We constructed a dive course that simulated
getting to an underwater destination. Although our experiment
was planned to take place underwater, several difficulties
arose in the process. A problem occurred when one of the
observers had a sinus infection. Diving with a sinus infection,
could lead to further pain. Also, when we started our experiment
in the pool, we realized that underwater measurements were quite
difficult to record. This was due to the fact that objects that
acted as markers could not remain in the same position for long.
All of these problems led to the need of experimenting
elsewhere. When we realized that the experiment location needed
to be changed into a different environment, we decided to complete
the experiment on a field.
We predicted that the outcome of adding four feet
to each side of the control course would cause the path to begin
four feet before the starting point. Our hypothesis proved to
be correct, having an outcome of an average of 4.2 feet before
the starting point. The reason for this is that when adding four
feet to sides A and B , the only possible way to get back to the
starting point is to add eight feet to the remaining side (C).(see
animation) Thus when only adding four feet to side C, the
outcome would be four feet short of the starting point.
However, when experimenting with multiplying each side of
the control by two, the result was that the path ended up
an average of 4.74 feet before the starting point of the control.
These results were incorrect because our control course
contained an average 0.017 feet of error to begin w with and it
was inevitable that our results for the other variables would
consist with a small amount of error. With the multiplication
of two to each side of the control, the outcome should have been
that the altered course would have ended up at the original starting
point. The reason for this is that when one multiplies
each side by a certain number, the numbers will always reduce
back to the control numbers. The reason for this is that all sides
of the control are all being multiplied by the same number, and
therefore can be reduced by the same number. We determined that
our results were inaccurate using a computer software program
entitled MicroWorld. This software enabled us to use exact
measurements to find out whether or not our results from the field
were correct.
After calculating percentage errors, we found out that
our measurements and calculations were quite accurate. The control
experiment on the field contained small error of .43%. This was
crucial to the rest of the results because it led the variables
results to being inaccurate. For instance, when multiplying
each side by two, the results should have been that there was
no error but since the control experiment was wrong, the course
ended up four feet short of the starting point. Although
these results were incorrect, the only percentage of error for
the multiplication of two was 2.3%. Although the control
was incorrect, the only error that resulted for the addition of
four feet was 0.079%. This was another factor in proving
our hypothesis was correct.
Our findings are very much related to scuba
diving especially in the ocean or in deep water surroundings because
it can be quite useful in taking a safe path back to the boat.
Our results prove that the mathematical section of getting
to and from the boat is extremely problematical. By only
altering the course by the addition of four feet, the results
could be that one would not get back to the boat at all. Although
four feet off does not seem to be that far away, when the miscalculations
are in higher numbers, the distance from the boat is further away.
One of our last observations was that when multiplying the control
sides by any number, the route will always lead back to the starting
point (boat).















St.Mattes Deep Page 