In any experiment there is some error. This is just the nature of science. There
is always something that can go a little wrong. Murphy's Law is always in effect.
So what went wrong in this little experiment? I really don't have any exact answers
because I couldn't find any other research that had done exactly what I did. Therefore
any error analysis is purely speculative. However, here goes the little talk in what
The most probable errors came in my calculations. I realize that some of the
leaps of logic that I made might be wrong. However they could be right. I just don't
have enough information to be able to determine that. There was so little for me
to go on when I was synthesizing all of the information that I could have easily
made an assumption that was incorrect or made the information go in some way that
it really shouldn't have gone. There is more that I can say, but I reserve the right
to do so here as it isn't as likely or interesting.
The sources of error, outside of good old human faulty
logic, probably came from other types of human error. The way that the computer
presented the information made highly accurate measurements difficult, especially
when it came to looking at exactly what made up the clusters of noise that were
often found in the upper overtone areas of the poor noise experiments. Thus a perfectly
good experiment was once again possibly foiled by the inaccuracy of all of mankind.
The final piece to the puzzle is the section on conclusions. It is really
the only part that counts. So, assuming that the errors really aren't bad enough
to have destroyed the results, here are my conclusions.
Back to the Home Page
Back to the Outline