- Oct 9, 2002
- 28,298
- 1,235
- 136
The more I think about this the more I come to the conclusions you: a. don't understand the scientific method, b. don't understand the hypothesis being questioned, and thus c. don't understand how to actually test it.
The hypothesis is that blowing on a connection has no effect on the range of contact that will produce a connection good enough to transmit data over time while playing. Testing this requires zero NES carts. You need to first, establish what the range of a good connection is defined as. You then need to set up a control (room temp, average humidity, etc) connection that will always work within said range. You then need to set up another test where you blow (ideally, blast air at differing temps, humidity levels, and but you get the picture) on a separate connector and test if the range of connections is changed in any way. Then, you need to repeat this a lot to smooth any anomalous data points.
Until you can do this, your method is flawed and your finders are malarkey. I can assert (and test) that every new coin you get (new to you, not to circulation) is more likely to land on heads when flipped the first time and "test" this a hundred times to find some meaningless answer to that question in either the positive (yes, more likely to be heads), the negative (no, less likely to be heads), or that me obtaining a new coin has zero effect on the probability of it landing on either side. One of those answers is right, and I could easily end up with any of the 3.
The hypothesis is that blowing on a connection has no effect on the range of contact that will produce a connection good enough to transmit data over time while playing. Testing this requires zero NES carts. You need to first, establish what the range of a good connection is defined as. You then need to set up a control (room temp, average humidity, etc) connection that will always work within said range. You then need to set up another test where you blow (ideally, blast air at differing temps, humidity levels, and but you get the picture) on a separate connector and test if the range of connections is changed in any way. Then, you need to repeat this a lot to smooth any anomalous data points.
Until you can do this, your method is flawed and your finders are malarkey. I can assert (and test) that every new coin you get (new to you, not to circulation) is more likely to land on heads when flipped the first time and "test" this a hundred times to find some meaningless answer to that question in either the positive (yes, more likely to be heads), the negative (no, less likely to be heads), or that me obtaining a new coin has zero effect on the probability of it landing on either side. One of those answers is right, and I could easily end up with any of the 3.
- Oct 9, 2002
- 28,298
- 1,235
- 136
No. The hypothesis was that blowing had no immediate positive effect beyond simply reseating and that the perceived positive effect was nothing more than confirmation bias.
That hypothesis has no control.
That hypothesis has no testing what-so-ever.
That hypothesis was made by a person directly contradicting his own sources.
That hypothesis was taken as fact by people like yourself despite flying in the face of conventional wisdom and countless demonstrations from millions of users.
That. Is. Laughable.
It's a great example of how top-down processing corrupts people who think they are being scientifically minded.
I couldn't get any of my NES systems to malfunction tonight. I suspect it's due to current temperature / humidity conditions.
Though the NES can be particularly problematic due to its ZIF connector, blowing has an effect with standard cartridge connections too. I was able to demonstrate this easily tonight. Super Mario All-Stars is a notoriously unreliable cartridge. I don't know why, but it's the same with all cartridges I've tested (over a dozen) and all systems I've tested (over a dozen, SNS-001 and SNS-101).
Check it out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at6GhtzYST8
Nudge the game and it locks up. Barely a touch. Accidentally pull the controller or stomp the floor and your game will freeze.
But blow in the cartridge and I can shake the hell out of it. The game just won't freeze.
Last edited:
I swear I'm being trolled here.
None of your tests do anything to disprove that. Blowing into a cart does not (until you prove otherwise) have any effect on the quality of contact an NES cart makes with the NES long enough to continue to run the game. If any moisture / salt / rubbish from your mouth does cause a connection that would have been insufficient to start a game to suddenly be good enough.
I told you how to set up the actual test for the garbage you spew. Ignore it if you want and keep on sticking those carts into the NES as if it was some kind of actual test and ignoring literally every other variable (the act of insertion, the pseudo random connection quality established, etc) and pretend it's fact.
But, whatever you do, please don't conduct actual research for any meaningful problem, because you don't understand how to do it.
Millions of people believe a lot of things that aren't true. It doesn't make it any more true. I don't need to prove anything. You, right here, in this thread, are making the claim that something other than simply retrying to connect your cart to the NES makes any difference, significant or otherwise.
I find this a funny argument. He can do a test, and you retort with "it's not enough." He says he will, you do not test, and you're fine making your statement as fact without your own test and proof to back YOUR claim.
You guys should just both stop arguing the point until one (or, ideally, both) of you has a strong sample. That, or at least discuss the merits of each argument, instead of blustering through with "I'm right, you're dumb, prove me wrong!"
You guys should just both stop arguing the point until one (or, ideally, both) of you has a strong sample. That, or at least discuss the merits of each argument, instead of blustering through with "I'm right, you're dumb, prove me wrong!"
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,081
- 136
I dont think it helped me too much. But my dad taught me about ether spray and q-tips.
THAT helped.
THAT helped.
Again, he isn't testing his point. He is testing both points at the same time and coming to a conclusion one is valid and the other isn't, which makes zero sense.
If there is merit to be discussed in anything, it would be why blowing into a cart has no effect positive or negative with regards to the connection and the ability for the NES to hold said connection. I've yet to see anything other than "I put some games in my NES, I'm right".
- Oct 9, 2002
- 28,298
- 1,235
- 136
I have disproven that blowing has no immediate positive effect. The results are statistically significant, overwhelming, and repeatable in subsequent tests.
You don't accept a real-world test because you're stubborn. You demand an artificial testing scenario with instruments making precise measurements, but that is simply not necessary.
Why do you so badly want to believe that blowing never had an immediate positive effect?
Did you miss my SNES demonstration last night? Reseat the cartridge as many times as you like. If you touch the cartridge, the game locks up. After blowing the cartridge, I rapidly shake it and the game will not freeze.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at6GhtzYST8
You don't accept a real-world test because you're stubborn. You demand an artificial testing scenario with instruments making precise measurements, but that is simply not necessary.
Why do you so badly want to believe that blowing never had an immediate positive effect?
Did you miss my SNES demonstration last night? Reseat the cartridge as many times as you like. If you touch the cartridge, the game locks up. After blowing the cartridge, I rapidly shake it and the game will not freeze.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at6GhtzYST8
- Oct 9, 2002
- 28,298
- 1,235
- 136
Electronics spray duster isn't very effective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNi4A2KGOfw
As an enthusiast with over 400 unique titles for NES (not to mention the other platforms I collect for), I always have lots of cotton swabs and my own combination of 1 part 99% pure isopropyl electronics grade alcohol and 1 part distilled water.
I keep little dispensers around for easy access. I have over a dozen NES systems in my home. When dealing with a flaky worn connector, I typically try cleaning first (game and system). Blowing is something I prefer not to do - just in case the long-term effects are harmful. However, I'm glad to do it when a demonstration is needed.
a "real world test" isn't a scientific test or anything other than anecdotal evidence at best. I demand that for you to make any claims about the effects of blowing, you provide a test that only tests the effects of blowing, not the effects of reseating, not the effects of various pressures when entering a cart. Your SNES demo isn't a valid test. You did a couple "non blown" tests and then accepted your findings on a single "blown" test.
Honestly, I don't care either way. I care that someone making claims about testing and continuously refusing to accept their testing methods are flawed putting for their "findings" as facts. You seem to be invested enough to perform rudimentary studies and post your results as some proof; so do the real test.
What upsets me the most isn't that you believe blowing on carts has some effect (though, I don't believe you've ever stated what you think causes that effect or how any science backs said ideas up), it is that you fail to recognize you are not testing what you claim to be and taking that as proof. At no point do you not reseat a cart, thus resetting the entire set of variables you're attempting to test.
I'd like you to watch this video. While a good amount of it doesn't directly apply to your method, there is lessons to be learned about how you are going about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
FTFY
/caps
Easy: sample size solves this. Record the number of attempts for the set that allows blowing versus the number of attempts for the set that does not. That's exactly how you test in such conditions for anything else. Statistics. I can guarantee that the success rate for off-the-shelf uncleared cartridges will be drastically higher (less attempts required) for the set that allows blowing.
Now, THAT would interfere with the results.The electrical test you propose needs to be able to test reads and writes at operational frequency as well. There's also the ever-present 10NES chip to deal with. Besides, trying to prove that it works for other means duplicating the scenario that others would encounter with unclean games (rented, borrowed, old off the shelf, or even just personally neglected).
No it won't because you're not setting up a proper control as your method of testing still leaves at minimum 2 possible reasons for it to work or not. Like has been repeatedly pointed out to you two, you cannot definitely prove that it is the blowing or the seating that is causing it because you're not controlling the seating variable because the act of unseating it to blow on it forces you to also test seating simultaneously.
How exactly would what I proposed not be able to do that? Its like you're pretending that the NES doesn't operate on a very clear electrical scheme and it somehow is operating at like the quantum level so testing it would completely change the results. I'm totally baffled how you think that doing a test that removes all variables other than the connector and blowing on it and how that impacts conductivity would interfere with the results nullifying them, but don't see how your testing which doesn't actually control for basically any variable (and really are ignoring several more that you somehow seem to be under the outright delusion actually strengthens the validity of your testing) for proving one or the other hypothesis. Do you really not understand how to do proper scientific analysis? Do you not understand how to control and isolate variables? And could you really not understand that what I proposed is a control setup so that you could test with absolution at the electrical level of what you're wanting to actually know?
You haven't even proven that its actually the connection itself that is the real issue (I had a friend that went through several systems, bent pins to improve the connections, used a better aftermarket connector, etc and it still had reliability issues). Granted we definitely know the connector had a high rate of issue, and that's kinda the point. You're wanting to try and prove something in an environment with multiple variables, one of which is known to be a consistent issue. For all we know there was an Xbox 360 like issue with the 10NES chip or some other one, causing the finnicky operation as well.
If you can prove that blowing on an electrical connector improves its conductivity consistently and seating/scraping the connector doesn't (or even that one consistently does more), then you could prove without a doubt your claim. One major reason why you need to go further is that personal experience is that blowing doesn't always work either. That same friend would sometimes blow on a cartridge multiple times and it still not work, and then place another clean cartridge in, then remove it and place the problematic one in and it'd finally work.
With my test you could test a far more broad range and account for more factors. You talk about testing at operational frequency like you couldn't test for far more electrical range and sensitivity (that would actually improve your chances of showing that blowing on an electrical connector can improve its connection). Not to mention you could quite easily test various levels of wear/dirt. You could test how the physical setup of the connectors impacts it, for all you know the variance in the thickness of the metal traces is what is actually causing the variability in function. Or even the variability in the chips themselves and turning it on and off rapidly impacts how well it works. You could even test for different "blows" (such as dispersal, moisture content).
No its because your test is fundamentally flawed.
That's not what he's saying at least not in the posts you're responding to, he's not even saying one way or the other, he's saying you haven't effectively proven it because you don't understand why your testing is not scientifically valid due to not controlling for the variable you claim you are.
You're taking this way too personally (why you have to keep mentioning how much NES games you have and how long you've been playing them which has literally nothing to do with this other than to somehow prop up your sense of expertise). I didn't read the whole thread again and am not going to as it seems to largely still be the same fundamental issue that's being disputed, but personally I expect that blowing on it will positively affect things (short term, with it causing issues long term), but your testing is flawed. We're saying that you could with a pretty simple test prove exactly what has to be happening (that blowing on it, likely via depositing a fine amount of moisture onto the connectors, improves the electrical connection, likely by expanding the actual conductive area versus the typical spring elastic pin held against a surface trace).
It really is as simple as making a simple circuit with similar traces and connectors, measuring the electrical conductance of various manners of attachment, and then blowing on it and measuring how that impacted the conductance. And repeat. Then add variables (dust/dirt, content of the "breath"). And repeat. Same with how the seating changes things.
The oddest aspect is how you two are so hyper focused on the NES, yet there's tons of things that use similar connector type (at least similar enough) but don't have the dumb horizontal placement with a moving vertical mechanism that created serious issues with basic seating and yet somehow we don't see the massive variance in operation that the NES suffered from.
Has no control? Its been said exactly how you can control for that. You could make a test that doesn't even require direct physical connection (as in there's a small air gap) so that you can remove the physical act of seating even.
No testing? Well yeah, that's the point. You're explicitly not testing it and claiming it both is not valid to test and that you can't even test it.
You're certainly showing how failed logic corrupts people that think they're being scientifically minded. The problem is that you don't seem to understand how to actually do a real scientifically valid test. That is where the failure in your logic is and it why it is corrupting your argument.
Effectively you don't even understand that you're not at all arguing the same thing or the thing you think you are. You're arguing that your test is scientifically valid, while we're saying it isn't because there's too many variables you're not controlling for that absolutely can impact the results, nullifying them until you actually do so.
Simply, if you did actually test in the manner we're saying, you could simply prove/disprove. Then you could provide the results and I can almost guarantee you that he would admit to his example being a poor fit due to the fact that you effectively created a controlled experiment. That is actually the point he was making is that people make conclusions without setting up a proper controlled experiment (that meets expected scientific rigor). They could be the right conclusions but you're still wrong in how you're reaching them. It is this lack of real scientific rigor that is problematic, as it can lead to people thinking something is settled when it really has not been properly tested (take for instance the little hubub over flossing, where it isn't even that its wrong its that it wasn't tested further and yet became accepted fact), or worse misinformation (the link between Autism and vaccines, where some people still hold onto it because of the scientific study, even in spite of that study being so completely thoroughly disputed that it literally cost the perpetrator his medical license).
Its not that you're test is completely invalid, its just that it doesn't comprehensively prove it at a rigorous level. Effectively I'd say it provides a pretty strong conclusion but needs more study to find out exactly the method that is causing it. Valid scientific testing is rigorous (as in you need to actually have something that can be quantified, and you adequately control for other variables) and can then be repeated if not studied further.
As an example of why rigorous testing matters, for all we know, the reason why blowing on it works apparently 100% for you is that you're an alcoholic that gets hammered and then plays Nintendo, so you're blowing enough alcohol onto it that it is cleaning the connectors.
StrangerGuy
Diamond Member
- May 9, 2004
- 8,443
- 124
- 106
If our intuition is always true and doesn't need additional verification tests we wouldn't have waited a few thousand years for Newton to find out F = ma.
Just saying.
- Oct 9, 2002
- 28,298
- 1,235
- 136
All this talk about requiring scientific proof, but then you have this:
One day, Chris Higgins thinks to himself: "What if it was all in my head and blowing in NES games never actually did anything?"
He writes an article for Mentalfloss. Calls some people, cherry picks statements, and misinterprets what they say. He doesn't test anything and then concludes that blowing never did anything ("all signs point to no: blowing in the cartridge did not help.").
No testing was performed, but his article gets widely cited across the Internet with article headlines like "Myth debunked: Blowing in your Nintendo games never actually fixed anything."
But no. smackababy has all the evidence he needs to say:
That's implied this issue is settled and no testing is needed, but he has NOTHING to support his "blowing on connectors will have no effect on them" conclusion.
The people making this claim that blowing did nothing will need something to back that up. They have nothing and have put forward absolutely no effort to test. If they want to make such a claim, they should engineer a proper test. Believing that "conclusion" takes a lot of blind faith.
Why does their invalid conclusion get any credence at all?
I don't have access to the resources of an engineer, but my 2-stacks test shows that, with each game being seated only once, blowing has an overwhelmingly positive effect.
We repeated our laymans test in January with even more titles. We flipped a coin each time to determine which stack would be blown. If I recall correctly, that test didn't have a single counter-indication. My brother never got that video edited or uploaded, but I think he's working on that.
One day, Chris Higgins thinks to himself: "What if it was all in my head and blowing in NES games never actually did anything?"
He writes an article for Mentalfloss. Calls some people, cherry picks statements, and misinterprets what they say. He doesn't test anything and then concludes that blowing never did anything ("all signs point to no: blowing in the cartridge did not help.").
No testing was performed, but his article gets widely cited across the Internet with article headlines like "Myth debunked: Blowing in your Nintendo games never actually fixed anything."
But no. smackababy has all the evidence he needs to say:
That's implied this issue is settled and no testing is needed, but he has NOTHING to support his "blowing on connectors will have no effect on them" conclusion.
The people making this claim that blowing did nothing will need something to back that up. They have nothing and have put forward absolutely no effort to test. If they want to make such a claim, they should engineer a proper test. Believing that "conclusion" takes a lot of blind faith.
Why does their invalid conclusion get any credence at all?
I don't have access to the resources of an engineer, but my 2-stacks test shows that, with each game being seated only once, blowing has an overwhelmingly positive effect.
We repeated our laymans test in January with even more titles. We flipped a coin each time to determine which stack would be blown. If I recall correctly, that test didn't have a single counter-indication. My brother never got that video edited or uploaded, but I think he's working on that.
Last edited:
You're right. My position is that until I see evidence to the contrary, I don't believe a small amount of moisture and any other particles that come out of the mouth of a human have any ramifications as to whether a connection (NES or otherwise) can make a good connection.
Your tests simply aren't testing what you think they are. They are testing both reseating and blowing, and you're coming to the conclusion one is making a difference without knowing which.
Had you simply presented your test in a "here is some non scientific, flawed anecdotes about what my brother and I found with our NES collection, take it with a grain of salt," I'd be more likely to not argue with you.
Your tests simply aren't testing what you think they are. They are testing both reseating and blowing, and you're coming to the conclusion one is making a difference without knowing which.
Had you simply presented your test in a "here is some non scientific, flawed anecdotes about what my brother and I found with our NES collection, take it with a grain of salt," I'd be more likely to not argue with you.
- Oct 9, 2002
- 28,298
- 1,235
- 136
In the 2-stacks test, not a single game was reseated. Not one.
Each game was seated once and tested once.
Blowing was not just a significant factor, it was overwhelmingly significant.
The test has proven to be repeatable. You will ALWAYS get this overwhelming result when dealing with a flaky connector and a large sample size.
- Oct 9, 2002
- 28,298
- 1,235
- 136
*Ahem.
Had you simply presented your position as "here is what I believe, though the science is not settled until a proper test has been performed," I'd be more likely to not argue with you.
Don't act like the science is settled when nothing has been put out to support your position. Not a single thing.
- Oct 9, 2002
- 28,298
- 1,235
- 136
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 34
- 91
I don't care if it worked or not. What I care about is how awesome it was that we all somehow resorted to doing it. No matter where we lived. With no true mass communication device like the internet to lead us to the same place.
Except it wasn't. Your test isn't "repeatable" and you have no baseline to even determine what is significant. You can't demonstrate blowing had any effect and that it wasn't inserting it. You don't even have an establish failure rate for non blown carts. Do it a couple hundred times. Determine how often a cart is expected to fail. Do the same with with the blowing carts. You still don't prove anything, but it gives a better picture.
- Oct 9, 2002
- 28,298
- 1,235
- 136
CalebRockeT
Golden Member
- Jul 14, 2003
- 1,142
- 13
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter