The Kunich Korrection: A required skill for r.b.r. navigation

A recent post by Tom Kunich (TK) clearly illustrates the need for
corrected estimates of post content by author. Specifically, TK
claimed to have been able to use a three-stage process to spin up a
53x15 gear to a cadence of 180 rpm (it is assumed that wheel size was
700c, though this is not specified). This equates to about 50 mph,
superior to the finest slightly-downhill sprint that Mario Cipollini
could produce in his heyday. For TK, this is par for the course (the
boast, not the actual achievement of claimed performance). After
illustrating the impossibility of the claim, r.b.r. veteran Carl
Sundquist showed fine skills, honed by voluminous TK experience, to
deduce that this realistically reduces to an actual performance of 120
rpm on the same gear, equivalent to a speed of 32 mph that one could
expect of a Cat 5 performance. (The alternate explanation, that TK
was using 469c wheels, seems much less likely, but cannot be entirely
ruled out). Though Carl did not label it as such, he has masterfully
applied the Kunich Korrection (KK). In this case:

KK = 120/180 = 67%.

This is a good starting value for quantitative TK posts, though it may
represent an upper bound. When given results are still implausible
using KK = 67%, KK's equivalent to 50%, 33%, or even 8% may be
appropriate. Further refinement of quantitative KK is necessary.
Thankfully, a vast backlog of data does exist.

The principles of KK can be extended to qualitative posts, though
judgment and experience are required. For example a TK post claiming

"I was a sharpshooter"

should be conservatively KK'ed to

"I have shot guns a few times"

or even liberally KK'ed to

"I have been in the same room as a gun, once."

Discussion:
Kunich Korrection (KK) is a powerful tool for extracting sense from
the hyperbole of TK posts. It assumes that there is always kernel of
truth in a TK post that can be estimated by careful discounting. KK =
67% is suggested as a good starting point for most quantitative posts,
though lower values may demonstrate their superiority as the technique
is refined. The principles of KK have been used by r.b.r. veterans
for years. The elucidation and naming of the technique, along with
the provision of worked examples, is hoped to benefit r.b.r.
journeymen and provide a shorthand that will streamline posts
exhibiting TK-associated deviations from rationality.

-rj

On Jun 17, 12:35 pm, ronaldo_jeremiah
wrote:
A recent post by Tom Kunich (TK) clearly illustrates the need for
corrected estimates of post content by author. Specifically, TK
claimed to have been able to use a three-stage process to spin up a
53x15 gear to a cadence of 180 rpm (it is assumed that wheel size was
700c, though this is not specified). This equates to about 50 mph,
superior to the finest slightly-downhill sprint that Mario Cipollini
could produce in his heyday. For TK, this is par for the course (the
boast, not the actual achievement of claimed performance). After
illustrating the impossibility of the claim, r.b.r. veteran Carl
Sundquist showed fine skills, honed by voluminous TK experience, to
deduce that this realistically reduces to an actual performance of 120
rpm on the same gear, equivalent to a speed of 32 mph that one could
expect of a Cat 5 performance. (The alternate explanation, that TK
was using 469c wheels, seems much less likely, but cannot be entirely
ruled out). Though Carl did not label it as such, he has masterfully
applied the Kunich Korrection (KK). In this case:

KK = 120/180 = 67%.

This is a good starting value for quantitative TK posts, though it may
represent an upper bound. When given results are still implausible
using KK = 67%, KK's equivalent to 50%, 33%, or even 8% may be
appropriate. Further refinement of quantitative KK is necessary.
Thankfully, a vast backlog of data does exist.

The principles of KK can be extended to qualitative posts, though
judgment and experience are required. For example a TK post claiming

"I was a sharpshooter"

should be conservatively KK'ed to

"I have shot guns a few times"

or even liberally KK'ed to

"I have been in the same room as a gun, once."

Discussion:
Kunich Korrection (KK) is a powerful tool for extracting sense from
the hyperbole of TK posts. It assumes that there is always kernel of
truth in a TK post that can be estimated by careful discounting. KK =
67% is suggested as a good starting point for most quantitative posts,
though lower values may demonstrate their superiority as the technique
is refined. The principles of KK have been used by r.b.r. veterans
for years. The elucidation and naming of the technique, along with
the provision of worked examples, is hoped to benefit r.b.r.
journeymen and provide a shorthand that will streamline posts
exhibiting TK-associated deviations from rationality.

A yeoman-like workup, but without graphs, plotted data, footnotes and
a comprehensive bibliography you'll never get it published. Don't
worry about the bibliography - no one actually reads all of the books
they list and no one will check your sources.

R

On Jun 17, 12:34 pm, RicodJour wrote:


A yeoman-like workup, but without graphs, plotted data, footnotes and
a comprehensive bibliography you'll never get it published.

It's more a of think piece. And it's already published.

Now, pardon me while I update my vita.

-rj

ronaldo_jeremiah wrote:
Though Carl did not label it as such, he has masterfully
applied the Kunich Korrection (KK). In this case:

KK = 120/180 = 67%.

This is a good starting value for quantitative TK posts, though it may
represent an upper bound. When given results are still implausible
using KK = 67%, KK's equivalent to 50%, 33%, or even 8% may be
appropriate. Further refinement of quantitative KK is necessary.

Perhaps you need to add some Katastrophe theory to improve the
approximation.

On Jun 17, 2:58 pm, Donald Munro wrote:
ronaldo_jeremiah wrote:
Though Carl did not label it as such, he has masterfully
applied the Kunich Korrection (KK). In this case:

KK = 120/180 = 67%.

This is a good starting value for quantitative TK posts, though it may
represent an upper bound. When given results are still implausible
using KK = 67%, KK's equivalent to 50%, 33%, or even 8% may be
appropriate. Further refinement of quantitative KK is necessary.

Perhaps you need to add some Katastrophe theory to improve the
approximation.

I believe you meant to write KAOS theory.
I hadn't noticed the resemblence, but it's unmistakable.

http://www.berniekopell.com/photos/4.html
http://www.kenpapai.com/cycling/rbr/Tomk.JPG

R

On Jun 17, 10:35 am, ronaldo_jeremiah
wrote:
A recent post by Tom Kunich (TK) clearly illustrates the need for
corrected estimates of post content by author. Specifically, TK
claimed to have been able to use a three-stage process to spin up a
53x15 gear to a cadence of 180 rpm (it is assumed that wheel size was
700c, though this is not specified). This equates to about 50 mph,
superior to the finest slightly-downhill sprint that Mario Cipollini
could produce in his heyday. For TK, this is par for the course (the
boast, not the actual achievement of claimed performance). After
illustrating the impossibility of the claim, r.b.r. veteran Carl
Sundquist showed fine skills, honed by voluminous TK experience, to
deduce that this realistically reduces to an actual performance of 120
rpm on the same gear, equivalent to a speed of 32 mph that one could
expect of a Cat 5 performance. (The alternate explanation, that TK
was using 469c wheels, seems much less likely, but cannot be entirely
ruled out). Though Carl did not label it as such, he has masterfully
applied the Kunich Korrection (KK). In this case:

KK = 120/180 = 67%.

This is a good starting value for quantitative TK posts, though it may
represent an upper bound. When given results are still implausible
using KK = 67%, KK's equivalent to 50%, 33%, or even 8% may be
appropriate. Further refinement of quantitative KK is necessary.
Thankfully, a vast backlog of data does exist.

The principles of KK can be extended to qualitative posts, though
judgment and experience are required. For example a TK post claiming

"I was a sharpshooter"

should be conservatively KK'ed to

"I have shot guns a few times"

or even liberally KK'ed to

"I have been in the same room as a gun, once."

Discussion:
Kunich Korrection (KK) is a powerful tool for extracting sense from
the hyperbole of TK posts. It assumes that there is always kernel of
truth in a TK post that can be estimated by careful discounting. KK =
67% is suggested as a good starting point for most quantitative posts,
though lower values may demonstrate their superiority as the technique
is refined. The principles of KK have been used by r.b.r. veterans
for years. The elucidation and naming of the technique, along with
the provision of worked examples, is hoped to benefit r.b.r.
journeymen and provide a shorthand that will streamline posts
exhibiting TK-associated deviations from rationality.

-rj

I like it. You can also apply it to TK's statements about others. If
Marco Polo sailed 67% of the way to the North Pole, that would put him
at 60 degrees or in the Bering Sea. Much more believable.

Bret

"Bret" wrote in message
ups.com...

I like it. You can also apply it to TK's statements about others. If
Marco Polo sailed 67% of the way to the North Pole, that would put him
at 60 degrees or in the Bering Sea. Much more believable.

So tell me - when he reported that the north star bore in exactly the
opposite direction of the compass and that there was no ice - what do you
suppose that meant?

On Jun 17, 10:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Bret" wrote in message

I like it. You can also apply it to TK's statements about others. If
Marco Polo sailed 67% of the way to the North Pole, that would put him
at 60 degrees or in the Bering Sea. Much more believable.

So tell me - when he reported that the north star bore in exactly the
opposite direction of the compass and that there was no ice - what do you
suppose that meant?

Broken compass and a cheap hotel?

R

On Jun 17, 7:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Bret" wrote in message

ups.com...



I like it. You can also apply it to TK's statements about others. If
Marco Polo sailed 67% of the way to the North Pole, that would put him
at 60 degrees or in the Bering Sea. Much more believable.

So tell me - when he reported that the north star bore in exactly the
opposite direction of the compass and that there was no ice - what do you
suppose that meant?



Jackass -


As always, you're a goddamm idiot. The magnetic pole and the axis of
rotation of the earth are not one and the same.


From:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...neticfield.htm
snip
Scientists have long known that the magnetic pole moves. James Ross
located the pole for the first time in 1831 after an exhausting arctic
journey during which his ship got stuck in the ice for four years. No
one returned until the next century. In 1904, Roald Amundsen found the
pole again and discovered that it had moved--at least 50 km since the
days of Ross.

The pole kept going during the 20th century, north at an average speed
of 10 km per year, lately accelerating "to 40 km per year," says
Newitt. At this rate it will exit North America and reach Siberia in a
few decades.

Keeping track of the north magnetic pole is Newitt's job. "We usually
go out and check its location once every few years," he says. "We'll
have to make more trips now that it is moving so quickly."

Earth's magnetic field is changing in other ways, too: Compass needles
in Africa, for instance, are drifting about 1 degree per decade. And
globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century.
When this was mentioned by researchers at a recent meeting of the
American Geophysical Union, many newspapers carried the story. A
typical headline: "Is Earth's magnetic field collapsing?"

Probably not. As remarkable as these changes sound, "they're mild
compared to what Earth's magnetic field has done in the past," says
University of California professor Gary Glatzmaier.

snipend



thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Jun 17, 9:35 am, ronaldo_jeremiah
wrote:


It assumes that there is always kernel of
truth in a TK post that can be estimated by careful discounting.

Utter crackpottery! I can't believe this made it past
the new RBR peer review system. The journals will
publish anything these days.

Ben