• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

[Ed]Chris Cordero - Testing Protocols

One point that goes to the simplicity of the test is that lights would require wiring up between the rooms, which isn't all that simple. Much easier to just bring along a couple of radios. As Remie has said, you can use the annoying beepy button without the microphone ever being on, so there is no possibility of any communication sneaking in.
 
Three reps of 4 out of 9 are required.
Click to expand...
So that means there are three sessions, with 9 cards sent each session, and to pass the test Chris is expected to send 4 out of 9 cards correctly to the recipient, for each of the three sessions?

That sounds very fair. He can be wrong more than half of the time and still pass the preliminary challenge, and he should, because that would be mind-boggling.

Has anybody computed the raw odds to get lucky? I tried and came up with roughly 1 in 560,000. That's better than a 99.999% confidence.

It almost sounds like it's overdoing it, but the problem is that if you give him the leniency of "3 out of 9" instead, the odds suddenly drastically reduce. The odds of him getting lucky then would be roughly 1 in 3000, no longer up to the 99.99% confidence level JREF is looking for.
 
4 of 9

Seeing 4 0f 9 would be impressive.




Seeing 7 of 9 would be even better.
 

Attachments

  • jeri_ryan.jpg
    jeri_ryan.jpg
    28.7 KB · Views: 8
Cordero should choose the subject, pref. a close associate.

Also, you could use eg laptops with IM windows instead of radios, in case the squelch noise or whatnot is distractingly annoying to either party. Standardized set of "go" / "confirm" messages. No fuss.
 
petre said:
I believe that would be the 'squelch' button, if I recall my dad's fire radio well enough.
Click to expand...

Nope - its a feature mainly on the cheaper PRS radios. usually labelled 'Call' it actually transmits a tone (or series thereof) over the channel. Annoying as heck - particularly as its nearly always right below (or above, never standard) the PTT button.

(completely coincidentally - that link, which was number 2 in google, is my club. Yay, the NSCBRC!!!111one)
 
vIQleS said:
Nope - its a feature mainly on the cheaper PRS radios. usually labelled 'Call' it actually transmits a tone (or series thereof) over the channel. Annoying as heck - particularly as its nearly always right below (or above, never standard) the PTT button.

(completely coincidentally - that link, which was number 2 in google, is my club. Yay, the NSCBRC!!!111one)
Click to expand...

That's right, I think squelch was a dial used to adjust the band in some way. I just remember it was something I used to play with to annoy him. About 25 years ago give or take, so I knew I was in shakey memory territory.
 
petre said:
That's right, I think squelch was a dial used to adjust the band in some way. I just remember it was something I used to play with to annoy him.
Click to expand...
The squelch dial is used to set a level at which the demodulated signal amplifier is enabled. The idea is that if you have a real signal, you'll see a big signal after demodulation. If so, turn on the audio amplifier chain and send that to the speaker. If there's no signal -- just background noise, there's no big signal so turn off the amplifier so you don't generate white noise.

If the signal-to-noise ratio is low, you need to turn the squelch down, or off.
 
nathan said:
The squelch dial is used to set a level at which the demodulated signal amplifier is enabled. The idea is that if you have a real signal, you'll see a big signal after demodulation. If so, turn on the audio amplifier chain and send that to the speaker. If there's no signal -- just background noise, there's no big signal so turn off the amplifier so you don't generate white noise.

If the signal-to-noise ratio is low, you need to turn the squelch down, or off.
Click to expand...

What he means is - the squelch knob stops the static coming out...

:-D

You turn the squelch up just to the point that the noise (static) stops and then what comes through should be a strong signal - the voices etc.

</derail>
 
If my calulations are correct the probability of getting 4 or more guesses out of 10 is approx 1.28%.
This seems much higher probability than 0.1%

Exact soultion for getting exactly 4 out of 10 should be 11160261/1000000000 = approx 1.12%
Exact soultion for getting 4 or more out of 10 should be 7996999/625000000 = approx 1.28%

But i am not sure if this is correct. Prove/disprove please.

My formula for exactly n guesses out of 10:

(1/10)^n*(9/10)^(10 - n)* Binomial[10, n]

for n up to 10 I used sum form n to 10.
 
Last edited:
ralu said:
If my calulations are correct the probability of getting 4 or more guesses out of 10 is approx 1.28%.
This seems much higher probability than 0.1%

Exact soultion for getting exactly 4 out of 10 should be 11160261/1000000000 = approx 1.12%
Exact soultion for getting 4 or more out of 10 should be 7996999/625000000 = approx 1.28%

But i am not sure if this is correct. Prove/disprove please.

My formula for exactly n guesses out of 10:

(1/10)^n*(9/10)^(10 - n)* Binomial[10, n]

for n up to 10 I used sum form n to 10.
Click to expand...

The protocol states that Mr Cordero must get at least four out of ten correct on each of three successive trials. How does that change the math?
 
I assume that (as above ) is correct.

Exact soultion for getting 4 or more out of 10 in one trial should be = approx 1.28%

This needs to be repeated three times in a row.


So success = .0128 X .0128 X .0128 = 0.000 002 1

In plain English he will pass the test about 2 times out of a million runs.
 
I am wondering about the validity of the volunteer. If there is a million dollars on the line, how can we be sure that the 'volunteer' is really saying what he may be receiving mentally? He could be throwing it intentionally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom