The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
HOW CAN IDIOTS SAY THAT GCSEs ARE GETTING EASIER? DO THEY HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT WE HAVE TO DO? TO ILLUSTRATE MY POINT (AND TO BUMP UP MY WORD COUNT) I WILL POST JUST SOME OF THE WORK I'VE HAD TO DO FOR A STUPID GRADE!!!!!!
ANALYSIS
There are differences between the dynamic friction levels of the seven surfaces used. The surface used which generated the most dynamic friction was the felt surface. The surface used, which generated the least dynamic friction, was the glass surface. Below is the rank order of the seven surfaces:
Rank order Material Average value of dynamic friction
1 Felt 1.28
2 Hardboard 1.24
3 Veneer 0.95
4 Chipboard 0.83
5 Formica 0.75
6 Perspex 0.74
7 Glass 0.64
The average dynamic value for this investigation was found in this manner:
A1+A2+A3+A4+A5+A6+A7+A8+A9+A10=S (where ‘A’ represents Attempt and ‘S’ represents Sum)
S/10 (i.e. the sum of the attempts divided by the number of attempts)
For example, in the case of the glass block:
0.6+0.7+0.6+0.7+0.6+0.5+0.6+0.8+0.6+0.7=6.4
6.4/10=0.64
This gives us the mean average of dynamic friction, and was applied in each case.
In order to compare the values of dynamic friction, a ratio system should be used. This means that the highest value of dynamic friction must be used as a denominator in a fraction to show a ratio. For example:
Glass: 0.64÷1.28=0.5 which can also be written as 2:1
Ratio
Answer to equation
Average amount of Average amount of
dynamic friction dynamic friction
for glass for felt
Perspex: 0.74÷1.28=0.578125 which can be written as 64:37
Formica: 0.75÷1.28=0.5859375 which can be written as 128:75
Veneer: 0.95÷1.28=0.7421875 which can be written as 128:95
Chipboard: 0.83÷1.28=0.6484375 which can be written as 128:83
Hardboard: 1.24÷1.28=0.96875 which can written as 32:31
The ratios must be interpreted as so: the closer the ratio is to one, the lesser difference between the two surfaces is the amount of dynamic friction generated. As it can be seen, glass has the biggest difference, where the ratio is 2:1, meaning that for every surface of felt, there must be double that of glass to produce the same level of dynamic friction. Hardboard is closest in relationship to the felt surface, because there is a ratio of 32:31 between the two, meaning that for every 31 felt surfaces, there needs to be 32 hardboard surfaces to generate the same level of dynamic friction.
The results show that there are considerable differences between the dynamic friction generated by the seven surfaces. When compared to the previously made hypothesis, the theory can be used to explain the situation further. The prediction was: the rougher the surface, the greater the dynamic friction. This means that if that prediction was correct, the rank order used can also be used to show which surfaces have the most and least asperities. For example, as the felt has generated the most dynamic friction, the theory would explain that the felt has either: the most asperities; the longest; or the highest concentration of asperities, or a combination of the three. The theory would also explain that glass has the opposite qualities, such as glass having the least asperities. The theory used basically demonstrates that the greater the dynamic friction generated, the greater the amount of asperities on that surface.
The rank order of dynamic friction can now be compared and contrasted to the rank orders of roughness by sight and by touch.
Sight Touch Dynamic friction
1 Chipboard Hardboard Felt
2 Felt Felt Hardboard
3 Hardboard Formica Veneer
4 Formica Chipboard Chipboard
5 Veneer Veneer Formica
6 Perspex Glass Perspex
7 Glass Perspex Glass
This shows that there is a common feeling that felt had a large number of asperities, but not that it would generate the greatest dynamic friction. Hardboard, which actually had the second-most dynamic friction generated, was placed third and first in the other two rank orders. Veneer was never thought of as being particularly rough, but it was in this case; it was placed fifth in the first two rank orders, but it generated the third-most dynamic friction. Perspex and glass were placed at the bottom of every table, as they were relatively smoother surfaces compared to the others, and clearly had less asperities than the others.
The three rank orders do display some matches in general feeling about the surfaces, but there were only two actual matches. There is some correlation between the three tables, and so the theory can support each table, but only to a certain extent in the cases of the rank orders by sight and by touch. Therefore, the rank orders do support the general theory towards the amounts of asperities, and their concentration and height.
In order to compare the rank order of roughness by sight to the actual resultant rank order, Spearman’s Rank can be used. This is represented by the formula:
1- 6∑d2 Total of differences squared multiplied by six
n(n2-1)
Number of ranks squared
Number of ranks
In order to use this formula, a table must be constructed.
Material Average weight of dynamic friction (N) Rank A Rank B d d2
Glass 0.64 7 6 1 1
Perspex 0.74 6 7 1 1
Felt 1.28 1 1 0 0
Formica 0.75 5 3 2 4
Chipboard 0.83 4 4 0 0
Hardboard 1.24 2 2 0 0
Veneer 0.95 3 5 2 4
10
For this table, Rank A was the rank order of roughness by sight, and Rank B was the final rank order. The column labelled ‘d’ is the difference between the two ranks, and ‘d2’ is the value of ‘d’ squared. In order to use the Spearman’s rank formula, the total of the differences squared had to be found, and this was 10. This is then multiplied by six, which gives 60. The number of ranks was then taken, which is 7, and then squared as appropriate. This gives 49, but 1 is subtracted, giving 48. This is multiplied by 7, the value of ‘n’, to give 336.
1 - 6∑d2
n(n2-1)
1 – 6x10
7(49-1)
1 - 60
336
1-0.178571428=0.821428571
This shows that there is a strong positive correlation between the two rank orders, because Spearman’s Rank is evaluated on a –1 to 1 scale. The closer the figure is to 1, the stronger the correlation between the two ranks. The closer the figure is to –1, the weaker the correlation between the two ranks.
In order to judge how strong the dynamic friction is for each surface, the coefficient of dynamic friction can be calculated. This will show how strong the forces are for each surface. The scale used to evaluate the coefficient is a 0 to 1 scale. The closer to 1, the greater the dynamic friction generated by each surface. The closer the figure to 0, the lesser the dynamic friction generated by the surface.
The coefficient of dynamic friction is calculated by using the following equation:
μ = F Average Frictional Force
R Weight
This can be used for every surface. The frictional forces will be different, but the weights will all be constant, due to the additional masses added to equalize the weights, to keep the tests fair.
Glass
μ = F
R
μ = 0.64 / 340
μ = 0.001882352941
Perspex
μ = F
R
μ = 0.74 / 340
μ = 0.002176470588
Formica
μ = F
R
μ = 0.75 / 340
μ = 0.002205882353
Chipboard
μ = F
R
μ = 0.83 / 340
μ = 0.002441176471
Veneer
μ = F
R
μ = 0.95 / 340
μ = 0.002794117647
Hardboard
μ = F
R
μ = 1.24 / 340
μ = 0.003647058824
Felt
μ = F
R
μ = 1.28 / 340
μ = 0.003676470588
It can be seen that all of these coefficients are very low, therefore meaning that the dynamic friction generated by the surfaces is minimal. This can be used for industrial purposes, to show that all of the surfaces used are not appropriate surfaces for uses requiring high frictional properties.
The results correspond to those in the previous rank orders, and are the expected results, in that those surfaces with the most asperities, such as felt, generated more dynamic friction than those with fewer asperities.
EVALUATION
To adequately evaluate the investigation, anomalies must first be found and identified. In order to precisely identify any anomalies, the following formula must be used to find the percentage difference between the mean average for each surface and each individual attempt for that surface:
Attempt value – Mean average value x 100
Mean average
Any percentage over 20% will be counted as an anomaly
Glass
0.8 – 0.64 = 0.16
0.16 / 0.64 = 0.25
0.25 x 100 = 25%
This shows that this is an anomaly.
0.64 – 0.5 = 0.14
0.14 / 0.64 = 0.21875
0.21875 x 100 = 21.875%
This is also an anomaly.
0.6 = 6.25%
This is not an anomaly.
0.7 = 9.375%
This is also not an anomaly.
Perspex
0.9 = 21.622%
This is an anomaly.
0.8 = 8.1081%
This is not an anomaly.
0.7 = 5.4054%
This is not an anomaly
0.6 = 18.92%
This is not an anomaly.
Chipboard
1.1 = 32.53
This is an anomaly.
0.9 = 8.434%
This is not an anomaly.
0.8 = 3.614%
This is not an anomaly.
0.7 = 15.66%
This is not an anomaly.
Formica
0.9 = 20%
This is an anomaly.
0.8 = 6.67%
This is not an anomaly.
0.7 = 6.67%
This is not an anomaly.
0.6 = 20%
This is an anomaly.
Veneer
1.1 = 15.79%
This is not an anomaly.
1.0 = 5.26%
This is not an anomaly.
0.9 = 5.26%
This is not an anomaly.
Hardboard
1.3 = 4.84%
This is not an anomaly.
1.2 = 3.23%
This is not an anomaly.
Felt
1.4 = 9.375%
This is not an anomaly.
1.3 = 1.56
This is not an anomaly.
All anomalous results have been found. There is a pattern of there being more anomalous results for those surfaces which generated less dynamic friction than those which generated more. This could be because of the fact that the less rough surfaces are less stable, because of their lack of grip. This could have meant that the distance used to pull the blocks along, 40cm, was not long enough to establish uniform velocity for these blocks. This meant that incorrect readings may have been recorded, leading to a large amount of anomalies.
The variations between the maximum and minimum values can show how reliable the technique used was. The formula used will be similar to that used to find the anomalous results, except that the top line in the division section will be changed to: ‘Maximum value – Minimum value’.
Glass
0.8-0.5 = 0.3
0.3 / 0.64 = 0.46875
0.46875 x 100 = 46.875%
Perspex
Max. value = 0.9
Min. value = 0.6
Percentage difference = 40.54%
Formica
Max. value = 0.9
Min. value = 0.6
Percentage Difference = 40%
Chipboard
Max. value = 1.1
Min. value = 0.7
Percentage Difference = 48.19%
Veneer
Max. value = 1.1
Min. value = 0.9
Percentage Difference = 21.05%
Hardboard
Max. value = 1.3
Min. value = 1.2
Percentage Difference = 8.06%
Felt
Max. value = 1.4
Min. value = 1.2
Percentage Difference = 15.625%
As it can be seen, there are no values above 50%, which would be the uppermost limit for variation. Not all the variations are small, however, and as stated about the reliability previously, the greater the dynamic friction, the smaller the difference. In some cases, especially glass (46.875%) and chipboard (48.19%), the technique needs certain refinements to be made to it for it to be correct and reliable. The lack of asperities may have meant less stability, and so little uniform velocity. There is also the possibility that the drawing board surface was not entirely suitable, as it was too rough, and caused the smoother surfaces to be caught on some asperities, and not others, meaning that uniform velocity was a near-impossibility.
The evidence has shown that improvements should have been made to the overall technique and method used to improve reliability. There were clearly some areas where improved accuracy could have given more accurate and less anomalous results. For example, the newtonmeter used was not perfect. Although it was the most appropriate out of the three available, the results show that a newtonmeter with a scale of 0N to 2N would have given more accurate results, possibly to 2 decimal places. The newtonmeter used had a range of 0N to 5N, and so most of the range was not used, from about 1.5N to 5N. This means that only a small section of the newtonmeter was used, therefore showing that a better-ranged newtonmeter would have been more appropriate.
The newtonmeter used for the experiment also did not have the function to allow it to be zeroed for horizontal use. This meant that the newtonmeter had to be zeroed while still vertical, and then placed in a horizontal position. This could have somehow knocked the scale, and adjusted the starting position. This may have lead to inaccurate results being recorded, due to the newtonmeter not being accurately zeroed.
To improve the overall reliability of the investigation, especially in the cases of those materials which generated less dynamic friction, such as glass and perspex, a method of ensuring uniform velocity should have been used. This would have either proved or disproved the reliability of some results. The best method of ensuring uniform velocity is to use a ticker tape timer. This is a small mechanical piece of equipment, which requires that a thin, long length of tape be pulled through. The timer then dents the ticker tape, revealing a dot of carbon. By analysing the tape, it can be judged how quickly the tape was pulled, if there was uniform velocity, and if there was not, then if there was acceleration or deceleration. This could have shown any results which were not correct, and so could have ensured the reliability of the investigation further.
Other improvements could have been made to the experiment, which could have given better results, more accurate results or more results. Other changes could have been made to the experiment to enforce previous findings, by placing the blocks under different conditions. For example, in order to verify the reliability of certain results, a different lower surface could have been used, instead of just the drawing board. This could have changed the results considerably, changing the positions of some surfaces in the final rank order. If a surface with more asperities were chosen, then the surfaces with more asperities would have generated a lot more dynamic friction. Those surfaces with less asperities would have also generated more dynamic friction, but to a lesser extent.
To fully test a surfaced block, an upper surface should have been used. This could have added to the pressure on the blocks, generating more dynamic friction on each side. This would have added to the recordings taken. To ensure reliability, the two surfaces used should have been the same at first, and then two different surfaces could have been experimented with, although this would probably give inaccurate, unfair results.
As usual, there could have been more readings taken for each surface, therefore guaranteeing that the mean average was accurate. This also could have limited the impact an anomalous result would have on the mean average, because one result in just ten can change a mean average considerably.
Finally, the masses of the blocks caused constant concern during the investigation. This was the biggest obstacle in ensuring a fair test was performed. A fairly inaccurate method was used in the investigation, due to constraints on resources, whereby an estimated collection of slotted masses was placed on top of each block, according to its mass. Smaller masses could have been used, so as to actually reach the correct mass for each block. However, this would have prevented the use of an upper surface, and so the best solution would have been to actually obtain equally massed blocks at the first point.
Overall, the method used was not the very best, and it did produce some anomalous results, but it did achieve many correct results, and as the Spearman’s Rank shows, the correlation between the rank order of roughness by sight and the final rank order was strong. Improvements could have been made, but the investigation did produce the results it required.
The forms will be the most important part of the database when it has been completed, at least from the user’s point of view. Because of this, it is imperative that the forms are attractive, well designed and easy to use. In order to ensure this, I have decided to outline what the forms will look like and what buttons they have on them.
The GameGuzzler Splash Screen
The splash screen will have the following:
Ø Company logo: This will make the database look more like the property of GameGuzzler, as though it was made specifically for them, and not part of a mass-produced solution.
Ø Button link to the Games form: This adheres to the requirement needing ease of use. This button allows the user to quickly access the ‘Games’ form. This form will be detailed below.
Ø Button link to the Purchases and Rentals form: This is much the same as the ‘Games’ button, and basically allows for easy navigation to and from the main splash screen.
Ø Button link to the Games Report: This also gives easy access to the report based on the Games table. This will show all the information in an easy-to-read format.
Ø Button link to the Purchases and Rentals Report: This report will more appropriate in the format it will be presented in. This will show the sales and rentals of games from GameGuzzler, whereby further decisions can be made regarding the rentals area of business.
Ø Shutdown button: This will shut the entire database down whenever it is pressed.
The Games Form
This will have more information on it than the splash screen, as it contains all the data on the games themselves. It will include:
Ø Button links to the various consoles’ tables: These will show the data of each of the consoles when they are pressed. There will be eleven of these, one for each of the consoles for which games are sold or rented by GameGuzzler. The tables will show all the data concerning any game on that system.
Ø Button link to the splash screen: This will be included because once a suitable game has been found, more information than that given on the form may be required. This can be found on the splash screen.
Ø Button link to the Purchases and Rentals form: This is necessary because after finding a game after searching for it, whether or not it is in stock or has already been rented is crucially important. This will save time and make using the form easier and more convenient.
The Purchases and Rentals Form
This form will contain much of the business-related information required by GameGuzzler. It will include:
Ø Button link to the Purchases and Rentals table: This can be used to easily get all the information displayed at once, without the designs and background.
Ø Button link to the splash screen: This may be used in cases where an order has been cancelled and is started again with another search, or maybe something different.
Ø Button link to the Excel charts and graphs: Because there will be a selection of graphs made in Excel, a button link to them is essential. These graphs will be very useful as they will show trends in the sales and rentals divisions of GameGuzzler. After analysing them appropriately, decisions can be made concerning the areas in each division i.e. if sales for the Sega Dreamcast are dropping, a new marketing campaign could be formulated or the service could be slowly withdrawn, depending on the losses made by the sector of business. For the rental service (which will be expanded due to the database), decisions concerning the new additions can be made quickly, as this is the less important of the two services offered by GameGuzzler. The success of the added ranges can be judged, and so whether adding them was a good idea or not can be seen easily. Indications of a decline in popularity for the service concerning games that are crucial to GameGuzzler can be seen, and so adjustments to the service or the way in which it is offered or run can be made to save the money and profits.
These forms will each be critical towards the completion and operation of the database. They will give access to the tables which hold all the information necessary for the running of a company such as GameGuzzler.
There were 10 tasks set previously in order to show the effectiveness of the database. These will be carried out when it has been completed and checked. With reference to the Identification stage of the project, these were set as:
1) The database must be able to access information based on a single genre of computer game.
2) The database must be able to store information on over 50 different games.
3) The database must have an effective password system.
4) The database must be able at least two sections e.g. one for the games and one for the sales and rentals records. Another one or two would be preferable.
5) The database must provide a faster service than that used previously.
6) The database must be able to find all relevant information based on a single game character (Sonic, Mario, Crash Bandicoot etc.)
7) The database must be able to show records of at least 5 rentals of a game.
8) The database must be able to provide a quote and a score of a review for 10 games.
9) The database must be able to show the front covers of at least three games.
10) The database must have a splash screen in order to be easily navigated.
These tasks will be tested in the following ways:
1) By use of a query, the parameter code ‘Platform’ will be used. If successful, a range of titles will be found and collected by the computer, and these will appear in the form of a table.
2) By viewing the number of records in the database, the task will be successful if more than 50 games have been entered.
3) By using the password system which will be established for the database, and then testing someone who has no knowledge of the password.
4) By viewing the options on the splash screen, the number of sections will be apparent.
5) In order to find out if the database is faster than the previously used method, a short test will be used. In this test, a subject will be chosen at random. Whichever method can find the most relevant games in the shortest time will be declared the faster.
6) Again, a query can be used. The parameter code of ‘Sonic the Hedgehog’ will be entered, and will be judged as being successful if a relevant set of results is found.
7) By viewing the report based on Sales and Rentals, as long as there are more than 5 records of sales, the task will have been successfully completed.
8) This information will be included in the Games table, and it will be viewable via a number of different methods e.g. opening the Games table, or by searching for it by using a query.
9) These will be found on the Games form, and so by browsing the records in the form, if there are at least 3 front covers, the task will have been completed.
10) By viewing the options in the ‘Form’ category on the front screen, if there is a splash screen, the task will have been completed.
If all the tasks are successfully completed, the database will have been fully completed.
Macros
These will be necessary for the forms and the splash screen. These will be in much the same format, but there will be crucial differences. These will be the different types, each with codename:
A. This will shut the splash screen and the forms down. These will be used on the splash screen, the Games form and the Sales and Rentals form.
Created by: selecting the option ‘Quit’ in the Macro Creator and then selecting ‘Prompt’ in the Action Arguments.
B. This will open the Games form, and will be used in the splash screen and the Sales and Rentals form.
Created by: selecting the option ‘OpenForm’ in the Macro Creator and then entering ‘Games’ in the Form section of the Action Arguments.
C. This will open the Sales and Rentals form, and will be used in the Games form and the splash screen.
Created by: selecting the option ‘OpenForm’ in the Macro Creator and then entering ‘Sales and Rentals’ in the Form section of the Action Arguments.
D. This will open the splash screen, and will be used in the Games and Sales and Rentals forms.
Created by: selecting the option ‘OpenForm’ in the Macro Creator and then entering ‘Splash Screen’ in the Form section of the Action Arguments.
E. These will link the queries to the forms and the splash screen.
Created by: selecting the option ‘OpenQuery’ in the Macro Creator and then entering the appropriate names of each query in each macro in the Query Name section of the Action Arguments.
F. These will open the reports.
Created by: selecting the option ‘OpenReport’ in the Macro Creator and then entering the appropriate names (either ‘Games’ or ‘Sales and Rentals’) in the Report Name section of the Action Arguments. Also in Action Arguments, the option of ‘Print Preview’ will be taken in the View section.
G. These will open the tables containing the data and information. These will be used in the two forms.
Created by: selecting the option ‘OpenTable’ in the Macro Creator and then entering the name of the table in the Table Name section of the Action Arguments.
Tables
These will contain all the necessary information, so they are the foundation of the entire database. It is essential that all the information entered in these tables is correct and that there is enough to satisfy the tasks laid out.
Games
This table will have all the details about the games for sale or available to rent in the GameGuzzler shop. The main headings will be:
Ø Game code: The code of the game, for quick access.
Ø Title: The title of the game.
Ø System/Console: The console the game was made for.
Ø Genre: The type of game.
Ø Developer: The company who made the game.
Ø Publisher: The company who released the game.
Ø Price: The price to be paid for the game.
Ø Players: The number of players for the game.
Ø Internet multiplayer: The possibility of Internet multiplayer.
Ø Number of Internet players: The number of Internet players.
Ø Special notes: Any additional information.
These field names will be entered into the Design View section, and will be modified, to produce this:
Field Name Data Type Description
Game code Number
Title Text Name of the game
System/Console Text Console the game was released for
Genre Text Type of game
Developer Text Name of the game's developer
Publisher Text Name of the game's publisher
Price Currency Price of the game
Players Number Amount of players who can play simultaneously
Internet multiplayer Yes/No Question asking if there is an option of Internet multiplayer
Number of Internet players Number Number of possible Internet players
Special notes Text Area for special notes about the game
Purchases and Rentals
This table will show the total number of purchases and rentals made by the company. The main headings will be:
Ø Game title: The name of the game.
Ø Console?: The console for which the game was bought/rented.
Ø Purchase or Rental?: Whether the transaction was a purchase or a rental.
Ø Made by: Who the transaction was made by.
Ø Member?: Was the purchaser a member or not?
Ø Membership number: The membership number of the member (if applicable).
Ø Transaction made on: The date the game was bought/rented.
Ø Transaction to be concluded: The date the rental ends.
Ø Price: The total money made from the transaction.
Ø Membership points earned: The total membership points earned from the transaction (if applicable).
These fields will be filled in and the information will be used to create the ‘Purchases and Rentals’ form. The Design View will become this:
Field Name Data Type Description
Game title Text Name of the game bought/rented
Console? Text Console for the game
Purchase or rental? Text Whether the transaction was a purchase or a rental
Made by Text Who the transaction made by?
Member? Yes/No Question asking if the purchaser was a member
Membership number Text The membership number if any
Transaction made on Date/Time The date the transaction was made on
Transaction to be concluded Date/Time The date the rental is due to end
Price Text Price of the transaction
Membership points earned Number Amount of membership points earned from the transaction
Console Details
This table will carry all the necessary information concerning the consoles either on sale, or with games on sale for them in the shop. The main headings will be:
Ø Console name: The name of the console in question.
Ø Developed by: The name of the company which made the console.
Ø Released: The year that the console was first put on sale.
Ø Available?: Is the console available in the shop?
Ø Price: The price of the console.
The table will not carry a very large amount of data, but it is still of vital importance. The Design View of the ‘Console Details’ table will have this appearance:
Field Name Data Type Description
Console name Text Name of the console
Developed by Text Name of the developer
Released Number Year the console was released
Available? Yes/No Question asking whether the console is available
Price Currency Price of the console
Peripheral Details
This table will carry all the information about every peripheral in stock. The main feature about this table will be the fact that there will be a picture of each peripheral on each respective record. The field names will be:
Ø Peripheral type: The type of peripheral, for example steering wheel, light gun etc.
Ø Peripheral name: The full name of the peripheral.
Ø Console(s): The console(s) for which the peripheral was made.
Ø Manufacturer: The company which made the peripheral.
Ø Price: The price of the peripheral.
Ø Additional features: Any extra properties of the peripheral.
Ø Endorsed by console manufacturer: If the peripheral is endorsed by the makers of the console.
Ø Picture: An illustration of the peripheral.
The Design View will have the fields created so that the following view is made:
Field Name Data Type Description
Peripheral type Text Type of peripheral
Peripheral name Text Name of the peripheral
Console(s) Text Console(s) upon which the peripheral has been released
Manufacturer Text Manufacturer of the peripheral
Price Currency Price of the peripheral
Party? Text First or third party?
Additional features Text Area for noting any extra features
Endorsed by console manufacturer? Yes/No Question asking if the peripheral is endorsed by the console manufacturer
Picture OLE Object A picture of the peripheral
Members’ Profiles
This table will carry the most sensitive information in the entire database – personal information about the members of GameGuzzler. This table will carry a large amount of data, and it will fall under these field names:
Ø Member name: The full name of the member.
Ø Membership number: The membership number of the member concerned.
Ø Date of birth: The member’s date of birth.
Ø Address: The address of the member.
Ø Postcode: The previous address’ postcode.
Ø Telephone number: The telephone number of the member.
Ø E-mail address: The member’s e-mail address.
Ø Number of previous purchases: The total amount of purchases ever made by the member.
Ø Number of previous rentals: The total amount of rentals ever made by the member.
Ø Amount of money spent: The total amount of money ever spent by said member.
Ø Number of membership points: The number of membership points the member has earned in total.
Ø On mailing order?: Is the member on the company’s mailing order?
The Design View, when all the field names have been implemented, will resemble this:
Field Name Data Type Description
Member name Text Name of the member
Membership number Text Member's membership number
Date of birth Date/Time Date of birth of the member
Address Text Address of the member
Postcode Text Postcode of the address
Telephone number Text Member's telephone number
E-mail address Text Member's e-mail addres
Number of previous purchases Number Number of member's previously-made purchases
Number of previous rentals Number Number of member's previously-made rentals
Amount of money spent Currency Total amount of money spent at GameGuzzler
Number of membership points Number Total amount of membership points earned at GameGuzzler
On mailing order? Yes/No Question asking if the member is on the mailing order
Special offers details
This table will have to have many field headings, because of the many different options open to GameGuzzler. There will have to be approximately 16 field headings to account for all the information included in the table. These will be:
Ø Special offer code: The code of the special offer, for easy access.
Ø Special offer name: This is the name of the special offer.
Ø Price: The price of the entire deal package.
Ø Console: The name of the console for which the deal’s components are made.
Ø Date begins: The date upon which the deal runs from.
Ø Date ends: The date upon which the deal runs until.
Ø Game 1: The first game included in the deal.
Ø Game 2: The second game included in the deal.
Ø Game 3: The third game included in the deal.
Ø Game 4: The fourth game included in the deal.
Ø Controller 1: The first controller included in the deal.
Ø Controller 2: The second controller included in the deal.
Ø Memory card?: Is a memory card included in the deal?
Ø Guides?: Are there any guides included in the deal?
Ø Others: Any additional products included.
Ø Free products?: Are there are completely free products included in the deal?
The Design View will, therefore, have to adopt this appearance:
Field Name Data Type Description
Special offer code Text
Special offer name Text Name of the special offer
Price Currency Price of the overall special offer
Console Text Console for which the offer is aimed at
Date begins Date/Time Date upon which the offer begins/began
Date ends Date/Time Date upon which the offer ends/ended
Game 1 Text Name of the first game
Game 2 Text Name of the second game
Game 3 Text Name of the third game
Game 4 Text Name of the fourth game
Controller 1 Text Name of the first controller/peripheral
Controller 2 Text Name of the second controller/peripheral
Memory card? Yes/No Question asking if a memory card is included
Guides? Yes/No Question asking if a guide is included
Others Text Area for extra products in the deal
Free products? Text Area to note any free products included in the deal
These sections will be used together to construct the database. Once that database is constructed, reports can be made for each section. This will display all the necessary information in a print-out format, so that the data does not have to be restricted to one place, allowing it to be transferred to other areas. The report will take on a very much similar design to the forms, except without any motifs etc.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The results show that as the concentration of potassium persulphate increases, the rate of reaction also increases with it. The attached graph displays the results in graphical form and shows the pattern more clearly than the table, allowing for more conclusions to be drawn and other information to be extracted. Below is a small representation, displaying the pattern.
It is shown on the graph that the pattern shown supports the initial hypothesis that as the concentration level of the potassium persulphate rises, the rate of reaction increases. It is clear that the increases in rate of reaction are not directly proportional, as the difference between adding 1ml of persulphate and 2ml of persulphate is so great. The differences become less and less great as more persulphate is added, and the last five results have almost equal differences.
The graph displays what is widely believed to happen at a molecular level during such an experiment. In the case of adding 1ml of potassium persulphate to 10ml of sodium iodide, there was a reaction, but as there were so few persulphate particles in relation to the amount of iodide particles that the reaction took a long time to fully occur. The reaction took 1:10.06 minutes to begin. By having 2ml of persulphate, the reaction time is more than halved, where the reaction began after just 25.06 seconds; a difference of 45 seconds. This is because the amount of persulphate particles was doubled, allowing for a much faster reaction due to the increased number of collisions occurring in a shorter length of time. However, this pattern does not continue, and this is illustrated by the difference between the reaction times for 8 and 9ml of persulphate being added. When 8ml of persulphate are added, the reaction time is 5.89 seconds, but when 9ml are added, the reaction is only slightly shorter, being 4.99 seconds; this is a difference of only 0.9 of a second. The differences from this point are minimal, because although the number of particles is increased each time by the same amount, the increase in relation to the total of particles was not as great. This is explained as so: when 2ml of persulphate are added initially, an extra millilitre means a 50% increase. However, when 9ml of persulphate are added, an extra millilitre only means an increase of 11%, considerably less, accounting for the decrease in differences. On a molecular level, the early increases make much more of an impact on the overall reaction times because the extra molecules add to a smaller number of initial molecules, therefore dramatically increasing the number of collisions and making the reaction clearly a lot faster than it was before. When single millilitres are added to 8 or 9ml of persulphate, the number of particles already present is great, so adding 1ml’s worth will not affect the collision rate so considerably, therefore leading to a smaller difference in time.
RATES OF REACTION
The above graph is a representation of the attached graph illustrating the rates of reaction in relation to the increasing concentration levels. Although the results themselves do not form a perfect line, a line of best fit has been added, to enable more information to be extracted and conclusions to be made.
The line of best fit can be used to say that the changes in rate of reaction are directly proportional to one another, as the line passes through the origin of the graph. The rates of reaction increase because of the levels of concentration rise, providing more persulphate particles to collide with the sodium iodide particles. The line also shows the fact that for every millilitre of potassium persulphate added to 10ml of sodium iodide, the rate of reaction increases by 0.02 seconds. This can be interpreted by stating that if 2ml are added, the rate of reaction increases by 0.04 seconds and so on.
This evidence strongly supports the original claim that as the concentration level of the potassium persulphate rises, the rate of reaction increases.
ANALYSIS
There are differences between the dynamic friction levels of the seven surfaces used. The surface used which generated the most dynamic friction was the felt surface. The surface used, which generated the least dynamic friction, was the glass surface. Below is the rank order of the seven surfaces:
Rank order Material Average value of dynamic friction
1 Felt 1.28
2 Hardboard 1.24
3 Veneer 0.95
4 Chipboard 0.83
5 Formica 0.75
6 Perspex 0.74
7 Glass 0.64
The average dynamic value for this investigation was found in this manner:
A1+A2+A3+A4+A5+A6+A7+A8+A9+A10=S (where ‘A’ represents Attempt and ‘S’ represents Sum)
S/10 (i.e. the sum of the attempts divided by the number of attempts)
For example, in the case of the glass block:
0.6+0.7+0.6+0.7+0.6+0.5+0.6+0.8+0.6+0.7=6.4
6.4/10=0.64
This gives us the mean average of dynamic friction, and was applied in each case.
In order to compare the values of dynamic friction, a ratio system should be used. This means that the highest value of dynamic friction must be used as a denominator in a fraction to show a ratio. For example:
Glass: 0.64÷1.28=0.5 which can also be written as 2:1
Ratio
Answer to equation
Average amount of Average amount of
dynamic friction dynamic friction
for glass for felt
Perspex: 0.74÷1.28=0.578125 which can be written as 64:37
Formica: 0.75÷1.28=0.5859375 which can be written as 128:75
Veneer: 0.95÷1.28=0.7421875 which can be written as 128:95
Chipboard: 0.83÷1.28=0.6484375 which can be written as 128:83
Hardboard: 1.24÷1.28=0.96875 which can written as 32:31
The ratios must be interpreted as so: the closer the ratio is to one, the lesser difference between the two surfaces is the amount of dynamic friction generated. As it can be seen, glass has the biggest difference, where the ratio is 2:1, meaning that for every surface of felt, there must be double that of glass to produce the same level of dynamic friction. Hardboard is closest in relationship to the felt surface, because there is a ratio of 32:31 between the two, meaning that for every 31 felt surfaces, there needs to be 32 hardboard surfaces to generate the same level of dynamic friction.
The results show that there are considerable differences between the dynamic friction generated by the seven surfaces. When compared to the previously made hypothesis, the theory can be used to explain the situation further. The prediction was: the rougher the surface, the greater the dynamic friction. This means that if that prediction was correct, the rank order used can also be used to show which surfaces have the most and least asperities. For example, as the felt has generated the most dynamic friction, the theory would explain that the felt has either: the most asperities; the longest; or the highest concentration of asperities, or a combination of the three. The theory would also explain that glass has the opposite qualities, such as glass having the least asperities. The theory used basically demonstrates that the greater the dynamic friction generated, the greater the amount of asperities on that surface.
The rank order of dynamic friction can now be compared and contrasted to the rank orders of roughness by sight and by touch.
Sight Touch Dynamic friction
1 Chipboard Hardboard Felt
2 Felt Felt Hardboard
3 Hardboard Formica Veneer
4 Formica Chipboard Chipboard
5 Veneer Veneer Formica
6 Perspex Glass Perspex
7 Glass Perspex Glass
This shows that there is a common feeling that felt had a large number of asperities, but not that it would generate the greatest dynamic friction. Hardboard, which actually had the second-most dynamic friction generated, was placed third and first in the other two rank orders. Veneer was never thought of as being particularly rough, but it was in this case; it was placed fifth in the first two rank orders, but it generated the third-most dynamic friction. Perspex and glass were placed at the bottom of every table, as they were relatively smoother surfaces compared to the others, and clearly had less asperities than the others.
The three rank orders do display some matches in general feeling about the surfaces, but there were only two actual matches. There is some correlation between the three tables, and so the theory can support each table, but only to a certain extent in the cases of the rank orders by sight and by touch. Therefore, the rank orders do support the general theory towards the amounts of asperities, and their concentration and height.
In order to compare the rank order of roughness by sight to the actual resultant rank order, Spearman’s Rank can be used. This is represented by the formula:
1- 6∑d2 Total of differences squared multiplied by six
n(n2-1)
Number of ranks squared
Number of ranks
In order to use this formula, a table must be constructed.
Material Average weight of dynamic friction (N) Rank A Rank B d d2
Glass 0.64 7 6 1 1
Perspex 0.74 6 7 1 1
Felt 1.28 1 1 0 0
Formica 0.75 5 3 2 4
Chipboard 0.83 4 4 0 0
Hardboard 1.24 2 2 0 0
Veneer 0.95 3 5 2 4
10
For this table, Rank A was the rank order of roughness by sight, and Rank B was the final rank order. The column labelled ‘d’ is the difference between the two ranks, and ‘d2’ is the value of ‘d’ squared. In order to use the Spearman’s rank formula, the total of the differences squared had to be found, and this was 10. This is then multiplied by six, which gives 60. The number of ranks was then taken, which is 7, and then squared as appropriate. This gives 49, but 1 is subtracted, giving 48. This is multiplied by 7, the value of ‘n’, to give 336.
1 - 6∑d2
n(n2-1)
1 – 6x10
7(49-1)
1 - 60
336
1-0.178571428=0.821428571
This shows that there is a strong positive correlation between the two rank orders, because Spearman’s Rank is evaluated on a –1 to 1 scale. The closer the figure is to 1, the stronger the correlation between the two ranks. The closer the figure is to –1, the weaker the correlation between the two ranks.
In order to judge how strong the dynamic friction is for each surface, the coefficient of dynamic friction can be calculated. This will show how strong the forces are for each surface. The scale used to evaluate the coefficient is a 0 to 1 scale. The closer to 1, the greater the dynamic friction generated by each surface. The closer the figure to 0, the lesser the dynamic friction generated by the surface.
The coefficient of dynamic friction is calculated by using the following equation:
μ = F Average Frictional Force
R Weight
This can be used for every surface. The frictional forces will be different, but the weights will all be constant, due to the additional masses added to equalize the weights, to keep the tests fair.
Glass
μ = F
R
μ = 0.64 / 340
μ = 0.001882352941
Perspex
μ = F
R
μ = 0.74 / 340
μ = 0.002176470588
Formica
μ = F
R
μ = 0.75 / 340
μ = 0.002205882353
Chipboard
μ = F
R
μ = 0.83 / 340
μ = 0.002441176471
Veneer
μ = F
R
μ = 0.95 / 340
μ = 0.002794117647
Hardboard
μ = F
R
μ = 1.24 / 340
μ = 0.003647058824
Felt
μ = F
R
μ = 1.28 / 340
μ = 0.003676470588
It can be seen that all of these coefficients are very low, therefore meaning that the dynamic friction generated by the surfaces is minimal. This can be used for industrial purposes, to show that all of the surfaces used are not appropriate surfaces for uses requiring high frictional properties.
The results correspond to those in the previous rank orders, and are the expected results, in that those surfaces with the most asperities, such as felt, generated more dynamic friction than those with fewer asperities.
EVALUATION
To adequately evaluate the investigation, anomalies must first be found and identified. In order to precisely identify any anomalies, the following formula must be used to find the percentage difference between the mean average for each surface and each individual attempt for that surface:
Attempt value – Mean average value x 100
Mean average
Any percentage over 20% will be counted as an anomaly
Glass
0.8 – 0.64 = 0.16
0.16 / 0.64 = 0.25
0.25 x 100 = 25%
This shows that this is an anomaly.
0.64 – 0.5 = 0.14
0.14 / 0.64 = 0.21875
0.21875 x 100 = 21.875%
This is also an anomaly.
0.6 = 6.25%
This is not an anomaly.
0.7 = 9.375%
This is also not an anomaly.
Perspex
0.9 = 21.622%
This is an anomaly.
0.8 = 8.1081%
This is not an anomaly.
0.7 = 5.4054%
This is not an anomaly
0.6 = 18.92%
This is not an anomaly.
Chipboard
1.1 = 32.53
This is an anomaly.
0.9 = 8.434%
This is not an anomaly.
0.8 = 3.614%
This is not an anomaly.
0.7 = 15.66%
This is not an anomaly.
Formica
0.9 = 20%
This is an anomaly.
0.8 = 6.67%
This is not an anomaly.
0.7 = 6.67%
This is not an anomaly.
0.6 = 20%
This is an anomaly.
Veneer
1.1 = 15.79%
This is not an anomaly.
1.0 = 5.26%
This is not an anomaly.
0.9 = 5.26%
This is not an anomaly.
Hardboard
1.3 = 4.84%
This is not an anomaly.
1.2 = 3.23%
This is not an anomaly.
Felt
1.4 = 9.375%
This is not an anomaly.
1.3 = 1.56
This is not an anomaly.
All anomalous results have been found. There is a pattern of there being more anomalous results for those surfaces which generated less dynamic friction than those which generated more. This could be because of the fact that the less rough surfaces are less stable, because of their lack of grip. This could have meant that the distance used to pull the blocks along, 40cm, was not long enough to establish uniform velocity for these blocks. This meant that incorrect readings may have been recorded, leading to a large amount of anomalies.
The variations between the maximum and minimum values can show how reliable the technique used was. The formula used will be similar to that used to find the anomalous results, except that the top line in the division section will be changed to: ‘Maximum value – Minimum value’.
Glass
0.8-0.5 = 0.3
0.3 / 0.64 = 0.46875
0.46875 x 100 = 46.875%
Perspex
Max. value = 0.9
Min. value = 0.6
Percentage difference = 40.54%
Formica
Max. value = 0.9
Min. value = 0.6
Percentage Difference = 40%
Chipboard
Max. value = 1.1
Min. value = 0.7
Percentage Difference = 48.19%
Veneer
Max. value = 1.1
Min. value = 0.9
Percentage Difference = 21.05%
Hardboard
Max. value = 1.3
Min. value = 1.2
Percentage Difference = 8.06%
Felt
Max. value = 1.4
Min. value = 1.2
Percentage Difference = 15.625%
As it can be seen, there are no values above 50%, which would be the uppermost limit for variation. Not all the variations are small, however, and as stated about the reliability previously, the greater the dynamic friction, the smaller the difference. In some cases, especially glass (46.875%) and chipboard (48.19%), the technique needs certain refinements to be made to it for it to be correct and reliable. The lack of asperities may have meant less stability, and so little uniform velocity. There is also the possibility that the drawing board surface was not entirely suitable, as it was too rough, and caused the smoother surfaces to be caught on some asperities, and not others, meaning that uniform velocity was a near-impossibility.
The evidence has shown that improvements should have been made to the overall technique and method used to improve reliability. There were clearly some areas where improved accuracy could have given more accurate and less anomalous results. For example, the newtonmeter used was not perfect. Although it was the most appropriate out of the three available, the results show that a newtonmeter with a scale of 0N to 2N would have given more accurate results, possibly to 2 decimal places. The newtonmeter used had a range of 0N to 5N, and so most of the range was not used, from about 1.5N to 5N. This means that only a small section of the newtonmeter was used, therefore showing that a better-ranged newtonmeter would have been more appropriate.
The newtonmeter used for the experiment also did not have the function to allow it to be zeroed for horizontal use. This meant that the newtonmeter had to be zeroed while still vertical, and then placed in a horizontal position. This could have somehow knocked the scale, and adjusted the starting position. This may have lead to inaccurate results being recorded, due to the newtonmeter not being accurately zeroed.
To improve the overall reliability of the investigation, especially in the cases of those materials which generated less dynamic friction, such as glass and perspex, a method of ensuring uniform velocity should have been used. This would have either proved or disproved the reliability of some results. The best method of ensuring uniform velocity is to use a ticker tape timer. This is a small mechanical piece of equipment, which requires that a thin, long length of tape be pulled through. The timer then dents the ticker tape, revealing a dot of carbon. By analysing the tape, it can be judged how quickly the tape was pulled, if there was uniform velocity, and if there was not, then if there was acceleration or deceleration. This could have shown any results which were not correct, and so could have ensured the reliability of the investigation further.
Other improvements could have been made to the experiment, which could have given better results, more accurate results or more results. Other changes could have been made to the experiment to enforce previous findings, by placing the blocks under different conditions. For example, in order to verify the reliability of certain results, a different lower surface could have been used, instead of just the drawing board. This could have changed the results considerably, changing the positions of some surfaces in the final rank order. If a surface with more asperities were chosen, then the surfaces with more asperities would have generated a lot more dynamic friction. Those surfaces with less asperities would have also generated more dynamic friction, but to a lesser extent.
To fully test a surfaced block, an upper surface should have been used. This could have added to the pressure on the blocks, generating more dynamic friction on each side. This would have added to the recordings taken. To ensure reliability, the two surfaces used should have been the same at first, and then two different surfaces could have been experimented with, although this would probably give inaccurate, unfair results.
As usual, there could have been more readings taken for each surface, therefore guaranteeing that the mean average was accurate. This also could have limited the impact an anomalous result would have on the mean average, because one result in just ten can change a mean average considerably.
Finally, the masses of the blocks caused constant concern during the investigation. This was the biggest obstacle in ensuring a fair test was performed. A fairly inaccurate method was used in the investigation, due to constraints on resources, whereby an estimated collection of slotted masses was placed on top of each block, according to its mass. Smaller masses could have been used, so as to actually reach the correct mass for each block. However, this would have prevented the use of an upper surface, and so the best solution would have been to actually obtain equally massed blocks at the first point.
Overall, the method used was not the very best, and it did produce some anomalous results, but it did achieve many correct results, and as the Spearman’s Rank shows, the correlation between the rank order of roughness by sight and the final rank order was strong. Improvements could have been made, but the investigation did produce the results it required.
The forms will be the most important part of the database when it has been completed, at least from the user’s point of view. Because of this, it is imperative that the forms are attractive, well designed and easy to use. In order to ensure this, I have decided to outline what the forms will look like and what buttons they have on them.
The GameGuzzler Splash Screen
The splash screen will have the following:
Ø Company logo: This will make the database look more like the property of GameGuzzler, as though it was made specifically for them, and not part of a mass-produced solution.
Ø Button link to the Games form: This adheres to the requirement needing ease of use. This button allows the user to quickly access the ‘Games’ form. This form will be detailed below.
Ø Button link to the Purchases and Rentals form: This is much the same as the ‘Games’ button, and basically allows for easy navigation to and from the main splash screen.
Ø Button link to the Games Report: This also gives easy access to the report based on the Games table. This will show all the information in an easy-to-read format.
Ø Button link to the Purchases and Rentals Report: This report will more appropriate in the format it will be presented in. This will show the sales and rentals of games from GameGuzzler, whereby further decisions can be made regarding the rentals area of business.
Ø Shutdown button: This will shut the entire database down whenever it is pressed.
The Games Form
This will have more information on it than the splash screen, as it contains all the data on the games themselves. It will include:
Ø Button links to the various consoles’ tables: These will show the data of each of the consoles when they are pressed. There will be eleven of these, one for each of the consoles for which games are sold or rented by GameGuzzler. The tables will show all the data concerning any game on that system.
Ø Button link to the splash screen: This will be included because once a suitable game has been found, more information than that given on the form may be required. This can be found on the splash screen.
Ø Button link to the Purchases and Rentals form: This is necessary because after finding a game after searching for it, whether or not it is in stock or has already been rented is crucially important. This will save time and make using the form easier and more convenient.
The Purchases and Rentals Form
This form will contain much of the business-related information required by GameGuzzler. It will include:
Ø Button link to the Purchases and Rentals table: This can be used to easily get all the information displayed at once, without the designs and background.
Ø Button link to the splash screen: This may be used in cases where an order has been cancelled and is started again with another search, or maybe something different.
Ø Button link to the Excel charts and graphs: Because there will be a selection of graphs made in Excel, a button link to them is essential. These graphs will be very useful as they will show trends in the sales and rentals divisions of GameGuzzler. After analysing them appropriately, decisions can be made concerning the areas in each division i.e. if sales for the Sega Dreamcast are dropping, a new marketing campaign could be formulated or the service could be slowly withdrawn, depending on the losses made by the sector of business. For the rental service (which will be expanded due to the database), decisions concerning the new additions can be made quickly, as this is the less important of the two services offered by GameGuzzler. The success of the added ranges can be judged, and so whether adding them was a good idea or not can be seen easily. Indications of a decline in popularity for the service concerning games that are crucial to GameGuzzler can be seen, and so adjustments to the service or the way in which it is offered or run can be made to save the money and profits.
These forms will each be critical towards the completion and operation of the database. They will give access to the tables which hold all the information necessary for the running of a company such as GameGuzzler.
There were 10 tasks set previously in order to show the effectiveness of the database. These will be carried out when it has been completed and checked. With reference to the Identification stage of the project, these were set as:
1) The database must be able to access information based on a single genre of computer game.
2) The database must be able to store information on over 50 different games.
3) The database must have an effective password system.
4) The database must be able at least two sections e.g. one for the games and one for the sales and rentals records. Another one or two would be preferable.
5) The database must provide a faster service than that used previously.
6) The database must be able to find all relevant information based on a single game character (Sonic, Mario, Crash Bandicoot etc.)
7) The database must be able to show records of at least 5 rentals of a game.
8) The database must be able to provide a quote and a score of a review for 10 games.
9) The database must be able to show the front covers of at least three games.
10) The database must have a splash screen in order to be easily navigated.
These tasks will be tested in the following ways:
1) By use of a query, the parameter code ‘Platform’ will be used. If successful, a range of titles will be found and collected by the computer, and these will appear in the form of a table.
2) By viewing the number of records in the database, the task will be successful if more than 50 games have been entered.
3) By using the password system which will be established for the database, and then testing someone who has no knowledge of the password.
4) By viewing the options on the splash screen, the number of sections will be apparent.
5) In order to find out if the database is faster than the previously used method, a short test will be used. In this test, a subject will be chosen at random. Whichever method can find the most relevant games in the shortest time will be declared the faster.
6) Again, a query can be used. The parameter code of ‘Sonic the Hedgehog’ will be entered, and will be judged as being successful if a relevant set of results is found.
7) By viewing the report based on Sales and Rentals, as long as there are more than 5 records of sales, the task will have been successfully completed.
8) This information will be included in the Games table, and it will be viewable via a number of different methods e.g. opening the Games table, or by searching for it by using a query.
9) These will be found on the Games form, and so by browsing the records in the form, if there are at least 3 front covers, the task will have been completed.
10) By viewing the options in the ‘Form’ category on the front screen, if there is a splash screen, the task will have been completed.
If all the tasks are successfully completed, the database will have been fully completed.
Macros
These will be necessary for the forms and the splash screen. These will be in much the same format, but there will be crucial differences. These will be the different types, each with codename:
A. This will shut the splash screen and the forms down. These will be used on the splash screen, the Games form and the Sales and Rentals form.
Created by: selecting the option ‘Quit’ in the Macro Creator and then selecting ‘Prompt’ in the Action Arguments.
B. This will open the Games form, and will be used in the splash screen and the Sales and Rentals form.
Created by: selecting the option ‘OpenForm’ in the Macro Creator and then entering ‘Games’ in the Form section of the Action Arguments.
C. This will open the Sales and Rentals form, and will be used in the Games form and the splash screen.
Created by: selecting the option ‘OpenForm’ in the Macro Creator and then entering ‘Sales and Rentals’ in the Form section of the Action Arguments.
D. This will open the splash screen, and will be used in the Games and Sales and Rentals forms.
Created by: selecting the option ‘OpenForm’ in the Macro Creator and then entering ‘Splash Screen’ in the Form section of the Action Arguments.
E. These will link the queries to the forms and the splash screen.
Created by: selecting the option ‘OpenQuery’ in the Macro Creator and then entering the appropriate names of each query in each macro in the Query Name section of the Action Arguments.
F. These will open the reports.
Created by: selecting the option ‘OpenReport’ in the Macro Creator and then entering the appropriate names (either ‘Games’ or ‘Sales and Rentals’) in the Report Name section of the Action Arguments. Also in Action Arguments, the option of ‘Print Preview’ will be taken in the View section.
G. These will open the tables containing the data and information. These will be used in the two forms.
Created by: selecting the option ‘OpenTable’ in the Macro Creator and then entering the name of the table in the Table Name section of the Action Arguments.
Tables
These will contain all the necessary information, so they are the foundation of the entire database. It is essential that all the information entered in these tables is correct and that there is enough to satisfy the tasks laid out.
Games
This table will have all the details about the games for sale or available to rent in the GameGuzzler shop. The main headings will be:
Ø Game code: The code of the game, for quick access.
Ø Title: The title of the game.
Ø System/Console: The console the game was made for.
Ø Genre: The type of game.
Ø Developer: The company who made the game.
Ø Publisher: The company who released the game.
Ø Price: The price to be paid for the game.
Ø Players: The number of players for the game.
Ø Internet multiplayer: The possibility of Internet multiplayer.
Ø Number of Internet players: The number of Internet players.
Ø Special notes: Any additional information.
These field names will be entered into the Design View section, and will be modified, to produce this:
Field Name Data Type Description
Game code Number
Title Text Name of the game
System/Console Text Console the game was released for
Genre Text Type of game
Developer Text Name of the game's developer
Publisher Text Name of the game's publisher
Price Currency Price of the game
Players Number Amount of players who can play simultaneously
Internet multiplayer Yes/No Question asking if there is an option of Internet multiplayer
Number of Internet players Number Number of possible Internet players
Special notes Text Area for special notes about the game
Purchases and Rentals
This table will show the total number of purchases and rentals made by the company. The main headings will be:
Ø Game title: The name of the game.
Ø Console?: The console for which the game was bought/rented.
Ø Purchase or Rental?: Whether the transaction was a purchase or a rental.
Ø Made by: Who the transaction was made by.
Ø Member?: Was the purchaser a member or not?
Ø Membership number: The membership number of the member (if applicable).
Ø Transaction made on: The date the game was bought/rented.
Ø Transaction to be concluded: The date the rental ends.
Ø Price: The total money made from the transaction.
Ø Membership points earned: The total membership points earned from the transaction (if applicable).
These fields will be filled in and the information will be used to create the ‘Purchases and Rentals’ form. The Design View will become this:
Field Name Data Type Description
Game title Text Name of the game bought/rented
Console? Text Console for the game
Purchase or rental? Text Whether the transaction was a purchase or a rental
Made by Text Who the transaction made by?
Member? Yes/No Question asking if the purchaser was a member
Membership number Text The membership number if any
Transaction made on Date/Time The date the transaction was made on
Transaction to be concluded Date/Time The date the rental is due to end
Price Text Price of the transaction
Membership points earned Number Amount of membership points earned from the transaction
Console Details
This table will carry all the necessary information concerning the consoles either on sale, or with games on sale for them in the shop. The main headings will be:
Ø Console name: The name of the console in question.
Ø Developed by: The name of the company which made the console.
Ø Released: The year that the console was first put on sale.
Ø Available?: Is the console available in the shop?
Ø Price: The price of the console.
The table will not carry a very large amount of data, but it is still of vital importance. The Design View of the ‘Console Details’ table will have this appearance:
Field Name Data Type Description
Console name Text Name of the console
Developed by Text Name of the developer
Released Number Year the console was released
Available? Yes/No Question asking whether the console is available
Price Currency Price of the console
Peripheral Details
This table will carry all the information about every peripheral in stock. The main feature about this table will be the fact that there will be a picture of each peripheral on each respective record. The field names will be:
Ø Peripheral type: The type of peripheral, for example steering wheel, light gun etc.
Ø Peripheral name: The full name of the peripheral.
Ø Console(s): The console(s) for which the peripheral was made.
Ø Manufacturer: The company which made the peripheral.
Ø Price: The price of the peripheral.
Ø Additional features: Any extra properties of the peripheral.
Ø Endorsed by console manufacturer: If the peripheral is endorsed by the makers of the console.
Ø Picture: An illustration of the peripheral.
The Design View will have the fields created so that the following view is made:
Field Name Data Type Description
Peripheral type Text Type of peripheral
Peripheral name Text Name of the peripheral
Console(s) Text Console(s) upon which the peripheral has been released
Manufacturer Text Manufacturer of the peripheral
Price Currency Price of the peripheral
Party? Text First or third party?
Additional features Text Area for noting any extra features
Endorsed by console manufacturer? Yes/No Question asking if the peripheral is endorsed by the console manufacturer
Picture OLE Object A picture of the peripheral
Members’ Profiles
This table will carry the most sensitive information in the entire database – personal information about the members of GameGuzzler. This table will carry a large amount of data, and it will fall under these field names:
Ø Member name: The full name of the member.
Ø Membership number: The membership number of the member concerned.
Ø Date of birth: The member’s date of birth.
Ø Address: The address of the member.
Ø Postcode: The previous address’ postcode.
Ø Telephone number: The telephone number of the member.
Ø E-mail address: The member’s e-mail address.
Ø Number of previous purchases: The total amount of purchases ever made by the member.
Ø Number of previous rentals: The total amount of rentals ever made by the member.
Ø Amount of money spent: The total amount of money ever spent by said member.
Ø Number of membership points: The number of membership points the member has earned in total.
Ø On mailing order?: Is the member on the company’s mailing order?
The Design View, when all the field names have been implemented, will resemble this:
Field Name Data Type Description
Member name Text Name of the member
Membership number Text Member's membership number
Date of birth Date/Time Date of birth of the member
Address Text Address of the member
Postcode Text Postcode of the address
Telephone number Text Member's telephone number
E-mail address Text Member's e-mail addres
Number of previous purchases Number Number of member's previously-made purchases
Number of previous rentals Number Number of member's previously-made rentals
Amount of money spent Currency Total amount of money spent at GameGuzzler
Number of membership points Number Total amount of membership points earned at GameGuzzler
On mailing order? Yes/No Question asking if the member is on the mailing order
Special offers details
This table will have to have many field headings, because of the many different options open to GameGuzzler. There will have to be approximately 16 field headings to account for all the information included in the table. These will be:
Ø Special offer code: The code of the special offer, for easy access.
Ø Special offer name: This is the name of the special offer.
Ø Price: The price of the entire deal package.
Ø Console: The name of the console for which the deal’s components are made.
Ø Date begins: The date upon which the deal runs from.
Ø Date ends: The date upon which the deal runs until.
Ø Game 1: The first game included in the deal.
Ø Game 2: The second game included in the deal.
Ø Game 3: The third game included in the deal.
Ø Game 4: The fourth game included in the deal.
Ø Controller 1: The first controller included in the deal.
Ø Controller 2: The second controller included in the deal.
Ø Memory card?: Is a memory card included in the deal?
Ø Guides?: Are there any guides included in the deal?
Ø Others: Any additional products included.
Ø Free products?: Are there are completely free products included in the deal?
The Design View will, therefore, have to adopt this appearance:
Field Name Data Type Description
Special offer code Text
Special offer name Text Name of the special offer
Price Currency Price of the overall special offer
Console Text Console for which the offer is aimed at
Date begins Date/Time Date upon which the offer begins/began
Date ends Date/Time Date upon which the offer ends/ended
Game 1 Text Name of the first game
Game 2 Text Name of the second game
Game 3 Text Name of the third game
Game 4 Text Name of the fourth game
Controller 1 Text Name of the first controller/peripheral
Controller 2 Text Name of the second controller/peripheral
Memory card? Yes/No Question asking if a memory card is included
Guides? Yes/No Question asking if a guide is included
Others Text Area for extra products in the deal
Free products? Text Area to note any free products included in the deal
These sections will be used together to construct the database. Once that database is constructed, reports can be made for each section. This will display all the necessary information in a print-out format, so that the data does not have to be restricted to one place, allowing it to be transferred to other areas. The report will take on a very much similar design to the forms, except without any motifs etc.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The results show that as the concentration of potassium persulphate increases, the rate of reaction also increases with it. The attached graph displays the results in graphical form and shows the pattern more clearly than the table, allowing for more conclusions to be drawn and other information to be extracted. Below is a small representation, displaying the pattern.
It is shown on the graph that the pattern shown supports the initial hypothesis that as the concentration level of the potassium persulphate rises, the rate of reaction increases. It is clear that the increases in rate of reaction are not directly proportional, as the difference between adding 1ml of persulphate and 2ml of persulphate is so great. The differences become less and less great as more persulphate is added, and the last five results have almost equal differences.
The graph displays what is widely believed to happen at a molecular level during such an experiment. In the case of adding 1ml of potassium persulphate to 10ml of sodium iodide, there was a reaction, but as there were so few persulphate particles in relation to the amount of iodide particles that the reaction took a long time to fully occur. The reaction took 1:10.06 minutes to begin. By having 2ml of persulphate, the reaction time is more than halved, where the reaction began after just 25.06 seconds; a difference of 45 seconds. This is because the amount of persulphate particles was doubled, allowing for a much faster reaction due to the increased number of collisions occurring in a shorter length of time. However, this pattern does not continue, and this is illustrated by the difference between the reaction times for 8 and 9ml of persulphate being added. When 8ml of persulphate are added, the reaction time is 5.89 seconds, but when 9ml are added, the reaction is only slightly shorter, being 4.99 seconds; this is a difference of only 0.9 of a second. The differences from this point are minimal, because although the number of particles is increased each time by the same amount, the increase in relation to the total of particles was not as great. This is explained as so: when 2ml of persulphate are added initially, an extra millilitre means a 50% increase. However, when 9ml of persulphate are added, an extra millilitre only means an increase of 11%, considerably less, accounting for the decrease in differences. On a molecular level, the early increases make much more of an impact on the overall reaction times because the extra molecules add to a smaller number of initial molecules, therefore dramatically increasing the number of collisions and making the reaction clearly a lot faster than it was before. When single millilitres are added to 8 or 9ml of persulphate, the number of particles already present is great, so adding 1ml’s worth will not affect the collision rate so considerably, therefore leading to a smaller difference in time.
RATES OF REACTION
The above graph is a representation of the attached graph illustrating the rates of reaction in relation to the increasing concentration levels. Although the results themselves do not form a perfect line, a line of best fit has been added, to enable more information to be extracted and conclusions to be made.
The line of best fit can be used to say that the changes in rate of reaction are directly proportional to one another, as the line passes through the origin of the graph. The rates of reaction increase because of the levels of concentration rise, providing more persulphate particles to collide with the sodium iodide particles. The line also shows the fact that for every millilitre of potassium persulphate added to 10ml of sodium iodide, the rate of reaction increases by 0.02 seconds. This can be interpreted by stating that if 2ml are added, the rate of reaction increases by 0.04 seconds and so on.
This evidence strongly supports the original claim that as the concentration level of the potassium persulphate rises, the rate of reaction increases.
Page:
Nah, I did that ages ago and just pasted it onto there. You didn't think that I spent God-knows how long on there typing that, do you?
man.... did you type that crap....... to be honest, is that worth a GAD? and if you don't win, you are gonna be very annoyed.
that aint no question on any GCSE paper, i suggest you revisit the title of your exam paper and tell us what the full title says and which examination board its from
What is the point of learning that which you will never apply?
This is the justification I used for flunking Welsh back in High School.
This is the justification I used for flunking Welsh back in High School.
Mendax Bartender wrote:
> But I would never bother with a degree, since towards the end of my 2
> Maths A-Levels, I was running short of practical applications for much
> of the work.
Who wants to apply it? That would mean getting a job...
I just like the Maths. Again, yes I am slightly mad...
> But I would never bother with a degree, since towards the end of my 2
> Maths A-Levels, I was running short of practical applications for much
> of the work.
Who wants to apply it? That would mean
I just like the Maths. Again, yes I am slightly mad...
GCSE maths couldn't get much easier.
A level maths is no great challenge.
But I would never bother with a degree, since towards the end of my 2 Maths A-Levels, I was running short of practical applications for much of the work.
A level maths is no great challenge.
But I would never bother with a degree, since towards the end of my 2 Maths A-Levels, I was running short of practical applications for much of the work.
LL Cool TT wrote:
> Fair dos, man. A-level Maths?! Jeez, you must be insane or
> unbelievably confident. There's no way I'd be able to even scrape a U
> on my current performance!
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm actually in the 3rd third year of my maths degree. And to answer your inevitable question - yes I am slightly mad.
They've been saying things are getting easier for years. They said the same thing when I did my A-Levels. It's a shame that they feel the need to try and take away peoples achievements. Personally I think its just something that happens when you get older. You start syaing things like:
"Things were harder in my day" and "In my day we didn't have"
I just ignore them and get on with my work.
> Fair dos, man. A-level Maths?! Jeez, you must be insane or
> unbelievably confident. There's no way I'd be able to even scrape a U
> on my current performance!
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm actually in the 3rd third year of my maths degree. And to answer your inevitable question - yes I am slightly mad.
They've been saying things are getting easier for years. They said the same thing when I did my A-Levels. It's a shame that they feel the need to try and take away peoples achievements. Personally I think its just something that happens when you get older. You start syaing things like:
"Things were harder in my day" and "In my day we didn't have
I just ignore them and get on with my work.
I suppose it was, Cookie Monster, but hey, that's anger for you, huh?
Fair dos, man. A-level Maths?! Jeez, you must be insane or unbelievably confident. There's no way I'd be able to even scrape a U on my current performance!
What you just done there, was pretty un-neccesary.
Page: