Paintball

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by Harbinger[TG]

Magic!

Here is an old statistical adage: correlation is not causation.

~Kev

indeed.

the more i look at the data, im formulating a different idea here ...

one thing is for sure, thats that the statistical link isn't all that terribly strong in the first place, the Confidence Intervals overlap for a large portion, so while it is significant, there is also still the possibility that there is no difference.

im gonna take a look at the numbers again here, im getting ahead of myself.

[Frink]

How about less time dealing with statistics, and more effort addressing the huge "single data point of a ballistic object generating lift" problem?

I mean seriously. People aren't questioning your numbers (at least from what I see), they're questioning if you numbers actually mean anything.

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by Frink

How about less time dealing with statistics, and more effort addressing the huge "single data point of a ballistic object generating lift" problem?

I mean seriously. People aren't questioning your numbers (at least from what I see), they're questioning if you numbers actually mean anything.

indeed, and that is an analysis issue. what the numbers mean, when few here are schooled in stats, and anyone who is HATES stats, that makes it an issue.


what other problem is there? if the issue is the 50 foot one, i agree, but realistically i don't think we can re-test at a longer range. sorry guys, we don't have the resources to do that right this second.

again, if you want to do more testing, you are welcome to do so. if you feel you can do a better job, please. i would prefer to wash my hands of this myth. IMO is LONG overdue to be done.

it doesn't work the way poeple claimed. simple as that.

[drg]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

it doesn't work the way poeple claimed. simple as that.

But it may work the way you claimed or rather hypothesized in your video.

[Frink]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

what other problem is there? if the issue is the 50 foot one, i agree, but realistically i don't think we can re-test at a longer range. sorry guys, we don't have the resources to do that right this second.

again, if you want to do more testing, you are welcome to do so. if you feel you can do a better job, please. i would prefer to wash my hands of this myth. IMO is LONG overdue to be done.

it doesn't work the way poeple claimed. simple as that.

A. That's the point. If you agree your test could be flawed, you can't say "busted!" That's all people want.

B. You can't keep falling back on "do it yourselves then" when people critic your tests. You don't scream "Well if your so smart, do it yourself!" when you're defending your thesis.

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by Frink

A. That's the point. If you agree your test could be flawed, you can't say "busted!" That's all people want.

B. You can't keep falling back on "do it yourselves then" when people critic your tests. You don't scream "Well if your so smart, do it yourself!" when you're defending your thesis.

A - how is it not busted? do you see 500 to 100 of extra range? NOPE. yes, it is still busted. is there an effect - it seems so. does that mean its not busted - nope. it still did not function as it was claimed to. its still busted, there is no way around that.

B - sorry i have to work within my own limits, time, space. and while we have talked about working on at a longer range, currently we cannot. so, i ask for anyone complain about the range issue, to find a place to do it, and do it yourself. its not a defense of my claim, its a rational look at what we can and cannot do as of this moment.

[Frink]

Sigh.

You didn't measure range. You measured the drop at 50'

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by Frink

Sigh.

You didn't measure range. You measured the drop at 50'

sigh

my bolt did almost as well as the cooperT and yet it showed no difference in our field range tests. do you honastly think there is an extra 500 or 100 feet of range buried in there?

also, drop is range. measuring range directly is an overly complicated and frustrating thing. balls bounce, they dont break, they break on there second bounce ... acutally measuring range itself is unpractical at best, and a nightmare at worst. drop directly correlates with range. this is a new complaint and i want to nip it in the butt right now. drop is the best way to measure range. it just is. if you can come up with a realistic way to measure range, please do. however, shooting them, then measuring the range to where they fall is simply unrealistic.

[Frink]

Sure drop corresponds with range....if the object isn't generating lift. The backspin bolt is suppose to help the paintball generate lift. See where I'm going with this? Why did you measure at 50'? Might you have seen different results at 70'?

I'm not arguing that about whether a backspin bolt works or not. I'm arguing that you don't have enough data to draw conclusions. I personally don't feel there's an extra 50-100 ft of range, but I haven't seen any data that convinces me one way or the other.

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by Frink

Sure drop corresponds with range....if the object isn't generating lift. The backspin bolt is suppose to help the paintball generate lift. See where I'm going with this? Why did you measure at 50'? Might you have seen different results at 70'?

I'm not arguing that about whether a backspin bolt works or not. I'm arguing that you don't have enough data to draw conclusions. I personally don't feel there's an extra 50-100 ft of range, but I haven't seen any data that convinces me one way or the other.

ah, well as i said before, increasing the range of the test might not be possible. i will for sure talk to chris about it tomarrow night.

we have to work within the constraints of a tiny (read as, zero) budget, our time, and the facilities we can get for free.

doesn't the outdoor test conclusively show that there was no major range difference? i mean 50 to 100 feet of extra range is DOUBLE what range we measured the balls at though the fence, and i dont see any difference in the shots though there.

right there the marketing claims of low blow bolts are not true. keep in mind this test is on all low blow bolts, not simply the cooperT.