Did you read the part about all we know is that the difference in the power measurement was 4%? You need to do some learning on incomplete data. We could imagine all sorts of things, that the other unit was 4% off perfect; that the other unit had a 64% error and the new one had a 68% error; or maybe magical pixies were introducing noise into the measurements. The difference one line of thought involves critical thinking, and the other doesn't.jpr95 said:
What about my post suggests that I need to do some learning on incomplete data? What I posted was so that other readers don't get the (wrong or incomplete) impression that a 4% difference is somehow worse than +/- 2%.
Actually, if you knew what you were talking you'd first realize that you don't know whether that 4% is explained by the ±2% because all you know is that one measurement was different than the other by 4%. Second, your ±2% completely lacks credibility since the Kurt Kinetic site doesn't mention that figure for power meter accuracy on its site or in the owner's manual. Third, if you understood what you were talking about you'd know that that 4% difference could actually be worse than the claimed measurement error in the power unit. I'll use small words so you understand: computer say power is x. x is outside of measurement error. y is second measurement with second thing that make bike hard to pedal. y is 4% not like x. Now why is farther outside of measurement error measurement because of 4% y different than x. Do you understand now? Since it is absolutely true that you have no information to conclude that the original measurement on the original unit was within the ±2% measurement error that you assigned to the KK power unit (one which KK doesn't specify), it is also absolutely true that you have no idea whether the second measurement falls within your assigned measurement error. In other words, you're making claims for which you have no evidence, or in other words, you're speaking out of your anus when you make such claims. Alas, I don't ride horses, and I don't do the self-worship thing. I will happily point out, however, when people--people like you in this case--are making ridiculous statements.jpr95 said:
Talk about reading things that aren't there, I didn't make any empirical claim, fella, I just pointed out the facts. You're the one that was sprinkling pixie dust. I didn't make any claims about being way ahead of anyone. I just pointed out where you were wrong. Mine was a simple statement that was true no matter how the information was interpreted by you. You're critical thinking skills are right up there with your buddy's, you know, BigotBob.jpr95 said:
