{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Also my error due to systematics and the smallest

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: before my standard error hits my non- random error; notice that this is much smaller than 2727, the number I calculated by even rougher estimate earlier. Finally, my values for error are an order of magnitude smaller than my average values, which means that my average values make sense. I will not include all my plots here; they are in my spreadsheet. Here is a plot of both the distracted and not- distracted data points for each trial: Distracted and not- distracted reaction times 0.35 0.3 Time (s) 0.25 0.2 0.15 Series1 0.1 Series2 0.05 0 0 5 10 15 20 Trial Series 1 corresponds to the not- distracted case, and series 2 to the distracted case (I couldn’t figure out how to rename the series in the legend). The distracted reaction times are in general greater than the non- distracted reaction times. Notice that the non- distracted graph becomes smoother as the trial number increased, while the distracted graph is jagged throughout. This probably means that I was “getting the hang” of catching the ruler in the non- distracted case, so my data started becoming more consistent. But my distracted data set does not smooth out near the later trials. This might mean that I wasn’t distracting myself in the same fashion throughout the trials, but it might also mean that we should take more trials to figure out what’s going on. I believe I answered question 5 in my answers above. Jake Mokris (with Ji Kim) Group 0 September 18, 2011 Question 6: What were the advantages and disadvanta...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online