• Science

    From Joy Beeson@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 14 23:40:06 2020
    Whenever you read that a double-blind study has proven, beyond any
    shadow of a doubt, that X is more efficient than Y, your very first
    question should be "What do they mean by 'efficient'?".

    Sometime during the second half of the twentieth century, there was a tremendous flap because someone had proven that slogging was more
    efficent than spinning.

    Since everyone had personal experience that flatly contradicted this
    result, there was a *lot* of discussion!

    Eventually someone noticed that the researchers had defined
    "efficient" as "I don't burn much fuel."

    The riders defined "efficient" as "I can go a long way before I get
    too tired to continue, I don't hurt myself doing it, and it doesn't
    take a long time to rest up for another round." If you have to pig
    out on sweets, that's a feature.

    So the study had practical meaning only among people too poor to have
    access to the results.

    But according to another study, they've already figured it out by
    themselves.


    --
    Joy Beeson
    joy beeson at centurylink dot net
    http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John B.@21:1/5 to jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid on Sat Aug 15 12:55:46 2020
    On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 23:40:06 -0400, Joy Beeson
    <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:


    Whenever you read that a double-blind study has proven, beyond any
    shadow of a doubt, that X is more efficient than Y, your very first
    question should be "What do they mean by 'efficient'?".

    Sometime during the second half of the twentieth century, there was a >tremendous flap because someone had proven that slogging was more
    efficent than spinning.

    Since everyone had personal experience that flatly contradicted this
    result, there was a *lot* of discussion!

    Eventually someone noticed that the researchers had defined
    "efficient" as "I don't burn much fuel."

    The riders defined "efficient" as "I can go a long way before I get
    too tired to continue, I don't hurt myself doing it, and it doesn't
    take a long time to rest up for another round." If you have to pig
    out on sweets, that's a feature.

    So the study had practical meaning only among people too poor to have
    access to the results.

    But according to another study, they've already figured it out by
    themselves.

    Well, mechanical efficiency is simply power in versus power out. But
    there are other functions termed efficiency although I think that they
    probably require a qualifier, as in above "fuel efficiency"

    The ability to run/walk/cycle for long distances without tiring is
    usually referred to as endurance rather than efficiency :-)

    How are your skin transplants doing ?

    --
    Cheers,

    John B.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Frank Krygowski@21:1/5 to John B. on Sat Aug 15 11:28:29 2020
    On 8/15/2020 1:55 AM, John B. wrote:
    On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 23:40:06 -0400, Joy Beeson
    <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:


    Whenever you read that a double-blind study has proven, beyond any
    shadow of a doubt, that X is more efficient than Y, your very first
    question should be "What do they mean by 'efficient'?".

    Sometime during the second half of the twentieth century, there was a
    tremendous flap because someone had proven that slogging was more
    efficent than spinning.

    Since everyone had personal experience that flatly contradicted this
    result, there was a *lot* of discussion!

    Eventually someone noticed that the researchers had defined
    "efficient" as "I don't burn much fuel."

    The riders defined "efficient" as "I can go a long way before I get
    too tired to continue, I don't hurt myself doing it, and it doesn't
    take a long time to rest up for another round." If you have to pig
    out on sweets, that's a feature.

    So the study had practical meaning only among people too poor to have
    access to the results.

    But according to another study, they've already figured it out by
    themselves.

    Well, mechanical efficiency is simply power in versus power out. But
    there are other functions termed efficiency although I think that they probably require a qualifier, as in above "fuel efficiency"

    One problem of a public discussion group is imprecise or colloquial use
    of technical terms. And some of the people who use those terms
    imprecisely seem to take offense at the notion that the terms have
    actual technical definitions. They seem to find that idea elitist.


    --
    - Frank Krygowski

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John B.@21:1/5 to frkrygow@sbcglobal.net on Sun Aug 16 05:56:33 2020
    On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 11:28:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
    <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    On 8/15/2020 1:55 AM, John B. wrote:
    On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 23:40:06 -0400, Joy Beeson
    <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:


    Whenever you read that a double-blind study has proven, beyond any
    shadow of a doubt, that X is more efficient than Y, your very first
    question should be "What do they mean by 'efficient'?".

    Sometime during the second half of the twentieth century, there was a
    tremendous flap because someone had proven that slogging was more
    efficent than spinning.

    Since everyone had personal experience that flatly contradicted this
    result, there was a *lot* of discussion!

    Eventually someone noticed that the researchers had defined
    "efficient" as "I don't burn much fuel."

    The riders defined "efficient" as "I can go a long way before I get
    too tired to continue, I don't hurt myself doing it, and it doesn't
    take a long time to rest up for another round." If you have to pig
    out on sweets, that's a feature.

    So the study had practical meaning only among people too poor to have
    access to the results.

    But according to another study, they've already figured it out by
    themselves.

    Well, mechanical efficiency is simply power in versus power out. But
    there are other functions termed efficiency although I think that they
    probably require a qualifier, as in above "fuel efficiency"

    One problem of a public discussion group is imprecise or colloquial use
    of technical terms. And some of the people who use those terms
    imprecisely seem to take offense at the notion that the terms have
    actual technical definitions. They seem to find that idea elitist.

    Well, perhaps anyone that actually does know what he/she/it is talking
    about is elitist.

    As a demonstration of this "fact" simply read the daily news :-)
    --
    Cheers,

    John B.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joy Beeson@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 15 21:40:40 2020
    On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 12:55:46 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    How are your skin transplants doing ?

    I'm getting increasingly fed up with the need to keep the scars out of
    the sun, but aside from that (and aside from looking red in the
    mirror) I'm pretty much unaware of them.

    My nose still feels peculiar if I poke it, but not when I wiggle it
    (who knew that I can wiggle my nose?). The donor site still feels
    thin-skinned and sensitive.

    My dental hygenist told me that it's normal for donor sites to be
    slower to heal than the grafts. Apparently, dental surgeons do grafts
    too. I didn't ask for details.


    --
    Joy Beeson
    joy beeson at centurylink dot net
    http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John B.@21:1/5 to jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid on Mon Aug 17 06:00:12 2020
    On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:40:40 -0400, Joy Beeson
    <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

    On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 12:55:46 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    How are your skin transplants doing ?

    I'm getting increasingly fed up with the need to keep the scars out of
    the sun, but aside from that (and aside from looking red in the
    mirror) I'm pretty much unaware of them.

    My nose still feels peculiar if I poke it, but not when I wiggle it
    (who knew that I can wiggle my nose?). The donor site still feels >thin-skinned and sensitive.

    My dental hygenist told me that it's normal for donor sites to be
    slower to heal than the grafts. Apparently, dental surgeons do grafts
    too. I didn't ask for details.

    I am interested as I need to have one ear "done". I assume that where
    the transplant is made one has a swath of new skin with a seam all way
    round but the donor site is what? A place where there isn't any skin
    at all? Or do they pick a place where one has loose skin and simply
    cut out a piece and sew the sides together rather like my wife "taking
    in" a pair of my pants when I lost weight?
    --
    Cheers,

    John B.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joy Beeson@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 16 21:13:37 2020
    On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 06:00:12 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    I am interested as I need to have one ear "done". I assume that where
    the transplant is made one has a swath of new skin with a seam all way
    round but the donor site is what? A place where there isn't any skin
    at all? Or do they pick a place where one has loose skin and simply
    cut out a piece and sew the sides together rather like my wife "taking
    in" a pair of my pants when I lost weight?

    Best to ask your doctor -- it's done lots of ways.

    I expected a thin spot like a burn with the blister removed, but I had
    a row of stitches down the center, suggesting that he took the full
    thickness. That makes sense, as the cancer had pretty deep roots by
    the time I took it to him. One doesn't ask too many questions when
    someone is whittling on one's chin, and all I was told ahead of time
    was that he was going to take a piece of my chin to patch my nose
    with.

    I have read that sometimes a full-thickness graft is taken, then a
    split thickness graft replaces the missing skin, and the donor site
    for the split thickness graft heals up like a burn.

    My graft wasn't sewn at all, but simply held in place with a dressing
    -- and the tape worked loose and the dressing stood up, which caused
    me much anxiety. Hence the severe limits on such strenuous activities
    as lying in bed; nothing must disturb the graft while the blood
    vessels are growing into it.


    --
    Joy Beeson
    joy beeson at centurylink dot net
    http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)