how can the experiment equipment be improved to decrease the percent error?
84704
What equipment?\nWhat experiment?\nWhat error?
446411
Usually when  you pull a sample, you know the size of the sample you pulled.  Otherwise, how would you calculate any of the test statistics much less the margin of error?
620413
Do the experiment.  You might learn something.
1132056
Try to use a better stream capture software and hardware, then you will get a better result.
958234
maybe there is something wrong with test to had conducted that yields a wrong result.\n\ni'm not saying that your test is not correct.\n\nIt's just that it is not impossible that we commit errors in testing.\n\nremember the type I and II error in hypothesis testing.\n\n\nmaube the calculated and tabular value of your test has almost the same value.\nso it may suddenly falls under or above it.\n\n\nthat's why\ni think\nhoping it helps you
947934
The range 50 to 80 degrees is above room temperature, so you need an electric heater and a power supply.  For small lab samples, a surface mount resistor is a good choice.  If precise control is needed, mount a thermocouple as close to the sample as possible and run the output to an A/D converter linked to a computer.  A very simple computer, or micro controller will do.  I used the original Apple for the job 20 years ago.  The computer should switch the heater on at a frequency proportional to the difference between the target and actual temperature.  This will give a damped settling to the target temperature and stability to better than 0.5 C.  For better stability, include the temperature derivative in your model.
87995
There are thermocouples of different grades. A commercial grade may have several degrees of error built into it. Laboratory or scientific grade thermocouples are tested to assure a much lower variation or error.
638216
All of these may have an effect on absorbance since they all have the potential to affect the final concentration of the solutions being measured; In (a), you don'y know what might be in the wet stuff in the beaker, so your absorbance might go up.  In (b), because the pipet has not been "wetted" with your solution, you might pick up less than you thought, so your concentration might be lower and give a lower absorbance.  I'll let you figure out (c) for yourself since I can't be sure what you typed!
659445
well first, you need the actual value, then use the %error formula\n\n(actual-experimental) / actual X 100% = (just change the sign if it is negative)\n\nyou should probably use the averages of the 2 methods you used, but without the actual value, i can't get you the answer
195594
heres 1 from my university. dont know how much itll help.\n\nhttp://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/ErrorAnalysis/index.html
1084329
It depends on the cause of the inaccuracy.  There are 3 different types of errors that could create inaccuracy:  1) precision error - this is usually half of the divisions of the measuring device. For example, a stopwatch that measures to the nearest second has a precision error of +/- 0.5 seconds. A stopwatch that measures to the nearest tenth of a second has a precision error of +/- 0.05 seconds.  The precision error for the particular device will always be the same, no matter if you measure 1 second, 1 minute, 1 hour, 5 hours, or 24 hours.  2) random errors - these errors will be different each time you make a measurement. Human measuring inaccuracy usually is random. For example, the inaccuracy of starting the stopwatch and stopping the stopwatch when timing a race would be a random error. Again, these random errors will probably be about the same regardless of whether you are timing a 1 minute event, a 1 hour event, a 5 hour event, or a 24 hour event. 3) systematic errors - these are errors caused by the device or the measurement procedure, and are not random.  These errors may be either proportional to the quantity being measured, or they may be constant.  Example: an old analog spring bathroom scale that is not "zeroed" may be exactly 2 pounds off (in which case the error will not change regardless of how much weight is being measured) or the scale's spring may be calibrated wrong, in which case the error will be proportional to the weight placed on it.\n\nWithout knowing the type of error that contributes to the +/- 2.33 second inaccuracy over 24 hours, one really cannot say if the stopwatch would also be inaccurate by +/- 2.33 seconds when measuring 5 hours (for example, if it were a random error) or if the stopwatch would be inaccurate by 5/24 of +/- 2.33 seconds (for example, a systematic error that increased with the measured quantity).
556687
2) Use stop wave:\nPlace a speaker of known, variable frequency close to a micro, the micro is connected to a microamperemeter.\nPlace that in the top of a long glass tube, slowly fill the tube with water until the the microamperemeter show a maximum. Continue filling the tube with water to get the next maximum. The distance between the two consecutive maximums is half the wavelength.\nSpeed = wavelength x frequency.\nRepeat the experiment several times and get the averange. That should be close to actual value.
861788
There is no accurate way to do this because too many variables are involved. You can do like I do though and run a series of tests and then average them.\n\nhttp://www.toast.net/
1146046
Here are some Lab Apparatus \nhttp://library.advanced.org/11430/research/apparatus.htm\nhttp://www.charltonsci.co.uk/charlton_scientific_015.htm\n\nhere are all the Lab Apparatus (click on them to get info one them)\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Laboratory_equipment
299127
You need to be more specific.\n\nHowever:\nThere are secondary variables - unintentional variations other than those variable you are testing.  The way to avoid this, such as noise, is to either find a way to eliminate it or make it uniform.\n\nA large sample size will make an experiment more accurate.\n\nDouble-blind studies (one where the research assistant administering the test does not know what is being tested for and therefor cannot influence the results) are good.\n\nIn any case, I cannot really answer further unless I know more about the study.
1140853
One of the best current techniques is called Design of Experiments (DOE).  There are numerous software packages to assist in proper design and give you the results.  The design consists of determining the number of variables and the levels of each variable you want to test.  You must also decide how many samples of each variable set you want to check.  For the first experiment keep the number of variables and the number of levels of each variable to a minimum.\n\nFor example:  If you want to determine the best way bake a pizza,  you may select oven temperature, bake time, and position in the oven.  If you decided to test two levels of each of these variables ( 400 & 450 degrees, 12 & 15 minutes, lower and upper rack position). For a full experiment, you would have to bake 8 pizzas.  If you wanted to bake 2 of each combination, to gain confidence in the results, you would have to bake 16 pizzas.\n\nIf you wanted to test three levels of each variable, the number would jump to 27 pizzas and 54 pizzas, which would be vey costly.  Keep the experiment simple and use the same brand/type pizza for each combination.\n\nYou may get great results with more than one combination, that's good.  If you get the same results with many combinations, you will have to redesign your experiment to widen the levels or pick a different variable to test.\n\nHope this helps.
1083225
This is something you learn best through hands-on... but here's a couple of sites to help you. For most simple equipment like magnifying glasses or balance scales, use the package insert for details.\n\nhttp://www.ekcsk12.org/science/lelab/microscopeuselab.htm\n\nhttp://www.mdk12.org/instruction/curriculum/science/safety/safety.html