Lab 6 - Azfar Khandoker Dr Knapp Stat 350 4:30 Lab#6 1 a Source Preservative Species Preservative x species Error Total b i No the effect of

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Azfar Khandoker Dr. Knapp Stat 350 4:30 Lab #6 1. a. Source df SS MS F p-value Preservative 3 19.80 6.60 0.03 0.9929 Species 6 13085.49 2180.91 9.95 <0.0001 Preservative x species 18 68988.65 3832.70 17.49 <0.0001 Error 112 24542.65 219.13 Total 139 106636.58 b. i. No, the effect of preservative was not significant. ii. F = 0.03 with df 1 = 3 , df 2 = 112 iii. p-value = 0.9929 iv. Preservative N Mean Loss Std. Dev Loss ACA 35 101.71 30.62 CCA 35 101.37 19.10 Creosote 35 101.34 33.91 PCP 35 100.67 26.15 c. i. Yes, the effect of species was significant. ii. F = 9.95 with df 1 = 6 , df 2 = 112 iii. p-value = less than 0.0001 iv.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Maple Red Oak Redwood Spruce White Cedar Ash Red Cedar 119.53 103.79 103.54 102.91 97.34 97.08 84.73 ______ _____________________________________________________ ______________________ __ d. i. Yes, there was significant interaction effect. ii. F = 17.49 with df 1 = 18 , df 2 = 112 iii. p-value = less than 0.0001 e. 2. a. Source df SS MS F p-value Preservative 3 33830.22 11276.74 59.38 <.0001 Error 16 3038.40 189.90 Total 19 36868.62 b. i. Yes, the effect of preservative was significant. ii. F = 59.38 with df 1 = 3 , df 2 = 16 iii.
Background image of page 2
p-value = less than 0.0001 iv. ACA CCA PCP Creosote 144.98 100.14 51.16 42.64 _ 3. No, the conclusions that were obtained were not the same. The difference in conclusions is because of the data that was used to obtain the conclusion. In the first conclusion, the data that was used was from all of the species of wood; however the second conclusion was based only of Red Cedar data. Since the data pool was not the same for both conclusions, even though the first conclusion contains data from the second conclusion, they cannot be the same. This is why the two conclusions for the effect of preservative are different. 4. Based on our calculations, we conclude that there is no significant main effect of the preservative on all of the species of wood. However, there is a statistically significant effect on the species of wood that is used. We also conclude that there is a major interaction effect of both the preservative and the species of wood on the amount of weight lost. Based on our findings, we recommend the use of Red Cedar with either PCP or Creosote as the preservative. APPENDIX(CODE/OUTPUT):
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/16/2010 for the course STAT 350 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at Purdue University-West Lafayette.

Page1 / 10

Lab 6 - Azfar Khandoker Dr Knapp Stat 350 4:30 Lab#6 1 a Source Preservative Species Preservative x species Error Total b i No the effect of

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online