Possible Sources Of Error Physics Lab
Contents |
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 sources of error in experiments thermometer that reads 102 oC when immersed in boiling water and 2 oC types of errors in experiments when immersed in ice water at atmospheric pressure. Such a thermometer would result in measured values that are consistently sources of error in a chemistry lab too high. 2. Observational. For example, parallax in reading a meter scale. 3. Environmental. For example, an electrical power ìbrown outî that causes measured currents to be consistently too low. 4. Theoretical. Due examples of experimental errors to simplification of the model system or approximations in the equations describing it. For example, if your theory says that the temperature 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
Source Of Error Definition
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 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,
Upload Documents Write Course Advice Refer your Friends Earn Money Upload Documents Apply for Scholarship Create Q&A pairs Become a Tutor Find Study Resources by School by Literature Guides by Subject Get Instant Tutoring Help Ask a Tutor
Sources Of Error In Measurement
a Question Use Flashcards View Flashcards Create Flashcards Earn by Contributing Earn Free AccessLearn More different types of errors in measurement > Upload Documents Write Course Advice Refer your Friends Earn MoneyLearn More > Upload Documents Apply for Scholarship Create Q&A pairs Become a sources of error in a biology lab Tutor Are you an educator? Log in Sign up Home UMass (Amherst) PHYSICS PHYSICS 153 Experiment 1 Measurements and Uncertainties Lab Report 6 list some possible sources of error that may have SCHOOL UMass (Amherst) COURSE TITLE PHYSICS http://www.physics.nmsu.edu/research/lab110g/html/ERRORS.html 153 TYPE Notes UPLOADED BY gforbes PAGES 3 Click to edit the document details This preview shows pages 2–3. Sign up to view the full content. View Full Document 6. List some possible sources of error that may have affected your results in part 1 (brass block). Classify your sources of error as either random** or systematic*, and make sure to list at least one systematic error and one random error. (2 points) A: In my https://www.coursehero.com/file/p2f96r/6-List-some-possible-sources-of-error-that-may-have-affected-your-results-in/ first experiment, a random error could have included things such as false measurements. For example, I could have measured the dimensions of the brass rectangular prism incorrectly by looking at the ruler from a different angle. A systematic error could have included the units of measurement of the ruler. The ruler was just a printed piece of paper. So, the units of measurement might not have been so precise. 7. Do the same for part 2(Reaction Time). (2 points) A: In my second experiment, a random error could have included my partner throwing the ruler down with some velocity, other than letting it drop with free-fall acceleration. A systematic error could have included the conclusion as to where my partner and I caught the ruler. For example, the measurement markings are about a millimeter in length, but our thumbs measure about two millimeters wide. So when the center of my thumb was on one measurement marker, it could have really been on another. 8. With the same setup, how can you improve the experiment in part 2? (1 point) A: I could have improved the second experiment by using basic machines to drop and catch the ruler. For example, instead of my lab partner dropping the ruler with his hand he could have used a machine to hold and drop the ruler. In this case, the
Help Suggestions Send Feedback Answers Home All Categories Arts & Humanities Beauty & Style Business & Finance Cars & Transportation Computers & Internet Consumer Electronics Dining Out Education & Reference Entertainment & Music Environment Family & Relationships Food & Drink Games & Recreation Health Home & Garden Local Businesses News & Events Pets Politics https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071206193311AARKQOW & Government Pregnancy & Parenting Science & Mathematics Social Science Society & Culture Sports Travel Yahoo Products International Argentina Australia Brazil Canada France Germany India Indonesia Italy Malaysia Mexico New Zealand Philippines Quebec Singapore Taiwan Hong Kong Spain Thailand UK & Ireland Vietnam Espanol About About Answers Community Guidelines Leaderboard Knowledge Partners Points & Levels Blog Safety Tips Science & Mathematics Physics Next Sources of Error In Physics Lab? of error We did a lab in which we attracted a mass to a string that went over a pulley and then attached to a train (a small plastic thing) on an air track (frictionless surface). We then used photo gates to find initial and final velocities to find experimental acceleration. My numbers have between .5 and 1.5% errors from... show more We did a lab in which we attracted sources of error a mass to a string that went over a pulley and then attached to a train (a small plastic thing) on an air track (frictionless surface). We then used photo gates to find initial and final velocities to find experimental acceleration. My numbers have between .5 and 1.5% errors from the theoretical, but I still have to put down possible sources of error. Anything but equipment not measuring correctly, air resistance, and human error are excepted. I need two. Any ideas? Please help fast! Follow 3 answers 3 Report Abuse Are you sure you want to delete this answer? Yes No Sorry, something has gone wrong. Trending Now Goldie Hawn Rae Carruth Trisha Yearwood Rush Limbaugh Kerry Washington Online MBA Chuck Courtney Chris Wallace Credit Cards Cable TV Answers Relevance Rating Newest Oldest Best Answer: Did you measure the mass of the string? It gets accelerated along with the falling mass and the train. How about friction in the pulley bearing? It may be small but it won't be zero. A bigger issue may be the moment of inertia of the pulley itself -- its rotation rate increases as the mass falls, so some of the energy goes into that as well. Another impo