week 8 dq response

I like your last line about qualitative studies helping to predict "a variable's next move." I agree in that you can certainly obtain rich data which can explore underlying themes and directions that quantitative may provide. How do you see it predicting this next move? Similar thoughts to mine?

I apologize for not answering the question correctly.

Qualitative research is all about finding a given noun, turning that noun into a variable. Then studying that variables motions. Most to all nouns have built in patterns to their behavior. Moving in predictable ways.

Those predictable ways when studied enough, a model or models can be created to show that the noun moves does x y z in a given (but adjustable) timeframe.

Example in mechanics, a piece of metal in a machine has built in tolerances. It can operate within x temperature range, it can operate within y metal fatigue parameters, for z duration of time. Outside of consistently regular patterns of use a given piece of metal used in machinery will not fail until the z is reached.

With elements it is much easier to identify and measure the predictable patterns of x y z. Those parameters are universally applied, every time. A given metal or mineral is used its behavior can be mapped to the already established parameters and those can be used to build other machines.

Similar qualitative measurements become universally accepted as the parameters the element can be worked with machines wide. Thus, become trustable.

Change x, y, z and more studies must be performed to determine where and when different stress influences will change the established predictable patterns. Hence the issues with the early aircraft in both propeller and the jet age. Too much trust was given to previous x y z parameters would be consistent outside of those established norms. The comet aircraft proved that wrong; the plane worked wonderfully up until 210 flights, then metal fatigue would cripple the aircraft.

100% pure O2 atmosphere under pressure is a natural environment for combustion. But that was not thought of until Apollo 1, costing 3 men their lives.

Obvious in hindsight but not paid attention to until after tragedy. Same for the rubber O rings, they loose cohesion under 38’. That night the temps dropped into the teens. It is actually lucky the rubber O rings lasted that long under extremes in pressure and temperature.

Taking a qualitative study find the x y z parameters of somethings motions, then apply those parameters to other things in a quantitative way, to see how under one condition in one given set of parameters see how the noun holds up. In the hard sciences tracing those things is much easer than humans or the brain (psych) items.

Not all humans react the same way to any given situation. Put a spec ops soldier into a different situation and that person could crumble under the changed parameters. Metaphorically putting Secretariat into performing pony rides at a state park, the horse will not react well. Micro has to match the macro measurements, if they do not an explanation has to be given as to exactly why not.

In the comet aircraft the explanation is that the metal used on the skin can only handle 210 pressurization depressurization before the metal will fail.

Dependability and validity; as Breanna Bower pointed out. The x y z parameters have been established to be dependable. Under those very strict parameters the validity of the measurements can be 100% trusted 100% of the time given no change in the A factor of time. All metal will fatigue eventually, just some fatigues faster under given criteria than others. Sharpened bronze will only stay sharp for minutes being used as a cutting tool. Whereas cast iron will last millennia under some of the harshest conditions, but not all conditions, iron can and will fail given outside of established x y z parameters. The Pergola in Seattle was a cast as one solid piece of Iron, it survived the worst which could be thrown at it for more than a century. It was destroyed in a couple seconds when an 18-wheel truck backed into it. It was virtually unrepairable; it was re-assemble-able but it took a huge amount of work.