Error

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 went wrong.

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