Did anyone actually read the article? They took data from 42 tracks for the initial numbers and then published revised numbers using 34 of them after they were "thoroughly reviewed". Of course the breakdown rates will increase when you selectively choose which tracks are going to be used by the study to make your point! And it looks like they reduced the time period on the study, presumably to not include a period where there were a lot of breakdowns on the synthetics (how else do you explain the decrease?). Coming out with a revision that is less statistically statistic and blatantly skewed to prove your point. Brilliant!
04-11-2008, 04:38 PM
Threaded Mode