Suppose that you want to investigate the factors that potentially affect cooking rice.

(a) What would you use as a response variable in this experiment? How would you
measure the response?

Response variable would be the quality of the cooked rice sample.

Simple experiment will include the visual inspection and physical sensation (touch
and taste) of cooked rice. The response variable can be categorized and judged as
further,
Undercooked dry and hard to chew
perfectly cooked fluffy and justly moist, kind of distinct
overcooked dough, watery

Complex experiment includes the amount of water that is contained in the cooked
rice grain. The water content is the most important factor in the quality of cooked
rice. The content can be measured by farinograph and the unit is brabender. The
measurement will be of viscosity of dough.
The experiment involves little more work after cooking rice. To bring the uniformity
in the samples, the fixed amount of cooked rice should be converted into flour in
exactly same conditions and then with the help of farinograph, the dough made up
of flour and water can be judged for water content.

(c) Complete the first three steps of the guidelines for designing experiments in
Section 1.4.

1. Recognition of and statement of the problem.

To design and conduct an experiment to conclude the factors and establish a
relation between such factors which have the significant impact on the quality of
the cooked rice.

Factor screening or characterization.

Optimization
2. Selection of the response variable
3. Choice of factors, levels, and range

Select an experiment of interest to you. Complete steps 13 of the guidelines for

designing experiments in Section 1.4.

What is replication? Why do we need replication in an experiment? Present an

example that illustrates the difference between replication and repeated
measurements.
By replication we mean an independent repeat run of each factor combination.

Replication has two important properties.

First, it allows the experimenter to obtain an estimate of the experimental error. This
estimate of error becomes a basic unit of measurement for determining whether
observed differences in the data are really statistically different.
Second, if the sample mean ( ) is used to estimate the true mean response for one
of the factor levels in the experiment, replication permits the experimenter to obtain
a more precise estimate of this parameter.

The practical implication of this is that if we had n 1 replicates and observed y1

145 (oil quench) and y2 147 (saltwater quench), we would probably be unable to
make satisfactory inferences about the effect of the quenching mediumthat is, the
observed difference could be the result of experimental error. The point is that
without replication we have no way of knowing why the two observations are
different. On the other hand, if n was reasonably large and the experimental error
was sufficiently small and if we observed sample averages y1 < y2, we would be
reasonably safe in concluding that y 2 2 n y saltwater quenching produces a higher
hardness in this particular aluminum alloy than does oil quenching.

These measurements are not replicates; they are a form of repeated

measurements, and in this case the observed variability in the three repeated
measurements is a direct reflection of the inherent variability in the measurement
system or gauge and possibly the variability in this CD at different locations on the
wafer where the measurement were taken.
Replication reflects sources of variability both between runs and (potentially) within
runs.
The gauge or measurement system capability (or measurement error) is also an
important factor. If gauge capability is inadequate, only relatively large factor
effects will be detected by the experiment or perhaps additional replication will be
required. In some situations, where gauge capability is poor, the experimenter may

decide to measure each experimental unit several times and use the average of the
repeated measurements as the observed response.
Repetition

Why is randomization important in an experiment?

Randomization is the cornerstone underlying the use of statistical methods in
experimental design. By randomization we mean that both the allocation of the
experimental material and the order in which the individual runs of the experiment
are to be performed are randomly determined. Statistical methods require that the
observations (or errors) be independently distributed random variables.
Randomization usually makes this assumption valid. By properly randomizing the
experiment, we also assist in averaging out the effects of extraneous factors that
may be present.

What are the potential risks of a single large, comprehensive experiment in contrast
to a sequential approach?
Throughout this entire process, it is important to keep in mind that experimentation
is an important part of the learning process, where we tentatively formulate
hypotheses about a system, perform experiments to investigate these hypotheses,
and on the basis of the results formulate new hypotheses, and so on. This suggests
that experimentation is iterative. It is usually a major mistake to design a single,
large, comprehensive experiment at the start of a study.
A successful experiment requires knowledge of the important factors, the ranges
over which these factors should be varied, the appropriate number of levels to use,
and the proper units of measurement for these variables. Generally, we do not
perfectly know the answers to these questions, but we learn about them as we go
along. As an experimental program progresses, we often drop some input variables,
add others, change the region of exploration for some factors, or add new response
variables. Consequently, we usually experiment sequentially,

http://www.finecooking.com/articles/how-to/cook-rice-perfectly.aspx?pg=1
http://www.thekitchn.com/4-signs-your-cooked-rice-has-gone-bad-228342

http://www.aaccnet.org/publications/cc/backissues/1962/Documents/chem39_364.p
df
http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/2010/01/04/on-cooking-rice/

(b) List all of the potential sources of variability that could impact the response.

Pre experimental set up (before cooking starts)

Cook (Chef)
Rice grain type and quality (thin, thick, long, short, age of rice grain, time for the
rice crop before it was cut from the field)
Conditions where rice was stored before cooking
Ratio of water to rice (amount of rice, amount of water)
Rinsing time for rice (amount of loose starch)
Soaking time for rice grains
Draining of water after soaking (or it will change water proportion)
Type of utensil (Make of utensil, thickness of utensil, size shape amount of water
vapor that can be accumulated in the utensil)
Maybe other ingredients mixed up in water in which rice is cooked. (salt, oil oil is
used to make boiled rice grains distinct, biryani recipe etc.)
Pressure that can be sustained by pressure cooker (till the time whistle blows)
Room temperature

During experiment (cooking)

Boiling time
Flame intensity
Consistency and time of gas / electricity provided to burner/ induction plate
Frequency/ intensity of stirring the pot/ how many times pressure cooker was
shaken

After experiment
Time it is kept in pressure cooker after boiling
Amount of time the utensil is kept on burner (hot) even after gas was stopped for
heating it.
The utensil in which cooked rice was judged for the response
The time after which the rice was judged

Terrain
Amount of fuel
Amount of time vehicle driven in eco mode
Traffic congestion
Avg Speed of vehicle
Engine coolant condition
Weight that is carried during the travel
Quality of engine oil
Quality of fuel
Driver change
Temperature of air conditioning (work done by air conditioner)
Use of wrench or other devices that derives considerable power from engine
Number of times car is started and stopped in between one journey
Amount of time car is kept running on idle engine rpm
Tyre pressure
Ambient temperature (change in work done by engine cooling system)
Ambient air quality (oxygen content)