Evaluating the Probability Formula for Electric Car Charging Events

  • Thread starter Thread starter bradyj7
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability
bradyj7
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm reading a paper which calculates the probability of an electric car re-charging. Data has been recorded from a car. There are 2 types of events, a charge event and a Trip (journey) event. The State of charge of the battery (SOC) was recorded at the start of each event. For example a journey started with 50% SOC or charge event started with a 10% SOC.

The charge shows (1) the frequency of trip and charge events for each SOC and (2) The author calculates the 'probability of charging' (the line on the graph) for each state of charge bin according to the formula below.

My question is,

(1) Does that formula make sense? Why would you divide by the number of trip events?

(2) Does the text and formula contradict each other as the text says

"The probability of a vehicle undergoing a charge event is calculated by proportion ofthe total number ofcharge events at each starting State of Charge (SoC) as a function of all charging events. "

but the formula divides by the number of trip events.

Appreciate any comments

Thank you

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/54057365/All/prob.JPG
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I though the formula would be, sum(charge_events) / (sum(charge_events)+sum(drive_event)),

but when I use this formula the probability does not sum to 1. Here is my data

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/54057365/All/data.JPG

I would be grateful for any comments.

Thank you
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top