During this process, I was able to find how human error correlates with the accuracy of computer systems. We had to carefully construct the robot, piece by piece which took patience and attention to detail. After pieces started coming together, the robot assembly became easier. After the robot was assembled we had to link USB cables to the allotted areas on the robot and to the computer; the whole process went smoothly from there. We first measured the circumference of the wheel diameter in centimeters which came to 5.5 cm. We had to convert that measurement into meters so we took 5.5cm x 3.14 / 100% to get .1727 (m). We needed an accurate circumference of the wheel so that all other measurements correleated correctly. After this step we made sure that all settings were correct in LegoMindstorm. For each experiment trial that we did, we used 1 second for our time allotted for the robot to travel.
After this we started off with a power measurement of 75. At that measurement, we ourselves by using the ruler got .58 (m) whereas the LabView software got .577. In this measurement, we were very close to the computer and the margin of error was small. At the next power speed of 50, we kept the time at 1 second and phsycially measured with the ruler at .36 whereas the labview software obtained .374. This was a little bit far off from the actual measurement because our robot hit a tiny bump where the desks are together which is definitely a reason for human error. Our third trial, we manipulated the speed to 25 and we physically measured .18 and the LegoMindstorm came out with a .169 measurement.
After reviewing the error just on paper, I calculated the human error for each segment. I took the difference of the physical measurement from the ruler and the computer calculated number over half of the sum of those two numbers. For example for the 75 speed it would be .58-.57/[ .58+.57/2 ] = 0.0051 % error which is very small for the first trial and was around the same for the other amounts which showcases that there is human error present and that technology can give a more precise answer, but we can get close to that as well.
I thought it was interesting that even the smallest interference can have a large impact on the results of what human measurement in comparison to the computer. My lab partner and I also experienced issues that impacted our measurements. For instance, during our first trial, the robot veered off to the right, away from the ruler making it difficult to determine an accurate measurement. This happened several times because the desk was uneven. After making a few adjustments, we finally got our robot to move fairly straight against the ruler. Even so, we were usually .2m off from the computers measurements. This shows us that technology has the ability to make an accurate measurement with or without an interference in the subject’s path.