|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,483
Posts545,248
Members14,410
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,463 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,463 Likes: 212 |
Computers can't analyze anything.
They are only a tool for the scientist, and all they do is run whatever program the investigator has written containing his assumptions and theories.
They process the data into tables and graphs, and it's left to the experimenter to interpret the fit, if any, to reality.... I'd think today we're way beyond this. Tons of flesh and blood people are cut into daily by computer analyzed robotic surgery. While I haven't read his material, it seems like the author has used a fair amount of observation to come up with his thoughts, whether they're good, bad or indifferent. I admit in the heat of the action, I haven't tracked one to pick up later. But, I have seen tiny chips scored as hits for official score. It may not be that if an unbroken target is found with a single hole in it, that it wasn't scored. I admit though that I'd much rather see a hit look more positive.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,035 Likes: 47
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,035 Likes: 47 |
I've just returned from the library.
No lending institution in my home state owns the book.
Never fear, I have a really tall slender redhead hot on the trail.
She and I are now on a first name basis, so I'm hoping for great things.
"The price of good shotgunnery is constant practice" - Fred Kimble
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38 |
"You don't chip and chunk your way to a 100. You center targets on the way to 100. If you are hitting your stride and you miss or chip, you know why."
Which is what Jones' research has shown. You put the pattern center on the target for maximum hit probability. He has not suggested that you can chip your way to 100 straight.
Computers do no interpretation etc. They do away with the drudgery and errors of shot counting on the pattern, turn the pellet hits to coordinates and extract the distribution figures. For these tasks a computer is more accurate than a human, faster and has no temptation to take shortcuts.
I would love to see a neoluddite count accurately every single pellet on 2500 patterns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,378 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,378 Likes: 105 |
"You don't chip and chunk your way to a 100. You center targets on the way to 100. If you are hitting your stride and you miss or chip, you know why."
Which is what Jones' research has shown. You put the pattern center on the target for maximum hit probability. He has not suggested that you can chip your way to 100 straight.
But he has suggested that single pellet breaks occur frequently enough that 100 straights wouldn't happen as often without them. (I don't have his book. Wish I'd saved his quote!)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,189 Likes: 18
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,189 Likes: 18 |
Have followed the thread intermittently, may have read it all.. or not, did not go back and re-read it in any case. As to the single pellet break scenario, the item not being mentioned here is the rotational speed of the clay target and its 'brittleness' for lack of a better word at the moment. Both are important factors for broken targets. I think most clay target shooters have seen a 'delayed' separation occur on occasion and I am of the opinion that those delayed breaks represent a pellet fractured target, one that may have been hit by a single pellet and was still spinning fast enough to come apart before hitting the ground. I've seen it much more often on skeet fields than anywhere else, but I've witnessed it happening in other games as well. It is also the reason that NSSA Referees are taught to watch every target until it makes contact w/the ground before it is called 'lost'. I've witnessed some that did not 'break' until they were 6" off the ground.
Just thot to round out the thread drift on single pellet breaks. Much better to shoot clays as Shotgun and the other Mr. Jones recommends, well centered and w/full confidence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152 |
I mentioned it briefly on a previous page, tw, but I referred to it as centrifugal force. But, what you said is what I meant.  Targets in the air are more likely to break, due to centrifugal force helping the targets come apart when cracked.
SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,035 Likes: 47
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,035 Likes: 47 |
Redhead says book only available in UK.
Oh well.
"The price of good shotgunnery is constant practice" - Fred Kimble
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152 |
I'll bet you go back every month and ask her to check again.  SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,986 Likes: 299
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,986 Likes: 299 |
Computers can't analyze anything.
They are only a tool for the scientist, and all they do is run whatever program the investigator has written containing his assumptions and theories.
They process the data into tables and graphs, and it's left to the experimenter to interpret the fit, if any, to reality.
A scientist named Bob in his lab:
"Here's my experimental results. It looks to me like the system under investigation obeys these laws (sound of equation entry on computer keyboard)." Enter the RUN command. Presto, a chart that displays all possible outcomes and the probability of each.
"Hum. That does not at all look like the preconceived notions I had when I started this. If I report these results, the scientific community will laugh at me, and my grant funding will dry up. I can't have that. Lets' see here... if I fiddle with the equations like so... RUN... perfect! A discovery! I'll call it 'The Bob Effect' and bask in the notoriety that is rightfully mine."
The thing about probability is that given enough trials, every 'possible' outcome must occur, eventually. Thus, 'possible' has taken on the meaning of 'will'. We are told that a living organism 'will' assemble itself from a random vat of chemicals given enough time, or that one day all the pellets from one shot charge will follow each other into the same hole.
I pray to God on this Earth Day, 2017, that you don't believe a single word of what you wrote, and, that there are no other people reading here, that do, or at minimum, who may potentially be reproducing by whatever means they imagine it is possible to. What you wrote is an absolutely verifiable crock of feces. At a minimum, it is vacuous, as applied policy; it is catastrophic lunacy. It is a cretinous insult to anyone/everyone, that has ever actually applied themselves to the matters of mankind's well being. If you actually believe any of that, it is a waste of electrons to even bother with a further response. My day has been diminished by even the mere reading of it. I wish I hadn't.
Last edited by ClapperZapper; 04/22/17 06:14 PM.
Out there doing it best I can.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 88 Likes: 36
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 88 Likes: 36 |
Do YOU honestly believe that the leftist, liberal, progressive ideology that has grievously infected every level of academia has somehow bypassed the sciences? That scientists today are pure as the driven snow, motivated only by their quest for the truth? The fight for the betterment of mankind's well being? If you want to pray for something, ask God to open your eyes to what is truly going on today.
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
