 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).

 HOME Method and Materials Hypothesis Background Essay Analytic Essay Lab Report Experiment Diagram Links Photos Animations Thanks Conclusion Enhancements Bibliography St.Mattes Deep Page