Difference between revisions of "Talk:Home"
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Herb 5/11/2015 | Herb 5/11/2015 | ||
| − | Danielson's 2-shot method is very inefficient. Assuming that horizontal and vertical deflection are both Gaussian and equal, and that the correlation coefficient is zero, then the gold standard is the radial standard deviation is 100% efficient. In Danielson's 2-shot method he analyzed two different brands of ammo. He used 24 shots of each type, but only got 12 measurements per type. | + | Danielson's 2-shot method is very inefficient. Assuming that horizontal and vertical deflection are both Gaussian and equal, and that the correlation coefficient is zero, then the gold standard is the radial standard deviation which is 100% efficient. In Danielson's 2-shot method he analyzed two different brands of ammo. He used 24 shots of each type, but only got 12 measurements per type. Combining all 24 shots for each type and analyzing using the Rayleigh model would be 100% efficient. |
Revision as of 12:36, 11 May 2015
Herb, 4/19/2015
RE: "Extreme Spread is not only a statistically inefficient measure but also one frequently and easily abused."
The most frequent abuse of extreme spread is chasing the "best group size" (the smallest group). The smallest group size is absolutely meaningless. The valid estimator is the average group size. If you want a smaller group size, just shoot more groups. Sooner or later you'll get lucky and shoot yet an even smaller group by pure luck.
Herb 5/11/2015
Danielson's 2-shot method is very inefficient. Assuming that horizontal and vertical deflection are both Gaussian and equal, and that the correlation coefficient is zero, then the gold standard is the radial standard deviation which is 100% efficient. In Danielson's 2-shot method he analyzed two different brands of ammo. He used 24 shots of each type, but only got 12 measurements per type. Combining all 24 shots for each type and analyzing using the Rayleigh model would be 100% efficient.
