Random Error Systematic Error Correction Mistake
Contents |
of the measurement device. Random errors usually result from the experimenter's inability to take the same measurement in exactly
How To Reduce Systematic Error
the same way to get exact the same number. Systematic how to reduce random error errors, by contrast, are reproducible inaccuracies that are consistently in the same direction. Systematic errors are systematic error calculation often due to a problem which persists throughout the entire experiment. Note that systematic and random errors refer to problems associated with making measurements. Mistakes made
Random Error Examples Physics
in the calculations or in reading the instrument are not considered in error analysis. It is assumed that the experimenters are careful and competent! How to minimize experimental error: some examples Type of Error Example How to minimize it Random errors You measure the mass of a ring three times using the same
Instrumental Error
balance and get slightly different values: 17.46 g, 17.42 g, 17.44 g Take more data. Random errors can be evaluated through statistical analysis and can be reduced by averaging over a large number of observations. Systematic errors The cloth tape measure that you use to measure the length of an object had been stretched out from years of use. (As a result, all of your length measurements were too small.)The electronic scale you use reads 0.05 g too high for all your mass measurements (because it is improperly tared throughout your experiment). Systematic errors are difficult to detect and cannot be analyzed statistically, because all of the data is off in the same direction (either to high or too low). Spotting and correcting for systematic error takes a lot of care. How would you compensate for the incorrect results of using the stretched out tape measure? How would you correct the measurements from improperly tared scale?
the range of meanings. The definitions are taken from a sample of reference sources that represent the scope of the topic of error analysis. Definitions random error calculation from Webster's dictionary are also included for several of the terms
Personal Error
to show the contrast between common vernacular use and the specific meanings of these terms as they relate zero error to scientific measurements. Sources: Taylor, John. An Introduction to Error Analysis, 2nd. ed. University Science Books: Sausalito, CA, 1997. Bevington, Phillip R. and D. Keith Robinson. Data Reduction and https://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/rallain/plab193/labinfo/Error_Analysis/05_Random_vs_Systematic.html Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, 2nd. ed. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1992. Baird, D.C. Experimentation: An Introduction to Measurement Theory and Experiment Design, 3rd. ed. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995. ISO. Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Committee on Weights and Measures (CIPM): Switzerland, 1993. Fluke. Calibration: Philosophy http://user.physics.unc.edu/~deardorf/uncertainty/definitions.html and Practice, 2nd. ed. Fluke Corporation: Everett, WA, 1994. Webster's Tenth New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster: Springfield, MA, 2000. Notes: Many of the terms below are defined in the International Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology (abbreviated VIM), and their reference numbers are shown in brackets immediately after the term. Since the meaning and usage of these terms are not consistent among other references, alternative (and sometimes conflicting) definitions are provided with the name and page number of the reference from the above list. Comments are included in italics for clarification. References are only cited when they explicitly define a term; omission of a reference for a particular term generally indicates that the term was not used or clearly defined by that reference. Even more diverse usage of these terms may exist in other references not cited here. uncertainty (of measurement) [VIM 3.9] – parameter, associated with the result of a measurement, that characterizes the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand. The uncertainty generally includes many com
the empirical resources are exhausted need we pass on to the dreamy realm of speculation." -- Edwin Hubble, The Realm of the Nebulae (1936) Uncertainty To physicists the http://www2.sjs.org/friedman/PhysAPC/Errors%20and%20Uncertainties.htm terms "error" or "uncertainty" do not mean "mistake". Mistakes, such as incorrect calculations http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~labgroup/pdf/Error_analysis.htm due to the improper use of a formula, can be and should be corrected. However, even mistake-free lab measurements have an inherent uncertainty or error. Consider the dartboards shown below, in which the 'grouping' of thrown darts is a proxy for our laboratory measurements. A 'precise' measurement means the darts are close together. random error An 'accurate' measurement means the darts hit close to the bullseye. Notice the combinations: Measurements are precise, just not very accurate Measurements are accurate, but not precise Measurements neither precise nor accurate Measurements both precise and accurate There are several different kinds and sources of error: Actual variations in the quantity being measured, e.g. the diameter of a cylindrically shaped object may actually be different in different how to reduce places. The remedy for this situation is to find the average diameter by taking a number of measurements at a number of different places. Then the scatter within your measurements gives an estimate of the reliability of the average diameter you report. Note that we usually assume that our measured values lie on both sides of the 'true' value, so that averaging our measurements gets us closer to the 'truth'. Another approach, especially suited to the measurement of small quantities, is sometimes called 'stacking.' Measure the mass of a feather by massing a lot of feathers and dividing the total mass by their number. Systematic errors in the measuring device used. Suppose your sensor reports values that are consistently shifted from the expected value; averaging a large number of readings is no help for this problem. To eliminate (or at least reduce) such errors, we calibrate the measuring instrument by comparing its measurement against the value of a known standard. It is sometimes quite difficult to identify a systematic error. Get in the habit of checking your equipment carefully. Make a preliminary analysis of your data early in the experiment; if you gather all the data
just how much the measured value is likely to deviate from the unknown, true, value of the quantity. The art of estimating these deviations should probably be called uncertainty analysis, but for historical reasons is referred to as error analysis. This document contains brief discussions about how errors are reported, the kinds of errors that can occur, how to estimate random errors, and how to carry error estimates into calculated results. We are not, and will not be, concerned with the “percent error” exercises common in high school, where the student is content with calculating the deviation from some allegedly authoritative number. Significant figures Whenever you make a measurement, the number of meaningful digits that you write down implies the error in the measurement. For example if you say that the length of an object is 0.428 m, you imply an uncertainty of about 0.001 m. To record this measurement as either 0.4 or 0.42819667 would imply that you only know it to 0.1 m in the first case or to 0.00000001 m in the second. You should only report as many significant figures as are consistent with the estimated error. The quantity 0.428 m is said to have three significant figures, that is, three digits that make sense in terms of the measurement. Notice that this has nothing to do with the "number of decimal places". The same measurement in centimeters would be 42.8 cm and still be a three significant figure number. The accepted convention is that only one uncertain digit is to be reported for a measurement. In the example if the estimated error is 0.02 m you would report a result of 0.43 ± 0.02 m, not 0.428 ± 0.02 m. Students frequently are confused about when to count a zero as a significant figure. The rule is: If the zero has a non-zero d