"Dennis Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At 03:11 PM 11/30/01 -0200, Ivan Balducci wrote:
> >Hi, members:
> >Please, I am hoping to get some clarification on this problem:
> >In my University, (I work in Dental School, in Brazil),
> >a dentist brought to me your data:
> >Experimental Unit:
> >cilindrical shape of Titanium pure ( 72 samples): diameter: 4mmm;
height: 5mm
> >submeted to Shear Test (Instrom)
> >......................................................
> >The Ti were to heating in furnace:
> >24 samples to 430ºC;
...
> >...........
> >12 samples (from 430ºC) received porcelain type A
> >12 samples (from 430ºC) received porcelain type B
.....
> >
> >Objectives:
> >Effect Interaction between the variables: Temperature and Porcelain
> >on Shear Data;
...
> >My question is: She made an Split-Plot design ?
> >Whole plot: Temperature
> >Split: Porcelain.
>
> looks like a simple randomized design to me ... in effect, you have
> selected 12 at random and raised to 430 AND gave porcelain type A ...
>
> and the other 5 combinations...
>
> 3 by 2 design ... fully randomized ...
>
> unless i am missing something
>
Yes, you are missing the application error that should be assigned to each
temperature treatment, which (probably) is applied to all samples
simultaneously. Because of this application error, the design is of
splitplot type; however, the variance of the main-plot error is not known
and cannot be estimated.
Jos Jansen
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
