Grottyash:
Alienerik, the ASA understood fully what they were ruling over, which was firstly that the claims in the advertisement could not be substantiated, and secondly the likelihood of the advertisements to mislead. For the technical aspect they called in an expert.
Your comment about ABX blind tests is irrelevant.
The second part of the ruling clearly states that there are two parts to RFI, differential mode (DM) and common mode (CM), and that the design of the cables meant they could only filter the DM, and not the second. They also pointed out that the technical papers provided by Russ Andrews focussed only on DM. The final part of the verdict is quite clear:
"We considered that, because the products did not have an effect on CM RFI noise, and given the experts concerns about the lack of protective conductor and unrealistic termination impedances in the testing of DM RFI noise, the evidence we had seen was not sufficiently robust to demonstrate that the PowerKords products were effective in reducing mains-borne RFI."
Seems fair enough to me.
Im allowed to comment on anything I like so long as its withing the rules, so my 'blind test' comment is valid so far as im concerned
As for this -
"the evidence we had seen was not
sufficiently robust to demonstrate that the PowerKords products were
effective in reducing mains-borne RFI"
The test may have only reduced one form of RFI, but it was enough to be measured to have an effect on an amps output. How much more evidence is required??