Your work on timer program has been received. We will look at your data later in the context of the entire group's data on this experiment.
I see 10 instances and also the difference between them.
1 92.26563 92.26563
2 92.98438 .71875
3 93.6875 .703125
4 94.45313 .765625
5 95.1875 .734375
6 95.82813 .640625
7 96.5 .671875
8 97.125 .625
9 97.78125 .65625
10 98.39063 .609375
165.1719 165.1719
2 165.3438 .171875
3 165.5313 .1875
4 165.7031 .171875
5 165.875 .171875
6 166.0313 .15625
7 166.2031 .171875
8 166.375 .171875
9 166.5313 .15625
10 167.0469 .515625
11 167.2813 .234375
12 167.4531 .171875
13 167.6094 .15625
14 167.7656 .15625
15 167.9219 .15625
16 168.0938 .171875
17 168.25 .15625
18 168.4219 .171875
19 168.5781 .15625
20 168.7344 .15625
Average is .186365 I subtracted the difference between event 21 and 1, and then divided that by 20. Event 21 = 168.9063
.171875, 8
.1875, 1
.15625, 8
.515625,1
.234375,1
Since instance 1 includes the original time, I noticed from 1 to 20, there are only 19 differences' since we didn't include 21.
I don't think the program is flawed or usless, but I do believe there is a rounding error of some sort, or other, that the program corrects based on its initial programming?
It carries out the differences to the 5th or 6th decimal place, which would indicate a high level of accuracy? Am I way off on this?
1111.594
1115.828
1120.25
1124.797
1129.156
1134
1139.422
1143.375
1148.891
1153.531
The intervals varied a lot more than when we did the 20 quick mouse clicks.
For this exercise 2 items are involved that affect our timing, our breath for one, and then the time it takes from when we we're inhaling and for our finger to click on the timer. Greater room for inconsistency.
d. It appears from above, it determines the time between two events to within about .00001 accuracy.
event number,clock time,time interval
1,1111.594,1111.594
2,1115.828,4.234375
3,1120.25,4.421875