I maintain, archers are constantly manipulating variables to improve their outcomes. Is that science, or what? Anyway, I guess it is if one systematically tests and examines observed results.
My plan was to shoot a number of ends (rounds) and compare my average score under each condition. We've got three conditions to look at here: before I put the patch on, with it on, and after I take it off. Before I put it on, I averaged a score of 32.8. Then, 39.5. Then, 41.
My conclusion is... well, that it was badly done. I don't think that's any reason not to do something. In my defense (against myself) A) it was just for fun and B) it wasn't particularly systematically pre-planned.
My main criticism (can I get credit for thinking critically about my own experiment? I think it's very respectable of me.) is that I probably have a confounded variable. That is, maybe there's another factor influencing the results that I'm perceiving. My 3 conditions were happening one after the other, sooo, I was getting more and more warmed up and practised as I went on. So, if each condition showed progressively better results, it could totally be because of that.
My next criticism is that my sample sizes were ridicu-teeny.