Brian Nystrom wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
>>> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion,
>>> you have to control the test parameters and only change one variable
>>> at a time. That's the basis of the scientific method.
>>
>>
>> Actually, that isn't the basis of the scientific method, at least not
>> for sophisticated scientists. In many "real world" situations, this
>> simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look
>> up Taguchi for more information.
>
>
> Fair enough, but there are limits to how far you can stretch this before
> the results are meaningless. Comparing different engines under different
> loads, then trying to draw correlations between continuous running and
> frequent stops/starts seems pretty far-fetched. Results from such a test
> could might indicate that a more definitive test may be worthwhile, but
> in and of themselves they'd be largely meaningless.

Yes, I agree that it is very difficult and that is the reason that I
believe it has never been done. A test worth doing would cost literally
multiple millions of dollars and just isn't worth it to anyone.


Matt

 

A. Sinan Unur wrote:

> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:TAzQf.2$hc.1@trndny03:
>
>
>>Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
>>difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
>>total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
>>neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
>>Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing
>>that.
>
>
> The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin: If
> the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the bar for 11
> will be half the size of the bar for 12.
>
> Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
> statistics.

I saw the data. I own the "How to Lie with Statistics" book that was
required reading in my statistics class at Penn State a couple of
decades ago. The MCN data was extremely well done.

It is funny how some of you like to throw stones at data that you are
too cheap to spend a few bucks to get a copy of and actually see for
yourself. You must be a statistician...


Matt

 

A. Sinan Unur wrote:

> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:TAzQf.2$hc.1@trndny03:
>
>
>>Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
>>difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
>>total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
>>neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
>>Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing
>>that.
>
>
> The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin: If
> the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the bar for 11
> will be half the size of the bar for 12.
>
> Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
> statistics.

I saw the data. I own the "How to Lie with Statistics" book that was
required reading in my statistics class at Penn State a couple of
decades ago. The MCN data was extremely well done.

It is funny how some of you like to throw stones at data that you are
too cheap to spend a few bucks to get a copy of and actually see for
yourself. You must be a statistician...


Matt

 

A. Sinan Unur wrote:

> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:TAzQf.2$hc.1@trndny03:
>
>
>>Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
>>difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
>>total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
>>neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
>>Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing
>>that.
>
>
> The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin: If
> the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the bar for 11
> will be half the size of the bar for 12.
>
> Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
> statistics.

I saw the data. I own the "How to Lie with Statistics" book that was
required reading in my statistics class at Penn State a couple of
decades ago. The MCN data was extremely well done.

It is funny how some of you like to throw stones at data that you are
too cheap to spend a few bucks to get a copy of and actually see for
yourself. You must be a statistician...


Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> A. Sinan Unur wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in
>> news:TAzQf.2$hc.1@trndny03:
>>
>>> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
>>> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
>>> total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
>>> neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
>>> Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing
>>> that.
>>
>>
>>
>> The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin:
>> If the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the bar
>> for 11 will be half the size of the bar for 12.
>>
>> Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
>> statistics.
>>
>> Sinan
>
>
> Thanks for the clear example. That's what I was trying to get across.

He's not saying at all what you were saying. I'm surprised you can't
tell the difference. You are talking about a difference in the data and
whether that difference is of significance. He's talking simply about
the presentation of that data.

I now understand why you have such a hard time following my arguments.
If you can't tell this difference, then the concepts I'm explaining
won't be understandable either, so I'll stop wasting my time now. :-)


Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> A. Sinan Unur wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in
>> news:TAzQf.2$hc.1@trndny03:
>>
>>> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
>>> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
>>> total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
>>> neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
>>> Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing
>>> that.
>>
>>
>>
>> The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin:
>> If the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the bar
>> for 11 will be half the size of the bar for 12.
>>
>> Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
>> statistics.
>>
>> Sinan
>
>
> Thanks for the clear example. That's what I was trying to get across.

He's not saying at all what you were saying. I'm surprised you can't
tell the difference. You are talking about a difference in the data and
whether that difference is of significance. He's talking simply about
the presentation of that data.

I now understand why you have such a hard time following my arguments.
If you can't tell this difference, then the concepts I'm explaining
won't be understandable either, so I'll stop wasting my time now. :-)


Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

> A. Sinan Unur wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in
>> news:TAzQf.2$hc.1@trndny03:
>>
>>> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
>>> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
>>> total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
>>> neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
>>> Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing
>>> that.
>>
>>
>>
>> The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin:
>> If the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the bar
>> for 11 will be half the size of the bar for 12.
>>
>> Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
>> statistics.
>>
>> Sinan
>
>
> Thanks for the clear example. That's what I was trying to get across.

He's not saying at all what you were saying. I'm surprised you can't
tell the difference. You are talking about a difference in the data and
whether that difference is of significance. He's talking simply about
the presentation of that data.

I now understand why you have such a hard time following my arguments.
If you can't tell this difference, then the concepts I'm explaining
won't be understandable either, so I'll stop wasting my time now. :-)


Matt

 

Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
news:V71Sf.7272$lb.639287@news1.epix.net:

> A. Sinan Unur wrote:
....

>> The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin:
>> If the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the
>> bar for 11 will be half the size of the bar for 12.
>>
>> Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
>> statistics.
>
> I saw the data. I own the "How to Lie with Statistics" book that was
> required reading in my statistics class at Penn State a couple of
> decades ago. The MCN data was extremely well done.
>
> It is funny how some of you like to throw stones at data that you are
> too cheap to spend a few bucks to get a copy of and actually see for
> yourself.

On the other hand, my comment was not specifically about the data, but
only about the fact that without knowing the scale of the vertical axis,
the heights of the bars in bar graph do not convey meaningful
information.

> You must be a statistician...

Frankly, I do not know anything about oil, and I don't much care. As
such, I am unwilling to invest any time or money in researching the
article.

That should make it obvious that I am an economist who occasionally
teaches statistics.

Sinan

--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

 

Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
news:V71Sf.7272$lb.639287@news1.epix.net:

> A. Sinan Unur wrote:
....

>> The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin:
>> If the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the
>> bar for 11 will be half the size of the bar for 12.
>>
>> Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
>> statistics.
>
> I saw the data. I own the "How to Lie with Statistics" book that was
> required reading in my statistics class at Penn State a couple of
> decades ago. The MCN data was extremely well done.
>
> It is funny how some of you like to throw stones at data that you are
> too cheap to spend a few bucks to get a copy of and actually see for
> yourself.

On the other hand, my comment was not specifically about the data, but
only about the fact that without knowing the scale of the vertical axis,
the heights of the bars in bar graph do not convey meaningful
information.

> You must be a statistician...

Frankly, I do not know anything about oil, and I don't much care. As
such, I am unwilling to invest any time or money in researching the
article.

That should make it obvious that I am an economist who occasionally
teaches statistics.

Sinan

--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

 

Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
news:V71Sf.7272$lb.639287@news1.epix.net:

> A. Sinan Unur wrote:
....

>> The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin:
>> If the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the
>> bar for 11 will be half the size of the bar for 12.
>>
>> Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
>> statistics.
>
> I saw the data. I own the "How to Lie with Statistics" book that was
> required reading in my statistics class at Penn State a couple of
> decades ago. The MCN data was extremely well done.
>
> It is funny how some of you like to throw stones at data that you are
> too cheap to spend a few bucks to get a copy of and actually see for
> yourself.

On the other hand, my comment was not specifically about the data, but
only about the fact that without knowing the scale of the vertical axis,
the heights of the bars in bar graph do not convey meaningful
information.

> You must be a statistician...

Frankly, I do not know anything about oil, and I don't much care. As
such, I am unwilling to invest any time or money in researching the
article.

That should make it obvious that I am an economist who occasionally
teaches statistics.

Sinan

--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> A. Sinan Unur wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in
>>> news:TAzQf.2$hc.1@trndny03:
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
>>>> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
>>>> total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
>>>> neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
>>>> Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin:
>>> If the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the
>>> bar for 11 will be half the size of the bar for 12.
>>>
>>> Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
>>> statistics.
>>>
>>> Sinan
>>
>> Thanks for the clear example. That's what I was trying to get across.
>
> He's not saying at all what you were saying. I'm surprised you can't
> tell the difference. You are talking about a difference in the data and
> whether that difference is of significance. He's talking simply about
> the presentation of that data.
>
> I now understand why you have such a hard time following my arguments.
> If you can't tell this difference, then the concepts I'm explaining
> won't be understandable either, so I'll stop wasting my time now. :-)

Nice try, but Sinan points out exactly what I was saying before. A
difference of "2X" is meaningless without context. Depending on the
context it can be a big difference, or completely insignificant. Do you
know what the context of the data in the study you referred to is? For
that matter, do you even know what parameters were measured? Was it
frictional resistance? Viscocity vs. temperature? Levels of chemicals as
in the above analysis? Something else. Your claim of "twice as good" is
meaningless unless we also know "compared to what?"

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> A. Sinan Unur wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in
>>> news:TAzQf.2$hc.1@trndny03:
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
>>>> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
>>>> total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
>>>> neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
>>>> Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin:
>>> If the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the
>>> bar for 11 will be half the size of the bar for 12.
>>>
>>> Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
>>> statistics.
>>>
>>> Sinan
>>
>> Thanks for the clear example. That's what I was trying to get across.
>
> He's not saying at all what you were saying. I'm surprised you can't
> tell the difference. You are talking about a difference in the data and
> whether that difference is of significance. He's talking simply about
> the presentation of that data.
>
> I now understand why you have such a hard time following my arguments.
> If you can't tell this difference, then the concepts I'm explaining
> won't be understandable either, so I'll stop wasting my time now. :-)

Nice try, but Sinan points out exactly what I was saying before. A
difference of "2X" is meaningless without context. Depending on the
context it can be a big difference, or completely insignificant. Do you
know what the context of the data in the study you referred to is? For
that matter, do you even know what parameters were measured? Was it
frictional resistance? Viscocity vs. temperature? Levels of chemicals as
in the above analysis? Something else. Your claim of "twice as good" is
meaningless unless we also know "compared to what?"

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> A. Sinan Unur wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in
>>> news:TAzQf.2$hc.1@trndny03:
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
>>>> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
>>>> total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but
>>>> neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference.
>>>> Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin:
>>> If the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the
>>> bar for 11 will be half the size of the bar for 12.
>>>
>>> Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with
>>> statistics.
>>>
>>> Sinan
>>
>> Thanks for the clear example. That's what I was trying to get across.
>
> He's not saying at all what you were saying. I'm surprised you can't
> tell the difference. You are talking about a difference in the data and
> whether that difference is of significance. He's talking simply about
> the presentation of that data.
>
> I now understand why you have such a hard time following my arguments.
> If you can't tell this difference, then the concepts I'm explaining
> won't be understandable either, so I'll stop wasting my time now. :-)

Nice try, but Sinan points out exactly what I was saying before. A
difference of "2X" is meaningless without context. Depending on the
context it can be a big difference, or completely insignificant. Do you
know what the context of the data in the study you referred to is? For
that matter, do you even know what parameters were measured? Was it
frictional resistance? Viscocity vs. temperature? Levels of chemicals as
in the above analysis? Something else. Your claim of "twice as good" is
meaningless unless we also know "compared to what?"

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Adkins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand
>>>>>> SuperTech tested anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm coming in late here, but last I heard, SuperTech is re-labeled
>>>>> Penzoil/Quaker State, in turn made by Shell. I suppose that would
>>>>> quickly
>>>>> change if Wal-Mart would get a better contract from Texaco, BP,
>>>>> Exxon-Mobil,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company
>>>> that produces oils for many labels. I didn't realize how the
>>>> industry worked until I checked into SuperTech oils. Many of the
>>>> oils on the market are not blended by the companies that sell them.
>>>> Companies like Warren buy base stocks from refiners (like Shell),
>>>> blend in an additive package and resell them to companies that put
>>>> their label on them. SuperTech is effectively "generic" oil, in that
>>>> it comes from the same source and is likely identical to some name
>>>> brands, but it's sold cheaper since it's not advertized and doesn't
>>>> pass through as many hands in the supply chain. It may well be
>>>> indentical to Pennzoil and/or Quaker State.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The oil MAY be identical, but it may not be. Even worse is that it
>>> may vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is whatever is
>>> available at the lowest price at a given time. All crude oils aren't
>>> created equal.
>>
>>
>>
>> It comes from ONE source and it's blended to a standard specification.
>> The lab test I saw indicated that it was comparable to other synthetic
>> oils on the market. Your comments are just idle speculation with no
>> basis in fact. Fear mongering doesn't help anyone.
>>
>
> Again, I ask to see the mysterious data you keep referring to, but can't
> seem to produce a reference to. I provided a clear reference to the
> source of the data that I saw that is in direct conflict with your
> claims that all oils are created equal.

It's in my other post.

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Adkins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand
>>>>>> SuperTech tested anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm coming in late here, but last I heard, SuperTech is re-labeled
>>>>> Penzoil/Quaker State, in turn made by Shell. I suppose that would
>>>>> quickly
>>>>> change if Wal-Mart would get a better contract from Texaco, BP,
>>>>> Exxon-Mobil,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company
>>>> that produces oils for many labels. I didn't realize how the
>>>> industry worked until I checked into SuperTech oils. Many of the
>>>> oils on the market are not blended by the companies that sell them.
>>>> Companies like Warren buy base stocks from refiners (like Shell),
>>>> blend in an additive package and resell them to companies that put
>>>> their label on them. SuperTech is effectively "generic" oil, in that
>>>> it comes from the same source and is likely identical to some name
>>>> brands, but it's sold cheaper since it's not advertized and doesn't
>>>> pass through as many hands in the supply chain. It may well be
>>>> indentical to Pennzoil and/or Quaker State.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The oil MAY be identical, but it may not be. Even worse is that it
>>> may vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is whatever is
>>> available at the lowest price at a given time. All crude oils aren't
>>> created equal.
>>
>>
>>
>> It comes from ONE source and it's blended to a standard specification.
>> The lab test I saw indicated that it was comparable to other synthetic
>> oils on the market. Your comments are just idle speculation with no
>> basis in fact. Fear mongering doesn't help anyone.
>>
>
> Again, I ask to see the mysterious data you keep referring to, but can't
> seem to produce a reference to. I provided a clear reference to the
> source of the data that I saw that is in direct conflict with your
> claims that all oils are created equal.

It's in my other post.