fn 8 fn 9 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 fn 10 165.1719 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 fn 11 Average is .186365 I subtracted the difference between event 21 and 1, and then divided that by 20. Event 21 = 168.9063 fn 12 .171875, 8 .1875, 1 .15625, 8 .515625,1 .234375,1 fn 13 Since instance 1 includes the original time, I noticed from 1 to 20, there are only 19 differences' since we didn't include 21. fn 14 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? fn 15 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? fn 16 1111.594 1115.828 1120.25 1124.797 1129.156 1134 1139.422 1143.375 1148.891 1153.531 fn 17 The intervals varied a lot more than when we did the 20 quick mouse clicks. fn 18 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. fn 19 d. It appears from above, it determines the time between two events to within about .00001 accuracy. fn 20 event number,clock time,time interval 1,1111.594,1111.594 2,1115.828,4.234375 3,1120.25,4.421875