From: Dale Eason 
To: James Lerch , atm{at}shore.net
Reply-To: Dale Eason 


--0-1304854662-1057617682=:65694
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

TEX has MC analysis, and I thought it was a good thing.  It gives you a
feel for how bad you might be off if your inputs are not accurate.

Concerning MC analysis for both numbers. I don't think you would do both. 
You would only do the ones that you measure with the least certainty.  For
instance in the classic Foucault test it would be the longitudinal numbers.
 For the flip and diff you know the longitudinal numbers to the best of
your positioning system but are a little unsure of the zonal radii.

James Lerch  wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Eason"


> A good algorithm for the MC would be
> Decide how many samples you want. Decide the variance e. 1.4%
>
> for 1 to the number of samples
>
> Randomly pick a number from 1 to number of zones.
> Randomly pick a number from -e to +e and modify the zone just picked by
that that amount.
> Run the error analysis and save in a bin.

Hi Dale,

Thanks, good stuff here! :)

Would a Monte Carlo analysis be a good thing to add permanently to
FigureXP? From my point of view it seems like it would...

Also, in the classic Couder mask eyeball Foucault test, I've never heard
any concern over Zonal radius errors mentioned. Did I miss this?

In my mind, I have a mental image where (assuming a mirror with a figure of
revolution) for each zone radius null there is a longitudinal KE position,
and for each longitudinal KE position there is a zone radius null.

With the above in mind, would a 'proper' MC analysis be constrained to only
longitudinal KE errors, Zone Radius errors, or BOTH???

Thanks,
James

PS. An idle mind can be a dangerous thing!






---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
--0-1304854662-1057617682=:65694
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

TEX has MC analysis, and I thought it was a good
thing.  It gives you
a feel for how bad you might be off if your inputs are not accurate.
 
Concerning MC analysis for both numbers.
I don't think you would do both.  You would only do the
ones that you
measure with the least certainty.  For instance in the classic
Foucault test it would be the longitudinal numbers.  For the flip
and diff you know the longitudinal numbers to the best of your positioning
system but are a little unsure of the zonal radii. 
James Lerch
<jlerch1{at}tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Eason"
> A good
algorithm for the MC would be>
Decide how many samples you want. Decide the variance e.
1.4%>> for 1 to the number of
samples>> Randomly pick a number from 1
to number of zones.> Randomly pick a number from -e to +e
and modify the zone just picked bythat that
amount.> Run the error analysis and save in a
bin.Hi Dale,Thanks, good stuff
here! :)Would a Monte Carlo analysis be a good thing to
add permanently to FigureXP?From my point of view it seems like
it would...Also, in the classic Couder mask eyeball
Foucault test, I've never heard anyconcern over Zonal radius
errors mentioned. Did I miss this?In my mind, I have a
mental image where (assuming a mirror with a figure ofrevolution)
for
 each zone radius null there is a longitudinal KE position, andfor each
longitudinal KE position there is a zone radius
null.With the above in mind, would a 'proper' MC
analysis be constrained to onlylongitudinal KE errors, Zone
Radius errors, or
BOTH???Thanks,JamesPS. An
idle mind can be a dangerous
thing!

Do you Yahoo!?
http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://rd.yahoo.com/evt=1207/*http://promo.yahoo.
com/sbc/">SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
--0-1304854662-1057617682=:65694--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4