Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Design of Experiment



Tim - I was exposed to a short course on this topic
WAY back in the 70s when I was working in industry. I
was absolutely blown away. I kept wondering why it
wasn't taught in college. Basically, two-level
factorial block and fractional factorial block designs
allow the quick identification of which variables (out
of a large set) are most important. You can even ID
interactions between variables. You must know enough
about the system to choose two values for each
variable that are sufficiently different to produce a
difference. And the variables don't even have to be
numerical. In many real-world situations, it would be
impossible (from a time/resource/market timing, etc
perspective) to hold all variables constant and study
the effect of a single DV on the DV, one at a time. By
the time you got the answer, the reason for doing so
would likely no longer be relevant. It is a VERY
powerful technique. John Barrere

--- Tim Folkerts <tfolkert@FHSU.EDU> wrote:
A friend of mine in industry introduced me to
"Design of Experiment", and I
was wondering if any of you had heard of and/or
worked with this branch of
study. The basic aim of DOE is to obtain accurate,
statistically
significant answers to experimental questions from a
minimal number of
trials. The principles are applied regularly in
industrial settings (at
least by smart companies ;-) to improve products and
processes, especially
where there are a large number of variables and the
effects of each
variable can't be easily predicted in advance. This
also applies in many
biological settings.

Over the past year or so, I have been picking up
bits of DOE and find it
enlightening. Given how central experimentation is
to physics, I'm amazed
that more ideas from DOE aren't taught to
physicists. Guides to
experimentation in physics tend to concentrate on
specific techniques, but
not on general questions like dealing with multiple
variables or picking an
effective set of trials to obtain the desired
information. Other than
particle physicists, most experimentalist are happy
that they don't have to
stop to using statistics and are content to use
inefficient (or even
ineffective) plans to get to the answer they want.

Some of the DOE techniques require statistical
sophistication to fully
understand, but you don't need to know all the
details to apply the
techniques (just like you don't need to know how a
least squares fit is
done to recognize its usefulness). There are many
designs that have been
developed for various types of questions - curve
fitting, optimizing a
result, optimizing consistency, or determining which
subset of parameters
has the greatest effect on the results.

A few results that may or may not surprise you:
* DON'T vary one parameter at a time
* perform trials in random order, rather that
stepping through in order
* standard deviation isn't a good measure of
accuracy (but you probably
knew that one)
* optimizing consistency is often more important
that optimizing magnitude

At one level I equate this with the current
discussion of Geometric Algebra
- both provide powerful improvements over current
tools, but few people
even recognize that improvement is warranted.

Most university libraries have books on the subject.
A few guides are
available on line, but I haven't seen any that
really jump out at me. One
way to learn is to just download a trial version of
DOE software (e.g.

http://www.umetrics.com/methodtech_doe.asp?section=methods
or
http://www.statease.com/dx6descr.html) and play
around. Many statndard
statistical applications can do DOE as well (I know
Minitab does)


Tim Folkerts

Department of Physics
Fort Hays State University
Hays, KS 67601
785-628-4501

This posting is the position of the writer, not that
of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.