All right. I'm glad to see that this discussion hasn't digressed into agresssive name calling, and the such. WebMedic, I don't know how you stay so cool...
Since we're going to talk about errors, let's take a quick look at the categories of error, shall we?
The first one, the most obvious, is a procedure fault (like not mounting a block properly). The results will be way off, but most importantly, not consistent (i.e. they cannot be reproduced).
Second, there are the type of errors that will produce an OFFSET in the results, like what's induced by the diode reader. That's not so bad, as long as the error is consistent, the results still have a certain validity, and if the procedure is clearly explained, one could reproduce it.
Third, there's the nastiest of error types: the gradual one, or the % offset. A bad TIM joint might offset the results by a percentage. A clogged flow meter might do it too. The point is that the error margin increases (or decreases) through the range of the parameters tested. This is bad, very, very bad.
Just like a lab report, you should state the sources of error in your tests. You should do this by categorizing the error, then stating the amount of the error, then state how you add these errors to come up with the total error margin.
That way, you should be able to produce results like this:
(EXAMPLE)
Block A: CPU temp (full load) @ 2.0 gpm: 37.8 C (+/- 2.1)
Block B: CPU temp (full load) @ 2.0 gpm: 37.4 C (+/- 2.1)
As you can see, with this type of results posted, you cannot declare a winner, because the difference between the blocks falls within the margin of error.
Of course it would be nice if you knew right now what the total error margin is going to be, because that's a deciding factor as to wether or not all of this is worth the effort, or at least gives the results that you expect. In other words, if you know your error margin, and are looking to declare a winner, then you should know by now if your procedure is going to allow you to do that. If your goal is to give out a performance chart, as rough as it may be, then you'd know if it's going to be worth reading.
|