Your logic does not hold. The entire basis what that those with THC exhibited only a slightly higher rate than the control group. If the population of very low THC cases is great enough, then any other difference could easily be masked within the margin of error.
But, I think even you would not argue that it stands to reason that if there is a correlation between THC intoxication and accidents, that we would expect to see greater incidence rates with higher intoxication levels. The study seems to completely ignore that for THC, while being much more meticulous when it comes to the amount of alcohol consumed.
Note that I did not say the results were wrong or right, just that what should be a very obvious factor does not appear to be addressed. Without more information, rationalizing the result is a waste of time, IMO.
The biggest caveat is probably that THC testing can be positive even if the drug use was days or weeks ago.
This is something I mentioned above, that the study does not appear to account for level of THC. It seems that any amount is counted as a person under the influence, unless I missed it.
Looking at the study, it is not clear that they accounted for level of THC. It appears that a driver with any level of THC is counted. If that is the case, a large number of drivers with only a hint of THC as compared to a smaller number with high levels could impact the results. Maybe I just missed it, but it seems like a critical factor to address.
Here is an article written in 1995 that uses capacity factor, and if you used a little effort you could find more, I found this in one quick google. It is a standard term, and a useful measure. You can find it defined in IEEE and other standards, and has been used for quite a long time.
You can choose to "doubt", but that would be willful ignorance.
Capacity Factor is quite useful in determining ROI for a windmill. If you know the average capacity factor, you know how much electricity the windmill would likely produce in a year, and therefore how much $$ you would make on power sales in a year.
It would be good to have an actual schizophrenic use the product and confirm if this is even remotely similar to what they really experience. Until then, its just what some think their experience is.
It is an interesting move. I suppose now that they made that statement, they would really have a hard time stopping anyone for using the patents for just about anything. The definition of "good faith" seems like it would be difficult to legally use as a basis to stop someone. In the patent world, once you open the door it is really hard to close.
I know some 'open source' licensing says you can use it for free as long as you don't sell it, I doesn't sound like that is what Tesla is doing, but surely they've drafted up some legal boundaries.
What are the details of that? "Applying the open source philosophy" doesn't necessarily mean "free". Is that all their patents or just a selection? But it is a good move, I agree.
They are re-tooling to keep up with the market. If you have to keep doing that and don't make money, then it really doesn't matter. You can't just sit on one product in the car market, it requires constant development.
Actually, that is a myth perpetuated by critics with no real point, and repeated by idiots that think it is clever. The industry never made such a claim. But, if you logic is that if a single statement from a single person, taken out of context, can be shown to not be accurate that proves some kind case, then you will find that nothing on this planet is credible.
The point is that 1) the grid is predicted to have problems due to the storm, and 2) the plant is being shut down in anticipation of grid problems, but the headline says neither.
Capacity factor = equivalent hours generating at rated capacity during a given year divided by the number of hours in the year. It is a very common measure for electrical generating plant performance and reliability. If you had simply done a web search you would not have looked so stupid in your response.
Reliable from a generation standpoint, which seems to be the focus of the article. Historically, it has a good capacity factor.
None of the failures you mention above are acceptable, and that is why increased oversight is warranted. Yes, from a safety standpoint Pilgrim has lagged.
Pilgrim's capacity factor, even on a bad year, kills anything solar could ever dream of. Pilgrim is at the bottom of an elite group of plants that perform best in the power industry. Its all relative.
If Tesla is using my tax money to do that R&D, then hopefully they'll make that intellectual property public.
If the network is going to be a public gift, then that would be OK. Why not fund those efforts directly instead of giving the wealthy a piece of the pie?
I'd like to correct my statement above which says "There is no license requirement to shut down in anticipation of a loss of offsite power".
Actually, there is a generic requirement to monitor grid reliability, and an unreliable grid determination could force a licensee to shut down. That is typically based on actual performance, not on anticipation, but I wanted to be accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I did mis-read. Your second paragraph sums it up quite well. Thanks for your patience.
Your logic does not hold. The entire basis what that those with THC exhibited only a slightly higher rate than the control group. If the population of very low THC cases is great enough, then any other difference could easily be masked within the margin of error.
But, I think even you would not argue that it stands to reason that if there is a correlation between THC intoxication and accidents, that we would expect to see greater incidence rates with higher intoxication levels. The study seems to completely ignore that for THC, while being much more meticulous when it comes to the amount of alcohol consumed.
Note that I did not say the results were wrong or right, just that what should be a very obvious factor does not appear to be addressed. Without more information, rationalizing the result is a waste of time, IMO.
The biggest caveat is probably that THC testing can be positive even if the drug use was days or weeks ago.
This is something I mentioned above, that the study does not appear to account for level of THC. It seems that any amount is counted as a person under the influence, unless I missed it.
Looking at the study, it is not clear that they accounted for level of THC. It appears that a driver with any level of THC is counted. If that is the case, a large number of drivers with only a hint of THC as compared to a smaller number with high levels could impact the results. Maybe I just missed it, but it seems like a critical factor to address.
No one uses it in the energy company I worked for,
You know everything everybody at your company used? Impressive. OK, tell me what performance measures your asset management group did use then.
Here is an article written in 1995 that uses capacity factor, and if you used a little effort you could find more, I found this in one quick google. It is a standard term, and a useful measure. You can find it defined in IEEE and other standards, and has been used for quite a long time.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/hep...
You can choose to "doubt", but that would be willful ignorance.
Capacity Factor is quite useful in determining ROI for a windmill. If you know the average capacity factor, you know how much electricity the windmill would likely produce in a year, and therefore how much $$ you would make on power sales in a year.
Don't be ignorant. Its been used long before Global Warming was even talked about. We used it in the 80s and 90s.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/...
It would be good to have an actual schizophrenic use the product and confirm if this is even remotely similar to what they really experience. Until then, its just what some think their experience is.
It is ironic. It is an engineering challenge to balance blade weight and strength. Sometimes even stopping them doesn't protect them enough;
http://www.utsandiego.com/news...
Interesting. I don't think I'll spend too much time checking, so I'll just go with this.
I agree. Good discussion, and it was a very good counterpoint to my R&D argument. Thanks.
It is an interesting move. I suppose now that they made that statement, they would really have a hard time stopping anyone for using the patents for just about anything. The definition of "good faith" seems like it would be difficult to legally use as a basis to stop someone. In the patent world, once you open the door it is really hard to close.
I know some 'open source' licensing says you can use it for free as long as you don't sell it, I doesn't sound like that is what Tesla is doing, but surely they've drafted up some legal boundaries.
Oh man, I totally missed it......Sorry, sometimes I get caught up in it. I can laugh at myself for that one.
What are the details of that? "Applying the open source philosophy" doesn't necessarily mean "free". Is that all their patents or just a selection? But it is a good move, I agree.
Not all.
For Tesla's own IP, no doubt.
They are re-tooling to keep up with the market. If you have to keep doing that and don't make money, then it really doesn't matter. You can't just sit on one product in the car market, it requires constant development.
Actually, that is a myth perpetuated by critics with no real point, and repeated by idiots that think it is clever. The industry never made such a claim. But, if you logic is that if a single statement from a single person, taken out of context, can be shown to not be accurate that proves some kind case, then you will find that nothing on this planet is credible.
So, please make a real point.
The point is that 1) the grid is predicted to have problems due to the storm, and 2) the plant is being shut down in anticipation of grid problems, but the headline says neither.
Capacity factor = equivalent hours generating at rated capacity during a given year divided by the number of hours in the year. It is a very common measure for electrical generating plant performance and reliability. If you had simply done a web search you would not have looked so stupid in your response.
Reliable from a generation standpoint, which seems to be the focus of the article. Historically, it has a good capacity factor.
None of the failures you mention above are acceptable, and that is why increased oversight is warranted. Yes, from a safety standpoint Pilgrim has lagged.
Pilgrim's capacity factor, even on a bad year, kills anything solar could ever dream of. Pilgrim is at the bottom of an elite group of plants that perform best in the power industry. Its all relative.
If Tesla is using my tax money to do that R&D, then hopefully they'll make that intellectual property public.
If the network is going to be a public gift, then that would be OK. Why not fund those efforts directly instead of giving the wealthy a piece of the pie?
I'd like to correct my statement above which says "There is no license requirement to shut down in anticipation of a loss of offsite power".
Actually, there is a generic requirement to monitor grid reliability, and an unreliable grid determination could force a licensee to shut down. That is typically based on actual performance, not on anticipation, but I wanted to be accurate.
RE I meant 90%, not 90$