Your work on discussion form has been received. Scroll down through the document to see any comments I might have inserted, and my final comment at the end.
Item Code
Review
Your Contribution
Review of Answers to Timer Res
Two other classmates of mine came up with a systematic formula that would supposedly give every possible interval by taking the smallest interval measured and incrementally adding it from .12 to .19. In theory, their conclusion sounds good, but I am still skeptical because the timer does not seem to actually be that precise. It seems to have certain values that it prefers to give over any random value, which was evident by seeing how many repeating values were obtained. Therefore, my conclusion was based upon the observation that beyond the thousandths place, the timer does not appear to give truly random values.
Note the instruction to
'Identify the student number of each student on whose work you are commenting.'
Your reviews will be shared with those students.
As to the TIMER intervals, it turns out that all intervals observed by students are multiples of 0.00390625 second. This can be expressed as the fraction (1 / n) seconds for the appropriate value of n. What is the value of n?
It also appears that the intervals observed by any single computer in any single trial are multiples of 4 times this number, about .016 seconds, and this appears to be the resolution of the program in actual use.
Your work on discussion form has been received. Scroll down through the document to see any comments I might have inserted, and my final comment at the end.
Item Code
Report
Your Contribution
Critiques on Answers to Timer
I found my report under student 2 so I will comment on my two neighbors. Student 1 did not seem to understand that even though the Timer reports to 0.0000001, the intervals frequently repeat beyond .001, which was the basis for my conclusion that the timer program is not random beyond this point. Student 3 didn't even write a conclusion, so it would be pointless for me to comment. Student 4, however, was very thorough in analyzing the data to determine the average smallest interval then by giving a formula that could be used to incrementally calculate each possible interval between .12 and .19. If the intervals truly did seem nonrandom, I would agree with student 4's conclusion. Due to the repeating intervals beyond the thousandths place, however, I still favor my conclusion to the others I reviewed.
Good reviews. Note that you should have mentioned your own conclusions so the students who receive these reviews will be able to compare. For today's work, I'll insert those conclusions for you when I share your reviews.
Your work on discussion form has been received. Scroll down through the document to see any comments I might have inserted, and my final comment at the end.
Item Code
Comment
Your Contribution
Critiques on Symmetry of Motio
I found my report under student 2 so I will comment on my two neighbors. They both were similar in that both speculated that conducting their experiments in unlevel buildings may have contributed to unequal measurements. I found those explanations reasonable, but I also liked student 6's suggestion that imperfections in the board and unequal positioning of the dominos could have affected each one of us.
Good. Thanks for the comments.
Your work on discussion form has been received. Scroll down through the document to see any comments I might have inserted, and my final comment at the end.
Item Code
Review
Your Contribution
Review of Amplitude Dependence
It seems that the other students came the same general conclusion as I did: that the amplitude of a pendulum depends only on its length, not its amplitude and also that when a bracket pendulum is tilted, gravity will either accelerate or decelerate the pendulum, depending upon which way it is tilted.
Again, be sure to specify the students.
Your work on discussion form has been received. Scroll down through the document to see any comments I might have inserted, and my final comment at the end.
Item Code
Comment
Your Contribution
Critiques on Amplitude Depende
Comparing my report (student 2) to my two neighbors, I see that I was focused on a different aspect of the experiment than they were in the respective excerpts. I was focused on the evidence supporting the hypothesis that the period of a pendulum depends only on its length, not its amplitude, whereas my neighbors focused on the particular part of the experiment where the bracket was turned on an unlevel textbook. I also did this same part of the experiment and reached the same conclusion they did (ie, that the pendulum speeds up when tilted down, slows down when tilted up, and remains even when turned to a neutral position) but that part of my write up was not included in the excerpted segment.
Good comments, with which I agree.