spudpeel

I have used PMCC for other data in the coursework. The exam board wants us to use spearmans rank in the coursework, but according to my teacher I cannot use it for the measures my hypothesis focuses on, and have to do species frequency against height. It seems I have to guess the correlation between sdi and height. It seems totally wrong to me, but he's telling me to 'correct' it.

The other thing I can't understand is that im trying to prove the assumption that the height of the soil on the hill has an effect on its water content. I don't know any other way to do this other than correlate the two variables, but apparently this too is wrong, as I am comparing two environmental factors????

Thanks for your help

I'm currently doing a bit of biology coursework in which i have to test species diversity against depth of soil on a hill. My teacher says that I cannot use Spearman's rank to calculate the correlation between these two variables, as it is a stats test and somehow not compatible. The way i see it, if i can plot a graph of these two variables, then surely I can find the correlation between them quantitatively? I don't know whether it is his opinion or Edexcel's, but to me it seems wrong. Could anyone help me?

Im glad its not just me who's been trying to make thermite. You can get hold of aluminium powder, mainly off ebay. I got iron oxide but havnt been bothered to get the aluminium. Its a wee bit pricey.

Ive thought about this before, but never really bothered about it. If the valency of Nitrogen is 3 and oxygen 2, how can the two form NO and NO2? Do they have orbitals that bond together, as between layers of graphite, or exist as dimers, or is there something weird going on? I'd really appreciate someone helping out!

Currently studying A2 level chemistry and plan to take it further, but my only trouble is Organic Chemistry. I mean, the mechanisms seem simple enough but the vast volume of things to remember!!!

Has anyone got any tips on how to memorise all the reagents and conditions for various reactions? I know im not the only one to struggle with memorising the stuff, just wondered how people have got around it?

In our psychology classes, we've been studying the effects that classroom design have on the performance and attention in pupils. We are working in groups, and the rest of my group has decided that there should be one main window behind the class to give illumination, but that the pupils face away from it. They think that this will prevent pupils from turning around because it would be more blatant, and they would be disciplined. I think this is rubbish and not based on anything proven, and would more likely result in poor performance as you would be constantly shadowing your work..

Which seems the more likely outcome?