Yeah, but I hope they either calm down, or continue their jousting in email format. Too many more personal insults, and the whole post will get vtd'd, which would be a shame, because there's some useful information and opinions in this thread.
Not confusing methods, but picking the appropriate one. Also, your assumption that the variables would average out if the groups were big enough is a flawed one, for the reasons I have already mentioned. Including more samples will not significantly change the bias of the group.Regarding the UDP saga, which I might add, I am quite ambivalent on, they might be 'bad' for your engine without ever causing a catastrophic failure. Unfortunately the only evidence we are likely to see and/or hear about is the catastrophic failures, not a potentially much larger number of possible internal engine degradations, or accessory failures. I repeat, I am quite ambivalent about UDPs, but I believe, and I believe all Zedders should know that they have pros and cons.
That's not a bad idea. Maybe rather than move the entire thread, if the post(s) where it starts to get off the rails can be moved to a 'soapbox forum', then the Zed specific information can stay where it's meant to be.
im better and smarter than others just not all "others" :-Z plus I *am* a woman and we all know they are better and know everything
Where are you getting this info from? About variables not averaging out in a randomised control trial? Its completely the entire point of this type of trial that all unknown variables average out by being randomly assigned to groups, the strength of which gets greater with the larger size of the sample.
Chili I just fail to see.... how you can be upset and come here acting all mortally wounded. You play the "oh my honor is so injured" card yet you insitigate everything. In less than 5 minutes I bet I could pull up a good 20 of your posts that are designed as nothing more than a shit stir. In fact I see you deleted one off this thread even. Then you whine when someone points out what a fool you are. If Im a bottom feeding muck racker than your somewhere below me pal, far below.Now I emailed you after the whole TTZ/UAS saga because I had a lot of respect for you then and wanted to clear the air between us. That respect for you has obviously degenerated into pure contempt since then because of your ongoing attitude. Make no mistake Chili, if you dont want your head bitten off then pull it in. Enough said I think.
Whats that got to do with anything? Whats me being in the medical field got to do with anything? It was brought up by zx299 as it apparently didnt make me qualified to talk about UR pulleys, when in fact it gives me experience in levels of evidence which is exactly what we're talking about here. I didnt bring it up thanks very much.How is it me trying to PROVE anything by stating why you cant let the proof of one failure in a sea of thousands of good outcomes affect the overall result. I was hoping youd actually LEARN something and appreciate why it was the case. Seriously, if you cant be tought something with any theory behind it without feeling your getting snobbed by someone smarter than you then your never going to learn much in life.Chili stated that he knew all about statistics and he couldnt be tought anything. Because hes such a self proclaimed genius I was interested in where he was tought. Nothing to do with "using what they learn in university to support their attacks". I just wanted Chili to back up some of that hot air he puts out since he decided he needed to stick his nose in.But your right, time to leave this alone.
you fail to see anything other than your self professed glory. You're nothing more than a lab monkey trying to intimidate others by using a few first year uni terms about research. You're a fraud.
BLAH this is B/S people!! (my rant time ) actually im starting to lean towards Nathan's side of the argument. People have jumped on his back for what he said, saying that he has no proof to back up his case, yet all anybody has to disprove him is that "1" case in the US or whatever, out of thousands. OK maybe he could polish up his bedside manner a bit 8D but his initial response was a personal opinion based on experience and in the case of the UD pulley, perfectly true. Just because it has happened once, and there is a possibility of damage due to the harmonics, doesnt mean that it happens every time, in fact it is very VERY rare!! I just think some people are inflexible and unable to let go of "supposed facts" when the facts are staring them in the face.Just my rant about it all. I wish this thread and many others lately hadnt even begun, but this isnt a perfect world and none of us (except Krystal ) is perfect so we are bound to argue. I just wish people would become the "bigger man" and let go from time to time. It would sure make visiting the forum much niced for members and visitors alike. I'm sure a lot of visitors dont get on here to read about us all doing the "my d%^k is bigger" game.Cheers
OK, let's take a simple example. Car enthusiasts vs car users. Hypothesis is that car enthusiasts' cars are on average cleaner, because they spend more time keeping them in good condition. I think that you'll agree that it's a plausible hypothesis.Car enthusiasts are a sub group of car users. From the explanations that you have given, I understand that you are saying that as the number of trial subjects increases, the variables decrease, ie the average cleanliness of the 'car enthusiasts' subgroup approaches that of the 'car users' group. That doesn't make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
Nah your looking at it the wrong way... You cant do a trial between two different groups for the purpose of comparing them to each other. Not like this anyway, because your right they cant compare evenly unless you weighted it.What Im saying is if you did a randomised control trial of the effect of an UDP then it would work like this:You would get say 5000 300zx engines. The more the better as the more statistical strength your study will have.Now you would randomly assign each in turn to getting an UD pulley or not getting one. Even better you would do it double blinded so the people doing the study dont know whose in which group.You would then follow the engines for say 5 years or 100,000kms and look at EVERY adverse event the engines had, from turbo failure to needing a rebuild or whatever. You can then state what effect this mod has. The more numbers it has the more certainly you can state it.Now this is where your point about being different groups comes into it. You would certainly have car enthusiasts and people who track their cars and do all sorts of odd things and things you cant predict. What if 100 of those cars are owned by people who never have a service hence cause failures. What if some of these engine were pristine at the start of the trial and some shot already? By randomising the initial group, with a big enough number then statistically they will even out across both groups. i.e. you will get equal numbers of car enthusiasts, racers, lack of maintenance in each group. Both the pulley and non pulley group. Thats why its the highest level of evidence because by randomising things you take into account random differences between the two groups your studying.So you can see even though this is the best level of evidence its impractical. You cant get enough cars, you couldnt track them all and you wouldnt get people reporting back all their adverse effects. Plus it takes time from now to do. So the best form of evidence we could study now would be the retrospective cohort I mentioned before.You take all the cars with an UDP and look backwards over the years for adverse events. You could then look at a similar number of non UDP cars and do the same. Then you compare the two. Due to the nature of the design you cant eliminate unseen variables like a randomised trial but the more numbers you have the more strength the results carry.Does that make more sense?
There is not one person in this Forum...>> That has made me feel more Welcomed, or has helped me out with a mod or making a decision on a purchase Than 'Lloyd Chilcott', >D< >D< >D< THANKYOU CHILI ^D^ MY ZED THANKS YOU TOO >D< PS. Lloyd, remember my technique for solving problems.... ..:-0 ..}D }D }D
Thanks for that Michael, although> I don't think it will get you many friends.:-0 :-0 Do you do interstate bookings
