional wisom, in
fact, the results appeared random. Moreveover, of the twenty-one
vodkas tasted, it was the cheap bar brand, Smirnoff, that came out at
the top of the list. Our assessment of the world would be quite
different if all our judgments could be insulated from expectation and
based only on relevant data."

--"Drunkard's Walk," Mlodinow, p. 214-5

The NYT article explains the different bases in vodkas:

"In the United States almost all vodka producers buy neutral spirits
that have already been distilled from grain by one of several big
Midwestern companies like Archer Daniels Midland. The neutral spirits,
which are 95 percent alcohol or more, are trucked to the producers,
where they are filtered, diluted and bottled. In our tasting only one
brand, Teton Glacier Potato vodka, was distilled by the producer.
Another producer, Hangar 1, distills a portion of its spirits and buys
the rest."

"What sets vodkas apart from one another are essentially the base
ingredients used in the distillation and the water. Most spirits can
be made only from certain prescribed ingredients, but vodka can be
distilled from just about anything that can be fermented into alcohol:
grains, vegetables, even fruits."


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/di...=2&oref=slogin

As for the mythbusters show, here's a summary:

Myth: You can turn low-end vodka into top-shelf vodka with six
filtrations of a domestic charcoal water filter (i.e. Brita filters)

They set up the experiment so that the vodka testers would each get 8
shots of vodka: 6 from the filtration stations (single filtered, twice
filtered, etc...), 1 top-shelf vodka, and 1 unfiltered low-end shot.
The tasters were asked to rank the shots.

The tasters we

Anthony Dias Blue, vodka expert, executive director San Francisco
World Spirits Competion
Jamie, degree in Russian literature
Kari, former undercover martini tester

Kari: "I'm wondering if you might have contaminated your experiment by
mixing on the mustache"

Jamie: "either that or they're actually very sensitive and able to
pick up on subtle variations in the chemistry in the vodka"

Kari was a terrible judge, giving a much higher score to the
unfiltered cheap vodka than the top-shelf vodka:

Kari's worst: 3rd filtration
Kari's second worst: top shelf
Kari's third best: the cheap, unfiltered vodka

Jamie was a better judge:

Jamie's second worst: the cheap, unfiltered vodka
Jamie's second best: fifth filtration
Jamie's best: top shelf

Anthony showed off his tasting skills: his ranking corresponded
exactly to the number of filtrations, with the top-shelf vodka picked
as the best.

Anthony: "Passing a low-end vodka through a filter will make it
better, but it won't make it a top shelf vodka"

They analyzed the vodka samples and found that there was no difference
in chemical composition between the filtered vodka and the unfiltered
vodka. You're better off buying the top-shelf stuff than wasting a
bunch of water filters.

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/e...red_up_vo.html

Judging by the summary, Anthony Blue did quite well in detecting
filtration.

But it also sounds as if he knew in advance what he was looking for
and as if the protocol was not exactly up to what James Randi's
standards.

The difference between vodka and wine tasting is that one is often
detecting the difference between peaches, grain, potatoes, and so
forth, while the other is trying to distinguish between grapes.

Using a black glass in poor light has a terrible effect on the
abilities of wine experts.

Cheers (hic!),

Carl Fogel

Here's an entertaining wiki article on a famous wine-tasting fiasco,
which includes this comment:

"Some critics have suggested that wine tastings lack scientific
validity. For example, Steven Spurrier said, 'The results of a blind
tasting cannot be predicted and will not even be reproduced the next
day by the same panel tasting the same wines' and in one case it was
reported that 'A side-by-side chart of best-to-worst rankings of 18
wines by a roster of experienced tasters showed about as much
consistency as a table of random numbers.'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgmen...ris_%28wine%29

The article from which those quotes were taken concludes with this
interesting comment:

"It's much the same lesson taught by UW psych prof Elizabeth Loftus'
studies of how 'eyewitnesses' can remember events they never saw:
'Words and concepts and expectations trump perception every time; and
among the senses themselves, the eyes have it all over smell, taste,
and touch.'"

"Touch? You bet; almost all red wines have some tannins in them,
extracted from the grape skins during fermentation along with the
pigments that make them red in the first place. Tannins feel 'rough'
on the tongue. You'd think that anybody, let alone a veteran wine
taster, would notice the absence of such a basic sensory datum."

"And in fact, a small percentage of drinkers do. 'About 2 to 3 percent
of people detect the white wine flavor,' Brochet [whose doctoral study
is the subject of the article] told an interviewer last month, 'but
invariably they have little experience with wine culture. . . .
Connoisseurs, . . . the more training they have, the more mistakes
they make.' Words to live by—-and not just when drinking wine."

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2002-02...ob-scandal.php

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On 21 jul, 05:35, wrote:

I do belive weight weenism is silly and a wast of cash, but there is a
flaw in part of your argument.

25-33% of the bike weight is approx. 4% of the total weight Though
that might be the truth, there will be a difference in where the
weight is added:

If the rider was 4% heavier, he also would have slightly more muscles
to compensate (KW per kilo is nice, but if you weigh 40 kilos, no
matter what, I'll drop ya^^) and the rider would be accustomed to it
(he carries it all day). A heavier bike is a heavier peripheral (dead
weight?).

Now it's anyones guess if this leads to a discernible difference, but
it does make for a slightly more complicating factor.

On a side note: weight, damping, comfort all go out of the window as
soon as your heart beat goes over 160 during a final^^. When training
I curse cobblestones. In the final I can take them with 8 bar pressure
tires without feeling a thing :P Unless I am dropped big time and feel
very sorry for myself, wich does make me feel everything twice over.

It's all between the ears^^

In rec.bicycles.tech Tuschinski wrote:
If the rider was 4% heavier, he also would have slightly more
muscles to compensate

That's an assumption without evidence. Adding 4kg of fat is all
dead, adding 4kg of muslces is all force, both is possible.


On a side note: weight, damping, comfort all go out of the window
as soon as your heart beat goes over 160 during a final^^.

Heartrate is rather individual, for others 160/min is going easy.

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer panta rhei

On Jul 19, 1:04*am, Howard Kveck wrote:

* *No, Carl, you state in your above post "the unavoidable knowledge that there were
_seven_ whole pounds sitting right there in plain sight." That pretty much defines it
as *not* a blind test.

You're arguing with a wanna-be-but-ain't scientist.

Moreover, you'd have to weed out people like him to start with, as
they are so biased they'll say they can't detect any weight
difference, unless a piano is hidden inside the frame.

In article ,
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

On Jul 19, 1:04*am, Howard Kveck wrote:

* *No, Carl, you state in your above post "the unavoidable knowledge that
there were _seven_ whole pounds sitting right there in plain sight." That
pretty much defines it as *not* a blind test.

You're arguing with a wanna-be-but-ain't scientist.

Moreover, you'd have to weed out people like him to start with, as
they are so biased they'll say they can't detect any weight
difference, unless a piano is hidden inside the frame.

I wonder if one could fill the frame with liquid mercury - you wouldn't be able to
visually detect it but I suspect the EPA might have a conniption fit over it. But the
reason I think having this be a blind test is because of the reason you stated: the
extra weight is compensated for - perhaps consciously, perhaps not. It makes it easy
to fit the results to the hypothesis.

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Jul 19, 1:04 am, Howard Kveck wrote:

No, Carl, you state in your above post "the unavoidable knowledge that there were
_seven_ whole pounds sitting right there in plain sight." That pretty much defines it
as *not* a blind test.

You're arguing with a wanna-be-but-ain't scientist.

Moreover, you'd have to weed out people like him to start with, as
they are so biased they'll say they can't detect any weight
difference, unless a piano is hidden inside the frame.

Does not the stilted apparent politeness hide a troll?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

On Jul 20, 1:58*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:14:25 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Jul 19, 10:15*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:56:40 -0700, Howard Kveck

wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:04:33 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

In article ,


On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:30:32 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

The rest of the "heavier" feeling was probably due to all the extra
attention that I paid (does it feel heavier? lighter? how does it
normally feel?), plus the unavoidable knowledge that there were
_seven_ whole pounds sitting right there in plain sight whenever I
looked down at the speedometer.

* One point I haven't seen made, Carl: this isn't exactly a blind test,
is it? If you really wanted to seriously test this, I think you'd have
to devise a way to do it so you were unaware of when the bike had the
extra weight on it when you went out on the road.

Dear Howard,

Here's the relevant post:

* No, Carl, you state in your above post "the unavoidable knowledge that
there were _seven_ whole pounds sitting right there in plain sight." That
pretty much defines it as *not* a blind test.

Dear Howard,

Er, where did I argue with you?

The relevant post that I quoted in full makes it plain as sin that it
wasn't a blind test.

* The point was that doing a blind test is the proper scientific way. Doing it so
you know the condition of the bike ("I can see the extra weight") makes the results
of minimal value.

For fun, tell us how you would "seriously test" for the speed and
acceleration effects of a 7-lb bicycle weight increase and what
blinding procedures you'd use.

* I'd think it would be obvious that you need to have a bike with a package on it
that is enclosed. You have someone other than yourself either fill the package with
seven pounds or not fill it. Then you ride it, not knowing the condition (standard
weight or seven extra pounds).

Dear Howard,

The rider would probably notice the extra weight if he tips the
familiar bike slightly sideways or just rolls it out the garage, so we
have to be awfully careful to get him to sit on it.

If he stood up, he might well notice the extra weight as the bike
tipped from side to side.

On a reasonable paved road, he might notice the vibration damping of
the extra 7 pounds.

Of course, you'd have to go to a lot of trouble to have someone else
insert an extra 7 pounds on a random basis. The steel rods were handy,
exactly the right weight, and didn't involve awkward wind drag
questions or boxes.

In any case, blind testing would be far more trouble than it's worth.

In Newton's world we don't need a blind test to figure out the effect
on acceleration or cruising speed when we add 7 pounds to a bicycle
and rider of known mass--it's so trivial that it will be lost in the
ordinary real-road variations of wind and rider power.

Anyone can log times for a 15 mile ride for a week and see how much
the time varies.

Incidentally, it was John Tomlinson who kept demanding that I add the
weight, apparently unable to understand how little difference it would
make. He wanted it added for a year, an even less rigorous test. After
all, my power output next year is likely to be lower, given my age.

So far, no one has wondered out loud what the obvious effect of paying
more attention would be and whether it would be likely to outweigh
(sorry, couldn't resist it) the effect of a 4% weight increase.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Carl *(Dear?)

I think I know what the problem is. I have a similar problem with
wine. To me, if the wine doesn't taste like pure alcohol, or like
vinegar, I cannot distinguish between a $15 bottle of wine and a $150
bottle of wine. I am merely casual wine drinker and will never be a
pro wine taster.

With bicycles, it is the same. Maybe we are casual cyclists that
cannot distinguish between materials or weighs. JT and jb are more
likely the professional sort that have their bodies so fine tuned to
bicycles as wine taster have their tongues tuned for wine. TDF riders,
being pros, are even more sensitive to this subtle differences being
able to distinguish bb types, composition of chainstays, seatstays,
integrated headsets, carbon vs alloy cranks, *and even age of the
bicycle.

So, even though I can down a bottle of wine like the more
sophisticated wine taster, and ride a fairly good distance at good
speed like some of the sensitive cycling types, I certainly have not
developed the subtle sense necessary to distinguish the fruity
flavors, the oak, the chocolate, the age, the carbon seatstays, the
oversize bb, the carbon brifters, etc.

So, maybe you and I are of the less sophisticated kind for whom
aromatherapy will not work for recovery. Not sure if this is an
advantage or a disadvantage. Advantage wise, I am happy with my
inexpensive bikes and with my $10-$15 bottles of wine. However, maybe
I am not truly enjoying some of the subtleties of life.

(XOXOXO?)

Andres

Dear Andres,

Actually, "sophisticated" wine tasters may be just as happy as you,
but they're mostly fooling themselves. The same is probably true for
many of our more indignant posters, who believe (in good faith) that
their bicycling shorts can detect speed and acceleration differences
in the range of ~2%.

Wine tasting lends itself to much easier testing than adding weight to
bicycles. (Luckily, Newton can tell us what happens with the weights,
so it's no big deal in the bicycle world.)

Wine-tasting claims have never survived real testing:


I guess you're not familiar with the test one undergoes to achieve
Master Sommelier status?

On Jul 20, 9:35*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:15:14 -0600, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:04:04 -0700, "Paul M. Hobson"
wrote:

wrote:
Dear Andres,

Actually, "sophisticated" wine tasters may be just as happy as you,
but they're mostly fooling themselves. The same is probably true for
many of our more indignant posters, who believe (in good faith) that
their bicycling shorts can detect speed and acceleration differences
in the range of ~2%.

Wine tasting lends itself to much easier testing than adding weight to
bicycles. (Luckily, Newton can tell us what happens with the weights,
so it's no big deal in the bicycle world.)

Wine-tasting claims have never survived real testing:
[snip]

Carl,

I don't imagine you to be much of television watcher (neither am I), but
I think you'll get a kick out of this nonetheless. *There was an episode
of Myth-Busters where they tested the claim that running cheap vodka
through a water filter would improve it and that 10 runs through the
filter would bring it up to top shelf quality.

So they ran batches of vodka through store bought Brita filters
1,2,3,...,and 10 times. *They then had a renowned vodka critic come in a
rate the 10 filtered batches along with the unfiltered cheap vodka and
the unfiltered top shelf vodka.

Much to my surprise, he ranked all twelve vodkas correctly.

\\paul

Dear Paul,

Here's a different take on tasting vodkas that hadn't been filtered:

"Vodka is a neutral spirit, distilled, according to the U.S government
definition, 'as to be without distinctive character, aroma, taste or
color.' Most American vodkas originate, therefore, not with
passionate, flannel-shirted men like those who create whines, but with
corporatte giants like the agrochemical supplier Archer Daniels
Midland. And the job of the vodka distiller is to take the 190-proof
industrial swill such suppliers provide, add water, and _subtract_ as
much of the taste as possible. Through massive image-building
campains, however, vodka producers have managed to create very strong
expectations of difference."

[Almost like bicycles in the TDF--which one would you prefer and why?]

"As a result, people believe that this liquor, which by its very
_definition_ is without a distinctive character, actually varies from
brand to brand. Moreover, they are willing to pay large amounts of
money based on those differecnes. Lest I be dismissed as a tasteless
boor, I wish to point out that there is a way to test my ravings. You
could line upu a series of vodkas and a series of vodka sophisticates
and perform a blind tasting. As it happens, 'The New York Times' did
just that. And without their labels, fancy vodkas like Grey Goose and
Ketel One didn't fare so well. Compared with conventional wisom, in
fact, the results appeared random. Moreveover, of the twenty-one
vodkas tasted, it was the cheap bar brand, Smirnoff, that came out at
the top of the list. Our assessment of the world would be quite
different if all our judgments could be insulated from expectation and
based only on relevant data."

--"Drunkard's Walk," Mlodinow, p. 214-5

The NYT article explains the different bases in vodkas:

"In the United States almost all vodka producers buy neutral spirits
that have already been distilled from grain by one of several big
Midwestern companies like Archer Daniels Midland. The neutral spirits,
which are 95 percent alcohol or more, are trucked to the producers,
where they are filtered, diluted and bottled. In our tasting only one
brand, Teton Glacier Potato vodka, was distilled by the producer.
Another producer, Hangar 1, distills a portion of its spirits and buys
the rest."

"What sets vodkas apart from one another are essentially the base
ingredients used in the distillation and the water. Most spirits can
be made only from certain prescribed ingredients, but vodka can be
distilled from just about anything that can be fermented into alcohol:
grains, vegetables, even fruits."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/di...=1&pagewanted=...

As for the mythbusters show, here's a summary:

Myth: You can turn low-end vodka into top-shelf vodka with six
filtrations of a domestic charcoal water filter (i.e. Brita filters)

They set up the experiment so that the vodka testers would each get 8
shots of vodka: 6 from the filtration stations (single filtered, twice
filtered, etc...), 1 top-shelf vodka, and 1 unfiltered low-end shot.
The tasters were asked to rank the shots.

The tasters we

Anthony Dias Blue, vodka expert, executive director San Francisco
World Spirits Competion
Jamie, degree in Russian literature
Kari, former undercover martini tester

Kari: "I'm wondering if you might have contaminated your experiment by
mixing on the mustache"

Jamie: "either that or they're actually very sensitive and able to
pick up on subtle variations in the chemistry in the vodka"

Kari was a terrible judge, giving a much higher score to the
unfiltered cheap vodka than the top-shelf vodka:

Kari's worst: 3rd filtration
Kari's second worst: top shelf
Kari's third best: the cheap, unfiltered vodka

Jamie was a better judge:

Jamie's second worst: the cheap, unfiltered vodka
Jamie's second best: fifth filtration
Jamie's best: top shelf

Anthony showed off his tasting skills: his ranking corresponded
exactly to the number of filtrations, with the top-shelf vodka picked
as the best.

Anthony: "Passing a low-end vodka through a filter will make it
better, but it won't make it a top shelf vodka"

They analyzed the vodka samples and found that there was no difference
in chemical composition between the filtered vodka and the unfiltered
vodka. You're better off buying the top-shelf stuff than wasting a
bunch of water filters.

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/e...red_up_vo.html

Judging by the summary, Anthony Blue did quite well in detecting
filtration.

But it also sounds as if he knew in advance what he was looking for
and as if the protocol was not exactly up to what James Randi's
standards.

The difference between vodka and wine tasting is that one is often
detecting the difference between peaches, grain, potatoes, and so
forth, while the other is trying to distinguish between grapes.

Using a black glass in poor light has a terrible effect on the
abilities of wine experts.

Cheers (hic!),

Carl Fogel

Here's an entertaining wiki article on a famous wine-tasting fiasco,
which includes this comment:

"Some critics have suggested that wine tastings lack scientific
validity. For example, Steven Spurrier said, 'The results of a blind
tasting cannot be predicted and will not even be reproduced the next
day by the same panel tasting the same wines' and in one case it was
reported that 'A side-by-side chart of best-to-worst rankings of 18
wines by a roster of experienced tasters showed about as much
consistency as a table of random numbers.'"
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgmen...ris_%28wine%29

The article from which those quotes were taken concludes with this
interesting comment:

"It's much the same lesson taught by UW psych prof Elizabeth Loftus'
studies of how 'eyewitnesses' can remember events they never saw:
'Words and concepts and expectations trump perception every time; and
among the senses themselves, the eyes have it all over smell, taste,
and touch.'"

"Touch? You bet; almost all red wines have some tannins in them,
extracted from the grape skins during fermentation along with the
pigments that make them red in the first place. Tannins feel 'rough'
on the tongue. You'd think that anybody, let alone a veteran wine
taster, would notice the absence of such a basic sensory datum."

"And in fact, a small percentage of drinkers do. 'About 2 to 3 percent
of people detect the white wine flavor,' Brochet [whose doctoral study
is the subject of the article] told an interviewer last month, 'but
invariably they have little experience with wine culture. . . .
Connoisseurs, . . . the more training they have, the more mistakes
they make.' Words to live by—-and not just when drinking wine."

*http://www.seattleweekly.com/2002-02...ob-scandal.php

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Faux wine expert dude,

This is not believable. I drink wine daily but don't consider myself
an expert by any means, but I can certainly recognize the difference
between two different bottles. I've participated in blind tastings.
For example in a blind tasting of Cabernet Sauvignon, I had no
difficulty identifying the "two buck chuck", it was bloody awful, and
no difficulty identifying the wine that I brought, I knew its
signature. In general, the quality of the wine was in line with the
cost, though there are always exceptions. You really shouldn't believe
everything you read on the internet. That article could have been
written by a white zin drinker with an agenda.