Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3
Analysis of the data:
Factor
Chemical
Bolt
Type
random
random
Levels
4
5
Values
1; 2; 3; 4
1; 2; 3; 4; 5
DF
3
4
12
19
Seq SS
12.950
157.000
21.800
191.750
Adj SS
12.950
157.000
21.800
Adj MS
4.317
39.250
1.817
F
2.38
21.61
P
0.121
0.000
Conclusion:
The null hypothesis will be that all the treatment means
are equal. The alternative hypothesis is that they are not
all equal. From the Minitab output above, we can conclude
that
there
is
no
difference
between
the
chemical
types
obtained
from
the
p-value
for
treatment
effect
block
experiment.
effect
dominates
the
variations
in
the
4.8
a)
Analysis of the data:
Factor
Design
Region
Type
random
random
Levels
3
4
Values
1; 2; 3
NE; NW; SE; SW
DF
2
3
6
11
Seq SS
90755
49036
5429
145220
Adj SS
90755
49036
5429
Adj MS
45378
16345
905
F
50.15
18.06
P
0.000
0.002
b)
Level
1
2
3
N
4
4
4
Mean
298.50
473.75
281.25
StDev
75.67
93.75
60.33
N
4
4
4
Mean
473.75
298.50
281.25
Grouping
A
B
B
90
20
Residual
Percent
50
10
1
0
-20
-40
-50
-25
0
Residual
25
50
200
300
400
Fitted Value
Histogram
Versus Order
40
4.5
Residual
Frequency
6.0
3.0
1.5
0.0
500
20
0
-20
-40
-40
-20
0
Residual
20
40
4 5 6 7 8 9
Observation Order
10 11 12
of
the
Therefore,
data
all
is
recommended
conclusions
for
obtained
further
in
the
4.13
a)
Analysis of the voltage data:
Factor
Algorithms
Time Period
Type
random
random
Levels
4
6
Values
1; 2; 3; 4
1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6
DF
3
5
15
23
Seq SS
0.002746
0.017437
0.072179
0.092363
Adj SS
0.002746
0.017437
0.072179
Adj MS
0.000915
0.003487
0.004812
F
0.19
0.72
P
0.901
0.615
b) and c)
Residual Plots for Pot Noise
Versus Fits
0.02
90
0.01
Residual
Percent
50
10
1
-0.02
-0.01
0.00
0.01
Residual
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
0.00
0.02
0.02
4.5
3.0
1.5
0.01
0.01
Residual
Residual
Frequency
Versus Order
0.02
6.0
.
-0
0.15
Histogram
0.0
0.05
0.10
Fitted Value
0.00
0.00
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02
0
02
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
01
01
00
00
00
01
01
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0
0
0
0
-0
-0
-0
Residual
-0.02
1.0
1.5
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Observation Order
2.0
2.5
Algorithms
3.0
3.5
4.0
Versus Fits
99
0.2
Residual
Percent
90
50
10
1
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
Residual
0.25
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-4.0
0.50
Histogram
-3.5
-3.0
-2.5
Fitted Value
-2.0
Versus Order
6.0
0.3
0.2
Residual
Residual
Frequency
0.2
4.5
3.0
1.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0.0
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
-0.4
1.0
Residual
1.5
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Algorithms
Observation
Order
Analysis of the residuals after applying natural log transformation for Pot Noise
Factor
Algorithms
Time Period
Type
random
random
Levels
4
6
Values
1; 2; 3; 4
1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6
DF
3
5
15
23
Seq SS
6.16605
0.94460
0.92704
8.03769
Adj SS
6.16605
0.94460
0.92704
Adj MS
2.05535
0.18892
0.06180
F
33.26
3.06
P
0.000
0.042
From the ANOVA table above, we can conclude that the ratio
control algorithm affects the pot noise.
d)
Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on
Pooled StDev
Level N
Mean
StDev -----+---------+---------+---------+---1
6 -3.0877 0.2422
(----*----)
2
6 -3.5086 0.3667 (----*----)
3
6 -2.1998 0.2337
(----*----)
4
6 -3.3559 0.3558
(----*----)
-----+---------+---------+---------+----3.50
-3.00
-2.50
-2.00
Pooled StDev = 0.3059
Grouping Information Using Fisher Method
Algorithms
3
1
4
2
N
6
6
6
6
Mean
-2.1998
-3.0877
-3.3559
-3.5086
Grouping
A
B
B C
C
4.21
Factor
Distance
Subject
Type
random
random
Levels
4
5
Values
4; 6; 8; 10
1; 2; 3; 4; 5
DF
3
4
12
19
Seq SS
32.950
36.300
15.300
84.550
Adj SS
32.950
36.300
15.300
Adj MS
10.983
9.075
1.275
F
8.61
7.12
P
0.003
0.004
Versus Fits
99
1
Residual
Percent
90
50
0
-1
10
1
-2
-2
-1
0
Residual
Histogram
10
Versus Order
6.0
4.5
Residual
Frequency
6
Fitted Value
3.0
0
-1
1.5
-2
0.0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Residual
6
8 10 12 14 16
Observation Order
18
20
There
seems
observation
to
14.
be
an
Maybe
outlier
it
is
observation,
better
to
which
rerun
is
this
4.22
Analysis of Variance for Reaction Time, using Adjusted SS for Tests
Source
Batch
Day
Ingredients
Error
Total
DF
4
4
4
12
24
Seq SS
15.440
12.240
141.440
37.520
206.640
Adj SS
15.440
12.240
141.440
37.520
Adj MS
3.860
3.060
35.360
3.127
F
1.23
0.98
11.31
P
0.348
0.455
0.000
experimenter
Ingredients
on
is
the
interested
reaction
in
time.
the
Thus,
effect
an
of
the
appropriate
the
Ingredients.
However,
there
is
no
strong
Versus Fits
99
2
Residual
Percent
90
50
10
1
0
-1
-2
-3.0
-1.5
0.0
Residual
1.5
3.0
Histogram
10
Versus Order
6.0
4.5
Residual
Frequency
6
8
Fitted Value
3.0
1.5
1
0
-1
-2
-2
-1
0
1
Residual
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Observation Order
-1
-1
-2
-2
1
Residual
Residual
0.0
3
Day
3
Batch
Level
A
B
C
D
E
N
5
5
5
5
5
Mean
8.400
5.600
8.800
3.400
3.200
StDev
1.140
2.074
1.643
2.074
1.924
N
5
5
5
5
5
Mean
8.800
8.400
5.600
3.400
3.200
Grouping
A
A
B
B C
C
4.42
Factor
Concentration
Days
Type
fixed
random
Levels
7
7
Values
2; 4; 6; 8; 10; 12; 14
1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7
DF
6
6
8
20
Seq SS
2037.62
394.10
168.57
2600.29
Adj SS
1317.43
394.10
168.57
Adj MS
219.57
65.68
21.07
F
10.42
3.12
P
0.002
0.070
Versus Fits
99
5.0
Residual
Percent
90
50
10
1
2.5
0.0
-2.5
-5.0
-8
-4
0
Residual
110
120
Histogram
130
140
Fitted Value
150
Versus Order
Residual
Frequency
5.0
6
4
2
2.5
0.0
-2.5
-5.0
-6
-4
-2
0
2
Residual
18 20
(response is Strength)
(response is Strength)
7.5
7.5
5.0
5.0
2.5
2.5
Residual
Residual
6 8 10 12 14 16
Observation Order
0.0
-2.5
0.0
-2.5
-5.0
-5.0
2
8
10
Concentration
12
14
4
Days
Level
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean
117.00
121.67
129.33
139.67
146.00
120.33
131.00
StDev
3.00
3.79
10.79
10.07
3.61
2.52
4.58
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean
146.000
139.667
131.000
129.333
121.667
120.333
117.000
Grouping
A
A B
B C
B C
C D
C D
D