If p-value is extremely close to 0 to 1 then the generator fails since it produced value with very high uniformity (close to 1) or it is not uniform at all. Two level test- Creating ‘N’ independent copies of base test having n sample size ‘n’ each. So, total sample size is ‘N*n’. The Test gives us a ‘p’ value(Ref-http://shazam.econ.ubc.ca/intro/diehard.htm. ), we would like present here a discussion on the p-value of the test.
While this may not mean that there will always be a correlation, although it has yet to be proven otherwise, it certainly helps to support the accuracy of our data. However from Boyles’s law we can tell that the data isn’t extremely accurate. The K1 results, in theory, should all be equal to each other, yet as shown in the data table this clearly isn’t the case. While my average for the K1 values was 9.85xx there was an approximant ±3.25% difference in values*11 which shows how large an inaccuracy there was with the recoding system. However some of this can be accounted for by the change in temperature.
Since the stated focal point was 200 mm, the percent error can be calculated: (|Experimental-Theoretical|)/(Theoertical )*100=4.8% error The experimental focal point is not within 7.88 mm of the stated focal point. This means that the experimental value was not within a standard deviation of the actual value—there was a large variance in the data. This large spread of data comes partly from trial 4, which had a large error with a focal length measured at 222.2 mm. This error is likely caused by the image not being as sharp as possible on the screen and instead being somewhat unfocused. The magnification can also be measured.
Scrutiny of the plot presented in Fig. 4 indicated no evidence of learning effect and minimal error for the outcome measure for the subjects. The decision whether this limit is acceptable clinically is depending on therapist’s clinical judgment (Portney and Watkins 2009). In conclusion, despite this outcome measure showed excellent reliability , the small sample size and the missing data may have affected its reliability (Shoukri et al, 2004). Therefore, a further study is recommended with larger sample size to confirm the consistency of this outcome measure.
Because the split halves method only measures reliability for one of the halves, it therefore underestimates the whole test’s reliability (Terre Blanche et al., 2006). The Spearman Brown prophecy formula is then used to correct this (Terre Blanche et al., 2006). The value for this test is 0.829 which is higher than 0.7 and therefore means the test is
Maybe our very ability to measure, to design measurement methods and instrumentation, to conceptualize measurement and so on – are thus limited as to yield only the collapse solutions of the wave function? Superpositions are notoriously unstable. Even in the quantum realm they should last but an infinitely split moment of time. Our measurement apparatus is not as refined as to capture a superposition long enough to justify the title of “measurement” or “observation”. By contrast, collapses are sufficiently stable to last, to be observed and measured.
The b... ... middle of paper ... ...uced in part C using the product from part B. Another source of error was that on two different occasions recrystallization was omitted from the procedure. While this probably does not have a huge effect, crystallizing the product helps to eliminate impurities. The overall product yield for this reaction is 90.53%. Although this number seems high, indicating a very successful synthesis, it does not account for the fact that Part C began with a new sample of benzil.
Two of the results show that it is less concentrated than the manufacturers’, but one shows that it is more concentrated, this is impossible so its is most likely due to human error and not taking the readings properly. Concentrations: Manufacturers’= 1¸10.11 = 0.0989119683 Shop1 = 1¸10.11 = 0.0989119683 Shop2 = 1¸18.23 = 0.054854635 Shop3 = 1¸38.08 = 0.026260504 These results show an obvious difference in the concentration with the manufacturers’ being the most concentrated and shop 3’s being the least concentrated. Evaluation: The results from this experiment can be considered reasonably accurate we took the results quite accurately.
However, as there is no evidence of wire break, the wires are possibly more ductile than assumed and ‘Brittle Wire Method’ could have underestimated the safety factor. The samples from only 4 panels were statistically unreliable based on NCHRP-534. The Cable Strength Evaluation Report (Modjeski & Masters, Inc., 2013) estimated the controlling factor of safety to be 2.41 which will rea... ... middle of paper ... ...ial secondary/ noise acoustic emission sources and lastly, the fifth experiment simulates a wire break which is the primary source under concern. Chapter 4 – Review of Data from AWB: The knowledge gained from literature review and laboratory experiments has been utilized in analysis of recorded data from AWB. Description on the installed AE system is presented.
Figure 3.1 depicts two types clusters one is weak cluster and other one is strong cluster. In weak cluster the objects are wider distance than in strong cluster because the properties of objects are dissimilar. But so far no researcher used OPTICS clusterin... ... middle of paper ... ... subset. The instances with the higher merits found will be retained in the majority subset for producing quality results. The experiments conducted with CILOP specify that improved CIL measures can be achieved.