View Single Post
Old 08-06-22, 12:13 PM
  #10  
fishboat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 1,652

Bikes: Lemond '01 Maillot Jaune, Lemond '02 Victoire, Lemond '03 Poprad, Lemond '03 Wayzata DB conv(Poprad), '79 AcerMex Windsor Carrera Professional(pur new), '88 GT Tequesta(pur new), '01 Bianchi Grizzly, 1993 Trek 970 DB conv, Trek 8900 DB conv

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 634 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 648 Times in 372 Posts
Originally Posted by jccaclimber View Post
While you’re at it you might as well reject the results for not using instrumentation with a current NIST traceable calibration and operating in a temperature and humidity controlled environment.
Sarcasm..not really needed. Given what's being studied and the instruments being used.. NIST, temp, and humidity is going a bit far. If you think skipping the evaluation of measurement system error is a waste of time, then you've never really done work where it matters. If measurement error is significant in a study(relative to what's being studied) then the entire study will be a waste of time. I doubt anyone wants to make a few hundred measurements only to end up with a shrug of one's shoulders and an "I don't know..?"

What are your thoughts on how Andy should proceed?
fishboat is offline