Associative Remote Viewing
A summary of 3630 ARV trials conducted from 1998 to 2005
From mid 1998 to the end of 2005, I conducted 3389 Associative Remote Viewing trials. Many ARV trials were nested together (from 4 to over 100 trials) to form a consensus with the intention of predicting the outcome of a random future event. In most cases the future event prediction was the outcome of a random futures contract during a random time period. In most cases actual capital was risked on the prediction and total profits to date amount to over $100,000.
The 3389 trials make up a total of 65 projects (each project is ONE attempt to predict the outcome of a random future event resulting from the consensus of the trials nested in that project/prediction). 75.41% of the projects were successful in predicting the outcome of the random event resulting in a z score of 3.97
52.95% of the individual trials were successful in predicting the outcome of a random future event resulting in a z score of 3.55. If confidence scores are used to filter out low confidence trials (the method that was used to filter trials in a project to generate a consensus), then 62.42% of those trials were correct resulting in a z score of 4.4
This report compares remote viewing time and feedback time to solar wind speed and finds a significant increase in the average effect size per trial, and average confidence scores during low solar wind speed conditions. I also compare remote viewing time and feedback time to local sidereal time and find a significant increase in the average confidence score between 5:00 and 6:00 LST during both remote viewing time and feedback time. A very significant increase in average effect size per trial is found when the time difference between remote viewing and feedback is between 2.1 to 3.5 days.
ARV effect size vs confidence scores
ARV effect size vs remote viewing local sidereal time
(click to enlarge)
psi researcher James Spottiswoode found a statistically significant relationship between local sidereal time of remote viewing and effect size in 1468 remote viewing trials as shown on the chart to the right (above). There does not seem to be a similar relationship in my data, as shown in the chart to the left except for possibly the large trough at about 15:00 LST. None of the data points on my graph appear to be significant except for that one very low data point at about 15:00 LST. 

(click to enlarge)
To determine if that 15:00 LST low point is really significant, I split all of my trials into two halves and repeated the test on each half. The first half are 1134 trials from 1998 to 1999, and the second half are 1883 trials from 2000 to 2005. The 15:00 trough appears in both halves of the data. 
ARV average confidence score vs remote viewing local sidereal time
(click to enlarge)
It is entirely possible that remote viewing success and having a correct outcome in an ARV trial may not both be related to the same causal factors. In other words, it may be possible to successfully remote view, and still NOT be correct regarding the prediction the remote viewing was intended to make. A method of measuring remote viewing success without considering if the trial was correct or incorrect, would be to look at the raw confidence scores. A high scoring trial that incorrectly predicted an outcome in an ARV trial, may in fact still show evidence of remote viewing  albeit, remote viewing of the WRONG target. External causal factors related to remote viewing may in fact be different for 'predicting a correct outcome' and simply 'remote viewing'. It may be possible, that at certain times in certain conditions, remote viewing is successful, but maintaining focus on the intention of the remote viewing is unsuccessful, or difficult. An example of that is a high confidence score on a target that ended up being wrong (i.e.  the other target was associated with the actual outcome of the future event). Perhaps in a case like that, where there was obviously a successful remote viewing due to the high confidence score, there was some other factor that shifted the remote viewers focus to the wrong target. The chart to the left (above) shows a huge statistically significant spike in average confidence scores for any remote viewing trial that occurred between 4:00 and 6:00 Local Sidereal Time. To contrast the size of the significant spike, the graph to the right (above) shows how a random assortment of scores would relate to LST. It would appear that a time around 5:00 LST is more likely to produce a very high confidence score on a remote viewing trial. Since we know that the average effect size per trial is positively correlated to confidence scores, this could be a potentially powerful time to conduct the remote viewing for an ARV trial. 4:30 LST also happens to be one of two times the galactic plain (milky way) crosses the mid point of the sky each day. The other time is 21:00 LST where there does not appear to be a similar spike in average ARV trial score. 

(click to enlarge)
To see if this spike effect is evenly distributed over all of the data, I split the data into two halves, the first half of the trials from 1998 to 1999 and the second half from 2000 to 2005. The average confidence score in the first half is MUCH higher than in the second half, but the spike at 5:00 LST is still clearly in both data sets. Their also appears to be a similar trough that starts at about 7:00 and runs to about 12:00 LST. 
ARV average confidence score vs feed back local sidereal time
(click to enlarge)
The focus of the mentation during the remote viewing session is typically on the exact time and date (called the feedback time) that the remote viewer will be shown the single photographic target that was associated with the outcome of the future event. I compared the exact local sidereal time of feedback to the average confidence score and found a surprisingly large and significant peak in average confidence score at around 6:00 LST. Nearly the same time as the peak in the remote viewing LST chart. Compare the size of this peak with a random sorted chart to the right (above). 

(click to enlarge)
To determine if this peak is really significant, I split the data into two halves and found a similar peak in both halves. The peak in the second half is much smaller, but it appears to peak at exactly the same time. 
ARV effect size vs solar wind speed
(click to enlarge)
The chart on the left (above) shows a significant inverse correlation between solar wind speed and average per trial effect size. The chart to the right (above) also shows a significant inverse correlation between solar wind speed and average confidence score. It appears that not only am I more likely to achieve a successful trial during relatively quiet solar wind speeds, but more likely to achieve a high confidence score on a remote viewing trial. 

(click to enlarge)
The general trend is consistent through the data set, as is shown in the above two charts depicting average z score per trial vs solar wind speed for ARV trials from 1998 to 1999, and also for 2000 to 2005 

(click to enlarge)
To combine the confidence score effect with the solar wind speed, shown in charts on the right (above) is the average effect size per trial for trials that scored higher than 2.3 vs solar wind speed. The effect size per trial during sws of around 350 km/sec is a very significant .5 compared to less than .3 for trials without the score filter. The chart on the right shows that solar wind speed even has an effect, although smaller, on the trials that were scored with a 1 or lower. 
ARV effect size vs solar wind speed at feedback time
(click to enlarge)
There does not appear to be a similarly significant relationship between SWS and average z score per trial at feedback time as with remote viewing time, however, there does seem to be a fairly significant inverse correlation between the average confidence score per trial and sws at feedback time. Generally, it appears that lower solar wind speeds during feedback time increase the chances of a higher confidence score on an ARV trial. 

(click to enlarge)
To determine if this relationship exists throughout the entire data set, I split the data into two parts  first half from 1998 to 1990 consisting of 1481 trials, and the second half from 2000 to 2005 consisting of 1885 trials. The two curves appear to be similar with some significant peaks and valleys. They both peak at around 380, then dip at 480, then rise again to 530 and drop suddenly at 560 with a very low trough at 660. The similarity is actually striking which indicates that this FB / SWS effect appears to be fairly robust. If general solar wind speed conditions tend to persist for many days, then it is possible that the inverse correlation between sws and confidence scores at feedback time is simply the same relationship that exists during the remote viewing time  that the general sws conditions have not changed much from when the remote viewing was conducted. This would definitely be the case if the remote viewing and feedback for a trial were both conducted on the same day, which is typically not the case with my data. The average difference in time between remote viewing and feedback is 16 days which would be plenty of time for general solar wind conditions to change. To test for this, I calculated the average difference between the sws measured at remote viewing time and at feedback time and found that is was an average difference of 89.8 km/sec. I compared this to randomly sorted dates and their respective SWS values and found that the typical difference between SWS values on any two random dates is around 107 km/sec average. The difference between the random sort average SWS difference of 107 km/s and the actual average difference of 89.9 km/s is only 17.1 km/sec. This indicates that the chances of measuring similar solar wind speed values at both the remote viewing time and the feedback time is only marginally higher than any random two dates. 

ARV effect size and average confidence scores vs time difference between remote viewing and feedback
(click to enlarge)
The chart on the left (above) shows the average z score per trial when the difference between the remote viewing date and time and the feedback date and time is from 1 to 40 days. The chart on the right shows the average confidence score per trial. Note there is a seemingly large trough at around 15 days, then another peak at 30 days 

(click to enlarge)
Increasing in resolution, there is a peak in effect size and average confidence score per trial at 5 days difference between RV time and FB time, then a down trend to 10 days. 

(click to enlarge)
A further increase in resolution shows a fairly large dip at 1 day. It would appear that the chances of obtaining a high confidence score on a remote viewing trial are very good if the feedback is scheduled for the same day. However, if feedback is scheduled for 3 days in the future, the chances of having a successful trial are greatly increased, but the chances of a high confidence score are still low. 

(click to enlarge)
To confirm this delta RV / FB effect, I compared the average effect size per trial for the first half of the data (from 1998 to 1990) to the second half (2000 to 2005) and the same general trend exists  a peak at 6 days, a trough at 17 days and rising again after 205 days. The second half has more longer term ARV projects which is why the there is more data after 20 days on second half chart. This is a closer look at a 3 day time period for both the average z score per trial and the average raw confidence scores. There is clearly a peak in average effect size per trial at between 2 to 3.3 days. 
Here is a table of the peak effect sizes per trial, peak average coSnfidence scores, and corresponding causal factors and values:
Peak ave z per trial  Peak ave confidence score  Causal factor and value  Notes 
.3  .  Confidence score of 3 or above  The average z per trial ranged from .3 to .6 with fewer trials at .6 so I averaged down to a .3 because there were 186 trials 
.06  .  RV between 13:30 and 15:00 LST  Avoid remote viewing during these LST times 
.  1.72  RV at 5:30 LST  High confidence scores during this LST time 
.  1.35  RV between 7:00 LST and 15:00 LST  Avoid this period of time for remote viewing due to low average confidence scores 
.  1.8  FB at around 6:00 LST  Very large spike in average confidence scores at this LST time 
.  1.5  FB between 8:00 to 16:00  Avoid this period of time for viewing feedback due to low average confidence scores 
.3  .  RV during SWS < 330  High effect size per trial for remote viewing during low SWS conditions 
.  1.77  RV during SWS at around 345 or lower  High average confidence scores for remote viewing during low SWS conditions 
.  1.75  FB during SWS 340 or less  High average confidence scores for viewing feedback during low SWS conditions 
.4  .  Time between RV and FB of 2.1 to 3.5 days  Very high effect size per trial for allowing 2.1 to 3.5 days between remote viewing and feedback time. 
To increase the likelihood of a successful ARV trial (increase average effect size per trial), plan to conduct the remote viewing during low solar wind conditions (less than 330 if possible). To increase the chances of a high confidence score which also results in an increase in effect size, plan remote viewing for 5:30 local sidereal time. Plan to view feedback at 6:00 LST and during low solar wind conditions for increased average confidence scores. Planning the time between remote viewing and feedback for 2.1 to 3.5 days should result in a significantly increased effect size per trial.
Because data from other researchers using a variety of individuals as subjects, seem to offer different conclusions in some cases, the data and relationships between delta RV/FB and local sidereal time presented in this report may be specific to me and my particular geographic location.