Determinate Systematic Error
Contents |
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 the indeterminate error wind. Random errors often have a Gaussian normal distribution (see Fig. 2). systematic error examples In such cases statistical methods may be used to analyze the data. The mean m of a number of
Personal Error
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 estimate
How To Reduce Random Error
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 < instrumental error 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 systematic errors caus
of the measurement device. Random errors usually result from the experimenter's inability to take the same measurement in exactly
Systematic Error Calculation
the same way to get exact the same number. Systematic how to reduce systematic error errors, by contrast, are reproducible inaccuracies that are consistently in the same direction. Systematic errors are types of error in analytical chemistry 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 http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys276/Hill/Information/Notes/ErrorAnalysis.html 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 https://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/rallain/plab193/labinfo/Error_Analysis/05_Random_vs_Systematic.html 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?
should not be taken to imply that determinate errors are not important. They are a constant source of trouble in experiments, and their detection and elimination may occupy https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/errorman/determin.htm a major portion of the experimenter's time. While indeterminate errors show up clearly as scatter in data, determinate errors cannot be detected merely by a mathematical analysis of the data. A determinate error, if present, has constant magnitude and sign for all measurements of a particular quantity. Taking many measurements does not help either to detect or to eliminate the error. Causes of determinate systematic error error were listed in chapter 1. They are: (1) Miscalibration of apparatus. This can be removed by checking the apparatus against a standard. (2) Faulty observation. This is avoidable, and therefore should not be cited as a source of error in any well-performed experiment. (3) Unnoticed outside influences. These are also avoidable, but may be difficult to discover. In principle all determinate errors are avoidable, how to reduce but their presence is not always obvious. The first hint of a determinate error may come when experimental results are found to be inconsistent with each other by amounts larger than predicted by the indeterminate-error analysis. Even when only one result is obtained, it may be inconsistent with results obtained by other experimenters or with previously established theory, indicating a possible determinate error. In the elementary lab the problem usually shows up as a discrepancy between the experimental value and the "textbook" value. If the discrepancy is much larger than the indeter- minate-error analysis predicts, it cannot be attributed to those error sources included in that analysis. One may suspect a blunder, and should then do whatever is necessary to identify it and conclusively show that it was the source of the trouble. The cause may be an unrecognized determinate error. This should not be the end of the story, but rather the beginning of a thorough experimental search for the cause of the determinate error, and a demonstration that elimination of the suspected cause improves the result. Until this is done, any speculation about the cause of a "bad" resu