Muzzle flash photos and sound tests. PWS FFC556 compared.

[SuicideHz]

There was no bias in the test. All of the variables were controlled. If you mean I should go into the test without a hypothesis, that is not how the scientific method works. One must have one.

I think you mean to say I should have kept my hypothesis a secret before the test. A test generally starts with the hypothesis as a written statement and I am ok to follow that established method.It is normal for peers to argue a hypothesis in order to refine it and determine what exactly to test for. Those who believed the Earth was round argued why they felt it was round before they actually devised a test to prove it.

Yes that is what I DID say.

[Trim2L]

A hypothesis *is* a personal opinion.

Which part of your hypothesis does this quote fit into? Questioning the integrity of the manufacturer doesn't normally get included in a written hypothesis.

So the maker of it measured it with an impulse sound meter? Very few people have access to those as 30+ year old used setup is still about $2000. A new setup is maybe $40,000 or more.

[SuicideHz]

Trim, yes, what you said was something regarding his comments about the manufacturer coming before the actual testing.

I SHOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT UP THE "HYPOTHESIS" IDEA. STUPID ME.

I want to remove myself from this.

I wasn't involved in the he said she said and all the crap about what and when Robert said it.

I simply agreed with the part about not making negative comments until after the experiment.

My initial discussion with Robert was regarding the statements he was making about hearing different combustions, etc.

I thought what he was saying was a little far-fetched but I wanted to make sure I wasn't hearing him wrong. That was the reason for all the back and forth between he and I. That's all. I wanted to make sure I understood him BEFORE I even said I thought he was crazy for saying he could hear two distinct ignitions, combustions, whatever.

Quite often it's a semantics game with Robert and I wanted us to both be clear before I told him I thought it was impossible to hear and distinguish "both" combustions (there really is only one that either continues or does not continue outside the barrel.)

Thanks!

[Trim2L]

Trim, yes, what you said was something regarding his comments about the manufacturer coming before the actual testing.

I SHOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT UP THE "HYPOTHESIS" IDEA. STUPID ME.

I want to remove myself from this.

I wasn't involved in the he said she said and all the crap about what and when Robert said it.

I simply agreed with the part about not making negative comments until after the experiment.

My initial discussion with Robert was regarding the statements he was making about hearing different combustions, etc.

I thought what he was saying was a little far-fetched but I wanted to make sure I wasn't hearing him wrong. That was the reason for all the back and forth between he and I. That's all. I wanted to make sure I understood him BEFORE I even said I thought he was crazy for saying he could hear two distinct ignitions, combustions, whatever.

Quite often it's a semantics game with Robert and I wanted us to both be clear before I told him I thought it was impossible to hear and distinguish "both" combustions (there really is only one that either continues or does not continue outside the barrel.)

Thanks!

Agreed.

I'm out of this thread.

[SHIVAN]

Enough. I guess the warning was not sufficient.