Grizz, what kind of wristies are you wearing? I am looking for something similar.
Thanks,
Chad
Grizz, what kind of wristies are you wearing? I am looking for something similar.
Thanks,
Chad
Those are DIY wristies, slightly modified from this original design, to eliminate the need for finger loops. If you're a DIY kind of guy I can post (probably re-post) a pattern. There have been other DIY wristie postings, I'm thinking Knotty maybe posted instructions on making a set pretty close to my design. Quick search didn't turn it up though.
Grizz
(alias ProfessorHammock on youtube)
Here you go...Knotty's Wrist Gauntlets (Wristies®) Instructions
Back in this post Loki asked a good question about interpretation of the statistics coming out of the simulator, to wit, didn't the simulations show after all that you could indeed hang from more trees using a short minimum span. I nattered on in reply about perception and the inability to tell the difference if what you were doing is showing up for a hang and randomly poked around until you find a pair of trees.
Interactions via PM with someone suggests that that point was not understood, appreciated, or believed, so I did some more thinking about trying to quantify my conclusion. I'll go that this issue again from the point of view of statistical testing. Most of you will want to wander onto the next new post....
Statistical hypothesis testing takes data and tries the answer the question "can this data be explained by the natural inherent randomness of data sampling, or is it so strongly out of line with inherent randomness that it is highly unlikely to be due to that randomness?" When the pollsters are doing what they do during an election, they are considering the possibility that candidate A actually has 75% of the popular vote, and just by dumb random luck their sampling yields 50%. That's so unlikely they can reject the hypothesis.
So applied here I did the following thought experiment. Suppose hanger A goes into an area with whoopie slings, randomly samples hang sites until finding one, and we record the number of sites visited until success. Call that S1. Another time hanger B shows up, same place, can hang between closer trees, and takes S2 tries to find a spot. The sum S1+S2 is a statistic that says something about the probability distribution faced by hanger A, and the one face by hanger B.
Now this is the important point, and one that I tried to make when I was nattering on in response to Loki's question --- it's hard to distinguish between getting a hang at a site with probability 0.41 from getting a hang with probability 0.37 when all the data you've got to use in the analysis is your single experience. In the thought experiment I'm setting up, two experiences. Twice the data, twice the fun.
We can set up a test that, based on the value of S1+S2, says that with probability 0.95 or greater says the statistic is unlikely to have come from samples with the same hang success probability. In particular, for the case in the video of 100 trees, if pW=pS = 0.41 OR if pW=pS=0.37, in both cases there's less than a 5% chance (a.k.a. 95% confidence) of seeing S1+S2 be 11 or larger. If the chance of S1+S2 exceeding 11 were a lot larger when pS=0.41 and pW=0.37 as per the video, then we'd expect the statistic test based on two samples to show the difference.
But it doesn't. 0.41 and 0.37 are too close together to tell apart with this little amount of data. Rigorously, the probability of a geometric sample with success probability 0.41 added to a geometric with success probability 0.37 exceeding 11 is only about 5%. Take home message --- statistically, based on two sampled hangs --- you cannot tell experientially that one suspension set up is better than the other. The same is true of the 250 tree case. You could make that case if you gathered lots more from many more hangs. Just not with one.
Would that I got out hanging often that I got enough data to tell the difference over the long term.
here ended the 1st hammock statistics 101 lesson
Grizz
(alias ProfessorHammock on youtube)
That's great Grizz. I'm reminded of a quote from the movie "Anchorman, the legend of Ron Burgundy" that goes:
"They've done studies and 60% of the time, it works every time."
Don't let life get in the way of living.
Now I can't see the forest for the trees.
Grizz
(alias ProfessorHammock on youtube)
great video but it seems my previous comment about dutch clip safety has been removed without my permission...hmmm??
Bookmarks