2

OK, I know its not possible because Log(0) is undefined. But here is my Problem:

I measured a Weight gain of my Test object's over Time. Test objects, made of nonwoven material, were placed in very humid Atmosphere (enclosed above a Tank of heated Water). As they absorbed kondensated Water their total Weight would increase. Later the increase in Weight was lesser than in the beginning since test objects became saturated.

enter image description here

I plotted a graph in excel with time as x axis and weight as y axis. All of my test objects followed a similiar pattern. In order to take measurements i had to remove them from this humid enviroment for a short time. But since water vaporized really quickly the outcome is distorted. One would expect a logarithmic weight gain, but in a short time objects started to absorb water so slowly that the weight gain was slower than the weight loss(vaporization). Therefore 3. and 4. Point should be slightly higher than they are now, had I not disturbed the Process with my measurements. This would result in a logarithmic weight gain.

enter image description here

I woudl like to explain it in my report and provide a Trendline, but since my first Measurment was made at t = 0 h excel cannot calculate it. Here is my question: What is the most scientifically correct way to generate such a Trendline? I see a few possible options:

  1. Ignoring the first value (but i don't like that),
  2. Adding 1 hour to whole experiment (Whatever happend at t = 0h would be presented as it happened at t = 1 h and so forth).

Or maybe there is another way? Any advice deeply appreciated.

P.S. I am writing my Thesis for Dipl. Ingenieur in Mechanical engineering in Germany.

EDIT: I added some additional info about my experiment.

EDIT2: I added pictures and added even some more info. I hope it's now clear enough;)

  • 1
    Keeping in mind that seeing that your data looks "somewhat logarithmic" isn't particularly scientific, what do you mean by 'most scientifically correct', exactly? – Glen_b Jan 29 '14 at 13:47
  • @Glen_b I am studying in Germany so the way i describe my problem in english is not as good as I would like it to be. The most scientifically correct way would be one that would be most likely to be accepted by Professor that rates my Thesis. – Smiling_Man Jan 29 '14 at 14:26
  • 1
    Since we don't know this professor nor his or her expectations, nor even the conventions in whatever area you might be working in, that's a little difficult. Is there any better reason to use log than just that's what it looks like to you? You say you're measuring weight... which clearly can't be logarithmic. – Glen_b Jan 29 '14 at 14:28
  • What do you want to do with your trendline once you have it? A model that predicts the test objects will get heavier without limit as time goes on isn't prima facie a very suitable one. – Scortchi - Reinstate Monica Jan 29 '14 at 14:57
  • Hmm maybe logarithmic is not best solution but i don't see an option in excel to generate a Trendline that converges to a given limit. – Smiling_Man Jan 29 '14 at 15:10
  • Look up the Box-Cox transformations. – Alecos Papadopoulos Jan 29 '14 at 18:00
  • You've only got five points & a straight line looks like a good enough fit over their range. You say that points 3 & 4 should be higher owing to a defect of the measurement procedure but not why the other points shouldn't be higher by the same reasoning. So I'm not sure why you want to fit $\log w$ to $t$ (or to $\log t $), given that it doesn't seem a very realistic model. When I worked with engineers they were usually the ones to tell me that a model I suggested was contraindicated by their physics knowledge. $w=\beta_0-\beta_1 \mathrm{e}^{-\beta_3 t}+\epsilon$ would be the kind of ... – Scortchi - Reinstate Monica Jan 29 '14 at 19:37
  • ... thing I'd guess at, & the parameters might be usefully interpreted. So, again, what are you going to do with the trend-lines? - if you're not going to do anything you might as well just draw in by hand something that looks sensible. [$w$ is weight, $t$ is time, $\beta$'s are the parameters, & $\epsilon$ the error]. – Scortchi - Reinstate Monica Jan 29 '14 at 19:38
  • @Scortchi I think you are right. Since all I wanted to do with this Trendline was to illustrate a Pattern and I didn't intended to extrapolate or make calculation of any sort with it, I might just as well draw something in. The whole point is that this part of my experiment was wrongly designed and i just want to show what effect did this poor design have. But since right after moisturizing my test objects i started another Experiment with them I can not just simply ignore the first part. I don't want to take credit for your suggestion so please make an Answer out of it so i can vote it up. – Smiling_Man Jan 30 '14 at 08:17

2 Answers2

3

You've only got five points & a straight line looks like a good enough fit over their range. You say that points 3 & 4 should be higher owing to a defect of the measurement procedure but not why the other points shouldn't be higher by the same reasoning. So I'm not sure why you want to fit $\log w$ to $t$ (or to $\log t$), given that a model that predicts the test objects will get heavier without limit as time goes on isn't prima facie a very suitable one.

If you did want $\log w=\beta_0 + \beta_1 t +\varepsilon$, @user3170559's advice is fine. The model $\log w=\beta_0 + \beta_1 \log t +\varepsilon$ is problematic: as you've pointed out, $t$ takes values of zero. Sometimes people fudge this by adding a small constant to $t$, but the justification is that $t=0$ is impossible & really represents an imprecise measurement of a small value of $t$; not a justification you can appeal to in this case.

A better model would take into account prior engineering knowledge about the form relationships could take. $w=\beta_0 − \beta_1 \mathrm{e}^{−\beta_2 t} + \varepsilon$ would be the kind of thing I'd guess at—an engineer could probably do better—& the parameters might be meaningfully interpreted: $\beta_0$ as the saturated weight, $\beta_1$ as the range from dry to saturated, & $\beta_2$ as determining the rate of water uptake. You could reparameterize as appropriate for the things you're interested in—e.g. %age increase, initial weight, & rate—& compare the estimates for the test objects.

So it depends what you're going to do with the trend-lines. If you're not going to do anything you might as well just draw in by hand something that looks sensible.

[Throughout $w$ is weight, $t$ is time, $\beta$'s are the parameters (not the same ones in each model), & $\varepsilon$ the error.]

1

Why do you want to take the logarithm of the x-axis? If one observes data over time that seems to behave exponentially, one takes the logarithm of the observed data. So, I suggest you take the logarithm of the weights and plot this against time. Then you can just click on the plotted line of the graph, click on the line an add a trend line. After taking the logarithm you should take a linear trend line.

random_guy
  • 2,410
  • That's what i tried to do, but since my first Data is X=0 and Y=Starting weight, excel cannot calculate minimal square of the Function. – Smiling_Man Jan 29 '14 at 15:45
  • 1
    Just to make it clear. You want to regress LN(Weights) on X, right? I don't see why it shouldn't work. LS estimation is not restricted to X unequal to zero. I even simulated some data in my excel with the first value for x=0. Then I clicked on the plotted line, then right click and added a linear trend line. Maybe it is not working because some of your weights are less or equal to zero. – random_guy Jan 29 '14 at 16:16
  • Im afraid i didn't understood your solution user3170559. What you suggest is possible. It's just not exactly what I want. See my upcoming post. – Smiling_Man Jan 30 '14 at 08:10