Heavily updated and revised, the emphasis is now on how far the oil level dropped on the stick from start to end of the test period.
Until I have more data on the linearity of the drop on the stick, I'm going to de-emphasize the extrapolated miles per quart.
That's better now we know what the test shows.
You have a dipstick with markings at .50 .58 and .67. It looks like you are pretending you can measure the amount of consumption to an accuracy of 1/100 of a liter.
The graph shows measurements at .55 .56 58 .59 .60 etc.
These measurements are obviously fictional numbers. Measurements to 1/100 of a liter are well beyond the ability of anyone to accurately measure with a dipstick.
And one can't assume errors in measuring will average out unless there is good reason to believe that errors are randomly distributed. There is good reason to believe the errors are not at all random here.
There is also evidence of faulty arithmetic. There are two measurements that indicate .63 liters low on the dipstick. One of them was for a driving interval 1031 miles and the other was measured after driving 1203 miles. One can only wonder what sort of new math was used to arrive at the conclusion that the "extrapolated miles per quart" are the same for both those two intervals.
-jim
On 7/2/2010 1:20 PM jim spake these words of knowledge:
Shut the f*ck up.
RFT!!! Dave Kelsen
What ya think? Maybe he should doctor the data one more time and try again?
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required