Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
Not rigor but vigor? What is the value of four rigorous results that disagree?
|
It's helpful for members to know the 'context' of the 'quanta' published for their specific vehicle, and how those values would only be 'valid' under the same conditions under which they were originally derived.
Those owning an 'identical' vehicle but in a different global locale, and tested under a different set of cycles would know not to have any expectation of seeing the same numbers.
Say, Logic actually revealed the 'Toyota' he initially tested with 'boron', then we'd be able to obtain the technical specifications for the car and reverse-engineer the original OEM energy balance 'performance' to compare to the 'friction-modified' version, to see if the observed numbers had 'probability' within the physical constraints established in 'Argonne's' reporting, the 'benchmark' of 'accuracy.'
That's what the 'peer-reviewers' would have had to do to 'verify' any claims or attributions made by Dr. Erdemir et al..
Logic brought up a very valid point with respect to how a car's 'energy' is distributed, once it leaves the 'tank.'
The 4-different test protocols attempt the specificity to describe those energy distributions.
If you mainly drive in bumper-to-bumper traffic, at a 'crawl', your 'distribution' isn't going to resemble one for someone legally commuting, uninterrupted, between Austin, and San Antonio at 85-mph on the toll-road.