Data collected with revision 165dd41, four parallel instances, 30-45 minutes each, on
2015-08-28. Analyzed with analyze.py

split cell eject/split direction deviations: mean = -0.04179961392956227, stddev=0.4556678701725402, ndata=159
	75% of the splits had a deviation smaller than 0.02 rad = 1.31 deg

ejected mass eject/split direction deviations: mean = -0.0016847086620534303, stddev=0.872858965604425, ndata=352
	75% of the splits had a deviation smaller than 0.46 rad = 26.47 deg


split cell eject/split distances: mean = 388.2279635920042, stddev=222.71465106976927, ndata=314
	75% of the values lie in the interval 381.25 plusminus 225.53

ejected mass eject/split distances: mean = 442.90229450857305, stddev=189.2221703217239, ndata=252
	75% of the values lie in the interval 535.71 plusminus 8.61

distances are measured between "spawn point of cell" and "end point of movement".
Spawnpoint is usually near "parentcell.midpoint + parentcell.size".



Now if we measure distances between "midpoint of parent cell" and "end point of movement" by
applying the following patch:

diff --git a/stats.py b/stats.py
index bb88c3e..1c0a196 100644
--- a/stats.py
+++ b/stats.py
@@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ class Stats:
         #    print(str(n) + "\t" + str(x))
 
     def analyze_distances(self, celltype):
-        ds = [v[0] for v in self.data.eject_distlogs[celltype]]
+        ds = [v[1] for v in self.data.eject_distlogs[celltype]]
 
         try:
             mean, stddev = fit_gaussian(ds)

we get this:

split cell eject/split distances: mean = 560.4528176561469, stddev=276.25260008531626, ndata=314
	75% of the values lie in the interval 556.62 plusminus 322.76

ejected mass eject/split distances: mean = 767.2502438544719, stddev=168.80422060053823, ndata=252
	75% of the values lie in the interval 732.30 plusminus 86.28


As one can see, the "plusminus" values are much larger than above. So measuring between "spawnpoint" and
"endpoint" is more appropriate.