temp95<-c(11.176,7.089,8.097,11.739,11.291,10.759,6.467,8.315)
temp100<-c(5.263,6.748,7.461,7.015,8.133,7.418,3.772,8.963)
summary(temp95)
## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
## 6.467 7.845 9.537 9.367 11.205 11.739
summary(temp100)
## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
## 3.772 6.377 7.216 6.847 7.629 8.963
qqnorm(temp95,main ="Normal distribution plot for 95°C",ylab= "Thickness of photoresist")
qqline(temp95)
qqnorm(temp100,main = "Normal distribution plot for 100°C",ylab="Thickness of photoresist")
qqline(temp100)
From the normal distributed curve we can see that it is normally distributed
t.test(log(temp95),log(temp100),var.equal=TRUE,alternative="greater")
##
## Two Sample t-test
##
## data: log(temp95) and log(temp100)
## t = 2.5046, df = 14, p-value = 0.01262
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is greater than 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.09507682 Inf
## sample estimates:
## mean of x mean of y
## 2.213906 1.893530
As the value p is 0.01262 which is less than 0.05 hence we reject the null hypothesis
We can concluded that the higher banking temperatures result in wafers with a lower mean photoresist thickness as the null Hypothesis is rejected
At 95% the confidence interval is 0.09507682 to ∞
From the normal probability plot we can conclude that at both 95°C & 100°C it is normally Distributed
temp95<-c(11.176,7.089,8.097,11.739,11.291,10.759,6.467,8.315)
temp100<-c(5.263,6.748,7.461,7.015,8.133,7.418,3.772,8.963)
summary(temp95)
summary(temp100)
qqnorm(temp95,main ="Normal distribution plot for 95°C",ylab= "Thickness of photoresist")
qqline(temp95)
qqnorm(temp100,main = "Normal distribution plot for 100°C",ylab="Thickness of photoresist")
qqline(temp100)
t.test(temp95,temp100,var.equal=TRUE)