Re: Still mixing means and extremes (Score: 1) by mlmitton on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 12:10:57 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) | Lets assume that the 1.9 cent per kWh figure is the basis for the $15 per month. In that case, multiplying a cost (1.9 cents per kWh) by maximum (26.6 kWh/day * 30 days) would yield a maximum monthly cost of $15/month. Not a cost, a maximum cost. But they don't call the $15 a max. So that doesn't work.
OK, assume that the $15 per month is the basis, and divide by the max usage and you get a minimum cost of 1.9 cents per kWh. But they don't call the 1.9 cents a min. That doesn't work either.
This is an appropriate criticism to make of the GWE page. And it's a far more appropriate criticism to make than the whole 10 month year thing you're slinging around.
I happen to think it's a small criticism, though--there's no problem if the device is always running at full capacity, or is off.
The only way you can get the 1.9 cents to agree with the $15 is if it's a capacity cost, not a materials cost.
No. All you have to do is assume that the device operates only at full capacity. But moreover, you have to do a whole lot more than assume the $15 is a capacity cost. Besides, what sense does it make to talk about a monthly "capacity cost"? You buy the device, and the the capacity doesn't change. Why would it even be interesting to express this in a monthly fashion? (It would only be interesting if there were operational costs that depended on the capacity. Filters, for example.)
So there's two issues: the issue of what's the proper way to interpret the GWE page, and what the problems are with the best interpretation. So far, you've said *nothing* that suggests your interpretation is better than my interpretation. That is, you can't point to some text from that page, and use that text to explain why your interpretation is better.
As for your interpretation, it clashes with both common sense and the actual text of the GWE page. You assume (GWE assumed) there are ten months in the year, that operational costs don't mean "operational costs", that the "operational cost" section is mathematically derived from the "retail price" section (and is therefore completely redundant for anyone who can do basic math) despite the fact that there are statements clearly indicating differences between retail price and operational cost, that the other sentences don't mean what they say (that I've detailed above, and other people have detailed above), and so on.
Based on the text, which interpretation seems more reasonable?
|
| Parent- Mixing means and extremes by chipotle_pickle on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 12:52:22 UTC
- average=max by chipotle_pickle on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 14:14:05 UTC
- this dialog? by Anonymous on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 14:22:03 UTC
- Sorry by chipotle_pickle on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 15:35:30 UTC
- Re: ?? by Anonymous on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 17:44:06 UTC
- Anthony by chipotle_pickle on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 18:08:13 UTC
- Re: Anthony by Anonymous on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 18:57:57 UTC
- Re:follow up question by Anonymous on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 19:07:24 UTC
- good questions by chipotle_pickle on Saturday, November 15, 2003 @ 06:51:59 UTC
- Re: next by Anonymous on Saturday, November 15, 2003 @ 16:48:30 UTC
- Tougher question by chipotle_pickle on Sunday, November 16, 2003 @ 09:46:06 UTC
- Re: Tougher question by Anonymous on Sunday, November 16, 2003 @ 10:34:59 UTC
- Re: Follow up by Anonymous on Sunday, November 16, 2003 @ 17:47:45 UTC
- Easier said than done by chipotle_pickle on Monday, November 17, 2003 @ 07:08:33 UTC
- Re: silence by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 @ 17:36:51 UTC
- Re: silence by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 @ 06:08:34 UTC
- Re: silence by Anonymous on Thursday, November 20, 2003 @ 09:27:54 UTC
- Re: silence by Anonymous on Thursday, November 20, 2003 @ 11:38:15 UTC
- Re: silence by Anonymous on Friday, November 21, 2003 @ 10:27:28 UTC
- Re: silence by baldy on Friday, November 21, 2003 @ 11:22:37 UTC
- Re: Pickle? by Anonymous on Friday, November 21, 2003 @ 20:12:06 UTC
- Re: silence by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 @ 14:55:00 UTC
- Re: silence by baldy on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 @ 15:28:29 UTC
|
|