Timeline for How can I prove using data provided that resistance is inversely proportional to cross sectional area?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2015 at 19:51 | vote | accept | Tim | ||
| Sep 1, 2015 at 19:51 | |||||
| Aug 31, 2015 at 17:57 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | If you are trying to make a new relationship, then 2 is probably too small. If you're trying to confirm a relationship, 2 might be able to work. | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 17:55 | answer | added | Bill N | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 17:18 | comment | added | Tim | @KyleKanos Does that mean this isn't really solvable? Is it a question where the answer is "not enough data"? | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 17:17 | comment | added | Tim | @ThePhoton I managed to square the Diameter not the radius... Oops. | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 17:17 | comment | added | Tim | @Gert Thanks for pointing it out, I labelled them the wrong way round, and had the smaller in the column after the larger. | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 17:16 | history | edited | Tim | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 28 characters in body
|
| Aug 31, 2015 at 16:57 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | Also, basing a relationship off two data points can be dangerous. | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 16:47 | comment | added | The Photon | And how did you get the "cross section" column? If I calculate $\pi\left(d/2\right)^2$ I don't get anything like the same numbers you did. | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 16:44 | comment | added | Gert | Your plots seem to be wrong. Your horizontal axis seem to be the resistances, but with the higher value to the left and the lower to the right, so the direction of that axis is wrong. Your vertical axis (top plot) is inverse diameter, not resistance. | |
| Aug 31, 2015 at 16:27 | history | asked | Tim | CC BY-SA 3.0 |