How is this for Underbore? - Page 5

Cowboy · 02-10-2010, 05:52 PM

ive had some field paint roll through my .670 python insert

drg · 02-10-2010, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitlebug

Not possible. Diminishing returns would indicate that it is a parabola or sine.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

EDIT: The data returns a roughly bell-shaped curve. I am not saying that it is a bell curve in the sense of a normal distribution; the type of data clearly doesn't indicate that type of statistical analysis as appropriate.

This is what I mean about classroom vs reality.

Spitlebug · 02-10-2010, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drg

WTF is that supposed to mean?

Sorry, in retrospect it would be more of a cubic function.

Take this as an example:

Length is lineal and can be represented by the X axis, bore by the Y axis. Too far over and too far under strays you from the target zone, but is still possible to attain. It is possible that there are more than one correct answer regarding length and bore in relation to paint.

drg · 02-10-2010, 06:11 PM

Except the chart I'm discussing is not bore vs length, it's underbore vs velocity/efficiency. A chart like yours can be compiled after a more data is gathered, but it's not in the scope of what I have discussed to this point. Looks a lot like an attempt to seem smart more than anything.

Spitlebug · 02-10-2010, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drg

Except the chart I'm discussing is not bore vs length, it's underbore vs velocity/efficiency. A chart like yours is not really relevant, comparing bore to length is ... pointless as it's a user choice. And regardless it's not in the scope of what I have discussed to this point. Looks a lot like an attempt to seem smart more than anything.

I can see why cockerpunk doesn't really like you. You aren't really a people person.

You cannot rule out length as a control method.

drg · 02-10-2010, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitlebug

You cannot rule out length as a control method.

I rule it neither in nor out in what I am discussing. You added it as a means of obfuscation and complication, in an effort to puff your own analytic chops and/or make more out of the data than it shows, problems shared by other recently schooled proto-scientists who shall not be named.

Length is fixed in the relationship we are discussing. Length, as far as I have seen, has its own issues and concerns which defies simple 2-axis charting, given the limits of the equipment we are using to test.

Spitlebug · 02-10-2010, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drg

I rule it neither in nor out in what I am discussing. You added it as a means of obfuscation and complication, in an effort to puff your own analytic chops and/or make more out of the data than it shows, problems shared by other recently schooled proto-scientists who shall not be named.

Length is fixed in the relationship we are discussing. Length, as far as I have seen, has its own issues and concerns which defies simple 2-axis charting, given the limits of the equipment we are using to test.

I did no such thing. I was simply pointing out that your method of modeling is not correct.

I cannot be held responsible for your getting butt hurt. Immediately after my post you resorted to ignorant statements about me personally. This has nothing to do with me as a person.

drg · 02-10-2010, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitlebug

I did no such thing. I was simply pointing out that your method of modeling is not correct.

My model is fine. Your concept of my model is wrong, either through lack of comprehension or deliberate misrepresentation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitlebug

I cannot be held responsible for your getting butt hurt. Immediately after my post you resorted to ignorant statements about me personally. This has nothing to do with me as a person.

I'm not butthurt, however I will call out your shoddy and presumptive analysis, especially when it's done in an effort to misrepresent things I have said.

Spitlebug · 02-10-2010, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drg

My model is fine. Your concept of my model is wrong, either through lack of comprehension or deliberate misrepresentation.

I'm not butthurt, however I will call our your shoddy and presumptive analysis, especially when it's done in an effort to misrepresent things I have said.

You see, that's where you are wrong and hung-up. There was no such attempt. I cannot be held accountable for your presumptions.

Just for the record, there definitely a relation to control bore length. To discount that is preposterous.

brycelarson · 02-10-2010, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drg

The amount of efficiency gain follows a bell curve along with underbore amount. Also from what I have seen the control bore length affects consistency and efficiency.

got it - I thought you were using two different traits - sweetspot and efficiency.

02-10-2010, 06:11 PM	#44 (permalink)
drg Banned Join Date: Mar 2007	Except the chart I'm discussing is not bore vs length, it's underbore vs velocity/efficiency. A chart like yours can be compiled after a more data is gathered, but it's not in the scope of what I have discussed to this point. Looks a lot like an attempt to seem smart more than anything. Last edited by drg; 02-10-2010 at 06:16 PM.