phy 201
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 **
on the left it looks like times were recorded for 10 measurments on the right it has corresponding measurements to those times
** Your TIMER data from 20 fast clicks **
1 287.3125 287.3125
2 287.4531 .140625
3 287.5625 .109375
4 287.6875 .125
5 287.8125 .125
6 287.9531 .140625
7 288.0938 .140625
8 288.2188 .125
9 288.3594 .140625
10 288.5 .140625
11 288.625 .125
12 288.7656 .140625
13 288.9063 .140625
14 289.0469 .140625
15 289.1719 .125
16 289.3125 .140625
17 289.4531 .140625
18 289.5781 .125
19 289.7188 .140625
20 289.8594 .140625
21 290 .140625
** Your average time interval for 20 time intervals **
Average = .12729375
I recorded 21 total readings and threw out the first reading because it did not match the pattern. I added the next 20 readings and divided by 20
** Your frequency distribution for the 20 time intervals (interval, number of times it was observed) **
.125, 6
.140625, 13
.109375, 1
Your method for finding the average time interval was good, but it's a little lower than the average you would get from this frequency distribution. Most of your results are .140625, and only one is less than .125. The mean would be between .125 and .140625, and somewhat closer to .140625.
No need to refigure your average, but be aware that this will slightly distort results which rely on this mean.
** Your general comment to this point **
** Why did you observe only certain time intervals? **
No i think this program rounded each interval to the nearest most popular time, yes it is flawed similar situation there is no way I could have been so consisant in my clicking.
** What did you see when you looked at the differences between time successive time intervals? **
there is a pattern between time interval and difference from one int. to another. each different time int. has the same difference despite where it falls in recording (its always paired with the same number).
I do think the Timer program is somewhat flawed it automatically appoints numbers despite the actual recordings
** Your time intervals for 7 complete breaths: **
5.609375
4.1875
5.625
6.4375
5.1875
7.03125
6
6.15625
6.21875
6.078125
** Your general comment to this point: **
my time was not as consistant and started to increase then even out
** Why did you rarely, if ever, observe that same time interval twice? **
I think there was a distinguishable difference between the slower clicks and the Timer program did not get overwhelmed with information. I think the fastest way to record data was to record the most popular time intervals and round each click to one of those
** Do you think this program is accurate to .1 or .01 ... **
A; because that is the greatest amount of time and the greater the differenc in time intervals the better the results.
** Copy of a few lines of your spreadsheet from the TIMER program. **
relaxed timer data
event number clock time time interval
1 7.15625 7.15625
2 11.57813 4.421875
3 17.53125 5.953125
4 22.73438 5.203125
** **
30-40minutes
** **
I inserted my data into excell but when i pasted my data the graph did not show up only the format is this ok?
&#Your work looks good. See my notes. Let me know if you have any questions. &#