The efficiency for a steel specimen immersed in a phosphating tank is the weight of the phosphate coating divided by the metal loss (both in mg/ft2). An article gave the accompanying data on tank temperature (x) and efficiency ratio (y). Temp. 173 175 176 Ratio 0.94 1.25 1.52 y = Temp. 183 183 163 Ratio 1.47 1.56 1.59 Temp. 185 165 185 Ratio 177 177 0.97 (185, 2.04) (185, 2.64) 178 2.19 183 183 184 179 1.09 1.14 1.06 1.78 180 184 187 187 188 189 191 1.73 2.04 2.64 1.55 2.44 3.04 1.93 3.00 (a) Determine the equation of the estimated regression line. (Round all numerical values to four decimal places.) 185 2.13 0.80 1.33 0.82 (b) Calculate a point estimate for true average efficiency ratio when tank temperature is 185. (Round your answer to four decimal places.) (c) Calculate the values of the residuals from the least squares line for the four observations for which temperature is 185. (Round your answers to two decimal places.) (185, 0.82) (185, 1.73) Why do they not all have the same sign? These residuals do not all have the same sign because in the cases of the first two pairs of observations, the observed efficiency ratios were smaller than the predicted value. In the cases of the last two pairs of observations, the observed efficiency ratios were larger than the predicted value. O These residuals do not all have the same sign because in the cases of the first two pairs of observations, the observed efficiency ratios were larger than the predicted value. In the cases of the last two pairs of observations, the observed efficiency ratios were smaller than the predicted value. O These residuals do not all have the same sign because in the case of the second pair of observations, the observed efficiency ratio was equal to the predicted value. In the cases of the other pairs of observations, the observed efficiency ratios were larger than the predicted value. O These residuals do not all have the same sign because in the case of the third pair of observations, the observed efficiency ratio was equal to the predicted value. In the cases of the other pairs of observations, the observed efficiency ratios were smaller than the predicted value. (d) what proportion of the observed variation in efficiency ratio can be attributed to the simple linear regression relationship between the two variables? (Round your answer to three decimal places.)
The efficiency for a steel specimen immersed in a phosphating tank is the weight of the phosphate coating divided by the metal loss (both in mg/ft2). An article gave the accompanying data on tank temperature (x) and efficiency ratio (y). Temp. 173 175 176 Ratio 0.94 1.25 1.52 y = Temp. 183 183 163 Ratio 1.47 1.56 1.59 Temp. 185 165 185 Ratio 177 177 0.97 (185, 2.04) (185, 2.64) 178 2.19 183 183 184 179 1.09 1.14 1.06 1.78 180 184 187 187 188 189 191 1.73 2.04 2.64 1.55 2.44 3.04 1.93 3.00 (a) Determine the equation of the estimated regression line. (Round all numerical values to four decimal places.) 185 2.13 0.80 1.33 0.82 (b) Calculate a point estimate for true average efficiency ratio when tank temperature is 185. (Round your answer to four decimal places.) (c) Calculate the values of the residuals from the least squares line for the four observations for which temperature is 185. (Round your answers to two decimal places.) (185, 0.82) (185, 1.73) Why do they not all have the same sign? These residuals do not all have the same sign because in the cases of the first two pairs of observations, the observed efficiency ratios were smaller than the predicted value. In the cases of the last two pairs of observations, the observed efficiency ratios were larger than the predicted value. O These residuals do not all have the same sign because in the cases of the first two pairs of observations, the observed efficiency ratios were larger than the predicted value. In the cases of the last two pairs of observations, the observed efficiency ratios were smaller than the predicted value. O These residuals do not all have the same sign because in the case of the second pair of observations, the observed efficiency ratio was equal to the predicted value. In the cases of the other pairs of observations, the observed efficiency ratios were larger than the predicted value. O These residuals do not all have the same sign because in the case of the third pair of observations, the observed efficiency ratio was equal to the predicted value. In the cases of the other pairs of observations, the observed efficiency ratios were smaller than the predicted value. (d) what proportion of the observed variation in efficiency ratio can be attributed to the simple linear regression relationship between the two variables? (Round your answer to three decimal places.)
Elements Of Electromagnetics
7th Edition
ISBN:9780190698614
Author:Sadiku, Matthew N. O.
Publisher:Sadiku, Matthew N. O.
ChapterMA: Math Assessment
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 1.1MA
Related questions
Question
Do not provide handwritten solution,Maintain accuracy and quality in your answer,Take care of plagiarism,Answer completely,You will get up vote for sure.

Transcribed Image Text:The efficiency for a steel specimen immersed in a phosphating tank is the weight of the phosphate coating divided by the metal loss (both in mg/ft2). An article gave the accompanying data on tank temperature (x) and efficiency ratio (y).
Temp.
y =
173
Ratio
175
Ratio 0.94 1.25 1.52
Temp. 183 183
Temp. 185
Ratio
176
185
1.73 2.04
183
1.47 1.56 1.59) 2,19
177
185
0.97
183
187
177
1.09
178
187
1.14 1.06
183 184 184
179
2,13 0.80 1.33
188
2.64 1.55 2.44 3.04
189
1.93
180
1.78
185
0.82
191
3.00
(a) Determine the equation of the estimated regression line. (Round all numerical values to four decimal places.)
(b) Calculate a point estimate for true average efficiency ratio when tank temperature is 185. (Round your answer to four decimal places.)
(c) Calculate the values of the residuals from the least squares line for the four observations for which temperature is 185. (Round your answers to two decimal places.)
(185, 0.82)
(185, 1.73)
(185, 2.04)
(185, 2.64)
Why do they not all have the same sign?
Ⓒ These residuals do not all have the same sign because in the cases of the first two pairs of observations, the observed efficiency ratios were smaller than the predicted value. In the cases of the last two pairs of observations, the observed efficiency
ratios were larger than the predicted value.
These residuals do not all have the same sign because in the cases of the first two pairs of observations, the observed efficiency ratios were larger than the predicted value. In the cases of the last two pairs of observations, the observed efficiency
ratios were smaller than the predicted value.
O These residuals do not all have the same sign because in the case of the second pair of observations, the observed efficiency ratio was equal to the predicted value. In the cases of the other pairs of observations, the observed efficiency ratios were
larger than the predicted value.
O These residuals do not all have the same sign because in the case of the third pair of observations, the observed efficiency ratio was equal to the predicted value. In the cases of the other pairs of observations, the observed efficiency ratios were
smaller than the predicted value.
(d) What proportion of the observed variation in efficiency ratio can be attributed to the simple linear regression relationship between the two variables? (Round your answer to three decimal places.)
Expert Solution

This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
Step by step
Solved in 6 steps with 8 images

Knowledge Booster
Learn more about
Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, mechanical-engineering and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.Recommended textbooks for you

Elements Of Electromagnetics
Mechanical Engineering
ISBN:
9780190698614
Author:
Sadiku, Matthew N. O.
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

Mechanics of Materials (10th Edition)
Mechanical Engineering
ISBN:
9780134319650
Author:
Russell C. Hibbeler
Publisher:
PEARSON

Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach
Mechanical Engineering
ISBN:
9781259822674
Author:
Yunus A. Cengel Dr., Michael A. Boles
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education

Elements Of Electromagnetics
Mechanical Engineering
ISBN:
9780190698614
Author:
Sadiku, Matthew N. O.
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

Mechanics of Materials (10th Edition)
Mechanical Engineering
ISBN:
9780134319650
Author:
Russell C. Hibbeler
Publisher:
PEARSON

Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach
Mechanical Engineering
ISBN:
9781259822674
Author:
Yunus A. Cengel Dr., Michael A. Boles
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education

Control Systems Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
ISBN:
9781118170519
Author:
Norman S. Nise
Publisher:
WILEY

Mechanics of Materials (MindTap Course List)
Mechanical Engineering
ISBN:
9781337093347
Author:
Barry J. Goodno, James M. Gere
Publisher:
Cengage Learning

Engineering Mechanics: Statics
Mechanical Engineering
ISBN:
9781118807330
Author:
James L. Meriam, L. G. Kraige, J. N. Bolton
Publisher:
WILEY