A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Science



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 15th 20, 04:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,539
Default Science


Whenever you read that a double-blind study has proven, beyond any
shadow of a doubt, that X is more efficient than Y, your very first
question should be "What do they mean by 'efficient'?".

Sometime during the second half of the twentieth century, there was a
tremendous flap because someone had proven that slogging was more
efficent than spinning.

Since everyone had personal experience that flatly contradicted this
result, there was a *lot* of discussion!

Eventually someone noticed that the researchers had defined
"efficient" as "I don't burn much fuel."

The riders defined "efficient" as "I can go a long way before I get
too tired to continue, I don't hurt myself doing it, and it doesn't
take a long time to rest up for another round." If you have to pig
out on sweets, that's a feature.

So the study had practical meaning only among people too poor to have
access to the results.

But according to another study, they've already figured it out by
themselves.


--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

Ads
  #2  
Old August 15th 20, 06:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,233
Default Science

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 23:40:06 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:


Whenever you read that a double-blind study has proven, beyond any
shadow of a doubt, that X is more efficient than Y, your very first
question should be "What do they mean by 'efficient'?".

Sometime during the second half of the twentieth century, there was a
tremendous flap because someone had proven that slogging was more
efficent than spinning.

Since everyone had personal experience that flatly contradicted this
result, there was a *lot* of discussion!

Eventually someone noticed that the researchers had defined
"efficient" as "I don't burn much fuel."

The riders defined "efficient" as "I can go a long way before I get
too tired to continue, I don't hurt myself doing it, and it doesn't
take a long time to rest up for another round." If you have to pig
out on sweets, that's a feature.

So the study had practical meaning only among people too poor to have
access to the results.

But according to another study, they've already figured it out by
themselves.


Well, mechanical efficiency is simply power in versus power out. But
there are other functions termed efficiency although I think that they
probably require a qualifier, as in above "fuel efficiency"

The ability to run/walk/cycle for long distances without tiring is
usually referred to as endurance rather than efficiency :-)

How are your skin transplants doing ?

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #3  
Old August 15th 20, 04:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,319
Default Science

On 8/15/2020 1:55 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 23:40:06 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:


Whenever you read that a double-blind study has proven, beyond any
shadow of a doubt, that X is more efficient than Y, your very first
question should be "What do they mean by 'efficient'?".

Sometime during the second half of the twentieth century, there was a
tremendous flap because someone had proven that slogging was more
efficent than spinning.

Since everyone had personal experience that flatly contradicted this
result, there was a *lot* of discussion!

Eventually someone noticed that the researchers had defined
"efficient" as "I don't burn much fuel."

The riders defined "efficient" as "I can go a long way before I get
too tired to continue, I don't hurt myself doing it, and it doesn't
take a long time to rest up for another round." If you have to pig
out on sweets, that's a feature.

So the study had practical meaning only among people too poor to have
access to the results.

But according to another study, they've already figured it out by
themselves.


Well, mechanical efficiency is simply power in versus power out. But
there are other functions termed efficiency although I think that they
probably require a qualifier, as in above "fuel efficiency"


One problem of a public discussion group is imprecise or colloquial use
of technical terms. And some of the people who use those terms
imprecisely seem to take offense at the notion that the terms have
actual technical definitions. They seem to find that idea elitist.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #4  
Old August 15th 20, 11:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,233
Default Science

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 11:28:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/15/2020 1:55 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 23:40:06 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:


Whenever you read that a double-blind study has proven, beyond any
shadow of a doubt, that X is more efficient than Y, your very first
question should be "What do they mean by 'efficient'?".

Sometime during the second half of the twentieth century, there was a
tremendous flap because someone had proven that slogging was more
efficent than spinning.

Since everyone had personal experience that flatly contradicted this
result, there was a *lot* of discussion!

Eventually someone noticed that the researchers had defined
"efficient" as "I don't burn much fuel."

The riders defined "efficient" as "I can go a long way before I get
too tired to continue, I don't hurt myself doing it, and it doesn't
take a long time to rest up for another round." If you have to pig
out on sweets, that's a feature.

So the study had practical meaning only among people too poor to have
access to the results.

But according to another study, they've already figured it out by
themselves.


Well, mechanical efficiency is simply power in versus power out. But
there are other functions termed efficiency although I think that they
probably require a qualifier, as in above "fuel efficiency"


One problem of a public discussion group is imprecise or colloquial use
of technical terms. And some of the people who use those terms
imprecisely seem to take offense at the notion that the terms have
actual technical definitions. They seem to find that idea elitist.


Well, perhaps anyone that actually does know what he/she/it is talking
about is elitist.

As a demonstration of this "fact" simply read the daily news :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #5  
Old August 16th 20, 02:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,539
Default Science

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 12:55:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

How are your skin transplants doing ?


I'm getting increasingly fed up with the need to keep the scars out of
the sun, but aside from that (and aside from looking red in the
mirror) I'm pretty much unaware of them.

My nose still feels peculiar if I poke it, but not when I wiggle it
(who knew that I can wiggle my nose?). The donor site still feels
thin-skinned and sensitive.

My dental hygenist told me that it's normal for donor sites to be
slower to heal than the grafts. Apparently, dental surgeons do grafts
too. I didn't ask for details.


--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
  #6  
Old August 17th 20, 12:00 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,233
Default Science

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:40:40 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 12:55:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

How are your skin transplants doing ?


I'm getting increasingly fed up with the need to keep the scars out of
the sun, but aside from that (and aside from looking red in the
mirror) I'm pretty much unaware of them.

My nose still feels peculiar if I poke it, but not when I wiggle it
(who knew that I can wiggle my nose?). The donor site still feels
thin-skinned and sensitive.

My dental hygenist told me that it's normal for donor sites to be
slower to heal than the grafts. Apparently, dental surgeons do grafts
too. I didn't ask for details.


I am interested as I need to have one ear "done". I assume that where
the transplant is made one has a swath of new skin with a seam all way
round but the donor site is what? A place where there isn't any skin
at all? Or do they pick a place where one has loose skin and simply
cut out a piece and sew the sides together rather like my wife "taking
in" a pair of my pants when I lost weight?
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #7  
Old August 17th 20, 02:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,539
Default Science

On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 06:00:12 +0700, John B.
wrote:

I am interested as I need to have one ear "done". I assume that where
the transplant is made one has a swath of new skin with a seam all way
round but the donor site is what? A place where there isn't any skin
at all? Or do they pick a place where one has loose skin and simply
cut out a piece and sew the sides together rather like my wife "taking
in" a pair of my pants when I lost weight?


Best to ask your doctor -- it's done lots of ways.

I expected a thin spot like a burn with the blister removed, but I had
a row of stitches down the center, suggesting that he took the full
thickness. That makes sense, as the cancer had pretty deep roots by
the time I took it to him. One doesn't ask too many questions when
someone is whittling on one's chin, and all I was told ahead of time
was that he was going to take a piece of my chin to patch my nose
with.

I have read that sometimes a full-thickness graft is taken, then a
split thickness graft replaces the missing skin, and the donor site
for the split thickness graft heals up like a burn.

My graft wasn't sewn at all, but simply held in place with a dressing
-- and the tape worked loose and the dressing stood up, which caused
me much anxiety. Hence the severe limits on such strenuous activities
as lying in bed; nothing must disturb the graft while the blood
vessels are growing into it.


--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
do you know science? RichD General 0 March 18th 11 09:07 PM
Is Lemond right on the science? Anton Berlin Racing 23 June 12th 09 09:11 PM
Where's the science? [email protected] Racing 74 July 24th 08 01:05 AM
Mad Dog on science Jim Flom Racing 24 October 9th 05 02:58 AM
Bad Science Just zis Guy, you know? UK 1 February 5th 05 01:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.