#$&*
phy121
Your 'timer program' report has been received. Scroll down through the document to see any comments I might have inserted, and my final comment at the end.
** TIMER program_labelMessages **
sorry for the lateness, had to attend family emergency in Canada.
** **
30-40 minutes
** **
Operating the TIMER program
It is easy to operate the Timer program. All you have to do is click on the button labeled Click to Time Event.
Click that button about 10 times and describe what you see.
#$&*
After clicking the button 10 times, I see 3 columns. The first column is the number that I click (1-10), the second column is the total time at which I hit the button. The third column is the interval between each click.
Now click on Initialize Counter, which will clear all the data from the timer window. Click the mouse as fast as you can until the TIMER window fills up. Be sure you get at least 20 time intervals.
If you miss a click, try again. Keep trying until you get at least 20 quick-click intervals without a missed or delayed click.
Copy your data starting in the next line:
1 17247.23 17247.23
2 17247.39 .15625
3 17247.51 .125
4 17247.62 .109375
5 17247.75 .125
6 17247.87 .125
7 17247.98 .109375
8 17248.09 .109375
9 17248.21 .125
10 17248.32 .109375
11 17248.45 .125
12 17248.57 .125
13 17248.68 .109375
14 17248.81 .125
15 17248.92 .109375
16 17249.04 .125
17 17249.15 .109375
18 17249.28 .125
19 17249.4 .125
20 17249.51 .109375
#$&*
You got at least 20 time intervals. Based on your data what was the average of the first 20 time intervals? Note that you could get this average by averaging the first 20 intervals. My first few intervals were .15625, .15625, .1875, .171875, etc; I could just add up the first 20 intervals and divide by 20 to get the average. However there is an easier and quicker way to get the result, so use the easier way if you can. NOTE: Spreadsheet calculations and other methods that disguise the process of finding the average are not valid answers to this question. Spreadsheets are perfectly legal for most data analysis, but not in this experiment.
Give your result, number only, in the first line, and starting in the second line explain how you got it.
average of quick-click intervals: 0.11406
explanation: I added up all the interval times and got 2.28125 and divided that number by 20 to get 0.114063 for the average per interval.
#$&*
When I did this activity the first few lines of my data were as follows:
event number clock time time interval
1 11.67188 11.67188
2 11.875 0.203125
3 12.0625 0.1875
4 12.20313 0.140625
5 12.375 0.171875
6 12.54688 0.171875
7 12.73438 0.1875
8 12.92188 0.1875
9 13.10938 0.1875
10 13.28125 0.171875
11 13.4375 0.15625
It looks like the same intervals keep popping up. For example .1875 seconds occurs 5 times out of the first 10 intervals, .171875 seconds occurs three times, and .203125 seconds, .140625 seconds and .15625 seconds each occur once.
A frequency distribution for my time intervals would be as follows:
time interval frequency
,140625 1
.15625 1
.171875 3
.1875 5
.203125 1
What different time intervals did you observe in your first 20 intervals, and how many times did each occur? List below the different time intervals you observed and the number of times each occurred. List from the shortest to the longest interval, and use a comma between the time interval and its frequency. For example my data above would be listed at
.140625, 1
.1565, 1
.171875, 3
.1875, 5
.203125, 1
The above list is called a frequency distribution. Be sure you make note of this terminology.
Your list should be in exactly the above format, with no other symbols or characters.
Your list (i.e., your frequency distribution):
I had one number that was different on its own. The numbers are as follows:
0.15625, 1
0.125, 10
0.109375, 8
#$&*
You are welcome make any comments or ask any question about the process so far.
#$&*
On the 10 intervals I've shown you, do you really think I managed to get a time of .1875 seconds, accurate to 4 significant figures, on half of the intervals? If you do, I'm grateful for your confidence but I'm just not that good. No human being has that much neurological and muscular control.
So why do you think the TIMER program reported that time so frequently? Why weren't there times like .1830 seconds, or .1769 seconds? Does this mean that the TIMER program is flawed? Does that mean it's useless?
Why did the TIMER report .1875 seconds multiple times; your conclusions about the program:
I think the program does this because it is using decimal points far beyond we can see then making it into a number that we can comprehend as well as write down.
#$&*
Here are a few more lines of data, with an added column showing the difference between each time interval and the next.
clock time time interval difference from one time interval to next
9 13.10938 0.1875 -0.01563
10 13.28125 0.171875 -0.01563
11 13.4375 0.15625 0.03125
12 13.625 0.1875 -0.01563
13 13.79688 0.171875 0.015625
14 13.98438 0.1875 0.015625
15 14.1875 0.203125 -0.03125
16 14.35938 0.171875 -0.01563
17 14.51563 0.15625 0.03125
Take a good look at that last column and tell us what you see in those numbers, and what this tells you about the TIMER program:
The third column is telling us the difference between the intervals. This tells you which clicks are faster than others and by how much without doing long calculations.
#$&*
Now initialize the TIMER once more, and take a series of 10 relaxed breaths. Every time you start to inhale, hit the TIMER button.
My results for the first 7 complete breaths are as follows:
series of relaxed breaths
event number clock time time interval difference between time interval and next
1 1569.734 1569.734
2 1582.75 13.01563 0.32812
3 1596.094 13.34375 3.90625
4 1613.344 17.25 2.70313
5 1633.297 19.95313 1.35937
6 1654.609 21.3125 4.23438
7 1680.156 25.54688 2.15625
8 1707.859 27.70313
I didn't go on because the time between my breaths kept increasing, and I was afraid if I relaxed any more I might stop breathing altogether. It's going to take either more statistical analysis to determine whether that's a real danger, or a little common sense.
Report your results by just entering your time intervals, one to each line, in the box below. If I was entering my results I would enter
13.01563
13.34375
17.25
19.95313
21.3125
etc.
Enter your results in the same format:
3.09375
6.125
9.765625
13.07813
16.6875
20.20313
23.8125
27
30.4375
33.98438
#$&*
If you have any comments please insert them here
I was surprised to get 27s right on with no decimal points.
#$&*
Most likely you did not observe the same exact time interval twice, and if you did it did not happen nearly as often as when you did the fact clicks.
Why do you think this is exactly what we would expect?
We would expect this because with clicking fast, we are trying to get as many as possible in a short time and see the same interval times. However, when you are doing breaths, you don’t breathe the same amount of air each time, which would account for different interval times during each breath.
#$&*
Which of the following statements do you think is the most accurate?
a. The TIMER program is capable of determining the time between two events accurately to within about .1 second.
b. The TIMER program is capable of determining the time between two events accurately to within about .01 second.
c. The TIMER program is capable of determining the time between two events accurately to within about .001 second.
d. The TIMER program is capable of determining the time between two events accurately to within about .0001 second.
Enter your answer and your reasoning below:
D. The TIMER program is capable of determining the time between two events accurately to within about .0001 second. I think this because the clock and interval time has multiple decimal points, which will give a more accurate reading each time.
#$&*
@&
Think about the following, but there's no need to submit anything unless you feel the need to do so:
*@
@&
`` If you have a 'clicker' that clicks every 1/3 of a second, and count those clicks to time the interval between two events, you will get possible time intervals of 1/3, 2/3, 3/3, 4/3, ... seconds. In decimal form these intervals could be expressed as .333333, .6666667, 1, 1.333333 second.Just because the decimal equivalents can be expressed to several decimal places doesn't mean that all the figures in the result are significant.
So the number of decimal places in the reported results is not necessarily correlated to the accuracy of the instrument.
Is there any evidence in your data that would give you an idea of the limitations on the accuracy of the results?
*@
&#Good responses. See my notes and let me know if you have questions. &#