Talk:Fano factor

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The Fano factor was introduced to explain experimental results - is it really a part of math theory?

Maybe the definition could be like The Fano factor [Fano, 1947], like the coefficient of variation in probability theory and statistics, is a measure of [...]'.

JerzyTarasiuk (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what it means to say "In particle detectors, the Fano Factor results from the energy loss in a collision not being purely statistical." I think this should say "from the energy loss in a collision not being purely elastic.", but I'm not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.203.161.201 (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although originally appeared in particle detector business, it is now used more generally. Thus, I thibk, it should also be defined more generally. The historical remark about detectors can be added later in the text. EdwardGoldobin (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the definition, Fano factor has the same dimension as the measurable variable. In case of counts it is dimensionless. However if one measures the Fano factor of voltage fluctuations, one gets volts. In this sense claiming that F=1 is misleading. One should always specify the units. EdwardGoldobin (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]