Experimental Error Physics
Contents |
Life in the Universe Labs Foundational Labs Observational Labs Advanced Labs Origins of Life in the Universe Labs Introduction to Color Imaging Properties of percent error physics Exoplanets General Astronomy Telescopes Part 1: Using the Stars Tutorials Aligning and
Systematic Error Physics
Animating Images Coordinates in MaxIm Fits Header Graphing in Maxim Image Calibration in Maxim Importing Images into experimental error chemistry MaxIm Importing Images into Rspec Measuring Magnitude in Maxim Observing with Rigel Photometry in Maxim Producing Color Images Stacking Images Using SpectraSuite Software Using Tablet Applications Using the Rise
Standard Deviation Physics
and Set Calculator on Rigel Wavelength Calibration in Rspec Glossary Kepler's Third Law Significant Figures Percent Error Formula Small-Angle Formula Stellar Parallax Finder Chart Iowa Robotic Telescope Sidebar[Skip] Glossary Index Kepler's Third LawSignificant FiguresPercent Error FormulaSmall-Angle FormulaStellar ParallaxFinder Chart Percent Error Formula When you calculate results that are aiming for known values, the percent error formula is useful experimental error equation tool for determining the precision of your calculations. The formula is given by: The experimental value is your calculated value, and the theoretical value is your known value. A percentage very close to zero means you are very close to your targeted value, which is good. It is always necessary to understand the cause of the error, such as whether it is due to the imprecision of your equipment, your own estimations, or a mistake in your experiment.Example: The 17th century Danish astronomer, Ole Rømer, observed that the periods of the satellites of Jupiter would appear to fluctuate depending on the distance of Jupiter from Earth. The further away Jupiter was, the longer the satellites would take to appear from behind the planet. In 1676, he determined that this phenomenon was due to the fact that the speed of light was finite, and subsequently estimated its velocity to be approximately 220,000 km/s. The current accepted value of the speed of light is almost 299,800 km/s. What was the percent error of Rømer's estimate?Solution:experimental val
of this type result in measured values that are consistently too high or consistently too low. Systematic errors may be of four kinds: 1. Instrumental. For example, a poorly calibrated instrument such as a thermometer that reads 102 oC when immersed in boiling water and
Type Of Error In Physics Experiment
2 oC when immersed in ice water at atmospheric pressure. Such a thermometer would result
Sources Of Error In Experiments
in measured values that are consistently too high. 2. Observational. For example, parallax in reading a meter scale. 3. Environmental. For example, an experimental error examples chemistry electrical power ìbrown outî that causes measured currents to be consistently too low. 4. Theoretical. Due to simplification of the model system or approximations in the equations describing it. For example, if your theory says that the temperature http://astro.physics.uiowa.edu/ITU/glossary/percent-error-formula/ of the surrounding will not affect the readings taken when it actually does, then this factor will introduce a source of error. Random Errors Random errors are positive and negative fluctuations that cause about one-half of the measurements to be too high and one-half to be too low. Sources of random errors cannot always be identified. Possible sources of random errors are as follows: 1. Observational. For example, errors in judgment of an observer when reading the http://www.physics.nmsu.edu/research/lab110g/html/ERRORS.html scale of a measuring device to the smallest division. 2. Environmental. For example, unpredictable fluctuations in line voltage, temperature, or mechanical vibrations of equipment. Random errors, unlike systematic errors, can often be quantified by statistical analysis, therefore, the effects of random errors on the quantity or physical law under investigation can often be determined. Example to distinguish between systematic and random errors is suppose that you use a stop watch to measure the time required for ten oscillations of a pendulum. One source of error will be your reaction time in starting and stopping the watch. During one measurement you may start early and stop late; on the next you may reverse these errors. These are random errors if both situations are equally likely. Repeated measurements produce a series of times that are all slightly different. They vary in random vary about an average value. If a systematic error is also included for example, your stop watch is not starting from zero, then your measurements will vary, not about the average value, but about a displaced value. Blunders A final source of error, called a blunder, is an outright mistake. A person may record a wrong value, misread a scale, forget a digit when reading a scale or recording a measurement, or make a similar blunder. These blunder should stick out like sore thumbs if we make multiple measur
of causes of random errors are: electronic noise in the circuit of an electrical instrument, irregular changes in the heat loss rate from a solar collector due to changes in http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys276/Hill/Information/Notes/ErrorAnalysis.html the wind. Random errors often have a Gaussian normal distribution (see Fig. 2). https://phys.columbia.edu/~tutorial/ In such cases statistical methods may be used to analyze the data. The mean m of a number of measurements of the same quantity is the best estimate of that quantity, and the standard deviation s of the measurements shows the accuracy of the estimate. The standard error of the experimental error estimate m is s/sqrt(n), where n is the number of measurements. Fig. 2. The Gaussian normal distribution. m = mean of measurements. s = standard deviation of measurements. 68% of the measurements lie in the interval m - s < x < m + s; 95% lie within m - 2s < x < m + 2s; and 99.7% lie within m - 3s of error in < x < m + 3s. The precision of a measurement is how close a number of measurements of the same quantity agree with each other. The precision is limited by the random errors. It may usually be determined by repeating the measurements. Systematic Errors Systematic errors in experimental observations usually come from the measuring instruments. They may occur because: there is something wrong with the instrument or its data handling system, or because the instrument is wrongly used by the experimenter. Two types of systematic error can occur with instruments having a linear response: Offset or zero setting error in which the instrument does not read zero when the quantity to be measured is zero. Multiplier or scale factor error in which the instrument consistently reads changes in the quantity to be measured greater or less than the actual changes. These errors are shown in Fig. 1. Systematic errors also occur with non-linear instruments when the calibration of the instrument is not known correctly. Fig. 1. Systematic errors in a linear instrument (full line). Broken line shows response of an ideal instrument without error. Examples of syst
without proper error analysis, no valid scientific conclusions can be drawn. In fact, as the picture below illustrates, bad things can happen if error analysis is ignored. Since there is no way to avoid error analysis, it is best to learn how to do it right. After going through this tutorial not only will you know how to do it right, you might even find error analysis easy! The tutorial is organized in five chapters. Contents Basic Ideas How to Estimate Errors How to Report Errors Doing Calculations with Errors Random vs. Systematic Errors Chapter 1 introduces error in the scientific sense of the word and motivates error analysis. Chapter 2 explains how to estimate errors when taking measurements. Chapter 3 discusses significant digits and relative error. Chapter 4 deals with error propagation in calculations. Chapter 5 explains the difference between two types of error. The derailment at Gare Montparnasse, Paris, 1895. Next Page >> Home - Credits - Feedback © Columbia University