Question 1206944
the old method has a standard deviation of 32.2 feet.
the new method has a standard deviation of 51.0 feet.


i think the f-test would be used to see if the standard deviations are comparable.


i did an f-test online that compares variances (variance = square of standard deviation) and it came back with the results that the variances are far enough away to be considered statistically significant at an alpha of .05.


the f-test calculator i used can be found at <a href = "https://www.statskingdom.com/220VarF2.html" target = "_blank">https://www.statskingdom.com/220VarF2.html</a>


it compares the standard deviation of group 1 to the standard deviation of group 2.


i assumed the sample sizes were the same since i didn't have a sample size for the test standard deviation of 32.2.


in general, a larger standard deviation would provide an inferior result.
based on this, i don't believe the new method is superior to the old method and i would probably stick with the old method.


significant means there is a very low probability that the differences are due to chance variations in the statistics between the two data sets.


given that there is a statistically significant difference, it is logical to assume that a smaller standard deviation is superior to a larger standard deviation when comparing data sets.


i played with the sample size of group 1 (had a standard deviation of 32.2).
the results were more significant as i increased the sample size, indicating more support for the fact that there was a significant differenct between 32.2 and 51.0.


i'm not sure if this is the right way to do it, but it makes sense to use the f-test to see if the differences in standard deviation between two data sets is significant or not.


best i can do.
hope it helps.