Best way to measure Watts-



"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Dec 9, 6:22 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 11:09 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 7, 10:34 pm, Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> > > On Dec 7, 8:45 am, [email protected] wrote:

>>
>> > > > I bought your Power Meter book. You consistently use the misspelled
>> > > > term "preme" which should be "prime" from the French word meaning
>> > > > "bonus", that is, a bonus prize in the middle of a race.

>>
>> > > You mean that the editors did.

>>
>> > > Andy Coggan

>>
>> > No, I didn't mean that at all. In my book, I had complete editorial
>> > control, in particular, the editor tried to change the title and had
>> > to accept my refusal of his suggestion. I also withdrew scholarly
>> > papers when the editor insisted on minor stylistic points which I
>> > found distasteful and incorrect (I had no problem publishing the
>> > papers elsewhere). I take responsibility for all the errors in my book
>> > and articles.

>>
>> > -ilan

>>
>> > -ilan

>>
>> In other words, for someone so quick to criticise others for having
>> made a mistake, you are very easy on yourself in blaming others for
>> your errors. Pretty typical of a "senior scientist." In any case,
>> quite distasteful.

>
> I'm not blaming anyone, simply stating facts. If you'd gotten them
> right initially, I wouldn't have had to correct your error.
>
> Andy Coggan
>


Speaking of getting facts right initially, how's your defense of tyler
coming along?
 
On Dec 9, 4:43 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 10:09 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > And I stated that you had an error in your book and you blamed your
> > editor instead of yourself. I admit when I am incorrect, apparently
> > you have a problem taking responsibility for yours.

>
> > -ilan- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -

>
> Finding anyone to admit they've made a mistake is rare, getting them
> to take responsibility for it is damned near unheard of today. It's
> ALWAYS someone else's fault, and if that doesn't work, then it's the
> fault of "society".
> Bill C


Maybe the worst thing about Coggan is that here he is on r.b.r.
criticising my "errors" in this informal setting, as if my posts were
contributions sent to a refereed journal, and even then, issuing a
response consisting only of a list of errors is completely small
minded.

On the other hand, he fails to take responsibility for simple mistakes
in his book, which is a work which is taken seriously and which he had
month if not years to prepare and to check correctness. Even if the
editor is to blame (seems surprising from Velo Press), it was his
responsibility to have enough control on the final product that such
errors would be found and eliminated. If Addison-Wesley gave me full
editorial control over my book, I don't see why Velo Press wouldn't.

-ilan
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 7, 3:56 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:156473b4-12e4-4bd5-9751-82e0d868dbd0@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 6, 9:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>> "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:8c6b7816-610f-4db2-b38b-b517a396aa34@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Dec 4, 11:22 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>>>> For all those who think of Andy as God - he's wrong. Ilan is a college
>>>>>> professor who expects the meter to read correctly. Andy is a far more
>>>>>> practical person who thinks that inaccuracy is OK as long as it's a
>>>>>> constant.
>>>>> So I'm curious, Tom - what is that you think I do for a living?
>>>> To tell you the truth Andy, I haven't a clue how exercise physiologists
>>>> make
>>>> a living unless they teach.
>>> research, ever heard of it ?

>> You mean living off of grants from the NIH like I'm doing right now?

>
> dumbass,
>
> you do research ?
>

NIH=Nimrod's Institute for the Homeless.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eed70dbe-40af-4bbc-bc41-4399c4465a3d@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Maybe the worst thing about Coggan is that here he is on r.b.r.
> criticising my "errors" in this informal setting, as if my posts were
> contributions sent to a refereed journal, and even then, issuing a
> response consisting only of a list of errors is completely small
> minded.
>
> On the other hand, he fails to take responsibility for simple mistakes
> in his book, which is a work which is taken seriously and which he had
> month if not years to prepare and to check correctness. Even if the
> editor is to blame (seems surprising from Velo Press), it was his
> responsibility to have enough control on the final product that such
> errors would be found and eliminated. If Addison-Wesley gave me full
> editorial control over my book, I don't see why Velo Press wouldn't.


Ilan, remember that Andrew seldom sees anything but complaints here on the
group so he tends to be overly sensitive and quite defensive.
 
On Dec 9, 9:28 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:eed70dbe-40af-4bbc-bc41-4399c4465a3d@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Maybe the worst thing about Coggan is that here he is on r.b.r.
> > criticising my "errors" in this informal setting, as if my posts were
> > contributions sent to a refereed journal, and even then, issuing a
> > response consisting only of a list of errors is completely small
> > minded.

>
> > On the other hand, he fails to take responsibility for simple mistakes
> > in his book, which is a work which is taken seriously and which he had
> > month if not years to prepare and to check correctness. Even if the
> > editor is to blame (seems surprising from Velo Press), it was his
> > responsibility to have enough control on the final product that such
> > errors would be found and eliminated. If Addison-Wesley gave me full
> > editorial control over my book, I don't see why Velo Press wouldn't.

>
> Ilan, remember that Andrew seldom sees anything but complaints here on the
> group so he tends to be overly sensitive and quite defensive.


OK, but he didn't want to comment on the fact that I actually bought
his book and liked it. Independent of my opinion of him personally, I
would still recommend his book to anyone serious about cycling.

-ilan
 
Bill C wrote:
> Finding anyone to admit they've made a mistake is rare, getting them to
> take responsibility for it is damned near unheard of today. It's ALWAYS
> someone else's fault, and if that doesn't work, then it's the fault of
> "society".


Now I know who to blame next time I get dropped.
 
On Dec 9, 10:47 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 9, 4:43 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 10:09 am, [email protected] wrote:

>
> > > And I stated that you had an error in your book and you blamed your
> > > editor instead of yourself. I admit when I am incorrect, apparently
> > > you have a problem taking responsibility for yours.

>
> > > -ilan- Hide quoted text -

>
> > > - Show quoted text -

>
> > Finding anyone to admit they've made a mistake is rare, getting them
> > to take responsibility for it is damned near unheard of today. It's
> > ALWAYS someone else's fault, and if that doesn't work, then it's the
> > fault of "society".
> > Bill C

>
> Maybe the worst thing about Coggan is that here he is on r.b.r.
> criticising my "errors" in this informal setting, as if my posts were
> contributions sent to a refereed journal, and even then, issuing a
> response consisting only of a list of errors is completely small
> minded.
>
> On the other hand, he fails to take responsibility for simple mistakes
> in his book, which is a work which is taken seriously and which he had
> month if not years to prepare and to check correctness. Even if the
> editor is to blame (seems surprising from Velo Press), it was his
> responsibility to have enough control on the final product that such
> errors would be found and eliminated. If Addison-Wesley gave me full
> editorial control over my book, I don't see why Velo Press wouldn't.


Because VeloPress isn't Addison-Wesley? Because I'm not you? Either
way, I've known how to properly spell "prime" since I was in high
school.

Andy Coggan
 
On Dec 9, 10:33 am, "TM" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 6:22 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Dec 7, 11:09 pm, [email protected] wrote:

>
> >> > On Dec 7, 10:34 pm, Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >> > > On Dec 7, 8:45 am, [email protected] wrote:

>
> >> > > > I bought your Power Meter book. You consistently use the misspelled
> >> > > > term "preme" which should be "prime" from the French word meaning
> >> > > > "bonus", that is, a bonus prize in the middle of a race.

>
> >> > > You mean that the editors did.

>
> >> > > Andy Coggan

>
> >> > No, I didn't mean that at all. In my book, I had complete editorial
> >> > control, in particular, the editor tried to change the title and had
> >> > to accept my refusal of his suggestion. I also withdrew scholarly
> >> > papers when the editor insisted on minor stylistic points which I
> >> > found distasteful and incorrect (I had no problem publishing the
> >> > papers elsewhere). I take responsibility for all the errors in my book
> >> > and articles.

>
> >> > -ilan

>
> >> > -ilan

>
> >> In other words, for someone so quick to criticise others for having
> >> made a mistake, you are very easy on yourself in blaming others for
> >> your errors. Pretty typical of a "senior scientist." In any case,
> >> quite distasteful.

>
> > I'm not blaming anyone, simply stating facts. If you'd gotten them
> > right initially, I wouldn't have had to correct your error.

>
> > Andy Coggan

>
> Speaking of getting facts right initially, how's your defense of tyler
> coming along?


I have never defended Tyler Hamilton, merely pointed out that chimeras
do, in fact, exist.

Andy Coggan
 
On Dec 10, 11:36 pm, Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 10:47 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 4:43 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > On Dec 9, 10:09 am, [email protected] wrote:

>
> > > > And I stated that you had an error in your book and you blamed your
> > > > editor instead of yourself. I admit when I am incorrect, apparently
> > > > you have a problem taking responsibility for yours.

>
> > > > -ilan- Hide quoted text -

>
> > > > - Show quoted text -

>
> > > Finding anyone to admit they've made a mistake is rare, getting them
> > > to take responsibility for it is damned near unheard of today. It's
> > > ALWAYS someone else's fault, and if that doesn't work, then it's the
> > > fault of "society".
> > > Bill C

>
> > Maybe the worst thing about Coggan is that here he is on r.b.r.
> > criticising my "errors" in this informal setting, as if my posts were
> > contributions sent to a refereed journal, and even then, issuing a
> > response consisting only of a list of errors is completely small
> > minded.

>
> > On the other hand, he fails to take responsibility for simple mistakes
> > in his book, which is a work which is taken seriously and which he had
> > month if not years to prepare and to check correctness. Even if the
> > editor is to blame (seems surprising from Velo Press), it was his
> > responsibility to have enough control on the final product that such
> > errors would be found and eliminated. If Addison-Wesley gave me full
> > editorial control over my book, I don't see why Velo Press wouldn't.

>
> Because VeloPress isn't Addison-Wesley? Because I'm not you? Either
> way, I've known how to properly spell "prime" since I was in high
> school.
>
> Andy Coggan


Well then, you should have made sure it was spelled correctly in your
book. I've never heard of an author not being able to look at the
final proofs before his book is published (the only time anything was
introduced into something I wrote without my knowledge was when I
wrote for the French Scientific American, and that was just a
diagram). It's really bad form to blame others for mistakes in your
work, I don't think I've heard that either, next thing you know, your
book will have a preface in which you state: "All errors in this book
are due to the editors, my co-author, or anyone other than me." It
would be a first anyway....

-ilan
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Dec 10, 11:36 pm, Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 10:47 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 9, 4:43 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> > > On Dec 9, 10:09 am, [email protected] wrote:

>>
>> > > > And I stated that you had an error in your book and you blamed your
>> > > > editor instead of yourself. I admit when I am incorrect, apparently
>> > > > you have a problem taking responsibility for yours.

>>
>> > > > -ilan- Hide quoted text -

>>
>> > > > - Show quoted text -

>>
>> > > Finding anyone to admit they've made a mistake is rare, getting them
>> > > to take responsibility for it is damned near unheard of today. It's
>> > > ALWAYS someone else's fault, and if that doesn't work, then it's the
>> > > fault of "society".
>> > > Bill C

>>
>> > Maybe the worst thing about Coggan is that here he is on r.b.r.
>> > criticising my "errors" in this informal setting, as if my posts were
>> > contributions sent to a refereed journal, and even then, issuing a
>> > response consisting only of a list of errors is completely small
>> > minded.

>>
>> > On the other hand, he fails to take responsibility for simple mistakes
>> > in his book, which is a work which is taken seriously and which he had
>> > month if not years to prepare and to check correctness. Even if the
>> > editor is to blame (seems surprising from Velo Press), it was his
>> > responsibility to have enough control on the final product that such
>> > errors would be found and eliminated. If Addison-Wesley gave me full
>> > editorial control over my book, I don't see why Velo Press wouldn't.

>>
>> Because VeloPress isn't Addison-Wesley? Because I'm not you? Either
>> way, I've known how to properly spell "prime" since I was in high
>> school.
>>
>> Andy Coggan

>
> Well then, you should have made sure it was spelled correctly in your
> book. I've never heard of an author not being able to look at the
> final proofs before his book is published (the only time anything was
> introduced into something I wrote without my knowledge was when I
> wrote for the French Scientific American, and that was just a
> diagram). It's really bad form to blame others for mistakes in your
> work, I don't think I've heard that either, next thing you know, your
> book will have a preface in which you state: "All errors in this book
> are due to the editors, my co-author, or anyone other than me." It
> would be a first anyway....


In a paper I published with a couple of other guys ALL of the charts and
graphs came out completely wrong even though I'd gone to a lot of trouble to
make sure they were correct in the proofs. Then even the page number where
the article was continued was incorrect and half the pages in the magazine
didn't have page numbers on them. I won't use the name of the journal but it
is well enough known.

So you have to give that sort of thing and lot of latitude.
 
"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Dec 9, 10:33 am, "TM" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Speaking of getting facts right initially, how's your defense of tyler
>> coming along?

>
> I have never defended Tyler Hamilton, merely pointed out that chimeras
> do, in fact, exist.


The problem which is so clearly being avoided is that these guys were told
they tested positive for something but most of them didn't find out anything
about the tests until way after they'd been interviewed and like any
complete and utter layman, made a bunch of ignorant statements about what it
"might" have been.

In Tyler's case he never said that it was a chimera, his defense merely
pointed out that such a case could give the results demonstrated. But since
that time we've seen enough from that lab to believe that they never found
anything to begin with.
 
"TM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I have never defended Tyler Hamilton, merely pointed out that
>> chimeras
>> do, in fact, exist.
>>
>> Andy Coggan
>>

>
> and larry craig has a 'wide stance'.


My read on the previous discussions were about adhering to and defending
the scientific method rather than defending any rider in particular. Of
course, this will always be construed as biased input from
non-scientists (especially lawyers).

Phil H
 
On Dec 9, 7:43 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 10:09 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > And I stated that you had an error in your book and you blamed your
> > editor instead of yourself. I admit when I am incorrect, apparently
> > you have a problem taking responsibility for yours.

>
> Finding anyone to admit they've made a mistake is rare, getting them
> to take responsibility for it is damned near unheard of today. It's
> ALWAYS someone else's fault, and if that doesn't work, then it's the
> fault of "society".


I see flowers.

There are two factors:
1. /Everyone is wrong most of the time/, so there is a lot of time
saved by not hashing over the obvious.
2. It is easier to lie if you change the meaning of words.

Wrong is right.
Stealing is giving.
Lies are truth.

"War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength."
--- Orwell


But as far as Coggan goes, I think he is more concerned with keeping
his wife calibrated than his book. Is that wrong?
 
On Dec 7, 11:03 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Dec 7, 10:50 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > All meters drift. No one can measure the "true value."

>
> > The NIST t&f motherload paper NIST_TechNote1337.pdf convinced me of
> > that.

>
> 1337 is K3WL, D00D. kUN1C# = B1FF !!1!
>
> > > My rule of thumb: Never calibrate anything twice.
> > > Two power meters are worse than one. If you need to
> > > check a calibration, you need three independent
> > > measurements.

>
> > I'm sure you know, but to state it in what I hope is a concise way:
> > Two meters "agreeing" is actually a statement that the meters have
> > limited resolution.

>
> Yeah, a better way of saying it would be two meters agreeing
> to within X percent. Whether X is larger or smaller than what
> you think they ought to ... that's why you bring the third meter.


NIST (and the like) try to do ensembles, IIRC.

> > Knowing how you love powerpoint and presentations for boneheads (like
> > me), please see Plate 29:
> >http://www.freqelec.com/oscillators/osc_overview_4-07.pdf
> > (http://www.freqelec.com/oscillators/)

>
> That's good. I like how they used **** Cheney's targets
> both before and after he has a few beers; makes a very
> vivid example.


lol. I think if it were that (a Cheney target), then only the second
one would look like a duck, and somewhere off to the side would be "my
friend's face" with some of that nice red ink. Of course, I'm sorta
assumin **** was not actually aiming at his friend and also unable to
hit a duck. Maybe a "# of beers **** drank" key would help.
 

Similar threads

C
Replies
0
Views
440
Road Cycling
Carl Sundquist
C