Hot Core,

I'm still waiting for your answer to my question. You take a post of mine questioning how a load can be universally acceptable in all rifles, twist my statements into calling Dan's method TOTALLY UNSAFE, and then won't answer my question. How can taking a load arrived at by someone else, working up to it safely be TOTALLY UNSAFE?

Dan does not want folks to grab his loads and instanly load them up and try to use them as is. He is advocating a system to arrive at loads in a different but safe manner as far as I can see. I believe he has mentioned on numerous occasions that loads are to be started at a reduced level and work up from there.

I went to Dan's website and there it is:

"I have found that the best loads for all of my own rifles have been loads that were at or near listed maximums, but I do test about 5 to 8 per cent below for pressure signs, then work up."

Dave

I've no idea what he says today, because I don't waste my time reading it.

Well that has got to be the best way to completely miss the point, and to look foolish while doing it. I would imagine that it also handicaps the ability to debate intellectually.


Turok

I've got an old MARINE CORPS buddy, SgtMaj Hank F, who views these posts, but has never bothered to post. His reasons for not posting are personal. And with due respect, I'm having to "filter" a good bit of colorful language from his OCW=ADuM Method. I'll use (ED) to indicate heavy-duty Editing.

But, he has been very entertained by those of you who seem to think a (ED)Rookieized version of "Creighton's perfect Load Development Method" has any (ED)worthwhile value to anyone having a desire for attaining Accurate Loads.

For all you (ED)folks who believe you can achieve "Real Accuracy" at 100yds, he would like to suggest you try his even easier and faster OCW=ADuM Method (OCW=Accuracy Dosen't Matter Method with "Doesn't" spelled Duzn't for you (ED)Ebonics believers):

................OCW=ADuM...............

1. Pick a "minimum" Powder Load listed in the Hornady Manual (for a specific cartridge) and put it in the case.
2. Seat a Hornady bullet and crimp into the cannelure (don't pick one without a cannelure).
3. Sight in at (ED)"your" 100yds.
4. Go hunt.

If (ED)you ever get serious about wanting Accuracy, use "Creighton's Method".

From SgtMaj Hank F, USMC.

[ 02-04-2003, 18:10: Message edited by: Hot Core ]

Dan, there are several things with your method of testing that are flawed, but I'm only going to touch on the two that are the most important, safety aside.

(1) Variances of individual rifles tested.

(2) Using factory rifles as your test guns.

Even with the best rifles, testing can only show certain 'trends', and they may or may not be applicable to another rifle, even one as well built as the gun the original testing was done with.

By testing your OCW method with a factory rifle and recommending loads based on that testing, you are basically doing what the factory ammo makers do when they load ammo. Not that that's bad, Dan...it just isn't universally accurate.

No disrepect meant, Dan...I only point this out to help you with your testing.

P.S. A look at the shape of those groups tells me you've got at least three areas that need to be looked at. Again, no flames...just facts, Dan.

No offense taken, Al... My own view of my groups are that the loads have not yet been tuned with seating depth variations to get onto a good harmonic node of the barrel. Keep in mind that the groups you see are from a sporter barreled factory Savage rifle--very good in my opinion, and bound to respond favorably to seating depth tuning. Such has been my experience, anyway...

If you have time, you can check out my reasoning behind the order of things at my website.

Hotcore, I have never, ever advocated that anyone load up a suggested load and go out and shoot it. You've lied twice now and it pains me to have to say that.

I realize that my contentions are unconventional, but they are based on sound reasoning. The use of factory rifles allows the loads better compatability with other factory rifles. I realize that custom barrels are tighter, with often peculiar chambers. I don't claim my own suggested loads are compatible with custom barrels, but I do claim that the vast majority of factory rifles should shoot them well--and by "well," I mean under MOA in rifles capable of MOA which do not have bedding or other mechanical issues.

I have permission to share this email, and target photo from a fellow member here, and I'll offer it as additional evidence that loads arrived at in the manner in which I suggest actually do work well in other rifles. I received this as a result of this thread...

Hi Dan

I just got off the accuate shooting forum. [person's screen handle withheld] is a piece of crap.

Last weekend I started working up some loads for my Rem 700 .243. I tried some of the load combinations that you have worked on. They worked like a charm. I'm starting to become a 3031 fan. I loaded up 39.8 grs of 3031 and a 58 Vmax bullet seated deep. (2.605") Damn if it didn't shoot .432", .475" and a .569". In the .432 five shot group, 3 of the shots measured .053. Next weekend I'm going to follow your suggestion with the 75gr Vmax. We will see want happens.

The conditions were 32 degrees and about a 10 mph head wind. The Rem 700 is just a factory rifle I bought in December. I reduced the trigger pull to 3 lbs, and topped it with a Nightforce 12-42 x 56mm. This rifle also shoots in the 4's and 5's with 70 machkings (w/RL15) and 87 Vmax (w/4350).

Keep up the good work....I really like your input to these forums.


*************************************************

In the absense of overwhelming evidence that these load recipes won't work well (IF SAFELY WORKED UP TO) for other shooters using conventional rifles, I will continue my assertion that they in fact will.

And regarding the seemingly obligatory "work up from below" rhetoric... Not that I've ever advocated going straight to a load recipe without working up from below, but if one is actually gainfully engaged in the business of handloading cartridges, is it not incumbent upon him to know the do's and don'ts? Why should we not also caution the recipients of any shared load data not to point the muzzle at their groins and pull the trigger? Can we not presume that folks have a little common sense here? I mean the fellow for which the phrase "do not eat" is printed on the silica gel packs is bound to remove himself from the gene pool sooner or later anyway, without our help or hinderance.
Have you ever recommended a restaurant to someone without telling them to chew well before they swallow? Or nowadays do we need to point out the dangers of fattening foods that said restaurant might serve?

Don't get me wrong, I believe it is a good thing to stress the "work up from below" rule loudly and often. But not too damned loudly or too damned often!

Dan Newberry
green 788

[ 02-15-2003, 06:49: Message edited by: green 788 ]

Dan,

I'm going to say this only half kidding:

Maybe you should include in your signature "The usual Disclaimer" or some other variation of it! 1/2 LOL

Seriously, if Dan were to recite his entire OCW process including the usual cautions every time he posted something about it, his posts would be 99% the same all the time, and who would want to read it?

At some point people that are interested should go to his website to get the full story.

Dave

I'm getting started working on some loads for my 260 Rem, maybe I'll give the OCW process a shot and see what happens, if it ever warms up some.

It seems that more than one person here is not reading green's posts. How many times must people point out the need to work up because 'each rifle has individual tolerances...'. Sheesh. When some people get on to something, they selectively block everything else out.

Turok

Turok:
you hit the nail on the head ,i totally agree

willow

Against my better judgement.... but what the heck.

The physics and statistics behind the OCW method are just as sound as they can be.

Fully randomizing, as recommended, is practically a sacred cow in statistics. It takes any unknown effects, chops them up, and spreads them over the whole data set. This is cheap insurance against being fooled by an unaccounted-for variable, that might trick you into thinking that one particular combination is distinctly better or worse than some of the others. It's a very sound investigatory technique.

If you can get your bullets to exit the muzzle when it is a low speed portion of its vibration arc, you'll get better groups, and your system will be "robust". That is, small deviations from nominal will have very little effect on group aize. That's exactly where you want to operate, if you have a choice. The OCW method is going to land you right there.

The OCW method cleverly overcomes a major statistical problem with simply comparing group sizes. Tests of "spread" are notoriously weak. A rifle that truly averages 1 MOA over the long haul will routinely produce .5 to 1.5 MOA 5-shot groups, with no real change in the process. That makes it devilishly difficult to detect when something has really changed your group size. The guy that shoots 5 shots of Brand A, and gets a .5" group, then shoots 5 shots of Brand B and gets a 1.5" group, and concludes that Brand A is better than Brand B is just kidding himself. That much variation is to be expected with no real change in the process.

The OCW method transforms the test of "spreads" into a test of means, i.e., "How does the center of the group move as a function of charge?" Rather than, "How does my group size vary as a function of charge?" That is a profoundly useful innovation. You are much more likely to get a clear, interpretable answer from this method than from trying to compare the size of 5-shot groups.

The man has data. Respect it.

Denton,

Thanks for the kind comments, and studied opinion. I would appreciate any improvements to the whole method that you might suggest. I would like to make the method as good as it can be.

If you want to discuss anything outside of this forum, please email me at green788@perfectlyprivate.net

Thanks again,

Dan

Denton,
Randomization can be very useful in the design of trials in making cohorts as equal as possible. However it is the study design that should determine that unknown effects are "normalized".

In the case of Green 788's round robin methodology, in many cases it can be valid if the intended use of the load in development matches the number of shots required in a round robin protocol.

A system that is intended to be used only for 2 or 3 shots at a time and will likely see accuracy degradation after 5 shots (not uncommon in overbored hunting rifles) might not be well served with a round robin protocol. In retrospect, it can be helpful if the shooter takes pains to include the appropriate cleaning and barrel cooling regimen to replicate "actual use" conditions in the testing protocol.

quote:

---

If you can get your bullets to exit the muzzle when it is a low speed portion of its vibration arc, you'll get better groups, and your system will be "robust".

---

???A "robust" testing system is one appropriately empowered to detect the effect desired with a high confidence interval. Robustness if often the result of a large sample size and a good protocol.

While I realize that others are taking Green 788 to task for perceived flaws in his system, I for the most part agree that it can give the desired results. My problem is that it is an adaptation of the "20 shot method" that adds little and requires more shots (and work) to cover a comparable range of charges. He has highlighted some of his theorized shortcomings of Audette's 20 shot method, but offered no data. Audette's method is a distillation that has withstood the test of time. It requires minimal loading and shots and has provided incredibly relevant results.

quote:

---

The physics and statistics behind the OCW method are just as sound as they can be...
The man has data. Respect it.

---

Maybe so, but not from what he's offered to date. My attempts to apply a two tailed Student's T was stopped short by a lack of data (unless you're privy to some that I'm not). What level of significance did this data reach? What p value?

Anecdotes are fine and often times turn out to be significant, but in this case you are attempting to give Statistical validity to a process that has not been tested for it.

[ 02-05-2003, 12:42: Message edited by: Chris F ]

Chris, forgive me that I must say you're sounding like Jacques Chirac on the Saddam Hussein issue...

I believe I've made a decent case for doing things in the order I suggest, and folks who are trying the method are reporting good results. And more importantly, we are finding that recipes arrived at by use of the OCW method are proving accurate in rifles other than the test rifle. What you see ongoing is the churning out of the data you're asking for. The data is coming not from one person with one rifle, but from many shooters with many different rifles--as it should. So time will tell.

I believe that the biggest flaw in the Audette method is the propensity for the last of those 20 shots to be affected negatively by a warm or fouled barrel, or even a fatigued shooter. In the hunting rifles you mention which may only ever be required to fire three shots, the OCW method would be a much better indicator for the correct load than the Audette method. As you mention, such a rifle may only fire three to five shots before heating and/or fouling and blowing the group. The Audette method would be useless for such a rifle, but the triangulated three shot groups of the OCW method should still provide useful information.

Dan

dan,

A couple of follow-up questions. After you select your bullet and then arrive at your OCW charge for your initial case/charge/primer combo, when you begin substituting different cases or primers, do you stick with the OCW charge or do you back off a grain or two and work back up? Or do you start with the hottest primer and heaviest cases, at which point you ought to be able to substitute without any problem?

Lastly, once you determine the OCW load, do you ever experiment with heavier neck tension and/or crimp? Which characteristic at that point produces the biggest changes in laod performance -- different seating depths, tension/crimp or primer changes?

Thanx. I checked out your website and that really explains everything much more clearly. I would recommend anyone having questions or criticisms of Dan's methods to check it out before forming your final opinion.

FWIW, I still don't see it as very different from what gunwriters for years have termed "working up a load". Basically, select components, start low, work up high until you get accuracy, then play with seating depth. If you never get decent accuracy, switch powders. Once you zero in a good load, shoot several groups with that load to ensure accuracy is consistent. If this is an oversimplification, then I guess what one might think is that there's not always a correlation between accuracy and consistency. In my experience, I haven't found any situations where accuracy was great one day and then went to hell another day with the same components. And since I throw many charges from a measure (and since w know no measure is perfect, especially with extruded powder), these loads have to have some inherent attribute of consistency/insensitivity to minor charge variations. I guess is what I'm saying is that for years, everyone's been doing just what you describe, finding an optimum load. Sometimes they translate to other rifles, sometimes they don't.

What I feel is the value of your method is the procedures you go by shooting your targets. I've never heard that before, but it really makes sense to spread each charge weight over a 3-shot span rather than shooting 3 of one weight, 3 of another, etc. It does reduce the impacts of accuracy deteriortation (or improvement) as fouling occurs. Also spreads the recoil over the whole batch instead of having to fight the worst of it at the end. It also makes us think through the whole process and forces us to revalidate our old beliefs. Good stuff.

I hope you take this as observation rather than criticism because that's the spirit in which it was offered. This has been a good thread BTW, keep them up.

Martindog

Martindog... You're a thinker. Seemingly, a rare breed!

I have not tested crimping and neck tension as methods of group tuning, but I believe that they would indeed have an effect. Anything you do that alters barrel time will tune the group, one way or the other. Obviously primer changes will tune the group as well, but seating depth adjustments would seem to be the best way to pinpoint the optimal harmonic node.

I don't advocate group tuning until the OCW is known. While the effects of barrel harmonics will be discernible on the target in the form of group sizes, barrel harmonics can be manipulated later on--after the OCW is known. I ignore tight groups during the initial OCW tests, which differs from conventional development, I think you'll agree.

When I developed the .308 load depicted on page one of my website, the charge weight which was selected as the suspected OCW (43.6 grains of IMR 4895) shot the largest group in the string. But I blamed my own trigger prowess for that group's size, and the 43.6 grain charge proved sub MOA at 300 yards with 43.3, 43.6, and 43.9 grian charges all in the same group. This charge also shot sub MOA at 600 yards with the -.3 and +.3 grain shots in the group. By loading all of the cartridges for the 600 yard group with weighed 43.6 grain OCW charges, the group tightened to 1/3 MOA for three shots.

Let me know if this explanation makes sense:

The OCW method purposely ignores group size in the initial stages, so where a conventionally developed load might be the tightest group of the five or six graduations tested, an OCW load would be found by finding the three groups that came the closest to a common POI (point of impact). In my 60 grain Sierra HP/IMR 3031 load for the .243 (mentioned on my website), the tightest group was not the OCW. Had I chosen that powder charge based on the 1/2" group it fired, a component variation instigating a pressure change equal to a .3 grain powder graduation would have caused a flyer.

I think a non-optimized load will still perform reasonably well day in, day out, as you mention. However, those inexplicable flyers will be greater in number, and may lead the shooter to suspect the rifle or himself when an odd component was the real culprit. It is my belief that many flyers are the result of precarious load recipes. An odd case comes along, or an odd primer, and the shot leaves the group. The shooter may blame the rifle or himself, but the significant pressure change of the odd component is often the real culprit.

You're correct that when components are changed for "proof testing" an OCW load, it is wise to back off a bit for one or two test shots. I agree that if you're going to a cooler primer, it will likely be safe to switch it and shoot.

I mentioned earlier that with the Audette method the propensity for spoiled accuracy (hence spoiled results) exists with later shots in the string. Something I didn't mention is the tendency for the shooter to begin shooting better as the string of shots progresses. How many of us have found that after we settle in behind a particular rifle and load that we sharpen our technique a bit?

When all goes well, the Audette method works, but per his original instructions no load tuning is done beyond that. You'll be left with a powder charge that may be only on the edge of optimal burn, but since the barrel's harmonics threw those shots together at 300 yards, you chose your powder charge accordingly. Not altogether bad, but your load will likely be inferior to a properly developed OCW load.

The OCW method is designed to work for shooters when all does not go so well (which is the case the overwhelming majority of the time, no? )... It is my contention that results obtained from a properly conducted OCW test will be significantly more relevant than results obtained from a properly done Audette work up.

Dan Newberry
green 788

HOTCORE - I'll gladly claim two of those spots:
1) never tried the Creighton Audette Method - although I will be during the summer months.
2) Never shot a rifle - well, actually still have a couple, but tend to grab the single shot handguns first. I think the rifles were last shot in 1998!

Have a splendid day!

For me, the best way I've found to do a load work up is this: Fire a 3 shot group. If this looks promising, I'll fire two more to complete the group or fire a seperate 5 shot group of the indentical load. If this 5 shot group looks good, I'll verify it by firing 5 seperate 5 shot groups.

It's easy to spot trends using this method, and once you start shooting the five, 5 shot groups the rifles behavior becomes apparent pretty quickly.

Works for me. -Al.

I'm sorry to have jumped onto this thread so far into it. I'd like to start another topic based off what is being discussed here - I have some questions that have not been totally addressed yet - anyone that would help me please check out " The Continuation". Thanks!!

Ok. I've been following this thread for awhile, reading the good, the bad and the ugly. So I decided to give the OCW thingy a try.

I shoot an 8mm '93 Mauser that I'd already developed a decent load for. So I followed the instructions and started about two grains short and ended up .8 grain over that load.

I set up my targets and went through the whole deal with three shots into each of eight targets. When I was through the two targets that seemed to match were .2 grain on each side of my previously developed load.

It seems to work. Now I need to play with the seating depth to see if I can tighten up the groups. I'll take a single-stage press to the range with me next time and see what I can find out. When I do, I'll let you guys know what happened.

Derald,

Thanks for sharing your experience. That's what I like to hear!

I truly appreciate you using your time and material, and mentioning your results here.

Often we'll find that previously developed loads do pass the OCW test. Depending on the pains which were originally taken to develop those loads, some can be quite resilient.

When you do your OAL tests, you'll be tuning the bullet to exit on the best harmonic node of the barrel. Once you home in on the best OAL, you'll have the best load (using that powder and bullet) for the rifle.

Thanks again, and take care...

Dan

As stated, "robust" means that the system is not easily disturbed by small variations in the input variables. In an industrial process, it's "running in the sweet spot". As Dan has pointed out, the OCW loads are relatively little affected by small changes. It has nothing at all to do with level of confidence.

If you really want to perform the Student's T test, it is quite simple, though I don't know why you would want to do this. It seems irrelevant to me, and I make a good living doing statistics professionally.

My read of Dan's work is that he has correctly noted that it is easier to locate the "minimum speed" portion of the barrel whip arc by measuring changes in the position of centers of groups than it is to locate it by comparing group sizes. There is a very good, well-known reason for this.

Basic physics dictates that minimum group size, best robustness, and minimum group shift all occur at the same place in this case. Recognizing group shift as being the easiest place to detect the sweet spot is a very useful innovation. It's not surprising that it works. It is surprising that it took us so long to see that it does.

I independently worked out the same method for tuning my BOSS, but, unlike Dan, never got around to doing the actual experiments. So my "noodling" counts for practically nothing. Dan has reduced it to practice, and is now doing exactly what he should: getting others to replicate his results, and searching for any errors in methods or analysis.

Hot Core,

I believe that your question about who on this thread has tried the Creighton Audette Method is basically irrelevant and immaterial. Before I tell you why, I'll admit to not trying The Creighton Audette Method, and here is why.

When I started reloading a couple of years ago, one piece of advice I took was to find some local handloaders to use as mentors. I did that, and a little later while doing rather exhaustive searching on the internet about reloading I came across the Audette Method. I almost fell over myself to get the advice of my local mentors. The method basically got shot down, poo pooed and all but kicked while it was down. A little bit discouraged by this I came to the realization that I had no 300 yd range at my disposal anyway so I more or less abandoned trying it out.

Now, the only person (if my memory serves me correctly) that has actually disparaged the Audette Method at all on this thread is Dan himself. I suspect (but don't know) that he may well have tried it, but for the rest of us, what's the big deal whether we have tried it or not? We aren't AGAINST the method, we are only applauding and encouraging the efforts of Dan.

One person I kinda latched onto as a mentor 2 years ago on the net was you, Hot Core. You helped me, emailed me your CHE & PRE data sheets, and were all around encouraging and helpful. For that I thank you very much.

Dave

[ 02-06-2003, 09:40: Message edited by: rifleman ]

Hey rifleman, Your welcome and hope you had good luck with the things I sent you.

I'll be moving this Spring and will have to go through looking for a new Range. Finding one that offers 300yds can take a bit of time. Often I've had better luck befriending a person who owns a farm, ranch or plantation as the case may be.

There are considerable "benefits" to shooting targets at 300yds(or beyond) that go well beyond locating an accurate Load.

So, if you have a chance - try it. At first it "can be" quite humbling, but it sure builds confidence in your ability and tightens a persons shooting style much more than only shooting up close. Fliers at 300yds and beyond really get your attention.

...

Not "ALL" my shooting is done at 300yds. I've just found it to be a great help in sorting the "almost good Loads" from the really accurate Loads.

Just like the guys that try to sight in at 25yds, but intend to hunt out to 100-200yds. Once they actually shoot at distance, they find a slight miscue which is difficult to notice up close is often enough to cause only a wound at the longer distance. Same will be true for folks who sight in at 100yds, but "intend" to take longer shots at Game.

Best of luck to you!

[ 02-06-2003, 22:14: Message edited by: Hot Core ]

I know what it's like not to have a good place to shoot long range...

Hey Dave, since Hotcore doesn't read my posts, tell him that I sincerely wish him the best in his move. And if he's coming anywhere near my part of Virginia, I'll be glad to help him out...

No kidding--not trying to grandstand--it's just that I know I'd be lost without a wide open field for target and varmint shooting...

Dan

Hot Core,

I'll probably have to put a moratorium on my firearm purchases (got 2 rifles last August and have a Contender with 2 barrels in the works now)for awhile and get my "accessories" up to date. Like add a Chronograph, spotting scope, and a few other smaller reloading tools.

I have access to a farm that has what would probably provide an area with a decent enough backstop for the 300 yd distances. I made a shooting bench by using a Black & Decker Workmate as a base. (Idea came from a post and pics on a shooting forum). It's definitely good enough for casual shooting, but I'll have to see if it's up to serious bench work. I can see that whatever method of load development you choose, at least some time should be devoted at the max range you think you may need to shoot. And possibly at other distances inbetween also.

green 788 sends his regards and best wishes for a smooth move.

Dave

[ 02-06-2003, 23:37: Message edited by: rifleman ]

My apologies for my absence and late response.

I have a related question to Hot Cores question of "how many folk on this thread have actually used the "Audette Method".

My question is;
How many of you have actually read Audette's description of the method?

Denton,
I read your use and definition of "Robustness" more carefully and agree with you. My apologies and an "F" to me for poor reading comprehension.

I agree with your post that it's a test of means versus a test of spread. However it is this point that is also one of the sources of my assertion that OCW brings little new to the 20 shot method.

The beauty of the 20 shot method is that it is a quick and easy method to find an optimal load. It's a shortcut if you will. By shooting 3 of a given charge weight, Green 788 has departed from that "shortcut" method and actually pushed it toward the conventional "load some up different charges up and shoot some groups" that the majority of shooters already use. I will allow that he does put some order behind that convention which perhaps gives the less methodical a "recipe" to follow.

However I will also say that his method would take 60 shots to cover the same range of charge weights that Audette's original method does with likely similar results at only 20 shots. That alone takes away from one of the key advantages of the "20 shot method".

I strongly suggest that those that haven't read Audette's writing, track down a copy of the NRA Publications, "Highpower Rifle Shooting", Volumes I, II and III. It not only outlines the "20 shot method", but shows great examples on targets complete with chrono data, discusses the shortcomings and strategies to overcome them, and discusses the possible "why's". If you've stuck with this thread this long, you WILL enjoy those books (not only for that 20 shot method).

Remember, very little in this shooting world is truly new.

[ 02-07-2003, 15:04: Message edited by: Chris F ]

Chris F,

Read it, printed it out and have it in my reloading info ring binder.

Dave

Just a note...

I don't see the need for loading three of any charge weights that are not within about 4 percent of the maximum.

I back off to 10 percent, yes, but only shoot one cartridge here, and another at perhaps 7 percent below max, a third at 5 percent under--and I use those as foulers and sighters.

Then, with 15 to 18 shots (three of each charge weight, for 5 or 6 graduations), you shoot the round robin sequence. This would be a total of about 18 rounds in most cases--for the whole test.

Proofing is another matter, which is something one would do with the ladder method as well.

It is my belief that if an accuracy plateau actually exists at the lower pressure levels (in the 10 percent under realm) that it's immaterial--the cartridge won't be performing up to its potential. If it won't shoot tight near max, I would recommend going to another powder--but that's just my philosophy.

In the overwhelming majority of situations, the accuracy won't be found in the low pressure realm anyway, and the first 8 to 12 shots of the Audette ladder method will only serve to warm and foul the barrel, perchance skewing later results when the OCW zone is reached.

When all goes well, the Audette method will provide useful results (I have tried this, by the way ). My OCW method is designed to provide useful results when all doesn't go so well--which is the norm, no?

My thoughts, my opinions...

Dan