/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 19 The following data is representa... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

The following data is representative of that reported in the article "An Experimental Correlation of Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions from Power Boilers Based on Field Data" (J. of Engr: for Power; July 1973: 165-170), with \(x=\) burner-area liberation rate \(\left(\mathrm{MBtu} / \mathrm{hr}^{-\mathrm{ft}^{2}}\right)\) and \(y=\mathrm{NO}_{x}\) emission rate (ppm): $$ \begin{array}{l|rrrrrrr} x & 100 & 125 & 125 & 150 & 150 & 200 & 200 \\ \hline y & 150 & 140 & 180 & 210 & 190 & 320 & 280 \\ x & 250 & 250 & 300 & 300 & 350 & 400 & 400 \\ \hline y & 400 & 430 & 440 & 390 & 600 & 610 & 670 \end{array} $$ a. Assuming that the simple linear regression model is valid, obtain the least squares estimate of the true regression line. b. What is the estimate of expected \(\mathrm{NO}_{x}\) emission rate when burner area liberation rate equals 225 ? c. Estimate the amount by which you expect \(\mathrm{NO}_{x}\) emission rate to change when burner area liberation rate is decreased by 50 . d. Would you use the estimated regression line to predict emission rate for a liberation rate of 500 ? Why or why not?

Short Answer

Expert verified
a) Obtain \(\hat{y} = b_0 + b_1x\). b) Substitute 225 in regression equation. c) Calculate \(\Delta \hat{y} = b_1 \cdot (-50)\). d) Not recommended, \(x=500\) is outside data range.

Step by step solution

01

Organize the Data

We have two sets of data: the independent variable \(x\) is the burner-area liberation rate, and the dependent variable \(y\) is the \(\text{NO}_x\) emission rate. We'll organize these as coordinate points \((x, y)\) for further calculations.
02

Calculate Averages

Calculate the average \(\bar{x}\) and \(\bar{y}\) of the data sets. For example, for \(x\), sum all \(x\) values and divide by the number of data points (14), and do the same for \(y\).
03

Calculate Slope (\(b_1\))

Determine the slope \(b_1\) using the formula: \[ b_1 = \frac{\sum (x_i - \bar{x})(y_i - \bar{y})}{\sum (x_i - \bar{x})^2} \].Plug in the values of \(x_i\), \(y_i\), \(\bar{x}\), and \(\bar{y}\) to find \(b_1\).
04

Calculate Intercept (\(b_0\))

Use the formula for the intercept \(b_0\):\[ b_0 = \bar{y} - b_1 \bar{x} \].Substitute \(\bar{x}\), \(\bar{y}\), and \(b_1\) into this formula to find \(b_0\).
05

Write the Regression Line Equation

With \(b_0\) and \(b_1\) calculated, the regression line equation is: \[ \hat{y} = b_0 + b_1x \].This equation represents the least squares estimate of the true regression line.
06

Estimate NOx Emission Rate at x = 225

Substitute \(x = 225\) into the regression equation:\[ \hat{y} = b_0 + b_1 \cdot 225 \].This will give the estimated \(\text{NO}_x\) emission rate.
07

Find Change in NOx Emission Rate for Δ x = -50

The change in emission rate for a change \(\Delta x = -50\) is given by:\[ \Delta \hat{y} = b_1 \cdot (-50) \].Calculate this by substituting the slope \(b_1\).
08

Evaluate Using the Model at x = 500

Consider the validity of predicting at \(x = 500\): since 500 is outside the range of the existing data (100 to 400), predictions in this region may be unreliable, as the linear model may not be valid.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

least squares estimate
The least squares estimate is a method widely used in linear regression for finding the line of best fit. The primary goal of this method is to minimize the sum of squared differences between the observed values and those predicted by the line. In the context of the exercise, we calculate this by first determining the slope \(b_1\) and the y-intercept \(b_0\).
To start, the formula for the slope \(b_1\) is \[ b_1 = \frac{\sum (x_i - \bar{x})(y_i - \bar{y})}{\sum (x_i - \bar{x})^2} \]. This helps in deciding how steep the line should be to best fit the data points.
Then, the intercept is calculated using \(b_0 = \bar{y} - b_1 \bar{x}\), ensuring the line crosses the y-axis at the appropriate point.
Finally, with these parameters, the regression line equation becomes \( \hat{y} = b_0 + b_1x \). This equation is the least squares estimate, providing the best linear approximation to the observed data points.
NOx emission rate
The NOx emission rate, denoted as \(y\), measures the concentration of nitrogen oxides in parts per million (ppm). This is an important environmental metric as NOx gases contribute to air pollution and respiratory problems.
In this exercise, we are particularly interested in how the NOx emission rate changes with respect to the burner-area liberation rate \(x\). More simply, we want to see how the operation rate, or intensity, of a burner influences the emission of these gases.
The linear relationship we model will help in estimating NOx emissions at untested levels of burner activity, crucial for predictions in environmental management and policy-making decisions.
burner-area liberation rate
The burner-area liberation rate \(x\) refers to the energy released per unit area from a burner's surface, measured in million British thermal units per hour square foot (MBtu/hr-ft\(^2\)).
This rate indicates the intensity of fuel consumption and energy release, acting as the independent variable in our regression model. In essence, it shows how intensely the burner is operating at any given time.
In terms of the regression model, the liberation rate \(x\) influences the NOx emission rate \(y\), helping to establish an operational understanding between energy use and environmental impact.
prediction validity
Prediction validity refers to the reliability and applicability of using the regression model for estimates outside the observed data range. In linear regression, this is a crucial concept—models are best used within the range they were developed.
For instance, in the exercise data, the burner-area liberation rate ranges from 100 to 400. Making predictions for rates significantly outside this, such as at \(x = 500\), can be risky. This is because the model's accuracy and linear assumption may not hold.
When developing and using linear models, always remember that predictions are most valid within the scope of your data. Venturing beyond may lead to errors or invalid predictions.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

The accompanying data was read from a graph that appeared in the article "Reactions on Painted Steel Under the Influence of Sodium Chloride, and Combinations Thereof"' (Ind. Engr: Chem. Prod. Res. Dev., 1985: 375-378). The independent variable is \(\mathrm{SO}_{2}\) deposition rate \(\left(\mathrm{mg} / \mathrm{m}^{2} / \mathrm{d}\right)\), and the dependent variable is steel weight loss \(\left(\mathrm{g} / \mathrm{m}^{2}\right)\). $$ \begin{array}{r|rrrrrr} x & 14 & 18 & 40 & 43 & 45 & 112 \\ \hline y & 280 & 350 & 470 & 500 & 560 & 1200 \end{array} $$ a. Construct a scatter plot. Does the simple linear regression model appear to be reasonable in this situation? b. Calculate the equation of the estimated regression line. c. What percentage of observed variation in steel weight loss can be attributed to the model relationship in combination with variation in deposition rate? d. Because the largest \(x\) value in the sample greatly exceeds the others, this observation may have been very influential in determining the equation of the estimated line. Delete this observation and recalculate the equation. Does the new equation appear to differ substantially from the original one (you might consider predicted values)?

Show that the "point of averages" \((\bar{x}, \bar{y})\) lies on the estimated regression line.

No-fines concrete, made from a uniformly graded coarse aggregate and a cement- water paste, is beneficial in areas prone to excessive rainfall because of its excellent drainage properties. The article "Pavement Thickness Design for NoFines Concrete Parking Lots," J. of Trans. Engr:, 1995: 476-484) employed a least squares analysis in studying how \(y=\) porosity (\%) is related to \(x=\) unit weight (pcf) in concrete specimens. Consider the following representative data: $$ \begin{array}{r|rrrrrrrr} x & 99.0 & 101.1 & 102.7 & 103.0 & 105.4 & 107.0 & 108.7 & 110.8 \\ \hline y & 28.8 & 27.9 & 27.0 & 25.2 & 22.8 & 21.5 & 20.9 & 19.6 \\ x & 112.1 & 112.4 & 113.6 & 113.8 & 115.1 & 115.4 & 120.0 \\ \hline y & 17.1 & 18.9 & 16.0 & 16.7 & 13.0 & 13.6 & 10.8 \end{array} $$ Relevant summary quantities are \(\sum x_{i}=1640.1\), \(\sum y_{i}=299.8, \quad \sum x_{i}^{2}=179,849.73, \quad \sum x_{i} y_{i}=32,308.59\) \(\sum y_{i}^{2}=6430.06\) a. Obtain the equation of the estimated regression line. Then create a scatter plot of the data and graph the estimated line. Does it appear that the model relationship will explain a great deal of the observed variation in \(y\) ? b. Interpret the slope of the least squares line. c. What happens if the estimated line is used to predict porosity when unit weight is 135 ? Why is this not a good idea? d. Calculate the residuals corresponding to the first two observations. e. Calculate and interpret a point estimate of \(\sigma\). f. What proportion of observed variation in porosity can be attributed to the approximate linear relationship between unit weight and porosity?

In biofiltration of wastewater, air discharged from a treatment facility is passed through a damp porous membrane that causes contaminants to dissolve in water and be transformed into harmless products. The accompanying data on \(x=\) inlet temperature \(\left({ }^{\circ} \mathrm{C}\right)\) and \(y=\) removal efficiency \((\%)\) was the basis for a scatter plot that appeared in the article "Treatment of Mixed Hydrogen Sulfide and Organic Vapors in a Rock Medium Biofilter" (Water Environment Research, 2001: 426-435). $$ \begin{array}{lrc|ccc} \hline \text { Obs } & \text { Temp } & \begin{array}{c} \text { Removal } \\ \% \end{array} & \text { Obs } & \text { Temp } & \begin{array}{c} \text { Removal } \\ \% \end{array} \\ \hline 1 & 7.68 & 98.09 & 17 & 8.55 & 98.27 \\ 2 & 6.51 & 98.25 & 18 & 7.57 & 98.00 \\ 3 & 6.43 & 97.82 & 19 & 6.94 & 98.09 \\ 4 & 5.48 & 97.82 & 20 & 8.32 & 98.25 \\ 5 & 6.57 & 97.82 & 21 & 10.50 & 98.41 \\ 6 & 10.22 & 97.93 & 22 & 16.02 & 98.51 \\ 7 & 15.69 & 98.38 & 23 & 17.83 & 98.71 \\ 8 & 16.77 & 98.89 & 24 & 17.03 & 98.79 \\ 9 & 17.13 & 98.96 & 25 & 16.18 & 98.87 \\ 10 & 17.63 & 98.90 & 26 & 16.26 & 98.76 \\ 11 & 16.72 & 98.68 & 27 & 14.44 & 98.58 \\ 12 & 15.45 & 98.69 & 28 & 12.78 & 98.73 \\ 13 & 12.06 & 98.51 & 29 & 12.25 & 98.45 \\ 14 & 11.44 & 98.09 & 30 & 11.69 & 98.37 \\ 15 & 10.17 & 98.25 & 31 & 11.34 & 98.36 \\ 16 & 9.64 & 98.36 & 32 & 10.97 & 98.45 \\ \hline \end{array} $$ Calculated summary quantities are \(\sum x_{i}=384.26, \sum y_{i}=\) \(3149.04, \quad \sum x_{i}^{2}=5099.2412, \quad \sum x_{i} y_{i}=37,850.7762\), and \(\sum y_{i}^{2}=309,892.6548\) a. Does a scatter plot of the data suggest appropriateness of the simple linear regression model? b. Fit the simple linear regression model, obtain a point prediction of removal efficiency when temperature \(=10.50\), and calculate the value of the corresponding residual. c. Roughly what is the size of a typical deviation of points in the scatter plot from the least squares line? d. What proportion of observed variation in removal efficiency can be attributed to the model relationship? e. Estimate the slope coefficient in a way that conveys information about reliability and precision, and interpret your estimate. f. Personal communication with the authors of the article revealed that there was one additional observation that was not included in their scatter plot: \((6.53,96.55)\). What impact does this additional observation have on the equation of the least squares line and the values of \(s\) and \(r^{2}\) ?

The article "Photocharge Effects in Dye Sensitized \(\mathrm{Ag}[\mathrm{Br}, \mathrm{I}]\) Emulsions at Millisecond Range Exposures" (Photographic Sci. and Engr., 1981: 138-144) gives the accompanying data on \(x=\%\) light absorption at \(5800 \mathrm{~A}\) and \(y=\) peak photovoltage. $$ \begin{array}{l|ccccc} x & 4.0 & 8.7 & 12.7 & 19.1 & 21.4 \\ \hline y & .12 & .28 & .55 & .68 & .85 \\ x & 24.6 & 28.9 & 29.8 & 30.5 & \\ \hline y & 1.02 & 1.15 & 1.34 & 1.29 & \end{array} $$ a. Construct a scatter plot of this data. What does it suggest? b. Assuming that the simple linear regression model is appropriate, obtain the equation of the estimated regression line. c. What proportion of the observed variation in peak photovoltage can be explained by the model relationship? d. Predict peak photovoltage when \% absorption is 19.1, and compute the value of the corresponding residual. e. The article's authors claim that there is a useful linear relationship between \% absorption and peak photovoltage. Do you agree? Carry out a formal test. f. Give an estimate of the change in expected peak photovoltage associated with a \(1 \%\) increase in light absorption. Your estimate should convey information about the precision of estimation. g. Repeat part (f) for the expected value of peak photovoltage when \% light absorption is 20 .

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.