Error Propagation Rules Average
Contents |
or more quantities, each with their individual uncertainties, and then combine the information from these quantities in order to come up with a final result of our experiment. How can you state your answer for the combined result of
Error Propagation Average Standard Deviation
these measurements and their uncertainties scientifically? The answer to this fairly common question error propagation rules exponents depends on how the individual measurements are combined in the result. We will treat each case separately: Addition of measured quantities
Error Propagation Rules Division
If you have measured values for the quantities X, Y, and Z, with uncertainties dX, dY, and dZ, and your final result, R, is the sum or difference of these quantities, then the uncertainty dR error propagation rules trig is: Here the upper equation is an approximation that can also serve as an upper bound for the error. Please note that the rule is the same for addition and subtraction of quantities. Example: Suppose we have measured the starting position as x1 = 9.3+-0.2 m and the finishing position as x2 = 14.4+-0.3 m. Then the displacement is: Dx = x2-x1 = 14.4 m - 9.3 m = how to do error propagation 5.1 m and the error in the displacement is: (0.22 + 0.32)1/2 m = 0.36 m Multiplication of measured quantities In the same way as for sums and differences, we can also state the result for the case of multiplication and division: Again the upper line is an approximation and the lower line is the exact result for independent random uncertainties in the individual variables. And again please note that for the purpose of error calculation there is no difference between multiplication and division. Example: We have measured a displacement of x = 5.1+-0.4 m during a time of t = 0.4+-0.1 s. What is the average velocity and the error in the average velocity? v = x / t = 5.1 m / 0.4 s = 12.75 m/s and the uncertainty in the velocity is: dv = |v| [ (dx/x)2 + (dt/t)2 ]1/2 = 12.75 m/s [(0.4/5.1)2 + (0.1/0.4)2]1/2 = 3.34 m/s Multiplication with a constant What if you have measured the uncertainty in an observable X, and you need to multiply it with a constant that is known exactly? What is the error then? This is easy: just multiply the error in X with the absolute value of the constant, and this wil
Community Forums > Mathematics > Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics > Dismiss Notice Join Physics Forums Today! The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science
Error Propagation Formula
is here! Error propagation with averages and standard deviation Page 1 of 2 1 error propagation calculator 2 Next > May 25, 2012 #1 rano I was wondering if someone could please help me understand a simple problem
Error Propagation Mean
of error propagation going from multiple measurements with errors to an average incorporating these errors. I have looked on several error propagation webpages (e.g. UC physics or UMaryland physics) but have yet to find http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/labs/error/e2.htm exactly what I am looking for. I would like to illustrate my question with some example data. Suppose we want to know the mean ± standard deviation (mean ± SD) of the mass of 3 rocks. We weigh these rocks on a balance and get: Rock 1: 50 g Rock 2: 10 g Rock 3: 5 g So we would say that the mean ± SD of these https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/error-propagation-with-averages-and-standard-deviation.608932/ rocks is: 21.6 ± 24.6 g. But now let's say we weigh each rock 3 times each and now there is some error associated with the mass of each rock. Let's say that the mean ± SD of each rock mass is now: Rock 1: 50 ± 2 g Rock 2: 10 ± 1 g Rock 3: 5 ± 1 g How would we describe the mean ± SD of the three rocks now that there is some uncertainty in their masses? Would it still be 21.6 ± 24.6 g? Some error propagation websites suggest that it would be the square root of the sum of the absolute errors squared, divided by N (N=3 here). But in this case the mean ± SD would only be 21.6 ± 2.45 g, which is clearly too low. I think this should be a simple problem to analyze, but I have yet to find a clear description of the appropriate equations to use. If my question is not clear please let me know. Any insight would be very appreciated. rano, May 25, 2012 Phys.org - latest science and technology news stories on Phys.org •Game over? Computer beats human champ in ancient Chinese game •Simplifying solar cel
be down. Please try the request again. Your cache administrator is webmaster. Generated Thu, 13 Oct 2016 01:33:34 GMT by s_ac5 (squid/3.5.20)