Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Two different underground pipe coatings for preventing corrosion are to be compared. The effect of a coating (as measured by maximum depth of corrosion penetration on a piece of pipe) may vary with depth, orientation, soil type, pipe composition, etc. Describe how an experiment that filters out the effects of these extraneous factors could be carried out.

Short Answer

Expert verified
To filter out the effects of extraneous variables like depth, orientation, soil type, and pipe composition when comparing two corrosion-preventing pipe coatings, pairs of pipes with the same properties can be used. One pipe in each pair is treated with one coating, and the other with the second coating. After a set period of time, the maximum depth of corrosion is measured on each pipe. Any difference can be attributed to the effectiveness of the coatings, as all other factors are held constant.

Step by step solution

01

Defining Independent and Dependent Variables

In this experiment, the independent variables are the two different pipe coatings. The dependent variable is the maximum depth of corrosion penetration on a pipe which we're going to measure to determine the effectiveness of the coatings.
02

Controlling Confounding Factors

Though we can't eliminate extraneous factors such as pipe depth, orientation, soil type and pipe composition, we can control them. This can be done by taking pairs of pipes with the same properties (same depth, orientation, soil type and composition), coating one pipe from each pair with the first coating, and the other with the second coating.
03

Setting Up the Experiment

For each pair, bury both pipes in identical conditions. Objective is to ensure that each pair of pipes are subjected to the same external factors, differing only in the type of coating used.
04

Measuring the Effectiveness of the Coatings

After a set period of time, inspect and measure the maximum depth of corrosion penetration in each pipe. Because all the other factors were controlled, any difference in corrosion penetration can be attributed to the effectiveness of the coatings.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Independent Variables
In an experiment, the independent variables are the factors that the experimenter manipulates to observe their effect on the outcome. In our case, the primary independent variable is the type of underground pipe coating used. There are two different coatings that we want to compare. By varying the coatings applied to the pipes, we aim to investigate how each impacts corrosion resistance. This manipulation allows us to explore potential differences in performance between the two coatings, as these are the only variables intentionally changed during the experiment.

It's essential to keep other factors constant when manipulating the independent variable. This ensures that the observed effects on the dependent variable are due to changes in the independent variable alone.
Dependent Variables
A dependent variable in an experiment is what you measure in response to changes in the independent variables. For our corrosion study, the dependent variable is the maximum depth of corrosion penetration observed on the pipes. This measurement reflects the effectiveness of each type of pipe coating in preventing corrosion.

After applying different coatings, we will measure the depth of corrosion in order to understand which coating offers the best protection. The change in corrosion depth will show how each coating performs under identical environmental conditions. By analyzing these measurements, we can draw conclusions regarding the efficacy of each coating in combating corrosion.
Controlling Confounding Factors
Confounding factors are variables that can interfere with the results of an experiment, making it hard to identify the true relationship between the independent and dependent variables. In our pipe corrosion experiment, confounding factors include pipe depth, orientation, soil type, and pipe composition. Ensuring these factors remain constant across samples is crucial for reliable results.

To control confounding factors, we take pairs of similar pipes—same depth, orientation, composition, and buried in the same soil type. Each pipe in a pair is coated with a different type of coating. This setup ensures that any variation in corrosion depth is due to the coating itself and not other differences.

By controlling for these extraneous factors, we eliminate potential sources of error and bias, increasing the validity of our findings.
Measurement of Effectiveness
Measuring effectiveness in an experiment involves assessing how well an independent variable achieves its intended outcome. Here, the effectiveness of the pipe coatings is determined by evaluating their performance in preventing corrosion. This is done by measuring the maximum depth of corrosion penetration on the coated pipes after a specified period.

The procedure involves using appropriate tools to measure corrosion depth accurately. By comparing these measurements across different coatings, we can identify which coating is more effective at preventing corrosion under the controlled conditions of the experiment.
  • After measurement, data analysis can be conducted to check for statistically significant differences in corrosion depth between the coatings.
  • Effectiveness conclusions are drawn based on the comparative performance of each coating, taking into account any controlled variables.
This methodical approach helps ensure that our conclusions are based on solid, empirical evidence.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

The article "Portable MP3 Player Ownership Reaches New High" (Ipsos Insight, June 29,2006 ) reported that in \(2006,20 \%\) of those in a random sample of 1112 Americans age 12 and older indicated that they owned an MP3 player. In a similar survey conducted in \(2005,\) only \(15 \%\) reported owning an \(\mathrm{MP} 3\) player. Suppose that the 2005 figure was also based on a random sample of size \(1112 .\) Estimate the difference in the proportion of Americans age 12 and older who owned an MP3 player in 2006 and the corresponding proportion for 2005 using a \(95 \%\) confidence interval. Is zero included in the interval? What does this tell you about the change in this proportion from 2005 to \(2006 ?\)

The press release referenced in the previous exercise also included data from independent surveys of teenage drivers and parents of teenage drivers. In response to a question asking if they approved of laws banning the use of cell phones and texting while driving, \(74 \%\) of the teens surveyed and \(95 \%\) of the parents surveyed said they approved. The sample sizes were not given in the press release, but for purposes of this exercise, suppose that 600 teens and 400 parents of teens responded to the surveys and that it is reasonable to regard these samples as representative of the two populations. Do the data provide convincing evidence that the proportion of teens that approve of cell- phone and texting bans while driving is less than the proportion of parents of teens who approve? Test the relevant hypotheses using a significance level of .05

Women diagnosed with breast cancer whose tumors have not spread may be faced with a decision between two surgical treatments - mastectomy (removal of the breast) or lumpectomy (only the tumor is removed). In a long-term study of the effectiveness of these two treatments, 701 women with breast cancer were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups. One group received mastectomies and the other group received lumpectomies and radiation. Both groups were followed for 20 years after surgery. It was reported that there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion surviving for 20 years for the two treatments (Associated Press, October 17,2002 ). What hypotheses do you think the researchers tested in order to reach the given conclusion? Did the researchers reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis?

After the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, many charitable organizations conducted fundraising campaigns to raise money for emergency relief. Some of these campaigns allowed people to donate by sending a text message using a cell phone to have the donated amount added to their cell-phone bill. The report "Early Signals on Mobile Philanthropy: Is Haiti the Tipping Point?" (Edge Research, 2010 ) describes the results of a national survey of 1526 people that investigated the ways in which people made donations to the Haiti relief effort. The report states that \(17 \%\) of Gen \(Y\) respondents (those born between 1980 and 1988 ) and \(14 \%\) of Gen \(X\) respondents (those born between 1968 and 1979 ) said that they had made a donation to the Haiti relief effort via text message. The percentage making a donation via text message was much lower for older respondents. The report did not say how many respondents were in the Gen \(\mathrm{Y}\) and Gen \(\mathrm{X}\) samples, but for purposes of this exercise, suppose that both sample sizes were 400 and that it is reasonable to regard the samples as representative of the Gen \(\mathrm{Y}\) and Gen \(\mathrm{X}\) populations. a. Is there convincing evidence that the proportion of those in Gen Y who donated to Haiti relief via text message is greater than the proportion for Gen X? Use \(\alpha=.01\). b. Estimate the difference between the proportion of Gen \(\mathrm{Y}\) and the proportion of Gen \(\mathrm{X}\) that made a donation via text message using a \(99 \%\) confidence interval. Provide an interpretation of both the interval and the associated confidence level.

The paper "If It's Hard to Read, It's Hard to Do" (Psychological Science [2008]\(: 986-988)\) described an interesting study of how people perceive the effort required to do certain tasks. Each of 20 students was randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group was given instructions for an exercise routine that were printed in an easy-to-read font (Arial). The other group received the same set of instructions, but printed in a font that is considered difficult to read (Brush). After reading the instructions, subjects estimated the time (in minutes) they thought it would take to complete the exercise routine. Summary statistics are given below. $$ \begin{array}{ccc} & \text { Easy font } & \text { Difficult font } \\ \hline n & 10 & 10 \\ \bar{x} & 8.23 & 15.10 \\ s & 5.61 & 9.28 \\ \hline \end{array} $$ The authors of the paper used these data to carry out a two-sample \(t\) test, and concluded that at the .10 significance level, there was convincing evidence that the mean estimated time to complete the exercise routine was less when the instructions were printed in an easy-to-read font than when printed in a difficult-to-read font. Discuss the appropriateness of using a two-sample \(t\) test in this situation.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free