Your 'timer program' report has been received. Scroll down through the document to see any comments I might have inserted, and my final comment at the end.
** Your General Comment **
** Describe what you see on your first 10 clicks **
I see a list of ten numbers ranging from 7.484375 to 14.53906 and beside them what appears to be the time between when that number was logged to when the click button was pressed to log the next number. The numbers on the left appear to get closer the further down the list you look.
** Your TIMER data from 20 fast clicks **
1 353.7656 353.7656
2 353.8906 .125
3 354.0547 .1640625
4 354.2109 .15625
5 354.3594 .1484375
6 354.5156 .15625
7 354.6563 .140625
8 354.7813 .125
9 354.9297 .1484375
10 355.0703 .140625
11 355.2031 .1328125
12 355.3438 .140625
13 355.4609 .1171875
14 355.6016 .140625
15 355.7266 .125
16 355.8594 .1328125
17 355.9844 .125
18 356.125 .140625
19 356.2578 .1328125
20 356.3984 .140625
** Your average time interval for 20 time intervals **
17.819921
I added all the intervals and divided by 20.
&#The time intervals between your quick clicks were consistently less than .25 second. So your mean time interval, which is very much greater than any of the times between your quick clicks, cannot be correct.
This discrepancy probably resulted from including in the averaging process one or more time intervals which do not represent times between quick clicks. &#
&#Please respond with a copy of this question, a copy of any other part of this document you wish to include, and an appropriate response. Your response might be an answer to a question, a revision of your original response, or a question indicating what you do and do not understand about the situation along with a request for clarification. Indicate your response using the symbols *&##. As your title use the 'response title' suggested above (just copy and paste that title into the Title box of the Submit Work form); if no suggested title was given use your own title.
&#
** Your frequency distribution for the 20 time intervals (interval, number of times it was observed) **
.1171875,1
.125,4
.1328125,3
.140625,6
.1484375,2
.15625,2
.1640625,2
353.7656,1
** Your general comment to this point **
** Why did you observe only certain time intervals? **
I think it reported the number so frequently because it was the lease accurate measurement of the time intervals. I do think the system is flawed, because it doesn't really take into consideration the experimental uncertainties with entering the data. I'm not sure if it means if its completely useless or not though...
** What did you see when you looked at the differences between time successive time intervals? **
Some of the differences in one time interval to the next is a negative quantity. This obviously shows that the timer program is flawed, because you made the entries obviously with time between them. It should not be possible to get a negative time difference.
** Your time intervals for 7 complete breaths: **
6.5625
7.898438
8.320313
8.203125
7.742188
9.71875
8.148438
8.414063
9.009813
** Your general comment to this point: **
** Why did you rarely, if ever, observe that same time interval twice? **
There was more time between the breaths, and was obviously able to more accurately record when the data was entered in the program.
** Do you think this program is accurate to .1 or .01 ... **
Based upon looking at the difference in the time intervals, I would say .01, the least number of significant digits used in the time intervals itself. It can not accurately record the data as demonstrated in the previous experiment with the fast clicking at a rate any more accurate than .01
** Copy of a few lines of your spreadsheet from the TIMER program. **
Series of regular breath times at beginning of inhalation
event number clock time time interval
1 2046.313 2046.313
2 2052.875 6.5625
3 2060.773 7.898438
4 2069.094 8.320313
5 2077.297 8.203125
6 2085.039 7.742188
7 2094.758 9.71875
8 2102.906 8.148438
9 2111.32 8.414063
10 2120.328 9.007813
** **
Approximately 1 Hour
** **
Good answers to most questions, but see my note about your calculation of the mean time interval and please respond as indicated.