Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
LabRadar: Great Data - Terrible Implementation. (partial solution inside)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="entoptics" data-source="post: 1657429" data-attributes="member: 104268"><p>Excel and large data sets are a big part of my living. The LabRadar's ability to generate data was one of the prime reasons I purchased one. I'm not sure what triggered me to really investigate the calculations, but it was probably one of those readings we all see, like example 1 in my first post. A ludicrous V0, with subsequent distances being more believable. With the tracking files, it was easy enough to investigate what was going on.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's plausible, but I still think the problem is that LabRadar calculates the velocity based on a few points nearest the distance you've asked for (with V0 always being "asked for"). If it started tracking sooner, I think that will just move the artifacts in closer. It's possible it would help, but I consider that sort of solution to be treating the symptom and not the disease.</p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 14px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14px">See the first example in my first post. That one was off by about 4800 fps. Generally though, 9 outa 10 shots are </span>within<span style="font-size: 14px"> 5 fps of the Excel regression, and 8 outa 10 are within 2 fps.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14px">If you take a look at my OP, you'll see a table with the last few load tests I did. I took the raw output from the LabRadar, then ran the same shots through my spreadsheet. You can see that in 4 outa 5 cases, the ES/SD of the LabRadar was more than the regressed velocities, and in some cases substantially so.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14px">In my opinion, it's a problem with enough of the data, that for important work, I run every shot through the spreadsheet. If I'm just trying to get an idea how fast Tula 556 is going in my AR, I shoot 15 rounds and consider the average just fine. </span>When<span style="font-size: 14px"> developing a load for potential extended range work, with only 3-4 rounds per recipe, getting one bad reading by 5 fps can muck up the statistics pretty significantly.</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="entoptics, post: 1657429, member: 104268"] Excel and large data sets are a big part of my living. The LabRadar's ability to generate data was one of the prime reasons I purchased one. I'm not sure what triggered me to really investigate the calculations, but it was probably one of those readings we all see, like example 1 in my first post. A ludicrous V0, with subsequent distances being more believable. With the tracking files, it was easy enough to investigate what was going on. It's plausible, but I still think the problem is that LabRadar calculates the velocity based on a few points nearest the distance you've asked for (with V0 always being "asked for"). If it started tracking sooner, I think that will just move the artifacts in closer. It's possible it would help, but I consider that sort of solution to be treating the symptom and not the disease. [SIZE=14px] See the first example in my first post. That one was off by about 4800 fps. Generally though, 9 outa 10 shots are [/SIZE]within[SIZE=14px] 5 fps of the Excel regression, and 8 outa 10 are within 2 fps. If you take a look at my OP, you'll see a table with the last few load tests I did. I took the raw output from the LabRadar, then ran the same shots through my spreadsheet. You can see that in 4 outa 5 cases, the ES/SD of the LabRadar was more than the regressed velocities, and in some cases substantially so. In my opinion, it's a problem with enough of the data, that for important work, I run every shot through the spreadsheet. If I'm just trying to get an idea how fast Tula 556 is going in my AR, I shoot 15 rounds and consider the average just fine. [/SIZE]When[SIZE=14px] developing a load for potential extended range work, with only 3-4 rounds per recipe, getting one bad reading by 5 fps can muck up the statistics pretty significantly.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
LabRadar: Great Data - Terrible Implementation. (partial solution inside)
Top