## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Mass Loss—Analysis of Variance**} \\ \hline
**Effect** & \begin{tabular}{c} **DF—Degrees of** \\ **Freedom** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Sum of** \\ **Squares** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean Sum** \\ **of Squares** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **F-Value** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} _p-Value** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Annealing time, s & 2 & \(8.31\times 10^{-6}\) & \(4.16\times 10^{-6}\) & 6.18 & 0.01 \\ \hline Force, N & 1 & \(2.41\times 10^{-7}\) & \(2.41\times 10^{-7}\) & 0.36 & 0.56 \\ \hline Testing time & 1 & \(1.63\times 10^{-7}\) & \(1.63\times 10^{-7}\) & 0.24 & 0.63 \\ \hline Error & 13 & \(8.75\times 10^{-6}\) & \(6.73\times 10^{-7}\) & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Friction Coefficient—Analysis of Variance**} \\ \hline
**Effect** & \begin{tabular}{c} **DF—Degrees of** \\ **Freedom** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Sum of** \\ **Squares** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean Sum** \\ **of Squares** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **F-Value** \\ **of Squares** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **_p-Value** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Annealing time, s & 2 & \(4.91\times 10^{-2}\) & \(2.46\times 10^{-2}\) & 10.54 & 0.00 \\ \hline Force, N & 1 & \(4.94\times 10^{-4}\) & \(4.94\times 10^{-4}\) & 0.21 & 0.65 \\ \hline Testing time & 1 & \(7.45\times 10^{-3}\) & \(7.45\times 10^{-3}\) & 3.20 & 0.10 \\ \hline Error & 13 & \(3.03\times 10^{-2}\) & \(2.33\times 10^{-3}\) & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Wear Depth—Analysis of Variance**} \\ \hline
**Effect** & \begin{tabular}{c} **DF—Degrees of** \\ **Freedom** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Sum of** \\ **Squares** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean Sum** \\ **of Squares** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **F-Value** \\ **of Squares** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **_p-Value** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Annealing time, s & 2 & 57.35 & 28.67 & 0.59 & 0.57 \\ \hline Force, N & 1 & 629.30 & 629.30 & 13.03 & 0.00 \\ \hline Testing time & 1 & 126.75 & 126.75 & 2.62 & 0.13 \\ \hline Error & 13 & 627.89 & 48.30 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Results of the ANOVA analysis for the tribological test results. Figure 2: Examples of friction coefficient change curves during the test. Variant 100 N-2000 s; (**a**) 4 h, (**b**) 8 h, and (**c**) 12 h.  
The statistical analysis reveals that the heat treatment duration was the only factor that exhibited a statistically significant influence on the tribological test results. In contrast, the applied load during the test and the test duration did not show a statistically significant effect on the outcomes. While variations in tribological test parameters do affect the results, the observed dispersion in the obtained values does not substantiate significant differences among them. Notably, the variability in wear depth relative to mean values does not allow for a clear determination of the significant influence of heat treatment. However, there is a discernible effect of the applied force during the tribological test. Based on the results of the statistical analysis, key relationships have been illustrated graphically. Figures depicting the changes in mass loss, friction coefficient, and wear depth relative to heat treatment duration, as well as wear depth variations with respect to the applied force during the test, are presented in Figure 3.  
The analysis of the obtained results indicates that increasing the annealing time leads to a reduction in the mass loss of the samples. A significant difference is observed between annealing times of 4 h and 8 h or 12 h. However, the differences between 8 h and 12 h are no longer statistically significant (Figure 3a).